While working on my last post, I saw this Tweet from Michael Moore:
In the middle of an amazing conversation with @emrata, she announced she was supporting @BernieSanders for President! Listen to the full episode here! Apple:https://t.co/835dh9GHiw
— Michael Moore (@MMFlint) January 9, 2020
If you don’t know you Emily Ratajkiwczkiwszykiscyski is, shes a model who became famous for her perky tits and dead-eyed expression in a douchey pop song from 2013, which has been subsequently CANCELED.
Emily’s tits (because I don’t think she has a personality, she always has that same dead-behind-the-eyes expression on her face) were wed to a man with the most douche-bag face you’ve ever seen who is a producer of movies you’ve never seen. McDoucheface is the privileged son of another producer of movies you’ve never seen.
What is important is that her tits are worth $6 Million, and her husband is worth $12 Million.
So, multimillionaire celebrities. Supporting Bernie Sanders.
Want to take a guess where this is going?
Emily Ratajkowski and her millionaire husband are living rent free, landlord claims
The millionaire movie-producer hubby of model Emily Ratajkowski is living rent free in the couple’s Noho loft thanks to a legal loophole meant to protect struggling artists, his livid landlord alleges.
Filmmaker Sebastian Bear-McClard, who’s worth an estimated $12 million, has allegedly stiffed the landlord out of $120,000 for the unit at 49 Bleecker St. since 2017, claiming protection under the state’s Loft Law, a building rep said.
“Here is a prime example, in prime NYC real estate, where an uber-wealthy celebrity couple and tenant can take advantage and exploit a law that was intended for truly struggling artists and low-income families in need of affordable housing,” said Carolyn Daly, spokeswoman for a coalition of loft building owners that includes 49 Bleecker.
Bear-McClard, 31, who married “Blurred Lines” music-video dancer Ratajkowski, 27, last year, has subletted the 1,100 square-foot pad on the second floor of the former manufacturing building since 2013, court records show.
After his lease expired in 2017, he hasn’t paid a penny of the $4,900 monthly rent since then, claims lease holder Antoni Ghosh in Manhattan Civil Court.
Daly said what Bear-McClard currently owes is “now over $120,000.”
But it gets worse:
Emily Ratajkowski was paid to leave NYC apartment after ‘dodging rent’: suit
Emily Ratajkowski and her wealthy husband misused a state loft law meant to help starving artists to skip out on $160,000 rent over two years — and then had to be paid to finally leave the building, the landlord claims.
After their great escape, the “Blurred Lines” beauty and her movie producer husband, Sebastian Bear-McClard, who’s worth an estimated $12 million, bought a $2 million home in L.A.
The rent dispute took an ugly turn on Twitter at one point, with the glam couple falsely depicting landlord Antoni Ghosh as a “real estate conglomerate” gouging tenants of the Bleecker Street building, according to a lawsuit Ghosh filed against the pair.
Ghosh, who wants $250,000 in damages, does not own 49 Bleecker St. but has rented an entire floor since 1995 for $23,000 a month. He sublets five of the six units. Bear-McClard began renting the unit in 2013 for $4,200 a month, and the rent eventually climbed to $4,900 a month.
But Bear-McClard stopped paying rent in 2017 and filed a worthless application to register the unit under the city’s Loft Law — which meant he couldn’t be evicted while his application was pending, the suit charges.
Ratajkowski, 28, and Bear-McClard, 32, “utilized delay tactics while that application was being processed, not paying rent,” Ghosh alleged in court papers.
The law is designed to provide affordable housing for artists, who can’t be evicted while their Loft Law application is under review. They law protects such tenants from unlawful eviction or massive rent increases.
While getting no rent, Ghosh had to pay $23,000 a month out of his own pocket to building owner Rogers Investments.
For a reason not outlined in court papers, Rogers Investments actually paid the couple to vacate the building. Ratajkowski and Bear-McClard, pocketed an unknown amount and left in October.
But wait, there’s more:
Emily Ratajkowski Defends Her Husband for Not Paying Rent
In a series of tweets on Monday, EmRata cleared the air about the neighborhood drama that’s taken over their New York City building — and denied that her husband is as rich (or as young) as reports have stated.
“Husband is 38, not 31,” she wrote. “He’s an independent movie producer so people thinking he’s rich is real nice but not based in fact.”
She then went on to say that Bear-McClard really is a descendent of struggling artists who’s just trying to “fight the good fight” for NYC creatives who have been priced out of their homes … by holding out on rent, presumably.
Yeah… down with those money-grubbing landlords. That’s the socialist way.
Even if what she says about her husband is true, which is in doubt since he bought a $2 Million home in California, she’s still worth $6 Million. Why couldn’t she pay the rent? Or is it too feminist to ask a multimillionaire celebrity wife to financially support her husband?
They downplay their wealth and high-profile status while overinflating the status of their landlord to justify why a couple worth $18 million dollars can steal two years’ worth of rent from a guy trying to run a business.
Multimillionaire Millennial celebrities stealing rent, good. Landlord worth far less than them, bad.
This is the first time that I, and probably most people have heard of this loophole in the law. It goes back to the 1982 Loft Law, which goes back to activism started in the 1960s.
Pretty much, if you are a “fine artist” you can get the City of New York to certify you, so that you get to pay well below market rate (pennies on the dollar) for huge lofts in converted industrial buildings if you use them as studio space. If you try and make a living as an artist, doing the sorts of things other artists do to make money, fuck you.
Fine arts. The individual is engaged in an art form or art occupation that can be considered and is pursued by the individual as a “fine art”, evidenced by a substantial element of independent esthetic judgment and self-directed work. The production of work solely on a commercial, industrial or work-forhire basis without evidence of the foregoing elements is not sufficient to demonstrate pursuit as a “fine art. ”
Professional basis. The individual is committed to the art form or art occupation as his/her primary vocation and others in the field recognize the individual as a professional with regard to the art form or occupation.
So if you paint graphics during the day and your shit at night or you make money as a wedding photographer while trying to establish yourself as the next Mapplethorpe by taking black-and-white pictures of men inserting things into their anuses, you don’t get cheap rent.
If you are an inventor or innovator, working on the next app or cutting edge piece of technology, no matter how much more useful that is to society than a woman who swings on a trapeze with her flowers in her vagina (no, I am not making that up). Fuck you three times.
So if you needed another reason to hate the fuck out of artists, there you go.
What this law really does is fuck over landlords and building owners. They technically can pass the cost of renovation of lofts onto their artist tenants but “the paperwork is so onerous that most just swallow the costs. Additionally, the law protects tenants from eviction.”
So what really happens is the landlords jack up the rent on others in the building who are not “certified artists.”
SoHo has long since become a playground for the rich, as has the Flatiron District, where Arthur Atlas’s neighbor across the hall pays $11,000 a month for a space exactly the same size as his.
Atlas pays only $600 a month as a “certified artist.” That’s 95% less in rent for the same size place, because one of those people got a special piece of paper from city that says he’s an artist.
Not a doctor, or a nurse, or a paramedic, or a firefighter, not an electrical engineer, or lineman; not someone useful to the city, who can save lives or keep the lights on in an emergency. No, the city subsidizes the most immediately useless people to society.
And because the way Progressives write these laws, a multimillionaire celebrity couple can use them to fuck over a landlord and claim to be the good guys.
Welcome to Sander’s America, where you hard-working Americans are going to get screwed so millionaire celebrity artists can get their subsidized Dachas.
5 thoughts on “Socialists are garbage humans who steal everything they can”
Damn, she suddenly got a lot less “hot” to me. What a pair of douches.
Why are the cute ones always insane?
Reminds me of Divorced Man Rule Number One: “No matter how hot she may look, be certain that somewhere, there is some guy who is fed up with her bullshit”.
It seems to me that your litany of mal-effects, is the central feature of the statute.
Not a bug.
What is important is that her tits are worth $6 Million, and her husband is worth $12 Million.
Clearly she needs to grow a few more tits. With just two more, she’ll equal his NWOP (net worth on paper). If she could grow a third so that she has five… well, you can do the math. Maybe growing four would work better – symmetry and all. Better yet, make her existing set four times bigger!
The thing about the loft law and rent control in general, is that even the North Vietnamese realized that they destroyed themselves more effectively than all the US bombing by implementing rent controls. The Viet Frickin’ Cong dropped rent controls as being too stupid for God’s sake.
So the loft law is destroying real estate in the city, and I’d argue that it’s doing precisely what the politicians wanted it to do.
Login or register to comment.