RENTERS: No license, no rent

[Anonymous]

I was hoping someone would stoop so low. Yes, America, we have a civil lawsuits collection problem.

But was $6k in DCRA fines, bankruptcy, pox on your and family’s name forever, massive legal fees (Plaintiffs’ will chase you for years with a lawyer likely on contingent fee) and the inevitable large settlement plus — the times have changed — criminal charges (see San Francisco Ghost Ship) worth your illegal rental gains?

What about your immortal soul? Or equivalent?

[Anonymous]

We had people who were close friends of our next-door neighbor stay in our furnished house we weren’t using for 10 months — they bought a bunch of new appliances for us (as old ones were failing left and right) and a new power garage door. This was all just a handshake/verbal glorified housesitting set-up. Should we really have been worried about the long arm of the law?

[Anonymous]

This actually happened to my neighbor. Basement renter stopped paying then moved out with no notice approximately four months after moving in. Neighbor realized that he had no grounds to collect anything from renter, and immediately afterwards, put in an application to make the rental legal. This was in Maryland. It had been rented for about 6 years before then by a few different tenants without issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We had people who were close friends of our next-door neighbor stay in our furnished house we weren’t using for 10 months — they bought a bunch of new appliances for us (as old ones were failing left and right) and a new power garage door. This was all just a handshake/verbal glorified housesitting set-up. Should we really have been worried about the long arm of the law?

yes, what if something had happened to the when they lived in your illegal dwelling?

[Anonymous]

In other states there is no such thing as a tenant license. I rent in NYS, I don’t need a license as a landlord and no inspections. Somehow tenants don’t kill them selves. They are free to move or not rent your place. A license is a money grab

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Actually, being unlicensed does not necessarily mean they're unsafe.

It means you (the landlord) are a criminal, and consorting with criminals is inherently unsafe.

[Anonymous]

You don’t need to go to court to sue for eviction. Just give the tenant 90-days vacate notice for personal use and take over possession/charge locks. The tenant would have to pay lawyers sue you.
If you rent rooms in a larger house just get BBl for the house as a whole and structure leases as sublets of rooms where tenants wave their homestead rights.

Signed licensed landlord

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m confused. Say I rent out a bedroom in my home and never. Got a BBL. If it’s not a licensed unit what would stop me from doing self help? (Btw I have a BBL I’m just wondering)

Would this be described as a roommate situation rather than a landlord situation? Is there a difference in terms of licensing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In other states there is no such thing as a tenant license. I rent in NYS, I don’t need a license as a landlord and no inspections. Somehow tenants don’t kill them selves. They are free to move or not rent your place. A license is a money grab

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/hpd/services-and-information/basement-and-cellar.page#:~:text=Basements%20and%20cellars%20in%20residential,Department%20of%20Buildings%20(DOB).

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/02/nyregion/nyc-basement-apartments-flooding.html

[Anonymous]

I'm no proponent of illegal rentals, but I also think we also have to acknowledge that there's a wide latitude between units that lack a BBL because they have serious safety issues and units that lack a BBL because of issues that are not unsafe but are difficult to correct. A center beam in a rowhouse basement that's a few inches lower than the limit for rentals is not a fire hazard; virtually everyone who has such a beam and doesn't rent their basement uses it as finished space without issue. Utilities that are not separated by unit are not a fire hazard. On the other hand, overcrowding, insufficient egress, those are very serious issues.

What we should really have are a set of more limited restrictions for getting a BBL that are solely focused on fire safety, coupled with more stringent enforcement of those limited restrictions. Maybe some of the eliminated requirements could be replaced by disclosure requirements to tenants. The current regulations end up pulling a lot of units out of the rental market that might otherwise be available, and that tenants would be happy (and safe) to live in. This exacerbates our issues with affordable housing, and it probably actually makes much of the remaining housing less safe by ensuring that many rented units go uninspected to avoid the more onerous restrictions that have little to do with safety.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm no proponent of illegal rentals, but I also think we also have to acknowledge that there's a wide latitude between units that lack a BBL because they have serious safety issues and units that lack a BBL because of issues that are not unsafe but are difficult to correct. A center beam in a rowhouse basement that's a few inches lower than the limit for rentals is not a fire hazard; virtually everyone who has such a beam and doesn't rent their basement uses it as finished space without issue. Utilities that are not separated by unit are not a fire hazard. On the other hand, overcrowding, insufficient egress, those are very serious issues.

What we should really have are a set of more limited restrictions for getting a BBL that are solely focused on fire safety, coupled with more stringent enforcement of those limited restrictions. Maybe some of the eliminated requirements could be replaced by disclosure requirements to tenants. The current regulations end up pulling a lot of units out of the rental market that might otherwise be available, and that tenants would be happy (and safe) to live in. This exacerbates our issues with affordable housing, and it probably actually makes much of the remaining housing less safe by ensuring that many rented units go uninspected to avoid the more onerous restrictions that have little to do with safety.

BINGO.

As noted on the other thread, t's perfectly legal to use your basement apartment as an Arbnb without jumping through all the hoops required -- many of which are not safety related -- to rent the apartment out long-term. And why is that? It's because the city wants to make sure that Arbnbs benefit actual residents who want/need to supplement their incomes to afford their housing -- not people who want to start a business that displaces residents. Insisting on so many ridiculous requirements to rent out your basement long-term undermines the city's efforts to provide more affordable housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You don’t need to go to court to sue for eviction. Just give the tenant 90-days vacate notice for personal use and take over possession/charge locks. The tenant would have to pay lawyers sue you.
If you rent rooms in a larger house just get BBl for the house as a whole and structure leases as sublets of rooms where tenants wave their homestead rights.

Signed licensed landlord

Not true.

On 90 day “idea”. You then have to live in your rental for 12 months yourself. Any renter thus “evicted” would be well advised to check if it was re-rented. Lots of free legal help out there for this type of a thing.

On renting a room in the house. Are you aware that they technically have the use of your entire house? Even if let’s say you are renting out an in law unit. There are forms for that too. Otherwise it’s incredibly dangerous. All it takes is that one tenant like the infamous case in NYC and you might be out on the street.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We had people who were close friends of our next-door neighbor stay in our furnished house we weren’t using for 10 months — they bought a bunch of new appliances for us (as old ones were failing left and right) and a new power garage door. This was all just a handshake/verbal glorified housesitting set-up. Should we really have been worried about the long arm of the law?

You took on an enormous risk. Of something happening to them, to the house, them not wanting to move out. It worked out. It it’s hardly a recommendation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm no proponent of illegal rentals, but I also think we also have to acknowledge that there's a wide latitude between units that lack a BBL because they have serious safety issues and units that lack a BBL because of issues that are not unsafe but are difficult to correct. A center beam in a rowhouse basement that's a few inches lower than the limit for rentals is not a fire hazard; virtually everyone who has such a beam and doesn't rent their basement uses it as finished space without issue. Utilities that are not separated by unit are not a fire hazard. On the other hand, overcrowding, insufficient egress, those are very serious issues.

What we should really have are a set of more limited restrictions for getting a BBL that are solely focused on fire safety, coupled with more stringent enforcement of those limited restrictions. Maybe some of the eliminated requirements could be replaced by disclosure requirements to tenants. The current regulations end up pulling a lot of units out of the rental market that might otherwise be available, and that tenants would be happy (and safe) to live in. This exacerbates our issues with affordable housing, and it probably actually makes much of the remaining housing less safe by ensuring that many rented units go uninspected to avoid the more onerous restrictions that have little to do with safety.

BINGO.

As noted on the other thread, t's perfectly legal to use your basement apartment as an Arbnb without jumping through all the hoops required -- many of which are not safety related -- to rent the apartment out long-term. And why is that? It's because the city wants to make sure that Arbnbs benefit actual residents who want/need to supplement their incomes to afford their housing -- not people who want to start a business that displaces residents. Insisting on so many ridiculous requirements to rent out your basement long-term undermines the city's efforts to provide more affordable housing.

For up to 90 days a year! Enjoy that. Also, insurance policies in place and I gotta say I’m not seeing too many dodgy basements to swoon over on AirBnB

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm no proponent of illegal rentals, but I also think we also have to acknowledge that there's a wide latitude between units that lack a BBL because they have serious safety issues and units that lack a BBL because of issues that are not unsafe but are difficult to correct. A center beam in a rowhouse basement that's a few inches lower than the limit for rentals is not a fire hazard; virtually everyone who has such a beam and doesn't rent their basement uses it as finished space without issue. Utilities that are not separated by unit are not a fire hazard. On the other hand, overcrowding, insufficient egress, those are very serious issues.

What we should really have are a set of more limited restrictions for getting a BBL that are solely focused on fire safety, coupled with more stringent enforcement of those limited restrictions. Maybe some of the eliminated requirements could be replaced by disclosure requirements to tenants. The current regulations end up pulling a lot of units out of the rental market that might otherwise be available, and that tenants would be happy (and safe) to live in. This exacerbates our issues with affordable housing, and it probably actually makes much of the remaining housing less safe by ensuring that many rented units go uninspected to avoid the more onerous restrictions that have little to do with safety.

That makes sense, but it’s a rare case that it’s one beam. Until you manage to win this fight, keep your illegal rental of the market. But renters honestly hold all the cards as they should because you don’t care about their safety if you are renting an illegal unit