Why is the DHCR so landlord biased despite ny progressivism?

[Bigskunk911]

Hi, Everyone, as folks know DHCR is pro-landlord which is no surprise but I am wondering given NY's politics which is considered very liberal especially within the last 10-20 years.

I've noticed that DHCR often fails to give the tenant an equal shot at hearing the side of the issue(a rebuttal except maybe 1 before the LL further responds), goes against their own policies and procedures (such as not only their memorandums but their own instructions to landlords such as registration instructions),and often assumes that the LL is telling the truth as if DHCR is the own landlord's advocate(ie, acting is if the landlord is a common person and not a professional and who would never modify rents/registration or pretend they can register something they cant). In addition if there's a legitimate issue they don't tell the tenant or follow the own procedures (ie, if the LL concealed certain data,to re-open the case or explain to the tenant what else they can do)

Despite, the fact that the era of guiliani,pataki,bloomberg, etc is over and a supermajority in both houses.

Despite the fact that many employees for dhcr probably live and work in nyc area if not nyc itself including head officers

Despite the fact that many staff in DHCR feature the narrative (ie, diversity,pro-regulation statements,always giving press relases saying comitted to affordability,touting more governemnt spending,investment.etc)

Despite the fact that many of the DHCR senior staff related to rent registration isn't as if its some court or panel in albany but right here in progressive nyc.

Despite the fact that many nyc politicians are considered very progressive not just city council but the state reps and also desipite that since nearly half of all residents of ny state live in nyc this means that the progressive voice is there.

Despite the fact that NY is considered one of the most landlord friendly states in the country via the courts and laws and rights and many on the other side of political spectrum voice disappointment.

Despite the fact that many decades have gone by and there's always protests and movements for social justice causes and the legislature is receptive for that.

Despite the fact that nyc has a large number of tenants which means in theory nyc state reps and the fact that many dhcr officers/offices are in nyc itself.

How did DHCR skirt the "progressive" movement, other agencies in ny state/city champion liberal causes.

Am I missing something?

[TenantNet]

You're assuming there is only right vs. left. There are many flavors and degrees to what one can call progressive. For example, in NY the "Liberal" party is anything but that. Go out to Queens, parts are fully Trump MAGA. Parts of Staten Island are very conservative. Parts of Brooklyn are conservative Jewish. Sean Hannity lives in NYC, so does Tucker Carlson, so does Giuliani and so did Trump. In short NY is not monolithic. Even a good number of tenant groups are sell-outs.

Politicians are often about one thing: money, ambition and power. Many sell out. There are actually very few that haven't. I'm not talking about those who make good-faith compromises to get things done, but complete sell-outs. I don't know where you are so I can't give you examples, but even Manhattan has plenty of sell-outs.

Then you have essentially an uneducated public who buy into the lie of the so-called "housing crisis." It's a manufactured crisis so pols can appear to be working for tenants.

I'll leave it there. But on nuts and bolt issues - like DHCR following its own laws and policies, I don't disagree with your assessment. But this has been the case for 40 years with DHCR, and before that when NYC ran the rent system.

[Bigskunk911]

While I agree NYC isn't monolothic, its overwhelming liberal/progressive/democrat though what politicians actually practice can be a bit less so. As far as Trump Maga (a bit-off topic), I imagine the percentage is quite small though media attention focuses on it. Seeing the vote adams got as well as the percentage of nyc council seats that are democratic. Yes, for a while the parts of nyc that were republican and kept the nys state senate republican as well as the so called independent conference make a difference, but that seems to be fading.

Now to get back on topic, I don't know why the "housing crisis" keeps coming up. Several democrats and so called progressives keep saying we need to give developers incentives and less zoning. A developer won't build without profit and doesn't really care too much about the community though they may give the apperance of a few concessions. Recall in the 90s,housing and rent was much cheaper relative to inflation and removing rent regulations to "increase supply and renovate" didn't make the city more affordable. Lack of rent regulation in oregon,washington state, and boston area for quite some time didn't make any dent in affordability, neither did MA's "anti-snob" law.

[TenantNet]

This is all off-topic, so let's close this one out.

You're caught up in labels. Being Democratic does not mean progressive or left, at least not on housing or development issues. Adams is quite conservative and bought by landlords and developers. Many other elected are also bought and in practice just opportunists.

The Housing Crisis is manufactured. It's fake. Yes, housing is tight, but not in the way the media portrays it. It's a creation of REBNY to get them funding to put up mostly luxury housing, and that hurts tenants. And the so-called socialist "good cause eviction" bill is also bad policy in that it will hurt more tenants than it will help.

[Bigskunk911]

Would you care to elaborate how "good cause eviction" is horrible policy (I would assume its more like an expansion of rent regulation,presuming its not coupled with other ll giveaways).
It would seem at-least to novices or newbies on the forum, that you and perhaps other participants may be in favor

[TenantNet]

Before I do that, explain to me what YOU think it is, how it works, where does it work, what does it actually do, and what tenants would be affected? Don't go into a long complicated explanation, just short and simple.

[Bigskunk911]

Before I do that, explain to me what YOU think it is, how it works, where does it work, what does it actually do, and what tenants would be affected? Don't go into a long complicated explanation, just short and simple.

It's quite simple, good cause eviction severly limits the landlord from terminating tenancy unless there are a few pre-defined reasons such as property damage or not paying rent. The main feature that's proposed is that a tenant's failure to pay a rent increase of more than the lower single-digits in NY wouldn't constitute "good cuase".

I actually live in a "good cause" building,though enforcement of "Good cause" often depends on the state regulators and courts and there may not be a private-right-of-action in the LIHTC program, and it doesn't come into play, because where I live units are also rent-stabilized making it largely moot.

Nearly all tenants would be affected by NY's proposal with the narrow exception of owner-occuped homes that are 3 units or less I believe. I won't get into the pros and cons, since that's not what you asked about.

[TenantNet]

I asked because there's a lot of misinformation about GCE, of course from the LLs, but also from tenants who are inventing benefits that don't exist.

You're incorrect on a number of points here. There is no such thing as a "good cause building." You mention LIHTC (Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits) which as far as we know has absolutely nothing to do with Good Cause.

Further, you're misconstruing a "Right of Private Action." Good Cause is a defense that may be raised in Housing Court (in NYC) or any court outside of NYC that hears actions or proceedings seeking possession by an owner, not something that gives the tenant the right to initiate a claim.

"All tenants would be affected....," well that's simply false.

GCE is not a regulatory system like ETPA. It is incredibly weak and likely to be watered down much further than the original proposal, allowing rent increase at 3% or 1.5 times the rate of inflation (whichever is higher). Take a look at the last ten years of RGB increases to see the difference. GCE does not give tenants a right to a lease, it does not require specific services or require an owner to maintain the "same term and conditions" of the expiring lease. It says nothing about harassment. The package is only a 1) defense in court and 2) presumes tenants know about it. Believe me, most tenant will not know.

GCE is being pushed by a bunch of socialists who know little how housing works in the real word. Cea Weaver and her mentor Mike McKee are con artists who make promises they can't keep, even if passed

And the most insidious part of GCE is the political capital being spent on this effort while they have admitted that real tenant needs are being ignored (it's called political preclusion, i.e., there is only so much political capital they can spend, and it's being wasted.

What do tenants really need?

1. Repeal of the Urstadt Law.
2. Clean-up DHCR
3. ETPA statewide, a REAL regulatory system
4. Reregulate units that were deregulated from 1993-2019.

On point 3, a few upstate municipalities have opted into ETPA, but it's a process and complicated. And the efforts are being challenged in court by landlords. But if tenants win, the real benefits would be far greater than anything GCE could offer.

Tenants real need are being ignored.

Having said all that, we've looked at who could benefit. For buildings with 5 or below units, that would have limited affect. (as you say, owner-occupied units are a carve-out). For buildings with 5 or above units, they would be rent stab (unless deregulated).

For unregulated units in former RS units (or perhaps those who are not impacted by tax abatement programs like 421-a, Many of those tenants are paying $3,000 or higher, and if their income is sufficiently high, they are not going to bother. I've seen some paying > $3k when taken to court, even if they have good defenses, really don't care. They just pick-up and move elsewhere.

Upstate, the possibility could be better (at least on paper), but if you've ever seen some of the upstate (out-of-control) judges in small town and hamlets, they can't be bothered. Some of them spend their time running car dealerships, or worse, are landlords themselves.

We're also seeing the real estate industry has it's own bills that are being considered, and if there's any truth to the press, there's a chance they might be adopted. According to the NYS Senate, the bill:

Provides that when a housing accommodation has been vacated after continuous tenancy or occupancy of ten years or more prior to vacancy, and the owner can demonstrate restoration of the unit, the new legal regulated rent shall be the rent agreed to by the owner and first tenant after such restoration and reserved in a lease or other rental agreement; makes related provisions.

There' legislation that would restore the massive MCI and IAI rent increases for landlords.

There are proposals that would bring back the 421-a tax abatement for landlords and developers. There's also a bill that would eviscerate the 1961 protections in the Multiple Dwelling law limiting the scale of buildings to 12 Floor Area Ration (FAR). Those two, in conjunction, would allow developers to take over our neighborhoods with large-scale luxury towers. While not tenant bills per se, they work in conjunction with tenant protections, and the proposed Mayor Adams' "City of Yes."

What are these jokers doing about all this? Nothing. Instead, Cea Weaver has teamed-up with Open New York, a front group for real estate developers to actually promote these bills.

In terms of the narrative, landlords are withholding thousand of units (warehousing) from being available for rent, falsely claiming they need to spend up to $100,000 per unit to make them fit for habitation. In terms of the press, landlords are controlling the press of this notion of a "housing crisis." which is absurd. Weaver and company are doing nothing to counter the real estate rationale for the anti-tenant legislation.

That's another discussion, but we've looked into that and the numbers are cooked. The 'housing crisis' is manufactured crisis. Cea Weaver and the wacko socialists have gone along with that.

[Bigskunk911]

Thanks for the clarification.

I should have stated that "good cause" would affect most if not nearly all currently unregulated tenants mainly in smaller private building, meaning nearly all tenants would start to have protections from large rent increases. Currently, if your in a private house you have few if any rights to tenancy as far as being kicked out if you don't agree to a large rent increase or the landlord simply doesn't want to renew your lease. This makes good cause attractive on paper since it's a huge win for those tenants. Also many landlord's don't live in the same building as tenants so I suspect the coverage will be larger.

Technically, if you live in a LIHTC building , tenants are supposed to be protected from eviction by a "good cause" requirement. However, interpratation and enforcement of that clause varies and it's usually up to state regulators and the courts to enforce it, since "good cause" can be vague (for instance is there a right to a renew your lease?). Generally, speaking however good cause should usually mean unless your causing a nuisance or violating rules of the program you shouldn't be evicted and should be able to renew your lease and increases in rent are limited. Of course "good cause" as proposed in other states and the ny legislature is going to be vastly different but some basic concepts remain the same. You are correct that renewing your lease with the same terms and conditions as well as tougher rights if you are rent stabilized aren't available (though with respect to LIHTC buildings there are strict limits and guidelines to what can be in the lease). As you can see "good cause" can be vague,too weak,and not enforced depending on the legal system.

I am not too familiar with Cea Weaver's group but heard of the organization. The danger of course is bundling the "good cause" with bad legislation. I also don't see the logic of having a super wealthy family for instance sign a lease for a tribeca penthouse at 20k a month during a recession instead of 30k and then only having to pay 1.5% increase due to "good cause".

I also disagree that those paying 3k a month in rent, won't put up a big stink, not so much because 3k is becoming more "reasonable" in certain parts of the city,but someone paying 3k would love to stay if there increase would be low. There was a bit of controversey for 421-a market tenants who signed a lease at say 4k a month before the pandemic and didn't want to renew at the same price,with the LL hesistant to give the 3k market price at renewal because it would mean that the tenant would be locked in to that lower price at base until they leave, Of course, if the unit was vacant for a couple years during the pandemic , the LL would get nothing unless they rented for 3k anyway. Perhaps the preferential rent law should be strenghted to require a lease renewal at fair market rate if this happens if the legal rent is higher.

I also disagree that the towers are a bad idea,though usually towers are developer centric who care about profit and when parking is eliminated, they ally themselves with progressives and further attack zoning. However,in yorkville for example where they put zoning to "protect" low character buildings, I fail to see how have a bunch of old 5 story buildings on the block , really preserves the neighboorhood when the next block has towers (I'm not talking about landmark style townhouses/rowhouses,but typical old square apartment buildings). In many cases its either too late to make a difference and does nothing to enhance the neighboorhood. Also, some of these old buildings are notorious for slumlords, the shalom family for instance.

[Ohio_steve]

Could you provide 3 examples of the DHCR being pro landlord.

Other than -
1. Being slow (staffing v complaints it makes sense- they don’t determine their budget)
2. Misunderstanding and misapplying a rule- that was also misunderstood by so many people that the legislators had to rewrite it and pass a new law. That is not bias - that is a bad legislature -
3. Wait now I am confused bc you said the legislature is pro- tenant . I agree.

That is why examples would help so someone would understand what you are referring to specifically .

Also, do not confuse article 78 determinations or appeals, etc. I am interested in learning about what happened

[TenantNet]

I haven't had time to read BigSkunk's latest misunderstanding, but to all, understand this thread is somewhat off-topic for this forum. We give things like this a little latitude, but at a certain point we'll reign it in.

[Bigskunk911]

Could you provide 3 examples of the DHCR being pro landlord.

Other than -
1. Being slow (staffing v complaints it makes sense- they don’t determine their budget)
2. Misunderstanding and misapplying a rule- that was also misunderstood by so many people that the legislators had to rewrite it and pass a new law. That is not bias - that is a bad legislature -
3. Wait now I am confused bc you said the legislature is pro- tenant . I agree.

That is why examples would help so someone would understand what you are referring to specifically .

Also, do not confuse article 78 determinations or appeals, etc. I am interested in learning about what happened

Let's give an example, DHCR in it's initial registration instructions says the initial legal regulated rent for a 421-a restricted unit is set and determined ny hpd, they even quote and highlight the term "legal regulated rent". and say that any rent above is an overcharge. They do however allow the landlord to register a "lower/actual rent" if say another regulatory agreement prohibits collection. They also say "Please don't register an amount that's not on the lease in that field, such if a tenant has a subsidy and pays less out of pocket-quoted by dhcr".

Pretty straightfoward right?, What does DHCR do, they ask the LL for a copy of their regulatory agreement (rather than asking the regulatory agency themselves), and despite the fact that the 421-a restricted is check, they never ask the LL for their hdp agreement or contact hpd. Instead the LL gives them an agreement with another agency that allows for a higher rent and doesn't require registration (similar to non-rent-stabilized-regualted 80/20 housing). The LL then gives the reason for registering the actual rent paid contrary to DHCR'S "please dont" do this"

When the decision is appealed, DHCR says they can't consider new evidence that wasn't availalble. This is an example of pro-landlord bias, they even then act is if they are the owner's advocate, saying "the owner registered according to this and there's no other agreement". Of course it's obvious on the registration that this a 421-a unit and so there must be an agreement with HPD. The result is the owner is over-collecting rent for over 100 units, and getting 421-a tax breaks. DHCR was even given a copy of the agreement that enforces the HPD regulatory, of course not every hpd is available on-line but maybe by request and/or foil.

All DHCR had to do and should've done is look at the instructions they wrote, ask for the hpd agreement and done. Even their opinion letters contradict their opinion.

[Bigskunk911]

I haven't had time to read BigSkunk's latest misunderstanding, but to all, understand this thread is somewhat off-topic for this forum. We give things like this a little latitude, but at a certain point we'll reign it in.

I get it, it would be simpler to just extend etpa rather than a more vague, less stringent, and enforceable "good cause" regulations. The former clearly is much more strict and concise and clear what's allowed and not allowed (etpa), and leaves less little room, though sometimes DHCR doesn't properly enforce.

[TenantNet]

A few points. I've said twice now this thread is off-topic, so I will close this thread. Look at the Forum guidelines #5 if you have any questions on that.

I will eventually get to the last 2-3 posts and maybe reply. But understand, I'm a tenant just like you and I've been in court a lot recently with the landlord, taking up a lot of time. So talk on what's progressive and what's not, well I might as well be wasting time on Twitter.

BigSkunk, just in general, quoting an entire previous post is just wasting disk space. Good quoting 1-2 sentences at most, allows a poster to point to and focus on a particular part of a longer post. I've been known to delete entire posts that contain excessive quoting, so please, be judicious. Again, see the Forum Guidelines #20.