Comment Policy

All comments to posts have to await approval. Please be aware that, depending on when I'm logged onto the internet, it may take me hours, even longer, to moderate comments, so if they don't turn up in a speedy fashion, they are still in the queue. Comments that cross a line I'm not comfortable with will not get approved.

NOTE: Comments reflect the opinions of the person writing them and should not be assumed to reflect the opinion of the blog. Because of the anonymous nature of the commentary, specific agendas can be pushed by a sole individual and may not reflect a more popular belief by the residents of this community.

Wednesday, November 25, 2015

New Yorkers for a Human-Scale City


1) We are angered when developers seize our commonly shared light, air, gardens, and iconic views for private consumption.

2) We are aggrieved when we see developers plunder our historic neighborhoods and bury them in a sea of glass, all for luxury housing that destroys more affordable apartments than they create.

3) We are dismayed that small businesses are being hounded out of their premises by an army of banks and chain stores.

4) Many parts of our city are already too dense such that the public infrastructure in those places cannot support more people without a decline in the quality of life, destruction of historic fabric, and deterioration of the urban experience that makes New York so great.

5) Economic growth and affordable housing are indisputably compatible with both a human-scaled city and the preservation of our historic neighborhoods and architecture.

We conclude that reform must take place or the unique character of New York City will be lost forever.

More at the above link, including a link to sign a petition.

I wonder if our councilman Dan Garodnick will sign this petition?

There's also a long list of sponsor organizations. Perhaps the TA can be induced to join this effort???

(If your organization would like to be a co-sponsor, please email

Sunday, November 22, 2015

After 20 years "the entire Stuy Town-Peter Cooper complex can be converted into market-rate apartments, or for any other purpose at the joint venture's discretion."

A lot to read here and think over, including conflicts of interest by some important parties:

Basically, after reading this, you will realize that, long-term, it's over for affordable housing in ST/PCV. The impetus behind creating ST/PCV ("that families of moderate means might live in health, comfort and dignity in park-like communities"), the goal that was met for decades, officially expired with the "deal" with Blackstone. Everyone lied to us while they went about their business.

Thursday, November 19, 2015

Congratulations, New York!

"51 percent of New Yorkers said they were either just getting by or finding it difficult to do so."

I wonder how many live in our community?

Monday, November 16, 2015

TA Board of Directors Had a Meeting With Blackstone

It happened Thursday, November 12. Of course, tenants didn't know about it until after the fact, but whatever.

One issue appeared solved:

"One current issue raised by board members was addressed: Blackstone confirmed a commitment to keeping an affordable supermarket in the 14th Street space, even if the tenant is not Associated."

I wonder why not a commitment to keep Associated?

Sunday, November 15, 2015

Former TA President Welcomes an MCI for A/C Configuration Upgrade

Former president of the Tenants Association, John Marsh, posted on the TA Facebook: "I would happily pay and [sic] MCI to have my a/c's relocated to below my window. I would pay because I value light and the ability to open more windows in the fall."

Thankfully, admin "Peter Stuyvesant" replied: "There are many people here who can't afford another MCI, and the A/C through the wall MCI would be huge, especially if it's done in every room that can accommodate an A/C. The TA, as you well know, has fought every MCI large and small, and the community has been behind that. Be careful what you wish for."

Also of concern is the issue of forcing tenants to have this upgrade (placing A/C units in the wall below a window). I don't think this is in works from the landlord, but who knows? So far this upgrade has only been done to an apartment whose tenant has vacated and in preparation for a new tenant. (I'm not sure if a tenant can request such an upgrade, but it's possible.)

This reminds me that in the Spring or early Summer, I saw a couple of young people studying the exterior of buildings and jotting things down on pads. Were they investigating how many A/C units there were? Obviously, management knows how may apartments have A/C, but perhaps this was a study to verify the number. Of course, this activity could have been completely unrelated. I just thought it strange.

Friday, November 13, 2015

"The Oval is a Great Resource"

The suits arrived this morning. Lots of laughter amid the talk. The suits stopped at the Oval and one was overhead saying, as he gestured about: "The Oval is a great resource."

Thursday, November 12, 2015

Temporary Housing While Owner Renovates or Repairs Tenants' Units

Apparently this is part of the deal between the city and Blackstone.  Page 6:

"...nothing herein shall prohibit Purchaser from using units at the Property to temporarily house tenants while such tenants' units are being renovated or repaired."

Now for this to make complete sense, it would mean that the tenant would already have to be an existing tenant. I don't know of a case where a repair would necessitate the removal of a tenant (unless something like a flooding disaster or fire occurs), so I'm zeroing in on the "renovated" aspect. So the agreement allows temporary housing, but also, by inference, allows the renovation of apartments either not renovated or not fully renovated (such as the installation of an AC unit in a wall). I'm not that concerned about the AC aspect (which shouldn't necessitate a tenant's temporary removal from the tenant's apartment), but what concerns me is the temporary removal of a tenant from a non-renovated apartment, one that is fully under rent stabilization, pre-Roberts, so that the Purchaser (Blackstone) can renovate the apartment, thereby dramatically increasing the unit's "base rent." (Rent for the current tenant would still have to be within RS guidelines, of course). This renovation could also include the merging of apartments that would provide extra space for tenants who wish to significantly enlarge their current apartments. (More noise! More dust and debris!) Unless the tenant's temporary removal is voluntary from the tenant's perspective (yes, a tenant may wish to "upgrade" and pay more!), in no way can a forced temporary removal be acceptable!