Browsing this Thread:
3 Anonymous Users
|
Re: Tenants could be on street -- "hardship" increases possible if owner not getting "fair return"
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
Xerxes- you are a crazy loser.
I too only allow clean cut 20 somethings, hopefully, this will eliminate people like you. Owning a older building, in this red-tape city + depreciating market is hard enough....let alone allowing losers in your property, that are iching for a way to beat you.
Posted on: 2009/8/6 16:10
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Tenants could be on street -- "hardship" increases possible if owner not getting "fair return"
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
xerxes- you are really scaring me with your twisted diatribes. your phychobabble reminds me of the diary the pitssburgh gym shooter kept.
Your attack on Brewster was so out of line it makes you look pathetic. Brewster brings alot to this forum, you on the other hand just scare me. about 30% of what your saying may be true. FYI there are plenty of 5 plus unit buildings in JC that are market rate. many gut renovations that never went condo are actually way above market. JC landlords beware of nut jobs like this. Something tells me that when you were a child your parents charged you rent.
Posted on: 2009/8/6 14:31
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Tenants could be on street -- "hardship" increases possible if owner not getting "fair return"
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
You need to get your facts straight. "complete rent control"?? Any property under 5 units IS NOT RENT CONTROLLED!!! JC is crawling with 2-4 unit buildings like mine, they far outnumber the 5 and overs. And clearly all the new high rise rentals are market rate also. As for choosing tenants, of course one can't "discriminate" on federally protected grounds. But no court will ever tell a landlord that you MUST rent to the first person who say's "I'll take it". That's what background checks, credit reports and criminal record searches are for. I know someone who turned down a cop who was recently divorced with a fico in the low 500's. He said "That's all I needed, trying to get rent from a broke depressed guy with a gun and no help available from the PD". Since NJ eviction protection DOES cover most apartments, choosing your tenant wisely is the last choice most landlords ever get, but you'd take that away too, Komrade Xerxes. Can't you realize your "predacious landlord" crap becomes a self fulfilling prophesy by scaring away responsible property owners who don't want to deal with belligerent and entitled tenants from hell in addition to low rents? Let me spell it out again: far above the price a responsible landlord would buy a rent controlled property, so as to make a modest but steady income on their investment and management time and still have money to keep the property up, is the price a speculator will buy it to see if he can buy out or force out tenants to flip it for some quick profit. Rent control guarantees this war as sure as putting a terrier in with rats. Market rate tenants don't hate their landlords, really. They move if they do.
Posted on: 2009/8/6 5:07
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Tenants could be on street -- "hardship" increases possible if owner not getting "fair return"
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
No one is getting "crooked" when two people willingly engage in a transaction. The more government gets involved in these transactions, the worse off we will be.
Posted on: 2009/8/6 3:33
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Tenants could be on street -- "hardship" increases possible if owner not getting "fair return"
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
People like you are the reason we won't rent our market rate apartments to people who aren't from the middle class, preferably 20 somethings just starting out. They're just like us but younger and most will probably be wealthier by the time they're our age. They don't have a twisted welfare sense of entitlement and that we're their enemy. If I'm slow to fix something non-emergency they accept it's because I have a career and a family, not because I'm a rapacious fiend. How did your market rate apartment become so in a city with COMPLETE rent control. Is your building tiny or are you a fraudulent crook? Or do you own a waterfront high-rise? These are your ONLY options If you have 5 tenants in "market rate" unit, you are a crook! If you prefer 20 somethings as tenants it is because your HOPE is they don't know the law...and that you are a fraudulent crook. If you could rent to 4 year olds your chances might be even better that they do not know the rent control regulations in Jersey City. Rent control is strong in Jersey City...IF YOU FIGHT THESE PREDACIOUS LANDLORDS and fight HARD! Are you mobbed up? Did BIG TONY give you his building?  Or did you buy it for a nickel on the dollar?When you diiscriminate against those not in the "middle class" or in "their 20's" how do you you do it? You DO realize one is a STATE felony and the other is a FEDERAL felony. Do you have a shill realtor who does it for you? You are the kind of person who gives landlords an even WORSE name than they have. Maybe SLIME was too kind? I mean how would one define a slimey pig as different from someone who thinks the laws do not pertain to them? I mean really, enlighten me...who is worse? The crooked mayor of Hoboken or a rapacious law-breaking landlord?
Posted on: 2009/8/6 3:14
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Tenants could be on street -- "hardship" increases possible if owner not getting "fair return"
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Good lord! Can you say "class warfare"? People like you are the reason we won't rent our market rate apartments to people who aren't from the middle class, preferably 20 somethings just starting out. They're just like us but younger and most will probably be wealthier by the time they're our age. They don't have a twisted welfare sense of entitlement and that we're their enemy. If I'm slow to fix something non-emergency they accept it's because I have a career and a family, not because I'm a rapacious fiend. What is missing from both sides of this debate is how rent control creates this class war. If we, as a society feel there needs to be a safety net, great! I believe so too. But why does only one class of people, landlords, need to support this? We try to spread the cost of our other social programs, (with varying success) but make this one only the landlords problem. By thus driving down the sale price of a building this creates a huge attraction to the worst possible landlords, teh ones you rail against, to buy a place and harass out the tenants so as to realize a windfall by condo-ing the place. You've filtered out the nice ones like me. But for JC this was a great thing, because most of those multifamilies were, and are, falling apart due to there being no incentive to fix them when the rents are so low. Talking about the travails of one elderly man misses the point about this program that causes such rot of both structures and society. Most cities in the US survive just fine without it, and the landlord-tenant tensions that come with it. If you don't like your place you move, since it's all market rate there's less price disparity, with the majority of rents being closer to the average rather than being at one extreme or another. Could you imagine controlling the prices in another major necessity, say cars? The Soviets did this and the few cars they had were crap. It's been said many times by scholars: the rent controls implemented in the postwar housing shortage (not during the depression when prices fell) CREATED the permanent housing shortage and lack of affordable housing by making it an unprofitable business to build rentals. The last nauseating piece of the puzzle is how few of these homes even go to those who need them the most. I've known plenty of people in rent stabilized apartments on the upper west side with expensive cars and vacation homes.
Posted on: 2009/8/6 2:22
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Tenants could be on street -- "hardship" increases possible if owner not getting "fair return"
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Went through it a LONG time ago. Jersey City is rent controlled and has been for the last 45 years. Tenants must BATTLE for this right becasue the city has a habit of appointing rent cotrol administrators who are bought and paid for. THus the tenant will NOT have the city on his side. Why several rent control administrators have not been hauled to jail amazes me.
Here are a couple arguments the tenants can make (they MUST be unified group): The landlord must be allowed 6 (or 7%) ON HIS EQUITY. Thus if the maroooon borrowed the 5 million to buy a 30 unit slum his equity might be zero. His cost should NOT be allowed to include payments of principal but this might need a court order because rent administrators are bought and paid for by landlords...you need a STRONG case. Document all violations and have them backed up by many visits by city inspectors...plan on several court visits. You can be certain that many of his charges are fraudulent...have him present every bill and examine them with a fine toothed comb. Have him show and prove the rent on every apartment...some might be assigned to friends, families, fake superintendants, girlfriends, boyfriends or held vacant. You must fight because rapacious landlords wants the low paying tenant OUT although there is no way to remove him legally so he will operate illegally. If you can prove the illegality, you can jail him or life rent free for a long time. There are a large number of mobbed up slime in Jersey City who call themselves LANDLORDS! THeir enemy is a rent controlled tenant and the rent control ordinance.
Posted on: 2009/8/5 23:55
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Tenants could be on street -- \"hardship\" increases possible if owner not getting \"fair return
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2007/10/29 12:17 Last Login : 2018/9/5 2:01 From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
449
 |
Quote:
Challenged how? Who is "challenging" his residency? The landlord wants to raise his rent - he says he cant afford it and would have to move (to the streets - right) - sounds like a challenge to me. Quote: What personal irresponsibility is Bernie exhibiting? That he relied on the well-settled laws of the community in which he has lived for decades to offer the protections they are designed to afford tenants? But the faceless landlord, who is actually named Joseph Ehrman, and had a chance to give his side of the story but declined to comment from his home in Lakewood, should get to shirk responsibility for accepting (and writing off) the loss of his poor investment? Riding on laurels of rent stability when you know you are not paying anywhere near the market value for your space for, uh, how many years - 20+? Not having an alternate plan or looking at your future? Yeah, arrogant, ignorant, and irresponsible. An opportunity presented itself to Ehrman (who lives in Lakewood - who cares btw) and he is using the same laws to question/challenge rent stabilized tenants. Are they both taking advantage of a situation? yup - most definitely - so be it. A ton of people have made bad investments - our tax dollars are going to fix them. If raising rent and asking the old guy to pay his share or telling him to move means that I dont have to eat Ehrman's secured debt in bankruptcy - I opt for raising his rent.
Posted on: 2009/8/5 3:19
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Tenants could be on street -- "hardship" increases possible if owner not getting "fair return"
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Both the owner and the renter want handouts, and neither are right. Real estate should be sold for and apartments should be rented for their market value. No one should have a right to live anywhere when they don't own the property.
Posted on: 2009/8/5 3:12
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Tenants could be on street -- "hardship" increases possible if owner not getting "fair return"
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Yes, they both are rent seeking scumbags. Not to put too fine a point on it but many so called champions of "free markets" are actually champions of currently existing businesses (e.g. the Republican Party).
Owning property speaks to a basic human desire to be left alone. Unfortunately, the high level of property tax makes owners into renters vis-?-vis the state. Quote:
Posted on: 2009/8/5 2:40
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Tenants could be on street -- "hardship" increases possible if owner not getting "fair return"
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Uh-oh two things we have agreed upon.
Posted on: 2009/8/4 21:12
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Tenants could be on street -- "hardship" increases possible if owner not getting "fair return"
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
[/quote] How long does Unemployment have to be continually extended to change the 26-week "norm"?[/quote]
It will continue to be extended until the unemployment rate declines. Makes sense no? In the grand scheme of things 3-5 years is nothing.
Posted on: 2009/8/4 20:54
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Tenants could be on street -- "hardship" increases possible if owner not getting "fair return"
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
|
Quote:
Amen to that! This country is going through a major economic transformation -- and that includes the need to adapt a large educated experienced workforce to a marketplace that consists of many fewer jobs, a greater portion of which are at lower earning levels. Very little about this situation is "temporary" -- as the ramifications of this transformation will have very far reaching socio-economic effects.
Posted on: 2009/8/4 20:53
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Tenants could be on street -- "hardship" increases possible if owner not getting "fair return"
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Oh puhleeeeze. None of you have the slightest idea how hard it is to get a job. Especially when you don't have a degree, ( no matter what giant experience you have) if you are over 45 (YES that makes a BIG difference, ESPECIALLY if you are female) and let's not forget if you have any type of record or a bad credit history. If you are a 20 year old virgin college graduate you have a shot.
Posted on: 2009/8/4 20:42
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Tenants could be on street -- "hardship" increases possible if owner not getting "fair return"
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
|
Quote:
"Temporary"? The first tier of Unemployment Benefit extensions currently in effect was enacted for claims effective May 7, 2006 -- followed by two more tiers put in place afterward, and a fourth tier now under discussion for enactment when Congress returns from recess in September. So the "current unemployment situation" has been running for over three years -- with no apparent signs of improvement. Many economists now see a "jobless recovery" as likely -- due to the number of jobs eliminated in major industries that won't be coming back. How long does Unemployment have to be continually extended to change the 26-week "norm"?
Posted on: 2009/8/4 18:47
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Tenants could be on street -- "hardship" increases possible if owner not getting "fair return"
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
both sides are on welfare. The tenant expects his rent to be below fair value, the landlord wants to change the agreed term of his purchase(property) so he can get more money.
i was just thinking with all the debate around capitalism and find it rather funny. If you think about it, around here if you own a property you get taxed to death, a 400k house with a 10k tax is all too common, on top of paying rental tax if investment. In china, which is a communist country, the government doesnt tax their citizens much. The same 400k (dollar to dollar) property, you pay maybe $100 a year on tax, and if you rent it out there is no additional tax and those are in the big cities, in the countryside it's even much less. And there is very little tenant protection, if tenant cannot pay the rent, they get kicked onto the street the next month no question asked. If landlord wants to increase the rent by 200% next year, they are free to do so as long as someone is willing to pay for it. Shouldnt it be the other way around, i thought communism is based on everyone contributing to the state and divide up the wealth. While capitalism is the opposite. Now it seems everything is reversed. Just some thoughts....
Posted on: 2009/8/4 18:25
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Tenants could be on street -- \"hardship\" increases possible if owner not getting \"fair return\"
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I agree there are two sides to this story and that is why this case will be heard in front of a JC Rent Leveling Board.
The reason rent controlled city govts are open to hardships is because the last thing they want to see is the blight spread as it did in the 70s. Landlords are already walking away from buildings by the droves. it costs the city alot of money and resources to keep these buildings heated etc once they are abandoned. Everyone has to kick in and help during these times even those that have milked the system. How much do you want to bet that this family was receiving govt aid for the past 20 yrs but the article neglected to mention it. The bottom line is this poor tenant played the system and is living way below the avg market price. That wasnt the intention of rent control. .The idea came during the depression as a temporary solution and its intention was to help keep rents in or around market prices not rediculously low. its obvious that the tenant probably had an in with prior landlords to avoid the cpi raise year over year. If prior landlords annually raised the rents , this tenants rent would be more in line with market prices.
Posted on: 2009/8/4 15:44
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Tenants could be on street -- \"hardship\" increases possible if owner not getting \"fair return\"
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Challenged how? Who is "challenging" his residency? Quote:
What personal irresponsibility is Bernie exhibiting? That he relied on the well-settled laws of the community in which he has lived for decades to offer the protections they are designed to afford tenants? But the faceless landlord, who is actually named Joseph Ehrman, and had a chance to give his side of the story but declined to comment from his home in Lakewood, should get to shirk responsibility for accepting (and writing off) the loss of his poor investment?
Posted on: 2009/8/4 14:57
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Tenants could be on street -- \"hardship\" increases possible if owner not getting \"fair return\"
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2007/10/29 12:17 Last Login : 2018/9/5 2:01 From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
449
|
The way I see it:
1. Bernie has either been ignorant or arrogant to believe that he was going to live out his life in that apartment. Probably a bit of both. I highly doubt this is the first time his residence in that building has been challenged. 2. If I fell on tough times and was ousted from my home no one would care, but that's ok. I have a backup plan - I don't want any ones welfare or sympathy. Sometimes things don't go as planned and we have to adjust - hopefully coming out stronger and better. Of course.... this doesn't apply to Bernie now or 20 years ago. I hate that we suddenly blame the faceless landlord instead of questioning the responsibility of the cute old guy. As usual, this is one side of the story and everyone runs with their bleeding hearts. I am as liberal as they get... but I don't ignore personal responsibility.
Posted on: 2009/8/4 14:44
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Tenants could be on street -- "hardship" increases possible if owner not getting "fair return"
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Well put. Our government helped us into this mess. I know Obama has a lot to do and can't catch up in the first four years but he really needs to focus on our economy.
Posted on: 2009/8/4 13:51
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Tenants could be on street -- "hardship" increases possible if owner not getting "fair return"
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Just as an FYI to you - this is temporary and is based on the current economic situation. The norm for collecting unemployment is 6 months.
Posted on: 2009/8/4 13:50
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Tenants could be on street -- "hardship" increases possible if owner not getting "fair return"
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
 
|
I think some of you are missing where the gentleman said in the beginning of the article that he worked overtime all the time when he was working. He then relied on a system (social security) to take care of him once he was older and retired.
It was only about 10-12 years ago that I was paying $500 a month for a 2 bedroom in the heights. Things have changed dramatically for many people in the past decade. Even just this past year grocery prices are way up. He had the forethought to make sure he lived in a place where he could be able to possibly afford to live out the rest of his years. I wish him the best. Maybe heres an argument for the rent vs. buy debate. The landlord made a bad investment choice, he took a risk and it didn't pay off. He wants a bailout like the rest of big business out there. Can you really blame either side?
Posted on: 2009/8/4 12:24
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Tenants could be on street -- "hardship" increases possible if owner not getting "fair return"
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I am all for making a profit, but if the owner purchased a multi family house under rent control, then I don't feel it is fair to the tenants or even many other landlords for him to claim a hardship.
what is to stop one from going out and buying a 6 family house that is financially sound, and then claiming hardship so I raise the rents.
Posted on: 2009/8/4 5:42
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Tenants could be on street -- "hardship" increases possible if owner not getting "fair return"
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
|
Quote:
Just FYI -- those who meet the eligibility requirements can now collect Unemployment Benefits for 79 weeks in New Jersey. That includes 26 weeks on the initial claim, and another 53 weeks in extensions.
Posted on: 2009/8/4 3:52
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Tenants could be on street -- "hardship" increases possible if owner not getting "fair return"
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Of course the gentleman at the heart of the article is a senior citizen. Like I said, I'm for welfare if it provides for people who are not able to provide for themselves. However, the majority of people I see collecting are fully capable of working. Unlike yourself, who speaks from theory and stuff you google, I speak from experience. When my parents and I first came to the US, we lived in the Ivy Hill projects in Newark. It took my parents a mere months to get on their feet, get jobs and move to a humble but decent apartment in Maplewood. The majority of our neighbors there lived there all their lives and like NewHeights mentioned, could somehow afford to own luxury cars despite being so "poor". So, if you've had 30 years of government assistance and you are crying about your rent being raised, perhaps you should have thought of a way to become independent sooner. I have no pity, you're a disgrace who is taking advantage of a program designed for people who actually have enough ambition to make something of their lives. So yes, I'm for welfare, but unless you're disabled it should be limited to 6 months. If that's ample enough time for unemployment benefits to run out, it should be just as sufficient for welfare.
Posted on: 2009/8/3 14:39
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Tenants could be on street -- "hardship" increases possible if owner not getting "fair return"
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
How is what this landlord doing anything different then Crystal Point, 77 Hudson or the litany of other buildings who demanded changes to their abatement's? This guy is trying to get his rent control leveled/lifted. That isn't a crime, and their even seems to be a system for which it happens. Although I suspect he would be better off if he brought a bag full of 100's with him to any meeting.
Posted on: 2009/8/3 14:25
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Tenants could be on street -- "hardship" increases possible if owner not getting "fair return"
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
LOL. It's all good, sweetie. Unlike what seems to be a growing movement of disgruntled posters on here calling for your ouster, I actually welcome your posts, because your daily bile spews remind me of how miserable you are here in Jersey City. And that makes me smile.  Back on topic: so which is it? That you think Capitalism endorses the right to get a better deal than you bargained for, or that you think all welfare (social, corporate, etc) is wrong? If it's the latter, then you oppose the actions of this landlord, right? Or is it a "well poor people get welfare, so everybody should," have-it-both-ways, winking argument? Or are you just typing without anything real to say, except for a desire to outrage people? Oh, and the gentleman at the heart of the article is 73 years old. R.I.F.
Posted on: 2009/8/3 14:22
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Tenants could be on street -- "hardship" increases possible if owner not getting "fair return"
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
these articles make me laugh.....this couple had 30 yrs to save up and milk the system and now they are complaining....ha ha. landlords have a right to hardship because taxes and heating costs far exceed the CPI that rent control increases are based off of.
rent control was implemented during the depression as a temporary solution and it caused much of the urban blight we experience today. I have a rent ocntrolled tenant paying $300 a month and every 3 years he leases a brand new beamer. Give me a break. Another misleading point of this article is the upgrades in other apartments being spread to all tenants. If a unit is renovated, the increased rent only applies to that specific unit. If common area improvements such as a new roof, elevator, renovated hallways, heating system ( heat paid by landlord) etc the cost is spread to all the units.
Posted on: 2009/8/3 14:18
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Tenants could be on street -- "hardship" increases possible if owner not getting "fair return"
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
So its cool when a large portion of able individuals collect welfare, but not the landlords who earned their ownership of these homes? (Senior citizens excluded) Lets see, who drives the economy more and pays more taxes? I doubt that its the welfare collectors. What's cute is that you just resist responding to my posts after I wished you a nice life. Man, I must really get under your skin.
Posted on: 2009/8/3 14:15
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Tenants could be on street -- "hardship" increases possible if owner not getting "fair return"
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Pretty much.
Posted on: 2009/8/3 14:05
|
|||
|
||||