An illegal hotel that was busted on the UWS. (The Mayor's Office, via Dnainfo)

The operators of illegal hotels may have trouble sleeping tonight—and it won't necessarily be because of the rowdy tourists filing in after midnight. The City Council voted this afternoon to raise fines on building owners who convert permanent residential units into illegal hotels from $800 to $2,500 per violation to $1,000 to $25,000 for repeat offenders.

AirBnB-ers beware!

"Many of these illegal hotels are taking housing away from New Yorkers who need it," said Upper West Side Council member Gale Brewer, who introduced the bill because she did not believe that the $800 fine was enough of a deterrent for landlords who often make more than $100 a night on each illegal unit, particularly when they pack the rooms with bunk beds.

At a press conference before the vote Speaker Christine Quinn said that she had seen "residents being pushed out of their homes" by landlords eager to make more money, including whole buildings emptied of their tenants. The fine increase is aimed at preserving single room occupancies and residential hotels—many of which are rent-controlled—and other affordable housing units that are often especially vulnerable to conversions to transient hotels.

After all, why break the law to collect market-rate rents when you can break it and collect market-rate hotel rates? It's $2,000 a month or $300 a night. You do the math.

Safety was another major concern cited by Ms. Brewer, who pointed out that the stringent safety codes mandated in legal hotels are not present in most illegal conversions, endangering tourists and long-term residents alike. And then there is the annoyance and the general inconvenience of living next door to drunken tourists tripping into their bunk beds after hours. Ms. Quinn spoke of one long-term tenant who came home one night to tourists screaming at him about the sub-standard service in the so-called hotel.

The fine increase, which passed 38 to 5 at a full council vote this afternoon, comes on the heels of a relatively new state law that prohibits class-A residential units from being rented for less than 30 days, with few exceptions (owner-occupied townhouses may rent up to two rooms provided everyone has access to the common areas).

The city has enforced the law aggressively since it took effect on May 1, 2011, fining some 1,900 illegal hotel operators in 2011, more than twice the number fined in 2010. Higher fines, even if they do not deter illegal hoteliers, should at least help defer the enforcement costs incurred by the Mayor's Office on Special Enforcement.

And while the hotel industry supports the bill (tourism is booming and illegal hotels siphon off their business), not all city residents have been equally thrilled. Bed and breakfast proprietors, for example, were dismayed to discover that they were considered illegal hotels in the eyes of the state law (the group is now lobbying for changes to the law allowing them to offer short-term rentals). And as for those with AirBnB accounts, the law and the higher fines—while tailor-made for another class of scofflaws—do apply, even if the Mayor's office is probably not inclined to waste its resources busting such individuals.

"If you rent your apartment out once a year, do I think it's likely that the DOB is going to come after you? No. I don't," said Ms. Quinn, in response to a reporter's question. She paused for a beat before adding with a smile: "But it is illegal activity."

kvelsey@observer.com

Coming on the market soon? (Google maps)

James D. Harmon Jr. may have taken his battle against rent control as far as it could legally go, but that doesn't mean that the owner of the beautiful Upper West Side brownstone has abandoned the fight.

Mr. Harmon is now considering the only sure way to escape the system he despises: selling his house, the New York Post reports.

Mr. Harmon, who grew up in the brownstone and lives in an apartment there with his wife Jeanne, has spent years waging a legal campaign against his three rent-regulated tenants (he also has three market-rate tenants), who pay about $1,000 a month and  have lived in the building since the 1970s, when they signed leases with Mr. Harmon's grandfather.

The legal fight ended in April, when the Supreme Court declined to hear Mr. Harmon's case, but not the bills (although Mr. Harmon, a former federal prosecutor, represented himself), and now Mr. Harmon is claiming that he can't afford to keep his house.

“This was devastating to our family because the house is part of our family. This is the place I grew up, and this is the place my mother died. We should be able to keep this house, but we don’t know if we can continue to do that," Mr. Harmon told the Post.

The Harmons say that the $1.5 million mortgage that they took out in 2005 to buy Mr. Harmon's brother's share, as well as the $58,300-a-year property taxes and $3,000 for water bills are becoming too onerous for them on top of the rent-regulated tenants. Maybe if they had all market rate tenants they could make ends meet.

Besides the bills, some of their neighbors have apparently been giving them dirty looks.

And there are signs that the seething-under-the-surface anger detectable in earlier court filings (ie: “thus imposing on the Harmons the unconstitutional burden of involuntarily sharing their home with tenant strangers whom the Harmons must subsidize for the rest of their lives") may finally be bubbling up.

“The moral judgment is this: Am I a self-respecting person that would allow a family to use its own home, or am I the kind of person that’s going to leech off of that family for the rest of my life?” Mr. Harmon told the Post.

What's the rent? (dpapworth, flickr)

Yet more good news for tenants living in rent-regulated apartments! Rents will will still be going up, of course—don't be crazy, the rent always goes up—but this year could see the lowest hike in a decade.

The Rent Guidelines Board has set one of the benchmarks used to determine rent increases—the rise in landlords' operating costs—at 2.8 percent, The New York Post reports.

The landlords' operating cost increase is used to determine how much the rent can be raised on the city's roughly 1 million rent-regulated apartments. Last year, based on a landlord operating cost increase of 6.1 percent, the Rent Guidelines Board set rent increases at 3.75 percent for a one-year lease renewal and 7.25 percent for two years.

Heartening news for tenants, especially since the board has set annual increases at about 3 percent for the last decade, a decision that never fails to irritate both tenants and landlords, who have demanded more transparency, so they know why the board makes the decisions that everyone hates.

(Several state and city politicians are also calling for reforms that would require City Council approval of new board members and expand the types of professionals who can serve on the board.)

It's been a good spring for rent-regulated tenants. Not only has the city voted to renew the rent regulation laws (which came as no big surprise), but the Supreme Court has decided not to hear a challenge to rent control brought by Upper West Side building owner James D. Harmon Jr.

The Rent Guidelines Board will take a preliminary vote on rent increases Tuesday. Of course, the other 53 percent of the city's renters, who live in market rate rentals, will be subject to increases of whatever the hell their landlord feels like.

kvelsey@observer.com

The house the Harmons built... but don't truly own? (Google Maps)

Today marks a day of rejoicing for residents living in one of the city's many rent-regulated apartments. Break out the Andre!

The Supreme Court has declined to hear a challenge to rent control brought by former federal prosecutor James D. Harmon Jr., the owner of a five-story townhouse on West 76th Street. Mr. Harmon, who grew up in the brownstone and now lives there with his wife Jeanne, inherited the building and its three rent-controlled tenants from his grandfather. The building also has three market-rate tenants.

In a city of renters, where the approximately 47% percent of the city's 2.2 million rental units are subject to rent control or rent stabilization laws, the Harmon case touched New Yorkers' notoriously hard-to-reach hearts. The case's potential to radically upset New York City housing policy, as well as rent regulation laws across the country, left those on both sides of issue anxiously awaiting the court's decision.

“This is a huge relief, because rent control could have been doomed under the conservative Roberts court," City Councilwoman Jessica Lappin wrote to The Observer. "Right now our city needs stronger rent protections so New Yorkers can afford to stay in their homes.”

In Harmon v. Kimmel—Jonathan Kimmel is chair of the city's Rent Guidelines Board—the Harmons argued that New York City’s rent laws violate the Constitution by taking their property without just compensation, "thus imposing on the Harmons the unconstitutional burden of involuntarily sharing their home with tenant strangers whom the Harmons must subsidize for the rest of their lives."

The Harmons also argued that the costs and benefits of the laws were distributed so arbitrarily that they violated their right to due process of law.

The most recent case was not the first time Mr. Harmon has challenged rent control laws in the courts (one challenge involved trying to oust a tenant so the couple's college-aged granddaughter could live in the apartment), nor is it the first time that his case has been denied. Last September, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the rent-stabilization law did not constitute a “taking” and that Mr. Harmon had acquired the property with “full knowledge that it was subject to RSL.” (In addition to inheriting his share of the building, Mr. Harmon also bought out his brother).

"The Harmon family is disappointed in the Supreme Court’s decision," the family said in a statement this afternoon. "We still believe that the Constitution does not allow the government to force us to take strangers into our home at our expense for life. Even our grandchildren have been barred from living with us. That is not our America."

Mr. Harmon also challenged the validity of his the ongoing housing emergency, "There are 68,000 vacant apartments in the City. That is not an emergency by any definition," he wrote in his statement. "If there is a problem, all New Yorkers should share in the cost of solving it, as we have done for over forty years. The Harmon family and other small property owners have carried the burden alone for too long."

City officials, on the other hand, were overjoyed by the court's decision not to hear the case.

"Rent regulation in New York City has a long history, and the Court properly left it to elected State and City officials to decide its future," said Alan Krams, senior counsel for the NYC Law Department, who filed opposition briefs in the case.

City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, long a champion of rent regulations and the supporter of a bill to reform the Rent Guidelines Board to better reflect the city's tenants, praised the Supreme Court's decision in a statement this morning.

“I’m pleased that the Supreme Court has refused to hear the case challenging the City’s rent stabilization program. The court’s decision is consistent with longstanding precedent that affirms the City and State’s authority to enact these laws, which are an integral part of the City’s effort to provide affordable housing to New Yorkers," said Ms. Quinn. "Now, the City’s rent regulation system can proceed unfettered, as we continue to ensure affordable housing is available to New Yorkers."

Maggie Russell-Ciardi, the executive director of Tenants & Neighbors, a tenant advocacy group, said that although the organization viewed the suit as frivolous, it caused tenants with rent-regulated apartments a great deal of anxiety.

"It was a distraction," said Ms. Russell-Ciardi, who said that now the group could focus on initiatives like strengthening the enforcement of the rent-regulation laws. "Rather than suing Kimmel, a lot of other owners of rent-regulated buildings just ignore the regulations or try to get around them."

Although the court's decisions would seem to confirm the suspicions, voiced by many rent control supporters, that Mr. Harmon's case had little chance of being heard given the court's previous findings in related property cases (last week, State Assemblyman Brian Kavanagh called it "a fools game" at a press conference about the Rent Guidelines Board), the Supreme Court did order the city to file briefs opposing Harmon's petition.

"It indicates that some interest was being shown behind the scenes... you can't grant a petiton unless oppositions have been filed," said attorney R.S. Radford, who filed an amicus brief supporting Harmon's petition on behalf of the Pacific Legal Foundation, Cato Institute and Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute.

"This could have just gone down the tubes three months ago, but the fact that it didn't is encouraging."

Mr. Radford said that he was also surprised at the generally favorable media attention given to the case and thought it suggested a good atmosphere for further legal challenges.

"I was filing briefs in cases like this 20 years ago and the media coverage was so hostile," said Mr. Radford. "But this time there was such a sense of realism. People realize that rent control is not achieving the positive social outcomes that it's supposed to."

Jack Freund, the executive vice president of the Rent Stabilization Association, which represents 25,000 property owners and agents, called the court's decision "very disappointing," and was worried that city councilmembers like Ms. Quinn would see the decision as giving them carte blanche.

"We will be looking for continued opportunities to challenge the constitutionality of rent laws. We thought this case raised some serious issues of whether there isn’t a better way to provide rent assistance rather than willy-nilly," said Mr. Freund."This case is a dead end, but the concepts that it raises are not."

The three tenants in Mr. Harmon's rent-regulated one-bedroom apartments, did not respond to the Observer's request for comment. Each signed their leases in the 1970s and pay approximately $1,000 a month for their one-bedroom apartments, about 59 percent below market rate, according to court documents.

The tenants' financial situations have remained something of a mystery, although much has been made of the fact that Nancy Wing Lombardi, an executive recruiter, owns a house on Long Island.

Of the three, only Dave Mlotok,  who works in publishing, has spoken publicly, albeit briefly, about the situation. He told the The Times that despite the potential for unpleasant confrontations, Mr. Harmon had been a good landlord and their meetings in the foyer have remained civil. He declined to discuss whether or not he could afford to pay market rate for his apartment.

The court's denial comes in the midst of several city and state initiatives to preserve and strengthen rent regulations in the city. Last month, the city voted to extend the Rent Stabilization Law through 2015, citing vacancy rates well below 5 percent. Such is the threshold to declare the requisite, ongoing housing emergency needed to continue the law.

The law, on the books since 1969, mandates that owners of properties with six or more units abide by annual rent increases—usually around 3 percent—set by the Rent Guidelines Board.

And last year, the state legislature bolstered the protections, renewing rent regulation laws and raising the ceiling on rent stabilization-eligible apartments in the process.

Whether mourning the Supreme Court's decision or praising it, both opponents and champions of the city's rent regulation agreed on one thing—no one likes the current rent regulations.

Vicki Been, the faculty director at NYU's Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy said that the case might be over, but that the issues raised by it—what exactly the city is trying to accomplish with rent regulation, who the program's beneficiaries are, and how to both make housing more affordable to low-income people and preserve long-term housing,  would linger on for years to come.

"It was an interesting moment for the city," she said. "But for better or worse there’s no immediate crisis with the city."

kvelsey@observer.com

Mr. Harmon, who grew up in the brownstone and now lives there with his wife Jeanne, inherited the building and its three rent-controlled tenants from his grandfather. Mr. Harmon’s three rent-controlled tenants each pay around $1,000 a month for one-bedroom apartments, about 59 percent below market rate, according to court documents. Three other tenants in the building pay market rents.

Mr. Harmon argued that New York City’s rent laws violate the Constitution by taking his property without just compensation.

This is not the first time Mr. Harmon has challenged rent control laws in the courts, nor is it the first time that his case has been denied. The Supreme Court does not release any statements when it declines to hear a case. However,

Previous denials of Mr. Harmon’s Earlier suits filed by Mr. Harmon sought to remove a rent-controlled tenant so that the Harmons’ college-age granddaughter could live in the unit. Most recently, he took the case to the the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which ruled last September that the rent-stabilization law did not constitute a “taking” and that Mr. Harmon had acquired the property with “full knowledge that it was subject to RSL.”

The case has been widely viewed as having potentially far-reaching implications for the city.

City Council Speaker Christine Quinn praised the Supreme Court’s decision.

“I’m pleased that the Supreme Court has refused to hear the case challenging the City’s rent stabilization program. The court’s decision is consistent with longstanding precedent that affirms the City and State’s authority to enact these laws, which are an integral part of the City’s effort to provide affordable housing to New Yorkers,” said Ms. Quinn. “Now, the City’s rent regulation system can proceed unfettered, as we continue to ensure affordable housing is available to New Yorkers.”

kvelsey@observer.com

A sea of angry renters.

Every year, for the past 41 years, the nine members of the Rent Guidelines Board have gathered to reach a secretive consensus that sets the annual rent increases on rent-regulated apartments at somewhere around 3 percent, a move that without fail earns the ire of tenants and property owners alike.

It is unlikely that the Rent Guidelines Board harbors any illusions about its popularity at this point, but this year looks to bring unprecedented animosity. It's only April and insults are flying,  months before the board inevitably makes its rage-inducing decision.

"We need to move away from the days of a kangaroo court," shouted City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who took to the steps of City Hall Monday morning to call for reforms to the hated board. "Regardless of the data... the rents go up!"

Speaker Quinn was joined by several other councilmembers, Assembleymen Brian Kavanagh and Richard Gottfried, State Sen. Daniel Squadron and a vocal, sign-waving crowd of tenants and tenant-rights advocates.

Although proposed state legislation won't necessarily stop the rent from going up, it would change the selection and composition of the Rent Guidelines Board, requiring City Council approval of mayoral appointees and opening up membership to include a broader range of professional backgrounds—urban planning, social services and public policy to name a few (the current requirement is at least five years experience in either finance, economics or housing).

This is not the bill's maiden voyage, but proponents see an opening, especially with the debate over rent control re-energized by the possible Supreme Court battle over rent regulation (the court may decide whether or not to hear James D. Harmon Jr.'s challenge to rent control in the coming weeks). The case has the possibility to "end rent control as we know it," City Councilmember Jessica Lappin warned the crowd, especially "given the Roberts court."

Although the bill would have no effect on this year's RGB, the season of rent rage is here—the board's annual vote is looming and with it the prospect of yet another inevitable rent increase, riling the residents' who are fortunate enough to live in rent-regulated apartments. While no one mentioned it, it seems evident the situation was especially heated given the fact rents are at an all-time high, according to first quarter reports from CitiHabitats—never mind the fact the city is still weathering economic doldrums.

"It's an extraordinarily important body, not only to tenants who live in those buildings, but to the basic economic future of our city," said Assemblyman Kavanagh. "As always, the increases of the Rent Guidelines Board should reflect the economic realities of both tenants and landlords... this is a bill we think is ripe to get done now."

State Sen. Squadron called City Council confirmation of appointees to the "opaque" board "an absolute no-brainer."

"Let's empower our local legislative body to have a say in the lives of millions of New Yorkers," he urged the crowd.

In fact, it turns out that the RGB doesn't even like itself. Adriene Holder, a tenant member of the RGB for the past 10 years (and the head of the Legal Aid Society's Civil Practice) also stepped up to the podium to vent her dissatisfaction with the board.

"I've seen nothing but increases!" cried Ms. Holder. "Why is it that the last three years, during the worst recession in recent history... we've seen unprecedented increases in rent?" (To be fair, this has something to do with the fact that so few people are buying because of the recession, and instead renting in the interim, though no doubt other economic pressures are to blame for rising rents.)

Ms. Holder's criticism was slight compared to that of Councilman Jumaane Williams, the former executive director of Tenants and Neighbors, who took to the microphone to declare that "The Rent Guidelines Board is a sham. That's basically what it is."

Ouch!

Perhaps the Rent Stabilization Association, an association to represents 25,000 property owners and agents responsible for some one million units of housing, would have a kind word for the RGB.

"We would say that the RGB has been overzealous in protecting tenants to the detriment of the housing stock," said executive vice president Jack Freund when the Observer reached him on the phone. Mr. Freund said that the association would like to see rent increases that reflected the annual price increases.

Well, my enemy's enemy is my friend and all that. Was Mr. Freund in favor of the proposed reform?

"City Council approval is the kiss of death because you’re not going to have rational, objective people on the board," Mr. Freund said. "I’m sure they’d be very happy if it was filled with five homeless housing advocates, and that might be more representative, but it wouldn’t fulfill the function of the RGB, which to preserve existing housing stocks by providing the rent increases that are necessary each year to cover the rising costs of taxes."

Of course! Blame it on the tax man. 'Tis the season.

kvelsey@observer.com

The place that could pull down the rent regs house of cards. (Property Shark)

That's pretty much the full story at this point. "The court has not granted or denied that case yet," a Supreme Court public information officer just informed The Observer. Such announcements are made every Monday, and so New York will be on the edge of its rent-regulated seats for another seven days. Check back then to see if landlords citywide will finally have their day in court. The Supreme Court has until June to decide whether or not it will hear the case—a waiting game worse than the TKTS booth.

mchaban [at] observer.com | @MC_NYC

Decision time. Will the Supreme Court hear the rent control case? (IslesPunkFan, flickr)

Forget sweet nothings and exclusive party invitations. The two words most New Yorkers long to hear are "rent controlled." But like so many (impossible?) dreams, this, too, may soon be dead.

The Supreme Court could decide today whether or not to hear a case brought by former federal prosecutor James D. Harmon Jr., the owner of a five-story townhouse on West 76th Street. Mr. Harmon, who grew up in the brownstone and now lives there with his wife Jeanne, inherited the building and its three rent-controlled tenants from his grandfather. He argues that New York City's rent laws violate the Constitution by taking his property without just compensation.

The three tenants with rent control pay approximately $1,000 a month for one-bedroom apartments, about 59 percent below market rate, according to court documents. Three other tenants in the building pay market rents.

"For 50 years my family has been subsidizing the lifestyles of tenants," Mr. Harmon, who is 68, told the Observer on Friday.  He and his wife were both getting older, Mr. Harmon said, and cannot afford to do it anymore. "If there is a problem here, then society as a whole should bear the burden."

Although the case will, of course, only decide the fate of Mr. Harmon's tenants, it could have wide-reaching implications for the nearly 1 million rent-stabilized apartments in the city.

This is not the first time Mr. Harmon has challenged rent control laws in the courts. Earlier suits filed by Mr. Harmon sought to remove a rent-controlled tenant so that the Harmons' college-age granddaughter could live in the unit. Most recently, he took the case to the the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which ruled last September that the rent-stabilization law did not constitute a “taking" and that Mr. Harmon had acquired the property with "full knowledge that it was subject to RSL."

Mr. Harmon declined to comment on what he would do if the Supreme Court rejects his petition to hear the case.

"I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution first as a soldier and then as a prosecutor," said Mr. Harmon, who attended West Point and served in the Vietnam War. "It is very difficult when the freedom of your own family is at stake. If the government can deny us the right to have our granddaughter live with us, then it can do anything. So, today, I went to Mass and said a prayer for all of us that the Constitution is alive and well in New York."

Two of the three-tenants in rent-controlled units—Nancy Wing Lombardi and Dave Mlotok, declined the Observer's request for an interview. The third, Cheryl Mervine, did not return calls seeking comment.

Of the three, only Mr. Mlotok has spoken publicly, albeit briefly, about the situation, telling The Times that despite the potential for unpleasant confrontations, Mr. Harmon had been a good landlord and their meetings in the foyer have remained civil.

Mr. Mlotok, who moved into the apartment in 1976 and now works in publishing, declined to discuss with The Times whether or not he could afford to pay market rate for his apartment.

The city, meanwhile, voted last month to extend the Rent Stabilization Law through 2015, citing vacancy rates well below 5 percent. Such is the threshold to declare the requisite, ongoing housing emergency needed to continue the law.

The law, on the books since 1969, mandates that owners of properties with six or more units abide by annual rent increases—usually around 3 percent—set by the Rent Guidelines Board.

Last year, the state legislature bolstered the protections, renewing rent regulation laws and raising the ceiling on rent stabilization-eligible apartments in the process.

If the Supreme Court decides to take the case, oral arguments would be held this October. Although the court considered whether or not to hear the case on Friday, an announcement as to whether or not it will have its day in the highest court of the land is not expected until today at the earliest. The announcement could come anytime between now and the next weeks.

kvelsey@observer.com

Fifty-five bucks to live here? Hot damn! (PropertyShark)

Rent control might be running out by the decade's end, but some rent-controlled tenants gladly pay their double digit rent and plan to pass it on to future generations, much to their landlords (and lawyers') dismay.

Consider the case of two elders in Soho–Thomas Lombardi and Robert Cohen—who have been paying $55.01 and $71.23, respectively, for their apartments, according to the Post.

Mr. Lombardi, son of Italian immigrants, moved to his apartment on 5 Spring Street in the 1940s. The rent, which qualifies for the pre-1971 rent control rates, has been $55.01 for the past two decades. He currently lives there with his "much younger wife," the Post noted.

On the other hand, Robert Cohen, a retired military meteorologist, pays $71.23 for his 500 square foot one bedroom apartment. He earned $1,100 a month from his military pension, but also does nude modeling on the side at $18.50 an hour. Despite being 87, he does not plan on letting the apartment succumb to the Manhattan market-rate market, and instead might be marrying a 41 year old lover from his past:

Because New York has legalized gay marriage, Combs said he is considering tying the knot with a 41-year-old former lover from Nepal who is seeking political asylum in the United States.

Under the city’s rent-control laws, the apartment would pass to Combs’ spouse after his death if the spouse had lived there from the beginning of the marriage.

The living hasn't been entirely easy, however. Mr. Cohen's landlord tried to boot him for being a hoarder and living in hazardous conditions. Wouldn't it make sense to host a yard sale and rack up enough cash to pay for the new few years? New Yorkers love vintage.

mewing@observer.com

SoHo (Photo from TravelAdventures.org)

When you fall asleep at night do you dream sweet dreams of life in a rent stabilized apartment? Tenants throughout the city have been living the dream in rent regulated digs while, month in and month out, you shed tears as you sign the check to your landlord. Curbed has a particularly interesting tale of a rent regulated fairytale (well, almost) in Soho.

Landing in New York in 1980, a college-grad began embarking upon the epic journey of first-home-hunting in the City. After finding an ad in The Village Voice, the newly minted New Yorker headed to Soho to check out a loft. The three bedroom space was perfect... But there was a catch, the resident explains:

he guy offering the lease made it clear that the place would go to whoever put the full $15K fixture fee in his hands first. My cash was locked in transit, but one of my roommates worked at an uptown restaurant owned by a big sports star and, luckily, the manager was crazy about her. Within an hour we were clutching a paper bag stuffed full with cash. We jumped on the downtown 6 train, praying we'd be first to hand over the fixture fee and sign a 20-year lease.

With a new apartment, the college grad had it all figured out... Until the building got a new landlord.

Over the next two decades there were multiple rent strikes, no heat for years on end, elevators locked out and lawsuits galore. Needed repairs went undone.

The story ultimately has a happy ending, however. The resident has lived in the same building for the past 30 years, paying basically $1,425 per month for a loft that would basically cost 10- or 20-times that these days.

What's the moral of this story? If you're willing to heat your home with trash-can fires for a couple winters, go find yourself a rent stabilized apartment. Hey-no pain no gain!

eknutsen@observer.com