The Brian Lehrer Show

If all these apartments get fitted with marble counter tops and generally made tempting for the armies of rich condo buyers -- then these rich lose their $$, doesn't that situation simply improve the quality of the market for ordinary renters to come in and enjoy improved homes at those same old prices? Or would venture capitalists dare to leave them empty until the next boom?

This strategy of destabilization is not new. Our building was purchased 10 years ago. Half of the residents left as a result of specious litigation brought by the landlord that was very expensive for tenants to deal with. The vacant apartments were gutted, and rebuilt with shoddy construction.

I am in a newly bought vantage building (rent stabilized). They have been investing quite a bit of money in the building. my place is about 1k a month for a small one bedroom.

a couple of months ago when i sent in my rent check on the 30th of the previous month....they neglected to DEPOSIT the rent check for fully TWO WEEKS. they then charged me a late fee for paying rent late.

it is impossible to verify whether this was done on purpose or not. It was a small fee but still annoying....since they were essentially implying i was a bad tenant.

This is exactly what is happening in our Upper West Side building: lawsuits claiming petty nuisance conditions in the apartment, nonprimary residence, etc. They have not gone to trial once, and they don't want to, because they know they would lose. Rather, the idea is to wear the tenants down with stress and legal expenses. Then the offer the tenant a buyout which is meager by market standards.

The only thing NEW in this story is the "business model" part. Landlords have been harassing and pushing out tenants from stabilized units for years!

We live on Avenue A from 1991 to 1997, when our building was purchased by a Japanese company. All services stopped, the building, already fragile, started deteriorating, and we fought the landlord tooth and nail for 3 years.

When we moved out, the next tenant's rent doubled, completely illegally.

The fact which has been in plain site for years(!) is that there is NO ENFORCEMENT of either violations, or landlords illegally raising rents (buy just throwing on a new kitchen countertop or bathroom).

This is not news! Just check the news archives for story after story about tenants without services, with the building being constructed around them, etc.,etc.

The real question is: Why has nothing been done all these years (Giuliani, Bloomberg) to try to protect NYC tenants? Instead these mayors have bent over backwards for the real estate industry.

On the issue of illegitimate tenants - red herring. Ask for proof and numbers, and it will in no way compare to the obvious draining of rent-stabilized apts from NYC.

Nick (NYC)

Does anyone know if EXTELL is one of these landlords? I've noticed little things since they took over our building (like changing the address to send rent checks to (from New York to Kentucky), changing the allowable date of arrival of rent checks, and not giving tenants their new key cards unless they show up in the middle of the work day with ID.)

They haven't bothered us at all, but I have heard of them harrassing (in their own words) other people in the building. (Maybe it's because we aren't overworked immigrants and we know our rights. Maybe they know we have an uncle who's a rent lawyer, who knows.)

But there must be at least a third of our building that is empty now.

We were forced out of our rent stabilized apt two months ago in Brooklyn Heights in this same way. The landlords, Peter and Todd Rose (professional building emptiers starting a side business of their own) used fallacious lawsuits to threaten the tenants into housing court and at the same time offered buyouts for the tenants to leave. One by one we dropped like flies. Yes, they pay a stipend, but you are harassed into accepting it.

What these landlords are doing does not meet the legal standard for harassment, but that is what it is.

You have to show up over and over in housing cort and pay an attorney each time, or possibly lose on a technicality.

This happened in my building around 2000. New landlord got the building and then started suing people in state Supreme Court for really bogus things. The tenants had to pay lawyers and the cases kept getting postponed. So when people owed their lawyer $20,000 or so the landlord would settle with them to leave. I understand the landlord paid their legal fees and gave them a little money - but part of the deal was the tenants couldn't discuss the settlement.

Anyway, at least a third of the rent stabilized tenants got the boot and the apartments were gutted and went to market rates. Those apartments are full of NYU students and turn over at least once a year.

The landlord stopped suing people after one tenant hung in there long enough for the case to go to court. The tenant won and stopped suing people. Guess he's making enough money now.

Landlord's name is Colb. Swine.

I used to live in an appartment in Harlem with my wife & 2 kids.

As I reached the end of my year contract, I received a letter from the land/property owners association informing me that my lease will not be renewed, at exactly the 30days to the end of my contract.

Accompanying this very quickly was a letter from the courts, suing me of late payments on my apartment, even though it was still the first week of the month.

Basically, it became very clear to me that the owners wanted me out so as to turnover my apartment at a larger rate.

Now 1year+ later, listening to your show, a lot is much clearer. Basically my wife, 2 children and I where the victim of greed run amok.

Brian:

It also costs a lot of money to defend yourself against these claims. When this is done over and over again, it drains your bank account and then what about the time that it takes to go to court over and over again!

Just looked at a Vantage owned apt in Inwood yesterday, because my boerum hill landlord has raised our rent $200 / yr for the last 3 years even though our apartment is still "rent stabilized" 8 years ago he made this unit a coop my selling it to his wife, buying it back & continuing to rent. I went through the housing court route - no lawyer - he won.

I lived 13 yrs. in a rent stabilized apt. in the UWS. Due to many of the laws changing in the early 2000s to benefit landlords, they were able to raise my rent over $700/mo. forcing me to move.

1) is this harassment limited to rent-stabilized or does it also extend to rent-controlled and SCRIE?

2) are there no penalties for owners who pursue many frivolous lawsuits against tenants?

why is the assault always on 'rent stablized' tenants when it is the 'rent controlled' tenants that are paying so little?

My building is owned by VC's. The "LLC" that owns my building is buying up property all over Bushwick and converting to condos or higher rent apartments. There is also a burnt out building on my block that I just found out is owned by Lehman Brothers. In fact, when I do searches in pubic records through the NY dept of finance, most of the properties I look up in this area seemed to be owned by VC's, LLC's, and big investment banks, all bought in the last few years.

First, theory. Find one respectable economist that thinks rent control/stabilization is a good idea. Good luck. It is a bad idea; the problems you mention are merely symptoms of not letting the market control rents up (and down)!

Second, anecdotes. Every one of us know multi-millionaires who live in the units. Even worse, (entertainment) people who own HOMES in LA and keep their NYC apartment as a crash pad.

Get rid of it and let address the underlying need another way!

Hey listen, this is not just about immigrants. In Harlem, this also involves tenants who are senior citizens, who have been there all through the time when Harlem was abandoned by others. The seniors are denied services or encouraged to sign papers saying they no longer need certain services, etc.

I'm concerned that this is being portrayed as something new. It's not new at all, but possibly more common now due to the real estate boom.

I have been present in a friend's home (Ft. Green) when a person hired by the landlord moved through the halls banging on doors and harassing long time and low paying residents. He refused to identify himself and flashed what was obviously a fake badge. When contacted, the landlord said they were not responsible for his behavior. This is the ugly side of gentrification (and social engineering as most of the long time residents are Black) when landlords are not even interested in negotiating new leases for legal tenants and illegal subleters.

These tactics are similar to San Francisco. Rent control in San Francisco is quite ineffectual.

My question would be--how can these companies be stopped from manipulating the courts? This, plus poor maintenance and labor enforcement, creates a sense of lawlessness and impunity.

As a rent-stablized person, I had to face a baseless claim a few years ago.

I'm relatively sophisticated, native english-speaker, etc., but I know for a fact it is not easy to find a decent attorney, or to find a local tenants' association that can help you.

In addition, I had to put up a $3000 retainer, which was tied up for 3 months; I wound up paying a total of $600 to refute the charge (had the landlord continued to trial, I've no idea how much it would have cost).

These are formidable hurdles for anyone in this city who is still living in a rent-stabilized home.

I can well understand how people can get completely flummoxed by being thrust into our legal system by a landlord who decides to abuse it. There should be special and expensive penalties for such abuses.

Brian,

You would do your listeners a great service by pointing them to web sites with information on stabilized tenants' rights, so they can protect themselves. For instance, the bit about the security deposit - landlords are required to keep your deposit in an interest-bearing account and send you a statement annually - how many do this? Protect yourselves! /Nick (NYC)

What is going on in the heads of landlords? Are they just not human beings? Or do they think that we -- the renters -- are not?

How cruel does a landlord have to be to force people out just so the landlord can make more money?

This sounds like the tactics of corporations in the 1920s and 30s using Pinkertons and others to terrorize workers.

The law needs to be changed to CRIMINALIZE these tactics by landlords.

Charles, to answer your question, rent control tenants are much more protected than stabilized, possibly rightly so, since they are usually elderly or ill.

This is organized crime on a massive scale.

A housing holocast against the nmost vulnerable amongst us.

If a pattern of illegal tactics is shown; the individual people guilty of bringing these illegal actions needs to be prosecuted for CRIMINAL fraud.

Further, each instance in which illegal methods were used should result inMULTI MILLION DOLLAR lawsuites against the (fill in the curse of your choice) who are doing this.

We need some entrepreneurial attorneys to get on the side of the victims her an to file massive class action lawsuits against the "investors".

The minute people start going to jail and start losing their "property" for pulling this stuff, it will stop.

These are predators who will not be deterred by anything less than the victims going nuclear.

If the legal claims are truly baseless, then attorneys here may be committing professional misconduct and could be subject to sanctions. Maybe the tenant advocates should consider filing complaints against the attorneys with the relevant New York Attorney Grievance Committee?

The website for finding the relevant grievance committee is here:

http://www.nycourts.gov/ip/attorneygrievance/complaints.shtml

Why are the courts going along with this? When does a landlord get penalized for wasting the government's time with deception?

I work somewhere that represents Pinnacle and the attorneys here have no problem calling the man who runs it a "slum landlord." Apparently, they're really good at chasing people out of buildings to put their own in.

Getting rid of the violations is part of the plans of these companies. They buy the buildings, get people out of their apartments, and get rid of the violations. Then they flip the building.

So yes, it's true, they do get rid of violations. But they are also ruthless about getting rid of as many tenants as possible.

Ricci has changed the subject from whether or not tenants are being harassed to whether or not the buildings are being maintained.

This guy Frank Ricci is sneaky with the lead paint redirect. At the same time he's on air convincing small landlords that they can't stay in the business and that the only response is the sell AND side stepping the real issue. Private Equity firms are looking to turn profits at a higher rate and a shorter term by illegal practices.

I have worked in the industry for many years, while I have no current knowledge of this situation, I will not be surprised to learn this practice proven true. Back on the late 80's when New York city buildings were turned into Co-Ops it was common practice to vacate apartments and keep them empty to achieve majority vote and turn a rental building into a Co-op.

This Frank guy is so incredibly full of it. He's bloviating nonsense.

In my Dermot owned building, 99 Lafayette, in Ft. Greene the bullying is systematic. Probably three of the eight tenants on my floor have been taken to court. One family left because they felt it was harder to stay and fight then to go. People who I see in their apartments everyday are being sued for supposedly not living there. In addition, there is large-scale semi-invasive construction going on. Not just lobby renovation or fancying up the hallway--cheap upgrades that look like luxury, but they want to get into our apartments, redo some piping, kill some closet space. There's a difference between needed upgrades and renovations that are intended to make tenants uncomfortable--unneeded ones that supposedly will benefit all tenants, but actually help only the new tenants who are getting ripped off paying 2,500 for a one bed-room

My husband and I were sued by our landlord in landlord-tenant, and we won. We won a 4 month rent abatement because of significant building violations (no heat, no hot water, leaks, etc.).

Now, our landlord is suing us for their legal fees related to the landlord-tenant action which we WON!

What a waste of time, and money, as the current caller is describing.

this frank guy is spewing wich horrible propaganda. nice to see him confirm our suspicions about the shady tactics of owners.

Just want to point out, that in addition to harassing behaviors, just KNOWING that your landlord wants you out and is looking for a way to get you out, seriously impacts your quality of life if it becomes a worry that gnaws at you.

Question:

Generally, what size are the buildings the investment groups are building? Are they the six story tenement bldg. or what?

This all goes back to Joe Bruno and George Pataki who created an incentive for landlords to force out rent stabilized tenants. The state should not have the authority to regulate rents in New York City.

Well Nick (5), if you've noticed a large area of the East Village has been bought up by Japanese owned businesses and apartment buildings. What is scary is that they are placing only Asian tenants in the businesses and apartments and that seems a bit racist to me. There are more Sushi and Japanese restaurants within 3-4 block area from St Mark's Place to East 11th Street and First Avenue to Third Ave than most other areas. It's fine to open the business but the tendency to place particular ethnic profiles in these apartments makes me suspicious as to racial partiality. Racsim is racism whoever practices it.

That comment about return receipt is totally bogus. If a tenant has consulted a lawyer, they tell you to send any communications with your landlord return receipt. Rent checks are not sent to a particular person -- they're usually sent to an office. The USPS allows anyone to sign for return receipt. However, return receipt can be refused by the recipient.

As an owner and manager of several small buildings, I find your report unfair to the vast majority of owners who struggle to maintain their properties in the face of draconian rent controls and a court system which is biased in favor of tenants. Your report fails to take into account the enormous cost in time and legal expense as well as loss of rent for bringing even legitimate cases in housing court. Also, the judges generally "bend over backward" to make sure tenants understand what is happening and it is not unusual for cases to take many months before coming to trial in what is supposed to be summary proceedings. Meanwhile there are tenants throughout the city paying less than market rents. This has created a lack of incentive to create new moderate income housing stock in the city. This is a self-perpetuating system which has pitted tenants against owners to no benefit for anyone. To say that the securities industry is behind this is laughable.

CAMERA SURVAILLANCE. Finally someone describing this emerging cynical new rent destabilise tratergy. My building on 11th St has lost 2 thirds of the original rent stabilised appartments through the methods described on your show. Those appartments once vacated, were gut renovated and turned from one bedroom to 3 bedroom and taken out of rent stabilization and now go for $3000 in place of an affordable $800 to $900.

A new tactic in this insideus stratergy is the excessive installation of survaillance cameras- one to two on every floor in a small 6 floor walk up. Frivolous cases are being brought against tenants on the basis of videoed information gathered on targeted individuals. Many of these cameras are directed at the doors of the remaining rent stabalized appartments. Apparently this is legal.

A few examples:

When Larry Gluck bought the Mitchell-Lama building I live in -- and took it out of ML --

(1) Stellar Management claimed it never received many tenants' rent checks or charged amounts that were irregular. Only when our tenants' association attorney noted that Stellar was too experienced and large an attorney to be making these mistakes constantly by accident, and threatened to go to the state attorney general with fraud complaints did this stop.

(2)Stellar charged that tenants did not live here as their primary residency in a couple of cases that I know of. In one case, the "other" residence had burned down years earlier. In another, the tenant's mother had just died, leaving her house to the tenant - who did not live there and never would.

I have lived in the Heights for 30 years and my family has lived here since they migrated to this country from the Dominican Republic in the late 70's. Our apartment was now bought by Vantage and nothing has improved! If anything they have harassed everyone in this building and every single day we see new faces living here. Just 2 months ago they even tried to claim that my parents were not on the lease when in actuality we have been living here for 30 years! My mother had to PROVE that she was married to my father because suddenly it was only my mother's name that was not on the lease. Moreover, I seriously reject the lawyer's characterization of Vantage as a family-owned respectable business that cares about residents. in my estimation this only serves to alternatively characterize tenants (who are in the vast majority immigrant and non-English speaking) as not respectable families, as criminal, etc. this is an old method and one that i read as mere racism! Again, the issue of race and its intersection with class are completely ignored! The new residents in my building are all white and seem to have no clue that in order for them to live where they live, an immigrant family had to be harassed to leave!! Those of us that have made this a community and suffered through the 80s really feel angry about new residents and their total lack of recognition of the reason why/how they have obtained their apt. as well their sense of entitlement!!

Frank Ricci's allegations regarding what he alleges as typical tenant behavior may be true, but only for a very small percentage of tenants. Many more tenants are harassed than are guilty of illegal behavior. Period.

Brian, Thank you SO MUCH for this show. This unconscionable harassment of rent stabilized tenants by new landlords looking for bigger profits pre-dates, as you might know from Priya G's experience in our St. Mark's Place building five years ago, the new phenomenon I understand appeared in Gretchen's NYT piece (I have not yet made it to the Friday Times).

After the new owners succeeded in scaring out a good quarter of tenants via intimidation, frivolous lawsuits, refusal to cash rent checks, et cetera, we started a tenants association, reached out to other tenants in our predicament via our ShalomSlumlords.org website, hooked up with the Met Council, and eventually joined forced with over 50 buildings throughout Manhattan, Brooklyn, and The Bronx via the Shalom Tenants Alliance (shalomtenants.org).

It's has been a long, tough, dispiriting experience. And the guy on your show standing up for these practices should be ashamed of himself.

Why didn't the previous owners "find" and evict the tenants if they are/were illegal?

I am a tenant in a luxury bldg. and therefore am not involved with rent stabilization. However, I have at least 8 friends who live or have leases in such apts. In all cases except one they are professionals with assets in excess of $1 million and I believe it is not fair that they pay such low rents or that they rent out those apts. at market prices and then pocket the profit while they live somewhere else. Fairness should apply both to tenant and to landlord.

If the state adopts the new law that would bar vacancy decontrol, this harassment would stop: there would be no benefit to landlords in getting rent stabilized tenants out.

Those landlords devoted to "improving" the building would be welcome, without tenants fearing losing their homes.

Saying most landlords are small private owners is not the same as saying most apts. or most buildings are owned by those small owners. So let's turn the question around: What type of owners own the buildings where most of the rental apts. are located?

If the state adopts a law barring "vacancy decontrol," there would be no incentive for equity investors to evict any tenant.

Those landlords devoted to improving their buildings would be welcome - without tenant fears of losing their homes.

We need to keep the city's stock of affordable housing.

To help that, we need to get Assembly Member Linda Rosenthal's bill passed. The Assembly is voting on it tomorrow (Tuesday).

eligit writes: "I am in a newly bought vantage building (rent stabilized). They have been investing quite a bit of money in the building. my place is about 1k a month for a small one bedroom. a couple of months ago when i sent in my rent check on the 30th of the previous month....they neglected to DEPOSIT the rent check for fully TWO WEEKS. they then charged me a late fee for paying rent late."

Unless there is a provision in your lease explicitly allowing a managing agent to charge late fees, no 'late fee' can be charged. I've never seen a stabilized lease that includes a provision for late fees. Call the DHCR: 718-739-6400. There are forms to fill out (available online to recover the past late fees if you still have canceled check and documentation. I know this because this happened to me.

Please remind listeners the Rent Regulation Reform Act of 1997 increased the fines for tenant harassment, and made them uniform for rent controlled and rent stabilized apartments. Owners found guilty of tenant harassment based on acts or offenses committed on or after July 20, 1997 are subject to fines of up to $5,000 for each violation against any rent regulated tenant.

I have at least 8 friends who live or lease rent stabilized apts. (some of them rent them out and pocket the profits). All except one are professionals with assets of at least $1million, white and upper middle class. I don't think it is fair or ethical that they are allowed to do this when there are people who really need those apts. I also think it is unfair to those landlords. Justice should work both ways.

This point of all the discussion that has been mentioned but not pointed out...nobody knows how the private equity companies are working w/ landlords and owners to provide for tenants. The fact that private equity companies/landlords/owners aren't making their intentions clear to the neighborhood and the tenants at the very least is the problem. Why are the owners/equity companies withholding their intentions?

Any A+ landlords? Landlords who meet all their obligations to tenants?

Meanwhile, the vast majority of tenants do meet THEIR obligations....

And please don't ever say "market rate" about rentals in New York. The market was severely manipulated when landlords were warehousing (keeping rentals off the market, waiting for conversion to co-ops).

There is too much price gouging and profiteering.

Small business owners are also experiencing harassment through frivolous lawsuits, refusal to accept rent checks etc. In their case the landlord doesn't have to renew their lease, but can't even wait for the lease to expire to get the businesses out.

Charles asks: "why is the assault always on 'rent stablized' tenants when it is the 'rent controlled' tenants that are paying so little?"

Simply because there are so few rent controlled apartments left. Rent control began in 1947. The original lease holders were rent controlled. When these tenants moved or died, the next lease holder became rent stabilized.

Frank Ricci is at least half right. The cost pressure now on landlords of middle-class buildings is enormous. When a private equity firms comes along and offers a premium price for the building, they're happy to take it. But once the buyer paid that premium, the only way to get the necessary return is to jack up rents. I recently sold a small building in Harlem because it was starting to lose money. The buyer paid 11.5 times rent roll (an extremely high price) and made it very clear that his intent was to turn it into a luxury building.

this is part of the war against the middle class. how can the city prosper without middle class housing in the city

Another tactic that is being used is the use of Major Capital Improvements rent increases for dubious building-wide "improvements" to quickly raise rents to the level where apartments become destabilized. My landlord applied for an MCI rent increase for about $400,000 of repair work to the building, which amounts to monthly rent increase of between 40 and 100+ dollars a month, depending on the size of your apartment. The state agency that approves these rent increases generally just rubber stamps them and the burden is on the tenants to challenge these rent increases, and even when the tenants do challenge these increases they are rarely successful. My landord's increase was approved despite obvious fraud uncovered by the tenants.

Brian, $2000 / mo to YOU may be nothing but there are lots more folks for whom that is way too much and I mean LOTS of people.

I got the boot from a Vantange building last year, because of the same kind of trumped up charges which were dismissed by a judge but decided to move eventually to be rid of the harassment. Is this whole discussion basis for a class action lawsuit?

The landlord representative keeps changing the argument when he can't respond to the issue being raised. My landlord has done the very thing mentioned -- accused a tenant of violating their lease in some way; claimed that notification was sent and the tenant did not respond within a certain time period therefore the tenant can be evicted. But the tenant has received no notice or any registered mail. And this is a solidly middle class building with English speaking residents. Landlords will do whatever they can get away with -- pushing what the law allows to the limit -- and abusing the law in the process.

My building in East Harlem was recently purchased by Thayer Street Portfolio Investors, LLC. Sound like equity backed development to you? Sadly, we are stuck with Dermot as manager who are both inept and corrupt. They filed plans to illegally install a super's apartment in the basement in complete violation of DOB regulations in order to free up and collect rent on one more apartment. Then they made the super pay for the renovations himself. They have tried to illegaly evict numerous tenants and they have taken apartments off the rent stabilization rolls by submitting false reports that the adjusted rates are over the $2000.00 threshold.

And let's not forget Joe Tahl and Rodney Propp of Tahl Propp Equities who are famous for investor returns. They tried to gut 350 W. 150th St. with the tenants still living in the building in an attempt to covert a building to condos.

Christin, 'possibly'? MY 'rent controlled' friend is approx. 65 and not ill and has moved out for several years to rent her apt at market rates and has broken the letter of her lease more that once but I'm the one who gets regular increases and has been beaten-up by the landlords thug (who now LIVES IN my building!)and who has lived with a leak in my bedroom for 15 years and who has to pay a lawyer to get anything fixed and even that doesn't mean it gets fixed.

Honestly, the non-english speaking tenants they're targeting tend to spend months in their "country" and illegally sublet their apartments. They're easy targets.

Forgive nme I had to stop listening for a few moments,and this might have been addressed, but going to court for most of these people IS harassment. If you're fixed income just covers your expensive, you cannot afford an attorney, and these landlords are paying no more than the time of staff attorney's. So a lawsuit, even if it will be dismissed, amounts to a fine of at least $500. And forget about tryign to represent yourself.

Frank Ricci is full of crap. Whenever, there's a specific complaint, he says none of usknow the details, yet he wants to paint an overview with no facts.

Older people seem to be targeted, too.

January 2007, the new owners of Stuyvesant Town & the new owners of a house on Sixth Street, between First & A, both sent eviction notices to friends of mine. They're all are over 70, the landlords charged all that it was not their primary residence, when they had lived there for many decades. They all incurred legal charges they could not afford. Stuyvesant settled, for another year's renewal, the other is still in the courts.

The friend in Stuyvesant was told she did not live in New York because she spends every other weekend with her husband in Connecticut & her car was registered there.

The others, Japanese Lesbian artists, summer in an unheated cabin in Western Massachusetts. One woman also visits relatives in Japan every year, while she gets dental work done, because she cannot afford it, here.

The frugal Japanese couple were also charged with using too little electricity & gas, as proof of not being residents, although there were no drops in usage, other than three months of summer.

Those two were remarkable because I heard of them at the same time, but it seems that I am hearing so frequently of harassment of long-term tenants.

Higher wages would solve these problems. Rent control subsidizes low wages. Now if only newly hired teachers and police could get rent stabilized apartments.

Landlords renovate even when it is not needed just to decontrol apartments. This means that more and more units are taken out of the system, reducing options for working class New Yorkers and then allowing the landlord to sell the building at a higher price because it's now decontrolled.

Where are tenant protections? They're minimal because tenants are not holding the dollars to buy political favors, yet we are the workers whose efforts keep this city running.

Why should housing, a basic need, be a for profit business? The whole system needs reconsideration.

The first community board meeting I attended on the Upper West Side, c. 1980 included testimony from a retired waitress and a retired merchant marine who got frighteningly bullied out of their SRO. The landlord sent goons who trashed the apartments and then came back and nailed the doors shut. I also met a couple whose landlord wanted to clear out the last tenants...let crackheads use the ground floor, and sure enough a life-threatening fire drove out the tenants.

Once I went to Housing Court on behalf of a sick friend and was appalled at the amount of shady business and bullying going on.

Wasn't there a Catholic priest who advocated for tenants in Housing Court? Only one.

@ robert #43

wow....i am really saddened by your plight.

All along i thought it was the working class and underclass who needed protection from the system....but actually it is millionaire building owners who need our compassion. they are really suffering!

thanks for opening my eyes!!

Is there any free service that can answer questions about rent/landlord issues? Anyone know? Or must one have a lawyer.

#72 - Your apartment should be destabilized if your car registration is in another state. The apartment is NOT your primary residence. It's tales like this that help landlord rationalize their behavior.

Northbrook Partners is another group that has been buying up buildings in NYC, including the rent-stabilized building that was previously known as The Bradford, now simply 210 W 70th St LLC, which Northbrook bought in August 2007. Rent-stabilized tenants are being harrassed with all kinds of claims as discussed on the show, including offers of money to move out ... but worse, market-rate tenants are being pushed out as well ... tenants paying high rents who have no protection under the law ... It is distressing to see the multiple mailboxes with cardboard blocking those for apartments that are now empty.

Tenants and progressive New Yorkers need to get together and fight for the changes in Albany that will lead to these actions stopped. Until the laws our changed, laws that have for the last 40 years have affected our lives, than this will be a city of the powerful and the powerless.

The Real Rent Reform Campaign. It is time for real reform of the rent laws - not the phony, pro-landlord rent regulation reform acts that brought us the 20% vacancy allowance, the gutting of the registration system, vacancy decontrol and the rapid loss of affordable apartments that tenants have suffered since 1993.-

http://www.metcouncil.net/campaigns/real_rent_reform_campaign.htm

Click on the link. Get informed. Pass on the information.

GET INVOLVED TO SAVE OUR CITY!

Anderson

All these stories above, if true, are extremely sad, and it seems like fairness is not on their side.

Having said that, when you vote in a billion mayor, you get what you vote for. Democrats should be ashamed of themselves, as their lack of governing ability, and loyalty to the party, has brought on this uncontrolled development fervor.

Instead of a government protecting residents from illegal evictions, it is actively aiding the unfair practices of corporate landlords. We are getting what we deserve, people.

the councilman said that 'these guys run up to the line of the law and then cross it.'

but if they follow the law they can systematically eliminate stabilized apartments anyway. When brian mentioned the $2000 marker for destabilization, the councilman said yeah, they should definitely take a look at that. not a strong answer at all.

perhaps the issue of this 1997 law should be a segment unto itself. there's a lot there to explore.

We should all not forget that the incentives in rent stabilization laws for landlords to increase rents are around for a reason. Rent control was a bad idea becuase there was not enough money to keep the buildings maintained. I think all tenant advocates would agree. Stabilization gives the landlords the incentives to contnue to improve and maintain the housing stock for their tenants. Witout them builings would be abandoned in a fiscal crisis like they were in the 70s and 80s. Who wants to go back to that? People renting the apartments set the rent, not the landlords, that's why it's called "market rent." If your landlord's harrassing you and you can prove it, then fight it. But if you're playing the system, give up your apartment to a family that needs it.

I am a rent stabilized tenant, and child of rent controlled NYC parents in NYC. Everyone should know that recently, NYC tenant laws have been eaten away by Albany to a point where tenants have very few right left to them. Harrassment by landlords has become widespread and vicious simply because of this simple fact. A building in the east village with an average of 12 apartments is being sold on the market for over 11 million dollars. On the other hand, the same building that has rent stabilized tenants, sells for 3.5 million (less than many 3 bedroom single family apartments). It is not hard to see why this has become such a battle. If landlord are successful in "legally" vacating the apartments, renovating them, and bumping the rental price up by 18% each time a new lease is signed, it will be only a matter of years, not decades to have that apartment reach $2,000 a month, at which time it becomes "market value" and can be rented for any amount at the landlord's discretion.

Coorinna

One more point - 1 caller mentioned a building with 14 empty apartments. It is important for tenants to know that this is illegal. Rent stabilized apartments must be made available for rental, and in addition, there is a loophole which says that if an apartment remains unrented for 2 years, then it reverts to fair market, meaning that the landlord can rent it at their discretion. I personally have my stabilized apartment because I took the landlords to court due to them hoarding the apartment. I was awarded the apartment at the stabilized rate (with fines imposed on the landlord) and have been there for 7 years. It is not a happy relationship by any means, but as the caller said, we are not fighting for ourselves, we are fighting for all NY renters.

It is lastly important to remember that these hoarded apartments are not only birthrights for a small group of long term NY's. these apartments are up for grabs for anyone, and it is in the best interest of ALL NY's to fight for the preservation and regulation of these laws. For more information on a documentary I am making about the eviction and harrassment of stabilized tenants and to share your story, please see email miss1932@gmail.com

Report landlord abuses to the DHCR by calling 311 or contact your local tenant support groups. GOLES works with the East Village and LES.

Corinna

To Shaun #44

According to the attorney that our Chelsea building is consulting - about many of the same issues that have been discuused here - pointing a camera at a specific apartment is illegal, while having "security" cameras in public areas is not. The housing situation in N.Y. is so disturbing to this life-long New Yorker. And yes, there is a free service to answer questions about landlord/tenant issues. Google Landlord/Tenant and you'll get all the NYC sites.

NYC needs more home rule. Albany is never going to care about us. we just send them money and support the rest of the state. in exchange they put their noses in our business and stop the city from moving forward.

I work in the Legal Department of a "VC Landlord", and it's appalling how poorly this issue is being portrayed by Mr. McCreanor and some of the above posters. As much as I'd like to do so, it'd be impossible for me to take the time to address each of the preceding comments, but let me lay out a few points.

1) Price controls such as Rent Stabilization and Rent Control artificially impose a price ceiling below the market clearing price. As any economist would verify, this causes rents for all those not covered by the price control system to rise.

2) As a socio-political liberal, I personally believe in the value or price controls for those who need them, as, I believe, do most of my peers. The problem is those people who are abusing the existence of these controls. They are gaming the system for their own personal benefit and, in doing so, causing the rents of everyone participating legitimately within the market system to go up as building owners seek to cover their costs.

3) From the outside, one would not believe the cases that I witness day in and day out of tenants illegally abusing the subsidization of RC/RS price controls. For example, a tenant paying $800/month for a four-bedroom in Upper Manhattan and illegally renting each of the four rooms out to sublessees for $750 per room. The tenant of record is thus making $2,200 per month and not even living there. How is that behaviour at all defensible when this infringement of housing law is hurting everyone else?

Excellent coverage of this critically important issue. Kudos to the well-spoken Ben Dulchin and Gretchen Morgenson.

Jonathan,

What about the landlords who claim that the actual rent of an apt is $2000 (thus meeting the rent stablization threshold), but claim that they give a tenant a "discount" and only charge them around $1400? This is a blatant abuse of the system in place so that the tenant paying $1400 can't ask for the apt to be stablized. The market would not support a rent of $2000 in a neighborhood where the average 1BR apt goes for about $1200. The apt was never advertised as renting for "$2000, but with a $600 discount". It was advertised as going for $1325 the first year.

I hope readers of this latest post research the statistics reg the number of rent stabilized apartment cases where it was proved the tenants were abusing the system by illegally subletting their apartments. The truth is that that number is miniscule compared to the number of cases of law abiding, tax paying, long term NY tenants who have worked, and raised children in undesirable neighborhoods in NYC and now are being penalized and harrassed because of this misconception of the "rental ceiling" theory that says they are the cause for highly inflated rents. This is just not the case. I would be more than happy to provide information for anyone truly interested in the reasons why rents in NY are grossly infated, and the dwindling numbers of rent stabilized tenants.

Everyone, stabilized or not, should realize that many of these laws that are being compromised protect the rights of NY residents to housing. This effects everyone. If I and all my stabilized fellow citizens are evicted. your rents will not go down. You will only increase the profits of the landlords, while maintaining no stability for yourself as a renter. Remember that "fair market" rents can be changed at any time,and leases do not have to be renewed, no matter how good a tenant you are. Think as renters why you would support this system that does not protect you. I would be happy to provide information of this subject, and direct people to tenant advocate groups.

Corinna

miss1932@gmail.com

this isn't part of a war on the middle class. rent regulation created the war on the middle class. The middle class for the most part cannot get these units, but are forced to subsidize them with their own increased rents, taxes, higher maintenance costs, etc. There is a reason only the very rich or poor can afford NYC. It is the housing laws. Only the rich can afford to subsidize the masses of people not paying their weight to live in one of the most expensive markets in the country. Other areas got rid of these laws and all the doom that was predicted never came. I propose a show advocating for the removal of rent control laws, that would be a real break from brian's predictable programming.

Re: Post #91

Price ceilings are certainly not a mis-conceived theory, and are among the first ideas covered in an introductory microeconomics course. For a quick crash course, Wikipedia provides a decent explanation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_ceiling

Regardless of any social benefits, the economic effects of price controls are hardly debatable. As Post #17 noted, I would be surprised if one could find a single PhD in economics would deny that the increase in demand caused by price controls forces up the price (i.e. rent) of substitutable items (i.e. apartments not bound by the RC/RS system).

Secondly, speaking only for the "VC Landlord" for whom I work, we have proven and won over 90% of the illegal-sublet and non-primary residency cases that we have brought to housing court. Although this only speaks to my employer's actions, it stands as a hard and fast statistic.

I enjoyed your recent interviews of West Virginia npr reporters. Later this week I will again be driving through WVa to my home in Louisville, KY. I love driving through that stte and their beautiful mountains. WVa is a richly diverse state with its two "panhandles" one slipping up between OH and PA with the city of Wheeling on old USRoute 40, and the eastern one that includes Harper's Ferry and Martinsburg which have commuter train service to D.C. for many of their residents. As a railfan,I have traveled with my companion deep into WVa for him to photograph locomotives and trace outabandoned railroads from more interesting days.

WVa is, of course, that section of the Old Dominion that decided to stay with the Union during the Civil War, and only became a separate state in 1865. As historians have pointed out, that is the section developed by hardy frontiersmen in the 1600-1700s and who were often punished by the colonial and later state government for not being Anglicans; they led the freedom of religion vote in the legislature, free VA early of having an established church/religion.

I probably also have a love for WVa because my mother's people come from the WVa "corner" of OH, that area developed early under the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. Their farms were along the Muskingum River in Morgan County.

I hope Hillary and Barak have the same good time.

People should know about DHCR. You can go to your district office (they are in every borough) and get your rent history, as well as advice. This may save time & money, even if you end up having to hire an attorney. Two numbers for them are 718.739.6440 (Queens) and 212.480.6700 (lower Manhattan). I would suggest avoiding the Queens office if you have questions as they are the busiest. Also, HPD does *not* send an inspector right away! You may have to call the commissioner's office to get one to come out. You can also go to the commissioner's office if you're stuck with your housing issue.

http://blackstarnews.com/?c=135&a=4526

Brian, Although Tishman-Speyer is a more traditional landlord than the private equity firms, the push to get rent-stablized tenants out of Stuyvesant Town is occurring on a similar scale. There's a tie-in also with your show last week on the lack of grocery stores in certain neighborhoods. Although there are issues with vermin and deliveries, when a lease expires, uncontrolled commercial rent increases are just too prohibitive to produce the sort of profit that helps grocers stay in business.

My only regret at seeing former Governor Spitzer resign was that he seemed to understand the need for indexing the $2000 rent ceiling from 1997. I heard him say that during a segment on your show shortly before his January 2007 inauguration, during which I believe you discussed the contradictory nature of the affordable housing policies in New York State (i.e., changes to rent stabilization laws in 1994 and 1997 have made it possible for landlords to deregulate currently affordable stabilized units while efforts are at the same time underway to provide more affordable housing for working and middle-class people). I guess our politicians think they can fool us all the time.

The landlord absolutely will leave apartments empty if nobody rents them at the rate they think they deserve, but not in all neighborhoods. In Manhattan definitely.

Look at all the empty stores. They double the rent, get out the shopkeeper and then nobody moves in for a year. It happens all the time.

The bigger issue with the loss of affordable housing is that it destabilizes neighborhoods and the city as a whole. Mixed neighborhoods make for successful communities. If we were to completely dismantle rent regulations, rents would soar, and middle and lower class people would be forced to live in the worst neighborhoods with the worst schools, or move out of NY completely and commute hours to their jobs in the city. Alternately slums would spring up in worse shape than ever because people need a place to live that they can pay for. Creating slums does not create a better society.

Rich people need workers who can live happily (to ensure workers that are stable and healthy) in order to maintain their lifestyle. Workers the the rich alike need good schools, teachers, police, store clerks, dry cleaners, shoemakers and food at fair prices (supermarkets vs. Whole Foods).

The balance of different types of people is what the city needs to be vital and viable into the future. Removing the only affordable housing without protecting the system or replacing it with something else to protect the middle and lower classes will result in a very distressed city that will implode.

Those of us in rent stabilized buildings might want to move, but we can't afford to! Some of us are stuck here as much as the landlord is stuck with us.