2 Bedroom Rent Stabilized on w81st

http://www.housingnyc.com/html/resources/dhcr/dhcr7.html

10024, you are disgusting!! I hope no one answers this question.

10024, you're a greedy douche.
Any people wonder why rent stabilization is bad. Because you have assholes like you trying to game the system.

Here's more color: http://www.rentlaw.com/ny/subletting.htm

Basically, you're limited to your rent, plus a small margin if you rent the unit furninshed. You also have to show intent to return. If you're moving out for good, just let it go. You could approach the management company about buying you out so they can apply for vacancy decontrol, but in this environment, they'll probably just call your bluff.

Okay, cue all the liberal commie posters going on about how it is 10024's right to keep the apartment because he/she "earned" it by stabilizing the neighborhood. Come on, let's hear it...

This post upsets me on so many levels.

uppereast, you have no idea... there are TENS OF THOUSANDS of 10024's around the city who are making a killing on their stabilized digs.

10024, we'd love to see it and would pay you a premium if it looks good: email me at nondescript56 [at] gmail [dot] com.

I think you're allowed to sublet it temporarily for up to 2 yrs for 10% over your current rent, so that means you could rent it out for $1980. But I believe you have to move back in 2yrs. But double check, it should be on your Lease Rider.

By the way I don't see him gaming the system 10024 simply asked about his "legal" renting options.

10024, interested and willing to pay a premium as well. Please email me at otnyc1 at g_mail dot com.

...and you are assuming it is a man at 10024 based on...

If I were the owner of a rent-stabilized building, I would ask every person subletting how much they are paying and then would report to court if excessive.

And you are assuming people would cooperate with you because? If a rent-stabilized tenant sublets without notifying the landlord, they are in breach of contract anyway, and could likely be kicked out (through court proceedings).

That's even better then: I see a stranger in the house and he is out.

I will make sure an look for an ad for this apartment, talk to 10024 in person, then report him the second he asks for $1 over $1800. I suggest others do the same.

Leaves a bad taste in my mouth, too.

I will rent it

This will be de-stabilized in three years, anyway, no (assuming the rent stabilization board raises rents around 5% the next few years)? Maybe you are best off by looking for an up front one-time payment. Email us, we're interested...

the landlord is probably foaming at the mouth to get this lowlife out. All he has to do is find just-cause, evict the lowlife, renovate the place and jack it up 20%, which brings it over the $2000 threshold for decontrol.

By the way the legal increase of 10% goes to the landlord, not the primary leaseholder. So it depends what his/her motivation is. If s/he is "hedging bets" on a move out of town or live-in relationship, etc (sorry to be cynical but something masquerading as true love may be easier to find than another rent stablized apartment) then they should apply to landlord for approval to sublet and assuming they have been a good tenant and have a well qualified sub-tenant they will probably be approved. Security but no profit. I did this when I got a job down South a few years ago and didn't want to give up my stablizied apartment just in case I hated living among people who consider Olive Garden a restaurant and George W Bush a great leader..which btw I did. Came home, no harm, no foul. But I wasn't looking to make any money off the deal.
Gaming the stablization system is like any other fraud on a system designed to help people who need it and only gives comfort to those who would like to see the system eliminated.

Its actually a pretty Shi%Y apartment. 3rd floor walk up right across from the bus stop, we have a rodent and cockroach infestation problem. The heat and hot water goes out once a week. The second bedroom doesn't have any heat whatsoever. It was a great apartment to share when i was right out of school, but 10 years later my wife and i now have a 2 year old son so its gotten to the point where its unliveable for us. A couple of years ago i approached stellar management and offered to buy it for $500K - they didn't know what to do with my offer. I explained that the same apartments across the hall were renting for 3,300 and that it made more sense for them to sell to me for $500K then to keep renting at $1,800. I'm thinking of approaching them again about it.

10024,
Thanks for that last post. You point out the beauty of rent-stabilized apartments, with their lousy services, landlords who won't fix anything, and people across the hall getting stiffed on rent. Welcome to New York. Don't mind the rats.

There is probably some set of regulations that prevents them from selling the apartment to anybody. I am sure if they could sell it on the market, they would, but they would have to convert the whole building, etc etc. It is all a nightmare.

Thanks for convincing me to stay in the owner's category.

10024: Let's recap---sh**ty pad, drag the stroller backwards up the stairs, meese, cucarachas, variable heat; one bd w/ no heat; hot water a crap shoot; unliveable; you have a toddler. You want to keep your options open to come back, because, why? Or you want to pay a half mil for it because???

Hey now, please do not have any sympathy for 10024 and his "sh*tty" apartment. The guy has a SECOND bathroom for goodness sake, a luxury that most people in the city only dream of having!

i would consider buying it because i think with a little investment it could be a nice apt. worth keeping. i would hate to move out and see it go on the open market when i could sublet it to someone in a similar situation who can"t afford to pay open market rates. I"m not looking to make money on it and don"t know why everyone assumed i was looking to game the system.

"Hey now, please do not have any sympathy for 10024 and his "sh*tty" apartment. The guy has a SECOND bathroom for goodness sake, a luxury that most people in the city only dream of having!"

Isn't that the the truth! We dream of a second bathroom, or just a half bathroom. I wish one of these brilliant developers would take a page from the French, who put a toilet and a sink in a separate room so that one person can take a shower while another person uses the bathroom. It is a brilliant idea and gets around having to have two toilets.

10024,
I think you're missing the point. I think your building is a rental building and there is no way in the world that you can buy the unit.

I'll give you a little piece of advice, give it up. Don't become a landlord so that you have to worry about collecting rent from somebody. Let it go.

I agree with the other posters. Just bail. Look - if we were talking a nice 2-bed, 2-bath in doorman building with elevator I'd say, sure! you'll have folks beating down the door to rent at the under-$4k range. But your place sounds like a bona fide dump. I'd extricate ASAP.

Oh, and please explain why exactly you'd want to buy in a vermin-infested, ill-managed hell-hole? Doesn't really sound like a solid investment to me..

Can I ask something...why are all these people above (uppereast and jason10006 specifically) on this guys case? To the point where jason10006 even says he will report him (and recommends we all do the same!)
What a giant baby...what happens when our friend 10024 leaves and the landlord increases the rent by 2x? Is the landlord a jerk at that point? What exactly is your beef?
THIS GUY IS ASKING A QUESTION. That's all...you are the kind of guys who tattle on friends in the playground...you make me sick.

meanwhile, brokers go on a rampage around the city, lying to us, and you focus on this guy (yes, with a 2nd bedroom) who ASKS US A QUESTION.
go tattle you little bitches

lying brokers or cheating rent-stabilzed tenants

hard to tell who to hate worse..damn, I'll vote for the brokers.

It's the high price of freedom. Think tzedakah.

Ok, if, as you say, you're not trying to cheat, then why would you bother becoming a landlord for no profit? What are you going to do when your subtenant stops paying you because they are sick of the lack of heat and hot water? Why do you need this hassle? You will still be responsible for the rent regardless of whether your subtenant pays your or not.

If you're trying to cheat, keep in mind that: " A subtenant who is overcharged may file a complaint with DHCR or may sue the prime tenant in court to recover any overcharge plus treble damages, interest, and attorneys' fees. (RSC § 2525.6(e))"

I'm going to take a different view than some of the posters. 10024 has certain legal rights under the rent-stabilization laws, I acknowledge those rights, and I encourage him to take full advantage of those rights. If he desires, he should sublease the apartment to a subtenant, provided (of course) that he complies with the laws regarding subleases of rent-stabilized units.

With luck, there will eventually be an issue with his subtenant, perhaps regarding timely payment (or non-payment) of rents owed. As a result, 10024 might find his legal rights to the rent-stabilized unit and his personal financial condition compromised due to laws designed to benefit the irresponsibility of others. He might then realize how difficult and unpleasant it is to provide the services of a responsible landlord (adequate housing) when the law prohibits him from generating economic value through his actions. Furthermore, he may realize the paradox faced by responsible landlords when provision of such services exposes him to additional legal and financial liability while denying him adequate recourse to his tenant. In the ideal scenario, he will also notice parallels between his situation and those of property owners from years past, owners who found their property rights compromised via the passage of retroactive "tenant protection" laws, such as the original rent control and rent stabilization laws. But this may be too much to hope for.

-----

Upperwestrenter: You ask, "what happens when our friend 10024 leaves and the landlord increases the rent by 2x? Is the landlord a jerk at that point? What exactly is your beef?" The landlord is, of course, not a jerk. He has property rights and is allowed to exercise them. Under the rent stabilization laws, 10024 has rights too, which I encourage him to use if it pleases him. But to exceed his legal rights in violation of another's legal rights is, unsurprisingly, illegal. The argument implicit in your statement suggests that if a person is a residential property owner in New York City, then it is acceptable to arbitrarily and illegally violate his property rights in order to provide housing at a price deemed fair by you. Since this is (apparently) your cherished belief, should you ever choose to become an owner of residential property in New York City, please do let us know. I am sure we can locate an individual who would love to dispossess you of your rights to use your (expensive!) residential property as you see fit, and for a price of their choosing.

Our beef is, of course, about property rights. Most individuals (though strangely, in your mind, only those who are greedy and unethical) believe that property rights are to be protected. Indeed, our country's legal structure goes to great lengths to defend individual property rights. This is why thieves are sent to jail instead of given medals. Your argument is that such property rights shouldn't be protected, or at the least, that residential property rights in New York City should be subject to substantial exceptions. For your sake, I hope you never find yourself the target of such exceptions.

But I find your attitude towards uppereast and particularly jason10006 the most astounding part of your reply. jason10006 has only signaled a desire to report upperwestrenter if he in fact attempts to charge a subtenant a rate in excess of his legally allowed stabilized rate, i.e. only if he violates the law. jason10006's proposed actions would, in fact, preserve the existence of an additional unit of affordable housing. Your criticism of jason10006's position betrays your belief that it is acceptable for a rent-stabilized tenant to sublet his unit at market rates, and that it is only inappropriate for the *property owner* to rent the same unit at market rates. You condemn jason10006 for seeking to prevent 10024 from engaging in an illegal conversion of a rent-stabilized unit to market rates, but surely you would support him if he sought to prevent the *property owner* from attempting an identical illegal conversion. Your attitude is appalling and far more distasteful than 10024's initially ambiguous stance regarding the rate he wishes to charge a potential subtenant -- especially since he has since claimed that he only wishes to preserve existing affordable housing for a new family at no benefit to himself. Attitudes such as yours are responsible for the continuation of poisonous and combative landlord-tenant relations in this city and contribute to the difficulty in conducting meaningful public discussions about tackling housing affordability. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Apologies for the name mix-up in my original post -- "jason10006 has only signaled a desire to report upperwestrenter" should read "jason10006 has only signaled a desire to report 10024"

"If you're trying to cheat, keep in mind that: " A subtenant who is overcharged may file a complaint with DHCR or may sue the prime tenant in court to recover any overcharge plus treble damages, interest, and attorneys' fees. (RSC § 2525.6(e))""

I know someone who did this as a way of life in the 1980s. He would sublet a place for say, S1,500 knowing it was $1,000 over the legal rent of $500, pay for 9 months, then his lawyer would send a letter detailing that he will sue for triple damages ($27k) and report him to the landlord so the original tenant would lose the apartment too.

Usually he settled for a refund of all the past rent he had paid plus 3 months free rent and that he could continue at the $500 level for another year.

modern,
That's beautiful, thanks for the story. I met a woman whose parents rented out a house in Canada. One year, they passed a law that said you couldn't evict anybody during the winter, which, I guess is ten months out of the year in Canada. Well, shortly after that, the woman's parents got this renter who rented for two months and then stopped paying rent all winter long.

After that experience, they sold the house...