Google Search

TenantNet Forum Archives 1996-2002
Posting and Replies are disabled in all Archives
TenantNet Forum | TenantNet Forum Archives Index


four-year rule

Posted by chelsea on August 05, 2001 at 12:15:25:

In Reply to: Re: Ghooliani gives thousands of law-breaking landlords big $$$$$$ break. posted by Ben on August 05, 2001 at 10:32:16:

I think they should have a four-year rule for the rent stabilization fee. :) If the landlord failed to pay within the past four years, they should have to pay back interest. Too bad if the city didn't notify them, tenants don't get notified either that they're getting overcharged.

: : No money is being given to landlords. What is happening is interest will be forgiven on pre-1994 payments for landlords who have been current with their payments since then. The city had never sent bills for the fee to landlords or coop boards since 1994, and this year, suddenly tried to bill for all years, with interest.

: : Since they had never been billed before, coop boards and landlords complained, and the interest payments only were rescinded.

: :
: : : from tomorrow's New York Times Real Estate:

: : : Owners Get Fee Relief From City

: : : By JAY ROMANO

: : : ARLIER this year, the New York City Department of Finance evoked a
: : : collective gasp among rental landlords and co-op boards when officials
: : : suddenly ratcheted up efforts to collect unpaid registration fees that owners of
: : : rent-stabilized apartments are required to pay the city under a 1984 law
: : : along with compounded interest on past-due amounts.

: : :
: : : The registration-fee move infuriated many landlords

: The landlords knew that they were required to pay this fee. Except for the co-op/sponsor identity problem alluded to in the whole article, both sponsors (who are mostly former owners of the building) and owners of rental buildings knew they were required to pay this $10.00. Although similar to the tax-amnesty given to individual taxpayers who did not pay and/or file previous years' income taxes, this forgiveness of penalty is unwarranted. In the very least it should have been conditioned on an examination of whether or not these same scofflaw-landlords charged annual increases to their tenants.



Follow Ups:



Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup

Name    : 
E-Mail  : 
Subject : 
Comments: Optional Link URL: Link Title: Optional Image URL:


   

TenantNet Home | TenantNet Forum | New York Tenant Information | Contact Us
DHCR Information | DHCR Decisions | Housing Court Decisions | New York Rent Laws |

Subscribe to our Mailing List!
Your Email      Full Name