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.

Thursday, June 12, 2014

Some Positive News

Which you can find here, if you haven't already read about it:

http://www.stpcvta.org/ta/post/first-step-toward-helping-stuyvesant-town-peter-cooper-village-tenants

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

That's a development, all right.

Reuters reported that Fortress had 6 banks with CMBS conduits pitching in enough $500m parcels to cover a new $3bn first mortgage. But that's not enough to cover the almost $4.9bn price tag CWCap/Fortress put on ST-PCV. Fortress approached Fannie and Freddie for that, the additional $2bn. That avenue's now closed to them and any other bidder at the too high $4.9bn price.

Then there's this, from Bloomberg back on May 14:

"...While Stuyvesant Town likely will attract many bidders, some potential buyers may be dissuaded by the complex’s troubled history, said Joshua Stein, principal of New York-based commercial real estate law firm Joshua Stein PLLC, and author of “Stein on New York Commercial Mortgage Transactions.”

“There used to be a saying: If you’re a restaurant you don’t want to open up in a place where other restaurants went out of business,” Stein said in a telephone interview. “All these bidders who otherwise might be very interested may say, ‘you know what? Too many people have had too many unpleasant surprises at this location...’”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-13/fortress-said-to-be-preparing-bid-to-buy-stuyvesant-town.html

Anonymous said...

They want to reserve a number of units for families of four earning a certain income. What about the single people living here in the unrennovated units who earn less than $65k? Are they going to kick us out?

Anonymous said...

I know this is off topic, but is anybody else having serious problems with the postal service lately? Such as not receiving mail that definitely was mailed to you, having mail returned to the sender with a note saying you do not live here anymore and there is no forwarding information? Also, I've mailed checks from inside the post office (new one) and they have not arrived. My rent check is the latest victim. The stop payment fees mount up!

Anonymous said...

What exactly does this quote, from the NY times article, mean:

"Deputy Mayor Alicia Glen has been meeting with CW Capital, tenants and prospective parties in an attempt to fashion a deal that would satisfy the lenders, who are now owed about $4.4 billion, and preserve as many as 6,000 apartments for families of four earning between $65,000 and $135,000 a year. "

I certainly hope those 6000 are from the renovated apartments, because it's complete bullshit to mess with those of us in real rent stabilized apartments.

As someone already asked, what happens to those making less than $65K? And what happens to those in real rent stabilized apts making more? (By real I mean unrenovated apartments.) If they haven't hit the rent and income threshold, how can their apt be destabilized? Some of the doctors, teachers, nurses, etc who live here certainly have a dual income over $135K.

Call me cynical, but there are some serious shenanigans happening. Now CW has agreed to a delay in a sale so the city can come up with the plan mentioned in the quote above ... I don't trust these people to actually give a shit about affordable housing.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/delay-for-new-york-city-on-stuyvesant-town-1402627144

Anonymous said...

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/real-estate/2014/06/8547130/glen-talks-housing-stuy-town-congressional-delegation?top-featured-3

From Capital New York

Anonymous said...

"They want to reserve a number of units for families of four earning a certain income. What about the single people living here in the unrennovated units who earn less than $65k? Are they going to kick us out?"

Where are you getting this from? In a noneviction plan, which is what most are, rent-stabilized tenants can't be kicked out. If you're over 62, you can't be forced to buy.

Anonymous said...

2:44 who is they? they who?

Anonymous said...

http://www.trulia.com/rental/3156640127-Apartment-New-York-NY-10010?ecampaign=con_day_rentalpropertycomp_bk&eurl=www.trulia.com%2Frental%2F3156640127-440-E-23rd-St-10-H-New-York-NY-10010

A 3 BR and where is this? LOL

Anonymous said...

2:44 pm - Politicos usually speak of Adjusted Median Income (AMI) when referring to income limits on eligibility.

Here's the 2013 AMI chart for NYC

$85,900- Family of four
$77,400- Family of three
$68,800- Family of two
$60,200- Individual

It looks like the Family of four $65k - $150k' represents 80% to 150% AMI for a family of four (workforce housing).

I'll extrapolate that to mean:

$60,000 - $135,000 - Family of three
$55,000 - $120,000 - Family of two
$48,000 - $105,000 - Single

Also expect there to be some allocation for seniors...

NOTE: Politicos can adjust up/down the % of AMI per household size so income limits may be different. We'll need to wait for details

Anonymous said...

2:26pm - Your facts are wrong. And it's important to know the facts. Fortress went out into the debt markets to raise between $2.5 billion and $3 billion. Fortress went out into the equity markets to raise the remainder (not additional debt from GSE's).

Fannie/Freddie do the bulk of multi-family lending so they would be the ideal buyer of the debt (not equity). But Fannie/Freddie are not the only syndicators of debt. That's why Fortress went to banks (ie BofA, Barclays, Goldman, Morgan Stanley, Deutshce Bank, Wells Fargo, etc). If anything, the GSE's may have been looked at as a secondary bond market buyer of debt but not the primary buyer. But I'll stop talking here of loans, syndication, CMBS, etc.

Fortress had their money (without Fannie/Freddie). They just got derailed from their plan by a junior mezzanine lender.

The fact that the City is showing a willingness to reduce/eliminate the tax burden on the asset for a declaration of long-term affordability is good news for Stuy Town, I think. It will all matter on what type of owner buys this place. You know how many slumlords the City/State/Fed pay annually to run 'subsidized housing'?. The game then becomes not one of raising rents but one of reducing the costs for services. And that's where the TA really will earn its value (protection of rights, services, amenities).

Anonymous said...

2:44pm - These are proposed income parameters for eligibility of vacant apartments. It should have nothing to do with current residents.

Anonymous said...

I just heard Alicia Glen on NPR say that their focus is to preserve the 6,000 low rent units into the future. I can only assume that this means that they want the old RS units to stay under rent stabilization and not lost to attrition through "luxury decontrol." Not a word about current market rate tenants or new stabilizers, or whatever we're calling ourselves now.

Anonymous said...

It's getting really difficult to continue to live here. The cost of everything keeps going up and our paychecks are no way in align with this. As those hi-rises continue to be built for only the wealthy. Really disheartening.

Anonymous said...

Not a good deal for all the grad students either unless their parents are paying their rent.

This grad student paid $1100 per month as his share of a two bedroom STPCV apartment that had his roommates paying their share and NYU paying a portion as a subsidy.

Where is the contract deal with NYU on how many apartments they subsidize and how much they are paying?
Who negotiated the deal?
Who signed off on this contract? Where is the contract?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/08/realestate/student-loans-make-it-hard-to-rent-or-buy-a-home.html?_r=0

Anonymous said...

Yes, ita. We're giving the city away to foreigners and foreign investors too. I make a decent salary, not a banker, but I can't afford my monthly increases a la CWC. My raise / salary not keeping up.

Anonymous said...

1 21 you are so right. NYU needs to get the F out of here. 3 and 4 students ++ dfs and all. One bathroom, stress on pipes, buildings, neighbors. w.t.f.

Anonymous said...

If we're not going to take care of ALL the tenants here, including MR and they deserve to be stabilized and not hit with crap increases , then I'm not supporting any of this.

Anonymous said...

The rally and the help is not for all tenants ======or the remaining 5k tenants who are not paying $1500 for a 2 bedroom. here.

So don't bother fighting unless you're not a market rate tenant!! Not fair and not fair. ok. I got it now. You can have my flat back, give it to more nyu students then.

Anonymous said...

I certainly hope those 6000 are from the renovated apartments, because it's complete bullshit to mess with those of us in real rent stabilized apartments.


No and what a joke as they're talking about the real RS apartments!!! Not Market Rate. No thanks , really,

Tommyboyardee said...

I can barely share a bathroom with a loved one, how do NYU students group of four share a single. Bathroom, on the plus side NYU not much of a party school!

Anonymous said...

Unrenovated RS apartments are already protected. Put a moratorium on any new vacancy luxury makeovers. Roll back rents when renovated MR apts become vacant. Only lease to income-qualified applicants. Why did these new stabilizers accept leases for $4k and now expect middle income protection? I think not!

Anonymous said...

Unrenovated st -pcv apartments are protected. They will never be unprotected. Why all the noise for those? What about the rest of us trying to raise families here?

Anonymous said...

8_05 and you are so right. What an EFFING JOKE THAT WE HAD a rally to protect rights we'll have for another 60 years. Crock of BS and we all fell for it.