Update: Oreo, Dog Thrown Off Building, Was Euthanized
People Wait For Tomorrow's UWS Apple Store Opening
Emily and Sarah Kunstler, Filmmakers
Cheap Chicken Wing Deal Ruined by Gunslinging Teens
FIT Students Busted For Drug Dealing Get Probation
In the "deal or don't get a domicile" world of NYC rentals, perhaps there needs to be a way to make sure the rental is up-to-grade. Case in point, Brooklyn landlord Mordechai Landau illegally converted one Bushwick apartment building's basement into two units and used an unlicensed plumber to do the work in 2004. Well, Bernard Barham forgot to reconnect a gas pipe he disconnected, and the next morning, Julius Drecketts, a resident on the first floor, was killed when he tried to use his stove in the morning. The Post describes the fire from the gas, which had leaked all night, as a "fireball" and two neighboring buildings caught fire as well. Now Barham and Landau were charged for the incident, Barham getting charged with negligent homicide and Landau charged wtih illegal conversion. Barham and Landau claim an assistant of Barham's was licensed to do the work (and therefore to can shoulder the blame) but when prosecutors investigated, the assistant was nowhere to be found, which not surprising since imaginary helpers seem to be plentiful when facing jail time.
In other bad landlord news, John Kosman, a slumlord whom the Daily News says lives in "suburban splendor," will be spending three days in jail (at the Tombs aka Bernard Kerik Complex). Kosman pleaded guilty for not fixing his apartment building at 117 West 142th Street which smells "urine, garbage and rat poison" with "flies and roaches [thriving] in apartments where leaky pipes have caused floors, walls and ceilings to collapse." Apparently housing officials even fixed some problems after Kosman wouldn't and billed him for the work; of course, he didn't pay. Now Kosman is going to pay a fine of $60,000 and promises he'll "hire professional managers" to handle the repairs. You think that's what a landlord would do in the first place - have professionals who can do the job.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Hmm... it sounds like to me that zealous government regulation is the problem in both these stories, not evil landlords. Allow me to explain.
In the first story, Mr. Landau was denied the full usage of his property because of government fiat, and thus to flirt those inane rules, he had to make use of unlicensed workers who care not about obtaining permits. Licensed plumbers have their livelihood on the line, so they won't touch it, or not before being heavily bribed/paid.
Had government minded its own business in regard to determining the optimal occupancy of said housing, Mr. Landau could have hired the services of either plumber, and the prices would have been more equitable between the licensed and unlicensed. This does not completely absolve Mr. Landau of his guilt, however the government must own up to its fair share for creating the situation in the first place.
In the second story, just for starters, Gothamist left out the statement of Mr. Kosman's lawyer who said that his client was overwhelmed from trying to repair a building where tenants aren't paying rent.
Again, due to moronic rent control/stabilization laws, landlords have no incentive to make repairs or to upkeep their buildings. In fact, the incentive system here has been turned upside-down.
Just imagine you own a building, in which no one pays market rents, is it in your best interest to spend as much as you can on maintaining it, and keeping your tenants happy -- or as I correctly suspect, you the landlord will not go out of your way, and will only perform the bare legal minimum required since you would rather have the tenants vacate, so that you may eventually obtain market rents.
Thought so.
Again, I'm not looking to praise either of these landlords for their ignoble activities; I'm just trying to point out that its only because of excessive government regualtions which lead up to situations such as this. Had the market place been freer, landlords would be forced to compete on quality product.
Firstly, you are insane.
Secondly, I thought I was going to write a longer response to your complaints(I'm an architect with plenty of experience in this area). I've decided to let my first smug comment stand on it's own. Insanity.
you said:
"Just imagine you own a building, in which no one pays market rents, is it in your best interest to spend as much as you can on maintaining it, and keeping your tenants happy -- or as I correctly suspect, you the landlord will not go out of your way, and will only perform the bare legal minimum required since you would rather have the tenants vacate, so that you may eventually obtain market rents."
my reply to anyone who makes the "pity the poor landlord" argument is always the same: NO ONE SAID YOU HAVE TO BE A LANDLORD. IF THIS FIELD ISN'T LUCRATIVE ENOUGH FOR YOU, DO WHAT THE REST OF THE WORLD DOES AND GET A NEW JOB!!
If it were a legal apt. it would of been inspected and a C of O would be issued.
No palms need to be greased or bribed,
DO IT Legally.
friggin greedy landlords.
Iceberg-
Slimy landlords aren't the result of overzealous governments. I have lived in communities where unregulated, free-market systems provide NONE of the utopian visions of which you write. Housing regulations are about making the best City not the Most Money for Landlords.
Your diatribe, although vaguely plausable as a hypothesis, has little/no practical application in the real world. The real estate bubble in this country is the product of wild speculation of individuals who leverage their income to purchase a piece of property, counting on the idea that they will be able to sell at a considerable profit. These 'investors' do this with no regard for the community or the fair market value of the property.
Your diatribe smacks of a Libertarian philosophy where 'law of the jungle' capitalism weeds out the good from the bad. That almost has as much value as pure Marxism. The problem is not everybody wants to play the same reindeer games.
Deckard,
I have one major disagreement with your analysis- there is no true laissez faire market in this nation-state world. If you can show me just one place where coercion and violence don't exist, and the free market fails there too, I'll be willing to accept your criticism.
Until then, dont be besmirch my austrian-school economic analysis with ruddy shades of libertarianism.
ahh, free-market dreamers. it doesn't work because people are greedy and if you base a society on unbridled greed, health and happiness will not be the outcome. as long as there are humans, some regulation will be necessary.
"Just imagine you own a building, in which no one pays market rents ..."
so don't buy the building, twit.
Iceberg has obviously never been a tenant in an apartment building in any large American city.
Suzy,
By your logic, my choice to purchase a building involves my implicit consent to be responsible for immoral city laws. Which it obviously doesn't, mostly because I refuse to give building-theft my moral sanction. It could also be that I own it before the immoral laws were passed, so how would my consent play a part post-facto?
That's like saying that I'm responsible to pay for the "protection fees" when I start a business in a known mafia-run neighborhood, since I knew that before I moved in; and since I didn't say anything to the contrary, I'm therefore obligated to pay them the protection fees.
Exactly, you are all wrong.
And worse yet, you accuse me of greed when you all sanction property theft. How fitting.
If you are a landlord you would check the rent rolls b4 buying. He would have seen the low rent tenants and their payment history. Hey maybe that is why the building was on the market.Notice the neighborhoods-poor, black and Hispanic. Ofcourse these slumlords will do less for more profit. Look at Harlem- the overpricing, the cheap cardboard"luxury condos" being thrown togethe. The New Morman church in Harlem( once everyone is priced out of Harlem we can grab their souls)These slumlords are finally making a profit. The only bump in the road is the new hip whites moving in who are not used to sh*t conditions and will not tolerate it and will call out the slumloards.Most of them like baruch singer(#9 on the nyc sluloard list) sell a percentage of their holdings to management companies who have a cleaner history and do things by the book-like fixing old buildings and renting them to tenants who canafford the market rates and then turning them into condos once the rent controlled tenants die off. The New Harlem will look like 86th street with sh*t cheap new bland buildings with no distinction and no character. Disposable people(Old Harlem residents)disposable housing(sheerock,stucco brick,aluminum frames)$1,000,000 with a view of the projects(soon to be Trump towers uptown-project bought by Trump-waterfront) The new watertaxis to ferry the new residents to and fro avoiding traffic and those pesky natives.Rant over.Greed pays in Harlem
slumloards would you live in some of the conditions you charge humans to live in? look at what you collect rent for...roach infested, cramped toilet(old toilet fixtures) holes in the wall(looking into another apartment), molded frig., one handle on faucet(have to change for other side),screen doors/windows, screen falling out, can go on and on....you all have people fearful of getting put out if they complain and don't pay their rent....how would you feel if you had to be put in that type of situation???paying 400.00 a month for a place fit for the rats and roaches...why don't you collect rent from them?i am going to make sure that i help anyone living under these conditions. i will find the right people to talk to about this and the ball will be rolling....