The Daily Dirt: Is there really a “squatter crisis” in NYC?

Is there a “squatter crisis,” a squattage industry, if you will?

Yes, squattage is a word. No, there is no evidence that we’re seeing a dramatic increase in squatters in New York, rather than a surge in media coverage about such cases. If you get your hands on some data, though, please send it my way. 

Lawmakers have proposed a series of measures aimed at reeling in so-called squatters rights, pointing to a section of New York law that describes a tenant as an occupant of a home “who has been in possession for 30 consecutive days or longer.”

When reading stories about squatters, it is important to remember a few things: 

-The reported “loophole” in state law is not clear cut. In fact state law specifies that eviction protections pertain to “lawful” tenants or occupants. A squatter, when referring to someone who has trespassed on a property and has decided to stay put, is not a lawful tenant or occupant.  Another section of the law specifies that no landlord-tenant relationship exists when it comes to squatters, and a section added in 2019, which barred self-help evictions, specifies that protections pertain to those who have “lawfully occupied” a home.  

-Just because something is getting more media attention in a moment in time, doesn’t mean it is happening with greater frequency. 

-These cases can get messy, and housing court backlogs can mean an owner spends months trying to prove someone has wrongfully taken possession of their home or property. 

Tenant and landlord attorneys I spoke to agreed: If someone breaks into a home, whether they have been there for two hours or 31 days, the owner can call the police and say, “Hey, there’s a stranger in my home.” 

Which brings me to the last point above: These cases can get complicated. A person squatting can claim to be a tenant, which could then drag the conflict into court. 

To me, as someone who is admittedly not an attorney or legislator (or a landlord or a squatter for that matter), a more productive focus of this conversation could be: Should the state more explicitly say, in various sections of the law, that a squatter is not a legal tenant? What is the best way to prevent property owners from spending months in court, or even getting arrested, in service of trying to regain control over their home or property? 

One of Sen. Mario Mattera’s bills gets at that latter question, by flipping the burden of proof onto the accused squatter to prove they belong there. The bill allows property owners to file a complaint to have the squatters immediately removed. If it turns out that a person was wrongfully kicked out, they can file a civil action.

In such a case, an evicted tenant “may be restored” to the property (emphasis my own), and “may recover actual costs and damages incurred, statutory damages equal to triple the fair market rent of the dwelling, court costs and reasonable attorney fees.” But those landlord penalties aren’t guaranteed. If this bill gains traction, critics will almost certainly question whether those penalties will sufficiently deter landlords from opting for a quicker way to remove a problem tenant. 

This is all to say that this is a complicated issue, and should be considered in the broader context of what the state laws actually say, what those laws mean in practice and, given the supermajority of Democrats in the legislature whose constituents are mostly tenants, how best to address the issue without affecting legal tenants.  

What we’re thinking about: Housing, housing, housing. Tenant advocates say the latest version of good cause is too watered down, while on independent apartment improvements, landlord groups say that the proposed changes are nowhere near the level of relief they need, and tenant advocates claim it is a dangerous rollback of the 2019 rent law. When a housing deal is reached, will anyone be happy with it? Send a note to kathryn@therealdeal.com. 

A thing we’ve learned: Saudi Arabia has scaled back its plans for a futuristic city near the Gulf of Aqaba, Bloomberg reports. The government hoped to have 1.5 million people living at the Line, two 100-mile-long skyscrapers in the desert, by 2030. Officials now believe only 300,000 residents will live there by that time. 

Elsewhere in New York…

— Mayor Eric Adams is requiring elected officials to fill out a request before speaking to agency heads or their executive teams, Politico New York reports. “I got new garbage cans, and was requesting a picture with the [sanitation] commissioner. And they said you’ve got to fill out this form,” Council member Rita Joseph said. The administration says the policy will help put the “right processes in place to streamline our services and maximize our resources.”

— The mayor says his busy schedule prevents him from taking the subway to work every day, Gothamist reports. “I gotta be realistic, not only idealistic,” Adams said during a news conference. This is a perennial criticism for NYC mayors. (Remember Mayor Bill de Blasio’s trips to his Park Slope gym from Gracie Mansion?) “You want to be as much of a New Yorker as your constituents are,” George Arzt, a political consultant and former press secretary to Mayor Ed Koch, told Gothamist. “And to do that, you have to take the subways.” Adams says he takes the subway regularly, just not every day as part of his commute. 

Residential: The priciest residential sale on Tuesday was $7.13 million for a 2,500-square-foot, condominium unit at 182 West 82nd Street on the Upper West Side. Alexa Lambert, Alison Black and Marc Achilles of Compass had the listing. 

Commercial: The most expensive commercial sale of the day was a commercial condo unit at 215 North 10th Street in Williamsburg for $18.85 million. 

New to the Market: The highest price for a residential property hitting the market was a $35 million co-op at 4 East 66th Street in Lenox Hill. Mary L. Fitzgibbons and Martha Kramer of Brown Harris Stevens have the listing. — Matthew Elo