Friday, November 29, 2013
CWCapital/CompassRock Post Thanksgiving Day Special--With Respect to Tenants
So, you've had a wonderful Thanksgiving and went to bed late, full of good cheer, turkey, stuffing, pumpkin pie and drink. What better way to greet the next day than being woken up by workers drilling and pounding in your building or nearby! And if you think you'll get any peace the rest of the day--you are wrong! Remarkably, work on the new Public Safety center continues on the day after Thanksgiving. Perhaps work will continue on Saturday, too. Black Friday, indeed, for those who live within earshot.
No rest for the weary. Ever. Andrew, really, GTH. Silver lining in the cloud. Most of the screaming Bro/OMG herds will be out of town at least until Saturday night, checking in with their lease guarantors. Check out the EV, so nice . For now. Saturday night, it will be back to the usual Woo Hoo screaming, puke, pissing crowds.
ReplyDelete"With Respect?" These assholes don't know the meaning of the word "Respect." They treat tenants like shit.
ReplyDelete"With respect"? The only thing these jerks respect is the bottom line. HORRID MANAGERS AND DISGUSTING HUMAN BEINGS!
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteCan anyone tell us if all units here are 'stabilized'? For example: if an apartment is as much as $5,000 a month, does it mean it is stabilized? and what does that mean if so?? thank you all
Based on the records in the NYC Building Information System, this project does not appear to have an after hours variance permit.
ReplyDeleteIf they are working on Saturdays, you should call 311 and the 13th precinct.
I don't think they were working today.
ReplyDeleteI think we have repeated this many times but yes, ALL PCVST, no matter what the rent amounts are, are currently covered under the NYS RS with all the protections that law provides. The 4,311 improperly deregulated Roberts class units will lose their NYS RS status effective 2020.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.garodnick.com/press-release/roberts-settlement-plain-language
"Can anyone tell us if all units here are 'stabilized'? For example: if an apartment is as much as $5,000 a month, does it mean it is stabilized? and what does that mean if so??"
ReplyDeleteYes, all units are currently stabilized. Some legal rents are as high as $5,000 (some even higher), but if the legal rent is higher than what the market will bear, the tenant is usually given a preferential rent--a rent that is lower than the legal rent. When the lease comes up for renewal, management can raise the rent by any amount up to the legal rent, which will now be increased by the percentage approved by the Rent Guidelines Board. Management may ask for an increase so high that the tenant will be forced to move out, or maybe management will ask for a more modest increase.
There are other fine points, depending on the term of the lease, but that's the basic situation.
ReplyDeleteYou may HAVE repeated it, there are hundreds of new victims who do NOT KNOW this.
??? seriously.
Further explanation:
ReplyDeleteBecause of the Roberts case, all apartments are RS even if the rent is above $2500 (luxury decontrol) because the landlord is still getting a J51 tax break. Landlords can't get a tax break and raise the rent at the same time (which is what DHCR used to allow). That will change in 2020, when the current J51 tax break expires. Keep in mind that the rent regulation laws have to be renewed in 2015.
Anony 2.08, OK, I'm sorry but a simple search engine entry would get the needed info.
ReplyDeleteI hadn't thought about these clarifications before. So how does a rent-stabilized apartment get up to so-called market rate and beyond. I believe it could only be through turnover...when a unit vacates, the landlord has the option of raising the rent 20%. Some people have been in these apts since the 40s & 50s. Now since this was once a stable middle class community, what would you imagine the turnover rate is for most places? People used to leave here feet first. So a normal stay here might be anywhere from 30 to 60 sixty years. The complex is coming up on 68 years. Let's say most units used to turn over at a rate of 3 times to date. About every 20 years. And rents started from $50-90 per mo. So $90 compounded at 3% over 20 years = $163. Add 20% = $196 in 1967. $196 compounded at 3% for 20 years = $357 in 1983. Add 20% = $428. $28 compounded at 3% = $780. Add 20% = $936 in 2003. Compounded at 3% for 10 years = $1263 (to date). There units would have to turn over many more times in order to get the "stabilized" rents up to $4000, $5000 and beyond. Maybe someone can explain how this can be possible when generally most people stay here 20 years or more.
ReplyDeleteSorry. The last segment should have been for 7 years. So the final amount would be $1154.42.
ReplyDeleteRe: RS/Real Rent/Roberts: whatever way you want to look at it, it all boils down to new tenants are being ripped off in an unmerciful and downright bloodsucking way. This "landlord" wants to gouge as much out of tenants as possible. They will churn the apartments and make new tenants have to keep moving out or relocating while, at the same time, they wage a war of intimidation against the older, long-term, lower rent tenants. We are under siege and attack by a totally unscrupulous "overlord" who has no interest in being a "landlord," but only bleeding us dry, and who has no social or moral conscience whatsoever. They are like a cancer that has found a host body to devour and destroy.
ReplyDelete9:23 p.m.: I have no idea if your numbers are correct, but you haven't taken into account regular renewal increases (and there used to be 3-year leases) or MCIs. ST in particular has been hit with a lot of MCIs. You haven't taken into account IAIs (Individual Apartment Improvements aka renovations), which have added about $1,000 to the monthly rent. Once a rent hits market level, the apartment tends to turn over more rapidly.
ReplyDeleteYour 3% compounding formula is simply inaccurate and random, and has nothing to do with the RS law or the actions taken by the landlord.
ReplyDeleteSimply put. Back in the late '80's, The Pataki administration made changes to the RS laws that engineered loopholes to allow landlords the ability to circumvent the RS price controls. MetLife decided to take advantage of this situation, and started a push to eliminate as many RS apartments as possible by eliminating the apartment waiting list, and then renovating apartments as they became vacant.
The law allows a landlord several levels of vacancy increases, which include allowances for renovation, and length of term of the previous tenant. When the push began, a large percentage of rents were ranging above $1000 a month, and using the vacancy formulas, Met was able to raise those rents to just above $2000 a month (the RS limit at that time), thereby taking them out of Stabilization.
Now, this is where the real evil genius of the plan kicks in. Since most middle class renters at the time wouldn't pay above market rates for these refurbished apartments, Met began renting them to a tenancy that was short term, because those tenants were looking for more suitable accommodations. This resulted in a huge amount of apartment churn, (at 20% per vacancy) which allowed them to keep pace with market rents plus more. So they now have half the complex with apartments having "legal" rents of $8,000 a month or more (I'm exaggerating, but it's close), and they can simply lower or raise a lease offering as the market will bear.
We won't discuss Roberts here, because that made the situation worse, but safe to say..... it wasn't caused by a 3% compounding.
Thanks for the clarifications. I do think the 3% compounding is roughly ok because we roughly have paid 3% per year increases in our leases. I didn't take the MCIs into consideration & the renovations. Even with those, however, it seems that the main reason for these elevated rents is really higher churn over the past 10+ years...higher than the complex had experienced in prior years. So one other question. When you say "Met was able to raise those rents to just above $2000 a month (the RS limit at that time), thereby taking them out of Stabilization" it sounds as if these units are no longer rent stabilized. I thought all the units are stabilized. Is that not the case?
ReplyDeleteThe core of the Roberts litigation was that because Met received a J51 tax abatement for the complex, they were not allowed to remove units from stabilization. The Roberts decision restored all of those apartments to stabilized status, but during the negotiations, concessions were made as to number of increases allowed etc. I'm not familiar with all the intricacies of Roberts, as I was not a member of the class, but suffice it to say, CW wasn't hurt badly by the decision, despite the supposed "payout" to tenants which really was in the form of rent reductions, along with a small cash settlement to most, a sizable cash settlement to a few.
ReplyDeleteThe crux of the issue is; how long will rent stabilization survive in its present form, and how (if at all) will middle class tenants be protected ?
Personally, I continue to think that in the short term (6-10 years), most will either lose RS, or find their protections weakened considerably. The Real Estate Lobby is committed to this cause, and has been fighting a war of attrition to win it. I wish them defeat, but think that those who think that RS will be around forever are mistaken, and those that can afford to make an equity investment should do so, if they're committed to staying in the city for the long term.
4:03: HIGHLY doubt a search engine would clarify the rent __ckup and mess of rents at Stuytown. Nor would a google search give anyone NY Rent law specifics to a certain property.
ReplyDeleteLOL
ReplyDeleteSo then, ,,, NEW TENANTS, NEW LEASE holders should beware of leases where the 'real legal rent' is MUCH higher than the actual rent. DO NOT RENT these people. Since at renewal time, they will no doubt charge much more than RS rates allow.
Correct?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteSo then, ,,, NEW TENANTS, NEW LEASE holders should beware of leases where the 'real legal rent' is MUCH higher than the actual rent. DO NOT RENT these people. Since at renewal time, they will no doubt charge much more than RS rates allow.
Correct?
December 3, 2013 at 6:03 PM
I thought that they were bound by the RGB decision and could only raise rents by the RGB amounts. The "mid term increase" fiasco was something that was negotiated into Roberts class leases.
The huge "legal rent" numbers give them the ability to offer leases at staggeringly high starting points, affordable only to unrelated multiples crammed into an apartment. That's why ST/PCV is such a mess.
Explanation about stabilization to destabilization back to stabilization was very good. Does anyone know the criteria by which apts can legally be destabilized (that is when there are no J51 complications such as CW encountered).
ReplyDelete"So then, ,,, NEW TENANTS, NEW LEASE holders should beware of leases where the 'real legal rent' is MUCH higher than the actual rent. DO NOT RENT these people. Since at renewal time, they will no doubt charge much more than RS rates allow.
ReplyDeleteCorrect?"
Your phrasing isn't sufficiently precise when you say "they will no doubt charge much more than RS rates allow." They can't charge more than RS rates allow, and I'm not sure what you mean by RS rates.
Where tenants who aren't familiar with the ins and out of this situation will get caught is in not realizing that when they want to renew their lease, management can legally raise the rent up to the amount of the legal rent, which will include whatever percentage the Rent Guidelines Board has approved for an increase. We saw management force the vacating of many apartments this past summer by doing just this, and they weren't open to negotiating or letting people move to less expensive apartments. Tenants are like widgets to them--interchangeable.
New tenants need to carefully read the lease and any riders so that they're aware of what they're getting into. I suspect that the only apartments where the RS rent and the legal rent are close together are those that are newly renovated (that is, where an old-time tenant vacated the apartment). Anything that's already been renovated and turned over a few times will have a very high legal rent because of renovations (Individual Apartment Improvements), vacancy increases of 20% every time the apartment turned over, and RGB increases. MCIs are a factor, but just about all apartments are affected by them.
"Does anyone know the criteria by which apts can legally be destabilized (that is when there are no J51 complications such as CW encountered)."
ReplyDeletePlease--show a little initiative. Do an online search for the rent stabilization code and you'll get to several sites with the info. You may also find answers to questions you didn't know you had.
Yes,
ReplyDeletethe HUGE legal rents give the landlord much more room and is 'attractive' I'd think for a potential buyer of the property. So they will continue to renovate and renovate (how much do they SPEND on this?) until all the 'legal' rents are twice as much as the Stabilized rent!!!!
Seems to me there must be several apartments where the rent is higher than $2500 per month & the combined NYS adjusted gross income is over $200K. So it's possible that these apartments are destabilized.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of the rent and combined income, all apartments are stabilized until the J51 expires in 2020.
ReplyDelete1:29 poster
ReplyDelete? Are you the moderator? Impolite to post the obvious. Tenants are here asking intelligent questions. Lame to post.. 'do a search' . I"m sure the poster HAS.
"1:29 poster
ReplyDelete? Are you the moderator? Impolite to post the obvious. Tenants are here asking intelligent questions. Lame to post.. 'do a search' . I"m sure the poster HAS."
I'm not the moderator. And the poster most definitely has not done a search. Just searching for "rent stabilization" brings up a FAQs page from the RGB. I've posted a lot of information here, but sometimes you have to do your own homework.
We don't need hall monitors scolding posters. It does a great disservice to the spirit of this blog.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteFAlse. I did a search. Many times. WE'RE TALKING SPECIFIC to stuy.
Ownership is spending money building us a brand new security office-- how is that treating their tenants like shit? Is it CW Capital's fault that Sandy destroyed the security office and the management office? I was unaware that CW Capital had control of Mother Nature, but that's good to know for the next time I'm in the mood for a sunny day.
ReplyDeleteI HATE THIS PLACE! DONT MOVE HERE!
ReplyDeleteAnother lovely Sunday morning WRECKED ny the slapshots on the ice skating rink. BOOM! SLAM BANG! It's like gunfire outside my window, and I'm on the 11th floor. BOOM! BANG! HEY! Maybe they'll put in an actual firing range too!???! It makes as much sense as the skating rink. I hope the 100 families who use is enjoy it big time, because 100's of families suffer big time with the noise. BOOM! BANG!
ReplyDelete9.43, the eventual TA FB comment responses will be "But I love to skate." Or “My kids love the rink." I am assuming that the hockey action is league play and since nonresidents are probably allowed to join, then, as usual, this is a commercial enterprise, not a so called "resident amenity". If I am wrong, please advise.
ReplyDelete@ anon 943 AM, it's crazy how the sound travels, isn't it? The layout of the complex seems to make even a slightly raised level of conversation reverberate not only from building to building, but to the upper apartments too. I don't live on an upper floor myself but I've experienced this in others' apartments.
ReplyDeleteComment on TA's Facebook page in response to the skating rink noise: "Ease up grouch". Unbelievable how stupid and selfish people can be which is exactly why you need a good Management company to keep things running smoothly and sanely instead of what we have: the evil, tenant-unfriendly Compass Rock and CWCapital.
ReplyDeleteHas anyone been to the stytown website recently? God they seem more desperate than ever!
ReplyDeleteThe TA FB comment was "Hockey starts at 9:45. You should be up by then.", which typifies the yunnie narcissistic ethos which says, "I don't give a shit if you bust your balls working from Midnight to 8 AM serving the public interest, my only concern is that my brats have a place to make as much noise as possible, so go fuck yourself."
ReplyDeleteThe ice skating rink is a very nice feature for young children and families. They will have wonderful memories of it when they grow up. That said, there's a price to pay for having it inside Stuy Town, close by apartment buildings. I'm curious if there are any ice skating rinks in Manhattan that are so close to residential buildings.
ReplyDeleteBryant Park, South Street Seaport and Wollman (Trump ) are nowhere near residential buildings. They tried one in Battery Park City, and residents complained, so they closed it.
ReplyDeleteI think they used to play roller hockey in Playground 7, but didn't make anywhere near as much noise as the echoes off the ice rink.
None.
ReplyDelete8:07 :
ReplyDeleteAlso keep in mind stuytown / p cv have no floorboards in between apartments. YOU CAN hear a pin drop in this case.
CARPETS PEOPLE, GET CARPETS. PADDED CARPETS.
I used to live above the playground near 14st where guys would play hockey, I believe on Sundays. You could hear them for sure, but they played only for a couple of hours and then they were gone.
ReplyDeleteAnd that playground is more open, rather than the interior one that is now used as an ice rink. So there's less reverberation, if any at all.
ReplyDeleteSomeone tried to set the Christmas tree on fire late last night.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteWhat's the latest on the MCIs? This is getting ridiculous and no doubt a sign of things to come.
This charge + another + another + never ending….
I'm curious if there are any ice skating rinks in Manhattan that are so close to residential buildings.
ReplyDeleteMaybe 20 years or so ago we used to go ice skating at a smallish rink in front of a condo on the east side of First Ave (near 34th St I think it was). The story went that it was there because a bunch of pro hockey players lived in the condo, but it was open to the public and you could rent skates if need be. It's been gone for awhile.
While sympathetic to hockey or leaf blower noise complaints from people living inside the complex, I have to wonder how they'd handle the noise levels living on 14th St or First Ave.
ReplyDeleteWe don't live near the oval and we love to skate, but feel for those who live there and the noise/ mess issue.
At the very least, they could have @ least put it over by 1st , behind stores.
Is it true that someone tried to set the Christmas tree on fire, or do we have a joker posting here?
ReplyDeleteThat rink on 34th and 1st Ave was gone by the mid-late 80's. We used to take my friends kids there. I had heard that the condo closed it because of the insurance/liability costs involved, and had not heard the hockey player story. Of course, most serious skaters used to head over to SkyRink on 33rd.
ReplyDelete@10:13 Is that what they were doing to the tree??? I saw them from my window and wasn't sure what they were up to. I tried calling security to alert them but got a busy signal. I think they took the phone off the hook. Someone finally chased them away. What's going on here?!
ReplyDelete"@10:13 Is that what they were doing to the tree??? I saw them from my window and wasn't sure what they were up to. I tried calling security to alert them but got a busy signal. I think they took the phone off the hook. Someone finally chased them away. What's going on here?!"
ReplyDeleteWas this a bunch of stupid, drunken frat fucks? This is the demographic that "management" loves.
Stuy Town has hit a new low.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteStuy Town has hit a new low.
A new low for now, you mean.
Go back in your Stuy Town history and you will notice that someone tried to set the trees on fire year after year. Usually they waited until there was a huge pile in playground 10 before they struck but strike they did. This is not new.
ReplyDelete"Unbelievable. A new low. I'm so ashamed."
ReplyDeleteI recall the tree pile being set on fire in 2009. It looked like a Viking funeral.
ReplyDeleteThe nativity scene is on display in Frenchmen's window on First Avenue.
ReplyDeleteI think the the tree that was attempted to be set on fire was the live display tree in the Oval, not the pile of discarded wood that had been set afire in the past.
ReplyDeleteDon't tell me they burned the nativity too!
ReplyDeleteToo bad the people who pull these "pranks" don't catch fire themselves. Of course, I would call the FDNY. Right after I'd had a shower and drunk some coffee.
ReplyDelete