Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What homework, what on Earth are you talking about?
You're basically backing up exactly what I'm poking a hole at.
It's okay for one group of people to screw another (Tenants taking a landlords property), but not vice versa (landlords taking a tenant's money).
I'm well familiar with the laws. They're ridiculous.
Petty litigious matters will not solve the housing issues in NYC.
Lawsuits are only deemed "petty" usually by those on the losing side. *LOL*
In this particular instance the LL brought pain upon himself; he ran game, got caught and now has to live with the consequences.
Overall don't think anyone is happy with the way RS laws are being contorted but the options are dire. If you start "reforming" the laws it will open the flood gates to ending RS all together. That is the largest worry for many.
RS was meant to address a housing shortage, but now has morphed into a anti-poverty scheme.
Lawsuits are only deemed "petty" usually by those on the losing side. *LOL*
In this particular instance the LL brought pain upon himself; he ran game, got caught and now has to live with the consequences.
Overall don't think anyone is happy with the way RS laws are being contorted but the options are dire. If you start "reforming" the laws it will open the flood gates to ending RS all together. That is the largest worry for many.
RS was meant to address a housing shortage, but now has morphed into a anti-poverty scheme.
The options are dire because of the laws.
You are more than welcome to celebrate them.
The landlord's fiscal loses will result in higher rent for those he can raise.
Treble damages can be pressed against an LL, but not a violating Tenant.
Seems... fishy.
Permanent damages are visited on tenants - eviction.
Eviction from the Landlord's property.
That's not permanent damage, that's what renting is. Possessing something that isn't your own for a period of time, through payment.
The options are dire because of the laws.
You are more than welcome to celebrate them.
The landlord's fiscal loses will result in higher rent for those he can raise.
Treble damages can be pressed against an LL, but not a violating Tenant.
Seems... fishy.
Well since this building went condo that would depend upon the other units in question. If they were "illegally" deregulated and so forth as the previous then yes, there are going to be consequences and repercussions.
Keep in mind plenty of LL's did and are doing the right thing and once their J-51 abatement ended or ends so will RS if it was supposed to go away. Yes, tenants have gone to court in attempts to fight but when the LL has all his I's dotted and T's crossed....
The only property owners who are being harmed here are those that took tax abatement money and didn't do what they should. Again this isn't NYS's or NYC's fault. Paperwork for J-51 and RS clearly spells out what needed to be done.
The only property owners who are being harmed here are those that took tax abatement money and didn't do what they should. Again this isn't NYS's or NYC's fault. Paperwork for J-51 and RS clearly spells out what needed to be done.
Since New York State and New York City make their budgets first and their tax rolls second- every tax payer is harmed by such programs.
The tax abatements for the building owners, have to be made up elsewhere.
If buildings could be taxed based on their value, and tenants pay based on that- you'd have a system that more reflects an open market.
I'm not sticking up for the landlord in this situation, as the stipulations were laid out... however they are far too broad to even be considered sensible. For every slumlord there is a Rent Regulated tenant who's actually are equally disgusting to the city at large.
Since New York State and New York City make their budgets first and their tax rolls second- every tax payer is harmed by such programs.
The tax abatements for the building owners, have to be made up elsewhere.
If buildings could be taxed based on their value, and tenants pay based on that- you'd have a system that more reflects an open market.
I'm not sticking up for the landlord in this situation, as the stipulations were laid out... however they are far too broad to even be considered sensible. For every slumlord there is a Rent Regulated tenant who's actually are equally disgusting to the city at large.
but the tenant rented the apt at the rent stated, 3500?, no one forced him to.
whether the LL over charged who cares, the tenant in my eyes, doesnt deserve this.
Its so ridiculous that people on here are chearing for this guy. Yes, the landlord was crooked, and yes he deserved to be fined, but that money should have gone to the CITY not to this guy who knowingly took a 3K apartment. He is not someone who needs affordable housing if can pay 3k for an apartment. The only victim in this situation is the TAXPAYER, for the city was not getting what it paid for from the landlord. There should be no such thing as affordable housing for someone who can afford a 3K apartment. The whole system is stupid. Rather than stabilize entire units or apartments, give tax credits to landlords who rent at below market prices to middle class people making 35K-70k. When the person moves out, the subsidy moves with them unless their income raises, and the landlord is free to rent at market price unless they choose to rent to another tenant with a subsidy. Similar to section 8, except the credit is the form of lower property taxes, so landlords don't have to worry about the city not paying them. And unlike section 8, the subsidy is for people who actually work and hold down responsible jobs, so landlords won't have to worry about getting bums for tenants.
If anyone bothered to read the court documents (see link posted above) it would be clear how this tenant "lucked out".
Guy moved into the unit in 2000 paying whatever rent. He signed subsequent one year lease renewals with various increases. In *2009* tenant filed a rent overcharge notice with DCHR. That means the guy was ignorant of the apartment being RS or should have been upon signing the lease but something after nine years tipped him off. If the guy had never got wind of things he'd still be ignorant and paying three thousand and more per month.
Am not defending them but landlords pull some major stunts with new leases and yes, plenty of tenants move into apartments that should be RS, but aren't listed so on lease. The only way tenants can find out is if they check with DCHR by requesting the history of unit.
Personally know of several persons facing eviction and or being harassed with low ball offers where developers want to empty a building out to tear it down or gut renovation. Once they found out the units should have been under RS landlord's tune changes dramatically. Those "low ball" offers were replaced with far more generous.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
