While attention is being paid to recent news that CWCapital will be foreclosing on ST/PCV, making way for a sale, perhaps to its parent company Fortress Investment, a basic truth still remains despite the hopes and wishes of tenants, the TA or local politicians: Affordable housing will continue to evaporate in ST/PCV. About the only potential stoppage to this would be powerful and fairly immediate outside involvement from lawmakers and the city (sorry, not Dan Garodnick) which would mandate the cessation of renovating apartments in the complex once a long-time tenant moves out or dies, or separate such renovations from a landlord's ability to charge market-rate prices for the finished apartment. Both possibilities are unrealistic. There is still an outside chance that the city could compel our future landlord to set aside a portion of units in ST/PCV as "affordable housing," but you can bet that portion will be relatively small to the amount of affordable units that are available now. Perhaps some other strategy exists that hasn't been much discussed, something so devious and unexpected that would shake the assured plans of a landlord, but that is unknown at this point and perhaps just a pipe dream.
While local politicians may make crowd-pleasing speeches about compelling CWCapital or Fortress to keep a stock of apartments affordable, the truth is that the long-time RS apartments ARE affordable (to the degree that they can be) because those apartments are under rent-stabilization protection. So if Fortress does become the owner of this complex, it can't just remove long-time RS tenants at will. There are tenant-protection laws on the books, needing to be periodically renewed, of course, that grant RS tenants the protections they need.
Organized and involved tenants in ST/PCV have always been a problem to the landlord. Though the trajectory has been, and will be, for the landlord to win most of the battles here, the absence of an organized and concerned tenant base will give a landlord free rein, and this is something we can't allow. That's why, despite the disappointment some tenants feel with the TA's goals and results, I believe it is an organization that still should be supported by the tenants.
But I also believe that each tenant holds the opportunity to put a landlord's "feet to the fire" and that individually we still haven't used the power that exists in the law books to our advantage. This, I think, should be our goal: to be aware of our power and, importantly, to use it to make sure we have a quality of life that makes living here pleasant and relatively trouble-free.
131 comments:
I think we can all agree that when it comes to real estate, there is no free lunch. A developer goes through a calculus to figure out how much trouble he's willing to put up with versus how much he's will to concede to tenants. If you ask for a portion of 'affordable' housing in this case, guess who pays makes up the loss. Everybody else who wants to buy. And in raising those costs, some group in the middle gets excluded. Additionally, who decides who gets the 'affordable' housing and on what basis? The so-called 'affordable' housing becomes a political football causing more division. To wit, let's say you apply for an 'affordable unit' and don't get it but someone on the TA does. Accusations and bitterness are bound to arise. Sorry, but I don't support your thoughts in this case.
No doubt tenants would benefit organizing with a TA. Just not one with a bad track record. Supporting a TA with a bad track record would do more harm than good.
A few things that typify a legit TA with good intentions that is not passive, inept, nor self-serving.
The purpose of the Association is to promote the interests of and help provide safe and habitable living conditions for residents of the building,
to ascertain that the building is properly maintained and in accordance with housing code regulations,
to insure that rents and rent increases are accurate and assessed in accordance with rent control law,
and to resolve, if possible, landlord-tenant impasses within the building.
The Association may assess dues. If the Association should need funds in addition to those available in the treasury, for a specific purpose approved by
MAJORITY MEMBERSHIP VOTE, let me repeat MAJORITY MEMBERSHIP VOTE,
the membership may be requested to contribute funds for that specific purpose. **
Membership dues, and all other contributions received by the Association from whatever source, will be deposited in an Association bank account, which will comprise the Association’s treasury.
Dues typically are either $5 or $10 per year. Experience suggests that they not be less than $5 or more than $10.
OFFICERS and BOARD MEMBERS may be REMOVED by vote of two-thirds of those present and voting at a regularly called meeting
The tenant Association may be DISSOLVED by two-thirds majority vote of the members represented at a regularly called meeting
The Treasurer will DEPOSIT ALL MONIES received by the Association from dues or any other source in a bank account opened and maintained by the Association, and handle Association financial matters in general.
Maintain a membership roster and notify members of Association meetings;
RECORD MINUTES of Association and board meetings;
Maintain Association records; and
File a bi-annual incorporation renewal form (pursuant to notification sent by District government), and pay incorporation fee
In other words be transparent, have good intentions on behalf of tenants, be proactive on behalf of tenants not reactive or relaying messages to tenants from politicians.
Amen to everything you just said, STR. We really need to unite and support the TA and one way we absolutely should fight the bastards is to strongly oppose and make sure they don't get away with all the future MCIs they are bound to try to foist onto us. Those MCIs are one pernicious method they use to raise rents permanently on the long time tenants and drive them out. We tenants have to be troublesome, if being troublesome means fighting these mercilessly avaricious bastards from driving us out of our homes.
Just as you've said, I agree that organized tenants can exert influence and have an impact on the outcome. But there has to be substantial majority consensus around some goals. However, before we can even get to the question of what the goals are, what will be the mechanism by which those goals are formed? You seem to be suggesting the TA. But this TA has already stated its goals and means without seeking majority consensus. So what are the options if you disagree not with the concept of working through the TA but disagree with this particular leadership.
10:40 this current TA did not and will not
"fight the bastards is to strongly oppose and make sure they don't get away with all the future MCIs they are bound to try to foist onto us"
They showed gross favortism to MR tenants at the cost to the majority of their membership who is RS. Did you see all the elderly RS at their last meeting?
The MCI's are used the same by all then all share equally. What they did was vile.
>>So what are the options if you disagree not with the concept of working through the TA but disagree with this particular leadership.<<
Vote for a different leadership, perhaps. Yes, not everyone agrees with the TA's goals, particularly in ST/PCV going condo (which is, by now, a dead concept one would think), but the very fact of a large TA membership makes a landlord depressed.
>>If you ask for a portion of 'affordable' housing in this case, guess who pays makes up the loss.<<
No one needed to "make up the loss" pre-sale of this property. Affordable housing should not be removed because of the greed that dictated a sale and then a purchase at over 5 billion.
So is the choice for you the removal of all affordable housing in Manhattan? Just kick everyone out who can't make rent payments of $4-5K?
This practice of asking for a portion of affordable housing is disgusting. Why de Blasio is pushing that is beyond me and perpetuates the very thing he campaigned against - a tale of two cities. Next thing you know shady developers will be building alley entrances for the affordable housing folks. Oh wait, they already are doing that.
If this city administration had any balls they would preserve all of PCVST as affordable housing. Correct the harm rolling back apartments to those these past few years. And restore PCVST before it is torn apart and segregated any further. If they had any balls and any brains they would find a way re-establish PCVST as a middle class community. That is what leadership is supposed to do right - come up with innovative solutions.
NY leadership has failed PCVST miserably. Where is the leadership and innovative thinking?
"Yes, not everyone agrees with the TA's goals, particularly in ST/PCV going condo (which is, by now, a dead concept one would think), but the very fact of a large TA membership makes a landlord depressed."
Is the condo concept dead? If so what do I, a market tenant, get from supporting the TA? Been staying put here in the hopes of a conversion and willing to pay little higher costs than the RS tenants to get the same. But if it doesn't go through why would I care if my $3K rent goes here or somewhere else? And I believe there is quite a few people like me in this complex...
A good majority of the population here (not me, ftr) won't help because they don't support it. you have to understand they dont' want to pay 4 to 5k, but they feel like if we paid more (those paying 1/2 that) the balance would shift and their rent would be less. So to a great extent, you're fighting your own neighbor. And fwiw, I can't blame him/her. They are bitter that we are paying much much less for more than likely a larger apartment.
OK Yesterday there were 2 comments on the Town & Village article. Now there is just 1. They removed a comment. Does anyone know what is said? And who had it removed? It just disappeared just like the T&V article STR once quoted from Garodnick which was removed.
WTF
Affordable housing should not disappear if we had a truly progressive Mayor who loved New Yorkers, all of us. That is what De Blasio needs to demonstrate right now on this matter.
Setting aside blocks of affordable housing is un-American and does not belong in NYC. No segregation, no separate entrances, no separate amenities within the same entity.
NYC is diverse and mixed and must remain so or it will no longer be NYC.
Mr Mayor No segregation!
I think the choices are emerging. They are having an organized tenant group with majority consensus built around certain principles, a group that is prepared to organize rallies, act up and be troublesome, working on behalf of the interests of the majority. And the mechanism to do this is probably the TA. But the whole TA board would have to be challenged with a different slate of candidates. And believe me, if this happens, there will a knockdown, drag out fight. And local politicians will get involved. Because some have already thrown their lots in with the current TA Board. So these people will be organized and will get out their voters. How would an opposition slate be able to complete? Remember, while this community gets riled up, most people are pretty apathetic when it comes to TA voting.
>>If this city administration had any balls they would preserve all of PCVST as affordable housing. Correct the harm rolling back apartments to those these past few years. And restore PCVST before it is torn apart and segregated any further. If they had any balls and any brains they would find a way re-establish PCVST as a middle class community. That is what leadership is supposed to do right - come up with innovative solutions.<<
I'd love to see that, but I doubt very much it's possible legally.
>>Is the condo concept dead? If so what do I, a market tenant, get from supporting the TA? Been staying put here in the hopes of a conversion and willing to pay little higher costs than the RS tenants to get the same. But if it doesn't go through why would I care if my $3K rent goes here or somewhere else? And I believe there is quite a few people like me in this complex...<<
If you're here just to wait to buy your ST/PCV condo apartment, you may waiting in vain. The TA and Dan Garodnick still have hopes for a tenant condo conversion, but CWCapital is not willing to talk to them about this, and other voices in the know say it's never going to happen.
>>OK Yesterday there were 2 comments on the Town & Village article. Now there is just 1. They removed a comment. Does anyone know what is said? And who had it removed? It just disappeared just like the T&V article STR once quoted from Garodnick which was removed.<<
I don't know, as I haven't been paying that much attention to that Facebook, but I do know I was surprise by an anti-TA conversion plan comment. Perhaps that is what is gone.
>>Remember, while this community gets riled up, most people are pretty apathetic when it comes to TA voting.<<
Most people here are apathetic, period. And we have too few fighters among the people that aren't.
And you can forget about the growing student population caring anything about this place. Which is why one of the fights the TA should have gotten into was to make sure the landlord doesn't house more than three tenants who are unrelated. The TA and Dan should have done everything possible to limit the student body in ST/PCV, as students are disinterested in what goes on here (obviously), and, as temporary residents, the apartments they inhabit get legal rent increases when they leave.
Actually we were just told the removed comment from the T&V article said that we need new local politicians and to stop voting for the same ones seated at the table.
STR totally agree with your 2:30pm
The list of ways the local pols and TA have failed PCVST by their actions on some things and their inactions on others is a very long list. To ask tenants to support this TA board with its current members is asking us to get into a bad relationship with a history of abuse, neglect, and dishonesty.
If conversion is unlikely, it's due to the profitability associated with a dorm/transient rental strategy.
Ending rent stabilization straight away, rather than letting it die a slow death, is probably the best thing that the City could do for the middle class. Instead of being locked into a lifetime of rent payments and the lack of control, these folks could focus on ownership. Of course, not everyone can buy in the most expensive locations, but the City could potentially incentivize developers to create affordable ownership options along with tax breaks. Rent stabilization has been flawed from the start and is continuing to show its many weaknesses. Let's move on.
There was never going to be a conversion and there will just be more and more turnover. Landlords in this city are not stupid.
>>Ending rent stabilization straight away, rather than letting it die a slow death, is probably the best thing that the City could do for the middle class.<<
Yeah, and if you and your family can't afford the city, then move out! "Cage" housing (literally, animal-like cages a person can barely fit it--already happening in Hong Kong) is being built already in Staten Island for seniors just for this purpose.
You're right. Let's clean up the city of all these RS leeches.
STR agree with your 5:50 as what 5:03 doesn't say is that at the same time as doing away with RS there would also be mandatory increases in people's income on a regular basis so as the rents go up so do the incomes of the inhabitants.
I'm a long time R/S renter and It's sure going to have to be a good buy in offer after the conversion to get me to buy. I highly doubt it will be enticing enough. However, you can rest assured it will be those who remain renters who will then get the shaft into perpetuity. Who's going to fight against mci's and the like after this place is a condo or coop? For all you out there who are dreaming that it will never convert I'm sorry to tell you that it's the only way the numbers will work when You're talking about a 4.7 billion dollar Fortress bid. It's either conversion or a replay of what the Tishman idiots tried to do.
Convert will never happen and it has nothing to do with numbers and what makes sense and blah blah.
They'd never sell to the tenants - CW and the following and the following will dangle it all the while laughing at us. Pipedream for many, stop focusing on it - It won't happen - Now commercializing will be more than likely.
RS tenants have evaporated under the current TA and the mci negotiations showed this TA negotiated unfavorably for RS to favor MR. This TA feels RS tenants need to pay more for mci's than MR tenants just because RS rents are less and it does not matter that the mci effects all tenants the same. This TA will always rob the RS tenants to favor the MR tenants despite that we RS tenants are the majority of TA members. RS will not survive in PCVST under the current TA board. Both MR and RS should bear the burden of mci's equally as paved sidewalks and water valves effect us all the same. TA is making RS disappear in PCVST. Bad move with the mci approach. It was a big hit against rent stabilization
9:38 pm - makes no sense. There doesn't have to be MCI increases.
Here's a little math to consider. Let's say after a conversion 1/2 of the units aren't bought. We have 1BR, 2BR, 3BR and 5BR here. If I use an average of 900K as the market rate per unit (pretty low), 5550 units sold at this rate comes out to $4.995B. Not including money from rents or money from commercial spaces. Now factor in the money from the units sold.
At $400K avg per unit, that comes to over $2.2B. So you can see that a developer has a lot of leeway even bidding close to $5B and charging 'reasonable insider prices', the developer still stands to make $2-3B over 20 yrs. So in the end the winning developer could make a great profit and still have great relations with the community just by charging affordable prices. Or the developer could go toward the greedy side by charging more to buy. In which case the tenants have the option of trying to make the developer's life a public hell.
9:03 am: you make perfect sense. I am a longtime RS tenant and I am pretty disgusted with the TA. They don't represent our interests at all. I don't think I am going to remain a member of the TA because I don't see any reason to now. I think they threw us under the bus and I honestly can't say I like or trust Dan Garodnick. I don't think he really cares about the longtime RS tenants at all.
In this day and age, the fight for affordable housing is an asymmetrical guerrilla war from the standpoint of tenants. Different circumstances call for pivoting solutions. Like it it not, a tenant lead conversion, however unlikely, is probably the best solution for maintaining some semblance decency and liveability in this community.
Is this what DeBlasio's "affordable housing" idea is all about? It certainly perpetuates the Tale of Two Cities traversty that he used as a platform in his election campaign.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/realestate/rent-regulated-tenants-excluded-from-amenities.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0
Whether ST/PCV ends up in a condo conversion or in a mostly market rate rental makes no difference at all to people who need affordable housing. STRs premise is correct, the days of affordable housing in Stuy Town, which was originally built to be affordable, are over, and so is the original reason for it being built in the first place.
People do not seem to understand that Stuy Town itself would not even exist if it weren't for affordable housing programs like the one that created it.
To those who say the best route is to go market rate and end rent stabilization, what will you say when most of your neighbors are students or working families with 2 or 3 to a room just to afford the rent? What will this do to everyones quality of life when even more people are doubling up, illegally subletting rooms, and renting to even more students because that's the only way to fill the overpriced apartments?
The result will be more crowding, denser populations, noise, more garbage, more late night parties, more turnover, less community, more commodity.
Is that really where you want to live, in a commodity and not a community? In a place that is solely comprised of people who can afford exhorbitant rents? That is a very sad statement if it's true.
Rent stabilization also nelped stabilized buildings and neighborhoods, it kept long term residents in place and helped build communities. Once it's all market rate, your home is just a commodity, and it won't be long before the market rate tenants get pushed out by exorbitant rents or have to double up in their apartments as well.
Only when they too are forced out, or forced to double up, or have to send their kids to public school, would the free marketeers truly understand what all those unfortunate people with less income than them are now facing. At least that would be poetic justice.
Sigh - people just don't get it.
They WANT The land. THEY WANT THE LAND. They will not convert to coops or condos. They stand to gain much more than a few billion if they 'own' the land.
"Convert will never happen and it has nothing to do with numbers and what makes sense and blah blah.
They'd never sell to the tenants - CW and the following and the following will dangle it all the while laughing at us. Pipedream for many, stop focusing on it - It won't happen - Now commercializing will be more than likely."
Well it kind of does have something to do with the numbers. Really sorry to break this to you. If you don't believe me ask the boy wonder Robbie. Also, you do realize that it can convert without the TA/Brookfield having anything to do with it, which will probably be the case. You do understand that there are other entities that want to buy the sty yes? What I mean is THEY DON'T HAVE TO SELL TO TENANTS FOR THERE TO BE A CONVERSION. I'm with you in spirit though.
"9:38 pm - makes no sense. There doesn't have to be MCI increases."
Huh?
I don't have to keep losing the lottery either but I do........
10:01am - Your attempt to reason the value/benefit of these assets is admirable but incorrect. First, 900k per unit is unreasonable. The cost/sf on that is outrageous. So your $4.995 is wrong.
Simply understanding the 'sellout value' is not enough. Since most persons willing to buy their units pay higher rents, it leaves the lower rent units as those remaining rentals. You need to deduct the operating expenses from these units.
You'll find that in your scenario where 50% of units remain as rentals that the NOI (rent less expenses) doesn't value to anywhere near your $2.2 bln. In fact, it's probably less than $500mm.
This is one of the major concerns for the 'conversion' argument. It makes sense for tenants paying alot in rent to convert. It makes sense for tenants paying less in rent to remain tenants. The reason is simple: the operating expenses (which include taxes) runs more than $1,000 per month per unit. Add to that the cost of mortgage (in converting) expense.
As an example, if you currently pay $1,800 per month in rent and operating expenses are $1,000 per month, the overage is $800 which is available to service debt. At 4.5%, 30 yr mortgage, you can afford a $155,000 unit. Forget about the financial benefits of home ownership because the analysis is not even close.
That's why its my expectation that the next owner will keep this as rental. At least through the sunset of the J-51 (June 2020). At that time, all of the Roberts apartments revert to MR. Additionally, more long-term tenanted apartment will be improved (with increases in rents).
Only other outcome is the 'scorched earth' policy. New owner comes in and demolishes the entire community, then builds high end luxury community (with the 'here's your carrot 20% of units for affordable tenants') And guess where those units will be located? 14th and D, separate entrance, separate amenities.
peter cooper tenants - the young ones under 4 feet: Since the parents have no manners or class and refuse to tell kids t stop running back and forth throughout the apartment SINCE THERE ARE FUCKING people living under them I WILL POST HERE AND IN THE HALLWAYS,STOP running S TOP FUCKING RUNNING
assholes.
2: 09. we don't understand anything you're saying.
Post your review at Yelp with a link to
the
STR blog. hope that' s ok str. Potential residents should know the abuse.
How convenient the repair men speak broken or barely any english.
i can't understand what they're saying. we can't communicate.
no offense to the men, but i'm getting nowhere with issues.
2:25...a couple of things.
First, this talk about demolishing buildings. In order for this to happen, some type of eviction plan would have to be selected and approved by the AG. Not likely at all.
Second, I'm not sure you get my point about the costs which is to show that a developer can offer the apartments to tenants at very reasonable insider prices and still make a killing.
My point to the whole community is that if a developer bids high, charges very high insider prices and the community reacts and starts demonstrating (which is what developers fear most), then the develop has no standing in staying he had to bid so high that he has to charge high insider prices. This would be baloney. Juggle the figures around any way you like. You'll see that no matter what reasonable scenario you run, the developer makes a killing.
I suggest you go online and do a search on trulia and see what co-ops and condos are going for. Check a 2BR/1BA between 925 to 1025 sq ft in Kips Bay, Stuy town, Gramercy and East Village. You'll see that 900K as an average is pretty fair.
A quick comment to those who state that RS is responsible for the place still remaining. It is actually just the OPPOSITE. It is the MR tenants who are paying the bills. Thank God that there are enough of them. If there were not, the place would get ZERO maintenance. The RS tenants are not even paying their basic cost.
8:10 - you are confused. "scorched earth" requires no eviction plan, no AG paperwork since there is no conversion. It's an owner that is leveling the entire community. To be certain, the plan would cause a huge uproar politically, but there are scumbag developers in NYC who have done worse.
As for price/sf, you have to account for the very high maintenance/tax expense of STPCV, the age of the stock, no doormen, aging infrastructure that will need replacement, the fact that there are 11,000 very similar units of varying size (avg. person lives in a home for 7 years so think about how many units are on the market at any one time)which all affect price/resale value. I'm sorry to disagree but my apartment is not worth $1,200 per square foot today or in the near-term.
12:15 thx for the NYTimes article.
The DHCR should not have allowed the TA to discriminate against RS tenants on mci charges that we all use equally.
I am market rate and I think the TA is wrong to discriminate against the rent stabilized with these mci negotiations.
It is wrong to discriminate against anyone!
The mci negotiations are reprehensible.
This must be changed to be fair and equally applied to all of us.
Discrimination does not belong in our community.
I will never rally behind anyone who practices discrimination.
Fix this!
>>It is the MR tenants who are paying the bills. Thank God that there are enough of them. If there were not, the place would get ZERO maintenance. The RS tenants are not even paying their basic cost.<<
Again and again: This place was running at a profit, with the grounds and buildings being maintained splendidly (much better than now) before even one MR tenant was in ST/PCV.
CWCapital has been able to raise rents on some units. Income at Stuyvesant Town was $177.5 million in 2013, up from $123 million in 2010.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-19/fortress-circling-nyc-s-stuyvesant-town-draws-sale-closer.html
PEOPLE REALLY NEED TO HAVE THEIR APARTMENTS AUDITED. A $50+MILLION INCREASE DONE LEGALLY IN RENT ROLL IN 3 YEARS IS HIGHLY UNBELIEVABLE.
9:04 STR - So True.
Dear 116a
No one forced you to live here.
It was your choice (I suspect).
Echoing STR, real estate trades on its net operating income. When rational and ethical investors acquire real estate, they look at the income of the asset as the main focus of valuation. Sure, they think about how they can manage it better, make more money. But their premise is not to fuck every single tenant, every single day.
Tishman bought this asset and in their own investment literature, literature sent to the lenders, they essentially said they were going to do everything they could to raise as many rents as possible as quickly as possible.
Now we have a fair number of marker-rate (or near marker-rate) tenants here (of which I am one). And many of them feel that they are covering the expenses to run this place. That is just dead wrong. If anything, we're covering the over-inflated cost of debt that was placed on this asset due to the greedy business plan of a piece of crap real estate investment company.
I can't believe that some market rate tenants are not paying these MCI'S and the rest of us will be paying for them FOREVER!!! I don't give a damm if they are paying more rent. It is not fair! How can they get away with this? It should be for EVERYONE!!! TALK ABOUT DISCRIMINATION!! This place's rent roll is soo screwed up!!!
http://www.masseyknakal.com/articles/634566120220560681.pdf
link to Demolition - non renewal of rent stabilized buildings.
>>If anything, we're covering the over-inflated cost of debt that was placed on this asset due to the greedy business plan of a piece of crap real estate investment company.<<
That's it.
I can't believe that some market rate tenants are not paying these MCI'S and the rest of us will be paying for them FOREVER!!! I don't give a damm if they are paying more rent. It is not fair! How can they get away with this? It should be for EVERYONE!!! TALK ABOUT DISCRIMINATION!! This place's rent roll is soo screwed up!!!
Simple explanation, the TA spoke for you and said it was OK.
Thanks to 9:49. Very informative.
So to demolish: "The owner must first get permission from
the DHCR (Division of Housing and Community Renewal) before commencing a legal proceeding to
recover the unit. As part of the application, the property owner must include the approved plans for any future development, and proof of their financial ability to complete the project." There's no way a plan like this will get approved in the near future. No way.
7:55...I trust you have gone on to trulia and looked up the prices and you've seen that prices range up to 1.5M. By you're reckoning half the co-ops in the city wouldn't be viable because of their age and maintenance costs. Although an independent engineer's report would be very helpful. Many of the co-ops and condos in the east village don't have doormen. Not a show stopper. But the big factors you're overlooking are the playgrounds and grounds. There is nothing like this in all of Manhattan. And in spite of the grumblings about the landscaping, taken from the point of view of a young family living in other parts of Manhattan surrounded by asphalt and cement, STPVC with its grounds, playgrounds, amenities, birds and squirrels would be quite attractive to young families. Seems to me that several who post here often try to put the likelihood of a conversion at a distance for whatever reasons. Every indication is that this will happen and that STPVC is indeed an attractive place to live. There will be just one open question: affordability.
“Roberts” tenants wound up getting the higher reductions or full eliminations of the monthly payments because, said Collins, “they’re already paying very high rents.”
This quote was in the Real Estate newsletter called Town & Village that pretends it is a newspaper. I refuse to post a link to their newsletter and perpetuate their deceit to readers.
>>It is the MR tenants who are paying the bills. Thank God that there are enough of them. If there were not, the place would get ZERO maintenance. The RS tenants are not even paying their basic cost.<<
For the fucking one hundred gazillionth time, EVERY apartment in PCVST is currently under the NYS RS law. In 2020, unless our NYS Government does something, all of the Roberts apartments (at least 4K plus) lose their RS status. So much for your premise if you can’t even get the basic facts of PCVST straight.
Hey 9:44 AM
People in high rent apts don't have to pay the MCI because, as the Collins explained at the meeting, legal rents on those units are already over market rate, so attaching an additional MCI rent increase to them is pointless. And if the ALL CAPS AND !!! are intended to suggest to us that this has driven you to frothing at the mouth cranky/looney, congrats, you've succeeded.
Just be glad that your neighbors in those insanely high rent apts don't take that same attitude towards you and your lower rent.
The Roberts Settlement was negotiated to wrongfully and substantially increase rents on those apartments mid-lease and otherwise ----- and to cover up the big increase on the Roberts apartments the MCI was negotiated to wrongfully and forever increase the Rent Stabilized apartments.
These people obviously are not protecting or representing tenants.
This place is ruined forever.
8:27 AM
The MCIs weren't applied to legal rents on high rental apts because the landlord knows those rents are already more than the market will bear.
The only reason I went to the TA MCI meeting was to see the fireworks during the Q and A. Imagine my surprise when there were no fireworks. None of you anti-MCI deal firebrands bothered to show up. Maybe your hair's only on fire on blogs and you're timid as mice when you're not online. Whatever. I can't wait to read the excuses as to why that was. Much easier to be a keyboard kommando, isn't it?
10:43 The purpose of mci charges is to recover costs of the major capital improvement.
The purpose of mci charges is not to get apartments to and above market rate - although the TA and CW both use it that way.
That is not the intended purpose of mci charges.
The TA and CW are both wrong in their misuse of the mci's.
Oh 11:23 you seem to be under the impression that the TA MCI meeting was the best forum for fighting the MCI mess or that all who oppose must use the TA forums to communicate opposition.
Newsflash
You do not get to control the message!
You do not control where, when, how, we Americans use our voices.
TA forums are not productive and fireworks during a TA Q and A being covered by a real estate newsletter is energy wasted.
At least that is why we didn't bother. You are not entitled to our time in-person.
Just what do you think a fireworks show at a TA MCI meeting would accomplish?
Putting on shows and posturing at podiums will result in nothing.
It won't save our homes and save our community.
Everyone keep doing everything exactly as you are to get the word out and get all voices heard and all different points of view out there.
There is something fundamentally wrong and unjust with how a group of tenants were singled out to pay more for Major Capital Improvements. Something isn't right here.
There is no rule saying disagreements must be addressed at TA meetings only. This is not kindergarten. Green post cards and only speaking at TA deemed times and places is not how the world works. This TA needs to get inline with the Tenants and not the other way around. And the local pols would do well to remember they serve the people. They don't rule the people. They serve the people.
7:55 - There is no likelihood that conversion will happen. Why post that - total bs.
12:15 thx for the NYTimes article.
The DHCR should not have allowed the TA to discriminate against RS tenants on mci charges that we all use equally.
I am market rate and I think the TA is wrong to discriminate against the rent stabilized with these mci negotiations.
It is wrong to discriminate against anyone!
The mci negotiations are reprehensible.
This must be changed to be fair and equally applied to all of us.
Discrimination does not belong in our community.
I will never rally behind anyone who practices discrimination.
Fix this!
I agree completely, especially as a long term R/S tenant. I really can't believe that it's even legal. Sold down the river by the TA.
I think that once the conversion happens things will get better. Not perfect, but better. If the price is right I will buy my unit.
5:32 PM: YOU SAID IT!!! NOW IF ONLY ALL PERTINENT PARTIES WOULD KEEP YOUR WORDS AND SENTIMENTS IN MIND!
FYI, you can't disagree with the TA in any of their forums because they absolutely censor. They delete "troublemakers" at their whim. They control the message. Period!
I don't have a problem with MR tenants not getting slammed with the MCIs. They are paying enough as it is.
Of course, I do have a problem with anyone paying the MCIs.
1:10 PM
At the very first TA meeting I ever went to, I was a kid at that point, then TA attorney Jack Lester explained that the newly passed MCI law, with permanent increases attached to the base rent, was nothing more than an end run around the rent stabilization laws. Nothing has changed since then.
1:19 PM
What's this "we" shit? Did you take a poll too of all the anti-MCI firebrands on why they passed on a golden opportunity to let Collins and the TA have it at a public forum? Claiming to speak for anyone but yourself on a blog is arrogant and your excuse is sad.
And if anyone on this blog is trying to control the message, it's you.
The MCI'S benefit EVERYONE in my building. Not just me!!!!!!!!
I don's care HOW much rent ONE pays. It's still not fair that I am paying for YOUR resurfacing, YOUR water tanks, YOUR doors, YOUR tv security system, YOUR storage cards, YOUR video command center, YOUR video intercoms, AND YOU ARE NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! End of story. And if can's understand this, then too bad.
"The DHCR should not have allowed the TA to discriminate against RS tenants on mci charges that we all use equally.
I am market rate and I think the TA is wrong to discriminate against the rent stabilized with these mci negotiations."
First, we're all RS, even you, although some rents are at market rate.
Second, no one was discriminated against. Long-term tenants got an additional 5% off plus the retroactive waived. That saved a lot of money because if the retroactive hadn't been waived, people would have seen their rents go up by as much as $60 a month (maybe even more) until the retroactive was paid off. I hope you realize that the rent could have gone up by 6% of what the rent was when the MCIs were filed (until the retroactive was paid off, which could be years).
People paying rents that are at market rate (many of which are preferential, or lower than the legal rent) also got the retroactive amounts waived. Some of those costs were incurred before some of these tenants even moved in (MCIs filed in 2009). Management has likely figured the cost of the MCIs into those rents already.
If you want to truly understand the settlement, don't just compare the percentages for each category. Look at the total picture. Perfect deal for tenants? Of course not, and management got something it really wanted--getting the rent roll up. The law sucks, and that's the fight we have gear up for.
Management pinning tenants against each other. and you're all falling for it. Sad, true.
And, fwiw, what does this statement below even mean???
Some of those costs were incurred before some of these tenants even moved in
8:19 a m
"we" is my wife and me
WE
The TA should have waited a longer to settle. We had them where we wanted them. Now, they are not tied up with this, and can go forward with a sale. This is exactly what they wanted, and got it. I would have waited a little longer to possibly get a better deal. You have to push things to it's limit, and I don't think the TA reached that point. Doesn't matter anyway, because we wouldn't have gotten this far, to a decent deal, by submitting individual PARS. So, we now have to move on whether we like it or not.
10:18 that is not accurate.
You said
"Perfect deal for tenants? Of course not, and management got something it really wanted--getting the rent roll up."
You are right it is a bad deal for tenants.
But it isn't "management" who got what they wanted.
It is the Buyers and Sellers who got what they wanted. The buyers and the sellers both want the rent roll up. Only buyers and sellers were at the negotiation.
The TA willing discriminated against long term tenants and some of them still pay dues. Who's the fool, the TA or those punked by the TA who are paying for the opportunity to get screwed? As a non member I would say it's the members getting hosed but that's just my opinion.
Another beautiful tree cut down for no apparent reason today. I hate these fucking people so much.
Not sure why some say there will be no conversion in favor of the developer taking over the land. Meaning, I suppose, new buildings. Let's take a look at this given the size of STPCV. First, there is the cost to buy this place. Somewhere between 3.4B and 4.7B. Then tear everything down. (Wouldn't make sense to create an eclectic eye sore by leaving up the current buildings and putting up others on the open spaces.) Cost of tearing everything down? 1B? Who knows? There there will some EPA remediation needed given that the place was built on the old manufactured gasworks and there are still problems today without disrupting the soil. Then, there is the cost of putting up the new buildings. So what are we talking about when all is said & done. Close to $10B before a nickel in profit has been made. Not to mention the political firestorm and all the community protest and disruption that would occur. As opposed to a conversion or an upscale rental plan both of which have far fewer costs and problems. No, it's either a conversion or more Tishman-Speyer nonsense. And some type of sale definitely will occur. CW is mandated to do that as a part of Tishman-Speyer settlement.
This place will never rest. All the happiness is GONE! And nothing good to look forward to. And so true, tenants pinning against one another. NOBODY CARES ABOUT ANYONE, ANYMORE!!!!!!!!! HORRIBLE!!!!!!!!!
12:51PM - A lot of people share the same sentiment.
I hope the new management gets rid of all these damm dogs and puts back up the chains. For the life of me, I do not understand how a dog owner will just stand there and let their dog constantly bark, continuously, and do nothing but observe his "cute" behavior, which no one else in the surrounding area wants to hear, the sound echoing off every building. AND, I have not even lived here for a long time and am totally fed up with this place.
I'm sure that Cw approached the MCI talks with, 'well, if you don't protest too much, we'll consider selling you our property'...
Lmao.
Instead of going to the TA meeting and yelling and screaming (since that would accomplish nothing) I contacted the DHCR and told them that I felt that they should shelve this deal as it is discriminatory and as such could result in a class action lawsuit against the state, the TA and CW Capitol. They transferred me to Commissioner Towns office and I explained the discrimination and informed the commissioners assistant that I didn't think that the state would favor discrimination. She responded that they don't but that the TA and it's attorneys agreed to it. I informed her that the TA represents a small fraction of the apartments in PCVST and she was very apologetic and took my name and phone and is having the Asst commissioner of the rental division call me.
Anyone who feels that this deal stinks should call the DHCR and charge them with discrimination and ask them to scuttle the deal based on it. WE can get this discrimination reversed or WE could go ahead and file a class action suit.
Community protest? you're joking right? WE don't protest, we lay down and let them roll all over us. Again and again. Protest my ass.
Good for you, 3:01 pm. What exactly did you say to the DHCR? I'm not sure if I have all the facts and don't want to make a fool of myself. I just think that the TA is full of shit and is not representing all of the tenants, especially those who actually pay their annual dues and attend their meetings!
For the love of pete, there is no audit form from DHCR. DO YOU MEAN RA 89 FORM FAIR MARKET APPEAL OR Rent overcharge FORM?
LINK IT FOR TENANTS. Don't just type unhelpful stuff.
MR tenant here, paying over 3500 for a one br. I'm being charged not only for a/c units but for Mci. Who is claiming we're not being charged? ???????????????????
There is no discrimination.
If legal rent is higher than market rent, the MCI's are priced in the market rent already. There is no specific line on the rent statement that is needed for that.
I am surprised that many people still do not get that. Market rate tenants were paying those MCI's all along!
3:01...I can see why people who moved in after the MCIs were done got off the hook. If I understand correctly, the MCIs should have been included in their rent & they shouldn't have to pay 2x. But I can't see any reason why everyone didn't get the same deal. So I agree with you, but I have gotten in touch with Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae directly along with the city's DoB and DoS and have gotten almost zero response and zero satisfaction. The sad fact is that unless your councilman is making your cause his cause, the likelihood of breaking through is pretty small.
New tenants be warned:
2 days b4 signing, they tell you about additional fees they are now adding to leases. Too late to find another place now ain't it???
What a bunch of thieves.
I told the DHCR that the TA fraudulently held themselves out as able to negotiate for all and that the deal was discriminatory. I didn't get into a lot of detail. I just got a call back by another assistant who wanted more information. I explained my position including pointing out the fact that the TA should be recused from negotiating anything for tenants of PCVST as they are only interested in buying and that there is a clear conflict of interest here. He also tried to persuade me to believe that there was no discrimination since the TA agreed to it. I countered that if the TA agreed that all white people pay less than black people would the DHCR be OK with that. Instant change of tone and a very serious I will let the Commissioner know and he will get back to you.
"New tenants be warned:
2 days b4 signing, they tell you about additional fees they are now adding to leases. Too late to find another place now ain't it???
What a bunch of thieves."
Please put that on YELP and Google Reviews.
".... The sad fact is that unless your councilman is making your cause his cause, the likelihood of breaking through is pretty small."
Unfortunately, our councilman is working for the cause of Brookfield and his former law firm and his RE cronies. He does NOT have our interests at heart.
Um, not a MR tenant, but you know they pay the mdi in their overpriced overcharged apartments, right? I don't.
WOW.
4:51 pm - why don't you mention about all the thousands of overcharged and inflated prices on all the apartments here ---
renovated- bogus- jack up the RENT. Still getting that J51 discount paying no tax CWC? Nice gig.
Once again, where is this AUDIT form you speak of ?
Called DHCR, wrote email to DHCR there is no such form. What is the form number?
As much as I love your "hutzpa",( I am not even Jewish) May 20, 2014 at 3:01 PM.,
unfortunately, "the beat goes on". Someone out there must have some kind of contact, "in", to help us out. It is outrageous the difference in rents around here. Ludicrous.Playing games with peoples lives. Not right.
The rent roll around here is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
messed up.!!!!!!!!!!!
3:01 PM: I don't understand what the discrimination is that you keep talking about. Be specific.
Come on.....
Audit/Investigatory
The Audit/Investigatory Unit determines which entities to audit and investigate through research, constituent outreach, and risk assessments. The unit conducts comprehensive audits, investigations, and inspections to detect potential illegality, misrepresentations, and fraud.
TPU Major Initiatives
Rent Registration Initiative
Since 2009, thousands of units registered with HCR disappeared from the rent registration logs without notice or explanation. The TPU took a proactive outreach in 2012, notifying owners who have failed to register their units since 2009 and requiring them to either re-register or provide an explanation. As a result, more than 25,000 rent-regulated apartments have been re-registered and returned to Rent Stabilization.
Individual Apartment Improvements Audits
In 2012 The TPU launched the first ever audits of owners who filed Individual Apartment Improvement (IAI) increases significantly raising the rent upon vacancy within the last two years. In addition, letters were issued to owners who had provided inadequate responses to TPU’s initial audit and request, and—for the first time—owners who failed to respond were served with subpoenas for compliance. As a result, owner groups have openly acknowledged a heightened level of scrutiny of their business practices and have urged their members to update their business practices accordingly. Further, audited owners have, for the first time, entered into settlement agreements with the TPU agreeing to return money to tenants for overcharges, revise tenant leases and re-register tenant apartments with HCR under the current rents.
These actions, combined with Governor Cuomo’s June 2011 signing of the State’s strongest rent laws since 1974, has not only brought stability to our rental housing stock, but has significantly stemmed the tide of loss of rent-regulated apartments in New York State.
Last updated on 10/17/13
About the Tenant Protection Unit (TPU)
In 2011, under the leadership of Governor Andrew M. Cuomo, New York State passed the greatest expansion of rent regulations in 40 years and created a new Tenant Protection Unit (TPU). The TPU works proactively to:
Protect the rights of rent regulated tenants and provide information to both tenants and owners
Increase compliance with and enforce rent regulation laws
Detect landlords’ fraudulent acts and non-compliance with housing laws
To learn more about TPU’s history and timeline: Click here.
The TPU is comprised of four units:
Audit/Investigatory
Legal
Forensic Analysis
Intergovernmental Affairs
TPU Major Initiatives
Rent Registration Initiative
Individual Apartment Improvements Audits
http://www.nyshcr.org/Rent/TenantProtectionUnit/
Soon NYC will become Emerald City and no one but the rich will be living here. I see it happening right before my eyes, and our "top"
elected could care less about the hard working people that make this city run. Think all these rich people would be doing the jobs me and you do?
The intercom in my building doesn't work and they don't fix it. Can we get the MCI for that crap rolled back?
10:22 - All BS. There's no form. Call and ask and they leave you on hold - transfer you - they don't understand. Btdt.
TELL THE tenants what 'form' you're referring to.
remember the tax to nyc and nys on all these million dollar - multi million dollar units here in Manhattan…
except if you have a tax concession as does pcvst -
Lmao
What a scam.
12:00 i dont know what you are asking other people to do for you. but i have been successful in getting rent information from dhcr. try there again. and maybe ask a different question. because i read the entire blog and no one said anything about a magic form. i am sure you can figure it out yourself for whatever your needs are but dhcr worked for me.
I'm not the original poster of that, but i agree that there is no form for a person wanting to know how the rent got to be the rent.
There is NO audit form if you kwim? That poster did not ask. I did.
Of course it will be a rental : how else will they put up a Walgreens / CMB on the oval?
Has anyone posted this link? It looks pretty helpful to me:
http://www.nyshcr.org/Rent/tenantresources.htm
Let me try to make that a clickable link:
Tenant Protection Rent Regulated Units
5 :31 pm just what info did you get from the dhcr and what was your outcome?
Also, did you visit or write or phone? thank you.
6:32 am
There is no formula. I got my apartment information from DHCR too. As I sort through my information from DHCR I am figuring it out for myself.
Just get all your information and figure it out for yourself too. All the apartments are different. So don't copy me or the person you are trying to figure out how they got their information or anyone. We are unique, our apartment charges are unique, with unique situations.
Looking at what someone elses matter is won't help you at all.
11: 57 yes, everyone knows the web address and the site for stabilized housing.
I think what prior poster was saying , and i too have to agree now that I checked, there is no form to file for an audit.
There is no audit form . Never has been, never will be. Someone posted this and having had exp with the dhcr, i can tell you there is not. Stop posting that there is.
I do not know who keeps posting that people here should challenge their rents and the renovations. There is a formula and there is no way you can prove that tS or CW did not spend $400000 renovating or $20,000.
You'd be wasting your time, sorry to say, asking the department of housing to help you. They are unhelpful and i truly believe no one here has successfully had their rent reduced. No One.
10:25 that is NOT true.
A person on this blog comment section or a few people are trying to stop tenants from getting overcharges fixed.
They are also asking tenants who post their positive experiences on getting rent information on apartments to give details on their results so they can figure out who the tenants are who are trying to help the other tenants.
Someone on this blog is trying to stop tenants from correcting overcharges and from helping other tenants.
To the tenants trying to help everyone thank you. Please don't stop helping us.
10:25 AM
I'm not sure why suggestions to contact the TPU about possible landlord fraud regarding landlord renovations has your hair on fire. It's what they do.
From the WSJ
Tenant Rights in Focus
Cuomo-Formed Unit Takes an Aggressive Approach That Has Owners Crying Foul
BY: Josh Barbanel
Oct 20, 2013
"...In its first year, the Tenant Protection Unit mainly conducted audits, looking at landlords who failed to file registration forms. It also asked landlords to document their spending on vacant-apartment improvements. In the past, landlords had to provide such documents only when a tenant filed an objection. The result, the unit said in a June news release, was to add back 20,000 apartments in 2,000 buildings to the rent-stabilized rolls..."
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303680404579143411786780866
If the TPU is so ineffective, why have landlords gone to court to have the actions of the TPU declared "invalid and unenforceable?" And why is the Senate GOP hell-bent on keeping the TPU underfunded?
I say that if someone thinks the landlord falsely inflated renovation costs so as to be able to jack up rent on his/her apt, go for it. Contact the TPU. If you're not happy with how it goes, contact the governor about it, the TPU is his initiative. And contact our 2 state reps, Sen Brad Hoylman and Assemblyman Brian Kavanagh.
Meanwhile, here are 2 articles on the TPU from the Met Council on housing:
"...The TPU has been instrumental in going after bad landlords, and says it has returned more than 28,000 apartments that were illegally deregulated to rent stabilization...."
http://metcouncilonhousing.org/news_and_issues/tenant_newspaper/2014/may/tenant_protection_unit_helping_some_but_understaffed
And
...The unit, proposed in December, would be part of the state Homes and Community Renewal department’s Office of Rent Administration. Tenant advocates say it reflects a growing sense that inadequate enforcement of the rent regulation laws is a key enabler of escalating rents. Last year, a survey by Make the Road New York found that half the apartments it looked at had illegally high rents—and that was among apartments that were still rent-stabilized...
Two main issues are that landlords have not registered the rents for 300,000 apartments—more than a quarter of the units that are supposedly regulated—and that there is virtually no enforcement against fraudulent apartment-renovation increases.
“Lack of enforcement has been a problem ever since the law was enacted,” says longtime activist Michael McKee. From 1969 to 1984, he notes, the state delegated enforcement to the Rent Stabilization Association—the landlord organization...
That lack of enforcement is a powerful incentive for owners “to commit fraud,” says Ellen Davidson of the Legal Aid Society. For example, she says, there is “absolutely no oversight” of rent increases based on individual-apartment improvements, for which landlords can raise the monthly rent by 1/40 or 1/60 of what they say they spent.
...Currently...the agency will not investigate a possible overcharge unless the tenant complains about it—and “most tenants don’t know that HCR exists or what their rights are.”
Though the Cuomo administration has been secretive about its plans for the TPU, Klein says, there are indications the unit will follow one recommendation from tenant groups: Instead of waiting to receive tenant complaints, it will investigate rent increases in the entire building if an illegal overcharge is found in one apartment...
http://metcouncilonhousing.org/news_and_issues/tenant_newspaper/2012/february/will_new_state_unit_help_protect_tenants_not_without_resources
Anony 11.57 PM. Thanks for posting that specific DHCR link. There is enough information, FAQs, PDFs, etc., there for everyone to begin the process to see if they were overcharged. As usual, since the DHCR is real estate friendly, this will require a lot of work to go into the weeds for everyone's individual apartment situation.
Again, it is going to take some time and some skill but this is something we can all do on an individual basis. Here is the DHCR link to all of the tenant forms:
http://www.nyshcr.org/Forms/Rent/#tenant
Another thing we can do on an individual basis is to support the candidates (see link below) of John Liu and Ollie Koppell to drive out 2 of the gang of 5 DINOS who obstruct rent regulation reform
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/19/1300353/-Another-renegade-New-York-Dem-will-reportedly-earn-a-challenge-from-ex-NYC-Comptroller-John-Liu
I bet 85% of the tenants here have never heard of a TPU. No one is saying to stop helping tenants, I'm saying GL, you will be sent in circles and circles as DHCR is not helpful Whoever said they were is wrong and it's fake. They are on the side of landlords.
And if there's an effective TPU, why doesn't anyone know about it ? Why hasn't our TA been using them as a source for all the wrong doings here? WE all know it's happening to all the tenants, old and new.
You have a lousy attitude, 2:10 pm.
The TPU was set up at the behest of Tenants Rights groups to stop landlord fraud. If I were the tenant in question, I would contact the office of either one of our state representatives, Assemblyman Brian Kavanagh or State Sen Brad Hoylman to have them walk me through the process of requesting an audit from the TPU.
2:10 That is the question of the day.
"And if there's an effective TPU, why doesn't anyone know about it ? Why hasn't our TA been using them as a source for all the wrong doings here? WE all know it's happening to all the tenants, old and new."
Obviously this Tenant Association is not fulfilling this basic function of a TA. Another fail.
Every tenant must be informed of and guided on how to use tools as a TPU and DHCR. Any tool is is ineffective if it is not used right. You can't use a wrench to do the job of a hammer.
As a NYC tenant, how to use these resources as effective tools and get out of them what you want and address it if you are not getting what you need from these resources is the fundamental job of the Tenant Association to provide to the Tenants.
So why don't 85% of Tenants know about TPU and DHCR - because the Tenant Association is not doing its job even on the most basic level.
8:53 , no actually sounds like you have a lousy attitude and it's people like you that give no help, only discouragement to tenants here.
IF you want to be helpful to the poster and others here, type constructive info. YOu sound old and bitter and no one listens to you if you preach about their attitudes. Or were you raised to attack instead of help?
Is there eany mention of the Tpu on the ta website? no. hmmmmm
Woa on the Yelp removals.
Who is removing the posts?
Post a Comment