[jdege]

I’m sorry, under what principle of law is a landlord allowed to raise someone’s rent retroactively?

[Renderofveils]

I’m sorry, under what principle of law is a landlord allowed to raise someone’s rent retroactively?

From the article:

Gamal’s group bought the building at 45-47 Park Place in 2009 for $4.8 million and, at the same time, paid $700,000 for the lease at the substation... After conflicting appraisals of the property by Gamal and Con Ed, it seems both sides came to an agreement this summer.

It sounds like the lease agreement was based on the property value at the time, which was underestimated and then agreed upon this summer after two years of lawyer/representative back and forth.

[Agamemnon]

I’m sorry, under what principle of law is a landlord allowed to raise someone’s rent retroactively?

Contracts themselves are enforced under principles of law. "Principles of law" have nothing at all to say about the content of a contract. For instance, whose rent do you know has remained the same since 1972? What "principle of law" allows that ... apart from the fact that "a contract is a contract?"

There may be provisions in the contract as written that allows ConEd to do what its doing and some patriot is sticking it to the muzzies if ways Bloomberg refused to do.

You're not "sorry." Pissed maybe, but not sorry. Looks like like your "sorry" place of "worship" may not be built any time soon -- if at all.

Kudos to ConEd.

[Agamemnon]

I’m sorry, under what principle of law is a landlord allowed to raise someone’s rent retroactively?

Contracts themselves are enforced under principles of law. "Principles of law" have nothing at all to say about the content of a contract. For instance, whose rent do you know has remained the same since 1972? What "principle of law" allows that ... apart from the fact that "a contract is a contract?"

There may be provisions in the contract as written that allows ConEd to do what its doing and some patriot is sticking it to the muzzies if ways Bloomberg refused to do.

You're not "sorry." Pissed maybe, but not sorry. Looks like like your "sorry" place of "worship" may not be built any time soon -- if at all.

Kudos to ConEd.

[ridesthemiles]

In the case of dual ownership, there are likely contracts about waht will occur between the 2 parties to that contract.

I suspect that non-payment of a lower rent & possibly other actions triggers a punishment clause which raised the rent substantially & also triggered a retroactive clause in the contract.

IF the Muslim guy didn’t like the contract, he shouldn’t have signed it.

[skeeter]

Court papers show that the appraised price for the Con Ed property is $10.7 million. But Gamal contends Con Ed’s math was faulty when it calculated the rent, saying it owes only $881,519 in back rent and should have to pay $25,875 a month going forward.

Apparently there is an agreement between the mosque and the landlord that back rent is owed based upon an appraisal. The argument is in the appraised amount.

Personally I hope the pitch the lessor out on his arse.

[Vendome]

Do what? LOL

Here is the salient part of the article:
Con Ed has given the Ground Zero mosque an ultimatum: Pay the $1.7 million you owe in back rent, or we’ll terminate your lease and take back our property.

Since when is a business not within its rights to demand payment for all monies due at any time?

These guys are good Americans and let the Moslems run up a tab that is so large they may not be able to meet their obligation and ConEd will just have to eat the charge.

I am glad they did this.

[Alberta's Child]

It has nothing to do with a “principle of law” at all. It’s almost certainly something that is written into the terms of the contract between the landlord and the tenant.