The sun., 1906-12-31
NEW GROUND RENTS RUINOUS.
COLUMBIA TENANTS SAY 1T rs
IMPOSSIBLE TO MEET THEN 81

And Have Left Any Margin on-rheir InVest-
ments --Leaseholdcrs Stick Together
and Oppose the College Plan 10 Arbi-
trate Separately on Each Plot.
Il il likely that the dispute between the
trustees OF Columbia University and the
seaseholders Of It's very valuable land in and
about Fifth avenue, Forty ninth and Fif-'
tieth streets over the proposed increase in
ground rents will be long and bitter. About
every one OF these leaseholders has made
a strong protest against the raise, which
averages nearly 800 per cent. and which In
some cases runs as high as 400 per cent
As each case must be arbitrated separately
and there are hundreds of houses upon
the property il may be several years before
the matter is finally disposed Of.
The leaseholders, who have formed an
association to combat the raise, are for
the most part sticking together in the fight.
The college authorities. through brokers,
are trying they say, to break the power OF
the association by negotiating one by one
with the leaseholders for renewals. Thus
tar only two have been induced to sign.
The association says that these two lease
holders were brought to terms by state
ments In letters written to them by brokers
that II they did not take out renewals now
they might have to pay yet higher ground
sspt IN the future.
one of the leaseholders said yesterday
dhat when the present leases were made,
twenty-one years ago, the rent was doubled.
There was a great howl then and some
notifications were made in the terms of
the leases, but now, he said, the college
proposes to go much further and triple
and in some cases quadruple the rents.
This, he declared, would be ruinous to the
lcaseholders, as the payment OF this ground
rent, together with the taxes, insurance
and the like would leave them no margin
whatever for the interest on the money
they invested in improving the property.
Some Of the residences cost al high as
$500, 900 and $500, 900, and it was impossible
for their owners TO get anything like fair
return on the investment IL the new schedule
Of rents should be enforced.
One of the cases cited by the leaseholders
to prove their contention that the new
rents proposed would be ruinous to them il
the house at ~ West Forty-ninth street. 1t
has frontage OF twenty feet and is in good
order. IL was rented out by one OF the
leaseholders for six or seven years at 5000
a year. Last spring the tenant moved
out Cccause the leaseholder demanded an
additional $500 a year rent. The house
has since been vacant, although It has been
or 5000 IL they could not get the larger
sum.
The present ground rent is $3.50 annually.
The college proposes to increase it to S2,l27.
The taxes this year are $7e902. This
makes total of 81 s9802, leaving the lease
holder II the property could be rented at
t9 900 q year s10S.gs as an income on $50 900.
Still more striking, say the leaseholders,
is the case OF the residence at II West Forty
ninth street. The house is fully furnished
Q,Ilf taAl IN NJ hxyt hal lQaa hnl
for $4,000. This year it was in the hands OF
several brokers and after some time 1t was
rented for 2,5O0. The present ground rent
s sel0. The college proposes to raise IL to
making a total for these two items Of
s.i06,s 30. This would leave the leaseholder
paying more for ground rent and taxes than
the rent he receives.
In the case of 50 West Forty-ninth street.
Just across the way, the ground rent is now
ts0I. The college proposes to increase IL TO
81 96s. This together with the taxes would
leave the leaseholder an income Of 500 on
an Investment OF $4,000. Under the lease
now In force the property at West Forty
rent. The college now demands 81 ,se2 so
for IL. II the raise was in force the taxes
and insurance combined would be 81 ,254.00,
or more than the rent received.
Another reason why the leaseholders OBJ
ject sErenuously TO the advance is Because
authorities deny this and yet the lease
holders say that they cannot use the prop
erty for business purposes, that they must
build eight feet back from the building line
and that they cannot sub-lease without the
consent OF the trustees. In their opinion
these are the severest kind OF restrictions
which makes it unjust TO tax them 81 per
cent. on the full market value OF ground.
In answer TO the denial OF the college su-
thorities that there are any restrictions on
the property the leaseholders point to the
fact that years ago when the institution
still owned the Sixth avenue front the
trustees brought suit against Anna NJ.
Lynch, who was a leaseholder at /Nftieth
street. 20 enforce these very restrictions.
She wanted 10 use the property for busi-
ness purposes. The case was finally car
ried TO the Court OF Appeals, which upheld
the restrictions but sent the case back
for q new trial. When the action came up
again Il was developed that in the mean
time the elevated station had been built at
Fiftieth street and Sixth avenue, and the
court held that IL would no longer be feasible
for the college TO enforce such restrictions,
as the character Of the avenue front had