People who are in renovated apartments (ie, true market-rate tenants) and nearing lease renewal should head over to this TA page:
http://www.stpcvta.org/ta/post/early-stuyvesant-town-peter-cooper-lease-renewals
and the discussion about this on the TA Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/stpcvta/
Meanwhile reports of MCI exemptions on rent bills are coming in at the TA Facebook, but still no explanation from the TA, though at least one report suggests these exemptions are the result of negotiations between the TA and CWCapital. Seems these exemptions are on some rent bills, but not on others.
55 comments:
It would be nice if the TA were a little more transparent. Why does it behave like it's some sort of secret society?
If they are rolling back MCIs, they should do it for all the tenants, not just the fmr MR, now RS, Roberts (whatever) tenants. Most of the long time tenants who got hit are people on fixed incomes and those MCIs really hurt. I know those are the people who they want out, but they won't get them out. They may drive them over the edge to SCRIE, though.
So sick of living under the shadow of greedy, unscrupulous bastards who should be in jail. I'm sick of hearing that TS, BlackRock and all the assholes who caused the deficit "broke no laws." Well, the only reason they broke no laws is because there weren't laws on the books to deal with the kind of scams they pulled. They were unprecedented in their criminality and avarice.
The TA has a website?
>>If they are rolling back MCIs, they should do it for all the tenants, not just the fmr MR, now RS, Roberts (whatever) tenants.<<
Perhaps that's why we are not yet hearing about the negotiations, if the credits only to former MR tenants are the result. They shouldn't have to pay for the MCIs, but neither should we, unless they are absolutely necessary and useful.
Yes, the TA has a website.
The more I read about who is getting their MCIs removed, the more I do think that the market-rate people are receiving these, but that the rent-stabilized tenants (the truly rent-stabilized and not the bullshit Roberts decision rent-stabilized) are being left out in the cold. I hope that is not the case, and that the TA is still fighting to remove some if not all of the MCI charges. Perhaps that is why there is silence from the TA. Perhaps. Though silence doesn't make sense, one way or the other.
"Perhaps that's why we are not yet hearing about the negotiations, if the credits only to former MR tenants are the result. They shouldn't have to pay for the MCIs, but neither should we, unless they are absolutely necessary and useful."
The longtime tenants are the majority of the TA's membership, such as it is. I doubt that all of the MR/RS/whatever people who post on the TA Facebook page pay their annual dues to the TA.
FMR here, no reduction in my MCI's this month.
Also still haven't received rent reduction (15% of one month's rent)from settlement of diminution of services application that was originally filed with DHCR early last year
"Time for you to move on CW Capital" hahahahahaha! Yea the TA sure scared them.
I'm an FMR as well. No MCI 'credit' here either.
Lease Renewal: My lease expires annually on May 31. CW sent a letter with my lease renewal package stating they would provide me with a $500 credit if I signed my new lease renewal within 30 days. Lease renewal forms were same as last year (no hidden forms and no rights lost).
I assumed that CW was sending out such requests in order to lock in the 'contractual' cash flow (rental income) for an upcoming SALE.
If I thought the TA could be helpful in the lease review, I would have sent them the forms instead of paying my real estate attorney.
One note of CW's lease execution: in years past, it took the Owner a month or so to sign (execute) the lease and return a copy to me. This year? 2 days.
Personally, I think all of this has to do with locking in rental income prior to a sale. Why else would CW offer me $500 to sign?
These types of unilateral actions (meaning owner without the TA's knowledge) should tell the TA that CW sees no value-add in the TA 'relationship'. And the TA should get back to aggressively advocating our rights as tenants (rather than our value as condo owners).
CW figured they'd throw the FMR tenants a bone for grossly overcharging them over the past dozen years.
Swell.
Oh yeah. Don't forget the candy machines.
FMR dues paying tenant association paying member for 8 years.. lease renewal in July..got renewal doc this week...$500 bonus for signing and returning renewal lease ( REGARDLESS if we sign yes or no we keep $500) by April 1st...something is happening... walked around today and PCV has an ARMY of folks scrubbing the outside and inside of the property... heard on the owner is coming today for a visit...I'm guessing they are getting ready to sell and I don't the TA even knows about it
>>walked around today and PCV has an ARMY of folks scrubbing the outside and inside of the property... heard on the owner is coming today for a visit<<
I spotted several "suits" walking around the Oval over the weekend. All of them have the same look and ignore completely any resident they pass by, as if the tenants didn't exist.
MMM! Candy! Bikinis! Parade tickets! We've got it all! Wow! Just wow!
Fitch has commented twice recently that they expect CW to put STPCV up for sale this year. CW is clearly trying to maximize the rent rolls before putting out an offering document for the sale.
They have been offering the early resigning bonus for a while, I had that offer last year, it's not new.
As to why they do it? It's a way to lock future business in early and have a smooth cash flow. Additionally, if you are at or near market rate they would rather you resign as they won't have an empty apartment they loose money on and need to refurnish, and resell.
Who would buy this place??? It's too big to maintain and manage with the transient nature of the city/the high maintenance type of people they want to rent to.
"walked around today and PCV has an ARMY of folks scrubbing the outside and inside of the property"
Well, they can come and scrub around my building and 23rd Street because we can sure use it. Basement still not finished.
Do it for all the tenants
Last year I heard that they weren't negotiating for much, if anything at all, on the MCI charges on behalf of rent stabilized tenants. They were only negotiating to benefit the market rate tenants.
The TA owes every tenant an honest answer on this because many of us already know they were not including the rent stabilized tenants in their "negotiations" so they might as well own it. Tell us. Just own what you did.
MR tenant here. no reduction in MCI --
Am I FMR tenant? I'm here 6years , i pay a lot to be here.
Is my neighbor? She just moved in a month ago - just renovated flat. Brand new.
What's the difference?
So true and well said March 11, 2014 at 9:02 PM
All tenants should familiarize themselves with the Tenant Protection Unit.
http://www.nyshcr.org/Rent/TenantProtectionUnit/
The good work they do for tenants by catching landlords in frauds like illegal deregulation, exceeding 6% cap on MCI charges, and more is working so well the landlords committing frauds against tenants are now suing to change the laws back to when they could get away with it.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303880604579403591183346398
STR I think it might be a tiny bit of a good thing that the suits ignored residents as they passed by. It means they know they are not worthy to look us in the eye.
It also could mean things are not going exactly as they devised because if they were the suits would be pompously proud and boastful while they looked at residents watching them pass by.
When someone doesn't look you in the eye, they are the tinier person.
I doubt they are doing this to coordinate with seasonal trends. It is absurd to even suggest we would believe that.
Everything they do is to increase purchase price and cover up wrongdoings and shortcomings.
Something is not adding up.
"The TA owes every tenant an honest answer on this because many of us already know they were not including the rent stabilized tenants in their "negotiations" so they might as well own it. Tell us. Just own what you did."
The one thing the TA NEVER does is own what they do. They pretend it never happened.
Well this all explains why they never really fought the MCI charges and they barely "negotiated" them. Did anyone really believe they were going to fight the MCI's? HA! What a bad joke.
"Last year I heard that they weren't negotiating for much, if anything at all, on the MCI charges on behalf of rent stabilized tenants. They were only negotiating to benefit the market rate tenants.
The TA owes every tenant an honest answer on this because many of us already know they were not including the rent stabilized tenants in their "negotiations" so they might as well own it. Tell us. Just own what you did."
First of all, we're all rent-stabilized until 2020, when the J-51 tax break expires. Then some of us won't be.
Where did you get your information? Back up what you're saying, especially since you don't seem to be able to distinguish between tenants living in unrenovated apartments and those paying higher rents in renovated apartments who may be Roberts tenants or post-Roberts tenants.
"Am I FMR tenant? I'm here 6years , i pay a lot to be here.
Is my neighbor? She just moved in a month ago - just renovated flat. Brand new.
What's the difference?"
Former market rate tenants are those living in renovated apartments that MetLife and Tishman Speyer took out of rent stabilization before the Roberts class action lawsuit was brought. As a result of the suit, those apartments have been returned to rent stabilization for the time being. People in those apartments when the suit was brought and were named as members of the class are referred to as Roberts tenants. People who've moved in after the lawsuit and weren't named as members of the class are referred to as post-Roberts tenants.
As a result of the renovations and the vacancy increases due to the churning of the apartments, the rents have gotten ridiculously high--above what the true market rate would be. That's why some people are paying preferential rents, i.e., rents that are lower than the legal rent.
There are a lot of ins and outs concerning the different types of tenants and leases. I suggest you read your original lease carefully (your renewal probably consists only of riders, although you may have received a complete new lease on renewal due to changing circumstances). Then if you have a specific question, you could contact the TA message center by phone or online. The site is stpcvta.org.
1:22 A.M. wouldn't it be on the TA to demonstrate that they are negotiating away the MCI's and not for a tenant to prove they aren't. Has any rent stabilized tenant received word or any benefit from the "negotiations"? Because that would be the proof you are demanding.
To accurately figure out what type of apartment, tenant and lease you have and what you should have is to consult with an attorney who has no connections or relationships to Stuyvesant Town in anyway. That way you can be sure to get an accurate assessment and not a biased answer.
Nobody should trust these filthy fucks. They are not doing anything that is going to benefit tenants, either long-term or short-term. They are only out for themselves and for squeezing every last drop of blood out of every tenant. They make Dracula at his worst look good.
These are blood-sucking bastards of the very, very worst degree. Please do not cater to them in any way, shape or form.
According to DHCR, MCI's ONLY apply to rent stabilized apartments. I cannot believe this!
So the tenants are being offered a non increase to get a new lease with a new date?
lmaoooooooo
Has anyone seen the'new ' lease being offered? I'll bet it's interesting and no doubt legal. again, LMAO
A possible question for the lease 'cancellation/renewal' topic: Does the cancellation (even though landlord will guarantee rent freeze) provide a scenario where 'chain of tenancy' is reset?
What I'm trying to say: RS law allows for landlords to raise the legal rent whenever a unit becomes vacant. While landlord may opt not to raise the rent for the current tenant in possession, will the lease cancellation, on paper, allow the landlord to pocket that allowable increase until another day (next tenant)?
It's amazing. They find any loophole and any way to re DO the leases.
W.T.F. I would not accept. I would not. But many people will since they don't plan to stay past another year or two in any case.
MARKETING genious!!!!
Anonymous said...
According to DHCR, MCI's ONLY apply to rent stabilized apartments. I cannot believe this!
March 14, 2014 at 10:21 AM
?
Is that what the TA and their attorney "negotiated". To have the MCI's only applied to the rent stabilized apartments - to have only the Rent Stabilized pay for the burden of these "improvements" for the whole property?
MCI's only apply to rent-stabilized apartments. Market rate means the landlord can raise the rent to whatever the market will bear and so if they want to make up the costs of their improvements, they would do so by increasing the rent as much as they can based on the market. But there's no mid-lease rent increases, unlike with MCIs. It's always been like that, since LL's can get MCI's anyway.
2:12 THX for the info.
Do they still divide the MCI cost by the total number of apartments or do they divide it by the number of rent stabilized apartments?
People people. for the 100,000 time, ALL APARTMENTS IN STUY AND PCV ARE RENT STABILIZED.
omg
omg
Yes, all apartments in PCVST are rent stabilized, but that fact makes very little difference at this point. There are probably NO
rent stabilized apartments anywhere in the city where the tenant pays over 3K, 4K and, in some cases, 5K rent.
"Do they still divide the MCI cost by the total number of apartments or do they divide it by the number of rent stabilized apartments?"
You seem to be confused about how this works, which is understandable.
To clarify: All of our apartments are currently rent stabilized, regardless of how high the rent is. That was the result of the Roberts decision.
Some of the MCIs filed for in 2009 apply only to Stuyvesant Town. Some apply to both Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village. Tenants would have received notices of the application back then. New tenants should have been notified that MCIs were pending and might become collectible. Not everyone reads their lease carefully.
The law allows the landlord to charge an MCI whenever it is approved by DHCR--even in the middle of the lease. You should have a lease rider saying this. If you don't--and CW may have screwed up on this at some point--lucky you! Check your paperwork.
When the MCI is approved (usually takes a while), the landlord is allowed to collect the amount the tenant would have had to pay if the MCI had been approved immediately (the retroactive amount). The amount added to the monthly rent--the sum of the retroactive amount and the permanent amount--can't be more than 6% of what the rent was when the MCI was filed.
Don't know what an MCI is? Check the fact sheets on DHCR's website. Some are counterintuitive but allowable and legal.
The MCIs are charged by room, not apartment. If you have a 1BR (that is, a 3-room apartment), you are charged 3X whatever the multiple is. If you have a 2BR (a 4-room apartment), you are charged 4X the multiple. If you have a 3BR (a 5-room apartment), you are charged 5X the multiple.
As far as I know, temporary walls do not change the official number of rooms in an apartment.
Anonymous said...
Anonymous said...
According to DHCR, MCI's ONLY apply to rent stabilized apartments. I cannot believe this!
March 14, 2014 at 10:21 AM
?
Is that what the TA and their attorney "negotiated". To have the MCI's only applied to the rent stabilized apartments - to have only the Rent Stabilized pay for the burden of these "improvements" for the whole property?
March 15, 2014 at 11:42 AM
Huh?
First, we're all RS, so we're all eligible for MCIs.
Are you saying that the TA negotiated for tenants in unrenovated apartments to bear the entire burden of these MCIs? If not, what exactly are you saying?
Thought on RS tenants paying market rates not having to pay MCIs:
Keep in mind that many of these tenants are already paying preferential rents, that is, rents lower than the legal rents (because no sane person would pay the legal rent). The MCIs would be added to the legal rent but CW could decide not to add them to the preferential rent and collect it midlease (see your lease rider). When the lease came up for renewal, CW could decide to charge any amount up to the legal rent (which would include the MCIs), which is what they do anyway.
STR: the title of this post is a bit misleading and concerning.
it seems like you think - and are saying that only the lower price d/ older tenants are getting mci s.
this is totally false. totally false. please edit.
The title states nothing about MCIs.
If all apartments are rent stabilized, then why are some getting mci credits or being taken off their rent bills and some apartments are still paying for them?
Still don't understand why some residents are receiving MCI credits/rollbacks, and some are not. Can someone please clarify as to what's going on here?
MONTH NUMBER 4 APPROACHING FOR THESE MCI'S AND NO WORD FROM THE TENANTS ASSOCIATION. SHOULDN'T TAKE THIS LONG.
2:32 Agree with you. Something doesn't smell right.
"MONTH NUMBER 4 APPROACHING FOR THESE MCI'S AND NO WORD FROM THE TENANTS ASSOCIATION. SHOULDN'T TAKE THIS LONG."
They're working on the conversion. It's necessarily secretive.....
Keep holding on market raters!
Paying market rate here in ST.
got a huge increase in MCI a few months ack and no decrease as others have.
Why??????????? wth is going on here?
Working on WHAT conversion?
The MCI issue is huge for CWC. They need those permanent increases to bump up the rent roll/increase value of ST-PCV. And they are total dick banksters.
And it is huge for the TA and tenants. We're already up to our collective ears renting here and will be howling bloody murder if the eventual deal sucks.
So stakes are high on both sides. People talking about how long this negotiation should or shouldn't take are just talking out their asses.
If you're pissed off about having to pay the MCIs while negotiations continue, take it up with Gov Cuomo. His DHCR made that brilliant call.
The top 1% always win because they have complete control, always have, always will.
Post a Comment