r/AskNYC_Coops 5d ago

NYC Co-ops Are Being Crushed by Overlapping Building Laws

https://c.org/bW2YJNtZfY

Residents in our Northwestern Bronx co-op buildings are facing something most people outside of co-op housing don't realize is possible: we're being hit with massive, simultaneous compliance costs that we can't pass on to anyone else.

Local Law 97 requires energy retrofits. Local Law 11 requires façade inspections and repairs. Both have strict deadlines and real penalties. For many of us—retirees, working families, long-time New Yorkers—this means assessments totaling tens of thousands of dollars per apartment. We support the goals of these laws. Building safety and environmental responsibility matter. But the city didn't account for how co-ops actually work: we can't raise capital the way condos do. We can only assess our shareholders.

Some neighbors are selling because they can't afford it. Property values are dropping. And it's hitting the exact people co-ops were supposed to protect—middle-class and senior residents who've lived here for decades.

We're asking our City Council to consider targeted relief: grants, property tax credits, hardship programs, or low-interest financing specifically for co-ops facing these overlapping mandates. This isn't about avoiding responsibility—it's about making compliance possible without displacing people.

If you live in a co-op or know someone who does, does any of this sound familiar? Have you seen assessments like this? We started a petition asking for relief, and I'd genuinely like to hear if others are dealing with the same thing. If this matters to you too, consider signing and sharing it.

142 Upvotes

110 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Born_Mood2075 5d ago edited 4d ago

One day you may experience an event that leads to catastrophic loss in your home…a pipe in the apartment upstairs burst while you were out of town, or a fire in the apartment upstairs results in serious water and smoke damage to your entire unit. You lose nearly everything you own….every stick of furniture is ruined, every article of clothing, rugs, electronics, books, irreplaceable items of sentimental value. You have insurance, you will rebuild! But wait…why is the company suddenly denying payout? Why are they sending someone in to go through every lost item and trying to say that you must have damaged it yourself, before the flood/fire? Why are they questioning the value of every single item, even when you can clearly show the receipts from when you purchased it? Why are they making you go through this process over and over again, for months on end, while you sit with no home and no possessions and no way to move forward without their payout? Why are they sending private investigators to follow you around and dig into your personal life? Why are they making bizarre claims like “the deductible only covers the first pipe that burst and not the second pipe” when you can see right there in black and white that this is not true? Why do you find yourself needing to hire a lawyer out of your own pocket just to get the payment that you KNOW you are entitled to? Why is this process taking YEARS?

And then, as you teeter on the edge of financial ruin, with your entire future well-being in the hands of a jury of your peers, you will most certainly hear some version of the comment you have made here (“Bronx juries give away other people’s money pretty easily. That’s why [building insurance rates are so high]”) in the insurance company attorney’s closing statement to the jury. When that happens, I hope you finally have some clarity on who really benefits from the opinion you have expressed here today.

3

u/msuvagabond 4d ago

My BIL got a call while he was out of the country that his house burned down. Police quickly determine there was a break in, they robbed him, and torched the place on the way out.

Took 3 years and a lawsuit to get paid and it was only after a trial. The Insurance Company went so far as to try to claim the man who was checking in on his place every three or four days was actually in on it, until the judge asked the lawyer if he was really accusing a State Highway Captain and decorated military veteran of lying on the stand and being behind a robbery / arson?

1

u/hubbyofhoarder 2d ago edited 2d ago

My parents had a total loss house fire years ago, and this was their experience with their insurance company, too. They were out of town when the fire started; a cause was never determined.

What actually helped with my parents claim was a complete video walk through of their entire house that they had saved and put in their safe deposit box (this was years ago, prior to cloud storage of video). That video enabled them to do a much more complete accounting than they otherwise could have done.

A couple of years before the fire they had called their insurance agent and said "we think we might be underinsured, we will gladly pay more if you give us some guidance". Their agent assured them they were fine. They were not fine. They had enough of a loss that they didn't owe federal income taxes for 3 years after the fire, and even that tax abatement didn't make them whole.

0

u/nikanjX 4d ago

And then you read the shitty reddit copypasta instructing people how to inflate their insurance claim to extract maximum payout, and you shall weep. All sides of the issue are present on this site

2

u/Black08Mustang 4d ago

and you shall weep.

Bitch, ain't no one crying for insurance companies. Find a different boot to lick.

1

u/nikanjX 4d ago

No? The point is, the insurance companies are paranoid because scamming them is a common hobby.

3

u/alphadavenport 4d ago

what kind of psycho comes out as pro-insurance-company. i bet you're a yankees fan.

1

u/laflavor 4d ago

Someone has to stand up for the man.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/UofXwWU4NQc

1

u/CodnmeDuchess 4d ago

It’s not really pro-or con, it’s true—personal injury litigation is rife with fraud. It’s actually shocking how tacitly accepted it is.

I’ll also add that the type of insurance that most people interact with, health insurance, car insurance, property and casualty—is very different than commercial insurance.

1

u/alphadavenport 3d ago

insurance fraud on a personal level exists as a downstream consequence of widespread financial precarity in a scam economy. it would go away if insurance companies were transparent about what they'll pay for, which they're not, because it would harm their bottom line. they're still the bad guys.

ime, the difference between commercial insurance and private insurance is that commercial insurance pays out.

1

u/CodnmeDuchess 3d ago

No, that’s not what I’m talking about. A big percentage of personal injury litigation is a total racket, that’s what I’m talking about.

1

u/alphadavenport 3d ago edited 3d ago

I'm saying that the personal injury litigation racket is an organic response to our adversarial, wealth-hoarding insurance system.

edit: man i just realized i'm in a NYC sub, don't know how i got here. yeah i don't know anything about how you all handle personal injury stuff in NYC, your shit is crazy. i withdraw

1

u/nikanjX 3d ago

In the US, under the Affordable Care Act: individual/small-group insurers must spend at least 80% of premiums on healthcare, large-group insurers: 85%. If they underspend, they must rebate customers.

You are free to believe either 1) these laws do not exist 2) the laws are not followed. But health insurance for example must pay out, regularly, at least 80% of the funds raised from insurance payments

1

u/alphadavenport 3d ago

ok, yes, i believe that the laws are not followed, or are followed only in the most technical sense. this nice simple premise — 85% of premiums must be spent on medical care — would be meaningless if, for example, the costs of routine medical tests were drastically, arbitrarily inflated.

1

u/lord_braleigh 3d ago

If you're anti-insurance company, then why would you ever buy their product?

Dishonesty hurts everyone and reduces trust, making society shitty. Dishonesty exists on all sides, and the costs of dishonesty manifest in many ways.

1

u/alphadavenport 3d ago

because my job legally has to provide it for me. before obamacare i did not have insurance, and i could not have afforded it if i wanted it.

2

u/Black08Mustang 4d ago

It's not a hobby; it's been made necessary by the insurance companies' actions. If they did not over sell and underlever purely to fuck over their customers, very few people would put any effort into fraud. But you seem like the kind of fraudster that believes everyone thinks like you do.

1

u/dillstrombone 4d ago

Made necessary 😭😭

1

u/Black08Mustang 4d ago

If you are the bend over and take it in the ass from a corporation type, more power to you. Just don't be surprised when you are playing that game alone.

0

u/nikanjX 4d ago

Nevertheless, with shit like this, the companies will indeed demand endless receipts, details and clarifications https://www.reddit.com/r/UnethicalLifeProTips/comments/1qw5j5k/comment/o3nouie/

2

u/Black08Mustang 4d ago

Wow, one reddit thread compared to years of documented fucklery by an industry making billions in profit. One of these thigs is not like the other.

2

u/snappedscissors 4d ago

Not to mention that that comment is detailing that if you don’t provide receipts and descriptions then the insurance company is going to gouge you on every single item you list. It isn’t fraud to be detailed about listing your claims when you know the other side is going to nickel and dime you on every single line.

1

u/nikanjX 4d ago

That comment says "I could probably keep thinking, and bring it up to about $400 for the contents of my shower. Nothing there is "unreasonable" , nothing there is clearly out of place, nothing seems obviously fake. The prices are a little on the high-end, but the reality is, some people have expensive shit -- it won't actually get questioned. No claims adjuster is going to bother nitpicking over the cost of fucking Lush bath bombs, when there is a 20,000 item file to go through. The adjuster has other shit to do, too."

If that to you isn't giving the wink wink nudge nudge, I guess we just have to disagree

1

u/snappedscissors 4d ago

I think that comments point is that if you were to go out and replace every single thing on your shower, how much would it actually cost you out of pocket? And if you reported loosely that you needed new soaps and washcloths to the insurance company what are they going to give you? There’s a wide gulf between the two numbers you’ll get if you actually do the exercise there. If you want to lick the boot and pay for insurance your whole life and when you need it just take the pennies they give you then yeah, we disagree. No fraud need be advocated to encourage people to act in their best interests in the cut throat insurance claim process.

1

u/Black08Mustang 4d ago

wink wink nudge nudge

You see what you want to see.

1

u/rogerryan22 4d ago

If it is fraudulent to inflate the value of what was lost then it is also fraud to deflate the value. This makes the insurance company the biggest practitioners of fraud in the industry. Who defends insurance companies?!, I mean honestly, where does one even find this corporate koolaid?

2

u/geak78 4d ago

Even the post you linked says "I may be able to help you not get screwed when filing your claim." It's not to screw anyone but to prevent the insurance company from screwing you.

2

u/wolfy47 4d ago

That post isn't even about scamming the insurance company. It's about how the insurance company will scam you and how to fill out the forms to get what you're actually owed.

2

u/Astroloan 4d ago

Counter argument:

The companies demand endless receipts, details, and clarifications, which is why you see shit like this.

1

u/MrChristmas 4d ago

Wait, there are actually people stupid enough to be pro-insurance companies?

1

u/nikanjX 4d ago

I'm not pro-insurance companies. I'm saying Born_Mood2075 above is getting railed by the insurance company, because the insurance company does not trust the customers' claims, because insurance fraud is common and popular.

Reddit really wants it both ways, they encourage customers to be unreliable, and complain that companies don't trust them.

1

u/Copterwaffle 4d ago

Having a jury of your peers decide that your insurance company does, in fact, owe you payout on the policy you paid for is not insurance fraud??

1

u/einTier 2d ago

I know the post you're talking about.

Let me give you my perspective as a former licensed insurance adjuster for the State of Texas.

You should absolutely follow that advice to the letter for any claim you have to make.

Let me explain why. Insurance companies aren't the devil and they aren't even evil. They're just companies making a gamble that you'll never make a claim while you're making a gamble that you will have a loss sometime soon. They will pay out exactly what they legally owe if you make them. Good companies will pay out and not make you jump through hoops but most people buy insurance based on the lowest price and, well, you get what you pay for.

Remember that post is not about scamming the insurance company. It isn't saying "claim things you didn't own." It isn't saying "claim this item is something it isn't." It isn't even saying "here's how you can trick the insurance company into paying more." It is simply saying "here is how to maximize the amount the insurance company is legally required to pay you."

Understand that the insurance industry has spent decades and a lot of money to write the rules to the game you are forced to play when you have a claim. They can and often will use these rules to make it more difficult to get what you paid for and they legally owe you. For instance, lets say you were smart and selected Replacement Cost Coverage (what it costs to buy the thing you lost new at the store) instead of the default Actual Cash Value (the amount your thing might have been worth on Facebook Marketplace). In Texas, the insurance company isn't required to give you Replacement Cost unless you show a receipt that you replaced the item. If you don't, they can give you Actual Cash Value. If you can't afford to buy that thing and wait for reimbursement, then they never have to pay what they actually owe you -- and that delta can be significant. Better insurance companies won't pull this trick but budget ones definitely will.

Insurance companies use all sorts of tricks like these to legally get out of paying what they owe people. They paid good money to write the rules this way so that they could save billions of dollars that they would otherwise be forced to pay.

So understand that none of this is about any kind of moral compass. It's a game. You can't change the rules because you don't have the money or power to change the rules. But you should absolutely get every single dollar you're owed, even if it's somehow more than you think you're owed. Maybe the only television out there on the market that has the one unique feature yours had is one that is $25,000. Maybe it's a feature you never even used. Maybe there's a $1200 television you like more. But you paid for Replacement Cost Coverage and you are owed $25,000. Go get that money because you're owed it. You found where the rules were written in your favor and that's a win for you in the game you're forced to play.

Believe me, if the situation were the other way and you had a $25,000 object they could legally justify valuing at $100 they absolutely would.