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.
I have firsthand knowledge of landlords offering much more than $15,000 to tenants to vacate stabilized apartments.
The morality question is silly. Both parties in these situations are looking for an outcome that benefits them. Landlords offer money because they want to increase the value of their property, both in rental income and building value. Should they ever consider selling the building it becomes much more valuable as stabilized apartments become destabilized. And the tenant is either looking for a price that will enable him to live in a comparable apartment in the same neighborhood or another neighborhood in a way that won't mean financial ruin, or the tenant is looking to move away.
If a landlord wants a stabilized tenet to give up his right to renewal leases, well, that is going to cost the landlord.
let's not cry for the landlord in this situation either. the landlord originally bought the building with rent stabilzed tenants and because of such, got a lower deal on their purchase. they bought low, then want to remove rent stabilzed tenants to maximize profits. if there is a game here, it's the landlords game, they are the "business" people in this situation and the tenants must learn to play along. buy low, sell high right? well, as a tenant, you are within your rights to negotiate as you see fit. the landlord always has the right not to play.
This is clearly her way of scamming the Landlord....I think it is an absolute injustice that someone who RENTS an apt DEMANDS a payout when the TENANT IS THE ONE WHO WANTS TO MOVE. Are you kidding me? This is definitely not a landlord's game...Landlord's are stuck with Tenant's who pay BELOW market rents, and the rest of the city residents are charged EXORBITANT rents because those apts are essentially off the market (Tenants never leave) and the other Tenant's must subsidize their ridiculously low rents with equally ridiculous high rents. But let me ask you this...if the shoe was on the other foot, how do you think the Tenant would feel if she was the Landlord and the Tenant asked for $100,000 to move out? I suspect she would be upset..angry..feel like she is getting scammed and taken advantage of? You betcha..but hey..since she ain't the LL..who cares about anyone/anything but herself...cuz its all about her after all. I hope she doesn't get a penny.
No,, not the whole building,, the apartment is still own by the owner(original owner) when he sell the apartment it becomes co-op... we can take it if he wants to live in it,,, or for family members
Doesn't that only apply to smaller buildings (5 or less units) and/or buildings where the landlord also resides?
I'm all for rent stabilization, but I think what angers many people is that the OP is expecting to be able to earn enough money to buy a new house and start a new life by having done nothing to earn this windfall. Having chanced into an apt in a building that went co-op is not winning the lottery.
This sort of behavior simply makes it harder for everyone else in the system. My landlord applies for bogus capital improvement increases to de-regulate my building to avoid people like the OP and it raises my rent - extrapolate this for the rest of the city.
Unfortunately, the way the laws are written, IT IS LIKE WINNING THE LOTTERY! I have no doubts that this tenant will get an unearned windfall of SOME amount of money just by virtue of being in the right place at the right time ... like buying the winning lottery ticket!
I imagine that this situation has been resolved already, and I'd be interested to see how it was resolved. You're right that the tenant wants to move. If the tenant asked about a buyout, I'm sure the landlord was curious as to why and maybe surmised that the tenant was moving. In that case, the landlord probably made a low offer in hopes of calling the bluff. Basically, because the tenant is already leaning toward moving, that brings down the minimum amount he'd be willing to take to get out of there.
It's not "extorting" money at all. The tenant has a right to stay as long as he wants, and the landlord can buy that right from him if he wants to. If the tenant wants to move so badly that he'll go even if the landlord won't pay, then the sales price is $0. Maybe if the tenant didn't want to move at all, his sales price would be $50,000. But maybe this tenant was in the middle...he'd be willing to move if he got paid $15,000 since he had this yearning for warmer weather but maybe wasn't convinced yet.
I don't understand either side of this "outrage". Landlords should stop whining about their rent stabilized apartments -- that was part of the contract. Tenants should stop whining that rent stabilization ends in certain circumstances -- that was part of the contract. The only legitimate complaint is against the government, which has in past decades changed the rules...putting buildings under rent stabilization without compensating the landlords for the lost value (or giving them the option). But any landlord who bought a rent stabilized building or inherited one that was bought don't have that complaint either.
Let's just treat these things as contracts, which they are, and not change the rules on anyone.
Landlord's are stuck with Tenant's who pay BELOW market rents, and the rest of the city residents are charged EXORBITANT rents because those apts are essentially off the market (Tenants never leave) and the other Tenant's must subsidize their ridiculously low rents with equally ridiculous high rents.
Say there was no rent stabilization/rent control anymore and landlords could charge whatever they wanted and tenants had no reason to "never leave." Does anyone think rents in NYC would go DOWN? I don't. I think all the rents would just go sky high.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SobroGuy
But let me ask you this...if the shoe was on the other foot, how do you think the Tenant would feel if she was the Landlord and the Tenant asked for $100,000 to move out? I suspect she would be upset..angry..feel like she is getting scammed and taken advantage of? You betcha..but hey..since she ain't the LL..who cares about anyone/anything but herself...cuz its all about her after all. I hope she doesn't get a penny.
I think if I were the landlord if I could sell the place for $750K instead of continuing to accept a comparable pittance of $1000 or so each month, I would think about paying $100K if it would enable me to earn $650K NOW. With the way the laws are, I would be aware that the tenant could very well stay for YEARS AND YEARS MORE and also could get one of his/her relatives into the apartment who would stay for MORE YEARS AND YEARS. Although it IS basically an unfair scenario to the landlord, as the landlord when I bought the building I knew I was getting this type of tenant who might never leave and who could not be compelled to pay market rent, so the scenario may be worth it, as horrible as it seems to hand someone $100K who doesn't "own" anything yet has the even more valuable right (as per the current laws) of perpetual occupation of the property.
Umm...the Tenant has a right to stay as long as they want to so long as they abide by the rules of the lease of course. However, when the Tenant WANTS to move...why should they be entitled to anything? When the Landlord wants to BREAK the lease to remove the Tenant I understand the Tenant should be compensated in some way, however that is not the case here. The Tenant of their own free will WANTS to move...so why are they asking for money exactly? The purpose of a "buyout" is to compensate the Tenant for breaking the LL breaking the Tenancy..but since it is the Tenant wanting to move...why are they entitled to a dime exactly? This is nothing more than a monumental rape and abuse of the system.....nothing more.
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.
