We were first to report on the looming evictions back on March 15... You can read more via the links below...
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.
Tenants at 50, 54 and 58 E. Third St. banding to together in face of building sale
Related:
And Economakis gets the whole building for his dream mansion
At the 47 E. 3rd St. protest
um, what is being protested ? arent these market rate tenants being asked to leave when their lease expires?
ReplyDeletecan someone explain the issue? Isnt that the deal they signed on to in their leases?
Rent laws were allowed to expire, and now tenants are feeling the pain. It's a shame, but the right wing has made their case, and the state of NY bought into it, this is the result of such foolishness in valuing greed over human rights. Rent laws were created for a reason, but unfortunately we seem to have no ability to understand and learn from the past, just doomed to keep repeating the same stupidness over and over again.
ReplyDeletesince when did the OWNER of the building lose his property rights? aren't we a country of property rights?
ReplyDeleteStabilized tenants get to stay, market rate tenants have to go. That's the law.
Do these 17 tenants really think the courts will rule in their favor? Did they not watch as Kent Swig evicted over 1,000 market rate tenants (who fought tooth and nail to stay) and lost in the courts. This is settled law - if you like it there so much you should have bought the building. Can't you read the laws and research these rulings?
We have become a City of greedy tenants. (it's mostly the stabilized tenants who are greedy but now it seems some market raters are following their lead).
no thanks I'll check out the scene at the YIPPIE/ZIPPIE Smoke in Allways a hoot
ReplyDeleteRe: Anonymous
ReplyDeleteAre the property rights you're referring to the same ones that Abe Haruvi/Abart Holdings exercised when he told the same dubious story to evict tenants at two different apartments for owner occupancy purposes?
http://www.villagevoice.com/2000-10-31/news/your-home-is-your-landlord-s-castle/2/
When there's that sort of history with the property owner it wouldn't hurt to see this play out a little. Who knows what else might emerge?
Also, why is it that whenever I see these anonymous posts I think of this?
http://xkcd.com/1019/
If I purchased property in Manhattan, I'd do the exact same thing.
ReplyDelete@Jill:
ReplyDeleteI assume you're talking about June 2011, when "Senate Democrats, however, refused to support the Republicans’ bill to extend the rent control program..."
The bottom line is that these are "market rate" tenants, meaning that they are not subject to rent stabilization or rent control. If the apartments (rent stabilized) or tenants (rent controlled... there's a big difference)were taken off the program (rent stabilization still exists, rent control was a program started before 1968) illegally, that's one thing, and they should fight... but according to public data, 2 bedrooms (apartment 9 and 5) in the building were renting for $3200 back in 2008, making them non-stabilized back then. Apartment 2A was on the market in 2010 for $2500 (no fee, BTW) but that was 2 wing bedrooms with an eat in kitchen... Manhattan Apartments seems to have been the exclusive broker for Abart, and made sure that there were students and shorter term tenants placed there...
I live in the neighborhood. I value community. I'm not happy that these members of our community are being priced out of our community. That's why I'm joining them in fighting back. Non-violently. Fighting back.
ReplyDelete