Recent legislation has owners asking: are we landlords or scapegoats?

What do graffiti and knock-off designer handbags have in common with lead paint, asbestos, and carbon monoxide alarms?

Well, graffiti and knock-off designer goods are the latest additions to the list of quality of life problems that landlords are currently responsible for.

It seems that whenever there is a new conundrum in quality of life issues, everyone looks to the landlords to make it right, be the go between, and fix the problem.

The city recently passed Local Law 111, which took effect on March 29, 2006.

This local law mandates that landlords are now responsible for removing graffiti from any commercial or residential building which contains six or more apartments. If the building has graffiti anywhere on it, the landlord may be subject to a fine.

This law requires that the owner or manager remove the graffiti after getting a written notice from the city. That notice will offer the landlord the option of having the city remove the graffiti through its new abatement program.

The notice will give 60 days in which the landlord or manager must comply. The city's abatement program will remove the graffiti free of charge as long as the program receives funding. This program requires the landlord to waive liability and sign a consent form.

If the landlord doesn't respond to the notice and doesn't remove the graffiti, a summons will be issued for anywhere from $150-$300. In the case where the land lord considers the graffiti art work and would like it to remain, proof must be submitted to the city showing that the graffiti was commissioned.

While there are still some aspects of this law that have to be refined, it does put yet another burden on the landlord.

Trademark infringement is also soon to be a new albatross on landlords. Unlicensed selling of counterfeit items has fallen into the category of responsibility for the landlord.

Designer Louis Vuitton Matellier filed a lawsuit against landlords of buildings in Chinatown, claiming that they knowingly permitted tenants to use the property for the illegal activity of selling counterfeit goods.

A court agreement was recently won by Louis Vuitton. It states that certain landlords on Canal Street will be required to post signs informing customers that their vendors are not licensed and authorized to sell Louis Vuitton products.

In addition, if criminal activity is suspected, Vuitton will notify the landlords and an investigation will take place. The investigators will have complete access to the buildings. The landlord will be expected to cooperate and attempt to evict the tenant. The cost of this will fall squarely on the shoulders of the landlord.

It is expected that other designers may join in the crusade. At first blush, this does not seem like a bad objective. Designers are entitled to make a living. However, so are landlords. Unless the landlord has the full cooperation of the courts, the side effects will only prove to be more burdensome on the landlord.

There are issues of lost rents, charges of tenant harassment, inability to lease the space, possession of the space by an illegal operation and all of the negative exposure these situations bring, that must be fully addressed before the landlord can be responsible for this additional burden.

While the chances of ever recovering lost revenues from the counterfeiters are practically nonexistent, landlords, on the other hand are sitting ducks. The counterfeiters can move faster than a building.

Landlords are open targets to both the criminals who may want retribution for being turned in and the designers looking for someone to hang this crime on.

How far this will go is anyone's guess. But if we look to the past on such issues as lead paint, carbon monoxide alarms and asbestos, the future for landlords may resemble that of patrol officers, or worse, scapegoats. While most landlords readily accept responsibility for keeping their residents and buildings safe, some situations are simply out of their control.

Why is it that landlords are expected to reach beyond their abilities and be accountable for the activities of others?

With building expenses hitting historically high levels, combined with a cooling real estate market, the last things landlords need are more expenses along with more reasons to be disliked.

Any attempt to change the make up of a neighborhood, is met with community opposition. Evicting a local tenant, criminal or otherwise, is also met with resistance and claims of unwanted gentrification.

Where they did not cause the problem, they are assumed to have been involved. When they try to remediate the problem, they are assumed to be displacing tenants. How equitable is this system when the loser is always the landlord?

Until there is a more judicious review of all of these issues, the landlord will still always be the scapegoat.

BY ADELAIDE POLSINELLI, SENIOR EXECUTIVE BROKER, BESEN & ASSOCIATES, INC