Comment Policy

All comments to posts have to await approval. Approval does not happen immediately. NOTE: Comments reflect the opinions of the person writing them and should not be assumed to reflect the opinion of the blog.

Management has two priorities: 1) Making sure money is made, hence upgrading and filling up apartments is their goal. "Amenities" are important in selling the place, though few residents use them. 2) If someone needs medical attention, Public Safety will be there, if alerted.

Quality of life issues are not that important, however. They tend to be ignored, despite "the rules." So you will see a lot that isn't taken care of properly, and complaints will be met with a creative excuse and a smile.

"Peace and quiet" must be a cruel joke, though this property is sold that way. There can be no peace and quiet as ALL apartments must be upgraded, which includes the installation of an AC unit below the window. Aside from the continual construction about the neighborhood, there is a new and noisy subway extension being built along East 14 st and the shut down of the L line. "Choosing" to live in NYC, now the newest mantra, is a fabrication when the talk is of ST and PCV, which was traditionally quiet, with no construction noise.

Though money was always important, it is now more important than ever. Money rules many things, as you will find.

At this point, 30 years into living here and seeing many things, I can state that Management and their reps are BS-ing us. I can't say that loudly enough: We are being BS-ed. I don't see any genuine change. Sorry.

Tuesday, June 3, 2014

Guterman Responds to "TA Comments on Guterman-Westwood Letter"

STR: Referenced in a posting on the TA Facebook page, May 31, 2014:

http://www.stpcvta.org/ta/post/ta_comments_on_guterman_westwood_letter

Guterman response below.

Today, a blog was posted by AJ Miller, on the Facebook/Stuyvesant Town Tenant Association pages. AJ Miller innocently presented a previous posting (2011) by the Tenant Association (I am advised), on their own web-site and I believe, the local newspaper known as Town & Village.

The letter was not sent to me. There has been no attempt to contact me.

I would like to remind all the readers, that posting on their own web-site or even in Town &Village, does not constitute a reply to the letters and memorandums I sent to the Association and their representatives.

Certainly, any group (Stuyvesant Town Peter Cooper Tenant Association) without a hidden agenda, and considering our in-depth knowledge and experience over forty-four years, as successful real estate investors and thirty five years as principals in successful condominium and cooperative conversions, would have long ago acknowledged my many attempts to discuss the reasons, for our choice to convert the property to cooperative ownership.

The information in the TA's 2011 post, was simply inaccurate and based on inexperience and a lack of expertise in New York conversions and with cooperative housing in particular. I would also like to mention, that the accuracy of the advice and the expertise and experience of the TA advisors, is what should be worrisome to the TA Board and to the residents of the community as a whole.

While I don't want to comment at this time on our firm's reasons for selecting a cooperative form of ownership, I can tell you that the decision was based on our own personal and direct knowledge gained from the many thousands of New York City apartments that we converted to cooperative and condominium ownership.

Just to be absolutely clear, we are sincerely interested in the ownership and conversion of Stuyvesant Town/Peter Cooper Village and are willing to have a debate about the strengths of our reasoning as  compared to a condominium conversion plan. I will be happy to sit in an auditorium with a Brookfield real estate officer and with an experienced cooperative and condominium real estate partner, from both Paul Weiss et al and Moelis & Company.

Gerald Guterman

25 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ms Miller just presents what the TA represented close to 2 yrs ago:
1) Financial Commitment (G-W finances questioned)
2) Short-Term Partner (G-W doesn't want to be a long term partner.)
3) Problems (like) a common tax lot and a master mortgage, increasing the chance of systemic financial distress that could impact every resident in the community.

#1: Financial experts could better say other than the TA. But the G-W plan is so tenant-friendly, there would be high participation which would defray much of the financial burden on the developer.
#2: Who wants a long term partner? The whole point is...we'd like to govern ourselves. We could use expert advise for about 2 yrs and then go on our own.
#3: This is the real psychological & somewhat manipulative point. Even though co-ops have been the most stable form of ownership for 90 years, the TA knows that default would be a big worry particularly for middle class incomes. But condos have been much less stable than co-ops.

Although I would like to see an open debate, there will never be one. Neither the TA nor Brookfield would participate. On the surface, we'd probably see the same silence and posturing...as if the TA is above a debate, but in reality the TA wouldn't participate because they can't win. Knowing that affordability is the key issue, knowing that they left out condo downsides, knowing that they've misrepresented several points about co-ops, they won't respond. However, if they did respond and they were able to make strong, convincing points, that would go a long way toward restoring my support of the TA.
Of the Guterman plan, Dan Garodnick said: "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is." Nice slogan. Why not join the debate and show in detail how or why this statement applies.
I feel that the Guterman plan sets a baseline for a plan that is tenant-friendly. To win tenant support, others should have to SHOW why their plans are better for tenants.
Take something like the Guterman plan and compare it to what big fish Fortress has in store and you'll see real reasons for tenants to take to the streets.

Anonymous said...

I've been on the Guterman train all along. What say you TA board??? Does Garodnick have pictures that scare you or something?? Isn't it about time you listened to the Tenants instead of Garodnick???

Anonymous said...

No one has anything negative to say about Guterman?
Time to start digging, conspiracy theorists and keyboard commandos. There must be a few disgruntled recipients of his largesse out there. Clever of him to be in touch with us directly--might win him a few friends. Let's do our homework.

Anonymous said...

Garodnick clearly controls the TA. I'll be so glad when he rides off into the sunset because he is nothing more than an opportunistic, ambitious toad. He has done fuck-all for the tenants since he became a councilman over 8 years ago. He has gone along with the rape and pillage of this property and I don't think anyone is fooled by his "letters of protest" to management along the way. They are in bed together and he uses the TA as a tool to get what he wants.

Anonymous said...

I"m confused. No one is selling to Guterman. Why are we posting this?

Anonymous said...

Posted this on another thread but think it belongs here.

"The quisling troll who is constantly bashing the TA on this site must be an agent if CW or Gutterman."

That is just the dumbest comment that keeps getting posted over and over again. I am a 50+ year resident and I think the TA sucks and should not only be bashed but they should be sued. Anyone wants to take the lead on that and I will contribute both time and money!!!

Anonymous said...

Whatever you can dredge up about Guterman, you need to apply the same diligence to Brookfield, Fortress and any other contender. Guaranteed, you'll find ample tarnish on the best of them. Judge one without judging all, I'd say you're probably from the TA. No matter how smooth the social patter, none of them are saints. I'm just looking at the merits & disadvantages of their plans.

Anonymous said...



LOL You people think we can control things that happen here and tell the powers that be, who to sell to and what to do with THEIR property... We can't. We can't do anything as we're not the owners. I feel like I'm living in a forever shaky place here. I don't know that I will stay as I'm fed up. I'm sure the landlord loves hearing this. Well played.

Anonymous said...

Just took a look at the office construction where the crane fell on its side this morning. That is not an "accessory" or a "cellar extension" That is a full blown building.

Another big lie by the same liars cheats and frauds.

Anonymous said...

2:28 as if you have a choice here. Really?

Anonymous said...

Christie Real Estate scam

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/chris-christie-fund-raiser-106m-tax-break-law-overhaul-article-1.1814834

Albany no different. Same scam. Different players. Extell One 57 needs a good investigation.

Anonymous said...

People who join here as johnny-come-latelies think they're telling us something. We know we have no leverage outside of demonstrating and rallying. The question is: what are we rallying for? Defeating Fortress? I'm for that. In favor of the TA-Brookfield plan? I'm not in favor of rallying for that. I would rally for something like the Guterman plan. Sorting out where people stand and what they'll stand up for. That's what this is all about.

Anonymous said...

Although Guterman's 2011 tenant-friendly proposal ($3 billion sale price converts to $316/sq ft insider price) was, at best a rough estimate, it was intended to generate the highest possible percentage tenant buy-in by offering the lowest possible purchase price affordable to the maximum number of tenants wanting ownership.

My very rough Guterman plan extrapolation ($4.5 billion - $5 billion sale price converts to $474/sq ft - $506/sq ft insider price) is less affordable, but still intended to offer the lowest possible buy-in price for the maximum percentage of tenants wanting ownership.

The TA (and Garodonik) never responded directly to Guterman because they cannot. The Brookfield condo offering inherently (and intentionally) eliminates purchase affordability to a large percentage of middle class tenants wanting ownership. The so-called, often repeated "option to purchase at a reasonable price" is not an option for most tenants when it's impossible.

Partners share investment expenses and equity profits. The Brookfield condo proposal doesn't offer anything remotely resembling an equal partnership deal with most tenants. At best, it offers a "reasonable" deal to just enough tenants to execute a long, drawn out condo conversion. Everyone else has to call remaining rent stabilized a hollow victory while Brookfield waits (maybe patiently, maybe not) to collect all the equity that could have been shared with their tenant/partner.

Up to this point, Guterman was/is offering a better deal for tenants than whatever it is that Brookfield is offering.

Anonymous said...

4:57...right. Think about the dynamics of Guterman vs Brookfield or Fortress. Brookfield & Fortress are huge operations. When they feed, they need to feed bi. Large overhead, more palms to grease, more mouths to fill. Guterman and the like are experienced but smaller operations. So lower prices render these guys a nice profit. And the tenants would get the benefit if such a plan wins. But the game for most predators offering condo plans like Brookfield is to set a price that will enable the 15% participant legal requirement to be met and at the same time helps them meet any financial needs. So if they could swing the deal with just marginally over 15% participating, they'd price for that result.

Anonymous said...

Why can't the TA try to explain what is so wrong about the Guterman plan? It's an outright lie when they say no one other than Brookfield presented a plan that was oriented towards maintaining affordable housing. Guterman's plan not only did that, but, was extremely viable.

Anonymous said...

I don't understand the rally - is it a pro-Brookfield rally?
Is it an anti-Fortress Compass Rock rally (after years of the TA supporting Compass Rock and betraying tenants)?
I can't support this rally but I do support PCVST.
I see those as two different things.

Anonymous said...

8:53...yes, I saw that statement too. That no one else presented a plan for affordability. It's unbelievable how the TA issues these statements that are so clearly untrue. They ask for our trust and support and 2 breaths later they undercut themselves by lying.

Anonymous said...

8:53...yes, I saw that statement too. That no one else presented a plan for affordability. It's unbelievable how the TA issues these statements that are so clearly untrue. They ask for our trust and support and 2 breaths later they undercut themselves by lying.

Anonymous said...

People who are against Fortress should attend the rally. But if the TA starts pushing Brookfield & you don't support that, my thought is to leave.

Anonymous said...

The TA board has lied to residents so many times since the Tishman foreclosure. They lie in what they write. They lie in what they say face to face. It is lie after lie with the TA board and the President of the Board writing on the internet under a fake name Peter Stuyvesant discredits them even more. A board of directors of self serving liars. What a big mess.

Anonymous said...

Good Lord, the TA can push for coop from now (or 1956) until 2098. Ain't going to happen. Just smile politely.

No corporation would ever sell to tenants here. lmao.

Anonymous said...

Why would the TA board lie. They're not getting paid.

Anonymous said...

Exactly, why be secretive?
Why control information by removing posts and asking STR to remove posts as seemingly innocuous as the office construction? Why lie? Why the vagueness on this rally? Why are so many of our questions unanswered. Why do we get more information from Guterman than Brookfield? Why have the thousands of NYU dorms been loudly opposed? Why the silence? Why the omissions? Why didn't they stand beside us when we asked them to loudly oppose the Oval destruction?

Can we bring our own "No To Brookfield and Fortress Signs"?

Anonymous said...

There's no Brookfield and the TA either.

Anonymous said...

"Good Lord, the TA can push for coop from now (or 1956) until 2098. Ain't going to happen. Just smile politely. No corporation would ever sell to tenants here. lmao.
June 4, 2014 at 2:24 PM"

The TA is not pushing for a coop.

The TA-Brookfield "partnership" promotes a condo conversion implicitly eliminating purchase affordability for the vast majority of tenants aspiring to ownership. The TA-Brookfield proposal does not offer any type of partnership deal to most tenants.