Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Manhatten Disgrace: GIS NEED NOT APPLY
Yahoo News ^ | 3 February 2003 | JEANE MacINTOSH

Posted on 02/03/2003 8:52:06 AM PST by SheLion

Uncle Sam wants them, but a swanky Manhattan apartment group has no room for the country's military personnel and reserves.

Prospective tenants at 13 luxury apartment buildings owned by New York City megadeveloper Donald Zucker must sign a waiver stating they aren't in the military before they can get a lease - a violation of city law.

"[The waiver] has to be filled out in order for the lease to be approved," a manager at Manhattan Skyline, which runs the buildings, told The Post.

The first sentence of Zucker's "nonmilitary affidavit," obtained by The Post, reads: "The tenant has advised the Owner that the Tenant is not in the military service of the United States or New York State and that no occupant . . . is dependent upon anyone in the military service."

New York City human rights commissioner Patricia Gatling and Congressman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) blasted the document as "outrageous" and vowed to take action.

Confronted about the policy outside his office at 101 W. 55th Street, Zucker declined comment.

Joseph Giamboi, a lawyer for the Zucker Organization, confirmed prospective tenants must sign the waiver - in effect for nearly a decade - at the lease signing. But he insisted it isn't "part of the application process" and isn't a discriminatory "screener."

"It was never our intent to use it to keep military out," he said.

According to city administrative code 8-107(5)(n), landlords can't reject a prospective tenant based on occupation as long as that occupation is "lawful." There is no matching federal law.

Gatling said her office will "immediately" investigate the use of any such documents by any city landlord.

"Discriminating against any military personnel when it comes to housing is not only morally repugnant and unethical, but illegal," said Gatling. "There is no greater ‘lawful' occupation than service to our country."

And Rangel, a decorated Korean War vet, said: "This is an outrageous practice at any time, but especially now, when we're sending our military overseas to defend us."

Rangel said he's considering proposing federal legislation that would make it a crime to discriminate against members of the military on housing.

Giamboi said his client was "horrified" the waiver could be seen as discriminatory, noting, "nobody has ever confronted us on it."

He claimed Zucker buildings "have some military" as tenants - but didn't know how many or how they got leases.

A Zucker manager, noting that military personnel can break leases if called to duty, told The Post the document was designed to "protect the management company."

The federal Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act of 1940 allows military personnel to break leases if they're called to duty; it also prohibits landlords from taking civil action against servicemen on active duty.

Civil rights legal eagle Norman Siegel branded the waiver "insensitive," adding, "it probably violates the purpose and spirit of the Soldiers and Sailors Act."

"If it wasn't designed to keep military out, what was its purpose?" he asked.

Giamboi said the waiver was instituted to protect tenants after an "embarrassing" court case years ago in which Manhattan Skyline moved to evict a tenant, only to find the man was a soldier on active duty.

After being confronted by The Post, the Zucker group claimed it will stop using the waiver.

"We will tear it from our [lease] documents," Giamboi said.


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Culture/Society; Government; US: New York
KEYWORDS: apartments; government; lease; military; swank
Who said "it couldn't get worse....."
1 posted on 02/03/2003 8:52:06 AM PST by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SheLion
What they need to do is NAIL these people.

Okay, so they violated city law. What is the MAXIMUM penalty? Give it to 'em.

Aren't there possibly some state and federal civil rights laws that apply here? Look up the laws, find the MAXIMUM penalties that pertain, and NAIL 'em with it.

If you make enough examples, this will pipe down, quick.

That's how the civil rights struggle--a noble and righteous one in the beginning--finally prevailed.

NAIL 'EM!!!!!

2 posted on 02/03/2003 8:55:45 AM PST by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
That's how the civil rights struggle--a noble and righteous one in the beginning--finally prevailed.

I'm just tired of the military being treated like chit. I don't think old Don has to worry much about his "swanky" apartments being rented by the military anyway. With the military pay, what GI could afford his "luxury units?" He's a moron.

3 posted on 02/03/2003 8:59:38 AM PST by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
bttt

What a disgrace this is.
4 posted on 02/03/2003 9:02:13 AM PST by lodwick (Republicans for Sharpton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
Sounds to me like Mr.Zucker is heavily into Klintoon Kool Aid!!!!!!!!!
5 posted on 02/03/2003 9:03:33 AM PST by bandleader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
M-F'ers

Just the first thing that came to mind.

6 posted on 02/03/2003 9:04:42 AM PST by ExpatCanuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
Dogs and Sailors stay off the Lawn

Newport News, virgina.

7 posted on 02/03/2003 9:15:23 AM PST by dts32041
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
The field grade officers running the city's universities' ROTC programs might need them, as well as any reservists who happen to reside there...

I guess there must be a few officers at Ft. Hamilton and with the local recruiting effort too..

Also I think there is a Coast Guard presence there...

But the first thing I thought when I saw that was "Holy crap! People are getting assigned to Manhattan?" Sounds better than Ft. Polk!

8 posted on 02/03/2003 9:15:33 AM PST by American Soldier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
According to city administrative code 8-107(5)(n), landlords can't reject a prospective tenant based on occupation as long as that occupation is "lawful."

Bull. Landlords have successfully excluded LAWYERS from leasing their property out of fear of litigation.

NY real estate documentation is the most odious material this side of Hades.

9 posted on 02/03/2003 9:20:10 AM PST by NativeNewYorker (Freepin' Jew Boy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bandleader
Sounds to me like Mr.Zucker is heavily into Klintoon Kool Aid!!!!!!!!!

Probably worse, if that's possible! He should be run out of town. :(

10 posted on 02/03/2003 9:27:26 AM PST by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: American Soldier
But the first thing I thought when I saw that was "Holy crap! People are getting assigned to Manhattan?" Sounds better than Ft. Polk!

Yes, I know. But who in the military, short of being a Colonel and up, could afford Mr. Moron Donald's Swanky Pads anyway?

11 posted on 02/03/2003 9:29:05 AM PST by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
Giamboi said his client was "horrified" the waiver could be seen as discriminatory, noting, "nobody has ever confronted us on it."

Consider yourself confronted... DUH!

12 posted on 02/03/2003 9:51:52 AM PST by Texas Mom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NativeNewYorker
Bull. Landlords have successfully excluded LAWYERS from leasing their property out of fear of litigation.

That's different. It's more a form of pest control than housing discrimination.

13 posted on 02/03/2003 9:59:31 AM PST by Doug Loss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Doug Loss
I didn't know who to root for. The landlord or the lawyer. :)
14 posted on 02/03/2003 10:04:43 AM PST by NativeNewYorker (Freepin' Jew Boy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Texas Mom
I have signed dozens of NY leases. The boilerplate agate type goes on for pages and pages. Neither party actually reads it all, or takes it seriously. The real enforcement is the holding of security deposits, and the ability to hire lawyers.
15 posted on 02/03/2003 10:06:41 AM PST by NativeNewYorker (Freepin' Jew Boy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
Interesting that the clause only lists military service of the US and New York State. Presumably this doesn't apply to foreign military obligations - active or reserve.
16 posted on 02/03/2003 10:13:03 AM PST by caltrop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
Rudyard Kipling

Tommy

I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o'beer,

The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here."

The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,

I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:

O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";

But it's ``Thank you, Mister Atkins,'' when the band begins to play,

The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,

O it's ``Thank you, Mr. Atkins,'' when the band begins to play.

I went into a theatre as sober as could be,

They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me;

They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,

But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls!

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, wait outside";

But it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide,

The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,

O it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide.

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep

Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;

An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit

Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.

Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy how's yer soul?"

But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll,

The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,

O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.

We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,

But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;

An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints:

Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;

While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind,"

But it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind,

There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,

O it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind.

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires an' all:

We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.

Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face

The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"

But it's "Saviour of 'is country," when the guns begin to shoot;

An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;

But Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!

17 posted on 02/03/2003 10:17:39 AM PST by Pilsner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
But he insisted it isn't "part of the application process" and isn't a discriminatory "screener."

"Who ya gonna believe: Me or your lyin eyes?"

18 posted on 02/03/2003 10:20:26 AM PST by AppyPappy (Will Code COBOL For Food)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
Where is the Property Rights prospective here at Free Republic? What if the landlord did not want to rest to people with children, single mothers, gays, non-Christians, smokers, Republicans or the mobility impaired. Would the popular stance be that the Landlord has the property right to make that choice or should the government mandate who a landlord can lease an apartment?
19 posted on 02/03/2003 10:22:34 AM PST by Station 51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Texas Mom
Consider yourself confronted... DUH!

Exactly. That's why I posted this on Free Republic. Let some more know about the scum that owns the Swanky New York Manhatten Apartments. I hope old Donald gets an EAR full over this!

20 posted on 02/03/2003 10:24:42 AM PST by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
Most likely they seek to exclude military because military personnel are subject to deployment, and thus can typically break their lease without notice or penalty by law.

The incentive here was probably financial, not cultural.

21 posted on 02/03/2003 10:25:00 AM PST by xsrdx (Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: caltrop
Interesting that the clause only lists military service of the US and New York State. Presumably this doesn't apply to foreign military obligations - active or reserve.

Sickening, isn't it!

22 posted on 02/03/2003 10:25:40 AM PST by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: xsrdx
The incentive here was probably financial, not cultural.

Oh, I understand that. But to single out our military in this manner in these days and times is just outlandish.

Plus, like I said, what poor military family could even afford such places.

23 posted on 02/03/2003 10:27:20 AM PST by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
You have always advocated Property Rights here on FR and should be commended for it. However, now you support Government intervention on property rights. Which is it? Should the business owners be able to control what they do with their property or should the Government dictate what they can and cannot do?
24 posted on 02/03/2003 10:30:27 AM PST by Station 51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: xsrdx; SheLion
The incentive is cultural, not commercial. I used to live in a high priced NY apartment and wore my uniform to weekend drills. You should have seen some of the horrified looks I got from some of my neighbors.
25 posted on 02/03/2003 10:39:08 AM PST by caltrop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
What they need to do is NAIL these people.

I've got some ex-tenants that I need to send to live with you. I'm as patriotic as the next Freeper, and have the utmost of respect for our service members, but I also just got scammed by some army reservists. After all they did, I will be quite leery of renting to another. Now that they are deployed, I have little recourse to get the thousands in back rent and damages that they owe me. Maybe I should just tell the state JAG officer about how they spent all of my rent money on weed. Its true.

26 posted on 02/03/2003 11:00:02 AM PST by FreeInWV (Singin the landlord blues....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dts32041
Sailors and dogs, stay off the grass
Key West, Florida..

Well, the Navy all but abandon the town and they desereve the results. #1 homo vacation spot.

27 posted on 02/03/2003 11:04:06 AM PST by oyez (Is this a great country...........Or what?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
Dunno...I always felt sorry for the NCOs that get assigned to huge metro areas as recruiters. I've seen their housing allowances, they're enough to get a decent place in the midwest or the south but when they get stuck somewhere like DC they often end up either having to live in a nasty shack or else drive 1.5 hours to work every morning.
28 posted on 02/03/2003 11:31:49 AM PST by American Soldier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
bump
29 posted on 02/03/2003 11:38:08 AM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SheLion; Mia T
Actually, upper-class yutz like these would sniff and tut-tut at the plight of the "working class" GIs.

It's the horrible, terrible OFFICER class they don't want to be anywhere near.

BTW, don't you love this "can't be SUPPORTED by anyone in the military?"

DO you realize the implication?

Say there's a kid whose parents are divorced, and he lives with his mom. The dad is in the military, and a good portion of the Dad's pay goes to the kid's mainenance and support.

According to these by-laws, the mother would have to relinquish the apartment if found out.

This is just the most rank hypocrisy imaginable! But what can you expect from the "Caring Class?" They wouldn't want to be associated with MILITARY scoundrels...but you can bet your bottom dollar Hillary! can count on them for a fundraising cocktail party or two any time she's in the neighborhood!

30 posted on 02/03/2003 2:42:32 PM PST by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Station 51
Where is the Property Rights prospective here at Free Republic?

Interestion question, but the Soldiers and Sailors Act was designed to protect servicemen called overseas in time of war. I don't think it protects anyone who simply doesn't pay his rent.

In less democratic times, any landlord who evicted a person who was overseas and out of communication would have been tarred and feathered.

31 posted on 02/03/2003 2:49:54 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: FreeInWV
You are not seriously trying to say that because some Army reservists were scoundrels, that means that ALL military personnel are suspect, are you?
32 posted on 02/03/2003 3:03:35 PM PST by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Station 51
Sorry, but that's an outmoded way of thinking. You do NOT have the right to deny housing to someone who is black, for example. That's considered illegal, do you understand that?

Or are you asking the Supreme Court to toss all that out, save only the right of someone to offend at will?

33 posted on 02/03/2003 3:04:55 PM PST by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
The larger question is "At what point does law take precedence over property rights?"

What if I choose not to rent a house to a gay couple or non-Christians? Should the Government step in and force me to rent my house to these people? What if I simply have something against people that are left-handed? Can I choose not to rent to them or should the Nanny State step-in and force me against my will to rest to people that are left handed?

I own two rest houses in Austin and will not rent to smokers, fraternity members or longhaired boys that don't bathe and eat tofu. Should I be tossed in jail for my business decision?

Now, I do understand that I cannot discriminate on race but is that a just law or just greater intrusion of the Government into my business?

34 posted on 02/03/2003 3:24:54 PM PST by Station 51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
You are not seriously trying to say that because some Army reservists were scoundrels, that means that ALL military personnel are suspect, are you?

No, I did not say or mean to insinuate that. I can only speak from my own experiences with the individuals that I have met locally. I would never presume to make any claims concerning ALL military personnel.

I will say however that all guardsmen or reservists that I have rented to recently have been extremely poor tenants. Maybe its their unit or the local command that has problems. Most are college students using the guard to pay their way. I don't know what the problem is. All I am saying is that I can no longer blindly trust my financial well-being on the premise that each one will act honestly and honorably. I cannot afford to support 2 or 3 reservists at a time that refuse to pay rent and destroy my property on a whim. My most recent "scoundrel" did not pay any utilities since he moved in during May. He owes various utility companies several thousand dollars. Nearly every word he ever told me turned out to be a lie. He owes me well over a thousand dollars, as well as over a thousand that he deceived a "friend" out of. He spent all of his money on booze, weed, women and fancy electronics. I hauled out garbage bags full of empty liquor bottles after he disappeared. I'll likely need to rip out the carpet to get the smell of pot smoke out of the place. There was enough garbage to fill several trucks.

Sorry, but I've already been burnt enough times. From now on, before I rent to any military in this area, I will demand the name and contact information of their commanding officer as a reference. I will diligently contact this individual with any problems, and CC the state JAG officer. If they have no problem with this policy, I will be glad to rent to them.

Of course if you would rather cover my losses.......

35 posted on 02/03/2003 9:09:06 PM PST by FreeInWV (Singin the landlord blues....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson