| Carola Von Hoffmannstahl-Solomonoff | Thursday, June 28, 2001 - 10:29 pm
Recently the case of a tenant who charged a roommate considerably more than half the rent became a subject of dispute in both the courtroom and amongst tenant advocates. In defending roommates who act as landlords some make the point that the tenant acting as landlord's presence in the actual living situation puts them in a more sympathetic position than absentee landlords. As a person who has lived in two-family buildings where the landlord was the only other resident, I can testify that proximity doesn't make rent gouging any more tolerable. In fact, the claustrophobia adds considerably to the stress level. Imagine the vibes after forcing a building inspection. Or after battling in housing court. And a "last in" roommate has even less claim to legal protection. Which leads to the issues of tenants as fallible human beings.
I hate landlords. One aspect of Mao's Cultural Revolution I could have really gotten behind was the public execution of landlords. That being said, not all tenants are in the right. Some make other tenants' lives hell. I've seen too many situations where decent, low income renters have been driven out of housing by drug dealers and party hearty types. Hence I do believe that eviction is sometimes warranted-- and that one form of landlord negligence involves not acting to evict bullies and thugs. Some landlords prefer a cash on the barrel head (and off the books)
drug dealer to someone who pays with a check. Or who may actually want building services. And I also have to add (through gritted teeth!) that I've seen a case or two where tenants abused landlords. One situation involved an elderly black woman terrorized by her upstairs (and only) tenants who essentially kept her prisoner and turned her home into a drug house. And her building really was her home-- not an "investment property".
Having been a tenant in the New York City area for a good deal of my life, I understand the absolute bitterness and total pro tenant partisanship that results from long years battling often sociopathic landlords who have the upper hand due to housing scarcity. And organized landlords sometimes make a case for themselves using some of the issues I've raised. But I still think it important to keep a moral center when considering actions of individual people in individual situations. Gouging is gouging. Greed is greed. And on a tactical front, when tenant activists fudge these issues they loose public sympathy. The pro tenant stance looks like self interest. Making a case for an original tenant charging a roommate far much more than half the rent, looks like making a case for the one who got there first and maximized their advantage. And isn't that one of the things we hate about landlords?
Carola Von Hoffmannstahl-Solomonoff
On The QT |
| Anonymous | Friday, June 29, 2001 - 12:57 am
Having a landlord living in the same building is sheer hell. My old landlord used to come in the apartment and search through my things when I was living in Brooklyn. I would come home and find things missing.
I felt so helpless because I was afraid to complain to the police about it for fear of losing my apartment. |
| Tom | Friday, June 29, 2001 - 07:15 pm
I had a roommate who charged me $800 a month for my share and then I found out the rent was only $750 so I was paying all the rent for one room. |
| Ronin | Saturday, June 30, 2001 - 02:55 am
My opinion is that having an absentee landlord who doesn't have anything to do with the living space can be the most abusive situation. They can abuse you and simply ignore you. All of these slumlords do everything possible to avoid being identified.
Even with an obnoxious LL who lives on site there is a limit to the harassment and lack of repairs. Afterall, you can ring the LL's bell at 11pm to remind him. You can post copies of any violations around the neighborhood to embarass him, etc. He is available to hear your complaints.
As for roommates, it seems to me that an argument could be made that charging more than half of the rent is fair. Afterall, it is the prime tenant's longevity that makes the rent affordable in the first place. And, the prime tenant is taking a risk that his or her stuff will be stolen or damaged. And, the prime tenant has paid all of the deposit and the rent prior to the roommate and everything is on the prime tenants name and credit report.
Why can't the prime tenant get a little something extra for these exposures? (but not the whole rent like Tom paid, that's rediculous)
Having said this, the case in the Rotten Roommate Ruling seemed pretty excessive to me. But, it's ok if the Roommate knowingly entered into the agreement aware that the prime tenant has a low rent. What I find obscene about the ruling is that the judge basically says, roommate you were ripped-off (even if you were aware of it) and I the judge will hereby make you whole by evicting you and giving the apartment to the LL who got all the money he was entitled to anyway.... (did that make sense to you??? Didn't to me either. So it sounds like another bogus decision from a pro LL housing court judge). |
| Tom | Tuesday, July 10, 2001 - 03:01 pm
How can it be fair to charge more than half the rent? The prime tenant isn't risking anything. It's the roommate who risks everything if the prime tenant is a psycho! Everything is in the prime tenants name and they can just change the locks and steal the roommates property. |
| merlin | Tuesday, July 17, 2001 - 12:15 pm
;-)
Roommates = Rip-offs
:-P |
| lem | Thursday, July 26, 2001 - 12:07 am
short and to the point! |