Living in a 3,000 Sq. Ft. Rent-Stabilized Apt. for Decades

What, do all of you people work for Jane Goldman???

Jeez, apparently none of you have ever been in the restaurant business. If they've been able to keep it going for 15 years they f*in deserve every bit of that place. And BTW people, "normal" restaurant owners aren't making 7 figures, as you might think if you're only idea of "Chefs" are Mario or Emeril.

I'm glad Mrs. O'neal is still with us. I didn't know her husband was Patrick o'neal the actor. as a child of the seventies, he was in a lot of movies of the week and other TV series. Good to hear they're well loved in the community.

A non-story apropos of rent control. The O'Neals have been part of the community through good times and bad. When people were fleeing the Upper West Side and the City, they continued to live here, paid the rent that maintained the building, ran a business that employed other New Yorkers and helped keep the City vital.

One could make sensible arguments against rent controls, this isn't one. In any case, any story about real estate published by the Times is beside the point, being landlord's themselves and feeding out of the troughs of developers and speculators, they can hardly be relied on to tell the whole story. At any rate, the Times and the filthy rich but troubled speculators who bought the Apthorp use the O'Neals relatively unique circumstances, to gain leverage against the people rent-control laws were meant to, and continue to protect.

good for the o'neals, a family whose businesses have given good value to the city and deserves value back.

I don't know many rich folks, but I do know many middle-class and working class people and families that have benefited from these rent laws - people who continued to live in the city in areas that many fled.

I'm sure the spirit of the law was to help those who cannot make a lot of money, not to reward those careful enough not to make too much money.

Take them out to that Apthorp courtyard and shoot them.

(I am kidding, of course).

There are quite a few people who would be in deep you know what if these laws were repealed. Not everyone abuses the system. There are a lot of older New Yorkers on fixed incomes. Of course it's only human to be jealous so I can't blame some of you "new arrivals" (a term most native-New Yorkers like myself call people who arrived here in the past few years) when you're having a hard time justifying your "visit" here from an economic perspective.

So it seems like the ceiling for the maximum income has risen faster than the rent itself.

I'm all for a good deal, but it makes my blood boil when I see the coverage of the annual shout-fest that is the rent control board meeting. Why not tie the increases to city inflation and be done with these meetings already?

Yeah, time to get rid of these laws already.

@Red Stapler. What are you talking about? How are they doing the opposite of depriving someone of living space? 3,000 square feet. Parents, loser son, grandkid and loser son's ex-gf. (how weird must that be).

Hey, at least this family shares the large apartment love.

Better it should be filled with people who could be characters out of a story or a movie than empty like the rest of the building apparently is.

It's not like they're depriving anyone of living space. If anything, they're doing the opposite.

Is it fair that they get to control the space though? Wouldn't it be more fair for their apartment to be subdivided into multiple apartments?

All they would have to do to "keep" their income below $175K is to have the income from their business go into a corporation which then pays them whatever salary suits them best. The corporation could even pick up expenses for them, too, in case $175K is not enough to support their lifestyle.

I'm a little jealous.

The last rent control apartment I visited was occupied by an elderly rich doctor that was as big as a house, stocked with fine art and exquisite furniture and had panoramic views of Central Park South.

That rich doctor's son can assume that rent control lease when his Dad kicks. Nice to know that this privilege will last for countless generations.

sounds like an jealous a$$_ole.

ides - i know that you hate when the the truth runs into your distorted world view, but there are plenty of rent stabs and rent control tenants who need the benefits, especially the elderly. OR, take me for example. I work for a non-profit providing essential social services, and make $36,000 a year. I live in a 1 bedroom rent stabilized apt (with leaking ceilings and peeling paint) for $715 a month. Without the rent, I wouldn't be able to afford to live in the city and do work that even a hard-hearted bastard like you would think is important. The rent laws permit many moderate income people to live in the city and fill jobs that otherwise would go begging. I take a modest vacation a year (usually a week at the shore, and maybe another week staying with friends somewhere). I love what I do - it's rewarding and fulfilling and I know that I make a difference in the lives of many people. Without rent stabilization, I would probably be working in soulless job, hating the work, myself and the world but feeling trapped because I have to meet the rent or mortgage.

wow, so your job is so important and meaningful yet not quite worthy enough for you to live in a more affordable, non-rent control apartment in Brooklyn or Jersey City and commute to your job?

You're a saint. I anxiously await your canonization.

I'm not so sure your fellow tenants in non-rent controlled apartments who have to subsidize your living expenses will feel the same way though.

wow. great anecdote.

I totally agree with "Ides of March". These laws are an absolute joke. A wealthy doctor friend of mine whose rent is also stabilized once said to me deadpan "if my apt wasn't rent stabilized, how could I ever afford my home upstate".

Let's get rid of these unfair laws.

wow. great anecdote.

the only coke wisdom i know got me in jail not the apthorp

"I just want to detach myself from worrying about material things."

Funny, that's MY goal, too. I wonder if O'Neal also enjoys eating and sleeping, like I do.

$675 back in 71 was a lot of money,

I was born in the mid sixties and I remember our rent being $66 a month. my parents kept rent receipts on a clip that would yellow with age.

The O'neals may have partners in the restaurant.

wow. and i thought wes anderson's stuff was just lovely fiction.

check out how human people can be when you back off the screws a little bit.

This is why rent control/stabilization is a joke. It has nothing to do do with how needy a person is; just how long they've been in an apartment.

Every single person I know in a rent controlled apartment makes execellent money and has lots of extra money for travel and shopping with all the $$$ they have saved over the years not paying market value rent.

"the O’Neals, who have been careful to keep their household income below the $175,000 maximum allowed for stabilized tenants"

careful = lying

Seriously, how is it not obvious that successful restaurant owners exceed $175k/yr?

I strongly suspect they are tax cheats; I've sent a copy of this article to the IRS along with the forms used to report suspicion of tax fraud; I hope they get audited as far back as possible

I don't know of any universal relation between "success" and income level. In my mind, a "successful" business owner is one that makes enough money to live on. $175k certainly qualifies there.

If this guy was lying, he'd be pretty stupid to crow about it in the NYT, no? Of course others have been that stupid in the past... but if this guy has been successfully running restaurants for this period of time, I have to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he is not this stupid.

or that he can afford the lawyers and accountants needed to hide his income...I think we all agree that this family is violating the spirit if not the letter of the law

But how do you "carefully" keep your income at a certain level? You either make that much or you don't. Do you donate anything over that amount to charity?

They lie about it. That's how they "keep their income at a certain level".