We've been getting a lot of calls (from concerned citizens and members of the press) asking about Intro 627 -- a new anti-harassment bill -- and many are wondering whether our friends over at the New York City Council have "lost it."
While we're all for empowering the powerless, and believe the bill was well-intentioned, we share the opinion expressed by the Rent Stabilization Association (RSA) and other interested groups that this bill goes a bit "too far."
While no one should ever be "harassed," how that term or conduct should be defined will likely remain a major bone of contention for some months and years to come.
Intro 627 wants "any act or omission" which causes a tenant to vacate an apartment or relinquish "any rights" to trigger an array of penalties, including monetary fines, an award of attorneys' fees, and the imposition of a "scarlet letter" against the building -- a "class c hazardous violation" -- which could not be removed from the City's records.
Owners can also expect to take a hit if a tenant can establish "other acts or omissions" which interfere with that individual's "comfort, repose, peace or quiet."
Would the conduct of an owner's attorney comprise a form of "harassment?" Arguably.
How about the "acts" of neighboring tenants (who make too much noise, for example), would that expose owners to liability? You bet!
If not unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous, the bill is riddled with problems that are certain to make tenant-landlord lawyers a whole lot of money.
Here's how the RSA describes the problem and what they are advising owners to do in response to this misguided legislation:
