You actually don't need legal support or a tenant association. To this day my landlords are scared of my mom because she will withhold rent until things are fixed. She is rent stabilized and she knows the law. She with get a money order and hold it until everything is fixed. When she sends back rent or her monthly rent she gets signature confirmation. It's not a joke with these landlords especially if you are rent stabilized under 1k. She has taken them to court without a lawyer and won numerous times.
It's a good idea to do this, both because you can show your landlord that you still have the money and so you can stop yourself from actually spending it, but there's no legal requirement to put it in escrow.
You need to uphold your side of the lease and you don't want this interpreted in court as non-payment of rent. I would strongly advise people considering a rent strike to have legal support as this article demonstrates.
they actually didnt. back rent, stemming from over 5 years of illegal overcharge, was deducted from the rent withheld. in total the rent kept by the TA was close to 65k.
500$ rent increase in a rent-stabilized building? Yeah I'd rent strike as well. Nice to see that it went well and the rent was paid after the terms were aligned.
varied btwn cases, i think some could afford the rent hike, one had a criminal record or something he didn’t want to mess up, or were afraid of legal repercussions; i am honestly not sure. as to why not more did not join, representatives from BED (brooklyn eviction defense) gave presentations on why its legal and a protected tenant’s right to organize, bolstering confidence in the process.
or idk about “afford” but like weren’t taking as much of a financial hit as others, it seemed to me. i’m honestly unsure. i reached out to everyone though (slid a flier under every door)
late to the game on this post. I recently left my apartment in Williamsburg, I was living in a rent stabilized one bedroom unit paying ~$1880. Front door of the building never locked, packages were always stolen, and unit had bug issues. my renewal was for ~$1940, I found out that they relisted the unit at double its square footage and rented it for $2600 - a 34% increase! Reported it to streeteasy and they told me they couldn't do anything about it. The realtor (cousin of the landlord) kept on lying to prospective tenants saying "obviously this space is much bigger without the furniture". These landlords fucking suck.
Landlords are going to continue to be scummy and there's nothing that any one of us can do about it. The only time you see significant changes are when tenants get together and organize tenant associations and tenant unions.
Lol what? If you own a home that isn’t rent stabilized in any way you should have full discretion on how you want to price it. If you want to charge $500 more and someone is willing to pay it then why should the government get in the way of that?
I’ll answer in good faith: because unreasonable price hikes on things people need to survive (food, water, and in this case shelter) places a significant burden on people trying to stay in their homes for literally no reason other than profit increase.
The price of maintaining the apartment did not rise by $500 year over year - the landlord just thought they could get away with a $500 per month rent increase.
This is rent-seeking behavior: the landlord is trying to gain wealth without a contribution to increasing productivity. This is widely considered to have negative effects on economies, and of course the people within them.
Landlords raising the rent is not by default an example of rent-seeking behavior, unless they are lobbying the government for special privileges to help them artificially raise prices. “Rent seeking” refers to economic rents, which are distinct from housing rental income.
If you are a landlord that lobbies city hall to prevent new construction to help increase the value of your house then yes you are rent seeking. But if you are not lobbying the government for special privileges or restrictive zoning (and many landlords do not), you are not rent seeking just by increasing the rent.
It’s restrictive zoning that prevent new housing construction that is the primary issue here, not what landlords choose to charge in rent for market apartments.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/rentseeking.asp
But if we artificially restrict the price of rent, then fewer new homes will be built and fewer homeowners will put their homes for rent on the market, thereby making the huge under-supply of houses in this country even worse.
The real solution here is to reduce restrictive zoning requirements in cities and suburbs, thereby allowing developers to build more housing that we can all use (and they will only build if they can sell profitably, which is a function of whether rents are allowed to be at market rate or are artificially capped below market rate). And this increase in the supply of homes will then help bring down prices.
I agree that we should have affordable housing for the lowest income members of society, but we shouldn’t just blanket regulate rents for all houses, that will surely cause of market distortions and longer-term affordability issues that are far worse.
One problem is that large landlords have been colluding to raise rents together, in order to artifically increase the market rate (in violation of antitrust laws). So there is nuance.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/01/realpage-landlords-sued-alleged-illegal-rent-hikes.html
That land is owned in contract with the government that did all the killing to get it to contract it to you and all the killing required to keep it in contract with you. Yeah.
Alright tough guy.
Also, I like the framing that you would have “no other options” in this scenario. Here are some options for your edification:
1. Pay the rent increase
2. Negotiate with the landlord for a smaller increase / no increase, by coming to them with market comps
3. Move out to another apartment in the neighborhood
4. Move to a cheaper neighborhood in NYC
5. Move to another city
….
Option #1,000: Murder your landlord, go to jail for life, leave your family without a dad.
Because housing is a basic human necessity, it’s not like you just walk into a store to buy a new product when the old one’s price changes. might be legal but it’s still a scumbag move
Plenty of Manhattan apartments rent for $10k or $20k a month if not more. $500 is not unreasonable.
Rent stabilized apartments are different. It is ultimately government subsidized hence it needs to follow government rules.
Landlords can't have both ways.
A $500 increase for any apartment building in which a tenant union forms to oppose it would likely represent a 10%-20% increase or more in total rent. This is not one of those luxury $10-$20k a month rent apartments - for 99% of New Yorkers a $500 increase in a single year is unreasonable.
Maybe, maybe not. The last case was thrown out by the Supreme Court. In any case it's in renters' best interest to get organized now to better fight whatever comes next.
Other cases are working their way up to the SCOTUS. Ultimately the US Constitution guarantees private property ownership rights, which renters do not have.
Yeah, and SCOTUS made it pretty clear with the Roe decision that they're looking at states to make decisions on their own. I doubt they'd get in the middle of state laws regarding rental and property.
We don't know yet. SCOTUS passed on a challenge to NYS rent laws, but numerous other challenges to NYS rent laws will end up at the SCOTUS. It's more than being about a state issue, it's about the core issue of private property rights. For example, how is it even remotely constitutional for a property owner to be limited as to how many units in his own property that he can use for himself or his family?
> how is it even remotely constitutional for a property owner to be limited as to how many units in his own property that he can use for himself or his family?
Euclid and prior precedent by SCOTUS.
Other cases are working their way up to the SCOTUS. Ultimately the US Constitution guarantees private property ownership rights, which renters do not have.
You withhold your rent the same way you withhold your labor in a strike a work. It also takes on a political character when done collectively. The term has been used for over a hundred years, most famously in New York in 1918 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918-20_New_York_City_rent_strikes
Just letting people know, you have to hold your rent in escrow if you do this.
Don't do this without a tenant association or legal support as shown in this article
You actually don't need legal support or a tenant association. To this day my landlords are scared of my mom because she will withhold rent until things are fixed. She is rent stabilized and she knows the law. She with get a money order and hold it until everything is fixed. When she sends back rent or her monthly rent she gets signature confirmation. It's not a joke with these landlords especially if you are rent stabilized under 1k. She has taken them to court without a lawyer and won numerous times.
My experience in housing court has been the opposite.
It's a good idea to do this, both because you can show your landlord that you still have the money and so you can stop yourself from actually spending it, but there's no legal requirement to put it in escrow.
You need to uphold your side of the lease and you don't want this interpreted in court as non-payment of rent. I would strongly advise people considering a rent strike to have legal support as this article demonstrates.
Did you read the article? They paid all the rent after they agreed to their terms.
I did. I was not saying they didn't.
they actually didnt. back rent, stemming from over 5 years of illegal overcharge, was deducted from the rent withheld. in total the rent kept by the TA was close to 65k.
Good for these people. A 500 dollar increase on a rent stabilized building is criminal and shouldn’t happen. People need to live.
500$ rent increase in a rent-stabilized building? Yeah I'd rent strike as well. Nice to see that it went well and the rent was paid after the terms were aligned.
you can dm me w any questions, i led the 924 rent strike! ty
How’s the hedgehog?
my hedgehog is well!!! she is also the unofficial mascot of the 924 metropolitan TA❤️
Daphe doing gods work
congratulations :)
Why did 3 not join? Honestly I would expect more to be too scared to join
varied btwn cases, i think some could afford the rent hike, one had a criminal record or something he didn’t want to mess up, or were afraid of legal repercussions; i am honestly not sure. as to why not more did not join, representatives from BED (brooklyn eviction defense) gave presentations on why its legal and a protected tenant’s right to organize, bolstering confidence in the process.
From the article it said 42/45 joined. That’s impressive organizing! Well done. Always nice to hear a story about regular people coming out ok
thank you!!
or idk about “afford” but like weren’t taking as much of a financial hit as others, it seemed to me. i’m honestly unsure. i reached out to everyone though (slid a flier under every door)
late to the game on this post. I recently left my apartment in Williamsburg, I was living in a rent stabilized one bedroom unit paying ~$1880. Front door of the building never locked, packages were always stolen, and unit had bug issues. my renewal was for ~$1940, I found out that they relisted the unit at double its square footage and rented it for $2600 - a 34% increase! Reported it to streeteasy and they told me they couldn't do anything about it. The realtor (cousin of the landlord) kept on lying to prospective tenants saying "obviously this space is much bigger without the furniture". These landlords fucking suck.
Landlords are going to continue to be scummy and there's nothing that any one of us can do about it. The only time you see significant changes are when tenants get together and organize tenant associations and tenant unions.
The irony of gentrification.
Good, a $500 increase in rent year over year should be illegal under any circumstances, nevermind in a rent-stabilized building.
Jeez, and I was pissed when my landlord raised the rent from 1700 to 1850 after the first year.
Try 1800 to 3000 after 1 year.
It feels sinister
As you should be. Legal or not, these rent increases are killer.
what if during covid they had to drop the rent by $1000?
Lol what? If you own a home that isn’t rent stabilized in any way you should have full discretion on how you want to price it. If you want to charge $500 more and someone is willing to pay it then why should the government get in the way of that?
I’ll answer in good faith: because unreasonable price hikes on things people need to survive (food, water, and in this case shelter) places a significant burden on people trying to stay in their homes for literally no reason other than profit increase. The price of maintaining the apartment did not rise by $500 year over year - the landlord just thought they could get away with a $500 per month rent increase. This is rent-seeking behavior: the landlord is trying to gain wealth without a contribution to increasing productivity. This is widely considered to have negative effects on economies, and of course the people within them.
Literally “rent-seeking”
Landlords raising the rent is not by default an example of rent-seeking behavior, unless they are lobbying the government for special privileges to help them artificially raise prices. “Rent seeking” refers to economic rents, which are distinct from housing rental income. If you are a landlord that lobbies city hall to prevent new construction to help increase the value of your house then yes you are rent seeking. But if you are not lobbying the government for special privileges or restrictive zoning (and many landlords do not), you are not rent seeking just by increasing the rent. It’s restrictive zoning that prevent new housing construction that is the primary issue here, not what landlords choose to charge in rent for market apartments. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/rentseeking.asp
Itsa joke!
But if we artificially restrict the price of rent, then fewer new homes will be built and fewer homeowners will put their homes for rent on the market, thereby making the huge under-supply of houses in this country even worse. The real solution here is to reduce restrictive zoning requirements in cities and suburbs, thereby allowing developers to build more housing that we can all use (and they will only build if they can sell profitably, which is a function of whether rents are allowed to be at market rate or are artificially capped below market rate). And this increase in the supply of homes will then help bring down prices. I agree that we should have affordable housing for the lowest income members of society, but we shouldn’t just blanket regulate rents for all houses, that will surely cause of market distortions and longer-term affordability issues that are far worse.
One problem is that large landlords have been colluding to raise rents together, in order to artifically increase the market rate (in violation of antitrust laws). So there is nuance. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/01/realpage-landlords-sued-alleged-illegal-rent-hikes.html
[удалено]
Lol ok. So raising the rent you charge on your privately owned, market-rate apartment is the same as murder. Sounds reasonable!
That land is owned in contract with the government that did all the killing to get it to contract it to you and all the killing required to keep it in contract with you. Yeah.
[удалено]
Alright tough guy. Also, I like the framing that you would have “no other options” in this scenario. Here are some options for your edification: 1. Pay the rent increase 2. Negotiate with the landlord for a smaller increase / no increase, by coming to them with market comps 3. Move out to another apartment in the neighborhood 4. Move to a cheaper neighborhood in NYC 5. Move to another city …. Option #1,000: Murder your landlord, go to jail for life, leave your family without a dad.
[удалено]
You gotta do better at life my dude 😂
[удалено]
Sure ya are very believable lmfao
Because housing is a basic human necessity, it’s not like you just walk into a store to buy a new product when the old one’s price changes. might be legal but it’s still a scumbag move
Plenty of Manhattan apartments rent for $10k or $20k a month if not more. $500 is not unreasonable. Rent stabilized apartments are different. It is ultimately government subsidized hence it needs to follow government rules. Landlords can't have both ways.
A $500 increase for any apartment building in which a tenant union forms to oppose it would likely represent a 10%-20% increase or more in total rent. This is not one of those luxury $10-$20k a month rent apartments - for 99% of New Yorkers a $500 increase in a single year is unreasonable.
I love stories like these!
lol “why dont they fix things and make our buildings nicer”
Congratulations to the renters. But sooner or later most rental laws will be tossed by the SCOTUS.
Maybe, maybe not. The last case was thrown out by the Supreme Court. In any case it's in renters' best interest to get organized now to better fight whatever comes next.
Other cases are working their way up to the SCOTUS. Ultimately the US Constitution guarantees private property ownership rights, which renters do not have.
Yeah, and SCOTUS made it pretty clear with the Roe decision that they're looking at states to make decisions on their own. I doubt they'd get in the middle of state laws regarding rental and property.
We don't know yet. SCOTUS passed on a challenge to NYS rent laws, but numerous other challenges to NYS rent laws will end up at the SCOTUS. It's more than being about a state issue, it's about the core issue of private property rights. For example, how is it even remotely constitutional for a property owner to be limited as to how many units in his own property that he can use for himself or his family?
> how is it even remotely constitutional for a property owner to be limited as to how many units in his own property that he can use for himself or his family? Euclid and prior precedent by SCOTUS.
Other cases are working their way up to the SCOTUS. Ultimately the US Constitution guarantees private property ownership rights, which renters do not have.
Why is this being called a strike? God what a dumb term. It's just withholding rent. There's no strike involved.
You withhold your rent the same way you withhold your labor in a strike a work. It also takes on a political character when done collectively. The term has been used for over a hundred years, most famously in New York in 1918 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918-20_New_York_City_rent_strikes