When a person buys rental property, it is an investment in the free-market system that has both success and failure as possible outcomes. Part of the investment is the profit that can be made from the sale of the property. Therefore, the more presentable the property the better the chance of a high return on the investment. Poorly maintained or abandon buildings will not turn a profit equal to the least that could be gotten from the sale of a well-maintained building.
Renters not only live in a building, but they contribute to its value by their rent payments that increase as is necessary to maintain the value of the property for the most part although absentee landlords, property management companies and greedy owners will raise rents for profit.
Without the renters, the maintenance of the building declines and along with it its value, and any threat to steady profits is removed by eviction either because of lack of contribution or because of damage caused to the property that could lessen its value.
That is why the people who have kept a building alive and sellable should be treated as more than just commodities and disposable at that.
I once lived in a four-plex for 12 years with few rent increases. I had intended to live there for as long as I could, so at points during my residence there I was the only person renting an apartment the building. It was investment property bought by the owner of the management company for his wife who could use the rents to maintain the building to a minimum and have her personal mad money for trips and baubles.
Empty, the building would have appeared derelict and, perhaps abandoned, and selling it in that condition would not bring in much money. With at least one apartment being used, the building had more value and the other apartments easier to rent.
My rent stayed at a level that kept me as the guardian of the gate.
The building I am in now, although maintained, is only done so according to what will keep the building valuable. It is perfectly located to become a premiere apartment building which will take a lot of work as the heating system has been Gerry-rigged from coal to gas and the electric wiring has been upgraded in patches so along with modern electric cords there are still some from when the building was built that have the cloth insolation covering the wires. There are no amenities such as dishwashers. There have been no major improvements to any apartments in the years I have lived here and general maintenance minus any improvement is random.
It was obvious this was a building waiting for a new buyer who would want to own Boston style and priced property in a city about to rise when the train to Boston begins its regular run.
Without a word to any resident, many who have lived in the building for many years, in one case 30, the building was sold, and the first notification was the building manager going door to door having tenant sign a paper verifying the rent each paid.
There was no time to look before the sale so the process would have been calm. Instead, the people in 24 apartments were notified within days of this verification they had 30 days to quit the premises causing them to fan out competing with each other, and others in similar situations where this is happening city-wide, looking for something affordable in a limited market.
Those who may wish to remain in their apartments during and after the total regut remodeling can do so at twice to three times their present rent.
The first offer on the building was laughingly low according to the building manager some buyer had to come back with a more acceptable offer. The building was obviously in good enough shape to get the higher price and good enough to make the new owners grandiose plans for the future possible.
After being told that certain expenses would be covered by the new owners, I requested details and found the cost of physically moving possessions would be covered up to ten miles of my present city, and that we were being played as fools by the financial offer to help cover, not fully cover move in expenses such as first, last and security, and to this end they will give funds equal to twice or monthly rent.
The classic move for property speculators is to make an offer on a piece of property that exceeds what the owner thinks it’s worth. It could be the most money they will ever have, but when the deal is done and they attempt to use the money to buy something equal to what they sold, they find the big amount is only a down payment on a mortgage and to get what they can afford they must move where they have to not where they might want.
Twice a month’s rent sounds good until looking at the price of apartments as they are now means that what each tenant gets might cover a month’s rent with something left over to which they can add from their pockets to afford the rest of the security and last month’s rent, basically more than what the new owners are offering.
Since the sale, the heat that comes from a central boiler, early 20th Century coal boiler adapted over the years to use natural gas with each apartment having radiators with knobs but not individual thermostat has yet to turn on as it has each year at mid-October and the alley which had been kept clean under old ownership, sends the obvious message that the tenants are as good as gone as it now has trash strewn in the garden and articles of clothing scattered on and around the cement wall that hoods the fence to delineate the apartment building’s land from the parking lot next door.
The obviously stolen bicycle that appeared one night on the landing outside my backdoor has just been sitting there.
The seller has profited from the sale and the buyer will begin to make a profit from this building especially as the upgrades will make the building a very attractive target for future purchase at a higher price while those who kept the building sellable and a good del now, and in the future, in spite of the role they played are simply displaced.
They have a stake in the building. Their investment in it kept it in acceptable condition even if the owners chose to do so at a minimum. But that minimum ws enough.
If the owners can turn down an offer only to accept the better one that followed, then there is proof that the rents paid by the tenants were effective and this should be acknowledged by more than the 10 dollars you get coming out of jail, the surprise of the sale and a thirty-day quit notice.
Although the building has three wings in an open square, in finding ways to limit remodeling costs, it was determined that rather than being one building with three wings, the early 20 Century structure technically is four separate buildings of 6 apartments each and not one building with 24, so the new owners can save on the cost of a sprinkler system for fires when they remodel.
Considering the number of buildings city-wide that are going to be remodeled to greet the money coming from Boston with the train, there are going to be a lot of displaced people whose rents will go up, not by choice but necessity, and who may have to move away from where they live now and where they have roots.
As this gentrification is not only predictable but has begun, the city should require that any new building or any existing one that is being gentrified must reserve 25% of apartments for low-income renters, or renters already in a building in spite of the gouging the remodeling “justifies” can stay at the rent they are presently paying with a reasonable percentage increase.
In my building that could be one wing, or those apartments spread thought the building, obviously the least gentrified apartments in the building.
The city government may want this a Class-A city and will do what it takes to get that feather in their caps but knowing how the plan affects those already here by displacing them, the city that will benefit from driving them out could at least help in the process of relocation either with cash or a real estate group who can help find affordable housing.
New Bedford has had and still has a tradition of helping its citizens going back to Quaker days, but perhaps that spirit has already been displaced.
Renters invested in the properties and all we get is the T-shirt for which we had to throw in some coins.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
