Cause and Effect Essay

You would think that landlords do improvements in apartments for their tenant’s benefits, but in reality, it is harming them rather than assisting them. The major capital improvement program allows the landlords to supposedly “improve or upgrade” the living conditions of their tenants in exchange for rent increase. Since the introduction of major capital improvement in 1988, landlords have used this program in order to earn a greater profit for a smaller investment(“Major Capital Improvement”). Although some may consider that the major capital improvement program is in favor of tenants as it allows renovation within an apartment for tenants while the landlords cover the costs, this is untrue as the landlords could raise the rent for as long as they desire, increase the rent by a great percentage, and cause displacement within Harlem. Thus, their renovations through the MCI program are profit-driven, rather than for the cause of the tenants. 

Landlords may appear to be supporting their tenant’s apartment conditions by improving it. However, these upgrades may not be needed for the tenants and yet landlords would still use this excuse to increase their rents for profit. Harlan Hill, a longtime resident of the building Lenox Terrace, struggles with this issue, “in my building they decided to change the windows, even though they were fine. Not only do they pass the MCI cost on to the tenants in terms of higher rent, once the windows are paid for the rent doesn’t go down again”(“Gentrification and Displacement”). The landlord acknowledges that the windows were fine, yet the windows were still replaced for one purpose; to create a justification to increase their rent through MCI. Furthermore, these landlords are clearly profit-driven because they are exploiting the use of replacing unnecessary things as a means to raise the rent. This is considered an abuse of power because landlords claim to be giving their tenants better lifestyles when living in the apartment, but it does more harm than actually benefitting these tenants. 

Since 1988, major capital improvements or MCI were allowed to be implemented(“Major Capital Improvement”). Most landlords replaced the worn out parts or items of the apartment in order to increase the rents of the tenants; however, the landlords never specify when these rent increases would stop and this would mean that they can abuse this to gradually remove tenants from apartments. Sam Himmelstein states, “the increase was dated back to the time the improvement was made and could be raised up to 6 percent for stabilized tenants and 15 percent for rent-controlled tenants”(Himmelstein). Although a new law has been implemented to reduce the increases in rent, up to 2 percent, anytime from June 16, 2012, to June 16, 2019, the MCIs that were made and signed through a contract were able to be charged up to the percentages stated above(Himmelstein). Consequently, people who are unable to afford the rent due to major capital improvement were displaced from the apartments. These apartments are supposed to be rent-stabilized meaning that the rent is appropriate for the tenant, yet landlords are given the option to drive these tenants out. Essentially, the damage has already been done to those tenants who had to deal with the MCI and there is nothing that could be done to compensate these people. 

With new laws implemented to nerf MCI down to 2 percent per year, landlords are rushing to get their applications in to start raising rents. They realize that without these MCIs, their buildings would lose value and are making renovations to their buildings(Rebong). This further supports my point, because if they weren’t looking for profit, they wouldn’t rush to initiate their MCIs, nor would it even affect them. MCIs are affecting rent-stabilized apartments since it defeats the purpose of being stabilized with these rent risings and should not be allowed. In the article, “New York landlords rush rent hikes ahead of housing reforms,” an important figure in the Treetop buildings makes a statement, “‘They put these new windows in. The buildings didn’t need new windows,’ said Vaughn Armour, president of the tenants association at the Treetop buildings in Brooklyn. ‘They put the cheapest ones in. The windows are paper thin.’(Rebong).” The lack of effort that landlords do when making these “improvements” are evident. They have no regard for their tenants and use MCI improvements to earn a profit. MCI improvements may seem to have a minuscule effect on rent at first, but scales up every year meaning that people who pay little amounts, would be paying much more each year. 

Landlords are obviously attempting to benefit and thrive at the cost of the tenants. Replacing something as basic as windows to give the tenants a better lifestyle even when tenants consider it unnecessary for their apartment at the price of raising their rent. The landlords should be taking responsibility for the cost of the renovations throughout the building to suit the needs of their tenants. If the motive of MCI was not profit-driven, why else would these landlords consider doing these improvements? Many low-income families may barely be able to afford the rent that was previously applied, especially in rent-stabilized apartments. Over a long period of time the MCI improvements that landlords invest in, would result in paying itself. This is very unethical as landlords could resume with increasing tenant’s rents without a termination.