Posted on 03/26/2023 5:54:55 AM PDT by AbolishCSEU
Earlier this month, a state Appellate Court struck down the city of Albany’s “good cause eviction” law.
Benjamin Neidl, the attorney who argued for property owners in the case, told Capital Tonight that the ruling effectively ends the conversation on a local level unless the Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, decides to hear the city of Albany’s appeal.
Albany was the first city to implement the policy, which requires property owners to give cause for an eviction and limited the amount that they could raise rent on tenants. The rent increases are capped at 5% with exceptions for renovations and higher rises in the consumer price index.
However, the city’s law was struck down by an Appellate Court judge who ruled the city does not have the authority to change the relationship between tenants and property owners and added that power lies with the state, effectively preempting the city’s law.
Neidl argues property owners have concerns about a statewide ‘good cause’ eviction bill because the statewide bill is “nearly identical” to the local Albany law but the state law is a “little more onerous.” Another concern, according to Neidl, is that the bill is “not targeted” and applies to all tenants, rather than ones that need extra help.
The city of Albany submitted a request on Monday to the state’s highest court, but the court does not have to hear it.
Neidl says he expects a “rigorous challenge” to a statewide “good cause” law, should it pass. Neidl says the challenge may be on constitutional issues, rather than the preempting issue that was fatal to the local Albany law.
In an interview with Capital Tonight earlier in the month, Canyon Ryan, of United Tenants of Albany, said that tenants were “scared” following the Appellate Court’s ruling due to losing the protections of “good cause." Neidl argues that there are already “very serious protections” in state law for tenants who are disadvantaged or rent distressed.
The “good cause” eviction bill, which is sponsored by Sen. Julia Salazar and Assemblymember Pam Hunter, has not passed either chamber and sits in the Senate Judiciary and Assembly Housing committees.
All this does is remove properties from the rental pool and discourage landlords from investing in properties.
My in-laws had rentals in NYC that they converted into condos bc of the stupid rental laws that made it insane to be a good landlord. The only reliable way to make money as a landlord was to have tenements and slums.
They refused to go into the slumlord business.
Totally agree. We are small “mom and pop” landlords. There are many militantly pro tenant laws which keep getting worse every year. Meanwhile the tenant pool is abysmal. Applicants have gotten used to gov’t handouts instead of working in what was once a bedroom community for Xerox.
They have already sealed the eviction records and you can’t screen based on evictions. They want to pass the “Clean Slate” act which seals criminal records and will make it “discriminatory” to screen based on criminal background. Which will apply to condos as well.
Same here in Oregon, which is going the way of NY. Every year more and more laws, till they get to free rent for everyone!
...and to think that, long ago, only LAND OWNERS could vote.
You just have to price people out and be ready to leave stuff empty.
Or, do what I did when I managed their apartment building that the gubmint (not NYC or NyS) suddenly required people to take Section 8 renters — go to a “how to pass your Section 8 inspection” and make sure you flunk it. I took off all the electric plates and removed the stove. When a section 8 renter demanded in, we flunked. Got a lecture about the third time that I “was never going to cut it as a section 8 landlord and was going to be blacklisted” and have to rely on the employed people market with no welfare queens to rent to.
Happily got on the blacklist and just had renters who paid their bills and took care of their stuff, no freeloading welfare queens.
(Every time I post this some idiot will chime in a call me a thief for refusing to take government money. Even on a conservative website. Tells you how ingrained the welfare mentality is in our whole country.)
Landowners bc owning land was a fair proxy for being a taxpayer and also not a transient.
I’ve often thought each person should have up to five votes
1 for being 25, unless in military then 18
1 for being a net taxpayer
1 for an honorable discharge
2 for active uniformed military
-1 for being on welfare of any kind in the calendar year of the vote (including social security — any kind of taxpayer money)
-1 for being any kind of government employee, except uniformed military
Interesting.
Not paying rent isn’t good cause?
The ONLY rental units I would EVER consider are storage units-—and I can get TV shows to film the auctions of unpaid units.
WE/I paid into Social Security for 50+++ years.
I deserve to vote.
WE/I paid into Social Security for 50+++ years.
I deserve to vote.
I also have been a landowner since 1966.
If the city really wants to reduce the number of rental units available, then they need to appeal this so their law can be restored. I assume that was the purpose of this law, right? Because such an outcome would certainly be the result.
Not during a moratorium and in some cases you can’t evict unless they owe a certain amount in back rent possibly several months.
If you have a tenant who is argumentative, but pays his rent you are SOL to go your separate ways if “good cause” passes.
The 36 unit apt bldg. I live in had 21 apts. of people move out between April and Dec 2020 because of the massive job loss due to the democrats with their lockdowns. New people moved in but only after months of losses to the owners as many of the apts. stayed empty. The turnover continued. Too many of those that left earlier and those that moved in and left did not pay the rent every month.
I don’t disagree that’s a concern.
SS is, and always has been, a Ponzi scheme, however.
In an ideal world, it should end with new people not paying in.
Perhaps it could be something like people who start in the workforce at 2033 neither pay, nor get benefits.
I’m fairly lucky because I only have 4 tenants. We will be topping out at probably 7-11 units over the next few years. Only one tenant fell behind on the rent during “covid” praise the Lord. She still owes over $2K in rent but is VERY slowly paying it on her own now that she’s out.
That is exactly the correct befuddled type of facial expressions you would expect from renters who are surprised that their rent went up because they voted more taxes for the property owners.
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.