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, January 20, 2012

Million Dollar Dan



From http://www.dnainfo.com/20120118/upper-east-side/dan-garodnick-raises-more-than-1m-for-potential-comptroller-race#ixzz1k2J1Exzw:

East Side City Councilman Daniel Garodnick has raised more than $1 million for a run at citywide office, posing a potential challenge to replace embattled City Comptroller John Liu, who is eyeing a run for mayor.

Garodnick raised more than $280,000 over the past six months, according to campaign filings released Wednesday, bringing his campaign war chest to more than $1 million so far.

“That’s a considerable amount of bucks,” said Baruch College politics professor Doug Muzzio. “If Liu does run for mayor and opens up the comptroller seat or needs to resign… Garodnick is in a really good spot," he said.

While the councilman has not yet officially declared his candidacy for any position, sources close to him said he’s eyeing a run for comptroller if Liu leaves the post, setting up a potential challenge with fellow Councilman Domenic Recchia Jr., who currently heads the Council's powerful Finance Committee.

Recchia brought in over $270,000 over the past six months, bringing his total raised to $483,000 for the 2013 race.

If Liu chooses to remain comptroller, some believe Garodnick would also be a strong candidate for Manhattan Borough President, a position that is also being eyed by Community Board 1 chairwoman Julie Menin, as well as Councilwoman Jessica Lappin. Current Borough President Scott Stringer is running for mayor.

Garodnick, who chairs the Council’s Consumer Affairs committee and held a large campaign kick-off event earlier this month, said he was excited by the numbers, which place him among the city’s fundraising elite.

“People have been extremely supportive, and I’m encouraged by that,” Garodnick said of the filings, which were made public Wednesday.

“I think that my approach of trying to solve people’s problems by rolling up your sleeves and getting things done is appealing. I’ve tried to bring that, along with progressive values, to the table,” he added.

In addition to his focus on consumer protection issues, Garodnick said he will continue to push for long-term affordable housing and stability for tenants at Stuyvesent Town and Peter Cooper Village, where he was raised and currenty lives with his wife and young son.

In addition to his cash flow, Garodnick's records show he spent about $34,000 over the past six months, mainly on campaign consultants, voter databases, and a major event at the Mexican restaurant Mojave in Astoria, Queens.

While other candidates like Stringer have courted money from big-names celebs, including actress Scarlett Johansson and Lady Gaga’s dad, Joe Germanotta, Garodnick said he’s relying on longtime supporters, including his family.

“My mom is there,” he joked. “That’s the biggest name I think you’re going to find.” (Records show she donated $200 last week.)

And while he intends to continue fundraising, Garodnick said his energy will remain focused on his current Council gig.

“There’s still two years to go, and I have a list of legislative goals that is extremely long,” he said. "There is a lot to do.”

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

STR here: That joke about his mom may be cute, but a look at the online records for contributions shows significant donations from Garodnick's former law partners (Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison) and...real estate and investment banking concerns, which tend to donate between 1K and 5K to Dan's campaign.

50 comments:

Anonymous said...

he lives in my building, I'll hit him up for a loan.

Peace Out G-Money

Anonymous said...

Is it possible that Garodnick pushed the TA into endorsing Brookfield in order curry favor with certain real estate interests that might contribute to his campaign?

Stuy Town Reporter said...

We'd have to find Brookfield donating to Dan's campaign to make that even a possibility.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

Just going alphabetically we have, for instance,Daniel Brodsky donating 3K to Dan. According to the Times: "Mr. Brodsky is the managing director of the Brodsky Organization, a company he started with his father, Nathan Brodsky, in 1971. It currently owns and manages 6,200 apartments in 68 Manhattan buildings and has also developed a number of condominium and co-op buildings."

The Campagnas (David & Julie, a "homemaker") donated $3,200 to Dan. Julie's the homemaker, we know from the Finance Board records, but who is David? Well, do a Google search and David turns out to be the owner of Campagna Realty.

And the real estate interests in Dan's campaign continue. Other politicos in NYC get similar donations. While affordable middle-class housing diminishes.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

A few more:

Stephen L. Green of S.L. Green Realty, "Manhattan's largest owner of office buildings," has donated $4,950. (Green is brother of Mark Green, btw.)

George Klein, chairman of Park Tower Group handed over $2,500 to Dan. "Park Tower Group, Ltd. offers real estate development and management services. The company provides design development, construction, real estate management, and property leasing services."

Just go to the provided link and where you see big money, chances are it's going to be Dan's former law firm or real estate/investment companies. Now I can understand Dan's law buddies backing him, but why would real estate people want to donate to any politician? What's in it for them? What influence do they want? How do they want to change the city? Do they want to buy and manage property for the middle class?

Stuy Town Reporter said...

We're screwed. What I just discovered on that list of donations really underlines it. And it's out in the open if people just look at it. And care. That's the follow through: to care.

There's no hope for Manhattan as being affordable for the middle class.

Anonymous said...

A few more:
Al Doyle
John Marsh
Elihu Rose

Stuy Town Reporter said...

My dismay is seeing Vornado Realty (misspelled Varnado Realty) there, with substantial contributions to Dan's campaign. Vornado is the company that owns that piece of real estate on 33 St and 7 Ave (now a hotel) where the tower to outdo the Empire State Building is going to be built. The City Council, to include Dan, voted to do away with the zoning in that area to permit Vornado to build there. A very controversial decision, and one which will change the iconic NY skyline in that area forever. So what happens now? Dan gets a shitload of money from Vornado. It's shameful and disgusting.

There's other crap happening in the city in regards to the City Council (Dan included). Like the overturning of Landmark Preservation decisions.

That's why we are fucked. (Sorry to use the strong language, if you are offended.) We are just the suckers, the little pawns in this game of high money and real estate, conversion "affordability" plan included.

Anonymous said...

STR. === not sure i follow. why are we screwed?

:(

Stuy Town Reporter said...

We're screwed (if we define "we" as the middle class) because the people that are the rulers here in the Manhattan are not just the politicians but, more so, the big-monied real estate companies. For the latter, if a property isn't developed to its maximum potential (of bringing in the largest amount of money), then the property is underdeveloped. ST/PCV is clearly such a property. Despite all its problems. And one of the ways to bring this property up to maximum potential is to get rid of the middle class here and replace it with more affluent tenants. This has been happening already for a number of years in ST/PCV and the tide ain't turning and I don't see any possibility of it turning, particularly with the focus now being on tenant co-ownership of this property. (Remember, while the TA says that tenants will own their apartments if they agree to a condo conversion, Brookfield will still probably have the majority say in what happens here.) One of the outcomes of a condo conversion is the break-up of the Tenants Association, something admitted to by the TA itself. So, a powerful voice for tenant rights and rent stabilization will be gone. Another victory for real estate concerns.

There's just a lot stacked against the middle class in Manhattan, to include the hefty contributions a Dan Garodnick gets from real estate and investment firms.

Ebzone said...

Next mayoral election we ought to put Jimmy McMillan in office just to make a point. I'm still angered by the results of the 2009 election. Bill Thompson probably would have been just as susceptible to doing the bidding of real estate interests, considering he supported the Atlantic Yards project, but he would have been better than Bloomberg. We need a regular person to run this town.

Anonymous said...

A lot of the Brookfield deal is unclear & untested. Brookfield has incentive to find the 'right balance' between buyers & renters. (Meredith Kane virtually said they would be testing price points.) In this scenario Brookfield would not want a maximum number of tenants buying. They'd want a substantial number of renters. Why? Because when the rentals vacate (as one day they must), they'll sell these at market rate & make a killing. Brookfield only has incentive to be involved so long as it has a lot of rental apts it can eventually sell. Once these are gone, it's bye-bye. Also, once the tenants own the majority of the apts, what sense does it make to have Brookfield as the 'owner'. We should be the owners, should we not? And we should develop methods of governance. That should be our responsibility, should it not?

Anonymous said...

No conversion means a steady loss of RS protected apts leading to an almost complete MR complex by the J-51 expiration date in 2020. Sounds like a pyhrric victory for STPCV tenants.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>No conversion means a steady loss of RS protected apts leading to an almost complete MR complex by the J-51 expiration date in 2020.<<

If nothing is done for rent stabilization and tenant protections. We assume the worst in this scenario, and freely offer ST/PCV up to the chopping block, eradicating a powerful voice for rent stabilization in the process.

Anonymous said...

When it comes to rent stabilization, the TA are Benedict Arnolds.

Anonymous said...

Anyone who thinks that it will be good for there to be no conversion is absolutely wrong. Even with rent stabilization in place at the end of 20 years, people on fixed income will be forced to move. The rents will be too high. The best thing that can happen is a conversion at a price low enough for a tremendous number of folks to buy. Some people may choose to sell at some point, but for those who love in here in Manhattan, they will be able to stay & pass the apt on to their kids & that will keep this place middle-class for a very long time.

Roger Roundly said...

Thanks for posting this info. It's important to know who's contributing to who's campaigns. Unfortunately, you then jump to some nasty conclusions about Dan Darodnick in the comments section.

It is very expensive to run a political campaign in NYC. Campaigns can't be run on small contributions alone, although Dan has attracted an awful lot of small contributors. Most of his contributors give somewhere in the $25 - $250 range, so the $500 and $1,000 contributions really stick out.

Now to the conclusion you jumped to. Contributions like the $4,950.00 from Real Estate guy Marvin Chudnoff (who's also given to the Mitt Romney campaign and other GOPers running for the Congress) are few but they jump off the page. That's a lot of money. But that $4,950.00 doesn't guarantee Chudnoff anything and he knows it. All it does is ensure that his side of an issue gets a hearing.

That's our crappy system, that's how the game is played. If you don't like it, demand a change in the rules of the game. IMO, the obvious way to get private money out is to 100% publicly fund elections. Since the Supreme Court's unfortunate decision in 2010's 'Citizens United v. the Federal Elections Commission,' it will take a constitutional amendment to make something like that happen, and that won't be easy. At the end of last year, Sen Tom Udall of New Mexico introduced a constitutional amendment allowing Congress and state legislatures to establish public campaign finance.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>Anyone who thinks that it will be good for there to be no conversion is absolutely wrong. Even with rent stabilization in place at the end of 20 years, people on fixed income will be forced to move. The rents will be too high.<<

And twenty years from now where will the tenants be who decided not to go condo? The fight should be to STRENGTHEN rent stabilization and tenant protections, so that the scenario you paint does not happen. With condo conversion, we voluntarily surrender. Sure some people will make out well, but it will only be the tenants who are rich now. For the rest, if they accept a condo conversion, their financial burdens will most probably be greater than they are now, and they will still have to answer to the master, Brookfield, who will hold a majority share in the property.

Anonymous said...

STR - This is why the plan that goes through is so critical & at least for tenant understanding must be examined carefully. I'm not an advocate for Guterman-Westwood, but their plan addresses your concerns. They've stated that the rental apts would be sold to a non-profit agency & by contract would be maintained as rent stabilized apts in perpetuity. As yet, we have no details from Brookfield about this.

Anonymous said...

STR -
There is another aspect of the Guterman-Westwood plan that needs to be considered. I'm told that this group analyzed to determine what the price per sq foot had to be in order for monthly payments to be equal to what tenants are paying in rent now. Their monthly payment analysis (I'm told) includes loan payments (personal loan & co-op loan, principal & interest) and maintenance fees. Again, I'm not advocating for G-W. I'm saying they have a response to your concern that should be looked at. As yet, we have no response from Brookfield on this score.

Anonymous said...

STR- 20 years from now the tenants who decided not to buy will be in the same situation they are now (provided RS exists). I agree with the prior poster's pro conversion remarks wholeheartedly. I appreciate your feelings regarding the conversion but I certainly do not agree with them. The notion that there will be a weaker fight to maintain RS after the conversion I think is simply wrong. Sty town is not the only RS complex in the city. Furthermore, as the previous poster mentioned and I have many times in the past, RS assures that all of us middle class New Yorkers will eventually have to leave our apartments. It's built into the system with all the yearly increases constantly compounding and let's not even begin to talk about MCI'S.

As far as only rich tenants only making out well, well that's not the idea behind the conversion. Certainly, if that is indeed the case then I won't be able to buy my place. If by rich you mean someone able to scrape up 10% of a very good (granted this is an assumption on my part at this point) insider price then yes you are correct.

As far as answering to "the master Brookfield", well what would you prefer? A company of the TA'S choosing (an entity of people who were voted in by the tenants) or some other Tischman Spyer like scum bags who will no doubt come in and buy the property?

Thank you, no: I'll take my chances and side with the conversion.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>Unfortunately, you then jump to some nasty conclusions about Dan Garodnick in the comments section.<<

The conclusions are based on fact. Dan voted to allow Vornado to built a skyscraper that competes with the Empire State Building, with the zoning being shoved aside for that vote. Then Dan gets the biggest contribution yet in his campaign from Vornado. Did I already mention this stinks?

Regarding changing the finance laws, every NYC politician can step up to the plate and make a pledge not to accept campaign donations from real estate/investment entities that, by their very nature, have an interest in seeing the middle class out of Manhattan (as tenants; they need them as workers).

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>The notion that there will be a weaker fight to maintain RS after the conversion I think is simply wrong. Sty town is not the only RS complex in the city.<<

I believe Stuy Town is the biggest RS complex in the city. And that the TA is the biggest such tenant organization in the city, even country. (?) Once conversion happens, the TA will be weakened considerably. The TA has stated itself that it will be broken apart. How will all this strengthen the battle for RS and tenant rights?

Anonymous said...

Garodnick has made disparaging remarks about the Guterman-Westwood plan, but he's made these remarks at a general level - like an attempt to smear, I think. This is more a politician's reaction than a businessman's and the conversion plan is a matter of business. I have no problem with people objecting to any plan, but I want to know the detailed reasons. Therefore, I expect Garodnick to be publicly challenged to explain his remarks. And if he does not or cannot, then he should apologize and take these statements back.

Anonymous said...

"If nothing is done for rent stabilization and tenant protections. We assume the worst in this scenario, and freely offer ST/PCV up to the chopping block, eradicating a powerful voice for rent stabilization in the process."

It would take repeal of vacancy decontrol to save STPCV from a majority MR future. Even the most sanguine RS activist would say there's little likelihood of this happening. Hence, organizations like tenants and neighbors support conversion because it will preserve RS affordability at STPCV beyond the j-51 expiration date. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

Roger Roundly said...

I wish you'd look before you leap. The City Council voted 47-1 to allow Vornado to proceed with 15 Penn Plaza. But that doesn't stop you from making nasty allegations that you can't really back up with "facts."

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>I wish you'd look before you leap. The City Council voted 47-1 to allow Vornado to proceed with 15 Penn Plaza. But that doesn't stop you from making nasty allegations that you can't really back up with "facts."<<

I did look. Garodnick voted with the 47.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

Please read this, Roger:

http://stuytownreport.blogspot.com/search?q=vornado

Roger Roundly said...

STR

Only 1 council person out of 48 voted against Vornado's skyscraper! Yet you feel free to allege in a public forum that some kind of payoff deal between Dan G and Vornado went on?

47 out of 48 city council members voted the way they did because they thought the Empire State Building's owners' lobbying campaign/argument was silly (so did I). In addition, Vornado offered to put up $100 million to improve Penn Station and council members were happy to promote development so close to major NYC transportation hub Penn Station.

I'm sorry, but you took on a lot of responsibility when you decided to provide this public forum. Muckraking is one thing. Making wild accusations is another. It's just reckless and irresponsible.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>Only 1 council person out of 48 voted against Vornado's skyscraper! Yet you feel free to allege in a public forum that some kind of payoff deal between Dan G and Vornado went on?<<

You are completely missing several points as you protect Garodnick. I already have underlined numerous times what I feel is the general lack of ethics in the city council. The whole bunch of them accept donations from real estate businesses, so it's no surprise that they would overturn zoning to favor a Vornado, just as they recently overturned landmark designation for a building on the Bowery. Garodnick used to be more careful about where his campaign donations came from. That's why seeing him open up his pockets wide for real estate companies that have a stake in maximizing profits in Manhattan and lessening affordable middle class housing is a deep concern. If you like what Manhattan is turning into, a playground for the rich and their NYU/Columbia sons and daughters, a city of high rises with a drug store and bank at ground level, that's fine, too. For you. But not for me.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>47 out of 48 city council members voted the way they did because they thought the Empire State Building's owners' lobbying campaign/argument was silly (so did I). In addition, Vornado offered to put up $100 million to improve Penn Station and council members were happy to promote development so close to major NYC transportation hub Penn Station.<<

Yeah, like that 100 million will lessen congestion when a mammoth high rise office/residential building goes up near Macy's. It's already a nightmare of crowds there and will be more so when "Vornado Tower" goes up. This will be the City Council's folly, just as that 2nd Ave Subway is a folly, too, and costing current mom-and-pop stores their livelihood and infuriating residents of the area.

Anonymous said...

The City Council is a bunch of bought and paid for puppets. They are in the pockets of the RE industry and do not in any way represent the people they are supposed to be serving. We need to get rid of the whole sorry bunch. I will not vote for any incumbent, including Garodnick and particularly that awful toad, Christine Quinn.

Anonymous said...

At conversion, Affordability is "captured" by the unit owner. Truly affordable housing programs should reach for affordability retention. The TA whispers of a few units which will transfer with explicit resale restrictions, thus retaining affordability at the unit. But the trivial amount of units can in no way compensate for the loss of 10,000+ formerly affordable housing units.

I know. If the TA does not acquire STPCV we are left to the devil we do not know. AND the TA needs to put together a plan that tells a compelling story to CWCapital. I think we all get that. But what frustrates me is this condescending attitude that the TA believes it can draft the framework of conversion without the approval of even 5% of the tenancy (and in closed-door, behind the scenes, under the table fashion).

I'll put up my 20+ years of real estate finance experience against anyone on the board.

Roger Roundly said...

I am not "protecting" anyone. I am suggesting that you could conduct yourself a little more responsibly. What you're engaging in on this thread is little more than yellow journalism.


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

Stuy Town Reporter said...

Wait till you read my next post, Roger.

MBaaar said...

"I'll put my 20 years of Real Estate finance experience"

Can the person who commented this please go to my blog. www.pcvstconversionforum.blogspot.com/. I make some real estate process observations there. Would appreciate any corrections.

BTW, I don't believe the TA is coming up with any framework at all. I believe that Brookfield will fashion a plan that's to its liking. What the TA's role really is with respect to Brookfield...God only knows.

Roger Roundly said...

I'm sure it'll be up to your usual standards.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

Yes, it will be factually accurate, as always. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:11, I don't disagree with anything you're saying except one. This is something I have brought up many times and no one, including STR, has ever addressed. WHen you say "the loss of 10000+ formally affordable housing units" what exactly do you mean. Affordable to someone currently making $75000 per year? I'm not talking about the "market rate" apartments. The current RS apartments are not so "affordable" currently and as each year comes they keep increasing. Please explain to me how RS=affordability into the future.

Also, with your real estate experience I wish you would have ran for a seat on the TA board! I have no reason to doubt what you are saying and we all could have used that kind of expertise.

Anonymous said...

This is a point I've been trying to make before. Over the next 20 years, under RS certainly for those who are over 50 now the rents won't be affordable as they go on fixed income. That's why affordable conversion is the best answer for these folks. For anyone younger, yes - your wages may keep pace so that you'll feel the rent increases are affordable. But look at the alternative if you're able to buy your apt...you have the benefit of a tremendous investment. By the time you might be interested in selling (let's say in 20 yrs), your apt will be worth at least 3-4x what you paid for it. The key is the conversion plan...what conversion plan CW goes with. That's why it's so important everybody focuses on this.

Anonymous said...

How will buying the apartment be more affordable for those over 50 who will be going onto a fixed income within the next few years? Surely the increases in maintenance charges, taxes, etc., will be as much as, if not more than, increases in rent?

Anonymous said...

I think there is a need for more affordable RENTAL housing in New York. I am disappointed that the TA seems to have abandoned the fight for the preservation of rent stabilization. I wish I had never donated money to the TA or Tenants and Neighbors. Never will donate another red cent to either, that's for sure.

Anonymous said...

"How will buying the apartment be more affordable for those over 50" --
Your rent increases will be dictated by the rent guidelines board which listens to the pleas of landlords about how much they must pay in taxes and maintenance costs. Also the rent guidelines board takes into the account that landlords are entitled to make reasonable profits.
Under the Guterman-Westwood plan, we would be the owners. So we would decide what 'extra' maintenance projects get done. So the point is that as owners we would probably be not be paying more. The 'reason profit' element wouldn't be a factor & we would have some measure of control over maintenance costs. So with less or equal monthly costs, you'd get the value of ownership when & if you chose to sell and turn over to your children. Not sure about scenarios under Brookfield. I believe (not sure) that Brookfield would be the owner under its plan which might mean we'd have less control over maintenance projects.

Anonymous said...

"How will buying the apartment be more affordable for those over 50 who will be going onto a fixed income within the next few years? Surely the increases in maintenance charges, taxes, etc., will be as much as, if not more than, increases in rent?"

It won't. The potential for investment gains is different than an assurance of investment gains.

RS increases and even evil MCIs are limited by law. Maintenance increases and assessments have absolutely no limit. And when operating costs grow rapidly, resale values fall concomitantly.

Whomever buys this place next is going to be saddled with the costs of catching up on the maintenance that has been postponed during the TS and post-TS debacle years. That owner can be the next greedy RE enterprise (greed is good, remember...) or it can be the tenants.

I think I'd rather leave the catch-up expenses to someone else and, if I'm still here and interested in owning a piece of this place in a decade, I'd be happy to revisit the calculation at that point. Right now this transaction is going to be a big cost shift. It can be to us or to someone else.

You're going to have to give me one heck of a rationale to directly bear those costs myself.

REVS - COST

Anonymous said...

Your argument for not buying now is 100% predicated on your assumed existence of exorbitant maintenance costs. You raise a good point - as a potential. That is, we will all be interested. Those costs remain to be seen. Would be very interested to know if there are specific costs you know of that you can identify.

Anonymous said...

I remember REVS - COST!! Where is he now and what does he do with his time, I wonder.

Anonymous said...

"I remember REVS - COST!! Where is he now and what does he do with his time, I wonder."

Good question. I don't know. I just thought we were all supposed to end our posts with trite urban tags like that "G - Mooney" fellow...

Anonymous said...

@4:11 here

Affordability as defined by HUD/FHA is monthly housing costs not exceeding 30% of gross income. That's the definition. To speak that rent stabilization should assist the low-income (30% of AMI or 50% of AMI) is another dialogue. Also, remember, HUD/FHA programs allow subsidy to moderate incomes (80% AMI to 120% AMI).

AMI (median income) for 2011 NYC MSA is $67,400. FHA's 2012 fair market rents for NY MSA are 1BR=$1,128 ; 2BR= $1,289.

Max affordable monthly rents by % of AMI are 30%AMI= 843 ; 50% AMI
1,348 ; 100% AMI 1,685.

I said 10,00+ apartments were formerly affordable. Time has not eroded that affordability. Annual rent increases over the years actually lag annual gains in NY MSA median income growth (although outpace inflation by about 0.25%). The LOSS of the affordability of the apartments were due to allowances in RS law for landlords to 'improve' the apartments over time or take vacancy credits,etc. If you've lived here for a good number of years and your income has increased at the NY average, your % of gross income being paid would not have increased. The problem is that when someone moves out, there is no vehicle in place to ensure that the apartment remains affordable for the next tenant (not to mention there is no restriction on the specific income of the next tenant). Also, NY municipal housing subsidies do not necessarily lock in long-term affordability. They provide developer/owner $ assistance for allocating a small % of stock for a relativley short duration (less than 20 years).

There are some very compelling programs utilized across the country that attempt to 'deed restrict' housing in order to perpetuate affordability at a specific housing development. The TA whispers that they will initiate such a program for 'those tenants who wish to enroll CAPPED AT A CERTAIN YET UNDETERMINED NUMBER'. So only a few units will retain affordability.The value creation by conversion is transferred to the unit purchaser and is not retained in the unit. So when the unit purchaser sells, the sale is at market rate and the affordability of the unit is lost forever.

To the new blooger. I'll visit your site and GOOD LUCK with your attempts to source TA information.

Anonymous said...

Check out the ratings

http://www.apartmentratings.com/rate/NY-New-York-Stuyvesant-Town.html

Anonymous said...

Note to the TA or whomever hands out the flyers on any type of information (aside from Rose)....

Almost all of our friends and neighbors in stuy and pcv have NOT received these under the door flyers.