RS Tenants Barred From Using Building's New Gym

I bet Stonehenge lets them use their balconies though

The "second-class citizen/segregation" argument will carry little weight with DHCR. The only way the regulated tenants win is if they can show a diminution of services - for example, if the gym occupies space that was previously available to them as storage, or if building staff maintains the gym with time and effort that was previously spent on other common areas. The regulated tenants won't get access to the gym, but they can probably get the diminished services restored, and might even delay some rent increases while the case is pending. When our building converted to condo, the regulated tenants didn't seek access to the new amenities. The Tenants Association just requested replacement storage space comparable to the room that had been annexed for the gym and playroom, and wound up petitioning DHCR to gain leverage in negotiations.

Sometimes, a TA will wage this kind of battle - even if it can't be won - to gain concessions on other fronts, or to send the landlord a message that tenants will fight back over things that actually matter. It might make the tenants look like spoiled brats, but it's simply how the system works.

By the way, the landlord's point about the $5MM spent on common areas seems disingenuous. If the regulated tenants benefited materially from those upgrades, the landlord will probably try to pass the cost to the tenants through a Major Capital Improvements filing. If successful, the MCI will not only raise the rent; it may also expose some tenants to decontrol by pushing their rent over the monthly threshold.

West81st nailed it.

Consigliere, your post on the original story is not too shabby either.

I can't imagine the "gym" is anything other than the usual POS perfunctory soon-to-be-perpetually-out-of-order mess that these buildings always offer. Planet Fatness, much better, is $10/month. And no lunks. They said so on the teevee.

>Consigliere
about 3 hours ago
Posts: 352
Member since: Jul 2011
ignore this person
report abuse
West81st nailed it.

Not really. There won't be luxury decontrol unless the income thresholds are met, very unlikely.

Alan, I would have no doubt that the gym sucks and is not worth it. My guess is it is something like a "hotel gym" and that it really should be called a "basement fitness designation."

These BFDs or HGs have no real value other than the minor workout one can get on the road away from their normal gym. For the lazy, these give off the impression that one cares about fitness and working out.

You lost me huntersburg. What are you talking about with luxury decontrol?

http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20140225/upper-west-side/politician-file-complaint-against-building-blocking-tenants-from-gym

Did Public Advocate James really say that excluding rent-regulated tenants from the gym was "blatantly illegal"? I wonder which statute she thinks the landlord is violating.

A rent-stabilized lease locks in specific services. It doesn't guarantee access to additional services the landlord may choose to offer in the future. And it certainly doesn't guarantee a tenant's seven-year-old goddaughter access to those services. The funny part is, that seven-year-old girl could be the daughter of a free-market tenant, and she STILL wouldn't be allowed in the gym at her age.

Overall, the tenants are playing their part in the process, and so is the landlord. The politicians mugging for the cameras just look foolish; but I guess you could say they are playing their role too.

Another anecdote about our building. The conversion sponsor put one rule in place that is a little awkward: unit owners are allowed to bring guests into the amenity areas (gym, playroom, lounge, roof deck), but their rent-regulated tenants are barred, even as guests. So, an owner can invite a registered sex offender for a game of ping pong in the playroom, but not the kids who live next door.

WILL SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN.

How about these quotes...

State Sen. Bill Perkins called the company's decision a "form of apartheid."

City Councilman Levine said the message "recalls memories of the pre-Civil Rights era."

On a side note, I only play ping pong with sex offenders.

"You lost me huntersburg"

... we should all be so fortunate.

Now that was funny.

What about all those claims that RS tenants are rich non-deserving parasites? I know plenty of RS tenants (in older buildings, not the newer 80/20 variety) who make six or seven-figure incomes. Throwing bloody limbs to the sharks.

If the RS people are in the building that offers services to tenants in the building it should be all tenants not just higher paying ones. The building owner presumably got tax credits or lower purchase price value by taking these families on and they should allow them the same services. I do not know the law here but I do know that landlords should DO THE RIGHT THING once in awhile and this is a great example. This is just silly and classist.

I see all sides here. The owner of the building is trying to convince market rate tenants why they should pay up for their units and throwing in the gym as an amenity. I doubt his motives are nefarious with regards to the rent stabilized units. The rent stabilized units are not being diminished one bit so its hard to see how they are harmed. But the sponsors decision will surely increase tensions in the building. The two interesting points are how the people who are paying a fraction of what the rent should be now feel they are entitled to a health club, and whether the sponsor is entitled to upgrade all units equally, for example if he decides to install steam showers and jacuzzis in the market units, is required to do the same for the rent stablized units? I don't think so.

selyanow: At this point, the impact of letting more people use the tiny gym would be felt mostly by the market-rate tenants, not the landlord. If the market-rate tenants were to get together and petition the landlord to open the gym up to their rent-regulated neighbors, that would be a much better example of people DOING THE RIGHT THING.

Maybe the landlord could/should have built a bigger gym to accommodate everyone, but even if it was feasible, that ship has basically sailed.

How about this... in residential buildings that are former hotels (a la 24 5th) the RS/RC tenants are entitled to---wait for it---free MAID service! Why? Well, because when they began their tenancy that service was included in their lease. And we all know a landlord cannot take away services, right?

So, 40 years later there are still uniformed maids traipsing up and down the halls of 24 5th cleaning the apartments of folks who pay 300 clams for a one-bedroom while the market renters and shareholders have to shell out the big bucks to Merry Maids et al to keep their Wolfs and SubZs sparkling. Fair? Well, let's just say I've never heard any public advocate pontificating from a soap box about this 'inequality' ;-)...

Speaking of soapboxes, that's a nice portable podium the Public Advocate has, with her seal on it and everything.

Hey, how come I can't unhide NWT?? wazzup around here, SE?

West81st, your argument appears to assume that the building will forever be the same mix of market and RS. That might make sense for an 80/20. But here the RS apts. will become market rate over the years. So the full capacity is/will be needed. Of course, nobody uses those gyms anyway, except enough to break the machines.

The smarter way to go would be to make the building gym a fee-based tenant perk, and then offer free gym membership as a signing bonus for market-rate tenants. I believe Related/Equinox works that way too.

Bramstar, you have to get yourself greyed out, then sign in, and then all the other greys will be visible to you, including those who got greyed by being too smart and helpful.

I might add that these tenants only became RS as part and parcel of the conversion from Mitchell-Lama rental to market rental.

Therefore, one could argue (maybe not legally, but...) that their historical included services reset as part of the transition period to market. That building upgrades during this long, slow transition, including lobby and hallway renovations, clearly include them as beneficiaries, and so would renovation of any other common areas, including wherever they stuck the gym.

AlanHart,

The management co and owner messed up by doing the gym in this manner. Since they proceeded this way, it is what it is.

I really don't think that argument holds weight because the gym didn't exist before (unlike a lobby upgrade that they always use) and didn't occupy any current services (i.e. they knocked down storage they had access to build this gym).

I think this is just a lot of stupidity and even a bigger waste of time.

Consigliere, Agreed -- it should have been kept in the Mitchell-Lama program that subsidized its construction, which was done without the intention of providing a windfall for the landlord via market-rate rents.

I didn't realize that the gym is housed in a new-construction addition to the building, and thus taking nothing away from the operation of the existing building (maintenance areas, etc.)

Alan,

I don't know the history of why this was taken out of the ML program. Do you happen to know why it was taken out of the program?

LL want heap big windfall. It was not a ML coop, but rather a ML rental with landlord/tenants.

The original subsidy agreement allowed removal from program after X years, with payback of tax breaks (w/o interest).

Because it was built before 1969 (or whenever), tenants cascade into rent stabilization when ML is removed.

I believe this was part of the Park West urban renewal project, described in considerable detail by Robert Caro in The Powerbroker as a megafiasco involving forcibly displacing hundreds and hundreds of upper-poor black families from solid and not particularly deteriorated small apartment buildings, to make room for lower-middle white families. Lots of broken promises about relocation. In the midst of a continuing housing shortage plus loss of lots of previously livable areas via transit cuts.

In PCV/StuyTown, it was the market rent tenants who turned things around and were the victors. They successfully sued the new owners because they weren't harmed at all, then got a big windfall settlement that came at the cost of increased rents for everyone else after they themselves move out of the complex and bought into newer development condos with tax abatements.

Who did? My big "windfall" came a couple of years after I bought. I don't see how I used that for the down payment, but maybe some others were more clever.

You're a stupid ass, and an incorrect and lying one, hb.

Yet another similar story, this time at the Windermere:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/uptown/rent-stabilized-tenants-booted-fancy-roof-article-1.1706974

Bramstar,

Is that the whole story? Are they charging a fee to all the tenants or just flat out denying the RS?

“Denying rent-stabilized tenants access to specific facilities and areas sends a clear message that they are not desirable,” said [Leticia] James

HA!

The landlord's problem is, once you give RS tenants an amenity or service, it can never be taken away. So if the new amenity turns out to be a waste of space or otherwise impracticable, taking it away could be called a Reduction of Services.

Or so I understand the law. A landlord has to tread very carefully not to be tripped up. (As do the tenants.)

Is jazz singing such a terrible gig that paying market rent isnt an option?

http://news.allaboutjazz.com/news.php?id=82283&width=1024#.UxTn9NKOSSo

(I think its the same girl from the windermere article)

Well, Cindi Lauper certainly can't be hurting for money.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/01/nyregion/01lauper.html?_r=0

Don't know if she's still there, but if the rent is still that low, she probably is.

When I picture Aboutready, I kind of imagine her looking like Cindy Lauper. Not saying that is good or bad, just what comes to mind.

When I picture hb I kind of envision Tony Randall. Extant.

> once you give RS tenants an amenity or service, it can never be taken away

That is my understanding. Hence the free maid service and elevator operators.

> Denying rent-stabilized tenants access to specific facilities and areas sends a clear message that they are not desirable.

So they not only get cheap rent at the expense of everyone else, but we must pretend that they are 'desirable.'

If the tenants win here landlords in the City are going to go crazy. You'll never again see more money raised by upstate politicians in such a short amount of time.

This new amenity concept is settled law. The law couldn't be more clear - if the amenity wasn't available at the time the original lease was signed then stabilized tenants have no right to it.

This principal of law is more commonly seen regarding laundry rooms. If a laundry room is added in the basement of the building the landlord can legally only allow market rate tenants access. That's the law. The law is clear. The law was negotiate and voted upon and signed by the governor. It is as clear as day.

The tenants must lose this case and it's a shame that City officials are supporting the breaking of this law.

Here is an update...

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/uptown/gym-ban-upper-west-side-pad-leads-complaint-public-advocate-letitia-james-article-1.1710680

How about a fine?

http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20140310/upper-west-side/law-would-fine-landlords-who-bar-rent-regulated-tenants-from-amenties

Linda R. is a good person, and she probably knows this bill makes no sense. Sometimes, politicians have to pander to their base constituencies. The bill will fail, and life will go on.

Question: if the landlord allows stabilized tenants to use the gym and later decides to get rid of the gym, is the landlord legally obligated to reduce their rent due to reduced services?

@West81st

Let's assume she is a good person, my question for you is how does this help RSTs if the law goes into effect?

Does this law increase the amount (supply) of affordable housing?

Does this law address the issues with the current system?

Does this law prevent any RSTs from being evicted?

I don't know her but IMO her constituents are really dumb if they believe this address the real issue.

Consigliere: I don't believe it would help anyone. I think it's just political grandstanding.

I'm sure landlords would be more than happy to allow RS tenants use of market amenities if said tenants would agree drop their RS leases and pay market rents...

Seriously, though, this whole thing is just so stupid. The law is crystal clear. You get what you pay for. Why is this even an issue?

This is an issue because bleeding hearts in this city think it's just so very wrong, unjust, and frankly Downton Abbey-ish to exercise such blatant class distinctions in our more "enlightened" age.

Bramstar, this is an "issue" because politicians can look good pointing the finger at these LLs. Remember all LLs are evil.

You can like RC/RS, you can hate RC/RS but passing this hilarious law would do nothing to address the issue of affordable housing.

> Remember all LLs are evil.

These evil landlords are also accused of being greedy for trying to rent their units for the best price based on market demand. However, aren't the RS tenants being more greedy by using the long arm of the law to save tens of thousands of dollars per year on rent and trying to grab as many free amenities as possible?

Oy gevalt.
menu pricing here we come.

it is discriminating to let only market rate tenants use the gym.
it is also discriminating to make market rate tenants pay higher rents to live in the same building with stabilized tenants.

Accordingly there is only one option that doesn't discriminate. Everyone pays the same rent and everyone gets to use the gym.

My guess is that the stabilized tenants are happy to stick with the current discrimination.

Jazzman is right -- rent control should be reinstituted on all apartments so that everyone pays the same rent, and nobody is forced against his will to pay market rate.

I agree with alanhart, with a carve out of course if you already received a windfall as a non damaged party from a successor landlord owner from whom you project your undeserved anger / law suit rationale. Especially if you used the windfall proceeds to pay for private education for your son, a Cadillac health plan, and an outer boro condo that has a tax abatement.

I agree with alanhart, with a carve out of course if you already received a windfall as a non damaged party from a successor landlord owner from whom you project your undeserved anger / law suit rationale. Especially if you used the windfall proceeds to pay for private education for your son, a Cadillac health plan, and an outer boro condo that has a tax abatement.

I agree with what huntersburg said the first time.

If they want to work out let them join a gym. They are all PIA's, and flaunt the fact they are protected by the RS laws. Not us, the market rent tenants, NO, we must abide by ever statement in our lease, otherwise they'll evict us.

http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20140320/upper-west-side/law-would-make-barring-tenants-from-amenities-civil-rights-violation

NWT hit the nail on the head as per usual.

The moment rent stabilized tenants are allowed to use the gym, it becomes part of their services. If any of the gym's equipment breaks, if the gym has to temporarily close for maintenance, or if the building decides to use the space for other purposes, the rent stabilized tenants can cry foul and demand a reduction in the very same rent they were paying before the gym opened.

http://nymag.com/nymetro/realestate/features/6128/

So good luck, Levine. All you will success in doing is discouraging any rational landlord from investing in amenities for its building - the risk, headache, and inability to change amenities is just not worth it.

>All you will success in doing is discouraging any rational landlord from investing in amenities for its building - the risk, headache, and inability to change amenities is just not worth it.

Woah, that sounds horrible.