49 - 57 Crown Street
This is a reasonably complex conversation, and this article does a good job of providing the foundation for it:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/nyregion/31landlord.html?pagewanted=all
Fast forward to 2014....
A. Receiving $ incentives to keep it Mitchell Lama, a protracted court battle and lots of work by politicians
B. Very public "victories" claimed by Tish James and many others
The building now has a large number of vacancies, and -hence- isn't providing the amount of affordable housing that is was designed to.
As reported above, the current landlord (which is actually a large real estate firm, and hereafter referred to simply as LL) bought the building in a state of disrepair.
Since this time, repairs are being made in a manner that allows the LL to move tenants from their current units into a different unit. However, the units that the tenants moved to are often smaller (1 BR vs 2 BR), and the tenants are not allowed to return to their prior units. EVER. This tactic is legal, because the tenants' household size has shrunk since they first moved in (often decades ago), and (when combined with income) one's household size dictates the unit size allowed. In light of this, many tenants have chosen to move out of the building rather than occupy a smaller apartment.
The new LL also strictly enforces the terms of lease, whereas the prior one did not. So, tenants have been evicted for breaking house rules and late payment, whereas in the past this rarely took place.
Likewise, the LL puts much more effort in making sure that the tenants do not exceed (or go below) the income guidelines in place for their size unit. Intensive background checks are made on existing tenants to ensure that all income is being disclosed.
Housing advocates have watched the situation closely, and -to my knowledge- have not found that the landlord is doing anything illegal. The LL is simply fully exercising their rights, which causes lots of long term tenants to leave or be evicted.
Now, here's the interesting part:
The LL isn't refilling the vacant units.
As a result of the factors above, the building has become progressively "more vacant" over the last 3 years, and is now rumored to be only about half occupied. When one thinks about it, this LL is able to put progressively more money INTO the building, while receiving progressively less rent FROM IT.
Despite this, the LL is not taking any (low income or market rate) applications from tenants who wish to move in. The LL is preparing the units for tenants who are "unknown".
The next move of the LL is a mystery:
--Once all of the repairs are done, does the LL plan to fill the building with Mitchell Lama tenants, as I believe is required?
--Does the LL plan to sell the building "in a state of good repair, but with a large number of vacancies"?
--Does spending all of this $ on repairs allow the LL to legally escape the complex set of contracts that were signed, and effectively free the building from the rent and income limits that are presently in place?
Needless to say, the building has lovely views of the Botanic Garden, Prospect Park, Manhattan, etc. It also is in a rapidly changing area.