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.
The incentive here was probably financial, not cultural.
Sickening, isn't it!
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.
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.
Well, the Navy all but abandon the town and they desereve the results. #1 homo vacation spot.
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!
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.
Or are you asking the Supreme Court to toss all that out, save only the right of someone to offend at will?
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?
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.......
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.