From a few months back:
http://www.garodnick.com/press-release/message-council-member-garodnick-final-roberts-settlement
Message from Council Member Garodnick on Final Roberts Settlement!
I wanted to share the news that Justice Lowe today signed the final settlement in the Roberts v. Tishman Speyer case. This is a historic moment for the Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village community, and for all rent stabilized residents who were unfairly overcharged by landlords receiving J-51 tax abatements across the City.
This case has always been about protecting the integrity of the rent stabilization system. The victory in Roberts sends a clear message that the rent stabilization law cannot and will not be circumvented. It is fitting that the case originated in Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village, a community ravaged by the excesses of the housing boom that fought back. The impact of this case has been felt far and wide—from the 21,250 members of the class, of which I am one, to residents in all J-51 buildings citywide. It was through the persistence and courage of our neighbors that many tenants around the City have been able to clarify their rights under the law, and for that, I am extremely proud.
The settlement delivers $68.75 million in direct payments to tenants who were overcharged for rent between January 22, 2003 and December 31, 2011 and $105 million in rent savings during the time since the Roberts case was won, when rents were rolled back as part of an "interim agreement." It also re-establishes all of the units in Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village as rent stabilized, and sets their legal rents. (For more detail on the settlement, read my plain language guide to the settlement here.)
It is our hope that the final settlement, to which there were no objectors, will present a new opportunity for CW Capital to now embrace the plan put forth by the Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village Tenants Association to ensure the long term affordability and stability in our neighborhood.
I want to thank the attorneys at Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz and Bernstein Liebhard who worked on this case for their persistence, advocacy and hard work, and the tenants who lent their names to this class action lawsuit for their courage.
I encourage all class members to file their claims by the May 15 deadline. For more information on the claims process, please visit Berdon Claims' website at www.berdonclaims.com or call 800-766-3330.
Best,
Dan Garodnick
12 comments:
"I want to thank the attorneys at Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz and Bernstein Liebhard who worked on this case for their persistence, advocacy and hard work, and the tenants who lent their names to this class action lawsuit for their courage."
Winners:
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
Bernstein Liebhard
CW Capital
Losers:
Former market rate tenants
The PCVST community at-large
Photo Op--Special Mention:
Dan Gorodnick, et. al.
That's exactly what I have been saying on this blog and others for some time now. VOTE DAN OUT!!!!!
Ha!
Nice catch STR. An Etch A Sketch moment? Flip flop, flip flop.
It is "remarkable" that all the powers that be were touting the "great" Roberts settlement earlier this year and now they are blaming CW for acting in accordance with the settlement agreement. The real problem here was that the tenants' law firm cut a terrible deal for the tenants, took millions in fees and left the Roberts tenants with the mess. Of course CW's behavior in raising rents in the middle of a lease is reprehensible but I will bet that CW's action doesn't violate the terms of the settlement agreement. Roberts tenants should think about suing their former lawyers for malpractice.
Not sure I understand how the tenants lawyers could have gotten people out of their own leases in which they themselves agreed that the owner could raise the rents mid-lease. What does this have to do with the settlement exactly or the lawyers?
The lawyers should have understood the ramifications of the settlement, i.e. that it would allow CW to exercise its option to raise rents mid-lease , in some cases dramatically and should have addressed the issue before settling. Also in the documents explaining the settlement did the lawyers explain to the plaintiff tenants that in settling this option would kick in which in many cases would increase their rents in excess of any cash payments received?
The lawyers for the tenants did a very poor job. But, hey, they made their money--and lots of it!
And, again, the elephant in the room is the idea of tenant ownership of this place, but not in a good way. Garodnick and others wanted the Roberts case settled as quickly as possible, so that CWCapital would be then free to offer PCVST to the tenants and Brookfield. This was the leverage that the lawyers for CWCapital had. Want the case settled quicker, so you can buy the place? Then agree to these terms in the settlement.
And, again, the elephant in the room is the idea of tenant ownership of this place, but not in a good way. Garodnick and others wanted the Roberts case settled as quickly as possible, so that CWCapital would be then free to offer PCVST to the tenants and Brookfield. This was the leverage that the lawyers for CWCapital had. Want the case settled quicker, so you can buy the place? Then agree to these terms in the settlement
You hit the nail on the head.
Garodnick and the Roberts lawyers should be ashamed of themselves. They aided and abetted CW in screwing the tenants royally. I will never vote for Garodnick even if he's running for dog catcher.
Dan's plain language explanation of the Roberts settlement is worthy of a read top to bottom.
http://www.garodnick.com/press-release/roberts-settlement-plain-language
Post a Comment