Couple hasn't paid rent on their $4,754/mo Apt in 7 Years

[Shooby]

A couple living in notoriously expensive Manhattan haven't worried about paying the rent on time for the past seven years - because they haven't been paying it at all.

Digital content producers Zachary Bennett and Karen Nourse have lived for free in their $4,754.02-per-month flat on West 26th Street since 2010.

Back then, there were other residential units in the nine-story building, but now there are only businesses and art galleries.

Now, their landlord says it's time to pay out the $410,000 they owe or get out.

But they insist they are in their right to stay put, because of little-known legislation called 'Loft law'.





Landlord 513 West 26th Realty LLC filed the case in Manhattan Supreme Court saying the couple owes 80 months in rent and electric charges.

The New York Post reports the two live in Chelsea with their two children. Though the building is not up to code, their lawyer Margaret Sandercock claims: 'They’re entitled to be there.'

Bennett and Nourse don't think they should have to pay because of Loft Law.

Loft Law is designed to protect people living illegally in commercial or factory buildings.

The law was created to bring these buildings up to fire codes and to give rights and rent protection to the tenants.





www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4099928/Manhattan-couple-hasn-t-paid-rent-4-754-month-apartment-SEVEN-years.html

[MJ2.0]

what a dumb ass landlord.  Why let them get away with it for 7 years?

[Bonny]

Not a whole lot of substance in the article beyond the headline.

I have the feeling that this was a law intended to get landlords to bring substandard buildings into residential compliance. Witness the horrible fire and deaths of 36(?) people in the "Ghost Ship" in Oakland, CA late last year.

www.washingtonpost.com/realestate/ghost-ship-warehouse-fire-is-tragic-reminder-of-building-codes-importance/2017/01/05/79b06f34-c09d-11e6-897f-918837dae0ae_story.html?utm_term=.51d519cd5f46

That's the reason for residential safety codes and "self-help" remedies of non payment of rent.

[Deleted]

But they were living there illegally.  I remember back in the Good Old Days, tort law imposed pretty much no responsibility on the part of property owners towards trespassers, other than not doing anything that would deliberately harm them.  In hindsight, of course, the property owner should have taken whatever legal action was necessary to get them out immediately.

NYC is very tenant-friendly, though.  I used to read the Real Estate advice column in the NY Times on Sunday and nearly every question was from someone in a rent-controlled apartment, or wanting to get on the lease in a rent-controlled apartment.  If Granny was near death, a family member would move in with her and get his/her name on the lease so it would stay in the family.  People who moved out of town would secretly sublet.  The fight over the rent-controlled apartment in a divorce would get very ugly.  The result was a lot of middle-class people paying insanely low rents. 

[MJ2.0]

Jan 11, 2017 8:54:46 GMT -5 @athena53 said:

But they were living there illegally.  I remember back in the Good Old Days, tort law imposed pretty much no responsibility on the part of property owners towards trespassers, other than not doing anything that would deliberately harm them.  In hindsight, of course, the property owner should have taken whatever legal action was necessary to get them out immediately.

NYC is very tenant-friendly, though.  I used to read the Real Estate advice column in the NY Times on Sunday and nearly every question was from someone in a rent-controlled apartment, or wanting to get on the lease in a rent-controlled apartment.  If Granny was near death, a family member would move in with her and get his/her name on the lease so it would stay in the family.  People who moved out of town would secretly sublet.  The fight over the rent-controlled apartment in a divorce would get very ugly.  The result was a lot of middle-class people paying insanely low rents. 

when the alternative is paying $3000-4000+/month for a 1 bed apartment that's basically an oversized closet, damn right I'd be doing the same thing. I bet most people would if those were the choices.

[buystoys]

The rent-controlled lease games are part of the problem for NYC, though.  There is a limited amount of space available, so rents will be high no matter how you slice and dice it.  When you have tens of thousands of apartments that are tied up with rent-control leases, the available apartment rents just go up and up and up.  NYC has created some of the problem with all the regulations.  I do wonder what rents would look like if some of the rent controls were removed.

[Deleted]

Jan 11, 2017 12:24:59 GMT -5 buystoys said:

The rent-controlled lease games are part of the problem for NYC, though.  There is a limited amount of space available, so rents will be high no matter how you slice and dice it.  When you have tens of thousands of apartments that are tied up with rent-control leases, the available apartment rents just go up and up and up.  NYC has created some of the problem with all the regulations.  I do wonder what rents would look like if some of the rent controls were removed.

That's my thinking.  Someone pays for the rent controls.  Landlords, after all, have to maintain the buildings and pay property taxes) and it's usually the people who pay market rents, which have to be inflated to cover the under-payment by the rent-controlled tenants.  

There was an interesting podcast (Planet Money or Freakonomics) about a building in NYC that had set aside, per the law, some units for lower-income people with below-market rents.  They included a gym on the premises, but only for those paying market rents.  The low-income tenants weren't even permitted to buy a membership- they just did not have access.  That caused a real furor.  Unfortunately, I forget how it was resolved. 

[TheHaitian]

Jan 11, 2017 12:41:25 GMT -5 @athena53 said:

Jan 11, 2017 12:24:59 GMT -5 buystoys said:

The rent-controlled lease games are part of the problem for NYC, though.  There is a limited amount of space available, so rents will be high no matter how you slice and dice it.  When you have tens of thousands of apartments that are tied up with rent-control leases, the available apartment rents just go up and up and up.  NYC has created some of the problem with all the regulations.  I do wonder what rents would look like if some of the rent controls were removed.

That's my thinking.  Someone pays for the rent controls.  Landlords, after all, have to maintain the buildings and pay property taxes) and it's usually the people who pay market rents, which have to be inflated to cover the under-payment by the rent-controlled tenants.  

There was an interesting podcast (Planet Money or Freakonomics) about a building in NYC that had set aside, per the law, some units for lower-income people with below-market rents.  They included a gym on the premises, but only for those paying market rents.  The low-income tenants weren't even permitted to buy a membership- they just did not have access.  That caused a real furor.  Unfortunately, I forget how it was resolved. 

It was resolved by giving them access to it to avoid the bad publicity!

Same with a building that thought the low income tenants should have an entrance without 24 hours doorman (a luxury in NYC and form of security) and the market rate had an entrance with the 24 hours doorman. Basically same building - 2 separate entrances.

Logic: below market rent folks were not paying enough to cover the cost of 24 hours doorman so should benefit.

Yep the publicity was bad and they had to fix it ASAP.

The only way I have seen landlords get away with it in both NYC and Boston is inside the apartment: lesser quality appliances, no granite counter tops or quartz, no wooden floor (tiles etc), less high end finishes.

The only way you would know one person is paying less than you in rent is if you entered their apartment or they told you. Anything outside of that : like separate entrance, no access to certain amenities, anything to "brand" them is
Immediate outcry and shut down quickly.

I remember there was a poster that posted here that lived in one of those expensive places and was able to get the low/below market rent apartments and she was lamenting about how her and her husband could not "tip" or give Christmas "cash" to the service staff as well as her neighbors (doorman, cleaning service, maintenance screw, etc) and worried that would send the signal they were the "poor" ones.

[Bonny]

Jan 11, 2017 12:41:25 GMT -5 @athena53 said:

Jan 11, 2017 12:24:59 GMT -5 buystoys said:

The rent-controlled lease games are part of the problem for NYC, though.  There is a limited amount of space available, so rents will be high no matter how you slice and dice it.  When you have tens of thousands of apartments that are tied up with rent-control leases, the available apartment rents just go up and up and up.  NYC has created some of the problem with all the regulations.  I do wonder what rents would look like if some of the rent controls were removed.

That's my thinking.  Someone pays for the rent controls.  Landlords, after all, have to maintain the buildings and pay property taxes) and it's usually the people who pay market rents, which have to be inflated to cover the under-payment by the rent-controlled tenants.  

There was an interesting podcast (Planet Money or Freakonomics) about a building in NYC that had set aside, per the law, some units for lower-income people with below-market rents.  They included a gym on the premises, but only for those paying market rents.  The low-income tenants weren't even permitted to buy a membership- they just did not have access.  That caused a real furor.  Unfortunately, I forget how it was resolved. 

I'd be surprised if the gym membership was denied to lower income residents if they were willing to pay for it.

One of my bigger deals for the Transit District was negotiating a long term ground lease (total of 99 years) for a 144 unit apartment project near a Transit Station. I was very proud that we were able to facilitate an 80-20 project, i.e. 80% market, 20% affordable. The problem with the all affordable projects is that you are effectively ghetto-izing the poor. And by having most of the residents paying market rents, they aren't going to put up with some of the societal problems (drugs, physical abuse, et cetera) that can also plague the poor. The market paying people will complain to management and those trouble-makers will get evicted for not following the rules.

But "inclusive housing", the term the planners use when they require an affordable element to a development is different than "rent control". For my project the developer had access to some low interest CA bond money plus got a density bonus (could build more units) with the affordable element. Therefore, the development was adding additional housing stock and of course the developer was getting a viable economic bonus.

I agree with the others that the unintended consequence of rent control is that it effectively takes units out of service as middle class people hang onto units that they would otherwise give up if they were actually paying market rent. My DH had a colleague who hung onto a nice 1br in San Francisco for two years because she was only paying about $500/mth rent when market (back then) was about $2k month. She kept it as a second home and wrote off the expense as a business expense because it was cheaper to do that then pay for a hotel room for a week.

You can imagine what a stink Air BnB caused for the City!

[TheHaitian]

Another thing is in major cities like NYC, Boston, DC... the new places buying built or flipped are not targeted toward the middle class or middle class family.

In NOMA on top of my store or surroundings , downtown D.C., or DuPont Circle where a friend live they are renting 1 bedroom apartments for $2,800/month. 2 bedrooms $3,500/month

Is that really affordable to a middle class family?

But in the story I am surprised the landlord waited so long to try to evict them.

[Deleted]

Jan 11, 2017 13:02:10 GMT -5 TheHaitian said:

Same with a building that thought the low income tenants should have an entrance without 24 hours doorman (a luxury in NYC and form of security) and the market rate had an entrance with the 24 hours doorman. Basically same building - 2 separate entrances.

Logic: below market rent folks were not paying enough to cover the cost of 24 hours doorman so should benefit.

Yep the publicity was bad and they had to fix it ASAP.
<snip>
The only way I have seen landlords get away with it in both NYC and Boston is inside the apartment: lesser quality appliances, no granite counter tops or quartz, no wooden floor (tiles etc), less high end finishes.

Oh, yeah- the doorway issue was in the podcast, too- I couldn't remember the details. Perfectly reasonable to cut back on cosmetic features such as countertops or flooring, IMO.

[beergut]

 I love the sense of entitlement these people paying less have.

It is like the concept that you pay more for more and better service completely flies right over their head. 

Not being treated like someone who pays more than they do makes them feel bad, therefore it is wrong, therefore the landlords are in the wrong and should be publicly shamed and punished. It is classic victim mentality. 

I'd love to see what would happen if the 80%ers got together and decided they didn't like paying for services or benefits that were going to other people in the building, so they cut out that portion of the rent and have the doorman removed, or close down the gym. 

It just blows my mind that these people don't realize they are living in subsidized housing that is subsidized by their neighbors, and then complain when the people who pay for part of their rent get one more amenity than they do. 

[beergut]

Found the Freakonomics podcast/post, which includes a link to a 2014 article on 'poor doors':


Fitness Apartheid


Poor doors

[Bonny]

Jan 12, 2017 17:19:39 GMT -5 beergut said:

 I love the sense of entitlement these people paying less have.

It is like the concept that you pay more for more and better service completely flies right over their head. 

Not being treated like someone who pays more than they do makes them feel bad, therefore it is wrong, therefore the landlords are in the wrong and should be publicly shamed and punished. It is classic victim mentality. 

I'd love to see what would happen if the 80%ers got together and decided they didn't like paying for services or benefits that were going to other people in the building, so they cut out that portion of the rent and have the doorman removed, or close down the gym. 

It just blows my mind that these people don't realize they are living in subsidized housing that is subsidized by their neighbors, and then complain when the people who pay for part of their rent get one more amenity than they do. 

But it's not really the neighbors who are subsidizing them. If the developers are getting density bonuses and below market financing as an incentive, then I think they deserve the same access to the building facilities as their neighbors.

It's the general tax paying public who are subsidizing them and they don't have access to the facilities.

[beergut]

Jan 12, 2017 20:59:03 GMT -5 Bonny said:

Jan 12, 2017 17:19:39 GMT -5 beergut said:

 I love the sense of entitlement these people paying less have.

It is like the concept that you pay more for more and better service completely flies right over their head. 

Not being treated like someone who pays more than they do makes them feel bad, therefore it is wrong, therefore the landlords are in the wrong and should be publicly shamed and punished. It is classic victim mentality. 

I'd love to see what would happen if the 80%ers got together and decided they didn't like paying for services or benefits that were going to other people in the building, so they cut out that portion of the rent and have the doorman removed, or close down the gym. 

It just blows my mind that these people don't realize they are living in subsidized housing that is subsidized by their neighbors, and then complain when the people who pay for part of their rent get one more amenity than they do. 

But it's not really the neighbors who are subsidizing them. If the developers are getting density bonuses and below market financing as an incentive, then I think they deserve the same access to the building facilities as their neighbors.

It's the general tax paying public who are subsidizing them and they don't have access to the facilities.

 I don't think these are developers in the gym case, though, this is just a commercial real estate company that bought a complex of three buildings, 60% of the units of which are rent controlled. The company spends $5 million in renovations on the buildings, including converting a storage room into a gym. The key cards for the other 40% who paid market rate rent would allow them into the gym, but the key cards for the rent-controlled apartments would not let them in the gym. The people living in the rent-controlled apartments aren't paying for the new gym, the people paying market rates are. I don't see any below-market financing or density bonuses happening here, because these aren't developers, this is a real estate corporation.

You have more experience in this area than I do, so if I'm wrong on incentives to new building owners, please correct me. 

[Bonny]

Jan 12, 2017 22:45:10 GMT -5 beergut said:

Jan 12, 2017 20:59:03 GMT -5 Bonny said:

But it's not really the neighbors who are subsidizing them. If the developers are getting density bonuses and below market financing as an incentive, then I think they deserve the same access to the building facilities as their neighbors.

It's the general tax paying public who are subsidizing them and they don't have access to the facilities.

 I don't think these are developers in the gym case, though, this is just a commercial real estate company that bought a complex of three buildings, 60% of the units of which are rent controlled. The company spends $5 million in renovations on the buildings, including converting a storage room into a gym. The key cards for the other 40% who paid market rate rent would allow them into the gym, but the key cards for the rent-controlled apartments would not let them in the gym. The people living in the rent-controlled apartments aren't paying for the new gym, the people paying market rates are. I don't see any below-market financing or density bonuses happening here, because these aren't developers, this is a real estate corporation.

You have more experience in this area than I do, so if I'm wrong on incentives to new building owners, please correct me. 

I don't know the details of the transaction without reviewing the documents. But it's hard for me to believe that a smart investor would buy a project that wasn't economic based on the current fundamentals. The "gravy" would be that renovations would dramatically increase cash-flow.

But I could be wrong. I've seen "smart" people do some stupid things based on market speculation.

[Phoenix84]

Jan 12, 2017 17:19:39 GMT -5 beergut said:

 I love the sense of entitlement these people paying less have.

It is like the concept that you pay more for more and better service completely flies right over their head. 

Not being treated like someone who pays more than they do makes them feel bad, therefore it is wrong, therefore the landlords are in the wrong and should be publicly shamed and punished. It is classic victim mentality. 

I'd love to see what would happen if the 80%ers got together and decided they didn't like paying for services or benefits that were going to other people in the building, so they cut out that portion of the rent and have the doorman removed, or close down the gym. 

It just blows my mind that these people don't realize they are living in subsidized housing that is subsidized by their neighbors, and then complain when the people who pay for part of their rent get one more amenity than they do. 

I point you to the other thread regarding human rights.  Apparently, there is a sizable portion of people who feel like housing is a right and it's only a small stretch to say that you're entitled to things you can't afford.

[Phoenix84]

This thread just reminds me why I'm glad I don't live in a big city.

[buystoys]

Jan 13, 2017 14:12:46 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

This thread just reminds me why I'm glad I don't live in a big city.

It reminds me why I'm glad we moved away from living near there!

[Phoenix84]

Jan 13, 2017 14:14:10 GMT -5 buystoys said:

Jan 13, 2017 14:12:46 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

This thread just reminds me why I'm glad I don't live in a big city.

It reminds me why I'm glad we moved away from living near there!

As a federal employee, not getting a job in DC does kind of limit my opportunities for advancement. But even if I get the promotion, dealing with the traffic and high rents/property values and crime and BS regulations just doesn't make the prospect sound appealing.

I like visiting DC, I just wouldn't want to live there.

[TheHaitian]

Jan 13, 2017 14:17:15 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

I like visiting DC, I just wouldn't want to live there.

Next time you are in DC let us know... we should get together with
wvugurl26 and 8 Bit WWBG

[tskeeter]

Jan 12, 2017 17:19:39 GMT -5 beergut said:

 I love the sense of entitlement these people paying less have.

It is like the concept that you pay more for more and better service completely flies right over their head. 

Not being treated like someone who pays more than they do makes them feel bad, therefore it is wrong, therefore the landlords are in the wrong and should be publicly shamed and punished. It is classic victim mentality. 

I'd love to see what would happen if the 80%ers got together and decided they didn't like paying for services or benefits that were going to other people in the building, so they cut out that portion of the rent and have the doorman removed, or close down the gym. 

It just blows my mind that these people don't realize they are living in subsidized housing that is subsidized by their neighbors, and then complain when the people who pay for part of their rent get one more amenity than they do. 

I think that attitude is kind of typical.  Not just applicable to subsidized housing, but many things.  Things such as tax breaks that are social engineering rather than tax revenue improvement, toll based roadways (that only the "rich" can afford to use), etc.  Try to make the case that these things favor one group over others and those who benefit drag out a long list of rationalizations of why they should continue to receive those benefits.

[tskeeter]

Jan 12, 2017 20:59:03 GMT -5 Bonny said:

Jan 12, 2017 17:19:39 GMT -5 beergut said:

 I love the sense of entitlement these people paying less have.

It is like the concept that you pay more for more and better service completely flies right over their head. 

Not being treated like someone who pays more than they do makes them feel bad, therefore it is wrong, therefore the landlords are in the wrong and should be publicly shamed and punished. It is classic victim mentality. 

I'd love to see what would happen if the 80%ers got together and decided they didn't like paying for services or benefits that were going to other people in the building, so they cut out that portion of the rent and have the doorman removed, or close down the gym. 

It just blows my mind that these people don't realize they are living in subsidized housing that is subsidized by their neighbors, and then complain when the people who pay for part of their rent get one more amenity than they do. 

But it's not really the neighbors who are subsidizing them. If the developers are getting density bonuses and below market financing as an incentive, then I think they deserve the same access to the building facilities as their neighbors.

It's the general tax paying public who are subsidizing them and they don't have access to the facilities.

I don't agree with the idea that developers receiving below market financing or other incentives are being subsidized by the taxpayers.  These incentives encourage developers to construct buildings that would not be built without the incentives.  Those buildings pay property taxes that the governments otherwise would not get.  The housing that the incentivized buildings make available encourages tax paying businesses to locate and expand in the area.  The residents of the new building pay income and sales taxes.  The grocery stores, and other businesses that the residents patronize pay a variety of taxes.  And on, and on.  Properly done, incentives are an investment in future tax revenue.  Not a gift to businesses.

[Phoenix84]

Jan 13, 2017 22:19:13 GMT -5 TheHaitian said:

Jan 13, 2017 14:17:15 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

I like visiting DC, I just wouldn't want to live there.

Next time you are in DC let us know... we should get together with
wvugurl26 and 8 Bit WWBG

Sounds good, I go there a lot for work.

[tallguy]

Jan 14, 2017 19:54:55 GMT -5 tskeeter said:

Jan 12, 2017 20:59:03 GMT -5 Bonny said:

But it's not really the neighbors who are subsidizing them. If the developers are getting density bonuses and below market financing as an incentive, then I think they deserve the same access to the building facilities as their neighbors.

It's the general tax paying public who are subsidizing them and they don't have access to the facilities.

I don't agree with the idea that developers receiving below market financing or other incentives are being subsidized by the taxpayers.  These incentives encourage developers to construct buildings that would not be built without the incentives.  Those buildings pay property taxes that the governments otherwise would not get.  The housing that the incentivized buildings make available encourages tax paying businesses to locate and expand in the area.  The residents of the new building pay income and sales taxes.  The grocery stores, and other businesses that the residents patronize pay a variety of taxes.  And on, and on.  Properly done, incentives are an investment in future tax revenue.  Not a gift to businesses.

Why would that be true?  I'm not familiar with the details of large developments, but if the tax breaks are given to include below-market-rent units, it does not necessarily follow that the buildings would not get built otherwise.  Only that they would get built without below-market-rent units.  Which I'm sure all of the full-price residents would prefer, actually.  Incentives are the price of "demanding" low-rate units be included.

[Deleted]

A lot of times (at least around here) the higher priced units are displacing those living in subsidized housing.  That's when they offer a certain percentage as income-based.  I don't know if here those are taxpayer-subsidized or simply a demand the city makes to allow the property to be razed and rebuilt.

I'm probably one of the posters that Phoenix84 was probably thinking about when he said some of us consider housing a "right."  I didn't mean an apartment in NYC, however.  I meant housing as the right to indoor plumbing, heat, and a roof over your head.  Sort of like I would define food as a right but not steak.  . This is why public housing exists.

I think the landlords in the original example didn't collect rent because that wasn't their focus for the property at the time.  Now they want these people out so it is.  

[Value Buy]

Jan 11, 2017 13:40:40 GMT -5 TheHaitian said:

Another thing is in major cities like NYC, Boston, DC... the new places buying built or flipped are not targeted toward the middle class or middle class family.

In NOMA on top of my store or surroundings , downtown D.C., or DuPont Circle where a friend live they are renting 1 bedroom apartments for $2,800/month. 2 bedrooms $3,500/month

Is that really affordable to a middle class family?

But in the story I am surprised the landlord waited so long to try to evict them.

A really big problem is the property tax bill the builders get with the finished product, even if it is for middle class people. The tax bill becomes so inflated it forces the middle class out of it because rents or mortgage has to throw in the property tax bill on the payment.
Many of these cities force the lower middle class or poor out of any construction based on this alone.

Chicago property tax bills on condos and single family homes are not going up a hundred dollars a year, but thousands of dollars per unit a year.
Add that to your payment and it forces everyone out but the rich.