Fight Against DHCR Code Changes Continues
Elected Officials Begin to Weigh In
By Dave Powell
With the state Division of Housing and Community Renewal pushing for drastically anti-tenant changes to the state's rent regulations, tenants and their advocates are trying to mobilize elected officials to defeat the plan.
On August 22, the Legal Aid Society hosted a briefing for elected officials on the DHCR's proposed changes to the state Rent Stabilization Code, which would make it easier for landlords to raise rents, even illegally, and evict tenants. Co-sponsored by Met Council and the New York State Tenants and Neighbors Coalition, the event was attended by staff members of 41 elected officials, including members of the State Senate, Assembly, City Council, and the City Comptroller and Public Advocate's offices. Specifically, the elected officials are being asked to:
a) write a letter to Governor George Pataki demanding that the proposed changes be thrown out. b) spread the word of these proposed changes to their constituents and c) attend a press conference denouncing the changes, now tentatively set for the week of Sept. 25.
It is unclear how many of these officials have actually written to the Governor demanding that the changes be scrapped. If you have any question as to whether your representatives are moving forward on the issue, call their offices and ask. If they say they have written letters, ask for a copy. If they say they haven't written, request that they do so.
Other developments involving elected officials include the following: On Sept. 13, City Councilmembers Stanley Michels, Steve DiBrienza, and Sheldon Leffler sponsored a resolution asking the Governor and DHCR to throw the proposed changes out. Whether the resolution will get a hearing before the full Council rests squarely with Housing Committee Chair Archie Spigner and Speaker Peter Vallone, two of the landlord lobby's favorites.
As of press time, the resolution had no number.
State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Housing Committee Chair Vito Lopez sent a strong joint letter to DHCR Commissioner Joseph Lynch objecting to the changes. "Having been directly involved in the changes to the laws that the proposed code purports to implement, we can unequivocally state that the proposed amendments fail to reflect the letter and the spirit of the law," they wrote, in a letter dated May 24. "We request that the proposal be withdrawn in its entirety and redrafted to codify and clarify existing law rather than to undermine existing statutory protections of tenants' rights."
Whether Lopez and Silver will send such a letter to Governor Pataki himself remains to be seen. The jury is also out on whether the pair will honor requests from advocates to hold an oversight hearing on the proposed changes. Stay tuned.
In June, State Senator Eric Schneiderman and 24 colleagues introduced a measure that would prohibit most of the changes. Unfortunately, it was introduced so late in the legislative session that it has little chance of passing this year. Schneiderman may reintroduce the bill early in 200l.
Another possible player in this is State Comptroller Carl McCall, who issued a report blasting the state's policy on major capital improvements (MCIs). McCall, who is expected to run against Pataki for the governorship in 2002, may be sympathetic to opponents of the changes.
From DHCR, an Eerie Silence
While DHCR claims to no longer be accepting comments on the proposed changes, the agency has not yet moved to promulgate new regulations. By most accounts, DHCR has been very quiet as of late, perhaps waiting for the bad press and political attention to go away. Many advocates believe the agency will not make a move before Election Day for fear of causing bad press for Republicans. The tenant attorneys active around the issue continue to meet regularly and weigh all legal strategies. But we must remind you; it is political pressure that has gotten us this far and it is more of the same that will prevent these changes. The hesitation from DHCR is a good sign, but it will not last long.
Now is the time to mobilize.
What you can do
1) Write Governor Pataki. If you've done it already, get your neighbors or community group to write letters. If you haven't written yet, do it today. A sample letter appears below.
2) Contact your elected officials. Ask them if they've written to Pataki denouncing the changes. Encourage them to alert their constituents and to attend the press conference the week of Sept. 25 (contact Met Council for details).
3) Keep in touch with Met Council. We are planning a demonstration against the proposed changes for the fall. Details will be published in the October issue of Tenant. Call or e-mail us if you want to help out: (212) 693-0553 x 6 or activemch@aol.com
Governor George Pataki
Executive Chamber, State Capitol
Albany, N.Y. 12224
phone: (212) 681-4580
e-mail: gov.pataki@chamber.state.ny.usDear Governor Pataki:
I am aware that you are up for re-election in 2002.
I am a tenant writing to you about the changes proposed by DHCR to the State Housing Code. I am calling upon you as Governor to prevent these changes from becoming permanent. As you know, these changes do not merely favor landlords, they undermine the foundation of rent regulation. As governor you are responsible for the conduct of the state agencies under your authority. If you allow DHCR to dismantle what is left of our tenant protections, tenants will hold you accountable. Please help us avoid this disaster. Throw out the proposed changes.
Signed,
Jane Q. Tenant
Some of the Proposed Changes by DHCR to the Rent Stabilization Code
Overcharges
DHCR will give new tenants in recently deregulated apartments only 90 days in which to file an overcharge complaint. In vacant rent-stabilized apartments, the legal rent will no longer be determined by the rent registered with the DHCR, but by the "rent agreed to" between a landlord and tenant. That means whatever rent the landlord can get away with lying about at the time.
Extra Charges
Landlords will be able to make "surcharges" on virtually anything they want, (gas and electricity usage, cable and Internet, washing machines, etc.) without any regulation. Landlords will be allowed to charge as many 20% vacancy increases in a year as they can get away with. The Rent Stabilization Code currently forbids landlords from charging more than one vacancy increase within a given Rent Guidelines Board annual cycle (meaning that in cases where a tenant is evicted or leaves "mid-lease," the landlord can only charge the incoming tenant a vacancy increase and not subsequent tenants within the same year).
Eviction
DHCR will make it easier for tenants to be evicted based on landlord's "personal use," extending this to include the in-laws of landlords. Eviction based on "non-primary residence" will be made easier. Eviction based on "luxury decontrol" will be expanded. Tenant "harassment" of landlords will be made grounds for eviction.
MCIs
DHCR will now require tenants to hire engineers or architects to refute a landlord's fraudulent major capital improvement charges. DHCR will require the same for tenants who try to file for decreases in rent due to violations in the apartment or building. Landlords will be allowed to file MCI applications without providing full proof and records relating to the MCI. DHCR will no longer be required to send the full copy of the landlord's application to affected tenants.
Services/Repairs
Landlords will be able to collect rent increases even when they do not provide basic services to tenants. In instances where tenants succeed in getting a rent reduction in these proceedings, the landlord will no longer be required to certify maintenance of these conditions, once the rent has been "restored."
Will DHCR's proposed changes affect rent-controlled tenants?
You've probably noticed that most of the changes are to the "Rent Stabilization Code," and so a rent-controlled tenant may wonder "Does this affect me?" The answer is "yes, absolutely." Because DHCR policies are played out against both rent-controlled and rent-stabilized tenants, the changes will affect both groups almost identically. The big exception is in cases of rent overcharges, which are fundamentally different (and less common) for rent-controlled tenants than rent-stabilized tenants.