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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Then maybe he should reply to someone who is actually saying those things.
Clairobscur in post #7 says something very like this, actually. Also I don’t find the post in question to be a rant, but rather, a series of factual statements.
Okay, then respond to post #7. The back and forth was created after someone challenged his notion that the OP has certainly saved a lot of money by living in the apartment.
Post #28 is nothing but one huge non-sequitur, based on the post he is responding to.
In your universe, people only and always respond directly to the content of one particular post when they click “reply to” that post? I’d like to visit there, it sounds interesting.
In my universe, sometimes people address the overall thrust of the conversation even if they have clicked “reply to” a particular post. The post was not a non sequitur in the context of the whole conversation and the OPs question. It was quite relevant actually.
Did you actually read #28? He gets all indignant about what Blackberry is saying, only to go off on a tangent that has nothing to do with anything Blackberry actually said. He does it multiple times, as though someone is actually arguing with him about something completely different.
It’s as though he’s having a totally different conversation, while replying consistently to the same discussion about the OP’s savings situation.
You are so obsessed with being offended at his assumptions (which are indeed rather offensive) that you are not seeing that he directly answered questions posed by the OP in the post you characterize as irrelevant: what sort of payout could I expect? Is hundreds of thousands really reasonable? The answer is if course “it depends” but the post you so object to lays out the major objective factors that most people would consider, including the likely maximum of the statutory rent.
I’m not any more offended by his posts than you are with mine. I’m just pointing out why it’s difficult to follow his posts, when it seems as though he’s tilting at windmills.
His info may be relevant, but it’s always proceeded by telling someone who doesn’t disagree with him that they are wrong.
We’re NEVER going to find out what “default landlord” means, are we?
Likely the building was recently purchased at foreclosure auction by the current landlord, or the building is in foreclosure with an absentee owner or didn’t sell at auction and the landlord is managing the building for the foreclosing bank.
Another approach is to look into buying an apartment or condo in NYC - or out of NYC, and see the cost.
For instance, if you could get a $500,000 loan from a bank over 30 years, that would be cool, but you would have high monthly mortgage.
However, if you get a large buy out from your apartment and can plunk down $100,000 or more on that loan right off the bat, that will take your monthly mortgage down to perhaps the same, or lower, than your current rent.
(Prices and interest rates may vary, so above was just a wild example.)
Plus, I don’t know how married you are to remaining in NYC, but if you got some huge settlement/pay out from your apartment, that would go a long way in buying a condo or even a house in some great, warm, fun locations all over the US or other parts of the world. Nice way to actually OWN some place outright - and then you could take any job to cover other costs of utilities, taxes and food, etc. - but never have to worry about living situation again.
No, he had posted in several forums. The landlord was the landlord in the traditional sense, the personal long-term owner of the building.