Posted by Anna on August 17, 1999 at 22:54:51:
In Reply to: Re: eviction based on owner occupancy posted by Mark Smith on August 17, 1999 at 12:24:16:
: : : I have an aunt who has lived in the same apartment in NYC for 29 years.
: : : The apartment was rent controlled until 8 years ago and is currently rent
: : : stabilized at $500/month.
: I'm surprised that Anna didn't ask, but if your aunt has lived in the same apartment for 29 years, how did it switch from rent control to rent stabilization 8 years ago?
I didn't ask because the answer is always the same: LL sued for some reason, as part of the settlement/stipulation, tenant agrees to change to stabilization and to the price of 'first rent'.
Why the LL's want this is unknown: rent control rents have increased at a steady rate of 7.5% per year for a long time (plus fuel adj, plus MCI, etc); stabilized increases have been both smaller & less consistent. The huge vacancy allowances came back in 1997; these tenants all changed to stab before that. There seems to be less paperwork for the LL with rent stab. Eviction protections are similar. The one thing I've noticed: DHCR's approach to rent increases and code violations: almost automatically no increases with rent control, but rent stab tenants have to file for a rent reduction.
Many landlords and their lawyers and building managers act like (to quote other tenants) 'little Hilter' 'above the law' 'bullies' 'misogynists' 'psycho' 'abusive' 'megalomaniacs' 'sadists' etc: in short, they have control issues, anger issues, anti-social behavioural disorders, some are psychotic. Maybe they're allergic to the word 'control'! ;)
Why do you think LL's prefer stabilized over controlled?
Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup