Tenants: Bushwick Landlord Tears out Kitchens, Bathrooms to Get Tenants to Move
The landlord of a multifamily building 98 Linden Street in Bushwick removed the kitchens and baths in two rent-stabilized apartments “under the pretext that he was renovating the apartments” seven months ago and left them that way to try to force the tenants to move so he can increase the rent on the apartments, according…
The landlord of a multifamily building 98 Linden Street in Bushwick removed the kitchens and baths in two rent-stabilized apartments “under the pretext that he was renovating the apartments” seven months ago and left them that way to try to force the tenants to move so he can increase the rent on the apartments, according to a story in the Brooklyn Bureau. The tenants have been using neighbors’ kitchens and bathrooms since then.
A child living in one of the units came down with pneumonia, “which was exacerbated by the horrible condition” of the apartment. Two tenants are elderly with arthritis and kidney problems, which require drinking a lot of water, accessible only via stairs in a neighbor’s apartment.
The tenants have appealed to the DOB, HPD, and gone to court, but the conditions have not changed, the story said. They have not moved because rents elsewhere are unaffordable. Tenants rights groups held a rally outside the landlord’s house in Borough Park last week.
The multifamily building, pictured above, traded between LLCs for $610,000 in January 2013, according to PropertyShark.
Bushwick Landlord Targeted by Tenants [Brooklyn Bureau]
Photo by Nicholas Strini for PropertyShark
Analytical and rational (not emotional) response here. well written Boerumresident, The number of cities without rent control still far out number those with rent regulation globally, but you bring up a very fair point to consider.
Handle, thats the best response I have heard yet on here and totally agree. My comments were not really directed towards this particular story, which assuming the tenants are in good standing have certainly been dealt a poor hand by the landlord and has become a legal matter as it should, so Im sure the court will do whats right.
Bfar and MM you guys are stuck on the actions of this landlord. He didnt do things even close to the right way, no argument there. I’m talking simple economics and the issues within the current NYC system that don’t exist in tons of other cities that do just fine. Whatever happened to: if you dont like where you live or cant afford to live where you are then move, people do it everyday. To preserve the aspects of a city is a very weak argument since rental rules like the ones in NYC dont exist of thousands of other cities functioning just fine. So MM and BFar can I have a chunk of your pension or other retirement savings for doing nothing so we can share the wealth as Americans? Thanks!
And to Handle if you have to apply for a hardship increase you have lost too much money already, running even a smaller residential building is a full-time job that most people would want to be compensated for.
Absolutely agree. Can’t stand NYC and their tenant friendly courts. The landlord was probably losing so much money from utilities and taxes, mortgage, etc.. I’m going through this right now. Tenants are back rent and the rent is only $800. Everything is coming out of my pocket. Time to kick them out. Old or young.
Bfarwell makes a fair point but the issue still stands that the current system doesn’t align the interests of both parties. And if expenses aren’t capped on any asset neither should the revenue to be fair to both sides.
Montrose/bx2bk read the posts by Jay and JoeBushwick you might learn something.
Montrose I’ll repeat for a third time that I dont approve of the landlords actions, I’ll say it one more time just to be clear I DO NOT approve of the landlords actions. If people pay for a place to live they deserve the appropriate conditions. So lets move on…
What I disagree with is the thought that everyone in this country deserves something for just being here which is what you posted above. While landlords have rules to follow, they shouldnt be responsible for subsidizing other people. That notion is a dream world that has dragged this country into a second rate economy, Im sorry to say. Many SROs and outerborough buildings languish in ruin because the economics arent there to keep the buildings in good standing and they end up getting blown out anyway leaving neighborhoods in ruin if they are not redeveloped into something sustainable. Sec 8 programs are a joke and promote big time slumlords getting in good with Deblasio and other politicians and charging the city taxpayer sometimes 2000-3000 a month for tenants to stay in real slums way out in Brownsville and parts of Queens and other run down areas.
Its simple math, if the buildings rental revenue is $60,000 and the cost of running the building is $75,000 how long do you think that building is going to be habitable by good/bad/the other tenants? Surprise the answer is not long. The math doesnt work and I dont care how long someone has lived somewhere they are feeding off of laws created for war veterans in an era much different than today. And if someone say spent their life’s savings to buy one building and can make twice their investment back with new tenants what do you think people are going to try and do? Its the system and the mentality that created it that cause these types of issues.
If you go to other states where RS/RC units dont exist there arent housing shortages, there are housing surpluses in most cases. With the reurbanization of the global economy pressure to gentrify and expand housing in major metro areas is only going to increase and stories like the one above are going to continue to happen and possibly even accelerate.
Perhaps Majorhints doesn’t understand the concept of “law,” and “code?”
If you want to talk incentives, what incentivized the current owner to purchase the building knowing what the rent roll was and knowing what the existing laws of the State and City are at the time of purchase? The owner was not forced to purchase (or rent) his property, he did so willingly and by doing so made himself subject to the responsibilities that come along with that. By saying that the tenants are paying less than half in market rents is exactly the rationale for rent stabilization – the owner has done absolutely nothing to improve the neighborhood, his building, etc… but wants to capitalize on increasing rental values and disrupt families in the process who were there long before this landlord decided to purchase.
To the below comment, I think you are missing the point of my replies. Im not arguing with you about this landlord being in the wrong here.
What I am trying to convey is that many RS and RC tenants control property values that they dont own which isnt right and based on an antiquated system not meant for a free market society. If you rent, you dont own period; and shouldnt be able to hide behind those rules. So if you don’t believe in property rights, capitalism, private ownership and forcing bad tenants to leave then you need to move to Russia and see how you like it over there for a while.
And you dont buy real estate to just get by and upkeep a building, you do it to make money. You go anywhere outside of NYC and these people would have all been gone a long time ago.