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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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
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.
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.
Still wondering…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Does anyone know this?