Comment Policy

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

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

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

ZogSports: "Our whiffleball/kickball courts in Stuyvesant Town."

Looks like ZogSports has been involved in Stuy Town for a while, at least as far back as 2008, when a Zog blogger referred to one of the playgrounds here as "one of our" courts:

zogsports.blogspot.com/2008/09/zogsports-and-citychase-part-1.html

Don't be surprised to see more of ZogSports here and, perhaps, in a big way.

* * *

More courts used by Zog:

www.youferral.com/jobpost/show/8716283-volleyball-referees-wanted


 * * *

More games in Stuy Town, this time back in 2009.

tigernet.princeton.edu/~panyc/wiffleball_summer09.html


  * * *

I'm also hearing a very disturbing rumor about this place:

http://gocitykids.parentsconnect.com/attraction/manhattan-kids-club-629-east-14th-street-new-york-ny-10009-3201-us
 
...and what may take it over, which may (or may not) have something to do with ZogSports. Again, let me caution that this is just a rumor at this point and hasn't been verified.

39 comments:

Gracie said...

Let me get this straight... The playgrounds are for "residents and their guests" UNLESS Lady Mayo pimos them out to ZogSports?

IS ANYONE IN CHARGE HERE?!?! It's as if children run this place.

Anonymous said...

Why weren't we told about this?

Anonymous said...

If Rose is going to pimp our playgrounds out, then we definitely have a case for diminution of services.

Anonymous said...

How is it all this ZogSports activity has been going on for so long and no one has commented on it? I haven't been on 14th between B and C in a long time, so where is this kids' facility? Is it on the street? In someone's apartment? There's too much weird stuff going on here.

Steph said...

Stuyvesant Town is turning into a Carnival Cruise ship. How many "hundreds" - quoting Maya Autret's resume - of events do we need? Can't children simply play on their own with their friends in the playground? And for that matter, can't we, the adults, enjoy a quiet picnic on the oval lawn and meet our neighbors without an inflatable TV blaring at us, ruining the ambiance of the park at dusk? We're quit capable of living full lives without constantly and intrusively being directed by some young lady trying to justify her paycheck.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

"where is this kids' facility?"

It's housed in a low office on 14th St, almost all the way to the east. I forget what used to be there, a previous management office, I think. But now it's a private nursery school. You can see the tikes being led into Stuy Town on a nice day by their teachers.

Anonymous said...

It was the management office before it moved to Avenue C.

Tommyboy said...

I experienced/saw the Zogster's in action, playing field hockey. Must have been minimum of 30 players, security even cruised by. Seemed well behaved, in fact the play was pretty brutal.
Not sure, but I think they have been around a while, however the massive media advertisement has to be new. Me thinks we need a mobile Occupy Stuy Town to interfere with this obvious only grab, another clear violation of the terms of our leases(s)

Anonymous said...

Is Oval Kids and Oval anything else still in business, or have they all been chucked out? Never should have been there in the first place, but if they are being replaced by tacky eateries then we are definitely on a downward spiral. As for our free playgrounds being rented out by Rose, I think that the TA and it's pal, Garodnick, should really get a backbone and stand up to Rose against this travesty and insist that it stop. We have always had the playgrounds and they have always been well used by tenants and their kids. If the TA can't put a stop to this, then they should just disband and go away. Same for Danny G. Go away and don't bother us any more for money or votes because you are BLOODY USELESS!

Jill Saunders said...

It's obvious our complex is going to the dogs,literally.
CW/Rose are only interested in two things, making money and making more money.
it never fails to surprise me how little interest is given to the Conversion and the Roberts case. Once the Roberts case is settled, CW will put the complex on the Auction block, and if it goes Condo or Co Op, we the tenants will have the power to say no to all this commercialism of our gardens, playgrounds, Oval etc, etc.
This in my humble opinion is what we should be focusing on, the TA announced in Nov that they along with Brookfield would place a bid to buy in the 2nd quarter of 2012, they have since changed that to the end of summer 2012, so in a month or 2 the biggest change in Stuy Towns history might finally be happening, but at this late stage we still know so little about it.

Anonymous said...

I have a question. I have been reading what has been written on this topic but not getting what is so bad about this?
Just trying to understand. Thank you

Stuy Town Reporter said...

What's bad about this is that the playgrounds, which are intended for residents, are being offered up for rent to an outside organization that then takes over a playground, with residents forbidden to use it.

Anonymous said...

why are you not posting pertinent messages that I am writing to you with legit info, have you begun to pander to RS?

Tommyboy said...

The problem is ; parades of people trudging thru the complex, security, cleaners, etc., are stretched thin as it is. All these amenities are part of your lease agreement, you are paying for the use of a Tenants Only park. How much supervision does Zogster have? If you don' t believe me, look at the signs posted at the entrance to every playground. ..........That's Why!

Anonymous said...

Can you elaborate on the rumor going around about Manhattan Kids Club II? I am a (longtime) StuyTown resident who is a (recent) parent of a child enrolled there and to say it is a convenient location for me would be a monumental understatement. I would hate to see it move.

Anonymous said...

WTF? Jill Saunders? REALLY MBAAR?

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>why are you not posting pertinent messages that I am writing to you with legit info, have you begun to pander to RS?<<

If those messages include insult slams at the new property manager of PCVST, I can't let them through, particularly as this gentleman just arrived here and it wouldn't be fair. Please he's a military man (or was) and so am I (or was). If you just write the messages without the attacks, then, sure, they will be passed. I hope you understand.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>Can you elaborate on the rumor going around about Manhattan Kids Club II? I am a (longtime) StuyTown resident who is a (recent) parent of a child enrolled there and to say it is a convenient location for me would be a monumental understatement. I would hate to see it move.<<

As I stated, this was just a rumor with no backup. You could ask the school about their lease renewal, however, and see what answer you get, and then let us know. I, too, would hate to see that place go.

Anonymous said...

Unlike Rosie, Andy Mac, and Lady Maya who all deserve the complaints and wrath they get online and in their inboxes, Sean Sullivan has just begun his work. God knows he has his work cut out for him so let's please give this man a chance.

Anonymous said...

"WTF? Jill Saunders? REALLY MBAAR?"

Thank you for saying this...so I didn't have to!

Tommyboy said...

Why is no one held accountable. I'm sure money has changed hands, any playground monitor will tell you that Zog pays a lot of $ for their exclusive usage.
I'm pretty sure things need to change within, instead it's "until we get caught" mentality.

Jill Saunders said...

Pardon me STR Old Boy, but why did you not post my post yesterday defending myself from the accusations that I was MBARR? I am not MBARR, my alias was Jill Saunders on the TAFB page, in the same way yours was Lamont Cranston, and many other tenants who did not want there name and photo made public on the TAFB page, and much in the same way that both people who accused me yesterday of being MBARR are themselves using “Anonymous” as there identity.
At least by using my old alias I have some history, I could of simply posted under Anonymous as well if I liked.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>Pardon me STR Old Boy, but why did you not post my post yesterday defending myself from the accusations that I was MBARR?<<

I have received no such comment, so it didn't go through the blogger system.

Jill Saunders said...

That's odd, but thank you for posting my comment today.
I had asked this question on MBAARS site but never got an answer, maybe one of your readers could answer it.
I showed this link to the COOP CONDO Conversion Handbook 2-13-08.pdf
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxPL5GFQVlmLUHUtaUdMN2JmMlk/edit?pli=1 to a neighbor of mine in Stuy Town, who works in criminal law, not real estate law, and after reading it for over an hour he pointed out that what could happen with the sale of STPCV is that (and no this does not mean it will happen, and yes before anyone points it out, it would be an awful heartless thing to do, but that is what big companies do all the time.) if a large company like lefrak housing was to out bid the TA/Brookfield like Tishman did 6 years ago, they could convert the complex to a Co-Op or Condo, but use an eviction plan, by simply setting the insiders price low enough so that 51% of the tenants would agree to buy, then they could sell the other 49% at Market rate and make there profit. Of course they could not evict the elderly or disabled but they could evict everyone else who does not agree to buy.
Was he wrong in coming to this conclusion?

Anonymous said...

Conversion propaganda really should be isolated to the conversion blog.

As an aside, I was surprised to read in T&V that the secret conversion meetings continued to be held throughout June until the TA finally gave up. What are these people meeting to discuss? It's all nonsense since there is no plan and no offer. Are they meeting to explain what a condo is? I think most of us have a handle on that! Another TA embarrassment.

Jill Saunders said...

I'm sorry but how is asking a question propaganda ?
As I said, I did ask that question on the Conversion Blog, but never had it answered.
The Conversion Blog mainly talks about why Co-Ops are better than condos, which for me does not make a whole lot of sense, as it's like putting the horse ahead of the cart.
All I was ever trying to do was find out more info on the plan to buy and find out what is going on with the Roberts case.
If you would like to see how informative those secret TA house meetings are read this http://town-village.com/2012/03/08/tenants-association-holds-second-house-meeting/
Then maybe you will realize why I think we need to find out more information.

Anonymous said...

The TA is a useless association! It does nothing to support long term market rate tenants who are facing 30% rent increases this year!!!

Anonymous said...

Between the shills and the trolls, STR is going to get sick of this like Luxie did and all we will be left with is the TA.

Anyone want to jump off the roof with me when that happens?!?

Anonymous said...

Please explain how a post-Roberts decision (now rent stabilized) market rate apartment can face a 30% increase when the RGB mandate for last year was 2.25 & 4.5%, and this year it's 2% and 4%. I've heard about some kind of "Roberts lease rider", did that create a loophole around Roberts ?

Anonymous said...

Let's keep something in mind: when Bloomberg bought his illegal third term the rest of the 1% was enlivened and felt enabled to do whatever the hell they wanted to do. Rose and CW are included in this group. Let us not forget that Speaker Quinn and several members of the City Council enabled Bloomberg to buy his illegal third term over and above the will of the voters. When this b-to-the itch comes a-calling for us to vote for her for Mayor let's give her the middle finger salute and send her on her corrupt way - as in far away from us. SHE is the main reason we are enduring all this crap and she tries to endear herself to us with her so-called pro-tenant platform. Can you say "Benedict Arnold?" This corrupt piece of garbage should be made to realize that we New Yorkers are not the stupid stooges she thinks we are.

Anonymous said...

To Jill Saunders: I'm not a lawyer or an expert, but I've been following the situation closely. The scenario you describe could probably happen, but the state attorney general has approved very few eviction conversions, and my guess is that an eviction conversion on the scale of one here would not get approved.

Anonymous said...

it's like putting the horse ahead of the cart.>>

Horses usually are ahead of the cart. I've never heard of a cart pulling a horse.

Anonymous said...

You know, using a name and a picture on Blogger definitely makes you a much more credible commenter.

Of course, if you do a little digging (very little), you have to ask yourself a question: how come the image name for Jill Saunders' picture is "the-suburban-mom-jen-burg.jpg?"

Do we have suburban moms living here? Who is Jen Burg? While we are at it, who the heck is Peter Stuyvesant? I thought he was buried in Stuvyesant Town 400 years ago!

I think Jill may be a shill...

Anonymous said...

Christine Quinn is bad news.

I will certainly not vote for her.

Anonymous said...

"Please explain how a post-Roberts decision (now rent stabilized) market rate apartment can face a 30% increase when the RGB mandate for last year was 2.25 & 4.5%, and this year it's 2% and 4%. I've heard about some kind of "Roberts lease rider", did that create a loophole around Roberts ?"

This has been addressed many times, but I'll explain it again. The way a former MR rent can go up so much is if the old rent was a preferential rent, that is, less than the allowed RS rent. When such a lease comes up for renewal, the landlord can charge the true, higher rent plus the RGB increase. What the Roberts case has yet to settle is what the RS rent should have been to begin with.

Anonymous said...

I disagree with your preferential rent explanation. The whole premise behind Roberts is that Rent Stabilized apartments were illegally removed while under J-51. The only reason apartments today would have preferential rents is because they were renovated and illegally deregulated. The way I understand it, no apartment in ST/PCV should be receiving a rent increase that exceeds the RGB guidelines, but I agree that everyone has been dragging their feet in determining the actual rents, which leads to bogus 30% rent increases. The chicanery just goes on and on here.

Anonymous said...

Landlord must make money.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ July 14, 2012 11:02 AM,

The question is not what the "true rent" is but what the "legal rent" is.

The whole point of the Roberts case is that the "legal rent" was increased illegally.

If you accept that the current legal rent is appropriate then your explanation is correct. If you do not, then the increases are potentially inappropriate and excessive. The court has yet to rule on this issue.

Anonymous said...

Until the Roberts case is settled, the landlord bases increases on what it says is the legal rent, even if that amount turns out to be illegal/incorrectly calculated. That's the amount on the lease, and the basis for a preferential rent, and the base amount on which an increase will be calculated (which should conform to RGB guidelines). The former MR rents got a temporary rollback, but now former MR tenants are paying the amount in the lease or the renewal lease. CW/Rose is doing business as usual until Roberts is settled.