Stuy Town deal may have sting in store for some
Some residents of the sprawling apartment complex could face substantial rent hikes as a result of Thursday's tentative deal
For residents of Manhattan's sprawling Stuyvesant Town/Peter Cooper Village residential complex the settlement announced late Thursday could have a painful reprocussion. The deal awarded tenants $147 million for rent overcharges, reimbursements and discounts in prior years, but going forward it could push rents substantially.According to CWCapital, the company that represents the bondholders for the complex's $3 billion mortgage, about 1,800 apartments at the 11,000-unit complex face a choice of two rent options: a market rate, or one calculated based on how many times the apartment was vacated and what increases it is due according to city regulations.
In a surprise contradiction to the widespread belief that rent regulations create discounted apartments, the market rate is in the fact often the cheaper option, according to CWCapital.
"I am concerned about people who had an expectation that their rent had settled at a certain place and may be wholly unprepared for the increases this agreement allows," said Daniel Garodnick, a City Councilman who lives in Stuy Town and has been a tenant advocate.
When a rent-regulated apartment is vacated, it allows rents to be substantially increased, by as much as 20%. The settlement deal allows as many as three such increases dating back to 2003, when apartments first were illegally deregulated at the large complex.
"Let's say that the tenant previous to the market rate occupant paid $1,200 a month," attorney Alexander Schmidt, who represented the tenants in the settlement said. "You could have easily seen three turnovers with the amount of students that live in the complex and rents that now end up in the high $2,000s or low $3,000s, which is market rate or not much lower."
Mr. Schmidt called it an "ironic" end to a case that was largely looked at as a battle for preserving affordability in the city for working class tenants.
Read more: http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20121130/REAL_ESTATE/121139990#ixzz2DkC798nf
Now, here is were I tire of this bullshit game:
HOW IS IT THAT OUR POLITICIANS HAVE ALLOWED A RENT REGULATED APARTMENT TO BE SO SLIMELY BROUGHT TO HIGH MARKET LEVEL RATES WITH THE PURPOSEFUL INTRODUCTION BY THE LANDLORD OF A TEMPORARY TENANT, ie, THE STUDENT?
HOW IS IT THAT THERE IS NO ENFORCEMENT IN THIS COMPLEX OF THE HOUSING LAW THAT STATES THAT NO MORE THAN 3 UNRELATED PEOPLE CAN OCCUPY AN APARTMENT?
HOW IS IT THAT PARTITIONS AND WALLS CAN BE INSTALLED INTO APARTMENTS TO INCREASE THEIR VACANCY, BUT THAT THOSE APARTMENT BUILDING CODE APPLICATIONS STATE THAT THERE IS NO CHANGE IN OCCUPANCY?
In other words....
WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON HERE???
Meanwhile, the lawyers on this deal will be receiving over 25% of the settlement, ie, about 19 million dollars, if not more: