BHB Photo by C. Scales
Get BHB in your inbox everyday. Enter your email below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brooklyn Bugle
UPDATE: Shiba Inu “Lili” Is Home!
Montague Street, Meet Your New Starbucks
The Brooklyn Bugle’s Knishes Preview at Brooklyn Heights Cinema a Success
Le Pain Quotidien Taking Shape
Damascus Bakery getting some competition
I Want Candy? 20 Henry Condos At Last Hit The Market
Downtown Skyscraper District: He Said/He Said On Landmarks Approval
The Brooklyn Bugle’s Knishes Preview at Brooklyn Heights Cinema a Success
UPDATE: Shiba Inu “Lili” Is Home!
TONIGHT! Preview of Heather Quinlan’s “If These Kniches Could Talk”
I Want Candy? 20 Henry Condos At Last Hit The Market
Downtown Skyscraper District: He Said/He Said On Landmarks Approval
I hope the buyer realizes that under city regs the rental tenants possess most of the ownership rights to the building and all he has is the responsibility of paying the taxes and keeping them comfy and happy.
seems cheap by a million dollars. what am I missing?
Ashton: I’m not an expert on landlord-tenant law, but as I understand it, even in New York City, a building owner may refuse to renew a lease except under certain circumstances, which include the apartment being under rent control, the tenants’ being senior citizens, etc. See http://www.housingnyc.com/html/resources/attygenguide.html
ABC: I was also surprised by the amount, which the broker says was the result of a competitive bidding process that led to a “top-of-the-market price”. The building does appear to be something of a fixer-upper, especially for someone who wants to convert it from an eight apartment building to a single family residence.
yeah, well I don’t think I’d hire that broker if he thinks that 1.65 is top of the market pricing for a townhouse — in any condition — on that block.
That price seems insanely cheap for an 8 unit building. Is that a typo?
There are apartments that sell for 1.6M here!
Also, frankly that person is a fool to convert it. A rental building like that in the heights would seem to be a cash cow.
it’s crazy the amount of money that is being spent on these old, small,colorless buildings that are in such a conjestive area, where one who owns a car has to spend 4 hours a day looking for a parking spot that will still earn you a ticket, and live amongst the most boorish people in the land. and the shopping in this area is such a rip off. wake up people! you’re getting ripped!
Not a cash cow, my2, if the apartments are rent stabilized (or rent-controlled).
To: my2cents: The days of rental buildings being a cash cow are over. Most people who buy in the heights now want a one family house. I am familiar with the house since I knew a tenant who lived there for many years. The building is is not the standard 25 foot wide – it’s narrow. I had a feeling that this was up for sale since I have seen them cleaning out a lot from there. I wish the new owner good luck with removing the tenants; it’s more difficult than he thinks, but sometimes you do have the right to want a one family house for your own use.
I think Claude has it right..my wife and I lost a wonderful apartment in a non-rent control/stabilized building on Grace Court in a similar non-renewal situation. Fortunately, we had enough remaining time on our lease that we were able to find alternate digs. I don’t know the particulars of this building, but $1.6 sounds low enough to allow the new owners to buy out the leases if they want immediate occupancy…if the tenants are willing.
@Robert, thanks for your input. Until your post, I didn’t realize what a drab, colorless (?) existence I was leading in one of the most desirable neighborhoods in NYC. Yeah, parking sucks, but isn’t it nice to know that the A,C,2,3,4,5,N,R all run through our little burg, providing us myriad ways to escape it? Not that I want to.
@Robert, where do you live? And why ae you reading this blog if you hate this area so much?
Lori, thanks for the info. You have a good point there!
@Robert:
I highly doubt that anyone who can afford to buy an 8-family house with I assume a backyard & roof-deck for his family to frolic through will be overly affected by expensive parking & shopping.
Not an expert on landlord-tenant law either, but my understanding is that you CAN kick tenants out if you want to convert to your own personal home. The theory is that while tenants have rights, your right to enjoy your own property is greater (I know, we can quibble with it, but that’s my understanding). The famous example was a 40-unit building in the LES that a buyer claimed he was going to use as his own home for him and his family. Of course, it was obvious BS and just an excuse to kick out all the rent-controlled and rent-stabilized tenants. After a nasty fight, I think eventually the buyer gave up, or was prevented from kicking out tenants in court.
So, being able to do something and doing it are completely different. My immediate reaction whenever I hear these stories is that a buyer thinks he can kick out tenants and turn the building into market-price. The idea is… You buy the building, live it in for five years or so, then convert back to market-rate apartments. Just my two cents.
Robert, I won’t even reiterate some of the responses to your earlier stupid comments. I did want to ask you a question.
“…colorless buildings that are in such a conjestive area”
Is “conjestive” a word? Idiot!
It really is extremely difficult if not impossible to move rental tenants out of a building like this (with more than three units) unless they are willing to strike a deal. There is no way a Brooklyn judge will evict them. Now if they are willing to accept buy-outs that’s a different story but that can be a drawn-out negotiation with each tenant. That is why the price is low because it is filled with tenants who will need to be pried out with a great deal of money and difficulty. It is naive to believe otherwise. Believe me, the new owner will need to buy them out one by one. Easily another two to three million dollars when all is said and done.
From the looks of the building it was once a single-family home before being chopped up. It makes a certain amount of sense that a very wealthy buyer would return it to that state. I’m speculating, but the rental units in there are probably small and the building probably needs a lot of work, so the owner will have his hands full regardless.
Of course, he’d be living in our drab “conjestive” neighborhood too.
One of the few ways that a landlord can get rid of tenants in a rent- stabilized apartment is to prove tat he or she wants that apartment for his or her own use.
I speak from personal experience about this. Years ago my landlord claimed he wanted my then-apartment for his family. A battle, complete with lawyers, ensured. The landlord produced plans for the renovation of my apartment.
A judge ruled in favor of the landlord, but, I managed to delay things, hoping to push an ultimate showdown beyond my 62nd birthday, at which point, by law, the landlord wouldn’t have been able to evict me no matter his arguments.
At some point a (non-munificent) settlement was struck. I moved elsewhere. Two days after doing so, I read in the New York Observer that my former building had just been sold to the actress, Julianne Moore.
A New York story, or what?
If this house were delivered vacant, with no tenants, it would have fetched closer to five million dollars.
If getting rid of the tenants was easy, or even possible, don’t you thnk the seller would have done so?
In Brooklyn, you can tell a judge what you like but they are never, ever going to rule in favor of the landlord. If people could evict rent regulated tenants by saying they need the space for their own family and showing blueprints, don’t you think everyone would do that?
Dan Squadron is trying to pass a bill that would restrict landlords to one dwelling as opposed to mass evictions for personal use.
I don’t think this bill has got to a vote because of Republican objections.
Fact is, mass evictions are legal under the law. Of course, enforcement depending on the judge is another matter. I remember reading about a building in Manhattan on third street where the court ruled in favor of the landlord. Not sure how it was resolved.
http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/squadron-personal-use
Found this article about 3rd Street:
http://www.thevillager.com/villager_333/billsaysowners.html
AEB and Karl speak from fact and Ashton seems to speak from emotion. I have an above-average understanding of “L&T” law, including personal experience with this very issue.
Ashton I think you are confusing eviction with non-renewal. Two very different things. Eviction, kicking someone out while still under terms of the lease, is very difficult in NYC. Non-renewal of lease is a different matter all together. Unless the apartment is rent controlled, the owner has the option to refuse a renewal of the lease and live there himself.
I would also point out that there is a MAJOR distinction between rent controlled and rent stabilized. Very few apartments in this hood qualify as “Rent controlled”, which is the more difficult to remove tenants from. Some do qualify as “rent stabilized”.
You might find this helpful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control_in_New_York
“To qualify for RENT CONTROL, a tenant must have been living continuously in an apartment since July 1, 1971. When vacant, the unit becomes rent stabilized, except in buildings with less than six units, where it is usually removed from the program.”
“Since the passage of the Rent Regulation Reform Act of 1997, RENT STABALIZATION has been restricted to apartments where the legal, or stabilized, rent was under $2,000 per month. The unit would become deregulated once the rent goes above $2,000 and is either vacated or if the household adjusted gross income is over $175,000 for 2 years”
OK geniuses, why did this beautiful building in a prime location sell so cheap?
My guess is that there are one or two seniors who have rent-controlled apartments who are there permanently and two or three near seniors who are rent stabilized who will never leave. These folks do not need leases. They do not even need to pay rent half the time.
I must live in a very different city than the realtors on this page who tell their clients that it will be “no problem” to get rid of renters by simply not renewing their leases. As if this were Florida. How could there be any rent control or rent stabilized apartments left if all a landlord had to do is refuse to renew a lease? Honestly you all are in a different city than me. There are folks in my building who have not paid rent in years, who have been in and out of court for years and years who manage to postpone eviction by paying a small amount of what they owe, and who are still living in their apartments, without a lease, happy as clams.
“ashton”, would that be 2 Grace Court you are talking about?
no. does that go on there?
it happens all over the heigths.
look what happened at 100 Clark Street.
the renters had to be hauled out by the department of buildings minutes before they commenced emergency demolition.
ashton, by your own words, you’re guessing. I’m not saying that your argument as to the low selling price of this building doesn’t hold water, just that it’s based on speculation, not facts None of us knows the condition of the building or the financial state of the seller, both of which may be mitigating factors. In any case, given human nature, I wouldn’t be surprised if half the tenants forgo the prospect of a lengthy eviction proceeding that will only incur court expenses which will substantially cut into whatever settlement they may get.
BTW, my understanding of 100 Clark/1 Monroe Place was that it was completely rent-controlled, and therefore subject to a whole different set of rules.While the owners may not have welcomed a demolition-by-neglect order, they certainly didn’t do anything over the years to maintain the property.But, given that the property taxes and cost of basic services (heat, hallway lighting etc.) were far in excess of the rental income, it’s certainly no surprise. Think South Bronx circa 1975.There’s certainly no defense for their non-action, but it does explode the myth of rental properties as cash-cows.
nabeguy, what I find infuriating are certain posters who state unequivacally that renters are easy to get rid of if one follows certain easy steps.
When others like myself disagree based on long hard experience we are labeled “emotional” meaning what? stupid women?
Any developer or realtor that says that emptying a building like this can be done in less than ten years, is just being mendacious. period. Do you think someone would sell a 5 million dollar property for 1.6 million because they are lazy?
Sure, I will sell it to you for 1.6 million, You then wait until the leases are over kick everyone out and resell it for five million a year and a half later. It really doesn’t work that way.
I think one reason the price was so low was the sellers used a broker nobody knows about, and it wasn’t listed on any of the usual sites like the Times or Streeteasy.
Maybe someone got a bargain. It’s possible. You say it doesn’t work that way but there’s a bldg on the market on Prospect Park West that was bought about 6 months ago for 1.6ish and is now being sold for 3 point something, more than double. Sellers make mistakes sometimes.
Also, records indicate the apartments are rent stabilized which really is not the same thing as your example of 100 Clark.
ashton, you keep saying things like “it really doesn’t work that way” but offer nothing to support your claim. Okay, so you’ve talked to a few people and seen some situations. But your interpretation of the situation is just that…an interpretation based on hearsay, like your claims of wide-spread prostitution in every apartment house in the Heights.
It seems to me, ashton, that the tone of your posts are emotional and weak on substance, therefore my observation. I did not make the observation because we disagree, but by way of putting your comments in context. But that was an aside, not my main point. Forget I mentioned it.
My main point is, in response to Claude’s statement that the building purchaser “plans to convert it from its present configuration of eight apartments to a single family residence,” is that can be done. It is currently legal and the law has been held up in court. I am responding to a specific scenario, removing tenants for personal use. I never said in a universal way that removing tenants from rent regulated apartments is easy. You generalize my comments and then refute something I never said.
Hey everybody, get off of Ashtons back, he knows what he is talking about. See State of New York Division of Community Housing and Renewal. Any rent stabilized tenant MUST recive a lease renewal unless the landlord gets a judge in Housing Court to evit the tenant. The matter of 100 Clark Street is a landlords nightmare but the owner knew what he/she, Barry & Este B. were getting into when they bought the slum. These rent laws protect the middle class and the poor regretfully they have become weakened over time — the $2000 amount may be raised to $3000 per month proposed legislation. The house on Pierrrpont Street will have rent stabilized tenants for years, mabe decades to come so everybody just relax.
Reggie,
Housing Court will scrutinize any landloard who would propose a plan to empty a house and convert it back to a single family home for his own use that had better be the landlords true plan and NOT just a scam to rid the building of regulated tenants.
AND for tenants who are disabled or senior citizens the landlord must find apartments in the neighborhood that are equal to what they are living in at the same rent or lower — IMPOSSIBLE here in Brooklyn Heights or anywhere in NYC — you see the greedy landlords did it to themselves!
Rent stabilization laws are essential or a lot of people would be out of their apartments so that others can get even richer.
Ben
Can my landlord evict me and use my stabilized apartment for his family, and how many apartments in the building can the landlord take?
One of the advantages of being a rent stabilized tenant is the right to renew your lease. This right holds with few exceptions, and eviction for owner occupancy by the landlord or a family member is one of the exceptions.
The rent regulation laws allow the landlord of a rent stabilized building to take over one or more apartments for family use. However, he/she must give you 90 to 150 days notice before your existing lease expires that it will not be renewed. In addition, he/she must be able to prove that the apartment will be for family use.
Note that if you are 62 or older or disabled you have additional protections. If you do wish to stay in the apartment, you could simply stay put and wait for the landlord to serve you with eviction papers. The landlord will then have to prove in court that he needs the apartment for family use. The court may or may not agree with his assessment.
Regarding the number of apartments an owner can take: The Rent Stabilization Law and Code is a little vague about the number of apartments that an owner may occupy: “…only one of the individual owners of any building, whether such ownership is by joint tenancy, tenancy in common, or tenancy by the entirety to recover possession of one or more dwelling units for personal use and occupancy.” However, the DHCR informs us that an owner can take more than one unit for his or his relative’s occupancy.
Contact DHCR at (718) 739-6400 or (212) 961-8930 for additional information on this subject, and see the fact sheet on eviction for owner occupancy.
I don’t know why people think buyers are SCAMMING anyone when they want it for their own use. A single-family home is so much more valuable in this area than an apartment building.
I really don’t think the rent stabilization laws are essential any more than charging less at the grocery store for a lucky few randomly selected who make less than x amount. It can be argued by taking these apartments off the open market, they make all the other apartments more expensive. I wouldn’t mind that — subsidizing affordable housing — if it were done in a fair and rational way. Passing rent stabilized apartments from generation to generation, for example, seems to me to be the opposite of fair and rational.
Ben and ABC, I know that. I did not think I was giving a tutorial so didn’t make the same points, but I welcome your additional information. Still left unmentioned is the requirement that the owner reside in the apartment(s) for three years, which is intended to at least slow down ‘serial-takers.’ Also, the owner needs to demonstrate why he or she is taking that specific apartment. (Unlike this scenario, it’s usually only one.)
At the time my landlord was proposing to take my apartment, where I had just done $10K in capital renovations and $15-30K in sweat equity, there were vacant units. I made the case that a judge would make the owner move to an empty unit before allowing her to take mine. I throw that personal information out there for the folks, well, it really was just ashton, who assumed my knowledge came from working the other side of the issue.
Reggie, I was replying to Ben
ABC
Disabled and Senior Citizen tenants will not be evicted, again, the owner who wants to use the apt for his family MUST find the Senior or the Disabled another apartment of like means in the neighborhood — try finding a $500 apartment in Brooklyn Heights it is impossible.
Reggie,
Thank you of educating me about the 3 year rule the landlord must live in the apartments for 3 years that is a help to rent laws.
ABC,
You are right about subsidies called rent stabilization why not have lower priced groceires, utilities, etc. why should the landlord get stuck holding the bag?
And yes there are abuses of the rent stabilization system apartments handed down through generations — that is called “sucession rights” and a Judge can rule here. It is tough to claim sucession rights unless it is a legitimate claim.
Ben
ABC,
Most laws are wrttten to a degree of “vague” to leave a degree of flexibility for the interpertation of a Judge.
Ben
Nabeguy,
How could 100 Clark Street be 100% Rent Controlled?
If there are 200 Rent Controlled apartments left in Brooklyn Heights I would be surprised.
And the Rent Stabilized units are falling off rent roles by the month we saw the $2000 per month Studio Apt. when $2000 was the magic number for deregulation and now with pending legislation to raising the amount to $3000 per month we are about to see the $3000 per month Studio Apt.
A problem for tenants is that DCHR does NOT check on capital improvments and vacancy increases and a win for Landlords is that DCHR does NOT check on capital improvments and vacancy increases.
A signed Blumberg lease is well and good for DCHR. Landlords still clean-up make a ton of money with rent regulations stop complaining all landlords and stand up for your rights tenants its called Real Estate in the Big Apple evrybody wins one way or another.
Ben
Gee, Ben, I wish I had known you 15 years ago when I was stuck in my one-family conversion eviction. In regards to 100 Clark, I don’t know that it was 100% rent-controlled, but given that capital improvements are an avenue to get apartments out of the system and raise the rents, combined with the general knowledge that the building hadn’t seen even as much as a coat of paint since Benjamin Moore was in diapers, there’s certainly some kind of disconnect with that particular situation. I’m not prone to rely on hearsay and rumors, but based on some of the ones I’ve heard pertaining to this property, the possibility that the owners allowed it to become a state-subsidized halfway house, a la the St George, seems likely given the subsequent circumstances.
Nabeguy,
Capital Improvments are a ton of paperwork for a few dollars in rent rise, and every time a rent stabilized apt. vacates in some buildings, many landlords do this, a claim is made for a new kitchen, new bath, etc the same apt. will take the claim if it has been vacated and new tenants in one year, and DCHR does not check, thats how rent stabilized aprtments go from $700 to $4000 when they vacate.
DCHR does not enforce rules, laws.
Ben
Nabeguy,
100 Clark Street and Barry and Este B. are a LONG story find me at CowNeckBay@aol.com
Ben