Thursday, June 5, 2014

Court forces homeowner to rent for free

From the NY Post:

The city Housing Authority forced a Brooklyn homeowner to keep renting an apartment to a homeless woman who had lost her subsidies, even after the agency stopped paying her rent, a new lawsuit charges.

Adding insult to injury, homeowner Patrice James says in her Brooklyn Supreme Court lawsuit, the woman trashed the apartment, leaving it a rodent-infested wreck.

James, 40, rented the upstairs apartment of her East Flatbush multifamily house to a homeless woman named Amy Chambliss in 2003, signing a two-year Section 8 lease for $1,134 per month, the suit states.

Section 8 is a rent-assistance program for low-income people funded by the federal government and administered in New York City by NYCHA.

When Chambliss lost her Section 8 status a year later and James tried to kick her out, NYCHA persuaded a Brooklyn judge to stay the eviction, the lawsuit claims.

Neither NYCHA nor Chambliss paid James anything for the last year of the lease or the additional six months it took James to evict Chambliss, the suit states.

James fought to recoup her lost income, but ­NYCHA sent her a letter in February 2014 slapping down her request.


Anonymous said...

That is such bs... the government denied the homeless woman section 8 and now this woman is forced to take in a homeless woman? The government needs to start doing it's job better. They allow illegals to live off of the tax payers and now they are subjecting us to take in the city's homeless? What's next?

Anonymous said...

Excuse me but $1,134 for a Section 8 for an apartment for one person!!!!!!! In East Flatbush!!!!

What an effin' waste of money.

Anonymous said...

Section 8 is a disaster that needs to disappear.

Anonymous said...

This is why the days of rent control are numbered. Eventually no landlord in their right mind will want this kind of liability just to save a few bucks on taxes. "Tenants rights" are a buzzword for NY politicians too scared to touch the real estate lobby (ie all of them).

Anonymous said...

A DiBlasio dream come true!

Anonymous said...

How about some good news. I met a family that was in a shelter because the husband lost his job and they would not stay in their apartment because they couldn't pay the rent. They qualified for section 8 and went to the top of the list because they were in a shelter. The husband got another job but they were still qualified for section 8 because he didn't make enough money at this job. Their two children were great students, the son was scheduled to take a trip representing his school at a New York chess championship. Every day Mom took her 2 kids back to the old school as to not disrupt their life. (and picked them up). These people deserved a helping hand.

Anonymous said...

Good news is always welcome but I've heard a lot of horror stories concerning section 8 where the landlord gets paid the subsidy part, but the tenant refuses to pay his unsubsidized portion of the rent.

Or, the tenants foolishly fails to renew their section 8 application and the landlord is stuck with no rent for many months, because the courts do not want to put these people in the streets. When you don't have any skin in the game, you don't care about anything.

The lesson,unfortunately, is: DO NOT RENT TO SECTION 8 TENANTS. EVER.

Anonymous said...

"This is why the days of rent control are numbered."

I truly wish this was the case. The Supreme Court could have heard the brooklyn case on New York's Rent regs two years ago but they declined. The plaintiff, an owner of brooklyn brownstone, rented to a tenant who owned a rent regulated apartment, while at the same time, owned a private home on the island. The plaintiff's argument was that the rent regs were an "unlawful taking" by the government and it violated the fifth amendment due process clause. The Court refused to hear the case. So, when landlords outnumber tenants in this city/state, then we can hope to change this. It is not going to happen, unless the courts declare these laws unconstitutional. That would be the most likely outcome.

Anonymous said...

Well, my aunt paid these section 8 ppl 10K to leave and they did.. only after another 6 months.. they gave time for them to find another apt and then until when they give them the key, that's why they get the remainder of the money.

Anonymous said...

Government is the [problem,especially when the government leader has Marxist ideologies.

your neighbors have voted for this and you will now pay the dues for their stupidty.

Anonymous said...

"Excuse me but $1,134 for a Section 8 for an apartment for one person!!!!!!! In East Flatbush!!!!"

I don't feel any sympathy for these landlords.

The fact is that they rent to Sec. * and other subsidized tenants because they'll get a higher rent than the sacred "free market" would give them.

The cry about rent regulation in good areas and squeal like stuck pigs at the suggestion of eliminating subsidies in down nabes.

Full of s--t.

Anonymous said...

Sorry Anon. 11 - I have spoken to landlords at the very low end of the rental market - and the problem is always non-payers - and you can't enough deposit to cover the risk that you are renting for free.

With a Section 8, the landlord is paid directly eliminating that risk. Often, the tenant is unable (or too lazy) to keep their Section 8-eligible status. That's another risk.

All of which raises the question why anyone would rent to the poor?

Anonymous said...

"The fact is that they rent to Sec. * and other subsidized tenants because they'll get a higher rent than the sacred "free market" would give them."

Most landlords who rent to section 8 tenants are middle clas black folks. A lot of them live in flatbush and Jamaica who have a hard time finding and keeping renters, so they take a huge risk taking in section 8 renters.

Also, we don't know if 1,100 or so rent amount mentioned on this thread is for a 1 or 2 bedroom apartment.

Third, the city gets most of its revenue from property taxes. Who pays for that? Both Landlords and renters do. And, if you don't have a balanced court system that respects property rights, the landlord ends up paying out of pocket, sells his house because he can't afford both the mortgage and the taxes, in order to stave off bankruptcy. Now tell me then, who is going to pay for city services and the like?