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.

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Steve Reeves in Stuy Town?

And now for something completely different....


Here's a photo of Steve Reeves, the actor who was famous for playing in Hercules and peplum films in the late 1950s and early 1960s.  Now, the question is could Reeves be looking out of a Stuy Town or Peter Cooper Village apartment?  Certainly the windows look familiar and I vaguely remember that sort of radiator grating, but not sure if it was from a previous apartment I had here at another ST address?  I think the chances that Reeves is in a ST/PCV apartment are unlikely (he wouldn't have been a resident), but I wonder if old timers may remember a similar radiator.

46 comments:

Anonymous said...

Windows look correct. However, my very old school current ST apartment has heating vents at a 45degree angle, not horizontal. PCV?

Anonymous said...

Windows were not multi-paned like that. They were single pieces of glass thought the handles and frames are similar.

The radiator is not from PCV. Doubt it is from ST, either. Looks like either a fan coil unit or a radiator encased in a different kind of enclosure than they use here. If you doubt me, take a quick look at any airbnb ad photo...

Anonymous said...

Definitely NOT ST/PCV. We never had those windows or radiators.

Anonymous said...

Could that be Tudor City--I looked at apts there once and they still had those multi-paned windows. Though I don't remember the radiators, per se.

Anonymous said...

according to some residents, 4 of the candidates running for the PCVST TA Board for the May 2012 election were given access to the TA membership mailing list, while the same was not offered to the other 4 candidates.

While there is not proof of this claim at this time, it is worth noting that the process seems to be in question.

Furthermore, the ballot sent out by the TA is so confusing, with respect to how to sign the ballot and mail the ballot in, that it has confused many people, include those with several graduate degrees.

Anonymous said...

Who cares about the TA's election...they are totally useless and irrelevant! Only a fool would send them dues.

Anonymous said...

I concur with 10:51 PM

Anonymous said...

"Who cares about the TA's election...they are totally useless and irrelevant! Only a fool would send them dues."

Not only that but, since only "dues-paying members" can vote in the election or run for the Board, I think it is safe to say that they really do not represent the bulk of residents.

They are ostensibly reinstating the poll tax, which was deemed unconstitutional--at least in Federal and State elections.

They also clearly do not represent the bulk of resident because most are not paying dues to the TA.

By excluding participants by their de-facto poll tax, they are actually making themselves less relevant--not stronger. They would be better off with the support of a greater portion of the tenant body than by cashing a few extra checks for $35.

Has anyone noticed if Emperor Doyle is wearing any clothes these days?!? ;)

Anonymous said...

"according to some residents, 4 of the candidates running for the PCVST TA Board for the May 2012 election were given access to the TA membership mailing list"

That's a very serious charge to lob around irresponsibly and anonymously. I got no such mailing but I did get a very attractive print piece on my door and I'm not a member. Must have cost them a lot of bucks! I saw the same on every door on my floor and the one above and below me. Again, must have cost them a lot of cash.

But like some others said, does it really matter? Doesn't the real voting begin when people either buy or not buy?

Anonymous said...

"I did get a very attractive print piece on my door and I'm not a member. Must have cost them a lot of bucks!"

I got one, too. I don't pay so I can't vote either. Is this how they spend TA money? Why do they bother soliciting votes from people that can't vote? I don't get it.

In the same vein, did you all see the full page ad in the back of T&V for one of the guys running for the TA Board? Again, why? He must have spent a lot of money. What does he expect to get back from that "investment?"

These guys must think there's going to be a payback from being on the TA board if they can slip a deal through.

Anonymous said...

Probably the TA is hoping that the little leaflet they put under every door is going to help increase membership. I don't think it's helpful to demonize the TA. It's a volunteer organization and they do the best with what they've got. Full disclosure: I am a paid-up member, though I have to admit I don't do any volunteering these days. Used to when I was younger and fitter.

Anonymous said...

My comments were not demonizing. Factually speaking, you must pay them to have a say in their organization--one which claims to represent the interests of all tenants.

There is a disconnect in that logic.

Anonymous said...

democracy and fair elections are an investment in the community and for freedom of speech. I highly doubt anyone running for the TA board is seeking a return on investment other than to represent resident issues.

Anonymous said...

I saw ads in the T&V from 5 of the candidates - one guy took up the entire back page! I also got something under my door for 4 of the candidates (it said it was paid for with private funds).

I think it is pretty impressive that people would goto these lengths (and spend what looks like a lot of money) for a thankless volunteer job. That is true dedication to the community.

I am a dues paying member, and plan on voting. I am proud to live in a community with strong civic values.

Anonymous said...

"I think it is pretty impressive that people would goto these lengths (and spend what looks like a lot of money) for a thankless volunteer job. That is true dedication to the community."

These people should run for pubic office. Garodnick's & Liu's spots will be up for grabs. Why should they waist there time with the tenement association?

Anonymous said...

Is anyone else being harrassed by mngmt about "registering" their pet with PCVST even though a pet rider was executed at lease signing?

Anonymous said...

According to several residents of the property there will be a Stuy Town Tenants Association Board Candidate forum sunday, may 6th from 1-2pm at the neighborhood services center on 300 1st ave (corner of 18/1st on the south side).

Anonymous said...

Anony 1.58 PM-From the PCVST good neighbor policy.-Yes, registering your dog, in addition to signing the Pet Rider, is part of the regulations that you agree to follow here when you signed your regular lease.

http://www.pcvst.com/resident-info/living-basics/good-neighbor-policies.aspx#anchor2

Is illiteracy now becoming an issue in our community?

“Residents are required to register their dogs.” “To register your pet the following information should be submitted to the Management Office located at 317 Avenue C, M-F 9am-5pm.
Your Resident Access Card
Only the Tenant of Record for your apartment is permitted to register your dog.
Current New York City Dog License Tag Information about the New York City Dog Licensing process can be found here. “
“You will receive a Stuyvesant Town or Peter Cooper Village Pet Registration tag. The tag should be attached to your dog’s collar and must be visible at all times when your pet is out on the property.”
“The issued Pet Registration tag must be affixed to your dog's collar and prominently displayed in any public/common area of a building or property.”
“A complete listing of the rules and regulations governing pet ownership at PCVST can be found in the Pet Rider to the Lease which all pet owners are required to sign.”

Tommyboyardee said...

Looks like Tudor City hallway, across from their private park. The leaded glass panes look very familiar.

Anonymous said...

There's a wire haired terrier that lives in 5 St. Oval that is trying to run for TA office. Apparently, he paid the thirty-five bucks to the Tee-A and signed the lease rider but never went in to get registered so I guess he's technically an 'illegal.'

I don't think he's going to make it on the ballot. Too bad. He's better qualified than most of the candidates. At least 'on paper'...

Anonymous said...

Anony 2.33 PM-this is direct from the STPCVTA website:

Candidate Forum for TA Board Of Directors This Sunday, May 6

Come and meet the candidates for the four open positions on the TA’s Board of Directors this Sunday at 1pm. This is your chance to ask the candidates what they stand for. The Neighborhood Services Center is located at 300 First Avenue just inside the First Ave Loop Road near the corner of 18th Street. The event will run from 1pm

Anonymous said...

The flyer was not paid for with TA money. I know because I personally contributed to covering the cost.

Anonymous said...

It's not harassment to register your dog. We all have to do it. It's a simple process.

Anonymous said...

There were a LOT of pitbulls by the oval today. No security presence at all. Not even in their little doll house booth.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

One does wonder what the schedule is for Public Safety to be in that booth. Sometimes they are there, sometimes not.

Anonymous said...

There area some very mean-spirited comments here about the Tenants Assoc. What have they done that you all disagree with? Obviously you are not members so how do you know what they do? What do you think would happen here without them?

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>Obviously you are not members...<<

Sorry, but I pay my dues.

Anonymous said...

"There area some very mean-spirited comments here about the Tenants Assoc. What have they done that you all disagree with? Obviously you are not members so how do you know what they do? What do you think would happen here without them?"

I paid dues from the TA's inception until about 5 years ago when the TA stopped being a tenants association and became wannabe owners. I volunteered, distributed materials etc. I even thought about running for the board back in the day when it was a strong organization. Now I wouldn't give them the time of day. They have sat back and watched the place go to hell in a handbasket without so much as lifting a finger to fight against all the things that management has foisted upon the tenants here. I'm sorry they did lift a finger and they wrote some real tough letters that got no results but they tried. I guess they were too busy plotting their takeover to notice the actual circus the Oval has become.

Anonymous said...

As far as I am concerned paying dues to the TA is the same as paying dues to CW Capital or Dan Garodnick. Since the TA has done nothing except whatever these two tell them to do. Paying dues to the TA therefore is like voluntarily increasing my own rent and that would just be stupid!

Anonymous said...

I don't like to bash the TA because I believe that in general, their hearts are in the right place. Unfortunately, the TA is a paper tiger that had a minimally effective presence during the Met years, mostly due to the continual advocacy of then Assemblyman Steve Sanders. After he left office, it seems that most of the TA's efforts fell on deaf ears. They've done good work taking selective shots on certain issues like trying to fight MCI's and other abuses, but don't seem to have a base of power, mostly due to the small number of residents who actually are members. There needs to be "someone" who can crystallize the tenants into wholly supporting an association. Only then will they truly have a voice. Right now, they're just pesky mosquitoes that occasionally manage to get a bit of attention from management.

Anonymous said...

These are three of the best comments on the TA I have seen in a while. I don't think they are offensive or mean-spirited but, unfortunately, I think they capture what so many of us see as wrong or lacking in the organization.

Anonymous said...

Since the comment regarding "poll taxes" made on May 3, 2012 4:57 PM has gone unaddressed, I'm going to try to clear that misconception up (I'm a TA building leader in ST).

The ST-PCVTA is a not-for-profit (NPO) corporation. NPOs are set up for different purposes, but one of the most common is to represent a particular constituency (in our case, more than 30,000 tenants). Many NPOs, like the TA, employ unpaid volunteers and have executives who work without compensation. However, there's generally a fee that's used to meet legal requirements for establishing a contract between the executives and the organization, in addition to generating funds necessary to conduct operations.

NY state has a series of regulations that NPOs have to follow and so the TA is legally required to conduct elections according to procedures laid out in its by-laws. ST-PCVTA by-laws state that only "members" are entitled to vote and a member is defined as "an individual residing in an apartment in either Stuyvesant Town or Peter Cooper Village, as the case may be, for which annual dues is current."

So comparing the upcoming TA board vote to "federal and state elections" and membership dues to a "poll tax' is like comparing apples and oranges.

And if you were current in your dues on 4-12-12, please make sure to vote in the upcoming election.

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

"but one of the most common is to represent a particular constituency (in our case, more than 30,000 tenants)"

Yet the TA has only around 1,000 tenants or less that are current on their dues. So given that information the TA actually only represents about 3.5% of the residents of the community. Therefore, the current TA and its board DOES NOT SPEAK FOR THE OTHER 96.5% OF TENANTS. Thus the reason the TA is irrelevant.

Anonymous said...

"there's generally a fee that's used to meet legal requirements for establishing a contract between the executives and the organization, in addition to generating funds necessary to conduct operations."

But NYS has no legal requirement that one must pay dues to vote in such an organization's election. That's your rule.

"NY state has a series of regulations that NPOs have to follow and so the TA is legally required to conduct elections according to procedures laid out in its by-laws."

How many years passed with no TA elections? The TA doesn't even follow its own rules consistently which seriously detracts from its legitimacy. Unfortunately, it is not the only detractor.

"NPOs are set up for different purposes, but one of the most common is to represent a particular constituency"

The TA only represents its dues-paying members. If non-members are not allowed to vote in elections then they clearly are not being represented by the TA.

A previous poster made an excellent point--even if you do not agree with his/her math. Even if you were to assume that the 1,000 paid memberships represented households instead of simply tenants, TA "representation" does not even break the 10% mark. That is clearly insufficient to claim to speak for the tenant population in general.

Anonymous said...

@ May 8, 2012 1:09 PM

I am the Anonymous building leader from May 8, 2012 10:37 AM again.

There are 85 apartments in the building that I manage for the TA. When I'm asked to pass something from the TA along to people in my building, I am expected to pass along whatever that something is to all 85 apartments, not just to those apartments who are current in their dues. When someone comes to me with an issue that they think the TA can help them with (and that happens all the time), I don't ask if they are current in their dues.

Is the TA relevant to all 85 apartments in my building? I can't answer that, but I can tell you that there are almost 60 apartments in my building on an email list I use as building leader to provide TA updates. I doubt they're all dues paying members.

@ May 8, 2012 2:05 PM

Is it really that unreasonable to require members of an association/NPO to pay dues? Where do you expect funds to come from to cover postage fees, printers fees, legal fees, bus rides for lobbying trips to Albany, etc?

Anonymous said...

Where did you get the figure 1000 regarding the number of tenants current in their dues?

Anonymous said...

"I am the Anonymous building leader from May 8, 2012 10:37 AM again."

We all take pride in your service to the community.

"Is the TA relevant to all 85 apartments in my building? I can't answer that"

The TA should be able to answer that and, unfortunately, the answer is probably 'no.'

"Is it really that unreasonable to require members of an association/NPO to pay dues?"

No. It is not. What is unreasonable is for that NPO to state that it speaks for all tenants when it does not count their votes in elections or invite them to participate in the organization--except, perhaps, to slide material under the door.

Anonymous said...

@ May 8, 2012 9:11 PM

Apparently you either missed my point concerning TA relevance and the 2/3 of my neighbors who have asked to be on a mailing list for TA updates, or you chose to ignore it.

You also chose to ignore my question about where you expect funds to come from to cover TA phone bills, postage fees, printers fees, legal fees, bus rides for lobbying trips to Albany, etc.

Anyway, thanks to the STR for the opportunity to respond.

Anonymous said...

I do wish that people would stop bashing the TA. They do the best they can with what they've got. If more people would join them by sending in the measly $35 membership fee, maybe they would be able to do a lot more. Probably one of the reasons Rose likes to fill up the place with transients and students is because it know they won't bother joining the TA and this weakens the organization. Before Tishman Speyer destroyed the place, a very large number of the tenants (all rent stabilized in the pre-Roberts sense of the term) were members of the TA. The likes of TS, Rose, CW, et al is to divide and conquer by any means.

Anonymous said...

"Apparently you either missed my point"

I don't think I missed any of your points--and I don't see any response on your part regarding the TA's failure to follow it's own rules and hold elections. Please.

You have a chicken/egg situation. You are bemoaning the fact that too few support you financially but, if you read the comments here and elsewhere, you would recognize that tenants are not interested in supporting a dysfunctional organization.

Fix the organization and the support will follow. A change in organization culture is free--but you have to actually want to make it happen. Therein lies the rub.

Anonymous said...

I didn't leave the TA because of anything Rose did. I left the TA because of what the TA did. They stopped caring about fighting against the incredible incursions taken by Rose on behalf of CW all because they CAN'T piss off CW or else CW might not pick them to be the new owners. Therefore, they stopped being a TA and became the sales dept of Brookfield and politicians. I know many people felt the same way and left the organization because of this.

Anonymous said...

The TA held a meet and greet this past weekend and according to the TA itself 15 to 20 people showed up. In a community of 30,000, 15 to 20 people showed up. Lets round to 30 people, that's one one thousandth of one percent. Last time the TA had a vote they had to do it twice because not enough people voted to constitute a quorum. Need any more proof that the TA is irrelevant.

Anonymous said...

@ May 10, 2012 7:17 AM

First of all, I did not and do not "bemoan" anything of the sort. If you want to have a conversation, please read comments more carefully and please don't mis-characterize what's written.

You also write that "tenants are not interested in supporting a dysfunctional organization." You're the same person claiming that the TA doesn't have the legitimacy to speak for all tenants yet you have no problem claiming to represent the opinions of "tenants" based on anonymous comments on this blog and "elsewhere" – wherever "elsewhere" is. Geez. Talk about pot meet kettle. Anyway, I'm speaking strictly for myself and would appreciate your doing the same.

For what it's worth, there are things I'd like to see "fixed" with regards to the TA too. Top on the list is being more open about how and why they do things. And the election was handled very badly. A one-hour meet the candidates on the street was not sufficient to inform us who the hell is who.

May 10, 2012 10:33 AM

Not sure that's true at all. The recent angry full page TA ad in T&V about how Rose and CW Cap are turning ST-PCV into a dorm really pissed management off. It featured a picture of a drunk kid passed out in the hall too and got a blog post about it on this blog.

You're another one who feels the need to speak for others. I claim to speak for nobody but myself.

Anonymous said...

I believe the paltry membership numbers speak for themselves. However, I know for a fact that others feel the same way as I have spoken with them and they have said so in no uncertain terms. Oh yeah, the TA and their strongly worded letters...that don't do one iota of good.

Anonymous said...

All the lack of turnout proves is that a two day advance notice about a one hour meet the candidates on the street was a sh*tty idea and that whoever came up with said sh*tty idea should seriously think about looking outside the bubble to vet any similar future ideas so they don't wind up with sh*t on their shoes again.

Anonymous said...

I'm not a TA member and I knew of the event beforehand. Why didn't TA members? It was on the website and on blogs. I believe I knew of it prior to 2 days before too.