1059 Union St- Ground Zero for Landlord/Tenant battles?

Esperanza

Was this three bedroom a chopped up apartment? For the price, the kitchen is dinky.

whynot_31

A lot of the apartments in that building are being chopped to make more bedrooms. When one has apartment mates, the smaller the kitchen, the better.

It encourages eating out and reduces "tragedy of the commons"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

whynot_31

Unit by unit, the building goes market:

This month, Unit 5G can be had for $3200.

http://www.nybits.com/apartmentlistings/e34dec5e1b2fb2e60722370e0ef8fded.html

whynot_31

I can't think of more appropriate place to post this flyer.

Hopefully they get nice weather:

mcpoet

I thought these articles were funny, considering one is saying that the tenants just won a victory over a slumlord, while said slumlord cites that particular building as their biggest victory....all depends on how you define victories I suppose....

http://www.workers.org/articles/2015/01/13/crown-heights-brooklyn-no-heat-no-peace/

http://nyrej.com/80345

whynot_31

Yup.

When you are a landlord and you do not have (or merely do not want to spend...) the resources to invest $ to get rid of rent stabilized tenants, you often make their lives difficult and do zero maintenance.

When a landlord has the resources, you tend to offer buyouts and upgrade the apartments as they become vacant.

Now, let's think this thru:

1st thought: Buildings tend to have only one heating system. So, despite the assertion of the tenant advocates, it isn't clear to me that the heat failed to harass the RS tenants.

...this building now has a lot of market rate tenants, and they would have lost heat in this technique too.

2nd thought: In terms of the timing of their protest and the timing of the heat repair company, it also isn't clear their protest caused them to come. It may be that they are confusing correlation with causation.

New boilers are often quirky.

Third thought:
1045 Union is the building that rents to Butter and Scotch on the west side of Franklin.

While Butter and Scotch is an "upscale dining concept tenant", the pro owner article appears current, and they are talking about the future. They may have secured an entity for the NW corner of Union and Franklin. ....the former bodega.

Quote:
1045 Union St., Crown Heights - Perhaps ZT Realty's greatest success story, upon acquisition in May 2012, the 32-unit property had more than 800 violations, was on the City of New York's worst residential buildings and was part of the Alternative Enforcement Program. ZT Realty installed an entirely new electrical infrastructure, new security system, new boiler and removed an entire line of the building to replace floor joints which were causing structural instability. Today, the property is near full occupancy, highly secure and new restaurants and retail are coming to the ground floor area, including an entirely new upscale dining concept tenant to be announced shortly, while a long-time existing beauty supply store recently renewed its lease at 1045 Union.

mcpoet

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that part of the article, which was the whole reason I was going to post  it in the first place.  Good catch.

The relevant passage: "an entirely new upscale dining concept tenant to be announced shortly." (at 1045 Union, the old Bodega).  That'd be nice, as that block and the block between Union and President has been a lot more desolate (at least on the west side of Franklin) without the old grocery store, bodega, etc.

whynot_31

I have added that info to a thread about that little bodega: http://www.brooklynian.com/discussion/39070/corner-of-franklin-union#Item_16

Returning to the tenant advocacy, I suspect that the long term tenants are not going to be able to afford the costs the landlord is able to pass on to them from all of the capital costs described.

Despite the intentions of those that pass laws, in the current market, the poor of NYC often end up choosing between really poorly maintained housing or no housing.

whynot_31

What I find fascinating about tenant advocates is the subset that pursues the ideals of "diverse communities" to the degree that they will not assist people who want to leave best pursue their financial goals.

Instead, they act as if these tenants are betraying the advocates' desire to foster racially and economically integrated communities,

-as well as-

the advocates' desire to force landlords to provide quality housing to persons who have neighborhood longevity but no longer provide profitability.

I take a different approach.

Much to the chagrin of the above advocates, I try to help the tenant pursue whatever goal the tenant decides on, and help the tenant consider all of the pros and cons of their decisions.

Some long term tenants like money:

http://www.brickunderground.com/blog/2013/03/how_to_negotiate_a_buyout_by_your_landlord

Most advocates don't understand the rules: http://www.brickunderground.com/blog/2015/01/rent_stabilization_misconceptions

whynot_31

"Governor Cuomo, A.G. Schneiderman, Mayor Bill De Blasio Join Forces To Combat Landlord Harassment Of Tenants"

Press release from Attorney General's Office: http://www.ag.ny.gov/press-release/governor-cuomo-ag-schneiderman-mayor-bill-de-blasio-join-forces-combat-landlord

mugofmead111

Cuomo and de Blasio joining forces on anything is newsworthy in itself.

whynot_31

The cynic in me believes that is the only news in the article.

Afterall, landlords have been (legally and illegally) replacing tenants whenever they believe the NEXT tenant will pay MORE since the beginning of time.

For those who would like context:
http://civilrighttocounsel.org/bibliography/sections/161

As the gap between what the present tenant is paying and the future tenant WILL PAY increases, government occasionally finds it in their best interests to intervene.

...time will tell if government is able and willing to devote the resources necessary to slow the present illegal activities down.

whynot_31

In this instance the state appointed an independent monitor after an investigation by the state's Tenant Protection Unit. However, the landlord continues to be able to aggressively flip rent stabilized buildings.

http://therealdeal.com/blog/2015/03/19/castellan-continues-eviction-rampage-despite-monitor/

whynot_31

Today in Bushwick, two landlords have been arrested for pushing too hard too fast (IE breaking the law):

http://7online.com/news/pair-of-brooklyn-landlord-brothers-accused-of-trying-to-force-out-tenants-arrested/663480/

The real question is "Can the state put in enough enforcement that landlords will not bet so much money that they can rid building of RS tenants?"

Without such enforcement, the proposed rent freezes are a joke.

http://nypost.com/2015/04/17/there-may-actually-be-a-rent-freeze-in-the-city-this-summer/

whynot_31

Here's a well written description re: the effect the changes are having on long term residents who are low income.

quote:
"We called this neighborhood home when no one else would. Now that its changing, our landlord wants to kick us out.

We are the Tenants Association of 285 Schenectady and 1646 Union Street in Crown Heights, one of New York City's most rapidly gentrifying neighborhoods. In 2014, our building was sold to Renaissance Realty, a speculative group that is trying to capitalize on our neighborhoods new found popularity. Last year they raised rents in our buildings between 50% to 120%: well beyond what we can afford. If we don’t fight back we will be kicked out of the neighborhood some of us have called home for nearly 30 years.

We're calling on Mayor de Blasio to stand with tenants and call on Renaissance Realty to stop pushing 62 working class families out of our homes. Without this, we will be become homeless.

In 1986, Crown Heights was known as "Dodge City" and our current homes were vacant and abandoned. The buildings were renovated using city and federal funds, and in exchange, were subject to an affordability agreement that designated our buildings as rent regulated. But a loophole has put us at risk as our neighborhood gentrifies. Renaissance Realty would rather see a different kind of people in what they hope to turn into luxury apartments.

All across the country real estate speculators are buying up property in neighborhoods that were once considered hopeless. Areas of Oakland, LA, San Jose, San Francisco and New York, once disregarded are now coveted. But for the people who called them home long before the first cafe moved in, the neighborhood is more than a quick buck. We persevered through the decades of high crime, fought for better public services and made sure our children got the best education, in schools that were often underfunded.

We fought for our neighborhood. As it changes, we should be able to stay and enjoy it.

Our situation is dire, but we have hope. We are working with the Crown Heights Tenant Union and Brooklyn Legal Services to take back our buildings and win our eviction cases. But we need your support. When people work together, we all win. Mayor de Blasio has vowed to address the displacement that happens when neighborhoods gentrify. Please help us make sure he keeps his word. Call on Mayor de Blasio to stand with us as we fight for our homes. 

Read this story about our building here and here."
http://email.change.org/mpss/c/pgA/3CE/t.1me/Ixo9dgkqSB24UZvgoPBMKw/h7/KLcqj6mm2DNwtPZFTP391ht2F2-2BAeygDEWsdFSkG1Ny4zXMNbn3js7F30ViHMpIk-2F3UdQsIyxddIqtr3HcHI6oCGWMlLJlhH7VslIzeM8m6ZGTvmE5BQybRKhREG0LpcwtLRE0HS96fVhjUZ4Fg1eH7-2FMNczG18KSFIXPfPsNAmKCjAQyaR8yFAcoZzXlrjyhbSCf6ChKZRY5gWuo3ijC2YUV0LDG4RDpvxJuk34eMr3VtQsN8Ajomlj35-2F0gc6zp8yokyuPNoiWijM3tlDYfbYS55XFkMTPRFnowbAHqms-3D

While the appeal is well written, unless these landlords are breaking the law, I don't see the tenants being able to stay. I don't see DeBlasio coming to the rescue.

Dawndew

Rents would not be seen as going up if they didn't first go down

whynot_31

Returning to 1059 Union (the address that started this thread), it seems the Tenants Union should no longer be marching in front of BCB Management. Now, they should be marching in front of a entity known as 829-835 Franklin Avenue Residences, LLC.

quote:

"3.) Debrah Lee Charatan and Bennat Charatan Berger’s BCB Property Management sold a Crown Heights apartment building for $13.2 million, following tenant protests in March. BCB offered buyouts to tenants of 1059 Union Street last year, who later rallied against the landlord, claiming BCB was illegally converting apartments and attempting to illegally evict residents. The five-story building totals 42,285 square feet and includes 32 units. The new buyer is listed under the name 829-835 Franklin Avenue Residences, LLC."

http://therealdeal.com/blog/2015/02/03/heres-what-the-10m-20m-nyc-investment-sales-market-looked-like-last-week-7/

whynot_31

Storefronts have no protection under the Rent Stabilization laws.

However, it seems the remaining "long term" residents of 1059 Union would like the businesses located in the building to not be subject to rent increases either:



The members of the tenant union seem to perceive that they have far more market power than I do.

They also perceive the businesses as having more power than I do.

pragmaticguy

Take the vacant storefronts back from the landlords??? And do what with them !!??

whynot_31

I can only guess:

I assume they would return them to the prior businesses, whom they perceive to be the "rightful" occupants and/or the ones that would be present in a truly democratic society.

Personally, I like the "All tenants' struggles are one"

A twisted part of me wants whoever rents THESE apartments to state they are tired of having to pay so much to live and do business in Crown Heights:
http://www.zillow.com/crown-heights-new-york-ny/expensive-rentals/

And, then, approach the CHTU for support.

pragmaticguy

Yes, they demand tenant power but it's ok for the landlord to pay all the bills such as heat, water, repairs, insurance, etc.

whynot_31

This new game allows people to see how much it costs to develop and maintain housing in NYC:

http://chpcny.org/inside-the-rent/

I believe the costs of purchasing and operating an existing building are similar. Otherwise, why would anyone do one vs the other?

pragmaticguy

Purchasing might be less expensive as the building is grandfathered in as opposed to having to build to new standards which are more rigorous. But it might pay to develop if you can get market rents as they are much higher than what can be gotten in existing rent controlled buildings.

whynot_31

Different skill sets are needed to develop a new building
VS
run/flip an existing building.

I just find it fascinating how the different sides discuss the matter:

-The tenant advocates tend to use emotional terms, instead of the financial terms used by their opponents:
http://finance.zacks.com/return-investment-guidelines-multifamily-rentals-11710.html

-The tenant advocates seem to fear that the regulations will be radically changed in one direction or the other, while the developers perceive gov as being capable of only minor tweaking.

Regardless of whether how many units ultimately remain under Rent Stabilization, the overall trend continues to be a system in which fewer apartments are significantly below what they would go for at market rate.

pragmaticguy

This is true that fewer apartments would be below market rate. Unfortunately, there are still probably the same number of people who can't afford to pay market rate so does that lead to market rate prices coming down? Or does that mean that people who can afford the higher rents are going to move in pushing others out. I understand the emotions of the tenant advocates but I don't think that the building owners are the ones to subsidize them. And since section 8 is unable to pay market rents it leaves a lot of people in limbo.

whynot_31

Relative to its population growth, NYC is not doing a lot of housing creation at the lower end of the market.

So, the pressure to price people out (or push them out) will continue until there is less demand or more supply.

Until NYC goes through its next downturn, I don't see there being less demand. ....Until NYC comes up with the money to build housing, I don't see there being more supply.

So, we seem to be in a situation where the poor are being told to become rich.

...there is lots of housing being built for the rich.

crownheightster

If I was doing all this from scratch, here is what I would do.

I would look at all the public housing projects and see how many units were in a specific project. For example, Gowanus Houses has around 1,100 apartments. I'd say 'Developers, fine, build 2,000 affordable apartments for moderate and low-income people. Here they are"

I would say: "All residents of Gowanus Houses will be moved into the new apartments at Pacific Park."

I would execute the moves and empty the Gowanus Houses by placing the current residents into the new affordable housing for low-income people. No applications, no lottery, just "Leaseholders, you are moving. We will help you if you need it." 

Then I would raze Gowanus Houses to the ground and build Pacific Park II, on the model of 50-30-20 affordable housing for people of mixed class and economic statuses. I would do this over, and over and over again until all affordable housing was integrated into housing for people paying market rates. 

I would be a tyrant. 

whynot_31

I have the perspective that there will always be neighborhoods that are more fortunate than others. Humans like to live near people that share similar characteristics.

For example, there will always be wealthy enclaves and poor ghettos.

In some people's minds, NYC -as a whole- is becoming an enclave.

Some want the trend to continue, others want it to reverse.

I believe in making the best of the moment, and that includes moving should the need ever arise.

....I would leave NYC's poor people and rich people all behind, and then somehow fit in my new locality.

pragmaticguy

Aaaah, but in the new area you'd move to would you live in the poorer neighborhood or the richer neighborhood. It depends what you could afford. There's no getting away from it. The more things change, the more they remain the same.

pragmaticguy

Aaaah, but in the new area you'd move to would you live in the poorer neighborhood or the richer neighborhood. It depends what you could afford. There's no getting away from it. The more things change, the more they remain the same.