Section 2

Citation: Section 2
Parent Document: United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. Forman, 421 U.S. 837 (1975)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 1975-10-06
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/109272/united-housing-foundation-inc-v-forman/ ↗

Full Text

1,055 chars

Initially we note that the prospect of such income as a means of offsetting rental costs is never mentioned in the Information Bulletin. Thus it is clear that investors were not attracted to Co-op City by the offer of these potential rental reductions. See Joiner, 320 U. S., at 353. Moreover, nothing in the record suggests that the facilities in fact return a profit in the sense that the leasing fees are greater than the actual cost to Co-op City of the space rented.22 The short of the matter is *857that the stores and services in question were established not as a means of returning profits to tenants, but for the purpose of making essential services available for the residents of this enormous complex.23 By statute these facilities can only be “incidental and appurtenant” to the housing project. N. Y. Priv. Hous. Fin. Law § 12 (5) (Supp. 1974^-1975). Undoubtedly they make Co-op City a more attractive housing opportunity, but the possibility of some rental reduction is not an “expectation of profit” in the sense found necessary in Howey24

Other Sections in This Document (195)

Full Text