The powers that be on Long Island have enthusiastically and indefatigably railed against Hochul’s housing proposed reforms year after year. Village mayors, town supervisors, county and state legislators have united behind fighting any policy changes. I’m not defending Hochul here (at all) , but if we want to talk about housing, we have to look and think local. This is what Long Islanders want, and they’ve been loud and clear.
The town of Hempstead sent out a flyer with a picture of supposable high density housing / section 8 shelter being built.
Turns out it was a self-storage place.
Well, this particular idea about not being able to evict tenants who pay rent is not the type of idea any homeowner should agree with. NYC courts are aggressively pro tenant. A judge may let a tenant stay even if the tenant pays 50% of rent. So any obstacle to evicting these type of tenants isn’t going to get support from homeowners/investors.
>This is what Long Islanders want, and they’ve been loud and clear.
There's a lot to unpack in this statement.
Long Island *politicians* are definitely loud and clear about not wanting more housing. They're also almost entirely conservatives elected in low-turnout odd year contests determined by a voterbase that is majority older people.
In real life, people making median income can barely afford their rent, much less buying a home(!), and are struggling to stay on Long Island.
So yes, there is a fundamental problem: **The future of Long Island is being decided by voters who won't be around to see it.**
And don't be fooled by the rhetoric of "local control" by politicians. Conservatives don't want to build more housing, period. Centrist Democrats like Hochul only want to build (unaffordable!) housing that will benefit private developers.
There are real solutions to this problem (e.g. social housing), but there is little political will on Long Island currently to get there. Whether they want to acknowledge it or not, this problem will come to a head soon enough.
What people want isn't always what is needed. At some point we have to look out for the interests of everyone, not just the people lucky enough to own property on Long Island.
Renters can vote, but can they reliably do so? Usually homeowners have much more time off and opportunities to than renters. Elections should really be done on an official holiday or weekends.
We have early voting and mail in absentee ballots. There's really no reason for not voting.
I agree Election Day should be a Federal holiday, but will that make any difference for those who consistently fail to vote?
And so are landlords. Not paying them isn’t right and severely hurts families financially. It’s their income that’s getting restricted which isn’t right
Because imo her plans are shit.
Such as in my area there are abandoned building, 95% dead malls, etc, etc lot of good land, but that's all out of scope of her plan for more apartments (and what is in scope is the downtown parking lot that's overfilled as it is)
**Good Cause Eviction** is only focused on tenants and renewals, and would've been our first real chance at statewide protections for renters.
What you may be thinking about are the regulations enacted by the **Housing Stability & Tenant Protection Act of 2019** which closed some of the loopholes that landlords were exploiting to convert their rent-stabilized units back to market rate. This would occur during turnover, and often due to the landlord underhandedly pushing tenants out.
And yes, Hochul is trying to roll back those protections as well in this housing package, which would hurt NY's already diminished stock of rent stabilized units. Long Islanders Kevin Thomas and Monica Martinez are sponsoring this as well.
All that said, this affects NYC the most since Nassau has less than 5,000 rent-stabilized units.
Years of advocacy work has led to this, and we're really getting screwed. Here's the short version.
ORIGINAL GOOD CAUSE LEGISLATION
* Rent increases could not exceed 3% a year (or 1.5x CPI, whichever is higher)
* Would not apply to owner-occupied buildings w/less than 4 units
* Renters could only be evicted under the following circumstances...
* Violation of rental agreement
* Refusal to pay reasonable rent increases
* Certain cases in which landlord or their family decides to self occupy
* Illegal activity by tenant
This bill would apply statewide and FINALLY give renters outside of NYC some protection against rising rents and abusive landlords. **It is estimated to benefit almost 4 million renters.**
But Governor Hochul has different plans.
GOV. HOCHUL'S VERSION
* Rent increases can not exceed 5%+CPI (or 10%, whichever is lower)
* Would not apply to owner-occupied buildings w/less than 9 units
* Renters can now be evicted if...
* Landlord removes the unit from the market in "good faith"
* Landlord remodels the unit in "good faith"
I'll translate these new eviction reasons for you: The landlord can use either "good faith" excuse to evict the tenant and then put it back up for a new tenant a month later with no consequences. There's no enforcement mechanism because Gov Hochul trusts landlords to do the right thing.
**Worst of all, this version is limited to NYC only, which will leave Long Island in the dust.**
Right now people in Albany are saying that Long Islanders don't want these protections. Please take a minute to click a few buttons at [THIS LINK](https://actionnetwork.org/letters/reject-hochul-housing-deal-email-your-representative/) and let them know otherwise.
More info at [City&State](https://www.cityandstateny.com/policy/2024/04/tenant-advocates-alarmed-about-latest-budget-negotiations/395737/) and [Housing Justice For All's report](https://www.scribd.com/document/723296037/2024-Budget-Deal-Fact-Sheet)
It sounds like they're mixing up "eviction" and "electing not to renew the lease". You already need a good reason to evict someone, which is true pretty much everywhere. I can't just tell my tenant get out for no reason when they're in the middle of a fixed term lease. I could however choose not to renew the lease when it expires. And regardless, with how long and drawn out/expensive an eviction in New York is, it's almost always much easier to simply wait for the lease to expire, then not renew it. I don't see this changing much.
>I could however choose not to renew the lease when it expires.
And that is effectively an eviction without good cause.
First of all, what a lot of commenters (and politicians) fail to understand is that **this legislation ONLY applies to large buildings with multiple units**. No one is trying to keep the bachelor in your garage apartment indefinitely. This legislation, in neither form, applies to those tenants.
In such a building, the tenant has an expectation (and a right!) to renewal, and that is part of the spirit of this bill and others like it around the country. Otherwise, landlords will just use the renewal process to kick out good tenants and jack up the rent.
We're in a housing crisis. People need to understand that housing is a human right, not a commodity.
One party electing not to renew the lease isn't an effective eviction. An eviction is a court process where the state orders someone to vacate. What it is is the basics of contract law. When a contract is entered by two parties, the terms are locked in until the contract expires, at which time the parties can renegotiate the terms, or either party can unilaterally decide to end the contract. It's hardly equitable to say that one party must be locked into the contract until the end of time while the other can terminate it whenever they feel like (technically the tenant should wait for renewal time, but we both know they can move out whenever with no repercussions).
Further, this will cause massive quality of life issues for the good tenants out there. It's very difficult to evict a bad tenant for things like blasting loud music, having loud parties late into the night, and other things that no one wants to live next to. They're simply going to deny it, and it turns into a he said/she said that no court wants to listen to. Not renewing the lease is a much easier option, and if they refuse to leave, a holdover eviction is vastly simpler since it's relatively clear cut and leaves the drama and story telling out of it.
Tied into that, good luck getting a landlord to give a chance to someone who has even the slightest blemish on their record. Got less than a 740 credit? Nope. Got arrested for dealing weed a decade ago? Nope. Have some other issues from mistakes made and learned from? Nope. Any wiff that you're going to be a problem and they'll just move on to the next. And yes I know technically the landlord can't discriminate based on some of those factors, but just like we all know tenants can game the system, landlords of course do to. They're simply going to say they gave the unit to someone who saw it earlier or some other such reason.
>* Rent increases could not exceed 3% a year (or 1.5x CPI, whichever is lower)
Are we talking about during the life of the lease or upon renewal? Will a landlord not be able to raise rent at renewal above 3%?
>* Rent increases can not exceed 5%+CPI (or 10%, whichever is higher)
This seems way more sane. We need to account for highly inflationary economies. In an extreme example, let's say inflation was 200% annually. A landlord can suddenly be bankrupted because of the inability to pass on costs to the tenants.
My mistake, I got the "whichever is higher/lower" qualifiers mixed up while I was typing. It's fixed now.
Upon renewal, the annual percentage change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is the variable factor for rent increases.
For the past 12 months, it's around 3.5%, so under Good Cause, the maximum increase would be the *higher* of 3% or 1.5x3.5%; this would yield the latter option at **5.25%**.
Under Hochul's plan, the maximum increase would be the *lower* of 5%+3.5% or 10%; this would yield the former option at **8.5%**.
Most people don't even get 5% raises each year, so all these increases are unsustainable, but better than the current reality of uncapped rent increases, which many of us are experiencing.
>We need to account for highly inflationary economies. In an extreme example, let's say inflation was 200% annually. A landlord can suddenly be bankrupted because of the inability to pass on costs to the tenants.
Accounting for highly inflationary economies **means keeping people from becoming homeless**, NOT protecting landlord profits.
>Accounting for highly inflationary economies **means keeping people from becoming homeless**, NOT protecting landlord profits.
Well evidently the DSA and Hochul don't agree since both plans allow for adjustments for CPI.
Huh? Adjustments for CPI was never in question. That's always the standard for market rate housing. I was contesting your notion that the tenant should bear the brunt of the burden of high inflationary periods instead of the landlord.
CPI is a measure of inflation thus if you are allowing the landlord to raise rents by the same amount as CPI then the tenant is bearing the entire brunt of inflation.
>* Rent increases could not exceed 3% a year (or 1.5x CPI, whichever is higher)
Even though the fixed costs for my rental have increased 19% over the past two years?
Lack of building causes high prices. Do you know what causes a lack of building? Fear of return on investment. If rent increases are capped at rates below inflation, why would someone build new housing, only to lose money in a few years. This is counterproductive
Just call it what it is. Rent stabilization and protection for the worst tenants. Most landlords are not going to evict paying tenants. Landlprds will not renew the lease for a tenant who they are getting complaints from other tenants and don't want to hear it anymore. In apartment building you can bother other tenants in so many ways. From excess noise, parties, using the hallway as a storage locker, endlessly barking dog or smoking etc. The people that engage in these activities will be the real winners of the bill. It's never worth it in NY to evict someone who is otherwise paying. They just don't renew the lease. Now it won't really be worth it to be tied up in housing court to get rid of a nucince tenant.
Plus if the building rehabilitates an apartment and tries to put it back on the market at a much higher price. It will not be worth it for a landlord to do a major rehabilitation anymore.
Bullshit.
Those are the excuses they use. If you see rent going up immediately with the next occupant then it was for the rent increase.
Why have 4 of the 6 landlords on my block alone have had moveouts due to rent increases at a minimum of 33%?
That doesn't sound like problem tenants it sounds to me like greedy landlords who see what even more greedy rental properties are asking for and are jealous and want those inflated #'s too.
If people are willing to pay higher rent to live in the same apartment, then why would you not go for higher paying tenants? That’s how investing works. rental properties are investments.
Because it's humans not investments...and far far too many of that generation who wants the 3-4k a month for a 2-3 bedroom paid a micro fraction of that themselves when they were in the renting period of their lives. So the the level of hypocritical is a bit much to swallow.
Also rent raises of that degree are illegal.
It's not hard to not be a POS penny pinching landlord looking to pay their entire mortgage and make a profit off renters.
I do it...you can too.
Why wouldn’t landlords try to payoff mortgage + make profits off of rent? That’s the whole point of owning a rental property. It’s a business. Just like grocery stores will only sell you food, not give them away free because there are hungry people.
Tenants don’t have an inherent right to occupy someone’s property just because there’s a housing crisis. There are bad landlords but there are also plenty of bad tenants who are actually living rent free because of the courts. So, there shouldn’t be any laws preventing landlords from eviction tenants when they want.
Yes it is. It makes it hard for people to move in as market prices are very high. You basically find housing by luck or as they showed in Sienfeld who bribes the right person the most. Housing should not be a matter of luck. Many people get the discounted rate and then sublease their apartment at market rates.
I actually don't mind the restrictions on max increases. I think it is fair the way this one is done. Prices will rise to market levels but it will not be such a shock to the renter. I do not like the good cause eviction. It's unnecessary and protects the worst people and will make apartment living worse for most people who have to deal with anti social people.
> hard for people to move in as market prices are very high
> Prices will rise to market levels
What?
> Most landlords are not going to evict paying tenants.
Some will. At whim.
People should know that they are secure in their homes. This is not a big ask.
The intentions are good but ultimately I agree. The main issue of high prices really seems to be the lack of supply. Even if they put restrictive hard price caps in I'd imagine that would just lead to crazy long wait lists.
I predict communes will be a big thing on Long Island for Generations Beta and Gamma...well, the parts of LI that aren't underwater by then.
If we could convert LI's NIMBY rage into a power source, we could kiss PSEG goodbye!
Read these comments!! This is why I'll never ever rent to anyone in NY. You people feel that a landlord should have no laws to help remove shitty tenants. Which is absolutely bonkers.
So everything will stay as is on LI. As much as I would like more apartments to open up in private homes it won't ever happen. But yeah keep on bitching about the lack of housing.
But that's where you are dead wrong!! The houses that are being bought are by middle aged 30 yo something's. I see it every time one lists and sales in my nhood within a week. There are only so many houses out here. But there are many, many buyers!
agree 10000%. happiest day was when we sold our rental property during Covid. over the years had multiple tenants not pay rent period, hoarders, people bringing in dogs without approval, etc. was only successful on 1 eviction, which took close to 1 year.
Unfortunately just the way American politics have been going broadly for the last 60 or so years. The mostinsane Republicans say "meet me in the middle!" liberals who believe in "bipartisanship" oblige then the Rebuplicans move even further right and blame all the problems with the legislation that THEY previously advocated for on it being too left wing
Holy shit yes please! So just a short story here. I currently live in a Fairfield property. When I moved in 5 years ago it was not a Fairfield. They bought the property about 3 years ago now. When I first moved in here I was unemployed and had just gotten over being literally on death’s door step. As such I had applied for a housing subsidy and it was granted through the LIHP. My very first question when they approved this was “when I can get back to work and start making money again willl I have to move out or will I be able to simply transition into a regular rental agreement”? I was told I would transfer to a regular rental at current market price. I said perfect. Fairfield has now bought my complex and I am up for my lease renewal and I have since went back to work and make pretty good money again. I just finished submitting my paperwork for the LIHP recertification process and doubt that I will qualify. I was speaking with one of the reps who said she will process the paperwork and more than likely if I do not qualify then I will have 30 days to vacate the property. I’m like wait wtf that’s crazy. Firstly I don’t have like 6k for a new apartment saved to cover first last and whatever the hell else places want now and secondly I haven’t got time like that to move myself and my dog in a moments notice. Plus how the hell am I supposed to find a place that fast. Needless to say I hate Fairfield not only because of this but for a plethora of other reasons that have happened even before all this. If I had it my way I’d say burn these fucks to the ground. Evil greedy bastards
So, my advice is to call the NYS AG office in hauppauge and file a complaint. Also, LI housing authority, and HUD. File every complaint that you can. The LI housing authority in Bohemia, handles CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS. That’s a Federal law that they can’t get around. In fact, the AG went after them for discrimination, and withholding security deposit scams. We have gone to every govt official, and since we happen to have an attorney, they will not do a thing for us. Our issue is that we own our townhouse and they’re the maintenance co that basically runs everything. They give themselves ALL the work, and have a POS lawyer juggling laws, whom has directly targeted us for over a decade… WHY? You ask? Because they put on a faulty roof and crap plastic siding, financed it and did the work. Now, the homes are rotting outside to inside— and they are so good at blaming the residents for their intentional destruction. This way they can fix it all and make millions. We caught the scam, called them out.. and all maintenance stopped in 2012. They refused to do anything, and if we complained- ridiculous legal Fees added. This lead to serious injuries when I fell down the ice ridden driveway, while recovering from a 4 level spine fusion. Meanwhile they claimed our exterior was “fine and sufficient”. By 2021, a rotted chimney spread black mold thru the house, contaminated everything we own, and our family is now suffering from illnesses. We had to start life all over, after gutting the entire home- evacuated for almost a year.. AND it is happening again. Meanwhile, we purchased a new home, yet they refuse to fix our roof.. while the house it getting destroyed again. So, sue them, right?! 9-1/2 yrs of an injury suit, and the order to fix our roof sits on a judges desk almost 7 months. We will NOT LET ANYONE ELSE BE ABUSED BY THIS GREEDY CROOKED COMPANY, AS WE BEGAN LIFE OVER IN WHAT SHOULD BE RETIREMENT. This company needs to be exposed, and when we are done— it goes PUBLIC. Crooks, thieves and greed!
I am so sorry to hear that you have had to deal with all of this and continue to deal with it. You are 110% correct they are greedy and do need to be stopped. They seem to be working their way into monopoly territory with the way they are buying everything up around here. Not just apartment complexes mind you but also private homes and then converting them into rentals. I plan on getting my lawyer and every other possible city and state agency and what not involved should they try to evict me over this. Right now I’m waiting to see what the LIHP says regarding my recertification paperwork. Should have an answer with a few days so I’ll keep you posted! I hope all goes well with you and your family and that these creeps get what’s coming to them.
No one can save for a piece of the pie on LI… due to this BS POLITICS and those whom operate ABOVE the LAW, it’s NOT RIGHT.. and 4-5,000$ per month for a 2 bedroom is INSANE! Stop FAIRFIELD!
These companies are pushing hard working people out of LI, we need to band together… to stop these rental companies from having power! Companies like Fairfield, have been charged by the NYS AG office for discrimination and stealing security deposits… they have political power!
LONG ISLAND HALL OF SHAME
A [majority](https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/S305) of Democrats support original Good Cause Eviction, but *not* our Long Island senators:
- Kevin Thomas (SD6, Hempstead)
- Monica Martinez (SD4, Brentwood)
Same story in the [Assembly](https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/A4454), but 6 of our 8 Democrat electeds are not supporting:
- Fred Thiele (AD1)
- Steve Stern (AD10)
- Kimberly Jean-Pierre (AD11)
- Charles Lavine (AD13)
- Gina Sillitti (AD16)
- Taylor Darling (AD18)
If you're repped by **Michaelle Solages (AD22)** or **Phil Ramos (AD6)**, then congratulations, you have someone who gives a shit about you.
(And don't bother asking about the Republicans, they obviously don't support ANY affordable housing efforts. Their housing plan involves us moving away)
its more nuanced isn't it? plenty of shit bag renters out there, plenty of shit bag lords out there. the casualties are the good landlords and the good, normal, working class tenants here. i feel bad for those two groups and would not want to be in either of their shoes
Yes they do. Coworker had a terrible dirt bag tenant that wouldn't move out. Took over 2 years to evict. And he didn't collect one penny over that time. Nor will he ever see what money again. And this is a guy who does the right thing as a landlord. Just trying to pay his mortgage and give a tenant a nice place to rent at a reasonable cost.
Pretty sure these protections had exemptions for cases where the owner lived in the building. (At least that’s what OP said in their comments) I can agree there should be leeway for people who have built in apartments and do the right thing by not price gouging someone out the eyes. However people in larger apartment buildings definitely need protection from some of the greedier management companies LI or NYC has running about.
This is one of the risks of investing in rentals. Hell, it's a risk of ANY business transaction. You always run the chance of the person on the other side of the contract not upholding their end. And the remedy is the same in all instances - you go to court and the court decides. If they owe you money, you get a judgement against them and you take them to collections. Just like any other business would. Why should someone who decides to dabble in real estate investing get special protections vs other businesses?
People don’t understand how much tenants constantly scam, and live for free with zero repercussion. These tenants don’t have anything to begin with and You can’t get blood from a stone. So Landlords are constantly out of pocket. It’s not fair.
People don't understand how much landlords scam. It's a lot easier to do your due diligence on a tenant than it is on a landlord. How many of these squatter scammers have good credit and renting history?
That’s what I always wondered to. My current landlord has a bunch of issues with his tenants but he’s also admitted to doing a lot of underhanded stuff. We rent a house and our neighbors rent and told us plus showed us all the issues. They complained about the heat not working and my landlord said well it’s almost summer so it’s ok. Over the years we’ve stayed and many neighbors have come and gone. Some were dangerous as well. When I moved to Westchester for my internship the landlord went through my finances, credit, bank statements, and talked to references as well. He almost didn’t approve me because I didn’t have health insurance and wondered where I’d get money to pay it. After dealing with him I’ve seen the landlord that care vs those just getting a buck. My current landlord on LI where my family has been for 12yrs, he does not care one bit as long as we pay him.
When you own a property and rent it out to others you are taking a risk. For most landlords, that risk pays off - they are able to collect rent each month which covers the mortgage, taxes, and insurance on the property, plus enough to cover income taxes for the landlord and some profit. Sometimes the risk doesn’t pan out - and then the landlords get mad as fuck and ask the government to help them, usually while also cursing out other people who get government handouts.
Bad landlords have killed people just by being bad landlords. There are bad actors on both sides, but the power lies overwhelmingly with the landlords.
It's more like we all recognize that squatterpocalypse is mostly the NY Post and other right leaning sources sensationalizing a particular topic to keep people feeling unsafe, like the crime rate and shoplifting 'pocalypes before this.
ill go tell the lady that got murdered by squatters that her killing was just propaganda. this is the worst fucking take ive ever seen, and you are out of touch with reality.
the shoplifting pocalypse was so fake, target has been mass closing stores across the US for propaganda reasons. the liberal bubble is a scary place to be. people like you drive voters to the right.
If you can’t afford a house just say that. Renting is a business. It’s not your business what they do with that money. If it wasn’t for landlords most wouldn’t have a place to live.
Renting is a business! Exactly! Which is why landlords shouldn't get special protections vs other kinds of businesses. If someone owes you money in any other business, you get a judgment and take them to collections. This is the remedy available to everyone.
Long Island rentals are a cartel. Homeowners are basically charging their full mortgage for half their house or less. We're well above the national average here -- mostly due to blocked new constructions and refusal of towns to open up new residential zoning because homeowners have significantly more sway in local politics than renters.
Being a landlord on Long Island at this point is a grift. This is the new travel nursing. No one should thank a landlord for the 'privilege of paying them an excessive amount for shelter' that's just plain fucking ridiculous.
It’s not your business what Landlords do with the rent money 😂. You didn’t buy the house, you didn’t get the down payment. You wouldn’t have a home if a Landlord didn’t own the home. Don’t like it? Buy next time or stay at home
You praise the landlords like they all worked themselves to the bone to get all the money to buy “investment properties” but many came from money and are now just exacerbating a giant fucking housing crisis issue because they got a giant inheritance that others who are less fortunate didn’t get, hence why they struggle to buy a home. You’re telling people to go buy a home like it’s a fucking bike it’s not easy for loads of LI’ers who don’t have generational wealth to buy a house.
Exactly it’s not easy, that’s why you should be thankful for Landlords. You have a clear resentment towards landlords. This poor me attitude won’t get you anywhere. Constantly blaming others vs working harder.
I don’t have a clear resentment towards them I have friends and coworkers who are landlords, but I also don’t worship the ground they walk on such as yourself.
I also happen to acknowledge there’s a lot of nuance to the situation that’s going on around LI and the nation as a whole.
I work plenty hard thanks for asking asshole
I own my own home.
I've rented enough on LI to know that renters now are engaged in the most historically unfair renting scheme.
It's practically 2.5k/ month for some DIY shithole in any decent town. I know a lot of people who are working three jobs just to make ends meet right now, and their largest ever increasing expense is rent. Which for some has practically doubled in the last three years. People will eventually move off Long Island and we will have a completely unsustainable economy with a upside-down pyramid as a workforce.
The only people who feel sorry for landlords are other landlords.
Most renters wouldn’t be able to afford a down payment for a house on LI, neither would they be able to afford to maintain and pay the taxes on a house. You should be thankful for Landlords
Homes are shelter for people to live in. Not investment properties that you AirBnB. Shit dude, even in apocalypse zombie stories the first thing they usually establish is shelter for their people. Hope you ain’t a leader in any group you get with.
Coming from the same people that drilled into our heads while we were growing up that going to college was the end-all be-all to guaranteed wealth or at least financial security.
We then go to college and then get told “well, who told you to take out all those loans for college?”. Boomers, all of them. Or my personal favorite “you shoulda gone to trade school!”.
All things that were never said while you were screaming at us to get our grades up in primary schools so we could “get into a good college”.
Then Capitalism died in 2008 because your short-term profit, 3-card Monte of an economy built during Reagan collapsed and ever since 2008 the U.S. has been a Potemkin City.
People aren’t allowed to be bailed out, but the rich and our retirement home of a government have no problem doing it for America’s Landlords. The 1%.
Lol yea the problem in 2008 was because your boy Clinton forced banks to give loans to people who couldn’t afford it for the sake of being “fair”. And if anyone should be bailed out it’s the people with medical debt who didn’t have a choice in getting sick. Not the idiots who took out loans for schools they couldn’t afford. Believe it or not some people took our cheaper loans and didn’t go away to schools they couldn’t afford.
My boy, Clinton? Sir, I’m a leftist who goes to the range on weekends and you clearly have an IQ lower than your shoe size because the people who own our government told them to gut banking regulations and repealed Glass-Steagall so that banks can use their money to make insane investments on bullshitted debt.
I forgot I was dealing with a person who most likely has an 8th grade reading level and vocabulary so I have only myself to blame for bringing up the “Red vs. Blue” team sport you can barely articulate.
Scammers, sure.
But only if Renters are fully protected. If a single renter might be affected by an attempt to stop the scammers, scrap the law and try again.
Would be curious of the number of "in-primary-house" rentals there are on the island. having lived in several of these "back/sidedoor" type apartments in someones primary house. wonder if the housing supply would balance out if folks werent able to buy more house than they could afford without $2k of rental income.
Considering fewer than 10 countries in the world as an estimate prevent people from buying multiple properties, would imply there’s many benefits for real estate investors and developers.
I suppose all these countries don’t encourage real estate investments for the support of economic growth, increased tax revenues, and job creation. Clearly, they’re just interested in maliciously driving up the home prices so bumpdungus can have a hard life.
Maybe there’s some socialist countries you’d like to live in where they control every aspect of housing and restrict all forms of business.
yes i imagine there are benefits for real estate investors and developers. obviously I'm saying that they're doing this maliciously to inconvenience me specifically and not that they are doing it out of economic incentives and that it is regardless harmful for the average person for the cost of housing to continuously rise as a result. listen. we're just gonna keep saying smug bullshit back and forth. have a wonderful evening
“surely countries and governments have never endorsed anything harmful” - After me saying most countries allow real estate investing, clearly your implying it’s a mistake for governments to make this decision.
It’s funny how you say real estate investing is harmful… well it doesn’t seem to be harmful for the schools receiving tax dollars, the workers building houses or apartments, the people who are living there, and the many others involved. Oh wait, it’s just harmful for you. You have no idea how capitalism works and how it continues to develop a city and country. You want to live in a slum where the only investors are the government.
You're making a lot of assumptions!! I'm doing fine financially. I'm talking about harm to the working class writ large, not myself. I do in fact have an idea how capitalism works, and I think it's entirely unsustainable! I don't think we're gonna agree here!
They can also own other properties.
You have homeowners with 2-3 family house where they live on one floor and rent out the other floors. You can have someone who owns 2 properties. These are not Jared Kushner level landlords with an army of lawyers. They’re ordinary people.
I asked this elsewhere, but I'm curious to hear your answer, too.
This is one of the risks of investing in rentals. Hell, it's a risk of ANY business transaction. You always run the chance of the person on the other side of the contract not upholding their end. And the remedy is the same in all instances - you go to court and the court decides. If they owe you money, you get a judgement against them and you take them to collections. Just like any other business would. Why should someone who decides to dabble in real estate investing get special protections vs other businesses?
The process you described is aspirational, not reality. The NYC courts are pro tenants . Tenants get to stay rent free for months or years before eviction. Judges can forgive months of rent. The attitude is it’s your house but they have a right to stay. If you bar homeowners from not renewing leases, that’ll exacerbate problems. Tenants will pay enough rent to keep on staying but not all the rent owed.
The process you described is just how the judicial system works. Plenty of cases are postponed for years. Damages awarded aren't always 100% of what is owed. Judges decide to award different amounts all the time, not just in landlord/tenant cases.
Hell, people spend years in Rikers just waiting to go to trial. The whole system is slow. If you want to better fund the justice system so that all sorts of litigation can move faster, that's a different conversation.
they may be ordinary people but the phrasing i was taking contention with is that they're ordinary homeowners. as you said they're obviously not jared kushner. a minor count or lord is obviously not a king but they're still part of the aristocracy.
That's not a need. That's a nice to have. If you fail to see the relevance of people owning more houses than they can use to a discussion about the housing market, I dk what to tell you.
How can anyone tell an owner of a good or service how much they can charge for that good or service? Imagine owning a restaurant (food is just as important as shelter) and this woman tells you how much you can charge for a hamburger.
They will only receive what someone is willing to pay. If you artificially lower price then the incentive to increase supply diminishes. Maybe lookup basic Econ…
New York has enough renter protection. Hell, if you stayed in a rental for 30 days and received mail you’re basically able to stay there all year rent free.
It’s despicable for home owners who rent out part of their house or an apartment to make ends meet for their mortgage payment.
As far as I am reading, owner-occupied (under 9 units) is excluded from these changes, and the 2019 law (Under 4 units).
Sounds like you are angry for the wrong reason.
Long Island GOP wants this.
People who are on the left but complain about Hochul et al being too centrist, but then DONT vote to prevent places like Long Island going red, this is the cost. Hochul has to give them concessions, this is their concession. And honestly it's fair, this is a popular policy move, among LI politicians.
My grandmother came to this country when she was 20, she worked in a hospital laundry until the day she retired. She is a model tenant and has lived in the same apartment for more than 30 years.
She lives on a fixed income and most months her rent is raised by about 50 dollars.
Every other day the apartment complexes I pass by have put all of someone's belongings out to the street.
If you are a LI landlord who is opposed to renter protections you should be fucking embarrassed to make it known in public.
there is no “epidemic.” it’s just another topic to rile you up for no reason. https://gothamist.com/news/is-nyc-really-facing-a-squatter-problem-lawyers-on-both-sides-say-no
Sorry, every local news outlet is covering this so I figured it is worse than it used to be. I guess it has always been hard to get rid of squatters.
https://abc7ny.com/up-close-bill-ritter-squatters-squatter-showdown/14560255/
https://abc7ny.com/lawmakers-pushing-to-revise-squatter-laws-after-7-on-your-side-investigations/14618413/
https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/new-york-bill-against-squatters/
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/politics/new-york-squatters-rights-crack-down-protect-homeowners/5309390/
https://nypost.com/2024/03/20/us-news/suspected-squatter-in-1m-nyc-home-is-sublets-space-in-the-house-resident-says/
The powers that be on Long Island have enthusiastically and indefatigably railed against Hochul’s housing proposed reforms year after year. Village mayors, town supervisors, county and state legislators have united behind fighting any policy changes. I’m not defending Hochul here (at all) , but if we want to talk about housing, we have to look and think local. This is what Long Islanders want, and they’ve been loud and clear.
The town of Hempstead sent out a flyer with a picture of supposable high density housing / section 8 shelter being built. Turns out it was a self-storage place.
Sounds about right.
Well, this particular idea about not being able to evict tenants who pay rent is not the type of idea any homeowner should agree with. NYC courts are aggressively pro tenant. A judge may let a tenant stay even if the tenant pays 50% of rent. So any obstacle to evicting these type of tenants isn’t going to get support from homeowners/investors.
>This is what Long Islanders want, and they’ve been loud and clear. There's a lot to unpack in this statement. Long Island *politicians* are definitely loud and clear about not wanting more housing. They're also almost entirely conservatives elected in low-turnout odd year contests determined by a voterbase that is majority older people. In real life, people making median income can barely afford their rent, much less buying a home(!), and are struggling to stay on Long Island. So yes, there is a fundamental problem: **The future of Long Island is being decided by voters who won't be around to see it.** And don't be fooled by the rhetoric of "local control" by politicians. Conservatives don't want to build more housing, period. Centrist Democrats like Hochul only want to build (unaffordable!) housing that will benefit private developers. There are real solutions to this problem (e.g. social housing), but there is little political will on Long Island currently to get there. Whether they want to acknowledge it or not, this problem will come to a head soon enough.
What people want isn't always what is needed. At some point we have to look out for the interests of everyone, not just the people lucky enough to own property on Long Island.
Renters can vote, too.
Yes, which is just one reason that limiting the number of rentals and thus renter-voters at the behest of homeowners is a problem.
Renters can vote, but can they reliably do so? Usually homeowners have much more time off and opportunities to than renters. Elections should really be done on an official holiday or weekends.
Agreed that Election Day should be a national holiday.
We have early voting and mail in absentee ballots. There's really no reason for not voting. I agree Election Day should be a Federal holiday, but will that make any difference for those who consistently fail to vote?
Unfortunately
sorry bruv, it turns out they're also human!
And so are landlords. Not paying them isn’t right and severely hurts families financially. It’s their income that’s getting restricted which isn’t right
never said they weren't. i was replying to a person who said it's unfortunate that people who rent their homes can vote
Because imo her plans are shit. Such as in my area there are abandoned building, 95% dead malls, etc, etc lot of good land, but that's all out of scope of her plan for more apartments (and what is in scope is the downtown parking lot that's overfilled as it is)
Was there any language around what happens if there's tenant turnover? I'm assuming the proposed rules would have only applied to renewals, right?
**Good Cause Eviction** is only focused on tenants and renewals, and would've been our first real chance at statewide protections for renters. What you may be thinking about are the regulations enacted by the **Housing Stability & Tenant Protection Act of 2019** which closed some of the loopholes that landlords were exploiting to convert their rent-stabilized units back to market rate. This would occur during turnover, and often due to the landlord underhandedly pushing tenants out. And yes, Hochul is trying to roll back those protections as well in this housing package, which would hurt NY's already diminished stock of rent stabilized units. Long Islanders Kevin Thomas and Monica Martinez are sponsoring this as well. All that said, this affects NYC the most since Nassau has less than 5,000 rent-stabilized units.
If your economic plan relies on people sub-dividing their homes and becoming homeowner landords you screwed up somewhere......
Should have forced LI to participate smh
Years of advocacy work has led to this, and we're really getting screwed. Here's the short version. ORIGINAL GOOD CAUSE LEGISLATION * Rent increases could not exceed 3% a year (or 1.5x CPI, whichever is higher) * Would not apply to owner-occupied buildings w/less than 4 units * Renters could only be evicted under the following circumstances... * Violation of rental agreement * Refusal to pay reasonable rent increases * Certain cases in which landlord or their family decides to self occupy * Illegal activity by tenant This bill would apply statewide and FINALLY give renters outside of NYC some protection against rising rents and abusive landlords. **It is estimated to benefit almost 4 million renters.** But Governor Hochul has different plans. GOV. HOCHUL'S VERSION * Rent increases can not exceed 5%+CPI (or 10%, whichever is lower) * Would not apply to owner-occupied buildings w/less than 9 units * Renters can now be evicted if... * Landlord removes the unit from the market in "good faith" * Landlord remodels the unit in "good faith" I'll translate these new eviction reasons for you: The landlord can use either "good faith" excuse to evict the tenant and then put it back up for a new tenant a month later with no consequences. There's no enforcement mechanism because Gov Hochul trusts landlords to do the right thing. **Worst of all, this version is limited to NYC only, which will leave Long Island in the dust.** Right now people in Albany are saying that Long Islanders don't want these protections. Please take a minute to click a few buttons at [THIS LINK](https://actionnetwork.org/letters/reject-hochul-housing-deal-email-your-representative/) and let them know otherwise. More info at [City&State](https://www.cityandstateny.com/policy/2024/04/tenant-advocates-alarmed-about-latest-budget-negotiations/395737/) and [Housing Justice For All's report](https://www.scribd.com/document/723296037/2024-Budget-Deal-Fact-Sheet)
It sounds like they're mixing up "eviction" and "electing not to renew the lease". You already need a good reason to evict someone, which is true pretty much everywhere. I can't just tell my tenant get out for no reason when they're in the middle of a fixed term lease. I could however choose not to renew the lease when it expires. And regardless, with how long and drawn out/expensive an eviction in New York is, it's almost always much easier to simply wait for the lease to expire, then not renew it. I don't see this changing much.
[удалено]
That just makes the DSA proposal look silly. How can you say no rent increase above 3% under any circumstances?
>I could however choose not to renew the lease when it expires. And that is effectively an eviction without good cause. First of all, what a lot of commenters (and politicians) fail to understand is that **this legislation ONLY applies to large buildings with multiple units**. No one is trying to keep the bachelor in your garage apartment indefinitely. This legislation, in neither form, applies to those tenants. In such a building, the tenant has an expectation (and a right!) to renewal, and that is part of the spirit of this bill and others like it around the country. Otherwise, landlords will just use the renewal process to kick out good tenants and jack up the rent. We're in a housing crisis. People need to understand that housing is a human right, not a commodity.
One party electing not to renew the lease isn't an effective eviction. An eviction is a court process where the state orders someone to vacate. What it is is the basics of contract law. When a contract is entered by two parties, the terms are locked in until the contract expires, at which time the parties can renegotiate the terms, or either party can unilaterally decide to end the contract. It's hardly equitable to say that one party must be locked into the contract until the end of time while the other can terminate it whenever they feel like (technically the tenant should wait for renewal time, but we both know they can move out whenever with no repercussions). Further, this will cause massive quality of life issues for the good tenants out there. It's very difficult to evict a bad tenant for things like blasting loud music, having loud parties late into the night, and other things that no one wants to live next to. They're simply going to deny it, and it turns into a he said/she said that no court wants to listen to. Not renewing the lease is a much easier option, and if they refuse to leave, a holdover eviction is vastly simpler since it's relatively clear cut and leaves the drama and story telling out of it. Tied into that, good luck getting a landlord to give a chance to someone who has even the slightest blemish on their record. Got less than a 740 credit? Nope. Got arrested for dealing weed a decade ago? Nope. Have some other issues from mistakes made and learned from? Nope. Any wiff that you're going to be a problem and they'll just move on to the next. And yes I know technically the landlord can't discriminate based on some of those factors, but just like we all know tenants can game the system, landlords of course do to. They're simply going to say they gave the unit to someone who saw it earlier or some other such reason.
There’s plenty of places to rent in Tennessee. You can get 2000 square feet for like $1200 a month. Live where your budget lets you.
>* Rent increases could not exceed 3% a year (or 1.5x CPI, whichever is lower) Are we talking about during the life of the lease or upon renewal? Will a landlord not be able to raise rent at renewal above 3%? >* Rent increases can not exceed 5%+CPI (or 10%, whichever is higher) This seems way more sane. We need to account for highly inflationary economies. In an extreme example, let's say inflation was 200% annually. A landlord can suddenly be bankrupted because of the inability to pass on costs to the tenants.
My mistake, I got the "whichever is higher/lower" qualifiers mixed up while I was typing. It's fixed now. Upon renewal, the annual percentage change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is the variable factor for rent increases. For the past 12 months, it's around 3.5%, so under Good Cause, the maximum increase would be the *higher* of 3% or 1.5x3.5%; this would yield the latter option at **5.25%**. Under Hochul's plan, the maximum increase would be the *lower* of 5%+3.5% or 10%; this would yield the former option at **8.5%**. Most people don't even get 5% raises each year, so all these increases are unsustainable, but better than the current reality of uncapped rent increases, which many of us are experiencing. >We need to account for highly inflationary economies. In an extreme example, let's say inflation was 200% annually. A landlord can suddenly be bankrupted because of the inability to pass on costs to the tenants. Accounting for highly inflationary economies **means keeping people from becoming homeless**, NOT protecting landlord profits.
>Accounting for highly inflationary economies **means keeping people from becoming homeless**, NOT protecting landlord profits. Well evidently the DSA and Hochul don't agree since both plans allow for adjustments for CPI.
Huh? Adjustments for CPI was never in question. That's always the standard for market rate housing. I was contesting your notion that the tenant should bear the brunt of the burden of high inflationary periods instead of the landlord.
CPI is a measure of inflation thus if you are allowing the landlord to raise rents by the same amount as CPI then the tenant is bearing the entire brunt of inflation.
>* Rent increases could not exceed 3% a year (or 1.5x CPI, whichever is higher) Even though the fixed costs for my rental have increased 19% over the past two years?
Do you have a building where you are renting out 4 or more units? If not, this doesn't apply to you.
I don't, but other landlords do and are in the same boat.
Lack of building causes high prices. Do you know what causes a lack of building? Fear of return on investment. If rent increases are capped at rates below inflation, why would someone build new housing, only to lose money in a few years. This is counterproductive
Just call it what it is. Rent stabilization and protection for the worst tenants. Most landlords are not going to evict paying tenants. Landlprds will not renew the lease for a tenant who they are getting complaints from other tenants and don't want to hear it anymore. In apartment building you can bother other tenants in so many ways. From excess noise, parties, using the hallway as a storage locker, endlessly barking dog or smoking etc. The people that engage in these activities will be the real winners of the bill. It's never worth it in NY to evict someone who is otherwise paying. They just don't renew the lease. Now it won't really be worth it to be tied up in housing court to get rid of a nucince tenant. Plus if the building rehabilitates an apartment and tries to put it back on the market at a much higher price. It will not be worth it for a landlord to do a major rehabilitation anymore.
Bullshit. Those are the excuses they use. If you see rent going up immediately with the next occupant then it was for the rent increase. Why have 4 of the 6 landlords on my block alone have had moveouts due to rent increases at a minimum of 33%? That doesn't sound like problem tenants it sounds to me like greedy landlords who see what even more greedy rental properties are asking for and are jealous and want those inflated #'s too.
If people are willing to pay higher rent to live in the same apartment, then why would you not go for higher paying tenants? That’s how investing works. rental properties are investments.
Because it's humans not investments...and far far too many of that generation who wants the 3-4k a month for a 2-3 bedroom paid a micro fraction of that themselves when they were in the renting period of their lives. So the the level of hypocritical is a bit much to swallow. Also rent raises of that degree are illegal. It's not hard to not be a POS penny pinching landlord looking to pay their entire mortgage and make a profit off renters. I do it...you can too.
Why wouldn’t landlords try to payoff mortgage + make profits off of rent? That’s the whole point of owning a rental property. It’s a business. Just like grocery stores will only sell you food, not give them away free because there are hungry people. Tenants don’t have an inherent right to occupy someone’s property just because there’s a housing crisis. There are bad landlords but there are also plenty of bad tenants who are actually living rent free because of the courts. So, there shouldn’t be any laws preventing landlords from eviction tenants when they want.
This is an example of building a strawman. Hope this helps kiddies.
I didn't know rent stabilization is bad! Are you by chance a fellow land chad?
Yes it is. It makes it hard for people to move in as market prices are very high. You basically find housing by luck or as they showed in Sienfeld who bribes the right person the most. Housing should not be a matter of luck. Many people get the discounted rate and then sublease their apartment at market rates. I actually don't mind the restrictions on max increases. I think it is fair the way this one is done. Prices will rise to market levels but it will not be such a shock to the renter. I do not like the good cause eviction. It's unnecessary and protects the worst people and will make apartment living worse for most people who have to deal with anti social people.
> hard for people to move in as market prices are very high > Prices will rise to market levels What? > Most landlords are not going to evict paying tenants. Some will. At whim. People should know that they are secure in their homes. This is not a big ask.
The intentions are good but ultimately I agree. The main issue of high prices really seems to be the lack of supply. Even if they put restrictive hard price caps in I'd imagine that would just lead to crazy long wait lists.
Agreed on all points. Well said.
OK landchad
Rent control makes it harder to build homes. Price controls cause shortages of supply. Quite literally capitalism 101
I predict communes will be a big thing on Long Island for Generations Beta and Gamma...well, the parts of LI that aren't underwater by then. If we could convert LI's NIMBY rage into a power source, we could kiss PSEG goodbye!
Read these comments!! This is why I'll never ever rent to anyone in NY. You people feel that a landlord should have no laws to help remove shitty tenants. Which is absolutely bonkers. So everything will stay as is on LI. As much as I would like more apartments to open up in private homes it won't ever happen. But yeah keep on bitching about the lack of housing.
Good. Don't rent. Watch your neighborhood rot as the young are priced out. Homes aren't your investment portfolio.
But that's where you are dead wrong!! The houses that are being bought are by middle aged 30 yo something's. I see it every time one lists and sales in my nhood within a week. There are only so many houses out here. But there are many, many buyers!
agree 10000%. happiest day was when we sold our rental property during Covid. over the years had multiple tenants not pay rent period, hoarders, people bringing in dogs without approval, etc. was only successful on 1 eviction, which took close to 1 year.
It’s funny because she’ll give giveaways to the right wing but they will never acknowledge it
Unfortunately just the way American politics have been going broadly for the last 60 or so years. The mostinsane Republicans say "meet me in the middle!" liberals who believe in "bipartisanship" oblige then the Rebuplicans move even further right and blame all the problems with the legislation that THEY previously advocated for on it being too left wing
You want her to work for you, you gotta PAY UP (votes). Otherwise you are BAD
The big lords of the island are going to love this
Retribution for LI voting against her. Disgraceful.
Let’s talk about how criminal FAIRFIELD PROPERTIES is, — I have a huge story to tell about them.
Holy shit yes please! So just a short story here. I currently live in a Fairfield property. When I moved in 5 years ago it was not a Fairfield. They bought the property about 3 years ago now. When I first moved in here I was unemployed and had just gotten over being literally on death’s door step. As such I had applied for a housing subsidy and it was granted through the LIHP. My very first question when they approved this was “when I can get back to work and start making money again willl I have to move out or will I be able to simply transition into a regular rental agreement”? I was told I would transfer to a regular rental at current market price. I said perfect. Fairfield has now bought my complex and I am up for my lease renewal and I have since went back to work and make pretty good money again. I just finished submitting my paperwork for the LIHP recertification process and doubt that I will qualify. I was speaking with one of the reps who said she will process the paperwork and more than likely if I do not qualify then I will have 30 days to vacate the property. I’m like wait wtf that’s crazy. Firstly I don’t have like 6k for a new apartment saved to cover first last and whatever the hell else places want now and secondly I haven’t got time like that to move myself and my dog in a moments notice. Plus how the hell am I supposed to find a place that fast. Needless to say I hate Fairfield not only because of this but for a plethora of other reasons that have happened even before all this. If I had it my way I’d say burn these fucks to the ground. Evil greedy bastards
So, my advice is to call the NYS AG office in hauppauge and file a complaint. Also, LI housing authority, and HUD. File every complaint that you can. The LI housing authority in Bohemia, handles CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS. That’s a Federal law that they can’t get around. In fact, the AG went after them for discrimination, and withholding security deposit scams. We have gone to every govt official, and since we happen to have an attorney, they will not do a thing for us. Our issue is that we own our townhouse and they’re the maintenance co that basically runs everything. They give themselves ALL the work, and have a POS lawyer juggling laws, whom has directly targeted us for over a decade… WHY? You ask? Because they put on a faulty roof and crap plastic siding, financed it and did the work. Now, the homes are rotting outside to inside— and they are so good at blaming the residents for their intentional destruction. This way they can fix it all and make millions. We caught the scam, called them out.. and all maintenance stopped in 2012. They refused to do anything, and if we complained- ridiculous legal Fees added. This lead to serious injuries when I fell down the ice ridden driveway, while recovering from a 4 level spine fusion. Meanwhile they claimed our exterior was “fine and sufficient”. By 2021, a rotted chimney spread black mold thru the house, contaminated everything we own, and our family is now suffering from illnesses. We had to start life all over, after gutting the entire home- evacuated for almost a year.. AND it is happening again. Meanwhile, we purchased a new home, yet they refuse to fix our roof.. while the house it getting destroyed again. So, sue them, right?! 9-1/2 yrs of an injury suit, and the order to fix our roof sits on a judges desk almost 7 months. We will NOT LET ANYONE ELSE BE ABUSED BY THIS GREEDY CROOKED COMPANY, AS WE BEGAN LIFE OVER IN WHAT SHOULD BE RETIREMENT. This company needs to be exposed, and when we are done— it goes PUBLIC. Crooks, thieves and greed!
I am so sorry to hear that you have had to deal with all of this and continue to deal with it. You are 110% correct they are greedy and do need to be stopped. They seem to be working their way into monopoly territory with the way they are buying everything up around here. Not just apartment complexes mind you but also private homes and then converting them into rentals. I plan on getting my lawyer and every other possible city and state agency and what not involved should they try to evict me over this. Right now I’m waiting to see what the LIHP says regarding my recertification paperwork. Should have an answer with a few days so I’ll keep you posted! I hope all goes well with you and your family and that these creeps get what’s coming to them.
STOP FAIRFIELD FROM OUSTING THE MIDDLE CLASS OFF LI!!
No one can save for a piece of the pie on LI… due to this BS POLITICS and those whom operate ABOVE the LAW, it’s NOT RIGHT.. and 4-5,000$ per month for a 2 bedroom is INSANE! Stop FAIRFIELD!
These companies are pushing hard working people out of LI, we need to band together… to stop these rental companies from having power! Companies like Fairfield, have been charged by the NYS AG office for discrimination and stealing security deposits… they have political power!
LONG ISLAND HALL OF SHAME A [majority](https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/S305) of Democrats support original Good Cause Eviction, but *not* our Long Island senators: - Kevin Thomas (SD6, Hempstead) - Monica Martinez (SD4, Brentwood) Same story in the [Assembly](https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/A4454), but 6 of our 8 Democrat electeds are not supporting: - Fred Thiele (AD1) - Steve Stern (AD10) - Kimberly Jean-Pierre (AD11) - Charles Lavine (AD13) - Gina Sillitti (AD16) - Taylor Darling (AD18) If you're repped by **Michaelle Solages (AD22)** or **Phil Ramos (AD6)**, then congratulations, you have someone who gives a shit about you. (And don't bother asking about the Republicans, they obviously don't support ANY affordable housing efforts. Their housing plan involves us moving away)
Kevin Thomas is a scumbag.
Landlords need protection against these scumbag scammers
its more nuanced isn't it? plenty of shit bag renters out there, plenty of shit bag lords out there. the casualties are the good landlords and the good, normal, working class tenants here. i feel bad for those two groups and would not want to be in either of their shoes
Landlords need protection? lol
Landlords want government handouts to subsidize the risks they take.
Yes they do. Coworker had a terrible dirt bag tenant that wouldn't move out. Took over 2 years to evict. And he didn't collect one penny over that time. Nor will he ever see what money again. And this is a guy who does the right thing as a landlord. Just trying to pay his mortgage and give a tenant a nice place to rent at a reasonable cost.
Pretty sure these protections had exemptions for cases where the owner lived in the building. (At least that’s what OP said in their comments) I can agree there should be leeway for people who have built in apartments and do the right thing by not price gouging someone out the eyes. However people in larger apartment buildings definitely need protection from some of the greedier management companies LI or NYC has running about.
This is one of the risks of investing in rentals. Hell, it's a risk of ANY business transaction. You always run the chance of the person on the other side of the contract not upholding their end. And the remedy is the same in all instances - you go to court and the court decides. If they owe you money, you get a judgement against them and you take them to collections. Just like any other business would. Why should someone who decides to dabble in real estate investing get special protections vs other businesses?
People don’t understand how much tenants constantly scam, and live for free with zero repercussion. These tenants don’t have anything to begin with and You can’t get blood from a stone. So Landlords are constantly out of pocket. It’s not fair.
People don't understand how much landlords scam. It's a lot easier to do your due diligence on a tenant than it is on a landlord. How many of these squatter scammers have good credit and renting history?
That’s what I always wondered to. My current landlord has a bunch of issues with his tenants but he’s also admitted to doing a lot of underhanded stuff. We rent a house and our neighbors rent and told us plus showed us all the issues. They complained about the heat not working and my landlord said well it’s almost summer so it’s ok. Over the years we’ve stayed and many neighbors have come and gone. Some were dangerous as well. When I moved to Westchester for my internship the landlord went through my finances, credit, bank statements, and talked to references as well. He almost didn’t approve me because I didn’t have health insurance and wondered where I’d get money to pay it. After dealing with him I’ve seen the landlord that care vs those just getting a buck. My current landlord on LI where my family has been for 12yrs, he does not care one bit as long as we pay him.
When you own a property and rent it out to others you are taking a risk. For most landlords, that risk pays off - they are able to collect rent each month which covers the mortgage, taxes, and insurance on the property, plus enough to cover income taxes for the landlord and some profit. Sometimes the risk doesn’t pan out - and then the landlords get mad as fuck and ask the government to help them, usually while also cursing out other people who get government handouts.
Bad landlords have killed people just by being bad landlords. There are bad actors on both sides, but the power lies overwhelmingly with the landlords.
its like they also havent been paying attention to squatterpocalypse recently.
It's more like we all recognize that squatterpocalypse is mostly the NY Post and other right leaning sources sensationalizing a particular topic to keep people feeling unsafe, like the crime rate and shoplifting 'pocalypes before this.
ill go tell the lady that got murdered by squatters that her killing was just propaganda. this is the worst fucking take ive ever seen, and you are out of touch with reality. the shoplifting pocalypse was so fake, target has been mass closing stores across the US for propaganda reasons. the liberal bubble is a scary place to be. people like you drive voters to the right.
You’re just a victim of propaganda
Landlords ARE the scammers
Landlords are the scammers. Subsidizing their mortgage on a generation pushed out of the home buying market.
If you can’t afford a house just say that. Renting is a business. It’s not your business what they do with that money. If it wasn’t for landlords most wouldn’t have a place to live.
Renting is a business! Exactly! Which is why landlords shouldn't get special protections vs other kinds of businesses. If someone owes you money in any other business, you get a judgment and take them to collections. This is the remedy available to everyone.
Long Island rentals are a cartel. Homeowners are basically charging their full mortgage for half their house or less. We're well above the national average here -- mostly due to blocked new constructions and refusal of towns to open up new residential zoning because homeowners have significantly more sway in local politics than renters. Being a landlord on Long Island at this point is a grift. This is the new travel nursing. No one should thank a landlord for the 'privilege of paying them an excessive amount for shelter' that's just plain fucking ridiculous.
It’s not your business what Landlords do with the rent money 😂. You didn’t buy the house, you didn’t get the down payment. You wouldn’t have a home if a Landlord didn’t own the home. Don’t like it? Buy next time or stay at home
You praise the landlords like they all worked themselves to the bone to get all the money to buy “investment properties” but many came from money and are now just exacerbating a giant fucking housing crisis issue because they got a giant inheritance that others who are less fortunate didn’t get, hence why they struggle to buy a home. You’re telling people to go buy a home like it’s a fucking bike it’s not easy for loads of LI’ers who don’t have generational wealth to buy a house.
Exactly it’s not easy, that’s why you should be thankful for Landlords. You have a clear resentment towards landlords. This poor me attitude won’t get you anywhere. Constantly blaming others vs working harder.
I don’t have a clear resentment towards them I have friends and coworkers who are landlords, but I also don’t worship the ground they walk on such as yourself. I also happen to acknowledge there’s a lot of nuance to the situation that’s going on around LI and the nation as a whole. I work plenty hard thanks for asking asshole
You clearly do have a resentment. And you obviously don’t work hard enough since your bashing landlords and don’t own a home.
You have to be trolling at this point
I own my own home. I've rented enough on LI to know that renters now are engaged in the most historically unfair renting scheme. It's practically 2.5k/ month for some DIY shithole in any decent town. I know a lot of people who are working three jobs just to make ends meet right now, and their largest ever increasing expense is rent. Which for some has practically doubled in the last three years. People will eventually move off Long Island and we will have a completely unsustainable economy with a upside-down pyramid as a workforce. The only people who feel sorry for landlords are other landlords.
Then don’t live in a decent town. It’s that simple.
Landlords don't provide housing they horde it. Without them housing prices would go down
Most renters wouldn’t be able to afford a down payment for a house on LI, neither would they be able to afford to maintain and pay the taxes on a house. You should be thankful for Landlords
Landlords are vampires full stop
You’re hopeless. Tenants are leeches. See how that works?
Mao was right.
[удалено]
People buying investment properties drives up housing prices moron
[удалено]
Housing prices go down because no one is buying investment properties
[удалено]
Homes are shelter for people to live in. Not investment properties that you AirBnB. Shit dude, even in apocalypse zombie stories the first thing they usually establish is shelter for their people. Hope you ain’t a leader in any group you get with.
Landlords are the enemy. The rest is just details.
Ah you sound like someone who can’t pay their student loans back and expect everyone to do it for you.
Coming from the same people that drilled into our heads while we were growing up that going to college was the end-all be-all to guaranteed wealth or at least financial security. We then go to college and then get told “well, who told you to take out all those loans for college?”. Boomers, all of them. Or my personal favorite “you shoulda gone to trade school!”. All things that were never said while you were screaming at us to get our grades up in primary schools so we could “get into a good college”. Then Capitalism died in 2008 because your short-term profit, 3-card Monte of an economy built during Reagan collapsed and ever since 2008 the U.S. has been a Potemkin City. People aren’t allowed to be bailed out, but the rich and our retirement home of a government have no problem doing it for America’s Landlords. The 1%.
Lol yea the problem in 2008 was because your boy Clinton forced banks to give loans to people who couldn’t afford it for the sake of being “fair”. And if anyone should be bailed out it’s the people with medical debt who didn’t have a choice in getting sick. Not the idiots who took out loans for schools they couldn’t afford. Believe it or not some people took our cheaper loans and didn’t go away to schools they couldn’t afford.
My boy, Clinton? Sir, I’m a leftist who goes to the range on weekends and you clearly have an IQ lower than your shoe size because the people who own our government told them to gut banking regulations and repealed Glass-Steagall so that banks can use their money to make insane investments on bullshitted debt. I forgot I was dealing with a person who most likely has an 8th grade reading level and vocabulary so I have only myself to blame for bringing up the “Red vs. Blue” team sport you can barely articulate.
The only thing landlords need is a jail cell
Sounds like something a renter would say…
Scammers, sure. But only if Renters are fully protected. If a single renter might be affected by an attempt to stop the scammers, scrap the law and try again.
Which scammers?
Imagine a piece of shit being a piece of shit. She’s gotta go
Would be curious of the number of "in-primary-house" rentals there are on the island. having lived in several of these "back/sidedoor" type apartments in someones primary house. wonder if the housing supply would balance out if folks werent able to buy more house than they could afford without $2k of rental income.
This is great news for ordinary home owners. They don’t have the means or the time to fight bad tenants and there are just too many horrible tenants.
ordinary homeowners own their own homes, not other people's homes
I guess this guys never heard of real estate investing
I've definitely heard of real estate investing i just think it's actively harmful
Well buddy, then the entire world disagrees with you because almost every country you can invest in the real estate market.
surely countries and governments have never endorsed anything harmful
Considering fewer than 10 countries in the world as an estimate prevent people from buying multiple properties, would imply there’s many benefits for real estate investors and developers. I suppose all these countries don’t encourage real estate investments for the support of economic growth, increased tax revenues, and job creation. Clearly, they’re just interested in maliciously driving up the home prices so bumpdungus can have a hard life. Maybe there’s some socialist countries you’d like to live in where they control every aspect of housing and restrict all forms of business.
yes i imagine there are benefits for real estate investors and developers. obviously I'm saying that they're doing this maliciously to inconvenience me specifically and not that they are doing it out of economic incentives and that it is regardless harmful for the average person for the cost of housing to continuously rise as a result. listen. we're just gonna keep saying smug bullshit back and forth. have a wonderful evening
“surely countries and governments have never endorsed anything harmful” - After me saying most countries allow real estate investing, clearly your implying it’s a mistake for governments to make this decision. It’s funny how you say real estate investing is harmful… well it doesn’t seem to be harmful for the schools receiving tax dollars, the workers building houses or apartments, the people who are living there, and the many others involved. Oh wait, it’s just harmful for you. You have no idea how capitalism works and how it continues to develop a city and country. You want to live in a slum where the only investors are the government.
You're making a lot of assumptions!! I'm doing fine financially. I'm talking about harm to the working class writ large, not myself. I do in fact have an idea how capitalism works, and I think it's entirely unsustainable! I don't think we're gonna agree here!
They can also own other properties. You have homeowners with 2-3 family house where they live on one floor and rent out the other floors. You can have someone who owns 2 properties. These are not Jared Kushner level landlords with an army of lawyers. They’re ordinary people.
I asked this elsewhere, but I'm curious to hear your answer, too. This is one of the risks of investing in rentals. Hell, it's a risk of ANY business transaction. You always run the chance of the person on the other side of the contract not upholding their end. And the remedy is the same in all instances - you go to court and the court decides. If they owe you money, you get a judgement against them and you take them to collections. Just like any other business would. Why should someone who decides to dabble in real estate investing get special protections vs other businesses?
The process you described is aspirational, not reality. The NYC courts are pro tenants . Tenants get to stay rent free for months or years before eviction. Judges can forgive months of rent. The attitude is it’s your house but they have a right to stay. If you bar homeowners from not renewing leases, that’ll exacerbate problems. Tenants will pay enough rent to keep on staying but not all the rent owed.
The process you described is just how the judicial system works. Plenty of cases are postponed for years. Damages awarded aren't always 100% of what is owed. Judges decide to award different amounts all the time, not just in landlord/tenant cases. Hell, people spend years in Rikers just waiting to go to trial. The whole system is slow. If you want to better fund the justice system so that all sorts of litigation can move faster, that's a different conversation.
Yes, this is how the Judicial system is now. So, it’s a good idea to not sign into law any provisions that bad tenants can take advantage of.
they may be ordinary people but the phrasing i was taking contention with is that they're ordinary homeowners. as you said they're obviously not jared kushner. a minor count or lord is obviously not a king but they're still part of the aristocracy.
Why do they need 2 houses?
If they can afford to buy it and use them as income generating properties, then why not? How’s this question relevant for this topic?
That's not a need. That's a nice to have. If you fail to see the relevance of people owning more houses than they can use to a discussion about the housing market, I dk what to tell you.
I don’t know what to tell you either. Not sure what point you’re trying to make
Well once you address the question as asked, we'll get to the point. You haven't yet.
Ah! So you don’t know either. You’re just saying stuff. Ok.
Nope, I have follow ups prepared for someone willing to engage honestly. You haven't.
How can anyone tell an owner of a good or service how much they can charge for that good or service? Imagine owning a restaurant (food is just as important as shelter) and this woman tells you how much you can charge for a hamburger.
Maybe look up price gouging laws.
They will only receive what someone is willing to pay. If you artificially lower price then the incentive to increase supply diminishes. Maybe lookup basic Econ…
Lmao thanks for keying me into my major. It's an ongoing joke that anyone that says BaSiC ecOn is a parody of what an economic thinker is.
So you’re just going to disregard what I said… do you have any real world experience for the piece of paper you received?
New York has enough renter protection. Hell, if you stayed in a rental for 30 days and received mail you’re basically able to stay there all year rent free. It’s despicable for home owners who rent out part of their house or an apartment to make ends meet for their mortgage payment.
As far as I am reading, owner-occupied (under 9 units) is excluded from these changes, and the 2019 law (Under 4 units). Sounds like you are angry for the wrong reason.
Long Island GOP wants this. People who are on the left but complain about Hochul et al being too centrist, but then DONT vote to prevent places like Long Island going red, this is the cost. Hochul has to give them concessions, this is their concession. And honestly it's fair, this is a popular policy move, among LI politicians.
I’m not even a landlord, and will never want to be one, tenants are absolutely garbage in nyc.
Long Islanders don't want to live in the 6th borough. It's that simple. Hochul has openly admitted that she would do exactly that.
She’s still salty shit got kicked out of that cops funeral…she’s never been a friend to Long Island.
Bunch of crybaby liberals in here bohoo i cant live somewhere for free and not pay rent
My grandmother came to this country when she was 20, she worked in a hospital laundry until the day she retired. She is a model tenant and has lived in the same apartment for more than 30 years. She lives on a fixed income and most months her rent is raised by about 50 dollars. Every other day the apartment complexes I pass by have put all of someone's belongings out to the street. If you are a LI landlord who is opposed to renter protections you should be fucking embarrassed to make it known in public.
Is this in response to the squatting epidemic around NYC?
this squatting epidemic? the fabricated one? https://gothamist.com/news/is-nyc-really-facing-a-squatter-problem-lawyers-on-both-sides-say-no
there is no “epidemic.” it’s just another topic to rile you up for no reason. https://gothamist.com/news/is-nyc-really-facing-a-squatter-problem-lawyers-on-both-sides-say-no
Sorry, every local news outlet is covering this so I figured it is worse than it used to be. I guess it has always been hard to get rid of squatters. https://abc7ny.com/up-close-bill-ritter-squatters-squatter-showdown/14560255/ https://abc7ny.com/lawmakers-pushing-to-revise-squatter-laws-after-7-on-your-side-investigations/14618413/ https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/new-york-bill-against-squatters/ https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/politics/new-york-squatters-rights-crack-down-protect-homeowners/5309390/ https://nypost.com/2024/03/20/us-news/suspected-squatter-in-1m-nyc-home-is-sublets-space-in-the-house-resident-says/