The Joy of Renting

Yes luckily they are just renting and can just move next month with the only liability, negotiating an agreement with what's left on the lease.

now thay have an option to move or just not pay rent. as opposed to the bankrupt ownere who has lost everything.

point is, you have no control as a renter - you are at the mercy of the landlord when it comes to repairs, upkeep, etc. they've had to live in a rat and mold infested place, and move their infested crap to a new place, with all the headaches involved. obviously this is an extreme example, but as rents fall landlords need to cut back, and the tenant takes the hit. sometimes you get what you pay for.

even if you are young & single moving is costly and a pain - the days spent looking for a new place, possibly dealing with brokers, the risk that your new place isn't what you expect (noise, neighbors, etc.).
and if you have a family, its ten times worse.

Im sure if they could buy a coop on park ave, they would. for some people thats not an option. not everyone can be as lucky as you printer. hope you feel good now.

lol

" but as rents fall landlords need to cut back, and the tenant takes the hit"
"even if you are young & single moving is costly and a pain - the days spent looking for a new place, possibly dealing with brokers, the risk that your new place isn't what you expect (noise, neighbors, etc.).
and if you have a family, its ten times worse."

OMG I didn't realize how risky renting is, especially if the rent is low. I better buy a place just to be safe.

From the article:

"The tale of this portfolio of Harlem buildings began in the 1980s, when Steven Kessner, the son of a Bronx taxi driver who studied economics at Dartmouth based on the encouragement of one of his father’s passengers, passed up Harvard Business School to return to the city and work in real estate. Mr. Kessner said he started buying and repairing East Harlem walk-ups when most banks would not lend in the neighborhood. In what he described as 100-hour workweeks that required “blood, sweat and tears,” he repaired boilers, eliminated thousands of violations and kicked out drug dealers running the buildings. At the same time, he expanded his empire by buying properties in the East Village. While Mr. Kessner said that he worked hard to manage the buildings, and repaired many of their problems, The Village Voice identified him as one of the 10 worst landlords in New York City in 2006. By the time Mr. Kessner sold the buildings in March 2007, the 1,111 apartments still had 2,419 violations, according to the Department of Housing Preservation and Development."

So here's a guy who took it upon himself to improve the living conditions of thousands of slum-dwellers, and because he fell short (and probably because those same dwellers still insisted on living like pigs), he was fingered as one the "worst" landlords in the city?

Why?

I think the lesson here is that renters, particularly rent-stabilized renters, need to realize that you get what you pay for.

"probably because those same dwellers still insisted on living like pigs"

Wow, dude, that's a lot of vitriol from a supposed defender of the disfranchised. We don't really know the story on this guy other than some he-said / she-said and a left-leaning newspaper taking a side, but does anyone really deserve to be living with rats and holes? How do you reconcile that attitude with your attitude towards your out-of-work friends needing public help to maintain the housing of a 6-figure-employed person?

Look, I have done story after story after story on these so-called "economically disadvantaged" residents, and it's always the same -- no one lifts a finger to fix anything when it's a minor repair, so they just let it sit and rot. I've actually been inside these people's homes. Hello -- do you know what a BROOM is? How about a bucket and mop? And a garbage pail with a lid couldn't hurt (they're less then $5 at the local bodega), rather than just leaving rotting garbage sitting around in bags in your apartment.

And while you're at it, how about throwing those chicken bones and McDonald's wrappers in the GARBAGE, rather than in the stairwell on your way up to your apartment?

And these people wonder why their buildings are infested with roaches and rats.

Tenants take a hit? No, they can sue the LLs to hell. Rats in the building? Well the LLs would be fucked in the azz so hard for that. There is a law to that, and renters can use it and even exploit it.

Maybe if the renters didn't live like pigs, there wouldn't be rats in the first place.

darkbird

Yes but maybe you didnt fully read the article, the landlord went bust. Which of course means you can sue the banker, the receiver, whoever will have temporary responsibilty to maintain the property.
Good luck getting someone who is accountable during the right month.

But regardless,your still 30/60 days away from living in a new place if need be.

And if you owned the place with your coop or condo building having these problems,bad super,bad coop board,bad condo management, you'd have to wait until you sold your apartment to get out of the situation.

May be the LLs should get tenants who don't live like pigs? Didn't they sign leases, if they did then its their problem.

@truthskr10 I didn't read the article, because its written badly. I like precise points, this article lacks that. Only read the last few comments, and I replied to them :-) This is the internet, don't expect me to do full diligence.

Matt, you're a reporter? I didn't know. I guess you got first-hand experience, then.

Isn't the lesson then about slobs living in slobby conditions, not anything about renters?

On the repairs, I agree that the tenants should just do it themselves and bill the LL by reducing rent. I'm pretty sure it can be done legally without being in violation of your lease if it falls under warranty of habitability, but I'm guessing many of these tenants don't know their rights.

darkbird

LOL , that's ok, I think ultimately we agree this article does not argue for the case of owning over renting. :)

On rats
You always want sloppier neighbors so they get the visits instead of you. They will always be in NY, especially for those first floor apts,and of unusual size in soho and the village for some reason.

"This is the internet, don't expect me to do full diligence."

ROTFL

You can sue the landlord all you want, but if you have no heat in the dead of winter, the court is not going to help you. The problem with most peopel is that they think suing solves all of their problems when, in realty, it often creates more problems.

"On the repairs, I agree that the tenants should just do it themselves and bill the LL by reducing rent. "

Um, no. I never advocated reducing rent.

If it's a small repair, do it yourself ... for FREE. Or if it requires more skill than you have, let the landlord bring in his own handyman.

All too often, however -- particularly in the case of rent-stabilized apartments -- the landlord can't afford the necessary repairs. This is where it is incumbent upon renters to take on a little responsibility themselves and get things fixed before the become major problems. The trade-off to paying for some small repairs out of pocket, of course, is that you're paying below-market rent.

NYCMATT - Wasn't it YOU who was all over these boards discouraging people from giving tips to to building staff during the holidays? Didn't you use the argument that the building staff get paid above 60 grand for mostly unskilled labor? No, it is NOT incumbent upon renters to take on your or any other landlords responsibilities and fix up your uninhabitable shithole for you. "The landlord can't afford the necessary repairs..? Wasn;t it you who implied that doorman staff should go elsewhere if they couldn't make ends meet without tips? And now you want to put us in a position to sympthasize with landlords snd fix the place up for FREE? I'll give you the same advice you give to the doorman: You get MORE than enough in rent to expect tenants to fix your dump up. If you can't take rent stabilization, leave the business as you have urged the doorman who can't make it on their salary without tips to leave theirs.

"You get MORE than enough in rent to expect tenants to fix your dump up. If you can't take rent stabilization, leave the business"

Actually, most R/S buildings don't get "more than enough" in rent. In fact, most don't get enough in rent to pay for even the barest of maintenance, utilities, and taxes (this is why so many so-called "slumlords" are behind in their taxes).

And most of these landlords would LOVE to get rid of these buildings. Are you interested? Can I interest you in a nice building that's been running in the red since 1978?

I'm sorry but when you purchase rental property you take on a moral obligation to maintain habital residences for your tenants. Its a "cost of doing business" much as electricty is in a store regardless of whether the store makes money. As for "chicken bones and McDonald's wrappers in the hallway", it very well not be building resdients who are leaving it there but transients who enter because the landlord has not adqueately maintained the locks or other security. Further, I have seen similiar type of hallway deritus (plus inevitable beer cans)many, many times in the very much non "distadvantaged" (often parentally financed) buildings in Murray Hill.

"I'm sorry but when you purchase rental property you take on a moral obligation to maintain habital residences for your tenants. Its a "cost of doing business" much as electricty is in a store regardless of whether the store makes money."

That's all well and good, but when a building is losing money, there's no financial means to meet that "moral obligation", no matter how much you complain about it.

Matt, I didn't mean to say you advocated reducing rent, just the "do it themselves" part in terms of repairs. I know you think renters are sub-human, hence you wouldn't advocate them doing things within their legal rights to ensure a sanitary and safe living condition, so sorry for implying that with my ambiguous sentence. Clearly in the case of minor repairs it's best to do it yourself or, if too complex for yourself, ask the LL to bring in his own handyman as you suggest.

However, believe it or not (*gasp*), LLs don't always deal with the issue (especially in slums), and despite your twisted thinking, it is not the tenant's responsibility to pay for the repairs. It could be because the LL is evil, or it could be because they cannot "afford" it. Whatever. Fortunately, we have laws that protect RS tenants regardless of whatever stupid "investment" the idiot landlord made to get themselves into a situation where they couldn't afford necessary repairs (e.g., too much mortgage to support the cash flow from rents minus expenses, too much money on yachts, etc.).

"That's all well and good, but when a building is losing money, there's no financial means to meet that "moral obligation", no matter how much you complain about it."

People lose money all the time when they over-pay. Boo-friggin-hoo. Happens every day. As a tenant, you can as for repairs within reason, and if that doesn't work, you simply withold rent to pay for the repairs, the heat, etc.

"And most of these landlords would LOVE to get rid of these buildings. Are you interested?"

YES, please. I'd wouldn't mind taking what the British firm paid $225M a couple of years ago and selling it back to the prior owner for $100 million. Screw it, I'll even do it for $50M. If you arrange it, I'll even give you a 1% commission. Did you even bother reading the article?

Quote #1: "the British firm plunked down $225 million"

Quote #2: "Mr. Kessner [the guy who sold the buildings to the British suckers] said he would bid on the foreclosed properties “at the right price.”

So apparently, yes, the buildings are worth well over zero to the guy who has the most intimate knowledge of the buildings is interested.

I'll leave you with information on the warranty of habitability from http://www.rentlaw.com/ny/habitability.htm:

WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY
Tenants are entitled to a livable, safe and sanitary apartment. Lease provisions inconsistent with this right are illegal. Failure to provide heat or hot water on a regular basis, or to rid an apartment of insect infestation are examples of a violation of this warranty. Public areas of the building are also covered by the warranty of habitability. The warranty of habitability also applies to cooperative apartments, but not to condominiums. Any uninhabitable condition caused by the tenant or persons under his direction or control does not constitute a breach of the warranty of habitability. In such a case, it is the responsibility of the tenant to remedy the condition. (Real Property Law §235-b)

If a landlord breaches the warranty, the tenant may sue for a rent reduction. The tenant may also withhold rent, but in response, the landlord may sue the tenant for non-payment of rent. In such a case, the tenant may counter sue for breach of the warranty.

all I can say is, you know printer must be extremely desperate and unhappy if he has to justify his life by telling higher-end renters that the examples of low-income housing apply to them...

Printer, have you lost the argument so badly that this is all you have to resort to?

And, of course you missed the thread about the co-op board thats out of money.

Nice part is, as bad as a rental scenario is, you just leave when the lease is over... or before!

"you are at the mercy of the landlord when it comes to repairs, upkeep, etc. they've had to live in a rat and mold infested place"

Yes, but the flipside of that is never having to fix things yourself: you can call someone else to take care of problems. The really sad thing is that housing prices are so bloated here that moving often leaves you in a worse position.

true.

and if you don't live in the ghetto, its really nice to have someone else fix my stuff for free... or just replace it. icemaker goes, get a new fridge...

Just one of the costs that pro-ownership arguers always seem to leave out of their rent/buy analysis. Is that throwing away money?

And if you do live in the ghetto you are usually SOL. Of course that goes double if you happen to be at the wrong end of the "transition" in a "transitional" neighborhood.

if you live in the ghetto, is it really better to own?