If Rangel's Four Apartments Counted As One...
In his colorful response today to a Times story on the four rent-stabilized apartments he rents, Representative Charles Rangel said repeatedly (as captured in video by The Observer’s Azi Paybarah) that the below-market-rate apartments are not a gift (which would need to be reported per campaign finance law).
“If you’re paying the legal rent, and without the law, the rent could be higher, just what school did you go to that you could misinterpret that as a gift,” he said to the Times’ Jeremy Peters. “They didn’t give me anything, I’m paying the highest legal rent I can.”
Maybe.
Unanswered questions in this Rangel rent-stabilization saga-to-be are many, but based on New York’s arcane, sometimes-twisted rent-stabilization laws, here’s one thought of how the apartments could be construed as a gift:
Mr. Rangel uses three of his four rent-stabilized apartments as one interconnected unit. Based on vacancy decontrol law, a landlord can take an apartment out of rent stabilization when the tenant makes more than $175,000 a year two years in a row and the apartment rents for more than $2,000 a month, regardless of size.
Each of his three apartments rents for less than $2,000 a month individually, but together, they rent for more than $3,200 a month, according to The Times. If indeed they are considered one unit, as Mr. Rangel seems to treat them, it certainly seems within the spirit of the law that the landlord would be able to take them out of rent stabilization. However, the landlord is not forced to take an apartment out of rent stabilization, so it’s unclear to us, for now, whether that would constitute a gift.
Also, the seemingly larger question is whether someone is allowed to have four rent-stabilized apartments given that the law requires that each apartment be used as a primary residence.
151 Central Park West
"The paragon of CPW residences. Enchanting, Fragonard-like Park tableaux... " More details |
|
What's even more obnoxious that someone in the high tax bracket hoarding 4 rent control apartments was his attitude during his press conference. How arrogant! The NY Times has no business knowing where and how he lives? Well, his constituents pay his salary and they have every right to know if there is a conflict of interest if he is protecting his landlord, and not representing the people who are being harassed and evicted by same entity.
Charles Rangel shot himself in the foot basically.
What's even more obnoxious than someone in this high tax bracket hoarding 4 rent control apartments was his attitude during his press conference. How arrogant! The NY Times has no business knowing where and how he lives? Well, his constituents pay his salary and they have every right to know if there is a conflict of interest if he is protecting his landlord, and not representing the people who are being harassed and evicted by same entity.
Charles Rangel shot himself in the foot basically.
What the NYTimes and Most people don't realize is that like Rangel, there are 10s of thousands of people in Manhattan who have rent controlled apts and make $100s of thousands of dollars a year (I know of a famous composer and other actors, singers)and have second and 3rd homes outside the City or in the country and use the apts for part of the year but claim residency and setup corporations to hide their income.
This is a disgrace as hard working people without the resources have to struggle and are constantly questioned about their needs for affordable housing and do not have the means to challenge the unscrupulous practices of these investors who have bought up most of the housing in the City - Thanks to the policies of Bloomberg and the other crooks who control CIty and State agencies.
Eliot Brown!
"the seemingly larger question is whether someone is allowed to have four rent-stabilized apartments."
I think that's the right question, and it hasn't really been explored effectively in other publications.
What's the process for combining rent-stabilized apartments? Does DHCR have to approve it? And what do the rent rolls reflect after the combination? Do they continue to record the units as two separate units even though they are now a single one?
If a rent-stabilized apartment must be the *primary* residence of a single household, how can a single household lay claim to two separate units? It sort of a Catch-22: you can't claim to be the primary resident of two units until they are combined into one.
It seems unfair to say Rangel has 4 apartments. Two had already been combined when he moved in. They might have technically been recorded as two apartments but for all he knew (or should have had to care) it was physically one apartment.
I suspect (but don't know for sure) that when units are combined, DHCR continues to record them as separate units. The reason they do that is so they can continue to collect rent on "both" units; if they categorized the newly combined unit as a single unit they would only be able to collect one rent. But I imagine that, when it comes to "primary residence" rules, combined units only count as one residence. Which would mean that, outside of the campaign office apartment, nothing Rangel is doing is untoward.
Some actual word from DHCR or real estate/tenant lawyers would shed an awful lot of important light on this question.
It's a non-issue if Rangel has 4 rent-stabliized apts. The fact of the matter is the middle class have been pushed out of New York, not by the Congressman. They have been pushed out by the real estate interests that control New York, lock, stock and barrel. And by Mayors starting with Ed Koch (who was living in a Rudin bldg.) Guiliani, Pataki and now Mayor Bloomberg.
Maybe the NY Times should report on the activities of Mr.Bloomberg, instead of going after old Charlie Rangel! But Mr.Bloomberg is a billionaire and untouchable. How come NYC is paying for a new Yankee stadium? The Mayor has branded NY, and it's only for the very wealthy. When I was growing up it was a somewhat progressive city it's residents were also working and middle class folk. Now it's a playground for the rich and famous, that has lost it's soul.
Rangel and Patterson have every right to all their apts. Let's get a few facts straight. What all these critics are forgetting is Lenox Terrace was never anything but 'Luxury' housing. It was the very first luxury development built in HARLEM in the late 1950's, the rents were LUXURY RENTS at that time. There was no subsidy. Rangel and Patterson stayed at a time WHEN WHITES WOULDN'T DARE THINK OF MOVING TO HARLEM. Now you want it. Let's get real, Lenox Terrace was built to keep affluent Blacks from wanting to go to downtown. Well Rangel and Patterson stayed home and were always paying market rents and their current rents are based on AND REFLECT ALL THE LEGAL INCREASES. They are not taking away a darn thing from a lower income family. The rent would be increased to thousands of dollars for any new tenant. Unaffordable to the majority.
Sure the 'luxury rents' in 1958 were only about $300, well there you go. One of the rightful perks of long term residency. MORE POWER TO THEM. Most of these critics are not even long term native New Yorkers. SO STOP THE NONSENSE!
Rangel and Patterson have every right to all their apts. Let's get a few facts straight. What all these critics are forgetting is Lenox Terrace was never anything but 'Luxury' housing. It was the very first luxury development built in HARLEM in the late 1950's, the rents were LUXURY RENTS at that time. There was no subsidy. Rangel and Patterson stayed at a time WHEN WHITES WOULDN'T DARE THINK OF MOVING TO HARLEM. Now you want it. Let's get real, Lenox Terrace was built to keep affluent Blacks from wanting to go to downtown. Well Rangel and Patterson stayed home and were always paying market rents and their current rents are based on AND REFLECT ALL THE LEGAL INCREASES. They are not taking away a darn thing from a lower income family. The rent would be increased to thousands of dollars for any new tenant. Unaffordable to the majority.
Sure the 'luxury rents' in 1958 were only about $300, well there you go. One of the rightful perks of long term residency. MORE POWER TO THEM. Most of these critics are not even long term native New Yorkers. SO STOP THE NONSENSE!