Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
IMO there are three different groups of "illegal landlords" (for lack of a better term):
(1) People who bought a home within budget (price and/or taxes) maybe 10 or 20 years ago but find themselves in a bind now due to outside causes (loss or change of job, health or other expenses, soaring property taxes, or whatever other crap that life tends to throw at us when we least expect it). They don't want to leave (especially if they're older and it's where they raised their family) so they end up converting the garage or the attic or the bottom of the high-ranch into an illegal apartment for the extra income because that's the only way they can stay in that house.
(2) People who buy a house with the intention of making part of it into an illegal apartment right from the get-go, either because their housing eyes are bigger than their budget (just like nbres says) OR because they want or need the extra income to cover other things.
(3) People who buy houses that already are divided into (or they divide it into) illegal apartments, for the sole intention of renting it out without living there.
I've been looking at houses for the past few months and saw a perfect example of #3 in South Setauket. It's a Strathmore Framingham farm ranch with a basement (which is rare, almost all Framinghams are on slabs). This house, which the seller does NOT live in, has 3, count 'em, 3 illegal apartments. One on the main floor (LR, DR, kitchen, 2 bedrooms, 2 baths), one on the second floor (originally 2 bedrooms/1 bath, converted into 1 bedroom, a living area/kitchen combo, and 1 bath), and a disgusting apartment in the walk-out basement consisting of a bedroom, a bathroom, and a combined kitchen/living area. As for its condition, all I'll say is that I'm not surprised that it's still on the market since March. And you know what the listing says? "Great M/D Or Income Earning Potential." A nice way of dancing around the fact that it's not a legal 2.
IMO the owners from Group 3 are the worst offenders, Group 2 almost as bad, but I can sympathize with people who are in Group 1.
IMO there are three different groups of "illegal landlords" (for lack of a better term):
(1) People who bought a home within budget (price and/or taxes) maybe 10 or 20 years ago but find themselves in a bind now due to outside causes (loss or change of job, health or other expenses, soaring property taxes, or whatever other crap that life tends to throw at us when we least expect it). They don't want to leave (especially if they're older and it's where they raised their family) so they end up converting the garage or the attic or the bottom of the high-ranch into an illegal apartment for the extra income because that's the only way they can stay in that house.
(2) People who buy a house with the intention of making part of it into an illegal apartment right from the get-go, either because their housing eyes are bigger than their budget (just like nbres says) OR because they want or need the extra income to cover other things.
(3) People who buy houses that already are divided into (or they divide it into) illegal apartments, for the sole intention of renting it out without living there.
I've been looking at houses for the past few months and saw a perfect example of #3 in South Setauket. It's a Strathmore Framingham farm ranch with a basement (which is rare, almost all Framinghams are on slabs). This house, which the seller does NOT live in, has 3, count 'em, 3 illegal apartments. One on the main floor (LR, DR, kitchen, 2 bedrooms, 2 baths), one on the second floor (originally 2 bedrooms/1 bath, converted into 1 bedroom, a living area/kitchen combo, and 1 bath), and a disgusting apartment in the walk-out basement consisting of a bedroom, a bathroom, and a combined kitchen/living area. As for its condition, all I'll say is that I'm not surprised that it's still on the market since March. And you know what the listing says? "Great M/D Or Income Earning Potential." A nice way of dancing around the fact that it's not a legal 2.
IMO the owners from Group 3 are the worst offenders, Group 2 almost as bad, but I can sympathize with people who are in Group 1.
Perhaps, the most insightful comment that's been made so far in this thread by anyone.
10 years ago my husband and I both worked (this was before our child was born). We earned collectively less than $50,000 but were able to buy a home in a town in Brookhaven Township (Farmingville). Not the nicest house but a house, four bedrooms, and so forth--cost us less than $100,000...!
Within three years we had some financial problems--some our fault (I stopped working to raise our child) and he lost his good job and had to take a few lower paying ones. Add to this being 'taxed out' of our home (they raised our taxes three times, accessed us on some things we didn't learn about after the sale, AND we were lied to by real estate (what a surprise) about the land behind our home (we thought it was not allowed to be built on, surprise, someone started clearing the land for a house that would have been smack dab behind ours).
Okay, so we had to sell the house. We moved abroad and then came back a year later. By 2000, nothing was affordable on Long Island and we moved in with my parents.
My point is that in only a few years things skyrocked to the point that now you can't get a house for $200,000 in most places here, let alone $100,000. Even if you can buy, the taxes and other little scams run by your county or state or local gov't will squeeze you dry.
Have salaries for 'regular folks' gone up while the housing prices have soared?
Where are the legal apartments (like other states have??) for average people--and I don't mean 'housing projects' or 'welfare lotteries.'
Blaming people for not earning a lot of money is not the answer. Allowing someone to scumlord their home to 12 illegals is wrong..
When will we get more action on this issue and less 'talk?' I don't blame people for being annoyed when someone buys up a big home and then makes 3 apartments out of it.
But remember, not everyone can afford even the 'simplest' home on Long Island with their wages.
IMO there are three different groups of "illegal landlords" (for lack of a better term):
(1) People who bought a home within budget (price and/or taxes) maybe 10 or 20 years ago but find themselves in a bind now due to outside causes (loss or change of job, health or other expenses, soaring property taxes, or whatever other crap that life tends to throw at us when we least expect it). They don't want to leave (especially if they're older and it's where they raised their family) so they end up converting the garage or the attic or the bottom of the high-ranch into an illegal apartment for the extra income because that's the only way they can stay in that house.
(2) People who buy a house with the intention of making part of it into an illegal apartment right from the get-go, either because their housing eyes are bigger than their budget (just like nbres says) OR because they want or need the extra income to cover other things.
(3) People who buy houses that already are divided into (or they divide it into) illegal apartments, for the sole intention of renting it out without living there.
I've been looking at houses for the past few months and saw a perfect example of #3 in South Setauket. It's a Strathmore Framingham farm ranch with a basement (which is rare, almost all Framinghams are on slabs). This house, which the seller does NOT live in, has 3, count 'em, 3 illegal apartments. One on the main floor (LR, DR, kitchen, 2 bedrooms, 2 baths), one on the second floor (originally 2 bedrooms/1 bath, converted into 1 bedroom, a living area/kitchen combo, and 1 bath), and a disgusting apartment in the walk-out basement consisting of a bedroom, a bathroom, and a combined kitchen/living area. As for its condition, all I'll say is that I'm not surprised that it's still on the market since March. And you know what the listing says? "Great M/D Or Income Earning Potential." A nice way of dancing around the fact that it's not a legal 2.
IMO the owners from Group 3 are the worst offenders, Group 2 almost as bad, but I can sympathize with people who are in Group 1.
I rented a M/D two years ago in Selden. It was a high ranch with 3 bedrooms upstairs. He converted the bottom level (no basement) into a one bedroom with a partial kitchen. There was no door to separate the upstairs from the downstairs. The tenants before us were a couple with a 3year old daughter and the woman's mother lived downstairs. I lived there with my two 20 something daughters. My older daughter lived downstairs alone. The owner was a licensed broker. The owner had originally lived there. He made it into this M/D when his wife's mother lived with them.
I also rented in a LEGAL two family. It was a side by side two family. I guess it could have been called a townhouse? Each side had a separate front and back enterance. Each side had its own yard and basement. The bedrooms were upstairs. Unfortunately, this place was one street away from the RR. lol Clang, clang, clang. I would say there were at least 5 of these two families on that street. Clearly, they were built that way on purpose. From what I know, some owners lived on one side and rented the other side. Others, like ours, they rented out both sides.
My husband and I had sold our home. He got a job in Florida and I stayed in NY and rented until my younger daughter graduated from college.
Looks like patchogue is trying to do something about all the illegal apts. How do I know ;
Yesterday I had an inspection for a house we have rented in the village. I am getting to know these inspectors as its the third time they were at the house ; tenant problems. Anyway, when they were leaving they were asking me if I knew about a house across the street and if there is an apt in the basement, then they asked me if I knew about others.
I have no problem renting ; but not an illegal apt. I rented myself for years. I have a problem with 10 people living in a house only zoned for 4.
Years ago we looked at a house in Holtsville. The first floor was nice, it was a ranch then the garage was converted to an apt, then go into the basement ; wow, it was a huge shock. There was at least 4 bedrooms down there. All connected to the internet. I guess they im people in mexico all the time.
I rented a M/D two years ago in Selden. It was a high ranch with 3 bedrooms upstairs. He converted the bottom level (no basement) into a one bedroom with a partial kitchen. There was no door to separate the upstairs from the downstairs. The tenants before us were a couple with a 3year old daughter and the woman's mother lived downstairs. I lived there with my two 20 something daughters. My older daughter lived downstairs alone. The owner was a licensed broker. The owner had originally lived there. He made it into this M/D when his wife's mother lived with them.
Don't you just love that grey-area term "Mother/Daughter"? Nowadays it's become the accepted euphemism for "apartment already on premises".
The only real M/D is exactly what it says: The house is divided into two separated living spaces that each have a kitchen, bedroom(s), and bathroom(s) - and that the people living in both spaces are related to each other, AND one of those people/family groups is the OWNER of the house. The M/D concept wasn't intended for rental income purposes (though I'm sure plenty of times the "child" group paid rent to the "parent" group), it had more to do with codes (safety and building) than anything else.
A situation where both family groups are related but neither of them is the owner of the house (i.e., the Selden house) isn't a M/D situation, it's a straight rental because the owner isn't related to either of the people living there. Originally it was ("The owner had originally lived there. He made it into this M/D when his wife's mother lived with them.") but as soon as he moved out and brought in tenants it ceased to be a M/D and became a just a rental. Naturally the realtors love to throw the "Mother/Daughter" label on it because it makes the place sound more legit!
Don't you just love that grey-area term "Mother/Daughter"? Nowadays it's become the accepted euphemism for "apartment already on premises".
The only real M/D is exactly what it says: The house is divided into two separated living spaces that each have a kitchen, bedroom(s), and bathroom(s) - and that the people living in both spaces are related to each other, AND one of those people/family groups is the OWNER of the house. The M/D concept wasn't intended for rental income purposes (though I'm sure plenty of times the "child" group paid rent to the "parent" group), it had more to do with codes (safety and building) than anything else.
A situation where both family groups are related but neither of them is the owner of the house (i.e., the Selden house) isn't a M/D situation, it's a straight rental because the owner isn't related to either of the people living there. Originally it was ("The owner had originally lived there. He made it into this M/D when his wife's mother lived with them.") but as soon as he moved out and brought in tenants it ceased to be a M/D and became a just a rental. Naturally the realtors love to throw the "Mother/Daughter" label on it because it makes the place sound more legit!
The problem is essentially one of supply and demand.
There is a demand for rentals, but a limited supply of rental units. Obviously the answer is more apartment rentals have to be built. However, try building any kind of rental units on Long Island that is not for those over 55, you all know what happens. The local community often gets up-in-arms because it fears who will be moving into those rentals and who will be going to their "good" school district. Thus, we have no new construction and the end result is people turning their single family suburban dwellings into multifamily rentals.
Prime example would be that plan for the Pilgrim State site. That area would have been developed. However, interests in Dix Hill blocked it. So nothing gets done. All the while Long Island's quality of life steadily declines.
Legal planned rental developments are the answer to Long Island's housing shortage, but NIMBYism keeps it from happening. We are our own worst enemies.
The problem is essentially one of supply and demand.
There is a demand for rentals, but a limited supply of rental units. Obviously the answer is more apartment rentals have to be built. However, try building any kind of rental units on Long Island that is not for those over 55, you all know what happens.
There was an editorial today in Newsday about this. What they need to do is make these complexes and require you sign a contract stating how you will follow the rules (keep it clean, don't bring drugs into the complex, pay your rent with your wages (not welfare), and so on.
Don't allow these complexes to turn into a NYC project. The original projects (when my dad was young in the 1940s) were based on income and fair housing. Only in later years did it turn into a jungle.
Just Let the Market decide. The reason other metros don't have this problem is because the free market is allowed to work. There is no need for any government intervention - all that is needed is for the town and county governments to let builders build what the market wants.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Md
