Landlord Trying To Evict 97 Yr Old Veteran

[Neptunus Rex]

It's a rent controlled apartment. As long as he remains under lease, (and the landlord has to prove the lease was broken) the rent remains unchanged.

If he moves out, the apartment goes to market rate.

If the head line were ...

Landlord wants to evict a 27 year old.

No problem. Agism.

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

If the head line were ...

Landlord wants to evict a 27 year old.

No problem. Agism.

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

If the head line were ...

Landlord wants to evict a 27 year old.

No problem. Agism.

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?

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by August

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?

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.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by frau kaleun

...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.

[Dan D]

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?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Dan D

...not even in the US.

What does the nationality have to do with it?

[Dan D]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

What does the nationality have to do with it?

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.

[frau kaleun]

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?

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.

Simple lesson, never buy property with sitting tennants.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Simple lesson, never buy property with sitting tennants.

On the other hand, with an apartment building that's kind of the point.

Might be a good idea to see what you're getting into beforhand though.

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Might be a good idea to see what you're getting into beforhand though.

That would be true but we should note that this guy is no greenhorn:

This is not the first time Geula has been accused of trying to oust tenants paying low rents from a building he owns.
In 2007, tenant advocates charged Geula tried to force out longtime low-income tenants from other buildings along Fourth Ave. through legal challenges, failing to make repairs, and not supplying heat and hot water for days at a time.

[Platapus]

But do we know the outcome of that case?

Anyone can accuse anyone of anything.

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Neptunus Rex

It's a rent controlled apartment. As long as he remains under lease, (and the landlord has to prove the lease was broken) the rent remains unchanged.

If he moves out, the apartment goes to market rate.

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.