CHARLES RANGEL HAS FOUR STABILIZED APARTMENTS. SO WHAT?
The media is abuzz about the fact that Congressman Charles B. Rangel -- Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, Chairman of the Board of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Dean of the New York State Congressional Delegation -- has four Harlem-based rent-stabilized apartments (and is supposedly using one of those units as a campaign office).
Hate to disappoint you folks, but we're thinking this whole "scandal" may be much ado about nothing.
A regulated tenant is permitted to have multiple apartments, as long as it can be shown that the units are being utilized as that tenant's principal or "primary" residence.
"Primary" residence can be established in a number of different ways and, to many owners' chagrin, is a pretty malleable standard. The law requires that tenants have an "ongoing, substantial, physical nexus with the premises for actual living purposes as demonstrated by objective, empirical evidence."
In other words, the tenant really has to live in (or use) the space.
Do the units have to be connected or even on the same floor? Absolutely not.
Can one of the units be used as an "office?" Yes, as long as the tenant is not violating local zoning ordinances (such as New York City's "home occupation" law, which places limits on the number of square feet that can be utilized and the kind of commercial activity one may undertake within his/her own home).
Whether or not the Congressman is is engaged in "commercial activity" violative of local law is certainly an interesting question. And one best left for the courts -- not the media -- to decide.
To view a New York Times piece on the topic, please use this link: For Rangel, Four Rent- Stabilized Apartments
To view our other posts on the topic, please use this link: Non-Primary Residence
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.nyrealestatelawblog.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2698
Comments
On the money as usual Lucas.
Slow news Friday in July -- article clearly been sitting around for ages. There's no there, there.
People join apartments all the time. The rents were probably pretty cheap when he first moved in -- years ago. He stayed in Harlem through thick and thin. How many people do you know who would live at 135th and Lenox in 1965? 1975? 1985? 1995? It might be a luxury building, but until very recently it was dead in the middle of Falujah Province. At the time he rented 4 apartments, I bet a good chunk of that building was vacant.
There's no dispute that it's his primary residence. He doesn't really live in DC, like a lot of members of congress. His income appears to be below the 175K threshold. And his LL doesn't care. Trying to come up with the difference between his stabilized rent and the "market rate" as some sort of ethics violation is bogus.
If the C of A says it's OK for Economakis to turn a tenement into an alleged "mansion," why can't Chalie Rangel have 3 apartments he actually lives in if his landlord is perfectly happy to rent them to him?
Posted by: Gines Pasamonte | July 11, 2008 2:26 PM
Mr. Rangel is one of the greatest Harlemnites and one of the greatest Americans of all time. The media should be ashamed of themselves for making an issue of this. Good for you!
P.S. Since you have extra space, can I bring some models over to hang out some time in the future?
We love you no matter what...
Posted by: Bert | July 11, 2008 2:54 PM
I don't understand how a rent-stabilized apartment can be used as an office under the rent stabilization laws. How can an office qualify as anyone's "primary *residence*"?
How does the process of combining rent-stabilized apartments work? If, before combining, each unit is supposed to be the primary residence of a single household, how can a household have two of them? Does DHCR have to approve combinations? And if so, shouldn't they then amend the rent rolls to refer to the combined apartment as a new, larger, *single* unit?
Posted by: Anonymous | July 12, 2008 12:53 PM
Anon:
Look at it this way, if you had enough space and were able to create an office within your apartment, that area would still comprise a part of you residence, would it not? (Subject to certain limitations, residential tenants are permitted by New York City law to have a home office.)
The law doesn't view the occupancy arrangement differently merely because a regulated tenant is occupying separated or distinct apartments in the same building -- even if those units are spread out over different floors. Courts will still view the configuration as a "single" residence.
Just because an office is set apart from the "main" unit doesn't make it impermissible. As long as the tenant maintains an "ongoing, substantial, physical nexus ..." the law's requirements are satisfied.
Any construction required to combine units would be subject to the landlord's consent. Whether or not the apartments would remain separately registered with the DHCR or combined as a single unit, is an issue usually addressed with the tenant at the time the landlord's approval to the reconfiguration is secured. (DHCR pre-approval of the arrangement is not required.)
The Congressman's use of one of the apartments as a "campaign office" is a separate issue which would need to be more fully examined. Normally, there are limitations on the type of "commercial" activity you may undertake within your home. In this instance, since the activity is purely "political" in nature, it may be subject to constitutional protection which would exempt the Congressman from any claims of impropriety.
Thanks for visiting our blog!
Onward!
Posted by: Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq.
|
July 12, 2008 5:21 PM
.....If you want to be black and white it's the landlords perogative to see themelves lose money. lets not kid ourselves, it's about money thats why we are in the business, all of the sudden a politico is exempt form our game? Yeah right, he is the lanlords choise to lose money, of course I've never, never seen a landlord accept below market rents in my life unless he's getting favors from the tenant. Sure he didn't violate any laws, only the public trust. Just think of him as Curly (3 Stooges) walking away from the NY Times after getting beat up with all the sound effects saying "oh a wise guy eh, nyuk, nyuk nyuk nyuk"!
Posted by: ray | July 15, 2008 10:54 AM