He's in a rent-controlled apartment. NYC has had an ongoing rent control and/or rent stabilization program(s) in place since 1943.

He's been living there since 1945, so presumably his rent is based on what he was paying when the law went into effect for that property, which would have been decades ago at least or even as far back as when he first signed the lease. So it would be that amount, plus an increase of no more than the allowable percentage every two years. That's assuming his past landlords were able or willing to raise it as much as they could and as often as they could, which may not have been the case. The previous owner may have been giving him an even sweeter deal because of his age/situation and time in residence. The current landlord has only owned the building since 2006.

If Mr. Saethe chooses to move or is forced out, the new owner gets a new tenant and the rent-control business starts all over again with them, only with a much higher starting rent than the landlord will ever be able to charge Mr. Saethe.

A 27 year old could not have lived in the same rent-controlled apartment for 65 years, and thus still have a rent so low that his landlord might want to evict him just to bring in a new tenant from whom he could legally demand a much higher starting rent.

Consequently the story would not exist.

They're trying to do that with our apartment. Some people have been hear for a long time. Landlord tries to make excuses to push there rents up for repairs and improvements. But its only for the front side of the building for the look the show.. Many of the apartments are in serious need of repairs. They look the other way when it comes to new annual leases. But laws here protect us more or less. Its just a pain in the ass to have to record and take notes plus photos of the events. Verbal agreements are bull.

Very frustrating.

I understand his position. I hope he flattens the landlord. I would.

And your post is pure youthful arrogance. Which one do you think would be able to better handle the rigors of moving? The 27 year old or the 97 year old?

Therin lies the motive. I imagine that at the current rate of 60 some dollars it would be a substantial increase. I would also think that at 60 bucks a month the landlord is probably losing money. Property taxes if nothing else.

But I'm with Steve. This guy deserves it. Hell he probably stuggles at 60 some bucks a month. Hopefully since this has gained attention perhpaps a philanthropic minded individual will come to the cause.

Well, if we're talking about a healthy 27 yr old, the answer is obvious.

But there are people of all ages who might find themselves in a similar situation and for whom the consequences of it might truly put them in dire straits.

For instance, someone with a disability who lives on a fixed income could be almost any age. They might need to stay in their rent-controlled home because paying a higher rent is something they simply can't afford. And if it looked like a greedy landlord might be trying to find a way to put them on the street and, oh looky, now he can bring in a new tenant and raise the rent considerably - that to me would be just as disturbing.

And to anyone else, so The Third Man's argument does not stand. If it was a 27-year-old in the situation you describe, then people would indeed be up in arms over it. Ageism does not enter into it.

There will be no eviction for a 97 years old, if that age is true; not even in the US.
That is obvious or not?

What does the nationality have to do with it?

I honestly don't know. There may be some precedence in the applicable laws for taking age, health, and other factors into consideration.

Obviously the landlord thinks he has a case, otherwise he wouldn't bother. Or maybe he thought the old guy would just roll over and leave to avoid the trouble of taking it this far, who knows.

I can tell you one thing, getting the story out there can't hurt. The landlord won't care but I'm betting nobody will want to be the guy who ruled in favor of the landlord unless they can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mr. Saethre is doing something so outrageous that he's a certifiable menace to his neighbors.

Nothing really. Don't get me wrong. "Not even in the US" is just a phrase like "i am on a horse" or like ""Furthermore, I think Carthage must be destroyed" which the Roman statesman Cato the Elder would always end his speeches with.

I have got to remember to start adding this to the end of my posts.






Furthermore, I think Carthage must be destroyed.

Is there any empathy for the landlord who may have bills of his own and a family of his own to support?

Or is it a given that there is only one side to this issue?

I am waiting to hear from the "free market- no government involvement" lovers on this forum.

Rent control policies have been in effect in NYC since 1943. I find it hard to believe that the landlord was not aware of this fact when he became the owner of the building in 2006. If he went into the "landlord business" without taking into consideration how a rent-regulation system that has been in place for over 60 years would affect his income, he has no one to blame but himself if the profits he wants or needs didn't exactly come pouring in.

Would you buy an apartment building and expect to support your family with the monthly income from renting out those apartments, without finding out how much income that was likely to be? For a rent-controlled building, I don't think the numbers are going to be all that difficult to crunch. They are what they are, and unless you have tenants vacating apartments (which cannot be counted on), they are only going to change on a pre-set schedule and at a pre-set max/min amount.

I have never lived anywhere near NYC, have never been there, and the first words that popped in my head when I saw the article were "rent control."

So, yeah, if someone in NYC buys a rental property in NYC that is subject to rent control regulations, and then can't make a living off of it - well, I'm thinking that fact would have been obvious to anyone who bothered to do his/her homework. If this landlord did his homework, he had a pretty good idea of what his profit margin was going to be going into the deal, and should've known whether it was enough to meet his needs and those of his family. If he didn't do his homework, he probably shouldn't be trying to make a living off of being a landlord (if that is indeed the case). It makes me feel sorry for anyone who is depending on him to bring home the bacon, but when it comes to doling out sympathy I have to say the landlord is pretty far down on the list.

What you got to ask yourself is wheres his family and if any are still alive eg sons /daughters why aren't they looking after their dad? Beats me how some families when parents are too old they just go dump them in a retirement home and practically forget about them making sure they go visit them once a year to guarantee their names will still be in the Will. Never did that to my parents my sisters and I took turns in looking after our mother when she got cancer and couldn't even feed herself the doctors recommended we send her of to the retirement home where she would get well looked after, we looked at him as if he was an alien, retirement home? No thanks. We would of done the same for Dad without a second thought but he died in his sleep while still able to look after himself. If this old fella hasn't any relatives that can help or maybe hes one of these men who don't want the help of family i don't know. Just strange how some treat their old relatives.

I hope when im old my sons dont throw me in a apartment or retirement home they be out of my will just like that. :smug: Not that i have a lot to give them anyways! :haha: