This is getting even more interesting.
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20140605/REAL_ESTATE/140609919/cwcapital-takes-title-to-stuy-town-cancels-auction#
CWCapital Asset Management took title to Stuyvesant Town-Peter Cooper
Village, Manhattan's largest apartment complex, and canceled an auction
for control of the property....
"This eliminates the circus that could have unfolded at a mezzanine
foreclosure sale," City Councilman Daniel Garodnick, who lives in the
complex, said in an e-mailed statement. "It is the right next step that
will give time for a more considered process that can protect not only
the bondholders, but also the tenants and the city."
And it's nice to know that CW cares about us:
CWCapital "determined this action to be in the best interest of the
certificate holders and provided the greatest stability for the
community," the company said Thursday in an e-mailed statement.
More at the above link.
A good thing, a bad thing. A bad thing, a good thing. Does anyone really trust any of these dumb public statements? This is political ping-pong. The roulette wheel is spinning and the little ball is popping all around with a bunch of greedy bastards salivating over the wheel and screaming for the little ball to land where they've placed their bets. Meanwhile, our community and tenant lives are at stake. To me all of this looks bad.
ReplyDeleteSpot on.
ReplyDeleteWith the latest move by CW, the TA officers have changed their tact. At first it looked as if they were going to rally against Fortress, and I was for that. Now it looks as if they're going to rally in support of their deal with Brookfield. A lot of people will show up not realizing that the Brookfield deal offers little for them and that this is a TA board that is now fairly desperate to hold on to some credibility and move its own agenda. Few but the board itself should rally for that.
ReplyDeleteI think this is in the category of "it could have been worse." That's not to say it's good.
ReplyDeleteNow that CW's plan to buy our community "from the inside" has been derailed can we have a few very important questions answered?
ReplyDeleteWith talk of a sales price of $5 billion now, we demand the TA talk to us about the economics of the acquisition. At that price, what would the TA require as a percentage of conversions and that would be the possible cost per square foot for unit purchase. I don't want the TA giving us any BS about DOS restrictions on conversations before conversion because that's a load of BS since the TA is not the owner but rather a prospective purchaser.
I pose this question to Mr. Guterman as well since he was the only group that provided any guidance last time.
Hell, I'll even pose the question to CW/Fortress.
I'd ask the TA to set up another round of talks with prospective purchasers. At this point ($5 billion), Brookfield may no longer be the best qualified partner. And I'd demand that these seminars take place in an open forum where the tenants can attend and ask questions.
>>With the latest move by CW, the TA officers have changed their tact. At first it looked as if they were going to rally against Fortress, and I was for that. Now it looks as if they're going to rally in support of their deal with Brookfield.<<
ReplyDeleteWait. Perhaps now the rally will be for CW, our new best friend.
This is all potentially hazardous to the health of CW execs and Dandy Dan Gorodnick. Why, with all of this patting themselves on the back, someone is bound to sprain a wrist!
ReplyDeleteI suppose you have to laugh so you don't just cry and cry...
I feel like shouting "Don't get on the bus!"
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article it sounds like Brookfield and Fortress "bribed" the city with its "tax payments" to keep the "bidding" between Brookfield and Fortress and keep out all others including the mystery bidder. Is that business maneuver legal?
ReplyDeleteAnd they had a politician say its a "good" thing to "avoid a circus" when actually it eliminates competition for what could have brought a better deal for residents. We'll never know because they just shut out competition.
Is that fair business practice?
Previously CW applauded Dan and now Dan applauds CW. In general I prefer these guys stop applauding each other and leave the applauding up to constituents to determine. The mutual applauding is posturing and pathetic. The deals are done - these guys have been in bed together for years, acting in concert. A rally is at best a pretense so some politician can then get on a pedestal and say "I hear you and here is what I am going to do for you" when actually these things are long ago predetermined.
ReplyDeleteIs it a rally for CW for Fortress for Brookfield? No difference.
The question is: Does it make a difference if 100 show up or 200? I've been wavering whether to attend the rally and may do so in my "official capacity" as an amateur reporter. If I hear something that I approve of, I may clap. But I do believe it makes no difference because there are at powerful entities involved who have a plan and are steadily actualizing it. These entities don't give a fuck about tenants or affordable housing and they are confident that they will win based on years of experience. Tenants are just a minor nuisance. So we show up at City Hall and listen to some rousing speeches about affordable housing and upgrading tenant protection laws. So what?
ReplyDeleteOnly political power can trump some of the plans that those entities have. Unless you want to start a revolution. So it's relevant to see what the politicians will come up with, something tangible, and not the usual bullshit.
Go to the rally, STR. Yeah there are big players involved and we can't match them in court. Our only real hope lies with City Hall and maybe the City Council. They need to see up close that we're organized and that we actually give a shit about what happens to us. Not to mention that we expect their intervention in this mess in some way. After all, the city basically gave the land under us to Metlife for nothing way back when and we're still a big chunk of middle income NYC housing despite CW's best efforts.
ReplyDeleteGarodnick's probably not thrilled about what CWFortress just pulled. As 10:18 AM suggests, he's looking for a silver lining and is probably thinking the auction alternative would have been worse.
ReplyDelete“After reading the article it sounds like Brookfield and Fortress "bribed" the city with its "tax payments" to keep the "bidding" between Brookfield and Fortress and keep out all others including the mystery bidder”
ReplyDeleteExcuse me but where in the Crain article does it say that Brookfield paid any Taxes? Where in ANY link posted here does it say that Brookfield paid any taxes for PCVST?
“CWCapital paid city and state transfer taxes totaling more than $100 million, according to documents posted Thursday on the city Finance Department's property-records website. The auction had been scheduled for June 13.”
Why would Brookfield pay any taxes when it owes a ZERO percentage of PCVST? Some of the comments on this blog have truly reached the tin foil hat motif.
"Now that CW's plan to buy our community "from the inside" has been derailed can we have a few very important questions answered?
ReplyDeleteWith talk of a sales price of $5 billion now, we demand the TA talk to us about the economics of the acquisition. At that price, what would the TA require as a percentage of conversions and that would be the possible cost per square foot for unit purchase. I don't want the TA giving us any BS about DOS restrictions on conversations before conversion because that's a load of BS since the TA is not the owner but rather a prospective purchaser.
I pose this question to Mr. Guterman as well since he was the only group that provided any guidance last time.
Hell, I'll even pose the question to CW/Fortress.
I'd ask the TA to set up another round of talks with prospective purchasers. At this point ($5 billion), Brookfield may no longer be the best qualified partner. And I'd demand that these seminars take place in an open forum where the tenants can attend and ask questions."
Well said.....let's see if we get a response
Get ready. Garodnick applauding CW means long time tenants will get screwed. Garodnick likes to make smokescreen statements. Craziness of an auction isn't an issue. Who is he kidding? Maybe it would lead to higher bids, maybe not. But the upside for him is less competition, less oppty for tenants to see that there were plans out there more tenant-friendly than Brookfield's. At least an auction would be public. What I hate about this new situation is that it is a politician's paradise. Deciding things behind closed doors, just like the old political bosses did it. And now through Garodnick we have the TA board involved behind closed doors, too. This is not good, no matter how Garodnick & the TA spin it. They're pushing their agendas. not our interests.
ReplyDeleteIMHO, with a sale price of around 4.5 billion, IF the complex becomes a condo or co-op, there will still be pressure to sustain the rent roll because they aren't going to sell 11,000 units for quite a long time. That means that the bro/ho/fido circus will continue for years, and will also complicate buyers decisions if they happen to live under or next to a sub-divided apartment. You do the math, YMMV.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteCuomo Has Raised Over $33 Million for Re-election Bid
"As with his past fund-raising, Mr. Cuomo benefited from large donors writing five-figure checks, particularly from the real estate industry,..... "
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/16/nyregion/cuomo-has-raised-over-33-million-for-re-election-bid.html?_r=0
ita. GO TO THE RALLY.
ReplyDeletePolitical power is our last hope. Sad and true.
Oh yes! Congratulations Dan Gardnick! A handy J for you!
ReplyDeleteCuomo lobbyist led by real estate execs gets $2M from gambling group
ReplyDeleteA political-lobbying group founded by real estate developers and business executives closely allied with Governor Andrew Cuomo received a total of $2 million from a gambling interest group last December, the New York Times reported.
http://therealdeal.com/blog/2012/06/05/gambling-group-gave-2m-to-cuomo-lobbying-group-headed-by-real-estate-execs/
Looks like some sort of agreement is coalescing Btwn the TA and CW in furtherance of a conversion. Looks like organization and hard work may be yielding results. See what happens when you actually do something.
ReplyDelete3/26/2014 @ 3:59PM 6,037 views
ReplyDeleteTop Billionaire Political Donors in New York
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andreanavarro/2014/03/26/top-billionaire-political-donors-in-new-york/
No rally is going to amount to a hill of beans against those who buy our sell-out politicians with this kind of money.
Edited to fit blog limit
ReplyDelete10 16 2013
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW
Senator Rev. Rubén Díaz Bronx
Do as I Say, Not as I Do
You should know that “Do as I Say, Not as I Do” appears to be the message NYS Governor Andrew Cuomo is sending...State Legislature and the people of NY.
We all know Moreland Commission, created by Governor Cuomo, was intended to investigate and end corruption in our State’s government and public programs. ...we all know about the brouhaha that went with the idea of this Commission, the high talk about how his Commission would be independent, and how freely his Commission Members would be able to go against anyone to weed out corruption.
You should also know when the Moreland Commission decided to investigate the State Democratic Party and how they spend their money - surprise, surprise! – our beloved Governor (they say) got his office involved and ordered the good people of Moreland Commission not to issue subpoenas they already prepared to be served on the Governor’s friend – or on the State Democratic Party.
You should know there have been recent developments. Due to relentless coverage, NY Daily News and other media outlets, Moreland Commission will no longer withhold subpoenas to be served on State Democratic Party.
I applaud Daily News and hope they and rest of media will pressure Moreland Commission to focus on the Governor.
By quashing subpoenas against the Governor’s real estate interests, we all have to wonder what is the real point of Moreland Commission?
...if the good people of Moreland Commission...do their job, they should be going after corruption wherever they find it.
...the Moreland Commission should prepare and serve subpoenas on targets of any investigations surrounding Governor Cuomo’s real estate dealings.
These investigations should include all money he has been receiving from real estate interests, all tax breaks he has been giving to his donors from NY State, and all donations from real estate companies to Governor Cuomo’s campaign coffers – and to campaign committees of other elected officials.
According to some reports, Governor Andrew Cuomo’s campaign committee has been deeply influenced by real estate interests.
One of these individuals Mr. Andrew Farkas and his Island Capital Group.
One report states “After his failed 2002 primary bid for governor, Cuomo found work with one-time enemy, real estate magnate Andrew Farkas. Farkas gave Cuomo a position as VP of Island Capital where Cuomo eventually earned over $2.5M. Farkas served as Cuomo’s finance chairman when Cuomo left Island Capital to run for attorney general.”
...why shouldn’t the Moreland Commission investigate connection, donations, and participation of real estate magnates Jerry Speyer and Dan Tishman?
...also real estate giants like Thor Equities, Silverstein Properties, Extell Development Co., Fischer Brothers and Ann/Nassau Realty. Or investigating Committee to Save New York and all its members who raised $17M to help Andrew Cuomo?
If the Governor really wants Moreland Commission to do a respectable job, he should use himself as an example and agree to be thoroughly investigated.
If Moreland Commission wants to go after any legislator – even me, Senator Rubén Díaz, it should – but it should be an independent investigation. My colleagues in government should all know that if you haven’t do anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. Let it be independent. Let it be free.
The Moreland Commission should be allowed to investigate corruption on every level of State government. ...the Assembly, the Senate, the Attorney General, the Comptroller, the Lieutenant Governor, and the Governor.
Ladies and gentlemen, you should know compared to all the rumors of Governor Andrew Cuomo's dealings with the real estate magnates and his dealings with the Committee to Save New York – and the way all of that money has been thrown around – we in Legislature look like saints.
This is Senator Reverend Rubén Díaz and this is what you should know.
http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/what-you-should-know-122
6:18 PM At a sales price of $5 billion, the economics of the acquisition don't work out for Brookfield or Guterman or anybody who isn't interested in throwing out all the longtime tenants with the bathwater. That's the problem, that's why we desperately need intervention of some sort by city gov't (I'm not counting on Cuomo) and that appears to be what the TA and Garodnick are after. Hopefully something good can come of it.
ReplyDelete6:43 PM The above applies to your comment, too. At $5B Guterman and Brookfield are out and they know it. $5B is about $1.5B more than the property is worth, so it's TS redux. After the TS debacle, it's in our interest and the city's to try to not go through all that again. You'd better hope de Blasio's team is looking at doing things for us about this deal behind closed doors.
6:43pm - The process is not over. Most probably, CW will take the assets (they split the ownership into (1) Stuy Town and (2) Peter Cooper this past Tuesday, I think)to auction later in the year. CW attempted to buy the assets via foreclosure but a junior mezz owner mucked that up on them. So noe it's the more traditional route of offering the assets for sale and accepting bids.
ReplyDeleteThere is still this question out there as to whether CW can trigger the fair value clause in the CMBS. If they can, I'm not sure they'd want the political headaches as well as lawsuits that it would bring. What could give CW cover in triggering that clause is a partnership with the tenants, imo. Can you believe that! We could give CW political cover for buying the asset. They'll agree to a specific insider price for purchase. They'll agree to reserve a specific number of apartments for workforce housing (80%-120% AMI). That's my plan. If the TA agrees with me, I'll support them, hah!!!
It's a wonder our fancy lawyers never saw this coming.
ReplyDelete6:50 pm. If I own and apartment (and I have), I get a say in the bro ho activity and that 's a huge amount of control. Yes, I'ld like that especially with the current situation.
ReplyDeleteIf they use the elderly for a rally for their back room real estate deal I will be livid.
ReplyDeleteMr. 8:54 AM - Oh goodness! All my friends and I from the senior center will be attending the rally! We'll look for you, dear. Does your face get all red and your mouth pucker up and your eyes get all squinty when you're livid? That's what happens to my brother-in-law Roy whenever he remembers that that nice Mr Obama is president. Try singing yourself a song when you're agitated. This one always calms Roy down. Well here's an idea, Mr. 8:54 AM. My friends and I can find you easily! We'll just listen for a red-faced man singing Bim Bam Bum!
ReplyDelete8:54 what makes you think older residents won't be there by choice? Are we too feeble minded to make decisions on our own?
ReplyDeleteSeems Edna Doodle is still alive and kicking!
ReplyDeleteWhat's the point of the rally? Seems like the die is cast, the deed is done and we are fucked up the ass as usual.
ReplyDeletenope. the deed isn't done yet as you suggested by using the words "seems like." and i'm not willing to bend over voluntarily and accept it like you appear to be. i'm going to the rally and i'm going to be actively involved in holding elected officials accountable if they're m.i.a. or don't get seriously involved in it this time.
ReplyDeleteHere's my new scenario:
ReplyDelete1. Brookfield-TA wins the bid with deBlasio support because of the low income units. That fits deBlasio's MO.
2. Brookfield ultimately screws the tenants. Very few can afford to buy. Relatively few units are low income and bitter infighting breaks out when TA Board members somehow wind up with these.
3. Brookfield hires its own lawyers. Paul Weiss and Moelis also get screwed.
4. Tenants are furious at Garodnick. His political career is over.
5. Tenants are furious at deBlasio for supporting a lousy deal.
5. Most tenants are furious at the TA. They see they got next to nothing out of the deal.
6. A New TA board is elected and the long battle begins all over again between the tenants and the new owners.
Will they be serving food and drink on the bus? If not, I won't be going.
ReplyDelete>>Will they be serving food and drink on the bus? If not, I won't be going<<
ReplyDeleteNot sure, but I heard that weed will be passed around.
@7:59 AM. I wish you luck, but your board needs to balance the finances, and if that means maintaining the status quo than they might not have a choice. It's still not easy to rent $4000 a month apartments to families. The Tishman deal broke the operating model for PCV/ST, and I don't see how you fix it.
ReplyDelete10:25 PM and STR
ReplyDeleteThe rally's at city hall. It's at city hall because they're trying to lobby the mayor to intervene somehow in the $4.7B sale because at $4.7b that puts us in the same if not worse position we were in after TS purchased us for too much money in 2006.
You both think the rally's a joke, but Bloomberg refused to intervene the last time and his name is still shit around here because of it.
So are you two saying you don't think it's worth bothering to lobby the mayor for help?
I never said the rally is a joke, but I do think it won't do much, if anything, for our cause. Despite my pessimistic view, I will be there if I can.
ReplyDeleteHonestly and no offense, but you think:
ReplyDeletea) the mayor will show his face, make a statement;
b) that he could or would help us?
If so, please see me about the bridge I'm selling. Again. Selling the bridge again.
What's with this Garodnick guy? Is he with us or against us? I saw a segment on NY1 today which featured the demise of affordable housing in Manhattan. Gayle Brewer was saying that RS apartments should be preserved and no more of them should be allowed to be taken out of RS. Garodnick doesn't seem to be on the same page. Where does this man stand as far as preserving GENUINE rent stabilization is concerned? I get the impression that he and his former law firm cronies and Brookfield are out to make a killing on this property and they won't be any better than any other predator that is salivating over the property. As a longtime RS tenant, all I can say is that I am not wlilling or able to buy my apartment, but I am not going to be driven out without a battle.
ReplyDeleteI am so sick of these slimy politicians that just the mention of their names makes me want to puke. I don't trust Garodnick and I am sooo glad he didn't become the Speaker of the City Council. I don't know if Brewer is really any better, but I think I would trust her more than I would ever trust Garodnick. I hope this guy just goes away and never comes back when his term ends.
9:21 why doesn't Garodnick seem to be on the same page? I've never heard him say or advocate anything contrary to the benefit of RS tenantry,
ReplyDelete9:21 why doesn't Garodnick seem to be on the same page? I've never heard him say or advocate anything contrary to the benefit of RS tenantry,
ReplyDeleteHave you been in a coma the last 6 years?
Garodnick wanted a tenant buyout, he tried, for whatever reasons, maybe selfish. That idea and route was dead in the water long ago. He knows it, we know it, let's shut up about the buyout from 11, 210 apartments now. Such a joke to go on and on and on and on and on about it. Let's get to the real issue here.
ReplyDelete