funforyourlife

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.

3

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

33