This could be very significant. I do note, however, the line which states: "...keep rents low on some of the apartments..." [Italics mine.] My impression from reading the article is that MR-paying tenants are going to be out of the loop on any plan for maintaining affordable housing in ST/PCV. As for the apartments that are still affordable, let's hope all of them are secured for the future as affordable.
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/real-estate/2014/07/8549000/mayor-meets-stuy-town-tenant-leaders
UPDATE. More info here:
http://town-village.com/2014/07/16/de-blasio-meets-with-pols-tenants-association-on-the-affordability-of-stuy-town/
74 comments:
Cause no one give a damn about those who are paying for this place.
Long-time tenants are also paying for this place, though not as much.
I'm disappointed that Hoylman, Kavanaugh and Maloney didn't make the effort to personally attend this meeting, but it is a step in the right direction.
These meeting make no sense as the 6,000 tenants who they are talking about protecting, have iron clad leases and are already protected under the rent stabilization laws. That was proven when T.S purchased the property. They are either leaving the other 5,000 tenants out in the cold intentionally or the talks are really about the city helping the TA to purchase STPCV and turn it into a non eviction Co-Op.
Wouldn't trust any of this for a second. This is Garodnick & the TA Board pushing their agenda. De Blasio can learn more just from reading the blogs.
Mayor DeBlasio coming over to StuyTown is a big step forward, and is a very positive development, but lets not pretend he can undo the damage to rent stabilization that was done by the likes of Anthony Weiner when he was on the City Council and voted for vacancy decontrol in the early 90s. Now all landlords can jack rents up every time an apartment turns over. It is exactly what CW Crapital is doing with the NYU apartments. It is their entire business model until they find a buyer or convert it themselves.
The best thing DeBasio can do right now is to stop NYU and CW Crapital from abusing the system, putting up illegal partitions and overcrowding places like StuyTown with transients who just ruin thje quality of life while pushing rents even hjighjer through hrapid turnover.
If DeBlasio doesn't fight for our place, he's a fraud.
This complex represents the very crux of the issues he ran his campaign under. There should be blood before giving up to the fat cats on Stuy/PCV.
I know Garodnick's a sell out already, but I hope still DeBlasio getting involved is a good thing. Only time will tell…
All in, we've paid almost 450k over the course of 9 years. Our friends about 150k. So who needs protecting?
Does anyone believe that the Mayor's office or Councilman Garodnick, while well intentioned, can accomplish anything constructive that keeps affordable housing in STPCV, by meeting with a few tenants who do not have any practical knowledge about real estate or rent stabilization, or ownership housing?
By these same few tenants who do not represent the majority of the tenants at STPCV?
Does the Mayor's Office even realize that the tenants who attended the meeting in Council Garodnick's apartment, do not represent more than a few hundred tenants in total and have no practical real estate knowledge?
Those same tenants have no practical experience in selecting adequate real estate representation.
Additionally, and even more important, those same tenants, have no in-depth understanding of how Rent Stabilization can be used to successfully interact with a plan for Affordable Housing?
Does anyone believe that the failure of the Roberts Litigation with all the facts on the plaintiff's side, assures anyone that the STPCV Tenants Association or Councilman Garodnick, who was so quick to "brag" about his participation in the settlement of Roberts, can be relied on to find an equitable and pragmatic solution to maintaining Affordable Housing in the community?
Who cares about eating cake and coffee, while Rome is still burning?
Gerald Guterman
The three parking spots taken away in the 18th st loop on first ave is being use for BIKE RACKS.
Yeah, now THAT makes sense. The circus is in town folks. Step right up.
I saw Warren, er Billy Dee Blasio at the Oval Cafe, he maintained that affordable coffee should be made available to not only tenants and guests, but to everyone.
1:36 pm
LOLLLL. We needed that. Thanks for the laugh. Going to pay my rent now - the new one as my lease renewed - $3735 for a one bedroom. Thanks guys - what a bargain.
I think some people here are deluding themselves. What have we ever seen from city involvement in real estate in the last 40 years? If anything, there has been an erosion of tenant protection. Leave it to the politicians and they will do what's best for them and what SEEMS as if it's good for us...until we start living with the details. No. Without us demonstrating, rallying and making trouble, we have no real seat at the table. I keep looking to this blog for some sign of action. So far...nothing.
"Wouldn't trust any of this for a second. This is Garodnick & the TA Board pushing their agenda. De Blasio can learn more just from reading the blogs."
You hit the nail right on the head!
Mr. Gutterman, the few tenants who you refer to, who were at the meeting, certainly know enough about rent stabilization. They may know shit about ownership, but they know about stabilization.
Wow - he went to his crib? That's huge. Mikey Bloombucks never came over.
What does this mean? Can you put our overpriced 2 br back where it should be?
A recent call to the TA to discuss a rent increase + a/c charges + mci charges--- tenant was asked why he signed the lease if he didn't want to pay for the increases and the rent.
Just got home and this shit is blasting through my widow. This dump is now run by rubes/hicks for rubes/hicks.
"Wednesday, July 16, 2014
5-9pm A great double-feature every Wednesday from June 25th through August 13th*, under the sun and stars! Enjoy a kid-friendly movie starting at 5pm, followed by a grown-up movie starting at 7pm. Here's the 2014 lineup:
•7/16: 5pm - The Croods; 7pm - The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug"
"Anonymous said...
All in, we've paid almost 450k over the course of 9 years. Our friends about 150k. So who needs protecting?
July 16, 2014 at 11:50 AM"
So let me understand this, you CHOSE to piss away $450,000 instead of buying an apartment, and somehow you begrudge the original RS tenants who at one time made up the exclusive tenancy here ?? How about this scenario, if it wasn't for fools willing to pay $450K to live in a non-doorman building with one bathroom, the whole complex would still be RS, you could put your name on the waiting list like everyone else, and after about 10 years, you too could have a cheap apartment. A little perspective, shall we ?
It appears that the mayor is shooting for something like we had in the old days. True, he's talking about protecting those who are already protected, but the units aren't protected once the occupant dies or moves out. It looks like he wants to insure they stay real R/S. I suppose that would entail once again going back to the waiting lists we used to have. What else could he be talking about? I also agree that the market raters are left out of the whole equation.
Let's keep talking about NYU so that we have zero credibility..... smart, people. Smart.
6:01 - Sure, I'm sure your dumbass landlord Met Life would not have sold you under the boss a few hundred times or more. Sure...
CW guy at 9:50 AM and Sock pupett at 3:58pm.. How transparent.
6:05pm
the market raters are always left out. The best and most laughable is the RS needs no protecting - quite the opposite. Those who are here and paying twice as much as others for same if not worse service are dumbass out of luck.
I wonder what Dan 's rent is....
Who thinks the Mayor can support a plan that removes ANY apartments from stabilization? The rents on the MR apartments may not be affordable but they are 'stabilized'. It's the intent of the mayor to add units to the stabilization total; not decrease it. So any plan that requires the mayor's support will not include a condo conversion.
The TA, who begged the MR's to support the TA agenda, have now left them in the dust.
It's time for the MR's to think for themselves and get their own horse to back. Honestly, I think I'd take Fortress over the TA (at least they screw me with the lights on).
Talk about insult to injury for the market leases
continually overpriced units
added mc i charges
ac charges
charges for every bulb and what's next? pay for water too. What a scam. You're a fool if you put up with this.
Anamymous said....
Mr. Gutterman, the few tenants who you refer to, who were at the meeting, certainly know enough about rent stabilization. They may know shit about ownership, but they know about stabilization.
July 16, 2014 at 4:02 PM
With all due respect, the tenant's knowledge that I have seen so far, is limited to the tenant side of Stabilization and the individual tenant's immediate needs.
There appears to be little or no indepth knowledge about how to combine the Stabilization laws with the Tenant Protection Act, to effectuate the "massive" change needed at STPCV.
Gerald Guterman
July 16, 2014 at 9:04 AM
According to both articles, Hoylman and Kavanagh were at the meeting.
July 16, 2014 at 9:37 AM - Nobody is leaving the other 5,000 tenants out in the cold intentionally. What else can be done for those 5,000 tenants other than the prospect of ownership? Do you actually think Albany is about to undo what's already been done?
"Immediately after the distress of those days " 'the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'
Sounds a lot like what we are going through here today! Soo long good old days! sad.........
can anyone tell us the property managers for peter cooper? having a real issue with a problem that does not get fixed. employees here unhelpful and getting nowhere with this.
thanks All.
A recent call to the TA to discuss a rent increase + a/c charges + mci charges--- tenant was asked why he signed the lease if he didn't want to pay for the increases and the rent.
Seems like an appropriate question. If you don't like the rent you're being charges and don't want to pay the a/c & MCI charges like everyone else, why did you sign the lease?
@Gerald Guterman
Senator Schumer and Mayor de Blasio came through for us big time and need to hear alternatives to Garodnick-TA-Brookfield.
Please post a tenant pledge authorizing you to represent us in negotiations with CWC. We are 20-year, dues-paying TA members wanting to revoke our executed pledge currently on file with the TA, which is no longer acting in the best interests of tenants and should not represent us during this most crucial period.
Also, please post an update of your tenant friendly co-op proposal offering the lowest possible purchase prices that will maximize affordability for the highest percentage of current residents aspiring to ownership, combined with a permanent affordable set aside scheme protecting all current residents electing to remain renters.
The proposal provides immediate stability and long term affordability benefitting 100% of current residents planning long term residency. Appropriate resale caps can maintain long term affordability for future residents. Excluding ineligible transients living dormitory style will quickly transform ST-PCV back into a 100% residential community.
Garodnick and TA political juice brought Senator Schumer and Mayor de Blasio to our side. Schumer came through big time, giving us much, much more than just a seat at the table. In fact, we may be sitting in the only seat. If not, we have the best seat. Mayor de Blasio is working hard for us, looking for ways to preserve affordability for as many residents as possible. Out of a deep sense of foreboding, we feel Garodnick and the TA will squander this defining, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity away by seizing it for themselves.
Apparently they still cling to a possibly slightly modified, but still disgraceful TA/Brookfield “partnership” that stabs tenants in the back with a condo plan affordable only to the highest earning, highest rent paying residents forced to purchase or vacate if they want their kids to attend college. Everyone else should be happy keeping eroding, dying RS. Garodnick and the TA did not give us RS and -- most particularly right now -- we don’t need them to pretend they are fighting to keep it.
Hopefully Schumer and De Blasio will demand answers to questions Garodnick and the TA dodged for years: - Vulture Ackerman verbalized a more tenant friendly plan than your condo scam, why are you giving away every possible financial windfall to Brookfield without getting anything that remotely resembles long term affordability for your member/constituents? WTF?
July 16, 2014 at 8:51 PM
Who thinks the Mayor can support a plan that removes ANY apartments from stabilization?
I can. The article says: "a rollback for tenants in ST/PCV’s other, renovated units isn’t a part of that plan." You know why it's not part of the plan? It isn't part of the plan because Republicans in the State Senate in Albany will never EVER allow that to happen. If a rent rollback's what you're sticking around for, your head's in the clouds. Right now, the only viable alternative for tenants in renovated units is ownership. So the starting point of your analysis is 180 degrees wrong. Not to mention that de Blasio will not screw Garodnick on this.
@July 17, 2014 at 10:50 AM
Thanks for correcting that Hoylman and Kavanaugh WERE in attendance. I misread the first article because of the run-on sentence. Sorry.
3:23 - Another employee of CR obviously. She or he can't understand your leases most likely and then you throw in new charges every 4 months. Sleezy sleazy sleazy.
"a rollback for tenants in ST/PCV’s other, renovated units ... isn’t a part of the plan because Republicans in the State Senate in Albany will never EVER allow that to happen."
Governor Cuomo too, will never EVER allow that to happen.
Speyer's gang owns him.
To Gerald Guterman:
I would like to hear how you plan to buy STPCV for BILLIONS OF DOLLARS - because that's what it's going to take - and then sell apartments to tenants at an AFFORDABLE price, meaning NOT for hundreds of thousands of dollars. Please. By all means. Do tell. Everyone reading this blog would like to know.
I like following the conversation here and I do hope to see some tenant action emerge, but as things stand, I see this all as a colossal mess. In spite of community concerns here, the heart of our situation is a business deal, and none of the stakeholders is willing to accept less than what they think they can get. So from CW's perspective and the perspective of primary or mezzanine debt holders, they'd only make a deal with the city if that deal would render them more money than any other deal. So what the city has to offer isn't likely to be appealing to a group of swarming sharks (CW & co) or to big losing gamblers (the debt holders) who are hoping to more than break even. Meanwhile, we ourselves are a divided community. Some believe in Garodnick and the TA. Many do not. Some believe in RS and RS only. Others would like to buy. The interests of long-timers and MRs don't seem to be coinciding, and student rentals just keep chugging a long. Since no tenant action or any other action seems forthcoming, it seems there's nothing to do but to vent some more and wait for the next shoe drop in the 2nd week of August.
Here is something that I am sure will catch a lot of you by surprise. I know someone who lived in PCV most of her life and is now going to be moving back to ST in September. When dealing with the Leasing Office, they told her that if she wanted to rent in PCV (only PCV), that she would have the option of adding a balcony to her apartment in the very near future at a cost of around $40k. Wonder where this is going?!?!?
A balcony? I don't find this credible, unless they want to rebuild PCV. And if it's true, it's a crazy idea because then you'd have a real visual mess with a balcony here and there, but no standard look.
4:31 that is why the NYU CW scheme to illegally remove apartments from Rent Stabilization is of vital importance to us Market Rate tenants. The only option for MR is to hold accountable NYU and CW for this fraud against tenants and against the City (depending on how many pols - and how deeply the City was involved in the scheme). A fair priced purchase will not be an option for MarketRate tenants with the state of the property, the liabilities leftover from the Tishman deal with the contaminated soil and the upcoming Big U project and the inflated income numbers. The only option for us MarketRate is to unify and take action against the NYU scheme to get the property income corrected for a proper purchase price. buying a condo at these numbers is a losing proposition. But the MR tenants aren't capable of unifying and I fear our numbers are smaller than the Tenant Association claims since most of the MarketRate apartments are NYU leased.
Completely agree with you, and think that this was just a tactic to try and lure some suckers into renting in PCV since their is probably a higher vacancy rate over there.
>>Right now, the only viable alternative for tenants in renovated units is ownership.<<
True, but then we codify those apartments as being removed from RS protections. For long-time tenants in non-renovated apartments, ownership is not a solution, unless they are rich. I think the game plan from De Blasio will be to prop up the unrenovated apartments with long term tax breaks for the landlord. MR tenants may receive the ability to purchase their apartments, but I wonder how complex and fragmentary such a situation would be.
Can the exterior brick walls with band aid repointing and questionable mortar durability even withstand the stress and uneven weight of randomly placed balconies? Plus the design of the corners on these buildings would have balconies butting up against our neighbors windows. Unless you are in an exterior PC apartment like those overlooking the river balconies are assinine in concept and safety which makes them along the same lines as the thinking by ALL those who also commercialized the Oval and brought in students to mix with young families. hmmmmm....a thought drunk students on balconies living next to young families with sleeping babies. Sure lets bring more noise outside to our once peaceful community. Another scheme to ruin quality of life.
Who would this appeal to but those with river views?
The best option for market rate tenants is an action against NYU for illegally deregulating to increase the purchase price of market rate apartments and then to attain those re-regulated apartments as part of the deal when it settles. Then let the market rate apartments be the problem of the new owner and not of the tenants.
"Here is something that I am sure will catch a lot of you by surprise. I know someone who lived in PCV most of her life and is now going to be moving back to ST in September. When dealing with the Leasing Office, they told her that if she wanted to rent in PCV (only PCV), that she would have the option of adding a balcony to her apartment in the very near future at a cost of around $40k. Wonder where this is going?!?!?"
Absolutely nowhere....I've heard absurd, but this is hilarious. You should try to make yourself at least somewhat believable.
8:11...Mr Guterman already submitted his plan to the community about 18 months ago. The plan shoots for 80% tenant participation based on square footage prices that would resolve into mortgage-maintenance payments approximating what people are paying now. While I note self-interest in everything, Mr Guterman is one of the very few taking the risk of addressing the community without anonymity. I hope the only comments addressed toward him allowed to come through are personally respectful.
I just can't see any unity among us unless there is recognition on all sides that for the MRs there is no affordable solution other than ownership. Unless long-timers can support this, there will be no unity. As to long timers being able to buy, it all depends on the price. If the original Guterman plan were to prevail, it's likely many long timers could afford to buy. But in any event, the long timers have RS in place so not supporting MR ownership would be like a dog in the manger. What realistically good reason not to support?
A balcony with a private pool on top of the building, right?
That's a good one!
July 18, 2014 at 8:13 AM
Exactly. Most long term tenants in unrenovated apts would opt to continue renting in the event of a conversion because that makes the most economic sense. Likewise it would make more economic sense for newer tenants in renovated units to buy. Yes it will be complex, but the tenants association has to take into account the ridiculously fucked up rent disparities in STPCV going forward. And I have yet to see anyone come forward with a viable plan that addresses this other than the TA and Garodnick.
If the tenants do not buy STPCV then someone else will, and that someone else could be anyone with the money, even the Chinese Government, who could afford to pay cash and not deal with Fannie and Freddie.
Who ever buys would be looking to build a huge glass and metal building on the Oval and either market the new building as luxury rentals or a hotel.
Then slowly vacate STPCV buildings and demolish them and rebuild. That is why we should have the property landmarked, not only will that save our open spaces and buildings but it will also lower the price of the complex and make it more affordable for tenants to buy there homes. It is a win-win for tenants.
Str - having been here a few years now (circa 1983) all those long timers here friends of mine will buy. They seem to have saved up quite a pretty penny here and we all know why.
so, not sure who is RICH and not rich, but they all would buy. Don't shoot the messenger please. For the record, i'm not buying anything .
The mayor wants to maintain as much "affordable" housing as he can. He has an agenda. That's what he wants his legacy to be. A condo conversion doesn't fit in with that plan even though that's the only way to ensure affordability. Keeping the current block of real R/S apts really R/S simply guarantees unaffordability in the not to distant future due to phony mci's and RGB increases. I don't agree with STR that those laws will be changed if we fight them. I also don't necessarily agree that one would have to be rich to buy their apartment in the event of a conversion. For the purposes of full disclosure I'm a real R/S resident. I support conversion.
>>The article says: "a rollback for tenants in ST/PCV’s other, renovated units isn’t a part of that plan." You know why it's not part of the plan? It isn't part of the plan because Republicans in the State Senate in Albany will never EVER allow that to happen. <<
Okay, fine, but what about some other option that would help MR tenants? The *legal* rent on our apartment is way beyond what my husband and I can afford. But if we could be assured that our rent would stay at or near the current preferential rent, we might be able to stay in Stuy Town. A rollback would be great, but it's not the only conceivable option that would preserve some degree of affordability of the MR apartments.
I just don't get why de Blasio seems to have just written off the MR tenants.
I also don't find the balcony thing credible. (Not that the poster is making things up, but maybe his or her source is not to be believed.) It's still a rental, and what renter in their right mind would spend $40,000 to add anything to their apartment that they couldn't take with them if they ever moved out? Because you sure couldn't take a balcony with you!
Now Oval Concierge is doing away with the morning shuttle which use to make it easier for us to get to work in the mornings. Last day of operation, July 31, 2014. I bet management is
thinking of other ways to make our life miserable.
"then we codify those apartments as being removed from RS protections."
Since Pataki, RS is dying a slow death and constantly under threat of a quick death. Mayor de Blasio cannot save it without Albany, where they can't kill it soon enough.
We should acknowledge RS no longer means "affordable" at ST-PCV. For several thousand residents RS only means the landlord cannot refuse lease renewal. These residents can be "priced out" anytime via huge, legal rent hikes. They are forced to buy into Brookfield's condo ripoff.
Longer term RS residents have targets painted on their backs. Mayor Bloomberg and Jerry Speyer said RS residents had nothing to worry about. They were lying to us. Now Garodnick-TA-Brookfield say the same thing. Why should we believe them?
For 3 years Garodnick-TA-Brookfield spoke using broad, sweeping language about their plan to preserve ST-PCV affordability. We were subjected to a slick, happy talk, low information marketing campaign telling us we had options and choices. Basic questions were never answered. We are kept ignorant in the dark.
Now we know what they will do for residents unable to afford a Brookfield condo - NOTHING. We get to keep the broken RS umbrella. Marsh sends out a ridiculous, fear mongering letter about how the TA is fighting to protect us against bogeyman developers planning a ST-PCV demolition. We should be afraid, very afraid.
Garodnick-TA-Brookfield = Divide and Conquor
There are several "permanent affordable" programs operating in NYC. We need to find something better than dying RS.
>>Str - having been here a few years now (circa 1983) all those long timers here friends of mine will buy. They seem to have saved up quite a pretty penny here and we all know why.
so, not sure who is RICH and not rich, but they all would buy. Don't shoot the messenger please. For the record, i'm not buying anything .<<
Odd, because the people I speak to are generally NOT interested in buying. Even you are not.
I support conversion even though I don't rally 'have ' to. I'm good. But sick of being lied to, bullied, inspected, left with filth dirt and students.. Nothing could be worse than it is now. I'll take out a large loan if I hav to just to be rid of the greedy assholes who literally steal from us here and then try to throw us out , along with our friends.
July 18, 2014 at 2:38 PM
De Blasio has not written anybody off.
You have to grasp that the state legislature, specifically the Republicans in the State Senate, is responsible for the the situation that you are in. That situation is that the landlord can decide for any or no reason to renew your lease at the legal rent upon renewal and there is no state law on the books to stop that. Don't expect that to change any time soon, if ever, thanks to those same Republicans in the state Senate.
MRers with sky high legal rents who are mad at de Blasio, Garodnick, the TA, etc need to understand this. The landlord lobby in Albany and their Republicans puppets in the state senate will see to it that there is nothing on the rental front that can be done to help you. Meaning that your the only solution appears to be an offer of ownership to those in your situation. A change may be coming in Albany, but it's still to be seen if it's enough to stanch the further loss of affordable housing in NYC further. Reversing what's already been done is a legislative impossibility. Unless people in your situation across the city suddenly started getting mad at the right people and raising enough of a ruckus. That seems equally unlikely.
July 18, 2014 at 7:30 PM
We should acknowledge RS no longer means "affordable" at ST-PCV.
I don't know where you've been, but tenants groups across the city acknowledged the end of rent regulation once vacancy decontrol was forced into law by Pataki and Republicans in the State Senate in 1997 and tenants groups have been fighting a losing battle to undo it ever since. Is there no way to get this through your skull that there is nothing that the TA or Dan Garodnick can do to undo what vacancy decontrol has done to ST-PCV? All they can do is make the best out of the crappy hand the state has dealt them.
A know quite a few old time RS tenants who are, by NYC standards, rich and very interested in buying their apt.
I've come to rely on Town & Village to give fabricated spin instead of the truth when it comes to Stuy Town. They did not disappoint in their article on the management office this week. Took a look yesterday. A few big things contrary to T&V reports made it clear T&V never saw the site but instead printed a press release complete with statements from the same ole usual suspects.
Facts
1. Management did not have permission for 6:00 AM construction. The After Hours Work Permit gave extended hours in the evenings, not the mornings. Work was not permitted to occur before 7:00 AM.
2. Work has not begin on Playground 8. It is a disorderly dump of construction supplies and debris and trash with a sectioned off deep hole covered by thin wooden planks.
3. The trees on the South Side walk in the photo are no longer there. They were recently cut down and only their large healthy stumps remain.
Point is why can't we have both. The ability to buy if one wants to , with restrictions of course, flipping, etc and /or continue to rent.
I agree that the current situation is beyond terrible with our LL and will continue to get worse. How sad for ST we cannot create and maintain our own oasis here.
Neighbors report party went all night, plenty of Bud Lights! Woo Hoo, when they broke out the hard stuff, Billy Dee Blasio whispered into Danny boys ear " how do you live with only one bathroom"
Then the party broke so the boys could check out the bikini coeds down by the oval.
NONE of the old timers I know are interested in buying, even though many do have a lot of money saved. Some are already moving to nursing homes, others to Florida, they just want to live in peace and don't care about this whole real estate fight, they are just focussed on their own health and families.
The money they have they want to leave to their children, not hand over to a real estate developer in a condo deal. Any condo conversion will have to be with the minimum of inside buyers and a ton of non-evicted renters, not a great business model especially at a $-5 billion price tag.
And this is why the key to the whole plan is the NYU student apartments, they will all go to outsiders at a much higher price. The illegal scheme to turn apartments over and get higher market rate rents will also help the owner once a condo conversion happens. DeBlasio needs to address the illegal student apartment scheme and force CW to play by the rules.
The issue with the NYU scheme isn't about whether you like students living next door to you or not, its about how CW is gaming the system both short-term on the NYU rentals and longer term on the condo conversion. No matter what happens, by gaming the system they win. The only question is how much more money we will let them take off the table. Heads they win, tails we lose.
"All they can do is make the best out of the crappy hand the state has dealt them."
That isn't accurate. The hand wasn't dealt to them. They had a hand in it all along. Then got slapped by the hand that promised to feed them.
8:38 exactly. Also, even though there is a revolving door of students in 11 month leases churning the apartments the constant tenant on the lease w/o turnover is NYU who is subsidizing the dorm apartments and who illegally deregulated the RS apartment from the onset. Technically they are not vacancies after the student moves out and they never qualified for the deregulated rent in the first place.
To Gerald Guterman:
I would like to hear how you plan to buy STPCV for BILLIONS OF DOLLARS....
@ Gerald Guterman... Please post a tenant pledge authorizing you to represent us in negotiations with CWC. July 17, 2014
______________________________
To the residents at STPCV:
It is painfully obvious, that the only way to achieve any sort of economic stability for the community or its residents, is to use the enormous, insurmountable, economic and political power of the 11,232 families currently living in the community. There is no private owner, mortgage lender or manager in New York, that can withstand the full force of a monetary, legal and political attack by the organized and combined economic might of the STPCV community.
I have stated before, that the changes necessary to bring about stability in the community as well as economic protection for it residents, will only happen when you, the residents, properly organize yourselves into one laser focused force and use that force, with very experienced legal representation who has a long history of landlord tenant success.
Additionally, there are several other large communities in New York, that are undergoing similar, if not identical problems with the same management company.
I would suggest that combining the power of these very large residential communities into a single negotiating force, will help to draw and maintain the attention of these insufferable, egotistical and know-it-all managers, who believe that enjoying a reasonable "quality of life", is restricted only to them and their families. These same managers, believe that their only responsible to STPCV, its residents and the resident's quality of life, is when a court rules that it is their responsible.
I have written before, that with strong enough economic force and laser focused litigation, this community can be stabilized and the quality of life made better for all of the residents.
The following matters must be concluded:
• The Roberts litigation must be re-settled,
• Prior MCI increases must be re-settled, with further increases moderated,
• conversion of STPCV apartments to dormitory housing must be immediately stopped and reversed,
• The Oval must be restored,
• all open spaces in the communities must be kept permanently open, without construction of any type or manner.
• Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper village must be combined into one distinct community,
• the STPCV community must be converted to "ownership" housing, with the purchase price to tenants in occupancy, not more than 60% of the market price for the same or similar apartments,
• Financing for all tenants in possession who purchase, loans must be pre-approved for 85% to 95% of the purchase price,
• All tenants who purchase their apartments, must be free to resell those apartments at the market price, beginning the earlier of one year after the sponsor has sold all the apartments or forty-eight months from the date of conversion,
• A capital reserve fund in the amount of: the lesser of 1% of the gross sales price of the residential units or $50million must be established for the community's use after conversion,
• A pre-arranged contract to sell the "un-sold" apartments to a non-profit organization with an agreement that specifies that said apartments will remain as rent stabilized, rental apartments for approximately twenty years must be accomplished.
Gerald Guterman
How many buildings had their hallways rewired this summer with Verizon Fios and did everyone see the article on the shady Verizon practices in the Town & Village this week?
Our building was wired for FIOS back in the TishCrap era.
@Anonymous
July 18, 2014 at 9:29 PM
"Anonymous said...
July 18, 2014 at 7:30 PM
"'We should acknowledge RS no longer means "affordable" at ST-PCV.'"
I don't know where you've been, but tenants groups across the city acknowledged the end of rent regulation once vacancy decontrol was forced into law by Pataki and Republicans in the State Senate in 1997 and tenants groups have been fighting a losing battle to undo it ever since. Is there no way to get this through your skull that there is nothing that the TA or Dan Garodnick can do to undo what vacancy decontrol has done to ST-PCV? All they can do is make the best out of the crappy hand the state has dealt them."
---
You saw a sentence you didn't like - "We should acknowledge RS no longer means "affordable" at ST-PCV." - which is 100% accurate. Then completely disregard my 1st sentence - "Since Pataki, RS is dying a slow death and constantly under threat of a quick death. Mayor de Blasio cannot save it without Albany, where they can't kill it soon enough." - and paraphrase it to attack my unrelated criticism of TA and Garodnick forming a "partnership" with Brookfield that basically hands ST-PCV over to Brookfield to manage and exploit for 20 years.
I praise the TA for leading the fight to defend RS for decades. I praise Garodnick too, for doing the same while he's been in elected government. I expect that from them. I continue to expect that from them well into the future.
Garodnick and the TA made their phone calls. Senator Schumer and Mayor de Blasio came through for ST-PCV tenants. They gave us a prime seat at the table. Our partners are Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and City Hall.
Why did Garodnick and the TA give Brookfield a seat? Why are they proposing a condo conversion affordable only to the highest earning, highest rent paying residents that leaves the rest of us covered by dying RS?
- ST-PCV will not be demolished.
- ST-PCV will be unified.
- Commercial development will end.
- Students & Transients will be gone.
- Pet regulations will be enforced.
Brookfield isn't the only prospective "partner" or managing agent able to achieve these goals. Why are they being forced on tenants?
July 20, 2014 at 2:22 AM
Because they thought Brookfield was the best of the lot.
I attended the big meeting related to the selection of Brookfield and heard not one objection from the 1000+ crowd. That's the time frame when objections should have been raised about process, selection, whatever. It's a little late in the game for that now. Actually, the only fight from that time that I'm aware of was started by people who objected to a co-op conversion, who favored condo instead. There may have been grumblings about Brookfield, but I recall no brawls over Brookfield like the condo vs co-op brawl.
However, I would like to know actual details of the plan. Or at least get a reasonable explanation about why those details aren't forthcoming at this time.
Post a Comment