Many politicos there, including the old pro Schumer and Carolyn Maloney. Schumer promised that what happened before, with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae propping up predatory investment in ST/PCV, would not occur again.
The rally was exuberant and needed. The perfect cap-off did not happen, however. Mayor De Blasio did not show up. His presence at the end, emerging from within City Hall to speak to tenants, would have been inspiring and would have provided a joyful and heartening send-off to the crowds that braved some serious intermittent downpours to arrive at City Hall and stand up for affordable housing.
I'm glad I went. And thanks to those that did attend: tenants and politicians.
Are they moving rent stabilized PCVST tenants out of their apartments to "upgrade" renovate the apartments? Was this addressed at the rally?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/real-estate/2014/06/8547130/glen-talks-housing-stuy-town-congressional-delegation
Also in attendance at the meeting with Glen were representatives Gregory Meeks, Grace Meng, Yvette Clarke, Jerrold Nadler, Michael Grimm and José Serrano, according to Maloney's office. The lawmakers told Glen they believe it is important to create “'technical assistance teams' to work with New York City residents residing in affordable housing who may be notified of the need to move to another unit in order to update their current units,” Maloney's office said. Glen agreed to “follow-up on this important issue.”
I hope you are right. But we saw this before, last time around, with these same politicians. History is repeating itself. Something has to change this time!
ReplyDeleteWhy didn't any of the politicians challenge the price? Bring up any investigations? On NYU housing contracts, on the rent roll, on any of the many investigations that need to happen. I waited. Why did no politician address that this morning?
ReplyDeleteReal Estate Owns Cuomo
ReplyDeleteOf the LLCs giving to Cuomo, the most generous are controlled by Glenwood Management, a real estate development company headquartered on Long Island. Headed by Leonard Litwin, a reclusive 99-year-old magnate, Glenwood has given $800,000 to Cuomo since he took office using 19 separate LLCs. Glenwood's LLCs have also given millions of dollars to other New York candidates and committees, both Democratic and Republican.
Another real estate developer, the Extell Development Co., has also given extensively to Cuomo through LLCs, including two donations last year that were flagged by the Moreland Commission.
Two LLCs affiliated with Extell gave the governor a total of $100,000 on Jan. 28, 2013—two days before Cuomo signed legislation that granted a tax break to Extell's One57 skyscraper in Manhattan, as well as properties owned by four other developers. Two other LLCs with ties to Extell gave Cuomo another $100,000 six months later. (The contributions were first reported last year by The Daily News.)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/13/cuomo-campaign-finance_n_5492459.html?utm_hp_ref=new-york&ir=New+York
Good? There must be 20k people living in st and pc And there were about 200 people at the rally. ok.
ReplyDeleteI was at the rally. There were enough people there to make it convincing. Between 500-1000 I believe. Hard to hear. Surprised there wasn't a bull horn or some means of amplification. There was only light rain at the end. No mention of Brookfield that I heard. De Blasio's absence was noticed. Some brief chanting about his absence. Heard nothing that hasn't been in the news. We shall see what results.
ReplyDeleteI felt like I didn't belong there. All this talk about saving 6,000 apartments should have been a clue. As a 'market-rater' I'm still a second class tenant here (even if Marsh, at what he thought was the 11th hour, tried to base the TA's future on our stabilizing backs).
ReplyDeleteI'm not going into a rant (although I want to scream) here. In short, very disappointed to be left at the alter.
The market rate apartment renovation costs were on average between $20,000 - $30,000. (fudged numbers and false invoices aside). That means the legal increase is $333 - $500. So the guy with the $1180 apartment was illegally deregulated and is owed a lot of money from CW.
ReplyDeleteYup, agreed. It was a really good turnout and in the middle of a downpour. Our bus was full, and I think the other 3 were too. It was encouraging to hear that our elected reps have been busy on our behalf, including de Blasio's deputy mayor. I also wish he would have popped in though.
ReplyDeleteCurious on the piece re; Kristen the stuytown mom in the NY Times... Why is she concerned when she has a great stabilized rent? She was quoted as having won the lottery?
ReplyDeleteI'm very confused.
In order to sell / buy the city has put itself in a position of a sort of clearance for the sale. Problem is the city officials are not challenging the purchase price or any of the numbers of the property but rather the Mayor's office seems to be determining a redefinition of what qualifies as a rent stabilized tenant - this redefining helps the landlord and not the tenants. And it gives a way of clearance to a buyer if the buyer agrees to satisfy the newly crafted city definition of the qualifications of a rent stabilized tenant. I don;t understand why the Mayor's office is helping landlords on this one. What the Mayor's office should be doing is restoring PCVST to legal rents and not redefining qualifications of a rent stabilized tenant. It would help a lot of market rate tenants to get back the money they have been overcharged and to pay only what the legal rent is on their apartments!
ReplyDeleteBTW, Schumer was speaking about the past rather than the present, though he didn't know it. I believe he mentioned that there were 20K residents in ST/PCV and that it's home to working class people like policemen, nurses, the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker. That may have been twenty years ago, but now it's mostly home to students, it seems. Working class people can't afford buying new apartments here.
ReplyDelete>>I felt like I didn't belong there. All this talk about saving 6,000 apartments should have been a clue. As a 'market-rater' I'm still a second class tenant here (even if Marsh, at what he thought was the 11th hour, tried to base the TA's future on our stabilizing backs).<<
ReplyDeleteYes, nothing that I heard would have interested market-rating paying tenants in ST/PCV. That's a deficiency that has to be made up.
So, it seems like the city is going to put all their effort in to protecting the low rent tenants who are ALREADY protected by rent stabilization laws! Of course I'm happy that some future family will get a crack at a RS lease here, but what about the MR tenants who have been hanging on and fighting to put down roots here? Not a word about us. If the TA and the city write off our units, in favor of the old RS tenants, then you can bet that a future owner will grind every penny out of the current MR's and you will more students, transients and churn than ever.
ReplyDelete3:00pm The Stuyvesant Town mom you reference in the NYTimes article is a crafted piece - Kirstin Aadahl is on the Tenant Association Board of Directors. If you want an answer to your question you could ask the TA but I doubt you will have further clarity.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. Other than STR and those commentators who try on this blog, no one is helping the residents, neither the rent stabilized nor the market rate. Seriously we have to help ourselves because these guys are only helping themselves. What would happen if every market rate apartment filed an overcharge complaint and got their rent corrected? The worse is nothing. But probably a lot of people will get thousands of dollars back and a much needed break each month going forward.
ReplyDeleteWell that was quite the photo op for them
ReplyDeletehttps://www.flickr.com/photos/nyccouncil/sets/72157645105913676/
Have you ever seen politicians post photos on flickr of themselves so fast?!
Hoylman has them up already too!
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/bradhoylman/status/477522597551554560
Really great photo op for these guys.
No wonder they are smiling in so many of the photos.
Ironically, the city will be supporting "a tale of two cities" in PCVST by focusing on RS units only.
ReplyDelete"Hard to hear. Surprised there wasn't a bull horn or some means of amplification."
ReplyDeleteCity Hall doesn't permit amplification, I was told. The mics on the podium belonged to the media. We'll have to watch the news tonight for sound bites. There seemed to be a lot of media there. I saw ABC News but not the others.
Re: "Stuy Town moms." They do not have a great stabilized rent--they're paying what is essentially a market-rate rent (renovated apartments). A lot of these families are Roberts tenants or moved in after Roberts. Right now they're making ends meet in apartments with rents that are high. But since the legal rent is even higher, they could be forced out in the near term with an exorbitant increase up to the legal rent, or after 2020 (when the J-51 expires) by coming out of RS altogether (unless we can change the law so that all apartments stay RS no matter the rent). Without RS protections, in 2020 the landlord could raise the rent to whatever it wants in order to force the tenant out (and you're not guaranteed the offer of a lease renewal either, in case you weren't aware of that). That's what's happening even now. I know of a professional couple with two kids in my building whose rent was about $4,800. They got a mid-lease increase to about $5,200 (they moved in after the Roberts decision so the increase was a nasty surprise). Now their lease is up for renewal and management wants to raise the rent to $6,000. They're leaving. Who will replace them? I think we all know the answer to that.
The first thing I wanted to hear out of the politicians is "I'm Sorry to all my PCVST constituents for not having done my job these past recent years and now you are in the same predicament again fearing for your homes because I, your public servant, didn't do my job"
ReplyDeleteNot an apology out of any of them. Just grand standing and photo ops.
Alicia Glen needs to address all the apartments and not just this 6000 number that came from some behind closed doors deal with RE. If these politicians were worthy they would restore all 11,000+ apartments to middle class affordable housing. Market Rate rents are too high here.
ReplyDelete2 49 pm. I also now agree. I am paying $3543 for a ONE br and didn't belong there and feel tricked that I was there. This is not about us who are usually screwed and getting increases of hundreds of dollars per month left and right. I'm out. We 've been used for 8 years now and I now don't give a fuck if you all get 5 students replacing my nice quiet small family. Fuck this.
ReplyDelete"Are they moving rent stabilized PCVST tenants out of their apartments to "upgrade" renovate the apartments? Was this addressed at the rally?"
ReplyDeleteI haven't heard or seen any mention of this until I read your post. Where did you get this idea?
Great work as always, STR!
ReplyDeleteNYC needs to stop giving tax breaks to billionaires! These guys are the worse welfare frauds. They demand handouts in the form of tax breaks from city and state government - they just defeated tax increases on the wealthy to support city programs for new yorkers. Geezuz New Yorkers pay the price over and over for these billionaire fools who get more tax break handouts than all the welfare programs combined.
ReplyDeleteThey demand tax breaks in return for keeping a portion of PCVST affordable?! Has our city government no power no pride they have to give handouts to set policies? What is the stronghold, the dirt, CW has on these guys?
http://therealdeal.com/blog/2014/06/13/cwcapital-offers-city-time-to-draw-up-stuytown-deal/
“We’re extremely nervous,” Steinberg said. For some buyers, “it’s the bottom line, not the human element. They’re going to be looking to recoup their investment by kicking as many long-term stabilized renters out as possible.”
ReplyDeleteActually, they're not. They're gong to screw the MR tenants who have been and continue to pay the bills here.
Mr de Blasio we don't need to build more. We don't need to build higher. China did and look at the latest tweet from Bill Gates!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/13/china-building-bubble_n_5491527.html
We need to invest in and take care of our existing buildings and infrastructure. We need mid-town east to accommodate those living in mod-town and not be redesigned to accommodate hoards of those commuting.
Its time to take care of those who make NYC home first priority!
Business second.
Commuters third.
The commuters and the transient business "developers" should not be first priority anymore.
We are overdeveloped and with poor construction at that.
The lines are blurring already. The Mayor says he is in touch with tenants but he is not. He is only speaking with the self named "Tenant Association" and Brookfield is implied as the tenants choice in the Bloomberg article. Ladies and gentlemen we just rallied for Brookfield.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-13/stuyvesant-town-tenants-rally-to-preserve-affordability.html
>>They're gong to screw the MR tenants who have been and continue to pay the bills here.<<
ReplyDeleteLong-term RS tenants also pay the bills here.
Look, I agree that today's rally had nothing in it for MR tenants, unless I'm missing something. I wish all MR tenants could see a reduction in rent to the levels that long-term RS have. I don't see any way that's possible at the moment. Do you?
>>Have you ever seen politicians post photos on flickr of themselves so fast?!<<
ReplyDeleteI noticed that Stringer had a young woman (a staffer?) take photos with her iPhone of the speakers, himself included, obviously. I'd suspect a bunch of the politicos has such "plants," though I doubt Schumer needs or had them there.
4:54 ITA. I'm not going to support any of this unless all tenants are treated equally and fair. How dare they reiterate the 6000 APARTMENTS when we clearly have almost twice that.
ReplyDeleteDisgusting, playing favorites again.
4: 04. Yes, total bullshit. Their going to protect the tenants who don't need protection. Lmao. And then they'll have the opportunity to say they protected us! They must think e're all off the wall stupid. Come on people. They're making fools of all of us.
ReplyDelete2;53--- We're one of these, but getting nowhere with DHCR. We need help and advice and a lawyer? What do YOU SUGGEST NOW? thanks
ReplyDeleteSo what's this shit about RS tenants being required to relocate to less desirable units so that their units can be renovated and rented for a more money? Did someone really say that? I would rather see Stytown razed to the ground than go through that kind of shit.
ReplyDeleteI left the 2:49pm post. I won't agree that MR's pay the bills. As I've posted before, if anything, we pay the over-sized debt TS placed on this community.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I think most MRers frustration today is our hope that we would have been included in the plan. To us, that meant some type of ownership. We pay alot of money in rent and would prefer to pay that monthly expense in ownership. Not anywhere but here. We love this place. We love raising our families here. Our kids can live near where we work yet we can feel more comfortable knowing they are within the confines of the community and not on the 'streets'.
Today is a kick in the stomach. When it was thought we were needed, we were asked to carry a large portion of the TA/Brookfield plan. Now we aren't even in the discussion.
That said, I ask the TA to provide some type of statement to prove our inclusion in future plans. No BS. Hard facts about how we're included.
If not, I shall feel compelled to form a 'society' for the sole benefit of Roberts and post-Roberts tenants, a sort of 'here's 4,000 residents who will buy their apartments'.
I'm sure I can get 1,000 plus to sign my 'pledge' and that should be enough to really screw up the TA's position as voice of this community.
This community will go to sale no matter what happens. CW will have to do that. But there will be many bidders in any scenario. In a scenario where the City provides incentives to save the 6,000, then all that matters is the other 5,000. And that's who we are. So our voice really matters. And I'll try my best to ensure we speak as one (unless the TA rights its ship).
Personally, I've been here more than 10 years. I was here before the post-frat marketing plan and think if we can turn the corner and provide some option for us to buy our apartments, then every apartment here would fill with families like mine, those who want to put down roots and raise their families.
If the TA plan does not include ownership for us, then we will rally against that plan. And,again, every bidder will want to know who we are.
Many have picked up on the core of the Mayor's approach. It's the flip side of the TA-Garodnick approach. The mayor is aiming at all all rental property with low income renters protected. Which basically means the long timers (particularly those who are retired) would be made super-safe and the market renters in particular would be vulnerable. In essence, this would mean rent stabilization for 40 years by contract rather than by law. For this deal, the city would have to give super-sized tax abatements. I have no idea if the numbers would work, tax abatements offsetting the billions that a developer could make with through student rentals or by selling units. But this may be just one deal among many. The key really lies in the positions that Freddie, Fannie and the FHFA will take. And BTW, if the place does sell for close to 5B, wouldn't it be fair for some of the mezzanine debt to be addressed. Why should the primary loans be made whole while the others take a complete bath?
ReplyDeleteWhy do the tenants (RS and MR) have to carry the burden of the debt load created by the unscrupulous Tishman Speyer and their partners? It really sickens me to know that this property was quite self-sufficient inasmuch as MetLife turned a profit before the sale and then sold it at an obscenely inflated price to a bunch of crooks who thought they could drive out all of the longtime tenants and rent it as "luxury" apartments to rich people. There is no way that PCVST could be ever classified as luxury no matter how many smoke-and-mirror tricks the landlords pulled. There really should be accountability on the part of those who sold and those who bought the property and created such a total disaster of human suffering and the degradation of what was once a very nice and affordable place to live. What have they achieved, really?
ReplyDelete>>Why do the tenants (RS and MR) have to carry the burden of the debt load created by the unscrupulous Tishman Speyer and their partners?<<
ReplyDeleteThat should never have been allowed to happen. The people who created the problem should have been stuck with the bill. And some should have gone to jail or been fined.
If the politicians intended to exacerbate and stoke already simmering generation warfare (textbook 1% strategy dividing 99%), it seems they may have spectacularly succeeded bringing it to full boil.
ReplyDelete2 :05 Because politicians are full of hot air and bs. They didn't address anything specific as they can't and won't do anything about it. They are there for the photos, and all they ever say is 'WE WILL STAND UP FOR such and such, NYC was built on such and such. As if the crowd standing in the rain didn't know this obvious rhetoric.
ReplyDelete7:58 We did not rally for Bfield. We rallied and wasted our time shouting about stabilization for 6k apartments that are already protected and stabilized. What a joke. Making fools of us.Par.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteAgree with 9:46. Anything else at this point is unfair. If there is no inclusion for the other 5k paying large rents, then I opt out of the support and agree with 9:46. We've had enough of the turbulence and massive increases. We're a family of four.
As with everything in STPCV, there is a lot of misinformation and this blog is no exception. How about we give the TA a chance to explain there plan, here is what the TA moderator is saying about the so called former market rate tenants on the TA FB page. "Peter Stuyvesant: which is why we recognize that these tenants with high RS rents need relief and the only realistic way is through a conversion from high rent to long-term equity and the moderation that a mortgage tax break can bring a family."
ReplyDeletePardon, but we were talking about the rally. What you posted (the condo plan idea) was not brought up in the rally from the speeches I heard. The MR tenants who went to it felt left out.
ReplyDeleteCount our family as another sickened by this outcome. Residents and dues paying TA members for 8 years. Furious at being treated as second class citizens and thrown to the wolves once again.
ReplyDeleteThe politicos are basically giving away giant gifts in the form of exemptions to their friends in the RE lobby. The politicos claim that in return for these generous gifts, that 6000 apartments, already covered by rent stabilization laws, will be "saved". The residents in these apartments are in no danger of losing their RS status. The likelihood of RS laws not being renewed is next to zero. Could the RS laws in general be strengthened, sure.
Those residents fortunate enough to hold RS leases are being used as a shield by the politicos to cover up yet another taxpayer screwing. Nothing is being done to "save" affordable housing here. The 40 year plan merely reinforces existing RS laws. Meantime, those of us who are Roberts or post-Roberts residents are thrown to the wolves. Divide and conquer, an old strategy that never seems to fail.
7:56am I am getting very tired of you, posters like you and the TA. I did not post any 'mis-information'. I was there yesterday. Not one f*&king word about the MRers. If the TA is now talking about us fine. But don't come here, pretend to read the blob and then insult me. The TA asked MRers to rally. A few of us did. And we all feel like idiots for it. Those are the facts of yesterday and the feelings of one MRer. If you don't like it, deal with it but don't attempt to change the facts. If you want to apologize for the TA, please do so. If not, enjoy your day and move on.
ReplyDeleteI'll go so far as to say the FB blog is talking about MRers today because of my (and others) anger posted on THIS site.
God bless STR for all of the BS he has to deal with in order to keep this blog running on a daily basis. One or two yahoo's have tilted me on my side!!! I can only guess what STR goes through.
Before the rally, there were rants from commenters on this site saying that if one mention of the TA/Brookfield condo plan was mentioned, they'd boo and leave. Someone else claims that the "vast majority" of tenants oppose the TA and their condo plan. I have seen rants because the TA plan is a condo, not a coop plan. I have seen rants that the TA should have no plan at all, that they should have instead been spending 100% of their time in Albany magically making MCIs go away and accomplishing what Steve Sanders, B Kavanagh, Tom Duane, Liz Krueger, D Paterson, E. Spitzer, and A Cuomo etc have been unable or in some cases unwilling to accomplish since Pataki and his GOP decimated rent regs in 1997. Now someone chimes in with this:
ReplyDeleteIf the TA plan does not include ownership for us, then we will rally against that plan.
So why the lack of responses to that, the comment made on June 13, 2014 at 9:46 PM? Where are all the comments about why going condo will spell doom for ST-PCV? I'm sure they must have something in mind for all our neighbors like June 13, 2014 at 9:46 PM who are stuck in those insanely expensive ST-PCV apartments. Please, proceed.
There are multiple plans swimming around now. Just like the last time, the TA's is only one of them. The mayor may have another. To date, so far as I can see, only the Guterman plan was great for tenants. It targeted immediate majority ownership and as the majority owners I'm sure we wouldn't be killing the RS folks with MCIs and student rentals. Who knows if Fortress can even raise 4.7B now. With all the bad past here and tenants & politicians voicing complaints, who wants to put up that kind of money for such a troubled area? But CW will wave 4.7B around as if it's a reality. Unless there's some really tough hardball negotiating, a price tag of 3.4B looks as if it's not going to make it. BTW, I wouldn't make any assumptions about the Brookfield plan being great for MRs. We have no idea what Brookfield intends to charge.
ReplyDelete9 13 a.m. and I am in full agreement. So much so that we need to address this STAT and a section , or blog devoted only to this. I am also fed up with being a 2nd class citizen.
ReplyDeleteSince there are approximately (and now we know) 5100 apartments that are not real RS, let those 'buy' their flats or put them back into the affordable rentals that the other 6000 enjoy here.
ReplyDeleteI'm sick of paying 4 x as much as my neighbor + mc is + a.c. The 6000 apartments here need no rental protection and you all fucking no it. W.t.f.
Protect the rest of us , protect the city from the predators on our ass, NOT YOURS.
<>
ReplyDeleteI wrote that. The TA made this HUGE point of asking ALL tenants (both RS and MRers) to come to City Hall to have our voices heard. I went and as a MRer was completely beside myself that not one word was expressed about the plight/needs of the MRers.
Yesterday was to be the public statement regarding the intentions of the tenants (via the TA). Well, the TA screwed me and the MRers yesterday. And unless an extra-ordinary show is made on how the TA will include the needs of the MRers into the TA's position/plan for the community then it will left to us to decide out own path/future.
Screw Marsh's statement on the FB page. It's not enough. I want to see in writing a pledge by the TA that incorporates the MRers needs into the TA plan/position. Yesterday was a boiling point for MRers. If you and the TA don't see that, fine. We'll go our own way.
As my comments on this thread suggest, I'm looking for inclusion in the plan. It will be the inactions of the TA that require me and other MRers to devise our separate strategy. So TA, get to writing up an agenda that is inclusive of our needs....
The Mayor's failure to appear speaks volumes as to who he stands with.
ReplyDeleteAlso, someone needs to speak up and tell all of us the details of this 6,000 apartments for low income renters stuff. I believe that I saw a number in one of the stories with an income range of $65,000 - $130,000 or so. Not real low income but, in NYC, not a lot of money and would exclude many of the community's families with two incomes, e.g. two teachers or those with some modest success in life say 150 -175 range, e.g., higher level civil servants. Many of these residents are long-time real rent-stabilized tenants who have formed the core of the base of TA support.
The TA has, unfortunately, become way to close mouthed and secretive as to what is going on here. No doubt that all the negotiations can't be the subject of open discussions but they need to provide more info or they risk a backlash.
Several years ago, the TA set up tenant advisory committees. It appears that these are now defunct and a very small group of people on the TA Board and some political types now seem to be running the show on this stuff without much, if any, community input. Maybe it is time to revive those committees.
Rallies and photo ops for politicians are fine, as is quiet low-key work to gain political support that will be one of the keys to tenant success in preserving the community. But the TA leadership are not the only residents with a stake in this game and a vision for the future of our community. If they expect the tenants to continue to support their efforts, they have to open up and tell us what is going on.
Its time for the TENANTS Association Board to provide the TENANTS with more information.
Why is Steve Sanders so venerated in ST-PCV? He didn't do his job. Under his watch, rent laws were decimated in 1997! ORGANIZE!
ReplyDelete9:53 you are trying to get the RS to battle the 9:46MR.
ReplyDeleteThis RS declines your battle cry. Fight your own battles you created.
You may have gotten some of the MR to fight against, battle with and try to stop the RS tenants who have been trying to save PCV ST by helping both MR and RS -- your mistake in your comment is that the RS have not at all been battling to take down the MR. The opposite, the RS on this blog have been fighting to and offering ways to protect both the MR and the RS even when some of the MR turned against us RS.
So this RS will not heed your battle cry to take down a MR commentator nor prop up either of you. We remain fighting from our position to save PCVST in totality without any of your divide and conquer tactics.
We have an impasse of sorts.
ReplyDeleteI'm concerned about long-term RS apartments remaining RS and affordable. The MR people are concerned about their high rent and feel that they are carrying most of the financial burden of this place. Two different things and goals. I don't know if the MR tenants are waiting to buy their apartments in a condo conversion, but it looks as if there's very little chance of that happening. I could see a fight to at least remove the heavy weight of "real rent" and make every MR apartment locked in at the "preferential rent" on a current lease. That would be a good start, I think, and remove the dread that MR tenants may have upon lease renewal time. Perhaps a mass audit of all the renovations could be done to see if figures were fudged and, if they were, rent reductions could ensue.
I'm against ST/PCV going condo because I think we'd lose more RS affordable apartments that way. But I could probably support a scenario where those who are MR now could buy their apartment, while those own live in long-term RS apartments could not.
ReplyDelete"Yesterday was to be the public statement regarding the intentions of the tenants (via the TA)."
Seriously?! The TA has never represented the intentions of the tenants. They represent the intentions of Brookfield. Period. This TA has never once represented anything I needed and voiced to them about any of the bad things CW is doing.
Signed
A Former Member
I'm at a good decent rent as I've lived here since 1999. Tbh, I don't care if it goes coop/ condo or the like.
ReplyDeleteMy rent is real stabilized, I know it, they know it and they can't touch me. but I'd rather have tenants (others) owning us and deciding collectively our needs then TS or CW. You bet your ass I would. and that's me.
STR:
ReplyDeleteI don’t think it needs to be an impasse. Let’s call it a condo conversion (stay with me). In a conversion, the sponsor owns all units that elect not to convert. Let’s call the sponsor units the 6,000 units that will be ‘restricted’ by affordability mandates. The government subsidy/tax abatement will be captured within these units. In fact, the government can actually call (or we can volunteer) for a deed restriction on each of these units which is probably a better legal position. It will actually deed restrict at the unit level (and prevent the landlord from moving residents from one unit to another-> no 2nd class buildings). For that restriction, the unit receives a tax abatement. (Note: government subsidy language can be written in various ways and it is too early to get into the weeds on this).
OK… now the MRers can opt to buy their units (or not). Hell, we can even go so far as restrict the resale values of the units. I think that’s more than fair provided the buy-in is some discount to market.
If you want to move the NYU units to a specific building, let NYU propose to ‘pay’ to move those RSers from say 14th and D to around the Oval. That should consolidate NYU in their own buildings, move the 14th and D’ers to ‘closer to the center’ building and pay them handsomely for their re-location. I don’t subscribe to this but I put it out there for people put off by having students as neighbors. (no offense to the 14th and D’ers. I live on that side myself so would benefit from the deal).
I’m hopeful there is a workable plan that meets most of the RS needs as well as the MR needs.
The only thing I can see as an issue is (1) governance and (2) unit financing. But I think we can come to an agreement on the preliminary governance and require a larger than 50% majority for changes. Most banks don’t like to lend into condos with a large % of renters but the political nature and size of the community should ease those concerns.
If anything, I’ve continued to call for a plan that includes MRers. I’m not interested in putting the needs of one group above the other. Our only plan needs to be one where we are unified in our voice. What set me off yesterday was silence to the MRers plight. I’m hopeful the TA will provide guidance on a unified front. Like I said, I love living here. My family loves living here. And my neighbors (both MR & RS) love living here. What we don’t like is the constant abuse by far-away owners and their attempts to squeeze every dollar from each of us. As for the students, I don’t have a problem with them but we can figure out a way to even work with them (if the majority so wishes) [I say this for this reason: if it is true that NYU is the legal tenant for multiple units then they have rights here as well, no matter if we agree or not].
June 14, 2014 at 1:09 PM
ReplyDeleteSTR did not miss the point that I was trying to make, but you did. The TA is damned if they do and damned if they don't. They can't please those long-termers who want to keep this place all rental and also the newer tenants in overpriced refurbished apartments who think affordability can only happen for them here via ownership. The TA has the outline of a plan that purports to do both. We are waiting to hear the details. Meanwhile, those regulars here who insist on keeping the place rental should explain themselves. That was my point.
STR at 1:20 PM
What you "could probably support" is not legal. Offerings cannot be made to certain tenants only in a conversion. That's discrimination. However, once a conversion happens, the corporation or LLC (and board?) can make rules about those unsold rental units. I'm assuming the TA/Brookfield deal has a clause that keeps currently affordable ST-PCV units that way, meaning normal RS units without luxury renovations upon vacancy, for X number of years.
June 14, 2014 at 10:34 AM
The Guterman plan was only "great for tenants" in too expensive units who want to buy. Not for those of us who'd like to protect affordable rental stock going forward. He was just gonna convert and run. Meaning all the unsold units would go up for individual purchase on the open market. They would remain RS rental units until RS renters of those units died, moved etc. At that point the individual owner could move into the unit, if so desired.
We're losing an apartment to a renovation and to forced turnover every day from these sharks. How could it possibly be worse by owning ourselves?
ReplyDeleteAnd I say No to most of what has been suggested. The option to buy should not be restricted. I'm all for protections for the RS who choose to remain RS and am also for open ability to purchase. This is the only approach that serves the requirements of all tenants. Sorry, STR, but you generally keep promoting RS only. And others imply that the TA plan is right. While we have little impact on the final bids, I fail to see why within our own community we wouldn't advocate a plan that strengthens RS protections and gives all tenants an opportunity to buy.
ReplyDeleteThe future of Stuy Town? Pruitt–Igoe
ReplyDeleteMaybe Cuomo could have his TPU audit all the rents of each apartment and correct the overcharges with full rebates and rollbacks as a follow up to his statement at the rally. That might be effective to get me to vote for him.
ReplyDeleteCW wants tax breaks for keeping affordable housing. Along the same lines, we want a thorough audit of PCVST in return for our votes.
3 03 well yeah, but is that worse than the Brohos I have moving in and out every other ___ing month? Not at all. Not at all. Think ABOUT IT.
ReplyDeleteI generally agree with 3:16 june 14. STR, what you fail to realize is that R/S (even legitimate R/S like you and I have) is doomed to eventually become unaffordable. Now one can say that things like maintenance and taxes go up as well and this indeed is true. At least, however, as an owner one would be building equity and have the tax advantages of a mortgage. I have an extremely agreeable rent on my 1 bedroom in the sty, yet if the price was right I do believe that I would probably purchase my apartment.
ReplyDeleteNobody is taliking about downsizing tenants in rent stabilized housing, this applies to NYCHA housing projects due to overcrowding and under-utilization, to and people getting Section 8 vouchers, including many renters in former Mitchell-Lama buildings that were converted.
ReplyDeleteThis new city policy is due to the $35 million budget cut HPD got after the sequestration of the Federal budget. You remember, the sequestration that supposedly affected no one and only shut down a few national parks and monuments? That led to a few grandstanding politicians storming the barricades at the Lincoln Memorial, the same memorial that they themselves had voted remove funding for and to shut down.
Well the sequestration is now forcing seniors who get Section 8 vouchers out of their larger apartments and into smaller ones due to massive budget cuts. That's what happens when your government doesn't function properly, as Eric Cantor just found out when the Tea Party tossed him out of congrress last week. Thats the same Eric Cantor who supported the sequestration. At least now we dont have to pay Cantor's salary anymore.
>>what you fail to realize is that R/S (even legitimate R/S like you and I have) is doomed to eventually become unaffordable<<
ReplyDeleteDoomed only if there are not changes. We have to push for those changes and the politicians have to support us.
Again, any apartment that becomes condo is removed from RS protections and doesn't become affordable any more.
"Doomed only if there are not changes. We have to push for those changes and the politicians have to support us.
ReplyDeleteAgain, any apartment that becomes condo is removed from RS protections and doesn't become affordable any more."
I think even you would agree that the changes you are calling for (which I agree with) have a pretty slim chance of getting done. As far as you apt turned condo not being affordable anymore, well if it's a condo then you agreed to buy it so it is indeed affordable otherwise you would have chosen to remain R/S. If the issue for you is subsequent inhabitants, then that can be addressed through deed restrictions.
Also, as far as the changes you are calling for are concerned, it still won't address the yearly increases that the RGB approve every year, just the fraudulant MCI'S. Either way, affordability is lost to some extent. I would rather have some control of my destiny through ownership. Again, I'm a real R/S renter.
I'm also not quite sure who needs to pay for all this. No doubt even our sleazy LL getting hit with tax increase (my own SIL just got another $120 increase monthly on her small studio in this area)... Who pays for increases in heating oil? Con Ed bills? Even if we had an up an up decent Landlord, fees to maintain old buildings mount every day. WHAT DO WE DO?
ReplyDeleteThere is no such thing as tenants ownership! It is either predator Fortress Hedge Fund or Predator Brookfield/TA. If you want to know what it would be like under predator brookfield/TA just look at the past 4 years - increased commercialism, increased evictions, decreased RS apartments, increased NYU apartments. Brookfield/TA and Fortress/CW have been working together as evident by the fact that the TA has fought against NOTHING and only minutely pushed back for appearances sake when tenants cried out!
ReplyDeleteThe NYU deal is illegal and is committing further illegal acts to the property - show me the politician with the balls to hold them accountable and evict them, fine them, and criminally convict.
What is stopping that? Are there powerful politicians and their underling soldiers in on the deal?
STR, some of us keep differing with you because you're not seeing the current situation as an opportunity to strengthen RS protection and an opportunity for many to become owners. You're more seeing the debate as an opportunity to espouse a vision...which would be a large landlord operating under very strict governmental controls with profit caps in place. If such principles could be applied with consistency throughout the city, I'd be with you. But in reality, what you're espousing is an impossible ideal. Maybe current RS units can be strengthened, but for the most part, rents across the city will be determined by market forces. What is happening in STPCV right now is a remarkable exception requiring stabilization for every circumstance. I doubt you can be convinced to depart from your thought, but unless we can all embrace some encompassing type of plan, we really have no position as a community and will remain divided. What is the 'compromise' approach that would help bring us all together?
ReplyDeleteNYU has NO PLACE in this residential community.
ReplyDelete"No" to transient housing!
Thanks for clearing that up, Giovanni.
ReplyDelete>STR, some of us keep differing with you because you're not seeing the current situation as an opportunity to strengthen RS protection and an opportunity for many to become owners.<<
ReplyDeleteI don't see how you can say going condo will strengthen RS protections. You yourself, or those who feel like you, have made the claim that RS is on a time limit, that it's going to disappear in the future.
I don't see how buying an apartment here makes anything affordable. Those who buy will have to deal with the burden of a mortgage--and maintenance bills that may be more than their current rent! I suspect that some who are championing a condo conversion do that in order to flip their apartment in the future and make a nice profit. Not saying that is your goal, but there are those tenants who do want to do precisely that.
Aside from this, there is zero evidence that CWCapital is willing to sell to tenants. On the contrary, CWCapital has refused to talk to the TA on this matter.
"Aside from this, there is zero evidence that CWCapital is willing to sell to tenants. On the contrary, CWCapital has refused to talk to the TA on this matter."
ReplyDeleteWhy does this necessarily have anything to do with whether or not this place will convert to condo/coop?
Giovanni,
ReplyDeleteOf course you have to pay Cantor's salary until he actually leaves his job then you have to pay his replacement, most likely the Republican who beat him. There is absolutely no savings there. To clear up another issue sequestration did not cause $1 in cuts. It only cut the rate of future growth in funding, no actual cuts at all. Any budgets that were cut were done by the feds to give that money to another program, probably one of their pet projects.
>>Why does this necessarily have anything to do with whether or not this place will convert to condo/coop?<<
ReplyDeleteBecause CW is the boss, the landlord, the entity to make the decision of who finally gets to own this place.
ReplyDeleteActually $85 billion in budget cuts from the sequestration began last year and the cuts extend well into the future. They are the reason for the downsizing of the Section 8 program. They are also the reason thousands of other programs have already been cut. Talk to anyone who works in government and chances are their own budgets were already cut last year.
This does not affect anyone unless they are Section 8, just trying to clear up the confusion that this somehow impacts rent stabilized apartments in StuyTown, as if tenants don't have enough problems already.
via Downtown Express:
New H.P.D. boss plans meeting with Congress on Section 8 cuts
November 7, 2013
BY SAM SPOKONY .
Huge cuts to Section 8 came as a result of the federal sequester, which went into effect earlier this year and chopped around $85 billion off the nation’s budget.
A representative of the city’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development told this newspaper on Oct. 31 that H.P.D. Commissioner RuthAnne Visnauskas, who was appointed in September, will travel to the nation’s capital sometime within the next several weeks, and that Section 8 will be a major part of her discussions there.
The sequester forced H.P.D. to take a budget cut of around $35 million for 2013, and the department estimates that it will face a budget deficit of around $40 million in 2014 if Congress doesn’t agree on a way to solve the budget crisis.
So starting in July, H.P.D. scaled down the Section 8 voucher program, which provides money for housing to around 30,000 low-income residents across the city. The agency asked some voucher holders to either pay a greater share of their rent or agree to relocate to a smaller apartment.
http://www.downtownexpress.com/2013/11/07/new-h-p-d-boss-plans-meeting-with-congress-on-section-8-cuts/
First of all, CW is NOT the boss. It is the agent for the bosses. And the major bosses are Freddie Mac and Fannie. Their positions will be crucial in the end. There is still no telling what will happen. A co-op or condo plan could win.
ReplyDeleteSecond, I expect little of de Blasio. His hands are tied. He can help renters. But providing incentives to developers so that people can buy will be out of the question.
Third, if you take the point of view that SCRIE can be strengthened or MCI laws modified. or RS renewed for longer terms, these can happen no matter what occurs with respect to STPCV. But if you take the grand vision point of view that less tenant ownership equals stronger RS, then I think the STR train of thought can't be swayed. In this vision, every time someone buys an apartment in the city, RS is weakened and we should advocate against all such buying. That point of view IMHO is unrealistic and offers little or no help help to the market raters here. It's really looking at things only from the renters point of view rather than the views of both renter and people who have the potential to buy.
If there were a co-op or condo plan offered, any sensible potential buyer would want to see an engineer's report about likely maintenance issues. Pending the results of that report, the base prices of the units mean everything. If the base prices are affordable and maintenance looks manageable, then we have a good deal. STR, you keep rejecting conversion out of hand. There is good reason why some of us would like to take a good look.
ReplyDelete"Because CW is the boss, the landlord, the entity to make the decision of who finally gets to own this place."
ReplyDeleteOk......so they decide they don't want to sell to Brookfield. As you indicated, CW is boss and they decide who's offer they will accept. XYZ company gets their offer accepted, and buy the place. They convert the project to condo/coop.
It gets done without Brookfield or the TA having anything to do with it. Hell, Fortress may even do it.
CW has title to the property. CW is the boss.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20140605/REAL_ESTATE/140609919/cwcapital-takes-title-to-stuy-town-cancels-auction
CW has title to the property. CW is the boss.
ReplyDeleteAnd once again, the significance of that as relates to a condo/coop conversion (beyond the possibility of the T/A having anything to do with it) is what exactly?
9:06 are you one of those few MR who are trying everything and anything and even things that are disrespectful and unacceptable treatment of rent stabilized residents who are trying to save our middle class haven? You have lost all credibility long ago, for some in Jan/Feb and for others before that. There are more MR apartments occupied by students than by long-term residents. Your TA Brookfield vision requires permanent student housing at PCVST. The TA/Brookfield/NYU vision will destroy middle - class PCVST. PCVST is better off for everyone even the few like you, by righting the illegal overcharges and reducing the purchase price so why wouldn't you support that and help the other MR get some money back?
ReplyDeleteI'm 9:06. I don't support the TA plan. I support as many people being able to buy as possible. What wrong with that? Again, I say...your point of view seems to argue that no one in the city should be able to buy. We should all be renters because this would keep RS strong. I mean...come on.
ReplyDelete"help the other MR get some money back?"
ReplyDeleteWhere does that dream come from?
It would involve another very expensive, very complicated, Roberts-like class action lawsuit lasting several years.
No grounds - Good luck finding an attorney.
Ain't gonna happen.
Almost as unlikely as demolition.
The lawyers to comment. To say that CW is the true owner seems a bit misleading. The deed in lieu of foreclosure was a legal maneuver to avoid a challenge to the auction from a junior debt holder. I seriously doubt that CW will make any decisions without making sure Freddie & Fannie are on board. Behind the scenes they will call the final shots. If CW were in fact the real owner, there would be nothing legally from it declaring there would be no sale, no change moving forward. It was now the owner having paid $100 million in transfer taxes and it likes things the way they are.
ReplyDeleteI think I see a tipping point happening here. Previously there was a divide between market rate and rent stabile]zed tenants, with the market rate tenants resenting the fact that they weren't getting getting treated the same way that rent stabilized tenants were. yet they wore their high rent as a badge of honor, and claimed they were the ones paying "all the bills around here."
ReplyDeleteNow some of these market rate tenants are actually demanding the same rent protections that rent stabilized tenants have now, which would essentially make them rent stabilized tenants too!
Finally they have seen the light after being so abused all these years by the same landlords they once defended as just being smart business people, for constantly raising rents, and trying to end all rent stabilization. Finally they are admitting that once rent stabilization goes away, all rents will rise, not fall as they once promised would happen.
The city lost 30% of rent stabilized apartments under Bloomberg. Did anyone's rent go down? The city has a higher percentage of unaffordable housing than in its entire history, and landlords are still whining for more rent increases even as they take hundreds of millions out of their property in credit loans, refinancing and ultimately in conversions.
The real estate people have made their money ten times over, but they still want more of yours, especially market raters, Welcome to the fight, lets just hope its not too late for everyone.
The Governor and the AG should thoroughly investigate and audit the cooked books of CWCapital and return the overpriced "MR/RS" apartments to the rents they legally SHOULD be without all the padding, bogus cheap renovations and other tricks that have pushed these rents up and over the cliff.
ReplyDeleteGiovanni said "Now some of these market rate tenants are actually demanding the same rent protections that rent stabilized tenants have now, which would essentially make them rent stabilized tenants too! "
ReplyDeleteI hate to break it to you Giovanni, but the market rate tenants are now rent stabilized tenants.
Why is the deputy mayor fighting to preserve the rents of real R/S tenants when there are protections already in place? Is she trying to ensure that real R/S simply remains in place when it's voted on periodically?
ReplyDelete1:22 We are in complete agreement and ready to start gathering names and those affected for a fight.
ReplyDelete>>I hate to break it to you Giovanni, but the market rate tenants are now rent stabilized tenants.<<
ReplyDeleteThey are, but they are the most Market Rate paying RS tenants in NYC!
LOL
ReplyDeleteClassic. Politician (Deputy Mayor) fights for SOMETHING WE ALREADY have.
The real RS are not in any jeopardy and there is a 00.0% chance of it going away. The real problem and crime is the Market rate leases which are inflated, false and they're still in J51 --- tax rate for CW . W.t.f.
confused about ROBERTs entirely.
ReplyDeleteThey illegally charged for rents and had to return the $ to tenants.
Yet, they're still illegally charging tenants who just moved in and are overpaying (into recently renovated...) I'M CONFUSED.
No STR, Crains and you are absolutely wrong and this is a really important point: The deed was transferred by CWCapital to the senior lenders in court two weeks ago, NOT to itself, NOT to its parent company. In all of the reporting, only the WSJ got that part right:
ReplyDeleteCreditors Take Title to Stuyvesant Town
"The senior creditors in control of the giant Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village apartment complex in Manhattan on Thursday completed a yearslong long action to take title to the 11,200-unit property, wiping out other debtholders.
"The senior creditors, represented by distressed debt specialist CWCapital Asset Management LLC, had been planning to take title more gradually. But they shifted course in recent days to move more quickly to avert a potential fight with a junior creditor, completing the action known as a deed in lieu of foreclosure..."
End of quote
If you don't believe me, talk to Dan Garodnick's office. And BTW, this was why Dan made the comment that this was probably a better outcome than foreclosure quickly followed by auction.
There's also this from Wikipedia: "A deed in lieu of foreclosure is a deed instrument in which a mortgagor (i.e. the borrower) conveys all interest in a real property to the mortgagee (i.e. the lender) to satisfy a loan that is in default and avoid foreclosure proceedings."
June 17, 2014 at 3:36 PM
ReplyDeleteThere's a rent law loophole that allows landlords to increase rents via improvements to vacated RS apartments. It used to be that they had to spend $40,000 to get a $1,000/month rent increase on the next tenant, now it's $60,000. There's another loophole called "vacancy decontrol" that more or less killed rent regulation. Vacancy decontrol says a rent regulated apartment can be deregulated if the rent increases to $2,500/month -- meaning it becomes "market-rate" and the owner can charge whatever he wants.
That's what they did here pre-Roberts. They did just enough improvements to deregulate the units. However, our landlords were also getting tax abatements from the city intended for buildings with rent regulated apartments. The Roberts case challenged that, saying it was illegal deregulation, and we won.
The landlord still spends a lot on improvements to vacated old RS units to get rents up. The landlord also churns apartments to get 15 or 20% vacancy increases also allowable under the law and the result is 2 bedroom RS apts in STPCV renting for $6,000/month.
June 18, 2014 at 9:57 AM
ReplyDeleteI left something out.
1. Vacancy decontrol says a *VACATED* rent regulated apartment can be deregulated if the rent increases to $2,500/month
2. That's what they did here pre-Roberts. They did just enough improvements to deregulate the *VACATED RS* units.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteJune 18, 2014 at 1:38 PM
ReplyDeleteI probably wasn't clear. I did not say our landlords can charge whatever they want. That's because all apts in STPCV are RS for now, because the Roberts Decision disallows vacancy decontrol in STPCV until 2020.
Our landlords get inflated legal rents on renovated, rent stabilized STPCV units via 2 loopholes in the law: (1) using the 1/60th improvements loophole and (2) by churning RS apts to get allowed vacancy increases (15% after a one year tenant leaves and 20% after a 2 year + tenant leaves).
The market rate apartments are only technically rent stabilized until 2020, but that doesnt help anyone at the exorbitant rates already being paid now in apartments that were pushed out of rent stabilization, so that's just a technicality of the Roberts settlemet that anonymous posters keep throwing out there to muddy the waters. Now that the Roberts settlement checks are getting sliced by a third, just try to keep making the argument that there is rent stabilization for everyone in StuyTown and see how far that gets you.
ReplyDeleteTishman and CW Capital have achived their goals of pushing all rents as close to market rate as possible, and will continue to flip apartments with NYU students and transients, which means more rent increases and ridiculously unaffordable rents for all future tenants.
Call it what you wil but make no mistake, the Roberts settlement was a victory for the owners, this is not rent stabilzation in any sense of the word.
I accidentally removed the 1:38 comment. Nothing wrong with it at all. I'll see if I can retrieve it. Apologies.
ReplyDeleteThis may have been the comment I accidentally deleted:
ReplyDelete9:57 - Then why bother with the formula of what can be charged per renovation per apartment?
I do not think this is correct. The apartment are renovated with X amount - for example $90k in renovation (new kitchen, new bath, new floor, lights in closets with shelves, etc). The 90k amount determines what can be charged for said apartment under RS laws of NYc. Again, all units here are RS, the landlord cannot charge WHATEVER he wants after $2500. There is a formula based on factors.
Giovanni -- If the waters are muddy, that's because attorneys and lawmakers in Albany intended it that way. I'm one of the commenters who thinks that legal technicalities are important to understand so people know *exactly* how shit got, and is getting, done to them.
ReplyDelete