That battle was ugly, forced building to compromise and millions spent to pad folks to allow plan to proceed and took years to resolved all over alleged sunlight impact during a few hrs during the summer. Residents simply used park and school as scapegoats to hide their NIMBYism

https://patch.com/new-york/upper-east-side-nyc/blood-center-rezoning-approved-council-after-yearlong-battle

The blood bank does not demolish the school or park - those are located across the street. The plan was to demolish old building and build new one. Its height would cast a shadow on the school and park at certain hours. That's the complaint they going with on paper but I'm sure its related to other reasons to residents nearby. They don't care for the school or park

They are tearing down their own building & rebuilding taller but ppl will still complain

its going to be complaints about blocking view and sun & building too tall for character of the area- just look at the long battle with residents regarding the blood bank research center 2 or so street from this proposed building

MSK housing of residents and students & I'm sure they will house them somewhere else or exit the housing game & just issue housing stipends only. Sux, there's a faculty bar that's attached to the nearby Rockefeller building, free beer on fri night as long keg don't run out. At least that was the case last time I visited

they have separate buildings in midtown for that... you want to move patients cross town to hospital and beyond to their care facilities? or better if they close?

There are no large existing commercial building next to the hospital. Is mostly residential buildings up there or mix use. Thus have to build new

More essential infrastructure improvements - I'm sure the nearby residents will complain and be against just like the new blood bank building few blocks away

yes bc there's a ton of ambiguity regarding dwi when it's the only driver and already blew past limit

Useless position. Axe them to save 200m a yr and divert to build elevators and stations plus other must need improvements

Its also the legal term. OP might not like it but it is what it is. Also OP gloss over that the LL will continue to rent or else have no tenant at all while ignoring the LL will now price future rents with a perpetual tenant risk hence higher prices and scrutiny for the next renter who don't have any price cap increase protection until the renew. OR the very real possibility, the units now taken off market

> 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

>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 have plenty of free time during day job. Currently compiling. Feel free to ignore my predictions of what will happen. Just like in 2019

>This bill does not "violate the original contract"

Did the original contract had a end date? yes or no. does this bill change that and force one party to perpetually renew if requested and eligible? yes so a change in original contract.

> If Good Cause were so bad for tenants like you claim

bc they view it in the short term and can't see long term. Evebn you cant see it right now

Just like tenant advocates say the 2019 rent reforms were good and ignore the predictions of others that it will simply lead to more vacant units bc the renos wont support the legal rent. Tenant advocates at the time say it wont happen nor huge impact. Guess what it did occur. Where's those tenant advocate that deny this?

yawn....I was a tenant longer than a LL. Also I merely pointing out the absurdity how this bill violates the original contract and the unforeseen consequences that will happen when bill pass. There will be losers but sure some LLs but especially future tenants.

>Like how would good cause eviction decrease the size of apartments???

New rental construction will simply be smaller to avoid long term tenants. Existing may be chop up. The faster you outgrow the unit, faster you move out. Faster move out ,higher the rent increase under this bill It's the same how new rental constructions and renos come with all electrical. The owners don't have to pay for any of those utility expenses since it can be separately metered. Saving them money. You don't think they want units configured in a way that will save them and generate more money

Yes turn over does mean unit is available for rent. It's the definition.

Breaking news, defense attorney and plaintiffs don't want to go to trial and claim missing random x document as reason they get off for their alleged crimes. They not asking for the case to be dismiss bc they claim they are innocent but time to bring them to trial lapse under 30.30 bc x doc missing and the people not certified to go to trial.

Maybe you not reading either

> At the very least I have to hire a lawyer goto housing court and prove my reason is OK.

Its more hoops to jump to reclaim property after previously agreed upon lengths. You think OP goes to tenants I want to reclaim for own use and they going to 100% agree on the spot or wait it out after they get a court order ordering them? Or tenant request a payout to move or wait till court order from your legal property?

New tenants will face higher scrutiny on their application, more discriminations especially families, units be smaller and less available units since turn over will drop dramatically bc the old tenant not leaving past their original contract term. You are lowering the turn over but still not building enough units hence screwed inventory. Not to mention owners will start to pull units from market to avoid bill to rent only word of mouth. Plus no will will want to rent to someone who may be a potential long term tenant bc the faster that person move out, faster owner can return to market and raise rent price since price increase cap don't apply. So nil incentive to have long term tenants or large units bc they outgrow faster in smaller units nor non near perfect candidates under this bill.

You know the entire forest you not seeing...

> Maybe get a real job and stop leeching off of our hard work? Cheers.

dude I work a day job & side hustles and no LLing is not paying the bills and infact it's a net negative once I calculate all the expense & depreciation. I been a renter way longer been a LL. The real value why I do it not because it makes me money now but it enables me to be eligible for the mortgage to buy the place. Becoming a LL is often the only way one is qualified and able to buy a home in NYC if you don't come from money.

The timelines for discovery needs adjustment and it should be for relevant items to case. Let the judge decide if relevant and if defense feels they are missing something crucial to defense...let them argue it to the jury & judge during trial. Tossing entire case for non relevant items is absurd. It should be a measured response. Defense simply abusing discovery to prevent cases from reaching trial. Where's the justice in that for victims?

Am a LL and ultimately this bill wont impact me but I am noting the absurdity of it and its impact down road. Are we not in agreement we have a contract stating you leave at the end of term? Did you not agreed to that on signing? End of term is a good cause to end the agreement. That's the cruz what this bill violates. The agreed contract.

the price cap I been referring is the cap on increases. it exist as we both agree just like in rent stabilized units but now making it apply for market units

>If a landlord is merely not renewing a lease in order to kick the current tenant out (without good cause), then yes the tenant should 100% have the right to remain in their home.

the good cause is the end of the term length on the agreed contract...and 100% right to remain at someone property who didn't agree to the extended length possibly that you be there forever? you don't own it. some else does that you agreed to live and vacate by end of the contract

>"perpetual lease" does not respect the wording of the bill itself.

and yet even you agree in practice it is and the point of the bill

and yet its fitting we sign a 1 yr contract and we are obligated to offer and continue beyond that length? How contract works again?