July 2002 Tenant

Metropolitan Council on Housing

339 Lafayette St.

New York, NY 10012

PERIODICAL

Vol 32, No. 7

July 200225¢

continued on page 8

continued on page 2

The June 27 Rent Guidelines Board vote sawmore debate and a bigger, louder tenant turnout than any RGB meeting in years. Over 150 ten-

ants, chanting “Roll Back the Rents,” packed the au-ditorium in the basement of the US Customs Houseon Bowling Green, despite 20-minute waits at themetal detector.

But as it did in May, the board rejected tenant callsto roll back or freeze rents, voting 7-2 to allow increasesof 2% for a one-year lease renewal and 4% for two yearson rent-stabilized apartments. Lofts will get 1% and 2%increases, and there will be no “poor tax” surcharge onlow-rent apartments.

“It’s a huge defeat,” tenant representative AdrieneHolder said after the meeting. “This year, there shouldhave been a correction. The board is sending out amessage that no matter what happens, landlords willalways get an increase.”

Tenants did get one victory, when the board voted tofreeze rents on single-room occupancy hotels, insteadof the 2% increase proposed in May. The vote—publicmembers Agustin Rivera, Bart Carmody, and MortStarobin joining with the two tenant members—obvi-ously shocked RGB chair Marvin Markus. Minutes af-ter he’d denounced the freeze as “totally illogical,” hevoted for it, then hastily called a recess.

Markus’ vote for the freeze was a procedural ploy;when the board returned, he announced that underRobert’s Rules of Order, he was entitled “as a memberof the majority” to move for reconsideration. A “No

Revote” chant erupted.“You corrupt…” one manscreamed. With Markusnow voting no, the freezepassed 5-4.

It was the first time theRGB had ever rescinded apreliminary increase onhotels, said Terry Poe ofthe West Side SRO LawProject.

That set the stage for

the debate on apartmentrents. Tenant memberDavid Pagan, noting thatthis year is the first timethe RGB’s Price Index ofOperating Costs (PIOC)showed landlords’ ex-penses down, called for arent reduction, -3.5% onone-year leases, -1.75% ontwo-year leases. “Ownershave done well in the past

year,” he announced. “Yetwe find excuses why theincreases should be 2% orhigher.”

Holder offered a litany ofnumbers to support a roll-back: landlords’ income up3.5%; their net incomebefore debt rising to 44%of gross; three-eighths ofthe city’s children living in

Another Rent IncreaseRGB Rejects Raucous Requests for Rent Rollback

By Steven Wishnia

Tenants at Westgate, athree-building complexon the Upper West Side,won a major victory lastmonth when State Su-preme Court JusticeSheila Abdus-Salaam dis-missed the landlord’s law-suit to raise rents.

The decision, handeddown June 4, upheld thestate Division of Housingand CommunityRenewal’s denial of thelandlord’s application toincrease rents under sec-tion 513a of the Emer-gency Tenant ProtectionAct, which allows rent ad-justments under “uniqueand peculiar circum-stances.” The complex,opened in 1968 asMitchell-Lama housing,had been taken out of theprogram by the landlords,KSLM-Columbus Apart-ments—who then appliedfor massive rent increases,claiming that they

couldn’t meet expensesbecause they’d lost thetax benefits of Mitchell-Lama.

“The problem with thatargument is that they vol-untarily got out ofMitchell-Lama,” says thetenants’ lawyer, Serge Jo-seph of Himmelstein,McConnell, Gribben andDonoghue. Under the law,he adds, KSLM could haveapplied for a hardship in-crease, “but to do that,you need to open yourbooks… They didn’t wantto do that.”

The decision means thelandlords will be able tocollect increases allowedby rent stabilization, butnot the triple and qua-druple increases theywanted. Their lawyersfiled notice of appeal onJuly 8.

Westgate, between Co-lumbus and Amsterdamavenues and West 96th and

97th streets, has over 400apartments and is hometo about 1,500 people, in-cluding several genera-tions of families. Many areoriginal tenants whomoved in in 1968, andmost of have been in placesince in the ‘70s. Rentscan be anywhere from$350 a month for a studioto over $1,000 for threebedrooms, but averagearound $500 to $700.

Starting in 1997 therewere rumors about theimpending “buyout.”Management portrayedtheir plan as inevitablewith the promise of ex-traordinary rent in-creases. This would, in thewords of a senior manage-ment representative, “getrid of the riff-raff.”

The formal announce-ments were made in early1998, and figures werebeing discussed that calledfor rent increases of up to

300%—the cheapest apart-ments would be $1,500,and some would cost over$3,000. The laundry roomswere upgraded and themachine prices more thandoubled. The residentiallyzoned garage was leased toan outside vendor at a ratethat could never be cov-ered by the legal occu-pancy of the space.

That transformed theWestgate Tenant Associa-

tion from mainly a socialgroup who supportedchildren’s activities, holi-day gatherings, and “Foodsof Many Nations” parties,and dealt with property-improvement issues likeplanting garden areas andbuilding maintenance.

The initial step was a fil-ing with the DHCR in re-sponse to the landlord’s

Former Mitchell-Lama TenantsBeat Quadruple Rent Increases

By Jean Dorsey

SU

SA

N P

OW

ELL

El Inquilino Hispaño ....................... pg. 3

Romea Update ................................. pg. 4

West Side Stadium ........................... pg. 5

Williamsburg Settlement? ................. pg. 6

Lease-Renewal Rights ...................... pg. 7

INSIDE THIS ISSUE !

Tenants protest outside the June 26 RGB hearing.

2 July 2002 — TENANT/INQUILINO

is published monthly except August by

Metropolitan Council on Housing (Met

Council, Inc.), 339 Lafayette St.,

NY, NY 10012 (212) 979-6238

Tenant/Inquilino is distributed to members

and to affiliated organizations of Met

Council as part of their membership.

Subscriptions are $2.50 per year for

members, $5 for institutions per year.

EDITORSteven Wishnia

PRODUCTION/DESIGNJohn M. Miller

STAFFFlorence Daniels, Don Gilliland,

Esther Joselson, Vajra Kilgour,

Rosel Lehman, Maria Maher,

Anne Moy, John Mueller,

Dave Powell, Joyce Rodewald,

Anita Romm, Mel and Shirley Small,

Ann Towle, Leah Wolin

Articles, letters, artwork and photo-

graphs are welcome. Text furnished on

Microsoft Word for Macintosh is

preferred. 3.5" MACINTOSH OR IBM

FORMATTED DISKETTES ARE

PREFERRED.

Periodicals postage

paid at New York, NY

Postmaster: Send address changes to:

TENANT/INQUILINO

339 Lafayette St.

New York, NY 10012

Metropolitan Council on Housing,

founded in 1958, is incorporated as Met

Council, Inc., a membership organiza-

tion dedicated to decent, affordable,

integrated housing.

ISSN-1536-1322 ©2002

Online Resource forResidential TenantsTenantNet

™

New York Tenants

on the World Wide Web

http://tenant.netemail: [email protected]

� Met Council’s Tenant/Inquilino newspaper postedmonthly

� News from other NY tenant groups� Fact Sheets & complete Housing Laws� Bulletin Board & e-mail mailing list� Rent Control/Rent Stabilization/DHCR information� Weekly Housing Court Decision summaries

SUPPORT LISTENER SUPPORTED WBAI PUBLIC RADIO

Listen on the Internetwww.wbaifree.org/index.html

WBAI 99.5 FMMondays at 8:00 p.m. on

WBAI 99.5 FM

Scott Sommer hosts Met Council’s

HOUSINGNOTEBOOKHOUSINGNOTEBOOK

Watch

Rent Wars News

the weekly tenants showthat covers the news,

people, and events thataffect New York’s tenants.

BrooklynEvery Monday at 9:30 a.m.and 5:30 p.m.: Time WarnerChannel 34 or Cablevision

Channel 67

Manhattan

Every Sunday at 6 p.m.:Time Warner Ch. 67 or RCNCh. 110. Without converter:

Time Warner Ch. 16or RCN Ch. 110

Also check outwww.rentwars.com

Participate in the RWN Forum,post events, listen to inter-views and specials online,

and read show supplementsthat go deeper into the

stories covered on the show.

request for a rent increase undersection 513a of the ETPA. TheDHCR ruling that 513a did notapply to Westgate led to thelandlord’s filing of an Article 78proceeding in Supreme Court.

One of the biggest hurdles wasgetting “intervenor” status incourt. As the lawsuit was betweenthe landlord and DHCR, the ten-ants did not have an automaticright to be heard on the case with-out permission from the court.But they argued that as the out-come was critical to their lives,they wanted a place at the table—and won it.

Westgate was one of the firstproperties to leave the Mitchell-Lama program in the currentwave of buyouts. As such, much ofwhat happened here will serve asprecedent for those that follow.For the tenants, there was noclear path.

Jean Dorsey is president of theWestgate Tenant Association.

At Westgate, we knew that thefight to keep our homes affordablewould take place on severalfronts, and to win we’d have toidentify and use every availableresource. Those fronts are:

• Legal. Without strong, knowl-edgeable representation, youprobably cannot win in thisarena, because it is not aboutwhat’s right or correct, it isabout the law.

• Political. Everything about af-fordable housing reeks of poli-tics. Just think a minute, whydid the New York City urbanrenewal plan allow four guysfrom Long Island with mini-mum development experiencethe ownership rights, with ac-companying promise of profits,loan guarantees, tax credits,etc., to an extraordinary pieceof Manhattan real estate? Donot even talk about a level play-ing field—we did not evenknow there was a game!Here is a place where votes can

count, and that is why renew-ing the rent laws is so impor-tant. An election year is one ofthe only times where the mightof the vote can equal or evenoutweigh money.

There are politicians who willhelp you win this fight. It is impor-tant to get to know who they are.What can they do? They can: spon-sor legislation, access public docu-ments, get the attention ofagencies like the Buildings De-partment, give valuable adviceabout your plans, and help yourally your team. Plan to work withthem and reward them with yoursupport.• Organizational. You cannot

sustain this kind of a fight with-out the support of a significantgroup of the tenants. Here youwill need every bit of manage-rial talent, patience, focus andgrace that you can muster.Working with a group of volun-teers is always a challenge;couple that with the prospectof losing your home (a stressup there with death and di-vorce) if you do not succeed,and you have an idea of what isahead. Know that the only ul-timatum you can give for sureis to the face in your mirror,and get to work.

• Plan to cover all of the tenantsin your complex with the workof your association. This can bea bitter pill when some peopledo not support the work, eventhough you think they could orshould. It is a far better position

than allowing for the creationof “us” and “them” factions,which will weaken your fight.

• No secrets! Take no joy frombeing the only one who reallyknows what is happening. Thisis weight that you should notand do not need to carry. Shareinformation with as many aswill listen. It makes your jobeasier and lightens your bur-den.

• Listen to folks who disagree—every good thought does nothave to originate with you oryour team. Mutual respect willallow for an exchange of ideasand information that can helpyou win.

• Keep the lines of communica-tions open. Publish a newslet-ter; hold general meetings,sponsor social and fund-raisingevents so that everyone canhave the opportunity to listenand be heard, participate andwork together. Someone canwrite, another edits and an-other make copies, kids can dothe distribution, and otherteams can be part of otherprojects.

We did it all. And many of us arenow much more than neighbors,we’re family—with all of the issuesinherent in such relationships.

—Jean Dorsey

Westgatecontinued from page 1

Westgate: How Tenants Won

HPD CODE VIOLATIONS ON LINELook up your building!

At long last, the HPD violations terminal is available on-line.If you go to the HPD Website listed below and follow

the instructions, you should be able to getan up-to-date list of violations on a building.

www.nyc.gov/html/hpd/html/data/hpd-online-portal.html

July 2002 — TENANT/INQUILINO 3Viviendas para el pueblo, no para lucrarse

Los Ajustes de la “Junta de Regulación de Renta” de la Ciudad de Nueva York(Orden No. 34)

Para los contratos de apartamentos de Renta Estabilizada que comienzan el 1ro. de octubre de 2002 hasta el 30 de

septiembre de 2003, incluyendo las concesiones de Pataki adoptadas por la Legislatura Estatal el 19 de junio de 1997

Los topes de renta que apa-recen en el cuadro son los incre-mentos máximos que losdueños de edificios pueden co-brar legalmente por los aparta-mentos de renta estabilizada enla ciudad de Nueva York. Sonválidos para todos los contratosque comienzan dentro del perío-do de doce meses a partir del1ro. de octubre de 2002. Los in-crementos de alquiler basadosen las pautas para la renovacióndel contrato de 1 o 2 años pue-den cobrarse solamente una vezdurante el período cubierto pordichas pautas, y deben ser apli-cados a la renta legal estabi-lizada para el 30 de septiembrede 2002. Las cantidades queaparecen en el cuadro y los in-crementos para los aparta-mentos vacíos no se aplican alos apartamentos que estabansujetos a renta controlada enaquella fecha. No se permite lasobrecarga también conocidocomo el «impuesto de pobres.»

Los Contratos para Apar-tamentos Vacíos o NuevosEn junio de 1997, el gobernadorGeorge Pataki, al intentar des-truir la regulación de rentas,forzó cambios que les dieron alos caseros una sobrecarga muygrande por los apartamentos va-cíos. Una cláusula de la “Refor-ma al Acta de Regulación deRenta” de 1997 permite que losnuevos alquileres seanincrementados en un porcenta-je obligatorio: 20% para un con-trato de dos años, y por uncontrato de 1 año, 20% de incre-mento menos la diferencia en eltope de renovación para los con-tratos de 1 y 2 años. La nueva leypermite también incrementosadicionales para los apartamen-tos vacíos donde no se habíancobrado incrementos pordesocupación por ocho años omás.

Exceso de Cobro Losinquilinos deben estar al tantode que muchos caseros van aaprovecharse de la complejidadde estas regulaciones y sub-venciones, así como del pococonocimiento de los inquilinosdel historial de renta de sus apar-

tamentos, para cobrar un alquilerilegal. Una vez que el inquilinohaya tomado posesión delapartamento, puede escogerentre llenar un formulario dequeja de exceso de cobro derenta con la oficina de la Divisiónde Vivienda y Renovación Comu-nal (DHCR), o disputar la canti-dad de la renta en la corte devivienda de la ciudad para que sedetermine cuál es el alquiler le-gal.

Si un posible inquilino damuestras de conocer sus dere-chos, lo más probable es que elcasero no firmará ningún contra-to con tal inquilino. Los caserosevitan contratar con inquilinosque les pueden dar problemas.El exceso de cobro de alquileres muy común. Todos los inqui-linos deben luchar contra posi-bles excesos de cobro. Obtengay llene un formulario Form RA-89

con la oficina de DHCR paradeterminar el alquiler correctoen los archivos oficiales. Llamea la DHCR a (718) 739-6400para obtener un formulario, obúsquelo en el sitiowww.dhcr.state.ny.us.

La Apelación de la Renta deMercado Justa Otro tipo deexceso de cobro sucede fre-

cuentemente cuando se vacía unapartamento que previamenteestaba sujeto a renta controladay se alquila con rentaestabilizada. La Junta de Regula-ción de Renta (RGB) estableceanualmente lo que ellos llaman el“Tope Especial de la Renta deMercado Justa,” el cual esempleado por la DHCR parabajar las rentas de mercado in-justas de los inquilinos que llenanel formulario llamado “Apelacióna la Renta Justa de Mercado”(FMRA). Según la Orden 34, es laRenta de Mercado Justa de HUDo un 50% sobre la renta basemáxima. Ningún inquilino de unapartamento de renta estabi-lizada que fue descontrolado el1ro de abril de 1984 o despuésdebe dejar de poner a prueba lallamada “Renta Legal Inicial Re-gulada” (renta de mercado) quelos caseros cobran cuando haydescontrol del apartamento. Useel formulario de DHCR Form RA-

89. Indique claramente que suqueja es tanto una queja de “Ape-lación a la Renta Justa de Merca-do” como de “exceso de cobro.”La corte de vivienda no puede to-mar decisión sobre unaApelación de Renta de Mercado.Apartamentos vacíos que antes

Unidades de Desván(Lofts) Los incrementos legalessobre la renta base para lasunidades de desván son de un 1por ciento por un contrato de unaño y un 2 por ciento por uncontrato de dos años. No sepermiten incrementos para lasunidades de desván vacías.

Hoteles y Apartamentosde una Sola Habitación Nohabrá ningún aumento de larenta este año para los aparta-mentos de hotel de Clase A, ca-sas de habitaciones, hoteles declase B (de 30 habitaciones omás), hoteles de una sola habi-tación, y las casas de habitacio-nes (Clase B, 6-29 cuartos). Nose permiten incrementos paraapartamentos vacíos.

La Desregulación deRentas Altas y AltosIngresos (1) Los apartamentosque legalmente se alquilan por$2,000 o más por mes y que sedesocuparon entre el 7 de juliode 1993 y el 1ro. de octubre de1993, o en o desde del 1ro deabril de 1994 son sujetos a ladesregulación. (2) La mismadesregulación se les aplica,para el mismo período estable-cido en (1), a los apartamentosque legalmente pagan $2,000o más mensualmente aunqueno se desocupen, si el ingresototal de la familia es más de$175,000 en los dos años con-secutivos previos. Para cum-plir los requisitos de estasegunda forma de desregula-ción, el casero tiene que en-viarle un formulario de cer-tificación de ingreso al inquili-no entre el 1ro de enero y el 1rode mayo, así como someterdicho formulario al DHCR yconseguir su aprobación.

Para pautas previas, llame a laRGB al 212-385-2934 obusque el sitio www.hous-ingnyc.com.

estaban controlados en edificiosque se han convertido encooperativas o condominios nose vuelven estabilizados y nosatisfacen los requisitos para laApelación de la Renta Justa deMercado.

Exención de Incrementospara las Personas de MayorEdad: Las personas de 62 añoso más que viven en apartamen-tos estabilizados y cuyos ingre-sos familiares anuales son de$20,000 o menos, y que pagan(o enfrentan un incremento dealquiler que los forzaría a pagar)una renta de un tercio o más desus ingresos, pueden tener dere-cho al programa de Exención deIncrementos para las Personasde Mayor Edad (SCRIE, por sussiglas en inglés), si aplican alDepartamento de la Ciudad deNueva York Sobre las Personasde Mayor Edad, cuya direcciónes: SCRIE Unit, 2 LafayetteStreet, NY, NY 10007. Si el alqui-ler actual de un inquilino que tie-ne derecho a este programasobrepasa un tercio del ingreso,no se lo puede reducir, pero esposible evitar incrementos dealquiler en el futuro. Obtenga elformulario de SCRIE por llamar al(212) 442-1000.

pasa a la página 4

Contrato de 1 Año

Incrementos por desocupacíon cobrados

en los últimos 8 años

Contratospara

Aparta-mentosVacíos

Más de$500

Menos de$300

Rentade $300 a

$500

Incrementos pordesocupacíon cobradosen los últimos 8 años

Incrementos pordesocupacíon no cobrados


Incrementos pordesocupacíon cobradosen los últimos 8 años

Incrementos pordesocupacíon no cobrados en

los últimos 8 años

Incrementos pordesocupacíon no cobrados


18% 20%

0.6% por el número de añosdesde el último incremento por

estar vacío, más el 18%

18% + $100 20% + $100

18% o $100,lo que sea mayor

20% o $100,lo que sea mayor


estar vacío, más el 20%


estar vacío, mas 18%,o $100, lo que sea mayor


estar vacío, mas 20%, o $100, lo que sea mayor


estar vacío, + 18% + $100

0.6% por el número de añosdesde el último incremento

por estar vacío, + 20% + $100

Renta Legal ActualTipo de Contrato Contrato de 2 Años

Renovacióndel Contrato

E L I N Q U I L I N O H I S P A N O

Todas 2% 4%

La votación de la Junta deRegulación de Renta(RGB, por sus siglas eninglés) el 27 de junio fue elescenario de más debatesy una asistencia de inqui-linos más grande y másruidoso desde hace años.Más de 150 inquilinos,coreando “Que disminu-yan las rentas” llenaron lasala en el sótano de la Casade Aduanas Estaduni-dense en Bowling Green,a pesar de retrasos hastade 20 minutos por esperar

su turno en el detector demetales.

Sin embargo, como su-cedió en mayo, la juntarechazó los llamados de losinquilinos para disminuir ocongelar las rentas, votan-do 7 a 2 para permitir in-crementos de 2 por cientopara una renovación de uncontrato de un año y 4 porciento para renovacionesde 2 años en apartamen-tos de renta estabilizada.Los desvanes recibirán in-crementos de 1 y 2 por

ciento, y no habrá sobre-carga de “impuesto depobres” en apartamentosde alquileres bajos.

“Ha sido una derrotamuy grande,” comentódespués de la reunión larepresentante de inquili-nos Adriene Holder. “Esteaño se debió hacer unacorrección. La junta emi-tió el mensaje de que noimporta lo que pase, loscaseros siempre recibiránincrementos.”

Los inquilinos obtuvie-

ron una victoria cuando lajunta votó para congelarlas rentas en hoteles yapartamentos de una solahabitación (SROs, por sussiglas en inglés), en lugardel incremento de 2 porciento propuesto enmayo. La votación – losrepresentantes públicosAgustin Rivera, BartCarmody y Mort Starobin,junto con los dos represen-tantes de los inquilinos –sorprendió obviamente alpresidente de la RGB,

Marvin Markus. Minutosdespués de haber denun-ciado la congelación como“totalmente ilógica,” votópor ella, y en seguida anun-ció un receso.

El voto de Markus a favorde la congelación fue untruco de procedimiento;cuando la junta regresó, élanunció que bajo las reglasde orden de Robert(Robert’s Rules of Order)él tenía derecho de propo-

Otro aumento de rentasRGB rechaza las peticiones

a gritos para que disminuya las rentasPor Steven Wishnia

Traducido por Lightning Translations


RGBviene de la página 3

ner, como “miembro de la mayo-ría,” una reconsideración. Surgióun coro de “no a otro voto.” Unhombre gritó “¡Corrupto!” Eneste momento, con el voto nega-tivo de Markus, la congelaciónpasó 5 a 4.

Era la primera vez que la RGBhabía rescindido un incrementopreliminar para los hoteles, co-mentó Terry Poe del Proyecto deLeyes sobre SROs del Lado Oeste(West Side SRO Law Project).

Esto preparó el escenario para eldebate sobre las rentas de aparta-mentos. El representante de losinquilinos David Pagan, señalandoque este año es la primera vez queel índice de precios de costosoperativos (PIOC, por sus siglas eninglés) de la RGB mostraba la dis-minución de gastos de los caseros,propuso una reducción de rentas,3.5 por ciento para contratos deun año y 1.75 para contratos de dosaños. “A los propietarios les fuebien el año pasado,” recalcó. “Aunasí, buscamos excusas para au-mentos de 2 por ciento o más.”

Holder ofreció una letanía decifras para apoyar una disminu-ción: Los ingresos de los caseroshan aumentado un 3.5 por ciento;sus ingresos netos antes de ladeuda aumentaron hasta el 44 porciento del total; tres octavos de losniños de la ciudad viven en la po-breza; hay una cifra record de 33mil personas en refugios paradesamparados. “No hay base ni enla lógica ni en la política para incre-mentar las rentas este año,” dijo.“Esto influye en todos los aspec-tos de nuestra vida aquí en la ciu-dad de Nueva York. La RGB no hahecho más que pasar por alto laincapacidad de los inquilinos parapagar sus rentas.”

Pero mientras los inquilinos enla multitud coreaban, la junta votó7 a 2 contra la disminución. Enton-ces Holder y Pagan lo intentaronotra vez, proponiendo una dismi-nución ligeramente más pequeña,2.3 por ciento y 1 por ciento, conlos mismos resultados. También seencontraron votando solos cuan-do propusieron una congelaciónde rentas.

El representante público DavidRubenstein – en tal vez su prime-ra contribución a un debate públi-co en sus tres períodos con la RGB– dijo que votaría contra la conge-lación porque el “PIOC principal”de los caseros (costos de operaciónsin costos de combustible) aumen-tó este año. Esto se convirtió en unmantra común entre los represen-tantes públicos para justificar susvotos, con Carmody y Starobinofreciendo explicaciones similares.

La gran diferencia de este añofue la cantidad de debate de los re-presentantes públicos que no fue-ran el presidente. Durante elgobierno de Giuliani, los cuatro deellos siempre permanecían mudosmientras los representantes de losinquilinos y los caseros hicieronpropuestas quijotescas para suslados respectivos, y después endo-saron un incremento promedio sinuna palabra de discusión. Mientrasse enojaban constantemente porla amplia creencia que nada más

dieron la aprobación automáticapara incrementos dictados porGiuliani, su comportamiento nomostró nada para desmentirla.Este año, Rivera mantuvo la ma-yor parte del argumento para un in-cremento de 0 por ciento en losSROs, señalando que ningún pro-pietario de hoteles se había presen-tado para testificar a favor de unincremento.

El debate fue más acalorado enel tema de pautas especiales, larenta que la Agencia Estatal deVivienda y Renovación de la Comu-nidad (DHCR, por sus siglas eninglés) considera justa para aparta-mentos de renta controlada que sedesocupan. “Un apartamento quese pone fuera de los controles derenta es demasiado,” dijo Holder.

Agustin Rivera le dijo a la multi-tud que él endosaría una pautaespecial más baja que la presenta-da el año pasado, porque el desre-gulación de rentas altas, grandesincrementos a mejoramiento ca-pital y de renovación, y los incre-mentos en apartamentos vacíosdictados por la ley de 1997 habíanconducido a la completa desregu-lación de muchos apartamentos.“Le preguntamos a la DHCR siellos inspeccionan las mejora-mientos en cada uno de los apar-tamentos, y nos dijeron que no,”argumentó. Uno de los represen-tantes de los caseros, añadió, lehabía dicho que “no importa quécantidad fijemos para los aparta-mentos de Manhattan, porque detodos modos van a estar fuera delsistema de controles.”

Esto enojó a los representantesde los caseros, con Vincent Caste-llano denunciándolo como “irre-levante.” Castellano disfrutaevidentemente provocar a los in-quilinos en el público, haciéndo-les callar a gritos durante eltestimonio público y declarandorepetidamente que “la vivienda enNueva York se encuentra entre lasmás asequibles de la nación.”

Finalmente, la RGB votó 6 a 3 porla propuesta de Marvin Markuspara fijar las pautas especiales a 50por ciento sobre la Renta BaseMáxima o a la “renta justa demercado” federal para el áreametropolitana, lo que sea mayor.Holder argumentó que la normafederal era demasiado alta paramuchos vecindarios, mientrasMarkus declaró que era demasia-do baja. Rivera, el único represen-tante público que votó con losinquilinos en este tema, dijo quefue irrelevante porque “DHCRelige la renta más alta en el edifi-cio” como su norma para evaluarsi habrá un exceso de cobro.

El remplazo de Ed Hochman porMarkus como presidente de laRGB refleja las diferencias entreMike Bloomberg y Rudy Giuliani.Hochman parecía desear tener elcarisma autoritario de Giuliani,perdiendo los estribos rápidamen-te cuando las cosas se ponían difí-ciles. El estilo de Markus es másadministrativo y legal; les dijo demanera condescendiente a losruidosos inquilinos, “No estánayudando a su causa.” Pero enasuntos de importancia parecetan a favor de los caseros como loera Hochman. Markus se enfure-

ció tanto por la votación para noelevar las rentas en hoteles SRO,dijo Holder a Newsday, que “gritóy regañó a los representantes pú-blicos tras bambalinas.”

Y para los inquilinos de aparta-mentos el resulta-do final fue elmismo: otro incre-mento de renta. Apesar del debate,Pagan y Holder seencontraron solosvotando contra laspautas finales. Almismo tiempo quelos inquilinoscoreaban “¡Ver-güenza!”, todos losrepresentantes pú-blicos y de los case-ros dijeron “Sí” al 2por ciento para un año y 4 porciento para dos años, más un 10por ciento de sobrecarga ensubarrendamientos. Starobin jus-tificó su voto por los incrementosdiciendo que las cifras que mos-traban la disminución en los cos-tos de los caseros fueron “malinterpretadas,” que “el PIOCprincipal aumentó de manera im-portante.” Dijo que estaba encontra de un incremento mayorporque los caseros están ganan-do dinero con los incrementos aldesocupar y por renovación, aun-que los propietarios menores es-tán sufriendo pérdidas. “Estoyatónito por lo que la gente estápagando de renta,” añadió.

Los inquilinos, quienes estángastando cada vez una mayor par-te de sus ingresos en rentas aunmayores – tratando de cubrir ren-tas mensuales de cuatro cifras consalarios semanales de tres, inclu-

so bastante fuerade “el corazón deManhattan” – a lomejor no sentirántanta simpatía entorno a los gastosde los caseros. ParaHolder, el temaprincipal es unarenta al alcance delbolsillo. “No pode-mos dejar de decír-selo,” dijo despuésde la reunión.“Vince Castellanodijo, ‘Hablemos del

inquilino promedio.’ Bien, el in-quilino promedio con renta esta-bilizada gana $27,000 al año. El 12por ciento de los caseros poseen70 por ciento de los edificios. Senecesita una corrección.”

La votación deja a los inquilinospreguntándose que harán a con-tinuación. “No hay manera deendulzar esto: nos dejaron peladosuna vez más, a pesar de las estadís-ticas y el escenario del mejor casopara favorecer una disminución delas rentas,” escribió el organizadorde Met Council Dave Powell en uncorreo electrónico dirigido a losactivistas. “Obviamente necesita-mos otra manera de afrontar esteritual anual.”

Rent debt collectors can no longersend tenants a notice of evictionwithout also informing them oftheir rights to challenge that debt,a federal judge ruled last month.

The decision clarifies the land-mark 1998 case of Romea v.Heiberger & Associates, which ex-tended to tenants the rights ofconsumers under the FederalDebt Collections Practices Act.The Romea ruling required thatdebt collectors, upon issuing a 72-hour notice that they will begineviction proceedings for unpaidrent, give tenants notice of theirrights to challenge their debtwithin 30 days. They must alsogive tenants written evidencethat they actually owe the debt,should they request it.

Since that decision, however,some debt collectors and land-lords have tried to skirt those re-quirements by having the landlordsign the eviction notices. Thelandlords, they claim, are not debtcollectors, so the federal law doesnot apply. The result: Tenants un-necessarily spend time andmoney fighting their eviction inhousing court.

But that practice will no longerfly, ruled Judge Richard ConwayCasey of the Southern DistrictCourt in June. Responsibility forinforming residents of theirrights lies with whoever preparesthe eviction notice, said Casey,whether it’s a debt collector or alandlord.

In this latest case, debt collec-tors at the firm of Kucker, Kraus& Bruh argued that they did nothave to give tenants Robert andJessica Dowling notice of theirrights because their landlord, theMissionary Sisters of the SacredHeart, signed the eviction noticefor their Gramercy Park apart-ment. However, because attor-neys at Kucker, Kraus & Bruh bothprepared and mailed the notice,the judge found the firm had vio-lated federal law.

The new ruling will improveconditions for tenants who arebeing treated unfairly, said RobertSokolski, the Dowlings’ attorney.Rather than having to miss workto go to court, he said, a tenant canprove he does not owe rent simplyby mailing the collector a can-celled check.

One landlord advocate called thedecision “bogus.” “It is merelymore costly for landlords to paytheir attorneys for multiple no-tices and more confusing for ten-ants to receive more notices,” saidDan Margulies, executive directorof the Community Housing Im-provement Program.

Sokolski insists, however, thatthere is nothing confusing aboutthe law: “If it’s confusing to ten-ants, then it’s a violation and thedebt collector has done somethingwrong.”

Reprinted with permission fromCity Limits Weekly.

Federal Court ReadsLandlords Tenants’ Rights

By Alex Ulam

SU

SA

N P

OW

ELL

“Rentas demasiado altas”

July 2002 — TENANT/INQUILINO 5

West Side Stadium:Why It’s a Bad Idea

By George Spelvin

New York’s Urban Affairs News Magazine

Organizing � Development

Housing � Community Action

Insight into the politics of poverty, race and urban economics

10 issues a year $25 Two years for $35

120 Wall Street, 20th flr., New York, NY 10005, (212)479-3344

City Limits○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

When the United StatesOlympic Committee(USOC) visited New Yorkearlier this month toevaluate the city as a sitefor the 2012 SummerOlympics with a West SideStadium, Manhattanneighborhood groupscame out protesting.

The USOC’s visit was itslast prior to selecting a UScity to advance to the in-ternational level of com-petition for the 2012Olympic Games. The localorganizing committee,NYC2012, has refused toconsider any sites for astadium other than theWest Side rail yards. Andalthough Mayor Bloom-berg stated in Januarythere was no money fornew “baseball stadiums”and only “not this year,” heis supporting the WestSide stadium plans origi-nally advanced by formerMayor Rudolph Giuliani.

NYC2012’s plan calls for astadium over the rail yards(between 30th and 34thstreets, 10th and 12th av-enues), to be used for theOlympics and as a footballstadium for the New YorkJets. These days DeputyMayor Dan Doctoroff,founder of NYC2012, isclaiming it’s not really astadium, but merely an“expansion of the JacobJavits Convention Center”exhibition space. But noone is fooled.

Integral to NYC2012’splans is the largest land-grab since the days of Rob-ert Moses—a massivedevelopment scheme forup to 20 million square feetof office space (approxi-mately 20-30 skyscrapers)west of Ninth Avenue, ex-tending the #7 subwayline to the Javits, new sta-tions for Metro North andthe Long Island Railroad,moving Madison SquareGarden further west, and ahost of other “improve-ments” to create a new“Central Business District”of corporate campuses andluxury housing on theWest Side.

Using eminent domainand even more funny use ofair rights, the real benefi-ciaries won’t be residentsof the West Side, butDoctoroff ’s pals (andsometimes business part-ners) like developers SteveRoss (Related Companies)and Howard Milstein.Doctoroff reportedly trieda similar scheme once be-fore in Nassau Countywhen he held a minority

interest in the Islandershockey team.

A major problem withthis scheme wrapped inapple-pie-motherhood-pa-triotism is that the vibrantClinton and Chelseaneighborhoods stand inthe way. While they aremixed-use in character,they hardly resemble the“derelict” and “blighted”areas as described byNYC2012. Indeed, manysmall businesses in thearea provide critical sup-port services for largerManhattan corporations.

Estimates are that anadditional 200,000 peoplecould pour into Manhat-tan every day, resulting inmore traffic jams and alarger strain on city ser-vices, and devastating thenearby residential neigh-borhoods. The nearbyPenn South (not-for-profit coop) and Elliot-Chelsea Houses (publichousing) complexes couldend up with pressures toprivatize. Residential andcommercial displacementwould be on a scale notseen in decades.

The cost to the public—for the stadium, extend-ing the #7 subway line toreach it, and other infra-structure—would be bil-lions of dollars, and couldeasily defer other capital-project priorities, such asthe Second Avenue sub-way, the East Side connec-tor and various proposedprojects relating to therebuilding of lower Man-hattan. At a time whenthe city coffers are almostempty and the city/statedebt burden is rising to 20cents on the dollar, thelast thing the city needs isa stadium in Manhattan.

Much of the infrastruc-ture proposed by NYC2012(and echoed by plans fromthe Jets and the Depart-ment of City Planning) onthe West Side anticipatesthe use of governmentaltax-free bonds—up to $5billion worth—secured byfuture tax revenues (tax-increment financing) fromdevelopments they claimmight not otherwise oc-cur. But such tax revenues,speculative at best, wouldbe decades in the future,and would most likely beundercut by tax abate-ments, tax appeals, andpublic funding of the in-centives for commercialtenants that accompanymany new developments.

To generate sufficienttaxes to pay for the city’s

portion of the stadium, thesubway extension, the cov-ering of the massive railyards, etc., taxes wouldneed to be at a level whereit would be uneconomicalto build on the West Side,especially when competingwith other areas that have(or can quickly develop)alternative office space:Downtown, New Jersey,Brooklyn, Long Island Cityand other developing areasin the region.

It could divert revenuefrom the city’s core needs,including basic services orbuilding much-needednew schools. Increased ag-gregate debt burdencould affect the city’sbond rating and forcehigher interest costs. Andthose costs would comeright out of the city’s trea-sury, not some benevolentfootball-team owner.

Underneath the hypeof Olympic glor y, thecost to the city would bestaggering.

On June 29, State Sena-tors Tom Duane and LizKrueger, Assemblymem-ber Richard N. Gottfried,

and CouncilmembersChristine Quinn and GaleBrewer spoke at a pressconference outside thehotel where the USOCmembers planned to stay.“You must change thisflawed plan,” participantsurged the USOC not toconsider any plan that in-cluded a Manhattan sta-dium. Sponsors includedthe Clinton Special DistrictCoalition, MetropolitanCouncil on Housing, Chel-sea Coalition on Housing,Coalition for a Livable WestSide, East Side TenantsCoalition, Ludlow StreetBlock Association, ChelseaOwners and Tenants forNeighborhood Preserva-

tion, 45th and 51st StreetBlock Associations, and theCommittee for Environ-mentally Sound Develop-ment.

Above all, it was stressed,is that the impact of theOlympic Games must beconsidered, not only thedirect impact on the WestSide, but on the pocket-books of taxpayersthroughout the city andon deferred projects else-where.


This rent guidelines tableshows the maximum increaseslandlords in New York City canlegally charge for rent stabilizedapartments on all leases com-mencing in the twelve-month pe-riod beginning October 1, 2002.Increases in rent based on the1- or 2-year renewal guidelinescan be charged only once duringthe period covered by the guide-lines, and must be applied to thelegal stabilized rent on Septem-ber 30, 2002. The above guide-lines and vacancy bonuses donot apply to an apartment whichwas rent controlled on that date.There is no low rent supple-ment, a.k.a. poor tax, allowed.

Sublease AllowanceLandlords can charge a 10 per-cent increase during the term ofa sublease that commencesduring this guideline period.

Vacancy LeasesIn June 1997, Governor GeorgePataki, as a part of his efforts todestroy rent regulation, forcedchanges that gave landlordslarge vacancy bonuses. Provi-sions of his Rent Regulation Re-form Act of 1997 allow the rentsof apartments to rise by a statu-tory percentage: 20 percent for a2-year lease, and 20 percent mi-nus the difference between the 1-and 2-year renewal guidelines for1-year leases. The new law alsoallows additional vacancy in-creases for apartments whichhave had no vacancy allowancein eight or more years.

Rent Overcharges

Tenants should be aware thatmany landlords will exploit thecomplexities of these guidelinesand bonuses, and the tenant’sunfamiliarity with the apartment’srent history, to charge an illegalrent. The tenant can choosebetween filing an overcharge

complaint with the Division ofHousing and Community Re-newal or challenging the rent inHousing Court to get a determi-nation of the legal rent.

A prospective tenant who ex-presses knowledge of theirrights will probably not be given alease to sign. Landlords avoidrenting to tenants who may betroublesome. Overcharging isvery common. Every tenantshould challenge possible over-charge. With DHCR, obtain andfill out Form RA-89 to determinethe correct rent from officialrecords. Call DHCR at (718)739-6400 to obtain the form or goto: www.dhcr.state.ny.us

Fair Market Rent AppealAnother type of overcharge fre-

quently occurs at the time that apreviously rent controlled apart-ment becomes vacant and isre-rented as a stabilized unit.The Rent Guidelines Board an-

nually sets what they call the“Special Fair Market RentGuideline” that is used by DHCRto lower unfair market rents fortenants who file the Fair MarketRent Appeal (FMRA). Under Or-der 34, it is HUD Fair Market Rentor 50% above the maximumbase rent. No stabilized tenant ofan apartment that was decon-trolled on or after April 1, 1984should fail to challenge theso-called Initial Legal RegulatedRent (market rent) that land-lords charge upon decontrol.Use DHCR Form RA-89. Indi-cate clearly that your complaintis both a complaint of “over-charge” and “Fair Market RentAppeal.” The Housing Courtcannot determine a Fair MarketRent Appeal. Formerly con-trolled vacant apartments inbuildings converted to co-ops orcondos do not become stabi-lized and are not eligible for a FairMarket Rent Appeal.

Senior Citizen RentIncrease Exemption

Rent stabilized seniors, 62years or older, whose dispos-able annual household incomeis $20,000 or less and who pay(or face a rent increase thatwould cause them to pay)one-third or more of that in-come in rent may be eligible fora Senior Citizen Rent IncreaseExemption (SCRIE) if they applyto the NYC Dept of the Aging,SCRIE Unit at 2 LafayetteStreet, NY, NY 10007. If an oth-erwise eligible tenant’s currentrent level is already aboveone-third of income, it cannotbe rolled back, but future rentincreases may be avoided. Ob-tain the SCRIE application formby calling (212) 442-1000.

Loft Units

Legalized loft unit increasesabove the base rent are 1 per-cent for a one-year lease and 2

percent for two years. No va-cancy allowance is permittedon vacant lofts.

Hotels and SROs There will be no rent increasesthis year for Class A apartmenthotels, lodging houses, Class Bhotels (30 rooms or more), singleroom occupancy (SROs) hotels,and rooming houses (Class B,6-29 rooms). No vacancy allow-ance is permitted.

High-rent, High-income

Deregulation(1) Apartments legally rentingfor $2,000 or more a month thatbecame vacant from July 7,1993 through October 1, 1993,or on April 1, 1994 and thereaf-ter are subject to deregulation.(2) The same deregulation ap-plies in the time periods setforth in (1) above to apartmentslegally renting for $2,000 ormore a month without their be-coming vacant if the totalhousehold income exceeds$175,000 in each of the priortwo consecutive years. To beeligible for this second form ofderegulation, the landlord mustsend an income certificationform to the tenant betweenJanuary 1 and May 1 and file itwith and get the approval ofDHCR.

For previous guidelines call theRGB at 212-385-2934 or go towww.housingnyc.com.

NYC Rent Guidelines Board Adjustments (Order No. 34)

for Rent Stabilized Leases commencing Oct. 1, 2002 through Sept. 30, 2003, including

the Pataki vacancy bonuses adopted by the State Legislature on June 19, 1997

Vacancy allowance chargedwithin last 8 yearsVacancy

leases

Morethan$500

Less than$300

Rent$300 to

$500

Vacancy allowance chargedwithin last 8 years

No vacancy allowancecharged within last 8 years

Vacancy allowance chargedwithin last 8 years



18% 20%

0.6% times number of yearssince last vacancy

allowance, plus 18%

18% plus $100 20% plus $100

18% or $100,whichever is greater

20% or $100,whichever is greater

0.6% times number of yearssince last vacancy

allowance, plus 20%

0.6% times number of yearssince last vacancy allowance,

plus 18%, or $100,whichever is greater

0.6% times number of yearssince last vacancy allowance,

plus 20%, or $100,whichever is greater

0.6% times number of yearssince last vacancy allow–ance,

plus 18% plus $100

0.6% times number of yearssince last vacancy allow–ance,

plus 20% plus $100

Current Legal RentLease Type One-year Lease Two-year Lease

RenewalLeases

All 2% 4%

In the latest chapter of a26-year legal saga challeng-ing racial discrimination insouth Williamsburg hous-ing projects, the city Hous-ing Authority and Hispanicand Hasidic advocacy orga-nizations last monthreached a settlement thatwill toughen monitoringof tenants moving in andout of the buildings, andrequire that more blackand Hispanic families bemoved in.

The agreement settlesan action brought by thePuerto Rican Legal De-fense Fund, which firstsued the city over housingdiscrimination in 1976. Inits most recent challenge,PRLDEF argued thatNYCHA’s lax monitoringdoomed an earlier agree-ment that was supposed tobring more Hispanic andblack families into threepredominantly Hasidichousing projects: BedfordGardens, Jonathan Will-

iams Plaza and Taylor-Wythe Houses. The city’slack of oversight amount-ed to “an informal policy ofreplacing Hasidic familieswith Hasidic families andmaintaining strict racialquotas,” said MartyNeedelman, chief counselfor Brooklyn Legal Ser-vices Corporation A, whoworked on the lawsuitsuntil 1995.

Both NYCHA andPRLDEF confirmed they’dreached an agreement,but would not commentuntil the settlement is for-mally approved by thecourts.

Under the agreement,NYCHA will offer Section 8housing vouchers to thefirst 150 families who vol-unteer to leave theirhomes in the three hous-ing developments and lookfor affordable apartmentson the open market. Theagency agreed to then rentthose empty apartments

primarily to minority fami-lies from Williamsburg onthe city’s long waiting listfor public housing. In addi-tion, the settlement man-dates that the city notifyboth PRLDEF and theUnited Jewish Organiza-tion of Williamsburg—which has been advocatingon behalf of the Hasidicfamilies in the buildings-each time an apartmenttransfer takes place.

Minority families andadvocates have been bat-tling with NYCHA overtheir Williamsburg housingpolicies for decades. WhenPRLDEF first filed suit, thegroup alleged that the citywas granting preference toHasidic applicants for openapartments in the threebuildings. They discoveredthat, at that time, theHousing Authority hadquotas to fill between 60%and 75% of the apartmentswith white tenants. In1978, a federal judge or-

dered the Housing Author-ity to stop using quotas,but PRLDEF continued itslitigation, seeking a rem-edy for previous decades ofdiscrimination. Its firstagreement with the city,reached in 1980, tempo-rarily gave preference toblack and Hispanic familiesseeking open apartments,and moved to ultimatelymake the approval processcolor-blind.

That did not quite hap-pen, though. Nine yearslater, they returned tocourt and got the city toagree to place nonwhitefamilies in the next 190available apartments.

While NYCHA did fulfill thatrequirement, the ratio ofHasidic to Hispanic familiesremained the same, ac-cording to Needelman. Soin 2000, PRLDEF returnedto court to pursue the lat-est deal. Needelman is cau-tiously optimistic aboutthe outcome: “It’s very dis-appointing that the cityand the Housing Authoritydidn’t get the messagethat discrimination and fa-voritism in housing aren’tacceptable. And now? Weshall see.”

Reprinted with permis-sion from City LimitsWeekly.

Williamsburg Discrimination Settlement?By Matt Pacenza

Attention All On-line!

If you have an e-mail address, join the

Met Council “ACTIVE! list.” We’ll send you alerts

about demonstrations, hearings and other activities.

Simply send us a message,

subject heading “subscribe”, to:

[email protected]


With six and a half years of land-lord-sympathetic control of thestate rent regulatory agency, theDivision of Housing and Commu-nity Renewal, under GovernorPataki, tenants must watch theirstep as never before.

At least once every two years,rent-stabilized tenants renewtheir leases. The landlord mustoffer a new lease between 90 and150 days before the old one ex-pires. If the landlord doesn’t offerit on time, the tenant can havethe renewal date be either the dayafter the old lease expires or 90days after the offer.

Frequently, the landlord pulls afast one and tries to get the ten-ant to sign a lease that violates oneor more of their rights. For ex-ample, a renewal lease may be of-fered late, and/or have a unlawfulcommencement date; be retroac-tive and require the tenant to paya retroactive rent hike; includeunlawful riders or request infor-mation that is strictly the tenant’sprivate business; exclude the re-quired “tenants’ rights rider”; ei-ther misapply the applicable rentadjustments or use the wrongbase rent; or be treated as in forceby the landlord without the ten-ant receiving a copy signed by thelandlord or his agent. A Rule: Donot agree to go to the landlord’soffice to renew your lease, or todemands for your immediate sig-nature at your door.

Generally, stabilized leases mustbe renewed on the same terms, orbetter terms for the tenant, asthe lease they signed when theymoved in. So that means if a land-lord either inserts clauses or rid-ers that are to his advantage, orexcludes previous provisions thatwere beneficial to the tenant,those changes are null and void,and not enforceable when a dis-pute arises. Of course, the prob-lem with this is that many a tenantconsiders the entire current leaseto be valid, whether it is or not. ARule: Analyze every aspect of therenewal offer carefully early in the60-day consideration period.

The law allows only two landlord-oriented provisions added to a re-newal lease: (1) the right to adjustthe lease terms or rent by order ofthe DHCR or the Rent GuidelinesBoard, and (2) the imposition ofthe subsequently adopted rentguideline when the lease is ex-ecuted during a period when theguideline is unknown or pendingfinal adoption. These provisionsare preprinted on the two-pagestate-authorized form (RTP-8)that is the only renewal form al-lowed under rent stabilization. ARule: Don’t agree to unauthorizedriders, give the landlord privateinformation, or accept any re-newal form other than the RTP-8.

Tenants should realize thatthey don’t lose any rights by nothaving a current lease. Theirrights are in the rent laws. Leasesunder rent stabilization are super-fluous landlord-oriented docu-ments superimposed onto therent-stabilization laws to provide

landlords with the opportunity tointimidate their tenants. Thechief intimidation is, of course,the fear of eviction growing out ofthe commonplace belief that,without a lease, the tenant losesthe right of security of tenure.

Rent-controlled tenants knowbetter. Because that law does nottie rent adjustments in any way toleases, most landlords neverbother to ask the rent-controlledtenant to renew their lease, al-though the landlord has the rightto in the law. Landlord lobbyistsadded leases to the bill that cre-ated rent stabilization to empowerlandlords. Without leases, rents ofall stabilized tenants could be ad-justed annually or biannually with-out the trouble, pain and abuse.Nothing else would change, andlandlords would lose a big weapon.

So the question for the rent-sta-bilized tenant becomes: How canI prevent my landlord from usingthis “lease renewal” process—think “lease intimidation” pro-cess—as a bludgeon to take awaymy rights? First, know or informyourself of your rights. Second,seek the information you needwhen the landlord makes the re-newal offer, not at the last minutewhen your 60-day considerationperiod is about up. Third, respondto the landlord’s tricks in a way thatleaves a paper trail that says you arepursuing your rights. A Rule: Seekhelp from trustworthy sources—a citywide tenants association likeMet Council, a local tenants orga-nization, a pro-tenant local legisla-tor, or a tenant (not landlord)lawyer, if you can afford one. Be-ware of advice from DHCR.

What if the landlord does notsend you a renewal offer? The lawsays he cannot raise your rent, andthat his duty to offer you a renewalsimply continues. The tenant hasno obligations until the landlordmakes a proper offer. A tenantwithout a lease renewal becomesa month-to-month stabilized ten-ant with the same rights, and oneadvantage: The rent stays the sameas under the expired lease. A Rule:Don’t pay any unauthorized renthikes tacked on to your rent bill asa month-to-month tenant.

Back to a landlord’s improperrenewal offer. Besides writing toyour landlord to register yourobjections to the lease offer, youmay want to file a complaint withthe DHCR on their Form RA-90,Tenant’s Complaint of Owner’sFailure to Renew Lease and/orFailure to Furnish a Copy of aSigned Lease. This is usually onlyadvisable when the dispute threat-ens to go to Housing Court. DHCRdecisions often ignore the ten-ant-protection provisions in thelaw and code. However, filing withDHCR shows an extra level of se-riousness on your part to resolvethe issues in your favor, even if youdistrust DHCR. A Rule: Alwaysretain copies of all documents,and use regular mail with smallerlandlords and managing agents;they often will not accept certifiedmail, as it usually means trouble.Certified is good with DHCR.

It is potentially an evictable of-fense to ignore a lease offer. In thepast, few landlords, and very fewjudges, wanted to enforce thetenant’s failure to renew a leaserule through eviction. But times,

if you hadn’t noticed, havechanged, and all those tenantswith desirable apartments andeven remotely affordable rents aretargets in the great landlord rushto decontrol any vacant apart-ment rentable for $2,000 or morea month. More common landlordclaims are illegal subletting andnon-primary residence.

In a recent case, a tenant triedto escape eviction by claiming thelandlord had no right to give no-tice of non-renewal of lease on thegrounds of non-primary resi-dence because the tenant had nocurrent lease. The tenant hadrefused to sign the prior renewallease offer because the landlordhad used her married name on theform. But the tenant then com-menced to pay the rent increaseauthorized by the lease she re-fused to sign. A state appeals courtfound that the tenant had a leasebecause of her agreement to theincrease, without a fully-executedor “delivered” document. Youcan’t have it both ways.

If you dispute a renewal, youcan’t agree to other parts not indispute to prove your “goodfaith.” This may “deem” the leaseyou dispute into existence. Infact, the rent-stabilization codechanges adopted in December2000 allow a lease to go into effectby the tenant merely ignoring therenewal offer, if the landlord letsthem stay—though the landlordalso has the option to commencean eviction action in court. Thelesson here is to dispute improperlease-renewal offers right awayand in writing. Don’t give the land-lord the opportunity to define thedispute his way.

Lease Renewal Disputes: A GuideBy William Rowen

community center, which the cityauctioned off to developer GreggSinger for $3.15 million in 1998,its members have hoped to builda new, smaller center on the oldschoolyard next door to theirformer home on Ninth Street, thevery lot NYCHA now wants devel-oped. Community Board 3 andCHARAS maintain that the boardissued the group site control ofthe property a year and a half ago.The Housing Authority, however,asserts that the mayor gave theagency control of the site inMarch 2000.

To continue its support of thecommunity center, the commu-nity board’s housing committeelast month voted to send NYCHAa letter asking that the agencyremove the Ninth Street lot fromits plans.

“We have to build housing, butwe also need a community facil-ity,” said CHARAS executive direc-tor Carlos “Chino” Garcia, notingthat his group helped reconstructthe first sweat-equity low-incomebuilding in the city in 1973. Hiscurrent plan, which he estimateswould cost about $5 million, wouldinclude a theater, communityrooms, computer labs and artists’space.

In its struggle to find a new home,CHARAS, the East Village commu-nity center that suffered a highlypublicized eviction in December,now finds itself up against a cityplan for the very thing the groupestablished itself on nearly threedecades ago: developing affordablehousing.

The New York City Housing Au-thority (NYCHA) recently issued arequest for proposals to developtwo new apartment houses on va-cant lots on East Seventh andNinth streets. The plan, which alsoincludes renovations of the city’sthree Fabria House buildings on11th Street, would produce at least58 one- to three-bedroom apart-ments. Thirty-nine of those homeswill be reserved for tenants withSection 8 vouchers, which allowtheir low-income holders to payjust 30% of their income on rent.(Fabria tenants, who have longendured their buildings’ faultyplumbing and wiring along with de-teriorating stairways and fire es-capes, will get first dibs.) Theremaining 19 apartments will rentfor market rate. The winning de-veloper will get a 99-year lease onthe properties.

This plan came as a shock toCHARAS. Since the group lost its

Charas Finds New Home: Housing Authority Wants LotBut the city says it is moving full

steam ahead with its housing plans.This project is invaluable, saidNYCHA spokesperson HowardMarder, because it “preserves 39units at no cost to NYCHA or thecity, and it furthers the goal ofdeconcentrating poverty by creat-ing a mixed-income development.”This development would mark thefirst time the agency has builthousing that mixes Section 8 andmarket-rate apartments. Bids aredue by September 13, and NYCHAplans to relocate the 27 familiescurrently living in Fabria to thehousing development of theirchoice, or to give them Section 8vouchers to live elsewhere. Reno-vations are slated for completion inJanuary 2005, and the new build-ings in August of that year.

Before construction gets under-way, however, NYCHA will firstneed to go to through the city’sland-use-review process to getapproval to build on the vacantlots. The first stop: CommunityBoard 3. CB3’s housing commit-tee plans to invite NYCHA officialsto present their plan to the boardat its July meeting.

— Jill GrossmanReprinted with permission from

City Limits Weekly.


Join Met CouncilMembership: Individual, $25 per year; Low-income, $15 per year; family(voluntary: 2 sharing an apartment), $30 per year. Supporting, $40 peryear. Sustaining, min. of $100 per year (indicate amount of pledge). Foraffiliation of community or tenant organizations, large buildings, tradeunions, etc. call 212-979-6238.

Name

Address Apt. No.

City State Zip

Home Phone Number Emai l

Send your check or money order with this form to:Metropolitan Council on Housing, 339 Lafayette St., NY, NY 10012

My apartment is � controlled � stabilized � unregulated � other_____________

� I am interested in volunteering my time to Met Council. Please call me to scheduletimes and duties. I can � counsel tenants, � do office work, � lobby public officials,� attend rallies/protests.

LOWER MANHATTAN

LOFT TENANTSSt. Margaret’s House, Pearl & Fulton

Sts., 212-539-3538

Wednesdays ..................... 6 pm-7 pm

VILLAGE INDEPENDENT

DEMOCRATS26 Perry St. (basement), 212-741-2994

Wednesdays ..................... 6 pm-7:30 pm

WEST SIDE TENANTS UNION200 W. 72nd St. Room 63; 212-595-1274

Tuesday & Thursday ............... 2-5 pm

Tuesday and Wednesday ... 6-7:45 pm

LOWER EAST SIDE BRANCH at

Cooper Square Committee61 E. 4th St. (btwn. 2nd Ave. & Bowery)

Tuesdays ............................... 6:30 pm

Note: This office closes for the

month of August.

CHELSEA COALITION ON HOUSINGCovers 14th St. to 30th St., 5th Ave. to the

Hudson River.

322 W. 17th St. (basement), CH3-0544

Thursdays ............................... 7:30 pm

GOLES (Good Old Lower East Side)525 E. 6th St. (btwn. Aves. A & B) Lower

East Side tenants only, 212-533-2541.

HOUSING COMMITTEE OF RENACovers 135th St. to 165th St. from

Riverside Dr. to St. Nicholas Ave.,

544 W. 157th St. (basement entrance).

Thursdays ...................................8 pm

WHERE TO GO FOR HELP

METROPOLITANCOUNCIL

ON HOUSINGMet Council is a citywide tenant union.

Our phones are open to the publicMondays, Wednesdays & Fridays from 1:30 to 5 p.m.

We can briefly answer your questions, help you with

organizing or refer you to other help.

212-979-0611

RGBcontinued from page 1

poverty; a record 33,000 people inhomeless shelters. “There is nobasis in logic or public policy for arent increase this year,” she said.“It’s an issue in every aspect of ourlives here in New York City. TheRGB has all but ignored the inabil-ity of tenants to pay rents.”

But as the tenants in the crowdchanted, the board voted 7-2against the rollback. Holder andPagan then tried a slightly smallerrollback, 2.3% and 1%, with thesame result. They also foundthemselves voting alone whenthey proposed a rent freeze.

Public member David Rubin-stein—in perhaps his first contri-bution to public debate in histhree seasons on the RGB—saidhe would vote against the freezebecause landlords’ “core PIOC”(operating expenses without fuelcosts) was up this year. That was acommon mantra among the pub-lic members to justify their votes,with Carmody and Starobin offer-ing similar explanations.

The amount of debate from thepublic members other than thechair was the biggest differencethis year. During the Giuliani ad-ministration, the four of themwould invariably sit mute whiletenant and landlord representa-tives offered up quixotic proposalsfor their respective sides, thenendorse an increase somewherein the middle without a word of dis-cussion. While they were oftenangered by the widespread beliefthat they were simply rubber-stamping increases dictated byGiuliani, their behavior did noth-ing to disprove it. This year, Riveracarried most of the argument fora 0% increase on the SROs, point-ing out that not one hotel ownerhad shown up to testify in favor ofan increase.

The debate was most heated onthe issue of special guidelines, therent the state Division of Housingand Community Renewal consid-ers fair for rent-controlled apart-ments becoming vacant. “Oneapartment taken out of rent con-trols is too many,” said Holder.

Agustin Rivera told the crowdthat he would endorse a lower

special guideline than the onegiven last year, because high-rentdecontrol, major-capital-improve-ment and renovation increases,and the 1997 law’s vacancy in-creases had ledto many apart-ments beingcompletely de-regulated. “Weasked DHCR ifthey monitori n d i v i d u a lapartment im-provements ,and they saidthey don’t,” heargued. One ofthe landlordr e p r e s e n t a -tives, he con-tinued, hadtold him, “Itdoesn’t matterwhat numberwe set for Manhattan apartments,because they’re going out of con-trols anyway.”

That angered the landlord repre-sentatives, with Vincent Cas-tellano denouncing it as“irrelevant.” Castellano clearlyenjoys baiting the tenants in theaudience, frequently shoutingthem down during public testi-mony and repeatedly declaringthat “New York’s housing is amongthe most affordable in the nation.”

Ultimately, the RGB voted 6-3for Marvin Markus’ proposal, to setthe special guidelines at either50% above the Maximum BaseRent or the federal “fair-marketrent” for the metropolitan area,whichever is greater. Holder ar-gued that the federal standard wastoo high for many neighborhoods,while Markus claimed that it wastoo low. Rivera, the only publicmember to vote with tenants onthe issue, said it was irrelevantbecause “DHCR chooses the high-est rent in the building” as itsstandard for assessing whetherthere is an overcharge.

Markus’ replacing Ed Hochmanas RGB chair mirrors the differ-ences between Mike Bloombergand Rudy Giuliani. Hochmanseemed to wish he had Giuliani’sauthoritarian charisma, losing his

temper easily when things gotrowdy. Markus’ style is more mana-gerial and legalistic, condescend-ingly telling loud tenants “you’renot helping your cause.” But onmatters of substance, he appears

as pro-landlordas Hochmanwas. Markuswas so enragedby the vote notto raise SROhotel rents,Holder toldNewsday, thathe “screamedand yelled atthe publicmembers inthe backroom.”

And fora p a r t m e n ttenants, theultimate re-sult was the

same: another rent increase. De-spite the debate, Pagan andHolder found themselves alonein voting against the final guide-lines. As tenants chanted“Shame,” the public and landlordmembers all said yes to 2% for oneyear and 4% for two years, plus a10% surcharge on sublets.

Starobin justified his vote for theincreases by saying that the figuresshowing landlords’ costs down

were “misinterpreted,” that “corePIOC took a very significant jump.”He said he was against a biggerincrease because landlords aremaking money on vacancy andrenovation increases, thoughsmaller owners are losing ground.“I’m astounded at what people arepaying for rents,” he added.

Tenants, who are spending ever-higher proportions of their in-comes on ever-higher rents—trying to cover four-figuremonthly rents with three-digitweekly paychecks, even well out-side “core Manhattan”—mightnot be that sympathetic to land-lord expenses. For Holder,affordability is the main issue.“We’ve got to keep letting themknow,” she said after the meeting.“Vince Castellano says, ‘let’s talkabout the average tenant.’ Well,the average rent-stabilized tenantmakes $27,000 a year. Twelve per-cent of landlords own 70 percentof the buildings. There needs tobe a correction.”

The vote leaves tenants wonder-ing what to do next. “There’s noway to sugar-coat this: we gotsoaked once again, despite ‘bestcase’ statistics/scenario in favor ofa rent rollback,” Met Council or-ganizer Dave Powell wrote in an e-mail to activists. “Obviously a newapproach to this annual ritual isneeded.”

SU

SA

N P

OW

ELL

July 2002 Tenant

Documents

Transcript of July 2002 Tenant