J-51 / Rent Regulation

Rent Regulation Laws - June 2015

Dear IPN Residents:

The courts have ruled that despite Stellar's J-51, IPN isn't rent stabilized. Nevertheless, under the deal negotiated with them, the LAP tenants' rent mimics rent stabilization, whose renewal we, of course, support -- the end of which, would affect our increases.

In the event rent stabilization was ended (which we doubt), our deal explains how they would estimate future increases. LAP tenants SHOULD support Rent Guidelines Board hearings; and support our official’s work on our behalf by writing/attending demonstrations, etc.

The future of affordable housing affects all of us. In the meantime, please see announcements below from Gale Brewer and Margaret Chin, and information from Letitia James. --IPNTA Executive Board

See the Rent Regulations page:

• From IPNTA: Attention LAP tenants! Management Targeting LAP Tenants with 2nd Address!
• Letter from Gale Brewer, Manhattan Borough President
• Letter from Margaret Chin, NYC Council, District 1
• Information from Letitia James, Public Advocate

Attention LAP tenants! Management Targeting LAP Tenants with 2nd Address!

Stellar Management has been targeting tenants who may have a 2nd residence; weekend home; are named on parent’s home; etc.

They are looking for those tenants whose cars are registered in another state; who have phones listed elsewhere — anything showing you have another location. THEY WOULD LIKE TO PROVE THAT YOU DO NOT LIVE IN IPN AS YOUR PRIMARY RESIDENCE.

They have sent 10 day notices to vacate to at least five tenant families we know of so far. We have written to our elected officials to enlist their help in what seems to be a plan to target LAP tenants. We have also written to Stellar Management’s main office - where these 10 day notices are obviously being generated.

If you live at IPN as your primary resident - ask us for assistance or to discuss. If you do not live here as your primary residence, then we cannot get involved. You may contact the IPNTA via email: Info@IPNTA.ORG

If you hear from Management with their horrible way of communicating - a ten day notice - You very well may need an attorney.

We have some suggestions, but if you know a good tenant attorney, by all means - contact him or her if you get the notice and let us know what happened; and which lawyer you are using. We have registered our complaint about management using this way of communicating with tenants. It’s as if tenants are guilty without having a chance to prove otherwise.

We have tenants who have already won this battle - but it seems Stellar is really trying to shake people up.

Independence Plaza Tenants Association Statement - J-51 Lawsuit

November 12, 2012   [Download Statement as PDF]

On October 30th, 2012, New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, refused IPN tenants’ motion to appeal the lower court’s J-51 decision.  We learned about this decision after power was restored at IPN on Saturday, November 3.  Thus, we have lost the case that so many of us have struggled for so long to win. 

The case sought to maintain rent regulation at Independence Plaza because the owner received a J-51 tax abatement.  The decision that was being appealed allows landlords at former Mitchell-Lama developments (like IPN) who received J-51 tax breaks to opt out by paying the amount abated, after receiving breaks for years.

Thus, the court ignored the intent of J-51 – which provides city tax breaks to landlords in exchange for their promise to provide well maintained affordable rental housing. With this decision landlords like IPN’s owner give the public nothing more than they would have if they had never received the tax benefit.

Here is a brief history of the IPN tenants’ J-51 case.  IPN was a Mitchell-Lama (rent regulated) complex until 2004.  Tenants learned in 2006 that IPN’s owners received a J-51 tax abatement beginning in 1998. 

After IPNTA made this information public, the owner paid the abated taxes for 2004 to 2006 in a behind the scenes deal with New York City’s housing agency (HPD).  Tenants sued in state court.  The lower court judge ruled in 2010 that there the J-51 law does not allow for retroactive payment of taxes and that IPN must be rent stabilized. 

The owner appealed to New York’s intermediate appellate court; the judges of that court ruled in the landlord’s favor.  Tenants then asked the New York State Court of Appeals to hear the appeal. State Senator Daniel Squadron and Borough President Scott Stringer filed amicus briefs on behalf of the tenants, supporting the appeal.

The following elected officials signed on to these briefs: Representative Jerold Nadler; State Senator Thomas Duane, State Assembly Members Deborah Glick and Brian Kavanagh; City Council Members Margaret Chin, Daniel R. Garodnick, and City Council Speaker, Christine Quinn along with Community Board #1, The Legal Aid Society, Pratt Area Community Council, South Brooklyn Legal Services and Tenants and Neighbors.

Despite this widespread support the appeal request was denied.  Ironically the denial was made on the same day that power went out due to Hurricane Sandy.  Since the Court of Appeals never ruled on the case itself, the mid-level court’s decision allowing former Mitchell-Lama landlords to retroactively withdraw from J-51 stands.  This decision can negatively impact thousands of current Mitchell Lama tenants whose landlords receive J-51 abatements. 

This is a tremendous disappointment and a slap in the face to all tenants and to the advocacy organizations and elected officials who joined our appeal request.   IPNTA has spent $250,000 in legal fees (donated by tenants) and years of work on this case.  Post Mitchell Lama tenants in the J-51 litigation made a significant contribution to funding the litigation. The court has turned a blind eye to IPN’s owner’s repeated refusal to follow the law beginning in 1998 when no notice was ever given to IPN tenants about the J-51 abatement despite the law’s notice requirement. 

By making IPN a “market rate” complex the landlord receives millions of dollars in direct federal subsidy for pre-2004 low income tenants.  Their apartments have not been renovated but the federal government pays the renovated market rate.  Thus for pre-2004 low income tenants who pay between $400 and $1200 in rent – the federal government kicks in up to $4,000 or more per month which goes directly into the landlord’s pocket. 

With rent stabilization, low income tenants at IPN could afford to pay their own rent, and would have access to other programs designed to assist low-income tenants such as SCRIE (Senior Citizens Rent Increase Exemption) or DRIE (Disabled Rent Increase Exemption).  With rent stabilization federal money could be used to fund affordable housing instead of lining the pockets of wealthy real estate owners.

For pre-2004 “LAP” tenants’ rent continues to be limited by the contract negotiated in 2004 between the tenants association and owner – when the tenants did not know that under J-51 IPN should have become rent stabilized.  This protection is limited:  many LAP tenants are paying overcharges because of Stellar Management’s refusal to abide by this contract. The contract provides for annual increases which are tied to citywide rent stabilization increases until next year when an additional 3.3% per year will be tacked on for three years, followed by 1% per year thereafter.

This contractual protection is not available to the many pre-2004 residents who were unemployed or under-employed (still feeling the effects of 9/11) when the complex left Mitchell-Lama.  To remain in their homes at affordable rent they had to accept the federal vouchers that subsidize the landlord. When their job status improved, rents increased astronomically to levels that are no longer affordable.  These are not high paid people -- they include waiters, teachers, and artists.  The landlord subsidy requiring they pay 30% of their annual income in rent keeps them struggling, while the landlord profits at their expense. This is too high for many of them.

This fight in the battle for affordable housing protection has come to an end – but the battle continues.  We will continue to join other affordable housing activists throughout the city and the nation who are struggling to protect existing affordable housing.  We will continue to work with and for the elected officials who join us in these efforts to make affordable housing a right for all.

[Download Statement as PDF]
[Statement is also on J-51 page]

Independence Plaza Tenants Association Statement - J-51 Lawsuit
November 12, 2012

On October 30th, New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, refused IPN tenants’ motion to appeal the lower court’s J-51 decision.  We learned about this decision after power was restored at IPN on Saturday, November 3.  Thus, we have lost the case that so many of us have struggled for so long to win. 

The case sought to maintain rent regulation at Independence Plaza because the owner received a J-51 tax abatement.  The decision that was being appealed allows landlords at former Mitchell-Lama developments (like IPN) who received J-51 tax breaks to opt out by paying the amount abated, after receiving breaks for years. Thus, the court ignored the intent of J-51 – which provides city tax breaks to landlords in exchange for their promise to provide well maintained affordable rental housing. With this decision landlords like IPN’s owner give the public nothing more than they would have if they had never received the tax benefit.

Here is a brief history of the IPN tenants’ J-51 case.  IPN was a Mitchell-Lama (rent regulated) complex until 2004.  Tenants learned in 2006 that IPN’s owners received a J-51 tax abatement beginning in 1998.  After IPNTA made this information public, the owner paid the abated taxes for 2004 to 2006 in a behind the scenes deal with New York City’s housing agency (HPD).  Tenants sued in state court.  The lower court judge ruled in 2010 that there the J-51 law does not allow for retroactive payment of taxes and that IPN must be rent stabilized.  The owner appealed to New York’s intermediate appellate court; the judges of that court ruled in the landlord’s favor.  Tenants then asked the New York State Court of Appeals to hear the appeal. State Senator Daniel Squadron and Borough President Scott Stringer filed amicus briefs on behalf of the tenants, supporting the appeal. The following elected officials signed on to these briefs: Representative Jerold Nadler; State Senator Thomas Duane, State Assembly Members Deborah Glick and Brian Kavanagh; City Council Members Margaret Chin, Daniel R. Garodnick, and City Council Speaker, Christine Quinn along with Community Board #1, The Legal Aid Society, Pratt Area Community Council, South Brooklyn Legal Services and Tenants and Neighbors.

Despite this widespread support the appeal request was denied.  Ironically the denial was made on the same day that power went out due to Hurricane Sandy.  Since the Court of Appeals never ruled on the case itself, the mid-level court’s decision allowing former Mitchell-Lama landlords to retroactively withdraw from J-51 stands.  This decision can negatively impact thousands of current Mitchell Lama tenants whose landlords receive J-51 abatements. 

This is a tremendous disappointment and a slap in the face to all tenants and to the advocacy organizations and elected officials who joined our appeal request.   IPNTA has spent $250,000 in legal fees (donated by tenants) and years of work on this case.  Post Mitchell Lama tenants in the J-51 litigation made a significant contribution to funding the litigation. The court has turned a blind eye to IPN’s owner’s repeated refusal to follow the law beginning in 1998 when no notice was ever given to IPN tenants about the J-51 abatement despite the law’s notice requirement. 

By making IPN a “market rate” complex the landlord receives millions of dollars in direct federal subsidy for pre-2004 low income tenants.  Their apartments have not been renovated but the federal government pays the renovated market rate.  Thus for pre-2004 low income tenants who pay between $400 and $1200 in rent – the federal government kicks in up to $4,000 or more per month which goes directly into the landlord’s pocket.  With rent stabilization, low income tenants at IPN could afford to pay their own rent, and would have access to other programs designed to assist low-income tenants such as SCRIE (Senior Citizens Rent Increase Exemption) or DRIE (Disabled Rent Increase Exemption).  With rent stabilization federal money could be used to fund affordable housing instead of lining the pockets of wealthy real estate owners.

For pre-2004 “LAP” tenants’ rent continues to be limited by the contract negotiated in 2004 between the tenants association and owner – when the tenants did not know that under J-51 IPN should have become rent stabilized.  This protection is limited:  many LAP tenants are paying overcharges because of Stellar Management’s refusal to abide by this contract. The contract provides for annual increases which are tied to citywide rent stabilization increases until next year when an additional 3.3% per year will be tacked on for three years, followed by 1% per year thereafter. This contractual protection is not available to the many pre-2004 residents who were unemployed or under-employed (still feeling the effects of 9/11) when the complex left Mitchell-Lama.  To remain in their homes at affordable rent they had to accept the federal vouchers that subsidize the landlord. When their job status improved, rents increased astronomically to levels that are no longer affordable.  These are not high paid people -- they include waiters, teachers, and artists.  The landlord subsidy requiring they pay 30% of their annual income in rent keeps them struggling, while the landlord profits at their expense. This is too high for many of them.

          This fight in the battle for affordable housing protection has come to an end – but the battle continues.  We will continue to join other affordable housing activists throughout the city and the nation who are struggling to protect existing affordable housing.  We will continue to work with and for the elected officials who join us in these efforts to make affordable housing a right for all.

Executive Board – Independence Plaza North Tenants Association
Info@IPNTA.ORG

Coverage of Press Conference Aug 16, 2012

See the Video on YouTube

Tribeca’s Fight for Affordable Housing, NY Press, Aug 23, 2012

No “White Bread Land”: A Fight for Affordable Housing in Tribeca, Land That I Live.com, Aug 22, 2012

I.P.N. tenants rally for their day in court, Downtown Express, Aug 22, 2012

Officials Back Tribeca Tenants' Last Chance to Reverse Court Decision, Tribeca Trib, Aug 16, 2012

Elected Officials Back Independence Plaza Tenants in Court Case, Tribeca Trib, Aug 16, 2012

Elected Officials Back TriBeCa Tenants' Push for Rent-Stabilization, DNAInfo.com, Aug 16, 2012

Important Update on our Case

July 3rd, 2012
We were just informed that the Appellate Division has denied our request for an appeal. That was the same court who ruled in favor of Stellar Management's appeal, after the tenants first won in Judge Friedman's court.

We have 30 days in which to file, now, with the highest court - the Court of Appeals, to ask for an appeal there.

We are hopeful that the Court of Appeals will accept our request for appeal and are doing all we can to support this desired goal. We will keep tenants posted.
-- Diane Lapson President IPNTA

Other relevant reading...

Mitchell-Lama Residents Coalition has good articles about affordable housing in general and former Mitchell-Lama complexes, including IPN.

Articles in the News

Board Authorizes Rent Increases for Rent-Stabilized Apartments, NY Times, June 21, 2012
The article will immediately affect LAP tenants; and if we win our J-51 case, will affect any tenant who opts out of the voucher program.

Court Decisions Begin to Favor Tenants in Rent Regulation Cases, New York Law Journal, 06/21/2012

An Important Notice

Dear Tenants,

On April 3, 2012 the Appellate Division (an intermediate appellate court) overturned Judge Friedman’s previous decision that IPN is rent stabilized.

While we did not win this round, we maintain that the decision is wrong. We will seek permission to appeal this decision to New York’s highest court— the Court of Appeals.

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_02441.htm

--IPNTA Executive Board

J-51 Update [Full Story] - Updated 12/31/11

The J-51 appeals were argued in NY's intermediate appellate court, the Appellate Division, on December 14, 2011. The court reserved decision and will issue a ruling at a date that is entirely up to them. In the meantime, all we can do is await the decision. The losing party, may then seek to appeal the decision to the state's highest court, the NY Court of Appeals.