Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

pixel_of_moral_decay t1_jbf1v2e wrote

Reply to comment by ChrisFromLongIsland in With an absentee corporate landlord, Upper Manhattan tenants unite to demand repairs by natekrinsky

The problem is enforcing, especially with a poorer population. Telling someone who makes < $100k, they owe $50k in the next 90 days or it’s going to get legal is not pretty, but the reality of this proposal.

$50k per unit doesn’t even go that far when you’re talking about a neglected building. Even well maintained buildings need a surprise $10-15k every now and then for random projects. $50k for a neglected building is hardly a crazy high number.

Current owners would just be subsidizing wealthier people/investors who would buy up the foreclosures while losing their savings in the process.

IMHO that’s predatory.

16

ChrisFromLongIsland t1_jbf4az9 wrote

Most buildings that I am aware of let the tenants finance big construction projects. Also buildings need maintenance. If the owners don't want to pay for the maintenance of their building I don't know what to say.

4

pixel_of_moral_decay t1_jbfpcxe wrote

Financing requires either the board have assets and good credit or telling individuals to get their own line of credit (which requires the same).

This works with wealthier buildings where you’ve got that. But those buildings generally do that because it’s cheaper to take on a low interest loan the past decade than pay upfront and loose the investment opportunity. Same reason people take mortgages and pay the minimum, your return in the market is higher than the cost of the interest rate, so you can essentially profit off the loan.

If I can take a loan out for $50k at 3% (not hard until recently) I can keep my $50k I have in the market and keep earning 4-5%. 1-2% profit for taking a loan vs paying up front.

None of that really applies with a building of cash strapped people.

4