Posted on 12/08/2004 6:36:43 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
NEW YORK A New York landlord has been found guilty of hiring hit men to force two brothers out of their rent-controlled apartment so he could more than triple the rent.
The landlord was found guilty yesterday of first-degree attempted murder and assault, conspiracy and burglary.
Prosecutors said he wanted to oust the two from their three-bedroom apartment in Queens so he could raise the rent from 400 dollars a-month to 15-hundred dollars.
They say he hired two tenants of the building to attack the men.
The brothers survived but suffered disfiguring injuries.
The landlord's attorney argued he hired the men to scare the brothers, not to hurt them.
He's to be sentenced in January.
What, now it's illegal to beat your tenants?
That's still a crime, you idiot.
Who's the landlord?
That is a ridiculous situation. Why should New York be able to tell anyone what to rent their property out for? I certainly dont condone putting the hired goons on the two brothers either, but to me its two seperate things.
Seinfeld missed an idea for a hilarious episode!
The Soul of Man Under Socialism.
being from podunk ND, i really dont understand the concept of rent controlled apartments. i understand its a great deal if you can get them but other than that, no clue.
A well thought-pout, solid defense. Works like a charm.
Thouught-pout = thought-out. Crap.
Sounds like a story line from Law and Order.
Looks like I gotta watch my back...
In the Law&Order episode, a landlord let the building deteriorate and turned the furnace off in the winter, and a baby froze to death.
I hope people on here are not defending the idiocy of rent-control.
Rent-control for the uninitiated is basically a Socialist program to prevent business people from making money on their investments.
Rent control regulates specific apartments, rather than a building. It originated after World War II, when returning veterans created a massive spurt in demand for apartments and landlords were raising rents to the point where the veterans no longer were able to afford them.
Under rent control, a landlord is able to raise the rent in a particular unit only by a small amount (something like 3 percent) each year, as long as the same tenant is there. When the tenant leaves the landlord can raise the rent in the apartment by something like 20%.
As a result, there are tremendous discrepancies in apartment rental rates from unit to unit in the same building. Naturally, given limited resources, the landlord is incentivized to neglect the rent-controlled units in favor of the higher-priced units instead.
The co-op conversion wave of the 1980s and 1990s was an attempt by landlords to get out from under the rent control regulatory structure. It also gave a nice windfall to many tenants, particularly in the early years of the co-op boom. Today, the number of rent-controlled units is down dramatically from where it was 30 years ago.
It still is significant, particularly outside of the priciest neighborhoods (which have largely gone co-op).
Yep, I lived for 2 years in an apartment in the east 90's that was next door to a rent-controlled unit. My roommate and I paid $2075 for a 2 bedroom. Our neighbor paid... $300 or so. He'd lived there since 1940, and so with minimal increases each year, he was doing well. Our landlord kept trying to evict him with a spectacular lack of success. Once the landlord's attempt even turned into a court order to renovate the man's apartment. So most eventually stop trying, and just pass the cost along to folks like ... me. Apparently this landlord was not so willing to pocket the loss so quietly.
Is it just me, or do you get a near-quadruple rent increase here?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.