The Real Deal New York

Bill would penalize landlords restricting access to amenities

Buildings blocking rent-regulated tenants from gyms, pools could be fined up to $25,000

March 10, 2014 05:15PM

  • Print
From left: Linda Rosenthal, 212 West 91st Street and 235 West 75th Street

From left: Linda Rosenthal, 212 West 91st Street and 235 West 75th Street

New York State Assemblymember Linda Rosenthal has introduced a bill that would fine landlords who bar rent-regulated tenants from using building amenities.

The measure would slap fines of as much as $25,000 on landlords who only allow market-rate tenants access to gyms, pools, playrooms, roof decks or free building shuttles, DNAinfo reported. The law would also bar landlords from raising rents until such violations are corrected.

The move comes on the heels of Stonehenge Village’s alleged rule permitting only market-rate tenants to use the building’s gym. Rent-regulated tenants make up 60 percent of the 160 West 97th Street building’s occupants, and Public Advocate Letitia James filed a complaint with the New york State Human Rights Division last month.

The Greystone at 212 West 91st Street and the Astor at 235 West 75th Street both also allegedly barred rent-regulated tenants from using their respective gyms, Rosenthal told DNAinfo. Representatives from both properties did not respond to DNAinfo’s requests for comment.

“This kind of discrimintation sends the message that rent-regulated tenants are second-class citizens, somehow not as good or deserving as market-rate tenants,” Rosenthal told the news site. [DNAinfo]Julie Strickland

  • tiredcitizen

    they are second rate citizens… does coach get the same amenities as first class? Pay the freight and get the service, otherwise quit the complaining.

  • DISGRUNTLED LANDLORD

    “This kind of discrimintation sends the message that rent-regulated tenants are second-class citizens, somehow not as good or deserving as market-rate tenants,” Rosenthal told the news site. —— THEY ARE !!!!!

  • automatic negation of landlord

    “Segregation” and “Discrimination” have already been thrown out against building management. What next? Are evicted tenants “Banished” like African Americans from the Deep South towns run by Kluxxers?

    No one else is even allowed to use the term lynching out of respect for African Americans and we can’t use the Holocaust or concentration camps for anything outside what the Nazis did even if there are incredible similiarities so how is it okay to just bandy words like segregration and discrimination around as if in DEFENSE of the vulnerable instead of cheapening those wrongs by using them in this context?

    Can we get a ruling on using those terms before this goes even further?

    • hypocrisy in all its forms

      How about the word “hypocrite”?

  • ridiculous

    it’s ok to discriminate against market rate tenants and make then pay $2k more per month to live in this building on west 96th st. but it’s not ok to ban the stabilized tenants from a small gym. hmmm – ok ….that makes sense to ???????

  • http://iceberg18.blogspot.com iceberg

    Discrimination is legal so long as you don’t discriminate against protected categories (age, gender, race, religion, etc).

    So yes, this is discrimination against affordable housing tenants, but it’s legal to do so.

    If the NYC council passes a bill that violates freedom of association the building owners have a good case if they decide to take the city to state court.

    • plenty of reasons to sue

      The property owners should sue the city and state now because the law are not unbiased. And the claims made by our elected officials who are not supposed to be biased are actually baseless and prejudiced towards tenants.

  • MANAGEMENT

    $25,000 per tenant refusal would certainly hit the slum lord where it hurts!! LOL

MENU

Subscribe to our email newsletters

New York Real Estate News
South Florida Real Estate News