[billybones]

Sadly, this looks pretty toothless. The fine for noncompliance is $2k.

Given the average price for an NYC apartment at north of $3k, the cost to a landlord of complying with the law even once looks significantly higher than the cost of the paying the fine.

[crazygringo]

Not toothless at all. Even if the fine is $2k per tenant, that's way more than the landlord is going to pay to a service to list and show the apartment, which is maybe $500?

Remember, broker's fees don't go to the landlord. They go to the brokers! The only reason landlords use them is because they're free for the landlord.

It's absolutely cheaper for the landlord to hire a service than to pay a fine.

[adgjlsfhk1]

> Remember, broker's fees don't go to the landlord. They go to the brokers!

I'm pretty sure there are landlords that charge the brokers for the chance to show their units. The landlords can advertise rents that are $300 lower (but get a $500 cut of the broker fee), and then can raise the rent by $300 the next year, increasing the chance that the tenant will go to another one of their (or their buddy's) properties and pay another brokers fee.

[crazygringo]

No, that's not a thing. I don't know where you got that idea.

And the last thing a landlord generally wants is for their tenant of just one year to leave. Remember, an apartment will often go vacant for a month or even two between tenants, which is lost rent.

And if your tenant leaves, chances are miniscule they happen to move to another property you happen to own. (And what does a "buddy's" property have to do with anything?)

[pavel_lishin]

Unless rents are going up - in which case, a renter moving out means you can charge the next person enough to cover the apartment sitting empty for a month.

(That's assuming apartments even stay empty that long; when we were searching, we almost always had to commit to an apartment the day of the showing, or it'd be off the market the next day. Apartments seem to stay empty long enough for the required cleaning and maintenance to take place - and sometimes barely even that long, we've viewed apartments that were being actively worked on.)

[nobody9999]

>Remember, broker's fees don't go to the landlord. They go to the brokers! The only reason landlords use them is because they're free for the landlord.

What's more, the way it's worked up until now the landlord has many brokers to choose from. And brokers (especially in NYC) will have at least a dozen different folks who will want pretty much any decent apartment. Which allows the broker to charge outrageous fees because most landlords don't want to deal with the hoi polloi, just the folks vetted by the broker.

As such, the power asymmetry between renter and broker was astounding. Changing this will be good for the renter, that's for sure.

Brokers won't be able to get as much commission per apartment because the landlords will put the brokers on a flat fee annual retainer or something similar, because they have power (because they control the available inventory) to choose which broker(s) to work with.

All in all, it won't be so good for the brokers. Too bad. So sad. /s

[heroprotagonist]

Except, the first prospective renter can report you, and the second, and the third, and the fourth... all before you get an actual renter.

And more likely, the vehicles these brokers depend on like Zillow, etc, will end up bearing the burden of enforcement more than individual renters reporting to agencies.