Wife Tries To Abort And Poison Husband's Lovechild
Man Injured By Tree Limb Files Suit Against City
Charles Barron Will Run For Council Speaker
Alleged Tiger Mistress Is Unrecognizable To Dead Fiancee's Dad
New Jersey State Senate To Vote On Gay Marriage
When residents of 17-17 Troutman St. woke Thursday morning, most were not aware that they would be homeless by the end of the day. The day before, notices were posted that city inspectors would be arriving to look the building over for violations at 9:30 a.m. It didn't take long Thursday for the Dept. of Buildings to designate the building as imminently perilous to residents and demand an almost-immediate evacuation. Residents had until 8 p.m. that same day to gather what belongings they could and find someplace else to live.
The New York Times has a collection of horror stories from residents, who describe firemen knocking open their doors with sledgehammers and possessions left vulnerable to looters. Yesterday we spoke with Alex Echeverria, who was one of the first people to move into the industrial building's third floor when landlord David Steinberg began attracting artists with large high-ceilinged spaces that were priced at about $1 a square foot in monthly rent. Renters subdivided their spaces into lofts where they worked and lived. Eventually, the second floor was also opened to renters, albeit with smaller spaces and higher rents. Echeverria said that as the neighborhood improved, the demographics of the tenants was shifting and that it was about 50% artists and 50% young professionals at the time of eviction.
Most of the blame seems to be falling at the feet of landlord David Steinberg, whose spokesman claims that he knows nothing about any violation notices that were delivered concerning the building. In the Times article, his spokesman also claims that Steinberg had no idea that 220 people were living in 60-70 lofts in the building. That seems hard to believe, because Echeverria told us last night that Steinberg was a daily fixture at the building and kept an office there for several years until about a year ago, when he became conspicuously absent for months at a time.
The story of 17-17 Troutman St. is unfortunately a common one of artists and gentrification; and Echeverria seemed fairly sanguine about the matter, although he admitted that he was extremely fortunate in having someplace to go. Since 2003, he said that cafés and coffee shops have opened in the area and neighboring warehouse buildings have been converted to condos. Even within the now-condemned building, some early renters were sub-letting their lofts that they signed leases for at dirt cheap prices years ago for small fortunes today. He said that one tenant shamelessly marketed his loft as being in Williamsburg East and found a gullible out-of-towner who was willing to pay a lot of money to sublet it. One thing that Echeverria found particularly galling was that Steinberg continued to let people sign leases and move in even as the inspection deadline and certain eviction approached. There was a rumor going around among displaced tenants that one renter had just moved in last weekend.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
If the allegations that Steinberg was signing leases (albeit illegal ones) up until the end are true, what kind of legal recourse do the tenants have? Would he have to pay their rent for the rest of the lease?
Irregardless of what he may or may not legally owe the tenants, the chances of them collecting any of it, ever, are slim and none, and don't solve the problem of finding somewhere to live that they can afford (especially the artists).
And the other issue is that, despite the fact that the tenants are 1000% in the right, many, many landlords regard ANY action in housing court as a negative, and will not rent to anyone whose name comes up in a search. The landlord may never tell you why they rejected you, so you wouldn't get a chance to say, "Remember that loft building in Queens?"
The building has to be pretty bad, because there's another loft building down the street that also has no C of O and has been cited multiple times for illegal conversion.
But here's the thing - I wish people would use the DOB website. Because if you search on the address, you see that the building is NOT covered by the loft law, and that there is NO C of O! And there were multiple citations in July, August and Sept for illegal conversion to residential units.
if anyone at all is still reading this:
i just found this article. i used to live in another property that this guy rents--my old roommate is still there and is terrified that this is going to happen to him. so i tried to search the property on the dob website and according to the site, that building doesn't exist. does anyone know why that is?