Proposed Amendments to Rent Stabilization Law: Creating More Problems Than They Solve?
With New York's rent regulations up for renewal in June, there are several bills in the Legislature that claim to be designed to strengthen tenant protections. Two that appear to have garnered favor with the governor are one that would eliminate vacancy decontrol and another that would limit a landlord's ability to revoke a preferential rent. But might these bills be more trouble than they are worth?
May 15, 2019 at 11:15 AM
8 minute read
With New York's rent regulations up for renewal in June, there are several bills in the Legislature that claim to be designed to strengthen tenant protections. Two that appear to have garnered favor with the governor are one that would eliminate vacancy decontrol and another that would limit a landlord's ability to revoke a preferential rent. But might these bills be more trouble than they are worth?
Vacancy Decontrol
Under applicable law, where an apartment is rent-stabilized its “legal rent” must be registered with the state Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR). Each year, the Rent Guidelines Board (RGB) determines the percentage by which landlords may increase that legal rent for lease renewals. If an apartment becomes vacant, however, it may be removed from rent stabilization altogether if its legal rent exceeds a statutory maximum (currently $2,700). This is vacancy decontrol.
Bill S2591A would eliminate vacancy decontrol. It would also require apartments previously removed from rent stabilization through vacancy decontrol to be re-registered as rent stabilized if they were rented for less than $5,000 per month at any time since Jan. 1, 2013. All such apartments would be subject to RGB limits on rent increases indefinitely, regardless of how high the rent gets.
According to the bill's sponsor memo, the purpose of this is “to protect the state's precious supply of affordable housing.” But it raises substantial constitutional concerns that, under Manocherian v. Lenox Hill Hosp., 84 N.Y.2d 385 (1994), it may constitute an impermissible regulatory taking.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: For Big Law Names, Shorter is Sweeter
- 2Wine, Dine and Grind (Through the Weekend): Summer Associates Thirst For Experience in 'Real Matters'
- 3'Fire All the Bullets Now': EEOC Enforcements Surge
- 4'I'm Staying Everything': Texas Bankruptcy Judge Halts Talc Trials Against J&J
- 5Suspect in Courthouse Bombing Was Targeting Judge, Deputies, Say Prosecutors
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250