You may be right, but are you saying that falsely representing yourself to be eligible for receiving the benefits of the rent control laws is not against the law? Don't know if that is what happened here. Indeed, it's hard to believe that a landlord would miss the presence of a campaign office in the building. But your blanket statement that Rangel (or any other tenant of a rent controlled apartment) could not have done anything wrong here seems a bit strong.

1: Why, no, I'm not saying anything of the sort. If anyone were alleging that Rangel had made any false representations to his landlord to retain the rent stabilization status, that'd be a huge story, and the Times should certainly publish those allegations the minute someone with knowledge makes them.

This article is on a par with the breathtaking revelation that Obama got a few points off on his jumbo jumbo house loan. They are part of a steady background drumbeat of "remember all politicians are greedy, manipulative lowlifes", which of course has its element of truth, but in practice ends up being differentially deployed against progressive politicians (Tom Delay taking advantage of the system is dog bites man) and serves as a damper to any serious consideration of progressive positions.

In other words: "I was outraged about the FISA cave-in until I learned that Charlie Rangel had an office in a rent-stabilized building."

And "is not against the law" is sort of indeterminate there. Something like that would probably be the basis for a cause of action for fraud, but I can't see how it would be a violation of the rent regulations -- they don't have any enforcement mechanism against a tenant that I'm aware of.

Are there income caps for those with rent-controlled or rent-stabilized apartments? I thought people inherited them and were then entitled to them regardless of income. I certainly know someone who makes about 200k/yr. with a rent-stabilized apartment. I don't think she's skulking around.

1: Or gee whiz, LB, what if Rangel had showed up at the landlord's with his posse, brandished his piece and said, "I'm runnin' my office in your building muthafucka and ain't nuthin' you gonna do about it"? Are you saying that would be legal?

The quote below, along with the claim that Rangel is laying off his landlord on evictions of rent-controlled tenants seem like reasonable grounds for this being newsworthy to me.

Some Congressional ethics experts, while saying it appears legitimate for Mr. Rangel to have one rent-stabilized apartment, question whether his acceptance of the additional units may violate the House of Representatives' ban on members' accepting gifts of more than $100. They suggest that the difference between what Mr. Rangel pays for the second, third and fourth apartments and what a new market-rate tenant would pay -- some $30,000 annually -- could be considered a gift because it is given at the discretion of the landlord and it is not generally available to the public.

For officeholders, wrongdoing =/= lawbreaking. Getting thousands of dollars a month in freebies that Joe Schmo wouldn't get is wrong, and I hope (but doubt) that Rangel will have to pay back the value of all his discounted rents. The Obama mortgage has nothing to do with this sort of thing - the article, which the Post's ombudsperson went after this week, tried to make hay that he had gotten a deal a couple hundred dollars a month better than the average, even though the Obamas had above average credit and finances.

And the quote applies to every Rep who doesn't pay what a new tenant in his or her building would pay; the rent stabilization angle is still nonsense.

Allegations that Rangel is 'laying off' his landlord on evictions of rent stabilized tenants kind of depend on whether the landlord has done anything exceptionable there -- I don't see any specific allegations that the landlord has conducted itself in a way that Rangel should have addressed.

Sen. Coleman of Minnesota is apparently paying below market for his DC apartment. He recently showed it to reporters to prove that it wasn't at all fancy, downright shabby in fact, though that doesn't prove that he isn't paying below market.

I was looking forward to the Franken / Coleman Senate race here, but so far the genius of the American political system has degraded it to a string of gotchas. Coleman is one of the slimiest people in politics, though not one of the evillest or most frightening, but Franken hasn't gotten to him yet.

And now Jesse Ventura is making noises about entering the race.

8: That's a great standard to apply, so long as it's across the board. When you set up the Congressional Rent Preapproval office, establishing the approved market-rate rent for every lease a Rep enters into, then you've got a level playing field. This sort of after the fact nitpicking, in the absence of any real allegations of a quid pro quo, is kind of bullshit.

11: Absolutely, somehow the attacks on "sleaze" and hypocrisy get very energized around progressive politicians. Hey I've got a plan! Let's not push for anything truly progressive until all of the politicians with those views are some kind of squeaky clean Ralph Nader clone!

You know there is a reason that the Rosetta Stone of the 2008 Dem primary was Edwards' haircut.

But I'm overstating what I mean to say. I think there is a fair to good chance that Rangel's landlord is deliberately giving him a good deal because Rangel is a powerful politician, and even in the absence of a quid pro quo people want to do favors for powerful politicians, either because they think they may need a favor in the future, and they'll be better positioned to ask, or out of political approval and support. And this is, in fact, forbidden by the House ethical rules and should be.

What I'm bitching about is that the story is being told as "Rangel's violating rent regulations" rather than "Rangel's landlord is voluntarily giving him a deal". And even if it is clearly a deal someone else wouldn't have gotten -- other old tenants are paying disproportionately more -- that's a violation of the rules, and now that it's been noticed Rangel should maybe ask the landlord to hike his rent, but it's not a huge deal in the absence of a quid pro quo, and I'll bet ambiguous favors to Reps of that kind are awfully common.

re: 13 To the extent he has not made any sort of false representation to obtain the apartments, that seems a fair point.

9: I don't think you need a quid pro quo to show that it's worth asking questions here. I'm no expert on congressional ethics rules, but the whole point of a prohibition on gifts as such is to prevent the appearance of impropriety by prohibiting transfers of value even in the absence of a quid pro quo. If there were a quid pro quo, the charge would be straight-up bribery. I assume the ethics rules must prohibit more than bribery, if they mean anything useful at all.

However, I agree that it would be absurd to scrutinize every transaction a member enters into for full commercial reasonableness. So talking off the top of my head, I would think that the question should be whether, for this particular transaction, there are facts that suggest an intent by the landlord to convey value to Rangel because of his office. (I'm reading the "because of his office" part into the House rule -- it doesn't appear in the rule's text, but we need it to avoid the absurd commercial-reasonableness inquiry.)

Here, the article says that landlords "can -- and routinely do -- force tenants who have more than one rent-stabilized apartment to give up any additional units." I think the importance of the questions raised by the article depends on whether it's correct that four apartments is so unusual that one can infer that the landlord must have had some ulterior motive (such as currying favor with an official, even absent a quid pro quo) merely from knowing about the arrangement.

The article also makes the point that you criticize about the use of part of the space as an office, but it doesn't give us any information about whether it's unusual for a landlord not to enforce its rights when a tenant uses part of a space for commerical purposes. On the other hand, it's probably a fair point to mention if one is writing the article anyway. Knowing nothing about NY rent stabilization myself, I assume that you're correct that the article incorrectly and unfairly implies that Rangel himself is violating some relevant regulation.

(On preview, looking at 13, I don't think we're too far apart.)

Absolutely, somehow the attacks on "sleaze" and hypocrisy get very energized around progressive politicians.

Is Rangel a particularly progressive politician?

Didn't he push to keep the loophole that lets hedge-fund managers pay long-term capital gains rates (15%) on their labor income?

Rangel's pretty good -- he's been forthrightly against the war from day one, he was in the lead way back on divestment from South Africa (some tax law that kept companies from deducting taxes paid to SA from their US taxes.) I don't know about where he was on the capital gains thing.

I occupy the space where the confluence of 13 and 15 are headed. It was a (typically) uninformed story by the Times as to the actual facts that underlie a spectrum of insinuations. Legitimate questions arise when a politician who has railed against landlords who attempt to force rent-stabilized tenants to raise rents then takes advantage of that same set of regulations (certainly the case as to his later-acquired office space, at least). But any implication that Rangel actually violated a law is, I agree, out of bounds without a bit more evidence. (To be fair, I can't recall if such accusation was explicitly raised, although the tone was damning enough).

The Times further demonstrated its lameness in the related editorial, which basically repeated its haughty tone without making any useful recommendation (y'know, like an editorial board might), such as changing the law to impose an income cap.

The Times article speaks of four apartments. Two were already combined before Rangel moved in, so no issues there. One was a studio apartment next to the first two that became vacant, and the landlord allowed him to merge it into his. Assuming the landlord did the maximum increase the market or stabilization laws allowed, then given that Rangel's a longtime and presumably good tenant, probably no story there. Finally, there's the one he's using for an office. That sounds pretty iffy to me. It might have made sense to the landlord a while back when Harlem wasn't what it is now, but I'm pretty sure that if Rangel weren't who he is, the landlord would have ended that arrangement some time ago. Note that rent stabilized apartments are not necessarily below market rent, certainly not when they get new tenants and are in a low rent area, which Harlem was not that long ago.

There is a kind of income cap already. An apartment can get destabilized two ways -- first, if the rent goes over $2k/mon. (? I'm not sure of the exact numbers) and the apartment changes to a new tenant, the new tenant gets it destabilized regardless of their income. The other way, where the same tenant stays, is where the income cap comes in -- if the stabilized rent goes over $2k/mon. and the tenant's income is over $175k? $200k? then the apartment is destabilized on the next lease.

Isn't rent control one of those kinds of laws that's frequently abused, bent, and broken?

So what in the world is Mr. Rangel, now the Powerful Chairman of the Tax Writing Ways and Means Committee, doing signing on to Rep. Sander Levin's bill to change the rules on private equity and hedge fund managers so that their fees would be taxed as ordinary income rather than as capital gains?

This is from last year, but unless he flipped, Rangel was on the right side of the hedge fund/capital gains thing.

20: Thanks for reminding me of the partial income cap, but as you note it only applies if the stabilized rent has surpassed $2k/month (and I believe that is the right figure). So someone making millions would still benefit from a set of rules after that person is no longer among those who the law is really meant to benefit. (Weren't housing advocates trying to unhitch these?)

19: "Note that rent stabilized apartments are not necessarily below market rent . . . ."

It's NYC in 2008.

23: There's places in upper Manhattan, and depending on the neighborhood in the other four boroughs, where under 2k/mon. isn't implausible for a smaller apartment. On the general "rent stabilization is irrational" front, yeah, it is kind of. I'm not sure of how best to make it make sense without imposing unnecessary hardships in the transition.

24
In most of Brooklyn one bedrooms are under $2k. In much of Brooklyn 2BR's are under $2k. Where I live, 1BR's run from around 1500-2000. This isn't the most expensive Brooklyn neighbourhood, but well above average. When I moved here a few years ago I was paying $1195. It was rent stabilized, but that was also the market rent. The stabilization laws would have allowed my landlord to charge more, but no one would have taken the place. (He tried, it stayed empty for several months, he lowered the rent). I remember looking at places in Inwood and Washington Heights in the late nineties - well below $2000.

24-25: that would make NY considerably cheaper than (safe, white) neighborhoods in DC, where nice 2 BR are above $2,000.

Well, the neighborhoods we're talking about are mostly safe-ish -- the whole city's safe-ish these days -- but where a 2 BR would be under $2k, the neighborhood isn't going to be majority white, and the apartment probably won't be 'nice'.

2 bedrooms, 2-car garage, $3760.

When giraffes fight they club each other with their heads. .

where a 2 BR would be under $2k, the neighborhood isn't going to be majority white, and the apartment probably won't be 'nice'

I think you are being Manhattan-centric here. Although I suppose it depends on how you define "majority white" and "nice". You get a lot more for your money in Queens than you do in Manhattan or the parts of Brooklyn near Manhattan. The place I lived in Flushing for five years (the bottom half of a two-family home with a front and back yard and a garage on a quite tree-lined street) now rents for less than $2000 a month.

You can get a decent 2BR for under $2k in South Brooklyn if you want majority white. Majority non-white, but nice, you used to be able to where I live until about two or three years ago. As for 1BR's, anything over $2k will be huge and very, very nice even now.

My apartment, a technical 2-bedroom, is totally nice: in a pre-war brownstone, top floor, skylight, internal staircase, great light, yaddayadda. Rent is about $1500. In Bed-Stuy. A few people have told me we're paying way too much for the neighborhood.

"where a 2 BR would be under $2k, the neighborhood isn't going to be majority white, and the apartment probably won't be 'nice'"

I know of a rent stabilized apartment with a rent of about $1500 on Madison near 5th avenue that says different (16th floor of a chi chi doorman building, 3 br, lovely view of the Chrysler building). However, the tenants have lived there for 50-60 years, which is how that sort of thing happens. (I think it must have been rent controlled for a while, but everything's just stabilized now, right?). And this doesn't involve the tenants breaking any laws or doing anything shady--it just involves them staying put & living into their 90s, & shows that rent stabilization laws are not so well-directed to those who really need the help, and the Rangel story probably shows the exact same thing.

When I was looking at studio apartments four years ago, they were much, much cheaper in Inwood/WashHts than in Park Slope. I looked at a beautiful studio for $850 with a parquet floor overlooking a park. Ended up not taking it because I realized the woman showing it to me was trying to convince me it was a great building because it was all-white, and could I please give her a photo of myself for her landlord? Yuck.

Most of the rental numbers being thrown around seem about right. Our almost-1BR in a "nicer" Bklyn neighborhood (but unfortunately situated w/i that area) is about to breach $2k/month. But that monthly rent, remember, is the ceiling where the rent stabilization cap kicks in, so most stabilized rents are significantly under that and, one assumes (given rising rents citywide), well under market rent. (There's also a distinction between rent stabilized and rent controlled in NYC, but I can't remember how it works.)

This is the kind of thing that reminds me of the vast gulf between me and the Gothamites. I know enough from friends about NYC rents to recognize certain bargains, but then I think, even $1500 a month is more than 3x my mortgage payment. Imagine what it must be like in North Dakota, where renters just have to empty their pants pockets and reach behind the couch cushions for change once a month.

I know, it's nuts. I moved from Cleveland, where it felt like a struggle to pony up $300 a month for my share of a three-bedroom, and now I'm paying four times that each month for a bedroom, bathroom, and eat-in kitchen. Rent used to be less than half of my income; this year it's about 2/3, and I used to make it work on even less.

Rent used to be less than half of my income; this year it's about 2/3

Holy crap. Insane.

I was looking at Brooklyn apartments in 1999 or so, in the borderish neighborhoods around Ft Green and Prospect Heights. On at least three occasions I had black landlords comment on how happy they were to get white tenants - these black renters can't be trusted, they sell drugs and don't pay the rent, etc. Although one of those apartments would have been fine, anyway, I just couldn't bring myself to get into that situation.

Somewhat off-topic:

Does anybody have a recommendation for a decent broker in BK? I need to find and move into an apartment in August, but I'm currently living in Boston. It seems like using a broker might be the easiest way to make that happen. I think I want to live in Park Slope, although I also liked the Carroll Gardens/Cobble Hill area when I was visiting.

This is so frightening. I continue to live in a $1000/month house -- free-standing -- 10 miles outside of the city proper. 2 floors plus basement, garage and driveway, front and back yards rather large, with a garden. And raspberries and deer.

Admittedly, in exchange for this we have no heat on the second floor, the place is basically horribly insulated, mildew problems in the basement in summer, single-pane windows on the first floor. The whole place is corroding, really. Only a certain type of person would be willing to work with this.

Were the landlord to decide to call the arrangement quits, I'd be so screwed in terms of finding new housing. The background fear of this is a burden.

40 - Carroll Gardens is terrific, I lived there for several years and wish I were back there now. I don't have any broker recommendations, but I'd suggest you mess with CraigsList first. I've had good luck renting apartments from a distance that way. My experience with brokers has been nothing but terrible.

Well, the neighborhoods we're talking about are mostly safe-ish -- the whole city's safe-ish these days -- but where a 2 BR would be under $2k, the neighborhood isn't going to be majority white,

Well, the racial mix doesn't matter as long as the neighborhood is safe. DC has a far higher homicide rate than NYC.

This thread is making me think I'm paying way too much for rent.

In the same way that someone who is easily entertained and tolerant of extremes of climate can save a lot of money by moving to North Dakota, someone with no fear of death can save a lot of money in DC.

Getting back to the post let's focus on the important thing here: Rangel has one of the greatest voices in politics. We can't lose him.

Yeah, August, I'd avoid brokers if I were you, unless you're looking for high-end stuff, like a 3+-bedroom or more than one floor of a brownstone in Park Slope. Craigslist is standard in Brooklyn, and serious landlords post there. Also, if you email me and tell me what you're looking for, I could forward emails that I get from my department about apartments for rent. There are always ones coming open around this time of year.

45: You know, I'm not sure if you mean that as a matter of substantive politics, or auditory vocal quality, but I agree either way. It's one of the minor perks of living in Upper Manhattan, getting to feel unequivocally cheerful about at least one candidate I'm voting for every two years.

One warning, though, August:

I show apartments, and have been through the Brooklyn apartment-hunt three times, and what I've learned is that, if you're not using a broker, you need to be extremely decisive and prepared. You can come down for a weekend and see ten apartments, easily, and if you wait until the next day to say you'll take it, every one of them will be taken. You have to be ready on the spot, and feel zero remorse about your choice. I would recommend making a list, mental or otherwise, of the things you will not tolerate in an apartment so that you can just walk in and walk out without wasting anyone's time. Also have a list of things that would make an apartment a definite yes. (Like, if it has nice floors and walls, a decent-sized kitchen, good closets, a bathtub, a secure front door, less than a 10-minute walk from a useful subway line, and is within a five-minute bike ride from the park, and is under $X/mo, I'll take it, immediately.) When you come to look at an apartment, have with you about $100 in cash, a photocopy of your driver's license and social security card, your checkbook, and any information you would need to put on an application (names and contact info for employers, previous landlords, references, etc.).

I've shown about eight apartments, and people just tear themselves in pieces over it. The first person will hem and haw because it's too small, but so charming, and perfectly situated, but so expensive, and they'll want to call back later. The second person will take it on the spot. The first person will call back and be furious. Everyone else with appointments will cry and threaten me or try to bribe me because they were certain this was the one. Just be cool about it and know there is no "perfect" apartment. There's just the one that is good enough for you at the moment you see it.

a very good advice, AWB
i'm thinking too about moving to somewhere affordable in NYC from September
there were ads on the craigslist about 125-325/weekly rooms, are those a scam? i was wondering why they list the weekly rents, and like that cheap
i don't want anything unsafe though and hesitate about roommates too
if i won't find anything suitable i'll stay where i am maybe, though i got a bit bored with my living arrangements for now

Read, I'd only look at places that list monthly rents. I don't know what that weekly stuff is about, but it sounds suspicious. Are they short-term sublets? Or are they just trying to make it "look" cheap? No lease will be written in those terms.

If you're looking for nice roommates, I'd be happy to post something to my grad school listserv if you are willing to share your real name and contact info. Just email me with what you're looking for in a roommate and rental situation and I'll forward it along to all the departments. There are always students looking for a nice roommate, and a lot of them are international students from all over the world.

Thanks for all of the advice; it is very helpful.

Looking on craigslist, it seemed that at any given time the vast majority of apartments were listed by brokers (so would require a huge broker's fee) anyway. My thinking was that if I was going to pay the fee anyway, it would simplify things to have a single person who could show me a handful of apartments that would meet my needs. From your comments (and what some of my friends have said), I guess fees are just a fact of renting in NY.

Can I see ten apartments in a weekend easily? or is the easy thing losing ten apartments if I'm not decisive? What's the best way to see a bunch of apartments in a weekend? Should I start calling people up and scheduling appointments a week beforehand? Or can I come down for the weekend and just start calling people once I get there?

I am far from decisive, but hopefully I'll be able to get my act together for this. I really wanted to find a place that I could stay in for a few years, because I hate moving, but maybe that's unrealistic.

Taking free stuff leads down the path of corruption! Or so the Internal Affairs captain told us this week. IA guys, BTW, have really good stories about the stuff cops have done to get fired.

51: You can do a sort on CL for no fees. I've never paid a fee, and I don't know anyone who has. There are plenty of nice apartments with no fees. I'd say the only reason to get a broker is to have someone to schedule all your visits for you, and even then, keep in mind that they don't have your best interests at heart and are often there to try to get you to seal a deal you're not comfortable with. If you want someone to talk you into something, go for it. (I'm not being facetious; lots of people who look at apartments in my building desperately needed someone to close the deal for them other than me.)

What I'd recommend is to start calling about five days before you expect to be in town, or even less. An ad will go up on CL and the landlord will want to get someone in there immediately, so they'll start scheduling appointments as soon as they can. Always take the earliest appointment you can get, with allowances for travel times between places. Individual appointments are better than open houses. Be as nice and personable as you can be on the phone and you might get special favors. Once you come to town, be sure to stay somewhere where you have internet and can keep looking at listings and making calls while you're here.

This weekend should be a super-hot time to visit. It's a week and a half before the end of the month, so landlords will already know who's moving out, and they'll be eager to get places settled before they have to schedule any work to be done on the apartment (painting, reflooring, etc.).

I don't mean to make this sound scary, but I know it's really hectic. If it's any consolation, I've taken all three of the first apartments I have looked at here. (One was a sublet that fell through, and I ended up taking this place instead.) Decisiveness is key for not making yourself crazy.

(Calculate travel times with Hopstop.com; they take into account weekend subway service changes and estimate walking times at a nice brisk clip.)

Swift, it's important to buy your own magic underwear. If you are offered free magic underwear, turn it down.

Unfortunately, I'm taking the bar exam in a couple weeks, so I can't really start looking yet. I hope to start looking, find a place, and move all within a month. Luckily, I don't have anything else I need to do in that time (except take a trip home at some point to make my parents happy).

thanks, AWB, very helpful advices
in August i'll absent until 25th, do you think i'll be too late to find something until September, 1st?
only 5 days
maybe should arrange everything before going home, but i don't want to pay two rents and when i'm absent

Oh! And (sorry, this might be really annoying advice) no matter what time they give you for an appointment, politely ask if there's anything earlier, and then ask how many people are ahead of you to see the place. Make sure they have your phone number to have them call you in case it's taken before you head over; save yourself some frustrating legwork and time.

57: That is pretty late if you're trying to get in on 9/1. Some things crop up on like the fifth or the fifteenth of the month, especially if the apartment needs renovation. However, a sublet or moving in with roommates should be doable in that time. Landlords have to do a lot in those last days of the month if there's a totally new tenant with a totally new lease, and try not to get stuck showing a place during those days.

Has this become the open housing thread? If so, yes! I'm moving to Boston in late August does anyone know how necessary a realtor is? In other words will I (and my potential future roommates) have to pay a broker's fee? Also if we get a Sept 1st move in date, what the hell am I supposed to do between orientation on Aug 29th and then? Thanks in advance!

Gswift-

You really need to tell funny cop stories. If you need to go presidential, Teddy Roosevelt would be appropriate.

and when you want to tell embarrassing sexual stories, gswift, you are to use the name "Zachary Taylor". Please remember this.

"Zachary Taylor" has been used, hasn't it? We do try to maintain consistency wrt presidential pseudonymity, don't we? We can't possibly have run out of presidents, can we?

We do try to maintain consistency wrt presidential pseudonymity, don't we? We can't possibly have run out of presidents, can we?

For one-off confessions, I don't think there's any expectation of consistency. Indeed, I'm 99% certain that the Abigail Adams who has been the subject of ongoing discussion is not the first to use that pseud.

Sorry if this is too earnest a response. I can't tell if Jesus is serious.

what the hell am I supposed to do between orientation on Aug 29th and then?

Drive a tall rental truck on Storrow Drive. Someone has to be first each year.

If anybody needs a nice, cheap guest house in the Hollywood Hills from September through December, let me know.

As much fun as it sounds to lose the top of a truck, driving from SF to Boston was not high on my list of priorities.

I subletted 3 different rooms in apartments - Park Slope, then Astoria, then Inwood - when I was in NY recently. (For various reasons, I wasn't able to match one sublet to the whole time I was there.) So I was on craigslist a lot, but only looking at shared housing below 1200. There were a lot more choices in Inwood or Astoria than in near-Brooklyn (Park Slope, some areas near it) for that range. And I paid much less for the latter two rooms than I did in Park Slope. In Astoria, I even had my own bathroom.

As for PGD's comparative comments, I think he's right. I've also been on the DC craiglist looking for similar situations, and for the car-less or car-free, the choices are much more restricted and often involve more roommates.

So far, I'm only a week in, and they're not using names, so no real need yet to go presidential.

The IA guy had ones like the patrol officer who got canned for having sex with someone he'd arrested for DUI the night before, and a sting on a guy they suspected of having a coke problem. Apparently they arranged to have him sent on a call that involved a briefcase with a .357, a quantity of cocaine, and several thousand in cash. When he came in from the call, the only thing that he booked into evidence was the .357. Also funny stuff in the "things to avoid as a recruit" category, like the guy who managed to shoot himself in the leg a couple classes ago. Nothing life threatening, but apparently a pretty good through and through flesh wound.

The PT is way more demanding than the initial test when we applied. The officer in charge of PT is a seriously fit dude who's a fan of Crossfit style workouts. There's been some dry heaving from some of the guys who are out of shape.

Seriously, gswift, very few of the cops I see are in good shape. Or maybe they are in good shape, but still have giant paunches. I am surprised by all this PT-talk.

Maybe it's something you don't have to do any more when you reach 40, and all the cops around here are middle-aged.

Departments just require it when you apply for the job, and during academy. Some departments like SLC will give you extra pay for performing at a certain level on a yearly PT test, but I don't know of any where it's mandatory.

I was just wondering if you had any excellent stories, yet.

I'm wondering when he's going to start talking about how us civilians don't understand the need to get tough with all those worthless punks on the street.

"State and city regulations don't require a tenant to do or not do anything in or with their apartment, regardless of its rent stabilization status -- there's no possible way for a tenant to violate the regulations. ..."

Sure there is, an illegal sublet. And false representations of eligibility have to be some sort of offense.

Subletting is something the landlord can treat as a breach of your lease and evict you for, but that doesn't mean that the tenant is violating the rent regulations, just that the rent regulations don't protect someone who sublets without permission. That conduct is not actively protected by a regulation doesn't make it illegal. Same with false representations -- as I said above, it'd probably be fraud depending on the circumstances, but not a violation of the rent regulations.

75

If you charge your subtenant too much rent you are clearly violating the rent regulations and are subject to treble damages.

And I don't understand the distinction you are making, the rent regulations provide you must notify the owner before subletting, if you don't do this you are also violating the regulations.

Oh Noes! A Black Man gets favours!1!

73: I'm wondering when he's going to grow the big moustache.

Every man want to have a own house. As some people may have this as their dream but some cannot complete their dream as they are not aware prices and think's they need a huge amount of money to buy a property. Don't think like that every persons dreams can be satisfied through FSBO real estate services
-------
Simon
homes for sale

My God, a ghost real estate huckster from another planet who hasn't heard the news!