Some rent control systems have a safeguard against jacking the rent, then lowering it: The prior tenant gets right of first refusal when it comes back on the market within N years.
I can imagine other creative ways to achieve the goal. However, I'm having difficulty wraping my head around your scenario.
The landlord decides they want an 18 year old Liliputian, but accidentally rents it to an 85 year old Belfuscian instead? Later, they realize their error, and temporarily jack the price up to kick out the Belfuscian they were totally fine renting it to earlier?
Isn't it more likely that, instead of suddenly becoming racist/ageist, the landlord is trying to get rid of them for some reason that became apparent after they signed the lease (late payments, noise, illegal activity, etc...)?
Appreciate the engagement with the idea, but you’re missing the mechanics of all this.
There are a few scenarios:
- landlord rents to belfuscian because that’s the market. Then a Lilliputian makes a popular tv show that depicts the neighborhood as cool and affordable. Landlord starts getting interest, so they force out the belfuscian so they can get the Lilliputians.
- landlord just wants to run a building and make a living. They get an offer too good to pass up and sell the building. New owner plans to make the money back by forcing our existing tenants and jacking the rent.
- the tenant believes that they have a right to an apartment without roaches and mice. The landlord feels like that’s not reasonable because it’s NYC, and there are roaches and mice. The landlord decides to get rid of these tenants and hope to raise the rent.
And yes, sure, there are bad tenants who landlords want to kick out. But let’s talk about who is more likely to end up in a bad situation- the low income tenant trying to get by, or the landlord who owns a building they want to maximize revenue from?
That makes sense. I forgot that tenants typically come with the building when they change hands in NYC.
Around here, most bigger buildings are corporate-owned (equally good or terrible to all), or small enough where loopholes allow everyone to be evicted at sale.
I can imagine other creative ways to achieve the goal. However, I'm having difficulty wraping my head around your scenario.
The landlord decides they want an 18 year old Liliputian, but accidentally rents it to an 85 year old Belfuscian instead? Later, they realize their error, and temporarily jack the price up to kick out the Belfuscian they were totally fine renting it to earlier?
Isn't it more likely that, instead of suddenly becoming racist/ageist, the landlord is trying to get rid of them for some reason that became apparent after they signed the lease (late payments, noise, illegal activity, etc...)?