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.

Friday, December 7, 2012

A Vote of No Confidence for Garodnick



I wanted to get to this news item earlier in the week, but better late than never.

So our councilman, Dan Garodnick, who opposed extending term limits past two, is now running for a third term as city councilman.  I'm somewhat conflicted here, as I generally feel that term limits are unconstitutional and haven't voted for them, but the people of New York City spoke, twice, about terms limits (actually, once more recently), and the vote of the people was to limit term limits for city office holders to two.  Naturally, Mayor-for-Life Bloomberg, in a self-serving maneuver, turned this around with approval of most of the City Council. Garodnick was one of the nay votes on the Council against Bloomberg.

So what does Gardonick do when his own job is at stake, after serving two term limits and withdrawing from the comptroller race because he'd probably lose against his "friend" Scott Stringer?  He goes for a third term as city councilman!

Not only that, but with a "war-chest" of 1.5 million dollars, collected for his future plans in politics, he holds a fund raising event to get more money into his coffers.  Does anyone serious think that Garodnick will face a credible challenge that will necessitate over a million dollars, possibly two million, to win, again, his city councilman seat?

Politics as usual.  And it sucks.

As for Garodnick himself, and his effectiveness as a politician, in particular his effectiveness in dealing with PCVST....

Yeah, he's a nice guy and lives in Peter Cooper Village and responds to tenants concerns and it's good to have a resident of our community representing the community as a city councilman.  That said, Garodnick has been lame on certain issues here, after making forceful statements about his concerns and about what should or should not be happening in Stuy Town and Peter Cooper Village.  He clearly expressed his doubts about the Stuy Town ice rink, worried about the implication of a commercial enterprise in a previously free playground space, and he was just as clear, and initially proactive, in his determination to work with management in moving the Stuy Town greenmarket to a properly zoned area in or near the complex.  He dropped the ball on both matters, paving the way for Oval Cafe and lord knows what other commercial enterprise CWCapital and Lady Maya are concocting for the future. It's not pertinent to the condemnation that a portion of residents may favor an ice rink, greenmarket or cafe, but it is pertinent to point out that Garodnick did not follow through on these matters which he initially tackled with sensible commentary.  Worse, he surrendered.

Then, there's the matter of tenant ownership of PCVST.  Much energy, and the hopes and dreams of some tenants, have been focused on this, with Garodnick (along with the TA) at the forefront, leading the charge.  I think this a fool's chase, but that's only an opinion.  What I don't think is opinion is that affordable housing for the middle class is disappearing month by month here, and that Garodnick and the City Council and the Mayor have done nothing to stop this steady decrease in the housing opportunities for the middle class.

There are other negatives in Garodnick's file.  His advocacy for the 2nd Ave subway, which has decimated businesses and the living standards of those along the construction route; his vote to allow, despite zoning regulations, a huge skyscraper at 7th Ave & 33rd Street that will block out the icon view of the Empire State Building from several points and create more massive congestion in midtown; his acceptance of large amounts of political donations from real estate concerns (including, it must be noted, the real estate entity involved in that 7th Ave skyscraper)....

Yeah, he's a nice guy and all that, but I have no confidence in Dan Garodnick.  We will continue to go down the hole here in the city, paving the way more and more for the wealthy to live here, while we will be forced to move to the outskirts, coming in daily and leaving daily, to serve those who are the real masters.

117 comments:

Anonymous said...

Useless opportunist. Caved to management on every issue. The RE cabal , the money mongers and their lawyers are his biggest donors. He owes them too much to ever be an effective voice for the people.

Anonymous said...

I'd like to weigh in on something you said, which although not the main point of the post, was in my opinion a spot on observation. You stated:

"Then, there's the matter of tenant ownership of PCVST. Much energy, and the hopes and dreams of some tenants, have been focused on this, with Garodnick (along with the TA) at the forefront, leading the charge. I think this a fool's chase, but that's only an opinion."

As a long time resident of Stuy Town I couldn't agree more with the cited paragraph in general, and your last sentence in particular. It's an opinion that I also strongly share...

Anonymous said...

Listening to the teleconference call right now, all I have is a one word comment. Vichy.

Anonymous said...

Completely disagree. I love him.

Anonymous said...

Well said, STR.

Thank you for this post and for your time and work.

Anonymous said...

He's a politician. Say no more.

Anonymous said...

If you don't like the outcome, you are free to opt out and pursue your own action. If you like it, you can stay in. The solution is in your hands.

Anonymous said...

You guys are all crazy. You moan all the time about how rotten you think things are in Stuy Town but you don't think about how much worse they would be if Garodnick was not watching out for everybody and getting many things done to improve the community. No one has the ability to make every change necessary, but he's worked his butt off getting whatever he could done. Think you could do better? Then start by volunteering for the TA or doing something for nothing to help your neighbors, build a good rep for yourself, and then run for Dan's job after he moves on to bigger things. Let's see how you fare, and how well you stand up to the pressures.

Anonymous said...

Exactly. He's a politician-no more-no less. Is there no politician out there who cares about housing for the likes of us? the teachers, librarians, nurses, city and state workers? I guess not. Might as well move on and make way for the rich and those ha! ha!-middle clas folks who have been chomping at the bit for this place to go condo. the rich will inherit. That's for sur.

Anonymous said...

RE: Your post and 11:50AM reply ...

On the topic of tenant ownership, I think Dan should be commended for his work in this area. Doing nothing is not an option if your goal is preserve some form of long-lasting community here. At least he's being proactive. To those who rail against the conversion and rail against ever increasing rents and management - offer a viable solution to solve these problems. I commend Dan for taking a stand and attempting to do something about it.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>You moan all the time about how rotten you think things are in Stuy Town but you don't think about how much worse they would be if Garodnick was not watching out for everybody and getting many things done to improve the community.<<

Such as? Seriously, please name me the successes of Dan Garodnick. I know he and his office have been responsive to tenants, but don't forget it's his job to take care of his constituents and watch out for them.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of conversion, mark my words that CW Capital will end up buying STPCV for itself. Signs are pointing in that direction.

Anonymous said...

"Speaking of conversion, mark my words that CW Capital will end up buying STPCV for itself. Signs are pointing in that direction."

Are they allowed to do that?

Anonymous said...

AGreed. CW capital (or a few hundred similar others) will buy the property. I'd bet a small sum on it.

par ALWAYS PAR

Anonymous said...

STR! Come on now! Dan Garodick was successful at keeping the ice skating rink open, he was successful at keeping the greenmarket from relocating and he was successful at keeping Oval Cafe open to sell unhealthy food and diabetic delights! GOOOO DAN!

No, seriously, please go!

Anonymous said...

Dan Garodnick married himself to Brookfield who has accomplished NOTHING with regard to a conversion and tenant ownership. Holding press conferences does not equal actually DOING SOMETHING....as much as Garodnick doesn't want us to understand that.In sum---another useless elected official. But a nice guy.

Anonymous said...

as one of the "wealthy" market rate tenants who came to ST 12 years ago...I just don't see how anyone but the tenants will buy this place?

The reason I stayed after a 35% rent increase was foisted upon me by the unscrupulous landlord was simply to see how the Roberts suit + conversion possibility would go.

If CW buys it, or another interest, I would not stay because much better options exist in the NY market for lesser price. Not to mention, my particular building has turned into 1/2 an NYU dorm. (I went to NYU for Grad school, so no offense, but I wasn't looking to move back at my current age and rent level.)

Would this not happen in epidemic proportions if they purchase the buildings? With stabilized tenants staying no matter what, and higher rent tenants leaving...how could this place possibly be worth more than the tenant offer? I can't crunch the numbers and see that it makes any sense no matter how many ice skates they rent at the rink.

Have I missed some staggeringly obvious plan to change PCVST to that luxury place that Met Life and Tishman S. failed at? Seems like they just built a coffee shack and put up some glass walls here or there in sloppy retrofit "modernization." It remains the same place over all in my eyes and worth it only if that hope of eventual conversion is dangled out there.

Should be an interesting upcoming year!

Anonymous said...

"...as one of the "wealthy" market rate tenants who came to ST 12 years ago...I just don't see how anyone but the tenants will buy this place?"

I am another one of those "wealthy" market rate tenants and I have to say that the only reason I stay and pay the ridiculously high rent that would get me a doorman, inhouse gym, etc. elsewhere, is because I absolutely love the trees and greenery (where there is some!) of Stuyvesant Town. I am fortunate inasmuch as my building has not yet become a dorm and I have lovely neighbors. As a child, growing up on the UES, I used to come down to Stuyvesant Town just to enjoy the parklike grounds and play with friends down here. I was always afraid I would get kicked off the property because I wasn't a tenant! That never happened though. I always loved the beautiful, lush, tree-filled Oval and think it is a terrible shame that they cut down the trees and turned the Oval into a shambling "bread and circuses" as some folks call it shitshow. Having said that, my apartment is worth the $4k rent to me because I so enjoy looking out my window at trees and grass. I totally commiserate and sympathize with the older tenants who mourn the passing of the peaceful oasis that Stuyvesant Town once was. If management continues on the course it seems to be on to make the property less of an oasis in this concrete jungle called New York City, and more of a commercially oriented "shitshow," then they will be cutting off their nose to spite their face because nobody is going to pay major bucks to live here when/if that happens. It will be simply an off-campus dorm and a pretty ugly one at that.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

Hmm, no responses yet as to Garodnick's successes in PCVST? Should be easy.

Anonymous said...

This place will go to the highest bidder. Period. CWC has a fiduciary responsibility to the bond holders to see that that happens. However, I wouldn't put it past CW Cap to pull some kind of a fast one so that they can become the owners here. The real question for whoever becomes the owner is how to make this place pay for itself, which most people think requires selling the apartments in a coop or condo conversion.

Anonymous said...

I've trashed Dan on this forum before, but in all honesty he was very objective on the call, he said he didn't whole heartedly endorse the agreement. Carol Maloney on the other hand must be smoking crack. 90% of tenants will see their rent rise and she's rambling on about how this is a major victory. Worst politician I've ever seen.

A conversion will be very expensive, not clear if prices will be low enough that even the new market rate people could even afford it

Anonymous said...

He lost me on his handling of the conversion. By making an alliance with Brookfield and by bringing in all his cronies to feed off the deal. Without showing one bit how he was benefiting the tenants or how he was benefiting middle class affordability, he just jumped at the chance to grab some spotlight and appear to be an influencer.

Anonymous said...

5:37--hyperbole is only effective when used sparingly and in the right circumstances...really, Maloney is the WORST politician EVER?? Worse than the rape masters of this election? Or than some of the indicted ones in the 90s? Seriously, you lose people when you say things like this.

Anonymous said...

Look. I don't know if Brookfield is the right partner. But what I do know is that a tenant-sponsored noneviction conversion plan is the ONLY way to preserve rent stabilization in STPCV beyond the expiration of the J51 tax benefits in 2020 unless somehow magically the State legislature strengthens RS laws for the first time since before the Pataki administration (ain't going to happen)And the tenants can't do this without a professional real estate group as a partner.

Anonymous said...

I like Dan Garodnick..I think he has done a great job..however, as the saying goes "you can't please everyone."

Anonymous said...

To Anon 10:27.

Fine - She isn't the "worst" politician ever, but you have to admit she's an idiot. Her constituents are pissed off over the results of this negotiation and she's going on and on and on about how this is some great victory. To top it off she starts praising the lawyer on the call. This guy's objective was clearly to maximize his pay out with the future of current RS tenants be damned. He even said something along the lines of "If you don't like your new rent, move out". Was Carol even listening?

Anonymous said...

I called Garodnick's office weeks ago. My phone was knocked out for the SECOND time since/as a result of Sandy.

Verizon was telling me they could not gain access to fix the problem. I called Garodnick's office. They told me that they had a person dedicated to interacting with PCVST management and that person would give me a call (to my cell, of course, since I had no land line...) to help me resolve the situation.

It took me over a week of calls to Verizon but they finally fixed my service (for the second time).

I NEVER got that call back from Garodnick's office. They simply never called back. I wasn't expecting an instant response but, to-date, it has been three weeks. I'm sure they are busy but not that busy. They just don't care.

Anonymous said...

Dan is beloved BELOVED in this neighborhood. The 10 people who talk to each other on this site appear to be the only exceptions. Get out a little STR.

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:51 AM Agreed. But the sponsor and the type of plan that sponsor proposes matters. The TA's deal with Brookfield is totally irrelvant. Many plans may be submitted in the end. Brookfield's plan may turn out to be lousy for most tenants compared to other plans. There's no guarantee Brookfield's plan will benefit tenants more than another. And of course Brookfield will just be one competitor out there among others. It may even decide that partnering with the TA is a bad idea & drop out in favor of submitting a rental plan.

Anonymous said...

Ugh I can't believe this garbage. Why is STR always trying to be a anti-Garodnick blog? He works for Stuytown more than any politician EVER has. We'd be nowhere on any of these issues if he wasn't constantly speaking out for us. I mean you actually act like hes against affordable housing, which is just INSANE. You don't hvae to love the conversion but dont be so gross and cynical.

If you don't like garodnick, well, good luck finding another councilman who works harder for us. most neighborhoods in nyc dont get the attention he gives ours. i cant wait til we have someone else and you whine even more.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>Dan is beloved BELOVED in this neighborhood. The 10 people who talk to each other on this site appear to be the only exceptions. Get out a little STR.<<

Actually, I get out a lot, more than I'd like. But the question isn't if Dan is BELOVED in this neighborhood. I'm sure he is, and an easy 3rd term win. The question is what are his successes in PCVST. It's astounding that no one as yet has presented the surely lengthy list. I'm still waiting.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>She isn't the "worst" politician ever, but you have to admit she's an idiot.<<

Agreed; she is kinda ditzy.

Anonymous said...

If you looked deep into Maloney's eyes you would see the back of the inside of her head with a sign hanging there saying space for rent.

Ditzy doesn't quite sum sum it up.

Anonymous said...

I have always thought Garodnick was an opportunist and Maloney was a flake. They are pretty typical of the caliber of politician we have in New York. Garodnick is more beholden to his RE and law firm buddies than he is loyal to his constituents and he will never be an effective advocate for us. The TA is toothless and a waste of time.

Anonymous said...

People seem to be blaming the lawyers for a less than satisfactory result to Roberts, but didn't the plaintiffs have to agree to the deal? Or maybe their lawyers felt that this was the best they could get.

Anonymous said...

Re: Dan. Definitely some bad things but also some good things. Ironically, on his website at this moment, every news item relates to us. I think many people believe--consciously or subconsciously--that he's our guy 24/7, forgetting that he does have other constituents. That's a fact, not a defense.

To choose from two items on his site: one links to a plain-language outline of Roberts (not that the decision is understandable in its entirety), and a link to Dan's tour of the flooded basements on 12/7. That link says "On my request, City agencies have been doing spot checks of the property daily, and will continue to do so until the basements are reopened." So that's two things in the plus column.

Whether you agree with everything Dan has done or not (and I'm not completely satisfied with some of the results), no one can say we haven't had his attention, probably more than we would have had from someone who doesn't live here.

Anonymous said...

Thanks to Dan Garodnick, PCVST has been open to retail spaces for the first time and the sidewalks in PCVST are the ONLY sidewalks in NYC where bike riding is allowed. There's 2 accomplishments right there. Don't get me started on all the stuff Dan has done for this place. Soon, you will be able to go downstairs and get a pizza without ever leaving the building...is that cool or what. And if the pizzeria isn't in your building but next door, they can zip it over by bike in no time. And the pizzeria can buy fresh veges at Garodnick's way farmers market. Can't wait for the Garodnick Oval Walmart!! Look's like we've been Garodnicked again and because he is so beloved, BELOVED we can count on getting Garodnicked many more times in the future!!! Goodie!

Stuy Town Reporter said...

Don't forget Garodnick Boulevard, that now-standardized dirt space which the greenmarket occupies and which cuts a swath out of the southern portion of the Oval lawn.

Anonymous said...

Why don't you run and see if you would be better? Seriously, if you could do better, then run. And 10:53--what would I see if I looked in your eyes? Would I like what I see? Again, why don't you run?

Anonymous said...

I hate that I can look out across the Oval and see the atrocities/amenities from my window. Used to be that there were trees in the Oval. Now it is just a bare, ragged mud patch.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Dan...

For the ice skating rink
For the Green Market
For Super Summer Concerts
For bike riding on the sidewalks
For dogs in the community

thanks for nothing.

Anonymous said...

Maloney and Pelosi are a matched set and 2 prime examples of the idiots we elect to Congress

Anonymous said...



everyone always forgets all politicians are like this. Please, name a few that are not opportunists?

all things considered (and i'm not a DG fan), he's probably the best of the bunch.

THEY'RE POLICITICANS for F sake. Dems and Reps all the sAME.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>Why don't you run and see if you would be better? Seriously, if you could do better, then run.<<

I would consider running if my personal circumstances were different. But I would lose, of course, because I wouldn't take money from special interests, PARTICULARLY the real estate people (Dan's heavy contributors, aside from lawyers), and I would never present a nice front the way Garodnick does that keeps people satisfied.

But, again, why is it so difficult for anyone to list all the things Dan has done to make PCVST better? For days, I've been waiting to read this no-doubt extensive list.

Anonymous said...

If you think that the TA is ineffective, then you have to credit Dan with putting together whatever our offer was when MetLife sold the property. He fought to get hold of the offering book, which MetLife didn't want us to see. Whether you like Brookfield or not, they are a credible operation for another offer. That allows us to be taken seriously (we hope) by CWCapital. Dan also arranged for free legal advice for those in the Roberts class. He submitted testimony to the RGB more than once to protect RS tenants. He testified in Albany against letting landlords buy their way out of J-51.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

That's something at least. But the tenants would have been in real trouble if they had bought the place during the MetLife sale, and would have been laughed at when they, as an entity, would have defaulted as Tishman Speyer defaulted and was laughed at. The Brookfield plan doesn't seem to foresee longterm affordability for the middle class. And, so far, there is no indication that CWCapital is taking a tenant buy-out seriously. To the contrary, in fact. Which is why the TA/Brookfield has solicited the senior lenders for help in the matter. As for Garodnick making the case for rent-stabilization, I think it would be political suicide for a New York politician not to do so. The proof is in the pudding, as they say, and we are seeing New York (particularly Manhattan) being turned more and more into housing for the rich, rather than the middle class.

Anonymous said...

A bit off topic but has anybody had difficulty with the management office actually depositing your rent check. My check from Nov which was dropped off just after Sandy has not been cashed.

Finding somebody to talk to has been like hunting for the goddamn holy grail. Only response is shaming them on facebook.

Anonymous said...

STR

A conversion would ensure that RS in PCVST continues past the 2020 j-51 expiration date, how does that not "foresee longterm affordability for the middle class"?

What alternate plan would you suggest?

Anonymous said...

STR,

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/proof-of-the-pudding.html

And we're all lucky we didn't eat this pile of pudding six years ago!

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>A conversion would ensure that RS in PCVST continues past the 2020 j-51 expiration date, how does that not "foresee longterm affordability for the middle class"?<<

Would those who convert still be RS tenants???

Anonymous said...

STR--I don't think I understand your (rhetorical?) question. Of course those who convert will no longer be RS tenants, they will be co-op owners and obviously would want to be if they chose to buy. BUT the proposal as stated keeps anyone who chooses not to purchase as RS tenants. I don't know if it assumes the existence of a rent stabilization law, but even if so, it does extend it past the 2020 J51 expiration.

Anonymous said...

STR
Those who convert would own their apartments. What the TA seems to be saying is that any tenant-backed conversion would guarantee that rent stabilization would continue beyond 2020 for those who did not convert and whose apartments would be deregulated after the J51 benefits expire in 2020 (the "new" RS apartments)

Anonymous said...

"Would those who convert still be RS tenants???"

I assume by converting you mean buying your apartment. If you don't buy your apartment, you'll still be an RS tenant. Someone will own your apartment, at first probably the sponsor and then someone interested in the apartment as an investment or with an eye to living in it eventually. This is not an unheard-of situation.

Anonymous said...

Those who convert will own their apartments, and won't be renters at all. But the TA's non-eviction plan would enable a lot of the current RS tenants, meaning those who don't buy, to stay RS tenants. And unlike CW or other potential buyers, who would upgrade every vacated RS apartment so they could convert it to market or make it a high rent RS apartment, the TA will not do that. So the 7000 or so current aprtments would all stay affordable RS apartments, assuming none of the renters in those apartments buy them.

Anonymous said...

RE: "Would those who convert still be RS tenants???"

No, but that isn't a valid argument. Being RS does not necessarily mean being affordable in the long-term.

At least someone who converts would own their property. And owners tend to be better tenants. Tend to be more invested in the community, in making it a better place to live. In the long-term. The Pros FAR outweigh the Cons.

Anonymous said...

"how does that not "foresee longterm affordability for the middle class" - I don't see it the way STR sees it. He's a big supporter of RS. I'm a supporter of buying (although not sure sure after the hurricane). But to the original comment...you think the TA & Brookfield are heading toward middle class affordability???? Ha!! But let's get down to brass tacks. We don't know what Brookfield is prepared to bid or what their deal to us would actually look like. Period. So let's not put our trust in Brookfield or in any real estate developer. But if you want to take Dan Garodnick's deals on faith alone (when the only one sure to benefit from the deal is his old law firm), then I'm sure Dan has several bridges handy that he'd like to sell you.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

My rhetorical question underlines the fact that RS apartments will be even more on the decline here after a conversion.

Anonymous said...

"My rhetorical question underlines the fact that RS apartments will be even more on the decline here after a conversion."

STR

Again, without a conversion, which will ensure RS beyond 2020, a corporate rental scheme will see a majority MR property.

Whats your alternative plan?

Anonymous said...

There is no guarantee of middle class sustainability through rent stabilization. As we so clearly saw through the Espada/Monsaratte/Diaz debacle in the NY State Senate, the Real Estate lobby is taking every opportunity to cripple, if not eliminate RS completely. A conversion to condo (co-op's are not likely to be proposed) will keep all unsold units in RS until the J51 expires in 2020, and then only original, non-renovated units could continue to be rent stabilized, but it is possible that rent stabilization could be eliminated or severely weakened by then. After a conversion, I don't foresee the immediate disappearance of students and dogs, but probably a gradual decrease in both over the course of a good number of years. Remember there are laws that grandfather in pets which might only be nullified through a co-op (not condo) conversion. So the question really is, how long will you tolerate current conditions to remain a RS tenant, and (unless you have a personal solution to Global Warming) would you even consider buying given recent events ? I don't think our harbor storm walls will arrive anytime soon.

Anonymous said...

RE: "My rhetorical question underlines the fact that RS apartments will be even more on the decline here after a conversion."

Correct. And it's not necessarily a bad thing if those RS apts are "lost" to those who buy.

Anonymous said...

Seems to me a that a non-conversion, TS redux, all rental owner would precipitate much more RS decline than
a non-evict, RS fiendly conversion, without which, 2020 would be an RS apocalypse.

Anonymous said...

"the TA's non-eviction plan would enable a lot of the current RS tenants, meaning those who don't buy, to stay RS tenants".
Thank you very much. What's with you people who keep acting like the Brookfield plan (it's not the TA's) is the only non-eviction plan out there? The Guterman plan was far better for tenants than the little we saw of the Brookfield plan, and if conversion plans are still attractive to developers there will be more non-eviction plans proposed. Get off it. We don't need to depend on the gd TA for anything.

Anonymous said...

If a decent non-eviction conversion takes place here, there will be no decline in quality of life for RS apartments. Tenant owners will have a vested interest in upkeep. But if you mean that fewer RS apts here and across the city means a future weakening of RS in general....yes, I believe that will be the case. Will it lead to the end of RS in the next 10-20 years? It could. I wouldn't be happy to see that. But are you asking us all not to buy...even if the price is right...in consideration of perhaps aiding the end of rent stabilization? I don't pose this as a mean question. But it's a hard thing to ask people not to do something that they clearly see as in their immediate self interest.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>Whats your alternative plan?<<

My alternative plan is to put in politicians who are bulldog fighters for RS. Do you see any around here? Instead, we see our politicians, including Garodnick, get loads of funding from real estate entities that desire nothing more than removing RS property from the rolls. Yes, our politicians will all testify when needed for RS protections, etc, but that's mandatory lip service. Why is it that our councilman is not charging full blast against the powers that be here who have since the latter days of Met Life used slimy methods to increase the rent and move RS apartments to market rate apartments? Why is it that the city doesn't investigate the illegal crowding of students here? The addition of walls that change occupancy, etc?

Anonymous said...

Have you abandoned us, STR? We need to have a civilized place for discussion. The TA forum on their facebook has been sabotaged and hijacked by two or three really evil trolls. It really is a shame. They are not the newbies, either; instead, they are older people! SMH

Anonymous said...

People here forget that the number of New Yorkers who are RS or RC is very small. Most New Yorkers hate RS and RC as it removes apartments from the open market and thus drives up prices for everyone else. There's an elderly woman on my floor who lives alone in a 3 bedroom apartment that I doubt she's paying more then $1500/month for. It's a ridiculous miss-allocation of limited NYC resources and space. Let 3 or 4 young people who are just starting out and making $45,000 a year live there, she doesn't need to be in the East Village anymore.

Politicians aren't lining up to support RS and RC solely because of pressure from real estate interests, but also because much of the voting population doesn't support it either.

Anonymous said...

"People here forget that the number of New Yorkers who are RS or RC is very small."
This is a lie. There are still around at least 820,000 (my estimate now vs. the 2010 NY Times article) APARTMENTS in NYC, that are under RC and RS, around at least 800,000 are RS (again, my estimate now vs. 2010 NY Times article). The amount is shrinking every year due to vacancy decontrol but stating that the amount of tenants of record and their FAMILY members covered under RC and RS is very small is total BS. BTW, ALL apartments
(11,200 units) in PCVST are currently under RS and all pre-renovated apartments will stay as RS (if NYS law is renewed) after the J-51 exemption ends, June 2020.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/nyregion/25appraisal.html?_r=0
http://www.housingnyc.com/html/resources/faq/421a-J51.html

"Let 3 or 4 young people who are just starting out and making $45,000 a year live there, she doesn't need to be in the East Village anymore.

I guess you don't realize that it against NYC law to have more than 4unrelated people living in a NYC apartment. I know, never enforced but still on the books. And who the hell are you to tell a long term elderly tenant, most likely a WW II greatest generation widow with family still lving here, to leave her apartment? So that 4 self-entitled students or just post college transients, usually funded by their parents,can throw her out? Do you realize that “Girls” is major BS as well? God, I hope you are just a troll on this blog, I really do.

Anonymous said...

The great humanitarian @ 6:46. Get the eponymous old lady in a 3brm out, reno the unit out of RS/RC and pack 3-4 kids in to gouge them out of their meagre paychecks...

Anonymous said...

"People here forget that the number of New Yorkers who are RS or RC is very small."

Actually, there are about 1 million rent-regulated apartments in NY State.

Anonymous said...

6:46 PM, Possibly the most ignorant post I've ever seen on a ST/PCV related forum.

BTW, there are 250,000 Rent Stabilized apartments in NYC, representing about half of the available rental stock.

But nice job of trying to troll the forum.

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:46 pm
If things aren't bad enough in this country you are now advocating that we kick old people out of their homes. never mind that they probably can't afford any other apartment in Manhattan, a community she has likely lived in her whole life, but a move by elderly people often means they end up in nursing homes or worse because they can't handle the trauma of moving at that age.

Anonymous said...

You are all right, there are a lot of people in RS/RC apartments and that makes the problem WORSE!!

Look I'm not saying to turn this lady into Solyent Green, but if NYC is going to be serious about providing affordable housing for ALL New Yorkers, young and old, we need to be realistic about how we allocate resources. Perhaps NYC can build a housing community out in Queens somewhere for elderly RS/RC tenants where they can be provided with full time care, and more accessible facilities. It takes some of these elderly people an hour just to walk to Associated.

I realize they have been living here forever but I'm sorry, it just doesn't make sense for them to be here anymore. If we want to solve the housing crisis and grow our economy we need to open up space for young people to live, work, and spend money. Wasn't that what PCVST was originally built for?

Anonymous said...

And one last comment. I'm really tired of hearing our younger neighbors labeled self entitled rich kids. If they were self entitled rich kids do you think they would be living in subdivided apartments separated by sheets? Many are up to their eyeballs in college debt, just so they hope they can get a job with a starting salary of $45k in one of the most expensive places to live in the world. Lets all at least be honest about who's moving in.

Anonymous said...

No......they ARE self entitled rich kids.

Anonymous said...

NYC doesn't owe you an apartment numb nuts. That old lady paid her dues one way or another for that apartment. It's hers, not yours. You want it ? Fucking stand in line and wait for it.

Anonymous said...

"Perhaps NYC can build a housing community out in Queens somewhere for elderly RS/RC tenants where they can be provided with full time care, and more accessible facilities. It takes some of these elderly people an hour just to walk to Associated."

Perhaps NYC can build a housing community out in Queens somewhere for entitled kids from the flyover states who come to New York looking for $45K entry-level jobs. Somewhere where they can be provided with full time care such as nannies to pick up after them because they don't know how to recycle, dispose of trash and clean up their own vomit; sound proof walls and floors because they don't understand the New York City noise ordinances requiring people to tone it down between 11 pm and 7 am; and more accessible facilities such as on-premises Pizza Hut; 24/7 bar; condom vending machines; Morning After Pill vending machines (in case the condom vending machine was out of order). Then we could leave the mature adults who have worked hard and paid taxes all their lives to enjoy the homes they have lived in for decades -without intruding on anyone else's lives- to continue to live their lives without being intruded upon.

Anonymous said...

>Look I'm not saying to turn this lady into Solyent Green, but if NYC is going to be serious about providing affordable housing for ALL New Yorkers, young and old, we need to be realistic about how we allocate resources. Perhaps NYC can build a housing community out in Queens somewhere for elderly RS/RC tenants where they can be provided with full time care, and more accessible facilities. It takes some of these elderly people an hour just to walk to Associated. <

OMG! Social engineering at it's worst and scariest! This must be some fascist asshole who went to the Bloomberg School of Social Engineering and Substandard Population Culling. What a despicably arrogant and cold hearted and totally unAmerican creature you are!

Anonymous said...

Anon at 317PM
Perhaps the city should build housing for the young folks in Queens and ship them there.The trauma for a young person to commute from Queens is far less than the trauma of moving the elderly.(But of course no young professional or student would be caught dead living in Queens so let's throw the old folk out and if they die who cares-right anon????. Those of us who have lived here for decades have either built this community or helped to maintain it as an oasis in Manhattan (at least until Tishman Speyer got their greedy , grubby hands on it ) for middle class families

Anonymous said...

"I realize they have been living here forever but I'm sorry, it just doesn't make sense for them to be here anymore. If we want to solve the housing crisis and grow our economy we need to open up space for young people to live, work, and spend money. Wasn't that what PCVST was originally built for?"

Hey, why not round up all the rent stabilized tenants, line them up and shoot them or send them to the gas chambers? Sounds about right given your perspective.

Anonymous said...

"NYC doesn't owe you an apartment numb nuts. That old lady paid her dues one way or another for that apartment. It's hers, not yours. You want it ? Fucking stand in line and wait for it."

You got that right! And this fucking asshole has the big steel balls to chide us about calling the incomers "entitled." Unbelievable!

Anonymous said...

1) If NYC doesn't owe me an apartment why does it owe you or the old lady an apartment?

2) Stand in line and wait for what? There is no such thing as RS or RC for anyone not already in the system. Why does your generation get blessed with dirt cheap housing in the most desirable neighborhoods for life while younger generations do not? And don't even try to claim that a $4000/month apartment is RS.

3) If we can commute from Queens why can't you? At least we're paying our fair share to live in the EV.

4) None of you built or invested in anything here. This is a RENTAL community. What you had accomplished prior to TS is managing to exert political pressure in order to keep grandfathering yourselves into a broken system that should never have been implemented in the first place.


4) I don't in my wildest dreams think that I have the right to live alone in a 3 bedroom apartment in one of the hottest and most heavily demanded neighborhoods in the world when I'm 90 years old unless I was willing to pay fairly for it. Why do you think you are entitled to that?

Anonymous said...

I remember when we asked for Bloomberg's help to combat Tishman Speyer's bid and his response was that the city was planning to build middle class housing in Queens. Our anon. "friend" is definitely a graduate of the Bloomberg School of Social Engineering where it is taught that, except for pockets of low-income housing projects, Manhattan is fit only for Masters of the Universe and those vying for that title and the rest of us (the hired help) have no place in Manhatta.BTW- I believe that the City has yet to build that housing in Queens that Bloomberg mentioned years ago.

Anonymous said...

It's ironic how neighborhoods rise in value because of an influx of certain types (e.g., students, yunnies, et al) and then sink in value because these people destroy everything about them that made them desirable in the first place! I've been out apartment hunting (to purchase) and if I heard it once I heard it a dozen times: "Stuyvesant Town? Isn't that just a big dorm now? East Village? Totally trashed, would never pay good money to live with the dorks that have moved in on it."
I guess what goes around comes around!

Anonymous said...

Hey Idiot at 7:38: keep on stamping your entitled little feet and having your tantrum. Better yet, hold your breath until you turn blue then throw yourself face down on the floor and beat your little fists on the carpet. Mommy will change your pamper, stick a pacifiier in your gob and tuck you into your crib. The nice shiny toy you want, I.e. an old lady's apartment just ain't coming to you. It's hers, not yours and you can't have it just because you want it and feel it should be yours because it is in the woo hoo hot East Village! Btw, Stuytown/pCV only became the East Village when the marketers decided to call it that! Hate to say it, but your generation was very badly raised. Your parents have NOTHING to be proud of. I hop you don't have siblings because the world doesn't need more of your kind.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

Just be aware that this guy is probably a troll who just wants to get a rise out of us. I'm not going to let through any more of his "messages."

Anonymous said...

Just be aware that this guy is probably a troll who just wants to get a rise out of us. I'm not going to let through any more of his "messages."

I disagree. I believe this person is serious. This is the Obama generation at its finest. Out with the old in with new. Punish success in order to give the entitled their entitlements. We get what we vote for!!!!

Anonymous said...

I think 7:38 makes some valid points.
I know this will anger people, but RS and section 8 are passe. They cause rents to be higher as a result of keeping apartments artificially cheap and therefore unobtainable.

Anonymous said...

"This is the Obama generation at its finest. Out with the old in with new. Punish success in order to give the entitled their entitlements. We get what we vote for!!!!"

You are off your rocker! This is the ROMNEY generation at its finest: fuck the old people; fuck the little guy and make way for the entitled rich! What a jerk!

Anonymous said...

@10:35 Obama? you're politics is a little shakey,Republicans and their corporate masters are on a mission to stamp out socialist programs like RS...remember, you can't listen to FOX news and live in an RS apt without being an arch hypocrite.

Anonymous said...

"The analysis of rent control is among the best-understood issues in all of economics, and -- among economists, anyway -- one of the least controversial. In 1992 a poll of the American Economic Association found 93 percent of its members agreeing that ''a ceiling on rents reduces the quality and quantity of housing.'' Almost every freshman-level textbook contains a case study on rent control, using its known adverse side effects to illustrate the principles of supply and demand. " - Paul Krugman.

Anonymous said...

"remember, you can't listen to FOX news and live in an RS apt without being an arch hypocrite."

Of course unbenownst to most I'm sure, there is a regular talking head on Faux news that LIVES here. One can see him jogging around the grounds from time to time. Kind of sums up that channel perfectly.

Anonymous said...

To quote Paul Krugman on economics is the same as quoting Karl Marx. Krugman thinks Obama is a conservative.

Anonymous said...

I KNEW you complainers were right wingers! I knew it. It's so funny to see people ranting about the students and market rate tenant making this place unlivable, that your RS units are being threatened and yet otherwise be a stereotype of a FOX viewer. You want your cheap apartments, your Medicare, social security, but of course, no other social programs, and you don't want to pay taxes to pay for your Medicare, etc. and you just love that whole right wing nightmare of anti-gay, anti-immigration, every man for himself (except your programs), lily-white, puritanical, gun-toting, militarized, corporate AMURKA. I knew it!

Anonymous said...

Anon at @ 8:20 doesn't like Krugman because he is liberal, that's fine. How about a full economic analysis by a conservative market publication:

http://www.marketminder.com/c/fisher-investments-want-cheaper-rent-end-rent-control/1a39dd78-1815-4fe3-b548-cd167f482b59


Also, more hints on who the FOX News talking head that lives here is please. Very interesting.

Anonymous said...

Idiotic name-calling when it comes to Krugman who is pointing to the deficit and what got us out of the depression. It wasn't the 'war' as some counter to have the understanding of a flea. It was the massive gov't spending program that supported the war. Plenty of Republicans got rich off of that spending for sure. The point is...the same kind of spending would pull us out today...just that it would be used for improving the infrastructure instead of killing people. Guess Republicans can get onboard when it comes to killing people, but not when it comes to improving the safety & quality of life for everyone in he US.

Anonymous said...

You are off your rocker! This is the ROMNEY generation at its finest: fuck the old people; fuck the little guy and make way for the entitled rich! What a jerk!

I seriously doubt that the poster that is looking to throw out the old lady and stuff the apartment with 3 or 4 young kids trying to make it in the big city is a Romney supporter. This person seems to be an entitlement person also known as an Obamabot. Obamabots want their free phones, free welfare money, tax refunds when they haven't paid a penny in taxes their whole life yet swear that they are entitled to all the good things in life simply because they were born. He/She sounds like many of the new tenants in PCVST whose parents coddled them and told them they are entitled to everything but don't have to work for anything, trying to live off of other people's hard work and success...an Obamabot! What does Fox news have to do with any of this. Does their success drive you that crazy? What a Jerk!

Anonymous said...

STR:

Why do you let rants like 7:16 thru? Nothing said adds anything to the conversation.

7:16: Try coming up with some vaild points for RS like non transient communities, otherwise you just sound like a loser.

Its funny, anyone against how RS is currently set up is labled "biggest idiot in the world"
instead of speaking to points,

Stuy Town Reporter said...

The concept of allowing all rentals to go market rate because that will in turn LOWER rents is very suspect in Manhattan. It may have some validity in other cities (which I doubt), but not here in Manhattan. Try to get rid of RS and tons of people are going to be kicked out of their homes to make way for richer people.

Anonymous said...

10:07 PM

So you think the East Village is sinking in value? In 1990 you could buy a building for a buck,
(thats right, a buck).

I agree, the EV isnt as cool as it once was because of an increase of frattyness but value in terms of price has not decreased, it has increased.

Dont be silly

Anonymous said...

"You want your cheap apartments, your Medicare, social security, but of course, no other social programs, and you don't want to pay taxes to pay for your Medicare, etc. and you just love that whole right wing nightmare of anti-gay, anti-immigration, every man for himself (except your programs), lily-white, puritanical, gun-toting, militarized, corporate AMURKA. I knew it!"

You are totally insane! Your rant is ridiculous. What are you on?

Anonymous said...

2:06

I have no idea what you are talking about "Obamabots". So you are against RS or for it?

How would someone who has never paid taxes afford a market rate apartment in stuytown? Your going to say mommie and daddie? If so they are not getting welfare, free phones, etc. Are you saying once mommie and daddies funds are cut off they will go to welfare? Just doesnt make sense.

Also, who is for not working?

You ask what does Fox news have to do with it, its because its part of the reason you think like this, sorry to be so simplistic but you need to be told bc I think its rotting your brain,

Anonymous said...

Original poster here. I find it ironic how half of you are labeling me a crazy Romney supporter and half of you are labeling me a crazy Obama supporter. The whole point of my post is that economists on BOTH sides of the spectrum have shown that RS does not work. Your reactions show just how narrow of a world view you people have. Try to think objectively about an issue for once instead of letting FAUX News or MSNBC speak for you.

Thank you STR for responding in an intelligent manner with a real point. As both articles I posted demonstrate, RS drives a wedge in the market, it holds some people's rent artificially low while holding other's artificially high. If it were to be removed prices would clear somewhere in the middle. Rents would certainly go up for the old RS tenants who are yelling at me in this forum, but it will also come down for millions of market rate tenants. Perhaps they may even come down enough that young people could afford to rent these apartments without having to convert them to extra bedrooms.

I know what you are thinking, maybe they will come down in the immediate term but what about the long term? Well the problem with RS and RC is that it's preventing land lords and real estate agents from investing in new housing stock. I know it changes the character of the city, but the old tenament buildings in this city need to be torn down and rebuilt higher, and to modern standards and needs.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

RS is never going to be abandoned. It would be a catastrophe in the city because a significant number of people would be displaced, including many people in PCVST. So, really, this talk is just talking for the sake of theorizing and nothing else. Manhattan is also prime real estate, all around. Rich people and their kids all over the globe would like to own a piece of it. (At least now and in the foreseeable future.) In any event, we are heading toward a Manhattan that is exclusively for the rich and where the peasants (lower wage workers) come into the city in the morning for work, and leave in the evening for home to another borough or Jersey. Rents are not going down.

Anonymous said...

Manhattan. Dubai on the Hudson. Bloomberg and Amanda Burden re very pleased. End of story.

Anonymous said...

"the old tenament buildings in this city need to be torn down and rebuilt higher, and to modern standards and needs."

Have you even been on the Lower East Side below Houston Street? Have you seen how narrow those streets are? If you didn't redo the street layout, there would be no air and no light if you simply replaced the existing building with taller ones. Paging Jacob Riis.

RS doesn't prevent anyone from investing in new housing stock since RS doesn't apply to new builds. And RS gives landlords an increase every year and a healthy automatic 20% when an apartment turns over.

Bottom line, as STR points out, we're on an island. Space is limited, and everyone wants to be here. How about making it the law that every apartment on Manhattan has to be a primary residence? That would turn over those apartments that are pieds-a-terres for rich folk from abroad. Or maybe we should all get behind Bloomberg and socialite Amanda Burden's idea of 300-sq-ft apartments.

Anonymous said...

Poster @ 2:17 am: You said it!

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure what is defined as "middle class" by this group of people. According to Wikipedia, the median family income in the Northeast was $53,283 in 2010 and according to this page (whose veracity I haven not verified), the median household income for Manhattan in 2009 was $66,000. That means that two people moving to Manhattan each making $45k/year and living together would together have a household income much greater than the median. If this isn't "middle class", I don't know what should be. That is to say, in your definition of "middle class", why would these two hypothetical recent graduates together not qualify?

As to RS/RC, some questions to chew on (and to which I do not have the answers and would love discussion):

*Manhattan and has no space to build, so RS/RC affects new construction because you cannot evict in order to construct. How do you find the space for new construction in an RS/RC world?
* What is a "fair" rent in PCVST to you?
* What is a "fair" rent increase in PCVST to you?
* Many other markets have very desirable areas (gated communities, fancy-schmancy subdivisions filled with McMansions, multi-acre properties with large homes) which are inaccessible to the "middle class". What is different about, say, the East Village?
* What is a fair price, in your opinion, for a 1br in Stuy Town on the market?
* I'm too young to be in the RS/RC game. It behooves me to advocate for the abolition of RS/RC. Why should I not?

Anonymous said...

"*Manhattan and has no space to build, so RS/RC affects new construction because you cannot evict in order to construct. How do you find the space for new construction in an RS/RC world?"

It's not strictly true that there's no space to build in Manhattan. Look at Sixth Avenue from a little below 23rd Street to about 30th Street. Many high rises have gone up on spaces that were formerly parking lots or gas stations (we've lost gas stations in other areas too) or held smaller buildings. Many commercial and light industrial buildings have been converted to residential over the past 30 years or so (SoHo, Tribeca, FiDi, etc.). Stories have been added onto existing low buildings. Residential buildings have been built on landfill (Waterside, Battery Park City), which doesn't look like such a good idea at the moment. Things have been changing in Harlem, although not to the benefit of the existing community.

No matter what, there will never be enough space for all the people who want to crowd in here. And there is merit in having a diverse housing stock, which results in a diverse streetscape. Would you really want every block to be lined with glass towers (the style du jour for a long time now)? If your answer to that is yes, Dubai may be a better fit for you. Or we could just build on our own open spaces here--no more playgrounds, no more lawns.

Anonymous said...

Look, whine all you want, but you are not going to have old ladies kicked out of their homes because you covet them and think they are better suited to you and your kind. This is New York City, an eclectic mix of people of varying socioeconomic levels, not the homogenized, gentrified utopia that Bloomie, Burden and you would like it to be!

Anonymous said...

December 23, 2012 10:28 PM,

So nice to have you in the conversation. Fortunately, it doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with the City's RS laws. They exist and many in the community truly benefit from them.

Now be a good tenant and empty your pockets and hand over the contents to CW. They are a bit short on cash of late and I fully expect that the lawn in front of my building be resodded in the Spring. You should be paying for that.

Happy Holidays!

Anonymous said...

The lawn in front of my building hasn't to a large degree been resodded since CW took over. Why do you think they are going to be good landlords now?

Anonymous said...

For those who want to know and may be too young to remember, STR is right that ordinary rental housing supply/demand economics doesn't work in Manhattan. New York tried in 1971 to deregulate all newly vacant apartments. The result was massive price-gouging and tenant harassment by landlords who turned into thugs to scare people out of their RS apartments and convert them to market units. The chaos and dislocation of renters was so bad that the 1971 law was repealed a couple of years later and RS was expanded beyond what it had been previously.

Eliminate RS now and the same thing will happen again. Yes, there were fewer apartments in NYC then, but that won't make of a difference. Market prices may come down slightly at first with hundreds of thousands of new former RS units on the market, but they will increase shortly thereafter to the point where no blue collar workers or cops or teachers will be able to afford to live in Manhattan.

Maintaining income diversity and stability in Mahnattan neighborhoods has many benefits, like lower crime rates, that have to be figured into the equation. Economists look only at prices (and usually based on unrealistic assumptions about supposedly "rational" human behavior). But social policy should consider much more than pure profit and loss. If the voting majority in NYC wants Manhattan to become affordable only to the rich, then it will elect representatives who disfavor RS. Until then, those of you who prefer that to happen now should accept that the majority still disagrees with you. Otherwise your complaint is really against the concept of democracy, not against RS.

Anonymous said...

4:33 pm, you said it. And you said it with clarity and intelligence, qualities often lacking in the young whiners.

Anonymous said...

This is December 23, 2012 10:28 PM. In case they pop by these comments again, I would like to thank December 24, 2012 10:27 PM and January 2, 2013 4:33 PM for providing lovely responses and references to some of my questions. I have a couple follow ups for 2 Jan:

I was unaware of the 1971 attempt at deregulation. I will look into this. Also, has there been any attempt you know of to compare the NYC market to other large metropolises, preferably those either constrained by geography or with a similar wealth profile?

Also, I've never heard the claim that crime rates are lowered by (or at least correlated with) income *diversity* (as opposed to median income). Could you provide a reference? I would love to read more.

Anonymous said...

Jan 6 at 4:42 PM: You're not getting granny's apartment, so drop it!

Anonymous said...

"has there been any attempt you know of to compare the NYC market to other large metropolises, preferably those either constrained by geography or with a similar wealth profile?"

Watch HGTV's House Hunters International when they go to London or Paris. This place is a bargain in comparison.

Anonymous said...

Don't give a ff what they do elsewhere; this is our home and you are not getting granny's apartment.