Tishman Speyer and other landlords in the J-51 renovation program had been taking units out of rent stabilization for years (and received guidance from the state to do so), so the reverberations of a tenant victory would be enormous. An appellate court ruled unanimously for the tenants in March.
IN FAIRNESS TO THE tenants, it’s not as though there’s no reason for affordability advocates to cheer them on in the suit. The various elected officials backing them—Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, state Senator Liz Krueger, Councilman Dan Garodnick, Council Speaker Christine Quinn, to name a few—have long decried the rapid rate of apartment deregulation at Stuyvesant Town and other complexes, and a victory for the tenants would definitely halt the rise of market rate apartments in the complex. (Manhattan landlords can generally deregulate apartments in the rent-stabilization program, which restricts annual rent increases, when the units go vacant.)
If upheld in favor of the tenants, the ruling would be a return to a relic of years past for Stuy Town: apartments, once again, would presumably be available to anyone moving in at prices far more affordable (leased at rent-stabilized rates).
No doubt: tenants would pay less (at the landlord’s expense), but the most immediate beneficiaries would clearly be all of those market-rate renters who await their unexpected checks in the mail.
This irony has not been lost on the landlords, and they don’t seem amused.
In an amicus brief, the Rent Stabilization Association criticized the prospect of what the organization’s attorneys called an “extraordinary windfall to undeserving tenants.” In the group’s brief, the attorneys at Rosenberg & Estis estimated that between Tishman Speyer and other landlords, about $1 billion would be owed in back rent to tenants who have been paying marke-rate rents for years.
“It would be difficult to imagine less deserving recipients of this billion dollar windfall,” the attorneys wrote. The brief went on to give the example of David and Annmarie Hunter—plaintiffs on the suit—who pay, according to the brief, $2,595 per month.
“An affirmance would mean that the Hunters, and thousands of similarly situated tenants, will (1) have their rents reduced by hundreds of dollars per month; (2) receive thousands of dollars in “refunds,” (3) obtain a rent stabilized status they never expected to have, and (4) have their future rent increases limited to stabilization guidelines,” the lawyers wrote, before adding, acerbically: “These tenants do not need [or] deserve such generosity.”
ebrown@observer.com
