Rangel’s rent-control mansion
posted at 8:30 am on July 11, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Getting an apartment in New York City can be an expensive affair — unless the renter is a Congressman, apparently. Charles Rangel (D-NY) has four rent-controlled apartments in one building in Harlem, even though rent control should only apply to a primary residence. Rangel uses one of the rent-controlled apartments as a campaign office, which calls into question whether he has broken gift-acceptance and electoral regulations:
While aggressive evictions are reducing the number of rent-stabilized apartments in New York, Representative Charles B. Rangel is enjoying four of them, including three adjacent units on the 16th floor overlooking Upper Manhattan in a building owned by one of New York’s premier real estate developers.
Mr. Rangel, the powerful Democrat who is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, uses his fourth apartment, six floors below, as a campaign office, despite state and city regulations that require rent-stabilized apartments to be used as a primary residence.
Mr. Rangel, who has a net worth of $566,000 to $1.2 million, according to Congressional disclosure records, paid a total rent of $3,894 monthly in 2007 for the four apartments at Lenox Terrace, a 1,700-unit luxury development of six towers, with doormen, that is described in real estate publications as Harlem’s most prestigious address.
The current market-rate rent for similar apartments in Mr. Rangel’s building would total $7,465 to $8,125 a month, according to the Web site of the owner, the Olnick Organization.
Olnick belongs to the group of owners accused of pushing tenants out through aggressive evictions in order to raise the rent on their apartments. Rent-controlled apartments can only have the rates raised significantly when tenants leave, and so owners have incentive to push marginal tenants out quickly in order to increase revenues. While these marginal tenants get pushed out, Rangel has four apartments at half of the current market rate — despite a shortage of affordable housing.
No one has a problem with Rangel occupying one rent-controlled apartment, although one has to wonder why Rangel should have priority for affordable housing over others who really need it. The subsequent leases look a lot like gifts, and their value goes into the thousands every month, far exceeding the one-time $100 value limit for House members. Using one of the leases for a campaign office looks even more problematic. That can easily be seen as an in-kind campaign contribution by Olnick worth tens of thousands of dollars over the last few years.
The FEC should investigate this arrangement for Rangel, and so should the state and city of New York. The House Ethics Committee also has a responsibility here, but no one expects them to act. Nancy Pelosi only talked about ethics long enough to get a majority, and she’s certainly not going to allow another member of the Congressional Black Caucus to get investigated, not after they closed ranks so effectively around William “Dollar Bill” Jefferson.
Update: Comments copied from Headlines.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Limousine liberal.
jgapinoy on July 10, 2008 at 9:59 PM
I can’t believe the New York Times is actually doing this, reporting on Rangel.
wise_man on July 10, 2008 at 10:00 PM
Gee, an East Coast democrat living in privilege while decrying the rich.
That’s a first.
MadisonConservative on July 10, 2008 at 10:08 PM
Rangel is shameless and doesn’t give a crap about this bad publicity. Neither will the people in Harlem. They’ll continue electing him. And Rangel will stay in office forever, never retiring, because he needs these perks.
Sydney Carton on July 10, 2008 at 10:09 PM
So he is the only person with 4 rent controlled apartments? Just incredible….and SYD you are right, he will be elected again….
robo on July 10, 2008 at 10:16 PM
um, I bet we pay for it just like caddy lease
Topsecretk9 on July 10, 2008 at 10:23 PM
Norm Coleman lives like a pauper in DC compared to this, yet the dems and msm jumped all over him.
infidel on July 10, 2008 at 10:24 PM
Our politicos are no better than Mugabe.
If you will steal a dime, you’ll steal a dollar.
TheSitRep on July 10, 2008 at 10:29 PM
Uh…SitRep? That bit of hyperbole sort of sours the thread. For the record - no, our politicians are not like Mugabe; yes, they are better than Mugabe.
Jaibones on July 10, 2008 at 10:37 PM
OK, that said…
Bing! What a bunch of corrupt scum the politicians are, especially but not exclusively the DemoRats. This maggot feeds on the flesh of low wage Harlem blacks, and lives like a self-annointed king.
He is scum, and they deserve him and no better.
Jaibones on July 10, 2008 at 10:40 PM
You mean when Big Government gets involved in a free housing market, graft and corruption happens?
*fainting*
PattyJ on July 10, 2008 at 10:42 PM
Jesse Jackson will no doubt want to cut off Rangel’s nuts for this!
……..*crickets*
infidel4life on July 10, 2008 at 10:57 PM
“Rules are for the other people. Thanks for my Caddy and my crib everybody!”
rockbend on July 10, 2008 at 11:01 PM
Point taken, They make Mugabe look like a piker.
TheSitRep on July 10, 2008 at 11:05 PM
I can just hear him quoting George Washington Plunkitt (of Tammany Hall), “I seen my opportunities and I took ‘em.”
CP on July 10, 2008 at 11:10 PM
blue collar, hard working,
republican, man of the people.custer on July 10, 2008 at 11:11 PM
Long Knives are out because . . . .
rockhauler on July 10, 2008 at 11:19 PM
Aww, this is a drop in the bucket for Charlie. Let’s not forget about this perk that Rangel and other members of the House of Representatives enjoy (think taxpayer funded Cadillacs and free gas) which gives them zero incentive to drill in the USA.
Moreover, Rangel wants to end the Bush tax cuts and responded to attempts to reform Social Security by threatening to impeach Bush over the details.
No wonder Dems like him want to increase our taxes - they need our dough to pay for their lavish lifestyle.
Buy Danish on July 10, 2008 at 11:20 PM
Democrats in Congress are immune from all laws. Don’t you know that.
Helloyawl on July 10, 2008 at 11:43 PM
Four apartments good. Two legs bad.
Shy Guy on July 10, 2008 at 11:52 PM
Rangel’s a crook?
NO, RLY?
/sarc
/SARC
/SARC, DAMMIT!
Stuck on sarcasm, thanks Democrats! THANKS a BUNCH!
Merovign on July 10, 2008 at 11:55 PM
Last week an 8000 word write-up on Limbaugh, now bright lights on Rangel… This is not the NYT I knew 20 years ago!
Hillary must be calling in a lot of favors, as rockhauler reminds us above.
innominatus on July 11, 2008 at 12:03 AM
Most ethical congress ever. This should be considered an in-kind campaign contribution from Olnick.
munseym on July 11, 2008 at 1:34 AM
Better than you.
photom on July 11, 2008 at 2:07 AM
Yup.
Ugly on July 11, 2008 at 3:13 AM
People jump on Gramm like maggots on you-know-what while we have an actual case of a government official engaging in shady money and living luxuriously off the taxpayer’s dime. I’ve never seen more decrepit, abandoned, condemned properties than I saw in Harlem, while Charlie Antoinette sits a few blocks away. Both situations are due to rent control, an outdated and economically-laughable policy. I’m sure that the most ethical Congress evah will be analyzing the situation…any day now…
MB007 on July 11, 2008 at 3:57 AM
You have to realize that Rangel is a hero to his constituency, convincing them, term upon term, that he is their defender, their voice. This explains why he lives in this castle in Harlem. If he didn’t live like a king, he wouldn’t be revered as one.
jackmac on July 11, 2008 at 6:39 AM
I was going to say that at least our politicians haven’t killed anybody.
Then I remembered the DDT ban and CAFE standards.
MarkTheGreat on July 11, 2008 at 8:27 AM
Nancy Pelosi only talked about ethics long enough to get a majority, and she’s certainly not going to allow another member of the Congressional Black Caucus to get investigated, not after they closed ranks so effectively around William “Dollar Bill” Jefferson.
Above the Law… These critters will be investigated by the new media. Problem is, the law won’t do a thing about them; they are the law.
Instapundit also has a nice piece on this story.
Keemo on July 11, 2008 at 8:41 AM
I’m not familiar with NYC zoning, but wouldn’t he need a variance to use an apartment as a campaign office?
forest on July 11, 2008 at 8:41 AM
That’s in addition to the thousands of dollars of donations the family has sent to him over the past four years.
amerpundit on July 11, 2008 at 8:44 AM
I wanna cut his nuts off.
Akzed on July 11, 2008 at 8:49 AM
Did you know that if you want to send an email to THE SPEAKER, that you have to be in her district? Is that the case with most of the representatives? I found a Walmart in her area and used their address as mine. She hates Walmart, right? Could someone explain what is going on with all these investigations? How long does it take to get to court when you have folks on tape? I have a friend that says all pols are the same and that may be true but we don’t re-elect ours when they are corrupt. At least I don’t know of any that we have kept in office.
Cindy Munford on July 11, 2008 at 8:51 AM
This man is a fraud. He was elected ages ago to end the corruption in his district. Between this and the car episode, I would say that he has failed.
Reaganite84 on July 11, 2008 at 8:52 AM
*bites lip and makes cutting motion*
txsurveyor on July 11, 2008 at 8:52 AM
Remember this about Charlie Rangel? This is from May 2008
That’s not a lease. It’s a fleece to the American taxpayers.
So a body of 435 legislators can lease vehicles at taxpayers expense, but a body of 100 Senators cannot? Envy! Racism! Sarcasm!
I’m starting to believe that we should not allow congressmen that “perk” either. If we cut all of their perks, how much money would government save? If we want the American people to take responsibility for the actions and lives, should we not start with the people that serve (at the will of the people) in government?
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on July 11, 2008 at 8:53 AM
BULLETIN: John McCain defends Charlie Rangel,, “He’s an honorable man - and I am sure this just a missunderstanding”.
The GOP Candidate for POTUS.
Note: this post is fiction - at least right now anywyay
jake-the-goose on July 11, 2008 at 8:55 AM
Rangel’s 78 years old? Is that what I read? Where are the newspaper articles about how old he is and whether he’s competent to hold office since he’s older than Methuselah?
Anyway, a politician is corrupt? No! (has shocked face). Next you’ll tell me that they’re all a bunch of two-faced liars…..
mjk on July 11, 2008 at 8:59 AM
I am shocked, shocked, at these allegations..
DaveC on July 11, 2008 at 9:02 AM
But, But … he’s entitled!
OldEnglish on July 11, 2008 at 9:06 AM
Some of Our politicos are no better than Mugabe given the chance.
Better?
peacenprosperity on July 11, 2008 at 9:08 AM
Is your wallet hurting??
Better put some ice on that.
MarkTheGreat on July 11, 2008 at 9:12 AM
Do the braindead constituents who re-elect this charlatan do so because they are impressed how he has cleverly outfoxed the system, because the MSM tells them he is the down-and-out brother’s saviour or because they like living in squalor while their representative lives like a pimp daddy?
fogw on July 11, 2008 at 9:14 AM
Term Limits Now!
Please!
old trooper on July 11, 2008 at 9:14 AM
Don’t give them any perks, it should be an honor serving your country not a jackpot. Give them a very good salary and no perks at all. Let them right off the cost of doing business on their taxes like all other citizens. Then have term limits. Then have a time restriction on them coming back to Washington to be lobbyists. Maybe we will get people who care about the country then. Maybe.
peacenprosperity on July 11, 2008 at 9:15 AM
Do you people just not understand the concept of elitism? OK, I’ll explain it again: The great unwashed (you and I) are ruled by the privileged few (the elites). The rules you and I must follow do not apply to the elites. So, leave Charlie Rangel alone and go back to bitterly clinging to your guns and religion.
Kafir on July 11, 2008 at 9:18 AM
Operative word is should. Rangel isn’t going to be investigated by anyone because he is too influential in Congress and Democrats don’t do ethics (they just talk about eithics).
highhopes on July 11, 2008 at 9:20 AM
It’s gonna be. And not just because of the fleecing Rangel is doing. His tax biil is going to work me over pretty good, and I don’t make tons of money.
If you’re self employed, look out for H.R. 3970. It likely to become law if Obama get selected.
forest on July 11, 2008 at 9:26 AM
Well, atleast from now on, McCain should START talking about CURRENT Corrupt democrat scandals - leaving ANCIENT Abramoff’s.
Anita on July 11, 2008 at 9:29 AM
Rangel will NEVER be thrown out of office. No matter what this fraud does, his constituents will forever think it as his own way to stick it to The Man… To be exact, to The White Man.
For this fraud to see middle-class houses in flyover states and call its residents “rich” was quite accurate in his eyes. What he thinks about everyone else not in his district is quite obvious: we all “owe him a living”. Which is the attitude of too many of his constituents in the first place.
newton on July 11, 2008 at 9:29 AM
Addendum: Which is why I’m thankful I no longer live in NYC, but TX.
newton on July 11, 2008 at 9:31 AM
I thought you’d enjoy my “feeds on the flesh” hyperbole.
Jaibones on July 11, 2008 at 9:31 AM
Yes
Jaibones on July 11, 2008 at 9:32 AM
Friends of Pelosi apparently don’t have to obey the same rules we little people do!
alacrityfitzhugh on July 11, 2008 at 9:34 AM
He should see if Mrs Conyers needs a place to hole up.
tarpon on July 11, 2008 at 9:35 AM
Imagine, if you will, Susan Estrich conducting an interview with Charles Rangel. They would sound like Muppets.
ynot4tony2 on July 11, 2008 at 9:44 AM
.
Ironically, this makes me feel better about Rangel. If, after many years in office, he has only amassed that level of wealth, he isn’t doing much better than most of us, and must not be stealing as much as we thought….
Think_b4_speaking on July 11, 2008 at 9:45 AM
Just another corrupt politician….nothing to see here, move along.
dustoffmom on July 11, 2008 at 9:59 AM
The only problem is that the only ones who can make that happen is congress. The day congress votes away their own perks will be the day pigs fly.
pullingmyhairout on July 11, 2008 at 10:13 AM
“A rent-controlled paradise?”
I think what you ment to say was
“A rent-controlled parasite”
diogenes on July 11, 2008 at 10:16 AM
The people who vote for Charlie Rangel don’t read the NYTimes. If they read an English-language newspaper, they read the Daily News. The Times isn’t offending any important base–not theirs, not Charlie’s. Oh, and he’s not a Rangeler, he’s a Wrustler.
njcommuter on July 11, 2008 at 10:17 AM
Typical double standard. Rangel is saving at least $3,500 a month on his rent-controlled apartments, even though this is illegal. Multiply that by the number of months he has illegally benefited from rent control, and he has probably ripped off hundreds of thousands of dollars from New York City taxpayers.
A few years ago, Governor John Rowland of Connecticut was forced to resign when it was revealed that he had spent about $9,000 of State money to renovate his private home.
Justification: Rowland is a Republican, under the bus he goes. Rangel is a Democrat–close your eyes.
Steve Z on July 11, 2008 at 10:42 AM
Living the life he wrongfully claims Republicans enjoy.
Hening on July 11, 2008 at 10:44 AM
YES
RushBaby on July 11, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Could it be that the Democrats consider this kind of behavior to be ethical? They’ve never said or done anything to prove the contrary.
snaggletoothie on July 11, 2008 at 11:07 AM
That’s the net worth he reports, it’s not necessarily the net worth he actually has. Take a look in his freezer, or in his Cayman Island accounts, before you start feeling better about him.
AZCoyote on July 11, 2008 at 11:15 AM
Actually, it was a whole lot more than that. He was under a federal investigation for using state contractors to do work at his vacation house, for using the state’s judicial department as his own personal law service - at no charge. Taking kickbacks from various bidders in the form of vacations in luxurious locations. And getting involved in a shady deal with Enron that resulted in a $200 million loss to the state - a deal which Rowland denied he ever worked on, yet evidence showed otherwise, including detailed emails with Ken Lay.
Rowland was your average corrupt politician; the only difference between him and Rangel is that the Feds got hold of it and ran with it. He only resigned because he would have been impeached if he hadn’t. Rowland served a year in jail, 4 months of house arrest and has several years of probation.
And yes, I live in CT.
KrisinNE on July 11, 2008 at 11:18 AM
.
Good point, though the Clintons reported what, $100M? And I know they have Caymans accounts, so maybe he’s only ‘better’ in a relative sense….
Think_b4_speaking on July 11, 2008 at 11:22 AM
I am probably wrong but I believe Term Limits were found unconstitutional a while back. That being said, we have always had the ability to term limit but as you will notice only Republicans do it. Corruption is a resume’ enhancement for the Dems. Not an exact Rush quote but close.
Cindy Munford on July 11, 2008 at 11:22 AM
I pay over $2,000 a month for my apartment. Although to be fair, I’m literally 2 blocks away from Central Park.
Sydney Carton on July 11, 2008 at 11:38 AM
Anyone remember Dan Rostenkowski?
A long serving Congressman with a deep pocket of favors owed to him by his constituents isn’t an impossible proposition to defeat. Rostenkowski actually lost his seat to a Republican. It lasted one term, but it’s one of the biggest pickups by the Republican party ever.
As the screw turns…
gabriel sutherland on July 11, 2008 at 11:46 AM
The sidenote about Nancy Pelosi, standing in the short line to assume the presidency if necessary, only accepting e-mails from her district causes the term ‘deaf ear’ to jump up. The Speaker seems to want to be the Listener to three groups: the voters of her specific district, the members [probably] of her caucus who voted her to her position, and [inevitably] whoever her financial sources are. The rest of you little people can pound sand and talk to the little rocks — she cannot hear you.
It may not be entirely a sidenote, by the way, powerful committee chairman Rangel may be the same way…
LaMonte on July 11, 2008 at 11:49 AM
To which I would add, retirement at 75 (to be generous). Also, members of Congress should convene a limited amount of time during the year in DC (less time for mischief); the rest of their year should be spent earning a living in their home districts. Furthermore, those congressional figures incapacitated through long-term illness or debilitation should forfeit their seats, opening the positions to those able to conduct the people’s business.
Obviously, no congresscritter will willingly introduce any of such legislation. Do we taxpayers have the option of crafting a multipart referendum on this representation issue?
Someone correct me if I am wrong here, but isn’t the FEC currently hamstrung because it does not have the requisite number of members on board? And haven’t these positions not be filled because the Dems will not go forward with approvals?
onlineanalyst on July 11, 2008 at 11:50 AM
I love these rich liberals who do not hesitate to steal from the needy…
right2bright on July 11, 2008 at 12:08 PM
onlineanalyst, I LOVE the idea of limiting how long these folks can be in D.C.! I have never been of the opinion that they were over paid but lately as the “perks” have been coming to light, I may have to Obama my long held convictions. It is time for more real world experiences amongst the great unwashed of which I am one. Figuratively speaking that is.
Cindy Munford on July 11, 2008 at 12:09 PM
- from Buy Danish’s NYT link {thanks for the link!} Being a politician and a party man are not success in America, Charlie.
Try running a REAL business!
Nothing else to bad to your great analysis!
Branch Rickey on July 11, 2008 at 12:50 PM
that’s what he admits to, dude. I bet he lied right through his teeth on every disclosure statement.
Branch Rickey on July 11, 2008 at 12:57 PM
It is closer to one eighth.
Those of us who believe in a market economy have a big problem with it.
burt on July 11, 2008 at 1:48 PM
Crack head constituents
Kini on July 11, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Everybody knows that black politicians can do whatever they want with impunity. The public expects a much lower standard for black behavior. After all, victims can rationalise anything and everything, and do.
Suffering from the bigotry of low expectation.
saiga on July 11, 2008 at 2:37 PM
That’s not the Charlie Rangel I used to know!
byteshredder on July 11, 2008 at 3:47 PM
Anyone who is only worth a million dollars, on the up side, that has lived on the bloated government tit, for decades, is an idiot. Seriously.
2Tru2Tru on July 11, 2008 at 4:03 PM
Nothing but a liberal thug.
ultracon on July 11, 2008 at 6:24 PM
Maybe the value slipped because he is black.
I’m crying RACISM!
TheSitRep on July 11, 2008 at 6:54 PM
Brilliant! Immortality!
OldEnglish on July 11, 2008 at 7:38 PM
Amazing how he gets away with it and Mia Farrow & Bianca Jagger both went through hell. How come he gets a pass??
These apts he has are actually rent atbilized as oppossed to rent controled, although many outside of here call them all controlled. The difference between the two can be found here in case any of you really want to know. On a vacancy the landlord is allowed a 23% increase and once a one BR or larger hits the $2000.00 mark on a vacancy they can destabilize + the necessary rent guideline increase allowed that year . On a studio with a vacancy the same, although many Landlords have challenged the law and destabizied at $1700.00.
Rent control used to die with the tenant but Rudy sold out the landlords somewhat and made a deal allowing both stabilized and controlled apts to be passed on to a family member who has resided in the space.
Many landlords were praying for ICE to remove the illegal aliens, who occupy many of these apts, although we knew that would never actually happen.
If they were removed it would allow the landlords to basically start deregualting the vacated apts throughout the city and in many cases destabilize illegally.
AprilOrit on July 11, 2008 at 8:17 PM
NOOOOOOOOOOO!
Like two frogs sittin’ in the lily pond.
hillbillyjim on July 12, 2008 at 1:16 AM
Congressional Democrats begin investigation in:1,000,000,000,000…
9,999,999,999,999…
9,999,999,999,998…
9,999,999,999,997….
soundingboard on July 12, 2008 at 5:58 AM
blockquote>Do the braindead constituents who re-elect this charlatan do so because they are impressed how he has cleverly outfoxed the system, because the MSM tells them he is the down-and-out brother’s saviour or because they like living in squalor while their representative lives like a pimp daddy?
fogw on July 11, 2008 at 9:14 AM
It’s all about the
childrensenior citizens.soundingboard on July 12, 2008 at 6:12 AM
The video press conference linked in the headline article is a pip. Rangel portrays himself as a senior-citizen victim who only wants to live his golden years in peace. Meanwhile, he also has a villa in the Dominican Republic.
Rangel has used his entrenched position to enrich himself. His constituency should be outraged.
onlineanalyst on July 12, 2008 at 8:52 AM
.
Akzed better be of the correct race, with slave blood, or this is a racist comment.
.
/sarc
Right_of_Attila on July 13, 2008 at 8:52 AM