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.

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Guterman Speaks!




This interview is from 2010, but it's still relevant today. My main question is: "What's in it for Guterman to convert Stuy Town/PCV to co-ops and leave afterward--in 18 to 24 months?"

[Hat tip to one of our anonymous commentators.]

UPDATE:

Gerry Guterman posted this in our commentary section today, Friday, March 3rd:

We would enjoy meeting with any group of actual tenants (or their representatives) from Stuyvesant Town & Peter Cooper Village. Buying or not buying should not be a factor for attending the meeting. A specific number of participants should be planned for and any member of the tenant's association or their representatives should be identified in advance. Other than those requirements, it would be nice if coffee is served.

Gerry Guterman

166 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think that you meant "relevant" not "relative".

Anonymous said...

Love how the name of his company that flashed on the screen is - Condominium Recovery LLC. He's trying to convert us to co-ops so what's up with that?

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>I think that you meant "relevant" not "relative".<<

Yes, thanks.

MBaaar said...

The Guterman plan calls for all the occupied apts to be sold, if not to tenants then to a non-profit agency & the vacant apts would be sold at market rate (let's assume 500 vacant at closing & avg apt size of 1000 sq ft). 10,732x315x1000=3,380,580,000; 500x700x1000=350,000,000; total=3,730,580,000 minus 3B for CW distribution= $730,580,000 not including income from store and garage rentals. These are rough numbers, but close to $1B would be the incentive.

Anonymous said...

I'm still waiting for the dollar figure on how much money the cooperative will lose from not having income from the garages and commercial space, and how much owners will need to pay in increased maintenance charges. I think the numbers are significant on both counts.

Anonymous said...

Not buying at any price. I like to rent and if I were to buy it would not be here! Too many sleazeballs muddying the waters. Even the worst landlord can be sued and rent withheld. No way would I buy into this mess.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Gutterman says that his conversion will entail 75-80% of the tenants buying their apartments. This is the same group of which half, according to this man who is almost 70, are "teenagers." His understanding is based on Bronx and Queens conversions in the 1980's. He does not have a clue about this property or its residents.

Anonymous said...

12:38,

Its not true that his conversion counts on 70-80% buying.

His website says 50%.

Anonymous said...

Brookfield, Guterman, etc...

If you sign on to a deal sponsored by any of these folks or their successors/competitors, you should familiarize yourself with the following terminology:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagholder

They may actually post a picture of you on the wiki site as a poster child!

MBaaar said...

I think G-W's stated goal (ideal) is 80%. In any non-eviction plan tenants not buying will be able to continue to rent under RS. It's really not an issue. For the tenants interesting buying, at this point there's really only one top-line issue: is the Brookfield plan better for you or is the G-W plan better for you. If you decide Brookfield, you'll want sit tight & watch the TA & crew do its thing. If you decide G-W, you'll have to decide whether or not you feel you'd like to take some action & figure out how to do that.

Anonymous said...

He said "at least" 50%, but expects more like 75-80% to buy.

Anonymous said...

If Guterman can get 51% to buy, he can institute an eviction plan, although it's unlikely the attorney general would approve it.

Anonymous said...

Any info on the meeting Dan Garodnick had with a group of tenants last night? It was held in the school across the street.

Anonymous said...

Both Guterman & Brookfield have announced they support non-evictions plans.I don't think this an issue.

Anonymous said...

"Any info on the meeting Dan Garodnick had with a group of tenants last night? It was held in the school across the street."

A double-secret special tenant meeting?!? Who did you have to know to get an invite to that one?

Anonymous said...

Meeting? I wonder where they are posting these events:) I real all the blogs etc.

To the person who would not buy...how long have you lived here if I many ask?

Anonymous said...

To the person who would not buy...how long have you lived here if I many ask?

I've lived here over 30 years and I love my apartment. Don't want to buy the whole pig just to get a little sausage. My apartment being the little sausage. I can rent elsewhere if I ever have to, but will not get stuck in the impending disaster involving the sleazeballs who are pushing for the sale/conversion whatever.

Anonymous said...

I'm a member of the TA (not of the board) & I'm signed up for email notifications. I heard nothing about any meeting. How did you hear about it? Do you know why it was called, what it was supposed to be about?

Anonymous said...

The only email notice I have received from the TA recently was about Oval Concierge no longer being the drop off or pick up point for TA info.

Anonymous said...

yeah. why didn't the TA invite EVERYONE to the meeting at that school? why wasn't it on the website? why wasn't an email sent to all of us?

The TA must my email as I've emailed them dozens of times and the lawyer as well.

HMMMM?

Anonymous said...

LOL. Just got another postcard from Guterman, this time with an actual photo of ST.

Anonymous said...

Anyone can get a meeting with Dan Garodnick. Just call his office and set it up. He is so invested in this Brookfield deal that he will go to the ends of the earth to sell it to anyone who will listen. Remember his law firm only makes money on the back end of this deal, if there is a back end. So he will jump through hoops to meet with you.

Anonymous said...

I am a long term resident of ST and most likely I will not buy either a condo or co-op. I certainly would never consider the "affordable option" that the TA and Garodnick are pushing which limits any upside profit. I think that is just a ploy so the politicians involved can say the plan saves affordable housing. It doesnt. Therefore, I will most likely remain a RS tenant. As such, I feel that RS tenants no longer matter to the TA and or Dan Garodnick as they push their plan that voluntarily removes RS units from the RS roles, further weakening the system. Therefore, I am interseted in joining with like minded tenants and setting up a new Tenants Association. One with RS tenants as the primary participants and protecting RS into the future as the main goal. Such an association can also be in place to represent RS tenants when the current TA dissolves or sooner if needed to protect us from the current TA. I have set up an email account to test the waters on this. Please write to me at rsta4stpcv@yahoo.com (Rent Stabilized Tenants Association 4 Stuy Town and Peter Cooper Village) if interested. I have taken the liberty of contacting Guterman/Westwood with the hopes of setting up a town hall type meeting with them to hear their side of this story. We should hear both/all sides before jumping into something we could all regret later. I would prefer no conversion but if it is going to be thrust upon me regardless at least I can be informed and not follow the TA like a sheep follows a shepard to the slaughter. If we dont insist on hearing all sides then we only have ourselves to blame down the road. Once again email: rsta4stpcv@yahoo.com. Thank you for your time.

Anonymous said...

2:40 pm Whats your plan to preserve RS for STPCV beyond the J-51 expiration date? If you are pre-roberts RS you don't have to worry or care about this issue, however, over 4 thousand (and growing) of your neighbors face the loss of RS protection in 2020 and, for them, a conversion is the only real hope for affordibility.

Anonymous said...

It's the beginning of the month. Moving-in time. I see the ubiquitous pressure wall trucks all over the property. Attaboy, Adam. Pack em in! We need more cubiclized deathtraps to make the property more desirable and valuable. On your head be it if there is a fire resulting in loss of life and possibly the loss of life of a firefighter or two. That's the way Stuyvesant Town is going these days. Buy an apartment in this dump? Ya gotta be crazy. More people to add to the garbage, noise and danger here. Not to mention more people trying to get a few clothes clean in the inadequate subpar laundry rooms. Keep up the good work CW/Rose.

Anonymous said...

To the sausuage owner:)... I am afraid we will have to move far away to enjoy our piece if we don't lasso the pig (sorry bad metaphor)... Any one who has lived here as long as you (or I) will never get an place near what we are paying and our rents are compounding to market in about 15 years. That is ok for seniors, but not people who want to spend another 30 years here. Buying (at a deep discount ofcourse) is the only way to stay here...

Anonymous said...

I'm interested in the meeting with Guterman. Will watch to see if that happens. A meeting with just one isn't as valuable as a meeting with both. That way they can debate & challenge each other & you can really see which one makes the better case.

Anonymous said...

the last comment sounds to good to be true, they contacted Guterman to set up a town hall?

Also, NY Curbed, the real estate blog, was co-founded by a Mr. Jon Miller, an associate of Guterman. And there is strong rumors going around that many anon postings are being pushed by those associated with Guterman - when we have more proof, we will post.

Suffice to say, this place seems to be the only open forum, but non of the so called Guterman sites are allowing an open discussion by anyone other than the people who created those sites, facebooks, Tweets.

Anonymous said...

here is the site that provides proof NY Curbed is connected to Guterman - http://ny.curbed.com/tags/gerald-guterman

Anonymous said...

To MBaar -- forgive me if I sound naive - why do you remain anonymous here and on your sight. Would it endanger you in some way to use your name? I like what you are doing, but unless you "come -out" people will think you have a larger agenda then you claim to have
Melody Grell

Anonymous said...

@10:33 Give them some credit, they stopped using the Four-Loco girl in the Stuy Town ads!

Anonymous said...

I am wondering if noisy students whooptidooing all night long is a matter of calculated harrassment on the part of CW/Rose? Anybody else got any thoughts on this? Calling Public Safety at 2 in the morning and having to have them come into your apartment to listen is also part of the harrassment.

Anonymous said...

To the sausuage owner:)... I am afraid we will have to move far away to enjoy our piece if we don't lasso the pig (sorry bad metaphor)... Any one who has lived here as long as you (or I) will never get an place near what we are paying and our rents are compounding to market in about 15 years. That is ok for seniors, but not people who want to spend another 30 years here. Buying (at a deep discount ofcourse) is the only way to stay here...

Sausage renter here: I'm not sure that I want to stay here. The quality of life is getting worse and worse. The place is a dorm/squat/notellmotel/hotel and it's not going to get better. Even if the conversion goes through, all these kids can't be evicted and who the hell wants to live with them? Not me, that's for sure.

MBaaar said...

My site is a completely open forum only on this subject:
http://www.pcvstconversionforum.blogspot.com/

Lately I've had some comment implying that it's biased in favor of Guterman. I've said I think Guterman & possibly one other plan need to be put under consideration. My bias is for an open competition. Have also said quite clearly...I don't think the TA's process since October has been at all valid.

Anonymous said...

"To the sausuage owner:)... I am afraid we will have to move far away to enjoy our piece if we don't lasso the pig (sorry bad metaphor)... Any one who has lived here as long as you (or I) will never get an place near what we are paying and our rents are compounding to market in about 15 years. That is ok for seniors, but not people who want to spend another 30 years here. Buying (at a deep discount ofcourse) is the only way to stay here..."

I agree 100%


"It's the beginning of the month. Moving-in time. I see the ubiquitous pressure wall trucks all over the property. Attaboy, Adam. Pack em in! We need more cubiclized deathtraps to make the property more desirable and valuable. On your head be it if there is a fire resulting in loss of life and possibly the loss of life of a firefighter or two. That's the way Stuyvesant Town is going these days. Buy an apartment in this dump? Ya gotta be crazy. More people to add to the garbage, noise and danger here. Not to mention more people trying to get a few clothes clean in the inadequate subpar laundry rooms. Keep up the good work CW/Ro"

How does this place being a dump mean that it would be a bad investment to buy one's apartment at an insider price? Please do explain. If this place remains the dump that it indeed is it will still be worth twice what we will be paying. This, apparently, is something many here can't seem to grasp.

Anonymous said...

I wonder what all the tenants will do and say when CW Capital rejects tenant bids.

No way do I believe for a minute they're going to sell to us. N.O. W.A.Y.

Gerald Guterman said...

We would enjoy meeting with any group of actual tenants (or their representitives) from Stuyvesant Town & Peter Cooper Village. Buying or not buying should not be a factor for attending the meeting. A specific number of participants should be planned for and any member of the tenant's association or their representitives should be identified in advance. Other than those requirements, it would be nice if coffee is served.

Gerry Guterman

Anonymous said...

11:11: i absolutely agree. No other buildings in the city conduct themselves this way regarding noise complaints.

If you are the 'victim' , they are intentionally rude to you, sort of acuse you of harrassing, .....

i've had management and PS tell us that,,,, tenants are allowed to do what they want in their homes... o really? smoking crack and pot and blasting music (literally 40" speakers on our shared walls).

Anonymous said...

But it is true that if we do own (be it coop or condo) WE WILL DECIDE who and who can't live here, correct?

Because if this is NOT possible, I'm not offering my $ for this dump either.

Anonymous said...

How does this place being a dump mean that it would be a bad investment to buy one's apartment at an insider price? Please do explain. If this place remains the dump that it indeed is it will still be worth twice what we will be paying. This, apparently, is something many here can't seem to grasp.

Why get bogged down with a mortgage, maintenance, utilities, taxes, etc., which will cost far more than RS rent just to live in a place that is going to remain a dump? It will remain a dump so long as it is overrun with students and yunnies living in 5bedroom apartments that were formerly 1 bedroom apartments!

Anonymous said...

Well, uhhhh, last time I checked, the place is not for sale. I assume that when it IS for sale, we will all know about it. That's why Gutterman and Brookfield are wasting our time. It's just too early.

Anonymous said...

12:22,

Why would CW hold on to the property, when,

A) they are not a real estate company,

B) they are losing $$$ every month
based on debt service & operating costs.

C) A sale would fulful their fiduciary responsibilities and stop the pain.

Anonymous said...

9:08 PM--You are not correct about the status of RS tenants. Roberts applies to ALL tenants. There is no "market-rate" lease per se, even though CW is still offering them. We are all rent-stabilized (for now). BUT even the pre-Roberts tenants will lose their rent-stabilized status when the J-51 expires in 2020. We are at risk of losing rent-stabilization as we know it here, period. Then none of the apartments will be affordable.

For me, no eviction condo conversion with continued rent-stabilized status for renters is the best means for continued affordability.

Anonymous said...

12:22 p.m. I don't see why if the bid actually gives them the price they want. CW is not in the real estate business as much as it is an investment firm. It doesn't want to be the long-term owner of this property. It was like the second mortgage holder or something, wasn't it? It is looking to sell--why wouldn't it sell to Brookfield and the TA, if the price was right?

Anonymous said...

Not sure what you mean when you say sell to us. That's really not the proposition. In effect, the property will be sold to Brookfield or Guterman or one of the other plan sponsors & we would in effect be buying from them. And this place is definitely going to be sold in this way because it's the only way the primary investors in Tishman-Speyer have even a remote chance of getting their money back.

Anonymous said...

@February 3, 2012 12:22 PM

re: "CW Capital rejects tenant bids. No way do I believe for a minute they're going to sell to us."

They might not sell to us (Brookfield), but they WILL sell this place to someone.

The only way for the company that buys this place for $3billion to make a profit is for them to sell the apartments off to tenants. As we saw with TS...the rent rolls will not cover the mortgage on this place.

Converting to condo / co-op is the only way for an owner to make a profit unless they want to wait 10-15 years for RS to completely go away due to the J-51, vacancy decontrol, etc...which they will not.

Anonymous said...

"How does this place being a dump mean that it would be a bad investment to buy one's apartment at an insider price? Please do explain. If this place remains the dump that it indeed is it will still be worth twice what we will be paying. This, apparently, is something many here can't seem to grasp."

One doesn't know if it will be a good or bad investment until one sees the offering terms.

I believe that even if we see a conversion on reasonably good terms, it will never return to the respectful and decent environment that we enjoyed for 50+ years. You'll never get the dogs out, and the complex will still be forced to rent the unsold apartments to generate revenue. Depending on the specific situation, the stress of waiting out the time until the situation improves might be too great a cost to bear, both physically and emotionally even if it is ultimately financially beneficial.

So if you have a dorm full of rowdy, inconsiderate tenants living around you, one must ask the question, "how much longer can I put up with this ?", because it might take many years to resolve.

There's a ton of unanswered questions before one can even begin to make a sound judgement about this whole potential deal.

Anonymous said...

Anybody ever see this?

http://tishmanspeyerfraud.tumblr.com/

Anonymous said...

Coffee? I will bring the Veniero's. What the????? Is this a satire or a real invitation:) Respeck to all.

Anonymous said...

"9:08 PM--You are not correct about the status of RS tenants. Roberts applies to ALL tenants. There is no "market-rate" lease per se, even though CW is still offering them. We are all rent-stabilized (for now). BUT even the pre-Roberts tenants will lose their rent-stabilized status when the J-51 expires in 2020. We are at risk of losing rent-stabilization as we know it here, period. Then none of the apartments will be affordable.

February 3, 2012 4:05 PM"

This is totally inaccurate. The Roberts decision applied to apartments that were illegally taken OUT of stabilization while the owners were receiving J-51 tax abatements. It has NOTHING do do with the Rent Stabilization laws, other than giving ALL rent stabilized tenants here, relief from the high income decontrol regulations. Those regulations will be back in effect when the J-51 expires, but as long as the legislature in Albany continues to extend the provisions of rent stabilization, pre-Roberts tenants (and possibly ALL tenants) will continue to be rent stabilized.

That said, everyone is aware that the current structure of Rent Stabilization gives landlords tremendous opportunity to remove units from the stabilization rolls, and the never ending slew of MCI's and other pass along costs are rapidly driving affordable units out of RS control. So I don't disagree that something needs to be done, but fear mongering about the demise of RS isn't productive. Everyone will have to work very hard to keep affordability in the picture, and beyond the legislative(at least for ST/PCV residents)and could very well mean the only road to continued affordability is purchase.

Anonymous said...

9:08 pm

if i'm RS why has my new lease gone up almost 10%? that's NOT RS, btw. duh

Anonymous said...

Gerry,

You mean to tell me that you're not going to bring the coffee?!?

Anonymous said...

if i'm RS why has my new lease gone up almost 10%? that's NOT RS, btw. duh

Our class action attorneys and CW Capital's are still in court over what constitutes legal rent for ST-PCV apartments that were illegally deregulated. If the court finds that the 10% increase on your new lease is an overpayment, your overpayment could become part of the damages in the class action. Additionally, you may also have the option to bring an individual triple damages claim for the amount overpaid before the the DHCR or Civil Court outside of the class action.

You might consider contacting our attorney directly. Their contact info is on the TA website (the link is on the main page of STR under LINKS at bottom right of the page).

Anonymous said...

"One doesn't know if it will be a good or bad investment until one sees the offering terms.

I believe that even if we see a conversion on reasonably good terms, it will never return to the respectful and decent environment that we enjoyed for 50+ years. You'll never get the dogs out, and the complex will still be forced to rent the unsold apartments to generate revenue. Depending on the specific situation, the stress of waiting out the time until the situation improves might be too great a cost to bear, both physically and emotionally even if it is ultimately financially beneficial.

So if you have a dorm full of rowdy, inconsiderate tenants living around you, one must ask the question, "how much longer can I put up with this ?", because it might take many years to resolve.

There's a ton of unanswered questions before one can even begin to make a sound judgement about this whole potential deal."

Your points are well taken. I also agree with your assessment of the dog situation. All I'm saying is that the offering WILL be extremely enticing because they know no one will buy if it is not. Why would i assume twice my monthly expenses if I could remain as I am now? They know that. As far as the dogs, well while it was an extremely unfortunate mistake and an incredible burden on all residents who enjoyed a clean and quiet home, they are indeed probably here for good. However, many of the problems associated with them can be ameliorated with enforcement I believe.

All said, with all the issues you raised, the apartment will still be worth more that what you will be paying (yes, yes, acknowledging a good offering price).

Anonymous said...

9:07--again, that is not accurate. I had two separate conversations with our J51 attorneys. We moved in right after the Roberts decision and were given a market lease, with the J51 rider. So TS charged us the "lower of market rate, adjusted for two free months rent or the deemed rent stabilized rent" for the unit. Of course they said the market rate was lower, so we got a market rate rent with the protection of rent stabilized rent increase at the end of the lease at renewal.

According to the J51 lawyer, we are covered by the decision as well. MEANING, that though we obviously don't get any rent rebates for overpayment before Dec. 2009, we are in exactly the same position as all the rent stabilized tenants. And he said that at 2020, all of us will lose our rent stabilized status unless the state acts. So everyone here is "legally" rent stabilized, absent a show of the the proper channels of deregulation, even if the owners aren't acknowledging that while they decide how to fight these decisions. But HPD isn't going to go through all 11,000+ units one by one to determine the legal rent, so we may all end up with no real decision on this and still be effectively deregulated, even if it illegally. That's why I think we need a definitive agreement with new owners like Brookfield to keep any nonconversion tenants as rent stabilized.

Anonymous said...

There's a very simple way to find out if the post from Gerry Guterman is real. Call up & ask at Westwood. I've asked questions directly of Westwood & Brookfield. At Westwood you'll have no problem. They're small & reception will know how to route your call. Brookfield is another story. Sometimes I'm able to connect with someone who knows what's going on. Other times not. The place is really big, broken up into a number of departments. Reaching the right person is like trying to get through a maze. Our conversion isn't big enough on the radar that reception has heard of it at all.

Anonymous said...

"... Depending on the specific situation, the stress of waiting out the time until the situation improves might be too great a cost to bear, both physically and emotionally even if it is ultimately financially beneficial.

So if you have a dorm full of rowdy, inconsiderate tenants living around you, one must ask the question, "how much longer can I put up with this ?", because it might take many years to resolve..."

You have hit the nail right on the head. The place is so bad at this point with the rowdy, inconsiderate tenants, bad management and their misuse of resources by pouring money into stupid things like the ice rink whilst reducing staff to clean buildings, it will take years if it is ever to be restored to a level consistent with being a desirable place to invest in. Buying a home is a major purchase for most of us. Probably the biggest and most important purchase of a lifetime. We don't have money to squander. If PCVST had gone co-op or condo during the days of the MetLife management (pre MetLife becoming a hungry corporation), it would have been a wonderful thing. Alas, since the Benmosche years of management at MetLife, the Speyer rape and pillage, it has deteriorated to the level of a slummy dorm and is the laughing stock of the RE industry. They take us for fools and I think that's exactly what we would be if we took the bait and put our money in their greedy, bottomless pockets.

Anonymous said...

7:51 i did contact our attorney , again and again.

No help at all. Typical. and um, right, like we're all ever going to see that money! rofl

Anonymous said...

KEEP in mind that most tenants (nyu in particular) have signed a two year lease.

So the STPC Campus all night parties continue. Bring on the kegs! you can always store them in our hallways and stairwells.

MBaaar said...

I've posted a link to an interactive 'buy vs rent' calculator on my site if you'd like to check it out.
http://www.pcvstconversionforum.blogspot.com/

Anonymous said...

"According to the J51 lawyer, we are covered by the decision as well. MEANING, that though we obviously don't get any rent rebates for overpayment before Dec. 2009, we are in exactly the same position as all the rent stabilized tenants. And he said that at 2020, all of us will lose our rent stabilized status unless the state acts."

You are obviously misunderstanding what your lawyer says. When he says "all" he is referring to people in "your" position, meaning those who moved in post Roberts and signed a J-51 rider. That has nothing to do with the other 6 or 7 thousand rent stabilized apartments in ST/PCV that have been governed by rent regulation for the last 40 years or so. Those apartments will continue to be rent stabilized, J-51 or no J-51, until the State Legislature fails to extend rent stabilization. The expiration of the J-51 abatement in ST/PCV will then only affect Roberts, and post Roberts leases, save for those pre-Roberts stabilized tenants who would otherwise be deregulated do to high income decontrol (which is currently suspended because of Roberts). Rent stabilization is otherwise NOT contingent on receiving any specific tax abatement.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>As far as the dogs, well while it was an extremely unfortunate mistake and an incredible burden on all residents who enjoyed a clean and quiet home, they are indeed probably here for good. However, many of the problems associated with them can be ameliorated with enforcement I believe.<<

Enforcement isn't going to work. That's why Rose Management relaxed the previous dog rules. Even now, whenever I walk out in the evening through ST or PCV, I see dogs relieving themselves on plants and trees, and no one cares.

Anonymous said...

"Enforcement isn't going to work. That's why Rose Management relaxed the previous dog rules. Even now, whenever I walk out in the evening through ST or PCV, I see dogs relieving themselves on plants and trees, and no one cares."

STR- certainly you can't consider the lame attempt for a week or two by useless Sty Town Security guards of telling residents to "get your dog off the grass" an attempt at enforcement. I'm basically in agreement with all the thoughts voiced here regarding the fall of Sty Town. This place has fallen and its fallen hard. I'm going to choose to be optimistic which is a change for me. Maybe it won't come back, and if it doesn't I still believe I will be able to sell my place and hopefully roll the proceeds over into another residence in Manhattan. One thing is certain, no conversion and for sure we'll be walking through shit, piss,and pot smoke filled halls for as long as we all remain here.

Anonymous said...

I'm thinking this. This place even smells bad. The cooking smells that come from an apartment in our building could kill a rhino. I'll buy in to if the price is right, and sell it as fast as humanly posible. paid my dues here and am done.

Anonymous said...

Condo conversion by Brookfield will mean the end of Rose Associates. can't wait until that happens. Rose's second time around is worse than Rose one and TS combined.

Anonymous said...

I'm in total agreement. I see these owners with their dogs from my window. The first thing they do is head straight for the trees & the lawns. Just a matter of time before the place becomes a dog run. It's possible a condo conversion might help although traditionally, co-ops have been the ones to put in the strict rules. Owners will have incentive to keep the place looking good. But I can't think of any enforcement scenario that would work. Tishman-Speyer...what jerks!

Anonymous said...

I don't know what building you all live in, but I don't have any of these problems--we have grad students near us, but they are lovely. This place is still lovely, though I agree maintenance has declined a bit, but not for any of the reasons you state. The dogs don't bother me.

I know everyone asks you this over and over, but really, if it is SO bad, why are you still here? Life it too short and many of you are getting on in years--why would you spend the last part of your lives so unhappy and not wanting to be here?

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>I'll buy in to if the price is right, and sell it as fast as humanly posible.<<

Under the TA/Brookfield plan you wouldn't make much profit. They intend to have a stipulation limiting the profit that could be made from a flip.

Anonymous said...

To the poster with all the J-51 "facts"-- you obviously can't be trusted to provide accurate information since Rent Stabilization is supervised by the STATE HCR rather than the CITY HPD. I mean, really!

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>I see these owners with their dogs from my window. The first thing they do is head straight for the trees & the lawns.<<

Under the new dog rules, the lawns have been pretty much opened up for use as a dog toilet. What gets to me is seeing dogs pissing on trees, plants and flowers. I don't know how much of this our old Stuy Town/PCV trees can take.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>I know everyone asks you this over and over, but really, if it is SO bad, why are you still here? Life it too short and many of you are getting on in years--why would you spend the last part of your lives so unhappy and not wanting to be here?<<

I don't know to whom the above remark is addressed, but a couple of things:

I value living in Manhattan and value living here in Stuy Town. That doesn't mean I have to stay silent when I see problems in this complex or things turning for the worse. Everyone is "getting on in years," including you. Don't know what significance getting older has in this discussion.

Anonymous said...

Now more than ever, I really think http://www.pcvstconversionforum.blogspot.com is a front for one of the plans, the Guterman plan.

Why, because the comments/ideas the blog pushes are just to good to be true by a civilian. Prove me wrong i say. When the bloggers identity becomes public, and it will eventually, we'll then ascertain whether or not you were working in tandem with Guterman, just as NY Curbed is (site founded by Jon Miller, a partner of Gutermn).

In September 1986, Guterman drew media attention when he chartered the RMS Queen Elizabeth 2 along with a crew of over 1,000, for his 13yr old son's Bar Mitzvah. This info comes directly from NYTimes reports from 1986 - is this the man we want taking control of our community, who is so out of touch with reality and the middle class? I dont believe Guterman shares the interests of the PCVST community and I'm glad the TA has not supported his plan, because let's face it, Guterman is in it to make his millions and leave the residents high and dry.

Anonymous said...

From a lot of the comments that get posted, I perceive that many people are waiting with baited halitosis for the older tenants to either drop dead or be driven out by the constantly deteriorating QOL. Don't hold that halitosis because you'll be gone first!

Anonymous said...

"The dogs don't bother me. "
Well that may be, but it doesn't change the fact that they are allowed to urinate and defecate all over the property. Frequently, their leftovers are not cleaned up, and when they are they leave that wonderful skid mark for all of us to try to negotiate around. Let's not also forget the yelping inside and outside at all hours.


>>I'll buy in to if the price is right, and sell it as fast as humanly posible.<<

"Under the TA/Brookfield plan you wouldn't make much profit. They intend to have a stipulation limiting the profit that could be made from a flip."

STY- why are you knowingly spreading disinformation? I never knew you to do anything like that. Only a small number of apartments will have limited upside sales restrictions. You're aware of that. Certainly you're not referring to the temporary flip tax to prevent immediate flipping and maintaining stability on the majority of sales. If this is what you are referring to then I think it behooves you to be more explicit. This tax will dissipate over time. Indeed, if one's plan is to buy and run then you are correct, but at least say that.

February 5, 2012 10:12 AM

Anonymous said...

I acknowledge it gets harder to move when you are retired, older--I have lived all over this country, New York three times, Boston, Chicago, SF and LA among other places, but I really don't want to move again and I still have twenty years before I am officially elderly. BUT if the place I lived were so intolerable as you all have described it, I wouldn't want to live out my last years in a place I hated. Life really is short and I wouldn't want to spend the last part of it so unhappy.

TAKEYOURSHOEOFFstudents said...

We're here only due to its been the cheapest deal in town, for us anyway. But due to the increasing misery (noise, dirt, noise, dirt, noise, dirt) I'l sell out right away too. such a dump now.

MBaaar said...

Someone commented that Garodnick held a meeting with some tenants last week. Does anyone know anything about this? Did it definitely happen? If so, do you know any details?

Anonymous said...

"Under the new dog rules, the lawns have been pretty much opened up for use as a dog toilet. What gets to me is seeing dogs pissing on trees, plants and flowers. I don't know how much of this our old Stuy Town/PCV trees can take."

Fully half of the area around my building is "brownfields." There is no grass left. Just a big pile of compost that now seems to be a permanent fixture.

The dogs didn't kill the grass. It was allowed to wash away and was never replaced. A victim of poor landscaping and lots of truck tire traffic from property management.

Anonymous said...

@ 9:01 am - you, not 9:08, are way off base. Roberts tenants w/j-51 riders will lose RS protection circa 2020. Pre-Roberts RS tenants will enjoy RS as long as Albany comtinues to renew the law. I suggest a third talk w/your lawyer is in order.

Anonymous said...

No one has answered any questions re: subletting as a condo or coop owner? Is this allowed? And if so, nothing will change as far as the existing problems. They would probably increase. If I'm a landlord, will I rent to high paying students! OF COURSE

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>STY- why are you knowingly spreading disinformation? I never knew you to do anything like that. Only a small number of apartments will have limited upside sales restrictions. You're aware of that. Certainly you're not referring to the temporary flip tax to prevent immediate flipping and maintaining stability on the majority of sales. If this is what you are referring to then I think it behooves you to be more explicit. This tax will dissipate over time. Indeed, if one's plan is to buy and run then you are correct, but at least say that.<<

I was commenting to this:

>>I'll buy in to if the price is right, and sell it as fast as humanly posible.<<

So, this person's plan IS to buy and run.

Anonymous said...

Nothing is going to improve here if the people who buy their apartments are cavalier assholes who will flip asap and/or rent their apartments to hard partying, noisy students. I vote for keeping it as a rental property. No conversion.

Anonymous said...

10:12 AM--Yes, STR has to spell out every alternative in every post he makes over and over so when you read it, it will be perfectly accurate and he can avoid your sanctimony. He knows EXACTLY what the proposed alternatives are, he's stated them in numerous posts. It's one thing for him to run this blog, it's another to require NY Times Editorial standards on every one of his posts--he's not writing an OpEd column. He's responding in a casual fashion to regular posters on a blog.

STR--how do you deal with such a curmudgeonly, fusty crowd? I give you credit.

Anonymous said...

There was NO secret tenants meeting, I called a TA Board member. so the person saying there was a meeting is just looking to stir up a hornets nest!

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>so the person saying there was a meeting is just looking to stir up a hornets nest!<<

I would think so. If there were any such meeting we would have heard about it beforehand. Maybe Dan was just gathering a bunch of supporters for his comptroller campaign, if that.

Anonymous said...

Right, so where are the answer to the subletting - rental rules if possible conversion? A very IMPORTANT QUESTION.

Anonymous said...

STR--how do you deal with such a curmudgeonly, fusty crowd? I give you credit>>>>>

No wonder that other blogger (whose name we must not mention) got the hell out. Wonder he didn't commit suicide. Prolly would have if he had stayed much longer.

Anonymous said...

Right, so where are the answer to the subletting - rental rules if possible conversion? A very IMPORTANT QUESTION.>>

Why don't you go ask the TA or Goradnick? Why do you demand that STR answer your question? Just can't wait to buy and rent it out to a bunch of students? Your plan would lower the value of all the other apartments that had been purchased and you would be very popular with your fellow owners or co-operators.

Anonymous said...

The blog readers are an ungrateful and demanding group. Why not start charging them a membership fee?

Anonymous said...

fyi: The question about subletting and rentals has been asked to the TA. No answer given.

Anonymous said...

Shouldn't tenants be asking the TA at this point about specific structure points of a conversion offering ? They seem to be in the drivers seat (as far as a tenant bid) at the moment, like it or not.

There might not be an opportunity to change some aspects of the conversion plan rules and regs, after the AG approves it. Issues like flip taxes and minimum holds, subleases etc are key points in order to maintain some level of affordability.

I realize that the process of submitting a bid and filing an offering plan are 2 different things, but it seems to me that the TA and it's advisers (Moelis, Paul, Weiss) are the only people with any input or knowledge of the events at this time.

Anonymous said...

The word now we're hearing is that this won't take place (IF) for at least 2 more years.

Is this true?

MBaaar said...

I checked. The comment by Gerry Guterman was indeed from Gerry Guterman. So I expect we'll hear more relatively soon about how G-W would like to proceed.

Anonymous said...

It's 40 degrees outside and we have no heat. These bastards are really beyond despicable.

Anonymous said...

Dear STR,

Posts that are simply designed to be inflammatory, such as; "The blog readers are an ungrateful and demanding group. Why not start charging them a membership fee?" are simply posted by internet trolls and are designed to elicit an angry response. Perhaps it would be a good idea to think about how productive it is to include them in your blog.

Thanks

Stuy Town Reporter said...

There is some merit in what you write.

feduptenant#14522 said...

Here too. It was really cold earlier and no heaet. bit of sun now helping. BUT THANKs for the heat Adam. Here's hoping you're nice and warm in your home!

Anonymous said...

"It's 40 degrees outside and we have no heat. These bastards are really beyond despicable."

Perhaps. But, on average, they provide adequate heat.

Why, just last week when it was 58 degrees outside at night the heat was pouring out of my radiator. I was sweltering that evening--even with all of the windows open.

Today you're freezing.

When you average out my sweaty night with your chilly day, we're very comfy...on average.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

Have you called management?

Anonymous said...

What's the point in calling Management? They are totally incompetent. Couldn't run a hot dog stand.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

Well, if management is not notified, how is supposed to 1) know about the problem, and 2) do something to fix it?

Anonymous said...

There was a meeting last week. It was at ps 40 and was geared toward families. It was hosted by the woman from the TA. Her picture is in the flyer that was under everyone's door. Either the TA doesn't know what it's people are doing or they are lying to you.

Anonymous said...

"What's the point in calling Management? They are totally incompetent. Couldn't run a hot dog stand."

I thought management WAS running a hot dog stand. They just shut it down for the winter. Oval Weenie...

Anonymous said...

I still don't see how a conversion wouldn't get held up for years. If it's condo, how long is it going to take to carve up 11,000+ tax lots? How are two identical apartments going to be priced for a conversion when one is occupied by a 40-year resident and the other is occupied by a newly-moved-in post-Roberts renter? Would they pay the same price? That'll rile some long-timers. Will it be in proportion to rent paid? That'll rile some newer residents. Either way, with 25,000 people involved someone's gonna sue. If it goes co-op are the condo fans going to sue? If it goes condo are the co-op fans going to sue? How long are those lawsuits going to take to resolve? If it's a condo conversion, who's gonna pay the electric bill? Or are residents going to have to front the millions of dollars for submetering before conversion? Does anyone really know how toxic (or not) this former land o' chemical storage tanks is? Is the steam plant in good shape or about to crumble? Water pipes? Etc., etc.

I'd love to see a conversion of some kind happen, but I don't see how it would without years of delays.

Anonymous said...

Management will send somebody over who will say the indoor temp is the legal minimum. That doesn't mean the apartment is warm though, especially with drafty windows that we are maying for for life.

Anonymous said...

"MBaaar said...

My site is a completely open forum only on this subject"

Until someone disagrees with you that a conversion is a good idea. At that point the forum closes very quickly...

Anonymous said...

"How are two identical apartments going to be priced for a conversion when one is occupied by a 40-year resident and the other is occupied by a newly-moved-in post-Roberts renter? "
This was mentioned at the last meeting. The two apartments are not identical—the one occupied by a 40-year resident has not been renovated (no marble bathroom, no dishwasher, no new kitchen cabinets and appliances). the unrenovated apartment would cost less, which seems fair to me.

MBaaar said...

To the person who wrote about a woman from the TA holding a meeting in PS 40. Was it families from a single building? I saw no flyer. Did you see it? Was it in your building? Can you speak to your neighbors who might have gone & find out what was discussed & who conducted the meeting. Maybe this is nothing bearing on Brookfield but it's worth finding out.

Anonymous said...

I find that the heat is the one thing that management does right. I've never had a problem, knock on wood, other than the typical loud banging of water through steam pipes.

Could I ready any more victimhood here or what? Oh, woe is me, woe is us, the world is out to get us...

Anonymous said...

Why families? what was discussed? WHY THE BIG FREAKING SECRET?

Anonymous said...

I find that the heat is the one thing that management does right. I've never had a problem, knock on wood, other than the typical loud banging of water through steam pipes.

Could I ready any more victimhood here or what? Oh, woe is me, woe is us, the world is out to get us... >>

Not all building function the same; not all apartments get the amount of heat. So hold the snark. Be glad you do have consistent heat. Not everybody does.

Anonymous said...

A suggestion.

There's major thread drift going on here, and it's not unique to this particular thread. A sizable number of people regularly come to this blog to comment on matters completely unrelated to a post of yours on a specific topic, and that makes following the comments threads difficult, if not impossible.

An easy fix is to regularly post "open threads" to accommodate people who need to say or report something unrelated to a post of yours on a specific topic. And insist that comments on posts with topics stick to the specific topic.

Anonymous said...

The meeting was addressed to PS 40 families. There were about 50 people there. Dan G. talked about the conversion and answered questions. How long this would all take. If we can buy more than one unit. Etc etc.

MBaaar said...

STR, is there anything you can do to help find out more about the meeting that occurred at PS 40. Maybe like a separate post.
I hope whoever has been adding this subject to the comments isn't doing it as a joke. It's actually quite important to know if the TA is trying to poll people now on on behalf of Brookfield.
Did the meeting really occur? What building received the flyer? What did it say? Is there any way we can get more information about this?

Stuy Town Reporter said...

See above 10:55 AM post.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>A suggestion.

There's major thread drift going on here, and it's not unique to this particular thread. A sizable number of people regularly come to this blog to comment on matters completely unrelated to a post of yours on a specific topic, and that makes following the comments threads difficult, if not impossible.

An easy fix is to regularly post "open threads" to accommodate people who need to say or report something unrelated to a post of yours on a specific topic. And insist that comments on posts with topics stick to the specific topic.<<

I'll look into this, but it may take me till the weekend to work on this, as I'm fairly busy right now.

Anonymous said...

Maybe the school said that the meeting could take place there only if it were directed towards families, it being an elementary school and all.

I can't imagine any ridiculous reason other ethan this. It did take place. A friend of mine was invited by a parent who goes there. My friend could not attend.

The comment about it being a joke (mbaar) is a bit concerning. Paranoid?

MBaaar said...

To whoever posted at 10:55...one prior comment said the meeting was held by a woman...that flyers were shoved under doors. Can you give us any more help about this? What building? Who was the woman? What did the flyer say? Did any price polling occur? There has to be a specific reason why this meeting occurred. One random small meeting conveying the same info as was broadcast in the tele-conf makes no sense unless the content & goals of the meeting were different than the last big group meeting.

Anonymous said...

MBaaar February 7, 2012 3:24 PM

What the earlier poster wrote, and I quote is,

<<<"It was hosted by the woman from the TA. Her picture is in the flyer that was under everyone's door.">>>

The referenced flyer that "was under everyone's door" is probably the full color cardboard flyer with the ST-PCVTA mission statement and comment card on the front and the FAQs on the back. I am holding the flyer in my hand now. The woman pictured on the front of the color flyer is Jennifer Kops. According to the ST-PCVTA website, she is on their board of directors.

So you're a blogger now – why not just call Dan Garodnick's office and ask his staff about the meeting yourself? I for one will be anxiously awaiting your scoop.

Anonymous said...

FTR MBaar, I don't understand your post.


Fwiw, if the intended buyout is to take at least another two years, we are not interested. Are we serously talking two year minimum?

MBaaar said...

Thanks. Can you possibly just tell me what build you're in?

MBaaar said...

The TA has posted a video at the protectstpcv site:
http://www.protectstpcv.org/conversion-qa-episode-1/

Susan Steinberg explaining why they chose condo.
I tried to watch but got a msg: this video is private.

Can somebody else try? Either they know who I am or they bummed up.

Any way you look at it...it will just be more 1-way communication.

Anonymous said...

I think MBaaar is a Guterman shill. He's freaking about the polling and all of his posts are slanted to a co-op conversion. He tries to appear balanced but it doesn't seem to hold up upon close inspection.

I have been giving him the benefit of the doubt because I truly believe that a broad, open discussion is the best thing for all of us in the long run but I sense that he has an agenda.

Too bad.

MBaaar said...

You are totally misguided, my friend. You'll see in the end that I will use the scorecard approach to make my decision and it will be done according to a score I assign to how well I like how each plan meets each category multiplied by a score that reflects my priority for each item.
I have knocked the way in which the TA has handled things. And I have knocked remarks by Garodnick slanted against G-W that provide no detail...so they're just slurs. I've asked him to prove his negative remarks but have seen no public statement of any kind. The TA has also made statements in support of a condo conversion that information from my source (not from G-W) indicates aren't true. Today that same source contradicted something G-W contended which I will double-check & if it's not true, it will be posted. I would be happy to double-check items with Brookfield, too, except Barry Blattman hasn't returned my email or phone call. Nor has anyone else at Brookfield with whom I've left msgs.
So what you see as favoring I think is just a result of me knocking how the TA & Brookfield have conducted themselves. Will have nothing to do with my final decision.
Now...let's see how you like it. How about me insinuating that you are just trying to cast doubt about my integrity because you are on the TA Board or you have a friend or spouse on the TA Board or you really work for Brookfield. In fact, I'll bet you are really the president of Brookfield pretending to be a resident. So why should anyone listen to you?
I note that in each case you just say 'you can feel things in your bones'. In all cases I've tried to show t specifics that prove my point. In your case, you just make the typical bad mouthing generalizations we see from most bloggers. That's why there's no sympathy for your point of view at my site & you have to come over here to spout off.
Why don't you just get off it? My site will move on to trying make an accurate scorecard next. I don't see how that's favoring any side. Frankly, so far you haven't added very much to the conversation.

Anonymous said...

I don't know that MBaaar is a shill for anybody other than himself. What I do know is that for a guy with his own weblog, he spends a lot of time over here monopolizing comments threads.

Anonymous said...

Advice to mbaaar, no insult intended--- but you are not getting people to your site this way. Please stop.

Anonymous said...

This is hilarious! The person whose policy is "Profanity & rants will not post" comes to someone else's blog to post rants and ad hominem attacks!

"Now...let's see how you like it. How about me insinuating that you are just trying to cast doubt about my integrity because you are on the TA Board or you have a friend or spouse on the TA Board or you really work for Brookfield. In fact, I'll bet you are really the president of Brookfield pretending to be a resident. So why should anyone listen to you?
I note that in each case you just say 'you can feel things in your bones'. In all cases I've tried to show t specifics that prove my point. In your case, you just make the typical bad mouthing generalizations we see from most bloggers. That's why there's no sympathy for your point of view at my site & you have to come over here to spout off. Why don't you just get off it? My site will move on to trying make an accurate scorecard next. I don't see how that's favoring any side. Frankly, so far you haven't added very much to the conversation."

This kind of stuff really doesn't belong here on STR and, the fact that it IS posted here, indicates no one is really paying attention to the "conversion" site.

Somebody refresh my memory...when did we decide that we wanted to proceed with a "flip & skip" plan anyway?!?

Anonymous said...

Stuyvesant management has nickeled and dimed us on everything. if this place goes coop let us never never use this management team again!
My key got bent because of a defective lock and they charged me 8.00 even though it was their lock that caused the key to bend.

They allow loud college parties, with no ramifications and do nothing when you complain. No one comes to help or to tell the kids to shut up.

We used to be able to leave broken furniture in hallway, or newspapers, and now they tell us to bring downstairs or, on furniture, that there is a fee to cart away so we shd not leave it there.

Anonymous said...

Before you settle on Guterman, let's do due diligence, and also check with AG office. SEE below

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/04/17/realestate/guterman-s-troubles-jolt-client-co-ops.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Anonymous said...

The more I read this thread, the more I feel that the best thing to do is continue to rent! No way would I want to deal with either Brookfield and the TA or Guterman! Even another sleazy landlord couldn't be any worse than those two entities!

Anonymous said...

Do not worry. NYU will bid and win. NYU NYU

Anonymous said...

"We used to be able to leave broken furniture in hallway, or newspapers, and now they tell us to bring downstairs or, on furniture, that there is a fee to cart away so we shd not leave it there."


Yeah, having mounds of garbage left in the hall for pick up truly was a wonderful policy. Oh how I miss it.

I have to say that I do find this stealth TA meeting somewhat sleezy. As someone who attends ALL the meetings, it would have been nice if everyone had the opportunity to attend. Don't get me wrong, I do not necessarily have a problem with small group meetings, but at least have people submit postcards and have a lottery so that everyone who wishes would have the same chance to attend.

Fed Up Tenant said...

We used to be able to leave broken furniture in hallway, or newspapers

Are you kidding me? That stopped YEARS ago and I, for one, am glad that it did. Sometimes the porter back then didn't remove that stuff from my floor until the afternoon, so the hallway functioned as an almost never-ending dump. It was an unpleasant eyesore, at best, and could be downright disgusting, at worst.

If you are still continuing to leave your newspapers and FURNITURE or anything else in the hallway on your floor, SHAME ON YOU. I, for one, do not want to look at, walk around or deal with items in the hallway on my floor. And I shouldn't have to. Particularly since - unless you have been living under a rock for the last several years - everyone here knows that the porters rarely set foot on or clean any of the floors, including the disgusting rugs.

Please get with the program. Be kind to your neighbors and do NOT leave anything in the hallway on your floor.

Anonymous said...

Furniture, carpeting and newspapers left in the hallway were an eyesore and a fire hazard. There were rules though: newspapers had to be put out by the incinerator door before 9 am and furniture could only be put out on Wednesday afternoons. Of course, nobody ever took a blind bit of notice of those rules. I am all in favor of not being able to leave stuff in the hallways, but I do resent the idea of not being able to put [reasonable] furniture in the recycling area.

Anonymous said...

Some time ago it used to be newspapers and magazines. NEVER furniture. That's a fire hazard for goodness sake!

Putting out newspapers, etc. was a nice privilege. Didn't hurt anyone and it was only to be done late at night for early morning pickup. Those days are long gone, though.

Now I have a neighbor that likes to put their garbage in the hopper but doesn't bother to put it down the chute. When I come out with the trash, I pull open the hopper and there's their bag of trash. At first I pushed it down for them but now I just leave it on the floor.

Fortunately, they seemed to have gotten the message. For the residentially challenged, this stuff can be complicated...

Anonymous said...

"The more I read this thread, the more I feel that the best thing to do is continue to rent! No way would I want to deal with either Brookfield and the TA or Guterman! Even another sleazy landlord couldn't be any worse than those two entities!"

Hmmm, well it kinda looks like you will be dealing with Brookfield, even if you remain a renter.

TAKEYOURhealsOFFLADIES said...

Honestly, why doesn't N.Y.U buy the place for the shortage of housing? Just read they are at least 50% short housing for Fall 2012 students.

w.t.h.?

Anonymous said...

Do not worry. NYU will bid and win. NYU NYU

February 10, 2012 7:19 AM
Could it get much worse if NYU did own it?

Anonymous said...

I thought it was half owned now by NYU. Huh. What's to say they're not in the bid themselves? Is there any reason they cannot bid?

TAKEYOURhealsOFFLADIES said...

How can the property even be sold with Roberts not being settled? Ain't gonna happen anytime soon folks.

Anonymous said...

"No way would I want to deal with either Brookfield and the TA or Guterman! Even another sleazy landlord couldn't be any worse than those two entities!"

Wow, welcoming another sleazy landlord before the game has even started. That kind of sentiment falls somewhere between appeasement and nihilism.

Anonymous said...

Yes it could get much worse if NYU owned us... Talk about having the monster at your door, litteraly.

Anonymous said...

NYU doesn't have the juice to take on a project like this. They're rich but they've mismanaged their endowment for years. According to them, they've got a total of $2 billion:

http://www.nyu.edu/giving/calltoaction/faq.html

What happens when they have to pay the real estate taxes or the electric bill!

NYU is not going to buy this place. That's for sure. They just want to keep renting enough apartments to make most of our lives miserable...

gg@gutermanpartners.com said...

Gerald Guterman

BUILDING DORMITORIES AT STPCV.

We received a number of questions and concerns regarding changing the apartments into high occupancy dormitory housing and thought it was serious enough to pass it along with our thoughts.

Example of Question:
We have lived in Stuyvesant Town-Peter Cooper Village for more than thirty-five years, are interested in buying, and can afford to buy. The problem, however, is that the two bedroom apartment next to ours was renovated and leased to three students with a fourth student also now living in the apartment. They tend to have parties frequently and the noise has been unbearable. We can never consider buying under these conditions. So my question is what can Guterman Westwood do about the renovated apartments that are currently marketed to students for dormitory housing. Many long time tenants have the same concern. This issue is going to affect sales. We do not want a community with so many more transitory tenants, pressurized walls, and standing-room-only living conditions.

Answer:
In our opinion, the right response to this issue is critical both to a successful conversion and to the continued viability of Stuyvesant Town-Peter Cooper Village as a safe, stable, family oriented, residential community.

Guterman Westwood Partners believes that it was never the intention of the original developers, the last owners – or the City of New York – to deliberately remodel the demographics of the Stuyvesant Town-Peter Cooper Village community with a formal program aimed at students.
Furthermore, these policies bringing increases in population that we believe the complex was not designed for, even though they may technically fit within existing zoning regulations.
Increasing the population beyond original design intent is putting a strain on the entire community, and raising the possibility of life threatening consequences in an emergency.

To be specific, we believe that the conversion of apartments intended for middle income, stabilized, residential housing with particular demographics to dormitory style housing, with the attendant increase in population density and noise, has had negative effects that we believe are potentially serious and long-lasting.
Note that we would like to think that these effects were unintended by those currently managing the property.

(continued-next comment)

gg@gutermanpartners.com said...

Gerald Guterman
(Continued - Building Dormitories at STPCV)

For every 100 apartments with an average of two adults in occupancy, when renovated and leased as student/dormitory housing, the physical occupancy in the same total space could possibly increase by 50%-100% - from 200 adults to as many as 300-400 adults.
An unrestrained increase in population of this magnitude without adequate upgrades to building infrastructure, including sprinklers, elevators, electrical capacity etc., as well as necessary increases in fire safety, police, utility, maintenance and management services. It will also place an unusually heavy burden on the community due to the increased physical danger as well as substantially lower quality of life for the average family.

It is our belief that the more extensive the implementation of this policy and longer it continues, the greater the risk to the physical welfare of the tenants and the stability of the community.
We are also concerned (as an investor) about the costs to reconvert the property from student/dormitory style housing back to a middle income, stable, residential community. This process of re-stabilizing the community could require a number of years.
We believe that tenants should continue to make their concerns known to existing management with the intent of reversing the current policy of providing student housing programs within Stuyvesant Town-Peter Cooper Village. Bottom line,
we don't own or control the property. Unless we do, we have a limited ability to change the existing policy with the intent of maximizing long term value.

Gerry Guterman

Anonymous said...

Nothing will happen until Roberts is settled. And almost all agree Roberts isn't settling for a longggggggggg time.

This is all a bunch of b---it jabbing of jaws.

Anonymous said...

Growing family here. DO WE know at all if we'd be able to buy a larger apartment? IF wew can't have option for a 2 bedroom in either pcv or st, I'm not staying on here.

Please someone tell us what the proposed plan on larger units ?

Anonymous said...

All Brookfield needs to do now is to pledge to bring the development into compliance with NYC housing code that says that not more than 2 unrelated tenants can be included in a lease. The pressure walls will be gone within a year.

Under Gutterman, their quote "We are also concerned (as an investor) about the costs to reconvert the property from student/dormitory style housing back to a middle income, stable, residential community. This process of re-stabilizing the community could require a number of years." is meaningless because their intent is to be gone before that happens.

Anonymous said...

WE MAKE OUR COMPLAINTS KNOWN to Rose and nothing changes. THEY should put bouncers on half the floors of our building. IT'S SUCK A SLEEZY dorm now.

Rose doing nothing. They keep renting to students. Pass by the leasing office anyday and see the future of sty and pcv.

Anonymous said...

I am one of those tenants who could afford to buy my one-bedroom apartment, but I wouldn't so long as the property continues to be a dorm. I haven't had a decent night's sleep in the last two years since the apartment downstairs from me was turned into a dorm/squat. These kids never sleep. They are up all night and the quality of my life has gone down the toilet. I feel that I am overpaying on my rent (and I am rent stabilized) because my quality of life has been so negatively affected by the student invasion. Why would I invest my money and, probably, pay more per month to live in this situation? My mother didn't raise a fool! And before the "Get out you old crank" amen chorus starts: I am not going to be driven out. I live in the hope that eventually things will improve, maybe when we get rid of Rose and CW.

Anonymous said...

Nice pool of dog (I guess) piss in my elevator this afternoon.

Wouldn't buy into this place!

Fed Up Tenant (the original) said...

Please someone tell us what the proposed plan on larger units?

The current Ta condo proposal allows for tenants to change apartments and complexes, depending on availability.

Anonymous said...

good to know NYU doesn't have the cash to step up!

Anonymous said...

I've been lucky so far regarding the dorm apartments. Unfortunately, I haven't been so lucky with dogs waking me every morning from the various apartments around me. The one common thread running through all of this of course is that there are significant QOL issues here that I really don't see how they are going to ameliorate. I'm here until I can retire (9 years). I have nowhere else to go, but it's going to be misery all that time unless things change. I would have never left this place when I first arrived here 13 years ago. I would have never predicted this.

Anonymous said...

WORST WORST situation is the noise isues. the apartments are not well built for noise at all. i can heaer my neighbors curse, have sex, shout, talk, and sneeze.

Anonymous said...

Guterman is simply parroting back to us what we're saying. We say we're unhappy with the dorm apartments, so they're all sympathetic. We're concerned about price, so they say they'll charge us less. Don't believe any of it. If they have to rent to students to make their numbers, they will.

Anonymous said...

Guterman is wasting his and our time. He's an opportunist and not to be trusted. He has a track record and it's not one he should be proud of.

Anonymous said...

I for one am thankful that Mr Guterman is willing to answer questions and concerns on here. I wish he would consider holding a town hall type meeting locally. Since he might not get the turnout the TA gets he could rent out JHS 104 for the event. I would go. At any rate if he wants to continue answering questions on here, how about the question someone just posted regarding buying an apartment other than the one I am in. I am in a ground floor apartment I would NEVER buy this apartment.

Anonymous said...

So can we buy our apartment and rent it for $3500 to nyu students? It's a 1 br.

Rummaged said...

"All Brookfield needs to do now is to pledge to bring the development into compliance with NYC housing code that says that not more than 2 unrelated tenants can be included in a lease. The pressure walls will be gone within a year."

Many of these "Student" apartments are held by 2 or less lease holders with the other tenants subletting. This wouldn't accomplish anything.

Secondly, how many NYU students actually live in Stuytown, and how much of this is just old people who go to bed at 8 PM bitching about younger tenants and using "student" as a catch-all?

People on this blog love saying how Stuytown was better as a "family community", but kids are F***ing LOUD!!! I can't imagine that historically it was only 1 child per actual room either. Maybe there were no pressure walls, but I'm sure there were multiple children, and just as many people to an apartment in the 50s - 70s.

Anonymous said...

If the buyout is a condo, then there are no rules as to who you can rent to. Fwiw, we have owned a condo in NYc, and the building ran a tight ship. Noisy, problematic renters were dealt with harshly , as private owners living amongst renters. I can honestly say, there was rarely a problem.

B -U- T the building was built much better (for sound) than pcv or st.

Anonymous said...

Rummaged, you seem to overlook the fact that families with children put their kids to bed at 10 PM so they can go to school the next day. They don't make nearly as much of a disruption as an apartment full of 20somethings drunk in the middle of the night.

You need to understand the history of the dynamic in this community in order to judge the opinions of long time tenants here.

Anonymous said...

The provision of 2 unrelated lease holders only allows one additional "occupant". There's no such thing as a sublease in addition to the leaseholder. An official sublease can only be arranged with the consent of the landlord, and it still must comply with statute, and (in this case) the rent stabilization law.

Anonymous said...

Has anyone looked at the original finishes which are still present in many apartments here, and asked themselves who these were built for? It was MIDDLE CLASS housing for the masses. No one can dispute that Met Life didn't exactly throw money around for thick, solid, soundproof walls. What the heck do you expect here? If you're so grand, move to a doorman building.

Anonymous said...

"Has anyone looked at the original finishes which are still present in many apartments here, and asked themselves who these were built for? It was MIDDLE CLASS housing for the masses. No one can dispute that Met Life didn't exactly throw money around for thick, solid, soundproof walls. What the heck do you expect here? If you're so grand, move to a doorman building."

I'm not sure what point you're trying to bring out here. Is this comment directed at a particular post? I'm especially not getting the "so grand" comment. If it's a general comment trying to inculcate the idea that this isn't a well constructed complex (regarding sound insulation at least) and we shouldn't expect there to be quiet, then why would you allow dorms and dogs which would only ADD to the problem. Also, why wouldn't you at least enforce the carpeting policy? My point is why not try to keep it as livable for as many people as possible. I can say that when I moved in 14 years ago I didn't have any noise complaints, I sure have them now.

Again, if I'm misinterpreting the point of your post my apologies.

Anonymous said...

I don't understand that remark about "if you are so grand ...." What's that all about? True MetLife built this property to be utilitarian, no-frills housing for middle income people. It wasn't built to house multiple adult occupants in each unit with pressure walls and no carpeting. Before it became a dorm, the noise problems were at a minimum because strict rules were enforced concerning carpeting, pressure walls were not allowed, and security did their job if anybody was disturbing the peace. Who is it who should move to a doorman building? The RS tenants whose lives were shattered by the conversion to a dorm or the crammed-in students with their attendant noise and lack of consideration. THEY - the students - are in the wrong place, not US, the long term RS tenants who moved into apartments, not cubicles.