Our landlord, BLACKSTONE, can't handle Stuy Town and Peter Cooper Village. There is a lack of enforcement of certain "rules," and no amount of notice to this alleviates the problems. We are continually being told half-truths and fabrications. And we have no viable Tenants organization, despite our TA asking for dues all the time. So far, the politicians have proven to be basically useless. A typical New York story.
Way back in the day, when in a cab coming down 14th toward Ave A, my father would always tell the cabby, “Make a left, into the project”. Not the “luxury living” BS so actively promoted by CWC/CR at their official web site*. Putting earrings and pearl necklace on a pig does not a debutante make.
*"Our custom bathrooms feature high-end fixtures and our windowed kitchens and are stocked with high end, stainless steel appliances (dishwashers, refrigerators, stoves, wine fridges) to satisfy the luxury living tastes of the Manhattan/New York City apartment market."
CWCap should have been removed based on what, 10:51 PM?
CWCap's contractual obligations were to the holders of the $3B in senior debt. Not to holders of the $1.5B in junior debt. Not to the tenants of ST-PCV. Unless they can be stopped, at $4.7B CWCap looks to be about to deliver above and beyond for senior mortgage holders. Probably as they assured senior debt holders all along they would.
Whatever, the case, and whether they should have/could have been removed, the TA should have let the lawsuits fly on a number of issues: the packing in of more than three unrelated tenants to an apartment, the partitioning of apartments with the false claim of "no change in occupancy," the harassment of tenants through continual construction and renovation, the lack of enforcement of "for residents and their guests".... The list goes on. Anything that CW (or a replacement landlord) could have been sued for.
From a Real Estate view What brings actual dollar value in urban setting
"Michael Vargas, a NYC-based appraiser, says trees are generally a premium in urban environments. In NYC, "most of the prime streets that are tree-lined get a 10% to 15% premium in value over similar streets with less tree architecture," he says. "It's a way to make it seem like you're not in the city." http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303722604579113230353966564
Superficial custom high end bathroom kitchen fixtures, pseudo-gym 8 blocks away on grounds, Oval Mall (not as competitively good in NYC) does not = luxury.
What WAS luxury in once private residential PCVST was a not-found-anywhere-else exclusive benefit - the Park. That made PCVST luxury with greater RE worth.
In 2014 valuable, luxury, in cities is Parks. Central Park, High Line Park,
Press revealed CW are not best, brightest of RE developers so they are using superficial marketing tricks.
CW didn't increase property value - they increased property income - two different things.
They decreased property value by slick marketing veneer, facade.
In urban setting with millions of apartments with like faucets and stoves and best of shops and amenities - trickery does not bring more value than a Tree Park.
For trolls on the blog who push oval mall, gym, etc to increase their precious self enriching rent roll, Here is light reading.
A number of studies have shown that real estate agents and home buyers assign between 10 and 23 percent of the value of a residence to the trees on the property.
The net cooling effect of a young, healthy tree is equivalent to ten room-size air conditioners operating 20 hours a day.
If you plant a tree today on the west side of your home, in 5 years your energy bills should be 3 percent less. In 15 years the savings will be nearly 12 percent.
One acre of forest absorbs six tons of carbon dioxide and puts out four tons of oxygen.
Surgery patients who could see a grove of deciduous trees recuperated faster and required less pain-killing medicine than similar patients who viewed only brick walls.
In one study, stands of trees reduced particulates by 9 to 13 percent, and reduced the amount reaching the ground below by 27 to 42 percent compared to an open area. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/f-kaid-benfield/cities-need-nature_b_5192844.html
“Urban street trees provide a canopy, root structure and setting for important insect and bacterial life below the surface; at grade for pets and romantic people to pause for what pets and romantic people pause for; they act as essential lofty environments for song birds, seeds, nuts, squirrels and other urban life. Indeed, street trees so well establish natural and comfortable urban life it is unlikely we will ever see any advertisement for any marketed urban product, including cars, to be featured without street trees making the ultimate dominant, bold visual statement about place.”
Bottomline - before 2007 PCVST was more valuable, had lower carbon footprint, ahead of where the world's cities are evolving.
PCVST lost competitive edge and luxury exclusivity with stripping down of Park and commercial offerings that don't compete in NYC.
Market trend is Public Health and Business that lowers carbon footprint. A smart long term investor would have protected and profited from pre-2007 PCVST.
CW overdeveloped for short term income to payoff and get property turned over to themselves.
There is an inverse relationship here - below average developers increase income off land while decreasing value of land.
That is what residents alone have been fighting for and what long term smart-minded investors have been advocating.
There is no way the square feet of the office building = an accessory. City Planning and DOB and the City need to fix their definition of accessory so it is enforceable. They are making a mockery of the City with this office building. What a joke.
After default, vulture Bill Ackman swooped in and scooped up a bunch of junior level debt for pennies on the dollar that would have put him in the drivers seat as to what happened to ST-PCV, foreclosure or bankruptcy court, etc. CWCap did what it thought was necessary to protect the senior lenders, as it was charged to do when it took on the role of special servicer, and bought that debt from Ackman.
That's when I brought up conflict of interest with an attorney friend who thought it was a possibility, but nothing definite. The TA probably did consider conflict of interest litigation, but was probably hamstrung by what that would cost.
Likewise with the other flurry of lawsuits you propose. They don't grow on trees, lawsuits cost a lot of money to mount.
I wonder. Of course, if you hire experienced legal eagles, but how about hiring fresh young eagles who have just graduated from law school and who are impassioned with a social conscience? How about also including interns? How about tenants starting lawsuits themselves following guidelines in The Complete Idiot's Guide to Lawsuits?
To build on STR at 2:19 - If the Attorney General is involved his agenda is all about all having equal access to justice. Maybe anyone and everyone involved in Affordable Housing from city agencies to neighborhood action groups could file suits. As the Attorney General says an all leverage attack on the assault on affordable housing and our individual homes.
STR -- 2:19 PM I assume you're conceding the point, wiseguy-style. Otherwise, if you're the TA you hire experienced attorneys unless your intention is to piss the judge off and piss away what little money you have away.
And 2:44 PM -- To repeat. Lawsuits are expensive. And standing is needed. People can't just file lawsuits all over the place just because. That's no way to attract the AG's attention. That's the way to be considered incompetent boobs who should be ignored.
Hopefully there's some very creative thinking going on about this in the mayor's office and at City Hall. My guess is that whatever is announced on that front will take place a week from now at the rally.
>>STR -- 2:19 PM I assume you're conceding the point, wiseguy-style.<<
I'm not, actually. Basically, we need to look at options, even if those options may seem farfetched at first. Yes, THE COMPLETE IDIOT'S GUIDE TO LAWSUITS was a joke...sort-of. I'm interested in examining how an individual can, with little financial outlay, sue a landlord. Perhaps it's not as farfetched as it may seem.
There also must be young lawyers who are willing to cut their legal teeth in helping tenants in ST/PCV. Remember, what goes on here is history, and a young-turk legal eagle would have much to gain from just the publicity of going after, and possibly winning, a case against a landlord.
at STR -- 6:54 PM Housing court is one thing. That is set up for landlord tenant dispute and tenants win there all the time. But the kind of litigation you are discussing, removing a special servicer, is complicated and expensive and probably would get laughed out of court if it was over QOL stuff. However, it's very possible that another vulture will challenge the actions undertaken by CW/Fortess on Tue. If that happens, sometime during discovery it could possibly be made public what the confidential agreement was that was made between TS and CW.
What are the infractions exactly? I'm not sure the management (who I also despise) has broken any laws. They're shifty and doing what they want but the real crime may be who is letting things slip through dohc and dob. Tenants are signing leases they cannot understand and which allows the landlord to take advantage of. They know that no one has time to challenge the $500 increase, which , according to the lease, is legal. rofl
Young "legal eagles" and interns would be eaten alive by experienced lawyers who practice regularly in this area of the law. In fact, experienced lawyers who don't regularly practice in this area of the law would also be eaten alive.
If you think that individual tenants proceeding on their own is the way to go, you can step up and lead the charge.
The beauty of the now-destroyed Oval and the beautiful tall shade trees used to be the most valuable aspect of PCVST, both aesthetically and inasmuch as the cooling and oxygenating of the air. The money-grubbing bastards who have raped and pillaged our community have lowered the quality of life and, in the long run, the value of the property.
STR would take down those "experienced lawyers who practice regularly" because they are arrogantly stuck in old corrupt ways and take sloppy short cuts.
22 comments:
I hope they relentlessly sue each other.
This is not our battle.
http://www.crefc.org/assetlibrary/1ae21e1f-6469-4bc9-bd0a-cda939786ffe/4ccc3f9eee6247ffb0c25c64083e85952.pdf
CW should have been removed as special servicer.
Way back in the day, when in a cab coming down 14th toward Ave A, my father would always tell the cabby, “Make a left, into the project”. Not the “luxury living” BS so actively promoted by CWC/CR at their official web site*. Putting earrings and pearl necklace on a pig does not a debutante make.
*"Our custom bathrooms feature high-end fixtures and our windowed kitchens and are stocked with high end, stainless steel appliances (dishwashers, refrigerators, stoves, wine fridges) to satisfy the luxury living tastes of the Manhattan/New York City apartment market."
CWCap should have been removed based on what, 10:51 PM?
CWCap's contractual obligations were to the holders of the $3B in senior debt. Not to holders of the $1.5B in junior debt. Not to the tenants of ST-PCV. Unless they can be stopped, at $4.7B CWCap looks to be about to deliver above and beyond for senior mortgage holders. Probably as they assured senior debt holders all along they would.
So what you're suggesting makes no sense.
CW was one of the lenders, no?
Whatever, the case, and whether they should have/could have been removed, the TA should have let the lawsuits fly on a number of issues: the packing in of more than three unrelated tenants to an apartment, the partitioning of apartments with the false claim of "no change in occupancy," the harassment of tenants through continual construction and renovation, the lack of enforcement of "for residents and their guests".... The list goes on. Anything that CW (or a replacement landlord) could have been sued for.
From a Real Estate view What brings actual dollar value in urban setting
"Michael Vargas, a NYC-based appraiser, says trees are generally a premium in urban environments. In NYC, "most of the prime streets that are tree-lined get a 10% to 15% premium in value over similar streets with less tree architecture," he says. "It's a way to make it seem like you're not in the city."
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303722604579113230353966564
Superficial custom high end bathroom kitchen fixtures, pseudo-gym 8 blocks away on grounds, Oval Mall (not as competitively good in NYC) does not = luxury.
What WAS luxury in once private residential PCVST was a not-found-anywhere-else exclusive benefit - the Park. That made PCVST luxury with greater RE worth.
In 2014 valuable, luxury, in cities is Parks. Central Park, High Line Park,
Press revealed CW are not best, brightest of RE developers so they are using superficial marketing tricks.
CW didn't increase property value - they increased property income - two different things.
They decreased property value by slick marketing veneer, facade.
In urban setting with millions of apartments with like faucets and stoves and best of shops and amenities - trickery does not bring more value than a Tree Park.
For trolls on the blog who push oval mall, gym, etc to increase their precious self enriching rent roll,
Here is light reading.
A number of studies have shown that real estate agents and home buyers assign between 10 and 23 percent of the value of a residence to the trees on the property.
The net cooling effect of a young, healthy tree is equivalent to ten room-size air conditioners operating 20 hours a day.
If you plant a tree today on the west side of your home, in 5 years your energy bills should be 3 percent less. In 15 years the savings will be nearly 12 percent.
One acre of forest absorbs six tons of carbon dioxide and puts out four tons of oxygen.
Surgery patients who could see a grove of deciduous trees recuperated faster and required less pain-killing medicine than similar patients who viewed only brick walls.
In one study, stands of trees reduced particulates by 9 to 13 percent, and reduced the amount reaching the ground below by 27 to 42 percent compared to an open area.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/f-kaid-benfield/cities-need-nature_b_5192844.html
“Urban street trees provide a canopy, root structure and setting for important insect and bacterial life below the surface; at grade for pets and romantic people to pause for what pets and romantic people pause for; they act as essential lofty environments for song birds, seeds, nuts, squirrels and other urban life. Indeed, street trees so well establish natural and comfortable urban life it is unlikely we will ever see any advertisement for any marketed urban product, including cars, to be featured without street trees making the ultimate dominant, bold visual statement about place.”
http://www.milliontreesnyc.org/downloads/pdf/ufore_study.pdf
Bottomline - before 2007 PCVST was more valuable, had lower carbon footprint, ahead of where the world's cities are evolving.
PCVST lost competitive edge and luxury exclusivity with stripping down of Park and commercial offerings that don't compete in NYC.
Market trend is Public Health and Business that lowers carbon footprint.
A smart long term investor would have protected and profited from pre-2007 PCVST.
CW overdeveloped for short term income to payoff and get property turned over to themselves.
There is an inverse relationship here - below average developers increase income off land while decreasing value of land.
That is what residents alone have been fighting for and what long term smart-minded investors have been advocating.
Love your analysis. Thanks.
There is no way the square feet of the office building = an accessory. City Planning and DOB and the City need to fix their definition of accessory so it is enforceable. They are making a mockery of the City with this office building. What a joke.
STR at 8:07 AM
After default, vulture Bill Ackman swooped in and scooped up a bunch of junior level debt for pennies on the dollar that would have put him in the drivers seat as to what happened to ST-PCV, foreclosure or bankruptcy court, etc. CWCap did what it thought was necessary to protect the senior lenders, as it was charged to do when it took on the role of special servicer, and bought that debt from Ackman.
That's when I brought up conflict of interest with an attorney friend who thought it was a possibility, but nothing definite. The TA probably did consider conflict of interest litigation, but was probably hamstrung by what that would cost.
Likewise with the other flurry of lawsuits you propose. They don't grow on trees, lawsuits cost a lot of money to mount.
What STR provided at 8:07 and Anonymous at 8:50 as it pertains to Quality of Life, etc are our battles.
Being used as pawns (at a rally or such) in a battle between predator developers is not our battle to fight.
We need to let those lawsuits fly and no more poorly negotiated damn settlements!
>>lawsuits cost a lot of money to mount.<<
I wonder. Of course, if you hire experienced legal eagles, but how about hiring fresh young eagles who have just graduated from law school and who are impassioned with a social conscience? How about also including interns? How about tenants starting lawsuits themselves following guidelines in The Complete Idiot's Guide to Lawsuits?
To build on STR at 2:19 - If the Attorney General is involved his agenda is all about all having equal access to justice. Maybe anyone and everyone involved in Affordable Housing from city agencies to neighborhood action groups could file suits. As the Attorney General says an all leverage attack on the assault on affordable housing and our individual homes.
STR -- 2:19 PM I assume you're conceding the point, wiseguy-style. Otherwise, if you're the TA you hire experienced attorneys unless your intention is to piss the judge off and piss away what little money you have away.
And 2:44 PM -- To repeat. Lawsuits are expensive. And standing is needed. People can't just file lawsuits all over the place just because. That's no way to attract the AG's attention. That's the way to be considered incompetent boobs who should be ignored.
Hopefully there's some very creative thinking going on about this in the mayor's office and at City Hall. My guess is that whatever is announced on that front will take place a week from now at the rally.
Read it again, 2:44 PM. STR was making a funny at 2:19 PM. The last sentence is a pretty big tipoff.
>>STR -- 2:19 PM I assume you're conceding the point, wiseguy-style.<<
I'm not, actually. Basically, we need to look at options, even if those options may seem farfetched at first. Yes, THE COMPLETE IDIOT'S GUIDE TO LAWSUITS was a joke...sort-of. I'm interested in examining how an individual can, with little financial outlay, sue a landlord. Perhaps it's not as farfetched as it may seem.
There also must be young lawyers who are willing to cut their legal teeth in helping tenants in ST/PCV. Remember, what goes on here is history, and a young-turk legal eagle would have much to gain from just the publicity of going after, and possibly winning, a case against a landlord.
at STR -- 6:54 PM Housing court is one thing. That is set up for landlord tenant dispute and tenants win there all the time. But the kind of litigation you are discussing, removing a special servicer, is complicated and expensive and probably would get laughed out of court if it was over QOL stuff. However, it's very possible that another vulture will challenge the actions undertaken by CW/Fortess on Tue. If that happens, sometime during discovery it could possibly be made public what the confidential agreement was that was made between TS and CW.
I wouldn't sue to remove a special servicer, but sue against infractions in how this place is run.
What are the infractions exactly? I'm not sure the management (who I also despise) has broken any laws. They're shifty and doing what they want but the real crime may be who is letting things slip through dohc and dob. Tenants are signing leases they cannot understand and which allows the landlord to take advantage of. They know that no one has time to challenge the $500 increase, which , according to the lease, is legal. rofl
Young "legal eagles" and interns would be eaten alive by experienced lawyers who practice regularly in this area of the law. In fact, experienced lawyers who don't regularly practice in this area of the law would also be eaten alive.
If you think that individual tenants proceeding on their own is the way to go, you can step up and lead the charge.
>>If you think that individual tenants proceeding on their own is the way to go, you can step up and lead the charge.<<
I will be looking into the possibilities.
The beauty of the now-destroyed Oval and the beautiful tall shade trees used to be the most valuable aspect of PCVST, both aesthetically and inasmuch as the cooling and oxygenating of the air. The money-grubbing bastards who have raped and pillaged our community have lowered the quality of life and, in the long run, the value of the property.
STR would take down those "experienced lawyers who practice regularly" because they are arrogantly stuck in old corrupt ways and take sloppy short cuts.
Post a Comment