I've been noticing a number of interesting TH listings on the UWS listed with commercial brokers. Typically, these houses have more than 4 units (so you need to go all-cash or commercial loan) and have some RS/RC units. I haven't gone to view any of these in person because I might try to connect with the owner directly (I don't think these are exclusives). Prices range from 2m-3m (ask). It strikes... [more]
I've been noticing a number of interesting TH listings on the UWS listed with commercial brokers. Typically, these houses have more than 4 units (so you need to go all-cash or commercial loan) and have some RS/RC units. I haven't gone to view any of these in person because I might try to connect with the owner directly (I don't think these are exclusives). Prices range from 2m-3m (ask). It strikes me as this would be a good deal for a growing family who could use the FM units for now and start owner-occ. proceedings against the RS tenant. If the THs are in landmarked districts, even better - you can try to get tax relief in exchange for historical easement if it hasn't been done before. NY State is considering enacting legislation to limit owner-occ eviction, so it might be a good time to jump in.
[less]
Response by falcogold1
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 4159
Member since: Sep 2008
how would I search there commercial listings?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by modern
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 887
Member since: Sep 2007
And if NYS makes the owner-occ eviction ban retroactive, it might not be such a good time to jump in.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by falcogold1
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 4159
Member since: Sep 2008
these
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by nyc10023
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 7614
Member since: Nov 2008
Falco: quite difficult, because you would need to know the address of the TH beforehand. Massey Knakal has the best website out of all the commercial brokers. Streeteasy doesn't seem to pick up Massey Knakal listings.
Modern: Exactly, it may not be worth it if the state can halt owner-occ evictions already in progress. It might be best to offer owner extra cash (to pass along to tenants) so house can be delivered vacant. I mean, if you're already paying $1k for a small studio, would you really turn down $100k to move?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by falcogold1
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 4159
Member since: Sep 2008
10023,
thanx 4 the tip that was very enlightening.
Never considered the purchase of a building with tenents.
Any idea where I could learn about the mechanics of owner landlord status?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by nyc10023
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 7614
Member since: Nov 2008
It's all online, but implementation is something else altogether. I've never gone through the owner-occupancy eviction process. Takes time, immaculate attention to detail, $. Lawyers in this arena tend to suck, so DIY if you are a lawyer is probably the way to go.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by nyc10023
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 7614
Member since: Nov 2008
Google "Economakis" and tenants. In their case, though, the upside was huge and they had the deep pockets to settle with tenants eventually. When you're talking about the economics of whether it's worthwhile to go through what they did with a 500k, 1m - 3m, your upside is limited.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by modern
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 887
Member since: Sep 2007
"Exactly, it may not be worth it if the state can halt owner-occ evictions already in progress. "
No, I am talking about retroactive, as in making it a rent-stabilized apt again. That is what they are proposing for apts that have left rent-stab due to luxury decontrol, yanking them back in and screwing whoever bought buildings thinking they had de-stabilized apts.
Albany is out of control, while a normal person would think they wouldn't make laws retroactive, they are not normal up there.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by falcogold1
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 4159
Member since: Sep 2008
Just finished reading Economakis (great last name). Reminds me of 'History of the World part I'.
Ok, Comeikis did you bullshit today? try to bullshit?
Anyway, wow that looks like a pain in the ass. I see the upside but, the downside is a horror.
This is a job for a very focused confrontatioal person with time on their hands. Oh if only I had the time.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by 30yrs_RE_20_in_REO
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 9913
Member since: Mar 2009
Do you have a link to the proposed changes in the rules?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by 30yrs_RE_20_in_REO
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 9913
Member since: Mar 2009
OH, and be careful: even the current regs are for RS only, not RC.
modern: is there an easy way to tell where each of those are in the process of being passed?
PS Thank you
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by nyc10023
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 7614
Member since: Nov 2008
Modern: this is the part that doesn't make sense (or at least I don't see where the retro-active nature of the new law could get you). If you were able to do an owner-occ before the new law is enacted, and you got approval to change C of O and construction had already commenced such that the formerly RS apt no longer existed as a separate apt - how could they get you?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by 30yrs_RE_20_in_REO
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 9913
Member since: Mar 2009
I would think that a constitutional ban on "ex post facto" laws might come into play?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by modern
almost 17 years ago
Posts: 887
Member since: Sep 2007
According to the NY Times, a bill was passed by the Assembly (but has not made it through Senate yet) that was retroactive:
"A key provision of the legislation would have abolished vacancy decontrol, a procedure that has allowed owners of rent-regulated apartments to move hundreds of thousands of units out of the rent-stabilization system, according to estimates by tenant advocates, and would have restored rent regulation to most of the apartments that have already been converted to market rents."
I couldn't find this bill using the online search, so don't know exact language. As to owner possession of units, I agree if you have possession you should be ok, but if they want they to they will just change the law.
As to "ex post facto", remember they put 1 million free market apartments into rent stabilization once before, a few more isn't going to be a problem.
how would I search there commercial listings?
And if NYS makes the owner-occ eviction ban retroactive, it might not be such a good time to jump in.
these
Falco: quite difficult, because you would need to know the address of the TH beforehand. Massey Knakal has the best website out of all the commercial brokers. Streeteasy doesn't seem to pick up Massey Knakal listings.
Modern: Exactly, it may not be worth it if the state can halt owner-occ evictions already in progress. It might be best to offer owner extra cash (to pass along to tenants) so house can be delivered vacant. I mean, if you're already paying $1k for a small studio, would you really turn down $100k to move?
10023,
thanx 4 the tip that was very enlightening.
Never considered the purchase of a building with tenents.
Any idea where I could learn about the mechanics of owner landlord status?
It's all online, but implementation is something else altogether. I've never gone through the owner-occupancy eviction process. Takes time, immaculate attention to detail, $. Lawyers in this arena tend to suck, so DIY if you are a lawyer is probably the way to go.
Google "Economakis" and tenants. In their case, though, the upside was huge and they had the deep pockets to settle with tenants eventually. When you're talking about the economics of whether it's worthwhile to go through what they did with a 500k, 1m - 3m, your upside is limited.
"Exactly, it may not be worth it if the state can halt owner-occ evictions already in progress. "
No, I am talking about retroactive, as in making it a rent-stabilized apt again. That is what they are proposing for apts that have left rent-stab due to luxury decontrol, yanking them back in and screwing whoever bought buildings thinking they had de-stabilized apts.
Albany is out of control, while a normal person would think they wouldn't make laws retroactive, they are not normal up there.
Just finished reading Economakis (great last name). Reminds me of 'History of the World part I'.
Ok, Comeikis did you bullshit today? try to bullshit?
Anyway, wow that looks like a pain in the ass. I see the upside but, the downside is a horror.
This is a job for a very focused confrontatioal person with time on their hands. Oh if only I had the time.
Do you have a link to the proposed changes in the rules?
OH, and be careful: even the current regs are for RS only, not RC.
http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A06018
http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A01266
I like these but no chance of passing::
http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=S01312
http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A04230
modern: is there an easy way to tell where each of those are in the process of being passed?
PS Thank you
Modern: this is the part that doesn't make sense (or at least I don't see where the retro-active nature of the new law could get you). If you were able to do an owner-occ before the new law is enacted, and you got approval to change C of O and construction had already commenced such that the formerly RS apt no longer existed as a separate apt - how could they get you?
I would think that a constitutional ban on "ex post facto" laws might come into play?
According to the NY Times, a bill was passed by the Assembly (but has not made it through Senate yet) that was retroactive:
"A key provision of the legislation would have abolished vacancy decontrol, a procedure that has allowed owners of rent-regulated apartments to move hundreds of thousands of units out of the rent-stabilization system, according to estimates by tenant advocates, and would have restored rent regulation to most of the apartments that have already been converted to market rents."
I couldn't find this bill using the online search, so don't know exact language. As to owner possession of units, I agree if you have possession you should be ok, but if they want they to they will just change the law.
As to "ex post facto", remember they put 1 million free market apartments into rent stabilization once before, a few more isn't going to be a problem.