A Direction Toward Protection: Loft Law and What It Has to Offer

For decades, the cutthroat warzone that is the New York City real-estate market has perpetuated a system that favors the interests of business tycoons in lieu of the fundamental rights of tenants. In fact, the need to accommodate our expansive population has forced city planners and the government to take the side of wealthy developers who are often in the industry solely for personal monetary gain. It takes no more than a stroll down Chambers Street to recognize that the culture of development and construction, which for so long has earned us the title of the city that never sleeps, is certainly prevalent.

From simply a glance out of the Stuyvesant cafeteria, we have a grand view of SoHo and Tribeca, an area riddled with cranes and ambitious building projects. It is alarming to consider that no more than four decades ago, these neighborhoods were inhabited by impoverished artists who sought affordable living spaces. But, as SoHo gained a reputation for having more lenient zoning laws and as affluent residents became attracted to its architectural style and favorable location, it faced gradual rent increases and a wave of gentrification. For the artists that had long established SoHo as an artistic haven, such changes were drastic, and many left the neighborhood, aware of the increasing loft rents. And as the city updated its residential code, many original tenants were pressured to leave for living in “illegal” apartments, and their buildings were turned into upscale businesses. The deceptive nature of gentrification is that it is beneficial to the economy, but slowly eliminates cultural identity and individuality, and ultimately forces displacement.

With 18,000 evictions in New York City in 2018 alone, we must be cognizant of the contentious and daunting housing crisis plaguing our city. This predicament can be attributed to the lack of affordable housing and a spike in rent and lease prices, which has forced many residents to turn to less conventional sources of housing. Commercial zones, or districts whose primary use is business, have become that alternative. However, this move to commercial zones has left city scrambling to provide basic tenant rights to those who do not live in residential areas, which are districts specifically for housing. The city’s previous inaction has been heavily criticized by local politicians, and it has thus been forced to address the issues caused by gentrification.

Loft law, a code designed to protect tenants living in formerly commercialized and manufacturing buildings, safeguards tenants from eviction and other threats made by landlords and has become one of the forerunners in this fight for civil protection. The law ensures rent stabilization for all residential units and guarantees that the Department of Buildings (DOB) will not vacate illegal residencies nor remove their tenants. Nor will the DOB force landlords to use the buildings units solely for commerce. More importantly, it requires landlords to legalize their residencies so that they abide by the city’s fire and safety regulation.

Once a tenant goes through the strenuous three-year-plus process of lawyers, documents, and anxiety to acquire the city’s protection, a number of safety rights are granted as well. A tenant’s unit will be legal to work and live in, and basic living conditions, including heat, hot water, and electricity, will be guaranteed. They will also be protected by the Housing Court and can voice their concerns before small claims court. Tenants are not the only people who benefit from the protection of loft law. Loft law also grants a landlord the power to sue a tenant for the non-payment of rent and file for updated rent adjustments to keep with the changing economic climate. Loft law is the ideal solution to satisfy the controversial tension between residents and developers because it places a strong emphasis on legal and proper development. It ensures that tenants are protected from unlawful eviction and guaranteed basic tenant rights, and yet also provides landlords with the legal authority that is needed to properly control tenants.

However, New York politicians have voiced their concern about the extent of loft law and its radical effects on the real-estate industry on numerous occasions. New York State Senator Julia Salazar and many prominent business advocates argue that loft law is not considerate of all of New York City’s growing needs. Caroline Spivack, a contributing reporter for numerous political publications, claims that “an expansion of the law will only endanger manufacturing and construction businesses and their workers in areas designated for industrial use.” However, this claim is far-fetched, because despite the possibility of an influx of construction jobs at newer job sites, the effects it might have on the people living in the neighborhood must be considered. These residents are some of the city’s most vulnerable and impoverished, primarily people of color. With skyrocketing rent and lease prices, they have been forced out of their neighborhoods by wealthier residents who are searching for homes. Already displaced, these residents are simply looking for safe, affordable homes with basic necessities, like heat and water. They need places where they are not threatened by eviction or abused by landlords. Reversing loft law would kindle a wave of displacement among these impoverished communities, and would only further worsen the lack of affordable housing in and around the city.

Politicians that do not support protecting tenants and local business owners are setting a standard that big business is more important than the personal and cultural development of the people who illegally reside in industrial buildings. New York City is built on the backs of blue-collar workers who are exploited by large corporations, and they are the people whose basic human rights we must protect. Without them, economic growth and the expansion of the commercial industry becomes even more difficult. Beyond simply protecting vulnerable citizens, we must recognize the impact that the people in these districts have on our economy and industry, and advocate for their safety and rights.

Though efforts are in place to make loft law more accessible for New York residents and to expand the protections of those who are already beneficiaries of it, it has been difficult to enact change. A tenant must go through a demanding and arduous process to obtain loft law, and if denied by the public loft board, does not receive the benefits of the law at all. This is not the standard we should aim to set, especially if we want to protect our streets from bland, corporate homogenization.

Though the implications of what may result if the future of the real-estate industry is put in the hands of biased city-planners is unimaginable, loft law and the rights that it provides are a huge step toward protecting New York City’s most vulnerable citizens. Expanding the protection loft law designates is the only way to guard against the gentrification that will consume our city. Prioritizing the needs of the commercial industry instead of advocating for some of New York City’s most vulnerable and unprotected citizens is a heinous disservice.

Loft law is the best protection for those who need protection. Don’t let it go to waste.