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. Please note: Posts that overdo their passion and veer into name-calling or that make serious accusations without proof are going to have a hard time getting through.

Friday, November 11, 2011

Letter from the Department of City Planning

Just so everyone knows the legalities here. Letter from the Department of City Planning to Councilman Dan Garodnick. Dated November 1st. (Click on letter to increase size.)





The TA has a PDF link to this letter here.

Stuyvesant Town/Peter Cooper Village Zoning Map:



Joyride food truck doing commercial business in R7-2 zone inside Stuyvesant Town. Date November 11:



By now, everyone (CW Capital, management, Joyride and concerned tenants) are aware of what the Department of City Planning wrote and Councilman Dan Garodnick's response on Tuesday, November 8th -- ("With regard to other commercial activities – such as food trucks and greenmarkets – that are not permitted in an R7-2 residential zone, we expect CW Capital/Rose Associates to bring themselves into compliance with the law.")

So the question stands: Why is a food truck allowed to continue to operate in a zone that does not allow for its presence???

------------------------------------

UPDATE, 11/12/11. We live in interesting times here in Stuy Town. Re: calling the 13th precinct. The police claim there is nothing they can do, as long as management accepts the presence of a food truck or any other commercial activity taking place within Stuyvesant Town. The only other option is to take the issue to civil court. The ball is now very much in the hands of our councilman, Dan Garodnick.

I have to say that it's pretty startling to have "the powers that be" (CW Capital and/or management) purposefully go against the zoning of Stuyvesant Town and NYC Department of City Planning and this district's councilman, elected by the people of this area. Says it all, I think.

------------------------------------

UPDATE, 11/12/11. The Stuy Town Living site has more information about calling 311:

Continue to call 311 when you see a Joyride truck and then call Dan Garodnick’s office with the complaint number. Today a tenant advocate called 311 regarding the presence of the Joyride truck in the Oval and asked to speak with a supervisor regarding any confusion over the calls. When filing a complaint your request should specifically say: Commercial activity in a residential zone. Additionally, tell them to file a complaint with the Department of Buildings.

The Department of Buildings does not work as quickly as Dan Garodnick’s office but don’t be discouraged. You’re not throwing a message in a bottle out to sea, these complaints DO count.

------------------------------------

Update, 11/13/11. So in the morning I hear Joyride's hum from hell across the Oval, but I don't see the truck. Where is Waldo? Well, after a tour of the Oval, I see Joyride parked, its engine idling, in front of 521 14 St and fuming up the place.



Later the truck joins the Green Market, the other commercial activity taking place in Stuy Town's non-commercially zoned area.




I note a couple of management big shots around, too, very protective of Joyride, as if concerned that the truck may vanish through some magical wand waving from a councilman or cranky resident. All is right with the world in Stuy Town, however. Market and Joyride in place. Business as usual.

------------------------------------

Another contact for zoning complaints: the Dept of Buildings Commissioner, Robert LiMandri, at robertl@buildings.nyc.gov.

124 comments:

Anonymous said...

could it be that the political leadership has no juice or, maybe don't want to offend CW and Rose by using whatever juice they have to get the enforcers to enforce the rules.

where is the precinct?

Anonymous said...

Even when I click on the first page of the letter, I have trouble reading it, especially the language from the city code. Any way to fix this? Thanks. I'd like to see the official definition of "accessory use." I called Dan's office today to report that the Joyride truck was in the Oval.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

The 13th precinct, located between 2nd and 3rd Avenues on 21st Street.

Re: Making the letter bigger. I'll see what I can do.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

I've posted a link to the TA's page on this letter, which uploaded the letter as a PDF. Hopefully you'll be able to read the PDF.

Anonymous said...

STR,

I'm going to go with "gross indifference to the law and some kind of yet-to-be-disclosed secret profit sharing agreement with Rose/CW."

Anyone else have a better guess?

Anonymous said...

C'mon, Danny Boy. Let's see you grow a pair and show us what you're made of! Get these fucking trucks off the Oval and hold Rose and CW's feet to the fire. If not, then WHY NOT?

Anonymous said...

The million dollar question is how long will the bond holders tolerate Andrew MacArthur and the negative publicity he and his pet projects bring to Stuyvesant Town?

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the link to the pdf.

Anonymous said...

It's pretty clear that the TA, and Feckless Councilmen Dan are paper tigers.
It seems that CW and Rose can thumb their nose at the law with no consequences.

Anonymous said...

Most of the bondholders probably don't speak english--the Wachovia segment of the MBS which contains the largest chunk of stuytown debt is over 90% owned by foreign banks on behalf of their clients. #1? Bank of China. Ever seen how nice a Beijing apartment building looks?

Anonymous said...

How many maintenance men and porters have been laid off in the last year and a half?
The garbage piles up on the weekends in the basement and smells like ass (not in a good way).
We have rats and mice running around on “T” level. At anyone time, washes and dryers are in disrepair.
But CW has money to waste with on a skating rink.

You would think that CW and Rose would of learned by Tishman's mistake's.
Tishman's agenda was to get rid of the old tenants.
It’s ironic that in the end, the tenants got rid of Tishman Speyer!

Instead of spending money on maintenance, cleanliness and improving the living conditions, CW is choosing to spend money on smoke and mirrors, blowing smoke up the ass of potential new tenants and putting lipstick on this pig.

Anonymous said...

I think anon 8:58 is spot on. Perhaps we could have his comment phrased as a question to Mr. Rose. I think we would all be interested in his response. How is it indeed that they could build an ice rink when there are rodents running around the basement, garbage is overflowing on the weekends (as a result of no porters working), piles of dog shit and smears all over the property, etc.
While any information he gives us when answering questions is more information than we had before, much of it is info we could do without. Knowing what he had for dinner last night would be more info than we knew before, but who really cares. I'm sitting here wondering what this guy could possibly say regarding this.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

For sure the bondholders do not care about us, but they may care about how CW Capital is handling this place if money is being mismanaged and overspent, money which they consider theirs.

Anonymous said...

8:58 & STR are on the mark.

The only problem is that they bondholders will not realize the level of nonsense going on here until millions have been spent and many have been discommoded.

It will either take a second default or a cacophony of complaints to get their attention. Either way, I think they'll take notice. It's up to them how much it's going to cost them before they get wise.

Anonymous said...

Is there a petition we could sign to send to CW?

Anonymous said...

Isn't it time to add a photo of Adam Rose to the home page of this blog? For one thing, he is the new face of the Complex. For another, I am hoping to push the image of Robbie farther down the page.

There must be a good shot of Rose with a noteworthy snippet that could plastered beneath his face.

Fed Up Tenant said...

Most of the bondholders probably don't speak english--the Wachovia segment of the MBS which contains the largest chunk of stuytown debt is over 90% owned by foreign banks on behalf of their clients.

NOT TRUE. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from the USA own the majority - 2.3 billion - of the senior debt.

Fed Up Tenant said...

I just spoke with the two people in charge of the Joyride food truck that is in the Oval today and told them that their presence here VIOLATES the Zoning regulations. They could have cared less. They said that Joyride has an agreement with Management and they will NOT be leaving until Management tells them to do so.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

I've made an update to this post concerning the 13th precinct's response to commercial activity taking place in a residential-zoned area of Stuy Town.

citygirl10009 said...

I called 311 on Thursday to report the illegal food trucks. this was my response from 311:
"Your Service Request was closed.
The Police Department responded to the complaint and determined that police action was not necessary."
What do we have to do to have action taken against these trucks. Shouldn't they or management be fined?

Anonymous said...

Maybe the 13th Pct is getting some kind of payoff from Rose/CW to not enforce the law. The longer this goes on the murkier it gets. Somebody is being paid off to allow the law to be broken. Where is the TA? We probably do need to take this to court.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

I don't think there's any payoff at all. It's a situation where someone has to initiate legal action against the zoning infraction, since this is private property and the owner of this property is okay with the infraction. That's why this would have to go to court, I think. It will be of considerable interest to see what Garodnick does here.

Anonymous said...

Their inaction makes them look hostile and untrustworthy. Two words renters don't want to hear.

Fed Up Tenant said...

Oh, so it's OK to KNOWINGLY allow the law to be broken as long as it's happening on private property?! What!!!

THAT'S ABSURD. We would all be living in anarchy if we didn't have laws and the police to enforce them.

Anonymous said...

All the bondholders need now is for Rose/CW to be sued and/or fined for improper use of the property and violations of the City's zoning laws. Aren't they in deep enough for the back rent they owe the former MR tenants? Seems they are gluttons for punishment, so I say let's give them more punishment. We need the TA and Dan Garodnick to rise to the occasion and do what is necessary to stop this abuse of the property and abuse of the tenants.

Anonymous said...

You can find the zoning resolution with the definition of accessory use on thr Department of City Planning web site. The basic definition is below. You should note that it is followed by examples in the zoning resolution and there is language throuhout the zoning resolution that bears on the meaning.

Accessory use, or accessory (2/2/11)
An "accessory use":
(a) is a #use# conducted on the same #zoning lot# as the
principal #use# to which it is related (whether located
within the same or an #accessory building or other structure#, or as an #accessory use# of land), except that,where specifically provided in the applicable district regulations or elsewhere in this Resolution, #accessory#
docks, off-street parking or off-street loading need not be
located on the same #zoning lot#; and
(b) is a #use# which is clearly incidental to, and customarily
found in connection with, such principal #use#;
(c) is either in the same ownership as such principal #use#, or is operated and maintained on the same #zoning lot# substantially for the benefit or convenience of the owners,
occupants, employees, customers, or visitors of the principal #use#.
When "accessory" is used in the text, it shall have the same
meaning as #accessory use#.

Anonymous said...

One does not have to initiate a civil action in court to have the zoning rules enforced. What we need is for the enforcement agencies - the Department of Buildings being the primary agency for zoning - and the police who do have authority to issue a summons to the ownership or Rose. the summons is returnable at the ECB.

Anonymous said...

The New York Times was here this morning looking at the rink. Can't be good.

Anonymous said...

§ 28-201.1. Unlawful acts.
It shall be unlawful to erect, construct, alter, extend, repair, fail to maintain, move, remove, demolish, occupy, use or operate any building, structure, premises, or equipment, or to conduct any subject matter regulated by this code or by the zoning resolution, or to cause same to be done, in conflict with or in violation of any of the provisions of this code, the zoning resolution, or the rules of the department or, with regard to existing buildings, any applicable provision of the 1968 building code or any other law or rule enforced by the department. It shall be unlawful to fail to comply with an order of the commissioner or to violate any order of the commissioner issued pursuant to this code, the 1968 building code, the zoning resolution or any law or rule enforced by the department.

§ 28-201.3. Methods of enforcement.
The commissioner may use any of the methods set forth in this code to enforce compliance with this code, the 1968 building code, the zoning resolution, other laws or rules enforced by the department and orders of the commissioner issued pursuant thereto including but not limited to:
1. Proceedings for the recovery of civil penalties for immediately hazardous, major and lesser violations before the environmental control board or other administrative tribunal.
2. Civil judicial proceedings for the recovery of civil penalties or injunctive relief or both for immediately hazardous, major and lesser violations.
3. Criminal judicial proceedings for the imposition of criminal fines or imprisonment or both for immediately hazardous, major and lesser violations.
4. The issuance and enforcement of peremptory orders for immediately hazardous, major and lesser violations.
5. The issuance of a commissioner's request for correction of an unlawful use or condition or order to correct an unlawful use or condition.
6. Other special remedies as set forth in this code, the zoning resolution or other law or rule.

§ 28-201.3.1. Issuance.
Officers and employees of the department and of other city agencies designated by the commissioner shall have the power to issue summonses, appearance tickets and notices of violation for violations of this code, the 1968 building code, the zoning resolution or other laws or rules enforced by the department, orders, and requests for corrective action.

Anonymous said...

Large legal bills coupled with a bit of bad press will grind all of these activities to a halt very quickly. These shenanigans only make sense if they can be done cost effectively and below the radar screen.

Once the legal team starts billing hours in earnest, the game will change in our favor.

Anonymous said...

Tippecanoe and Joyride too? Wouldn't take more than 5 or 6 of us...

I noticed there's a security car permanently posted on the 20th St loop, right near the rink. Think they're expecting something?

Anonymous said...

They want to deter from people pointing and laughing.

Fed Up Tenant said...

“Stuytown Sundays. Nothing better than a fall walk among the trees and a Stumptown latte.”

This is the last Twitter post from Joyride, written on November 6. While they told me today that they will not be leaving Stuyvesant Town until Management tells them to, it’s interesting to note that their nearly daily Twitter posts touting their presence here abruptly stopped a week ago.

Anonymous said...

The Green Market Lives.
Nice job TA and Feckless Dan!
CW and Rose seem scared of you and you have them on the run. NOT!

Anonymous said...

Sunday Morning Headlines;

R7-2 We don't need any stink'in R7-2... CW & Rose to tenants!

CW & Rose thumbs it's nose at TA and Feckless Dan.

We are CW & Rose, dam it! We are above the Law!

Cw & Rose to tenants, Let them eat JoeRide!

The Ta and Feckless dan can't regulate themselves out of a papper bag.

Time to get rid of these feckless clowns.
Stuy

Anonymous said...

This situation is SCREAMING for Arnold Diaz and his Shame, Shame, Shame feature.

http://www.myfoxny.com/subindex/news/shame

Anonymous said...

Will management stop breast feeding their baby Joyride truck long enough for them to make a few sales?

Anonymous said...

CW and Rose are wastes. TA and Garodnick are useless. But people can stop buying from these vendors.

Anonymous said...

There is no question that the best solution to these commercial intrusions into our non-commercial space (otherwise known as our home) is a complete and total boycott.

Without a revenue stream, all of these enterprises will disappear. We know these guys are all here to make money--not JUST to make our lives miserable.

Anonymous said...

Two ideas: 1. Mass call-in to 311 in the Oval. 2. Bring in the nuns. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/business/sisters-of-st-francis-the-quiet-shareholder-activists.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

Anonymous said...

Please leave the greenmarket alone--you are truly undermining your very valid case against the skating rink by alienating the other tenants on this issue. If you try to lump the greenmarket in with the rink, you'll lose your coalition of tenants and no one will want to side with or even be associated with you, even if they don't want to side with management per se. Seriously, drop it, it's gonna bite you later. You lose real credibility and political capital, be smart.

I know you don't like when people "disagree with you" but this is a political loser and it's more important to have a unified tenant base on the most egregious and potentially threatening issues like safety, rent, etc. This issue is a divider, not a uniter. And management loves that.

Anonymous said...

Walk your lazy behind to Union Square and buy your veggies there. You have no constitutional right to break the law in our community for your shopping convenience.

Period.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

To Anon 11:52 AM.

I am leaving the Green Market alone, it's the Dept of City Planning that has determined that the market's presence in that area is contrary to the zoning laws in Stuy Town. Unless I'm misinterpreting things (and I'd love to hear from management about how I and others are misinterpreting recent letters from the Dept of City Planning and Councilman Garodnick), commercial activities are illegal within Stuy Town. Besides, Councilman Garodnick has made an offer to work with management to move the Green Market to a location that meets zoning codes.

We can't play the game of pick and choose here. Either commercial activities are not allowed in Stuy Town's R7-2 zoning or they are. The Department of City Planning has determined that they are NOT allowed. I make use of at least one commercial activity here in the Stuy Town, the annual Christmas (Holiday) tree sale at the basketball playground. But if it's determined that the operation goes against zoning regulations, tough luck on me (and others), but that's the law. I may be disappointed, but I would recognize that such an operation is not legal here and I'd be willing to forgo my own self-interested comfort and ease of access for the greater good.

The matter of commercialization inside Stuy Town is not one of personal convenience. If we make it as such, then commercial activities will blossom all over Stuy Town, as you will always find residents who will support them with their money and who will be upset if they go away.

Anonymous said...

STR has stated it well, you can't pick and choose what commercial activity you want. Only legitimate accessory use would be allowed, and it would be a difficult argument to make the green market fall under that category.

I'll also add that many, many long time tenants resent the green market's presence in the Oval because it causes damage to the grass that management does not repair for the rest of the year. Move the green market to Asher Levy Place or Solar One and walk the extra few blocks. The exercise will do you good.

Anonymous said...

How dare you judge my lifestyle--I do go to Union Square and other markets, on different days of the week, depending on my schedule, proximity to home/work, food needs, timing of meals, last minute ingredients, different vendors I enjoy. I owe you no explanation of my family's shopping and feeding habits, but use your head.

You have a real problem in coalition building when you start judging how other people feed their families and telling them when and where they can shop. You need a diverse base that agree on important issues, and you are alienating otherwise supportive tenants with your inflexibility and rabid anti-everything stance, not to mention, insulting and prejudging everyone who disagrees with you. You can sit in your living room certain you are "right" but you'll be sitting alone. And playing right into management's hands by focusing on the divisive issues.

Anonymous said...

You are directly threatening the income of a beloved (both politically and by city residents) nonprofit organization that directly supports our local farmers and a healthy food system, as well as the income of small family farmers in what is one of their most devastating weather and economic years in half a century or more. THAT is far more important to me and many other people than your cause of trying to kick the market out.

You will truly alienate a HUGE constituency, if not attract outside protest, if you don't try to keep your perspective and take a sane position. This is NOT a do-or-die choice between full-on commercialization or losing Stuytown forever. Make this about the rink and use that to rally the tenants against further encroachment. You are really not doing yourselves any political favors with this stubborn and judgmental, and rather extreme reactionary, position.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 11:52 a.m.
The Greenmarket is the thin end of the wedge. If we start making exceptions, worthy though they might be, we'll end up living with 24/7 commercial enterprises under our windows—which is what Rose and CW Capital have already started. When I come home, I want to get away from the hustle and bustle, not have noise and garbage shoved up every available orifice. I have lots of options for getting fruit & veg, but I have only one home.

Anonymous said...

How you feed your family is a private matter between you and the members of your family.

Conducting a commercial enterprise in a residential zone is a matter between the operating entity and the City of New York. The City says it is not permitted.

Feed your family however you see fit but prepared to do it from vendors at another location. Or have the zoning for the property changed. Your choice.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

"You are directly threatening the income of a beloved (both politically and by city residents) nonprofit organization that directly supports our local farmers and a healthy food system, as well as the income of small family farmers in what is one of their most devastating weather and economic years in half a century or more. THAT is far more important to me and many other people than your cause of trying to kick the market out."

I don't see the focus as being kicking the Green Market out or putting farmers in the poor house. If you've noticed, I barely mentioned the Green Market in my post, concentrating instead on the Joyride truck. Dan Garodnick has already stated that he's willing (and, I'm sure, eager) to help the Green Market find a place nearby that is zoned for this type of activity.

That said, if tenants are against the commercialization happening inside Stuy Town, then, I'm afraid, it's all or nothing. Unless the zoning changes to allow specific entities like a Farmers Market, the market is illegal inside Stuy Town. As a matter of fact, if tenants start standing up for the market being here (as you are), CW Capital/Management wins very easily with its plan to increase commercial activity in Stuy Town because you will have agreed that a commercial enterprise inside Stuy Town is okay. Again, it's NOT a choice situation. Unfortunate that the Green Market is caught up in this now, but who is to blame that it is? The tenants? Or our previous owners who first introduced the market here without verifying that it met zoning conditions and then a new set of owners who decided to increase the commercialization happening inside Stuy Town to unacceptable levels, so much so that our councilman, the TA and the Department of City Planning HAD to take a look?

Anonymous said...

Okay, if you put it that way, if you're telling me that in viewing the future of my Stuytown home philosophically, I must "choose a side" between losing the greenmarket or having a skating rink, I'll choose keeping the skating rink.

You could have had me 100% at fighting the rink. But now, I have to support the market, since you are hell-bent on dividing us and trying to get rid of it. I'm sorry, but to me, your own idea of the future of Stuytown is just as bleak as the one you think Management will impose. I want a different one than either frankly, and your approach isn't engaging me.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

BTW, in a post on Wednesday I predicted that the Green Market issue would be employed to allow the powers that be to do anything they want here regarding commercialization. To repeat:

The powers that be will try to gain tenant support by rallying around the “Green Market flag,” but it must be remembered that the only way the Green Market can make a comeback in southern grass area of the Oval is if Stuy Town’s zoning is changed. While having the Green Market move to another location, or disappear altogether, may be an inconvenience to some, having the Green Market legally remain where it was situated will mandate a zoning change. The greater picture is that, if such a zoning change becomes successful, commercialization of Stuyvesant Town's open spaces will become legal and the powers that be will have no restraint in introducing newer ways of inserting commercial entities within Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village. Indeed, such a “green light” will surely see more of our open free spaces, which we value greatly, reduced to money and publicity making gimmicks, furthering the aesthetic devaluation of our environment.

Anonymous said...

I am actually shocked to see people being vilified for pointing out the ILLEGAL presence of the Greenmarket in the Oval. The argument begins and ends with the fact that it is... wait for it... ILLEGAL. We live in a society where we are expected to abide by certain laws for the greater good. The greater good is a non-commercial oasis that we have valued here for over 50 years. I'm sorry that the farmers may not be selling as much produce because of factors like the weather, but the fact is, they shouldn't have been allowed in here to begin with. If I was selling pies illegally on Avenue C for 4 years, and all of a sudden I was told it was illegal and I could no longer do it, could I then turn around and claim I was dependent upon it for my income and putting me out of business would make me homeless? NO, because I was breaking the law. Once again, that pesky thing called THE LAW................

Stuy Town Reporter said...

"Okay, if you put it that way, if you're telling me that in viewing the future of my Stuytown home philosophically, I must "choose a side" between losing the greenmarket or having a skating rink, I'll choose keeping the skating rink.

"You could have had me 100% at fighting the rink. But now, I have to support the market, since you are hell-bent on dividing us and trying to get rid of it. I'm sorry, but to me, your own idea of the future of Stuytown is just as bleak as the one you think Management will impose. I want a different one than either frankly, and your approach isn't engaging me."

You do not seem to understand a couple of points. 1) I'm not "hell-bent" on dividing anyone or wanting to get rid of the Green Market. You are the person coming in and trying to stress the issue of division. 2) It's not a philosophical discussion we are having here. We're dealing with reality. The reality of the commercialization of the interior of Stuy Town, of which the rink is the latest (and biggest and most controversial) outcome. The reality is that none of us can choose which business we would like inside Stuy Town. There are zoning laws. And the laws state that commercial activity is not allowed here. Now to change the situation, Stuy Town would need to be zoned differently. And the powers that be would LOVE that. Carte blanche for any money/publicity gimmick they may want to insert here. (Truthfully, they are showing they already have this carte blanche, irregardless of what the laws state.) You have made it known that, in essence, you will support such commercialization. That's your right, as it is my right to oppose such commercialization. The sooner this issue gets settled, the better it will be for everyone's blood pressure.

Lux Living said...

Most people enjoy the Farmer's Market and, in my opinion, it's a nice addition to the community. I also support GrowNYC and have mentioned several of their events on my blog over the summer. I'm sorry to hear they were hit so hard by the hurricane. One of my uncles has a dairy farm in VT so I fully support our local farmers and the Farmer's Market.

Please keep in mind it's unlikely the Farmer's Market will go away. They may move it to a less photo-op friendly location such as 14th Street, but I can't imagine it going away completely - especially with the property being so stubborn about keeping the Joyride truck smack dab in the middle of the Oval despite last week's news.

Remember, none of this would be an issue for anyone had the property not decided to install an enormous ice skating rink some 50 feet from the buildings. It's the property's decision makers who are screwing this up for the Farmer's Market, not the bloggers, not Dan Garodnick and not the TA.

If you're going to get mad, please get mad at the right people.

Anonymous said...

STR--I'm not really speaking to your particular stance, but to a few overly malcontent others, who are going out of their way to complain specifically about the Greenmarket, as if that is on the same plane of egregiousness as the skating rink, and saying ridiculous things about where and how people should shop. I think Lux makes the most reasonable of the arguments, and to some extent, indeed, the rink was a clear over-reaching that brought this to a head. But for all you know, the greenmarket may have a specific variance/permit, that makes the zoning irrelevant or inapplicable due to some legal status--indeed, that's likely.

It seems so petty and malcontent to put the greenmarket on the same level as the rink, and ultimately it will cause division. I don't think anyone here should pursue its removal any further. It's self-defeating in the long run and we should focus our efforts on the rink, which would get far more tenant engagement on its own.

Anonymous said...

You're just happy to shop in a place that pleases YOU, the law be dammed.

If you don't like this, I really don't care about your opinion, what I care about is the law. There's a reason there was no green market in Stuyvesant Oval for almost 60 years. If you don't like the laws, then go elect people to change them, and be prepared to reap what you sow.

Anonymous said...

Well...OK. Since you posted twice about the vegetable stand, the rest of us will drop the whole thing going forward.

Sorry for the inconvenience!

Anonymous said...

So if it is illegal but popular, then its ok. You folks need to get your collective heads out of your rear ends.

By the way, the greenmarket guys were parked today, as they do most Sundays, blocking the fire hydrant near 521.

The market is illegal. The trucks are illegal. The rink may be illegal but, even if it is not, it is certainly an ugly and stupid imposition on the community. All three need to go.

Anonymous said...

Some people are as thick as two short planks. No matter how many times you explain to them that the green market is ILLEGAL they just don't get it.

Anonymous said...

Did anyone else here file a complaint with 311? It took me almost half an hour, but I finally got them to take it.

Anonymous said...

There are LOTS of things that evolve up around the city and they only become "illegal" if someone forces them to be ruled such. You don't get it. THAT letter from the Planning/DOB was a conditional OPINION letter. IF our market = X, and X is illegal, then market = illegal. It was a NOT a ruling on our particular market, e.g., whether it had an exception/variance, whether it truly met the definition of "commercial" vs. some other hybrid form or other legal status. And it certainly is not an order to remove it. It is a CONDITIONAL opinion letter on a particular type of activity that our market may or may not constitute.

LEAVE IT ALONE and you don't have to go out of your way to get a ruling to try to make it illegal. Focus in getting rid of the rink, which has so many real reasons for challenge

Stuy Town Reporter said...

If it's just an opinion report, then Garodnick got it all wrong when he stated that he expected CW Capital and Rose to be in compliance of the law.

Anonymous said...

This NIMBY stuff really gets old, and watching the crows continue to bray "illegal" is pretty lame. I'm sure it's satisfying to glory over the defeat of a hated enemy (the rink), but until we actually get the community to start improving (rather than continuing the slide it's been on for years) quality of life won't get much better.

CW Capital isn't a long-term landlord. That isn't their business -- they have a job to get this thing sold. That means somebody needs to buy it. Another Tishman Spyer, we don't need. That said, at this point we're going to get some bottom feeder who's just going to hit the gas on every project that cranks up the turnover and looks towards 2018 when J51 starts expiring and they can start getting the rent rolls they need to make the deal work.

Best case, we get someone who can wait for a return and is willing to invest in the complex. Worst case is we keep seeing not a dime spent in the complex... and it could be a LOT worse than it is right now. It's time to start lobbying to avoid that outcome. I don't think the old deal with MetLife is ever coming back, but we can at least hope for a better deal that TS's.

Anonymous said...

Lux living has posted the following on his site:

"Tenants can also contact the Department of Buildings Commissioner, Robert LiMandri, by email at robertl@buildings.nyc.gov."

I suggest that we all email him directly and ask him for clarification about the food trucks and Green Market. Let's go to the source here and see if we can't get some answers.

Anonymous said...

I'm going to continue to urge everyone to call 311 to report violations, call EVERY city official who can advocate against any zoning violation, and expect the TA to now stand up and do the right thing.

Just because there's a single green market supporter posting on a blog doesn't defeat us.

NO COMMERCIAL BUSINESS IN THE OVAL !!

Roger Roundly said...

Thanks anon @ November 14, 2011 7:20 AM.

Here's an idea. Before we go another round on food trucks and skating rinks and what elected officials should or shouldn't be doing, it might be helpful to know exactly how zoning issues like ours are ultimately resolved.

Anonymous said...

Roger,

You're not simply content to "leave it alone" as that poster has implored over and over again?

Anonymous said...

I don't think the green market is all that special. I wouldn't be sorry to see it go. There are green markets at Union Square and Tomkins Square Park that are much better than the shitty one on the Oval. They damage the grass, block fire hydrants with their trucks and are an annoyance to those of us who live right near the damned thing. I say get rid of it and the sooner the better.

Anonymous said...

Councilman Garodnick's office has confirmed that the Councilman THOROUGHLY appraised the Department of City Planning about the situation here with the food trucks and Greenmarket.

DCP knew EXACTLY what the situation here was before it issued its response to the Councilman and their response to him should not be construed - or misconstrued - as a CONDITIONAL OPINION letter.

Anonymous said...

The next time one of the trucks from the Greenmarket is blocking a fire hydrant, immediately call the FDNY precinct down the street. They'll be on it very quickly.

Anonymous said...

Indeed, it could very well have a perfectly legal right to be here that the letter doesn't address. That is a conditional statement that doesn't address our particular market's status. Gardonick was speaking like an advocate when he used "expects" in that in my reading, he really meant, "hopes" and knows that there is no force of law in that opinion letter, it's just a hypothetical conditional statement. There would need to be a factual determination on our particular market, and full on order to remove, a court order to enforce, etc. It seems like a much better use of our resources to focus on the rink, which has landlord-tenant issues, health and safety issues, rather than on something that may be perfectly legal for reasons that the letter doesn't address. That's why, I don't understand why you are so adamant about determining that it is ILLEGAL.

Not to mention, as tenants, we have very little legal standing for enforcing zoning issues. That's usually left to neighboring property owners. Though not entirely, but still, not a great use of our time and resources.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

Anon 12:35 PM, please read the comment at 12:19. Also, it would amaze me if management knew that the food trucks and market were zoned legally here during the controversy of last week, but said nothing publicly about it. Why stoke the flames even more by silence?

This week should be telling, and next week, too, when the rink opens.

Roger Roundly said...

I'm not for leaving anything alone and am not sure what the other commenter meant by it.

But that comment was interesting. Is the letter from the Dept of planning an opinion or is it a ruling? Whatever it was didn't provide NYPD with the authority to ask Joy Ride to leave. What would give them the authority -- a decision by a court?

Understanding the legal process as to how these two separate zoning issues (rink and food trucks) are resolved and enforced, would seem to be important with regards to these discussions.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

I don't think the Dept of City Planning letter is an opinion at all. HOWEVER, enforcing it is another matter. I could be wrong, but that's why the powers that be have not budged on the food truck and the market. They are waiting for the process of enforcement to be actualized (which could take time). The market will very soon be a moot issue, of course, as it's closing down either next week or a week thereafter. The food truck is another story.

Anonymous said...

Roger,

I fear it will take a court. It always seems to around here--and not just ONE decision.

Anonymous said...

LOLOL--the comment about stoking the flames is kind of funny. You do realize, it's us, a bunch of malcontent blog posters who are talking about this. You all are the ones calling the police, and the media, but management or the rest of the tenants aren't even participating or could care less. I don't think management feels particularly threatened or owing anyone on this blog a personal explanation. The only flames are on this thread when we disagree. I don't think this is causing even a wave out there in the real world, lol.

Anonymous said...

And you do realize tenants generally have NO legal standing to bring a court action to enforce the zoning? And it costs tons and tons of money and time to find that out and get kicked out of court. Why not focus on the rink that has real landlord-tenant and safety issues that there is standing to challenge.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

Well, the "real world" for us is right here, so these are events and circumstances that concern us. As for the powers that be, I'm sure they are not pleased at the attention that's being given to the things that tenants are upset about here, attention that is available for anyone with an internet connection. We've already seen how the media out there in the "real world" has picked up on several issues happening in Stuy Town. The NY Post, NYC's CBS News, etc. And there'll be more media getting interested in this place, as each entity picks up info from the other.

Anonymous said...

Can someone please clarify this for me? The cooling equipment was shut off after the NYPD showed up (presumably since it was so loud). There's no way they can operate the rink without that machinery with high temperatures hovering in the 48-60 range for the next 10 days according to weather.com. How exactly are they going to keep the rink frozen in above-freezing temperatures without triggering a flood of calls to the police regarding the noise from said machines? Today they had a team of 5 guys meticulously raking out all the leaves. Just FYI.

Roger Roundly said...

Anonymous @12:35pm says that "we have very little legal standing for enforcing zoning issues." It might be helpful to explain (a) why we may not have legal right to initiate a lawsuit in a zoning dispute and (b) Why is pursuing the rink, from landlord-tenant, health and safety issues a better strategy?

Dan G and the TA responded to demands on this site to deal with these as zoning issues, but the poster who appears to be some kind of attorney is suggesting they've been asked to bark up the wrong tree. I'd like to hear more.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

"And you do realize tenants generally have NO legal standing to bring a court action to enforce the zoning?"

Let's see what Dan Garodnick says. You seem continually focused on moving everyone away from the issue of commercialization inside an area not zoned for commercial activities.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

"How exactly are they going to keep the rink frozen in above-freezing temperatures without triggering a flood of calls to the police regarding the noise from said machines?"

That's one of those million dollar questions that's waiting an answer.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

"Dan G and the TA responded to demands on this site to deal with these as zoning issues, but the poster who appears to be some kind of attorney is suggesting they've been asked to bark up the wrong tree. I'd like to hear more."

We should also be aware of purposeful deflection. At this point, I think we should very much stay on course until we find out more from official sources.

Roger Roundly said...

Um yeah.

If the other commenter is right, then although the rink, trucks, and green market could absolutely get ruled illegal by city agencies, tenants don't have the standing to take it the next step to court.

Again why it's a good idea to look before leaping.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

Who is leaping? Again, let's wait for Garodnick's office to say something on this matter. I'm sure they will.

Anonymous said...

Tenants may or may not have legal standing, but they certainly have a right to raise the issue to every pertinent member of government administration to see that the law and their rights as citizens is properly enforced.

We'll see who LOL's last.

Lux Living said...

"LOLOL--the comment about stoking the flames is kind of funny. You do realize, it's us, a bunch of malcontent blog posters who are talking about this. ... I don't think this is causing even a wave out there in the real world, lol."

I forgot! Dan Garodnick, the TA, the Department of City Planning, the Department of Buildings, the Department of Environmental Protection, the NYPD, the FDNY, and news sources like Channel 2 News, The New York Times - none of them function in the real world. Thanks for the reminder, I forgot!

Now excuse me while I burst into a huge Julia Roberts horse laugh. You are a panic!

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:35 "I don't understand why you are so adamant about determining that it is ILLEGAL. "

See my earlier post: It's the thin end of the wedge. I don't want to come home one day and find some ugly, noisy enterprise in front of my building. That's why I'm in solidarity with those who are affected now.

Anonymous said...

Sorry to rain on your snow pea parade but there was nothing in Amanda Burden's letter that read as opinion, she was quite clear the oval is not zoned for the greenmarket or the Joyride truck. Period.

Crazy Eddie said...

In these trouble times, I always go back to my mentors for guidance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad1Umj6hxMw&feature=related

Anonymous said...

there's nothing i hate more than being able to get decent coffee right by my apartment

Anonymous said...

I can think of something I hate more...

Anonymous said...

There's nothing I hate more than you getting a decent cup of coffee from a truck that is violating the law and disturbing hundreds of other tenants you narcissist!

Anonymous said...

THAT'S BLOOD COFFEE!

Anonymous said...

"There's nothing i hate more than being able to get decent coffee right by my apartment"

Ever question where they get the water for this delicious cup coffee in the morning?

Anonymous said...

I would not rule out individual tenants having the ability to bring an action to enforce the zoning regulations. There are numerous NY cases upholding a private right of action to enforce zoning regulations. Those cases must be analyzed to see how they can be applied in this situation, if such action becomes necessary.

Also, someone posted something about the green market having a special permit. A couple of points on that. Generally, green markets get their permits from the Parks department (for those located in or around city parks) or from the Mayor's street activity office for those on public streets, as opposed to parks. There is no such thing as a special permit for the ST green market. Certainly, if there were such an animal, don't you think that Rose and McArthur (CW)would have rolled it out by now for posting on the blogs? And if he had such a permit, would'nt Adam Rose would have waved it about when asked for comment in the T&V a couple of weeks ago?

Residents need to keep the pressure on, particularly on the political end, so the the law is enforced.

Anonymous said...

Oh my god, that's BLOOD coffee!!! Thousands of people were KILLED making that coffee!!! Children are ENSLAVED for that coffee!! There are DEATH PANELS and FASCISTS making that coffee!! We need to take action NOW to stop that coffee BLOOD being spilled all over our streets!!!

Terror!! Terror!! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!! People PLEASE! We need to MOBILIZE!!!

Anonymous said...

RE: Anon November 15, 2011 6:09 PM,

Perhaps we have "Roberts II" in the works here. That would be great.

As for the pressure, I think it is just beginning to build.

Anonymous said...

Really, if I heard about the TA using my dues to pay for $50,000 in legal fees to get rid of the farmers market, you'd never get me to pay another dime towards the TA or its efforts again. And then who is going to fight when the real rent and illegal landlord tenant issues happen again? We can't waste our money and time on this crap. That to me is just as selfish and self-indulgent.

Crazy Eddie said...

What we are up against. This post is from the EV Grieve re "Quantum Leap on First Avenue that due to a large rent increase they could be closed as soon as this Sunday."

nygrump said...

"NYU doesn't even register their buses in NY state. What kind of bs is that? We are subsidizing them and for what?

This is the Bloomberg dream - no actual residents. Just transient students, transient artists, transient tourists, transient business people. They drop their money and leave. Easy to govern."

That's the BM for us as well.

Anonymous said...

Off topic my apologies. Does anyone know why we've
had helicopters outside our windows at 6:30 in the
morning?

Stuy Town Reporter said...

Anon 9:36PM.... Don't worry, if the TA takes care of the commercialization problem I will cover the loss of your money with an extra donation.

Anonymous said...

If the TA actually took a stand and did something I might consider paying dues again since I havent in at least 5 years. The loss of your dues would be offset not only by me but potentially hundreds more who stopped paying due to dissatisfaction with the TA trying to play owners and pushing for Coop. We all know how badly that would have turned out had it come to fruition. Instead the TA's inaction has led me to want to see them replaced. I would support the group who rallied tenants (in spite of the TA) instead. They seemed to get things done.

Anonymous said...

Actually, the leadership of TA has taken a stand and done something. As noted in his letter to the Department of City Planning seeking their opinion on the commercialization issues, Dan Garodnick said he was writing at the request of leaders of the TA. The TA also sent a strong letter to Rose about the ice rink objecting to this unprecedented imposition of a charge to use open space and the imposition this eyesore makes on the community as a whole and the residents of surrounding buildings in particular.

The TA also took action with respect to the recent Rose/CW attempt to do away with the free trunk storage that has been part of the community since its inception. As a result of the TA's threat to file a diminution of services complaint, Rose/CW have suspended their effort.

Notwithstanding intransigence on the part of CW, the TA has been working diligently on a tenant led conversion effort that would afford tenants the opportunity to choose between ownership of their apartments and continuing as renters under rent stabilization. It is doing that because it believes that path is the only way that tenants can control or have any say in what goes on with the property. The TA is committed to the presevation of the property's open spaces, and to preserving ST and PCV as an affordable and stable community for generations of New Yorkers to come. If we don't do this, this community and its residents will forever be at the mercy of the Tishman Speyers, CW Capitals, Rose Associates and their ilk.

Anonymous said...

Gee, it would be nice for "Anonymous" who sounds like they're speaking for the Tenants Association to identify themselves. If they're speaking on behalf of the TA, we need a name. Otherwise, it's just so much "Anonymous" bullcrap.

Anonymous said...

The sooner we get that MetLife treated us differently than every other real estate investor in the country, the sooner we'll realize that there's no way to control the future of the community unless we get together and own it. I hope someone sooner or later realizes what we need is a sane plan to take this community into co-op. Tenants will become owners, then we'll be the ones telling whatever management company we like how to run things. The downside is, of course, all the folks getting a free ride on rent will have to step up and become owners, but the upside is we won't be at the mercy of Tishman, CW, or whomever will be next.

Anonymous said...

I don't hold out much hope for ever making CW/Rose obey the laws. We are living under an oligarchy, our politicians have no teeth and no balls. Herr Hitlerberg successfully bought his third term notwithstanding the voters' will. Why even bother any more? It is what it is. We are no longer a democracy or a nation of laws. We are ruled over by a spineless, ballsless bunch of gonifs and it aint gonna get any better.

Anonymous said...

Wow the TA (supposedly) writes a lot of (strong) letters yet it took a group of tenants without the TA to get some action here. I am sure that Mr. Garodnick was being generous to his ally Al Doyle when he mentioned them in his letter but I gaurantee you he was writing that letter because of the flak he got on this website and because of the group of tenants who took matters into their own hands instead of waiting for the TA to write another strong letter, not because of the TA. The trunk room issue affects what 1/100th or 1/1000th of the tenants here, so great job TA you really scored big on that one. Finally, thank God that the TA and Mr. Garodnick were stopped and will be stopped cold in their quest to become owners. The only thing worse than someone else coming in to run the place would be to have the TA run it.

Anonymous said...

Oh my god, that's BLOOD coffee!!!

Again, friend, It's not the gourmet coffee. It's the bathroom street water it's coming from.
Enjoy the $ premium nectar.

Anonymous said...

I dare every other Anonymous to identify themselves. I am Joy, 5 Stuy Oval.

Anonymous said...

I don't think the TA and Garodnick are interested in anything other than becoming owners. The TA needs to be replaced because it has become the Wannabe Owners Association. Garodnick is definitely not getting my vote next time around.

Anonymous said...

Re: Blood Coffee. Some of these commenters are so bad with their sarcasm I can't tell when they are being serious or not.

Anonymous said...

Oh yeah? Joy who?

Anonymous said...

I wish the Occupy Wall Street crowd would go and take over Rockefeller Center. That would totally piss of Bloomberg because it would drive his precious tourists away and, best of all, it would royally piss off Tishman Speyer, who own Rock Center.

Anonymous said...

November 16, 5:37 p.m.
Re: the storage rooms. This issue has the potential to be huge. First, even people living here for 20 years didn't know that free storage was available. Second, if ending the free storage is indeed found to be diminution of services, rents would have to be rolled back and future MCIs could not be granted.

But I agree that the TA has been MIA too many times, and I'd like to know what all those new board members are actually doing. At least a few of them do want to buy this place--they're one-trick ponies. But if you're a member of the TA, submit a question before the meeting on December 3.

Fed Up Tenant said...

Last Sunday, according to T&V, a young girl was preventing by an STPCV SECURITY OFFICER from selling brownies in the Oval....wait for it; wait for it....BECAUSE THE OVAL IS ZONED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE ONLY! And where was this young girl selling her brownies...wait for it; wait for it....RIGHT BY THE SKATING RINK.

The incident was witnessed by a tenant who said he laughed when he heard the Officer telling her to leave because this happened "in front of this monumental tent they're going to be selling food in."

Stuy Town Reporter said...

That's pretty funny. It should be mentioned, however, that the T & V article mentions a response from ST's security chief who stated that kids ARE allowed to sell things like brownies and lemonade, and that his department was not aware of the incident.

Fed Up Tenant said...

That's pretty funny. It should be mentioned, however, that the T & V article mentions a response from ST's security chief who stated that kids ARE allowed to sell things like brownies and lemonade, and that his department was not aware of the incident.

That may be, but a tenant who was named in the article witnessed THIS particular incident and I believe that it actually happened!

Anonymous said...

This place is Bizzaro world.

Little girl no sell brownies in Oval. Oval not zoned for commercial ventures!

Give me a F***ING BREAK!

Stuy Town Reporter said...

"That may be, but a tenant who was named in the article witnessed THIS particular incident and I believe that it actually happened!"

Oh, so do I. But it may be one of those incidents where a security guy isn't exactly aware of what's allowed and what isn't.

Anonymous said...

The T&V article also implied that McClellan told them that while a child could sell because it was like playing, an adult would be stopped. So I guess that the operators of the illegal food truck and the illegal market are not considered to be adults and their operations are also considered to be child's play.

The probelm with Security and its management by McClellan is that most of them have to judgement and to the extent that they do exercise judgment it is most poor. They, like the rest of the management, tend to make it up as they go along.

Anonymous said...

Anony 10.38-I have to say that Public Safety (Security) is one of the things that generally works around here. I have had several serious QOL issues and PS has responded in a prompt and courteous manner. If we are going to criticize Rose, we need to be surgical in our approach (if we can) since there are various factions within that organization, some are competent, some are not.

Anonymous said...

If you read the T&V article, it doesn't actually say that the guard mentioned anything about zoning.

I think the poster that quoted this originally, needs to go back and re-read the story.

BTW, it used to be forbidden for kids to sell stuff in the Oval, but that seemed to change around the time that Speyer bought ST/PCV. Ever since the green market has been happening, kids have been setting up shop at playground 12 selling toys, comics, brownies and lemonade.

Anonymous said...

Those kids are selling blood lemonade and blood brownies. Someone needs to put a stop to that!