Interesting article worth reading.

[TenantNet]

The Voice had one under the column name Towers & Tenements (Julie's column), but he's gone. There was another one who did occasional articles, but haven't seen his byline for some time.

Would have to look at the District Lines to see if Stuytown is included - it might be. But his political core is Grand Street without question. IMHO Stuytown tenant groups are hardly an epicenter or hot spot. They've always been with Tenants & Neighbors, who have every reason to not rock the boat with Silver.

[MikeW]

You may be right, as long as the status quo remains the same. But it wouldn't remain the same if the rent laws died. In that case Stuy Town would become and awefully big hornets' nest for him, especially if they think he was the one kicking it.

Would have to look at the District Lines to see if Stuytown is included - it might be. But his political core is Grand Street without question. IMHO Stuytown tenant groups are hardly an epicenter or hot spot. They've always been with Tenants & Neighbors, who have every reason to not rock the boat with Silver.

[HardKnocks]

I'm horribly ignorant on this subject, so please don't be too hard on me.

Does this mean that those of us unfortunate enough to be railroaded into paying more than $1500 a month will now ALSO be subjected to rent increases that are totally at the whim of our landlord... and we won't be protected in any way???

That's outrageous. My a/c-less, window-blind-less, dishwasher-less 40-year-old apartment in Queens could hardly be considered "luxury." I have no amenities at all and a part-time doorman. The fact that it's $1550 a month means only that I have to work two jobs to pay for it, not that I'm living in splendor. $1500 has now become AVERAGE rent for many areas of this city. Maybe in Utica that buys "luxury" digs, but not here.

Please tell me that I've misinterpreted something.

[nycat]

If the threshold is for luxury decontol is lowered to $1,500 the landlord can't take your apartment ot market rate unless you move out or you household income for the previous two years is above $175,000.

[TenantNet]

People are missing the point. Although the text of the law is written differently, court and DHCR interpretations have held that if a tenant was paying less than the $2,000 (as it is now), the owner can jack the rent up to $2,000 or above and immediately declare it decontrolled. When this went into effect in 1997 we anticipated that units going for around $1200 could be decontrolled on their next tenancy - with an appropriate amount of improvements, of which 1/40th could be added to the rent. Initially the law was clear - that an owner had to wait until the rent hit $2,000 through normal rent increases, wait for a vacancy and then the next tenant would be decontrolled -- but a bad decision by Judge Dankburg (who had been voted off the bench and was seeking a job in a landlord law firm prior to his term ending) allowed that if the owner could claim $2,000 or more no matter what level of rent the prior tenant had been paying, then it was decontrolled. So effectively the $2,000 trigger is really much lower. Combine that with DHCR's failure to require owners to register units or explain decontrol and you have a system that's essentially meaningless. We know many instances where owners just ignore the law and there's no downside.

[TenantNet]

One other thing (and maybe this thread is waning), when there's decontrol, that means no lease protection, no rent protection, no services protection, no harassment protection ... nothing. Decontrol has never leveled the market (as they claim it will) except at the very high end, usually above $3,000. In Boston there was substantial displacement and destabilization. That's because there is no free market in NYC. Unlike cities in the midwest or beyond, NYC can't expand. So get ready to pack your bags.

[nycat]

TenantNet,

Are you saying the outlook is grimm on protections being renewed? If they aren't, do you see the courts as an avenue to help us retain some of our rights?

I am sure you are more connected than most and have a good handle on what is going on in Albany. Can you tell us how you see things shaking out?

Thanks

[MikeW]

Cat,

If the laws expire, the only use the courts would be is that they'd probably be so jammed with holdover evictions, that it would take a while for people to be thrown out.

With the rent regulations, there's no statutory authority for the courts to intervene in a LL decision to charge whatever rents they want, and, as long as no discrimination is shown against protected groups, to prevent a LL from not renewing a tenant they don't want.

What you may be missing is that the rest of the country works without the rules NY has, so there's plenty of precident for this.

[TenantNet]

If the laws expire, there would not be widespread eviction the next day. Remember, the laws did expire for a brief period in 1997. Most tenants are on leases and owner's could not seek evictions until the leases ran out. So it would be spread over a period of time. As for the rest of the country, you're correct (and we've always maintained that where a free market truly exists, there's not that much of a rationale for rent regulations). That's not the case in NYC and several other locations. But also remember that the reasoning for rent regulation is not ONLY rent protection, but also stabilization of communities and the tax base - an often overlooked concept.

[MikeW]

Actually you are correct about the timeframe. If the regulation ended Monday, in theory, the first stabilized renters to be effected would be those with leases that run out Oct 31st. However that assumes LLs aren't sitting on renewals awaiting the outcome of the antics in Albany. I don't know what would happen if a tenant didn't get a renewal they were entitled to, law expired, and the LL at that point either refused to renew, or demanded a rent above the RGB set amount.

Also, what would happen to the leftover rent controlled tenants (as opposed to the stabilized). I think those laws are expiring also, and they don't have leases.

[TenantNet]

From 1997:

http://tenant.net/Alerts/Guide/end.html

http://tenant.net/Alerts/Guide/expire.html

http://tenant.net/Alerts/Guide/index.html

http://tenant.net/nytenants-announce/nytenants-announce.9706
(scroll down about 3/4th of the way to "We hope you're ready for "Sellout '97"

http://tenant.net/nytenants-announce/nytenants-announce.9707

Pop Quiz later on

[April59]

HAHAHA

Read the Post article. I'd like to see my landlord (any landlord) lower the rent $200 on overpriced apartment if they're able to raise the rent by $200 on underpriced controled/stabilized apartments! This man would be a saint--too good for the landlord business.