Quote:
Originally Posted by Platapus
Before opining, I would like a little more information. Clearly the referenced article is written with a bias in favour of the old vet. I would like to know if the accusations of the landlord have any validity.
What kind of lease does this guy have where his rent stays at $65 per month?
Methinks there is more to the story. 
|
He's in a rent-controlled apartment. NYC has had an ongoing rent control and/or rent stabilization program(s) in place since 1943.
Quote:
Rent control limits the price a landlord can charge a tenant for rent and also regulates the services the landlord must provide. Failure to provide these may allow the tenant to demand a lower rent.
In New York City, rent control is based on the Maximum Base Rent system. A maximum allowable rent is established for each unit, and every two years, the landlord may increase the rent up to 7.5% until the Maximum Base Rent is reached. However, the tenant may challenge these increases on grounds that the building has violations or the owner does not need to increase the rent that much to cover expenses.
|
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.