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
[UPDATE BELOW] The dream of the Second Avenue subway line is turning into a nightmare for dozens of Upper East Side residents who must relocate to make way for ventilation shafts, stairwells and infrastructure for the $4.5 billion line, scheduled to open in 2017. (Coincidentally, that's the very same year a team of leprechauns and unicorns will finish transforming the East River into hot chocolate waterfalls.) Some 60 residences in the neighborhood must be vacated, and tenants—many of whom occupy rent-stabilized apartments far below market rates—say the relocation service hired by the MTA is not providing them with comparable options, as required by federal eminent domain laws.
Part of the problem is the law itself, which is a little vague on the definition of "comparable," and only requires the authority to pay each tenant up to $5,250 in subsidies if they move to a more expensive place. MTA spokesman Kevin Ortiz tells the Times, "Tenants are matched up with three units, based on what they can afford to pay and what their needs are. We’re not in any way, shape or form saying you have to do this, you have to move there." The MTA is supposed to find them new homes in the same neighborhood, but some have been encouraged to consider housing in Harlem. Shockingly, Ortiz says "no one seemed to be interested" in that option.
Ann and Conrad Riedi have been living in the same rent-regulated five-room apartment for 40 years, and currently pay $1,120 a month. Finding something comparable at that price seems to be impossible, and they say the MTA has suggested they move out of Manhattan—and be prepared to give up their dog. According to the Times, the authority had approved a program in 2007 to rent vacant apartments and hold them for displaced tenants, but that never happened. Instead, the MTA has spent over $200,000 to rent empty units in the buildings it plans to acquire, in order to avoid paying relocation costs for tenants.
UPDATE: Kevin Ortiz at the MTA called us to emphasize that although the federal requirement for subsidies is capped at $5,250, "We're actually going far and above that, because obviously $5,200 is nothing. That number in the federal guidelines is for folks in different parts of the country. And for people in rent-regulated apartments, they have the option of going to a market-rate apartment, and we will compensate them as well, probably for however long they stay at the new place. And this is also on top of compensating everyone for relocation costs. The idea that we're showing people houses in Harlem and other boroughs is just the MTA giving them options, but we are in no way forcing them to pick residences, per se."
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Like we're even going to make it to 2017.
you know it's stories like these that make me hate NY that much more...esp the MTA
fucking stupidity
these people have been paying less than $1,200 a month for 40 years? i can't even imagine what it was when they started. i feel kind of bad for them, but I also wonder why they wouldn't have saved money over that time. they could've bought a place by now.
that is why i dont really feel all that bad for them
i threw out your stroopwaffels
That team of leprechauns and unicorns are sure busy - aren't they the same team working on the Nets Arena in Brooklyn? as well as the MTA downtown hub.......
Is this part of Bloomberg's plan to improve the MTA?
For your information, the MTA is under the control of New York state, not the city. (hint: google is your friend)
If you have a complaint, go to Gov. Paterson. However, if you just want to senselessly rant, stay here.
Hey smartass-google sarcasm. That is what my comment was filled with. Now go fuck yourself...
I see you've taken my advice.
haha don't flatter yourself asshole
Holy Cow - As much as I think Bloomie is full of himself he really is not to blame for everything. The MTA has a long history of screwing us city dwellers our whole lives and BTW this second avenue project has been on the books since like 1955..Before Bloomie was even Bloomie yet..
$1120 for Upper East Side 5 bedrooms?!?! Damn leeches! Quit their crying! We've been subsidizing their lifestyle for 40 years. The mere fact that they can't find "comparable" apartments means they've had it good for 40 years. No one is entitled to live in UES.
If I read the above correctly it says five rooms. When I click on the article the NYT says three bedrooms. Where you are getting five bedrooms from?
3 BR, LR and Kitchen.
If those rent controlled/stabilized apartments all went market rate 40 years ago all rents would be cheaper by now.
What exactly have we been subsidizing? It is the landlord/owner of that building who is losing money (or was, I guess). It isn't like you and I pay the difference between the regulated and market rents...
We sure do. If rent control/stabilization had been eliminated many years ago, the rents would be at least 10%, probably more like 25% less. That's money that belongs to the renters in this city.
What happened to all the money they was "supposedly" making over the years? Apartments should be valued at their market value. If you cannot afford to live in Manhattan then MOVE, you don't have a "right" to live in a particular place.
Obama death panal for anyone who has been in thier apartment 40 years paying $1100 bucks!
You spelt panel wrong.
You spelt panel wrong.
on the one hand these people are idiots for basing their whole lives around an absurd rent stabilized apartment. on the other hand, the mta is so scummy it makes me sick. what's really tragic is that these people are probably being kicked out of their apartments for something that will never actually materialize.
Right, and the Freedom Tower is already casting a shadow on the Fulton Transit Hub.
Did I miss something in the article stating exactly how much money the couple made? Why does everyone assume they have so much money left over from their paychecks to save, and thus can afford a market rate apartment now?
That last bit about the $200,000 sounds way sketchy to me.
Even though it's not a lot of money (in MTA terms at least), why would anyone EVER pay subsidies for apartments in buildings they are buying through eminent domain? The landlords could have easily rented them on a month to month basis or have just held out for the payday.
Oh come off it! It any of you had a rent-stabalised place and were forced by the city to leave it you'd be upset too. Bloody hell. I for one am perfectly happy with any landlord anywhere getting less money and if you are one of the lucky ones to score such an apartment, all the power to you.
Give the old-timers a big lump sum and let 'em spend it on whatever they want; a Trump condo, a unit in Boca Raton, or the tables at Vegas. Why encourage them to keep renting if they'll pretty much stay put for the rest of their lives? The payoff ought to come out to pocket change in this boondoggle of a project.
There's plenty of rent-stabilized apartments out there for those tree-huggers to move into: they're called the projects.
Hey pro-rent-stabilizers,
You do realize that rent-stabilization creates an incentive for people to stay in their apartment and thus an artificial scarcity of apartments which then drives up the price of available apartments for everyone. So, yes, we have been subsidizing them for 40 years.