Protesting tenants implore landlord to 'Have a heart'
Tenants of landlord Jacob Selechnik stormed his Kingsbridge offices last week asking for some "Valentine's Day love" - a respite from a rent increase they say is illegal.
The tenants allege that Mr. Selechnik, whom The Village Voice named as one of the top 10 worst landlords in New York City in 2006, charged them rent increases of 20 percent or more for improvements to the building, though state law prohibits him from raising the rent by more than six percent per year.
They say Mr. Selechnik has refused to meet with them, and their Valentine's Day publicity stunt, performed by about two dozen people, comes after they tried every other means to bring him to the table.
But Mr. Selechnik's lawyer says this lover's tiff is just the result of miscommunication.
Chanting, "Love and peace! No increase!" and with a news crew and a few reporters in tow, tenants of Mr. Selechnik's 2720 Grand Concourse apartment building, led by organizers from the Northwest Bronx Community and Clergy Coalition and joined by members of other organizations, filed into the landlord's Broadway offices on Feb. 12. As tenants taped Valentine hearts cut from construction paper onto the walls - "Have a Heart," implored one cut-out - organizers demanded an audience with Mr. Selechnik. Employees there said the landlord was not in the building.
Elaine Farrer, a tenant who works for a non-profit fund-raising firm, said tenants had tried repeatedly to contact Mr. Selechnik by phone and with letters. Documents she provided The Riverdale Press imply that the only contact Mr. Selechnik has had with tenants have been eviction proceedings.
Neither Mr. Selechnik nor his daughter, Ellen, who is also involved in the family business, returned messages seeking comment left at their offices or through their housing court lawyer, Jayson Blau.
Domingo Torres, a 30-year resident of the building, said his February rent check was returned along with an invoice seeking $2,209 in back rent and late fees.
Will Hooks, another resident, said his rent has gone from $711 to $855.
"This is just an act to basically steal money from the tenants," said Mr. Hooks. "It's not a problem to afford it, it's just the simple fact that just because you can afford something doesn't mean you should have to pay it."
Mr. Selechnik's housing court lawyer, Mr. Blau, said his client acknowledges that there were discrepancies in the notices he sent his tenants.
He adds, however, that it's the state's fault.
The state Division of Housing and Community Renewal "originally sent my client a miscalculation, so I know my client is supposed to be sending something out to his tenants," said Mr. Blau.
When asked for comment about the eviction proceedings against one tenant pointed out by Ms. Ferrer, Mr. Blau said that tenants whom Mr. Selechnik wants to evict owe back rent as well as the increases he is seeking for improvements made to the building.
Mr. Selechnik has done nothing wrong, Mr. Blau maintained.
"Their claim is they followed all the procedures, they filed all the documents, and they got a decision," he said of Mr. Selechnik and the family business.
DHCR requires that rent increases for improvements that benefit all tenants of a building - the kind of rent increase Mr. Selechnik gained authorization to charge - be limited to six percent of each tenant's rent annually until the tenant is paying the new full rent. After the tenant begins paying the full rent, the landlord can then seek back rent for the time between when the improvement was made and when the landlord was authorized to raise the rent.
Tenants have brought allegations of harassment against Mr. Selechnik with the state and have appealed Mr. Selechnik's right to charge a rent increase for capital improvements. Both actions are pending state administrative review.
