A Huge Victory for Tenants in Court Case Ruling Against Unjust RGB Rent Hike
January 28, 2010
Tenants protest RGB hearings in 2009. (Photo by Housing Conservation Coordinators.)
For the past two years, the NYC Rent Guidelines Board (RGB) has outrageously imposed minimum, flat rent increases to tenants who have been in their apartments for longer than six years. When a tenant moves from a stabilized unit, landlords are allowed to jack the rent on apartments through an allowed “vacancy increase”–so we can assume the pro-landlord RGB thinking was that when tenants don’t move very often, landlords are missing out on the extra increase opportunity.
In 2008, the RGB set increases at 4.5% (for one-year leases) and 8.5% for two-year leases–unless you lived in your apartment for six or more years; if so, your increase was 4.5% or $45 (whichever was greater) for a one-year lease or 8.5% or $85 (whichever was greater) for a two-year lease. In 2009, the RGB set increases at 3.0% (for one-year leases) and 6.0% for two-year leases–unless you lived in your apartment for six or more years; if so, your increase was 3.0% or $30 (whichever was greater) for a one-year lease or 6.0% or $60 (whichever was greater) for a two-year lease.
I am very pleased that yesterday, as the NY Daily News (“Judge throws out minimum rent increases imposed by Rent Guidelines Board“) and the New York Times City Room Blog (“Ruling Could Mean Lower Rents for 300,000 Tenants”) reported, Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Emily Jane Goodman ruled that the practice was unlawful and “penalizes tenants failing to move in a city that has virtually no affordable housing.” This is a just and long-overdue decision and we have the Legal Aid Society to thank for representing a class of tenants in bringing this suit (the Legal Aid Society’s press release is linked here).
The minimum increases on long-term tenants are a poor tax. For tenants whose rents are lower, the increases were startling. An example that was cited in the lawsuit filed by the Legal Aid Society, was Mr. Paul Hertgen, an unemployed Staten Island tenant who is normally a truck driver. Because of the 2008 guidelines, his rent increased from $685 to $770–a 12% increased as opposed to an 8.5% increase that he would have paid were he not an 18 year long-term tenant.
Long-term tenants are the people who live their whole lives in their communities – in these homes they are born, marry, raise families, and grow old. Helping families to stay in the homes should be the purpose of our public policy–but the RGB seems to think that it has the opposite responsibility. When the RGB decided to pick on long-term tenants, they de facto declared war on our communities.
For the past two years, I have testified against these minimum increases to long-term tenants. (See the Publications 2009 and Publications 2008 sections of this blog to download copies of those testimonies.)
Landlord representatives have predictably said that they will appeal the decision, so we will have to wait to see the outcome of that before tenants can apply for their refunds–but those refunds are estimated to be as much as $100 million citywide.
The fact that this lawsuit had to be filed at all underscores the urgent need for serious reform of the RGB. The basic equation is simple: In New York City today, landlord incomes are going up, even while low-income New Yorkers are paying unsustainably large portions of their income in rent. The RGB’s own data from 2005 shows that rent stabilized New Yorkers spend close to 40% of their household income on rent. Over one third of New York City renters spend at least half their income on rent. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “the generally accepted definition of affordability is for a household to pay no more than 30 percent of its annual income on housing. Families who pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing are considered cost burdened and may have difficulties affording necessities such as food, clothing, transportation, and medical care.”
Continuing to allow the Mayor to control the majority of appointments to the Board is a deeply flawed model, he has demonstrated time and again that his appointees will only serve the interests of landlords. For these reasons, I am a co-sponsor of legislation (A.5282), with my friend Assembly Member George Latimer, to bring comprehensive reform to this body.
Making the Case for Submetering Reforms
October 20, 2009
Residential submetering of electricity is a practice with significant implications to tenant protection, consumer protection, and environmental conservation. But despite the high stakes, it is an issue that has received relatively little attention. While submetering has proliferated under the political radar, changing the lives of low- and middle-income tenants, few attempts have been made to address the issue systematically.
Earlier this year I blogged about five bills that I introduced to reform submetering in New York State. Last week, I was pleased to be offered an opportunity to discuss my legislative efforts at the New York State Bar Association’s Eleventh Annual Institute on Public Utility Law held in Albany.
10.16.09 IPUL Sub Met Ring Leg Remarks
A Landmark Victory for Eastwood Tenants on Submetering
September 18, 2009
Yesterday, the New York State Public Service Commission issued a landmark decision on electrical submetering in residential buildings – delivering a big victory to tenants at Roosevelt Landings and elsewhere. (See today’s New York Daily News article, “Mitchell-Lama Housing Tenants Win Out in Dispute Over Electric Bills.”) The Commission’s order, which came in response to my petition to overturn submetering at Roosevelt Landings, ordered a permanent halt to submetering at that building and several others, until and unless the landlords consult with tenants and develop a new submetering plan with substantial tenant protections.
I cannot thank PSC Chairman Brown and the Commissioners and staff of the Public Service Commission enough for their groundbreaking decision to permanently stay the submetering orders for Roosevelt Landings, Frawley Plaza, Metro North, and the Alpacas I&II. The full order is linked here from the Public Service Commission website.
Initially, when I challenged the PSC’s approval of submetering at Roosevelt Landings, the PSC issued a temporary stay. Now that the Commission has made that stay permanent, tenants can rest assured that they will not be subjected to any submetering scheme without their full consultation and basic tenant protections to ensure they are not unduly burdened.
The PSC’s decision promises a brighter future that doesn’t pit tenant rights against environmental goals—it proves that we can do both. The protections won are meaningful acknowledgments of what has been a deeply flawed process from a tenants’ rights perspective—and while more needs to be done, there is no question that we are moving in the right direction.
The Commission’s order addresses the need for tenants to be protected from illegal eviction proceedings that are too often brought over unpaid utility bills. It also acknowledges that asking tenants to use energy more efficiently means requiring landlords to give tenants the tools that make this possible, such as installing thermostats in electrically-heated buildings.
While I am pleased with the victories won yesterday, more work needs to be done to ensure that tenants are treated fairly. Some of the requirements do not go far enough—for instance, I do not believe that submetering should ever be allowed in the minority of buildings left in New York City that use electric heat. At a minimum, I will continue to push for the metering of electric heating to be separated out from other electrical uses.
Also, while this order relates to four specific buildings—creating tremendous precedent for future cases—the reality is that these basic tenant protections should be clearly written into law so that all New Yorkers share the same rights and are governed by the same rules.
Interviewed on PBS
July 10, 2009
Recently, I was featured in a lengthy interview with Dara Welles on WLIW 21′s “New York Insiders.”
We had a great conversation about what’s next for New York City’s schools, as well as Second Avenue Subway construction issues – and we also discussed broader topics like marriage equality, disability rights, the upheaval in the State Senate, and my own plans for the future.
PBS is linking things strangely, so when you click to see the video of my interview the title will read Suffolk County Legislator Steve Levy – but don’t worry, it’s me.
Calling for a Rent Freeze
June 22, 2009
Last week, I told the New York City Rent Guidelines Board (RGB) that in a time of economic crisis, when New York’s middle class is struggling to keep its head above water, there should be no rent increases for tenants in rent-stabilized apartments.
Last year, the RGB approved astoundingly large rent increases on rent-stabilized tenants and slapped long-term tenants with an outrageous supplemental increase, as if it were singling out for special punishment those who have lived in their communities the longest.
This year, the RGB once again looks set to close its eyes to the current realities of living in New York, proposing to raise rents in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. What is more, the RGB is contemplating another round of supplemental increases on long-term tenants—apparently seeking to normalize this deeply unfair practice.
The simple fact is that tenants cannot afford a rent increase this year, and landlords cannot justify one. According to the RGB’s 2009 Income and Expense Survey, total landlord income grew by 6.5% from 2006 to 2007, while Net Operating Income (NOI) increased 9.3% during the same period. Adjusted for inflation, the NOI increase jumps to 17.2%. This big rise in landlords’ profit margins means that a rent increase on already-overburdened tenants would be deeply unfair. Landlords were granted a major rent increase last year—they did not need it then and they do not need any more now. The RGB ignored reality last year, and the fact that it looks set to raise rents again this year suggests that it is responding to political pressures, not to the facts. It tells us that the RGB needs to change.
I am co-sponsoring legislation with my colleague Assembly Member George Latimer (A.5282/S.5566-Duane) to bring much-needed reform to the RGB—requiring it to use fair and honest data in its deliberations; preventing landlords with serious violations from collecting rent increases; abolishing the need for lease renewals; and rebalancing the board so that mayoral appointees no longer hold all the power. The RGB must be independent and objective enough to make decisions that are truly fair for all stakeholders. It should not be beholden to this or any other mayor’s political interests.
The RGB has never before approved a rent freeze, but as I told the Board Members, if ever there was a time for a freeze, it is now.
You can read my full testimony by downloading it from the Publications section of my website.
10-Bill Package to Protect the Rights of Tenants Passes Assembly
February 4, 2009
Anyone who rents in New York City knows that the rent laws are broken and our City’s affordable housing stock is in crisis. Over the past decade we have watched as speculation in multi-family housing resulted in the harassment and eviction of families from their homes.
I’m proud to say that earlier this week, the Assembly acted to update and strengthen New York’s rent laws. For your information, these ten bills are listed below. The bill package is now headed to the Senate.
A.2005 (Rosenthal) – Repeals vacancy decontrol laws that allow landlords to deregulate apartments. The bill also re-regulates thousands of units that are renting for less than $5000/month.
A.1686 (Lopez) – Reduces the maximum amount a landlord can increase the rent on a vacated apartment from 20% to 10%.
A.860 (Bing) – Adjusts income decontrol thresholds to more accurately reclect present day realities and tie income decontrol thresholds to inflation in the NYC metropolitan area.
A.1687 (Lopez) – Require former Section 8 properties to be automatically subject to rent regulation.
A.1685 (Lopez) – Limit a landlord’s ability to recover an apartment for personal use to one unit per property.
A.1688 ( Lopez) – Repeals the Urstadt Law, allowing New York City to make its own rent laws.
A.857 (Bing) – Maintains the rents for tenants at their same levels when a building leaves the Mitchell-Lama program and enters rent stabilization.
A.1928 (O’Donnell) – Extends the length of time during which major capital improvement (MCI) expenses are recovered by landlords so that the costs to tenants are more spread out. Also, prohibits rent surcharges for MCIs after the costs of the improvement have already been recovered.
A.2002 (Silver) – Creates civil penalties for tenant harassment and raises penalties on landlords that violate DHCR housing codes.
A.465 (Jeffries) – Protects tenants with preferential rental agreements from exorbirant rent increases.
Opposition to 75%-88% Rent Increases for Westview & Island House on RI
August 14, 2008
This week I testified against the proposed rent determinations for Island House and Westview that would increase rents by as much as 75-88% in these buildings.
The owners of Westview and Island House have applied to the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal for permission to raise rents by as much as 75% (at Island House) and 88% (at Westview). DHCR holds hearings to give the public an opportunity to comment on the proposals. Originally these hearings were to have taken place in June, but as I blogged about then, I was able to convince DHCR to grant a 60 day extension to give tenant associations ample time to prepare for these hearings. This week I testified at two hearings (one for Island House and the other for Westview) on behalf of tenants on Roosevelt Island. Click here to go to the Publications section of this website where my testimony can be accessed.
Any rent increase like the ones proposed would be a disaster – it would drive out long-term residents and would essentially mean the end of affordable housing for much of Roosevelt Island.
Roosevelt Island was conceived as a planned community, offering affordable homes for a diverse mix of working New Yorkers. Driving up rents at two of the Island’s remaining Mitchell-Lama buildings is a betrayal of that mission and of the families who have long called the Island home. The owners’ request is especially obscene because they have failed to do their part. The owners have not tried to cut their own costs and when they were given rent increases in the past, they didn’t do with that money what they were supposed to in terms of improvements to the buildings.
Why should we trust them again?
DHCR Proposal a Step in the Wrong Direction on ‘Phony Demolitions’
August 13, 2008
I spoke at a press conference yesterday, along with other local elected officials, including Senator Martin Connor (pictured to my left), to oppose DHCR’s regulations proposals on demolition provisions.
It is no secret that the current real estate market provides landlords with strong incentives to find ways to remove rent-regulated tenants and convert their apartments to market-rate units. My office is contacted on a daily basis by rent-stabilized and rent-controlled tenants facing harassment, denial of services, improper refusal by landlords to renew leases or acknowledge succession rights, as well as numerous other pressures brought to bear by landlords who seek to raise rents and ultimately remove their units from regulation. In this context, it is all the more vital that the NYS Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), the watchdog for affordable housing in New York, to uphold the central principle of the Rent Stabilization Laws, which is that landlords may not evict tenants simply because they wish to charge higher rents for their apartments.
One increasingly common loophole landlords seek to exploit in order to rid their buildings concerns what we have come to call “Phony Demolitions.” The law grants landlords the right to refuse to renew leases when an owner intends to demolish the building. Increasingly, landlords have tried to convince courts that “demolition” includes cases where an apartment is merely gut renovated.
Phony demolitions represent an assault on affordable housing in New York, and an assault on the principles of the Rent Stabilization law. They reduce the stock of housing available to low- and middle-income New Yorkers, they upend families without justification, and they damage the public’s confidence in the government’s commitment to upholding the principles of rent stabilization.
In the past few years, tenant leaders and elected officials have called on DHCR to remove any ambiguity about the legal definition for “demolition” by updating the Rent Stabilization Code to clearly define it as razing a building to the ground.
Today, DHCR held a hearing on new regulations, but unfortunately what they propose is a step backward from any common-sense definition. The new language would allow landlords to evict rent-stabilized tenants in order to perform a “complete gutting of all interior space in the building.”
This change would essentially give property owners a green light to continue this abuse. I testified at the hearing today and urged DHCR not to approve these regulations because of their potential to undermine affordable housing in New York.
I asked them to instead adopt the common-sense definition as well as to guarantee tenants the right to a hearing when a landlord files a demolition application. Longstanding DHCR policy affirmed such a right, but a policy change during the Pataki administration eliminated this crucial guarantee of due process.
Also at issue is what happens to tenants in buildings that are demolished. Right now, tenants receive an inadquete stipend as compensation, but the proposed changes to the stipend have a complex formula based on “the mean registered rent of the zip code of the housing accommodation proposed for demolition.” DHCR has not clarified how such a figure would be calculated, and until they do, it’s hard to judge what this means.
But ultimately it is the stipends themselves that are the problem. They require landlords to provide minimal compensation for a limited period of time – eventually, leaving tenants to fend for themselves in an increasingly difficult real estate market. All this does is postpone the date when tenants will no longer be able to afford to live in their own neighborhoods. It’s a system, if anything, that encourages a vicious circle.
When I testified today, I told DHCR that I think the stipend should be eliminated and instead owners should be required to relocate their rent-stabilized tenants to similarly-sized apartments, in the same neighborhood, at comparable rents. If a new apartment is not rent-stabilized, DHCR should require landlords to ensure that the relocated tenants are contractually guaranteed the same rights as those provided under rent stabilization.
Opposition to Unfair Rent Increases Proposed by Rent Guidelines Board
June 12, 2008
The New York City Rent Guidelines Board (RGB) has proposed a range of rent increases for rent regulated apartments. The increases would apply to leases renewed between October 1, 2008 and September 30, 2009. I strongly object to the size of the increases suggested by the RGB. The RGB proposes that rent increases on one-year renewal leases should be between 3.5% – 7%, while those for two-year leases should be between 5.5% – 9.5%.
While there is no doubt that landlord expenses have increased with rising fuel costs, the RGB’s proposed rent increases are significantly higher than usual, and would create a serious burden for low- and moderate-income New York tenants, who already face enough challenges in a stagnating economy and a city where food, transportation, medical, and other costs just continue to go up.
The final rent guidelines will be adopted at a meeting on June 19. In the meantime, the public will have the opportunity to comment. I will be testifying at a hearing on the proposed increases on Monday, June 16. The hearing will be from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., at the Great Hall at Cooper Union, 7 East 7th St., at the corner of 3rd Ave. I strongly urge you to come to the hearing and add your voice in opposition to the size of the suggested increases.
State Budget Increases New York’s Investment in Affordable Housing
June 12, 2008
Investing in and maintaining affordable housing are some of the most important things that I fight for in Albany. I am proud that New York’s 2008-09 state budget includes more than $300 million in capital funding for affordable, supportive, and workforce housing opportunities across the state.
This number includes $54 million in funds for the Mitchell-Lama Rehabilitation and Preservation (RAP) and All Affordable programs. RAP offers flexible, low-cost debt service financing to help the owners of Mitchell-Lama housing make needed improvements to their properties or restructure their debt in return for committing to remain in the program and keep rents affordable. All Affordable loans support the construction of housing in which every unit is affordable to low- and moderate-income tenants.
The budget also includes capital funds for other housing programs, including $60 million to the Low Income Housing Trust Fund, $45 million for the Affordable Housing Corporation, and $36.5 million to the Homeless Housing Assistance program.
The Assembly worked successfully to ensure that the state’s total capital investment in affordable housing was increased by $200 million over the executive budget proposal – dramatically strengthening New York’s investment in initiatives that help residents find affordable housing, create housing opportunities for homeless New Yorkers, and help communities restore and revitalize existing buildings.
- Via @MicahKellner + @MMViverito NYPD, never sensitive to Trans NYers, but if these allegations true its beyond the pale http://t.co/UGWWI9Tn
10 hours ago from ÜberSocial for BlackBerry
