There's talk on East Third Street that Abart Holdings LLC has sold (or is selling) the buildings at 50, 54 and 58 on this block between First Avenue and Second Avenue.
Per a tipster: "Word on the street is people who have leases ending this summer have received letters informing them of the sale and that the new owner will NOT be renewing leases. I don't doubt the validity of the letters, although I would love to..."
The tipster says that the letters are from Abart Holdings. The letters do not name the new owner.
Have any tips about the situation here? Please send them our way via the EV Grieve email ...
Per the tipster, who lives in one of the buildings: "Better not be another set of fucking personal mansions..."
Might make for a mansion row to go with 47 E. Third St. across the way.
10 comments:
sniff sniff
Did somebody drop a Shaoul?
This is truly my nightmare!
That said, I did a little bit of nyc building research online and it appears that Abart Holdings has been listed as a respondent for violations at 50 e 3 dating back to 2006...
abart owns 58 as well, i believe. wondering if that will be part of this whole thing as well.
I'm such an idiot. I actually thought that unless there was some pressing concern, a landlord had to offer you a new lease every year.
Maybe this is only for rent-controlled? And/or Rent Stabilized?
I'd like to know!
They can't refuse to renew your lease if the apartment is rent stabilized. They would have to prove that it wasn't your primary residence, that you weren't paying your rent, or claim the popular loophole of "owner occupancy".
Some of the units in these buildings are stabilized, while other have been destabilized- wether legally or illegally is yet to be determined. I was told by the management company (off the record, of course) that they are preparing to evict 15-17 units, and that the vacancy of these units was actually part of the sales agreement. Despicable.
If I'm not mistaken, most if not all of these units are under fair market value, which is $2500. If that is the case, the new landlord is required by law to offer lease renewals.
Tenants are in the process of organizing to fight this now. If you are a tenant and are prepared to fight- keep you eyes and ears open- we WILL find you! Strength in numbers!!!
"If I'm not mistaken, most if not all of these units are under fair market value, which is $2500. If that is the case, the new landlord is required by law to offer lease renewals. "
That is not the law. One can deregulate an apartment even if the market rent for the unit is less than $2,500. The $2,500 refers to the legal rent not the market rent.
I'm not certain why posters on this blog would try and take away the property rights of the buyer. Property rights are as American as apple pie and if the buyer doesn't want to renew market rate leases he doesn't have to. That's the law. Of course, he must renew stabilized leases and will do so (whether he likes it or not).
"Property rights are as American as apple pie."
If you mean that forcing your property "rights" at the expense of someone else's rights in name of profit, then yes, I suppose that is as American as apple pie.
This isn't about rights, it is about greed. Just because it's legal doesn't make it right.
These are families, and these are their homes.
Treating people this way is inhuman. In my book, this is not "American as apple pie.", it is in fact quite the opposite.
This is pure greed, and it is disgusting.
filtered - are you suggesting that property owners in our country shouldn't have rights to their own property? The consequences of your ideals would be devastating to people who can't afford to buy their own home. If landlords were forced to be stuck with a tenant for life they would never rent to anyone with marginal credit, marginal employment, marginal education etc etc. The weakest among us would never find a place to live.
Post a Comment