Our landlord, BLACKSTONE, can't handle Stuy Town and Peter Cooper Village. There is a lack of enforcement of certain "rules," and no amount of notice to this alleviates the problems. We are continually being told half-truths and fabrications. And we have no viable Tenants organization, despite our TA asking for dues all the time. So far, the politicians have proven to be basically useless. A typical New York story.
You know, it's statements and attitudes like the one below, posted on the TA Facebook, that make me want to say, "Fuck you and take care of your own problems. I don't have to worry because I'm a longtime RS tenant here." This is the type of PCVST resident we now have to accommodate. But then my rational side realizes that we must be in this ALL together for there to be any hope, if it hasn't already evaporated. Anyway, here's the statement:
"I'll support you, IF, and ONLY IF, the tennants association stops it's daily verbal attacks on market rate and younger tenants. Seriously, the head of the TA spends their time trying to ban young people from sun bathing? This is NYC, not Tehran. If you want solidarity, I want a written commitment that the Tennant Association will cease and desist such activity. Elsewise, good riddance. We pay 3x as much as rent stabilized people, we deserve AT LEAST equal representation."
>>When it’s all said and then, maybe we are all just spitting in the wind. But I rather spit than do nothing at all.<<
Yes, something must be done. But I've seen my share of press conferences like this one and nothing ever changes for the better. It just seems to get worse.
"I'll support you, IF, and ONLY IF, the tennants association stops it's daily verbal attacks on market rate and younger tenants. Seriously, the head of the TA spends their time trying to ban young people from sun bathing? This is NYC, not Tehran. If you want solidarity, I want a written commitment that the Tennant Association will cease and desist such activity. Elsewise, good riddance. We pay 3x as much as rent stabilized people, we deserve AT LEAST equal representation"
No one is forcing you to pay 3x as much as rent stabilized people. If you think it is not worth the rent (and for some of the rents it is not worth the price in my opinion) then you are free to seek housing elsewhere - perhaps in one of the outer boroughs or elsewhere where the rents are more to you liking. The rents are high because folks like you are willing to pay it.
By the way, because of the Court of Appeals Roberts decision, you, like everyone else who has a lease here, are rent stabilized. That is not to say that the settlement is ideal or even good. In my opinion, the blame for that should be placed at the feet of a lazy Judge who did not want to try the case and who insisted on a settlement which allowed CW, who had nothing to lose from delay to drag their feet and not deal in good faith.
Also, the TA does not make daily verbal attacks on market rate and young renters and does not seek to ban sunbathing. Rather, it makes note of and chides of the boorish behavior of a minority of residents who have no respect for their neighbors.
In any event, as I said, if you think you are paying an unfair rent and don't like the rules, you can go someplace more suitable to your life style and financial resources.
There is one small confusion that I would like to clear up. "Rent Stabilized" does not mean, and never has meant, "low cost." It refers to a whole bunch of other legal rights. But the legally set rent is not necessarily a low rent. Does this help?
They're big on boning tenants here. Usually their wallets and its more like rape. Exhibit A. $75 charge if you get locked out and need to get back into your apartment.
""I'll support you, IF, and ONLY IF, the tennants association stops it's daily verbal attacks on market rate and younger tenants. Seriously, the head of the TA spends their time trying to ban young people from sun bathing? This is NYC, not Tehran. If you want solidarity, I want a written commitment that the Tennant Association will cease and desist such activity. Elsewise, good riddance. We pay 3x as much as rent stabilized people, we deserve AT LEAST equal representation."
Hey, Dogbreath: I am a real rent stabilized tenants and I don't give a flying fuck for people with your mentality. I hope you get fleeced and take it up the ass from CW and go back to wherever you came from whimpering. The TA has bent over backwards to help the likes of you and the people whose rent is not in jeopardy have actually felt sorry for you and supportive you as you have been royally screwed by CW. Not anymore, though. Since reading your statement, I will be glad to see your sorry ass crawl out of here.
That's not even a bone. That's the deal. if you stay, you start paying new rent on June 1. If you give notice, you don't have to start paying the new rent before July 1. Even though you can give 60 days notice, if you leave before July 1, you don't end up paying any higher rent. But if you stay past July 1, then the new rent kicks in and presumably if you holdover. That was always the plan. They are pretending it's a bone to make it sound better than June 1, which is the real date for everyone who stays.
I'm assuming the increases, or lack of them, are based on previous turnovers in the apartment and any other "legal" maneuvers that provide a landlord the ability to raise rent on an apartment.
As for why CWCapital would stick it to market rate tenants--because the decision makers in that company are crazy? Or just completely unscrupulous. Or both. Undoubtedly they feel they can get even more of a top dollar, even if they have to cram in four students to an apartment to replace a market-rate paying tenant.
As for why CWCapital would stick it to market rate tenants--because the decision makers in that company are crazy? Or just completely unscrupulous. Or both. Undoubtedly they feel they can get even more of a top dollar, even if they have to cram in four students to an apartment to replace a market-rate paying tenant.
As much as I don't want to defend CWC here, there are facts that no one has mentioned. CWC has a fiduciary responsibility to operate the property in a way that makes the most money for the bondholders they represent. It's possible CWC had no choice but to pass on these increases as they did simply because it is in the final Roberts agreement. It was the responsibility of class members and their lawyers to cut a better deal and to be on the lookout for these types of clauses. However, due to pressure from Dan Garodnick, some of the other politicians who were at yesterdays rally like Kavanaugh and others such as Maloney and Schumer along with the TA who just wanted the deal done it was rushed and class members got screwed. The only concern Garodnick had was his own desire to reward his former law firm and others for the work they did on the Brookfield deal, a deal that should never go through. There are many reasons to hate CWC unfortunately this isn't one of them. Place the blame where it belongs, squarely on the shoulders of Garodnick, his pals and the TA.
>>Place the blame where it belongs, squarely on the shoulders of Garodnick, his pals and the TA.<<
Well, the ultimate "blame" resides with the person/entity who presses the trigger. And that's CWCapital.
I will agree that a push toward tenant condo ownership could very well be the culprit in the tenants' lawyers trying to get a Roberts settlement put into effect. That's what I've been saying since this rent fiasco erupted.
Well, the ultimate "blame" resides with the person/entity who presses the trigger. And that's CWCapital.
That just isn't true. Unless you have some sort of insider information that you're not sharing, it is more than likely that CWCapital had to honor the deal or face lawsuits from the bondholders or potential issues with various government entities. This issue has many many layers.
As I responded in the other thread, I'm going by what Garodnick said at the press conference yesterday: that CWCapital was not mandated to exercise that option.
Plus, whether you're for it or not, the $ deal that the TA & Brookfield were offering to CWC actually MADE the bondholders whole! No haircut. Thus, these musg, insider-y theories regarding potential lawsuits from the bondholder against CWC kinda don't wash. Inconsistent logic is no logic at all...
Comments have to await approval by the administrator of this blog to be published. Comments that insult another commentator, or that cross a line the administrator is not comfortable with, will not get approved.
What bone will CWCapital throw to show it understands?
ReplyDeleteWhen it’s all said and then, maybe we are all just spitting in the wind. But I rather spit than do nothing at all.
ReplyDeleteYou know, it's statements and attitudes like the one below, posted on the TA Facebook, that make me want to say, "Fuck you and take care of your own problems. I don't have to worry because I'm a longtime RS tenant here." This is the type of PCVST resident we now have to accommodate. But then my rational side realizes that we must be in this ALL together for there to be any hope, if it hasn't already evaporated. Anyway, here's the statement:
ReplyDelete"I'll support you, IF, and ONLY IF, the tennants association stops it's daily verbal attacks on market rate and younger tenants. Seriously, the head of the TA spends their time trying to ban young people from sun bathing? This is NYC, not Tehran. If you want solidarity, I want a written commitment that the Tennant Association will cease and desist such activity. Elsewise, good riddance. We pay 3x as much as rent stabilized people, we deserve AT LEAST equal representation."
>>When it’s all said and then, maybe we are all just spitting in the wind. But I rather spit than do nothing at all.<<
ReplyDeleteYes, something must be done. But I've seen my share of press conferences like this one and nothing ever changes for the better. It just seems to get worse.
Any chance that lovely tenant will learn how to spell? I fear for that person's children.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, I wonder if that person has done anything to help the TA represent tenants paying market rents.
That FB poster got major served.
ReplyDeleteSomeone tell this tool there are market rate tenants on the TA.
ReplyDelete"I'll support you, IF, and ONLY IF, the tennants association stops it's daily verbal attacks on market rate and younger tenants. Seriously, the head of the TA spends their time trying to ban young people from sun bathing? This is NYC, not Tehran. If you want solidarity, I want a written commitment that the Tennant Association will cease and desist such activity. Elsewise, good riddance. We pay 3x as much as rent stabilized people, we deserve AT LEAST equal representation"
ReplyDeleteNo one is forcing you to pay 3x as much as rent stabilized people. If you think it is not worth the rent (and for some of the rents it is not worth the price in my opinion) then you are free to seek housing elsewhere - perhaps in one of the outer boroughs or elsewhere where the rents are more to you liking. The rents are high because folks like you are willing to pay it.
By the way, because of the Court of Appeals Roberts decision, you, like everyone else who has a lease here, are rent stabilized. That is not to say that the settlement is ideal or even good. In my opinion, the blame for that should be placed at the feet of a lazy Judge who did not want to try the case and who insisted on a settlement which allowed CW, who had nothing to lose from delay to drag their feet and not deal in good faith.
Also, the TA does not make daily verbal attacks on market rate and young renters and does not seek to ban sunbathing. Rather, it makes note of and chides of the boorish behavior of a minority of residents who have no respect for their neighbors.
In any event, as I said, if you think you are paying an unfair rent and don't like the rules, you can go someplace more suitable to your life style and financial resources.
So "the bone" is extending the deadline for moving out from June 1st to July 1st. Thanks a lot!
ReplyDeleteThere is one small confusion that I would like to clear up. "Rent Stabilized" does not mean, and never has meant, "low cost." It refers to a whole bunch of other legal rights. But the legally set rent is not necessarily a low rent. Does this help?
ReplyDeleteThey're big on boning tenants here. Usually their wallets and its more like rape. Exhibit A. $75 charge if you get locked out and need to get back into your apartment.
ReplyDelete""I'll support you, IF, and ONLY IF, the tennants association stops it's daily verbal attacks on market rate and younger tenants. Seriously, the head of the TA spends their time trying to ban young people from sun bathing? This is NYC, not Tehran. If you want solidarity, I want a written commitment that the Tennant Association will cease and desist such activity. Elsewise, good riddance. We pay 3x as much as rent stabilized people, we deserve AT LEAST equal representation."
ReplyDeleteHey, Dogbreath: I am a real rent stabilized tenants and I don't give a flying fuck for people with your mentality. I hope you get fleeced and take it up the ass from CW and go back to wherever you came from whimpering. The TA has bent over backwards to help the likes of you and the people whose rent is not in jeopardy have actually felt sorry for you and supportive you as you have been royally screwed by CW. Not anymore, though. Since reading your statement, I will be glad to see your sorry ass crawl out of here.
Dan is a real con artist. He championed the deal and now is blaming everyone else for his failure. Typical NYC politician.
ReplyDeleteYes, the bone is another month.
ReplyDeleteI guess CW is really desperate. REALLY REALL DESPERATE to churn.
They must be losing millions.
That's not even a bone. That's the deal. if you stay, you start paying new rent on June 1. If you give notice, you don't have to start paying the new rent before July 1. Even though you can give 60 days notice, if you leave before July 1, you don't end up paying any higher rent. But if you stay past July 1, then the new rent kicks in and presumably if you holdover. That was always the plan. They are pretending it's a bone to make it sound better than June 1, which is the real date for everyone who stays.
ReplyDeleteTwo things... and I MEAN THIS WITH NO DISRESPECT TO ANYONE.
ReplyDeletehow do THEY decide who got the increase? some did , some did not. wth?
and,
why would CW try to stick it constantly to market rate tenants? Arent' they happy to receive top $ for such tenants?
I'm assuming the increases, or lack of them, are based on previous turnovers in the apartment and any other "legal" maneuvers that provide a landlord the ability to raise rent on an apartment.
ReplyDeleteAs for why CWCapital would stick it to market rate tenants--because the decision makers in that company are crazy? Or just completely unscrupulous. Or both. Undoubtedly they feel they can get even more of a top dollar, even if they have to cram in four students to an apartment to replace a market-rate paying tenant.
As for why CWCapital would stick it to market rate tenants--because the decision makers in that company are crazy? Or just completely unscrupulous. Or both. Undoubtedly they feel they can get even more of a top dollar, even if they have to cram in four students to an apartment to replace a market-rate paying tenant.
ReplyDeleteAs much as I don't want to defend CWC here, there are facts that no one has mentioned. CWC has a fiduciary responsibility to operate the property in a way that makes the most money for the bondholders they represent. It's possible CWC had no choice but to pass on these increases as they did simply because it is in the final Roberts agreement. It was the responsibility of class members and their lawyers to cut a better deal and to be on the lookout for these types of clauses. However, due to pressure from Dan Garodnick, some of the other politicians who were at yesterdays rally like Kavanaugh and others such as Maloney and Schumer along with the TA who just wanted the deal done it was rushed and class members got screwed. The only concern Garodnick had was his own desire to reward his former law firm and others for the work they did on the Brookfield deal, a deal that should never go through. There are many reasons to hate CWC unfortunately this isn't one of them. Place the blame where it belongs, squarely on the shoulders of Garodnick, his pals and the TA.
>>Place the blame where it belongs, squarely on the shoulders of Garodnick, his pals and the TA.<<
ReplyDeleteWell, the ultimate "blame" resides with the person/entity who presses the trigger. And that's CWCapital.
I will agree that a push toward tenant condo ownership could very well be the culprit in the tenants' lawyers trying to get a Roberts settlement put into effect. That's what I've been saying since this rent fiasco erupted.
Nah, The tenants in place are paying a lot. And there is a month + losss of revenue for potentially NEW tenants.
ReplyDeletePlus painting, renoviating it, etc.
There has to be another reason. It may not be so cost effective to throw out tenants paying 3500+ already.
Well, the ultimate "blame" resides with the person/entity who presses the trigger. And that's CWCapital.
ReplyDeleteThat just isn't true. Unless you have some sort of insider information that you're not sharing, it is more than likely that CWCapital had to honor the deal or face lawsuits from the bondholders or potential issues with various government entities. This issue has many many layers.
As I responded in the other thread, I'm going by what Garodnick said at the press conference yesterday: that CWCapital was not mandated to exercise that option.
ReplyDeletePlus, whether you're for it or not, the $ deal that the TA & Brookfield were offering to CWC actually MADE the bondholders whole! No haircut. Thus, these musg, insider-y theories regarding potential lawsuits from the bondholder against CWC kinda don't wash. Inconsistent logic is no logic at all...
ReplyDelete