The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > In My Humble Opinion (IMHO)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-15-2013, 01:55 AM
Straighted Straighted is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Default Landlord wants us to leave our rent stabilized apartment

Our family lives in a rent stabilized apartment. We been living in this apartment for 25 years. Our rent is 900 dollars per month and the market price is somewhere between 2.5x to 3x the amount. I know my landlord has asked other tenants who lived in my building to move out and 1 of them did because he offered a sum of money for them.


My first question is, is this legal to receive money from the owner of the building to move out? I read it is online and this is called a buyout.


My second question is why would anyone move out if the rent is stabilized? I understand why the landlord wants you to move out because your rent is stablilized and they would be collecting 2300/month in rent as oppose to your 900/month in rent. But if we want to rent the same place, it would cost 2.5x to 3x the amount. Thus the rent in 1 year is 10800 currently but if you rent the same apartment its 31200.


Assuming we move to another location, it still would cost 2000/month for the same location at the very minimum. He really wants us to move out. But if we do, wouldn't the amount we receive have to be a high amount since rent stabilized apartment is saving us 1400/month?


We have no plans to leave the apartment but the landlord keeps asking us many times. But if we then decide in the future to move, how much is the right amount? I can't imagine it worth it because if we get a similar apartment for say 2000 per month in another place, we paying an extra 1100 per month which is 13000 per year. I read online that most buyouts are usually 65k max but for our apartment, how much should a buyout be relative to your rent and the market value? I know they have to spend money to renovate the apartment so that will cost them money. But from what i read if an owner makes back their buyin in 2 or 3 years, then its gravy for them and buyouts are very good deals for them and almost never the renter of the stabilized apartment. Is this true?


Landlord first offered us 5k and then 10k and then 12.5k. We told them we weren't interested in moving at all so he went up and we told them we still was not interested. I thought in my mind, why in the world would we accept 5k when its going to cost us more than that if we go and get another similar apartment and then pay over 5k in total rent difference in just 4 months. We have no interest at the moment to leave but if we do in the future, is there an amount that is right? We know someone that lived a few blocks from us who live in a rent stabilized apartment and told the landlord he was moving and wanted his security deposit and the landlord said okay immediately. He did not know anything about the buyout and that he could have gotten money for it since he was already planning to move so the landlord was definitely happy he was moving. The reason why he was living in the rent stabilized apartment was because it was under his fathers name and they didn't live there anymore and it was just him.


I read a thread about this and ppl say this is gaming the system but how is it gaming the system if you don't plan to move? I assume its only gaming the system if you plan to move soon and just want the extra money? Would you say the person that we know who told the landlord he was going to move out after his lease ends and just wants his security deposit back stupid for not getting a buyout? Obviously he had no clue about it and was honest and the landlord was very happy but was it kinda foolish for him to not ask for one?


Also is there a way to have the landlord not keep asking us this? He spoke to us multiple times trying to convince us and we said we weren't interested many times. I thought even if we were interested, isn't the buyout he is offering us kind of a joke?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 08-15-2013, 03:04 AM
cochrane cochrane is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
N/M.

Last edited by cochrane; 08-15-2013 at 03:04 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-15-2013, 07:10 AM
Captain Amazing Captain Amazing is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 23,500
It's legal for him to try to buy you out and for you to take the money.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-15-2013, 07:29 AM
samclem samclem is online now
graphite is a great moderator
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Akron, Ohio
Posts: 21,957
Personal legal questions belong in IMHO rather than General Questions. Moved.

samclem, moderator
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-15-2013, 07:41 AM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 14,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Straighted View Post

I read a thread about this and ppl say this is gaming the system but how is it gaming the system if you don't plan to move? I assume its only gaming the system if you plan to move soon and just want the extra money? Would you say the person that we know who told the landlord he was going to move out after his lease ends and just wants his security deposit back stupid for not getting a buyout? Obviously he had no clue about it and was honest and the landlord was very happy but was it kinda foolish for him to not ask for one?

I know nothing about "rent stabilized apartments", let alone related laws, but from a "moral" point of view :

You should bother only, in almost all cases, about what is legal and what is not. Not about whether it's gaming the system or not. The reason is that the landlord, in almost all cases, would do the same. If he had a way to evict you and rent the apartment for $ 1400/month more, he most probably would do so.

Also, presumably, when he acquired the apartment, he knew what he was buying, and the price he paid presumably was taking into account the lowest rent the tenants would be paying. So, it would be equally correct to say he "gamed the system" by not offering money (assuming that offering money to move out is legal) and getting an apartment he can rent $2300/month for the price of an apartment he can rent for only $ 900/month. In fact, he just lucked out by having tenants who wanted to leave anyway.

There might be exceptions, obviously (so, no need for nitpickers to provide 200 contrary examples), but generally speaking, acting in accordance to the law in contractual relationships (like landlord/tenant) is ethical.

Last edited by clairobscur; 08-15-2013 at 07:41 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-15-2013, 07:56 AM
elbows elbows is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 9,255
Ask him to put all his requests in writing, or you are not going to take him seriously. That should help a bit, I think.

Could you share what city or state you're in? And whether you are the original 'stabilized' rent qualifier or a son, as you described your neighbour to be? I should think both those details would be pertinent. When you say you've lived there 25yrs, do you mean since you were a kid?

At least if his offers are all in writing, should he ever try to force you out, using other tactics, you'll have evidence he's been trying to get you out for ages!

Assuming the laws protect you, as they would here, I don't think he can make y'all move, and I would stay rather than take any buy out for the reasons you've mentioned. However your OP seems like you just want to know the magic number that will make moving profitable for you. I think only you can decide what it's worth to your family.

Wishing you good luck!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-15-2013, 08:00 AM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 14,920
Oh, and as for the "correct price" (again assuming that those "buy out" are legal) : in theory the correct price for you would be whatever it would cost to you to move out. For instance, if you expect to stay in this apartment for the next ten years before moving to retire somewhere else, it would cost you 10*12*1400 = $ 168 000 to move out now. Given that you would get all the money right now insted of saving on your rent for the next ten years, asking for lower amount would make sense. So, let's make that $ 140 000, for instance. Of course, many other factors would affect it (moving out is a pain in itself, so you will want more money. You'll be pleased to move into a nicer neighborhood, so you'll be happy with less money, etc..)

In practice, the correct price is whatever you and your landlord will agree on and will satisfy you both, be it $ 5 000 or $ 500 000. It isn't more complicated than that.

That said, given the huge difference in rent you're mentioning, and given that you don't intend to move out for any other reason, accepting to do so for 65 k (the maximum you mentioned) doesn't seem like a good deal to me, given that it covers the difference in rent for only about 4 years.

Last edited by clairobscur; 08-15-2013 at 08:02 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-15-2013, 09:33 AM
bump bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
clairobscur has it right- figure out how long you expect to stay in that apartment, and figure out your difference between what you would pay if you stayed, AND what you would pay if you moved somewhere else. (important).

Then, if you're feeling generous, you could do time-value-of-money calculations to figure out how much NOW equals that difference over that time period, accounting for the fact that you could invest that money in the interim, as well as have it devalue due to inflation, etc....

But yeah, unless you didn't plan to stay for more than 4 years, 65k is chump-change. It should be a LOT more- nearer the $168k that was mentioned.

Otherwise you're basically leaving money on the table and helping the landlord make money at your expense.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-15-2013, 09:50 AM
doreen doreen is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Woodhaven,Queens, NY
Posts: 4,197
Quote:
My second question is why would anyone move out if the rent is stabilized? I understand why the landlord wants you to move out because your rent is stablilized and they would be collecting 2300/month in rent as oppose to your 900/month in rent. But if we want to rent the same place, it would cost 2.5x to 3x the amount. Thus the rent in 1 year is 10800 currently but if you rent the same apartment its 31200.
There may not be any reason for you to move out if your rent is stabilized, but that's not true for everybody. I've known people who lived in rent controlled or stabilized apartments who also owned weekend/summer houses. If they were offered enough of a buyout , they might move to that house full-time. Some people have very large stabilized apartments, larger than they really need - they might be able to move to a smaller apartment for the same rent. Other people may be approaching retirement and decide to take the buyout and move to a less expensive area. Others might use the buyout money to buy real estate in a less expensive part of the same area- I live in NYC, so the one or two people I've known of who did this took a buyout from a Manhattan apartment and bought a house in a not-trendy part of Queens or Brooklyn.

Last edited by doreen; 08-15-2013 at 09:51 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-15-2013, 10:26 AM
Hello Again Hello Again is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
To be clear, it is not "gaming the system" to legally occupy a stabilized unit. If you live in New Tork City and have questions about your rights and obligations, call the Rent Stabilization Board and/or Housing Preservation & Development. It would be gaming the system if you were for example, hiding income in order to qualify (this is defrauding the system) or otherwise acquiring you apartment through less than legal means.

Offering to pay you off to leave is perfectly legal (and makes sense for some people); your refusal to accept what is a bad deal for you is also perfectly legal. Harassing you -- or reducing the service you receive, such as by not maintaining the elevator or laundry room, or turning off your heat -- is NOT LEGAL.

These answers assume you live in NYC.

Last edited by Hello Again; 08-15-2013 at 10:28 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-15-2013, 11:22 AM
LurkerInNJ LurkerInNJ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Get a lawyer to negotiate the buyout if you are in NYC.

Here are some examples of the factors that go into determining the number:

http://www.brickunderground.com/blog..._your_landlord

The more he wants you to leave, the more money you can get. You can always formally refuse and then go back to negotiating when he gets really frantic.

P.S. I got a 10K buyout over 30 years ago. That was a lot of money back then.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-15-2013, 11:45 AM
LurkerInNJ LurkerInNJ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
What exactly is a "default landlord"?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-15-2013, 01:13 PM
Cat Whisperer Cat Whisperer is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Lethbridge, AB.
Posts: 48,377
Assuming your family is meeting all the legal conditions of tenancy there (only the people on the lease are living in the apartment, etc.), I also think it is a good idea to get in touch with your local Rent Stabilization Board to see what your rights are in dealing with an aggressive landlord. I also can't see any reason why someone would leave a rent stabilized apartment just because their landlord wants to make more money - the buyout to get me to leave would be very, very large indeed.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-15-2013, 01:28 PM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 26,954
Something else to keep in mind is that it is no longer in your landlord's best interests to keep you as a tenant. Therefore the possibility of things like repairs being delayed, citing you for even the slightest violation of your lease, etc.

I don't mean blatantly illegal things like shutting off your heat. But he is losing out on several thousand dollars a year renting to you, and it is human nature to resent that on some level.

Regards,
Shodan
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-15-2013, 01:47 PM
LurkerInNJ LurkerInNJ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
ok, I've been looking at all your other identical posts around the internet where it gave your location as NYC.

The first thing you need to figure out is why your landlord wants you out. How many units are in the building? Is he trying to sell it? Go condo? Co-op? A few vacancy decontrols aren't a big deal in a 40 unit building, but they are in a 10 unit building. Unfortunately, the owner of a 10 unit building who wants a few vacancy decontrols usually doesn't have as much cash as the owner of a 40 unit building.

You need to find out exactly why he wants you out before you decide if negotiating will be worth the time or effort. If he can't afford what would make it worthwhile for you, you don't need to take it any further.

After paying such low rent for all these years, your family must have a shit-ton of money saved up. Why not invest in a nice co-op? You could pay cash for the shares with your savings and easily swing the monthly fees.

Last edited by LurkerInNJ; 08-15-2013 at 01:48 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-15-2013, 03:34 PM
StGermain StGermain is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Toon Town
Posts: 9,463
A reason to accept his offer is if you were planning to move anyway. Out of the area, the state or the country. His buyout amount could be enough to buy a house outright in other places.

StG
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-15-2013, 05:08 PM
Saintly Loser Saintly Loser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
But he is losing out on several thousand dollars a year renting to you, and it is human nature to resent that on some level.
I hate this. You hear this all the time from owners of rent-stablized buildings. It's bullshit.

The purchase price of an apartment building is, of course, based on the rent roll and the projected revenues over a long period of years.

The landlord is not "losing out" on several thousand dollars a year. The landlord did not (unless he or she or it is a spectacularly bad businessperson) pay more for the building than would allow him/her/it to make a profit. What the landlord is "losing out" on is a windfall. Some landlords will claim that rent regulation is unfair to them even when they inherited a paid-off building or two.

Owners of rent-stablized buildings in NYC can and do make a profit. They do make enough money to maintain the buildings and provide heat and hot water, as they are required by law to do.

Some (not all) landlords will go to great (and illegal) lengths to get rid of rent-stablized tenants. I've seen crackheads moved in next door, denial of heat and hot water, refusal to make needed repairs, outright threats, incessessant legal harassment (false claims of non-payment of rent, forcing the tenant repeatedly into housing court to defend the claims), and the like. I've experienced it, too. In my case, I gave up. I surrendered. I just couldn't take it. The landlord actually introduced rats into the building, among other things.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-15-2013, 05:12 PM
Ann Hedonia Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by LurkerInNJ View Post
P.S. I got a 10K buyout over 30 years ago. That was a lot of money back then.
Same here.

It was really a no-brainer for me because:

1. My rent at the time (1982) wasn't really any lower than "market rent".

2. The apartment was an absolute dump, a true tenement on the Upper East Side.

I had been planning on moving anyway, but I had a "gut feeling" when I didn't receive my renewal lease at the usual time. So I called the landlord and requested my renewal lease and instead I received a call from a lawyer.

At one point I went to one of the non-profit housing advocacy groups for advice. They were ready to help me fight tooth and nail for my right to stay in the apartment but when I told them I was really looking for advice on maximizing the buyout they pretty much threw me out the door.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-15-2013, 06:52 PM
iamthewalrus(:3= iamthewalrus(:3= is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintly Loser View Post
Some (not all) landlords will go to great (and illegal) lengths to get rid of rent-stablized tenants. I've seen crackheads moved in next door, denial of heat and hot water, refusal to make needed repairs, outright threats, incessessant legal harassment (false claims of non-payment of rent, forcing the tenant repeatedly into housing court to defend the claims), and the like. I've experienced it, too. In my case, I gave up. I surrendered. I just couldn't take it. The landlord actually introduced rats into the building, among other things.
Clearly, actions like that are and should be illegal.

However, there's a big difference between introducing rats and, say, replacing broken appliances with cheap models, or installing ugly carpet. When you live in a place where the owner has a major financial incentive for you to leave, expect the bare legally required minimum effort (or, unfortunately, illegal efforts) in the hopes that you'll leave.

Ultimately, you can't beat the market with price controls (on average). If you hold the price for an apartment down, the apartment trends toward being as shitty as the price you're paying.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-15-2013, 07:10 PM
Saintly Loser Saintly Loser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3= View Post
However, there's a big difference between introducing rats and, say, replacing broken appliances with cheap models, or installing ugly carpet. When you live in a place where the owner has a major financial incentive for you to leave, expect the bare legally required minimum effort (or, unfortunately, illegal efforts) in the hopes that you'll leave.
Actually, what you sometimes get is the landlord replacing an appliance, usually the refrigerator, with a really expensive model, because the landlord is allowed to incorporate that cost into the rent, and once the rent goes over a certain amount (I think it's $2,000), the apartment is de-stablized.

Or, worse, you get the landlord replacing a non-functioning refrigerator with the cheapest possible model, but submitting phony documentation of the cost so as to boost the rent over and above the actual cost of the refrigerator.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-15-2013, 07:11 PM
OldGuy OldGuy is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Very east of Foggybog, WI
Posts: 2,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintly Loser View Post
The landlord is not "losing out" on several thousand dollars a year. The landlord did not (unless he or she or it is a spectacularly bad businessperson) pay more for the building than would allow him/her/it to make a profit. What the landlord is "losing out" on is a windfall. Some landlords will claim that rent regulation is unfair to them even when they inherited a paid-off building or two.
Not necessarily, if the current owner bought before 1974(?) when rent stabilization was enacted, they can argue that they are losing out. Those people who owned building in NYC when rent stabilization was enacted (or more precisely who owned the building during the period when it became likely they would be) did suffer a "windfall loss."

Note this is true whether or not the building is "paid-off" if by that you mean a mortgage. Whether or not a building is mortgaged does not affect the value.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-15-2013, 07:21 PM
Straighted Straighted is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
I would like to mention another thing. The area i live isn't exactly a good area like those locations on the upper east or west side in manhattan in nyc. The area isn't that good.


So when many of you mention 40k, 50k, i think the landlord would laugh at that. Or am i wrong here? I know everything is location location location. My location is great if you want to take public transporation in nyc but the area isn't that good. However, the rent for my place would be around 2300 month if we they were to rent to another tenant.


Would that be a big consideration? That the area isn't that good but it isn't that that bad?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-15-2013, 07:46 PM
doreen doreen is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Woodhaven,Queens, NY
Posts: 4,197
What area is it? That's the only way anyone could give you an idea if $40 or $50 K is possible.
My mother-in-law was offered around $30,000 thirty years ago to leave her rent-controlled Chelsea apt. It wasn't a great neighborhood then, but she was paying about $200 a month ( I said controlled , not stabilized), the landlord desperately wanted her out, and he would have made the $30,000 back in a couple of years with the higher rent. The non-rent controlled apts in that building were going for around $1500.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-15-2013, 07:52 PM
Blackberry Blackberry is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by LurkerInNJ View Post
After paying such low rent for all these years, your family must have a shit-ton of money saved up.
Um...what? What a strange assumption to make. So everyone who pays "only" $900 in rent must have tons of money in the bank?

OP: I agree with everyone, stay if you want. And maybe you aren't being quite clear enough with your landlord and that's why he keeps bugging you? Don't talk about the price with him if you don't think he'll pay any amount that would be worth it to you. Just tell him there's a 0% chance of you accepting any offer. Tell him that and only that every time he asks. I don't know why, but I've always had good luck with using the phrase "0% chance" when trying to get people to stop bugging me about something. If you discuss your reasons or anything with him, that just gives him stuff to argue against.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-16-2013, 01:16 AM
Straighted Straighted is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
I would like to know if we have intention of moving X years down the line whether its 5, 10 or 15 years down the line, how much would we ask for and how would we approach it if want to ask him later on as by then the landlord wouldn't be pestering us anymore like he did the last few months. Obviously the dream situation would be if 5 or 10 years down the line when we are thinking about moving, then the landlord makes us offers again like now but makes more higher offers but i doubt this would happen as last week i told him we have 0 zero in moving out so please stop asking us.


Because if we do decide to leave in the future, i want to know what would be the right way to approach it. Do we just go and ask the landlord how much we would get if we were to leave? I never thought about these things till now and since he made these offers to us which we have no interest in at the moment, i thought what would be the way to approach it when he doesn't offer us a buyout anymore and when we do want to move in the future. Thus we would be going to him and not the other way around like right now.


We knew a person a few blocks from us who lived in a rent stabilized apartment who moved asked his landlord how much he would get and then only got 10k. He already stated his intention to move but what could he have done to not had this happen or that was most likely his only way to get something out of it. Also, we knew another person as i mentioned in the original post who is a few blocks from us who lived in a rent stablized apartment who then just told the landlord he would be moving soon and just want his security deposit back and then landlord said okay immediately and then the guy later found out he could actually have gotten some money out of it but he had zero clue so the landlord there was probably very happy.


Obviously if you are going to move, then asking for money is unethical but isn't it stupid to not ask? Is there a reason why the person we know only got 10k? I assume its b/c he asked and landlord knew b/c of that he was moving and thus wouldn't give that high of a price? The person that didn't ask for any money and just got his security deposit back later on found out that they didnt know they could get some money to leave and was upset about it.

Last edited by Straighted; 08-16-2013 at 01:17 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-16-2013, 07:09 AM
Captain Amazing Captain Amazing is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 23,500
I don't think asking for money in that case is unethical. The landlord is willing to pay you to move out, and is, in fact, eager to do so. But, in terms of actual cash amounts, it's a negotiation between you and your landlord. There's no one "right"figure, where we can tell you "You should get x".
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-16-2013, 01:48 PM
bump bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintly Loser View Post
The landlord is not "losing out" on several thousand dollars a year. The landlord did not (unless he or she or it is a spectacularly bad businessperson) pay more for the building than would allow him/her/it to make a profit. What the landlord is "losing out" on is a windfall.
It's not a windfall, it's profit left on the table.

They're making the assumption that they can easily rent the entire building at the going rate, and with that assumption, any apartment not pulling in at least the going rate is "losing" money relative to what they think they could have made.

They're not "losing" money in the sense of anything negative; at worst they're breaking even on the rent-stabilized apartment (I'm assuming that the rent stabilization laws allow for periodic increases due to inflation, improvements and rising costs).

However, they are making less money than they could if they rented it out for more.

Think about it this way: If you had a car to rent out, and you know that cars in your area generally rent out for $50/day, why would you want to intentionally rent it out for $30, even if that car only costs you $10/day? Either way you make money, but one way you're leaving money on the table- the market will bear $50/day, and you're not pricing accordingly.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-16-2013, 03:07 PM
LurkerInNJ LurkerInNJ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackberry View Post
Um...what? What a strange assumption to make. So everyone who pays "only" $900 in rent must have tons of money in the bank?
Strange assumption??? You're kidding, right?

Rent increases on rent stabilized apartments in NYC are set by the NYC Rent Guidelines Board. The increases are different for one and two year leases, with the two year increase being cheaper than the one year.

Going back 25 years if the rent is ONLY $900.00 in 2013, for the 24 years that increases are available on the website, their rent has gone up 76%. With increases varying anywhere from 2% to 4.5% over 25 years, that is some cheap rent to only be $900.00 after 25 years.

If you feel like working it out in Excel, here are the one year lease increases. Five years ago they were paying in rent what I was paying in the mid 1980's. Good for them that they reaped the financial benefits of having this apartment. They should have something to show for it. Most people in their situation own a home in Florida or have significant investments. People pay more to park their car than what they were paying in rent 5 years ago, so yes, I would expect them to have a pile of money saved at this point.

0.0400 2013 takes effect in October 936.00
0.0200 2012 900.00
0.0375 2011 882.35
0.0225 2010
0.0300 2009
0.0450 2008
0.0275 2007
0.0350 2006
0.0350 2005
0.0450 2004
0.0200 2003
0.0400 2002
0.0400 2001
0.0200 2000
0.0200 1999
0.0200 1998
0.0200 1997
0.0500 1996
0.0200 1995
0.0200 1994
0.0300 1993
0.0300 1992
0.0400 1991
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-16-2013, 04:23 PM
Dogzilla Dogzilla is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Yes, LurkerInNJ, but you don't know what the total income is, nor do you know what the other total expenses are. So you are drawing a whole bunch of conclusions without having all the data. For all you know, that "big savings" went to pay medical bills or put a bunch of kids through college, or I dunno, I can think of dozens of things I could spend my money on instead of rent.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-16-2013, 07:51 PM
Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Dogpatch/Middle TN.
Posts: 28,827
Straighted--

If you are approaching retirement age, consider taking the offer, & moving South.

I live in a 790 squ/ft condo, sold for $54k, $108/fees per month, and it's nice.

Not Gold Coast nice, but nice.

Gas locally is $3.29, electricity, food, taxes & etc also cheap.

If you're paying $900 per in rent, you're wasting your dough.
__________________
Weltschmerz
~~~Literally "world pain" in German, the term describes the pain idealists feel upon realizing that the world does not live up to their expectations of what it should be.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 08-16-2013, 08:03 PM
ZenBeam ZenBeam is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 8,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by LurkerInNJ View Post
What exactly is a "default landlord"?
Still wondering...
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-16-2013, 08:29 PM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 14,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by LurkerInNJ View Post
Strange assumption??? You're kidding, right?

Rent increases on rent stabilized apartments in NYC are set by the NYC Rent Guidelines Board. The increases are different for one and two year leases, with the two year increase being cheaper than the one year.
So? If someone is is making, say, $ 1 200 /month, he won't save anything, regardless how cheap you think a $ 900/month rent is. It's completely dependant on the tenant's income and expenses. I can't see why you would assume that the OP is saving tons of money.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-16-2013, 08:51 PM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 14,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Straighted View Post
I would like to know if we have intention of moving X years down the line whether its 5, 10 or 15 years down the line, how much would we ask for and how would we approach it if want to ask him .
You ask him "Still interest in this buying out?" . You could tell him that you *envision* to move, but that it would depend on how much he is willing to offer, since you aren't interested in moving to a cabin into the woods and whether or not you can afford an acceptable place to live will be dependant on how much he is willing to pay.

And that's, in fact, the truth.

As mentioned by another poster, being able to rent at a market price an apartment that he presumably bought on the cheap because the rent was regulated would be a nice windfall for him. He would suddenly gets $ 1 400 more each month (according to your figures). That's certainly worth paying quite a bit, if he can afford it. He might be willing to pay more than you believe. Or he might refuse to pay any serious money in the hope that he will eventually convince you to move out for a pittance. You won't know without asking.

Honestly, you just need to be assertive, and to tell him exactly why you're not considering his offers. Presumably, your landlord isn't an idiot, and he realizes that you're saving quite a lot by staying in the apartment. Just point at the figures. Tell him that if you were to move out, it would cost you $ XXX XXX over the next X years to rent something equivalent, hence that you're not interested in moving unless he offers a buy out of $ XXX XXX or more.

Or, as someone advised, consult a lawyer or someone else specialized in real estate. He might tell you how much you could expect, and probably even negociate for you if you think it's worth it.

Last edited by clairobscur; 08-16-2013 at 08:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-16-2013, 09:37 PM
LurkerInNJ LurkerInNJ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
So? If someone is is making, say, $ 1 200 /month, he won't save anything, regardless how cheap you think a $ 900/month rent is. It's completely dependant on the tenant's income and expenses. I can't see why you would assume that the OP is saving tons of money.
A "family" in NYC with a monthly income of $1,200.00 a month would be living in Mitchell-Lama housing and not a rent stabilized housing with $900.00 a month rent.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-16-2013, 09:47 PM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 14,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by LurkerInNJ View Post
A "family" in NYC with a monthly income of $1,200.00 a month would be living in Mitchell-Lama housing and not a rent stabilized housing with $900.00 a month rent.
Obviously (I think) this was an exagerated example. The point being that, not knowing the family's income, the poster couldn't even tell whether they could even afford the apartment or not, let alone whether or not they could save a lot of money.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-16-2013, 09:57 PM
LurkerInNJ LurkerInNJ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogzilla View Post
Yes, LurkerInNJ, but you don't know what the total income is, nor do you know what the other total expenses are. So you are drawing a whole bunch of conclusions without having all the data. For all you know, that "big savings" went to pay medical bills or put a bunch of kids through college, or I dunno, I can think of dozens of things I could spend my money on instead of rent.
I am a native New Yorker. I have lived in and around NYC my entire life. I know how things work here.

Even if this poster and his or her entire family were the worst money managers in NYC and were the only people in NYC who didn't get the memo that tuition at CUNY is something like 75% off for NYC residents (it used to be free, for real), and that NYC hospitals (city hospitals, not private) treat city residents without the ability to pay, I find it hard to believe that they haven't managed to take advantage of the NYC Housing Lottery for an affordable purchase after living here for at least 25 years. The Housing Lottery targets moderate and low income families.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 08-16-2013, 09:58 PM
LurkerInNJ LurkerInNJ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
Obviously (I think) this was an exagerated example. The point being that, not knowing the family's income, the poster couldn't even tell whether they could even afford the apartment or not, let alone whether or not they could save a lot of money.
Did I miss the part where they are being evicted for non-payment of rent?
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 08-16-2013, 10:25 PM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 14,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by LurkerInNJ View Post
Did I miss the part where they are being evicted for non-payment of rent?
Frankly I think you're nitpicking a bit too much.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 08-18-2013, 01:29 AM
Straighted Straighted is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Is it true for the landlord that if they could make back the money in just 5 years, then its a great deal for them? Someone mentioned how if they could make it back in 5-10 years, its a no brainer for them.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 08-19-2013, 12:59 AM
Straighted Straighted is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Does anyone know this?
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 08-19-2013, 02:24 PM
PunditLisa PunditLisa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: 'burbs of Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 13,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by doreen View Post
I've known people who lived in rent controlled or stabilized apartments who also owned weekend/summer houses.
I really don't understand rent stabilization. I mean, why subsidize someone's rent in one place so that they can buy a 2nd home in another place? Very odd.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 08-19-2013, 02:27 PM
PunditLisa PunditLisa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: 'burbs of Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 13,403
To the OPer:

"I appreciate your offer to move, but we have no intention of moving in the near future. Please refrain from asking us again. If our plans change, we will contact you."
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 08-19-2013, 03:40 PM
doreen doreen is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Woodhaven,Queens, NY
Posts: 4,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by PunditLisa View Post
I really don't understand rent stabilization. I mean, why subsidize someone's rent in one place so that they can buy a 2nd home in another place? Very odd.
I won't get too much into the into the whys except to say that rent control/stabilization wasn't really meant to help the poor but for the most part, a rent-stabilized apartment in NYC is a rent-stabilized apartment no matter how much the tenant earns or what assets the tenant has.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 08-19-2013, 03:52 PM
Hello Again Hello Again is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Stabilized rent is not subsidized. It's just a limit on how much rent can be increased year on year (it also sets a maximum rent, but many stabilized units charge below the maximum). ALL units in all building with 5 or more units are stabilized by default, unless they qualify for "luxury decontrol" by going above a certain rental price.

Last edited by Hello Again; 08-19-2013 at 03:53 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 08-20-2013, 11:10 AM
ethelbert ethelbert is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by doreen View Post
I won't get too much into the into the whys except to say that rent control/stabilization wasn't really meant to help the poor but for the most part, a rent-stabilized apartment in NYC is a rent-stabilized apartment no matter how much the tenant earns or what assets the tenant has.
While that may be true in a general sense in Queens, it is not true in Manhattan. Someone mentioned "luxury decontrol" upthread. I don't recall the specific amounts involved, but when the stabilized price hits a certain level (let's say $2000) and the tenants income exceeds a specified amount (say $250,000), the apartment can be returned to the free market. This does not happen often in the outer boroughs because the stabilized price rarely reaches the specified amount.

As far as the OP is concerned, you obviously don't want to move now and you probably should not. Do not expect the landlord to give you money when you do want to move. He is likely not an idiot. He will know that you intend to move anyway. He might throw a few bucks your way in order to get you to sign something. Get a lawyer. Don't rely on internet wisdom.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 08-20-2013, 11:46 AM
doreen doreen is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Woodhaven,Queens, NY
Posts: 4,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethelbert View Post
While that may be true in a general sense in Queens, it is not true in Manhattan. Someone mentioned "luxury decontrol" upthread. I don't recall the specific amounts involved, but when the stabilized price hits a certain level (let's say $2000) and the tenants income exceeds a specified amount (say $250,000), the apartment can be returned to the free market. This does not happen often in the outer boroughs because the stabilized price rarely reaches the specified amount.
I don't think it happens all that often in Manhattan either, unless you're restricting the use of Manhattan to only the most expensive areas- stabilized rents in Washington Heights or Inwood are not over $2500. If most apartments were subject to luxury decontrol, rent stabilization wouldn't be nearly as big an issue as it is. Even so, luxury decontrol looks only at income, not assets and only when the stabilized rent exceeds $2500.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 08-20-2013, 03:52 PM
LurkerInNJ LurkerInNJ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
Frankly I think you're nitpicking a bit too much.
No, I know how it works and the laws here are very specific.

People here are pulling numbers the OP should ask for, as is the OP, out of their asses without knowing how things work. Tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars without even knowing if the landlord wants a simple vacancy decontrol or wants to sell to a developer who wants a certain number of vacant units and go condo or teardown. The landlord is not going to suddenly get $3K a month for the unit.

If the OP moved out today, his landlord would be entitled to a 16.25% vacancy increase for a one year lease (legal rent was over 500) or 20% for a two year lease plus an additional .06% per year if the previous tenant was in the apartment for 8 or more years - called the longevity allowance, and the permanent increase amount is also affected by how many units are in the building (more/less than 35). There is a % adj for heat provided/not provided by owner so the decontrol % could be off by about 1%.

The new tenant moves in on September 1st and signs a 1 year lease. 16.25% is 146.25. The longevity allowance is 25 (years) x .06% = 15%. 900. x 15% = 135. So the new rent would be 900 + 146.25 + 135 = 1,181.25, or 281.25 more a month.

So for a $281.25 more per month total vacancy decontrol, the landlord is going to pay the OP ...... how much???? 65K, 168K, 1M, 500K? If the landlord plans to make improvements on the one unit, his IAI increase would be 1/40th or 1/60th of the improvements, depending on the size of the building. He would have to spend it and have it approved in order to recoup it.

The second the OP goes to his landlord and indicates a desire to move years in the future, the offer will go down, probably to zero. When you want what they want and they know it, what's the incentive? I want to move. Good, I want you out. Pay me money. No. You were moving anyway, so go.

The OP needs to do some research to find out WHY the landlord wants vacant units, and if it's because the landlord is selling the building, he can make some decent (taxable) cash. If the landlord is looking for a couple of units in a smaller building that he can do some quick upgrades on and get some decontrol cash and IAI increases, unless the family was planning to retire and move to Florida anyway, it would be idiotic for the OP's family to move.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 08-20-2013, 04:39 PM
Labrador Deceiver Labrador Deceiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Excuse me, but who the hell is arguing with you about any of that? The only thing you've said that someone took issue with was the ridiculous assertion that the OP has certainly saved a bunch of money, made without knowng a damn thing about his financial situation.

What on earth are you ranting about?

Last edited by Labrador Deceiver; 08-20-2013 at 04:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 08-21-2013, 11:08 AM
Hello Again Hello Again is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
He is challenging the assumption that the OP will get/should get 100s of thousand in compensation because the landlord can triple the rent once he's gone. Actually, the landlord can't.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 08-21-2013, 11:30 AM
Labrador Deceiver Labrador Deceiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Then maybe he should reply to someone who is actually saying those things.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.