You must log in or register to comment.

ChrisFromLongIsland t1_jbef61b wrote

As buildings that are majority rent stabilized all eventually become decrepit and go BK they should be sold as coops to the current owners. Then the owners can build wealth. Create there homes as they want them and be responsible for the upkeep of the buildings. Stop the cycle of rent and make people homeowners.


jakeuznslao t1_jbei53y wrote

Yes but do this for public housing


BronInThe2011Finals t1_jbfi7cg wrote

You wouldn’t PURCHASE a fuckin project apartment lmao

Why suggest that someone living in one should?



Convergecult15 t1_jbfne9j wrote

People think it’s so easy. Someone buys their NYCHA apartment as a co-op and immediately has to spend 15-20k getting it up to code. And then that “co-op” is immediately worth several hundred thousand if not a million and they refi it to the max and wind up in foreclosure the next economic hiccup. I remember the news doing a story on co-op residents in Harlem being foreclosed on while they were upside down on their mortgages, but at the end of the story they highlight that they purchased the apartment for a dollar through HUD in the 90’s and took our two 600k mortgages on it. People don’t become financially literate when they receive a windfall after years of abject poverty. Buying the projects won’t make them not projects anymore, it will just remove their code exemptions and further impoverish the owners causing those neighborhoods to be bought up by middle class millennials and forcing the prior residents out on the streets.


Chewwy987 t1_je0lj7u wrote

That’s the bigger issue a lot of these people in Los income housing rent stabilized or projects were never taught financial literacy and do have no ability to properly manage finances to get thendelfd out of poverty. I have friends that we’re in poverty but learned financial literacy and the importance of an education and’s not they’re a controller at s small hedge fund. Without proper education and financial literacy will determine if they’ll break the cycle of generational poverty living off the government programs


CactusBoyScout t1_jbezehe wrote

You’re saying convert NYCHA to coops or convert rentals to NYCHA?


pixel_of_moral_decay t1_jbepp73 wrote

Problem is you need to have enough coop members with balls to sue those who can’t/won’t pay assessments as these buildings need substantial repairs. If you buy and can’t fork over $50k, you need neighbors who will sue, put a lien on the property and push until it’s sold to someone who can pay during foreclosure.

That’s the only way that model works, and I don’t think there’s enough people with the common sense to do it.

Condo’s and coops only work when you have a board who is willing to be tough.


ChrisFromLongIsland t1_jbezymd wrote

Yea when you own a building it comes with responsibilities.


pixel_of_moral_decay t1_jbf1v2e wrote

The problem is enforcing, especially with a poorer population. Telling someone who makes < $100k, they owe $50k in the next 90 days or it’s going to get legal is not pretty, but the reality of this proposal.

$50k per unit doesn’t even go that far when you’re talking about a neglected building. Even well maintained buildings need a surprise $10-15k every now and then for random projects. $50k for a neglected building is hardly a crazy high number.

Current owners would just be subsidizing wealthier people/investors who would buy up the foreclosures while losing their savings in the process.

IMHO that’s predatory.


ChrisFromLongIsland t1_jbf4az9 wrote

Most buildings that I am aware of let the tenants finance big construction projects. Also buildings need maintenance. If the owners don't want to pay for the maintenance of their building I don't know what to say.


pixel_of_moral_decay t1_jbfpcxe wrote

Financing requires either the board have assets and good credit or telling individuals to get their own line of credit (which requires the same).

This works with wealthier buildings where you’ve got that. But those buildings generally do that because it’s cheaper to take on a low interest loan the past decade than pay upfront and loose the investment opportunity. Same reason people take mortgages and pay the minimum, your return in the market is higher than the cost of the interest rate, so you can essentially profit off the loan.

If I can take a loan out for $50k at 3% (not hard until recently) I can keep my $50k I have in the market and keep earning 4-5%. 1-2% profit for taking a loan vs paying up front.

None of that really applies with a building of cash strapped people.


Hotsauceinmybag_NY t1_jbg007f wrote

This is what my building did. It was rent to own after being a crack den for years and being condemned. Went through the TIL program, now we’re converting. Definitely a unicorn situation. In order for it to be successful though you need to have shareholders who actually give a damn and smart, democratic board that isn’t entirely full of sh*t. Fortunately my board is a little of all three lol.


JaredSeth t1_jbei6m2 wrote

"Sugar Hill Capital bought buildings throughout northern Manhattan just months before tenant protection laws limited its ability to raise rents and deregulate stabilized apartments."

My landlord made the 100 worst landlords list this year and operates a lot like the Sugar Hill Capital Partners that's mentioned in the article but they've also bought 3 more buildings in my immediate neighborhood in the Heights since the law changed. That makes it difficult to believe they can't profit from these buildings, just not as much as they'd hoped I presume.


natekrinsky OP t1_jbejpgu wrote

You should really consider organizing with your neighbors like the tenants in the article. If you're interested I can help you get started or connect you with people in your neighborhood.


SuperTeamRyan t1_jbf044s wrote

Alternatively they're waiting for their nypost supported candidates to get in and change the laws back.


orangejuicecake t1_jbegibq wrote

the state financing tenants to buy and convert to HDFCs is a great idea. Too bad HDFCs work best with people who have a lot saved and a small salary


bitchthatwaspromised t1_jbelai4 wrote

Looking at HDFC listings makes me so sad. Like I qualify but they say all-cash only or the 20% down is like over 100k. Idk how any real non-trust fund Columbia student buys one


cocktails5 t1_jbhwy60 wrote

The city had a solution to this: replacing the current HDFC agreement with one that included asset limits. HDFC owners threw a fit because it would have tanked their property values because the HDFC market right now revolves around these all-cash offers from people who on paper don't have an income. They tried to entice the HDFCs with more tax abatements but nobody seems interested.


casicua t1_jbemje6 wrote

I remember looking at HDFCs when I was younger and first looking to buy a home and their requirements were absurd and in no way viable for middle or low income families. Half of them were either cash sales or required a higher down payment than a standard mortgage.


CactusBoyScout t1_jbezwvg wrote

If they require cash it’s typically because their coop is poorly-run financially and can’t get approved by banks to take mortgages. So you wouldn’t want that coop anyway.

Trust that the owners would love to take mortgages because it means they could sell their units for more. But their financials aren’t good enough.


cocktails5 t1_jbhxtcc wrote

No it's because they neglected to put asset limits on HDFC purchases. The HDFC market is warped by asset rich people who haven't had an income in two years and thus aren't restricted by the income limits. The income limits make it so that anybody that falls within those limits can't afford the purchase price even with a mortgage when they're competing against these asset rich/no income cash offers. And the co-op owners know that they can get more money in the sale by going after those people.

I've seen some particular egregious examples where the income limit is like $50k/yr and the unit is listed at over a million dollars. Rich people love it because they still get to take advantage of the tax abatements/low maintenance.


CactusBoyScout t1_jbhymr3 wrote

I’m not sure why you’re confidently asserting that it’s only the explanation you’re offering.

I’ve looked into the HDFC buildings near me. The all-cash ones were cheaper than ones that took mortgages when you looked at comparable units. Clearly they’re not getting more money.

And I asked my realtor friend who lives in an HDFC unit and she said it’s almost always bad finances and an inability to get approved by banks.

Sounds like you’re looking at some pretty extreme cases likely in Manhattan based on the pricing.


cocktails5 t1_jbi3lea wrote

Here's a recent example:

$220k/yr income limit for a family of 4. Nobody is ever going to get a mortgage approved for that place within that income limit.

1.1 million studio, 154k income limit.


Chewwy987 t1_je0j55y wrote

These buildings might have better financials csudd ask price I’d higher or the old owners of the hdfc unit decided to cash in and make bsnk


bsanchey t1_jbegdlj wrote

Maybe they didn’t leave enough tip on their expensive rent. Honestly landlords are getting to brazen. Take their properties and convert them to condos or co ops. Give the current residents the opportunity to buy and to stay in their homes. Probably would be cheaper for them.


ThisOneForMee t1_jbfwwtl wrote

> Give the current residents the opportunity to buy and to stay in their homes

How are the current residents going to come up with all the money needed to make all these repairs?


natekrinsky OP t1_jbehm0p wrote

I agree with you. Hopefully they can pass TOPA soon.


Airhostnyc t1_jbei1k8 wrote

The property will go back to the bank that own the loan. The owners stopped paying the mortgage on the loan. There isn’t no “taken” lol tenants will have to bid and buy from bank.

These are RS buildings so there is no expensive rent. If you read the article the owners bought pre2019 change in law most likely with the intention of doing buy outs and renovations to deregulate units. They can’t do that anymore so therefore it’s a useless investment.


Airhostnyc t1_jbeid4o wrote

The buildings where mortgages weren’t paid will end up in foreclosure. For these tenants, they will not get any repairs unless they do it themselves or the city comes in and make the repairs to add as a lien on the property. Foreclosures unfortunately take a long time but it’s obvious the owners gave up on the buildings. When there is no incentive they are just going to take the lost and move on.


natekrinsky OP t1_jbejjoe wrote

It's a great example of how the profit motive doesn't guarantee stable housing for tenants.


ChrisFromLongIsland t1_jbf4qy5 wrote

Well when things are so bad that the artificially controlled rents don't cover the building costs it's hardly the profit motive.

Though there are plenty of situations where buildings were basically worthless and not worth keeping up. There were many examples in American cities in the 70s and 80s. Or go on abandoned porn on reddit.


Airhostnyc t1_jbeksbw wrote

Yes when the government tinkles with the laws to prevent reasonable profit and incentives, that happened. The MCI improvements are trash. Who is going to invest 20k and it takes 15 years to see that investment back. Putting 20k in the stock market will reap better rewards. Then add that these buildings won’t increase in value due to said laws. More and more you are going to hear about these buildings breaking down, they are old and require a lot of maintenance/repairs.

Even if you convert these buildings to condo’s/co-ops, how exactly will tenants used to paying $600 to $1200 a month. Take care of property taxes, maintenance and a loan? All these buildings will end up being the government’s problem aka taxpayers. As complaints start to roll in again.

Just look at any co-op/condo maintenance fees on old buildings…it’s a reason the condo board makes sure applicants are financially stable to take on ownership. You skip over that crucial part and over a few years…things will blow up.

Inflation is real, cost of goods/labor is real. These things don’t stay the same for life.


Louis_Farizee t1_jbevp05 wrote

Tinkers. Tinkling with the law is something different.


vine-el t1_jbfe20k wrote

With the leak in my apartment's ceiling, it definitely feels like they're tinkling.


movingtobay2019 t1_jbgsxvi wrote

You have it backwards. The fact this has 4 upvotes as of this writing shows how fucked our education is.

Properties making money don't get abandoned. It got abandoned because writing it off is a win compared to operating it.


natekrinsky OP t1_jbh0kgu wrote

What I'm saying is a housing system driven by the pursuit of profit would rather abandon apartments than maintain them. If we had a more humane economic system that prioritized the human need for housing above profit those properties would not be left in disrepair.


movingtobay2019 t1_jbh28nv wrote

You can't maintain apartments with feelings. Eventually, budgetary reality kicks in.

Or really run anything in the city, as NYC is finding out with the migrant situation.

So who in this case pays the funds to maintain the apartment? The owners have abandoned it. So I am fine if it gets sold to the current tenants for free. You think the tenants have the money to maintain it? Because I sure as hell am not using city funds to maintain private housing.

The money has to come from somewhere. So where does it come from here?


_Maxolotl t1_jbglbf3 wrote

This city needs a fast-track process that lets city inspectors identify urgent repairs and give landlords a very short window to get them done.

Like, after 48 hours, the city needs to be able to hire contractors to do the work to city specs, and add the cost to the landlord's tax bill for that year.

We also need a way to quickly put repeat offenders into receivership or fine and lien them so hard they're forced to sell.

It takes way way too long to force a landlord to fix serious safety and habitability violations. If someone can't afford to maintain their building they shouldn't be a landlord.

Also one of the most annoying things about all the lists of terrible landlords that we see published every year is that they don't include clear face photos of the bastards. People should be nervous about social consequences of being this awful.


natekrinsky OP t1_jbh0vgo wrote

This is a good idea, I'd add that repeat offenders should have their properties expropriated and either made public housing or given to the tenants in a TOPA situation.


Chewwy987 t1_je0jkrm wrote

Ba CB k in the 870s/80s building were taken over by the government they couldn’t handle the tenants so ended up selling it of. Sometimes tenants are purposefully destroying apartments to try to get nicer apartments or to not pay rent. When rents are low there’s limited funds to make such repairs often there are no funds for repairs so the building just gets left to fall into shambles


Bubbly_Yak4159 t1_jbft40v wrote

Once I saw rent-stabilized, I was like oooh. They are not going to fix a damn thing. They want it to fall apart so they will be so fed up and leave.Do not be surprise if an “accident” happens. These people are dirty and thirsty for money.


movingtobay2019 t1_jbh489j wrote

Has less to do with rent stabilization and more to do with what the rate is. Many of the high rises are under rent stabilization programs and don't have the issues in this article.


Jimmy_kong253 t1_jbexvbs wrote

To me if the tenants can make a case that the building owner is absentee and it can pass muster with a court. The building should then become a co-op with a board and everything that takes ownership.


Refreshingpudding t1_jbg0zj4 wrote

Any way to find out which buildings they own uptown?


JaredSeth t1_jbg5cvt wrote

Back in 2018 they bought a portfolio of about 53 buildings from another landlord, so they've got a bunch. The article mentions 655 West 160th Street and I know they're also facing foreclosure on their buildings at 4300 Broadway and 121 West 116th Street.


Jolly_Independence70 t1_jbmkb7c wrote

Go to and plug one of the addresses mentioned in the article into the search (like, 655 West 160) and that'll pull up a profile for the building that includes map showing associated buildings. Not all the dots on the maps are owned by Sugar Hill Capital Partners, but it's mostly accurate.


TrustmeIamPerfect t1_jbi1zd7 wrote

I live in one of these buildings. It’s been a nightmare and so discouraging because there is nowhere to turn. You call 311 and put in your complaint and that’s it. I think they should convert these buildings to co-ops and let us buy them. The landlord is absolutely horrible. And the employees change non stop. It is crazy!


Jolly_Independence70 t1_jbmknho wrote

Please email trihilltenants at gmail dot com

Send your building address, problems you and neighbors have experienced, as well as what's been tried to address those problems. Happy to work together!


Mammoth_Sprinkles705 t1_jbfs69t wrote

Landlords who don't make repairs should have the assets sneezed or fined for the amount of repairs then have their property turned over to the government...fuck these deadbeat parasites.

If you don't maintain a property you should not be allowed to own it.