I am writing to oppose the so-called "Good Cause" eviction. As someone familiar with the business of running apartment buildings, I'm afraid that this too-broad and sweeping law simply ignores many of the basics of the multifamily real estate market as it functions in Westchester County and suburban areas. In doing so, it fails to anticipate that the effects of many of its provisions will actually undermine the common goal of landlords and tenants to provide safe and affordable housing to the residents of our area. It is inconceivable that the sponsors of the bill would look at the situation in Westchester County – where the recent housing needs assessment conducted by the County Planning Department found that we needed to build or create 12,000 additional units of affordable housing to meet our needs, and that 81% of our housing stock was built before 1979, and 30% was built before 1940—and would intentionally seek to make these problems worse by removing the remaining incentives for renovation investments, thereby increasing the number of apartments that are not habitable and must remain vacant. But that is what this bill would lead to. I urge you to oppose this bill. Westchester can't afford it.

I am writing to oppose the so-called "Good Cause" eviction. In any business context, there are arrangements that simply don’t work out and the parties are better off going their separate ways. Landlords should have the ability to not offer a renewal to a tenant on their own property. I know of several cases when a tenant had a troublesome pattern of behavior. In some cases, the landlord was uneasy or concerned. In others, the other tenants in the building expressed concern but didn't want to get in the middle of a dispute. Often in such cases, the tenant's behavior didn't necessarily rise to the level of a legal violation or criminal behavior or a provable, unambiguous “nuisance," but it was better for the landlord and the other tenants to non-renew in a non-confrontational way. This bill would leave no recourse to the landlord, even after the lease has expired, but to proceed with a confrontational court action of eviction, including dragging other tenants into a potential dispute to offer court testimony. That can't possibly be in the best interests of landlords or tenants. I urge you to oppose and rethink this bill. It may cause more harm than good to landlords and tenants trying to do the right thing and keep their homes safe and secure.

I am writing to oppose the so-called "Good Cause" eviction. As a landlord, I am still trying to catch up with the changes created by the passage of the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act. These included a number of changes to the eviction process. I'm wondering it there's even a need for this bill as a result. In statistical analysis by The Wall Street Journal and others has found that HSTPA has already had a dramatic effect on reducing the number of evictions. The Journal reported that a year-to-year comparison before and after the passage of the HSTPA of new eviction cases for nonpayment of rent within New York City saw that number plunge by 46% -- over 35,000 fewer cases. Excluding the more complex cases, such as “holdovers,” and purely focusing on the most routine nonpayment cases, new eviction filings were still down 35%. Maybe this is temporary. Maybe it's not. We simply do not have the data to tell. As a landlord, landlord’s my preference is always to find good, long-term tenants and to avoid the eviction process entirely. Eviction is a practice of last resort, and HSTPA has changed that option dramatically. Shouldn't we see what happens with last year's change before we pile more onto the process this year?

I am writing to oppose the so-called "Good Cause" eviction. Although generally supportive of efforts to increase affordable housing in Westchester County and New York State, I'm afraid that this bill will instead lead to more apartment units being tied up in lengthy and adversarial court proceedings. Even worse, the provision on "unreasonable increases" for market rate units could very well demolish one of the last remaining sources of income that landlords can use to cross-subsidize needed improvements and renovations in rent-stabilized units. Without that ability to recoup investment, it's all too likely the apartments will go without improvements, and have to be warehoused. This can only make our affordable housing issues worse. Particularly since we're still learning how the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act will affect the market, now is no time to add another layer of complexity and upheaval. I urge you to oppose this bill.