Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Tenants at 50, 54 and 58 E. Third St. banding to together in face of building sale

As we've been discussing here, Abart Holdings LLC has sold (or is selling) the buildings at 50, 54 and 58 E. Third St. on between First Avenue and Second Avenue.

Seventeen residents of the building received letters that stated, in part: "It has been agreed with the impending new owners that your lease will not be renewed and that you will be expected to vacate at the expiration of your lease."

However, the residents have banded together... and they recently held their first tenants' meeting. One of the residents shared the following with us:

"Thought you'd be interested in hearing that things are progressing well with our 3rd Street Tenants' Group. We've gotten support from other tenants' groups in the neighborhood that have gone through the same struggle!"

There's another meeting coming up... April 18 at 7 p.m. at the Perseverance House Community Room, 535 E. Fifth St. between Avenue A and Avenue B.

Said the resident, "If the landlords have their way — and these buildings become what they're intending — it's seriously going to increase the douchebag factor of the neighborhood. Three buildings worth of tenants is a lot of douchebags. I'd like to keep the douchebag factor to a dull roar, if at all still possible."

Previously on EV Grieve:
Reader report: Three apartment buildings sold on East Third Street

Know your rights: Help with understanding NYC rent laws

More about the lease renewals at 50, 54 and 58 E. Third St.


Anonymous said...

FYI, douchebags live EVERYWHERE, it's just the EV that has the highest concentration. They gotta come from someplace.

Anonymous said...

why don't these guys just shake down the new owners for a buyout, assuming they're rent stabilized. If they aren't there's a thing called property rights in this country.

Anonymous said...

Seems to me that the douchebags are the ones currently living there - can't wait to see them move on and be replaced by people who accept that a founding right in our country is property rights. If you don't want to move then you should have bought the building.
The laws are clear - rent stabilized tenants get to stay, market rate renters must go at the end of their leases if that's what the owner wants. It's simple.
Only a douchebag expects that market rate renters get to tell an owner what he gets to do with his building.

glamma said...

Yeah, we got your back! Godspeed to you good people. Stay strong!

evflip said...

What we are seeing more and more of are huge private equity firms partnering with developers to squeeze every last penny out of a neighborhood. NYC is in a housing crisis, our vacancy rate is at 4%. This is the perfect time for rent gouging; the very reason for the rent stabilization laws in the first place. We are now at the cusp of a sea change, where more NYers are getting hip to what's been creeping up on us for years. We are organizing!

Big Real Estate knows this and it's making them nervous. Hence those insulting ads running on NY1 and plants in the comments sections from RE shills like Anon @10:13 and 9:55. All are welcome to post on a public forum such as this, but we recognize you!

Anonymous said...

Anyone using the term douchebag twice in one post is probably not worth responding to.

Kimberley said...

Anonymous 10:13, Thank you.

Anonymous said...

So if I rent a place in someone else's non rent controlled building, I should expect more rights to stay as long as I like, than they have as owners not to renew my lease?

Give me a break.

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:13 - I'm all for them renovating and raising their rent, but why not show a little humanity/intelligence and at least offer current residents the offer to renew at the inflated rates the new landlord wants? I'm sure at least some would even put up with construction in their apartment and pay more if it meant real upgrades.

Just because you don't have to doesn't meant you shouldn't. It is a waste of their own efforts if they don't reach out, really. Why would you not want to keep a good tenant who is willing to leave and come back?