funforyourlife t1_jb731x5 wrote
It's strange that the article tries to paint renovation in a bad light. Aren't improvements of dilapidated property a good thing?
Like, Isn't this a good thing:
"A three-story, six-unit walk-up building at 1819 Grove St. is one area property that appears to have undergone a rehab inside and out, with a group of new tenants who moved in earlier this year. "
Encouraging things to fall into ruin seems like bad policy. We shouldn't let landlords remove stock from stabilization for no reason, but it feels like good policy to say: "either keep rent cheap OR significantly improve the property"
So it seems to be working as intended
idratherbeintamriel t1_jb7dk6q wrote
The issue is (I’m currently dealing with this in my building) is that the renovations aren’t actually happening. So these apartments are being deregulated illegally.
funforyourlife t1_jb80zdv wrote
Oh yeah, I figured, and that's bullshit, but it still seems funny to me that the example in the article is that they found a building that "appears to have undergone a rehab inside and out".
I don't know how the system is designed but it seems pretty easy to set up a points system where "one coat paint" does not mean you can raise rent, but "replaced oven, replaced pre-1950 windows with double-paned windows, replaced leaky 1974 toilet with modern dual flush, replaced water damaged 1983 drywall, AND added one coat of paint" would qualify as substantial improvement.
woman_thorned t1_jb80b49 wrote
I followed the renovations of my last building which had routine ceiling cave ins and a very unsafe central staircase.
They did nothing structural.
They made a nice one bedroom into a terrible 2 bedroom with no living room, doubled the rent, and it has turned over every year since, most recently with a rent REDUCTION, meaning no one renews, meaning it's still unsafe.
These landlords are not doing what they claim they are doing.
mowotlarx t1_jb7gqcp wrote
>There is no requirement for landlords to register substantial rehabilitation work to HCR, according to Josephson, who said notifications to the agency are in effect a voluntary process adhered to by property owners in only “a small minority of the cases.”
>HCR could, in theory, question why buildings that have previously registered rent-stabilized units suddenly do not, Josephson added — but the state agency “doesn’t really have the capacity to check every apartment that disappears off the rolls,” he said
They aren't actually fixing the units. And there's no system to make sure they did and aren't lying. And is hazard to guess almost all of them are lying. That's the issue.
Silvery_Silence t1_jbawchc wrote
Uh a sharp decrease in regulated units when the city needs more, not less, of them is not a good thing, no actually. Exploiting loopholes to remove apartments from regulation is not a good thing. The loophole should not exist or someone should be enforcing this better so that it’s not exploited merely to remove apartments from regulation.
ShatteringFast t1_jbdnlkv wrote
A lot of people would happily pay $1500 less in rent per month and you can keep your 3’ granite countertop and particle board flooring.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments