Ok Land Barons: What Would You Have Done?

I would have first confirmed how much of the capital expenditure of changing the tub I could pass on to the tenant and assuming it was a decent amount I would have informed tenant of that so that she can choose to pay it or move out. She moves out, no need to change. She stays, I get some of the expenditure paid for.

Suspicion that what you would have done is illegal in NYC.

More to the story than what is there I’m sure. Sensational journalism.

Having said that, this is what happens when you invite the government in to “help”.

How so? Again, I don’t know NY rent laws but here (depending again on jurisdiction) we can pass through to the tenants capital expenditures made on the building like replacing a roof. It is over a long period, so not a whole lot to the tenant upfront but that is our right.

A well inform SF landlord or management company would have put such change request in. Don’t want to mess with the ADA!

1 Like

It’s NYC–wouldn’t it be harassment if you told someone that moving out is an option if they don’t want to pay for something a disabled person needs? I’m half joking, half serious.

That said, I do sympathize with the mom. She probably doesn’t have the funds to pay for the bathtub–sounds like her daughter must need round-the-clock care, and she is probably right that getting her daughter into the tub is a PIA.

We don’t know the full details but assuming the owner could have passed through whatever allowed amount for the improvement I don’t see how that would be harassment as the owner is just doing his due diligence in informing his tenant his right to adjust the rent. She can take it however she wants to, meaning accepting it or moving out. Again, the pro-rated amount in pass through would be relatively small but if I were the owner I would want every dollar that is entitled to me to recoup for the expenditure paid.

1 Like