huge news - sty town tenants win

Mr. Lim, a retired real estate lawyer who has lived in the complex since 2004, said he had downgraded from a two-bedroom to a one-bedroom because of the high rents. He is paying more today for his one-bedroom apartment than for the two-bedroom unit he first moved into in 2004 at $2,475 a month.

And lawyers none the less...

admin, i wasn't taking myself seriously. i actually had made a joke about the mistake. i stand by my comment. we shouldn't have to proofread to post. content, on the other hand, is fair game.

LEVGLUE, tishman was the leech. taking from both the system and the tenants. but i guess it's ok if the landlord abuses the system.

btw, awful handle.

AR - just thinking - overcharges are handled by the DHCR not by a court - so what's to say that when people file their overcharge complaints with DHCR that the DHCR will rule in the tenant's favor? Actually it seems it would be very unusual for the DHCR to make an overcharge ruling in the favor of tenants that would be in direct conflict with their own policies and opinion letters.
They could claim that until last Thur the law was one thing (that is that the DHCR opinion paper stood) but now that the courts have ruled and changed the law the DHCR will start ruling the way the court directs but only as of Oct 22 (the date the DHCR may claim the law actually changed) - and not enforce this new interpretation of the law going back 18 years only enforce this new interpretation going forward?

PS - if the above is true can't TS elect to withdraw itself from the J51 program and suffer no damages other than the loss of the J51 benefits going forward.

Again - what will happen to the now empty apartments? - are they allowed to remain at market rental rate or will they revert too - or does it depend upon the unit? There are a lot of vacancies but I would jump if they are restablized

jazzman, i don't think so. re the j-51 program. they've already received the benefits, and i don't know how they're weighted. i don't know the hubby's reasoning, and i can't ask him right now because he's on his way upstate to pay the roofers, but he said he thought it was very unlikely. at the moment, Jazzman, i'm not sure that the benefits of exiting the program would be worth it. at least half of the units after restabilization will be very close to current market rate (that would NOT have been true last year), and even the most expensive units (with the exception of leases signed in the summers of 2007 and 2008) will only decrease by about 25-33%. the complex will once again be full, the new lls will likely have less than half the debt load, will still be receiving the j-51 tax breaks. at those numbers they'll be doing much better even with the rollbacks, why raise the political shitstorm trying to subvert this further? plus, i strongly suspect that the new landlords will be the tenant group, if so it's a moot point.

in this case the court specifically overrode DHCR. it would be a political nightmare for DHCR to try to continue to conform to its opinion. it's now law that that opinion was incorrect, and as such it was incorrect to the extent that it ever existed. it's not a new law here, it's clarification of what the law was all along.

this is a class action. whether or not judge lowe and defendants would try to bounce it to DHCR is uncertain, but that would probably be appealed and once again lost. and if it went to DHCR and they tried such a thing, it would just be back in court. as 30yrs pointed out, this isn't your average group of tenant plaintiffs. this is a group of over 4000, with the means to fight. a lot of this shit goes undetected and certainly unlitigated simply because individual tenants don't have close to the wherewithal to fight it. even large groups rarely do. that's what some large landlords rely upon. and that's what pisses me off.

cccharley, it depends on whether or not the eventual ll is able (or wishes to) to exit the j-51 program early (although the point that 30yrs made earlier would imply that there is the possibility that the units will be RS forever, if i read his comment correctly, but that would be the subject of further litigation). if they are not able or do not wish to exit all units in the complex will remain subject to the RS laws until approximately 2016, regardless of income.

The best thing for the city (in terms of tax revenues) going forward would be to let the tenant group take over for a condo/co-op conversion.

AR - let's assume they can't exit the program and that units that are vacant now are returned to stabilization in 2016 when the J51 expires does the unit lose it's stabilization status at the end of that lease? Or does the tenant in 2016 get to keep the stabilization status and the unit will only be destabilized when it is vacant or when the tenant makes more than 175K for the 2 years.
And would your unit receive the same treatment? Would you lose your rent stabilization status in 2016 just because the J51 benefits go away?

Also - isn't their tax savings only about $250K per year? A $1,000/month reduction on just 25 units is a loss of more than $250K/year so they would be crazy to stay in the program if they are allowed out. And if the tenant's buy the place they too would be crazy to stay in the program if allowed out. It's still a business and you don't give some people lower rents just because - the extra revenue could go a long way in maintaining the property.

jazzman, sorry, but i really don't have all the answers. but my guess is that if the apartments are restabilized, and are in the program as of 2016, to get them out the income level would have to be sufficient to destabilize them. that's my guess. so it would behoove the landlord, assuming it is not taken over by the tenants, to rent any apartment where the rent is over $2000 to people who make above the income limit.

if their tax savings is about $250k a year metlife was incredibly foolish. i'm not saying it's not, because i don't know, but to risk something like this for such a small benefit doesn't make sense. what i'm saying is that metlife did ok with the RS tenants. the need for such huge increases in revenue was due to the enormous purchase price. the tenants will not be out to make a profit, their goal will be to provide enough income to pay for expenses. there was plenty before, and there will be plenty again once the debt is restructured. i know you'd like a scenario in which the apartments don't revert to RS, but it's not that likely. and it's not urban legend. it may have been built before RS laws, but this was built with huge subsidies to MetLife specifically as homes for returning veterans. and obviously it remained affordable prior to RS laws, because there was little attrition.

i mentioned earlier a family i know who is about 2-3 years from hitting the $2000 limit. 2 kids. she is third generation PCV, he is second. her grandmother and mother both still live here, and both need assistance. both of their children go to local public schools. she works for the city, he's a project manager. they make more than $175k, but certainly not enough to find another home within a decent school district. they were two or so years away from losing their home, in a community they have lived in for 50 years, except for college. how is making $175k with two kids in NYC living in luxury? really. yes, there are people who game the system. this ruling for PCV/ST is an anomolous situation, i realize. it won't stop RS from being eliminated elsewhere for other reasons. but the people here have invested huge amounts of their lives to this community, a community no one else really wanted. cities promote mixed-income communities for many reasons. there is no given right to live in manhattan, but we're a richer city because of the variety and diversity of people who do live here.

Do you think rentals at market rates will now be put on hold because of this ruling or do you think they will still be renting at market rates as of today? My lease is up soon. Keep a look out AR

AR -
"if their tax savings is about $250k a year metlife was incredibly foolish." That's just it - there wasn't any perceived risk here - it's one of the main arguments against this ruling - if the law indeed was meant to disallow destabilization then the program would have never worked in Manhattan - it would have never made financial sense for the landlord to accept such a small reduction in property taxes if he had to give up the right to destabilize (or at least they would have all left the program voluntarily when the destabilization rules changed to $2,000) - 15 years ago everyone knew that they were allowed to destabilize, the word "became" was clear - fast forward 15 years and now you read the statute and it doesn't mention the 2 classes of J51 buildings explicitly and you get some activist judges and boom. I'm 99% sure that this issue never even came up in the due diligence of TS - it was a non issue. There was certainly no perceived risk by them or any other buyers of similar type buildings.

Further, there were never any complaints by pro-landlord groups over the issue. Doesn't that say it all. The pro-tenant lobby complains about what type of tile is used in bathrooms so why weren't they shouting from the mountaintops that units were being destabilized illegally? The answer, because they were there when the law was written and knew what it meant. They know what the word become means.

As for the family making $175K, they are no victim. They've benefited greatly from rent stabilization. I find it very hard to feel sorry for them. They bought into the fools gold that is stabilization. Had they bought a place 50 years ago instead of rented then they would have had zero mortgage payment for the last 20 years. I know plenty of poor people who have been living in rent stabilized apartment for 30 years. I don't know any poor people who bought a Manhattan apartment 30 years ago.

The RS program expires regularly (so far it's always been renewed), there are plenty of legal ways for landlords to destabilize units. The laws are clear and the laws constantly change - anyone who takes a stabilized apartment and plans for it to be stabilized 30 years from now is unwise. People who expects a landlord to keep their rent below market per the laws and yet not destabilize it at first chance are ungrateful and unrealistic. If you want stability then buy something. If you want stable neighborhoods then encourage home ownership - rent stabilization is a huge deterrent to home ownership (it's one of it's worst flaws).

Good post Jazzman. I would also add that there is a reasonable chance of the next NYC vacancy survey exceeding 5%, at which point RS expires. Survey will be done in mid-2010, results in 2011.

The outer boroughs always are close to or exceed the 5% (and will be worse next survey), it has been the 1% vacancy rate in Manhattan that has pulled the overall rate down to the 3% level.

Of course, tenants would howl and politicians could change the law, but the main argument used to enforce RS laws in court were that it was an emergency measure due to low vacancy rates.

I was looking at a Gold Coast townhouse for sale in the village, there is a RS tenant paying $600 per month for a 2 BR apartment while the other market rate tenants were paying $3k. Insane.

jazzman, i think the truly telling figure is that only 140000 units are at issue here. if that is true, there wasn't that much of a need for a pro-landlord conversation. and only 22000 of them are in manhattan, over half of which would be PCV/ST. landlords didn't bother to have the conversation because they never thought they'd feel any reprecussions.

modern, if RS expires in one fell swoop, to say it will be interesting is putting it very, very mildly. and AGAIN, this ruling doesn't cap the top limit to the rent. most units will be renting at or near market rate.

do you really think we need more incentives right now for purchasing? really? then we would have to reconsider the process by which development occurs in this city, and the profits that would be available to developers would be significantly less. all these cries of foolish buyers. but i think you know that. the question is one of public and social policy. which is extremely unpopular and has been since the go-go me-me 1980s.

and i'm done here. if you wish to be an apologist for the actions of TS, go right ahead. this is more than just the issue of whether or not RS should exist. this is a legal mechanism ensuring that landlords are held accountable for their actions, which happens extremely rarely because decent legal representation is sadly unavailable for most tenants. i know the ruling pisses you off, but the highest court in NY thus ruled. so be it.

I find it sad that rent stabilization is the excuse that mage aboutready's neighbors generational prisoners of Peter Cooper Village.

thanks for missing the entire point of the last 200+ postings. way to go.

this could trigger a lot of pain for the commercial RE market
wondering when the parties involved declare bankruptcy

AR - first - we can't get rid of RS in one fail swoop - it would be the end of the city - I seriously mean that - all one has to do is look at the insanity that is the RGB annual meeting - those people go crazy over a $30 rent increase - they will go Columbine if you take away their RS status.
next - 140,000 units is a huge amount of units - even Schumer and Silver get involved when places like Gateway (1,400 units ish) start to lose their status - what about Starett City - again 140,000 units matter.
next - I certainly feel that TS did nothing wrong as far as the J51's go. I am the first one to say they should lose their entire investment here. They paid the top and will suffer (unless Obama bails them out - some say that idea's crazy but hey we bailed out Goldman Sachs one of the (if not they) richest investment bank in the world so I wouldn't put it passed them).

finally -(just re-read this final paragraph, I'm pissed off at the situation not you, so don't take this personally:) I totally disagree that the courts are landlord friendly. I was in housing court this week. Just 3 days ago I was up against a tenant who was representing herself. My attorney and I had the tenant agree to a buyout of sorts. She would admit that she had no legal right to live there - we would agree to forgive 4 months of arrears and let her stay two more months so she could find a place to live. The "F'n judge told her in open court not to sign the doc. The tenant said "Don't worry judge, they're right." The judge replies "You can get more than 2 months out of this." Are you F'n kidding me. This is the second time that it's happened to me. Usually it's the court attorney (not the legal aid attorney but the court attorney) who wrongly fights for the tenant, but for it to come from a judge is asinine. And if you don't think it happens call any L/T attorney. Including mine. And while you're at it ask them about Judge Schrieber -she lost her position on the bench (she use to be a tenant advocate before becoming a "judge") but was just reappointed to the bench in a politically motivated move. Why are judges negotiating signed deals to improve the deal for anyone? And I guarantee you that 100% of these renegotiations are always done to hurt the landlord. In the end the tenant wouldn't sign any deal and now I've got to subpoena 5 of her neighbors so we can be ready for trial in late November.

The laws are in favor of the renter. If there's any doubt just see how long it takes to evict a renter who doesn't pay their rent.

jazz...If only you had this situation occur in Texas. You would have many choices....

Great Judge story. I bot an investment property in SC many moons ago. Backyard has no fence, I asked the RE agent, don't we need a fence to protect from somebody walking off the beach and coming in and drowning in the pool. Agent, looks at me dumbfounded and says, there are no fences in this neighborhood, not allowed, they look ugly. Following week I am playing golf with a local Judge. I relay the story, he says, "why would someone trespass on your property and go in your pool"? I guess that kinda says a bunch eh!

Riversider - I can't get a non-pay eviction to happen any faster than 10 months right now - I just had a judge grant one of our tenants their 7th order to show cause. She's unemployed, owes me $10K, and has no job skills. She has never had $10K in her life. This is the 3rd non-pay eviction for this tenant. She's run out of charities, she's run out of government bailouts - she's going to have to move in with her mom in NJ. What I don't understand is why the judge continues to make me lose even more money on this unit. Last year this was more palatable because the building was appreciating by the month, but now that it's losing value by the hour it makes it much harder to swallow.

This decision is totally meaningless to Tishman Speyer.

They were already about to exhaust their reserve fund and default, and lose their equity investment. The debt holders are going to own Stuy Town and they will be the ones affected by this decision.

TS will lose their equity but they mostly laid off that risk on other idiots I mean "partners".

I think getting rid of RS all at once is certainly doable. Remember, leases expire over 1 to 2 years, so apartments would roll over in intervals.

The politicians and crazy whistle-blowing renters will yell and scream, and try to extend it or "phase it out" over many years, but if the vacancy rate hits 5% all hell is going to break loose.

Might be a good trade to load up on RS apt buildings in 2010 if vacancy rates keep going up. Value of many buildings would double overnight if RS goes away.

so in the middle of the worst recession since the depression, lets force hundreds of thousands of people in nyc to move? and who will benefit? and who will lose? tell me you're kidding.

"i mentioned earlier a family i know who is about 2-3 years from hitting the $2000 limit. 2 kids. she is third generation PCV, he is second. her grandmother and mother both still live here, and both need assistance. both of their children go to local public schools. she works for the city, he's a project manager. they make more than $175k, but certainly not enough to find another home within a decent school district. they were two or so years away from losing their home, in a community they have lived in for 50 years, except for college. how is making $175k with two kids in NYC living in luxury? really."

Seriously? Is there anyone who is not entitled to subsidies? Now we have a sob story for a couple with kids making more than $175K? At what level of income and assets does it stop?

I was wrong, not a limousine liberal. A limousine delusionist.

Jazzman, cry me a river. You knew or should have known that the system operates this way. You didn't do your diligence or build in enough cushion. This is New York, maybe you can't make it here.

amblingnuts - it use to take 4 months to evict a non-pay and we thought that was absurd (in many states the marshal is at the tenant's door before tenants are 3 weeks late) - with ZERO changes in the law, over the last 4 or 5 years judges have started allowing 10 to 12 months for non-pays. Lots of "costs of doing business" in land-lording - one you don't pro forma is losing $10K to $15K in lost rent and paying $7K in legal fees (the more times it goes to court the more the legal fees) for every non-pay eviction.

You'll see, now that buildings are less valuable and market rate rents are off you'll see that many landlords can no longer afford their property taxes and maintenance. Property taxes in the EV that were 10K ten years ago are now $120K. On an operating basis our buildings are less profitable than they were 5 years ago - we're slowly bleeding to death and we can no loner refi to raise cash to pay for our operating loses - you think people hate landlords now, just wait until the heat is less frequent the super less responsive - this is only the beginning - you'll see.

Landlording ain't for the weak of heart or weak of pocketbook.

"amblingnuts - it use to take 4 months to evict a non-pay and we thought that was absurd (in many states the marshal is at the tenant's door before tenants are 3 weeks late) - with ZERO changes in the law, over the last 4 or 5 years judges have started allowing 10 to 12 months for non-pays."

I have to say that my experience is the exact opposite. L&T court used to be TOTALLY lopsided towards the tenant and over the past 15 years or so has shifted tremendously in the favor of the the LL almost to the point where the L&T judges almost give LL's their rights under the law.

I don't know what is more ridiculous: AR who thinks that a couple who make over 175k deserve a RS apartment, or Jazzman who feels sorry for himself because being a landlord is not as profitable as it used to be.
Only in New York, kids.

30 yrs - "I have to say that my experience is the exact opposite. L&T court used to be TOTALLY lopsided towards the tenant and over the past 15 years or so has shifted tremendously in the favor of the the LL almost to the point where the L&T judges almost give LL's their rights under the law." What do you mean? Are you saying that the courts actually enforce the laws now "L&T judges almost give LL's their rights under the law." If so - that's total BS. The only way you can get a fair trial is in an appeals court.

maly "not as profitable as it used to be. " It's not that's it's less profitable it's that it's unprofitable and the laws require that rent increases be enough to cover the increases in our real expenses.

@maly
I don't know what is more ridiculous: AR who thinks that a couple who make over 175k deserve a RS apartment, or Jazzman who feels sorry for himself because being a landlord is not as profitable as it used to be.

Exactly on both counts.

No, I think the landlord was expressing frustration, so 1/2 agree.

"Jazzman, cry me a river. You knew or should have known that the system operates this way. You didn't do your diligence or build in enough cushion. This is New York, maybe you can't make it here"

Still doesn't justify it.

That we've had corruption doesn't mean we shouldn't try and fix it.

The entitled liar (I mean sarcastic person) aboutready basically summed up her family in this little story

"i'll never forget when for some reason our toilet seat fell apart. i said to the hubby we need to go buy a new toilet seat. he said, no way, that toilet seat is owned by our ll and it fell off its hinges because they gave us cheap toilet seats. i said, ok, you call management. well, some guy showed up with a plunger. i asked him, people don't plunge their own GD toilets? he said, ma'am, you'd be amazed. and he toddled off and a couple of days later a new toilet seat appeared."

i'm totally out of this one on the RS issues. but i'll add that not a single person has responded to my question of why we taxpayers should support an ownership society and not promote any stability in the rental arena. why should my tax dollars go to some idiot who is buying too much and will cost society through foreclosure, etc.? why should my tax dollars go to support financial entities that invested in MBSs? i'd guess that the cost, in real terms, of subsidized housing is hugely less than these costs.

jazzman, even wikipedia notes that landlords who accept j-51 benefits have apartments that are subject to RS. you're so f'ng full of it. TS knew damn well what they were doing, but the potential reward outweighed the potential risk, so they rolled the dice. 9 out of 12 higher court judges felt they WERE doing something wrong. do you really think they'd find TS violated the law without any cause? they knew very well that this case was extremely important. which is the only reason why i think you had two judges dissent. that wasn't based on law, it was results driven.

modern, there is joint and several liability here. think metlife. we are.

metlife.

maly, only recently did RS get tied to income. look at the historical reason for RS. and consider the fact that people form communities, lives, social networks, have children in schools, take care of elderly relatives, etc. based on where they live.

do you really think that $175k for a family of four is "luxury" in NYC? because that's what it is called. "luxury" decontrol.

AR: we haven't talked about this already? I don't think there is any inherent reason why voters (unless you're saying we should restrict the franchise to taxpayers) should support ownership over renting or vice-versa. Depends on the economic & social structure in place. In a renter-heavy place like NYC, it doesn't make sense for voters to support owners for obvious reasons, bubble aside, mortgage CDO implosion aside. On the other hand, you have to leave some kind of profit incentive for LLs unless we are happy to support a majority publicly-owned housing system (nothing wrong with that either, depending on the need).

I've never encountered any examples of housing policy that worked for the masses without creating some harmful unintended consequences. Not that it should stop us from trying.

10023, no, we haven't. at least not in this context. yes, it would be voters. given that the huge preponderence of voters are renters here, you'd expect housing policy to be pro-tenant. my tax rant was more national in nature.

you're entirely correct. housing policy isn't simple, nor does it always lend itself to clear-cut answers.

aboutready's entitlement attitude is amazing. There are plenty of nice areas in this city for a family of four making $175k to live. They shouldn't be getting some breaks that wind up hurting others in order for them to be able to live in some specific place because they feel they should have some right to be there.

what fucking sense of entitlement? i'm not talking about myself. at all.

you have two kids in PS40. you've lived in a community your entire life. the landlord would make a marginal amount more if they were able to kick you out. for that you move to the swamp?

fuck you LICC. you are a complete and utter moron. on so many levels.

There goes aboutready again, obnoxiously insulting other people's communities and neighborhoods, and showing her low-level true colors. Her entitlement sense fits right in.

you are soooo pitiful.

you've never mentioned an opinion regarding my neighborhood? those who live in glass houses...

Your entitlement is more than a sense. You act on it.

Besides the lies and the incongruous statements regarding who should get real estate tax benefits and who should have them clawed back retroactively, your own cheap ass (literally) husband who had IRS problems (interesting what I've read this week about you) won't replace a toilet seat in his own apartment because it's the landlord's property.

By the way, while you are fucking LICC, good morning!

When have I made any negative statement about your neighborhood? Don't resort to lies again, aboutready.

What about the flipside to your dumb entitlement scenario? What about the market rate renter with kids in PS40 whose rent goes up more than it otherwise would because RS artificially reduces the supply of market rate rents. I guess you don't care if that person gets priced out of the neighborhood as long as others are able to leech off the system. Pathetic.

wow. you're claiming you never mention PCV/ST in a derogatory fashion?

not only are you dumb, you're hugely dishonest.

Go find a negative statement I have made about your neighborhood. And when you can't, just sit there and feel foolish again.

Why is it that other big cities that abolished rent stabilization didn't have all these displacement problems you tout as the justification for the entitlements? What an attitude you have.

aboutready calling someone else dishonest. Funny.

The other day I caught her in a bald faced lie. She said she was being sarcastic, but could then point to NO evidence of the sarcasm, other than her assertions.

are you two the same, or just bffs? and hfs, that is just lame. really.

licc, i have a great memory. i don't need to go search because i remember any number of occasions when you made derogatory comments about the neighborhood. you're not worth the time or effort to go find the quotes.

btw, i personally don't care in the slightest what you think about my neighborhood. many people hate it. who cares. i'm the one who decided to live here. and if i'm happy with my decision, then i'm happy. if you had any self-confidence regarding your own housing decision you wouldn't care what anyone thinks about your neighborhood, either.

How is pointing out your lies lame?

Does it surprise you that two people can dislike you?

You are a liar. And your sense of entitlement rivals Paris Hilton. Another tough day for you doing nothing all day except the 2 hour gym and the walk with your husband?

hsf, do you really think i care that you don't like me?

and you think i should get a life.

aboutready's postings are always insightful and, in my opinion, very helpful...score one for AR!

No, I don't think you care. You are a liar after all. Pretty evident you don't care what people think. Staying at home all day. Lazy. What's your life?

julia, if your toilet seat breaks, do you wait a few days for the landlord to fix it?

julia, do you tip your building staff as little as possible because you want to get back at your landlord?

julia, do you trust someone who rants against corporations but whose husband is a corporate contracts partner at one of the big law firms in NYC?

if your landlord is TS and you have two bathrooms, why the hell not? it's not my toilet seat, and they provided horribly cheap ones to begin with. they did replace without complaint. although they were lacking some alacrity, i do realize they are probably understaffed. they have that huge debt load to take care of.

julia, are you in the same bracket as aboutready who complains about the Alternative Minimum Tax?

aboutready
if your landlord is TS and you have two bathrooms, why the hell not?

Maybe because some fights are too small? Maybe because it is my toilet seat, and it's my ass that goes on it every day? Maybe because I'd like it handled today, not in a few days? Maybe because I don't want the building staff wondering what it is that I did to break my toilet seat?

I'm single and earn under $100k...the apartment i'm renting (non-doorman) is $2495 the tenant before me paid $660...BOTH rents are wrong! I would move to ST in a heartbeat.

wow, hsf such focus, i'm quite impressed that you've devoted so much time and effort in cultivating your disdain for me. you obviously care greatly, but you don't read so well. i tip very generously.

sorry, i'm no longer subject to the AMT.

what fight? i called, they said sure we'll bring a new one.

you do so love your little self-created dramas, don't you?

AR - you are on a slippery slope here- saying you moved into your market rate apartment of your own free will, now eagerly looking forward to totally undeserved RS benefits and possibly big check from Met Life ( you know, deep pockets). As you yourself once put it, "lottery winner without having bought a lottery ticket" - seems really hypocritical, and more than a lttle self-serving,especially when, as you always post, you pay less than 10% of your husband's take-home pay in rent, have a country house where you do your laundry and, of course, send your child to private school.

Oh, and giving the super your old furniture is not a tip, it's called getting rid of your old stuff without the trouble of getting it over to the Salvation Army.

aboutready, now you are making false accusations about me. You really are a nasty person.
I never insulted your neighborhood or PCV/ST. I do point out quite often the irony of you obnoxiously disparaging other people's neighborhoods when you live in a place that is no better than the areas you insult.

i said i tip him as well. good lord, people have some real difficulties reading here. i even tip him as he takes away the furniture each time.

i'm not really looking forward to the RS status, although it's not unwelcome. i'm more interested in the treble damages, but whatever. and why not? it's the law. i didn't break it, metlife and TS did, but i'm sure they're glad they have your sympathy.

ok, so i guess people are stupid if they pay too much, and venal if they get a good deal.
right.

LICC, you're a veritable prince. oops, i meant clown.

aboutready, I called you earlier this week a limousine liberal.

That seems to have been generous.

You are a lying welfare queen.

Why do you deserve treble damages? What damages did you, who entered into a market rate contract with TS, face?

One thing to say that the state or city didn't get its due from the tax benefit given to ML or TS, and therefore the city or the state should be entitled to damages. But why do you deserve it?

You got a free education to Yale.
You don't work.
You have one child to take care of, who attends private school.
You go to the gym for two hours a day.
Your husband is a corporate contracts lawyer partner at a big NYC firm but yet you disdain corporations.
You can't even be bothered to hand out the tips in your building.
You bitch about how rent stabilization ought to cover more than $175K.
You are too cheap, and don't have enough pride to fix or replace your own toilet seat.
You want money damages paid to you when you faced no damages yourself.
You are too cheap, and don't have enough pride to fix or replace your own toilet seat. (sorry did I say that before ... I'm going to keep using that one, it's such a gem)

hsf, is that all you could come up with? please, i'd think you could do better than that. hell, i have healthy self-respect and I could do better than that.

but you bore me, ineffably, so i must discontinue this not-so-scintillating discourse regarding how much you despise me. have a great day!!

I'm not so sure LLs should dislike RS as much as they protest. One can always find an example of extreme low rent, but for many LLs RS guarantees a stable rent roll and assured increases each year. The alternative in this economic climate, or the late 80s/early 90s is not a more profitable building: it's more empty units. I have friends who live in a formerly all RS building which has had about half of its 150 units deregulated. For several months now, 15 market rate units have been empty – that's 20% of market rate apartments generating no income. I think the LL benefits from having a set of stable regulated tenants who can afford to stay and can be counted on for future years' earnings. RS insulates LLs from dramatic market downturns. It is an imperfect system, but I think there are some advantages for the LLs as well as the tenants.

Jazzman voiced concern (quoted below) about retroactively applying the ruling to someone who moved out ten years ago. The Court of Appeals totally punted on this point, saying they were not ruling on retroactivity or how the statute of limitations would apply. (4 years for RS or 6 for contract? tolling? Does anyone know?) The family of 6 can stay; a comparable unit will do.

Quoting Jazzman
“For instance, let's say that 10 years ago a banker making $1M has his rent go above $2K and moves out of his 3 bedroom in a building that was getting a J51. He then goes and rents a $10K/month three bed for the last ten years. His lawyers claim he was illegally evicted and that he wants his old apartment back and at the lower rent. Plus he wants treble damages. The damages would be approximately $8K per month for 120 months times 3 or = $2,880,000 - plus now there is a family of 6 who has been living in the apartment for 10 years - the kids are in school but our millionaire banker wants what he thinks is rightfully his and wants those people out.”

Thanks aboutready, you have a good day too.

Remember, when you need to go to the bathroom, don't fall in the toilet.

im with julia and many others not posting this morning
i appreciate ar's insight--her insult of lic has been of the obvious folly that investing there has always been and will continue to be--the insult of pcv stuy has always been by those who are defensive re the explanations of the lic folly--pcv is a rental so there can be no investment folly there, thus the insult of the lifestyle and renters there--the "investors" in licc have made exceedingly stupid investments...this is a fact they will have to accept...insult of the choices of others or not

hfs--you sound like the contents of a clogged toilet (broken seat or not) who has offered nothing to the dialogue here beyond an attack on AR--your limo lib crap is just that--anyone not living in abject poverty who can't espouse your selfish views must be discounted

i live in a rental and recently had loose towel bars resecured, and an old cheap toilet seat that had broken replaced....by the landlord....that's the deal...my ll cheerfully executed the repair..and had no problem understanding it to be his responsibility..apparently you have a problem..who cares?

Ubottom = Upperwestrenter

Ubottom, do you also want your landlord to pay you for living there? Aboutready's landlord has done nothing wrong to her, in fact did replace her toilet seat and the rest of the bargain is a market rate agreement between landlord and tenant. But because she has some agenda against property owners, she wants treble monetary damages although has no actual damages herself to speak of.

Is that the type of person you are too? Because I'm happy to throw you in the same bucket (or toilet) as her. Just let us all know.

you're giving everyone a headache. fess up to who are or better yet, just shut up.

hey columbiacounty, how come you like some liars but not other liars?

AR - shouldn't it be the people who had to leave your apartment because they couldn't pay the new market rent who get the treble damages? at least that would seem fair - really still don't understand why you should be entitled to damages.

how many versions of the same person are talking here? its like flies buzzing around.

AR is entitled to it all. Damages from the landlord. Tax breaks. Free EDU.

She's even got her support group like Ubottom and columbiacounty that supports her entitlement and her lying.

columbiacounty, aren't you just Ubottom and aboutready? I believe you are all the same lying person.

Of course a few people with the same wacko views as aboutready think she is "insightful"; that is part of what makes them so comical.

Stockholm syndrome?

dismantle this entitlement program and let new york tax payers finally get their reprieve.

Ayn Rand lives!

I'm upperwestrenter slack jaw and if it was me typing that last post above, you'd know it.
Cause i would have called LIC a douche and you a bag.

suck it

ayn rand lives..youre kidding right?...in the era of the aig/gsack citi bailout? where've you been? on mars? and were all biting on the nasty fruit of dereg noreg..go back to the hannity blog puuuuhlleeze

LICC your investment in LIC was quite dumb--it's not about you, don't worry--it's about your investment

if youre not underwater based on your initial purchase in 98, youve sure squandered most of your gain in LIC...say bye bye to the rest and more shortly

interesting that youve quieted of recent re the swell investment LIC has been for you...aint no bounce,,,gurgle gurgle

ubottom, i do believe that BS/RS is trying to call me selfish. of course RS is taking advantage of a new construction condo tax abatement that is being subsidized by the tax payers of NYC, so i'm not sure there's much room for superiority there.

murray88 i didn't write the law. i didn't break the law. and i didn't rule on the law. is the potential remedy punitive? yes, and it was meant to be. of course, if it were you, i'm sure you'd voluntarily offer to not accept any settlement or award, because of course you feel so sorry for the poor beleaguered landlord. give me a fucking break.

If one thinks about it human nature hasn't changed in hundreds of years. So why the bubbles now.. Yes, gov't dropped ball with regulation, but another very big reason is that government distorted market mechanisms by many of their actions. Case in point by telling everyone to buy a house and creating incentives to do so.

and bubbles have been going on for hundreds of years. how did the government create the tech bubble? we are all to blame---we have bought into the insanity that we can have everything for nothing. ayn rand is as full of shit as alan greenspan. our politicans tell us what we want to hear; that's how they get elected.

HAha! Aboutready if someone called me a lying lazy whore I'd defend myself!

how many user names do you have at this point? 50?

smockbel, why? would you fear that it's true? would you nervously worry that people on the board would concur? would it MATTER to you?

I'd just want to defend myself! Not just lay on my back and get taken advantage of!

all you want to do is blather on about nothing. more like 100 names?

clearly i'm less concerned about the noxious spewing of an anonymous poster than you would be. maybe i can call you a few baseless names just so we can see your reaction?

ok, you're a useless spawn of satan and you add no value to anything you do. i'm certain you're despised by your family and within your social milieu. you are worse than flotsam lapping the edges of LIC.

there. go for it.

Hey where are you?

Sorry that was meant for someone else!

getting a little confused with all the names? try using multiple machines.

Uh, not quite abuotready, none of that applies to me.

"smockbel, why? would you fear that it's true? would you nervously worry that people on the board would concur? would it MATTER to you?"

Yeah, its funny. I remember how all the bulls would say the bears were all the same person, because there is no way that more than one person could possibly think the market would decline.

Whoops.