Posted by Anna on June 15, 2000 at 17:30:45:
In Reply to: Re: Help decoding 'high rent' deregulation, also RRRA97 posted by MJ on June 13, 2000 at 10:27:31:
You really have to read the whole story about the 93, 94 and 97 city and state amendments on Tenant.Net. Can't remember where: maybe '97 Rent Wars'. Articles in MetCouncil's Tenant might clarify it.
Basically, landlords and DCHR and one court decision (?) pretended that the 93 amendment allowed them to 'deem the legal rent to be $2000' for one second while the apartment was vacant so it was deregulated before the first tenant paid $2000. The City passed the 94 amendment to stop this gross misinterpretation. This section of 97 reads the same because it's not in this section: it is in the interplay of several sections. They did a similar thing with rent control: it clearly must be rent stabilized with the first tenant after vacancy, but it took a court decision to stop them from 'deeming' in stabilized while vacant then market rate for the first tenant.
Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup