United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Homeowners forced to pay over $1K a year just to sit on steps
Source:
NY Post
URL Source: http://nypost.com/2017/01/23/homeow ... k-a-year-just-to-sit-on-steps/
Published: Jan 23, 2017
Author: Julia Marsh
Post Date: 2017-01-23 19:28:21 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 1292
Comments: 8
Luke Gunnell stands on his $1,200-a-year steps he rents from the city. It’s every Brooklynite’s inalienable right to sit on their own stoops — but that didn’t stop a developer and the city from devising a scheme to tax them over it, a group of homeowners claims. Nearly three dozen property owners in Boerum Hill say they are being charged more than $1,000 a year just to use the steps leading to their homes. “It’s one of those weird, bureaucratic things that doesn’t make sense,’’ said resident Luke Gunnell, 50, who is forced to shell out $1,154 every year to use his stoop. He and 33 other residents bought their stunning town houses, on the leafy north side of State Street between Hoyt and Smith streets, for as much as $2.4 million starting in 2008. And they say their contracts included an “illegal” side deal between the developer and city. The agreement allowed the builder to extend the homes’ stairways 6 feet 3 inches beyond the property line and onto the city-owned sidewalk, jacking up the sale price. In exchange, the city would receive a special annual tax — paid by the residents. The tax, which rises bit by bit every year, means the homeowners are essentially “renting” the space where their stoops are. A judge ruled that a group of 34 Brooklyn residents will have to pay a city tax of thousands of dollars a year for the right to sit on their own stoops. The deal is part of a “revokable consent agreement,’’ which also means the city can demolish the steps at any time, leaving the residents without a way to get into their homes. “It is inconceivable,’’ said the homeowners’ lawyer, Jack Lester. Lester sued the city on behalf of the residents in 2015, arguing that the city should be allowed to enter into such arrangements only for temporary structures, such as scaffolding or those involving businesses, including marquees, flagpoles and awnings. While about half the homeowners acknowledge that they were aware of the set-up, they still say it is illegal. The others said they didn’t learn about it until 2015, when they were slapped with an “administrative fee’’ of more than $1,000 for the measure to be renewed. The city’s lawyer, William Vidal, argued in court papers that all of the residents should have known about the deal because it was part of their buyer’s contract. They receive separate bills from the city Department of Transportation for the special tax, since it involves sidewalks. Vidal said builder HS Development Partners made the deal only to “maximize petitioners’ living space.” “The relief requested in this proceeding amounts to a land grab,” Vidal said. “Petitioners were on notice when they purchased their town homes that they may have to one day remove their private structures on the sidewalk of State Street and are simply trying to privatize public space,” he added. Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Joan Lobis finally ruled on the issue last week — and sided with the city. She said the city “acted within its discretion.” A city Law Department rep added to The Post, “The city enters into hundreds of these ‘revocable consent’ agreements to facilitate the construction of housing. Over the last several decades, the city has revoked less than a handful.’’ Lester said he plans to meet with the homeowners to see if they want to appeal or sue the developer. Abby Hamlin of HS Development declined to comment on a possible suit. Additional reporting by Shari Logan 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 5.
#5. To: cranky (#0)
Property owners will now be responsible for the maintenance and repair of public sidewalks in front of their buildings following passage of legislation that transfers liability from the city to the owners of multi-family dwellings. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg recently signed a pair of bills that were part of a tort reform package aimed at reducing the city's liability to pay for accident claims resulting from defective or improperly maintained sidewalks. Intro 193, also called the Adjoining Landowner Liability Bill, will hold building owners liable if they fail to comply with their existing duty to repair and maintain the sidewalks in front of their buildings, and also to shovel snow and remove it from the premises in winter. One-, two- and three family dwellings are exempt. "New York City has 12,750 miles of sidewalks. Laid end-to-end they would stretch halfway around the world. It would cost the city billions of dollars to hire sidewalk repair crews to repair all sidewalk defects and keep the sidewalks perfectly free of defects," says Mayor Bloomberg. Under current law, says Mayor Bloomberg, property owners had been required to keep sidewalks in good repair and free of snow or ice. However, if they failed to comply with this statutory duty and someone was injured, oftentimes only the city would get sued, he says. "In the past three years, the city has paid out over $189 million in judgments as a result of actions brought for damages caused by sidewalk defects and falls on snow and ice," continues Mayor Bloomberg. "Such suits are the most common type of litigation brought against the city. For over 20 years, the city has been trying to change this law, today we are finally successful. This legislation will save the city up to $40 million a year and help us weather our fiscal crisis. This bill will not only save the city millions of dollars but will also encourage property owners to keep the sidewalks in good repair, which will mean safer sidewalks and fewer injuries," says the mayor. Although buildings are certain to have insurance, the bill's passage is a blow to property owners and homeowners, who are already paying higher insurance, real estate taxes and maintenance fees during the city's fiscal crisis, according to Al Pennisi, a senior partner with Pennisi, Daniels and Norelli, and the president of the Federation of New York Housing Cooperatives and Condominiums (FNYHC). "It creates a heavy burden on the cooperatives and the condominiums. Until they changed the law, they also had the city responsible. And now the city is abdicating their responsibility and now saying "˜you, the property owner are totally responsible.' And you're dealing with a public sidewalk, which you do not as an owner have total control over," says Pennisi. "At least until they changed the law, the city had some responsibility. Now they have none." The city installs a sidewalk and may cause damage to it but bear no responsibility for its upkeep and repair. Leaving that responsibility and liability to the property owner "is really not fair," says Pennisi. Putting a Premium on Rate Hikes Insurance companies haven't yet reacted to the legislation's passage, says Alex Seaman of Kaye Insurance in Long Island, but the bill is likely to have an effect. "It definitely increases the exposure to property owners for slip-and- fall claims. Most insurance carriers have not responded formally to the legislation but it could certainly result in significant rate increases on premises liability," Seaman says. Policies do typically cover a property and adjacent premises. All standard policies contain what is called a "designated premises endorsement" clause, which extends to "operations necessary or incidental to the premises, which is generally accepted as walkways immediately adjoining" a piece of property, according to Seaman. "What will happen also," Seaman explains, "is that it could result in far greater loss control requirements by the insurance carriers." Carriers could require more thorough inspections of the sidewalks as a result and mandatory instructions to improve or replace all uneven sidewalk areas, which could be an enormously expensive proposition. Carriers could require a formal engineering inspection or survey be done of any sidewalk they believe to be unsafe as well and this could be a more frequent occurrence. "Minor repairs are not normally terribly expensive - patchwork - but to replace a large section of sidewalk can be huge. And with respect to property owners they'll have to be far more diligent in maintenance, including snow removal, clearing debris, garbage cans," Seaman says. In Seaman's 20 years of experience, in most slip-and-fall cases, claims are more often made against a property owner and not the city. "It's a lot tougher to sue the city than it is a private property owner. Based on my experience, I've seen it far more common to sue the property owner." Buildings are already or should be insured to cover such liability, says Greg Carlson, executive director of the Federation of New York Housing Cooperatives and Condominiums. "If you take most cooperatives or condominiums, it really doesn't affect them because they have adequate insurance. And when someone falls, they sue everybody," Carlson says. The city is limiting its own exposure and transferring that exposure to the property owner. Carlson also is worried that the bill will result in higher premiums. "The bill will probably be something that insurers will use to increase premiums because they have greater exposure - a higher risk." He has heard through the grapevine from brokers that costs could potentially rise as much as 15 percent. "That's another cost affecting buildings that are already tapped out." What Are You Going to Do: Sue Me? A second bill signed by Mayor Bloomberg addresses the existence of property insurance and who would be responsible for compensation should a person become injured on a defective or unmaintained sidewalk. Intro 522 is a local law that would require owners of real property to maintain liability insurance for personal injury and property damage claims caused by the failure of an owner to maintain the sidewalk abutting their property and keep it in a reasonably safe condition. The bill states that if a judgment of personal injury including death is obtained against an abutting property owner and that owner fails to have general liability insurance or is insufficiently covered to satisfy the court's judgment, the city's comptroller upon consultation with the city's corporation counsel, is empowered to pay for that personal injury and the cost of uncompensated medical expenses. No payment shall exceed $50,000 and the total of all such payments for any judgments in a given fiscal year is not to exceed $4 million dollars, according to the legislation. "Part of what makes the city such an inviting target for tort lawyers," says Mayor Bloomberg, "is the fact that the city has "˜deep pockets' - it has the ability to satisfy judgments obtained against it. Much of the opposition to tort reform can be attributed to a concern that others may not have such deep pockets. The city should not be liable for another person's negligence," he says. This second bill, however, attempts to provide compensation whenever a property owner isn't adequately covered or has no other assets, in which to satisfy or pay an injury claim, Mayor Bloomberg says. These bills, according to the mayor, "strike a reasonable balance between the principle that the city should not be liable for the wrongs of another and the principle that persons injured by the wrongs of another should receive compensation." Both bills have taken effect and apply only to accident claims occurring after the signing date.
There are no replies to Comment # 5. End Trace Mode for Comment # 5.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Replies to Comment # 5.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]