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.
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
Okay, seriously, where is that audio tape?
Come on, TA, let's hear that audio tape that was made of the Town Hall meeting on November 2. Tenants have a right to listen to it. Then the May 10th meeting will have more validity and the questions can be more pertinent and knowledgeable.
78 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Don't hold your breath STR. The TA talks big but delivers small. They are clueless about most things, particularly technology. They do everything slow. Remember, they are volunteers. They're not qualified. They're not particularly skilled at what they do. They're just volunteers. If they're not up to the task, please, do us all a favor and step down and let someone else take over.
Actually technology is their expertise. The skill is there. Being "just volunteers" is an excuse they exploit when evading accountability. Again another cover up. Other organizations are just volunteers and deliver what they promise. This is shady. Agree they should step down for the failures, misuse of position, absence of accountability but not before they hand over the tape.
I'm not thrilled with the additional 5% reduction I just got on the MCIs, but I am delighted not to have to pay any of the thousands of retroactive charges that I would have owed. I suspect that the TA simply could negotiate CW Cap down any further on the permanent MCIs, which I knew were not ever going to disappear entirely or even as much as I would have liked them to. The negative statements about the TA by some of the people commenting here strike me as pretty off the wall.
Why play GotchYa! trying to catch the TA attorney lying about goals and tactics during a meeting attended by hundreds?
He knew CWC plants were present recording his remarks and reporting them back to CWC attorneys.
Would you rather the TA attorney said our case was a long, expensive loser and the best outcome he hoped to achieve would be eliminating retro charges and shaving a few percent off future MCI payments?
2:14 You seem to know for fact the TA attorney intentionally deceived and lied to the hundreds of tenants in the meeting. That is very disturbing. If CW was recording it and they have a tape WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET ONE TOO! It was promised and we need it to protect ourselves. Why deny tenants the recording? This isn't "play Gotcha" This isn't "play" its real life! This is "Gotcha" on a lie of words revealing the truth on the actions. This isn't play - its important. This was supposed to be about delivering the promises on MCI's given to us in that meeting and NOT about increasing membership numbers for their other purposes. Those were mostly rent stabilized tenants in the meeting and they should have honestly been told upfront there will be little to no benefit for RS tenants. That benefits for MR tenants are the only considerations. And everyone should have been told this was already predetermined because it WAS! So again, hand over the promised recording!
That meeting was rehearsed, planned, choreographed with props used for emphasis on speeches about getting the MCI's thrown out. Your latest excuse of we had to lie to you tenants because CW was in the audience AND recording so really we were lying to you tenants to deceive CW is so far fetched. The tenants are not stupid so stop treating us like we are. We tenants used to blindly follow without question the TA because you had our trust and not because we are stupid - No more! You lost our trust! Hand over the tape!
Heads up the TA is trying everything they can to keep their promise to CW and stop tenants from working with DHCR to get true information on the MCI deal and calculations on our individual apartments. It is our RIGHT to get the details on the signed deal agreement and talks that led to it.
how in the world can the TA stop you from going downtown to get the mci and rent history?
you should be blaming nyc and dept of housing as their office is a joke and no one there will help you and will tell you there is no information for you and be OUT and out rude until you leave.
The TA put the transcripts in a bottle and tossed them into the Hudson. It should only take a decade for them to float around the globe and reach us on the east side.
Why all this ragging on the TA? Who else do we have to stand up for us? They may not be perfect, but they do the best they can with a very small membership and budget and they seem to get no support, just criticism and nasty insults and innuendos.
Also please note what it says on the top of this blog:
NOTE: Comments reflect the opinions of the person writing them and should not be assumed to reflect the opinion of the blog. Because of the anonymous nature of the commentary, specific agendas can be pushed by a sole individual and may not reflect a more popular belief by the residents of this community.
The comments on this blog have devolved into Teabagger type conspiracy fantasies. One can have legitimate issues with the TA and present them logically as fact passed opinions. Lately, I disagree with the STR's take on the CWC/TA/DHCR MCI agreement but he stays in a reality based universe. We agree to disagree. In most cases, there are no facts given at these anonymous posts. Funny, I wonder, if all you TA haters (full disclosure, not a Board member, just a volunteer grunt) registered with the TA to get your Sandy reduction of services credit, that is now reflected in your May rent invoice. I assume if you did not, the logic being for you that the TA is nothing but a corrupt appendage of CWC/CR. Taking about cutting your nose to spite yourself. If you did register and get your credit, I assume you are directing CR to debit your account the credit amount since; again, to have the courage of your convictions, you believe that the TA is nothing but a corrupt appendage of CWC/CR. Also, curious to see who you all voted for recently and in the past. Lhota? Bloomberg? Pataki? Giuliani? And, as you can see, I have given my real name here.
Edmund, what's your take on why the audio tape of that November meeting still has not turned up? It was definitely promised at that meeting and, subsequently, was promised on the TA's website. Months ago.
My issues with the TA stem from one fundamental concern: The TA has morphed into something beyond that of of a 'tenant's association'. It's an acquisition entity. It's a wannabe condo association. And I find it a complete conflict of interest.
I agree that the importance of the TA is to represent the tenancy in their joint concerns/conflicts with landlord. But that trust the tenants place in the TA is not blind. And the tenants are not dumb or ignorant. To treat them as such is an insult to all of us.
If it is Dunn's opinion that the TA has communicated well with the tenancy over the past few years than I disagree with him whole-heartedly and, quite honestly, he loses any credibility he is attempting to receive by posting his name.
? I'd think Edmund gains credibility by posting his name.
My position on the TA has been stated repeatedly here. I think it's an important entity and the only one we have that advances tenants' concerns and fights for tenants. Yes, individuals can do things on their own, and should, but there is power in numbers, though, frankly, that hasn't severed us or New Yorkers that well in the past.
I also think that the TA faltered in its goal of tenant ownership of this property. Wonderful idea, but all signs are, and have been, that CWCapital isn't interested in handing this place over to the tenants. I also think a tenant ownership would really set tenants against each other: the haves and the have-nots.
I also, also think that the TA has exhibited a stifling need to control the message, treating its members (and I guess I'm still one, as my dues still cover this time period) as children on occasion. No need for that. We are all adults and can understand the issues and problems.
All that said, let me repeat what I've repeated in the past: I appreciate the time and energy the TA and its volunteers spend on behalf of tenants. And, yes, there have been victories for which the TA deserves thanks.
Regarding the recent MCI deal, I still have not changed my opinion: The elimination of the retroactive MCI charges was significant, but the rest of the deal is rather paltry, with affordable housing still a victim.
STR said: "Regarding the recent MCI deal, I still have not changed my opinion: The elimination of the retroactive MCI charges was significant, but the rest of the deal is rather paltry, with affordable housing still a victim."
I'm thrilled to be saving about $1,000 in retroactive charges, which would have added at least another $50 to my monthly rent. It's not so long ago (about a year) that I finally finished paying off the retroactive charges for the electrical rewiring (about $48/month for years). Newer tenants may never have experienced the thrill of paying off an MCI, justified or not.
Unfortunately, the MCI law is horrifically unfair to tenants. That's why we should all be thinking about how to exert pressure to change the rent laws when they come up for renewal in June 2015--little more than a year away.
For anyone who doesn't remember what happened in 2011, the RS law actually lapsed briefly because the State Senate didn't vote to renew it.
I'd like to echo some of the above sentiments. I too have been a supporter of the TA in the past and feel it has done many good things over the years. And in many areas I feel it currently helps a lot. But as of the announcement of the alliance with Brookfield, in several important areas I agree with STR that the TA has stifled challenging questions and open discussion, has sought to control and limit communication to one way pronouncements and has stuck an almost imperial, condescending tone...addressing itself to the community more as 'leaders' of the community rather than its representatives.
>>Unfortunately, the MCI law is horrifically unfair to tenants. That's why we should all be thinking about how to exert pressure to change the rent laws when they come up for renewal in June 2015--little more than a year away.<<
Sure, we should exert pressure. But what's wrong with this: Almost everyone, unless they happen to be real estate people, believe that paying for MCIs permanently is unfair (at least paying for their total cost). So, probably every renter in NYS is against such permanent increases in the rent. Now, the politicians know this. They know the opinion and feelings of renters. Yet nothing is done to change this MCI law. Why? Yes, the speeches the politicians give about the unfairness of the MCIs are all inspiring, but still nothing is done. Can we blame the Republicans or do we also blame the Democrats, many, if not all, of whom get significant donations from RE.
This morning I saw a 'street sweeper' driving over the PCV inside sidewalks. The kind of machine the city uses to sweep against the curbs. Never saw this here before. Presumably this is to get rid of all signs of dog shit. Think this means a sale will be announced soon. For a few months all traces of dog shit are likely to be diminished.
Enough with the excuses! Many of us are volunteers with organizations and we achieve our goals. The problem isn't that the TA are "just volunteers" or that they have "limited budget" or are or aren't doing their best.
STR, re the tape, I think the explanation if far simpler than a conspiracy related one. Even before the announcement of the MCI agreement, the tape was never posted at the TA webpage. It’s probably a question of a minor embarrassing technical incompetence issue than any Nixon/Watergate style skullduggery. Anyway, that’s my take.
I usually don’t respond to anonymous posters to my STR post when I use my name but anyway: “If it is Dunn's opinion that the TA has communicated well with the tenancy over the past few years than I disagree with him whole-heartedly and, quite honestly, he loses any credibility he is attempting to receive by posting his name.”
As Manuel said over and over again in "Fawlty Towers”, “Que?” This was my opening line in my comment: “One can have legitimate issues with the TA and present them logically as fact passed opinions.” How did Anonymous 2.58 AM get his take from my comment is rather mysterious to me. Anyway, I am now posting that transparency in any organization is a good thing and should be promoted. And the TA needs to improve its messaging, no doubt about that. Those with technical and PR skills, why don’t you join, help, and change the TA?
And if you want to hate a politician, here is the one to hate, Jeff Klein. I posted this link (see below) at the alternative STPC Tenants (not the TA affiliated) FB page. Unless the NYS senate gets at least around an 8 seat super majority Democratic Party edge (due to DINA corruption), the NYS MCI and the NYS RS laws will not be changed/improved for tenants. Cuomo is no friend of ours but he will be forced to go along for reform if we have super majorities in both houses. The obstruction of rent regulation reform by upstate Republicans in the NYS Senate who get major RE money is actually pretty funny since some of these Republican NYS Senate districts would not exist unless that they factor in the NYS prison populations (which they do) for the creation of NYS Senate seats and these prisons are major economic engines in these other-wise impoverished upstate counties (talk about socialism). And the final outrage, the vast majority of these prisoners in these upstate prisons (who cannot vote) are from, you guessed it, NYC.
>>It’s probably a question of a minor embarrassing technical incompetence issue than any Nixon/Watergate style skullduggery. Anyway, that’s my take.<<
Unfortunately not so minor, Edmund, as now serious questions have been raised as to what was exactly said at the meeting. Also the summary posted on the TA website did not indicate any problem with the taping of the meeting. This summary was posted four days AFTER the town hall meeting. At that point the TA should have known if the audio was not going to be available.
It's really very sloppy of the TA to screw up an audio of such an important meeting and then post that it will be available and then not delete the promise of availability once it was known that the audio would not be available.
To this extent I've always been willing to give the TA Board the benefit of the doubt...that if you respond to the questions you see out there in a way that opens yourself up for follow-up, challenges and 2-way communication, then you're back in the ball game as far as I'm concerned. But the officers haven't done that for over 2 years. And they don't seem to be doing it now.
Does anyone know if the rental agent will tell us what the LEGAL rent on the apartment is? I ask as a good friend wants to rent here / long term and am thinking if she is rented an apartment at the attractive rate of $3700 now , what will the increase be in a year or two at renewal if the rate LEGAL on it is like $5,000. Would they be able to charge her 5,000 in a year at renewal? thanks you all.
I think that if the TA says it's going to post the audio of a meeting, then it should.
Regardless of whether or not they posted the audio, however, why is it so hard to believe that subsequent to the November 2 meeting, the best the TA's legal/negotiating team determined they could get from CW Capital was what it/we got?? I'm not happy with the paltry, additional 5% reduction in the permanent MCIs that I got, but I accept that if the TA could have done better they would have done better. Also, to give credit where credit is due, kudos to the TA for getting CW to give up all the retro charges - thousands of dollars in my case - they could have imposed.
I also agree with Ed Dunn, if you think you could have done better than the TA did, then you're a hypocrite and a fraud if you accept any of the reductions to your rent that the TA negotiated for.
Does anyone else think it sets a bad precedent and is discriminating to have different types of tenants pay varying amounts for the same major capitol improvement that we all share and use in the same way?
>>I'm not happy with the paltry, additional 5% reduction in the permanent MCIs that I got, but I accept that if the TA could have done better they would have done better<<
I'm not that certain. If the TA had decided to play hardball by stating to CW that the TA was willing to fight the MCIs for a long time in the court system, perhaps, perhaps, CW would have caved in on several or most of the MCIs. Remember: CW wants to sell this place soon. They did not want a lengthy court situation, as what happened with Roberts.
Completely agree 2:37 STR. Exactly right. They knew in November they were not even going to try for anymore than the 5%. They didn't even try. Why? (rhetorical) Begs the question "Why"!
"I'm not that certain. If the TA had decided to play hardball by stating to CW that the TA was willing to fight the MCIs for a long time in the court system, perhaps, perhaps, CW would have caved in on several or most of the MCIs. Remember: CW wants to sell this place soon. They did not want a lengthy court situation, as what happened with Roberts."
The STPCV bonds are due in 2016. I don't see a prolonged MCI lawsuit as being any big impediment to the sale. CW needs to sell, MCI lawsuit or no MCI lawsuit. Also, I don't see the MCIs in the same league as the Roberts case at all. Much different.
sTR - thanks for the link to Dhcr but it's too late at that point.
How can one look at a flat, check the correct amount of the apartment (?) and sign or not.
You can't get the info from dhcr regarding a specific place unless you LIVE in it, show your lease and it has to be well into a year apparently. You know this right? everyone is posting to go down to DHCR and they're a bunch of morons. They won't help and they 'claim ' to know nothing. I have been there. was there last month. it's not as easy as we're being told.
The STPCV bonds are due in 2016. I don't see a prolonged MCI lawsuit as being any big impediment to the sale. CW needs to sell, MCI lawsuit or no MCI lawsuit. Also, I don't see the MCIs in the same league as the Roberts case at all. Much different.
I work in RE and can say without any doubts that a prolonged MCI battle or any prolonged lawsuit WILL slow up or even kill a sale, no question about it. The TA and Garodnick knew this before they threw tenants under the bus.
4:38 make a point and I'll support it with 'data'. When an asset is offered for sale, representations must be made regarding the assets' income, expenses and net operating income. With the TA sign-off on what legal rent is, the asset can be sold with a clear understanding of what the legal rents are for each unit.
Had the TA held out (and not consented to the MCI increases)when the asset was put up for sale, the Seller would have had to footnote the income by stating that a certain portion of that rent (while approved by DHCR) was being contested by the tenants.
It certainly would have an impact on the sales process. How much? Who knows but certainly something.
I went to DHCR and asked for a rent history of my apartment. My wait time was maybe ten minutes. They gave me a rent history going all the way back to when I moved in and they said I need to file an overcharge because of exceeding a mci cap limit. I am glad I did.
Sorry, but I doubt that a prolonged lawsuit over the MCIs would have killed the sale of STPCV. It's gotta be sold and it's gonna be sold. Anyone buying this place would simply take the MCI situation into consideration. There are lots of sharks out there who can't wait to get their hands on this place, MCI issue or no MCI issue.
"I work in RE and can say without any doubts that a prolonged MCI battle or any prolonged lawsuit WILL slow up or even kill a sale, no question about it. The TA and Garodnick knew this before they threw tenants under the bus."
Thank you 4:38 for posting the truth. Clearly there are trolls commenting on this blog trying and lying to convince us tenants the MCI deal wasn't an epic tossing of tenants especially RS tenants under the bus!
"Does anyone know if the rental agent will tell us what the LEGAL rent on the apartment is? I ask as a good friend wants to rent here / long term and am thinking if she is rented an apartment at the attractive rate of $3700 now , what will the increase be in a year or two at renewal if the rate LEGAL on it is like $5,000. Would they be able to charge her 5,000 in a year at renewal? thanks you all."
I don't know if you can get that info ahead of time, but the landlord has to provide a rent-regulated tenant with the DHCR form stating the legal rent (we get a copy of this annually). No matter what the legal rent is, if your friend rents at a preferential amount (less than the legal rent), management has shown itself willing to threaten to raise the rent on renewal to whatever it feels like up to the legal rent (which will be subject to the RGB increase). This might be hundreds of dollars--there's no way to know ahead of time. Some people have successfully negotiated with management, some haven't. It's a crap shoot.
If you read the DHCR fact sheets, you get a pretty good idea of the situation: it's really easy to screw tenants legally, and that's what happens with MCIs. Yes, the law makes it possible for landlords to maintain their property, but the price extracted from tenants is exorbitant, and I have to say it again, legal. The courts have given us very little joy--remember how we fought about the key cards? The whole MCI process is rotten to the core, but I have to think that by uniting and magnifying our voices, the TA was able to get us something we wouldn't have gotten individually. Oh yeah--who among us (especially those complaining about how little we got) can afford to finance a years-long court battle to the (financial) death? Sometimes you have to cut a deal even if you're not entirely happy with it.
I want to know why if we all use and are effected by the "improvements" in the same way they have any basis for discriminating against certain tenants charging some tenants more than others. Why are they allowed to discriminate?
And how did they chose who would pay more and who would pay less? How was their favoritism decided?
Please, let's cut the shit. The TA is all we have and, imperfect as it is, it is still all we have and it is a well-meaning, hard-working bunch of people.
Let's try to get along as one united entity, just for a change. If we could all get together on the same page, it would scare the living shit out of the Stasi that has control of our homes at this time.
Gtting the rent history is not enough for some tenants.
Yes, it will show that your apartment was once a $1,000. Let's assume that was last year.
How much did the landlord put in for labor costs, repairs and upgrading - washer, new sinks, new floors, new cabinets? hmmmmmm pad pad pad pad pad and wammo - your rent is now almost $4k per month. Does Dhcr prove to you that you're overpaying? No, they don't give a rats ass.
The rent roll is falsely inflated. Most apartments that went from RS to MR were done so illegally. The numbers simply do NOT add up. A proper, honest audit of the rent roll will help a lot of people stay in their homes AND will protect the entire community from an inflated purchase price that will drive a new owner to evict more tenants.
PCVST NEEDS A THOROUGH AUDIT OF THE RENT ROLL, RENOVATION COSTS, INVOICES, CONTRACTORS, MCI APPLICATIONS, ALL INCREASES IN RENTS. THE INCONSISTENCIES IN NUMBERS ARE GLARINGLY OBVIOUS. THE RENT ROLL IS FRAUDULENT.
If the TA had wanted to rally tenants together they should not have divided us RS and MR tenants with the discrimination and unfairness in the MCI deal. Discrimination does not unite. It divides.
If you get a rent history and it is not so obvious whether you are being overcharged then sit down with a calculator and review the numbers.
If you get a rent history and it IS obvious from eyeballing it you are being overcharged then file an overcharge complaint and the DHCR will calculate if for you.
Everyone stand up for yourself, figure it out for yourself, because it is you who will benefit when you do this for yourself!
Please, let's cut the shit. The TA is all we have and, imperfect as it is, it is still all we have and it is a well-meaning, hard-working bunch of people.
Let's try to get along as one united entity, just for a change. If we could all get together on the same page, it would scare the living shit out of the Stasi that has control of our homes at this time.
"Please, let's cut the shit." Might off the same advice to you. Either you're new or haven't been paying much attention. This community is argumentative and combative. Always has been. May be a weakness but also part of its strength. If the TA wants unity, it has to be right on the merits. It won't get unity just because it exists. It's clear from most of the posts here that the TA needs to be much more transparent, representational and communicative during a process, not after.
"Please, let's cut the shit. The TA is all we have and, imperfect as it is, it is still all we have and it is a well-meaning, hard-working bunch of people.
Let's try to get along as one united entity, just for a change. If we could all get together on the same page, it would scare the living shit out of the Stasi that has control of our homes at this time."
Sure. Whenever the TA is willing to become a TENANTS ASSOCIATION instead of a wannabe OWNERS ASSOCIATION that can become a reality, as it once was. However, if they continue to hold Dan Garodnicks water and help him destroy the place all for his, his partners and the TA board's own selfishness we can get back to that place. It is really up to the TA board to conform to tenants wishes not the other way around. So, what say you Steinberg, Marsh, et al.? Step up or step down!
"If the TA had wanted to rally tenants together they should not have divided us RS and MR tenants with the discrimination and unfairness in the MCI deal. Discrimination does not unite. It divides. "
Incorrect info. EVERY PCVST apartment is currently under the NYS RS regulations. The Roberts apartments (4,311 apartments), unless NYS law is changed, will lose their NYS RS status in 2020. If you are going to blast the TA on way the MCI agreement impacted , at least have your facts straight. BTW, this correction has been placed on this blog over and over again.
That being said, under the overall NYS RS umbrella, PCVST apartments have different legal tenant categories so that is why the agreement was structured as it was. If you want to wade into the weeds and have specific fact and law based criticisms of the current legal PCVST tenant classes that are again, currently, all under the auspices of the NYS RS law, and how you would have negotiated an agreement based on those legal parameters, that would have been different from the one the TA did, be my guest. I would be very interested to how to see such a constructive criticism which would bring daylight to this issue and a win, win for everyone. Oh, I assume you will be at the May 10 meeting.
The sound quality isn't great but this is what I was able to record from my seat. I didn't include the Q&A because it's very difficult to hear and I don't have all of it. If somebody really wants it I can post what I have.
So, again, where can I get clarification on the cost of renovations and the calculations? No, the DHCR does not help with this. They ONLY GIVE YOU info on what prior tenant paid.
Although I am not a member, I heard that the TA can help with this. I personally wouldn't ask the TA for the correct time but I do not have this issue as I am the current and former tenant for my apartment but others have said the TA can handle this type of thing.
78 comments:
Don't hold your breath STR. The TA talks big but delivers small. They are clueless about most things, particularly technology. They do everything slow. Remember, they are volunteers. They're not qualified. They're not particularly skilled at what they do. They're just volunteers. If they're not up to the task, please, do us all a favor and step down and let someone else take over.
They were able to tape previous important TA meetings, so the skill is there!
Actually technology is their expertise. The skill is there. Being "just volunteers" is an excuse they exploit when evading accountability.
Again another cover up.
Other organizations are just volunteers and deliver what they promise.
This is shady. Agree they should step down for the failures, misuse of position, absence of accountability but not before they hand over the tape.
I'm not thrilled with the additional 5% reduction I just got on the MCIs, but I am delighted not to have to pay any of the thousands of retroactive charges that I would have owed. I suspect that the TA simply could negotiate CW Cap down any further on the permanent MCIs, which I knew were not ever going to disappear entirely or even as much as I would have liked them to. The negative statements about the TA by some of the people commenting here strike me as pretty off the wall.
Why play GotchYa! trying to catch the TA attorney lying about goals and tactics during a meeting attended by hundreds?
He knew CWC plants were present recording his remarks and reporting them back to CWC attorneys.
Would you rather the TA attorney said our case was a long, expensive loser and the best outcome he hoped to achieve would be eliminating retro charges and shaving a few percent off future MCI payments?
If so, he would not have obtained that result.
Oh, so you're saying Collins BSed the tenants to influence CW?
That's certainly a possibility.
Another:
To get more people to join the TA. Joining the TA was one of the main repeated points by everyone who spoke on stage that day.
But this is treating tenants like children, playing games with them to increase membership. Don't you think?
Well, let's treat everyone like an adult. The TA promised an audio of that meeting. Where is it?
The TA is painting the notes from the meeting on a cave wall. Patience STR, patience!
2:14 You seem to know for fact the TA attorney intentionally deceived and lied to the hundreds of tenants in the meeting. That is very disturbing. If CW was recording it and they have a tape WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET ONE TOO! It was promised and we need it to protect ourselves. Why deny tenants the recording?
This isn't "play Gotcha"
This isn't "play" its real life!
This is "Gotcha" on a lie of words revealing the truth on the actions.
This isn't play - its important.
This was supposed to be about delivering the promises on MCI's given to us in that meeting and NOT about increasing membership numbers for their other purposes. Those were mostly rent stabilized tenants in the meeting and they should have honestly been told upfront there will be little to no benefit for RS tenants. That benefits for MR tenants are the only considerations. And everyone should have been told this was already predetermined because it WAS!
So again, hand over the promised recording!
http://www.nycourts.gov/litigants/clientsrights.shtml
That meeting was rehearsed, planned, choreographed with props used for emphasis on speeches about getting the MCI's thrown out.
Your latest excuse of we had to lie to you tenants because CW was in the audience AND recording so really we were lying to you tenants to deceive CW is so far fetched.
The tenants are not stupid so stop treating us like we are. We tenants used to blindly follow without question the TA because you had our trust and not because we are stupid - No more!
You lost our trust!
Hand over the tape!
Lying to us on purpose because
"He knew CWC plants were present recording his remarks and reporting them back to CWC attorneys."
is a serious violation.
Heads up the TA is trying everything they can to keep their promise to CW and stop tenants from working with DHCR to get true information on the MCI deal and calculations on our individual apartments.
It is our RIGHT to get the details on the signed deal agreement and talks that led to it.
The TA's liaison at Brookfield, Barry Blattman, has changed jobs within Brookfield and is no longer responsible for any real estate acquisitions.
I bet Barry Blatterman has the tape!
how in the world can the TA stop you from going downtown to get the mci and rent history?
you should be blaming nyc and dept of housing as their office is a joke and no one there will help you and will tell you there is no information for you and be OUT and out rude until you leave.
We tried to go last month. Terrible.
The TA put the transcripts in a bottle and tossed them into the Hudson. It should only take a decade for them to float around the globe and reach us on the east side.
Why all this ragging on the TA? Who else do we have to stand up for us? They may not be perfect, but they do the best they can with a very small membership and budget and they seem to get no support, just criticism and nasty insults and innuendos.
Not everyone here is ragging on them. For myself, I just want to listen to that audio tape.
Also please note what it says on the top of this blog:
NOTE: Comments reflect the opinions of the person writing them and should not be assumed to reflect the opinion of the blog. Because of the anonymous nature of the commentary, specific agendas can be pushed by a sole individual and may not reflect a more popular belief by the residents of this community.
The comments on this blog have devolved into Teabagger type conspiracy fantasies. One can have legitimate issues with the TA and present them logically as fact passed opinions. Lately, I disagree with the STR's take on the CWC/TA/DHCR MCI agreement but he stays in a reality based universe. We agree to disagree. In most cases, there are no facts given at these anonymous posts. Funny, I wonder, if all you TA haters (full disclosure, not a Board member, just a volunteer grunt) registered with the TA to get your Sandy reduction of services credit, that is now reflected in your May rent invoice. I assume if you did not, the logic being for you that the TA is nothing but a corrupt appendage of CWC/CR. Taking about cutting your nose to spite yourself. If you did register and get your credit, I assume you are directing CR to debit your account the credit amount since; again, to have the courage of your convictions, you believe that the TA is nothing but a corrupt appendage of CWC/CR. Also, curious to see who you all voted for recently and in the past. Lhota? Bloomberg? Pataki? Giuliani? And, as you can see, I have given my real name here.
The audio tape is in the same place the the video tapes are from past town halls -- on a missing flight to Malaysia!
Edmund, what's your take on why the audio tape of that November meeting still has not turned up? It was definitely promised at that meeting and, subsequently, was promised on the TA's website. Months ago.
My issues with the TA stem from one fundamental concern: The TA has morphed into something beyond that of of a 'tenant's association'. It's an acquisition entity. It's a wannabe condo association. And I find it a complete conflict of interest.
I agree that the importance of the TA is to represent the tenancy in their joint concerns/conflicts with landlord. But that trust the tenants place in the TA is not blind. And the tenants are not dumb or ignorant. To treat them as such is an insult to all of us.
If it is Dunn's opinion that the TA has communicated well with the tenancy over the past few years than I disagree with him whole-heartedly and, quite honestly, he loses any credibility he is attempting to receive by posting his name.
? I'd think Edmund gains credibility by posting his name.
My position on the TA has been stated repeatedly here. I think it's an important entity and the only one we have that advances tenants' concerns and fights for tenants. Yes, individuals can do things on their own, and should, but there is power in numbers, though, frankly, that hasn't severed us or New Yorkers that well in the past.
I also think that the TA faltered in its goal of tenant ownership of this property. Wonderful idea, but all signs are, and have been, that CWCapital isn't interested in handing this place over to the tenants. I also think a tenant ownership would really set tenants against each other: the haves and the have-nots.
I also, also think that the TA has exhibited a stifling need to control the message, treating its members (and I guess I'm still one, as my dues still cover this time period) as children on occasion. No need for that. We are all adults and can understand the issues and problems.
All that said, let me repeat what I've repeated in the past: I appreciate the time and energy the TA and its volunteers spend on behalf of tenants. And, yes, there have been victories for which the TA deserves thanks.
Regarding the recent MCI deal, I still have not changed my opinion: The elimination of the retroactive MCI charges was significant, but the rest of the deal is rather paltry, with affordable housing still a victim.
STR said: "Regarding the recent MCI deal, I still have not changed my opinion: The elimination of the retroactive MCI charges was significant, but the rest of the deal is rather paltry, with affordable housing still a victim."
I'm thrilled to be saving about $1,000 in retroactive charges, which would have added at least another $50 to my monthly rent. It's not so long ago (about a year) that I finally finished paying off the retroactive charges for the electrical rewiring (about $48/month for years). Newer tenants may never have experienced the thrill of paying off an MCI, justified or not.
Unfortunately, the MCI law is horrifically unfair to tenants. That's why we should all be thinking about how to exert pressure to change the rent laws when they come up for renewal in June 2015--little more than a year away.
For anyone who doesn't remember what happened in 2011, the RS law actually lapsed briefly because the State Senate didn't vote to renew it.
I'd like to echo some of the above sentiments. I too have been a supporter of the TA in the past and feel it has done many good things over the years. And in many areas I feel it currently helps a lot. But as of the announcement of the alliance with Brookfield, in several important areas I agree with STR that the TA has stifled challenging questions and open discussion, has sought to control and limit communication to one way pronouncements and has stuck an almost imperial, condescending tone...addressing itself to the community more as 'leaders' of the community rather than its representatives.
>>Unfortunately, the MCI law is horrifically unfair to tenants. That's why we should all be thinking about how to exert pressure to change the rent laws when they come up for renewal in June 2015--little more than a year away.<<
Sure, we should exert pressure. But what's wrong with this: Almost everyone, unless they happen to be real estate people, believe that paying for MCIs permanently is unfair (at least paying for their total cost). So, probably every renter in NYS is against such permanent increases in the rent. Now, the politicians know this. They know the opinion and feelings of renters. Yet nothing is done to change this MCI law. Why? Yes, the speeches the politicians give about the unfairness of the MCIs are all inspiring, but still nothing is done. Can we blame the Republicans or do we also blame the Democrats, many, if not all, of whom get significant donations from RE.
This morning I saw a 'street sweeper' driving over the PCV inside sidewalks. The kind of machine the city uses to sweep against the curbs. Never saw this here before. Presumably this is to get rid of all signs of dog shit. Think this means a sale will be announced soon. For a few months all traces of dog shit are likely to be diminished.
Enough with the excuses! Many of us are volunteers with organizations and we achieve our goals. The problem isn't that the TA are "just volunteers" or that they have "limited budget" or are or aren't doing their best.
Its that they have the WRONG GOALS!
As a lifelong Ny democrat you can absolutely blame the corruptness of the democratic party in nyc and nys.
appalling. shameful.
STR, re the tape, I think the explanation if far simpler than a conspiracy related one. Even before the announcement of the MCI agreement, the tape was never posted at the TA webpage. It’s probably a question of a minor embarrassing technical incompetence issue than any Nixon/Watergate style skullduggery. Anyway, that’s my take.
I usually don’t respond to anonymous posters to my STR post when I use my name but anyway: “If it is Dunn's opinion that the TA has communicated well with the tenancy over the past few years than I disagree with him whole-heartedly and, quite honestly, he loses any credibility he is attempting to receive by posting his name.”
As Manuel said over and over again in "Fawlty Towers”, “Que?” This was my opening line in my comment: “One can have legitimate issues with the TA and present them logically as fact passed opinions.” How did Anonymous 2.58 AM get his take from my comment is rather mysterious to me. Anyway, I am now posting that transparency in any organization is a good thing and should be promoted. And the TA needs to improve its messaging, no doubt about that. Those with technical and PR skills, why don’t you join, help, and change the TA?
And if you want to hate a politician, here is the one to hate, Jeff Klein. I posted this link (see below) at the alternative STPC Tenants (not the TA affiliated) FB page. Unless the NYS senate gets at least around an 8 seat super majority Democratic Party edge (due to DINA corruption), the NYS MCI and the NYS RS laws will not be changed/improved for tenants. Cuomo is no friend of ours but he will be forced to go along for reform if we have super majorities in both houses. The obstruction of rent regulation reform by upstate Republicans in the NYS Senate who get major RE money is actually pretty funny since some of these Republican NYS Senate districts would not exist unless that they factor in the NYS prison populations (which they do) for the creation of NYS Senate seats and these prisons are major economic engines in these other-wise impoverished upstate counties (talk about socialism). And the final outrage, the vast majority of these prisoners in these upstate prisons (who cannot vote) are from, you guessed it, NYC.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/07/1290160/-Meet-the-biggest-douchebag-Democrat-in-New-York-and-the-fearless-progressive-who-can-unseat-him?detail=action
Uh OH. Going to get an MCI if you ask for hot water now.
Better not.
>>It’s probably a question of a minor embarrassing technical incompetence issue than any Nixon/Watergate style skullduggery. Anyway, that’s my take.<<
Unfortunately not so minor, Edmund, as now serious questions have been raised as to what was exactly said at the meeting. Also the summary posted on the TA website did not indicate any problem with the taping of the meeting. This summary was posted four days AFTER the town hall meeting. At that point the TA should have known if the audio was not going to be available.
It's really very sloppy of the TA to screw up an audio of such an important meeting and then post that it will be available and then not delete the promise of availability once it was known that the audio would not be available.
To this extent I've always been willing to give the TA Board the benefit of the doubt...that if you respond to the questions you see out there in a way that opens yourself up for follow-up, challenges and 2-way communication, then you're back in the ball game as far as I'm concerned. But the officers haven't done that for over 2 years. And they don't seem to be doing it now.
Does anyone know if the rental agent will tell us what the LEGAL rent on the apartment is? I ask as a good friend wants to rent here / long term and am thinking if she is rented an apartment at the attractive rate of $3700 now , what will the increase be in a year or two at renewal if the rate LEGAL on it is like $5,000. Would they be able to charge her 5,000 in a year at renewal? thanks you all.
I think that if the TA says it's going to post the audio of a meeting, then it should.
Regardless of whether or not they posted the audio, however, why is it so hard to believe that subsequent to the November 2 meeting, the best the TA's legal/negotiating team determined they could get from CW Capital was what it/we got?? I'm not happy with the paltry, additional 5% reduction in the permanent MCIs that I got, but I accept that if the TA could have done better they would have done better. Also, to give credit where credit is due, kudos to the TA for getting CW to give up all the retro charges - thousands of dollars in my case - they could have imposed.
I also agree with Ed Dunn, if you think you could have done better than the TA did, then you're a hypocrite and a fraud if you accept any of the reductions to your rent that the TA negotiated for.
Does anyone else think it sets a bad precedent and is discriminating to have different types of tenants pay varying amounts for the same major capitol improvement that we all share and use in the same way?
>>Does anyone know if the rental agent will tell us what the LEGAL rent on the apartment is?<<
A rental agent? You can ask, but I wouldn't take his word for it.
Try this:
http://www.nyshcr.org/Rent/tenantresources.htm
Oh 1:56 you are trying too hard to sell a bill of goods that is rotten to its core. We all need the audio tape released.
>>I'm not happy with the paltry, additional 5% reduction in the permanent MCIs that I got, but I accept that if the TA could have done better they would have done better<<
I'm not that certain. If the TA had decided to play hardball by stating to CW that the TA was willing to fight the MCIs for a long time in the court system, perhaps, perhaps, CW would have caved in on several or most of the MCIs. Remember: CW wants to sell this place soon. They did not want a lengthy court situation, as what happened with Roberts.
Completely agree 2:37 STR. Exactly right.
They knew in November they were not even going to try for anymore than the 5%. They didn't even try. Why? (rhetorical) Begs the question "Why"!
"They knew in November they were not even going to try for anymore than the 5%. They didn't even try.
Really? And exactly how do you know that?
"I'm not that certain. If the TA had decided to play hardball by stating to CW that the TA was willing to fight the MCIs for a long time in the court system, perhaps, perhaps, CW would have caved in on several or most of the MCIs. Remember: CW wants to sell this place soon. They did not want a lengthy court situation, as what happened with Roberts."
The STPCV bonds are due in 2016. I don't see a prolonged MCI lawsuit as being any big impediment to the sale. CW needs to sell, MCI lawsuit or no MCI lawsuit. Also, I don't see the MCIs in the same league as the Roberts case at all. Much different.
3:18 You know it is true.
sTR - thanks for the link to Dhcr but it's too late at that point.
How can one look at a flat, check the correct amount of the apartment (?) and sign or not.
You can't get the info from dhcr regarding a specific place unless you LIVE in it, show your lease and it has to be well into a year apparently. You know this right? everyone is posting to go down to DHCR and they're a bunch of morons. They won't help and they 'claim ' to know nothing. I have been there. was there last month. it's not as easy as we're being told.
It's BS that you allow attacks on the tea party but stop responses to those attacks!
The STPCV bonds are due in 2016. I don't see a prolonged MCI lawsuit as being any big impediment to the sale. CW needs to sell, MCI lawsuit or no MCI lawsuit. Also, I don't see the MCIs in the same league as the Roberts case at all. Much different.
I work in RE and can say without any doubts that a prolonged MCI battle or any prolonged lawsuit WILL slow up or even kill a sale, no question about it. The TA and Garodnick knew this before they threw tenants under the bus.
The biggest problem with TA is lack of transparency and the fact that there elections rules heavily favor current Board members and their friends
4:38 make a point and I'll support it with 'data'. When an asset is offered for sale, representations must be made regarding the assets' income, expenses and net operating income. With the TA sign-off on what legal rent is, the asset can be sold with a clear understanding of what the legal rents are for each unit.
Had the TA held out (and not consented to the MCI increases)when the asset was put up for sale, the Seller would have had to footnote the income by stating that a certain portion of that rent (while approved by DHCR) was being contested by the tenants.
It certainly would have an impact on the sales process. How much? Who knows but certainly something.
I went to DHCR and asked for a rent history of my apartment. My wait time was maybe ten minutes. They gave me a rent history going all the way back to when I moved in and they said I need to file an overcharge because of exceeding a mci cap limit. I am glad I did.
Sorry, but I doubt that a prolonged lawsuit over the MCIs would have killed the sale of STPCV. It's gotta be sold and it's gonna be sold. Anyone buying this place would simply take the MCI situation into consideration. There are lots of sharks out there who can't wait to get their hands on this place, MCI issue or no MCI issue.
"I work in RE and can say without any doubts that a prolonged MCI battle or any prolonged lawsuit WILL slow up or even kill a sale, no question about it. The TA and Garodnick knew this before they threw tenants under the bus."
Thank you 4:38 for posting the truth. Clearly there are trolls commenting on this blog trying and lying to convince us tenants the MCI deal wasn't an epic tossing of tenants especially RS tenants under the bus!
It is true. DHCR nyc is a nightmare. It's almost a conspiracy against the tenants.
"Does anyone know if the rental agent will tell us what the LEGAL rent on the apartment is? I ask as a good friend wants to rent here / long term and am thinking if she is rented an apartment at the attractive rate of $3700 now , what will the increase be in a year or two at renewal if the rate LEGAL on it is like $5,000. Would they be able to charge her 5,000 in a year at renewal? thanks you all."
I don't know if you can get that info ahead of time, but the landlord has to provide a rent-regulated tenant with the DHCR form stating the legal rent (we get a copy of this annually). No matter what the legal rent is, if your friend rents at a preferential amount (less than the legal rent), management has shown itself willing to threaten to raise the rent on renewal to whatever it feels like up to the legal rent (which will be subject to the RGB increase). This might be hundreds of dollars--there's no way to know ahead of time. Some people have successfully negotiated with management, some haven't. It's a crap shoot.
If you read the DHCR fact sheets, you get a pretty good idea of the situation: it's really easy to screw tenants legally, and that's what happens with MCIs. Yes, the law makes it possible for landlords to maintain their property, but the price extracted from tenants is exorbitant, and I have to say it again, legal. The courts have given us very little joy--remember how we fought about the key cards? The whole MCI process is rotten to the core, but I have to think that by uniting and magnifying our voices, the TA was able to get us something we wouldn't have gotten individually. Oh yeah--who among us (especially those complaining about how little we got) can afford to finance a years-long court battle to the (financial) death? Sometimes you have to cut a deal even if you're not entirely happy with it.
I want to know why if we all use and are effected by the "improvements" in the same way they have any basis for discriminating against certain tenants charging some tenants more than others. Why are they allowed to discriminate?
And how did they chose who would pay more and who would pay less? How was their favoritism decided?
>>It's BS that you allow attacks on the tea party but stop responses to those attacks!<<
Your response went into a personal attack, that's why it didn't pass.
Please, let's cut the shit. The TA is all we have and, imperfect as it is, it is still all we have and it is a well-meaning, hard-working bunch of people.
Let's try to get along as one united entity, just for a change. If we could all get together on the same page, it would scare the living shit out of the Stasi that has control of our homes at this time.
Gtting the rent history is not enough for some tenants.
Yes, it will show that your apartment was once a $1,000. Let's assume that was last year.
How much did the landlord put in for labor costs, repairs and upgrading - washer, new sinks, new floors, new cabinets? hmmmmmm pad pad pad pad pad and wammo - your rent is now almost $4k per month. Does Dhcr prove to you that you're overpaying? No, they don't give a rats ass.
The rent roll is falsely inflated. Most apartments that went from RS to MR were done so illegally. The numbers simply do NOT add up. A proper, honest audit of the rent roll will help a lot of people stay in their homes AND will protect the entire community from an inflated purchase price that will drive a new owner to evict more tenants.
PCVST NEEDS A THOROUGH AUDIT OF THE RENT ROLL, RENOVATION COSTS, INVOICES, CONTRACTORS, MCI APPLICATIONS, ALL INCREASES IN RENTS. THE INCONSISTENCIES IN NUMBERS ARE GLARINGLY OBVIOUS.
THE RENT ROLL IS FRAUDULENT.
If the TA had wanted to rally tenants together they should not have divided us RS and MR tenants with the discrimination and unfairness in the MCI deal. Discrimination does not unite. It divides.
Why go downtown?
Just fill out an RA89 - get it on line - and mail it in.
They won't 'calculate ' for you . you have to do it on your own. Why doesn't the TA instruct people how to calculate.
????
7:17 HIT THE nail on head.
This this.
This would TELL ALL AND SHOW ALL.
If you get a rent history and it is not so obvious whether you are being overcharged then sit down with a calculator and review the numbers.
If you get a rent history and it IS obvious from eyeballing it you are being overcharged then file an overcharge complaint and the DHCR will calculate if for you.
Everyone stand up for yourself, figure it out for yourself, because it is you who will benefit when you do this for yourself!
Please, let's cut the shit. The TA is all we have and, imperfect as it is, it is still all we have and it is a well-meaning, hard-working bunch of people.
Let's try to get along as one united entity, just for a change. If we could all get together on the same page, it would scare the living shit out of the Stasi that has control of our homes at this time.
Right on!
"Please, let's cut the shit."
Might off the same advice to you. Either you're new or haven't been paying much attention. This community is argumentative and combative. Always has been. May be a weakness but also part of its strength. If the TA wants unity, it has to be right on the merits. It won't get unity just because it exists. It's clear from most of the posts here that the TA needs to be much more transparent, representational and communicative during a process, not after.
"Please, let's cut the shit. The TA is all we have and, imperfect as it is, it is still all we have and it is a well-meaning, hard-working bunch of people.
Let's try to get along as one united entity, just for a change. If we could all get together on the same page, it would scare the living shit out of the Stasi that has control of our homes at this time."
Sure. Whenever the TA is willing to become a TENANTS ASSOCIATION instead of a wannabe OWNERS ASSOCIATION that can become a reality, as it once was. However, if they continue to hold Dan Garodnicks water and help him destroy the place all for his, his partners and the TA board's own selfishness we can get back to that place. It is really up to the TA board to conform to tenants wishes not the other way around. So, what say you Steinberg, Marsh, et al.? Step up or step down!
Sometimes you have to cut a deal even if you're not entirely happy with it.
May 1, 2014 at 8:25 PM
W E L L S A I D!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"If the TA had wanted to rally tenants together they should not have divided us RS and MR tenants with the discrimination and unfairness in the MCI deal. Discrimination does not unite. It divides. "
Incorrect info. EVERY PCVST apartment is currently under the NYS RS regulations. The Roberts apartments (4,311 apartments), unless NYS law is changed, will lose their NYS RS status in 2020. If you are going to blast the TA on way the MCI agreement impacted , at least have your facts straight. BTW, this correction has been placed on this blog over and over again.
That being said, under the overall NYS RS umbrella, PCVST apartments have different legal tenant categories so that is why the agreement was structured as it was. If you want to wade into the weeds and have specific fact and law based criticisms of the current legal PCVST tenant classes that are again, currently, all under the auspices of the NYS RS law, and how you would have negotiated an agreement based on those legal parameters, that would have been different from the one the TA did, be my guest. I would be very interested to how to see such a constructive criticism which would bring daylight to this issue and a win, win for everyone. Oh, I assume you will be at the May 10 meeting.
ita
let's all UNITE and demand the rent roll
RENT Fraud
Maybe Handsome Dan has the tape!
https://soundcloud.com/dave10009/stpcv-tenants-association-meeting-2013-11-02
The sound quality isn't great but this is what I was able to record from my seat. I didn't include the Q&A because it's very difficult to hear and I don't have all of it. If somebody really wants it I can post what I have.
They can't tell you anything downtown about your rent other than the same thing that you get in the mail.
https://soundcloud.com/dave10009/stpcv-tenants-association-meeting-2013-11-02
Excellent! Thank you very much! Is there any way to save this. I can't listen to it now and don't want this lost.
I have our rent history.
Tbh, I don't understand how to do the calculations, been trying for a week.
Either I'm doing it wrong , or it's wrong. Now what?
So, again, where can I get clarification on the cost of renovations and the calculations? No, the DHCR does not help with this. They ONLY GIVE YOU info on what prior tenant paid.
Although I am not a member, I heard that the TA can help with this. I personally wouldn't ask the TA for the correct time but I do not have this issue as I am the current and former tenant for my apartment but others have said the TA can handle this type of thing.
Post a Comment