The Next Pandora's Box for Developers?

In Two separate incidents, owners are taking advantage of clause that allows owners to evict rent stabilized and rent controlled tenants - if the owners are using it for their personal space. In one case it means converting a tenement into a mansion:
Both Alistair and Catherine Economakis are full time operatives for their family’s real estate company; their family owns or co-owns pan style="font-style: italic;">“This is a misuse of the law.” U.S. Congressman Jerrold Nadler says of the mass eviction. “The owner-occupancy provision was never intended to enable landlords to pursue such ruthless mass evictions. I commend and support the tireless efforts of the residents of 47 East 3rd Street to save their homes. This is not just their fight: a victory for them will be victory for thousands of other rent regulated residents throughout the City who are also at risk of losing their homes through this loophole in the law.”

In another, in Brooklyn:
Prospect Heights families facing eviction
By Lilo H. Stainton
The Brooklyn Paper
fter more than a quarter-century in Prospect Heights, Evelyn Suarez may soon have to
find another place to call home.Suarez is among a handful of tenants fighting to keep their rent-controlled apartments in a building on Bergen Street, near Carlton Avenue, that the new owners hope to use for their own growing family.But with two teenagers and a grandson to raise, longstanding rent-control protection and a new diagnosis of colon cancer, Suarez doesn't feel she should be forced out of her $400-a-month rental, where she's lived for 28 years."Right now, I don't know what to do," the 50-year-old said last week, before the legal challenge she filed had been heard in court. "Where am I going to go, for that much?"
Their lawyer :
"Do they wish there was some other way? Yes, but in today's market,
it's just not possible," explained Jeffrey Goldman, the lawyer for the four owners.

It's just not possible? I love the way the lawyer abdicates any responsibility on part of the owners 'It's just not possible' as if there is some magic market demon forcing them to kick old ladies out on the street.' It echo's the Mayor and others 'oh gee we don't want to force people out of their homes via eminent domain, but gosh, we just have to'. These owners might be simply excessively greedy (and stupid) but one can easily see how this little loophole might turn into the next developer extravaganza: If Ratner lost the tenant lawsuit, he could, for example decide he needs a private villa and kick out the tenants, live there for awhile (or just have his mail sent there) and then reconvert them back into luxury condos (in fact it could built so it could easily be converted back.

Personally I think that our rent stabilization laws should be eased out, but on the other hand, I think all of the greedy excesses of developers will have a back lash - and all of this can be blamed on one person - the mayor - whether its ignoring arson, allowing the EDSC to run rampant, cutting back on building inspectors, ignoring the law, the Mayor has done everything possible to give the developers a green light to do as they please, and only pay lip service to communities. Developers are acting like this because they know they can get away with it.

The law doesn't have to be changed to protect people - the sense of community does -if owners above were ostracized by society, by the mainstream press they would feel enough social pressure to behave better- but in globalist culture there is no community so they feel no pressure to conform - they are probably praised by their friends for their craftiness in evading/getting around the law.