Living below an SRO?

December 3, 2006 6:59 PM

My roommates and I have put a deposit down on an apartment in Brooklyn. We're supposed to sign the lease (and fork over the rest of the cash) on Thursday. Idly googling our new address, I discovered that our two-family building contains an SRO (single-room occupancy) dwelling for three people who have been homeless, drug-dependent, incarcerated, institutionalized, or mentally disabled on the second floor. Was the broker or landlord required to tell us this?

We are currently trying to get in touch with the non-profit agency that runs the SRO to find out what kind of tenants we might expect to live above us. As we gather information, we're interested in knowing whether or broker or landlord was required to disclose the fact that the second-floor apartment is leased by a non-profit as SROs. Or perhaps the broker or landlord is specifically required not to disclose this information, since I understand that they're prohibited from making certain statements about the economic or racial makeup of the neighborhood.

Any advice or information you can offer, legal or anecdotal, is much appreciated. I'm not sure that we're going to try to get out of the agreement; we're waiting 'til we talk to the non-profit to find out what kind of clients might live above us.

posted by miriam to home & garden (20 comments total)

Tenant.net is a very good resource for information on NYC landlord/tenant law, but in this situation, I'd advise you to talk to an actual landlord/tenant lawyer.
posted by enrevanche at 7:27 PM on December 3, 2006

IANAL (yet)

but...

Its unlikely that the landlord had any kind of legal duty to disclose who the other tenants are. There is a general duty to disclose only as it relates to the physical condition of the property.

Also, there many be a statute that expressly prevents the landlord from disclosing anything about the halfway house.

Talk to a (real) lawyer if you don't want to forfeit your deposit, but I wouldn't get your hopes up that there's anything you can do about it.
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:33 PM on December 3, 2006

A statute that required the landlord to tell you that you have undesirable neighbors? You're joking, right?
posted by jellicle at 7:42 PM on December 3, 2006

I tend to agree with the poster above that a landlord probably does NOT need to disclose this kind of information about other tenants and may even have an obligation NOT to disclose it. If you are concerned, see a lawyer. Remembering to weigh that cost against the possible return of the deposit you have already made.
posted by toucano at 7:42 PM on December 3, 2006

Hmm. Okay, yeah, I think you're all probably right that the landlord wasn't required to inform us about the halfway house.

I may be opening myself up to a lot of scoffing by asking this, but what would you do in this situation? Would you consider taking the apartment? I did speak to one of the upstairs tenants and she seemed perfectly nice -- but there also could be a lot of turnover. It's only three tenants, and I imagine I'd have the same legal recourse for unwelcome behavior as I'd have living below any other group of tenants. The neighbor is otherwise just fine, not particularly dangerous.
posted by miriam at 7:55 PM on December 3, 2006

Whoops, "the neighborhood."
posted by miriam at 7:55 PM on December 3, 2006

If I were in this situation, I'd break the lease and try to get the deposit back. When I lived in NY (Manhattan, but I imagine Brooklyn is similar), my apartment - all 560 sq ft of it - was my safe haven away from the madness surrounding me, and I can't imagine what it would be like to have to worry about safety (more than normal) on top of everything else.

I know that probably makes me sound like a snob, but there it is.
posted by aberrant at 8:25 PM on December 3, 2006

Hmm. Okay, yeah, I think you're all probably right that the landlord wasn't required to inform us about the halfway house.

Don't be so sure. I don't know the answer either but I do know that NYC real estate law is very pro-tenant.

I can not find a citation for you at the moment about whether or not the broker or agent had a duty to disclose that information to you. I should be able to get an answer for you by the end of the day tomorrow.

Would you consider taking the apartment?

I would not take the apartment. There are so many variables in life and things might work out fine for you there, but the fact is, with the knowledge you have, why chance it?

I spent a of time this past summer working on a project to help a convicted felon regain some of the rights he lost as a result of his conviction. It is an issue I care a great deal about (see some links here).

I also have some experience dealing with the population that you mention and I can not in good conscience recommend that you take the apartment.

Even if the tenants were all on the right track, you do not know about their friends and/or past associates who might visit them.

Also, as you note, it could be a situation with transient residents.
posted by MLIS at 8:37 PM on December 3, 2006

My first reaction is that I hope (and I have no reason to doubt this, but I just want to emphasize it) that you would be as respectful as possible when interacting with the residents and the people running the non-profit. It's a delicate situation to talk to them basically with the approach of whether the landlord "should have told you" about this fact in the same way he should have told you about a structural/pest/etc. reality.

Another point (one that the non-profit's admins may be able to provide more info about, but again, it's hard to know how to ask about this respectfully): some SROs, especially very small ones like this, have long waiting lists and are VERY desirable relative to other possibilities, meaning they actually inspire a lot of loyalty and good behavior by people wanting to keep their places. Some SROs are the opposite. Can you find out about this one?

If I were getting a good deal on a place, this wouldn't be an auto-dealbreaker for me.
posted by lorimer at 10:05 PM on December 3, 2006

This could also be an interesting question to pose at askanewyorker.com. I would separate one issue from another (separate the "should he have told" issue from the "is this a place you would move into" issue). If you don't separate them, you totally lose your neutral point of view in asking, because "should he have told" implies you feel it is a significant negative thing.
posted by lorimer at 10:08 PM on December 3, 2006

My boyfriend lived next door to someone in this situation. He said that 90% it was fine but on a few occasions he had to intervene.

For example, after 2 days of the stereo blasting, my boyfriend called the cops and it turned out that the guy had passed out for a few days.
posted by k8t at 10:47 PM on December 3, 2006

In New York City, supportive housing has an extremely low vacancy rate. People can wait up to a year for a spot to open up, and providers interview applicants before offering them housing. This can lead to tenants who are well supported and very motivated to stay in their particular home.

However, there are different levels of support offered, and the quality of the housing providers varies widely. Your upstairs neighbors could be wonderful and stable, with extensive supports in place. Or they could be warehoused by an unscrupulous provider. Non-profit status doesn't necessarily equal quality.

I doubt the provider will be able to tell you much that is useful, due to confidentiality laws. They should be able to tell you if it is transitional or permanent housing. You could call the state Office of Mental Health to at least find out if they're licensed.
posted by Mavri at 4:46 AM on December 4, 2006

Thanks for these thoughtful opinions. MLIS, if you were able to find that citation I'd be very grateful. And k8t, thanks for sharing your boyfriend's experience.

you would be as respectful as possible when interacting with the residents and the people running the non-profit

Yes, a thousand times yes. I know that these SROs have faced eviction and harassment in the past, especially in gentrifying neighborhoods, and the last thing I want to do is be a part of that. But my (willful) naivete has gotten me in trouble before, and I just want to make sure I don't get burned.
posted by miriam at 4:56 AM on December 4, 2006

"should he have told" implies you feel it is a significant negative thing.

Are you kidding? Of course it's a significant negative thing. If you think "people who have been homeless, drug-dependent, incarcerated, institutionalized, or mentally disabled" are all wonderful, saintlike people we should all flock to live next to, you've never known any of them. No, I'm not saying they're all nasty, thieving criminals who will make her life a living hell; it's perfectly possible she will never have any problems. But if that's the case, she's lucky, just like people who smoke all their lives and never have health problems. If I had the choice, I would not move into a place that had such occupants, and I'll bet you wouldn't either.

That said, I agree the poster should separate out the "should he have told" issue, because it does muddy the waters in terms of getting an answer to the other question.
posted by languagehat at 5:56 AM on December 4, 2006 [2 favorites has favorites]

I wouldn't spend any more money on this. I'd break the lease and look someplace else. If I could find a landlord/tenant lawyer who would help me for free, I'd do that. (Lots of law schools have landlord/tenant clinics - could possibly help you.)

But there are too many variables, especially given the noise factor since they're upstairs, and I wouldn't want to be stuck with that.
posted by Amizu at 8:05 AM on December 4, 2006

Just in case you're curious about the outcome: It looks as though we're going ahead with the lease. After speaking with the manager and former tenant, I've satisfied myself that, although the non-profit does run SROs for the formerly incarcerated or institutionalized, the apartment in question is not a halfway house, or any kind of transient housing. Rather, it's permanent supportive housing for three mentally disabled women who have lived there for years and are, by all accounts, lovely and respectful neighbors whose worst habit consists of bumming cigarettes.

So all is basically well, although I do think we'll try to negotiate a lower broker's fee, since our broker could have spared us this anxiety by mentioning the situation. I'm relieved that we won't have to plunge back into the nauseating NYC housing market.
posted by miriam at 9:03 AM on December 4, 2006

I work for a management company. It is a fair housing violation for us to discuss the mental and/or physical disability of a resident with another resident. Recovering alcoholics and drug users fall under this category.
posted by Elaisa at 9:16 AM on December 4, 2006

Gotcha, Elaisa. Thanks for that.
posted by miriam at 9:24 AM on December 4, 2006

languagehat writes, in response to me:
"If I had the choice, I would not move into a place that had such occupants, and I'll bet you wouldn't either."

Very interesting assumptions, languagehat.

I am "such occupants."
posted by lorimer at 8:08 PM on December 5, 2006

And these three women are luckier than I am, since I never got into a long-term situation and am still mostly floating (even as we speak, as it happens). The categories of "homeless" and "formerly homeless" are much broader than you apparently think. They overlap "computer literate," "mefi member" and plenty of other categories you and I both belong to.
posted by lorimer at 8:13 PM on December 5, 2006