RSS Feed
New York City - Congressman Rangel Evicting Himself From Rent-Stabilized Office, After Controversy |
Sponsored By:
|
Text Size
|
"The decision has been made to relocate as soon as possible," said Rangel spokesman Emile Milne, as the Harlem Democrat faced a storm of controversy.
Rangel's announcement that he would move out of one of his Lenox Terrace apartments, which he was using as a campaign office, came as a Washington-area watchdog organization filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission.
A moving truck may not be enough, though, to protect Rangel from the legal repercussions of his longtime discount, according to Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, which filed the complaint.
While Rangel's highly unusual collection of three rent-stabilized apartments may create a public-relations problem for him - the arrangement drew fierce criticism from advocates for affordable housing - his office poses a larger issue, Boehm said.
State and local regulations require tenants of the discounted apartments to use them as their primary residences.
The center's complaint alleges that Rangel's years of low rent constituted an illegal corporate campaign contribution from the building owner, the Olnick Organization.
"If a powerful congressman can receive significant corporate in-kind contributions year after year while failing to disclose those contributions, the message being sent is that the law is a sham," the complaint reads.
Said Boehm, "His case doesn't look that good. It went on for more than a decade, it involved thousands and thousands of dollars, and he had every reason to know it was improper."
If the FEC agrees, Rangel would likely be forced to pay back any discount the commission determines he received, and he could be hit with a hefty fine.
Federal Election Commission records show that Rangel has raised $3.7 million so far in this election cycle, making him the third-largest fund-raiser in the House for the period, and he faces no credible opponent for his seat.
Rangel could also face an internal investigation by the bipartisan House Ethics Committee, which can vote to take up the issue.
Just two days prior to Rangel's announcement today, the congressman indicated he was unlikely to change his current living situation, which allows him to pay cut-rate rents for four adjoining apartments on the 16th floor of Lenox Terrace on 135th Street.
"I don't see anything unfair about it," Rangel said last week.
Rangel is worth between $566,000 and $1.2 million, according to his financial-disclosure forms, and shelled out just under $4,000 a month for the units in the building.
FEC records show that Rangel's campaign committees have accepted $4,500 in campaign contributions from the building's owner, Sylvia Olnick, since 2004.
Total4
Read Comments (4) — Post Yours »
1
Jul 15, 2008 at 08:05 AM Chacham Mah Nishtana Says:
It's unbelievable how the newspapers screw numbers. Someone who is worth about 750000 dollars, even at a 10% return, has an annual return of $75000. And based on that, paying $48000 yearly for rent is a lot. The reason he could pay for it is that the figure doesn't include his congressional salary.
2
Jul 15, 2008 at 08:07 AM Anonymous Says:
\how many people live in this large combined apartment? Couldn't two other families in need of affordable housing live in those extra apartments?
3
Jul 15, 2008 at 10:14 AM anonymous Says:
oh please. this is nuts. he has done nothing wrong and is entitled to his apts.
this was a silly smear by the nytimes.
kudo to the congressman for shutting them up
4
Jul 15, 2008 at 11:15 AM Anonymous Says:
He may live in multiple adjoining apartments, thereby calling all of them his primary residence. Many people have connected inexpensive apartments to create larger residences, and there's nothing wrong with that. Even as there's a housing "crisis", and others could use more affordable housing.
What's wrong is the fourth apartment used for his campaign office. State and local regulations require tenants of the discounted apartments to use them as their primary residences. And he knew as well as anyone else, that no matter how hard he works in that office, even if he falls asleep there, it's not his primary residence. Taking the discount on that apartment is wrong, and could certainly be called an illegal campaign contribution. At the very least, taking this perk, that he's not entitled to, without disclosing it, is wrong.