Depends on witch rhode, imo.

[removed]

Stop replying to me, landlord.

These mothers and their kids would have homes if it weren't for people like you advocating against tenants protections.

No amount of gaslighting is going to convince me that they don't know what's in their interests.

I don't care about landlords' interests; they're doing fine.

I mean, if it’s up to this sub, the flatiron building would be torn down and turned into a skyscraper.

The presence of the perpetual lease will drive down costs relative to the value of any purported increase. Yes, it will probably decrease turnover; no, I don't think — nor do the many hundreds of tenant's rights organizations in NYC think — that this will ultimately hurt tenants. Your advocates in the landlord lobbies, however, seem to also think this bill will really help tenants.

I'm not interested in chatting anymore with you, please stop replying to my comments here mate.

For context, this person is a landlord who like to show up on threads like this to advocate against tenant protection policy. Seems a bit strange to me. 🤷‍♂️

> I know multiple moms whose children would have homes if Good Cause were in place.

Not really. Increased discrimination for them under this bill. New tenants with families are more likely to stay longer under this perpetual lease plan. So best to not rent to them and target single folks and couples where the space is too small for them to grow. Again faster turn over, faster to reset to market rent. This is what this bill incentivize as a counter and future outcome

Dog owners in this city think they’re a protected class or some shit

France is a country so like you’d have to gain citizenship somewhere else… where in this example they just move states.

It sounds like you've already been combative with them rather than asking for forgiveness and a warning instead of the $150 fine. If that's the case, they probably won't budge on the fine. If you want to get a lawyer involved, that will cost way more than $150 and they might tell you you're in the wrong and there's nothing they can do. To avoid future fines, follow the rule. They probably implemented it because other tenants have a fear of dogs, and it's not a huge burden to tell dog owners to use a different door. This isn't equivalent to Jim Crow laws. They want everyone to feel safe leaving and returning home.

OK sure, I'll yield that it might increase the burden of landlords trying to get rid of tenants who are pretty-bad-but-not-clearly-violating-their-lease-bad. Ultimately I don't care about increasing the burden on landlords, but I acknowledge that this can have downstream effects on tenants as well.

But I have to weigh that against the fact that in my tenants union, I know multiple moms whose children would have homes if Good Cause were in place. And even with multiple children, they spend their precious time to show up at meetings and advocate for this legislation.

I think you're prioritizing strictly what's important to you based upon your experience, material comfort, and class position; and this ultimately constitutes a serious lapse of moral judgment. Maybe that's worth thinking about?

And I don't appreciate the "we live in a real world," patronizing rhetoric. Cheers.

Lol found the main character.

What favor am I asking there to be entitled to? To be treated the same as other people ? Do Not discriminate against me based on dog ownership - that's all i am asking

And will be covered in scaffolding for a long time. Brick and mortar buildings are a reason the scaffolds are up, barring new construction. Repointing a building that size is a huge undertaking and a long ass process. and that's just the exterior... I'd hafta be paid good money to see what is behind those walls and above the ceilings inside the place. Construction during the turn of the 19th century was using all sorts of materials that today we know are just a big old stew of cancer.

Underrated comment

Its pet friendly building, if u are allergic or scared of em - maybe you need to use the service door or live in a pet-free apartment?

Why do I need to deal with someone else's problems?

About a million people leaving the city probably. But more seem to want to come than are leaving. Growth cant be infinite we can’t build one million more apartments. Maybe The city is going to get harder to deal with the policies liberal or conservative and costs etc that might be the catalyst to get ppl to give up and leave. Cause some economic and social despair which hopefully leads to a correction. then we head back into ppl wanting to live here and everything increases.

The fact that some streets go a very long time between milling and resurfacing is the sad part. Idk if it's a lack of coordination between miller and resurfacer or what...

Edit: Looking at that schedule (small sample size, I know), it contracts out some of the milling but does all of the paving in-house, so there's more milling than paving. That looks like an issue.

dog owners are some of the most entitled people in nyc

[deleted]

Let me explain to you why you are incorrect.

Many LLs are using holdover eviction (no cause) proceedings to evict nonpaying tenants because evicting a tenant for nonpayment is a big shit show in today's courts.

The proceedings for a non-payment eviction will stop if the tenant files for an ERAP (which may take several months to a year to process and for you to get payment). At the point you receive the money from ERAP, you would already be another 6 months down the hole and have a tenant still squatting on your property. In addition, accepting ERAP payments means you are not allowed to evict a tenant for ANOTHER YEAR. All of which, the government is essentially giving these squatters 18+ months of rent free living at YOUR expense.

Landlords will be more receptive of a good-cause eviction bill if NYS does something to make the process for evicting non-payments go faster. Currently, the pro-tenant laws in NY make LL absorb the cost of no rent for 1+ year and lawmakers are trying to make it even worse.

>Even if this were the case, the bill also caps rent increases relative to inflation.

Only for the holdover tenant that has the perpetual lease. The new one has no such protection at start. Its back to market rate and then they get protection if they choose to stay. So again, it will have impact on the turn over rate and turn over is actually good in an housing environment when we don't have enough units.

See how its beneficial to not have a long term tenant under this bill from LL view

> I also just noticed that you’re relying on the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank that’s been ardently ain’t bail and discovery reform since they were announced. So not exactly a non-biased source.

We're also in the comments of a NY Post article here that's literally a police op-ed.

Yeah, this may be news to you, but that's the job of a defense attorney and how operating within our Constitution has worked since forever. You advocate for your clients by not only attesting to their innocence but also guaranteeing their rights are being protected in the legal process.

Just jump.

I hate farebeating and farebeaters - but it should not be this difficult to give someone your money. The MTA sure as hell makes it a chore.

How the fuck are there still no OMNY machines in stations???