Sunday, November 8, 2009

Tishman Speyer to collect "lucrative fees" on rent



These bastards are never going to go away.

From Reuters:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The joint venture that borrowed heavily to buy Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village in 2006 could be among the first to take advantage of changes in U.S. tax law that let borrowers seek payment relief, when it said last week that it could not keep paying interest on a $3 billion loan.

On Friday, the $3 billion senior mortgage was transferred to the special servicer CWCapital after the borrower -- real estate private equity firm Tishman Speyer and BlackRock Realty Advisors, the real estate arm of money manager BlackRock Inc -- asked for relief from paying the debt service on the $3 billion mortgage.

"We requested it now so we can begin to negotiate a restructuring before it goes into default," a spokesman for Tishman Speyer said.

The $3 billion senior mortgage was securitized into five commercial mortgage-backed security (CMBS) deals. Special servicers are the only ones who can modify troubled loans underlying CMBS.

Many commercial real estate experts don't believe that the special servicer will foreclose on the property, which would be costly to the bondholders and would require more cash for the property.

Instead, they expect Tishman and its partners to work out some type of deal that may allow them to manage the property, collecting lucrative fees that could be roughly 2 percent of all the rent on the 11,227 units.

More here.

Friday, November 6, 2009

Now the "Special Servicer" Has the ST/PCV Mortgage

From The Observer:

The main $3 billion mortgage for Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village has been transferred to a "special servicer," according to the rating agency Fitch, a significant step taken when loans are in default or on the verge of default.

The owners of the giant 11,200-unit Manhattan apartment complex, a partnership led by Tishman Speyer and BlackRock, had just $24 million left last month in a reserve fund to pay off debt, and default was expected in a matter of weeks.

Typically, the transfer to a special servicer gives power to that entity--in this case, CWCapital--to restructure the deal, taking the power away from the owners given that they are unable to keep paying. Eventually, if the complex is sold, money would likely be returned to the main bondholders--entities such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--though the complex has been given a value of about $1.8 billion, significantly less than the mortgage amount, so some bondholders would clearly take a loss.


More here.

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Bloomberg Wins, But Only By 5%



According to the final results it wasn't the blow-out that was expected. 49% of New Yorkers voted AGAINST Bloomberg, with 46% voting for Bill Thompson. Considering the amount of obscene money Bloomberg spent in this election, this margin of victory is pathetic. But, of course, His Royal Arrogance won't get the message.

And over at the NY Times an analysis of just how Bloomberg won and how important Democrats (including President Obama), with a complicit New York media, stood aside to let him win. Read it and weep.

Sunday, November 1, 2009

Why Bloomberg Has To Go


Above: Pals Mayor Bloomberg and Jerry Speyer thinking about how to get rid of the middle class in Manhattan and turn the borough into a mecca for the wealthy and influential and their narcissistic and spoiled sons and daughters. The bad economy was an unexpected hard bump in the road. They are waiting out its end and the reelection of Mike, when once again their master plan can "bloom," to include a retry on getting Speyer City built on the Hudson Yards and getting the federal government to financially help Robbie Speyer out with Stuy Town/Peter Cooper Village, after which Robbie will diligently attempt to throw out as many rent stabilized tenants as he can. By the way, Robbie was appointed by Bloomberg as "Chair of the Mayor's Fund to Advance New York City." Be very afraid.

I voted for Bloomberg twice. I was also voted against term limits--twice. But this Tuesday I will not vote for Mike Bloomberg. My reasoning is two-fold. One, Bloomberg has seen the dissolution of what I consider the heart and soul of Manhattan, where I live. During his reign as mayor, I have seen entire neighborhoods changed from being true neighborhoods, with a unique character containing their own brand of indigenous ethnic groups and stores, to being soulless blocks stunned by dull architecture and arrogant residents who do not seem to be from the city, but who are passing through, either as businessmen with no particular love for Manhattan (but just a lust for Manhattan as their playground) or as students whose well-to-do families are paying for their education and experiences in the Big Apple until it's time for junior and princess to move on. I have seen buildings I have loved--New York buildings stately in their character and earthiness--torn down to be replaced by generic high rises. You know the type: the business store ground floor (typically a bank, a Starbucks and a chain drug store), the second floor a gym for the exclusive use of tenants of that building, and then rising to the sky, the dreary glass fronts of windows upon windows upon windows. During Bloomberg's reign I have been watching Manhattan, which I love, disappear, never to return again.

Take a walk or a bus ride to the West Side, above 42 Street. What you will see are these incredible high rises, one next to the other. It doesn't look or feel like as if you are in Manhattan anymore. It could be Miami, could be Austin, it would be anywhere USA. This is Bloomberg's New York. Go down below Houston Street. See if you can find Little Italy anymore. Oh, yeah, there it is, a measly block or two and then gone. Yeah, Chinatown is taking it over, but not so fast. See those old buildings going down in Chinatown? Yup, more and more of them are disappearing, and the new tenants are not Chinese, but the brethren of those same rich folks who own places on the upper West and East Sides. And then Chinatown will be no more, except a few blocks to seduce the tourists, just as is Little Italy. This is Bloomberg's New York. See Times Square? Yeah, it used to be earthy and rude and so damn New York that it was the place you wanted to be if you felt you needed a good wallop of the Big Apple and a lesson in what it meant to be a New Yorker. Now it's only meant for tourists. Its soul is completely gone. Yes, good thing they got rid of the peep shows and double-bill theaters where people without much money could enjoy a few cheap filthy thrills. Let the rich and powerful folks--yes, the politicians and the businessmen--have their expensive and out of the sensitive public eye thrills, however. (Think guys like ex-Governor Spitzer, who paid over $4,000 to get paddled by a hooker or to paddle a hooker; it was never made clear which one.) And where is the House that Ruth built? Gone under Mayor Bloomberg's reign, with--guess who?--Jerry Speyer involved in the building of the new Yankee Stadium. And why isn't the 2nd Avenue Deli on 2nd Avenue anymore? (And replaced by a bank, too! What a suitable symbol for what has become Bloomberg's New York.) And what in the hell is happening with 1 World Trade Center? What an embarrassment that during Bloomberg's reign not much has been done in eight years on that tragic site. Although, given how awful the new building will look perhaps we should be thankful for such favors.

Speaking of architectural monstrosities, any Mayor worth his Gracie Mansion residence would never have allowed the building of this vomitous structure:



How dare Bloomberg allow an architect to take a crap on a city street of something this size and this horrid! (It's the new Cooper Union academic building in case you didn't know.)

Mayor Bloomberg has not only been the steward of the city during these changes, he has actively pursued them, favoring the wealthy and real estate magnates, like his friend Jerry Speyer, over the average New Yorker who is trying desperately to live in the city in affordable housing and not get forced out to one of the outer boroughs--or worse, out of the entire city itself. Bloomberg's vision of Manhattan as the Dubai on the Hudson is not what New York has ever been to me, nor is it something I wish to see solidified. His friendship with the high and mighty (for he himself is high and mighty) has foreshadowed the end of Manhattan for the middle class. That is why Bloomberg has to go.

He also has to go because he subverted the will of the people twice, people who voted for term limits. Both he and the City Council members who voted to rescind the two term-limit law went against the wishes of the people, not even allowing a referendum on the matter. It is well understand by both Bloomberg and these City Council members (many of whom would have been out of office next year) that an elected official already in office has a far greater certainty of being re-elected. (The percentage is above 90%, and I've heard even as high as 99%!) I consider this turn-around on Bloomberg's part a slap in the face of democracy and still am outraged that this could have happened. And don't believe for a moment that it was the bad economy that made Bloomberg turn his back on term limits to "save" New York. Months before the economy took a tumble, Bloomberg was being coy about running for a third term. He understand then that in order to carry out his vision of a transformed New York, he would need more time than just two terms.

It is imperative that we, as voters, as people concerned for the voice of the people, do not forget about this affront against the vote of New Yorkers, do not rationalize this arrogant dismissal away, do not reward it by voting for the people responsible for the reversal. Out of sheer self-dignity, whether you think term limits is good or not, whether you think Bloomberg would be the best mayor for the next four years or not--by sheer dignity, one is compelled to say "NO, I will not put up with this," and place a vote for Bloomberg's opponent.

Do not think for a moment that once the election is over, and Bloomberg wins (which seems likely), that after the economy slowly improves he will not continue with a master plan to keep on turning Manhattan into a town for the rich and the tourist; do not think for a moment that he will NOT try to help his pal Jerry Speyer and Jerry's son, Robbie, in dealing with Stuy Town at your loss; do not think for a moment that, if you are middle class, he will not try to escort you out of the city you love and live in. ("If you can't afford Manhattan, what are you doing here?" one can hear Bloomberg coolly state if you protest.) If the economy doesn't improve fast enough for Bloomberg to make Manhattan into his vision, watch the guy run for a fourth term. You know it can happen. There's no stopping this cold, vain and arrogant bastard. He is on track to spending 140 million dollars for this current campaign, and when added to his previous campaigns for Mayor, it gives him a record in American history. In his run for a third term, he's been saturating the airwaves, the print media and the internet so much that you'd think he was running for Master of the Universe. You can just sense his feeling of self-satisfaction at knowing that his money is stomping any chance of his opponent getting a message out.

And just take a look at this photo to fully understand the problem:



That's Mike on the right with Robbie Speyer on the left.

Yes, Bloomberg has to go.

Thursday, October 22, 2009

A Ruling that Surprises: Tishman Speyer/Blackrock Lose



A lot of us felt that big monied interests would win out and that the Court of Appeals would decide against tenants and for Tishman Speyer/Blackrock in the J-51 case.

You can read more about this ruling at the NY Times.

This is a HUGE win for tenants--not only in Stuy Town and Peter Cooper Village, but in the city.

So, Jerry and Robbie Speyer--YOU LOSE!!!

Get the latest up-to-date info about this ruling and its possible results at the "newsreel" sidebar on the right.

Saturday, October 17, 2009

Even Californians Are Pissed



The LA Times website features a blog piece by Jill Stewart on the California Public Employee Retirement System and its investment in Stuyvesant Town/Peter Cooper Village. Here's the part that addresses Stuy Town/PCV:

.... the other ugly news breaking today about corruption at Calpers: its board of directors poured vast public funds -- your money -- into a scheme in Manhattan to force working-class people out of thousands of apartments on the city's East Side, and rent those apartments to the rich. Sick, sick stuff.

Calpers' board of directors and staff need a massive political and fiscal enema. Here's what these people have been up to:

According to the Wall Street Journal, CALPERS was a very, very big investor in a plan to convert 11,000 apartments that make up the vast "Peter Cooper Village and Stuyvesant Town" of 56 (yes, 56) brick high-rises on the city's East Side. Apparently, these 56 towers provide roofs for about 30,000 working-class New Yorkers.

In a plot thick with evil intent -- like forced homelessness and mass evictions -- Calpers poured in cash, along with the Government of Singapore Investment Corp. and others, to own a piece of Cooper Village/Stuy Town, which was built for returning veterans and their young families after World War II.

Calpers' hope -- it's actual hope -- was to force out thousands of working-class residents, and turn the vast brick complex into "market rate" units.

The term "market rate" in Manhattan means housing for the upper-middle-class and the rich.

Add some granite counters, WiFi, poodle doors and snobby doormen, and force thousands of working people out of their rent-controlled homes. But do it 3,000 miles away from California in New York City.

We California state taxpayers paid for this nasty scheme, but we never knew it.

But now, with Calpers mired in intellectual corruption -- and possibly fiscal corruption, thanks to its pals like Al Villalobos -- the WSJ reports that the vast brick Manhattan complex worth $5.4 billion when Calpers bought into it is now worth $2.1 billion and default appears "imminent."

Let's see it blow up in Calpers' face. California voters are not shitheads. California voters have approved bond measure after bond measure to provide affordable housing and house the homeless. California voters would never, ever have backed such an anti-human, anti-family, anti-worker scheme as the one Calpers invested in in New York.

Maybe Californians will put an initiative on the ballot to upend the Calpers board of directors and outlaw its ultra-rich private middlemen, and start over at this troubled pension fund.

As the WSJ reported about Cooper Village/Stuy Town: "The new owners predicted they would be able to convert thousands of protected apartments to higher market rents. These projections convinced Calpers" to jump in. How despicable.

Fall Foliage in Stuyvesant Town



Though there's a different kind of "fall" awaiting this complex, it's good to enjoy whatever blessings we get--via nature. A faithful reader of this blog sent in these photos of the fall foliage at the Oval. (Thank you!)





Of course, we seem to be in the middle of winter right now, but hopefully we can enjoy the fall season for a while longer.