Anyone heard of co op boards relaxing their sublet policies?

We are renting in a co-op from an owner. When we signed 1.5 years ago, the board and the owner went out of their way to tell us we were only permitted to stay 2 years.
We received a call from the owner last month. The board has "approved" us to extend our lease if we so wish (how thoughtful). Boards are scum too. They don't want to see a comp in their building trade at these prices if it doesn't have to.

Same here. Our board went out of their way to approve our new tenant.

I'm thinking of approaching my board and requesting they allow me to sublet again. I have already "used up" my 3 year sublet typically allowed in the building. I need to move due to my growing family, but I would hate to buy or sell right now....

Any hints on how I should approach this w/ the board so they see it as good for them?

We wrote a letter to our board explaining why we think it would be damaging to the building to sell in this market.

ueside... care to share the bullet points of your letter?

Sorry, don't have time for that. Just point out previous sales prices and contrast it to your experience. For example, last sale at $1.5mm, I have apt in market for $1mm and still no takers. Don't want to bring building prices down etc.

Ah. Another board of brilliance. Because comps to other buildings don't count.

looking2return, ?????

Of course the board doesn't want to see shares trading at fire-sale prices. Who would? A board isn't immune to wishful thinking, owner delusion, being slow to accept and adjust to a declining market, etc.

Aside from the above-stated reasons why a board would be inclined, or not, to cut an owner some slack, here're just a couple of others:

1) Sublet fees. They're generally a percentage of the maintenance, so the more the better.

2) The co-op's mortgage agreement usually requires that x% of the apartments be owner-occupied.

In striking that balance, the board's not going to keep everybody happy.

NWT....I didn't know that % of owner occupancy was an issue is allowing sublets... ..thanks for pointing that out.

The whole limitation of sublets in co-ops is because of the % owner occupancy. Most co-ops either have a mortgage or will want the option of renegotiating the one they have and the banks require that on these mortgages at least a certain percentage of the building is owner-occupied.

What will probably happen (and happened in the 90's) is that so long as there are few renters in the building the sublet rules will be ignored or bent. But as time moves on they will find that more and more of the apartments are being leased. Eventually the co-op might face the desire to refinance or the need to make capital expenses requiring a new mortgage and then they realize that they have to clean out the renters and get back to owner-occupancy.

This strategy might actually carry some buildings through the worst of the drop in the market. The key is will/can the buildings do it? Will they need a new mortgage?

Then there's the problem of being fair. Once you fall for x's sob story and stretch the sublet policy, along comes y with yet another tale of woe, and so on. It's better for owners to know that the policy is evenly applied, so they can plan ahead and not fool themselves that the rules will be bent for them.

What percentage owner-occupancy have banks typically required in this scenario?