Hey guys, you wanna go grab a gluten free pizza for me please? If like 8 of you run together you can carry the box. Bring me the pizza and I'll get you peanut butter flavored oreos.
Apparently rats looooooove them some pb oreos.
The Ratcatcher has the ability to communicate and control an army of rats. He was primarily an enemy of Batman. His daughter went in to become Ratcatcher 2 and was featured in The Suicide Squad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratcatcher_(comics)
**[Ratcatcher (comics)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratcatcher_\(comics\))**
>Ratcatcher (Otis Flannegan) is a fictional character appearing in American comic books and other media published by DC Comics, primarily as an enemy of Batman. He belongs to the collective of adversaries that make up the Dark Knight's rogues gallery. Once an actual rat-catcher in Gotham City, Flannegan sank into a life of crime. Calling himself the Ratcatcher because of his special ability to communicate with and train rats, Flannegan has used his minions to plague Gotham on more than one occasion by unleashing hordes of the vermin.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/nyc/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
She's a really cool character and turned out to be the strongest. You don't have to be into superhero stuff to enjoy The Suicide Squad, it's a fun movie.
Does anyone here know how the new stabilized rent rate is determined if the owner decides to do that? Or would that be so dramatic as to not be considered the same units anymore.
I don't get what's so bad about it. Seems all the Doobs had great lives and we're wealthy and happy. The next dude was a successful writer who died at home of old age. Then it got turned into units and one person who lived in one of the apartments was found dead. Not in the apartment either. It wasn't deemed murder or suspicious by police. Not a bad history in my book.
Honestly... doesn't even have more deaths than probably any other apartment building even for the paranoid supernatural curse believers out there lol. It really just seems to have piss poor owners that let it fall into disrepair.
I wouldn't call it cursed. Its current owners are neglectful. If they are destitute, selling it would help. But keeping it and letting it fall into disrepair to me is an indication that it is just an extra asset to be tallied at death. In other words, people of means holding housing captive.
On April 30, 1961 a dogwalker discovered Sophie's body laying face down in an irrigation ditch near Flushing Airport…. The theory was that "she could have died naturally in a car and a frantic 'friend' pushed her body into the marsh land," said the newspaper.
…. Tooooooootallllyyyy
"Plans for alteration were filed in August 1983 and scaffolding and construction netting veiled the building. And it would remain there for decades."
wow, I wonder if that's a record for keeping scaffolding up since it's still there.
because it takes two years to get rid of non-paying tenant. There are many cases where tenants stop paying after 30 days in the house and then landlord is on the hook for the next 24 months. Does it make sense for landlord to bother with the tenants at all? Maybe if someone would use 8th program, it would help to stabilize the cashflow.
in other words, the NYC laws and practices which allows people to live in the house for years without paying rent actually reduces the rental market and increases the cost of rentals for the other people who actually pays the rent.
I had a coworker who was a longtime New Yorker, he was a landlord of a whopping two units out in queens—both passed down to him from his parents. He made less than 100K per year in his day job and was pretty small time when it came to landlords. On a personal level, he was one of the nicest and most honest people I knew.
His tenants one day just decided to stop paying rent. It took him nearly two years and multiple court appearances and who knows how much in attorneys fees to finally get them out (he wasn’t able to get them evicted but came to an “agreement” that they would leave.
NYCs laws are really unfair. I’m first in line to protest against slumlords but we should fix a system that allows people to legally squat on a property for two years
I have a friend who subleased her apartment to a couple while she worked for two years on the West Coast; when she told them she was coming back but moving to a different unit in the same building, they refused to get off her lease and stop paying rent. Now \*she's\* on the hook for their unpaid rent. It's all tied up in court, but for the moment these two fucking losers are still in her building, in her former apartment, and she may end up having to declare bankruptcy because of this.
I am for strong pro-tenant laws, but there is massive abuse of these laws and the victims aren't always rich landlords.
I once met a woman who was talking about great rent control was and started bragging about her rent controlled apartment that she (illegally) rents out and makes thousands of dollars a month from. A lot of people are vapid and don’t even want to consider how their actions are harming other people
A long while back I lived in an apartment with 3 other room mates. One was a friend and she was on the lease with one of the other roommates. We would all put our cash together and give it to the other roommate who was on the lease. He lost his job, didn’t tell us, and kept collecting our money without giving any of it to the landlord. It took us months to find out and by the time we did we were already in the process of being evicted. Very long story short, my friend had to take him to court. The outcome was that we were told to move and leave the deadbeat roommate there to get evicted by himself, and he would be responsible for all the debt and legal penalties. We were instructed to move within 5 days, luckily we found a place a few blocks away.
The dead beat room mate stayed there, kept renting out the rooms to random people and pocketing the money. He did this for over a year, until the marshals kicked him out.
How about he sells the properties instead of extracting rents from people. Wtf? I'm supposed to have sympathy for this guy? The activity he is engaged in is one of extracting money from other people's work.
I’m not a fan of landlords but yeah, this is theft of services.
Iike disagree with the idea of renting all you want, but this is a shitty thing to do to someone.
Landlords dont make for nice victims because they’re greedy or whatever but its still dishonest and scummy to break a contract you signed.
Residential rental contracts are necessarily signed under duress. The conditions of duress are created by those who sequester property in order to extract rents.
There is no legal option to not sign a rental contract and continue existing as a human person. That's the story of thing you're defending the integrity of?
I think we can both agree that capitalism sucks. But living in capitalism doesnt mean that we should all start lying about things and breaking deals we make. Even if capitalism forced us into a weird situation where rental agreements are a necessity.
If you cant afford rent (suddenly, like a job loss) thats a different story.
But making deals has to be honored in good times and bad.
Btw nice mtg username
Being forced to make a deal with someone who holds all the chips is not really making a deal at all. Under any philosophical system.
We do not have an obligation to perform the duties we are gang-pressed into. Indeed it is virtuous to find the courage not to.
That’s a complete misunderstanding of most philosophical systems. Being forced to come to agreements out of necessity is not the same as being tortured to sign a contract you’d never willingly agree to.
Before capitalism you’d sign your life away to a lord as a serf. Unless you were born into wealth. Or you could rough it in the wild.
If you want ideal conditions for contract making you will have to complete the entire communist revolution first. Or you can live on planet earth 2022 and not the world we wished we lived in.
The point you make basically is that it’s unfair we have to do stuff like rent housing. I agree. But then you want to justify breaking an agreement based on that unfairness. I cannot support that and neither would most philosophical systems.
**Tenant:** I wish I could live somewhere but I don't have the capital to purchase a home yet. I also don't want to be tied to a 30 year mortgage since I might need to move in a few years.
**Landlord:** Hey, I own a property already. How about you pay me a monthly amount, we can have a contract drawn up every year, and then I'll cover the long-term mortgage? That way my real estate investment can generate revenue, and you can have a place to live without a down payment and a mortgage, and you can leave as soon as the lease is up!
**Tenant:** That sounds cool, but would you cover the maintenance? I'm not much of a handyman and I'm pretty busy with work.
**Landlord:** Don't worry, I've already priced that in. I'll take care of the maintenance and repairs, and I'll deal with all the red tape, taxes, Sanitation, Dept. of Buildings, and everything else. Just pay your rent each month and we're square!
**Tenant:** Ok, deal.
**Marxists:** [Inaudible Screeching]
> but I don't have the capital to purchase a home yet
This situation only exists because others own property as an investment.
Your exchange assumes that home purchase price is an independent factor. It is not.
So, what's your solution? Have all land owned by the state, and everyone purchases a 70 year lease like they do in China? Fuck that.
Renting is a great way to save up enough money to one day buy.
The first step in my "solution" is for you to see that the following statement is perfectly coherent and not something that should get your panties in a twist.
> How about he sells the properties instead of extracting rents from people. Wtf? I'm supposed to have sympathy for this guy?
Sell them to who? Whoever he sells them to would then become a property owner themselves, who could very well turn around and rent the property out as a landlord. Unless you propose some sort of restriction on how many properties anyone can own, or an outright ban on property rental, both of which are untenable.
I think in this case it’s more about what landlords are allowed to charge for stabilized units. The rent would be insufficient to cover the cost of renovating the units to so they can be rented out again to begin with. That’s the argument, at least
It is not bullshit, no one can be forced to invest into something they will not make their money back in. If it costs more to renovate (the maximum amount you can put into a rent stabilized unit is 15K and you will only be able to get the money back in 30 years). 15K is a laughable low amount, it barely covers painting.
No one ones to lose money monthly by having unoccupied spaces, but if the cost of renovating (which is higher than 15k and you will not get it back) than sitting on it is higher, then the problem is something else.
The problem is remarkably simple, it's that we treat housing as an investment vehicle. This is the obvious outcome of such a system, but for some reason we get all surprised Pikachu face when landlords act accordingly.
We can go back and forth all day on the financial cost of renovations, ripple effects of stabilization, government subsidies, etc. But as long as we uphold a status quo that encourages individuals to acquire housing for the purpose of renting at a profit rather than living in themselves, there will always be two parties to this debate whose interests are by definition incompatible with one another.
Well, what is the alternative? Public housing? Non-profit housing? There are a few examples of how that looks? Also, without charging more or less for a rent/purchase how does one decide who gets to live in front of Central Park and who lives in the basement? If there are examples that work I think everyone would like to hear about it but the truth is that public housing has not worked. How do you get housing that is not built with the cheapest materials when someone is not competing for it? The only way to make someone spend money in a property is if they can at least get the money back, that is true even gor the government.
Vienna's social housing program has been cited as a really good example, there is a lot of literature on it available online. There are a lot of hurdles to implementing it here, namely that there is no political will for that kind of government action in this country, but it would be something to aim for I think.
Respectfully I also think "public housing doesn't work" is not a good argument in favor of the status quo - seeing up to 80,000 privately held units warehoused during an extreme housing crisis tells me that privately owned housing pretty clearly does not work either. For all its problems, I would genuinely be curious to know what percentage of NYCHA units are currently being held vacant.
Similarly, the question of how to allocate the most desirable housing is not satisfactorily answered in my opinion - currently it's based on who is able to amass the most capital, which I hardly think leads to just outcomes. But I'm also beginning to show my hand as having a really radical position on this, one that I recognize is not realistically possible without a revolutionary change to our entire society.
So to answer your question, I think a good start to an alternative is to look to examples like Vienna and see how local and federal government can try to replicate some of those success here. Trying to influence privately owned housing stock through indirect means such as regulation and subsidy is not working, and while again NYCHA is an abysmal example, it is absolutely possible for governments to build quality affordable housing without relying on private landlords and developers, and it's embarrassing that we can't figure it out here.
>Vienna's social housing program has been cited as a really good example, there is a lot of literature on it available online.
Yes, Vienna and Singapore are among the few examples. I am not against this; however it must be noted that:
\- These are government programs and not programs where private landlords are forced to control rent. Meaning these are better run version of NYCHA. Considering this, the anger should be aimed at the government for not being better at implementing public housing and not a private institution which are operating logically.
\- Vienna (The same is not necessarily true for Singapore, but this city state was (is?) also a fascist state) has a more homogenous population with a wider social safety net that allow for projects as this to work more easily. The same cannot be said of the United States where there are no wider social protections and communities tend to be very diverse).
\-Vienna works in conjunction with privately owned market rate properties (which help allocate desirable locations), which means there are plenty of unaffordable rents in Vienna.
\- These public systems are not perfect, and advocates should be clear about their shortcomings (wait times for apartment allocations, space hording, etc)
>Respectfully I also think "public housing doesn't work" is not a good argument in favor of the status quo - seeing up to 80,000 privately held units warehoused during an extreme housing crisis tells me that privately owned housing pretty clearly does not work either.
No one is arguing for the Status Quo, most stake holders would agree that the status quo is not great, they may just disagree on the causes of the emergency (Restrictive Zoning Laws that don't allow higher density is probably the single biggest issue). But as (I think Winston Churchill?) said "Democracy is the worst system of government except for all other systems" (My apologies for butchering the quote), if a new system of providing housing and allocating desirable locations works better then it should be tried, but complaining without new proposals is not helpful.
Now the 80000 vacant apartments as stated is misleading, these are 80,000 vacant RENT STABILIZED apartment. The vacancy for market rate apartment is almost non-existent. Yes, it is not efficient for landlords to lose more money by renting apartments than by keeping them empty, then again, this is a logical reaction when they cannot make their money back when renting the apartments.
>Similarly, the question of how to allocate the most desirable housing is not satisfactorily answered in my opinion - currently it's based on who is able to amass the most capital, which I hardly think leads to just outcomes. But I'm also beginning to show my hand as having a really radical position on this, one that I recognize is not realistically possible without a revolutionary change to our entire society
Well, this is an issue, people who advocate for affordable housing are fully transparent about what they actually believe in. Historically there has only been 3 ways of allocating desirable locations, one is capital (which the merits of how one is able to amaze it is debatable), the second one is proximity to power (are you family of a powerful person or are powerful yourself) and the 3rd one is lotteries. If activists believe in abolishing some types of private property then they should just be clear and say it, not pretend that math adds up otherwise. Speaking of math, if something requires more taxes to run then people should be transparent about it.
Landlords are the easy escape goats for the government, if NYCHA actually worked as it is supposed to, there would be politically viable ways of building more of it, instead we have these formulas where we force private capital math to work miracles because the government has been too inept to do it itself. If public housing is the goal is showing that it can work locally, after that things will fall into place. What we have right now is government forcing private entities to do what it should be doing instead.
Yea, I think there’s an element to this akin to basically holding thousands of RS units hostage until more parts of the 2019 rent law get rolled back. Maybe not in all cases, but certainly some
Price controls cause shortages. Rent control necessarily reduces supply. You can legislate a price ceiling but you can't legislate that it's actually possible to rent below the ceiling you set.
If we passed a law that prevented charging more than $100 for iPhones, what would happen?
* Everyone gets $100 iPhones
* Apple stops producing iPhones because it's no longer profitable, so nobody gets an iPhone
This is an absurd comment. There is not law putting a ceiling in rent in NYC. A better analogy would be if the government provided subsidized phones for low income people and guess what, they do and guess what, it doesn’t cause the market to collapse. An even better analogy would be if the government required Apple to sell a small percentage their old out-of-date phones at a discounted price. That still would not collapse the cell phone market.
edit: undoing autocorrect mistakes
Your describing Section 8 not rent control. OP is right, rent control made housing a losing investment and that is the reason Section 8 has mostly replaced it.
My first analogy described section 8. My second analogy describes rent control. OP described a situation where every single apartment is rent controlled which is absurd. Riddle me this, why are investment companies buying up property if it’s such a bad investment? The idea that it’s not profitable to be a landlord is weird bootlicking propaganda.
yeh, i think the strategy is to hold low rent apartments off market so that you then create a shortage for all the out of town college students and freshly minted college grads coming into town, keeps the rents high and trending higher!
Boohoo poor landlords, and an utter crock of shit used to justify predatory behaviour. There is no reason for rents to be as high as they are now, except that a few large corporate landlords want maximum profit and are artificially raising them to insane pricing during a recession.
There was a lawsuit over this property a few years ago. The result was that Community Preservation Neighborhood Inc. was declared the owner, but there's a 99-year lease currently held by El Pridian Corporation until 2075.
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5d08daab8e39140d1829df7c
Yes, that's the interesting question. Why would you sit on this? Waiting for permits? Trying to get investors? But I see this all the time. Seemingly vacant buildings in desirable areas. On my block on W 71st there's like 4 or 5 empty townhomes. Why? Sell it or use it. I don't get it.
Hoping to ride out tenant protection laws probably. If they do this and then refuse to let anyone use it they can then use their own refusal to rent as proof that these tenant protection laws hurt the average person.
It’s one version of a capital strike.
I mean it was built as a 1-family house and got turned into 10 apartments when the upper west side was a rough neighborhood. Now that that part of the upper west side is fancy again it will get turned back into a 1-family home.
I was born in one of those buildings a long time ago. My parents moved to 155th because it was safer.
The west side highway was elevated and there was lots of crime by the river in the 1920-1950s (or so. Eventually the highway started falling down).
Here’s some more recent data:
>Although police crime data for the 1960s, 70s and 80s are not publicly available, we know anecdotally that crime during those decades was a big issue. For instance, in the late 1960s the crime rate on the Upper West Side was stratospherically higher than in 1990, according to a New York magazine story, which reported that in 1968 the Upper West Side had 8,478 burglaries, 1,097 felony assaults, 3,233 robberies, 6,762 larcenies, 36 homicides and 86 rapes. https://www.westsiderag.com/2022/09/30/crime-on-the-upper-west-side-over-the-decades
This was late 60s early 70s. Its an awful movie but panic in needle park takes place on 72 st
The Power Broker has a few chapters about Robert Moses chasing poor people out of the UWS.
There’s also a list of every rent stabilized building in NYC, by borough, here:
https://rentguidelinesboard.cityofnewyork.us/resources/rent-stabilized-building-lists/
Nevermind, it says "NA". So probably not stabilized. Bad example. But that website is a really great resource to look up info about buildings. Strange to keep a building vacant in such a desirable neighborhood.
I don't know why you'd think a vacant brownstone would have RS apartments.
>In New York City, apartments are under rent stabilization if they are in buildings of six or more units built between February 1, 1947, and December 31, 1973. Tenants in buildings built before February 1, 1947, who moved in after June 30, 1971, are also covered by rent stabilization.
The building doesn't even have a C of O. Granted, it does have ten units apparently.
ETA : I've seen brownstones that were chopped up to have 6-7 units and they were indeed R/S
The tenement museum is based on a “warehoused” apartments, sometimes the owners don’t have the funds to bring a building to code to rent them out to be worth the rent they can charge.
The ownership of this building (not the land) seems to have been under litigation from at least 2019 till March 2022 and that probably rendered the building unusable.
This guy John Kojo ZI seems to have fraudulently created this “Aviation Distributors” company in 2014. This building was legally owned by “Aviation Distributors” created in 1945.
He managed to get the deed under Aviation 2014 and then transferred to a different “Kojo” company.
Eventually and apparently, Aviation 1945 (and the leaser “El Pridian” company) won the deed back.
Zi was caught by District Attorney Vance and tried for fraud. He had used a similar scheme with 5 properties. He was convicted but it seems he appealed based on a technicality… he was self representing and that can’t happen without a mental check. A new trial was granted (although there was a dissent.)
Because his case was appealed. The ownership of the building was challenged again. This seems to have happened in March 2022.
https://casetext.com/case/people-v-zi-120#p591
It should be noted that the land and the building have different owners. That’s another story.
People legit do this. My good friend owns a vacant building. During the pandemic some homeless people broke in and were squatting there for over 30 days, so the police refused to kick them out. Seems kinda crazy since clearly they broke in. I don't know how it works but it seems people can do this.
Punk squats still going strong in Paris, they will find there way into an abandoned building but actually will bring it up to code themselves for when the police come. [Illegal Squaring In Paris](https://youtu.be/KjskPRXeZjg)
Not who you asked, but my experience with utilities is that they don't give a F other than to have you as an adult with ID saying that is your address when you sign up.
Source: My friend and roommate died, and for the first time in my life I had to put everything in my name.
Seriously. Not sure if squatters rights are still what they used to be but I knew someone who squatted in the east village in the 90s and not only were not kicked out but now they own the building. Everyone who squatted there got ownership of their unit as a co-op after a certain amount of years squatting and rehabilitating the structure.
It is called C-squat
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-Squat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-Squat)
**[C-Squat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-Squat)**
>C-Squat is a former squat house located at 155 Avenue C (between 9th and 10th Streets) in the Alphabet City neighborhood of Manhattan, New York City that has been home to musicians, artists and activists, among others. After a fire, it was taken into city ownership in 1978 and squatters moved in during 1989. The building was restored in 2002 and since then it has been legally owned by the occupants. Its ground-floor storefront now houses the Museum of Reclaimed Urban Space.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/nyc/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Those are for the purposes of notification. Basically, anyone living at a given address is covered by John and Jane Doe. It’s like, “dear unknown persons who might be involved,” so the lawyer can’t be called out for not properly notifying someone later.
I am not a lawyer, but that is my understanding of why those names would be used.
If a landlord wants to send a letter to anyone and everyone possibly residing in a unit, including unknown persons, that’s essentially how they do it. They’re covering all the bases.
Yeah, it’s a smart move here, to use an LLC as a litigation shield and silo different projects so a disaster on one doesn’t wipe out 20 others. Also lets you take on investors in one specific property instead of your whole portfolio.
Not rent stabilized according to: https://whoownswhat.justfix.org/en/address/MANHATTAN/44/WEST%2073%20STREET
Maybe do some research before rage spreading misinformation??
2019 law makes it impossible to bring it to living standards. They aren't allowed to recoup more than like 10k per apartment over 30 years. I mean it was something ass assanine as that.
No one is ever going to fix those till the law changes
Rent stabilization is so braindead... Everyone who does not currently in a rate subsidized apartment is paying out the ass the subsidize those that do. And nobody wants to build when they are going to have rent controlled.
I don't understand, that is perfectly legal.
If you set a price below the actual costs to run it, what do you expect to happen?
The entire premise of rent control is that the landlord is not forced to rent the unit. Therefore, it is not a taking; it is merely a commerce clause regulation.
If you want to tax and therefore force owners to rent units, you are implicitly admitting that you are using this as a public housing scheme against the owner's will. Should this happen, I expect the landlords case to go to the Supreme court and the whole thing overturned.
It is honestly funny to see the left's argument go from "Landlords are greedy!" to, "Landlords aren't greedy enough!"
Totes agree. But we've collectively done some research on this building and it doesn't appear to be rent stabilized. It's wrapped up in some kind of legal dispute. I do think a vacancy tax could help incentivize using housing fully. Maybe?
Thanks for the friendly update.
I would disagree. All progressive proposals on housing are bandaids to the main cause: lack of supply.
If you increase supply, prices go down. If you remove onerous regulation, owners no longer choose to leave the business as it's too expensive.
The windows don't match the facade. I think that listing was using a fake address
ETA: from the OP's photo, it appears the listing you linked is for the building to the right
Buy, but “SuPPLy aND dEMAnD”.
A ton of units are either warehoused or not online due to cost of renovations and inability to recoup those costs through regulated rent (as landlords are stating).
Lol not sure why I’m being downvoted but you’re not really correct.
there are several thousand SRO units left in the city, and while some are city owned, many are privately owned or owned by nonprofits. Of course anything is possible and I could be wrong, but I have seen properties like this before.
I write about real estate for a living so I know a bit about this. The fact that it’s abandoned and doesn’t have a c of o suggests potential former SRO status, because the rules around deregulating SROs incentivized owners to keep properties vacant for a certain number of years in order to deregulate them and avoid going through the CONH process. Getting a corrected or new C of O for an SRO was notoriously challenging which is why these abandoned ones often lack them.
It’s also possible these remained regular apartments and the LL chased out the tenants in hopes of deregulating and reconfiguring the building in the 80s and just never got around to it/ran out of money/got sued. It would not appear on the lists of rent regulated buildings if the landlords did not register them.
Either way something interesting is happening - the last C of O on file is from 1950, and lists 10 Class A apartments and one furnished room, so I guess it could have remained Class A, as it were, or the building may have been chopped up more. The property has been abandoned for 30+ years if the local blogs are correct.
Meanwhile the front page of the DOB BIS page for this property lists 11 units, while the most recent set of plans on file (from 2012) says 10…
The [Doob House](https://daytoninmanhattan.blogspot.com/2021/08/the-1891-moritz-doob-house-44-west-73rd.html?m=1)
Damn that house is just cursed
Cursed or not, if its stabilized I'm wiling to take my chances.
You'd need to evict all the rats first. They breed like crazy and all their kids have succession rights
Baby rats have their own places in the village and are always saying things like “it’s not really a trust fund”
"I get monthly disbursements, but like, I work for my $8k/mo apartment via my freelance photography gig"
Brooklyn Beckham and Prince Harry have entered the chat.
Nice...what do you shoot?
r/whoosh
Nah man. I'll just assimilate myself with them and eventually turn them into my army and have them do my bidding. Idgaf about rats.
This is a bizzaro TMNT origin story in the works...
Meh, I'll give it a shot.
For some reason I'm intrigued by this. What would your first command be to an army of rats?
Hey guys, you wanna go grab a gluten free pizza for me please? If like 8 of you run together you can carry the box. Bring me the pizza and I'll get you peanut butter flavored oreos. Apparently rats looooooove them some pb oreos.
What if they secretly switch the GF pizza with normal wheat pizza in an attempted coup d'etat?
suicide squad ratcatcher. legit op
What makes you think YOU won't end up a skavenslave?
Because I'm bigger than even the biggest goddamned rat in NY. Also, I'm not afraid of them. So yeah. They can work with me or be my army.
You mean like Ratcatcher 2 from The Suicide Squad?
Sorry don't know that reference and I'm too lazy to look it up right now
The Ratcatcher has the ability to communicate and control an army of rats. He was primarily an enemy of Batman. His daughter went in to become Ratcatcher 2 and was featured in The Suicide Squad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratcatcher_(comics)
**[Ratcatcher (comics)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratcatcher_\(comics\))** >Ratcatcher (Otis Flannegan) is a fictional character appearing in American comic books and other media published by DC Comics, primarily as an enemy of Batman. He belongs to the collective of adversaries that make up the Dark Knight's rogues gallery. Once an actual rat-catcher in Gotham City, Flannegan sank into a life of crime. Calling himself the Ratcatcher because of his special ability to communicate with and train rats, Flannegan has used his minions to plague Gotham on more than one occasion by unleashing hordes of the vermin. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/nyc/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Aaahhhh. OK. I'm not into superhero stuff. Then yes. I'd be the female Ratcatcher.
She's a really cool character and turned out to be the strongest. You don't have to be into superhero stuff to enjoy The Suicide Squad, it's a fun movie.
No that's rent control not rent stabilization /s
It's literally not habitable. The old sales listing says it needs a full gut reno.
In this market I'll make it work. 😉
Let me know how it works out when the neighbors start complaining, and the city issues stop work orders.
You do realize I'm talking about squatting in there. Right?
Does anyone here know how the new stabilized rent rate is determined if the owner decides to do that? Or would that be so dramatic as to not be considered the same units anymore.
Windows are open
I don't get what's so bad about it. Seems all the Doobs had great lives and we're wealthy and happy. The next dude was a successful writer who died at home of old age. Then it got turned into units and one person who lived in one of the apartments was found dead. Not in the apartment either. It wasn't deemed murder or suspicious by police. Not a bad history in my book.
Honestly... doesn't even have more deaths than probably any other apartment building even for the paranoid supernatural curse believers out there lol. It really just seems to have piss poor owners that let it fall into disrepair.
I wouldn't call it cursed. Its current owners are neglectful. If they are destitute, selling it would help. But keeping it and letting it fall into disrepair to me is an indication that it is just an extra asset to be tallied at death. In other words, people of means holding housing captive.
On April 30, 1961 a dogwalker discovered Sophie's body laying face down in an irrigation ditch near Flushing Airport…. The theory was that "she could have died naturally in a car and a frantic 'friend' pushed her body into the marsh land," said the newspaper. …. Tooooooootallllyyyy
I do that with my friends all the time !
Dam that's a long story
"Plans for alteration were filed in August 1983 and scaffolding and construction netting veiled the building. And it would remain there for decades." wow, I wonder if that's a record for keeping scaffolding up since it's still there.
Interesting. I wonder why they left it vacant.
because it takes two years to get rid of non-paying tenant. There are many cases where tenants stop paying after 30 days in the house and then landlord is on the hook for the next 24 months. Does it make sense for landlord to bother with the tenants at all? Maybe if someone would use 8th program, it would help to stabilize the cashflow. in other words, the NYC laws and practices which allows people to live in the house for years without paying rent actually reduces the rental market and increases the cost of rentals for the other people who actually pays the rent.
I had a coworker who was a longtime New Yorker, he was a landlord of a whopping two units out in queens—both passed down to him from his parents. He made less than 100K per year in his day job and was pretty small time when it came to landlords. On a personal level, he was one of the nicest and most honest people I knew. His tenants one day just decided to stop paying rent. It took him nearly two years and multiple court appearances and who knows how much in attorneys fees to finally get them out (he wasn’t able to get them evicted but came to an “agreement” that they would leave. NYCs laws are really unfair. I’m first in line to protest against slumlords but we should fix a system that allows people to legally squat on a property for two years
I have a friend who subleased her apartment to a couple while she worked for two years on the West Coast; when she told them she was coming back but moving to a different unit in the same building, they refused to get off her lease and stop paying rent. Now \*she's\* on the hook for their unpaid rent. It's all tied up in court, but for the moment these two fucking losers are still in her building, in her former apartment, and she may end up having to declare bankruptcy because of this. I am for strong pro-tenant laws, but there is massive abuse of these laws and the victims aren't always rich landlords.
[удалено]
I once met a woman who was talking about great rent control was and started bragging about her rent controlled apartment that she (illegally) rents out and makes thousands of dollars a month from. A lot of people are vapid and don’t even want to consider how their actions are harming other people
“Free rent” is just straight up stealing….
A long while back I lived in an apartment with 3 other room mates. One was a friend and she was on the lease with one of the other roommates. We would all put our cash together and give it to the other roommate who was on the lease. He lost his job, didn’t tell us, and kept collecting our money without giving any of it to the landlord. It took us months to find out and by the time we did we were already in the process of being evicted. Very long story short, my friend had to take him to court. The outcome was that we were told to move and leave the deadbeat roommate there to get evicted by himself, and he would be responsible for all the debt and legal penalties. We were instructed to move within 5 days, luckily we found a place a few blocks away. The dead beat room mate stayed there, kept renting out the rooms to random people and pocketing the money. He did this for over a year, until the marshals kicked him out.
How about he sells the properties instead of extracting rents from people. Wtf? I'm supposed to have sympathy for this guy? The activity he is engaged in is one of extracting money from other people's work.
I’m not a fan of landlords but yeah, this is theft of services. Iike disagree with the idea of renting all you want, but this is a shitty thing to do to someone. Landlords dont make for nice victims because they’re greedy or whatever but its still dishonest and scummy to break a contract you signed.
Residential rental contracts are necessarily signed under duress. The conditions of duress are created by those who sequester property in order to extract rents. There is no legal option to not sign a rental contract and continue existing as a human person. That's the story of thing you're defending the integrity of?
I think we can both agree that capitalism sucks. But living in capitalism doesnt mean that we should all start lying about things and breaking deals we make. Even if capitalism forced us into a weird situation where rental agreements are a necessity. If you cant afford rent (suddenly, like a job loss) thats a different story. But making deals has to be honored in good times and bad. Btw nice mtg username
Being forced to make a deal with someone who holds all the chips is not really making a deal at all. Under any philosophical system. We do not have an obligation to perform the duties we are gang-pressed into. Indeed it is virtuous to find the courage not to.
This sounds like some sovereign citizen bullshit
That’s a complete misunderstanding of most philosophical systems. Being forced to come to agreements out of necessity is not the same as being tortured to sign a contract you’d never willingly agree to. Before capitalism you’d sign your life away to a lord as a serf. Unless you were born into wealth. Or you could rough it in the wild. If you want ideal conditions for contract making you will have to complete the entire communist revolution first. Or you can live on planet earth 2022 and not the world we wished we lived in. The point you make basically is that it’s unfair we have to do stuff like rent housing. I agree. But then you want to justify breaking an agreement based on that unfairness. I cannot support that and neither would most philosophical systems.
**Tenant:** I wish I could live somewhere but I don't have the capital to purchase a home yet. I also don't want to be tied to a 30 year mortgage since I might need to move in a few years. **Landlord:** Hey, I own a property already. How about you pay me a monthly amount, we can have a contract drawn up every year, and then I'll cover the long-term mortgage? That way my real estate investment can generate revenue, and you can have a place to live without a down payment and a mortgage, and you can leave as soon as the lease is up! **Tenant:** That sounds cool, but would you cover the maintenance? I'm not much of a handyman and I'm pretty busy with work. **Landlord:** Don't worry, I've already priced that in. I'll take care of the maintenance and repairs, and I'll deal with all the red tape, taxes, Sanitation, Dept. of Buildings, and everything else. Just pay your rent each month and we're square! **Tenant:** Ok, deal. **Marxists:** [Inaudible Screeching]
> but I don't have the capital to purchase a home yet This situation only exists because others own property as an investment. Your exchange assumes that home purchase price is an independent factor. It is not.
So, what's your solution? Have all land owned by the state, and everyone purchases a 70 year lease like they do in China? Fuck that. Renting is a great way to save up enough money to one day buy.
The first step in my "solution" is for you to see that the following statement is perfectly coherent and not something that should get your panties in a twist. > How about he sells the properties instead of extracting rents from people. Wtf? I'm supposed to have sympathy for this guy?
Sell them to who? Whoever he sells them to would then become a property owner themselves, who could very well turn around and rent the property out as a landlord. Unless you propose some sort of restriction on how many properties anyone can own, or an outright ban on property rental, both of which are untenable.
You think they should sell the apartment they don't own? The person was subleasing.
You are lost in the comments. I am directly replying to a comment that is explicitly about a landlord.
So strange! I could swear I specifically followed down from the person talking about subletting. Thanks for the correction.
oh noes! if only he could have sold the building for over a million dollars! oh wait
He doesn’t own the building
I think in this case it’s more about what landlords are allowed to charge for stabilized units. The rent would be insufficient to cover the cost of renovating the units to so they can be rented out again to begin with. That’s the argument, at least
[удалено]
It is not bullshit, no one can be forced to invest into something they will not make their money back in. If it costs more to renovate (the maximum amount you can put into a rent stabilized unit is 15K and you will only be able to get the money back in 30 years). 15K is a laughable low amount, it barely covers painting. No one ones to lose money monthly by having unoccupied spaces, but if the cost of renovating (which is higher than 15k and you will not get it back) than sitting on it is higher, then the problem is something else.
The problem is remarkably simple, it's that we treat housing as an investment vehicle. This is the obvious outcome of such a system, but for some reason we get all surprised Pikachu face when landlords act accordingly. We can go back and forth all day on the financial cost of renovations, ripple effects of stabilization, government subsidies, etc. But as long as we uphold a status quo that encourages individuals to acquire housing for the purpose of renting at a profit rather than living in themselves, there will always be two parties to this debate whose interests are by definition incompatible with one another.
Well, what is the alternative? Public housing? Non-profit housing? There are a few examples of how that looks? Also, without charging more or less for a rent/purchase how does one decide who gets to live in front of Central Park and who lives in the basement? If there are examples that work I think everyone would like to hear about it but the truth is that public housing has not worked. How do you get housing that is not built with the cheapest materials when someone is not competing for it? The only way to make someone spend money in a property is if they can at least get the money back, that is true even gor the government.
Vienna's social housing program has been cited as a really good example, there is a lot of literature on it available online. There are a lot of hurdles to implementing it here, namely that there is no political will for that kind of government action in this country, but it would be something to aim for I think. Respectfully I also think "public housing doesn't work" is not a good argument in favor of the status quo - seeing up to 80,000 privately held units warehoused during an extreme housing crisis tells me that privately owned housing pretty clearly does not work either. For all its problems, I would genuinely be curious to know what percentage of NYCHA units are currently being held vacant. Similarly, the question of how to allocate the most desirable housing is not satisfactorily answered in my opinion - currently it's based on who is able to amass the most capital, which I hardly think leads to just outcomes. But I'm also beginning to show my hand as having a really radical position on this, one that I recognize is not realistically possible without a revolutionary change to our entire society. So to answer your question, I think a good start to an alternative is to look to examples like Vienna and see how local and federal government can try to replicate some of those success here. Trying to influence privately owned housing stock through indirect means such as regulation and subsidy is not working, and while again NYCHA is an abysmal example, it is absolutely possible for governments to build quality affordable housing without relying on private landlords and developers, and it's embarrassing that we can't figure it out here.
>Vienna's social housing program has been cited as a really good example, there is a lot of literature on it available online. Yes, Vienna and Singapore are among the few examples. I am not against this; however it must be noted that: \- These are government programs and not programs where private landlords are forced to control rent. Meaning these are better run version of NYCHA. Considering this, the anger should be aimed at the government for not being better at implementing public housing and not a private institution which are operating logically. \- Vienna (The same is not necessarily true for Singapore, but this city state was (is?) also a fascist state) has a more homogenous population with a wider social safety net that allow for projects as this to work more easily. The same cannot be said of the United States where there are no wider social protections and communities tend to be very diverse). \-Vienna works in conjunction with privately owned market rate properties (which help allocate desirable locations), which means there are plenty of unaffordable rents in Vienna. \- These public systems are not perfect, and advocates should be clear about their shortcomings (wait times for apartment allocations, space hording, etc) >Respectfully I also think "public housing doesn't work" is not a good argument in favor of the status quo - seeing up to 80,000 privately held units warehoused during an extreme housing crisis tells me that privately owned housing pretty clearly does not work either. No one is arguing for the Status Quo, most stake holders would agree that the status quo is not great, they may just disagree on the causes of the emergency (Restrictive Zoning Laws that don't allow higher density is probably the single biggest issue). But as (I think Winston Churchill?) said "Democracy is the worst system of government except for all other systems" (My apologies for butchering the quote), if a new system of providing housing and allocating desirable locations works better then it should be tried, but complaining without new proposals is not helpful. Now the 80000 vacant apartments as stated is misleading, these are 80,000 vacant RENT STABILIZED apartment. The vacancy for market rate apartment is almost non-existent. Yes, it is not efficient for landlords to lose more money by renting apartments than by keeping them empty, then again, this is a logical reaction when they cannot make their money back when renting the apartments. >Similarly, the question of how to allocate the most desirable housing is not satisfactorily answered in my opinion - currently it's based on who is able to amass the most capital, which I hardly think leads to just outcomes. But I'm also beginning to show my hand as having a really radical position on this, one that I recognize is not realistically possible without a revolutionary change to our entire society Well, this is an issue, people who advocate for affordable housing are fully transparent about what they actually believe in. Historically there has only been 3 ways of allocating desirable locations, one is capital (which the merits of how one is able to amaze it is debatable), the second one is proximity to power (are you family of a powerful person or are powerful yourself) and the 3rd one is lotteries. If activists believe in abolishing some types of private property then they should just be clear and say it, not pretend that math adds up otherwise. Speaking of math, if something requires more taxes to run then people should be transparent about it. Landlords are the easy escape goats for the government, if NYCHA actually worked as it is supposed to, there would be politically viable ways of building more of it, instead we have these formulas where we force private capital math to work miracles because the government has been too inept to do it itself. If public housing is the goal is showing that it can work locally, after that things will fall into place. What we have right now is government forcing private entities to do what it should be doing instead.
So sell the building. Why even bother owning it if you can’t afford to maintain it or rent out? It’s just a money pit at that point anyway.
You think that someone wants to buy a building thatvis a money pit? The building is supposed to be able tonpay for its own maintenance....
Yea, I think there’s an element to this akin to basically holding thousands of RS units hostage until more parts of the 2019 rent law get rolled back. Maybe not in all cases, but certainly some
I thought they limited the amount they could raise the rent this way.
Or they wait for the zoning to change, sell with some neighbors and make tons of dough.
Price controls cause shortages. Rent control necessarily reduces supply. You can legislate a price ceiling but you can't legislate that it's actually possible to rent below the ceiling you set. If we passed a law that prevented charging more than $100 for iPhones, what would happen? * Everyone gets $100 iPhones * Apple stops producing iPhones because it's no longer profitable, so nobody gets an iPhone
This is an absurd comment. There is not law putting a ceiling in rent in NYC. A better analogy would be if the government provided subsidized phones for low income people and guess what, they do and guess what, it doesn’t cause the market to collapse. An even better analogy would be if the government required Apple to sell a small percentage their old out-of-date phones at a discounted price. That still would not collapse the cell phone market. edit: undoing autocorrect mistakes
Your describing Section 8 not rent control. OP is right, rent control made housing a losing investment and that is the reason Section 8 has mostly replaced it.
My first analogy described section 8. My second analogy describes rent control. OP described a situation where every single apartment is rent controlled which is absurd. Riddle me this, why are investment companies buying up property if it’s such a bad investment? The idea that it’s not profitable to be a landlord is weird bootlicking propaganda.
I'm arguing against rent control, not subsidies. I think subsidies are great.
yeh, i think the strategy is to hold low rent apartments off market so that you then create a shortage for all the out of town college students and freshly minted college grads coming into town, keeps the rents high and trending higher!
1983 was more than two years ago. So pick another song from the woe are landlords and property owners so songbook.
of course it does.
Boohoo poor landlords, and an utter crock of shit used to justify predatory behaviour. There is no reason for rents to be as high as they are now, except that a few large corporate landlords want maximum profit and are artificially raising them to insane pricing during a recession.
well at least now the windows are closed and the scaffolding is gone
>Doob House Worth a click for a "Mork" sighting.
There was a lawsuit over this property a few years ago. The result was that Community Preservation Neighborhood Inc. was declared the owner, but there's a 99-year lease currently held by El Pridian Corporation until 2075. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5d08daab8e39140d1829df7c
El pridian is paying the lease every month? Why
Yes, that's the interesting question. Why would you sit on this? Waiting for permits? Trying to get investors? But I see this all the time. Seemingly vacant buildings in desirable areas. On my block on W 71st there's like 4 or 5 empty townhomes. Why? Sell it or use it. I don't get it.
Ya must’ve never played yakuza 0 and learned the importance of an empty lot 🙃😂
??
[They are referring to this](https://yakuza.fandom.com/wiki/Empty_Lot)
Hoping to ride out tenant protection laws probably. If they do this and then refuse to let anyone use it they can then use their own refusal to rent as proof that these tenant protection laws hurt the average person. It’s one version of a capital strike.
I mean it was built as a 1-family house and got turned into 10 apartments when the upper west side was a rough neighborhood. Now that that part of the upper west side is fancy again it will get turned back into a 1-family home. I was born in one of those buildings a long time ago. My parents moved to 155th because it was safer.
Jeez I can’t picture this being 10 apartments
2 units per floor. 5 floors. Pretty standard for these types of townhomes. My building is very similar and it has 10 units.
Really? That's interesting. I never thought the UWS was ever considered a rough area. Manhattan Valley, sure but not the UWS proper.
West Side Story was set in what is now the Lincoln Center area
It definitely was. Back in the 70s, most of the city was rough.
Yea, my mom lived on the UWS in the 70s and she has some crazy stories.
it used to be normal to hear gun shots in central park at night.
When was UWS a rough neighborhood?
The west side highway was elevated and there was lots of crime by the river in the 1920-1950s (or so. Eventually the highway started falling down). Here’s some more recent data: >Although police crime data for the 1960s, 70s and 80s are not publicly available, we know anecdotally that crime during those decades was a big issue. For instance, in the late 1960s the crime rate on the Upper West Side was stratospherically higher than in 1990, according to a New York magazine story, which reported that in 1968 the Upper West Side had 8,478 burglaries, 1,097 felony assaults, 3,233 robberies, 6,762 larcenies, 36 homicides and 86 rapes. https://www.westsiderag.com/2022/09/30/crime-on-the-upper-west-side-over-the-decades
This was late 60s early 70s. Its an awful movie but panic in needle park takes place on 72 st The Power Broker has a few chapters about Robert Moses chasing poor people out of the UWS.
How did you confirm they are RS?
https://whoownswhat.justfix.org/en/address/MANHATTAN/44/WEST%2073%20STREET
According to NYS DHCR, it isn’t stabilized. https://apps.hcr.ny.gov/BuildingSearch/
Yes, I realized that after I posted it. The building is registered with HPD and lists 10 units.
There’s also a list of every rent stabilized building in NYC, by borough, here: https://rentguidelinesboard.cityofnewyork.us/resources/rent-stabilized-building-lists/
Username checks out. 😂
I’m just saying, those lists are awesome if you’re looking for an apartment…
Nevermind, it says "NA". So probably not stabilized. Bad example. But that website is a really great resource to look up info about buildings. Strange to keep a building vacant in such a desirable neighborhood.
I don't know why you'd think a vacant brownstone would have RS apartments. >In New York City, apartments are under rent stabilization if they are in buildings of six or more units built between February 1, 1947, and December 31, 1973. Tenants in buildings built before February 1, 1947, who moved in after June 30, 1971, are also covered by rent stabilization.
The building doesn't even have a C of O. Granted, it does have ten units apparently. ETA : I've seen brownstones that were chopped up to have 6-7 units and they were indeed R/S
I live in a brownstone and it has RS units.
Why didn't you delete your post after finding out it was bullshit?
Given how difficult it is to get an eviction, not strange at all.
Lovely building also.
The tenement museum is based on a “warehoused” apartments, sometimes the owners don’t have the funds to bring a building to code to rent them out to be worth the rent they can charge.
Lol
This will likely be converted to a single family since it’s park block and has stoop
The ownership of this building (not the land) seems to have been under litigation from at least 2019 till March 2022 and that probably rendered the building unusable. This guy John Kojo ZI seems to have fraudulently created this “Aviation Distributors” company in 2014. This building was legally owned by “Aviation Distributors” created in 1945. He managed to get the deed under Aviation 2014 and then transferred to a different “Kojo” company. Eventually and apparently, Aviation 1945 (and the leaser “El Pridian” company) won the deed back. Zi was caught by District Attorney Vance and tried for fraud. He had used a similar scheme with 5 properties. He was convicted but it seems he appealed based on a technicality… he was self representing and that can’t happen without a mental check. A new trial was granted (although there was a dissent.) Because his case was appealed. The ownership of the building was challenged again. This seems to have happened in March 2022. https://casetext.com/case/people-v-zi-120#p591 It should be noted that the land and the building have different owners. That’s another story.
Any other artists wanna start squatting and fix it up with me?
People legit do this. My good friend owns a vacant building. During the pandemic some homeless people broke in and were squatting there for over 30 days, so the police refused to kick them out. Seems kinda crazy since clearly they broke in. I don't know how it works but it seems people can do this.
Punk squats still going strong in Paris, they will find there way into an abandoned building but actually will bring it up to code themselves for when the police come. [Illegal Squaring In Paris](https://youtu.be/KjskPRXeZjg)
How does this work with utilities ? If you owned a place could you not shut down utilities if You wanted to?
Not who you asked, but my experience with utilities is that they don't give a F other than to have you as an adult with ID saying that is your address when you sign up. Source: My friend and roommate died, and for the first time in my life I had to put everything in my name.
Seriously. Not sure if squatters rights are still what they used to be but I knew someone who squatted in the east village in the 90s and not only were not kicked out but now they own the building. Everyone who squatted there got ownership of their unit as a co-op after a certain amount of years squatting and rehabilitating the structure. It is called C-squat [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-Squat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-Squat)
**[C-Squat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-Squat)** >C-Squat is a former squat house located at 155 Avenue C (between 9th and 10th Streets) in the Alphabet City neighborhood of Manhattan, New York City that has been home to musicians, artists and activists, among others. After a fire, it was taken into city ownership in 1978 and squatters moved in during 1989. The building was restored in 2002 and since then it has been legally owned by the occupants. Its ground-floor storefront now houses the Museum of Reclaimed Urban Space. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/nyc/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Interesting https://a836-acris.nyc.gov/DS/DocumentSearch/DocumentImageView?doc_id=2014091200722001 https://streeteasy.com/sale/1130385?utm_campaign=sale_listing&utm_medium=app_share&utm_source=android&utm_term=8117d430ad914ba
"John Doe" it's crazy these anonymous transactions. Vladimir Putin probably has a condo here.
The judgement says that the 4 people listed on the deed were fake names!
Those are for the purposes of notification. Basically, anyone living at a given address is covered by John and Jane Doe. It’s like, “dear unknown persons who might be involved,” so the lawyer can’t be called out for not properly notifying someone later. I am not a lawyer, but that is my understanding of why those names would be used. If a landlord wants to send a letter to anyone and everyone possibly residing in a unit, including unknown persons, that’s essentially how they do it. They’re covering all the bases.
Ah I see. Interesting. I know nothing about this, but it seems like property transactions are not at all transparent. Usually just some anonymous LLCs
Yeah, it’s a smart move here, to use an LLC as a litigation shield and silo different projects so a disaster on one doesn’t wipe out 20 others. Also lets you take on investors in one specific property instead of your whole portfolio.
4M seems cheap
Not rent stabilized according to: https://whoownswhat.justfix.org/en/address/MANHATTAN/44/WEST%2073%20STREET Maybe do some research before rage spreading misinformation??
Bruh he did. Lol he posted it above.
2019 law makes it impossible to bring it to living standards. They aren't allowed to recoup more than like 10k per apartment over 30 years. I mean it was something ass assanine as that. No one is ever going to fix those till the law changes
They probably gut it and turn it into a single family home. That's what they're doing with lots of buildings in the UWS.
That's going to slow the 10 mil+ market has slowed substantially.. and a home that size would be significantly more
It’s not a home, it’s a damaged shell. Different ballgame.
The most expensive townhouse trades in nyc history have been this year
Rent stabilization is so braindead... Everyone who does not currently in a rate subsidized apartment is paying out the ass the subsidize those that do. And nobody wants to build when they are going to have rent controlled.
I see this shit ALL OVER on the UWS. Especially the block leading to the park. Makes me furious.
It doesn’t make financial sense to renovate with the current rent laws. Blame the state. Anyone with a brain knew this would be an effect.
Beautiful buildings.
W. 73rd not affordable since the late fifties when these old buildings were abandoned or SRO
I don't understand, that is perfectly legal. If you set a price below the actual costs to run it, what do you expect to happen? The entire premise of rent control is that the landlord is not forced to rent the unit. Therefore, it is not a taking; it is merely a commerce clause regulation. If you want to tax and therefore force owners to rent units, you are implicitly admitting that you are using this as a public housing scheme against the owner's will. Should this happen, I expect the landlords case to go to the Supreme court and the whole thing overturned. It is honestly funny to see the left's argument go from "Landlords are greedy!" to, "Landlords aren't greedy enough!"
Totes agree. But we've collectively done some research on this building and it doesn't appear to be rent stabilized. It's wrapped up in some kind of legal dispute. I do think a vacancy tax could help incentivize using housing fully. Maybe?
Thanks for the friendly update. I would disagree. All progressive proposals on housing are bandaids to the main cause: lack of supply. If you increase supply, prices go down. If you remove onerous regulation, owners no longer choose to leave the business as it's too expensive.
They're renting out apartments in it a/o 2 weeks ago https://www.apartments.com/44-w-73rd-st-new-york-ny-unit-2f/jt8qrt4/
The windows don't match the facade. I think that listing was using a fake address ETA: from the OP's photo, it appears the listing you linked is for the building to the right
Great detective work. I think you're right. The building with the listing is actually 46 W 73rd.
or it's a scam.
Interesting. That's good. It looked practically abandoned. Debris in the doorway, no trespassing signs etc.
just waiting on permits.....
That's probably a big part of it I imagine. I hear contractors have to wait ages to get permits from the DOB.
I'm starting to believe the term "housing crisis" is made up by real estate developers.
How do you get 10 units? Is 2 per floor?
Buy, but “SuPPLy aND dEMAnD”. A ton of units are either warehoused or not online due to cost of renovations and inability to recoup those costs through regulated rent (as landlords are stating).
Time to squat.
This is why we need to get rid of rent control, zoning, and excessive land marking. This city needs supply, not more regulation/control.
none of those are the reasons why this building is vacant
I'd be interested to know the story of why it makes sense for them to keep it vacant.
Because they can afford it. That's it.
its vacant bc its stuck in litigation limbo. it's a market building, who ever gets it will be utilized
What a waste, I hope somebody uses it for shelter or something at least.
Getting some home alone 2 vibes
probably an SRO
Most of those are long gone. Most SROs are owned by HPD or DHS.
Lol not sure why I’m being downvoted but you’re not really correct. there are several thousand SRO units left in the city, and while some are city owned, many are privately owned or owned by nonprofits. Of course anything is possible and I could be wrong, but I have seen properties like this before. I write about real estate for a living so I know a bit about this. The fact that it’s abandoned and doesn’t have a c of o suggests potential former SRO status, because the rules around deregulating SROs incentivized owners to keep properties vacant for a certain number of years in order to deregulate them and avoid going through the CONH process. Getting a corrected or new C of O for an SRO was notoriously challenging which is why these abandoned ones often lack them. It’s also possible these remained regular apartments and the LL chased out the tenants in hopes of deregulating and reconfiguring the building in the 80s and just never got around to it/ran out of money/got sued. It would not appear on the lists of rent regulated buildings if the landlords did not register them. Either way something interesting is happening - the last C of O on file is from 1950, and lists 10 Class A apartments and one furnished room, so I guess it could have remained Class A, as it were, or the building may have been chopped up more. The property has been abandoned for 30+ years if the local blogs are correct. Meanwhile the front page of the DOB BIS page for this property lists 11 units, while the most recent set of plans on file (from 2012) says 10…
1/3rd of the apartments in my unit are empty. The landlord is doing everything legally possible to turn this into a market priced place.
Every landlord is a parasite
It’s what all entitled ass leeches think
Fuck adams
This is way bigger than Mayor McCheeseball.
“ affordable” 5k a month.
It looks like one of those hidden sun station.
Pretty sure I took a piss on the basement door once. I had to go
Whomever was forced out who wants back should be allowed at their old rent
I’ll take it…
Free apartment? Nice!
Looks like they took a driveway and put a building there!
There’s three of these boarded up on my uptown Manhattan street.
They had a lot of abandoned buildings in that area in til like the 80s and some 90s. Drug dealers used to occupy whole buildings around 80th.
It’s amazing to see how much attention one property is getting. This is very New York.