Gothamist: Rangel Asks for House Ethics Inquiry into His Apartments

twakum

Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:29:06 -0500

He's an ass clown, throw his clown ass out of these places, now.

virgil

Sat, 26 Jul 2008 20:21:51 -0500

I really can, bongo, I really can. Personally, I like Rangel and think he does a lot of good, but as long as he's hoarding not one, but *multiple* dwellings that are intended for those who can't afford market rates, while being *more* than well able to afford it himself, he's being either a knowing or unknowing hypocrite. And so is anyone else doing the same thing, no matter what color they are or where they're from. It's a question of character. He's a public servant, who seems to genuinely care about the poor, and he should be a bit more keyed in.

ANGRYGOD11

Sat, 26 Jul 2008 15:44:41 -0500

This just clarifies community is just a marketing ploy to these politicians. While millionaire Rangel was set up with extra perks intended for middle-class families, he ignored the plight of his neighbors. The very people living in the same building as him faced eviction for trivial things or just lies. Rangel didn't know because he didn't care. I would have far less contempt if Rangel didn't believe in any rent regulation at all. On the other hand, maybe he did need the extra space for his money.

virgil

Sat, 26 Jul 2008 12:19:39 -0500

This is why I previously said it's not a legal issue. He knows he's not breaking the law, which is why he wants the focus to be on the legality of it. It's the hypocrisy of a representative of some of the poorest communities, a wealthy man himself (nothing wrong with that) happily helping himself to a symbolic 3rd and 4th portion while his constituents are waiting for their first bite. It's not the worst thing he could do, but it sure isn't the best.

Toby von Meistersinger

Sat, 26 Jul 2008 11:56:45 -0500

The House Ethics Committee is akin to having a fox guard a hen house.

kissel

Sat, 26 Jul 2008 11:16:01 -0500

the fact that he is still perusing this line of reasoning is sickening... he is breaking the rule and spirit of the rent stabilization laws. he is consciously keeping all the apartments on separate leases to keep below the 2k cutoff (and one hast ask why the landlord would overlook this, especially such an overly litigious one). this guy should be thrown out, but of course his constituents will vote down the line and back in he goes.