Comment Policy

All comments to posts have to await approval. Please be aware that, depending on when I'm logged onto the internet, it may take me hours, even longer, to moderate comments, so if they don't turn up in a speedy fashion, they are still in the queue. Comments that cross a line I'm not comfortable with will not get approved.

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.

Sunday, June 22, 2014

CW Playing Hardball, Why Aren't We?

Everywhere you look, you see CW screwing with tenants, both RS and MR, any way they can. The Roberts settlement and payouts, the MCIs, and undoubtedly more MCIs on the way (the new Public Safety office, the new management office, more walkway repaving to be done, etc.).

Today there was a comment on the TA Facebook page about someone overhearing at least two rental agents advising prospective renters to use Oval Concierge because their packages would get left in the lobby and, presumably, possibly stolen.

Just think: We are paying an MCI for an award-winning security system with over a thousand cameras, including cameras in lobbies, and yet the crime of packages being stolen from the lobby cannot be solved by our crack Public Safety department.  But...you can have your packages delivered to Oval Concierge--at a price, of course.

We have, however, right before us, a potential legal problem for CW, or any landlord, that could shatter the normal way things are run around here. I've noted this problem in the past and am surprised that the TA seems not to have considered it, though with the lack of transparency in that organization, it is possible they have considered it, but aren't telling us their thoughts on the matter.

I'm speaking of the filings to the DOB regarding partition additions, like the one below. (Click on graphic to make larger.)



As one STR reader wrote me:

"The physical modifications to the apartments should have been fought with a restraining order and should now be fought in just the same way. The tenants have all of the ammunition they need. Management submitted false building permits, or made false statements to the building department. A lawsuit to reverse the modifications would stop the current construction and would probably win."

Has the TA looked into these filings? If so, what's been the response from their lawyers? It is inconceivable to me that we can't fight these filings as falsely stating that there is "no change in use, egress or occupancy" with the addition of partitions in an apartment, partitions that can then change a one-bedroom apartment to a two-bedroom, or a two-bedroom to a three bedroom!

When I first addressed this concern, probably years ago, I suspected that the TA didn't want to get involved in any lawsuit because it would put the sale of this complex (to tenants, the TA hoped) in a holding pattern that could extend for years.

But CW is not our friend. Nor was Tishman-Speyer. We have to fight everything here, even such minor things like the "For Residents and Their Guests" enforcement at Oval Cafe and the greenmarket. Why is the TA not mandating that zoning rules for both the cafe and greenmarket be enforced?

And why is there no fight against putting more than three unrelated individuals into an apartment, something against rental law in NYC?

It amazes me at times, and dispirits me, that there's just zero "take-no-prisoners" attitude regarding the battles that we should be engaging in.

Meanwhile, week after week, management continues to find any justification to shaft tenants and make them pay more for "affordable housing." In case you haven't noticed it, management is winning; we are losing.

190 comments:

Anonymous said...

We just get shot down. Over and over. I'm so beat up here.

Anonymous said...

Lots of chatter lately about more Mci about to hit us.

I'm just wondering, is everyone getting these or just 50% of us?

Anonymous said...

I reported my neighbors apartment to the DOB which was partitioned by students. The DOB never did anything. This is a matter for Garodnick. The DOB will respond when a councilman inquiry is filed.

Hippo said...

The only way to fight CW Cap is to challenge the validity of their applications for partitions.
They were CLEARLY FRAUDULENT.
Let's see if Danny Boy Garodnick,
Brad Hoylmann, Brian Kavanaugh and the other pols pressure the Department of Buildings to review the approvals. I'll believe it when I see it cynic that I am. I sure hope I am wrong!
As far as MR subsidizing the RS tenants' rent, that is nonsense. What they are subsidizing is the idiot, greedy bondholders who took a bath with their insane investment. As we used to say in Brooklyn, "tough nuggies".

Anonymous said...

Didn't the City Council approve / push through the NYU deal? They had meetings on it. They were / are a part of the deal. Since the DOB is not doing its job maybe it is a matter for the New Fire Commissioner. We don't know how high up the political involvement is on this shady deal but the Fire Commissioner has a moral obligation as well as legal one. Not sure the moral obligation or morality of an NYC DOB but with the state of NYC Buildings and infrastructure I am not surprised they did nothing. Outrageous shame on them. 3000 illegal apartments with change in occupancy and use is a serious matter.

Anonymous said...

Goodie: 3544 a mnth for a one bedroom here + another few Mci. Such a deal.

Anonymous said...

I'd suggest the work of installing even 'temporary' partitions is a change of use (added BR) AND occupancy (added non-related adult as suggested by marketing material and use of units by universities- see university marketing material as well). This would require a Type-I permit (not Type-II).

The 'temporary' really isn't temporary because it affects the occupancy immediately. To turn the point on CW, they consistently require access to apartments to check for 'walls', stating they wish to comply with DOB requirements.

Even beginning a procedural claim against CW would question the validity of the rent roll. I'm with you, throw as many lawsuits at CW as possible.

There are, what, 5,000 MR apartments? 60% are 'converted'? $800 per month increase in the value of each apartment for that 'bedroom'? 12 months per lease. Do the math and then divide it by the cap rate an investor is willing to pay for this place. $500mm+ in value.

(5,000*60%*800*12/5%=$576,000,000)


Anonymous said...

To June 22, 2014 at 8:26 PM
Specifically, what MCIS's are you talking about? Are these the NEW or are these the OLD ones which were negotiated? And what chatter are you hearing about?

Anonymous said...

Nothing like being woken up this morning by a stupid dog owner letting their little "fido" bark up a storm and waking me up at 6:45am . ALOT of retarded people living here. It used to be soo quiet here.

Anonymous said...

How about a DOB 'means of egress' audit as well? New bedrooms increase occupancy or as DOB calls it 'occupant load'. The original buildings were designed to carry a specific load (not including elevators). Have the additional 'rooms' increased the egress load beyond the safety parameters?

Also, posting of allowable occupant load must be posted "in a conspicuous place near the main exit or exit access doorway". I've never noticed one but I'll look today.

btw... don't allow anyone to enter buildings with you unless they have a keycard. There may be roommates, not on the lease (so they have no keycard), attempting to skirt the CW lease and laws of the State of New York.

Anonymous said...

STR:How can there be more MCI's for walkways when according TO FACT SHEET #33 useful life schedule states the years estimated life for replacing items or equipment such as courtyards/walkways/diveways for cement and asphalt is 15 and 10 years respectively? I think you need to get your facts straight without alarming everyone.

Anonymous said...

I hate living here!

Anonymous said...

10:39 A councilman inquiry will probably not be pursued since the massive NYU deal subsidizing rents on thousands of apartments totaling anywhere between 25 - 40% of the property could not have happened without Council involvement in the brokering of it. If an inquiry happens it will be a fake show just like Dan's letter to MaCarthur for the picture of the new office building when the photo was released to resdients on STR's blog and Dan and the TA asked STR to remove it so they could pretend to announce the photo as a result of Dan's letter. Remember when that happened!? We all saw in the meetings for the new management building just how closely the DOB is working with the City Council on the new buildings and tearing down the trees and open space.

The City Council is neck deep in the stench since 2010. How far has yet to be fully seen.

What and how big was the City Council's role in:

The brokering of the NYU deal.

The undoing of the Robert's victory judgement with the horrendous settlement terms which included evictions, unheard of mid-lease increases, and underpayments which don't come close to making residents whole, no penalty, fines, criminal indictments for ripping the City off on tax breaks while ripping the people off with illegal rent increases, etc.

The commercializing of the Oval?

The slipping-through of the DOB approval of the new building for management offices over the Christmas holiday after it was disapproved?

The absence of Rent Roll audit which was proven in court to be subject to illegal acts but is not monitored or checked despite resident outcries?

The mci deal brokered to increase the Rent Roll. And I agree with earlier commentators it is discriminatory.

Just how involved is the City Council, Dan, then-Speaker Quinn, then-Mayor Bloomberg, candidate for re-election-Governor Cuomo - in these dealings that couldn't go through without the City Council hands in it?



Anonymous said...

Anyone else believe the DOB guy in the meetings for the new building for the offices was checking his phone as someone(s) was feeding him legally-approved answers and things to say?

Anonymous said...

Was this plan by Politicians, friends of Robbie Speyer as we know from the photos run the gamut from the lowest man on the totem pole Dan to Cuomo and all in between former and current politicians, the plan to help Robbie and Jerry evade lawsuits from losing other people's money with promises that all the debts would be paid off by carrying out the Tishman plan to massive evict us and increase the rent roll? Is that why the local politicians, city council and State polititions have been pushing through the gutting of middle-class PCVST? To save their buddies Jerry and Robbie from lawsuits on the debt they abandoned? How was the birthday party Robbie threw you Bill?
We should not lose our homes to pay off Robbie and Jerry's debt!

Anonymous said...

A lot of people roaming in and out of this place with those rolling suitcases. HMMMMMMM????

Anonymous said...

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/05/30/1200-foot-tower-planned-near-grand-central-terminal/

There are few streets in midtown for New Yorkers. Those who live here and now those who live in mid-town. While tourists and commuters clog our sidewalks and streets we New Yorkers use the less traveled less clogged roads like Vanderbilt, the only breathable street in mid-town. We are losing that because the mayor, council and developers priorities are businesses, commuters, tourists, then maybe a 4th or 5th priority is those of us who live in Manhattan (with the exception of the Upper East Side which is still walkable.
We are overcrowded. Our city council and mayor make concessions for increasing the crowds of non-residents. They are making it easier for commuters. How about making it easier for those of use who live here too! When was the last time they did anything that made it easier for those of us who live here? They are clogging the breathing and living space on vanderbilt, the peaceful respite of my morning commute from PCVST to work. Aren't I a commuter too? Goodbye to my Vanderbilt respite as it goes the way of my once peaceful Oval of tall tree breezes. Failure all around us.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>STR:How can there be more MCI's for walkways when according TO FACT SHEET #33 useful life schedule states the years estimated life for replacing items or equipment such as courtyards/walkways/diveways for cement and asphalt is 15 and 10 years respectively? I think you need to get your facts straight without alarming everyone.<<

I'm not saying it's happening this year, but surely it's happening, if you look at the walkways in PCV particularly.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>There may be roommates, not on the lease (so they have no keycard), attempting to skirt the CW lease and laws of the State of New York.<<

The other day I saw, within the space of five minutes, five people turned away from the basketball playground (the one with the showers) because they didn't have keycards. They wanted to used the showers or just check out the playground (no, they weren't going to play basketball), four were femmes. So five people were either from outside the complex or living here but not officially.

Anonymous said...

Oh Danny boy, the pipes, the pipes are calling
From glen to glen, and down the mountain side
The summer's gone, and all the flowers are dying
'Tis you, 'tis you must go and I must bide.

Anonymous said...

Well, the key to any hi-end rental plan is renting to students. I don't recall reading anything about the city council dealing with NYU with respect to us. And partitioning the apts is something the students really like. So where should the TA be focusing if it really wants to do us all some good? This is all coming down to the TA's involvement in the Garodnick-Brookfield deal. Break that relationship & the TA should be acting independently pressing Garodnick hard about NYU and the DOB.

Anonymous said...

This place is an absolute JOKE.
There was NO need to construct this new office. NO NEED!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Check it out: http://www.nyu.edu/life/living-at-nyu/on-campus-living/explore-the-residencehalls/grad-halls.html

It's like we ARE NYU.

Anonymous said...

http://gsas.nyu.edu/page/grad.financialaid.mhp

Anonymous said...

Of course there are more Major Caps coming. There are a hundred things broken here and in need of an upgrade and repair. You think we're not going to get billed for it? surely you jest.....

Anonymous said...

8 02 - Literally every resident , young and old holds the door open and even opens it for anyone and everyone - This is pcv. Not smart but no one listens.

Anonymous said...

Why did CW et al hire a firm in March 2014 to re-do rewrite the 2012 DOB DEC DEP filings paperwork on the construction of 12 Oval?

Anonymous said...

Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

Anonymous said...

Off the topic, but the NY DAILY NEWS went up from .75 cents to $1.25 Guess what? I am NOT buying it anymore. Screw them!

Anonymous said...

The DOB has no problem going after illegal immigrants who crowd into illegally partitioned apartments in the outer boroughs, especially Queens, but they don't give a fuck about what goes on here. But then, the owners of the death traps where the illegals live are not friends of the Speyers.
Robbie and Cuomo are so close that if they were gay they would be married, and we have to suffer for and pay for their corruption and greed. I don't Garodnick has any influence.

Anonymous said...

You're criticizing both sides yet have no solution. I don't think the TA/Gardonick are doing an amazing job - but at least they are doing something. This blog has a lot of pull in the community - I think you can use it to get people together/solve problems :)

I've read you forever - you're likely the leader the community needs. So step up!

Anonymous said...

The tenants are losing because it's, um, a losing battle; oh, the folly of rent stabilization.

Anonymous said...

Would be very nice if the FEDEX GUY would not throw packages , boxes outside the elevators. It's a high fee we pay, can you drop at our doors?????????????

Anonymous said...

"Well, the key to any hi-end rental plan is renting to students."

The real luxury buildings have a no-student policy.
Most uptown buildings have a no-student policy.
Even the ones where Dan's Upper East Side REBNY buddies reside have a no-student policy.

Student housing does not equal luxury.
student housing destroys luxury and it destroys middle class.
The two lifestyles don't mix.

Anonymous said...

If you check out the people in the oval, you can see that there are groups that come in to picnic. These people are NOT from STPCV. They're from the other side of 14th. Security does next to nothing. In playground 12 I saw 4-5 yr-olds zooming around on 3-wheeled scooters, narrowly missing 2 year olds toddling around. There are signs clearly posted: No wheeled toys allowed. There used to be playground attendants who'd enforce the rules. But there's a different kind of tenant now and a different kind of landlord to match.

Anonymous said...

Do we still have a Tenants Association?

Anonymous said...

I am all for legitimate complaints about PCVST, about elected officials, and about City policy. But making up ridiculous tales about non-existent "deals" does not help the tenants. There is no huge rental arrangement with NYU. Perhaps there are some graduate students in NYU apartments, but 4000 of them? TOTALLY RIDICULOUS

Anonymous said...

9:36...I find it hard to understand why you would doubt or support that about which you have no solid information. The fact is...NYU is advertising Graduate Housing here off its home page. Close to 44K students go to NYU. 22K undergraduate. Over 18K in Graduate & Professional programs. And NYU is advertising Stuy Town to its grad students off the home page as if Stuy Town is regular NYU housing. I have no idea how many NYU students are here. Neither do you. But we both should want to know.

Anonymous said...

9:36 Of course there is a deal. It includes terms as NYU pays subsidy on each and every apartment on top of amount collected from students, NYU gets to advertise the Stuy Town Off campus Housing on their website, NYU gets to formally call it NYU Off Campus Housing, Some furnishings (beds etc) will be provided and by whom, etc. All these terms and many more have been formally agreed upon. The beds don't magically appear. Arrangements have been pre-made.

This is the most illegal deal as it gets.. violating Rent Stabilization laws, housing laws, fire safety laws, changes in Use, Occupancy, the list goes on and on.

And yes we checked it too, according to the DOB there are 3 to 4 thousand apartments wall partitioned for additional bedrooms.

Why are you trying to cover it up?

Anonymous said...

This is why they are "inspecting" the apartments by looking at refrigerator, stove, appliances. If a tenant replaced or fixed these things they could be evicted. The inspections are nothing more than an eviction hunt.

Improvements in a Rental


By JAY ROMANO
Published: November 18, 2007

Q I live in a rent-stabilized apartment in Manhattan. As apartments become vacant, the owner is making major improvements to the kitchens (new refrigerators, stoves, cabinets, etc.).

Being handy, I would like to replace my appliances and make some of these improvements myself, possibly with a little outside help from a plumber. Am I entitled to do this, and can I do it without it affecting my rent?

A “Unauthorized repairs and renovations to a rental unit, whether or not the premises are subject to some form of rent regulation, could result in a tenant’s eviction,” said Lucas A. Ferrara, a Manhattan real estate lawyer.

With few exceptions, Mr. Ferrara said, tenants are prohibited from removing their fixtures or appliances or from undertaking renovations, other than those that are purely cosmetic, without the owner’s consent.

“The items the letter writer wants to replace probably belong to the landlord,” he said. “And if they are removed or replaced, a claim may be made that the tenant has substantially violated the lease agreement.”

Mr. Ferrara said the letter writer would be well advised to get the landlord’s consent before making any improvements or modifications. “If the landlord refuses, the choices are to either not do the work or allow the landlord to do it,” Mr. Ferrara said. And if the landlord does the work, he will be entitled to a permanent monthly increase equal to one-fortieth of the cost of the improvement.

Lucas Ferrara of Newman Ferrara

Anonymous said...

It's a free for all around here. Almost anything goes. Bring on the bud-light!

Anonymous said...

The official student housing deal is not just exclusive to NYU and has been in place since Met Life owned the place. From what I recall, it involves some 40-50 apartments.

The real problem is students renting via regular means, through the leasing office. Last summer during the 3 weekend long leasing office protest we saw that almost 100% of the people going to the leasing office in were very young, many with their parents. I spoke to the only two adults I saw, they were teachers from NYU. They got referred here by the school. That's probably how most students find out about ST-PCV.

It's pretty obvious that CWCap only wants students so they can churn apartments and keep racking up those vacancy rent increases. Also, actual NYers are probably hip to what's going on in ST-PCV. During the protest, I spoke to two young women waiting for their friend outside the leasing office. They said their broker told them he had a great apartment and gave them the leasing office address to meet up. When the two girls got here and realized it was in ST-PCV, they got angry. They said they had friends who had already lived here and hated it, and they knew all about what goes on in ST. When their friend showed up, they left.

Anonymous said...

WOW!!!!!!!! STUYVESANT TOWN IS APPARENTLY LISTED ON NYU'S WEBSITE. PARTY ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IT ONLY GETS WORSE BEFORE IT CAN GET BETTER.

Anonymous said...

Well that was a good laugh of ridiculousness. Thanks for the Post article.

Developers don't "need" incentives. They want them. They don't need them.

First: NYC is one of the few cities in the world that allows foreigners to hoard as many real estate homes they desire without limits and the Russians and Chinese and are buying it up laundering an awful lot of money.

Second: Developers can't be considered in "need" of breaks and incentives given their bank accounts.

Third: Developers can't be classified as in need given the portfolios they brag.

Fourth: If developers were in need they would testify at the rent guidelines meetings and in Albany instead of hiding behind the smaller landlords. Why have the small landlord fight your battles if you are so powerful? I'd like to see the developers make their point at these meetings.

Bottomline: Developers have a lot and NYC is too profitable to let any amount of regulated apartments effect their building here.

This isn't about developers needing incentives or rent regulating effecting their bottom line. It is about their egos.

At some point we need to stop feeding the monster egos of developers as their pockets are pretty full.

Anonymous said...

Geez if there are more mci's to come we CANNOT allow the TA to falsely claim they represent us then proceed to negotiate another bad deal because they believe "the market rate are paying enough already" and have the RS pay more than fair share because the TA believes RS should be paying MR rents. They have it ass backwards. The MR should be paying RS rents but the TA allowed illegal increases.
We cannot ever let the TA negotiate another mci!

Anonymous said...

The TA does not represent the interests of the longtime rent stabilized tenants any more and I think we should just boycott them. They have turned into a bunch of owner-wannabees and only care about their beloved "new stabilizers." They can go to hell.

Anonymous said...

"The inspections are nothing more than an eviction hunt."

That's probably mostly the reason and why they looked in two of my closets (or maybe the inspector had a towel fetish). Nevertheless, since maintenance has to take care of the appliances, it's not unreasonable for management to know what they're dealing with, especially since it's not clear whether their records survived Sandy. It's also legal for a landlord to inspect its property. I didn't like being inspected, but at least they didn't go through my underwear drawer (not yet, anyway).

Anonymous said...

"Geez if there are more mci's to come we CANNOT allow the TA to falsely claim they represent us then proceed to negotiate another bad deal because they believe "the market rate are paying enough already" and have the RS pay more than fair share because the TA believes RS should be paying MR rents. They have it ass backwards. The MR should be paying RS rents but the TA allowed illegal increases."

I don't think you quite understand some of the settlement. MR rents are so inflated that they already cover the cost of the MCIs, and management undoubtedly took the MCIs into account when they came up with the rent amounts (most of which are less than the absurdly bloated legal rents). Anyone paying MR (and some rents can be considered even above MR) is already covering the cost of the MCIs. There's no mechanism for long-term RS tenants to pay more than their fair share. Read the DHCR fact sheet to see how it works. If you think the MCIs were too high and bogus--no argument there. And I don't know why you think the TA thinks RS tenants should be paying MR rents. Only CW and other predators think that. My retroactive was waived and my permanent amount was reduced, and that's something I don't recall happening here before. Perfect? No. But did anyone seriously think the MCIs would go away altogether? That's just not realistic.

Anonymous said...

Wait, are the older RS tenants paying additional MCI now? I moved in 1994. Older lease. No Mci. I thought it was just the new tenants.

How much is everyone paying then in addition to rent? WOW.

Anonymous said...

You know how much a lawyer costs? We're talking hours and hours and hours of legal work. They have big legal guns at the ready--we don't have that kind of resources to bring restraining orders and appeals and such.

Anonymous said...

The NYU Deal
Negotiated, signed, sealed, and furnished


MacCracken Housing Program for Doctoral Students

Dear Member of Our Graduate School Community,

We are very happy to welcome you to New York University and to the Graduate School of Arts and Science (GSAS). We are pleased to write you about the special housing opportunity available through the MacCracken Housing Program (MHP). The MacCracken Housing Program is a unique housing program offered by GSAS to our doctoral students during their first year of study. Housing is available on a first-come, first-serve basis, and requires a fully completed MHP application; complete details about applying for the housing are provided below in the program summary.

MHP provides housing in converted two-bedroom apartments located in Stuyvesant Town.

Stuyvesant Town is a secure enclave of 89 high-rise buildings set in a park-like environment amid lawns, numerous trees, and playgrounds. It is located on the east side of Manhattan, between 14th and 20th Streets, and First Avenue and East River Drive. It is a 20 minute walk to campus, is connected to the Washington Square campus by the free NYU shuttle bus service, and is close to public transportation. All apartments are furnished and are in elevator buildings.

The Graduate School subsidizes the cost of housing to insure that we can offer you affordable and appropriate graduate housing near the Washington Square campus. When comparing off-campus housing alternatives to MHP housing, please keep in mind that the MHP rates are more affordable than most comparable non-NYU apartments listed at market rates. MHP has many attractive features:

Utilities are included in the room cost (heat, water and electricity)

Apartments are furnished

MHP housing is close to campus

Laundry facilities are on site

All buildings have elevators

Security is maintained by Stuyvesant Town Security

Residents are provided with a Stuyvesant Town issued photo identification swipe-card.

To participate in MHP housing, you must first indicate your interest by submitting the Statement of Intent, available at www.nyu.edu/gsas/housing-intent. After we receive your submission, we will send you an email with specific information about the housing application process. Your immediate submission of the Statement of Intent is very important so that we can know that you are interested in our housing.

We provide descriptive information about MHP on the following pages, including:

Program Summary

Six Steps for Participating in MHP

MHP Housing Options at a Glance

Stuyvesant Town Converted Two-Bedroom Apartment, Detailed Description

Housing Policies

Housing Floor Plan

If you have any questions about the MacCracken Housing Program, please do not hesitate to contact my colleague, Cherone Slater, Administrative Aide in the Office of Academic and Student Affairs at (212) 998-8060 or cherone.slater@nyu.edu.

Everyone in the Graduate School wants you to have the best possible academic experience. We all look forward to hearing from you and to meeting you in September.

Sincerely,

Israel Rodriguez
Director of Student Affairs
Graduate School of Arts and Science
israel.rodriguez@nyu.edu

Anonymous said...

NYU Deal

The Graduate School is pleased to offer converted two-bedroom apartments in Stuyvesant Town. Previously one-bedroom units, these apartments were converted into two-bedroom units. Each MHP participant is assigned a private bedroom. The approximate size of these apartments is 580 square feet.

NYU maintains a full-time professional manager, and Graduate Resident Assistants are in residence as part of the Stuyvesant Town community.

Anonymous said...

http://gsas.nyu.edu/page/grad.financialaid.mhp

HOUSING


LENGTH OF LICENSE 2


COST PER STUDENT 3


ELIGIBILITY


FEATURES


DISTINCTIVE FEATURES-COMPARE TO OFF-CAMPUS HOUSING

Stuyvesant Town

Converted Two-Bedroom Apartment

Approx. 580 square feet


11.5 months

Wednesday, August 20, 2014 through

Saturday, August 8, 2015





$12,824.00 for 11.5 months.

In your financial planning, this averages out to approximately $1,115.00 per month.

(The unsubsidized cost for a spouse or partner is $1,524.00 per month, bringing the total for the student and spouse/partner combined averages out to $2,639.00 per month or $30,350.00 for 11.5 months.)

Utilities are included. Telephone, cable and internet access are not included.


Single, married and partnered students


Common Room

Kitchen

Full bath with shower/tub

Private bedrooms

Utilities (water, heat, gas and electricity)

Air conditioning

Apartment furniture

Elevator building


Park-like setting

Apartment style living

Common room

Dishwasher

Microwave

NYU-Net dial-up ready

Intercom/buzzer system

Apartment style furniture

Area carpeting

24 hour Stuyvesant security

2 Students agree to a specific term of occupancy in the MHP housing license. The license may not be extended for longer than the term specified. Early release from the housing license is not possible except for extenuating and unforeseen circumstances.

3 The rent payment schedule will be released in advance of the fall 2014 term.

Anonymous said...

NYU Deal negotiations details

MHP—Stuyvesant Town Converted Two-Bedroom Apartments

Stuyvesant Town is a secure enclave of 89 high-rise buildings set in park-like environment amid lawns, numerous trees, and playgrounds. located on east side of Manhattan, between 14th and 20th Streets, and First Ave and East River Drive. It is a 20 minute walk to the Washington Square Campus, is connected by free NYU shuttle bus service, and close to public transportation. Because of its proximity to NYU’s Washington Square campus, Stuyvesant Town is an ideal choice for newly admitted doctoral students.

The Graduate School is pleased to offer converted two-bedroom apartments in Stuyvesant Town. Previously one-bedroom units, these apartments were converted into two-bedroom units. Each MHP participant is assigned a private bedroom. approx size apartments is 580 sq ft.

Features

All apartments are furnished, air-conditioned and include two private bedrooms, a full bathroom with tub/shower, a kitchen and a dining area.

The kitchen includes refrigerator, stove, oven, microwave, dishwasher, sink. Residents must provide cookware, dishes, supplies.

Each bedroom contains twin bed, desk, dresser or armoire, and wastebasket. A table and chairs are provided in dining alcove.

Addtl furnishings provided for common area (loveseats or three-seater couch). Windows have shades.

Additional large furniture is not permitted in the Stuyvesant Town apartments.

Heat, water, and electricity are included in the rental fees.

All units are in elevator buildings and equipped with card operated laundry rooms in basement. If residents choose to use laundry rooms in the building, cards can be purchased from machines and may be refilled.

Residents enter building lobbies using Stuyvesant Town issued photo identification swipe-card.

Entry into individual apartments, mailboxes or the building’s laundry room are by key.

Mailboxes for each apartment are located in entry vestibule.

Since Stuyvesant Town buildings do not have doormen, all guests use intercom to contact host's apartment and be buzzed in.

Stuyvesant Town Security polices the area and works closely with NYU’s Office of Public Safety on issues of concern to student residents.

NYU maintains a full-time professional manager, and Graduate Resident Assistants are in residence as part of the Stuyvesant Town community.

Anonymous said...

June 24, 2014 at 12:41 PM

The landlord is using the MCIs to get the rents up on the cheaper, un-renovated apartments. They agreed to drop MCIs for the high rent apartments because why bother? Most of them are already higher than the market can bear, plus they can keep on flipping them to their hearts content and getting those 15-to 20% vacancy increases.

The increases that those of us in the cheaper units are paying are all too legal, thanks to state law. It is the state of NY that allows the, and a state agency that approves them, not the TA.

As for the bad deal, I've known about Collins and Dobkin for years as one of the top law firms repping tenants in NYC. I recommended them to a neighbor in our building that Tishman was trying to evict and they won his case and it didn't cost him an arm & a leg. So i was happy to see the TA finally replace Jack Lester with Collins, Dobkin, Miller last year. If Collins says they got the best deal they could under the circumstances, I suspect that's probably true. I suppose you know better than they do because you've logged countless hours representing tenants in court fights across the city and are intimately familiar with the terms of the negotiations as set forth by the attorneys representing our landlord and have a pretty clear picture what negotiating points C-W was willing to budge on in addition to being all-too familiar with the inner workings of the Pataki-appointed bureaucracy over at the DHCR.

Anonymous said...

MHP—Housing Policies

GSAS MHP participants must comply with all policies and procedures outlined on the NYU Office of Residential Life and Housing Services website at: http://www.nyu.edu/life/living-at-nyu/on-campus-living/get-to-know-yourhome.html

MacCracken Housing Program policies include, but are not limited to the following:

Double occupancy is not permitted in rooms assigned for a single occupant.

Subletting is not permitted.

Pets are not permitted.

Family housing is regrettably not available.

Anonymous said...

More NYU deal negotiations

They are limited to 1 year - no renewals.


Participation is limited to first-year MacCracken doctoral students, beginning their studies in the fall 2014 term.1

MHP housing is available only for a student’s first year of study.

Anonymous said...

http://gsas.nyu.edu/page/grad.financialaid.mhp

Seriously who negotiated the furnished apartment NYU student deal? After reading the offering it is obviously a detailed, crafted arrangement with many signing off on it from NYU, CW, City officials, and Politicians.

The City Council has an obligation to release to us their conversations, decisions, actions and dealings on this.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>The Graduate School is pleased to offer converted two-bedroom apartments in Stuyvesant Town. Previously one-bedroom units, these apartments were converted into two-bedroom units.<<

Did the work permits for these conversions reflect that there was NO change in occupancy?

Anonymous said...

Again I ask, where did that 4,000 nyu students number come from?
And, what happens to the rent roll stats with each turnover? Is each turnover treated as a vacancy for a new rate?

Anonymous said...

12:41 - Nope. Wrong. I have a high rent and the Mci is there every month. NOT dropped. What on earth are you talking about?

Anonymous said...

1:32 They don't care about us either - Stop trying to stir pot and divide us.

SIGNED Stabilizer Tenant

Anonymous said...

We need to know who put together the NYU business arrangement and who negotiated the terms.



Anonymous said...

More bikinis on the lawn(and on our park benches, WOW, I couldn't believe my eyes), more bud-light parties, more and more students, which are NOT wanted here,etc, etc, etc.
More role models around here for our young children. The sad part is their not much we can do about it, other than watch everything deteriorate before our eyes. All old fashioned values are GONE FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

June 25, 2014 at 4:40 AM

100% of the MCI is credited for non-Roberts tenants paying less than full legal rent.

50% of the MCI is credited for Roberts tenants paying the maximum legal rent and 100% for those paying less than the max legal rent.

Anonymous said...

"Wait, are the older RS tenants paying additional MCI now? I moved in 1994. Older lease. No Mci. I thought it was just the new tenants.

How much is everyone paying then in addition to rent? WOW."

Pay attention! Of course the older tenants are paying MCIs--sometimes $50 and $60/mo. They got the retroactive waived and a 5% reduction on the permanent amount for the term of their tenancy. This info has been made available over and over again. They're the category of non-Roberts tenants paying full legal rent.

Anonymous said...

I currently live in a 1 BR converted to 2 and I want to take the wall down in August, as my roommate is moving out. I called management to ask how I go about scheduling this process, since I used one of the approved companies when I signed my leave almost 7 years ago.

They told me I can't take it down. This I find mind boggling!

I know it's because they want to try and rent it as a 2 BR if/when I move out. They told me they weren't "allowing people to put up or take down walls right now".

I will seek legal action if they try and enforce this - that wall is coming down!

Anonymous said...

There is no such thing as a "stabilizer tenant"

That is a made up name by the TA and used by the TA President John Marsh to disparage the Rent stabilized community and to promote the market rate community.

Fact is both can stabilize the property even with the market rate returning their rents to legal amounts and getting returns on overcharges.

Again there is no such thing as "stabilizer tenants" and non-stabilizer tenants.

Use of such delineation by the TA is nothing short of gross and unacceptable to those of us who wish for and work towards a Unified Community.

Tell John Marsh it will not catch on no matter how hard he pushes.

We will not divide. We will unify and continue to fight for all and the property as a whole.

Anonymous said...

If we wanted to do something that would have an effect, we should be rallying against NYU. A good TA would organize that. We only have one leverage: making trouble that gets into the press. NYU deserves to get stood up for what its been doing.

Anonymous said...

I'mnew to the blog. But you are wrong. Not all LONG TIME RESIDENTS ARE paying MCI fees.

You need t opay attention and ask questions to real live humans here. Ask at the oval, take a poll, ask at peter cooper v.

Anonymous said...

I reported my neighbors apartment to the DOB which was partitioned by students. The DOB never did anything. This is a matter for Garodnick. The DOB will respond when a councilman inquiry is filed.

I had the same problem. No one would help, not management , not Garodnick and certainly not the TA. I finally called a buddy in the FDNY. Wall was down within 1 week.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Do we still have a Tenants Association?

June 23, 2014 at 7:24 PM

Unfortunately, NO. We haven't had one since around 2004.

Anonymous said...

If politicians have to keep all sides happy shouldn't they do so with fairness?

Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in politicians raising money for the rich at the REBNY Annual Gala Fundraiser to help the rich raise money for legal fees to fight the middle class ....... while the politicians attend rallies raising their voices for the middle class asking the rich to be nice to the middle class.

Wouldn't you rather the politicians raise money for the middle class and raise their voices for the rich? Wouldn't that be fair play.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>Not all LONG TIME RESIDENTS ARE paying MCI fees.<<

I believe the only way a long time resident doesn't have to pay new MCIs is if he/she is in the SCRIE excemption. Otherwise, one pays.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>I will seek legal action if they try and enforce this - that wall is coming down!<<

Mr. CW, take down that wall!

Anonymous said...

OK.
Good thread.

We need rallies against NYU greedy illegal real estate grabs that are destroying middle class families and decreasing NYC affordable housing.

We need FDNY involvement to remove the CW installed illegal partitions in all 4000 apartments.

Anonymous said...

1:36 = Please elaborate as others here (self) have similar issues with students.

1. You reported illegal walls ? Who put the walls up?

2. You reported to Garodnick and then? Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Good place to start the rent roll audit.

Have the FDNY collect from DOB information on all apartments that had wall partitions installed.

Have DHCR or TPU check that list comparing rent amount pre wall installation to rent amount post wall partition installation.


Anonymous said...

I'm thinking about these partitions. Here's a spin for Fortress. Fortress should tell CW to investigate the legality of the walls and advise them they're non-compliant. Then CW removes the walls and let the quad-bunk residents break their leases. That lowers the income for the properties and therefore lowers the value at sale. Now Fortress can agree with the City to maintain the 6,000 apartments under the City agreement to abate taxes(no need for the TA/Brookfield). Fortress can sell the rest of the apartments to the MRers. Fortress wins; RSers win ; Mrers win.

What color is the sky in my world???

Anonymous said...

Yeah, sure, let's take a poll among the tenants to see who's paying MCIs. Who gets these ideas? Anyway, I'm here 46 years. Guess that qualifies as LT. And, yes, I'm paying MCIs. Oh, minus a big 5%.

Anonymous said...

You're making WAY too much about the REBNY ball. Pols go to all sorts of social functions put on by lobbyists from all sides, the meet & greet is just part of the gig. Having your photo snapped with a local rep is evidence of nothing, other than they were in the same room.

Wherever did you get the idea that it's a fundraiser for the real estate industry??? As if they needed it!

Plenty of evidence out there that pols can be bought off, but likely not for the price of a few drinks and a lukewarm prime rib dinner.

Really, VI...

Anonymous said...

"If we wanted to do something that would have an effect, we should be rallying against NYU. A good TA would organize that. We only have one leverage: making trouble that gets into the press. NYU deserves to get stood up for what its been doing."

You are exactly right. Unfortunately, though, we do not have a good TA. We have a useless TA that is not worthy of being called a TA. I wish we did have a good TA.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

Some problems:

A rally against NYU would be fine but how many tenants would attend? Don't forget the fiasco of the TA setting up pickets in front and back of the Rental Office in protest of mid-lease rent increases. Few tenants showed up. This rally would be a one-time thing, however, so it should get more attendance. Maybe.

The bigger problem of students here concerns the students who rent apartments outside of the NYU system. How and where do we protest this?

Also, the fight really isn't with the students, but the system in place that allows a transient rental population which jacks up the rent of the apartments, the "real" rather than preferential rent.

I would be fine with a law that stated that a landlord can't raise the rent on an apartment if it has been occupied by a transient renter, someone who only stays for a couple of years, then moves.

The DOB filings also have to be carefully reviewed, making sure that partitions have not be added without acknowledging that a change in occupancy has occurred.

And then, obviously, Public Safety has to make sure that all tenants, not just students, comply with the noise regulations, including adequate carpeting.

Anonymous said...

Every minute you spend blathering on about a couple dozen NYU graduate student apartments, you are losing the opportunity to focus on the REAL issues. Silly silly silly. It is no wonder the TA cannot get agreement from the residents about the priorities here. And Rome burns while you obsess about some grad students.

Anonymous said...

To the people asking about the REBNY Gala here is some information:

SOURCE: THE REAL DEAL
Yes It is a fundraiser
in 2014 bringing in around $2Million.

The annual gathering is not just a confab for real estate’s elite and lesser-known players, it’s a major fundraiser. According to REBNY’s most recent tax filing, which cover 2011, the gala brought in about $1.5 million, or about 15 percent of the group’s annual revenue that year. The banquet that year had about 2,000 attendees. This year the organization, which is charging $1,000 per person, will likely collect more.

SOURCE COMMERCIAL OBSERVER
http://commercialobserver.com/2013/01/rebny-gala-2013-a-banquet-to-bank-on/



It’s described by real estate wheelers and dealers as “the industry’s only must-attend event.

A guest list replete with power brokers is one reason why the banquet endures as the Oscars of the real estate industry. Luminaries come from fields outside of, but complementary to, the business, presenting brokers and owners with the chance to meet, hobnob and drink with the biggest names in investment banking and politics.

Some people may see the gala as an incubator for future deals,

Anonymous said...

“You want to be in that room,” Mr. Montana said. “You want access. Smart people go there with an agenda: ‘I need to see the following five people, make or solidify relationships with them and get some face time.’”
Mr. Montana, on the other hand, said, “I can tell you that deals get done there.”

http://commercialobserver.com/2013/01/rebny-gala-2013-a-banquet-to-bank-on/3/

The tail end of my comment fell off. Here it is above. Deals and money at the REBNY fundraiser. As an earlier commentator said, REBNY also hired and paid for the attorneys to fight against us on Roberts case and pay for the fights against us in Albany.

Politicians should not attend fundraisers for purposes against their constituents.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>Every minute you spend blathering on about a couple dozen NYU graduate student apartments, you are losing the opportunity to focus on the REAL issues. Silly silly silly. It is no wonder the TA cannot get agreement from the residents about the priorities here. And Rome burns while you obsess about some grad students.<<

Oh, there's time and opportunity to blather about a lot of things. Anything that lowers the quality of living here is fair game and must be paid attention to. Otherwise, this complex becomes more and more a junk heap.

Anonymous said...

When matters escalate, they typically require the police/City to handle the affair. In our case, security is charged with mediation/settlement. But there is a fundamental problem with this: security is operated by the Owner. The Owner has a vested interest in providing an ‘atmosphere’ which enables Landlord to maximize its return on investment. The Owner believes that to maximize its profits, it must market and enable STPCV to accommodate young professionals and students (in a ‘stack them in as many as you can ‘). It would be contrary to the business plan of Owner to enforce nuisance infractions committed by the audience that Owner is in fact attempting to lure into STPCV. This is a HUGE conflict of interest. And there can be no expectation that this Owner or the next will do anything to curb nuisance behavior (that makes them a ton of money).

So why doesn’t the TA do anything about this? Can we sue the Owner for non-compliance of its mandated ‘security officer’ codes and requirements for maintaining the laws of the State of NY? Can we complain to the 13th precinct citing the Owner’s conflict of interest? Can we police the issues ourselves and call the 13th precinct requesting immediate relief (maybe via a central TA phone system and volunteer ‘peace/QOL officers’)?

I cannot recall the TA ever having a proactive approach to this issue. But it seems to raise the ire of a lot of tenants.

Anonymous said...

I'm not a lawyer but how about this:

THE STPCV TA IS NO LONGER AN ENTITY WITH STANDING.

At the foreclosure, ST and PCV were separted into two legally remote business entities. The current TA is still set up as an association for the combined entity. Since ST and PCV have different legal entities owning them (although same money owns both), shouldn't there be a TA for ST and a TA for PCV??? Shouldn't the current association be dissolved?

Anonymous said...

Actually its a at least a dozen nyu apartments in each and every building in Stuy Town and PCV.

Each building has between 13 to 43 nyu apartments with wall partitions.

Source: DOB

Anonymous said...

12:50 You guys will say anything to keep residents in the dark from what is going on in ST PCV. Thousands of apartments with illegal wall partitions is a serious matter. Nothing silly about it.
We need a TA that shines the light on these practices and takes action to stop them. That is supposed to be why they had us sign that pledge last December. I regret signing it.

Anonymous said...

Anything that lowers the quality of living? Are you kidding? IT DOESN'T GET ANY LOWER THAN WHAT IT IS ALREADY. I HATE IT AS MUCH AS MY NEXT DECENT NEIGHBOR WHO ACTUALLY CARES, BUT GET USED TO IT. IT'S NEVER GOING TO CHANGE FOR THE BETTER.

Anonymous said...

7:04 p.m. Stop whining about the TA and organize one yourself then.

simkie said...

Does anyone have a link to the City Council legislation re dorms and partitions? THANKS!!!!

Anonymous said...

Agree 100% with STR. We cannot overlook anything...and a couple of dozen or so. Really? Do you actually live here?

Hippo said...

The only TRULY IMMEDIATE action that will have any effect is to pursue the illegal partitions put up by the landlord. The applications clearly state a bold faced lie that apartment occupancy will not be increased. The partitions are put in to squeeze more people into the apartments...duh?1 Danny Boy Garodnick, the impotent TA and the other pols should scream for the Dept. of Buildings and the FDNY to start an immediate review.
My bet is it ain't gonna happen. The only way to hit the landlord is in the pocketbook. Just my 2 cents worth...

Anonymous said...

So this is what happened as a result of the screwing our mayor got from Cuomo and Republicans in the State Senate earlier this year. de Blasio looks like he's a force to be reckoned with.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/26/nyregion/breakaway-faction-to-rejoin-fellow-democrats-in-new-york-senate.html?ref=nyregion

Anonymous said...

Here's a question for you:

DOES THE STPCVTA HAVE ANY STANDING ANY LONGER?

When CW took title to the community, it created 2 separate entities. It seems there should now be two tenant associations. I call on the TA to answer this. And if new TA's are needed then STR runs one of them! At a minimum, we try to get some new blood into the new TA's (those insiders must shiver when they read this).

Anonymous said...

Simkie: My recollection is that requirements are within the Dept of Building codes and that there is not concrete definition into what is allowable and what is not. The code provides for a process where landlord gets an architect/engineer to file a permit. Permit is approved and then architect/engineer sign off that work meets the specifications of the approved permit. DOB then stamps as completed and plans for building are revised.

DOB is mostly concerned with means of egress in case of accidents/fires and means of ingress for firemen/etc.

Search NYC DOB Building code. There are many chapters you can peruse.

It's my opinion that DOB has already approved the materials used by landlord in its builds and has found no adverse conditions related to egress in case of emergency.

I've always thought the better case to make is that partition installs change occupancy, especially when you install so many of them. I think the best approach would be a request to DOB to cease approvals for specific apartments since occupancy has changed and all new permits would, in essence, require a type-I permit and the more stringent review associated with the permitting process.

Anonymous said...

The problem we need to get around is the politicians (in their respective office) in 2010 who signed off on the NYU dorms - some agreeing to push it through while others agreed to turn a blind eye. The DOB does what the politicians tell them to do. The DOB should be operating independently but instead are neck deep in the illegality of the NYU wall partitions that if they addressed it they would have to own their part of the responsibility. The DOB should have said no to the politician(s) who was pushing hard to get the wall partitions built. And the Oval commercialized. And the office building on the First Ave Loop built. How can we get a copy of the deal? Shouldn't that be part of the sale numbers. Has the Attorney General seen the deal? Why haven't we?

Anonymous said...

"those [TA] insiders must shiver when they read this"

Why? Because so many people take the time and make the effort to run against them at election time?

Anonymous said...

NYU has many real estate scandals and unethical and illegal real estate acts in this decade alone (NYTimes, WSJ) and an even longer list of political allies who use their offices to assist in the deals and then go onto occupy bigger political offices today. What is needed is a investigative journalist, maybe one who already wrote of the NYU real estate crimes, to do a grand expose of NYU real estate deals from 2000 to 2014, with names, allies, documents all revealed. Because some of those who pushed the NYU deal through the DOB are still in office and will not implicate themselves in their egregious acts.

Anonymous said...

Corporate NYU Downfall

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/03/the-emir-of-nyu-john-sextons-abu-dhabi-debacle/273982/

Anonymous said...

Corporate NYU

Dr. Sexton has been widely criticized for an aggressive expansion program in Greenwich Village and for erecting campuses in parts of the world with oppressive governments. Faculty members, claiming to be underpaid and excluded from decision making, have struck out at what they view as lavish pay and perks for a few star employees: loans for vacation homes; executive exit bonuses of $1.23 million and near $700,000; a $1.5 million compensation package for the president plus a $2.5 million “length of service” bonus due next year, making Dr. Sexton among the highest paid college presidents in the country.

Do they look too much like businesses and less like places of learning and to what extent should they globalize? But at N.Y.U., tensions have been particularly visible.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/13/education/edlife/the-power-broker-of-nyu.html?_r=0

a vote of no confidence from faculty for John Sexton, CEO of NYU,

Anonymous said...

Shouldn't documents re NYU and Stuyvesant Town be avail to public view given the city involvement?

Anonymous said...

"7:04 p.m. Stop whining about the TA and organize one yourself then."

I'll whine all I want while I am paying my dues. It has become a "do-nothing" TA and I wish someone would organize a new and better one. Unfortunately, I am unable to do that, but I would if I could. The TA should either disband or start representing tenants in a positive way instead of focusing on a conversion which will never happen.

Anonymous said...

Many At NYU strongly disagree with Corporate NYU Sexton and Lipton

Sexton, Lipton stray from NYU vision
Posted on September 17, 2013 | by Raquel Woodruff and Edward Radzivilovskiy

In light of the decisive votes of no confidence from faculty against NYU President John Sexton, the vacation homes loan scandal and the NYU administration’s failure to offer faculty and students a meaningful role in governance, it is clear that Sexton and NYU Board of Trustees chair Martin Lipton have failed in their duties as university leaders and should resign immediately.

After a significant amount of controversy over their plans, the administration has deliberately misled the university community on whether progress has been made. A prominent example is the creation of ad hoc committees like the Sexton Space Committee to carry out NYU 2031. The appointment of an FSC member to lead this committee gives the impression that the university listened to faculty input. But the picture painted is far from reality — the group is essentially designed to execute NYU 2031 even though most of the faculty is against it. Most of the 39 resolutions from various departments at NYU were passed unanimously and have expressed opposition to NYU 2031.

http://www.nyunews.com/2013/09/17/woodruffradzivilovskiy/

Anonymous said...

DOB also says throughout PCV ST NYU combined 2 apartments into one bigger one for themselves in PCV ST beginning in 2010 at onset of wall partition installations. (Names on those leases are suspect, including non-related elderly and younger folks.(

Another article on NYU marketing schemes and illegal apartment acts.

Jed Sexton, whose sole affiliation with NYU was his status as the president’s son, for years enjoyed a spacious faculty apartment while the university experienced a “severe” housing shortage, The Post has learned.

In spring 2002, NYU ordered that a pair of one-bedroom apartments normally reserved for law school faculty be combined into a lavish, two-story spread in the heart of Greenwich Village, property records show.

NYU housing officials “went so far as to hire a firm to set up and manage a plan to market the apartments to bring down the vacancy rate,” Beckman said. “This was all discussed openly with the law school board.”

He added that throughout NYU’s faculty housing system, “there are nearly 70 other instances in the past decade in which two separate units were combined to make larger apartments.”

http://nypost.com/2014/04/16/nyu-scion-scored-spacious-faculty-apartment-during-housing-squeeze/

Anonymous said...

A quick must-read with the names of the politicians in office today and their role since 2010 in the NYU plan. Which side they are on, Which side they say they are on, which side they act on,. When it comes to NYU illegal acts here it is up to the tenants to stop NYU's PCVST land grab.

http://www.gothamgazette.com/index.php/government/5022-deblasio-nyu-expansion-2031-sexton-controversy

Anonymous said...

De Blasio and NYU

De Blasio MUST side with his PCVST constituents (the residents) over NYU. (and by residents I do not mean to side with the TA as they do not represent residents!)

"one of the most powerful real estate entities in all of New York, let alone his alma mater: NYU"

"Unlike Domino, this is a situation that is much more charged with the emotions of those who already reside in the area; Greenwich Village is not as supportive to high-rises as the Williamsburg waterfront is. Also, many of the big names in the anti-NYU-2031 movement supported de Blasio's campaign for mayor, including celebrities like Matthew Broderick, Sarah Jessica Parker, and John Leguizamo. But, most importantly, it involves one of the most powerful real estate entities in all of New York, let alone his alma mater: NYU.

"This is a trickier situation for de Blasio than Domino was. That's because there's no affordable housing involved - the NYU administration doesn't want it, nor is there any space for it," Miller added. "The fact of the matter is that the community is dead set against the project. The faculty is overwhelmingly against it. So if the mayor is on the side of the community, he has to stand with them against the Sexton Plan."

All in all, NYU 2031's fate poses a serious challenge to a mayor who, in the eyes of the electorate and his own party, is supposed to side with the people, not the developers. It's an issue that has significant implications to how de Blasio will treat public space, real estate interests and community involvement in the post-Bloomberg years. And it's a controversy that the mayor will need to take a position on fast, as the expansion continues to divide his elected allies and his alma mater."

http://www.gothamgazette.com/index.php/government/5022-deblasio-nyu-expansion-2031-sexton-controversy

Anonymous said...

"Music on the Oval: We are thrilled to announce our summer concert series will run Wednesday and Thursday, July 23rd and 24th. Better than Ezra will headline on the 23rd, and Ed Kowalczyk from Live will headline the 24th and perform his award-winning album "Throwing Copper" for its 20th anniversary. Opening acts include local favorites Big Wake (opening for Better than Ezra) and Sylvana Joyce + The Moment (opening for Ed Kowalczyk). Music starts at 6:30pm both nights.:

Weekday nights. No fucking escape. Just got new neighbors next door. Of course, in a one bedroom, there's at least 3 OMG girls. It seems that EVERY new apartment is filled with college and just post college Woo Hooers. This place is such a shit hole dorm. I'm old school RS but I have 3 more years, tops, in this dump, planning an escape route.

Anonymous said...

You have ZERO proof that NYU is renting "thousands" of apartments. ZERO. Why diminish the valid claims that you have with dumb claims that cannot be proven?

Anonymous said...

Anyone who contends that the student rental situation is not major is misinformed at best and being deceptive at worst. This is the single biggest enabling factor for CW and for a high-end rental situation to continue. Get rid of the students and the rental income possibilities are nor nearly as attractive. This is the Achilles heel. I don't want to hear about...oh, maybe no one would attend a rally. If the community isn't prepared to try a shot at rallying against NYU, then I guess this all just about venting. At least the TA was able to mount a rally at city hall that got press. May not be much but at least it was something.

Anonymous said...

A type I permit:

Alteration Type-I Application will be used to change the Maximum Number of Persons for a space.

and also

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/downloads/pdf/intro_659a.pdf

"(c) Not more than three unrelated persons occupying a dwelling unit and maintaining a common household"

Or are these not applicable?

Anonymous said...

SOMEONE, has to do SOMETHING, about renting to STUDENTS.
Neighborhood destroyed!!!!!

Anonymous said...

If anything the number of students in STPCV will be under-counted. Because some sign up as working professionals and are really students or they bring in students afterward without mgt knowing. Not all students come in from NYU. That has been the situation next door to me for almost 3 years. 2 BR in PCV, at times as many as 5 living there. And a steady change of faces. Often at home during the day or straggling in during late hours.

Anonymous said...

I will attend any anti-NYU rally any time anywhere. I am sick of paying through the nose to live in a dorm.

Anonymous said...

Anony 9.37 PM.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/nyregion/29roommates.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Applicable but rarely enforced. CWC/CR plays the game, a max of 3 on the lease but we all know here that there can be 4, 5, roommates living in the apartment. As far as I am concerned, this dormfication of PCVST is the number 1 QOL issue since CWC/CR does not enforce ANY of its QOL lease/regulations for its “rainmaker” demo.

Anonymous said...

How they can get away with this is just unbelievable.

Anonymous said...

Our floor as a one br with a family of 6 PEOPLE. I kid you not. Their items are all over the hallway. 3 kids 2 parents and a nanny.

On the other side of that family is 3 omg girls in a one br. They change faces every few months. One moves out, wheels and all, a new idiot moves in. Loud as hell and smoking in stairwell. Nice living here.

Anonymous said...

Here's the dealio folks - CWC and CR doesn't give a hoot if you move out and would prefer if you did. Whether you have an old RS lease or a new one. They don't want us folks and there is nothing you nor I can do about it. The powers that be would be delighted if NYU were their #1 customer and all 11,120 units were students.

Anonymous said...

Mismanagement recently put up a very inconspicuous notice pertaining to smoking in public areas of the buildings and throwing butts out the window, etc., and cited the New York City Clean Indoor Act Act (or something like that). Too bad this doesn't extend to indoor smoking of skunk weed. There is a stoner on my floor who smokes almost 24/7 and the stench of skunk weed permeates the hall and leaks into apartments. There is a permanent "fog" out in the hall. It really does wonders for my allergic bronchitis which is slowly killing me.

The QOL has gone down the crapper as the result of all these students living here. Too bad we don't have a tenants association or a councilman who could give a flying fuck about these things.

Anonymous said...

“Our floor as a one br with a family of 6 PEOPLE. I kid you not. Their items are all over the hallway. 3 kids 2 parents and a nanny. On the other side of that family is 3 omg girls in a one br. They change faces every few months. One moves out, wheels and all, a new idiot moves in. Loud as hell and smoking in stairwell. Nice living here.”

Sorry, but have you called PS on these issues, both being fire code violations? PS has to respond. The problem in this community is that many tents, especially long term ones, do nothing. ALL of us must call PS, over and over again. Please be respectful to them, they are not the issue per se, upper management is.

Anonymous said...

Agree NYU housing is #1 Quality of Life issue
And the #1 reason PCVST is at inflated price.
And #1 reason for loss of affordable housing in PCVST with rent stabilized apartments illegally removed from regulation.

Anonymous said...

What are all these unmarked white box trucks on the 14th Street Loop? It looks like they're unloading big flat things covered in brown paper. More illegal walls?

Anonymous said...

Oh where oh where is Councilman Dan?

Anonymous said...

5:27 = ? you want us to call PS to complain about too many kids in the apartment next door? and they'll say, what???

Anonymous said...

FTR, Public Safety does nothing about strollers, scooters and stuff in hallways. WE've reported many times, asked them to issue complaints, NADA, NOTHING.

an elderly man tripped on one of the scooters in hallway and still, PS did nothing.

Anonymous said...

Now that we're focusing on the student problem, I absolutely do not agree there is nothing we can do about it. The one thing these public institutions cannot stand is bad press. They want to be seen as upstanding members of the community. Recall how NYU law school backed down from demanding emails of 2 students who fomented action against a law school board member. Think of NYU's over-reach in this case. Who the devil is running this place. RALLY! Make NYU the issue. Target NYU management. Get the press to cover it. Then you'll see changes.

Anonymous said...

Are these jerk offs legally allowed to do construction on weekends and after 5 pm on weekdays? I could have sworn that these ghouls said they would be stopping at 5 pm everyday and no work on the weekends. I'm referring to the project in front of 276. On Friday they worked until 7 pm. They're working now on saturday 5pm.

Anonymous said...

Possibly the cubicle offices for the new Mgmt Office?

Anonymous said...

It's not just NYU, though that is the chief offender. These apartments should not be used as student housing whether it's through an arrangement with the college or the parental sponsorship.

Anonymous said...

9:13 am: I think the suggestion to call PS was concerning the noisey students and the smoking in the stairwells.

Anonymous said...

"WE've reported many times, asked them to issue complaints, NADA, NOTHING."

I assume you have an audit trail of the dates, time and the names (including the operator who took your call) of all the PS officers that were involved in your issue? When calling PS, you did you specify to the PS operator that you require the responding PS officer to come by your apartment to confirm that the offending tenant has been notified of the FDNY code violation and also, as I just stated, so you could get the responding officer’s name and badge number? Nobody said that fighting for our QOL here was going to be easy. Once you respond to my inquiry, I will then recommend further steps. Thanks

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>Are these jerk offs legally allowed to do construction on weekends and after 5 pm on weekdays? I could have sworn that these ghouls said they would be stopping at 5 pm everyday and no work on the weekends. I'm referring to the project in front of 276. On Friday they worked until 7 pm. They're working now on saturday 5pm.<<

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/noise_constr_rule.pdf

28-103. Authorized Work Hours.
a. Equipment shall be used only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays,unless the responsible party obtains an afte
r hours work authorization, in which case the equipment shall be used in accordance with the hours specified in the permit and in the after hours work authorization, as set forth in
§24-223 of the Administrative Code.

b. When work occurs after hours in accordance with §24-223 of the Administrative Code, or falls within one of the exceptions to limits on after hours and weekend construction work set forth in §24-222 of such Code, additional noise mitigation measures and/or techniques shall be implemented when required by DEP.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

They have to have an authorization to work after hours. Is there one posted?

Anonymous said...

This isn't a "cellar extension" as the DOB allowed to be filed and then issued permits.
This is an entire building being constructed.
CW successfully built a new building replacing Open Space in PCVST.
This is not one of TA/Dan's "accessories" or a "cellar extension" or any of the false statements in the DOB paperwork on this construction project.
The TA & Dan helped CW push through the DOB process a new building thwarting the tenant fight to protect the property.

This can't be considered anything other than a new "building".

Anonymous said...

After hours construction on the new offices has been going on for over a week and other times these past months without permits. Fed up residents at 276 and 300 reported it and got CW to get an after hours permit with a limited amount of specified days after hours work could occur which should now be posted on all the buildings affected. If its not, call 311 and report it.

Anonymous said...

I think the rally idea on NYU is interesting but not as the catalyst.

Maybe a journalist expose in a New Yorker or Vanity Fair on the
"NYU Decade of Real Estate Grabs and Scandals - The ethics, morals, and laws violated and broken as NYU operated as a corporation instead of a learning institution university"

Anonymous said...

And i can also confirm that tenants all over our floor and building keep tons of items in the hallway - strollers, scooters, bikes, grocery carts. And yes, have complained. Compass Rock employee said via telephone, and I repeat SAID the items are allowed in the hallways.

Anonymous said...

"The TA & Dan helped CW push through the DOB process a new building thwarting the tenant fight to protect the property."

You were doing so well until your tin foil hat impacted your brain. Absolute BS. Again, were you at the PS 40 meeting whereby you could have flung this crap at Garodnick, the TA, CWC, and the DOB? But of course you were not at the meeting. Like the economy, it’s the DOB stupid. CWC had the right to build this shithole. Again, for what, the 6th time, the process was audited and approved by the DOB. That’s who your issue is with. Not the TA.

Anonymous said...

So...why aren't we playing hardball? Did that get answered?

Anonymous said...

Not a dig at all, but what is the TA currently working on since they can't possibly be pushing for the purchase of the place any longer?????????

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>So...why aren't we playing hardball? Did that get answered?<<

No.

Anonymous said...

I checked for the permits after work today STR. They got them with all the dates after hours work are allowed. I still say management is ghoulish though. Does it not show a complete disregard for the living conditions of residents? I know, I know, I'm stating the obvious.

Anonymous said...

@4:18 how about pushing the sale of this place? It's the only game in town.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>I checked for the permits after work today STR. They got them with all the dates after hours work are allowed. I still say management is ghoulish though. Does it not show a complete disregard for the living conditions of residents? I know, I know, I'm stating the obvious.<<

I just posted the permit also. And, yes, management doesn't give a fuck about the tenants. A considerate management would at least offer a discount on the rent of those who live, or are trying to live, while such disruptive work is going on.

Anonymous said...

CW, DOB and our elected politicians are all in bed together. Funny how we, the tenants, are the only ones getting a screwing.

The TA is impotent and not even in the game anymore.

Anonymous said...

I'm beginning to think its 2:28 who has the tin foil hat brain issue. The name calling is ridiculous. Calling others stupid just because you disagree with them is meaningless. Attending the TA forums is a waste of time because the TA never opposes anything and were not opposing the construction.
So no one went.
Except maybe a few who thought the TA just might do something. The only thing that happened at the meeting was the TA did nothing except coordinate the meeting logistics.
Maybe people would go to the TA forums if the TA represented tenants in the forums, took a position, spoke up and fought!
Until then, its ridiculous to have an expectation anyone go to TA forums because by the way - FORUMS ARE NOT REQUIRED ATTENDANCE or only place to have a voice. They are a waste of time.

Anonymous said...

The after hours work, the turned off electricity, the turned off plumbing, yes a considerate landlord would give a discount but look at the discount we got from the flooded basements without laundry. That wasn't a discount. Just a penny or two to say they did something.

Anonymous said...

2:22 GREAT, I'LL BE dining in the hall today. Not enough space inside for my 4 roommates and me. Also great news since my dog crate needs a place to stay when not using. I'll just place it in the hallways at peter cooper vil.

Anonymous said...

The TA were onboard with the construction of the new management office and the destruction of the trees in order to accommodate it. I think the TA has been kissing CW's ass in the vain hope that CW will sell it to them. The TA doesn't represent us anymore; it is a self-serving organization that wants to partner with Garodnick to buy this joint. I think Garodnick and CW are playing the TA, but they just don't see it.

Anonymous said...

STR, many, many of us would LOVE to play hardball with these sleazy scum bastards, but how do we? Do you have any suggestions?

Anonymous said...

STR, how do we play hardball with this filth? I would love to know how we can do that. It seems that all that we can do is seethe with undiluted hatred for them and that doesn't help. Any suggestions as to how we can fight back would be greatly appreciated. Just don't suggest calling on Garodnick because he is part of the disease, not the cure.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

Two ways, I think: 1) We have to demand that the TA play hardball and probably vote out certain individuals, and 2), perhaps more importantly, we as individuals have to initiate action on our own behalf. This means getting knowledgeable about tenant law and rights, and pursuing legal means to make sure those laws and rights are not trampled upon. I know I've been stating this for a while, but one of my goals is to set up on the blog a base of knowledge and contact info that can guide us as individuals. I just have so little time to devote to this, as I'm busy with work and posting on the blog more immediate concerns. But it will happen.

I have other ideas, too, which I'll try to expound on in the future.

Anonymous said...

I want a rally against NYU. The TA is the natural group to form and lead rallies. But unless Garodnick & pols come up with the rally ideas, the TA isn't acting independently enough to initiate anything. None of us here want to run for TA Board and no one else wants to take a shot at organizing anything. Therefore: no hardball.

Anonymous said...

"But it will happen.

I have other ideas, too, which I'll try to expound on in the future."

Count me in. I would dance barefoot on broken glass to get rid of CW and get this place back to normal.

Anonymous said...

STR, I don't think we can ever get the TA to play hardball. They are a bunch of wannabe owners and, when it comes to standing up to the corruption and criminality of CW, they are a bunch of limp dicks. They don't have any cojones whatsoever. They will get up their little rallies (loved by Garodnick, et al because it is a photo op), but when it comes to really fighting the enemy - well, need I saw more?

Anonymous said...

Couple of thoughts:
Re: NYU. I've posted on other threads here the contact info for the people in charge of the dorm apartments (not to be confused with apartments rented independently by students). Check out the NYU site, call/email those people, and make their lives as miserable as the students are making yours.

Re: things in hallway etc. You absolutely must take pictures--you must document the violations. Whom do you send them to? Alas, the dreaded Donalda Habersham comes to mind since she's the alleged tenant liaison. But posting them on the TA Facebook page couldn't hurt--outsiders look at that page as well as management.

As someone else noted, you must get the name of the PS officer whom you speak to or who responds. From my own experience I know that even if they show up, they don't always file a report and it's as if they were never there. The notices they leave on the door are not numbered, so management has no way to confirm that an officer showed up. If you've got a really bad situation, I suggest emailing Bill McClellan. Once you've put the head of PS on notice, anything that happens afterward. His email is wmcclellan@pcvst.com.

Anonymous said...

Let's form our own TA

Anonymous said...

At last...some discussions about tactics. STR....I'm asking you for more posts about tactics. Please.

Anonymous said...

"Let's form our own TA"

Wish we could. The TA used to be very good, but now it may as well not exist.

Anonymous said...

@ 6:05 AM, who said "Let's form our own TA," and all other posters who are unhappy with the current TA officers:

Why don't you all just run for office in the existing TA? Doesn't that make a lot more sense?

Anonymous said...

Why don't you all just run for office in the existing TA? Doesn't that make a lot more sense?

You have to be a dues paying member of the current Buyers Association in order to vote. I wouldn't give these incompetent fools 35 cents less 35 dollars. Same as about 90+ percent of the tenants here.

Anonymous said...

"Why don't you all just run for office in the existing TA? Doesn't that make a lot more sense?"

No, it wouldn't.

Anonymous said...

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3qc862

Are you still going on about the more then 3 unrelated individual thing? Give me a break, you might as well campaign to turn everything in New York City back to how it was circa 1960. That will never be enforced, and if it did rents would double, and riots would break out in the streets.

Anonymous said...

@6:05 because that would require actually doing something outside the blogosphere...in the real world.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

Some of the people who post here have going outside of the blogosphere to do something. I know I have, as I know others have.

Anonymous said...

4:56 Said the dude who lives in a one bedroom with 3 other guys.

Ew.

Anonymous said...

"@6:05 because that would require actually doing something outside the blogosphere...in the real world."

I wonder what you do, apart from sniping at others?

Anonymous said...

@9:38 fair question, I support the Existing TA,, including paying dues, attend rally's etc. they do a great job under difficult circumstances and will continue support.

Anonymous said...

1:43...you're entitled to your opinion. Most here wouldn't agree. But we here attend rallies too so when you come right down to it, all you're doing that we're not doing is writing a check and praising the TA.

Anonymous said...

"Buyers Association"

So true.

Anonymous said...

June 30, 2014 at 9:38 PM

You may not like it, but June 30, 2014 at 7:01 PM makes a fair point. It's easy to point fingers at politicians and tenant leaders, but not always so easy to take stock of ourselves. STR recently brought up "Hands Around Stuy Town" rally held by the tenants group New York is Our Home. If it weren't for the busloads of people who came in from uptown and the boroughs, we wouldn't have made it halfway around STPCV.

IMO we have a very active tenants association but a fairly docile community.

Anonymous said...

The TA may be very active, but not on our behalf. They're very actively working on the pipe dream of ownership.

Anonymous said...

7:32 the results would say otherwise. If this TA is active then they are not good at their jobs. They don't know what "active" is and they think the effort they make is active when by standard business definition it is below average. This is not a high performance, active, result oriented successful TA. The results are not there. The standard criteria a TA does is not being met with this team.

Anonymous said...

If the TA is so active why aren't they getting better results or taking on the important QOL issues?

They may be active but it is not on behalf of tenants.

I am MR. The TA asked us (via a solicited MR tenant who was pretending to be some kind of leader) to support the TA on the Brookfield purchase. That moment we knew the TA is not supporting tenants but is asking tenants to support the TA. We knew the TA was betraying RS tenants pitting us against each other. We did not support the TA since our plan is to move to the suburbs when the kids are a little older but we also did not like the TA betraying some tenants, our friends and neighbors, for a real estate deal. The whole thing left a disgusting bad taste in our mouth.

Anonymous said...

7:39 am: You said it!

Anonymous said...

@6:20 showing up is 9/10 of the job, if we were all truly attending rallies our voice would be much much larger.

Anonymous said...

July 2, 2014 at 7:39 AM-You have no idea what the TA does. Volunteer to become a building leader and go to the bi-monthly meetings and you'll find out what gets done. Just to refresh your memory. After lobbying efforts by the TA, Chuck Schumer got Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to stay out of any deals that will overleverage ST-PCV and the mayor got CW to suspend the sale for 2 months so that avenues can be explored to avoid a repeat of 2006.

July 2, 2014 at 1:57 AM-

Anonymous said...

9:20 AM: Thank you very much for that information. I have long suspected that the TA is not on the side of the longtime RS tenants. I know I'll get some flack here (or maybe not published), but I believe the TA and Garodnick are in cahoots together and the rest of us are not privy to their conniving.

Anonymous said...

The current board of directors at the TA need to step down. Then the organization could re-invent itself as an actual Tenants Association. As long as the TA stays as is nothing will get done here. Whether you or they like it they are a huge part of the problem. Perhaps the biggest part of the problem because as long as they exist as they currently do CW will run roughshod over tenants since they know less than10% support TA.

Edmund Dunn said...

“They may be active but it is not on behalf of tenants.”

“The standard criteria a TA does is not being met with this team.”

“All you are proving is TA meetings are pointless, useless gratuitous hey-we-gave-you-a-forum to oppose even though nothing you say will make a difference, but hey you had a forum to speak up.”

I am still waiting to see a viable PCVST tenant organization alternative to the current TA, organized by the TA detractors here since you all believe that the current TA is beyond saving. Competition is always a good thing. Mission statement and a listing of your real names (board members) as well. And how are you going to deal with the politicians that we have now, as opposed to the ones that we ought to have? Will you use in house member counsel or be able to retain outside counsel? At a bare minimum, either you or get someone with IS expertise, to create an on line petition and use FB or another SM to promote it, with all of your talking points regarding the Management Office and all of the other issues discussed at this blog. That petition should be addressed to all of the politicians, local and state, that impact our lives here. Since it will have no relation at all to the current TA, it should be a no brainer for you all to sign. Call it from “Concerned Tenants of PCVST” or whatever suits you. Again, everyone is going to have to put their real names on the petition so that it will have some punch to it. As I have posted my real name to this comment. I’ll sign it. Waiting.

‘but a fairly docile community.’

BTW, this line is 100% true.

Anonymous said...

9:20 AM, if what you say is true (and I have no reason to doubt you), then the TA should just go away because they are of no use to tenants whatsoever. Not MR ("New Stabilizer" tenants and most definitely not the longtime real RS tenants. They are disgusting.

Anonymous said...

I am older, RS. I don't think the TA is pitting us against each other . You sound like a big baby trying to start a fight. They're trying to protect what little we have left and things look bad for RS going forward and we all know it.

If anyone is PITTING sounds like it's you. Stop blaming the TA for your problems or step up and volunteer. W.T. F.

Anonymous said...

@9:20 your attempt at channeling a TA disaffected MR tenant isn't very believable. Fail better next time.

Anonymous said...

1:12: and I agree. Go to the rallies and meetings and express yourself. Anything less is just you being a tool.

I'm not crazy about the current TA, but to firmly believe that they and DG are in cahoots is now just laughable. For what cahoots? LOL

Anonymous said...

July 2, 2014 at 6:25 PM

Don't believe everything you read online.

Anonymous said...

Edmund Dunn-

Back in 2006 or 2007 an effort was made to start a rival TA devoted strictly to QOL issues. They put up a website and published a couple of letters in T&V. Do you remember it? Maybe a few STR readers were directly involved and can share with us why it fizzled out in less than a year. Probably because, as you reiterate, this is "a fairly docile community."

Edmund Dunn said...

Anony 11.33 AM. Yes, I remember that effort. I don’t think this link was the one you are referring to but, bottom line, the talking points listed here are still very relevant.

http://savestuytown.blogspot.com/