What are the implications of today's Stuy Town ruling in favor of rent-stabilized tenants?
October 22, 2009 01:45PM
The Real Deal is looking for your feedback on market-related issues. See the story about the ruling here. Please comment below. If you have questions you'd like posted, please e-mail news@therealdeal.com.
The Real Deal reserves the right to delete any comment it finds to be rude, obscene, racist, sexist, bigoted, irrelevant or repetitive, as well as inappropriate comments about anyone's personal appearance or advertisements. The Real Deal does not endorse any comments posted on its Web site nor does it verify the veracity of comments or the identity of posters.
Comments
Anonymous
rent stabilized landlords are in trouble
Comment #1 Posted By: Anonymous 10/22/09
Anonymous
Both are true- court ruled correctly, by NYC LL's are in trouble.
Comment #2 Posted By: Anonymous 10/23/09
Anonymous
some argue this will drive rents up...more stabilized units = small housing stock available. The J51 program never really offered that great of a tax break anyway. As a tenant paying $2500 for a 2 bedroom...im excited to think that my rent just became stabilized. Does this mean my LL has to give a stabilized lease with all the rights and protections offered to people under RS?
Comment #3 Posted By: Anonymous 10/25/09
Anonymous
Depends on how the NYS legislature responds. This will be a true test of the RSA's power. If forced to guess, perhaps the death of J51 (because it will be impossible to craft a new version), coupled with a law that limits the extent of the ruling to already-covered apartments. There is no organized group of potentially stabilized tenants, and while the existing groups would be happy to expand their ranks, they are, presumably, more focussed on keeping their existing gains.
Comment #4 Posted By: Anonymous 10/25/09