Housing - Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974 (EPTA)

What the abuse of the Rockefeller Vacancy Decontrol Act of 1970 visited on rent control apartments which forced the enactment of EPTA, can well be equated with the havoc created by the Rent Reform Regulation Acts of 1997 and the implementation by the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) which changed its focus from the concern for tenants rights to the objective of a self destructive agency with the new direction of seeking to deregulate as many apartments to free market and using every possible devious construction and interpretation of the Code to in fact destabilize and gentrify communities for the wealthy totally indifferent to the plight of the working man and woman and the wants and needs for decent and affordable housing for the wage earner and his or her family.

The Housing which should have done much to replenish the depleted housing stock was built as affordable Housing in the twentieth century, i.e. dividend housing companies and Mitchel Lama's all subsidized by government. 

However, to induce developers this housing when most needed as replacement housing is off the chart of affordability as the inducement is now redeemed allowing landlords of these programs to leave the regulated market, kick out the present tenants and re-rent at free market. 

Thus such housing that was built for the comfort of the working class subsidized with taxpayer funds, will now be enjoyed by those who can pay free market.  Thus this younger replacement housing intended for one class will be enjoyed by a higher class to the detriment of those for which these housing funds were intended to benefit - this loss impairs any intention of replenishment of our deteriorating housing stock. With a new administration there must be a re-visitation of the EPTA and the Rent Stabilization Law and upon such the tenant’s movement must now press for relief in the following areas.

A.   The non-occupying landlord of an apartment in a condo or co-op who purchased same for investment should not see that apartment go to deregulation and free market when the non-purchasing tenant vacates by either death or surrender.  Those apartments should remain rent regulated.

B.   The vacancy allowance passed into law in the ninth decade which allows a landlord at least a raise of twenty percent upon each vacancy must be brought under a stricter control and the twenty percent figure should be substantially reduced.

C.   DHCR should be restrained from its now broad interpretation as to what constitutes MCI monies to be charged to tenants.

D.   With respect to individual improvements DHCR should force each landlord to disclosure and transparency by compelling the landlord to document the cost of each improvement within a specified period of time after the improvement is completed.  DHCR review should take place as to each improvement even if the tenant does not challenge the rent.

E.   It is time in personal use occupancy proceedings to bring such back to the purview  of DHCR and to adopt the same standard as required for rent control of compelling necessity for the needs of the landlord and to discard the good faith standard now used by the Housing Court.

F.   In terms of non primary residence proceedings it is time to return this also to DHCR jurisdiction because a trial in Housing Court becomes and overwhelming burden on the tenant regardless of the merits or lack thereof in terms of expenses which are needed by the tenant now to defend in Housing Court.

G.   On succession such case should also be returned for examination by DHCR and it is time to force DHCR to again return to the Code 2523.5(f) the provision for discretion as was previously deleted from the 1987 original Code:

This Section read:

(f) For any family member who is made known to the owner pursuant to subdivision (e) of this section, the DHCR may, upon application by such family member, who is not entitled to a renewal lease as provided for in subdivision (b) of this section, determine with due consideration of equities as set forth in section 2522.7 of this title (Consideration of Equities), that there are other reasonable grounds pursuant to which such family member shall be entitled to a renewal lease.

1 9 NYCRR subtitle S.

The provision cited above is an extremely important one to public policy.  As our housing stock aged so did our rent regulated tenants.  With the advent of the baby boom many of our tenants in rent regulated housing are going to reach the time when they no longer can care for themselves.  This will mean either institutionalization or the alternative of a member of the family or non-traditional family coming into the apartment as caretaker.  Today, because DHCR wiped its hands of the issue and there is a mandatory requirement of two years (or one year in the case of age or disability), the caretaker who may come into the apartment sacrificing their own abode can be left out in the cold if the leaseholder dies or otherwise vacates the apartment before the required period runs.  Let me give this example of what can now happen under our draconian law and regulations.

Mrs. A is 75 years old, is stricken with a slow stomach cancer.  Ms. P, Mrs. A’s daughter, is told by Mrs. A’s doctors that she may live five or six years.  Ms. P sacrifices her home to go and take care of her mother.  A month after Ms. P comes into the apartment to take care of her mother, a robber breaks in and kills Mrs. A.

In these circumstances Ms. P will be evicted under the law as she has not satisfied the mandatory requirement and neither DHCR or the Court can now exercise discretion.

It is also time for the state and city government to bring greater force of law to issues of a landlord allowing his building to rot while milking its rent.  Here there should be swift action allowing the HPD court to utilize RSC 26-514 in its discretion to reduce and freeze rent in a summary manner if the recorded violations establish the tenants claim.

I.   There should be a review of the subsidy tax programs, i.e. RPL 420(a) and J-51.  I opine that were an objective study undertaken there would be found widespread abuses.

J.   The loss of the safeguards relating to preferential rents should also be revisited as same has caused great hardship throughout the tenant community.

Finally, I end this Alert by arguing that the Urstadt law which bars home rule to New York City must be repeated if the City is to have an opportunity to fully address the ills of our current housing crisis.

Conclusion

What I have written in this article if implemented would expand the number of units under regulation, protect the housing stock and the regulated tenant.  It reflects the position that all must have decent and affordable housing within the scope and compass of the police power of the state and city governments.