Comment Policy

All comments to posts have to await approval. Please be aware that, depending on when I'm logged onto the internet, it may take me hours, even longer, to moderate comments, so if they don't turn up in a speedy fashion, they are still in the queue. Comments that cross a line I'm not comfortable with will not get approved. NOTE: Comments reflect the opinions of the person writing them and should not be assumed to reflect the opinion of the blog.

Thursday, April 17, 2014

MCI Agreement Reached

http://www.stpcvta.org/ta/post/stuyvesant-town-peter-cooper-cw-capital-settle-millions-mcis

ST/PCV Tenants Association and CWCapital Negotiate Settlement of MCI Orders, Saving Tenants Money

The Stuyvesant Town–Peter Cooper Village Tenants Association and CWCapital reached an agreement that settles the dispute over the five Major Capital Improvements (“MCIs”) applied for by former owner Tishman Speyer in 2009. Today, DHCR issued an Order confirming the agreement. This settlement will significantly reduce the impact of the recently approved MCIs for tenants. Specifically, it eliminates 100% of retroactive charges for current tenants and reduces each tenant’s payable monthly increase. Specific details of the agreement are summarized below. The settlement marks the second time that the terms of a Stuyvesant Town or Peter Cooper Village MCI have been modified through negotiated settlement.

“The Tenants Association appreciates having been able to negotiate these issues amicably with CWCapital,” said TA Chair Susan Steinberg. “Residents have been saved a great deal of money in retroactive costs, which have been completely eliminated, and some relief in the MCI rent additions. Notably, the negotiations saved months of time and lots of money in legal filings and responses. The best news is that the outcome is at least as favorable to tenants as any we could have won the harder way.”

“We are very pleased to have worked with the Tenants Association to reach a settlement,” said Andrew MacArthur, Managing Director of CWCapital Asset Management. “We have worked closely with the TA to reach an agreement that mitigates the impact of the increases for our residents and brings finality to this dispute.”

The five MCI Orders cover: video intercoms, security system, video command center, water tanks/valves, and repaving of the walkways. Two of the Orders impact residents in Peter Cooper Village and three of them impact Stuyvesant Town residents. This agreement eliminates lengthy and expensive administrative and legal challenges and brings tenants financial relief and finality to the proceedings

As with the recent successful Tenants Association/CWCapital settlement relating to service reductions, DHCR hosted and assisted in the negotiations between the ST/PCV-TA and CW.   Both sides are thankful for DHCR’s assistance in achieving a settlement.

While all residents benefit from this agreement, specific benefits are individually calculated.   Below is a summary of the agreement that will help individual residents estimate their benefit.   These terms represent a general summary of the agreement and are not inclusive of every detail included in the agreement.   We have tried to be accurate in providing this summary, however if there are any inconsistencies between this summary and the agreement, the terms of the agreement prevail.  Residents should read the agreement in its entirety (which DHCR will mail together with the Reconsideration Orders) to understand its full impact and should consult the TA to address specific questions.

General Terms:
●      All current residents are included in this settlement except those who moved in after the Orders were issued (approximately October 2013).
●      The Settlement is retroactive to January 1, 2014.
●      Credits noted below will begin to appear on the May rent bill.
●      In May, a retroactive credit will be added to the rent bill. This credit will include the benefit amount for January, February, March, and April.
●      The retroactive and permanent increase amounts noted below are all clearly stated in the MCI Orders that residents received in the mail. This number is different for all residents and depends on many factors including: building, unit size and move-in date.
●      If a resident cannot find his/her Order, that resident is advised to call DHCR at 1-800-ASK-DHCR (1-800-275-3427) to request a duplicate copy.
Benefits for Non-Roberts Tenants Paying Full Legal Rent:
●      100% of retroactive charge is waived.
●      5% of the permanent MCI will be credited for the duration of each resident’s tenancy.
●      This group includes tenants who are paying full legal rent other than the Electrical Upgrade MCI under the Opt-In/Opt-Out program previously approved by DHCR.

Benefits for Non-Roberts Tenants Paying Less Than Full Legal Rent:
●      100% of retroactive charge is waived.
●      100% of the permanent MCI will be credited for the duration of each resident’s tenancy.
Benefits for SCRIE/DRIE Residents:
●      SCRIE/DRIE residents will not be responsible for either the retroactive increase or the permanent increase.
●      PCVST management has already filed the appropriate paperwork with the NYC Department of Finance (“DOF”).
●      DOF is in process of processing all of the required adjustments.
●      The MCI increases may appear on rent bills until DOF completes its work. At that time, PCVST will make all appropriate adjustments to ensure that SCRIE/DRIE residents are not charged.

Benefits for Roberts Residents:
●      100% of retroactive charge is waived.
●      5% of the permanent MCI will be credited for Roberts residents paying the full Legal Rent.
●      50% of the permanent MCI will be credited for Roberts residents paying either the maximum Modified Legal Rent or the maximum Roberts Preferential Rent. These two terms are defined in the Roberts Settlement.
●      100% of the permanent MCI will be credited for Roberts tenants paying less than the Modified Legal Rent or Roberts Preferential Rent noted above.
●      All of these credits will continue for the duration of each resident’s tenancy.
●      A hotline has been set up for Roberts tenants to find out which category applies. This hotline will continue to operate for 30 days. Roberts residents should call (212) 420-4940.

VERY IMPORTANT:
The agreement requires the Tenants Association to use good faith efforts to prevent the filing of individual Petitions For Administrative Review (PARs), which directly or indirectly challenge the settlement. Such PAR could result in the agreement being nullified in the sole discretion of the owner. Nullification would result in forced repayment of the retroactive charges and any waived portion of the permanent charges by all tenants who benefited from the agreement. The possibility of nullification by the owner due to an ill-advised PAR is a very serious concern to the Tenants Association.

There are two types of "ministerial errors" which may be corrected by filing a PAR that will not jeopardize the agreement:

1. The MCI order you receive has an inaccurate room count. An inflated room count may result in unwarranted additional charges. Such problems are rare, however, and usually concern misunderstandings about what is considered a room. Note that what constitutes a "room" has a specific definition which can be found in DHCR Policy Statement 93-2 located online at www.nyshcr.org/Rent/PolicyStatements/orap932.pdf.
2. Tenants may be exempted permanently or for a limited time from the MCI charges if they:
a) moved in after DHCR served notice of the pending MCI applications (served in 2008 and 2009); and
b) never received notice of the pending MCI application in their initial lease or a lease rider, or do not have a clause in their lease allowing such increases on renewal; and
c) are not covered by the settlement in Roberts etal. v. Tishman Speyer.

Note that even if you are exempt from the charges because of a lack of notice in your initial lease, charges may be added on renewal if your lease contains appropriate language allowing the addition of MCIs to your rent. You may have an MCI Rider or a Rent Increase and Eligibility Rider attached to your lease — or a similar rider — which clarifies this. Your lease may simply state something like "The rent established in this lease may be increased or decreased by an order of the DHCR or the Rent Guidelines Board." According to DHCR policy, that is sufficient to allow the owner to add the MCI increase mid-lease after the first renewal.

Management has set up a hotline to resolve such problems at (212) 614-5805. If you checked the DHCR definition of rooms and believe there is an error in your room count; or, if you meet the criteria described in 2 above and have checked your lease and find no notice of pending MCI increases, you should PROMPTLY call the management hotline to resolve those issues.

If you are unable to obtain a resolution through management, please notify us as soon as possible, either by calling the TA message center at (866) 290-9036 or by emailing the TA using the Contact Form at stpcvta.org.  We will provide the information and forms you need to file individual PARs to ensure you are protected against unwarranted MCI increases.

Remember that PARs must be filed within 35 days of the date on the DHCR order.

51 comments:

Anonymous said...

So I have to pay the PERMANENT increase with only a 5% monthly rebate credit? Then, if I am currently paying the $55/mo. increase, I am going to receive a $2.75 credit per month? Are you freakin kidding me? And this is a win for the tenants? PLEASE, someone correct me if I am wrong?

Anonymous said...

This is making my head swim!
How does this translate for a long-time, non-renovented-unit tenant (you know, the ones they want to euthenize) who is NOT on SCRIE/DRIE? There are so many different "classes" of renter here!

Stuy Town Reporter said...

I won't be able to study this until tonight or tomorrow morning.

Anonymous said...

2:06 pm: The fact that the retroactive charges have been eliminated is a big win.

Anonymous said...

GREAT JOB T.A. Now we long time residents are stuck, FOREVER, with paying these PERMANANT MCI'S,
with only a 5% credit. WOW, what a victory. Why even bother? I don't get it. Again, FIVE PERCENT?

Anonymous said...

Let's see. If you are a non-Roberts tenant paying full legal rent, 5% of the permanent MCI will be credited, BUT, non-Roberts tenants paying LESS than the full legal rent, 100% of the permanent MCI will be credited. WHAT THE HELL KIND OF LOGIC IS THAT? Boy, I hope that I am wrong in understanding this!!!!

Stuy Town Reporter said...

It's a bigger win for CW, however, as the MCI rent increases are permanent. Retro charges aren't.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

CW's concern was raising the rent rolls, which they have basically done, with blessings.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

That said, the tenants have gotten something in this deal at least.

Anonymous said...

Screwed again!

Anonymous said...

Again, the top 1% ALWAYS wins.

Anonymous said...

This is hardly a screwing.CW was legally entitled to retroactive charges which were substantial. Historically, PAR applications to the DHCR result in very small ,if any, decreases in the already approved MCIs. To truly change things, the State Legislature has to change the law regarding MCIs.
I think that this is a victory for tenants. I think CW was willing to waive all retroactive charges because they are planning to sell STPCV and therefore want the permanent rent rolls set , with no legal appeals pending. Yes the amount of the retroactive payments are significant to each tenant but since collection of the retroactive amounts is not a permanant increase to the rent rolls, it has little effect on the value of STPCV to prospective buyers.

In-Line said...

Hmm, three grand in my pocket. Thanks TA! Now, I agree that permanent increase is what is forever, but if you look at the original orders, the TA's original 2009 objections move the bar back by at least 20%. The 5% is just an added benefit.

Anonymous said...

Why are those tenants (not me) who rented after 10/2013 stuck with the bill though? how unfair for new leases and why?????

Anonymous said...

Utterly confusing.

Anonymous said...

wait, so we get 5% reduction on the current?

tis is total bs. and so typical. The government does this. Tells all of us they're raising taxes by 20% . we all freak out and they say, ok only 14%. .... and we so, o great, what a deal!!!

Edmund Dunn said...

To the usual suspects, the current MCI law is what it is, heavily in the landlord’s favor. Even with the screw-ups that CWC and DHCR did with the MCI process, there was going to be some permanent MCI increases as per the current version of the law. 100% of retroactive charges being waived for all rent classes is a big deal. The only reason we had any leverage here at all was the 4,000 pledges the TA received. Where you all at the TA MCI meeting? I was and I talked to Tim Collins after the meeting. The negotiations were going to be very tough with CWC and the DHCR. CWC’s opening bid was a third of the retroactive increase to be credited. OK, you want the law to change, support the PAC’s that advocate against the Urstadt Law and don’t, like many long term tenants I know, vote against your own self-interests. BTW, Cuomo is no friend of ours, he’s Pataki light, a Clinton type Democrat who only interested in running for President in 2020. He’s no progressive, that’s for sure. We have to keep major pressure on him as well. The STR’s point on the permanent MCI increases being part of the sale price and good news for CWC is correct but again, that’s the way the current MCI law is structured. Regarding all the different rental classes here, well, that is the current absurdity of current NYS and NYC rent regulations.

Anonymous said...

"So I have to pay the PERMANENT increase with only a 5% monthly rebate credit? Then, if I am currently paying the $55/mo. increase, I am going to receive a $2.75 credit per month? Are you freakin kidding me? And this is a win for the tenants? PLEASE, someone correct me if I am wrong?"

Definitely a lot to take in, so take it slow.
First, you won't have to pay about 42 months of retroactive charges--42 x $55 = $2,310.

DHCR knocked off 23% of what CW asked for, which means we all could have gotten hit with much higher amounts.

The additional 5% off for you is indeed $2.75. You'll get a credit for the four months you've already paid. That's $11. Not much, I agree.

Finally, your rent will be a little lower, which means the RGB increases will be on a lower amount, and that compounds with time.

Of course some of these amounts will be bigger for people already paying high rents.

Is it a win? It's definitely an improvement over what happened with the rewiring MCI.

Anonymous said...

Fellow former neighbors:

My husband and I moved out of ST the year after Tishman took over so I could accept a job on the West Coast. We moved back to NYC last year and have really been considering moving back to ST when our lease is up. As a couple who coveted every minute of our four years there we’ve kept up to date with PCV/ST happenings since, chagrining at most of it. In all your brutal honesty, would it be worth it to fork over a market rate for a 1BR in a bldg with a decent location and try to make a go of living with the possible bullshit, or should we stay away? We miss ST, we do, but if it meant enduring possible incessant headaches and misery to come back we might as well not.

Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Depending on how badly we all got screwed on these, they say there is a way to undo it.

They are pitting tenants against tenants with this result AND pitting the TA against tenants right to stand up for themselves with the threat for "the Tenants Association to use good faith efforts to prevent the filing of individual Petitions For Administrative Review (PARs)" which should have never been allowed. Shame on both of sides of the negotiations. And to the earlier commenter who called to file a PAR the TA just took away your right to do so.
That should have never been agreed to. The TA role is not to control or disable tenants. A good TA empowers tenants to stand up for themselves and increases tenants rights. We just lost a right because of their negotiations.

Anonymous said...

This is a big lose for tenants. No other way about it. We either should have fought it or used different negotiators.

Anonymous said...

Am I reading this right. The TA stripped away the rights of 90% of PCVST tenants to file a PAR?

Anonymous said...

Anyone who thinks that filing an individual PAR would have yielded a better result is delusional. Do you think you would have convinced DHCR to give you more than the TA and its lawyer were able to get? Would you have been able to afford your own lawyer to go up against CW's lawyer? Good luck with that.

Most tenants wouldn't have filed a PAR, and some would have filed it incorrectly. For the price of membership in the TA or not being a member at all, everyone benefited from this settlement. Sure, we'd all like the MCI charges--permanent as well as retroactive--to evaporate, but that was never going to happen. This was a negotiation, and both sides would have had to give up something. When you think about it, CW gave up what it could have obtained legally, and we're not paying out anything extra--we're paying less.

And once a negotiation is done, it's done--for the group. It's not realistic to expect CW or any entity in a similar position to then do side deals with disgruntled members of the group.

Anonymous said...

Let's be grateful for what the TA achieved for us, even if it wasn't all that we had hoped for. The screwed-up laws are definitely in favor of landlords over tenants and they need to be changed. The TA did what it could with what it had got to work with. We need to lobby hard and strongly for repeal of Urstadt laws, repeal of the laws that make MCIs permanent even after they have been paid off, and we need to support pro-tenant organizations and turn out in numbers and dollars (where possible) to support them.

The TA does not have a horse in this race anymore inasmuch as they are hoping for a sale to tenants. That is dead and dead can be. The most we can hope for is some permanent relief from egregious and cooked-up Major Capital Increases from a "landlord" that does fuck all in the way of maintenance, but would rather let things slide until they become a major issue.
We are under the rule of a corrupt and despicable landlord which, unfortunately, has the law on its side for the most part because of the crooked politicians who take enormous amounts of money from the REBNY. The REBNY is no better (and maybe a lot worse) than the Gambinos, et al. They are evil and criminal and skirt the laws because they are in bed with politicians such as our slimeball Gov. Cuomo. Rob Speyer is Cuomo's BFF.
We used to have to fear and fight Joe Bruno (as evil a person as you could wish to meet), but now we have a Dem Gov who is no better. Don't blame the TA for not getting more for us. Be thankful that they got what little they did, because it was not easily achieved.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

Can't say I'm overjoyed at the agreement, but it is what it is. The retro charges are gone, but the MCI charges remain, except for that 5%. Our rent bills remain effectively the same. Another loss for affordable housing.

So what's wrong with this scenario: The rental public across the city AND state is against MCIs being a perpetual payment and the politicians claim to be, too, but we still get these MCIs in perpetuity? What are the politicians, who are behind these laws, going to do about this? Why haven't they done anything about this before? Why is this always talked about but nothing is done?

Good speeches and passing-the-buck excuses, but let's see action. No action means these politicians are in the pockets of Real Estate.

Anonymous said...

"Finally, your rent will be a little lower, which means the RGB increases will be on a lower amount, and that compounds with time."

I have not seen the actual agreement of course, but I read the TA's summary describes the 5% as a "credit." I take that to mean the full amount of the MCI charges remain part of the legal rent used to calculate future RGB increases, but we get a 5% credit each month of the MCI charges. Not as good as a 5% reduction of the MCI charges.

"Let's see. If you are a non-Roberts tenant paying full legal rent, 5% of the permanent MCI will be credited, BUT, non-Roberts tenants paying LESS than the full legal rent, 100% of the permanent MCI will be credited. WHAT THE HELL KIND OF LOGIC IS THAT? Boy, I hope that I am wrong in understanding this!!!!"

I too would like to know the logic behind this. It does not make immediate sense.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>I take that to mean the full amount of the MCI charges remain part of the legal rent used to calculate future RGB increases, but we get a 5% credit each month of the MCI charges.<<

That's my understanding. The agreement states that this credit lasts until the resident's tenancy is over. So, in actuality, the apartment is slapped with the full MCI.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

BTW, the more I reread this agreement, the more certain sections make me bristle.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>My husband and I moved out of ST the year after Tishman took over so I could accept a job on the West Coast. We moved back to NYC last year and have really been considering moving back to ST when our lease is up. As a couple who coveted every minute of our four years there we’ve kept up to date with PCV/ST happenings since, chagrining at most of it. In all your brutal honesty, would it be worth it to fork over a market rate for a 1BR in a bldg with a decent location and try to make a go of living with the possible bullshit, or should we stay away? We miss ST, we do, but if it meant enduring possible incessant headaches and misery to come back we might as well not.<<

A very hard question to answer. I'd check out other places to rent in Manhattan first, before settling on PCVST. I think PCVST has gotten worse through the years, and many agree. But even with that is it still better than other places available for a similar price in Manhattan? I haven't looked into this, as I have no need to, so I can't answer that crucial question.

Anonymous said...

If you follow this blog religiously you, in all due respect, could NOT even consider moving back here. Whatever you remember from years past no longer exists. Folks who can afford to move are FLEEING this former gem that's not officially a total dump! DON'T DO IT unless you have no other choice.

Anonymous said...

11:28 your hostility towards tenants is noted. "Anyone who thinks that filing an individual PAR would have yielded a better result is delusional. Do you think you would have convinced DHCR to give you more than the TA and its lawyer were able to get? Would you have been able to afford your own lawyer to go up against CW's lawyer? Good luck with that"

My son is an attorney so yes I could afford one.

He would never agree to a negotiating term to control the acts of people he doesn't have the authority to speak for and he would never agree to strip rights of those he represents especially when their rights are sorely curbed by laws already. If CW demanded such an outrageous term than CW is afraid of tenants filing PARs.

Anonymous said...

STR said: "So what's wrong with this scenario: The rental public across the city AND state is against MCIs being a perpetual payment and the politicians claim to be, too, but we still get these MCIs in perpetuity? What are the politicians, who are behind these laws, going to do about this? Why haven't they done anything about this before? Why is this always talked about but nothing is done?"

The Democrat-controlled state assembly always passes tenant-friendly legislation, and the Republican-controlled (whether in numbers or in fact) state senate doesn't. This has happened over and over. Both our state elected officials are squarely behind reform. We just have to get the right people in the state senate--and a governor who'll fight too (looking at you, Andrew Cuomo). Getting the right people may mean we have to try to offset the money that local RE interests throw at upstate candidates. Unpleasant but true.

Anyone else remember the moment at the TA mayoral forum when John Catsimitidis was informed that MCIs were forever? It was clearly news to him, and as a businessperson he looked stupefied that landlords could collect even after the cost was paid off.

Di Blasio just appointed 5 members to the RGB (you can watch the first two meetings on YouTube). He'll appoint 4 more members at the start of 2015. That might help us.

Anonymous said...

"I have not seen the actual agreement of course, but I read the TA's summary describes the 5% as a "credit." I take that to mean the full amount of the MCI charges remain part of the legal rent used to calculate future RGB increases, but we get a 5% credit each month of the MCI charges. Not as good as a 5% reduction of the MCI charges."

The MCI will apply in full to the next tenant. BUT it appears that if the apartment is then renovated, the MCI will be subsumed into the humongous rent that the next tenant will be paying.

"BUT, non-Roberts tenants paying LESS than the full legal rent, 100% of the permanent MCI will be credited. WHAT THE HELL KIND OF LOGIC IS THAT? Boy, I hope that I am wrong in understanding this!!!!"

A non-Roberts tenant paying less than the full legal rent is probably someone who moved in after the Roberts settlement and therefore wasn't part of the Roberts class. Those tenants have leases showing absurdly high legal rents, but they're paying lower rents, which are still high. So CW has agreed not to charge them any more right now.

Anonymous said...

Many posters have expressed dismay and even outrage about the MCI settlement. I have been a critic of the TA on some issues in the past but on this one, they did a very good job.The MCI process is rigged against tenants. The DHCR remains an agency which is mainly a rubber stamp for landlord MCI requests. Prior history with MCI appeals by tenants of STPCV amply demonstrate the veracity of my last statement. In the past, at best tenants were able to achieve modest reduction in the amount of approved MCI. Yes, the prospective credit is only "5%" of the monthly increases which amounts to only $1 or $2 /month per apartment. However, each apartment faced payment of substantial retroactive amounts , generally at least over $1000 and I have heard of tenants with retroactive amounts in excess of $2000. Those have now been eliminated.This result is better than those achieved on previous PAR applications. I think CW wanted to get this issue out of the way because it wants to begin marketing STPCV for sale later this year and was more interested in firming up legal rents than in fighting over retroactive payments which are substantial to tenants but only temporary.

Anonymous said...

Totally and utterly confusing.


In my next life I'm hopefully coming back as a real estate lawyer.

Anonymous said...

I think it was as a result of the TA's objections that the MCIs were reduced by 23% of what the LL asked for. If you add the 5% that's about 28% less than what they wanted. Plus the retros have been removed. Let's me thankful for the TA and look at what they have achieved. Maybe not enough to satisfy some folks, but without the TA we would be paying 100% of what the LL wanted PLUS retroactive charges.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>I think it was as a result of the TA's objections that the MCIs were reduced by 23% of what the LL asked for.<<

When were these reduced? Weren't they reduced some time ago and not on the table for this round of discussions?

Anonymous said...

>>"Finally, your rent will be a little lower, which means the RGB increases will be on a lower amount, and that compounds with time."

>>I have not seen the actual agreement of course, but I read the TA's summary describes the 5% as a "credit." I take that to mean the full amount of the MCI charges remain part of the legal rent used to calculate future RGB increases, but we get a 5% credit each month of the MCI charges. Not as good as a 5% reduction of the MCI charges.>>

We got our lease renewal packet (our current lease expires on 7/31) earlier this week, before the settlement was announced. I can see that the MCI increases are now included in the legal rent. So the *legal* rent is higher, not lower.

The DCHR order appears to allow this. Section 3(a) of the Stipulation says: "The full permanent increase granted by the Orders and upheld by the Reconsideration Orders shall constitute an increase in each tenant's legal regulated rent."

I don't know how the preferential rent is calculated, so I don't know if that is affected.

~MJ

Stuy Town Reporter said...

I think it's prudent to wait for our new rent bills, coming up, I believe, for May, to see just how this all has played out. For sure, the MCIs will be there, as the TA didn't challenge them, and tenants will get a very small "credit" for them. I'm watching out for anything else.

Anonymous said...

CW demanded terms that benefit CW.
CW demanded the threat to stop tenants from filing PARs. Obviously CW does not want tenants to file anything that would benefit tenants which means a challenge could very well have resulted favorably for tenants.

Anonymous said...

10: 13 : by how much? So then if i understand you, there is NO CREDIT, NO REMOVAL of any of this except for the back end of the fees.

Ha. They played us royally. They were never going to get paid in arrears, just a ploy on the forever and ever and ever from now on fees. Nice.

Anonymous said...

We got hosed.

Pure and simple.

MJ said...

>>10: 13 : by how much? So then if i understand you, there is NO CREDIT, NO REMOVAL of any of this except for the back end of the fees.<<

Wait, what? No, there will be a credit. What did I say that indicated to you that there will be no credit??

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "by how much?". But if you mean, how much higher is the legal rent? Well, it's higher by the amount of the MCI. Because the MCI is included in the legal rent.

In our case, we are not charged the legal rent. So our rent bills will not be higher just because the MCI is included in the legal rent.

And in any case, we would still get the credit going forward that the settlement says we get, for the duration of our tenancy.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>We got hosed.<<

Absolutely no way of knowing that until your new rent bill comes. Unless something is very wrong, we should be seeing a very slight decrease, with the burden of retroactive payments gone.

Anonymous said...

11:42 Just curious . .. How are you not charged the legal rent?

Are you charged more or less and I don't understand why you think you will not get the increase. ?

Anonymous said...

The real issue that sucks ass here is that the hits will just keep coming.

This paves the way for continual and forever more MCI charges to be approved for this and that.

A huge win for landlords. Yet again.

mjc said...

To Anonymous @ 7:25 AM:

Lots of tenants here at Stuy Town and in NYC are not charged the legal rent. The legal rent is a maximum ceiling on the amount that a landlord can charge under the NYC Rent Stabilization Law. But the actual rent that the tenant pays can be, and often is, less than the legal rent.

In our case (referring to my husband and myself), the legal rent on the apartment is considerably more than $4000, and the actual rent we am paying is somewhat less than $4000. (Which is a good thing, because the legal rent is way beyond what we can afford!)

Sorry if my last post was confusing. Here's the situation: we got a lease renewal packet for our apartment early last week. The Renewal Lease Form shows an increase in both the legal rent on our apartment and the actual rent we are paying. But the MCI charges directly affect only the legal rent amount. I can see that the MCI charge for our apartment has been folded into the base legal rent, and the one-year 4% increase and the two-year 7.75% increase are calculated using that base rent, which is higher even before the Rent Guidelines percentage increases are applied because it now includes the MCI charges.

The lower actual rent (lower than the legal rent, that is, not lower than what we're paying right now!) that will be charged, however, does not include the MCI charges. Instead, those charges will appear (as they do now) as a separate line item in our rent bill, as will the MCI credit.

So when I said "our rent bills will not be higher just because the MCI is included in the legal rent," -- well that was poorly worded, for sure. I didn't mean that our rent bills will not be higher. I meant that although the actual rent we will be charged will be higher, the reason for that higher actual rent is not the MCI charges. Again, on our actual rent bill, the MCI charges (and credits, soon) are separate items from our rent.

Hope that makes sense!

mjc said...

In my last comment at 5:29 PM, "we am paying" should be "we are paying." Sorry about that!

Anonymous said...

5:29, not it does not. How much more are you actually paying than (or going to pay) the 4 percent increase allowed? HOw much did they add on for the incrase? I'm not the original poster, but this affects me too and many others who are aboutt to renew.

mjc said...

Anonymous @ 12:21 PM, I'm sorry if my post does not make sense to you. I did my best to answer the questions that have been posed to me, even though I did not always understand those questions. I will respond to your comment, but then I am bowing out of this back-and-forth. It is getting to be un-productive, for reasons that I don't understand.

You ask how much more am I going to pay than the 4 percent increase allowed. The answer is that I am NOT going to be paying more than the 4 percent increase that is allowed. My rent is going up with the renewal lease, but not by more than the increase allowed by the Rent Guidelines Board.

If you have questions about the particulars of your own lease, I suggest you contact the TA or an attorney, or whomever else you think might help. But please don't ask me more questions. I am just another tenant. I thought my original comment (about the MCI amount being included in the legal rent) would be helpful. But aside from that, I am not in a position to help you or the many others who are about to renew.

Anonymous said...

mic just don't reply. You don't have to post on an anonymous board that your'e not posting anymore.

I mean really. JUST don't reply.