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

1,062 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 *857 that 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 Howey.[24]

Other Sections in This Document (195)

Full Text