This is the last post I’ll write specifically on the Albany rent reform, although my proverbial door is always open if you have more questions about it. I can’t provide legal advice, but I can definitely (as you’ve seen here) give my two cents on the matter. I will probably comment more on the aftermath, including a lawsuit by landlords claiming that these changes violate their constitutional rights. Apparently ANY form of rent control or rent stabilization is a violation in their eyes, so I’m currently rolling MY eyes so hard I almost fell out of my chair.
Today’s post is about the biggest proposed change that DIDN’T end up in the final bill: “good cause eviction,” or, as some people are calling it, “universal rent control.” Good cause eviction would have forced a landlord to show “good cause” when choosing not to renew a lease, meaning the tenant would be entitled to an annual renewal provided he/she paid rent on time and didn’t do anything to violate the lease terms. Currently this only exists in rent stabilization and rent control, which is part of why these apartments are so sought after. The rent can only increase a certain amount, but you’re also guaranteed a renewal year after year until you decide to leave. Good cause eviction would also have kept landlords from increasing the rent more than 1.5x the level of inflation in an area (which, as I explain below, seems like it would be hard to calculate and enforce, and would lead to a lot of unnecessary battles), as this would constitute a forcing the tenant out using pricing. Example: “Yes, you can stay, but you need to pay $1,000 a month more than you paid last year.”
Advocates of this rule point to families who have raised children in an apartment, living in the same space for upwards of a decade without major rent increases only to suddenly find themselves forced out as the neighborhood changes and unable to afford anything comparable nearby. Critics argue that it would stunt growth, keep new people from being able to move into areas saturated with tenants refusing to leave, and unduly burden landlords who would not be able to recoup their property taxes and expenses. Shockingly, I’m actually with the critics on this one.
I do understand the appeal of this change, and I feel for everyone I know whose leases are not being renewed and they suddenly find themselves looking for a new home. I help friends and referrals through the renewal process often, letting them know when their landlord is trying to bully them, how to fight back, and when they actually do need to pack up and leave. But I still have trouble getting behind this “entitlement” of an annual renewal, because that’s not something guaranteed anywhere else with rentals. This bill is state-wide, so it would have been the case for all renters in NY, not just the city. I don’t think that’s fair. As a tenant, you do not have the upfront costs and expenses of maintaining a property; that falls on the landlord. But you also don’t accrue equity and it isn’t as stable as owning, which is why people buy homes. If you aren’t on the hook for any actual maintenance of the home but you are given that level of stability at the cost of the actual owner, that feels like having your cake and eating it, too.
“But Anna, you advocate for rent stabilized housing, which is exactly that!” Yes, but that’s why I argue that we should do a better job separating the two: rent stabilized places as basic apartments without bells and whistles, and free market at the landlord’s discretion (they can keep them plain and charge less, or make ‘em fancy and charge more). The reforms have implemented a lot of new protections for free-market tenants that make it easier to fight an unconscionable rent hike, and that give them more time if they do have to relocate. They can only be asked to pay one month for security, so the cost of moving is lower than it was before. This leaves plenty of people unprotected; I know that. But I think the alternative is worse. I instead hope that the tenant advocacy groups and legal aid keep up the good work, so that the people who need help the most are able to receive it.
Honestly, my main issue with this bill is that I think it would create more problems than it solved. It is too vague, too hard to enforce, too open to interpretation. Would it apply to condos and co-ops, where the boards have full discretion? What would ACTUALLY constitute good cause, and how would it be proven? Would it still be a situation where major landlords with law firms and disposable cash could find ways to remove tenants regardless? Would they start treating free market apartments the way they do rent stabilized ones: let everything fall into disrepair to hope they leave?
All of this is a touchy subject, and I know that, per usual, I have some biases. But as I always say, I don’t believe in a ceiling, but I do believe in a floor. And universal rent control is putting a ceiling on this city, while giving tenants — dare I say it — TOO many rights. Sorry, Julia Salazar, I love you, but in this case I’m not on board.
xo
Anna