Eastwood Sub-metering Concerns
November 21, 2008
Recently, residents of the Eastwood complex on Roosevelt Island were informed by their management company, Urban American, that the building would be converting to sub-metered electricity. This means that tenants would be billed individually for their household’s electricity usage. Urban American intends for this transition to take place early next year.
I have serious concerns about this process, and how it will affect tenants.
On October 16th, I participated in a town hall meeting, along with Eastwood tenants, at the Good Shepherd Community Center. The meeting was an opportunity to ask building management questions about the sub-metering proposal, as well as to hear from the state agencies involved. As a result of this meeting, and the numerous comments I have heard from residents there, I do not believe that the building is ready to go forward with sub-metering.
Too many tenants still have energy-inefficient appliances and faulty electric heaters, these are not personal items, rather these are items that come with the apartment and the management company is responsible for them. Urban American has promised to replace inefficient appliances and to fix heaters and thermostats for any residents who make a request to them. If you are an Eastwood tenant and you have made a request like this to management but they have not responded, please call me.
It is imperative that we have a clear picture of overall energy use in the building. The building’s heat is electric, so it is essential to ensure that tenants do not face unreasonably high utility bills just to stay warm in the winter. It concerns me that so many apartments are poorly insulated and Urban American needs to address this. I have asked the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority to conduct a full survey of energy use and efficiency in Eastwood, so that residents are not penalized by faulty design or maintenance.
I am also concerned that we do not have a real sense about how billing will work under this new system, given the complicated system of affordable housing programs that are integrated into the Mitchell-Lama’s accounting already. Will the utility allowance calculated by state and federal agencies be enough to compensate tenants for a reasonable amount of electricity usage? I have asked New York City Comptroller Bill Thompson as well as the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal to work with Urban American to ensure that residents are protected.
NOV. 25th 2008 ***UPDATE*** I have written to Urban American Management on this issue. For those who are following this, please see the Publications area of my website to download a copy of that letter.
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.
Westview and Island House Rent Determination Hearing Granted 60-Day Extension
June 12, 2008
Several weeks ago, the residents of Westview and Island House were informed that the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) would be holding hearings on Roosevelt Island to consider a rent determination request from the lanlord for rent increases of up to 88%. This is outrageous and completely out of line with the affordability that these Mitchell-Lamas are supposed to provide to the hundreds of families that call them home. These are already the most expensive Mitchell-Lama buildings in New York State. Also, a significant amount of the rent increase is supposedly justified through the need to pay arrears on debt for the buildings, but it is totally unprecedented and unfair to raise rents to pay a landlord’s debt.
The hearings were originally scheduled for this month, but in order to give the tenant associations the time they need to hire accountants to review the proposal and prepare a thorough response, I wrote to DHCR Commissioner Deborah VanAmerongen and requested an extension to this process. She granted that request and the hearings will be rescheduled to August. I will continue to advocate for the hearings to be at a location, time, and date that allow working Roosevelt Islanders to be able to attend and make themselves heard.
