OMG! That's ridiculous!

This is just blatantly wrong.

While I understand the joys of NYC rent control (I have friends who swoon over it) and I don't wish $2500 rent on anyone. How does a landlord maintain a building on a mere couple of hundred dollars a month?? (I assume there may be other people in the building too).

But seriously, not trying to sound like I'm a part of the 1% (I'm not...poor grad student here). But how is that possible? I would gladly pay more to insure cleanliness and repairs are done on time.

The landlord is an idiot for not filling the proper paperwork. How he's able to maintain that building at those prices is beyond me

Unfair towards all the people who pay too much for their apartment.

How is this blatantly wrong or unfair? The tenants have played by the rules of law and came out on the winning side. The landlord didn't file the paperwork - so the tenants did what exactly wrong?

@Dfig the way it works is that when the apartments get out of rent control or stabilization the landlords jack the rent up considerably. These are only two tenants in the whole building. Also buildings with rent control tenants are incredibly cheap to buy, so no need to worry about the poor owner.

I recently read that the state pays the difference between what the occupant pays and what the fair market price is. In other words, if the fair market rent is $2500 and the rent control price is 55.01, the state picks up the remaining $2, 554.99. Rent control should be abolished. It's one of the many reasons New York taxes are so high. Taxpayers should not be burdened with paying rent for people who chose to live in apartments they can't afford.

it's hard to imagine even the most basic repair being paid for by rent. good for them, though.

"Taxpayers should not be burdened with paying rent for people who chose to live in apartments they can't afford."

You're right, they should kick his ass to the curb. That 87 year old man living off his airforce pension should really just move to a place he can afford. Like Idaho. I'm sure he has just as many options as you assume he does.

Gregory H: What on earth are you talking about? The state does not pick up anything.

@Overture: He'd probably love Idaho - lots of sunshine, a vibrant downtown, a great arts scene, nice fresh air, loads of parks & public land, low crime rates, cheap rent, and friendly people. What's not to love?

As opposed to NY, the city he grew up in, where presumably his friends, family and important social connections are. Sure, Idaho would be no big deal at all.

I wasn't saying that he should actually move to Idaho (unless he wants to!) but rather that Idaho is hardly "the curb" because it has an affordable cost of living, and is, in fact, quite a lovely place to live.

It was never about them living in apartments they can't afford. They CAN afford it...that's why they live there! It's not up to the tenant - its the landlord that is responsible for filing the correct paperwork. They are in there 70s and 80s for goodness sake...let them live! The people that are upset are the ones that are paying $2500/month for an apartment they just moved into. These tenants have been living in the same building for 60+ years and they pay accordingly. You have to realize that they may not have the same updated appliances that new tenants would have so they are probably getting exactly what they pay for.

For ex: I live in a rent control apartment and we had to buy our own fridge and stove because the original appliances were so old. The building would not replace because of the rent we pay. We are also thinking about replacing the floors, which would come out of our pocket just so we can maintain the rent as is.

This is just wrong. In SF it is a bit different. For the most part you cannot pass an apartment down or sublet. Any change of master tennant necesitates a new contract. I think the system in SF is much more fair. You stay in the apartment for a long period of time you get lower rent. You try to get someone else into your building the rent should go up.