The city is missing a big opportunity here - the city should be getting these payments not the tenants. The tenants got a cheap place to live, they shouldn't get the buyout as well. The city should have a plan that would allow any developer to pay $100,000 to deregulate an apartment. Then that $100,000 should be taken and used to build new affordable units elsewhere. Instead of old dilapidated units we would end up with much more and much better affordable housing stock. Sure the $100k/unit doesn't pay for a new unit in cash, but it definitely is enough cash to cover the equity piece needed for a new development of low income units.
Then tenants didn't do anything to deserve this $100K it should belong to the entire populous not one individual.

Hold out for $200,000

Douglas, or should I say Douglass,

What elitist planet are you from? One that thinks the act of displacing moderate income people from a thriving neighborhood is acceptable? Your arrogance and inconsideration for the reality of the average citizen is appalling.

Working class people who have spent years paying their rent on time and occupying a residential unit in accordance with all of the stated terms and conditions of their lease should not be forced out of their units in any way, no less denied any substantial amount of compensation for relocating the very nucleus of their lives. The mentality expressed in your opinion piece lends credence to the theory that all of these people should be shipped to obscure housing projects far away from one of the most expensive zip codes in Manhattan, as to leave 10001 void of any real artistry, color, creativity, and diversity. You'd rather have empty suits occupying the entire area as the lowly average citizens mass transit in this direction to serve them.

Yeah, OK, in your dreams pal.

Now, I am the first person to decry the unethical practice of milking a corporation for money that one doesn't deserve, such as holding on to an apartment for the sole purpose of accruing income that one did not work for. That practice is wrong and harms both well-meaning tenants and landlords, such as the lease holders of 1886 Broadway, who strive to negotiate settlements in good faith. After all, the reality is that some tenants at 1186 Broadway are, indeed, being a bit too opportunistic about their circumstances.

However, the majority of tenants are not taking advantage of anyone and simply wish to continue on with their lives while living in an affordable environment. You seem to be void of the notion that there are elderly and long term tenants who have occupied 1186 Broadway for decades, becoming staples in the neighborhood and active, contributing factors to the fabric of both the building and the surrounding area. Some were even born and raised in this building, and you suggest that they simply be discarded and sent up the river to who knows where?

As a tenant in the building who has watched all sides of the action like an owl perched at the top of a tree, I can honestly say that the integrity of the landlord and the majority of the tenants has remained in tact and has passed the test which certifies good-faith and good-will. The landlord has made every effort possible to actually retain the present tenants in comfortable and generous conditions, offering each person without a bathroom an opportunity to take possession of a unit with a private bath. Additionally, the landlord has invited tenants to relocate to a bigger and better apartment on the premises, regardless of whether or not they currently have a bathroom, all while preserving the rent-stabilization status of each and every tenant. For this, the tenants are most grateful, and frankly, very, very fortunate.

Since you do not equate long term residential status with any type of real equity, then perhaps, Douglass, you should pack your things like a true Nomad and keep relocating yourself at the rate of once a year, and send us all a postcard detailing your happiness and stability.

Good luck to you and your viewpoints.