Housing Wars In NYC Continue As Investors Move To Strip More Tenants of Rent Protections


New Investors Rapidly Push To Achieve Market Rate
Returns On Housing Investments, Some Say Destroying Working Class Neighborhoods.

The New York Times has another article about US internal displacements today, "
Tenants Roiled by Challenges on Residency
" - as the alleged harassment of rent stabilized tenants in some of New York City's largest apartment complexes moves to a new level of complexity and organization. Millions of homes and trillions of dollars are at stake in changes that could dramatically change US cities, driving away millions of working people from apartments they can no longer afford as urban rents continue to respond to rising gas prices.

Apparently, the new investor/owners of some of these huge building complexes have been hiring firms to conduct computerized searches of the nations homeowners and renters for other people who share the same names as tenants, elsewhere. When they find a name match, such as another person who shares the same name (Mary Jones, for example - even if initials are different) they send the rent-protected tenant an eviction notice claiming that they live elsewhere and hence are disqualified from rent protection. Often, these claims are unfounded, but they force the tenant to hire an expensive lawyer (typically at a cost of $300/hr or more) to defend themselves against the false charges or they lose their tenancy's rent protection by default, which results in their rent being increased to market rate, increases that can amount ot thousands of dollars (for example, monthly rent is $1,241 for rent-stabilized units and $2,767 for - often smaller - market rate units - well over 200% of the stabilized rent!)

This is an example of the kind of increases California communities with rent stabilization laws will face under June's 6th
Proposition 98
, if the well-organized and well funded slumlord lobby can succeed in driving the existing tenants out, rent controls on each unit will end, FOREVER.

As gas prices go up, and trillions of dollars in real estate profits at stake, it is clear that this is only the beginning of this war, which threatens to turn our cities into huge, exclusive theme parks for the ultra rich.


Poll
Should people be allowed to occupy apartments they can no longer afford by being protected by rent stabilization laws?
Yes, urban neighborhoods SHOULD be PROTECTED, and NOT be allowed to become playgrounds of the ultra rich only. Poor and working people cannot afford to move to suburbia or rural areas and commute into the city for work. Many would also lose jobs or pensio
No, the FREE market should determine rents EVERYWHERE. If urban residents can no longer afford to live in desirable inner cities, they should move somewhere they can afford to live. This will 'free up' urban housing for people who NEED it and CAN pay.
I own my own home outright, so I feel that this issue does not concern me at all. I will never need to rent again. I don't know anybody who does.

Votes: 9
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Display:


I am not sure, (none / 0)

but i think your terminology is a bit mixed up.

Rent control - sets a ceiling
Rent Stabilized - Says by how much rent can increase (percentage).

Peter Cooper Village and Stuyvesant Town aren't "poor," or they would be like the other housing complexes which are "rent controlled."

They have been given the shaft ever since it was sold. That was  big of a fiasco when it happened.

Also, I am willing to place bets that the average income in Peter Cooper Village and Stuy Town are over 100,000 a year if both parents are employed.

There's your middle class neighborhood in NYC.


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Tue May 27, 2008 at 07:48:13 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.