Tag Archives: rent regulation

Can Mayor Mamdani Freeze the Rent? It’s Complicated.

Posted on by
Reply

 

I published a column with Nestor Davidson in Vital City, Can Mayor Mamdani Freeze the Rent? It’s Complicated. It reads,

Zohran Mamdani, the newly elected mayor who promised as a candidate to freeze the rent for rent-stabilized units each year in his four-year term, will soon seek to make good on his promise.

He can’t do it alone. He needs the cooperation of the NYC Rent Guidelines Board, an appointed body on which both of us have served as chair in recent years. The RGB was created pursuant to state law to set rent adjustments for apartments in the city that are subject to the Rent Stabilization Law. About one million of New York City’s over three-and-a-half million units of housing are rent-stabilized.

The incoming Board — on which Mamdani has made a majority of appointments — will begin its work this month. At the top of its agenda will almost surely be considering whether to keep the rents of rent-stabilized housing at current levels. As it does its work, the Board can best serve the city if all members are committed to carefully reviewing data collected and analyzed by RGB staff and other information brought to the board by experts and the public before reaching its decision.

Put differently, the RGB should not simply execute the mayor’s command. There are laws to follow and economic data to consider. The stakes are high for tenants facing increased housing burdens, for landlords facing increasing costs and for the fabric of our diverse city.

The Rent Guidelines Board’s mandate

The City’s rent stabilization system differs from rent regulation in other jurisdictions. While some jurisdictions allow landlords to increase rent when an apartment turns over to a new tenant, the Housing Stability & Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA) eliminated vacancy rent hikes. Rent adjustments in New York are also set by a Board instead of being based on a formula that is tied to the inflation rate. The Board can therefore set rent increase rates higher or lower than inflation, based on the statutory criteria it applies.

The media rarely explains the RGB’s decision-making process clearly and sometimes echoes misunderstandings about how the Board works. Perhaps the biggest misunderstanding is that mayors decide whether and how much rents go up. But that is not how rent stabilization was designed to work. Even though one of us chaired the Board during the mayoralty of Bill de Blasio, who used the bully pulpit to advocate for a rent freeze, we know well it is the members of the Board who have the sole power to make this decision. Each of us had to work to get a majority of the Board to support what became the adopted guidelines each year. Board members take their roles seriously and typically engage in lengthy discussions about the data before deciding which proposals to support. Rather than seeing a rent freeze as a simple test of mayoral power, the public is best served by understanding the limited but important function of the Board and the constraints on its decisions.

Let’s step back a bit. The Rent Stabilization Law (RSL) charges the Board with one central task: adjusting rents of rent-stabilized units after reviewing “the economic condition of the residential real estate industry,” cost of living data and a catch-all, “such other data as may be made available to it.” Thus, there is no single, simple formula for the Board to apply.

To get into the weeds, the law requires that the Board review data regarding the operating and financing costs landlords are bearing, including (1) real estate taxes and sewer and water rates; (2) gross operating maintenance costs (such as insurance premiums, governmental fees and the cost of fuel and labor, among other things) and (3) costs and availability of mortgage financing. The Board is also charged with considering the supply of housing as well as vacancy rates. While tenants’ rent burden — the portion of their income they spend on rent — is not explicitly mentioned in the RSL, the Board has interpreted its mandate for decades to include an assessment of housing affordability.

While the mayor appoints all members of the Rent Guidelines Board (or a predecessor mayor, for holdovers), it is an independent body that is required by law to make its own determination about rent adjustments. The Board is composed of the chair, who serves at the pleasure of the mayor; two members who represent tenant interests; two members who represent landlord interests and four members who represent the general public. Other than the chair, members serve terms of two, three or four years.

Tenant members typically focus on affordability for today’s tenants. Landlord members often focus on the finances of rent-stabilized buildings, such as whether they are earning enough to cover maintenance and capital repairs as well as a profit for their owners. Those are appropriate agendas for those two sets of members. Chairs consider all of this, but also usually focus on the long-term, asking whether proposed rent adjustments will ensure that the rent-stabilized housing stock has sufficient revenue to be maintained for its residents for years to come.

Landlords have repeatedly challenged the Board’s annual rent guidelines, but courts have generally deferred to the Board’s expertise and upheld its balancing of the competing concerns of increasing costs for landlords and diminishing affordability for tenants.

The state of the housing stock

The Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act, passed by the state Legislature and signed into law by then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo in 2019, dramatically altered the finances of the rent-stabilized housing stock. Proponents of the law wanted to limit ways that landlords could raise rents and, in particular, curb incentives to exit the program through high-rent/high-income deregulation. They succeeded in doing that, but rents flattened and buildings dropped in value as a result. Many buildings in the program are now showing financial distress as expenses have continued to increase each year.

A recent Furman Center report shows that there is reason to worry that the current regulatory environment has set up a dynamic where around two-thirds of the rent-regulated housing stock is on a trajectory of financial distress — potentially including mortgage default and bankruptcy — that will result in deteriorating quality in housing for tenants. This would mean more heat and hot water outages, more pest infestations and more lead paint hazards, among other health and safety concerns.

That picture of the current stock brings us back to how the Board makes its decisions. As we noted, many people think that the mayor simply tells the Board how to vote. That has not been our experience. Nor has it been our sense of the experience of other chairs we have spoken with.

It is true that mayors often appoint members who are broadly sympathetic to either tenants or owners. Now, even with some members whose terms straddle previous administrations, Mayor Mamdani has tapped a majority of the incoming Board.

The mayor does not — and should not — “control” them. With a process designed to provide broad technical and public input, chairs and other Board members formulate proposed rent guidelines that reflect the data that the RGB’s research staff provides them. The Board staff and members take their work seriously. They must consider the data before them, and the Rent Stabilization Law requires the Board to make challenging calls to balance increasing costs for building owners with affordability concerns for tenants. If the record does not support a finding that the Board’s decision was based upon their statutory mandate, it is open to challenge.

Some have asked why a rent increase or freeze needs to be boiled down to a single number when so many buildings and building owners face different pressures and conditions. It’s a fair question, but right now, the law doesn’t allow for fine-grained distinctions. Each year’s rent guidelines are a blunt instrument that applies to every building with rent-stabilized units. This means that the same figure applies to a building in the Bronx composed entirely of 99 rent-stabilized units and to the one remaining rent-stabilized unit in a 99-unit luxury building in midtown Manhattan where the owner has no limitation on how much it can charge for those ”market rate” units.

The Mamdani administration will need to grapple with this blunt instrument, just as every previous administration has had to. Ultimately, the Board must pay close attention to the data to determine how rents should be adjusted — understanding that a freeze will likely harm buildings in deep financial distress even as it would aim to help tenants in buildings whose landlords are doing just fine.

The Board does not act alone

Whatever the Board decides, many stabilized buildings will continue to face financial distress. But the fate of the rent-stabilized housing stock does not solely rest with the Board. The governor, the Legislature, the mayor and the City Council can all act to ensure that the rent-stabilized housing stock has sufficient funding for maintenance and needed capital repairs. While the City and State have many tools at their disposal to address financial gaps, the three main avenues for helping distressed buildings are bigger rent increases, new subsidies or reduced costs for buildings in financial distress.

After the passage of the 2019 HSTPA, rent increases for rent-stabilized units can only be authorized by the Board (or, subject to stricter limits under the HSTPA and subsequent amendments, through temporary Major Capital Improvement (MCI) increases and permanent Individual Apartment Improvement (IAI) increases). And because previous amendments to the RSL have limited the Board’s discretion to target certain subsets of the housing stock, rent increases cannot be targeted to the buildings that need them most (not to mention the fact that tenants in the most distressed buildings tend to have lower incomes and are less likely to be able to afford those targeted increases). RGB rent increases will not be enough on their own to resolve the financial distress of many of these buildings.

Direct subsidies to preserve this stock will be very expensive, easily measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and soon into the billions of dollars each year — at a time when the City is already struggling to close significant budget gaps. Nonetheless, the City and state may need to subsidize a large portion of rent-stabilized housing to keep it from failing, and that will redirect resources from other priorities.

Broader changes to the regulatory and property tax regime that govern revenues and expenses for this housing stock might help, but none of those changes will be easy, and indirect subsidies come with measurable costs as well, even if they are not showing up in State and City budgets. It will be difficult otherwise to reduce costs, such as insurance and interest on mortgages, as these are set by third parties over whom government actors have relatively little control.

There are no easy answers to this growing problem. But as the politics heat up, it is important that the public understand the basic nature, power and obligations of the Rent Guidelines Board. All New Yorkers should be concerned about the long-term viability of the rent-regulated housing stock, and we are all on notice that it is at risk. This part of the housing stock is a precious resource for a city rightly committed to socio-economic diversity, and we should all look for a path forward to preserve it.

We assume that the mayor will work hard to make good on his promise to freeze the rent. If he doesn’t, many of those who voted for him will see it as a betrayal. If the Board, following its mandate, agrees, preserving the stabilized stock will require partnering with the governor, the Legislature and the City Council to address the impending financial crisis facing a large swath of this vital source of housing.

What’s Andrew Cuomo’s Plan to Help New York City Renters?

Posted on by

The New York Times interviewed me in a video, What’s Andrew Cuomo’s Plan to Help New York City Renters? The transcript reads,

“Can you describe rent prices in New York?” “High.” “Expensive.” ”Out of control.” ”The rent here is absolutely crazy.” “Very, very unaffordable. Two verys — yeah very, very expensive.” Median asking rent in New York City is up more than 7 percent in just the last year. It’s now about $4,000 per month. That’s made the cost of housing a key issue in the mayor’s race, with the top candidates each proposing changes to a core New York City housing policy: rent stabilization. Nearly half of the apartments in New York are currently rent stabilized, which means that their rent increases are determined by a government agency controlled by the mayor. That makes rent stabilization a hot button issue for hundreds of thousands of voters. After front-runner Zohran Mamdani revealed what he pays in rent — “$2,300 for my one bedroom in Astoria.” — rival Andrew Cuomo argued he was unfairly occupying an affordable apartment and shouldn’t qualify for rent stabilization because he makes $142,000 a year. “Rent-stabilized units, when they’re vacant, should only be rented to people who need affordable housing.”

Many rent-stabilized tenants are low income, but about 16 percent of rent-stabilized households do earn at least $150,000 a year. If elected mayor, Cuomo says you could only qualify for a rent-stabilized apartment if your rent is 30 percent or more of your income. Let’s say this couple is looking for an apartment. Their salaries are $35,000 and $45,000 a year. They find a rent-stabilized apartment for $2,000 a month. That’s 30 percent of their income. So under Cuomo’s plan, this couple will face less competition for this lease because anyone who makes more than them could not apply for the the apartment. Means-testing is popular with voters. About 65 percent supported it in a recent Times-Siena poll.

But critics argue that Cuomo’s plan reflects a misconception that rent stabilization is an affordable housing program. In fact, it’s a form of market regulation with roots in the postwar era. “After World War II, you had returning G.I.s starting families.” The rent gets too damn high and the government takes a look to say, ‘Is there something we could do about it?’” Some apartments in this period were rent-controlled. The system that eventually effectively froze 1970s rents in place like the famously low-rent apartments from “Friends” and “Sex in the City.” “You have a rent-controlled apartment? I suggest you stay there.” In reality, only about 1 percent of apartments are rent controlled today. Most are now covered by rent stabilization, which first became law in 1969. “It really was this broad-based sense that tenants needed the government to come in and kind of limit that increase in their rent. Rent stabilization was not designed to take into account the income of the tenant at all. Rent regulation was really put into place to say when the vacancy rate is so low, landlords can’t use that as an opportunity to gouge tenants for increases in rents.” Today, rent stabilization applies to most apartments in buildings with at least six units that were built before 1974. That covers about one million units and two million New Yorkers. Rent increases are set by the mayor-appointed Rent Guidelines Board. “So you’re not at the mercy of your landlord solely. They can only go according to the increased percentage rate that the Rent Guidelines Board decides.”

Joanne Grell is a tenant advocate in the Bronx. She moved into a rent-stabilized apartment nearly 25 years ago and still lives in it today. “I moved here back in 2002 with a 2-year-old and a 5-year-old, not knowing exactly how I was going to be able to be a single mom and afford to live in the city. Fast forward 23 years later, I raised my children here.” When she moved in, her rent was about $950 a month. She earned a moderate income, but if means-testing had been in place, she wouldn’t have qualified for her unit. “When I moved in here 23 years ago, it might have been 20 percent of my salary. So if Cuomo’s means-testing proposal was in place when I applied for this apartment, I would have never been able to get it.” Now, she does spend more than 30 percent of her income on rent, which has gone up to $1,750 a month. Grell plans to vote for Mamdani this election because she believes his proposal to freeze the rent would help struggling tenants like her and 69 percent of voters in the Times-Siena poll agreed. “My upstairs neighbor said to me, ‘If I get another increase, I will not be able to keep my apartment.’ That’s how serious it is.”

David Reiss said that Mamdani’s rent freeze would help tenants in the short term, while Cuomo’s means-testing would be an administrative nightmare that could make life difficult for many. Ultimately though, he said neither of these policies address the root cause of high prices: that there aren’t enough apartments to go around. Both mayoral candidates have said they support building hundreds of thousands of units to help address the housing shortage. “We need more housing, a lot more.” “Get the supply up. The rents will come down.” But Reiss says neither candidate’s plans would meet the demand and don’t account for factors like population growth or apartments being demolished. “Politicians from President Trump to Andrew Cuomo to Zohran Mamdani, have all proposed policies to address housing affordability. But it can’t just be doing what we’re doing now, but a little bit better. Fundamentally, if you want to increase affordability, you have to build more housing.”

Owning the New Yorker

Posted on by
Mickey Barreto, in New York. — Photo: Reproduction/Fantastic

Mickey Barreto, in New York. — Photo: Reproduction/Fantastic

I was interviewed by TV Globo, the largest broadcaster in Latin America, about Mickey Barreto who claimed to own the New Yorker hotel in Manhattan. The video is in Portuguese, but there is a rough English translation of the transcript. The transcript opens,

After Living for Free in a NY Hotel for 5 years, a Brazilian Puts the Entire Building in His Name and the Case Ends up in Court

A Brazilian is in the middle of a controversy involving New York ‘s housing legislation . After staying in a hotel room for 5 years, Mickey Barreto believes he owns the entire building.

The confusion ended up in court . He was even arrested on fraud charges. While free awaiting trial, Mickey spoke to Fantástico. New York hotels are among the most expensive in the world and living on Manhattan Island is not for everyone, but Brazilian Mickey Barreto paid nothing.

Barreto lived for free, for 5 years, at the New Yorker hotel. And there’s more: he managed to put the entire building in his name. A negotiation made based on New York City rent law. The hotel says there was fraud.

The Brazilian, who is actually called Marcos Aurélio Canuto Muniz Barreto, managed to understand a complex law — and benefit from it.

The New Yorker Hotel opened in 1930, with more than a thousand rooms and 43 floors . At the time, it was one of the largest in the world. It hosted politicians and celebrities, such as inventor Nikola Tesla, baseball player Joe DiMaggio and boxer Muhammad Ali. In 1972, it faced a crisis and closed its doors. It ended up becoming one of the cheapest hotels in the city.

When Mickey Barreto arrived from California in 2018, he said he had no plans to stay at the hotel for long. Until he learned of an old law in New York that allowed someone to stay with all room service included and pay very cheaply.

Under the law, still in effect, New York hotels built before 1969 that charged less than US$88 per week that year — a cheap rate at the time — would have to give guests a rental contract for 6 months or more. The guest would then have the right to become a permanent resident. “The legislation limits the amount that each owner can charge for rent in New York in certain apartments. It is a 1969 law that applies to different places. And through a legal loophole, hotels considered cheap entered this regulation. Mickey Barreto discovered that this hotel is technically included in the rules defined by law”, explains David Reiss, a jurist at the Brooklyn School of Law.

The hotel resisted, but Barreto won the case in court and that was how he started living at the New Yorker. But, in addition to refusing to pay, Mickey Barreto wrote a deed and managed to register the hotel in his name, claiming that a judge gave him ownership of the hotel.

“According to the law, having possession is not the same thing as being an owner . Every tenant has possession of the apartment where he lives, but that does not mean that he is the owner. There is no legal basis for this correlation. I think he only gained in Justice because the hotel didn’t send any lawyers. And here in the United States, if you don’t send your lawyers, you’re going to lose”, says the jurist.

Already calling himself the owner of the New Yorker, Barreto went to the hotel’s restaurant and demanded that the concessionaire pay him for renting the place. He was ignored, but continued to bother employees and even demanded a complete reform of the entrance.

Rent Regulation from NY to NZ

Posted on by

Indira Stewart (left) and the rest of the TVNZ Breakfast Team

I was interviewed by Indira Stewart on the TVNZ Breakfast show, the biggest morning news show in New Zealand, about New York City’s system of rent regulation (I serve as the Chair of the NYC Rent Guidelines Board).  You can find the interview here.

Cities With the Worst Rent

Posted on by

photo by Alex Lozupone

Realtor.com quoted me in Cities With the Worst Rent: Is This How Much You’re Coughing Up? It opens,

Sure, rents are too dang high just about everywhere, but people living in Los Angeles really have a right to complain: New analysis by Forbes has found that this city tops its list of the Worst Cities for Renters in 2018.

To arrive at these depressing results, researchers delved into rental data and found that people in L.A. pay an average of $2,172 per month.

Granted, other cities have higher rents—like second and third on this list, San Francisco (at $3,288) and New York ($3,493)—but Los Angeles was still deemed the worst when you consider how this number fits into the bigger picture.

For one, Los Angeles households generally earn less compared with these other cities, pulling in a median $63,600 per year. So residents here end up funneling a full 41% of their income toward rent (versus San Franciscans’ 35%).

Manhattanites, meanwhile, fork over 52% of their income toward rent, but the saving grace here is that rents haven’t risen much—just 0.4% since last year. In Los Angeles, in that same time period, rent has shot up 5.7%.

So is this just a case of landlords greedily squeezing tenants just because they can? On the contrary, most experts say that these cities just aren’t building enough new housing to keep up with population growth.

“It is fundamentally a problem of supply and demand,” says David Reiss, research director at the Center for Urban Business Entrepreneurship at Brooklyn Law School. “Certain urban centers like Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York are magnets for people and businesses. At the same time, restrictive local land use regulations keep new housing construction at very low levels. Unless those constraints are loosened, hot cities will face housing shortages and high rents no matter what affordable housing programs and rent regulation regimes are implemented to help ameliorate the situation.”

Addressing NYC’s Affordable Housing Crisis

Posted on by

photo by Hromoslav

The NYC Rent Guidelines Board (of which I am a member) held a public hearing as part of its final vote on rent adjustments for the approximately one million dwelling units subject to the Rent Stabilization Law in New York City. My fellow board member, Hilary Botein, and I submitted the following joint statement at the hearing (also available on SSRN and BePress):

The Rent Guidelines Board determines rent increases for New York City’s 1 million rent-stabilized apartments. We must weigh the economic conditions of the residential real estate industry; current and projected cost of living; and other data made available to us. To make our decision, we reviewed reams of data and multiple analyses of those data. We also held five public hearings at which we heard hundreds of tenants speak, sing, chant, cry, and demonstrate. These hearings are among the only opportunities that tenants have to speak publicly about their housing situations, and they made clear the extremity of the housing crisis in the City, and that it will get worse without significant intervention.

Tenants who came to the RGB hearings are not a representative sample of rent-stabilized tenants in New York City. But they told us a lot about the state of housing in the City.  We felt that it was incumbent on us to respond to what we heard, even where it did not relate directly to the jurisdiction of the Board.

New York City cannot expect any meaningful housing assistance from the federal government in the near term. Our observations therefore focus on state and municipal actions that could address some of the issues that regularly cropped up at our hearings.

There is a desperate need for affordable housing that is pegged to residents’ incomes. Housing is deemed “affordable” when housing costs are 30 percent of a household’s income. There is no guarantee that rent stabilized housing remain affordable to a particular household, and there is no income eligibility for rent stabilized housing.  This aspect of rent regulation explains its durable political appeal, but makes it an imperfect vehicle for meeting the needs of low-income tenants.

Mayor de Blasio is protecting and developing hundreds of thousands of units of affordable housing through the Housing New York plan announced at the beginning of his term. More recently, his Administration announced a program to create 10,000 deeply affordable apartments and a new Elder Rent Assistance program.  But more can be done to help low-income tenants.

The Senior Citizen Rent Increase Exemption (SCRIE) and Disability Rent Increase Exemption (DRIE) programs have proven their effectiveness in “freezing” the rents of more than 60,000 low and moderate income rent-stabilized households. The state should create and fund a similar program for low-income rent stabilized tenants who pay more than 30 percent of their incomes towards housing costs.

State laws governing rent stabilization must be amended. Three elements of the law particularly penalize low-income tenants in gentrifying neighborhoods, and were behind the most distressing tenant testimonies that we heard. They are not within the RGB’s purview, but change is critical if the law is to operate as it was intended to do. The state legislature has considered bills that would make the necessary changes. First, owners can charge tenants a “preferential” rent, which is lower than the legal registered rent for the apartment. Preferential rents are granted most often in neighborhoods where the rent that the market can bear is less than the legal rent. This sounds like a good option for both tenants and owners, and perhaps that was its original intention. But now, as neighborhoods gentrify and market rates increase, the prospect of increasing a preferential rent with little notice has become a threat to tenants’ abilities to stay in their apartments. Preferential rents should be restricted to the tenancy of a particular tenant, as was the law before a 2003 amendment. Owners would then be able to increase rents for those tenants no more than the percentages approved by the Board.

Second, owners can tack on a 20 percent “vacancy increase” every time an apartment turns over. This increase incentivizes harassment, and should be limited to situations of very long tenancies, to keep owners from actively seeking to keep tenancies short.

Third, owners making what is termed a Major Capital Improvement (MCI) – a new roof, windows, or a boiler, for example – can pass this expense on to tenants via a rent increase that continues in perpetuity, after the owner has recouped her or his expenses. We also heard allegations of sketchy capital improvement applications that were intended to increase rents without improving the conditions in the building. The state legislature should review how MCIs work in order to ensure that they are properly incentivizing landlords to invest in their buildings to the benefit of both owners and tenants.

New York City needs a repair program for broken gas lines. We heard from tenants who had not had gas in their apartments for more than a year. We understand that fixing gas lines is particularly complicated and expensive, and that gas leaks raise serious safety concerns, but it is unacceptable for families to go for more than a year without gas, and we are concerned about fire safety issues resulting from people using hot plates. The city needs to step in and make the repairs.

We have a housing crisis. Low income tenants, who live disproportionately in communities of color, experience this crisis most acutely. We will not find systemic solutions within the housing market. All solutions require a lot of money, and we cannot count on anything from the federal government. But it is imperative that our state and local governments act, or New York City’s already burgeoning shelter system will be forced to take in even more people. Since the 1970s, New York City has been a leader in committing public resources to housing its low income residents, and that legacy must continue.  The Rent Guidelines Board cannot solve the housing crisis, but other arms of the New York State and City government can work together to reduce its impacts on low-income households.

Rental Potholes

Posted on by

photo by Eric Haddox

Realtor.com quoted me in Rental Potholes—and How to Avoid Falling Into Them. It opens,

Until you have the money to buy your own home, renting is eventually a part of just about every person’s life. And typically this transaction tends to work out just fine. Until it doesn’t. Because there is indeed plenty that can go wrong, leaving renters learning some difficult lessons through trial and error. To make sure you aren’t one of them, check out these rental roadblocks—and what you can do to keep from getting stuck.

Somebody’s watching you

“My work took our family to Florida and in our haste to find somewhere to live with our two kids, we found a gorgeous townhouse seaside rental. The ocean views were incredible, just what we’d dreamed of. So incredible, in fact, that we didn’t realize the unit lacked window coverings of any kind! And as much as I loved looking at the ocean, there were times when some level of privacy was desired; people could see into the whole house if they were walking along the beach. When we shared this ‘oversight’ with the landlord, his offer was to split the costs of full-house window coverings! We decided not to help the property owner increase the value of his home. We continued to enjoy ocean views on a 24/7 basis but moved out after a year.” – Rhonda Moret, Del Mar, CA

Lesson learned: Don’t let your enthusiasm keep you from doing your due diligence before thoroughly vetting a place and signing on the dotted line.

“This responsibility falls squarely on the tenant; you can’t expect someone else to look out for your interests. That’s your job,” says David Reiss, academic program director for Brooklyn Law School’s Center for Urban Business Entrepreneurship. But by the same turn, don’t fall for a landlord’s request to “split the cost”—any renovations should be his responsibility all the way.

Bye-bye, security deposit

“When I handed our landlord a $1,000 security deposit, I assumed I’d get it back whenever we left, and didn’t bother to do a walk-through of the apartment to make sure it was in decent shape. Big mistake! Once we moved out, the landlord sent us a letter stating he was keeping the security deposit because we had broken a window in the garage. Only we hadn’t—that must have been done by a previous tenant. We got charged for someone else’s damage.” – Mindy Jensen, Wheaton, IL

Lesson learned: “Doing a walk-through inspection is important if you want your security deposit back,” says Reiss. “It’s important to add details like time stamps to everything and get documentation that your landlord received the report.”

Also consider recording a video with your smartphone while you walk through the place. The more backup material you have, the better the odds that you’ll get back what you deserve.

Your pet or your pad

“A few years ago, my family and I rented a townhouse. There was a pet shop on the corner selling the cutest puppies, and we fell in love with a French bulldog and bought him. That’s when things started to get ugly. We hadn’t checked the rental agreement to see if we could own a pet. When our landlord found out, she became hysterical and asked us to leave—or get rid of the dog. We ended up homeless, but with a very cute puppy. Fortunately, we stayed at a friend’s place until we found a dog-friendly home.” – Derek McLane, Sydney, Australia

Lesson learned: “Read the fine print before you sign. This is pretty fundamental, even if it is not fun to do,” says Reiss.

At the very least, ask your landlord what the rules are and to specify where the pertinent parts can be found in the lease. Be aware that many leases don’t allow pets, or will make pet owners pay an extra fee known as pet rent.

You’ve got mail … a mile away

“I was living in an amazing apartment when the mailboxes in the foyer were vandalized to the point where the USPS deemed them ‘unsafe for delivery of mail.’ We were ‘temporarily’ redirected to pick up mail six blocks up and four very long avenue blocks over until the landlords had an opportunity to repair our mailboxes. A year and a half later, they still hadn’t been fixed—and to make matters worse, a stairwell skylight had collapsed. I was forced to take on the practically full-time job of challenging my landlord to make repairs. I finally was able to make something happen by researching the building and finding out that my landlord had illegally jacked up the rent more than was legally allowed by rent-stabilization laws. Eventually, my efforts resulted in a rent reduction, reinstated mail delivery, and a very bad tenant/landlord relationship.” – Tim Tucker, Las Vegas, NV

Lesson learned: “Know your rights. Tenants have a lot of them, particularly in rent-regulated apartments,” says Reiss.