Thursday, October 20, 2016

Fact Checking: Leases on City-Owned Property

There was much discussion at Tuesday night's Common Council meeting about the leases on City-owned property--in particular, 20 Columbia Turnpike, 27 Rossman Avenue, and 80 Reservoir Road. The tenants refused to sign the leases they were offered more than a year ago because they contained unacceptable terms. As a consequence, the tenants have continued living in the buildings, paying rent but without lease agreements. Among the terms that the tenants found unacceptable were paragraphs that prohibited smoking on the premises and keeping pets.

On Tuesday night, various members of the Common Council denied ever having seen or approved leases with such restrictions, but the Council records show otherwise. The lease agreements for 27 Rossman Avenue, the upstairs apartment at 20 Columbia Turnpike, and 80 Reservoir Road were presented to the Council at the informal meeting on August 10, 2015, and the resolution approving the leases--Resolution 7--was passed unanimously on August 18, 2015. The leases all contained the following paragraphs:
13. SMOKING: Smoking within the residence without the written permission of the Landlord is strictly prohibited.
16. PETS: Tenant shall not be entitled to have any pets at the rental premises without the prior written approval of Landlord.
At the informal meeting on September 8, 2015, the lease for the downstairs apartment at 20 Columbia Turnpike came before the Common Council. It contained the same two paragraphs, and the resolution approving it--Resolution 5--was unanimously passed on September 15, 2015.

The question of why the tenants did not seek written approval from the City to smoke in their homes and keep pets instead of simply refusing to sign their leases has never been addressed.
COPYRIGHT 2016 CAROLE OSTERINK

12 comments:

  1. In theory, the tenants could have made such a request, although perhaps later the landlord could withdraw such permission, which might make the tenants nervous. Anyway, in the real world, it is the landlords that typically pursue perfecting the paperwork on residential leases such as this. So, if the city were diligent, it would ask the tenants about getting the leases back after a week or two passes from when the drafts were delivered to the tenants, and when the tenants object to the restrictions, could have then generated a letter granting permission for dogs and smokes for the term of the lease in a side letter, and then the problem is resolved.

    The City it appears needs a better "tickler file" system. Hopefully one is in place now. Obviously it has not been in the past, and far too much stuff falls through the cracks, including really important stuff like the lodging tax, where the paperwork languished in the former Mayor's office for nine months or whatever. That snafu cost the City maybe at the end of the day, a full year of revenue that it could have secured with more attention to detail in a timely manner, but didn't, but I digress.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Maybe I'm wrong but without a signed lease, couldn't the landlord (in this case, the city) raise the rent with 30 days notice? I'm more concerned with how much rent is paid, what is included in the rent and what is the fair market value of rent for the property. Has that been established? How about we know how much is being paid for each property and what that rent includes?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At the end of the term of the lease, if the rent is paid monthly, as it is, the lease continues on a month to month basis at the same rent (unless the lease provides for an increase if it reverts to a month to month lease), and then it would be subject to a rent increase on 30 days notice. Apparently the tenants actually paid for the higher rent provided for in the lease draft, even while not signing it. So it is possible that the revised draft of the lease became binding by virtue of the tenants doing that (a contract becoming binding through the actions of the parties, rather than by signing it). But we don't need to go there as to whether that is the legal result here, because the Council does not wish to enforce the pet and smoking restrictions in the lease.

      Thus the issue is moot, and at this point, to get the matter straightened out is more in the nature of just ministerial housekeeping. It is good that this was not some major commercial lease or the like that fell through the cracks, where it might have been more difficult to resolve. As I said, a tickler file needs to be in place to avoid this kind of thing.

      Delete
  3. Concerning the Lodging Tax I believe it is on the Governor's desk: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2015/a10302/amendment/original

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chad--I don't think it's actually on the Governor's desk yet. If it were, or so it has been explained to me, the clock would be ticking and it might be subject to a "pocket veto."

      Delete
  4. where is 27 Rossman? I looked for it today and couldn't find it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is only on Rossman Avenue if Rossman Avenue were extended beyond where it actually goes. To get to the house, you turn into the cemetery from Ten Broeck Lane and then turn left onto a road that I think is marked "Private," not far from Fred W. Jones's mausoleum.

      Delete
  5. Wasn't there a scandal years ago when it became known how low the rents were for these properties? Do we know what the rents are currently?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, there was. Back in 2008, if memory serves. Now, if you look at the leases, you will see that the current rent on 27 Rossman is $850, and the rent on each of the apartments at 20 Columbia Turnpike is $975.

      Delete
    2. But what does that "rent" include? Does it include all utilities (heat, light & electric), cable TV, internet? That can add up to a significant amount? How about maintenance? Has a realtor developed a "fiar value" for the rent? Where does the number come from?

      Delete
  6. Two questiions: how many residential properties (with tenants) does the City own and doesn't the city allowing tenants to continue to live in a property and collect rent from them constitute a verbal contract (one that allows smoking and pets)?

    ReplyDelete