Bankruptcy Case Poses Risk to Stabilized Tenants

is "she" the owner or the renter???

She's the owner ... of her lease, and of benefits that accrue to her in that lease (the right to renewal) by her proving annually that her income is below the luxury threshold that would relieve her of her ownership of that lease.

The lobby for landlords aggressively pursued and won the right to turn NY rent regulations into a means-tested program, when they had not been for the first 50+ years of existence. You reap what you sow.

If the courts rule that her lease is an asset, the logical next step is that every voluntarily vacating tenant should be expected to be paid the fair market value of that lease by his landlord. Otherwise it's just a taking of property.

Assets can have restrictions. Such as that she is required to live there.

An interesting case.

You would only be able to accrue the value of the lease by living there. An example are restricted endowments for college and universities where the institution can only extract value from the asset by using it for a particular purpose.

Owner of her lease, lol! That is almost as crazy as saying that NY rent regulations are means tested!

Read this article for more on the need for means testing:
observer.com/2011/03/a-call-for-means-testing-in-rent-regulation/

More lol at "fair market value of the lease", Do you just make this stuff up? And yea, like so many RS tenants voluntarily vacate... Why would you not keep it and rent it on airbnb? What used to be an extra monthly expense to keep your old apt is now a lucrative opportunity to make cash. That's not the RS mentality!

I cant believe someone with move than 10,000 posts spits out such garbage.

https://twitter.com/SMTSay

A lease is an asset regardless of free market or rent stabilized. IMO this asset can be sold to the LL for a certain price. I am sure the LL would offer some amount of money that would potentially make all her creditor claims

The argument that it is a "public assistance benefit," is true. But this benefit has a ton of value to the LL. That benefit cannot be denied and is an asset.

The settlement (below) seems pretty darn fair...but the lawyers are not acting in the best interest of their client but for the greater "good."

The trustee in Mrs. Santiago’s case has proposed an arrangement in which the landlord would pay her debt, pay the trustee and his lawyer, and allow Mrs. Santiago to live out her years in her apartment at a similar rent under a non-rent-stabilized lease “with no succession rights” that could otherwise have allowed her to pass the apartment on to her 50-year-old son, a personal trainer who lives with her and helps support her.

jaky, we get it only she (successors too if properly done) has the benefit of living at this apartment. But because this has a benefit to her, it is a detriment to the LL. The LL could rent it out at a Free Market Rate and make probably (at least) $2000.00 more per month.

That detriment adds up quickly, that is $24,000.00 per year. So yes, only she can live there as the holder and derive this benefit...but because this woman choose to stay in the same RENTAL apartment since Vietnam, the LL is will to pay for this benefit...HENCE an ASSET.

What a stupid quote...“This is not what bankruptcy is about,” said Kathleen G. Cully, one of Mrs. Santiago two pro bono lawyers. “What’s next? Are they going to start going after food stamps?”

This is utter BS right here.

9d8:

1. a number of bankruptcy courts have held that a debtor's interest in a
rent-stabilized lease is property which can be sold to pay off creditors
based on the definition of a bankruptcy estate contained in 11 United
States Code section 541(a), which defines property of debtor's estate to
include all property, wherever located, equitable or legal, contingent
or vested, in which the debtor owned an interest on the date that his/
her.its bankrupctcy petition was filed

2. however, the Code also provides that a debtor-landlord who owns rent sta-
bilized or rent-controlled apartments cannot terminate the leases of his/
her/its tenanta by using the assumption or rejection provision of 11 United
States Code section 365

3. because the case before it involves the interpretation of section 541(a),
and because the Second Cirsuis. thet is familiar with and routinely applies
the rules which concent interpretation of statutes, it will likely rule vs
the tanant

That is helpful rb346, but what would the Ottawa, Ohio, Canada Small Claims Court say?

I agree RB345.

Calling NWT.

Can you check and see whether the LL's offer for just the $23K debt, or is it for more? If it's just $23K, what a joke: I'll offer the bankruptcy trustee $24K for her succession rights.

> I'll offer the bankruptcy trustee $24K for her succession rights.

You would need to satisfy this criterion according to NYC Rent Guidelines Board: 'It is also possible for a member of a "non-traditional" family to gain control of the apartment if he/she can show "emotional and financial commitment."'

See http://www.housingnyc.com/html/resources/faq/succession.html for details.

That, and live with vinyl slipcovers for the two years prior to her, um, retirement.

>If it's just $23K, what a joke: I'll offer the bankruptcy trustee $24K for her succession rights.

Any relation to her?

Funny you should ask, troll. I was just wondering if she's any relation to Úrsula Hilaria Celia de la Caridad Cruz Alfonso de la Santísima Trinidad, who would have turned a certain age today.

Inonada, it was more than $23K, but don't remember how much more, and federal cases cost money to see. For the money, she'd lose only her son's succession rights, and could stay herself.

There're more than a hundred documents in the bankruptcy-court file. One of her lawyer's arguments is that there's a homestead exclusion ($150K in downstate NY counties) for bankrupts who own, and not letting her exclude her lease would be discrimination against renters.

I can see how she'd rack up $23K in credit-card debt. Her SSI is less than $12K, with $8400+ gone for rent. Her SCRIE benefit is $100-something, so the landlord actually gets $800-something per month. Per SCRIE, the $700 would be 30% of her gross, so her and her son's household income would be only a bit more than $20K. Apparently the son took over his father's super duties, and gets $450 per month for that.

OMFG.. people taking from each other? LL acting like renters. Renters acting like LLs. Rich pretending to be poor. Poor pretending to be rich.

Borkers pretending to be somebody... 2% 40yr fixed mortgages... $88MM daughter condos.... Gov't shutdowns.... teabaggers.... LIC RE IN FRE FALL..... what does it all mean?

It means w67 just cleared anther $1MM on apple....

APPLE APPLE APPLE. $390/sh .... coulda woulda shoulda...

one mo time... F L M A O zzzzzzzz

Thank you Nada.. .ConED lit a fire deep in my anus...

to all you minions.... continue on switching logins.... Fking hilarious.. .how do you team RE ninnies keep track of all these logins on SE?

OK, I found it again. The offer from the sponsor was for $40K plus $10K in moving expenses, plus finding her another apartment for her life. Her daughter and family also live in the building, or so someone said.

The building is the co-op at http://streeteasy.com/nyc/building/199-east-7-street-manhattan

Her first lawyer knew squat about bankruptcy law, thought it would be a cut-and-dried case, and had a conflict as being lawyer for the co-op in its fights with the sponsor. Then Ms. Crully's organization came to the rescue, speaking for regulated tenants everywhere, with this lady being dragged along for the ride.

well, w67 is right, this apartment is near ConEd.

I don't plan on living in the apt. The idea would be to have the son living there post-succession, kicking up say $200 a month to inonada so as not to lose succession rights to $3K apt renting for $700. Or force the LL could kick in a proper buyout offer.

Or maybe we just do it gratis. w67th, what do you say we each kick in half the $23K from today's little AAPL bump should the ruling go the other way, just to thumb our nose at the LL for yutz?

inoitall, those are small dollars, $200 per month? Wouldn't you be better expressing as a proportion to one million?

Consigliere - sure. I am not sure what you are responding to though... I was particularly responding to the "takings" argument said earlier. I do think your analysis is one-sided since you are ignoring tax benefits in your analysis.

jaky, the bottom line is this lease is an asset. I was kind of furthering the point.

Homestead Exemption apply to the lease, don't think so. I don't think the exemption was intended to benefit renters rights in their leases.

1. the homestead argument is clever and creative
2. but statutes must be interpreted according to their language
3. and cannot be enlarged to cover situations they dont cover

We do it for yutz then. :)

On my 200 condo development side. Some of my partners are getting skittish about a bump up in rates and wanna sell the project. Now mind you. It's already 5x for me in a year. But w67 think we'll swing for fences. Given the fed govt shut down, w67 doesn't think there's even a hint of tightening for another 9-12 months.

So what say you nada. Still believe we go japanese and let the RE bubble bleed thru inflation vs. zirp policy for a few more years?

I think QE finishes in a bit over a year. They probably don't want to get to more than 50% of all medium & long treasuries and agency debt, and at $3.5B and counting at $85B month, not a lot left. Choices are to start toward 100% ownership (that'd be fun) or moving into riskier assets (Fed buying stocks, even more fun). So I don't see QE continuing for a few years.

ZIRP on the other hand, I think that's 90% likely for all of 2014, 60% for all of 2015. My guess is it'll go on for a while, but cat is out of the bag for record low long-term rates.

Long way of saying I still think RE will bleed it out over many years.

Graci.... let me know when you are around next season... more than happy to take you fishing or sailing. Last season, we got a double marlin hookup. 160lb and 140lb.... great smoked.

BTW on apple. I just hedged my 100 $500 Dec Appl calls with short $550 calls...gonna make some coin either direction but way bullish on apple over longer term. Yes, trollcuntsburger.. .that's 10,000 shares of apple.. do the math... $1MM plus some more when earnings comes out. Poised to make another $2MM if it hits $550 to $600 over next 12 months... I've got a shit load of Jan 15' $435 puts shorted. Put that on when apple was at $415ish.

China Mobile needs to get on 4g and stop going proprietary tech and losing mkt share to rivals due to lack of iPhones... where oh where did this occur in US? (hint. Sprint).
Apple's margins will expand as 5S is killing it and I think the 5C is just apple using it's own products to backstop it's market share versus letting Samsung/Droid dictate pricing.
Apple iphone cycles will continue as the camera continues to be a value proposition. w67 and family will always get the next model if just the camera improves.
The new ipad air is definitely worth the upgrade. w67 is gonna trade in 4 ipads this nov. Pretty sure most of my "peers" will do same for kids and family.
Free iworks and maverick... just told Google, MSFT... FUCK U! Apple maps is getting better.. and $50billion in new search "engine" called "ONE" vs. google.. .oughta make that Fking POS pot marked Erich Schmidt think twice about calling Droids as secure as apple phones... FLMOAZzzzzz. here's a hint. When you let users change the look of the "keyboard" on a droid... it's like asking 50MM Russian/Albanian teenagers.. "come and get my passwords and account numbers!"

DUMB DUMB DUMB... sometimes $10 blow jobs gives you herpes....

WOW... apple was great at $390.... still good at $525... w67 likes it at$600 and wouldn't be surprised if it hits $700 again... but greaterer at $390...

OH YEAH.. . GO TEAM RE!!!!!!

But you sold a couple weeks ago, right?

Fk.. .Tim Cook just sent a letter to take APPLE private!!!!! WHOOOT ... I"M GONNA MAKE MONEY!!! FK YOU CUNTSBURGER... what did you do with my SPRINT AND APPLE CALL? FK YOU TROLL..

Apparently, there are foreign banks that will take the $170B offshore as collateral and fund $400B in LT debt at 1.5% and give another $100B as a REVOLVER at 50bps.... HESUS FKING CHRIST.....

come on chester... come on ... what's you do over the 2007 to 2014..... 7yrs older and still a troll... FLMOAzzzzzz

Since April 19, the day of $390 Apple, w67's call:
If you bought Ford, which w67 said he was selling in order to buy Apple, you would have made more money than w67.
If you decided you liked the retail component of Apple, but instead bought electronics retailer Best Buy on that date, you would have made more money than w67.
What if you liked the video and entertainment component of Apple, but decided to go more pure play and therefore bought Netflix? Well, you would have beaten w67's recommendation.
Really like music over the internet? Pandora >> Apple.
If you are focused on the Internet advertising component of Apple, and instead bought Google, well, you would have made less money if you bought on exactly the day suggested by w67, but if you made the decision of Apple vs. Google on any other day, ... take a guess.
How about if you believed none of these business segments mattered, and it was all about the management team. Tim - new CEO and Apple vs. Marissa - new CEO at Yahoo. Hint: do a Yahoo! search and find out.
Fan of streeteasy? Zillow has outperformed Apple since w67 picked it.
Oh, and then there's Sprint. It's done nothing since Apple was at $390.
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=AAPL+Interactive#symbol=aapl;range=20130419,20131022;compare=goog+bby+nflx+f+yhoo+p+s;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined;

Way too intricate an answer, hb. Shows you care.

Indeed she does care too much!!! Flmaoz. But what if add leverage to the equation? W67 would never have put leverage on netflix, google, tesla.

But apple. It's a $170b bank with a computer component that generates $50b/yr and trades at huge discount to mkt.

Yeah. W67 got leverage. Bitch slap you back. Come on hurt me. Come on. Do it.

w67th, your net worth may be much larger than it was in 2007. But I bet HB's troll count has increased larger still. To each his own the measure of worth, and by that metric HB's got your number.

Tacos de marlin ahumado, hmmmm....

Of course. No substantive response from inoitall.

67, that's really the best you got, Apple massively underperformed Netflix, but you tell us today that you "wouldn't have" put leverage on Netflix? I don't recall your April buy call on SE telling everyone to use leverage. Didn't you say you sold Ford in order to initiate your position? Didn't you previously say you cashed in CDs to buy more Sprint because you didn't want leverage. Doesn't sound like you've advocated much leverage. Maybe c0lumbiac0unty can help- he doesn't like revisionist history.

Apple vs. McKesson before today's McKesson bump:

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=AAPL+Interactive#symbol=aapl;range=20130419,20131023;compare=mck;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined;

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=AAPL+Interactive#symbol=aapl;range=20130419,20131023;compare=sbux;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined;

Apple < Starbucks from w67's date of purchase.

Liked Facebook on the date that w67 said to buy Apple:

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=AAPL Interactive#symbol=aapl;range=20130419,20131023;compare=fb;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined;

You would have more than doubled your performance on Facebook vs. buying Apple.

No no fieldchester. The question isn't if there are other liquid stocks that have beaten w67's sprint and apple call. It's whether your trolling has been more $$$$$ productive than listening to w67.

Likewise. It's never been about w67 making RE bullz 'like' w67. It's been hate w67 so much you irrationally keep plowing money into RE whilst w67 20x his net worth in the last 7 yrs. funny. W67 is making it on RE development. The law of unintended consequences.

Flmaozzz. Oh shit apple gonna pop! Never mind. It already popped for w67 and nada.

I understand. Aside from your Sprint call, everything else has been an underperformer, a bad idea, or a lie.

What's the saying? Monkey say, monkey don't do? Something like that. Inoitall can look it up on eHow after he finishes helping his friend find an apartment that doesn't exist.

Apple up $7. another $150k day for w67.

How's the troll pay scale going for ya? Make a lot of $ on trolling and nyc re.... Carry on.

Signed,
W67ownsyou.

P.s. Go team RE!

Unique win for 67?
No: Amazon up $5.45 today and another $27 after hours.

What does my spouse owe me for veto-ing my Apple buy?

Did you buy instead Facebook or Ford or Zillow or Netflix or Pandora or Best Buy or Yahoo or Starbucks or McKesson or any of the other stocks that have outperformed Apple since w67 made his call?

w67 controls 25,00 shares of apple on short puts, long calls and straight up equity. Mostly done in the $390 and $420/share... So w67 is uppy hugey. w67 just threw in his with Carl Ichan. BRING THE PROXY FIGHT. Maybe it makes the Board feel better knowing they have $170B in cash.... fk them.. it's my money.

to Mrs. Fieldchester.. .let's try this again.

DID you OWN AMAZON last night?
DID you own FORD?
DID YOU OWN GOOGLE?
DID YOU OWN NETFLIX?

IF yes to any of above... did that position make you more or less than being a PAID TROLL ON SE?

Finally, w67 just booked $3MM in gains in last 18 months. Just note that a $100/share increase in apple from $525, will result in $2.5MM for w67. IF Carl I. is correct and apple goes to $1200/sh.. that would be $16.875MM... w67 is pretty certain that's a little more than the last chk w67 got from SE... zillow is being really tight w/ cash... something about paying alot for 20K lines of code...

FLMOAZZZZZzzzzzz..
GO TEAM RE....

@10023... you cant' sue your spouse... : )

Just imagine, if you held on to Ford instead of Apple, your $3MM gains could be $4MM. If you bought Facebook instead of Apple, your $3MM could be $9MM.

Beats owning NYC RE.... or LIC RE... .or not being in the equity mkt at all... or being a troll....

There goes w67 again... my bad.. .didn't want to call you a penniless troll... but THEREZ you be bitch. A nobody walking the streets of NYC

Might as well be homeless in Florida, at least the weather is nice and you can always use the internet at the Library... one hour at a time....

Is that your new theory?

As w67 can't time travel. Let's play who is smarter prospectively.

In this corner fieldchester. The ability to go back in time and beat w67 predictions with better performing equities. Nuff said.

In this corner w67. On Monday earnings comes out. Carl I still ain't going away.

Scenario 1)
Apple misses. Carl i's case for balance sheet engineering gains momentum. Apple rises.

Scenario 2)
Apple beats. Apple rises.

Yawn.

Forgot option 3).

Nyc re continues to gain as interest rates go to 0%. Thereby enabling any fool with 'hey inflation is at 3%, it's free money! Better lock in these rates! ' minions to flood the market. Sellers learn to speak Chinese and Russian hoping an oligarch's mistress buys their w42 15th avenue 600sq ft studio for $88mm!!!!

Go team RE

Stop hating on HB, w67th. If it weren't for his incessant tracking of every move we make, I wouldn't have doubled down on AAPL when he goaded me at $390. 35% in 3 months. Maybe troll can't turn troll's trolling into cash, but inonada can.

Quick HB -- go find something that went up more than 35% since then. We are always up for some good trivia.

You are mocking me because I can find facts that prove that w67 underperformed?
Your defense of w67 is that me "goaded" your otherwise weak will into taking action?

Pandora, Netflix, Facebook, even Streeteasy's own Zillow - these all outperformed AAPL on your _newly_ cherry-picked date.

It isn't really cherry-picked if you publicly goaded and I publicly bought, now is it? Picking stocks to compare after-the-fact, on the other hand...

But you make a valid point. Even though AAPL's 35% increase outperformed the index by 25% and your beloved NYC RE by even more, there is always something that would have done better. I guess I'm complacent enough to be happy with 35% in 3 months.

You apparently are not, so do better next time with your goading.

My beloved RE?

The apple genie is out of the bottle nada. It's a great fking weekend. Good on you for doubling down and I owe you for ConEd. The missed trade that started it all for w67.

Dont care how earnings go on Monday.
1) china mobile
2) iPhone 6 (larger screen)
3) iPad w/ finger sensor
4) Nintendo DS killing joystick attachment to iPhones
5) lowered manufacturing costs
6) first mover advantage in a vertically integrated 'consumer' computing company (cloud, software, hardware)
7) can take out google at some point (google is maps and search which has only value bc it's installed on all apple products)
8) electronic payments (chk out apple cloud based 'keychain')
9) $170b cash backstop and increasing dividends
10) Carl I. The rich bastard that wants mo money.

All bullish and the fact it trades at a ridiculously low multiple compared to companies apple has already demolished is pretty funny. Even funnier at $390 when we went in. Flmaozzz.

I can see the appeal of sitting in a sofa and making money. Only if there was some way I can leverage it by 30x, get a tax break and be anointed a 'lord'. Oh where can I find such an investment!

Hey I got 200 condos for you buddy! Thank you team RE! Gladly pay you 6%, but only at closing when I book 2000%.

Nada do me a favor and get rid of that bug, Albanian infested droid phone and buy a 5S

W67 is gonna buy $20k worth of apple kit for Xmas. New ipads, 3 new iMacs, power mac with 2x 4k screens, 4 iPhone 5s 64 g, and all the $150 bejeweled phone cases, stands and attachments that apple can sell!!!!!! My 6% back to apple. Flmaozzz.

67, he didn't buy because of you. He bought because of me.

fieldschester
2 minutes ago
Posts: 976
Member since: Jul 2013
ignore this person
report abuse
So despite inoitall's blind admiration for 67, despite 67's verified track record, it was me - the dope, the village idiot - me, I am the reason inoitall bought the stock. Me.

-shrug- maybe it was the bagel lox bowel movement... But w67 did buy apple and sold short puts and longed calls.

HB. You must've not has the same bowel movement as yu did not buy apple, nor sprint, nor netflix, google, zilliow... So what did you do in the last 7yrs.

Hold on.... Let me post some links to the 50k posts by yu and your family of trolls. This could take awhile.

Ok I'll wait 67.

7 more fking yrs? At least make some money.... Buy a apple.

W67 loves you and ericho and all of SE and even th RE bubble. Bc if u really think about it, w67 just wanted money. And no matter how I got here. Herez I be. Dropping Benjamins and buying ferarris, yachts and 55 foot Vikings with an air conditioned helm. Fking got AC blowing up my shorts!!!!!

Nada don't play favorites. Nada has AAPL. Nada has GOOG.

Should we credit HB for goading me to double down on AAPL? Or should we credit ericho75? They both deserve credit. Why play favorites?

HB, what's your favorite device for trolling? Android, iPhone, Mac, or PC? Any way you slice it, I've got you covered.

I hope that since inoitall only buys because of me that I haven't created for myself a fiduciary responsibility. Who needs that headache.

Again, not clever. Work harder, you've got a cyber-identity to maintain, and all the credibility that stems from that.

Thanks for the coaching.

You're welcome.

Thank you AR!

Trying too hard.

inonada
1 day ago
Posts: 4989
Member since: Oct 2008
ignore this person
report abuse
Stop hating on HB, w67th. If it weren't for his incessant tracking of every move we make, I wouldn't have doubled down on AAPL when he goaded me at $390. 35% in 3 months. Maybe troll can't turn troll's trolling into cash, but inonada can.

A new week will shortly be upon us. I wonder what I can goad inoitall into doing this week that he wouldn't do on his own but for my influence over him. I wonder.

it seems like even you are running out of steam.

Well you've got plenty coming out of your ears.

i'll play for a while.

Wonder is good for the soul. Not that that is relevant here.

Update: the NY State Court of Appeals will be hearing this case: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304479704579578360688054216?mod=residential_real_estate&__hstc=109812634.61674a54f3a0a02e2c0d9634303edece.1398256659190.1400673091739.1400888750904.24&__hssc=109812634.2.1400888750904&__hsfp=3624163109&mg=reno64-wsj

They will "determine whether a rent-stabilized lease could be sold off in a bankruptcy or is a protected 'local public assistance benefit,' as outlined under New York law. Other such protected benefits include welfare and unemployment payments."

The tenant turned down an offer of $140,000 and right to live in the apartment for the rest of her life.

I'm with NYCMatt on this one.

New York State Court of Appeals is now hearing this case: http://therealdeal.com/blog/2014/10/15/judges-appear-split-over-highly-charged-rent-stabilization-case/

I hope that the court finds that rent-stabilized leases can be sold when the tenant declares bankruptcy.

Interesting quote: "Judge Jenny Rivera, however, said she did not understand the difference between the government sending a check to a welfare recipient and the government providing a rent-stabilized lease for a tenant."

"Interesting quote: "Judge Jenny Rivera, however, said she did not understand the difference between the government sending a check to a welfare recipient and the government providing a rent-stabilized lease for a tenant."

This judge simply doesn't understand the situation. The difference is clear. When the government (i.e. all tax payers) sends the check they are providing the subsidy (the landlord gets full market value). But when the apartment is rent regulated there is no check sent by the government/tax payers - the subsidy is the burden of the landlord. Accordingly, it is clear that rent stabilization is not a government provided subsidy rather it is a subsidy provided by the property owners.
If you owe people money, and you have something of value, then bankruptcy laws require that the assets be paid to satisfy claims.

correction - then bankruptcy laws require that the assets be sold to satisfy claims.

There is no subsidy -- there is simply regulation, which LL accepts as the cost of doing business (profitably!). Same goes for operators of nuclear power plants, for example, or chemical processing plants that might find it more profitable to dump raw waste into the adjacent rivers. Public good, not unlimited private greed.

1. the Court of Appeals has a very serious problem
2. if it rules that rent-stabilized leases are a form of government welfare benefit

3. then the government's imposition of such leases will violate the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause

4. and empower us sleazy landlords to sue the City and/or State for just compensation

1. the Court of Appeals has a very serious problem
2. if it rules that rent-stabilized leases are a form of government welfare benefit

3. then the government's imposition of such leases will violate the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause

4. and empower us sleazy landlords to sue the City and/or State for just compensation

I have a friend who divorced her husband. He tried to get more money out of her claiming her rent-stabilized lease was an asset. He also wanted a guarantee that he would get a cut of the value of the place if it went coop any time in the future. The court said NO, NO, NO to both. (Besides, he told his wife he was taking a temporary place while he was working out of town. After he was gone awhile, he said he wasn't coming back. He abandoned her and sat of his duff for a few years before considering a divorce.)

I know that this is not a bankruptcy, but it is similar in that assets must be evaluated.

Duh?

"There is no subsidy -- there is simply regulation"
I disagree - It is a subsidy created by regulation. These terms are not mutually exclusive.
"A subsidy is a form of financial or in kind support extended to an economic sector (or institution, business, or individual) generally with the aim of promoting economic and social policy." I am clearly subsidizing some of my tenant's rent payments.

By that logic, clearly some of your tenants are subsidizing YOUR rent payments (to the bank, which owns your building). Why don't you provide those apartments at true cost, instead of promoting your economic policy?

> I am clearly subsidizing some of my tenant's rent payments.

Why did you choose to do that?

"Why did you choose to do that?"
I'm a landlord because I want to make a comfortable living. As rents and property values increase I make money (like today) and when rents and property values decrease I lose money (like 2009,2010). But overall it seems like a good investment.

Alanhart - Why don’t I provide apartments at true cost? Because I want to make money. The same reason every other business owner is in business… One other benefit of what I do is taking old buildings loaded up with violations and fixing them up, but that’s secondary to the main objective of making a comfortable living.

The point however is that the subsidy to the tenants is provided by me and is not a government provided subsidy (a section 8 check is clearly the opposite - it's a government provided subsidy).

Should the court rule that rent stabilization is a government provided subsidy then it creates real "taking" issues. I can guarantee you that if the court rules that stabilization in a government subsidy then there will be several landlords who will file to have stabilization thrown out as unconstitutional. The constitution is clear - you can't take property from one citizen and give it to another without just compensation - so if in fact the court rules that it is the government who is giving something of value to the tenants, then landlords are going to want their just compensation.

Your "just compensation" was buying a building at way below market price.

>"Why did you choose to do that?"
I'm a landlord because I want to make a comfortable living. As rents and property values increase I make money (like today) and when rents and property values decrease I lose money (like 2009,2010). But overall it seems like a good investment.

Sounds like no reason to complain! All good, rent regulated, and all.

aboutready

about 1 hour ago

Posts: 16269

Member since: Oct 2007

ignore this person

report abuse

Your "just compensation" was buying a building at way below market price.

Jazzman, be careful, aboutready might sue, even though she and you have never had a landlord / tenant relationship, she could still win, she has before.

>The constitution is clear - you can't take property from one citizen and give it to another without just compensation - so if in fact the court rules that it is the government who is giving something of value to the tenants, then landlords are going to want their just compensation.

Uh, you are a landlord, not Sonya Sotomayor.
I routinely pay taxes, which go to other people.
Heck, I even pay taxes to the state of New York, that in part support rent regulations, and then people like aboutready get to steal some of those benefits for her own personal gain and use the windfall to buy into a Williamsburg condo with a rent abatement that benefits the developer. Wow, that's messed up.