Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

natekrinsky OP t1_je09c5e wrote

>But after their leases expired, the landlord did not give the tenants the option to renew their agreements and rents went up by about $700, residents said. The landlord, 67 Pitt Realty LLC, filed to evict all 11 residents in January after residents stopped paying rent. The residents now say they are at risk of returning to shelters, pointing to gaps in the city's safety net programs and tenant protections.

This is why we need Good Cause Eviction protections. Please use this link to urge your elected representatives to support the bill: https://housingjusticeforall.org/our-platform/good-cause/

−38

bittoxic00 t1_je26yr5 wrote

They didn’t like the increase so they decided to stop paying entirely? Great way to be evicted

40

natekrinsky OP t1_je27f5z wrote

The article states that he stopped paying rent after the termination notice, not before.

−14

bittoxic00 t1_je28zdb wrote

Why pay nothing? Out of protest?

They were given 1 years of paid rent for free, a $1,500 on the LES.

A private one bedroom for fifteen hundred. Show me a one bedroom in the LES right now and I’ll move right in

22

natekrinsky OP t1_je29b8e wrote

It's standard to not pay rent if you're going through an eviction case. If you're able to stay you pay back what you owe.

−15

bittoxic00 t1_je2aem1 wrote

If you plan on not staying and being evicted with a judgement along with an eviction on your record, by all means pocket that money and move on. If you hope to stay and would like to withhold money for reasons because of conditions that money has to be deposited in a separate account. They’re just setting themselves up for failure IMO

5

JE163 t1_je0g1tl wrote

This will not work as long as there is no cap in place for expenses like utilities and property taxes. This will kill smaller home owners and reduce available apartments for rent thus allowing corporations to further hike prices.

28

woman_thorned t1_je0tbvh wrote

That's already happening.

17

ShadownetZero t1_je1tklg wrote

Therefore it cant get worse?

5

woman_thorned t1_je1u1sd wrote

Therefore it is reason for more regulation, not less.

I'm sorry it's hard for you to grasp that the solution to "big corporations will buy up properties" is to regulate those big corporations, not to let small landlords continue to exploit.

2

JE163 t1_je35aq8 wrote

Allow exceptions for the small home owners and I’d be more for it

1

Chewwy987 t1_je0dwys wrote

Even if offered there’s probably other reasons why the landlord wants them out and won’t offer them a leases

7

natekrinsky OP t1_je0ptkz wrote

Sure there could be reasons that landlords don't want to offer a renewal lease. The most obvious one is they think they could get more money from someone else. But a tenant's ability to stay in their homes is more important than a landlord's ability to make more money. I'm sure some people here would disagree with that but I think it's common sense that the human need of New York's 5.6 million renters should be prioritized over the business interests of relatively few landlords, the vast majority of which are corporate entities.

−12

movingtobay2019 t1_je1jxif wrote

Since when did living in NYC become a right?

But that's besides the point. You are too focused on the needs of one group of people.

What happens when there are no price signals in the market? Who determines where who lives? The corrupt NYC government?

What happens when capital flows out of real estate and no one builds anymore because you capped rental increases? Where are new people coming to the city going to live?

What happens when you limit rent increases to the point it doesn't cover taxes, utilities, or maintenance? What, LLs just going to eat the loss? Print money in their basement?

There are so many factors and stakeholders that advocates like you gloss over.

31

Xxx_chicken_xxx t1_je3bj50 wrote

Price signals of the market. Give me a break. Landlord corporations are colluding to drive the prices up and keep the stock off the market

−6

Chewwy987 t1_je1p1fi wrote

If you were not paid to for doing your job would you still do it same concept. Can’t run a building without money to run it. They don’t have to be homeless they can move upstate where land is cheap. They are choosing to stay and do the landlord is choosing to increase the rent simple as that. You are always welcome to share your home with the homeless if you are so concerned about them.

8

ShadownetZero t1_je1tmn8 wrote

> The most obvious one is they think they could get more money from someone else.

And that's the only reason needed. :)

4

mehkindaok t1_je2uta0 wrote

Say, can I have your $30,000 car for $1,000? I know you can get more money from someone else but my ability to get a cheap car is more important than your ability to get more money!

1

ShadownetZero t1_je1tiw3 wrote

No thanks. The city can pay if they want to expand rent stabilization.

1

Bubbly_Experience694 t1_je1eris wrote

People downvoting cannot tell me that they genuinely care about homelessness.

−12

movingtobay2019 t1_je1l919 wrote

Solving homelessness doesn't have to involve housing them in the most fucking expensive piece of real estate in the country.

It's people like you who care less about homelessness and just want to stick it to people who are better off than you.

I'd easily support a bill where NYC raised my taxes to house homeless upstate where land is cheaper and get them in programs to help them integrate back in society. But not this shit.

17

Bubbly_Experience694 t1_je1lrke wrote

Solving homelessness has to involve housing the homeless.

1

movingtobay2019 t1_je1nwp7 wrote

Agreed.

But said housing does not have to be in the most expensive city in the world. You can house way more people up state and provide more services for the same budget.

There is literally no reason to house them in NYC. They are from NYC? Beggars can't be choosers - otherwise you introduce perverse incentives.

8

Bubbly_Experience694 t1_je1oqez wrote

Look, man… I’m willing to meet you halfway as long as we agree that the only solution to this problem is to provide government subsidized permanent housing to the homeless. I just don’t believe in rounding them up like cattle and shipping them off. That this city is expensive (though not even the most expensive in the country) is the result of very deliberate policy decisions as opposed to some law of nature.

0

movingtobay2019 t1_je1rynh wrote

> result of very deliberate policy decisions as opposed to some law of nature.

I have no problem with telling NIMBYs to go fuck themselves as I'd also benefit more housing and lower rent, but demand will always outstrip supply in a highly desired city like NYC. You simply can't build out of it. Someone will ALWAYS be priced out or homeless in NYC. So housing shortages in highly desired cities are laws of nature. Otherwise, they wouldn't be highly desired cities. People compete globally to live in NYC.

>I just don’t believe in rounding them up like cattle and shipping them off.

Do you have a better idea? Because any idea that involves providing nice government housing for free to the homeless is politically DOA. Look at how unpopular housing migrants in hotels are.

>only solution to this problem is to provide government subsidized permanent housing

Depends on where and how it is implemented. There needs to be checks and balances to ensure they have the resources to get back on their feet and not pull the rug before they have the opportunity to do so. But also so that we don't have a permanent class of people reliant on tax dollars. I am sure we can all agree on that.

6

ShadownetZero t1_je1ts1q wrote

People arguing in favor of "good cause eviction" cannot tell me that they genuinely care about the housing problem.

4

TizonaBlu t1_je6hxpt wrote

I care in that I want them gone.

2

Bubbly_Experience694 t1_je6iui6 wrote

I get it. So it’s not that there are human beings without homes, it’s that you must deign to have to look at them. So how do we solve that? Concentration camps? What about mass execution? I’m genuinely curious how you suggest we solve the issue of you having to live in general proximity to abject poverty?

0

TizonaBlu t1_je6l18c wrote

The how doesn’t matter to me, I speak for most people in NYC, we just want them gone. Good thing I’m not a politicians, so it’s not my job to provide solutions. All we can do is to vote out politicians and who can’t deal with the issue and keep trying.

3

Bubbly_Experience694 t1_je6l5t9 wrote

Well if we gave them homes, you wouldn’t have to deal with them.

0

TizonaBlu t1_je6lk51 wrote

Sure. Give them homes, incarcerate them, ship them to Texas, I don’t care, just get rid of them.

3