click to make larger
As I began to read this, I thought that finally CWCapital is beginning to show some humanity and that this was an important step at reconciliation with the community the company has been ravaging. When I finished reading, blood was shooting out of my eyeballs, and I could only think: "BASTARDS, BASTARDS, BASTARDS." What evil, loathsome, manipulative people these are. I didn't think it was possible for CWCapital to stoop much lower than it has in tenant relations, but it seems to be able to plummet, very easily, to lower and lower depths. The outrageousness of CWCapital threatening tenants if tenants decide to appeal the MCIs. And, yes, this was pushed under everyone's door in anticipation of the TA meeting tomorrow. What BASTARDS.
To repeat a posting below: The Tenants Association will hold a meeting this Saturday, November 2, from 1:00 to 4:00 PM, in the auditorium of Simon Baruch Intermediate School 104, East 20th Street between First and Second Avenues. Topic of discussion: the MCIs, of course. [And, now, the above letter, for sure.] TA lawyer Tim Collins, our councilman Dan Garodnick, our state assemblyman Brian Kavanagh and State Senator Brad Hoylman should be present.
47 comments:
The equivalent of shooting oneself in the foot.
Bastards is too nice a word for CW Capital. Divide and conquer is their game. FUCK YOU, CW. GAME ON.
I know I've said this before, but I'm amazed that people who get paid a lot of money to think through policy and then write it, can be so stupid and insulting when it comes to tenant relations. Remember CW's odious reaction to PCV tenants who lost services after Hurricane Sandy and sought a reduction in rent? It appears that CW just doesn't care what tenants think of the company and its higher-ups. At all. I'm not one to frequently use the word "evil" when it comes to people, but the policy makers at CW are evil, without question.
When I got the notice I thought at first that it was some type of satirical joke. I mean, the threatening language and the pitting of the Roberts class tenants against the old rent stabilized folks.
Unbelievable.
As I posted on another thread:
By now, we've all gotten the notice under our doors with CW's offer to mitigate the retroactive MCI increases. Of course since they're planning to do this with each individual apartment—and we know how competent their accounting and legal departments are—they're undoubtedly figuring tenants will grab for this juicy carrot, not realizing that by the time they get us the numbers, the period for filing a PAR will have passed.
And a reminder to all: IF (and that's a big if) the MCIs were filed accurately and correctly, the increases (retroactive and future) are legal. That's why we have to change this odious, oppressive, and unreasonable law. That's a job for all of us.
They must think that we are as stupid as they are evil. What an insult! My response to CW is GO FUCK YOURSELVES TO HELL YOU SLIMY, STINKING BASTARDS!!!!! Now I most definitely WILL file for a PAR!
Well, whoever crafted the language at the bottom made a big mistake. The last thing CW should want to do is stir people up here. Trying to set the threat aside & getting rid of the emotions, the landlord is saying it is legally entitled to the MCIs on behalf of the bondholders but it is willing to mitigate the situation by lowering costs. The question is "by how much?" I'm mistrustful of politicians & lawyers getting involved here & going through another Roberts situation with another unknown endgame. For politicians, this is a chance to polish their stars. For lawyers it's a chance for billings. The more we can avoid both (if possible), the better off we are. So before we start running down some path that may turn out to be fruitless, I just want to know from CW...what's your offer?
>>Well, whoever crafted the language at the bottom made a big mistake. The last thing CW should want to do is stir people up here.<<
CW is very good at stirring up tenants, isn't it?
>>So before we start running down some path that may turn out to be fruitless, I just want to know from CW...what's your offer?<<
I don't think we'll get an offer in time to make any judgment. We also need to know how realistic are the chances of getting rid or mitigating some of these MCIs. At this point there are a lot of unknowns, and I'd think we'd be foolish to accept anything before we know the facts. Plus, and this is a BIG PLUS, I don't trust CWCapital AT ALL.
SHOW US THE MONEY! PUT THE "OFFER" ON THE TABLE WITH NO CARDS UP SLEEVES AND NO SMOKE AND MIRRORS. WE DON'T TRUST YOU, CW. YOU HAVE PROVEN TO BE VERY UNSCRUPULOUS AND UNTRUSTWORTHY. SIT DOWN WITH OUR TENANT ASSOCIATION LEADERS AND FOR ONCE IN YOUR MISERABLE, CORRUPT CAREERS, BE HONEST AND TRUTHFUL. YOU ARE DEALING WITH HUMAN BEINGS, NOT THE KIND THAT YOU ARE, BUT DECENT, HONEST HUMAN BEINGS AND WE ARE NOT AS STUPID AS YOU THINK OR HOPE WE ARE!
STR, agree with you completely. Beside the word EVIL in the dictionary is the name CW CAPITAL. These people are power hungry monsters. Can't even begin to imagine spending my life terrorizing and tormenting people the way that they do. A plague on them all.
Well, I agree with STR. But I want to know the offer. In my view CW needs to make the mitigation public and show the impact. I'd rather this communication be between CW & the community rather than between CW, lawyers, politicians and the TA. If CW doesn't let us know very quickly what it intends, then the involvement of lawyers, politicians & the TA may be unavoidable.
We can always file the PARs collectively through the TA and if and when CW makes its offer details known, then individually decide whether to drop the PARs. I agree with others that CW is attempting to divide tenants and hope that we don't file PARs by the deadline
“…he who seeks to deceive will always find someone who will allow himself to be deceived.”
― Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince
“Never attempt to win by force what can be won by deception.”
― Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince
I could go on and on here with more Machivelli quotes but what's the point? One last one before anyone goes rube here and accepts a "deal":
“Entrepreneurs are simply those who understand that there is little difference between obstacle and opportunity and are able to turn both to their advantage.”
― Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince
See you all at the meeting. Fun, fun, fun.
I am absolutely convinced that CW Capital is owned by the Russian Mob. I'm not joking in the least. I have no evidence per se, but just circumstantial, the agents, the staff, the way they are hiding their headquarters, the practices, etc. But there's something so sinister, so devoid of ethical practices. Beyond stereotypical NYC real estate greed, I mean.
My understanding of the letter received yesterday is that they want to mitigate the impact of the monthly retroactive charges, which means possibly lowering the per month increase but they will collect all of it but over a longer period of time. I am sure they have no intention of forgoing any part of the retroactive charges.
Shame on them on wording the letter to mislead some to believe that there is a possibility of partial forgiveness of the retroactive amounts.
The way I read it, the offer to reduce the retroactive amount added to monthly bills - nowhere did it say the overall retroactive fee, just the monthly fee - is nothing more than them acknowledging that they are only entitled to a certain percentage of the retroactive amount from us each month. If I've understood the TA facebook page correctly, that's something like 6% of ... something. In any event, the real purpose of this letter is an attempt at dividing and conquering, getting the market rate tenants (or renovated, whatever we're calling them) to say, screw the (real) rent stabilized tenants. Did we expect anything better from these assholes?
The last thing CW Capital wants to do is stir people up in Stuy Town/PCV? Oh really? I have news for you: they already figured out after the rent-jacking and virtual mass eviction this year that tenants can't or wont even mount a decent protest in response to massive rent hikes and delayed payments of the Roberts settlement money. ST/PCV is now well on its way to a sale at a very high price followed by a condo conversion and probably demolition of the oval for a massive high rise. As long as renters put up with this nonsense and their elected leaders basically do nothing but hold meetings in high school auditoriums, they will continue to do whatever they want no matter how many bad things people say about them on Facebook. As long as they get the money and you get the bills, they win. Game over.
"If I've understood the TA facebook page correctly, that's something like 6% of ... something."
The maximum that can be added on a monthly basis is 6% of what the legal rent was when the MCI was filed, which was 2009. To get to 6%, you add up all MCIs and the retroactive amounts. So everyone affected by this should check what the legal rent was in 2009, take 6%, and then you'll know the maximum amount that can be tacked on each month. Of course it will take years to pay off the retroactive, though.
Anyone who wants to delve into this further, can go to the fact sheets on the DHCR site.
So, Billsville, what do you suggest?
2:13 pm, you may very well be right about CW being owned by the Russian Mob because they have insinuated themselves into the RS and Wall Street operations big time and I don't think the regulatory authorities (such as they are) and the AG have much interest in going after them.
@ Billsville You underestimate the resolve of the long term tenants here. The FMR tenants aren't affected by these MCI's because they're already factored into the ridiculous "legal rents" that they've achieved by constantly turning over apartments, and they didn't turn out for the mid-lease increase protest because (apparently) their generation is resigned to living like gypsys, moving on from apartment to apartment, much like our parents did during the depression.
The MCI's represent a significant financial hardship for income limited seniors, many of whom don't qualify for SCRIE.
@Billsville: Hope you read the post by 10:02 a.m. It's on the mark. I was part of the protest on more than one day at the leasing office. You know who else was there? Other long-term stabilized tenants for the most part--who weren't affected by the rent-jacking. When younger, affected tenants stopped to see what was going on, they kept going--and never came back to protest. If the protest wasn't effective, it was because the real victims couldn't have cared less.
I was at the so-called protests as well, the same protest that was almost immediately postponed due to lack of interest and support. It was pathetic. I also know many tenants who have lived there for decades and could not be bothered to show up or even write a letter. They all said the same thing, it had nothing to do with them.
Now the ones on fixed incomes are just having their kids or retirement savings pick up the extra tab as it comes, or moving out to long term care facilities. The newer tenants are hitting up their parents, or eating lots more ramen noodles and keeping the kids in public schools. And the NYU students don't care, its just a nicely landscaped dorm to them anyway.
This is like a classic counteinsurrgency campaign being waged on tenants by CW Capital; you are being picked off one by one and squeezed out on all sides. There is a war of attrition happening, and unfortunately you are losing.
The bottom line is when you had the chance and the stakes were higher you blew it. You could have made this a much bigger issue in the Mayoral race to gain publicity, much as the animal rights and anti-garbage transfer station groups did. You had all the Mayoral candidates show up at PS 104 just to pander to you, but the biggest issue that night and only headline to emerge in the papers was the color of Anthony Weiners pants.
John Liu was actually the only candidate to discuss a Federal/State/City jointly funded buyout plan that would give you the same kind of protections as a Mitchell-Lama coop, but that was lost in all the noise.
While there was never any guarantee of success, your biggest issue has slipped away. Now it's back to fighting over MCIs and the high prices at the Oval Cafe and the ice rink and the dogs and the weird assortment of plantings, all non-issues when compared to what Stuy Town will look like in a few short years, unaffordable to anyone without a trust fund, sugar daddy, Wall Street job, multiple roomates or student loan. And by then it will be converting into condos.
The Roberts settlemt was a joke, as was thenrepsonse to the rent jacking, unfortunately the joke was not just on St/PCV but on the entire rent regulation system in New York. My advice is start saving up for the condo conversion, or get used to being pushed around by the landlord of the week, lord knows there are worse ones on the way.
Ya know what, Billsville: this place isn't
worth stressing over. It will probably
be torn down within the next few years
and I really don't give a fuck! And I've been here over 30 years. The Holy
Grail it is not!
MCIs may be a non-issue to you, Billsville, but the $100+ a month it can add to our rents makes it very much an issue to CW Capital and to an awful lot of ST-PCV tenants, judging by the turnout at the TA meeting this past Saturday.
Tenants and tenant activists have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. There's no killer blow that we can deal our landlord in particular or the RE industry in general. This is a war that needs to be fought one battle at a time. That's why the focus of the meeting was on the recent MCI Orders we received. But the MCIs were also placed in context by Brian and others regarding how they are just a part of the overall weakening of rent laws over the decades, how they were were forced legislatively on us, and what we have to do going forward to reverse the trend.
Your comment about the mayoral race is baffling. DeBlasio has made a huge local (and national) splash by making income inequality and lack of affordable housing the centerpieces of his campaign and is set to trounce Llhota mañana.
And anyway, the focus for tenant activists isn't NYC so much. It's Albany. Brian Kavanagh laid out the game plan at the meeting. State rent regs sunset in 2015. Cuomo, assembly members, and state senators senators will be running again in 2014. Brian said that if we wait until 2015 to extend rent regs, we lose again. So the idea is for tenants to force Cuomo et al to deal with it in '14.
7:56...you are spot on. When there was an opportunity to go really public and unify, the TA spent its time ranting about bikinis and plants and pitting fellow tenants against each other. They are not a unifying force, but a gossipy coffee klatch.
I am confused. Weren't these MCI's already contested via PAR's. I personally filed an objection to these MCI's several years ago. Then the DHCR took a look at these allowed some stuff, disallowed other stuff and made a decision. The only alternative now is to file a lawsuit with virtually a zero percent chance of winning. So why is CWC considered "BASTARDS" when they offer to help mitigate some of the costs that all of us are going to get hit with? Besides the rhetoric from the TA? I thought this was a nice gesture considering there is no real chance that any of the TA's puffery gets anywhere. Oh the law firm will make some dough off this but the tenants will not see any benefit.
>>I am confused. Weren't these MCI's already contested via PAR's.<<
They apparently were but were not looked at by the DHCR. Something is "amiss," but we will soon find out what. And, sorry, but CWCapital are "bastards."
At 11:46 am.
I was at the protest the TA organized the first weekend. There was a fairly decent showing although a sizable number of the protestors were TA board members. Myself and two to three others tried to keep the protest going with support from the TA who had plenty of other TA-related stuff to do. It was arranged with TA leaders to get flyers, handouts, and signage delivered and stored at Zeichner's for us to pick up and distribute. We asked for ST-PCV volunteers to help, or even just keep us company, on the FB page and I think here too. We got a lot of "thank you"s from ST-PCV passers-by while we were protesting and leafleting but that was about it. As far as showing up to protest, the response from our neighbors and keyboard kommandos was so pathetic that we eventually gave up, disillusioned and not a little disgusted. Not with the TA. They did their part.
So I have the right to call total B.S. on your comment.
That's the part I don't get. The TA attorney says this should be re-visited because the DHCR "didn't look at their objections" yet the DHCR lists the objections right on the response and says that the TA should file a claim for diminished services, because there is no evidence of shoddy work or faulty equipment etc. so clearly they looked at the objections. Filing a lawsuit in this case seems to be nothing more than grandstanding that will only delay the inevitable and make the retro charges that much higher and payment of the charges more onerous. Just so the TA can collect some membership fees? If the TA succeeds in holding up these MCI's only to have them come back in full with higher retroactive charges and CW or the new owner decides they don't want to cut any deals but wants to collect as fast as the law allows can tenants affected sue the TA?
I don't agree with your assessment, and, frankly, am beginning to feel you have an ulterior motive in such posts. You posts seem atypically (atypically for a tenant living here) pro-CWCapital and anti-TA. Suspicious minds may think you are speaking, unofficially, for CWCapital. But then again, you may just be an ornery tenant. Either way, I'm taking my chances with the TA and not with CWCapital, which has proven itself to be a company lacking in human decency and merely interested in the God Profit.
Actually, STR, the objections were listed on the MCI orders. I know that doesn't mean that DHCR actually took them into consideration, but they are there. Btw, I am not the poster you just scolded.
From the TA: "None of the orders acknowledges or gives consideration to Mr. Collins' general and specific objections to the application, which were served on the DHCR on May 14, 2012.
"Our attorney has advised that this type of error is not unheard of and DHCR should promptly rescind the orders and correct its error by considering our objections and giving notice to the owner's attorney."
I don't have the other MCIs with me at the moment, but the first one merely states that the DHCR looked at the objections of "two tenants."
"TA spent its time ranting about bikinis". This is BS. The issue was playground 10, a children's active sports playground with artificial turf, being taken out by sun bathers because the Oval was not yet open.
TA MCI history.
http://www.stpcvta.org/ta/mcis
Re: What the MCI orders say about objections raised.
Keep in mind that not all the orders say the same thing. The one for water valves is different from the one for the security system. There are a number of steps along the way for MCIs (see the TA's handout), and things can get screwed up in more than place.
>>"TA spent its time ranting about bikinis". This is BS. The issue was playground 10, a children's active sports playground with artificial turf, being taken out by sun bathers because the Oval was not yet open.<<
That was the issue. I remember it well!
The TA's "ranting" about bikinis, etc., was because a bunch of skanks, yes SKANKS, was taking over a CHILDREN'S playground to do their sunbathing with their tits and asses hanging out. This is not what a CHILDREN'S playground is meant for. In fact, if they exhibited themselves in any other CHILDREN'S playground in this city, they would be arrested as predators of children. They probably (at least most of them) are not perverts, they are just self-absorbed, narcissistic assholes who just didn't want to wait for the Oval to open so they could "sunbathe" and flash their "assets" as part of their rutting rituals. They really don't belong in a family-oriented environment, but our pimp "landlord" will allow anything and everything just so long as they can make a buck. They don't give a crap about our children. They just want to make a buck any which they can.
"Ya know what, Billsville: this place isn't
worth stressing over. It will probably
be torn down within the next few years
and I really don't give a fuck! And I've been here over 30 years. The Holy
Grail it is not!"
While I don't agree that they will be torn down (although perhaps they should), I must say that I'm beginning to agree with the tenor of this statement. I've been here for half this person's years.
I don't agree with your assessment, and, frankly, am beginning to feel you have an ulterior motive in such posts. You posts seem atypically (atypically for a tenant living here) pro-"CWCapital and anti-TA. Suspicious minds may think you are speaking, unofficially, for CWCapital. But then again, you may just be an ornery tenant. Either way, I'm taking my chances with the TA and not with CWCapital, which has proven itself to be a company lacking in human decency and merely interested in the God Profit."
Outside of the fact that it is your blog, your opinion of my motives is irrelevant to me. I am just calling it as I see it. The TA through it's attorney claims their objections weren't looked at yet their objections are listed right on the response, they even met with the DHCR to no avail. I am a former long time member of the TA (I used to distribute stuff and volunteered too) but left back in 2004 or so after their ill advised move to become owners. I believe they dropped the ball on dogs, bikes, commercial venues etc. so if that is your definition of an ornery tenant then so be it. I like a good fight with management as much as most and have had many during the years since I left the TA. I have organized with other former TA members in the past to fight management over dogs off leashes running loose on the lawns, threatened TS with lawsuits over commercialization only to have that thrown out because Garodnick and the TA gave tacit approval of this, etc., I have raised thousands of dollars for rent stabilization groups (money that in the past would have gone to the TA)and wrote letters and made phone calls to city officials hundreds of times over issues I didn't agree with. The DOT was on my speed dial over the ridiculous placement of the Citi bikes which also went nowhere thanks to Garodnick and CB6 's approval of the removal of even more parking spaces in a neighborhood of 25,000 in which a man punched a woman into a coma over a parking spot. I just find that the TA is a day late and a dollar short on almost every issue of late because they have taken their eye off the ball and are only interested in a conversion. In fact they are only interested in a conversion in which Dan Garodnick's former law firm makes a small fortune. I don't agree with that either. So I'm either a plant for CWC or ornery, fine by me. I won't call you any names or cast any aspersions regarding your motives. Thank you for your time.
Please check the first MCI that I posted and tell me where it states that the DHCR looked at the TA lawyers' objections.
http://stuytownreport.blogspot.com/2013/10/what-now.html
As to the TA taking their eyes off the ball by directing them toward conversion, I do agree, in part, about a misplaced focus on conversion.
Please let us know how Garodnick's law firm stands to make a small fortune if this place goes condo. That, I'm very interested in.
At a meeting I asked Dan point blank whether or not his old law firm (who provided consultation services to the TA for the conversion deal they engaged in with Brookfield without tenants authorization) would get paid and who was paying them and Dan answered "only if the conversion goes through". He never answered by whom.
Brookfield, perhaps?
I can't believe that the TA calls fellow residents "skanks" and then wants us to unite and trust the TA to lead us. Why would we trust anyone here after all the back-biting and divisiveness?
The first MCI you posted states that the DHCR considered the objections of 2 tenants. That could be the TA's objection. I dont think the TA can object as a unit they need to use individual tenants when they file the PAR. Sort of like class action suits need a main plaintiff like the Roberts case.
>>I can't believe that the TA calls fellow residents "skanks" and then wants us to unite and trust the TA to lead us.<<
The TA never called fellow residents "skanks."
They take MCIs very seriously! Sean Sullivan once told me! Naaaaay!
Post a Comment