In the article entitled “Tenants’ Right to Counsel in Housing Court Gains Support” (NYLJ, Sept. 27), the main reasons given for this support is that 1) the eviction rates are reduced when tenants have legal representation, and 2) the city saves a lot of money in not having to spend money on homeless shelters. Why are there fewer evictions and, if the city spends less on homeless shelters, to whom does the burden of housing tenants who do not pay their rent fall on? The burden obviously falls on the owners of the buildings who have to continue to pay their real estate taxes, mortgages, fuel, etc. while the tenants can remain in their apartments a few more months without paying rent. It’s a way of “ having the rich pay for their fair share,” as some politicians would say, regardless of whether or not the owner can continue to pay for his expenses.
That is not to say that indigent litigants should not have free legal representation. They should. However, the reasons should not be to reduce or delay evictions, if they are warranted, or to save the city money in not having to send homeless tenants to shelters. If the city wants to have non-paying tenants continue to live in their apartments, the burden should fall on all taxpayers.
Demetrios Coritsidis
Coritsidis Sotirakis & Saketos
Long Island City, NY
