STR here. Below you will find a Tenant Letter from Gerald Guterman of Guterman Partners and a Consulting Agreement. I assume that this is not the only place that you will see both. I've created a printable PDF of the Consulting Agreement that can be accessed at the bottom of this post.
GUTERMAN PARTNERS, LLC
Gerald Guterman
E. stpcv@gutermanpartners.com
To all ST/PCV Tenants:
Here are some of the ST/PCV
thoughts and concerns my partners and I have been thinking about and
discussing. So.... Let me ask you some questions directly and beginning
with.... How are you doing (as ST/PCV tenants) so far?
THE
ROBERTS LITIGATION MUST BE RE-SETTLED.
1.
Roberts litigants, did you receive a copy of the
separate individual audit results of your specific rent file, so that you know
exactly what the proper, legal rent was supposed to be and exactly how much the
wrongful overcharge was and therefore, how much you were entitled to recover?
2.
Roberts litigants, did you receive back the full
dollar recovery for the full "wrongful over-charge" amount that you
paid in rent and were entitled to recover?
3.
Roberts litigants, do you believe that the case
was settled prematurely, for less than the full recovery of the wrongful
over-charge amount that you were entitled to receive?
4.
Roberts litigants, did you anticipate that legal
fees and "damages" would have been paid by the defendants (who lost
the case) in addition to the full amount of the wrongful overcharges repaid to
you?
5.
Roberts litigants, did you receive "in your
pocket," the full amount of the wrongful overcharges you paid,
irrespective of legal fees & court costs?
6.
Roberts litigants, did you anticipate "other"
recovery charges and deductions taken by the landlord (defendant and losing
entities) from the full amount that you were entitled to receive from the
wrongful overcharge Roberts' distributions,
7.
Roberts litigants, were the Roberts' litigation
funds distributed as quickly (within 30 days after the court decision) as a
reasonable person would have expected?
___________________________________________________
MCI INCREASES MUST BE RE-SETTLED WITH FURTHER
INCREASES MODERATED
1.
ST/PCV residents, were you ever told (when you
signed your lease) that you would be charged for MCI recoveries claimed for work
that might not be done, except that the work was necessitated by improper
conversion of an older, family oriented
property, to student/dormitory housing?
2.
ST/PCV residents, were you ever told (when you
signed your lease) that you would be charged an MCI increase, for work that
another, former owner completed?
__________________________
STOP
DANGEROUS ACTIONS BY THE LANDLORD AND TAKE ACTION TO REDUCE YOUR RENT DUE TO
REDUCTION IN LANDLORD SERVICES
3.
ST/PCV residents, do you believe that a building
permit that specifies "No change in Occupancy," really means it is
safe to ad 50% or more in additional adult population to that same apartment,
and to use that apartment for "high population" student/dormitory
housing?
4.
ST/PCV residents, do you believe that with such
a large increase in the adult population to your sixty five year old
building, the building will operate safely (for you and your children) without
upgrading the sixty-five year old electric wiring and plumbing?
5.
ST/PCV residents do you believe that with such a
large increase in the adult population to your sixty five year old building the
building will operate safely (for you and your children), without upgrading the
sixty-five year old elevators?
6.
ST/PCV residents, were you ever told (when you
signed your lease), that the building you live in was being converted to
"high population" student/dormitory housing?
7.
ST/PCV residents, do you want all temporary walls
removed from all apartments, and the apartments used as family occupied
apartments as they were originally intended for and used, for sixty-five years?
_______________________________________________
ELIMINATION OF LANDLORD'S ABUSIVE ACTIONS AND RENT REDUCTION AND RECAPTURE, FOR
REDUCTION IN SERVICES
1.
ST/PCV residents, do you believe that you should
be forced to use and pay for substandard laundry facilities that were supposed
to be fully restored or replaced after the hurricane?
2.
ST/PCV residents, do you believe that midterm
rent increases are correct?
3.
ST/PCV residents, were you ever told (when you
signed your lease) a future attempt to collect, mid-term rent increases?
4.
ST/PCV residents, were you ever told (when you
signed your lease) that fully operational retail business establishments would
come "alive" right on the Oval?
5.
ST/PCV residents, were you ever told (when you
signed your lease) that illegal and dangerous dog breeds would be roaming the property every
single day?
6.
ST/PCV residents, were you ever told (when you
signed your lease) that a regularly scheduled interruption of the quiet
enjoyment of you apartment because the landlord is using mass-entertainment to
continue to attract students to the recently converted dormitory housing?
7.
ST/PCV residents, do you believe that management
offices constructed in the open space of
the community's recreational area is a reduction in services?
8.
ST/PCV residents, were you ever told (when you signed your
lease) that the Oval would be turned into a commercial and retail area, for the
use of the general population of New York City?
9.
ST/PCV residents, were you ever told (when you signed your
lease) that a portion of the Oval would
be rented out to a commercial, for profit company?
______________________________
WHAT
THE FUTURE MAY BRING
·
ST/PCV residents, this is only a small portion
of what we know has happened to you and the type of actions you can expect will
happen in the very near future.
·
ST/PCV residents, just recently, the newspapers
discussed an effort to help residents move into other apartments, in order for
the landlord to upgrade their apartment. When an upgrade (of the landlord's
choice) is installed in your apartment, is it you, the resident, who will pay
yet another MCI increase to the landlord.
·
To ST/PCV residents, when the landlord presents
a scheme to move you to a different apartment (with some upgrades) permanently
and without any MCI increase, you are probably being moved into a "rent
stabilized, ghetto type" housing arrangement, that will concentrate these
"special" apartments in specific buildings and away from "market
rate," small discount, condominium buying residents.
·
ST/PCV residents, these "special"
apartments when taken together, will probably be classified as moderate income
housing and you will probably lose your chance to own your apartment when a
conversion happens, because these "special" apartments will be
isolated in their own moderate income, non buyer housing area.
Before we can accept an ST/PCV assignment, it will be
necessary for at least five thousand (5,000) separate resident(s) families to
sign a Consulting Agreement with a Guterman Partners, LLC , a consulting subsidiary
of Guterman Partners, LLC.
We have attached a link to a Consulting Agreement with each
separate ST/PCV tenant. Please feel free
to review the agreement with an attorney for any questions you may have.
Please send your signed Consulting Agreement to: stpcv@gutermanpartners.com
Gerald Guterman
--------------------------
Consulting Agreement below:
--------------------------
GUTERMAN
PARTNERS, LLC
AGREEMENT
FOR
CONSULTING SERVICES
AGREEMENT
dated ___________ 2014 (the “Agreement”) by and between
GUTERMAN PARTNERS, LLC, West Palm Beach, Fl 33411 (“Consultant”) and ___________________________,
located at; ______________________________________________ (“Client”).
WHEREAS, the Client desires to engage Consultant to provide certain
consulting and representation services (“Services”) related to Stuyvesant Town
& Peter Cooper Village ("STPCV") together with Management and Leasing
programs (“Programs”) for the property and Consultant is willing to be engaged
by the Client as a Consultant and to provide such Services on the terms and
conditions set forth below;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements
contained herein, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged,
the Consultant and Client agree as follows:
1. Consulting. The Client hereby retains Consultant,
and Consultant hereby agrees to provide such Services to the Client, upon the
terms and subject to the conditions contained herein. During the Consulting Term (as hereinafter
defined), Consultant shall represent the Client for certain Services and Programs
related to STPCV.
2. Term. Subject to the provisions for termination
hereinafter provided, the term of this Agreement shall commence on __________
____,2014 (the “Effective Date”) and shall continue for one ( 1) year period
ending on __________ ____, 2014 (the
“Consulting Term”). (2) Upon the mutual agreement of the Client and the
Consultant, the Consulting Term may be extended. The Consulting Term will be
automatically extended for additional six (6) months periods, unless Client
shall have notified Consultant in writing, at least thirty (30) days prior to
the end of the Consulting Term.
(3) Compensation. In consideration of Consultant’s Services during
the initial Consulting Term, the Client agrees to pay to Consultant and
Consultant agrees to accept, the sum of ten ($10.00) dollars, payable to
Guterman Partners, LLC, at the time the Consulting Agreement is executed and
ten ($10.00) on the first day of every three month period following the
Effective Date.
4. Termination. The Client or the Consultant may, in the
sole discretion of each and at the option of either, terminate this Agreement
at any time and for any reason or no reason.
5. Confidential
Information. Client and Consultant
each recognize and acknowledge that by reason of Consultant’s retention by and
service to the Client before, during and, if applicable, after the Consulting
Term, Client and Consultant will each have access to certain confidential and
proprietary information relating to the other’s business, which may include,
but is not limited to, trade secrets, trade “know-how,” and certain techniques
and plans, formulas, and relationships, financing services, funding programs,
cost and pricing information, marketing and sales techniques, strategy and
programs, computer programs and software and financial information
(collectively referred to as “Confidential Information”). Client and Consultant acknowledge that such
Confidential Information is a valuable and unique asset of both the Client and
Consultant and each specifically covenants that they will not, unless expressly
authorized in writing by the other, at any time during the Consulting Term use
any Confidential Information or divulge or disclose any Confidential
Information to any person, firm or corporation except in connection with the
performance of Consultant’s duties for the Client and in a manner consistent
with the Client’s policies.
6. Regarding Confidential Information. Client and Consultant also covenant that at any time after the termination of this Agreement, directly or indirectly, they will not use any Confidential Information or divulge or disclose any Confidential Information to any person, firm or corporation, unless such information is in the public domain through no fault of the Client or Consultant or except when required to do so by a court of law, by any governmental agency having supervisory authority over the business of the Client or Consultant or by any administrative or legislative body (including a committee thereof) with apparent jurisdiction to order Client or Consultant to divulge, disclose or make accessible such information. All written Confidential Information (including, without limitation, in any computer or other electronic format) which comes into Client’s or Consultant’s possession during the Consulting Term shall remain the property of the originator. Except as required in the performance of Consultant’s duties for the Client, or unless expressly authorized in writing by the Client, Consultant shall not remove any written Confidential Information from the Client’s premises, except in connection with the performance of Consultant’s duties for the Client and in a manner consistent with the Client’s policies regarding Confidential Information. Upon termination of this Agreement, the Consultant agrees to return immediately to the Client all written Confidential Information (including, without limitation, in any computer or other electronic format) in Consultant’s possession.
7. Independent
Contractor. It is understood and
agreed that this Agreement does not create any relationship of association,
partnership or joint venture between the parties. This Agreement is solely an
agreement for Consultant to represent
Client for certain Services and Programs relating to STPCV and Consultant is
not the agent or legal representative for any other purpose whatsoever; and the
relationship of Consultant to the Client for all purposes shall be one of
independent contractor. Neither party
shall have any right or authority to create any obligation or responsibility,
express or implied, on behalf or in the name of the other, or to bind the other
in any manner whatsoever.
8. Conflict of
Interest. The Consultant and the
Client hereby agree that there is no conflict of interest in connection with
the retention by the Client of the Consultant, pursuant to this Agreement.
9. Waiver of Breach. The waiver by any party hereto of a breach of
any provision of this Agreement shall not operate nor be construed as a waiver
of any subsequent breach.
10. Binding Effect;
Benefits. None of the parties hereto
may assign his or its rights hereunder without the prior written consent of the
other parties hereto, and any such attempted assignment without such consent shall
be null and void and without effect.
This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and shall be binding upon,
the parties hereto and their respective successors, permitted assigns, heirs
and legal representatives.
11. Notices. All notices and other communications which
are required or may be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall
be deemed to have been duly given (a) when delivered in person, (b) three (3)
business days after being mailed with a nationally recognized overnight courier
service, or (c) three (3) business days after being mailed by registered or
certified first class mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the
parties hereto at:
If to the Client. Name: ____________________________
Address: __________________________
________________________________
If to the Consultant: Guterman Partners,
LLC
stpcv@gutermanpartners.com
12. Entire Agreement;
Amendments. This Agreement contains
the entire agreement and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings,
oral or written, between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter
hereof. This Agreement may not be
changed orally, but only by an agreement in writing signed by the party against
whom any waiver, change, amendment, modification or discharge is sought.
13. Severability. The invalidity of all or any part of any
provision of this Agreement shall not render invalid the remainder of this
Agreement or the remainder of such provision.
If any provision of this Agreement is so broad as to be unenforceable,
such provision shall be interpreted to be only as broad as is enforceable.
14. Governing Law;
Consent to Jurisdiction. This
Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the law of the
State of New York, without giving effect to the principles of conflicts of law
thereof. The parties hereto each hereby
submits herself or itself for the sole purpose of this Agreement and any
controversy arising hereunder to the exclusive jurisdiction of the state courts
in the State of Florida.
15. Headings. The headings herein are inserted only as a
matter of convenience and reference, and in no way define, limit or describe
the scope of this Agreement or the intent of the provisions thereof.
16. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which
together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Signatures evidenced by facsimile
transmission will be accepted as original signatures.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly
executed as of the date first above written.
Client:
____________________________________
By: _________________________________
By: _________________________________
Consultant: Guterman Partners,
LLC
___________________________________
Authorized Signature
-------------------------
Consulting Agreement printable PDF click here
I didn't finish the letter yet but Mr. Guterman should take note of both the electrical and elevator replacement projects that were done in the 1990's
ReplyDeleteAnyone wishing to keep anonymous can open a new email to communicate.
ReplyDeleteeg
PCVST1@XXXXX.com
or PCVST2@ or ST55@
whatever you wish for your anonymous email to be. Open it today and start communicating any questions you may have to Mr Guterman.
peter cooper tenants never receive letters or mail such as this.
ReplyDeleteNew tenant with renovated apartment and a Question:
ReplyDeleteSo I'm led to believe that TS double dipped and took the tax break J52 but overcharged for the apartments a few years back and had to refund that money.
Yet aren't they still continuing to do this with new tenants and newly renovated apartments and so I'm very confused.
Our place was renovated in June 2014 and we know we are paying 4 x as much as the tenant who left in June (deceased).
If I were to sign this agreement, it's very clear what Gerald Guterman would get: he would get $10.00
ReplyDeleteBut what would I get? The agreement says that Guterman will provide "certain consulting and representation services ('Services') related to Stuyvesant Town & Peter Cooper Village ('STPCV') together with Management and Leasing programs ('Programs') for the property."
Does anyone have any clue what those Services and Programs are, with any real specificity? I wonder whether this contract might actually be void for vagueness.
Alicia Glen has a VERY BIG conflict and should not be involved in anything to do with PCVST. She is too close to Moelis/Brookfield and Goldman Sachs. We all know Brookfield Bob headed the gouging-priced renovations at PCVST. Alicia will help Brookfield displace us out of our homes so they can renovate the remaining and outprice us all. Displacement of New Yorkers is key to her plans as if this is a third world class system we all live in where Goldman Sachs is King and RE is Queen and the politicians are their bishops who maneuver resident pawns to housing-units rather than homes. there is a difference between a house and a home and her plan is to "house" people rather than keep our homes safe. Her plan is all about "profit in housing" and not "people in homes".
ReplyDeleteSomeone needs to tell her she needs to adjust her private sector goals to more appropriate goals of a person in public office.
So far she is not good for the people of New York.
Geez even our corrupt prison system is starting to realize that profiting from warehousing human beings is morally reprehensible.
ReplyDeleteMs Glen wants to displace seniors from their homes and warehouse them in housing and displace middle class from their homes and warehouse them so wealthy developers can renovate apartments and steal our homes.
there is too much Goldman Sachs kool aid running through her veins.
De Blasio just lost all street cred as a progressive administration and is in danger of becoming a smoke and mirrors administration if he keeps goldman-Glen.
A plan to displace and warehouse human beings is repugnant.
So it is only the poor senior citizens Ms Glen is robbing - the rich senior citizens get to stay in their homes that hold their memories where they raised there families.
ReplyDeleteHowever the rich senior citizens are living in much bigger homes so technically displacing rich senior citizens into smaller units would create more space for working families.
If Ms Glen wasn't attacking the poor her plan would include moving all seniors into housing units and out of their bigger homes that could fit new families.
All of that said I am not at all on board with Ms Glen stealing a home from any senior citizen - rich or poor. Ms Glen needs to keep her greedy hands off the senior citizens and not devise plans to steal their homes.
It is diabolical.
I am intrigued and interested in Mr. Guterman. But something sounds off. What will you be able to do for us Mr. Guterman and how and why?
ReplyDeleteYes, Market R here, fwiw.
Two way dialogue will be key since most of us have been dealing with the fake TA for years and their one way dialogue. Mr Guterman we need two way dialogue with you and your team. Will you do that?
ReplyDeleteWhy do lawyers make out well in settlements and people end up with fractions?
ReplyDeleteIs it because lawyers are negotiating?
And if these Roberts lawyers negotiated a deal leaving us with between 5 and 60% of what we are owed then shouldn't the lawyers also receive commensurate rate from us as they got for us or as Mr Guterman rightly points out CW should have paid the legal fees as WE WON THE RULING!
Yes we all need to re-do Roberts!
Agree. The debt belongs to Robbie. Not to STPCV.
ReplyDeletehttp://blog.littlesis.org/2014/01/10/de-blasio-goes-with-the-status-quo-in-economic-development-appointments/#more-5490
ReplyDeleteIs de Blasio administration same as Bloomberg administration? Many say yes.
Protecting middle class homes.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1837176580996082182&postID=7467539690383741830
The difference in narratives that tenants told between the Bronx and Brooklyn is worth noting. Bronx tenants told harrowing stories of utter neglect by their landlords and supers who were totally unresponsive. They told RGB their landlords did not deserve a raise after another year of refusing to provide heat, hot water, and proper repairs. For them a Rent Freeze would be a welcome economic relief as well as a signal to landlords that they don’t get more money for doing less work.
In Brooklyn the stories were different. Tenant after tenant talked about “being forced out” of their apartments, homes, and neighborhoods. With a full understanding of our backwards rent laws, they told the RGB that every time that there is a rent increase, it gets their apartment a tiny bit closer to being deregulated. This in turn gives their landlord more incentive to harass them into leaving in order to raise the rent in the hopes that the unit can soon be at the market rate levels. For them, a Rent Freeze would also be a welcome economic relief and would be a moment where they are no longer simply reacting to their landlord’s actions but going on the offensive in this battle for their homes.
Both of these narratives — of utter neglect in the Bronx and purposeful harassment in Brooklyn — are part of the cycle of Predatory Equity that we’ve seen sprout up in New York City and beyond in the lead up to the foreclosure crises of 2008. Its happening all over the city and until we strengthen our rent laws when they are up for renewal in 2015, it will continue to happen. We can put a bandaid on the damage with a Rent Freeze this year, but in the end, its about what happens in Albany next legislative season.
Below is an article that our Deputy Director of of Organizing and Policy at UHAB, Cea Weaver wrote for the Metropolitan Council on Housing’s Tenant Newspaper about the connection between stronger rent laws and predatory equity: GO TO LINK FOR ARTICLE
In the years leading up to 2008, private equity firms with access to large pools of privately raised capital worked together with lenders to grossly overleverage multifamily housing. Assuming that they’d be able to increase revenue and make a financial windfall, “predatory equity” companies took out enormous mortgages to purchase rent-regulated buildings. When tenants refused to be pushed out of their rent-controlled and rent-stabilized apartments, these new landlords took a more aggressive approach: they increased harassment and reduced spending on maintenance. Buildings deteriorated and went into foreclosure across New York City. ...
Annonymous @ August 10, 2014 at 1:46 PM said, "Does anyone have any clue what those Services and Programs are, with any real specificity? I wonder whether this contract might actually be void for vagueness."
ReplyDeleteHas anyone been provided an opportunity to review contracts Garodnick & TA signed with Brookfield or Paul Weiss Rifkind or Moelis that basically hand ST-PCV (including unwitting tenants and alliances with Fannie/Freddie and City Hall) over to Brookfield to exploit for 20 years?
What outcome can current tenants anticipate from the Garodnick-TA-Brookfield "partnership" condo scam?
Highest earning, highest rent paying, most abused RS tenants paying MR rents and aspiring to long term residency will buy an unnecessesarily more expensive Brookfield condo. Not because they want to. Not because it's the most affordable outcome achievable. Only because they are forced to by Garodnick and the TA offering them no alternative.
Longer term RS tenants with a Speyer-CWC target on their backs and aspiring to ownership/self governance, but unable to afford an unnecessarily more expensive Brookfield condo will remain RS tenants with a Speyer-CWC-Brookfield target on their backs. Not because they want to. Not because it's the most affordable outcome achievable. Only because they are forced to by Garodnick and the TA offering them no alternative.
Is this guy serious? Does he have the legal right to do this? Any comment from Management or the TA?
ReplyDelete"New tenant with renovated apartment and a Question:
ReplyDeleteSo I'm led to believe that TS double dipped and took the tax break J52 but overcharged for the apartments a few years back and had to refund that money.
Yet aren't they still continuing to do this with new tenants and newly renovated apartments and so I'm very confused.
Our place was renovated in June 2014 and we know we are paying 4 x as much as the tenant who left in June (deceased).
August 10, 2014 at 1:25 PM"
TS, following accepted if illegal practice, took a J-51 tax break and took apartments out of rent stabilization at the same time. Long story short: after litigation and appeals to the highest state court, it was decided that all such STPCV apartments, even if their rents were above the legal limit for rent stabilization, were returned to rent stabilization until 2020, when the J-51 expires. That was the Roberts case. There are other fine points, not always beneficial to the members of the class that sued, but all apartments here are under rent stabilization at the moment.
It is entirely legal for the landlord to renovate a vacated apartment and add 1/60 of the cost to the base rent in perpetuity (that's been at least $1,000 a month). The landlord also gets a 20% vacancy increase, and a longevity increase of 0.6% (0.006) per year if the apartment hasn't turned over in the past 8 years. The landlord is allowed to add the cost of any approved MCIs and the annual increase allowed by the Rent Guidelines Board.
All these increases add up quickly. The really big issue is whether the bills the landlord submitted for the renovation are accurate. If you have doubts about this, I suggest you call the Tenants Association Message Center or contact them via email. You will get guidance if you wish to pursue this further.
If you want to do the math yourself, check what the previous rent of your apartment was. Add a ballpark figure between $1,000 and $1,500 for the reno. Add 20% of the old rent for the vacancy increase. Throw in about $100 for the longevity increase (although it might be more). Add in the MCIs ($50/mo?) and the RGB increases for 2013 (4% for 1 year, 7.75% for 2 years), and see what the total is.
To me there's some calculated disingenuousness in Guterman's utterings. The Roberts case was litigated to the highest court in the state. On what grounds could it be resettled? Why would TS and MetLife agree to that? The plaintiffs agreed to the settlement. Some of Guterman's questions appear to fall into the category of "when did you stop beating your wife?" or they're a fishing expedition to find out details of the Roberts settlement that have been confidential up to this point. As for midterm rent increases, yes, they're heinous, but they were part of the Roberts agreement. Bottom line: the case established an important principle but a lot of the plaintiffs still got screwed.
ReplyDeleteNotification of MCIs on leases: We'd all like to roll these back, but again, we filed our PARs, did what we could, and got some reductions. The law is landlord friendly, but MCIs are legal. Initially, CW may have screwed up and not put MCI notifications in new leases, but I doubt that's the case anymore. More likely, people signed leases they didn't understand. Many don't understand the difference between the legal rent and the preferential rent they're paying--and that the rent can zoom up to the legal rent on renewal.
As someone else noted, wiring and elevators have been upgraded. New tenants aren't aware of this; neither apparently is Guterman. More fishing.
He does raise some good points, but they echo comments posted here and elsewhere online. I have to question how he knows that some tenants will be ghettoized. Maybe he was hypothesizing, based on what has happened elsewhere. When was the last time he did this in one of his conversions?
Has Guterman done his due diligence so he can say for certain that the landlord wasn't legally entitled to commercialize the Oval? Personally, I wouldn't spend a penny in any of those places, but this may be one of those "when did you stop beating your wife?" moments. Why would the landlord have to notify prospective tenants that this would be happening?
What is Guterman's track record? What do people who've been through his mill have to say? I'd be curious to know that.
Guterman is the only plan that gives tenants say.
ReplyDeleteWe have no voice in the GarodnickTA Brookfield plan.
One of two things will happen with Guterman.
either we will be better off or
nothing will happen.
Either way it can't hurt and we should have a voice in the process.
That's how I see it.
Yes, 5:36 tenants have a right to a Guterman consultancy.
ReplyDeletepcvst1@ ? why can't this be typed in.
ReplyDeleteTo Mr Guterman...there is a lot here to be considered. I for one will take a few days before deciding.
ReplyDeleteAnd the TA sits quietly in the corner as usual.
ReplyDelete"Any comment from Management or the TA?"
ReplyDeleteNearly three years ago Guterman proposed a tenant friendly affordable coop conversion offering tenants the lowest possible purchase prices that will encourage the highest percentage tenant buy-in participation delivering resident ownership/governance ASAP.
Garodnick's response was something like, "If it sounds too good to be true, then it's too good to be true." - Nothing else.
Nothing else for nearly three years from Garodnick or the TA. Only personal insults against Guterman and deliberately misconstrued, distorted mischaracterizations of his proposal.
Imagine Mayor DeBlasio asking Garodnick and the TA, "Why more expensive Brookfield condos? Why can't you deliver ownership conversion offering maximum affordability for the maximum percentage of tenants and then lock in permanent affordability safeguards via Fannie/Freddie and tax breaks? It sounds too good to be true, so it can't be true? Really? That's it?"
Why all the 'signatures' needed for Guterman? Sounds and reads too weird and too serious. What's in it for him?
ReplyDelete>>pcvst1@ ? why can't this be typed in.<<
ReplyDeleteI would have to set that up and at this point it's beyond my capabilities and I don't have time to learn how to do it, even if it takes less than an hour. The old-fashioned way of pen to paper works.
77:27 your analogy is grossly UNACCEPTABLE
ReplyDelete"when did you stop beating your wife?"
The MCI's are for NYU campus security and toilet flushing legal requirements in an illegal scheme to defraud the city by deregulating RS via third party leasing - that tenants should NOT have to pay for!
ReplyDeleteEveryone at that negotiating table, anyone who negotiated and agreed to to pass these MCI charges onto tenants is involved in the dorm fraud!
7:27 your use of the word landlord is incorrect. They are a special servicer who could have and should have been challenged on everything but were not because the TABrookfield agreed to everything including an illegal Verizon deal that commercialized the Oval. Yes the Oval could have and should have been saved from its state of commercialization.
ReplyDeleteYes we must challenge the corrupt renovation gouging that Bob started while at Rose Associates and positioned himself to continue in his new job at Brookfield so Brookfield can profit from tenants being overcharged monthly in the form of illegally inflated rents.
whether or not guterman is fishing who cares. these things need to be revealed. and no plaintiff should be held to agreeing to a settlement that has confidential terms the plaintiff is not allowed to see. that in itself should negate the settlement.
ReplyDeleteAs a parent who supports the NY SAFE Act I am disgusted Kathy Hochul opposes it. Kathy Hochul opposes the NY SAFE Act and is backed by the NRA.
ReplyDeleteA Steinberg/Marsh endorsement of Hochul does not represent me or anyone I know in this community. The Steinberg Marsh TA should not be allowed to make political endorsements implying the backing of 11,000 voters. They need to come clean about their members and they need to take a poll of their members before they misrepresent the TA with false statements to the press on political endorsements.
Keep our kids safe and support the SAFE Act.!
This letter should be directed at and ONLY to the T.A. NOT to individual tenants. This looks like some sort of contract.
ReplyDeleteUnless they naysayers have a better plan, its time to start ignoring them and for tenants to try something new. I have been following Gutterman's proposals over time and he is the only one addressing the key issues facing PCV/ST. He at least provides another way to discuss the issues, and potetially gives tenants another way to have a voice at the table.
ReplyDeleteThe TA is no longer addressing the key issues, from the NYU dormitization which wrecks rent stabilization and ruins everyone's quality of life, to the technical and legal problems with the Roberts settlement, which would in fact potentially allow it to be brought back to court for a possible re-settlement, which a judge could impose.
It's also time for people to focus on the key issues and stay on topic. It's funny how people try to hijack every thread to blurt out their pet peeve issues with dogs, sunbathers, laundry rooms, concerts, the Oval Cafe, and various random character assassinations. Stay on topic, it will get everyone closer to a more sane and open dialog about the nightmare real estate situation also known as Stuyvesant Town/PCV.
STR has done a great job of moving the ball forward, and now Mr. Gutterman is providing another way to do so. Unless someone has a better idea, sign up and help us move things forward.
Excellent post. Wish more would think like you. But I don't see that Gutterman promises to provide anything for his $10. I do think he should make some promise of providing specific services or I don't know why he should be paid.
DeleteI want to know what the confidential terms in the Robert's settlement are and why they are being kept a secret from plaintiff tenants.
ReplyDeleteSitting quietly in the corner is a political tactic used when something holds great credibility and you want to make it seem to have no credibility so you pay it no attention. If it truly had no credibility they would give argument points but they have no legit argument and Guterman POV has cred.
ReplyDeleteMonday: THE BLOWERS OUR DRIVING US CRAZZZY!
ReplyDeleteI'm still considering Mr Guterman's offer. However, to you doubters, a few points:
ReplyDelete1. What's the downside of hearing his advice?
2. Where are the tenants without hearing the input from a seasoned real estate professional? We've seen what the TA & Garodnick have done. (BTW, check out the TA's conversion website. Nothing new has been posted in 18 months.) And we've seen doubt expressed about Alicia Glen.
I don't blame Mr Guterman for wanting to know how many people are interested in hearing him out. Why bother if there are no substantial numbers?
Finally, we aren't robots under Mr Guterman's control. We can listen, question, discuss and decide. But sooner or later, anonymity has to go away. It can't last forever.
@ 7:51 PM, "Guterman is the only plan that gives tenants say."
ReplyDeleteWhat plan? If he has a plan, he sure has not communicated it.
Seriously, what is his plan, other than getting 5,000 tenants to give him $10 each, for "services" and "programs"? What services? What programs? He does not give us a clue.
But what is the rest of the email address was the question? Or what is it?
ReplyDeleteBut is Mr. Guterman putting up the 4 billion, 5 billion AND we 'd pay him ? SO CONFUSED MR GUTERMAN. Where do you live? SET UP A MEETING face to face somewhere, make it in Central park if you have no 'office'… WE'RE CONFUSED and your letter is lengthy, not understandable to us.
ReplyDeleteT.A.= USELESS!
ReplyDeleteWow...can't get over the johnny-come-latelys who are so confident. The original Guterman conversion plan was communicated in great detail close to 2 years ago and was thoroughly discussed in the blogs. We're not dealing with that plan (per se) now. We're only talking about hearing advice from Mr Guterman. Back to herding cats. All the plans are now in limbo due to recent moves by CW (aka Fortress).
ReplyDeleteNo one is trying to deviate from the obvious. In fact, quite the contrary. The complaints on dogs, noise, rent increases are further reason to consider an outside offer - discussion - new TA.
ReplyDeleteSticky this - the TA will comment on all - just buying enough time for all of us to 'trust ' them again. They are extinct to me. Have done nothing for the MR tenants and not even sure about the RS/older group. Done.done.
No Dan!
ReplyDeleteGarodnick said, later noting, “It’s a balance—the city has a goal of preserving long-term affordability and CWCapital has an obligation to its bondholders. The goal is to find a place wherever everyone’s needs are met.”
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2014/08/8550471/city-buys-time-stuy-town
Dan, you should have zero vested interest in the obligation to bondholders and their private defaulted scam business deal that was their private investment they made based on a promise of large returns by evicting New Yorkers.
Your sole interest should be your constituents and saving their homes.
Developers and CW are profiting just fine and do not need our city council helping them profit while dealing with their private financial scam.
Start being a civil servant, a councilman for the remaining 3 years we have to put up with you then you can jump to the private sector and help your buddies get rich in schemes to steal homes.
All public servants need to stop using public office to help those who are hurting their constituents to turn a profit.
There should be more than doubt on Alicia Glen. She should not be trusted to negotiate a PCVST deal and certainly not one that is done with secrecy! Alicia Glen seems to be the henchman and the only thing in question is whether or not she goes rogue or she is secretly sanctioned by Mayor de Blasio. Most likely she is sanctioned or she wouldn't keep her job. If the mayor wants our trust he should remove Glen from is administration.
ReplyDeleteRe: Commercialization of the Oval;
ReplyDeleteThe Oval is zoned RESIDENTIAL. There is no disputing that fact. The commercial enterprises at the 4 corners of the Oval were put in under the "accessory use" loophole in the law, as was the greenmarket but in fact, the landlord never (or barely) enforced the "residents and their guests" requirement. The TA should have filed for a rent reduction over the use of Playground 10, which is now used as a commercial property for most of the year, either for soccer clinics or skating, and was taken away from free use by the tenants. This is without question an arguable position for tenants under DHCR guidelines, yet the TA did nothing. The Oval has been fully co-opted from it's use as a quiet place of refuge for tenants for over 50 years.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, what is his plan, other than getting 5,000 tenants to give him $10 each, for "services" and "programs"? What services? What programs? He does not give us a clue.
It's less than a third of the TA annual fee and they don't do anything except what Garodnick or CW tells them to do. So, it seems worth it to me. If Guterman can put the TA in their place then I'd happily send him $20.
Do we just print this form, fill it out and send a check??? Mr. Guterman, please let me know exactly how I join. I am definitely in. I am sick of the TA and Dan Garodnick. They have done far more harm than good, they need to be replaced and here is a start. Count me in. Let me know what I can do to help "sell" this to my neighbors. I used to volunteer for the TA until they became all about ownership. I miss fighting the good fight so whatever I can do to assist in getting this up and running I will do.
ReplyDeleteMonster MacArthur has lost control of the room. Another impotent player.
ReplyDelete"no plaintiff should be held to agreeing to a settlement that has confidential terms the plaintiff is not allowed to see. that in itself should negate the settlement."
ReplyDeleteI meant that there might be things in the settlement that were not knowable by those who weren't part of the class. I didn't mean that anything was concealed from the members of the class itself. I think any member of the class who wanted to opt out of the settlement, could have done so, but that's water under the bridge at this point.
>>Garodnick said, later noting, “It’s a balance—the city has a goal of preserving long-term affordability and CWCapital has an obligation to its bondholders. The goal is to find a place wherever everyone’s needs are met.”<<
ReplyDeleteI saw that quote and was troubled by it, too. How about the city making Robbie Speyer pay for his mistakes, instead of making the tenants here pay for them?
Tell the MARKET RATE TENANTS MR GUTERMAN WHAT YOU WILL do for us. What's done is done on Roberts - moving on. WHAT THE HELL CAN YOU POSSIBLY DO FOR US TO GIVE US AFFORDABLE HOMES. We are not all bankers, lawyers and thieves. We are middle class trying to keep some semblance of a home here.
ReplyDeleteTA will put out a note, lol, any day now on this and what they've done and or doing. Then they'll get people on facebook to say oh yeah, thanks. and nothing ever changes. There will be no new TA as no one has the balls to step up and create it.
ReplyDeleteCW Capital has been dipping its dirty hands into the cookie jar for a long time. The bondholders should not be OUR problem. TS and Blackrock should pay off the outstanding debt. CW has just been fattening its coffers at the expense of all the tenants here, ESPECIALLY the MR tenants who are used and abused and subjected to bait and switch all the time.
ReplyDeleteAs for Garodnick, I think he is complicit in the whole damn scam and I have absolutely no respect for him. The sooner his term is up and he goes away, the better.
No offense but is the Guterman letter intentionally confusing or is it me? I guess he's looking to salvage the bad Roberts case. we're over it fwiw. You know there's nothing that can be done with it now. Just another ploy of distraction for the REAL issue at hand. Does Mr. Guterman work for CWC?
ReplyDeleteHow developers will screw condo owners and renters alike and why PCVST must not be a combo condo / rental mix
ReplyDeletehttp://realestate.msn.com/blogs/post--florida-condo-owners-forced-to-sell-1
Developers will break and twist any law to screw a person out of their home. The mixed condo / rental business model does not work. The laws made by the lawmakers of the past decade who are currently in office are designed for developers to screw residents.
Everyone is right - Blackstone and Tishman needs to pay their debt and STPCV needs to be back at pre-tishman rents and restored to the RS program and returned to middle class families.
Question: Is Mr Guterman asking that each of us pay him $10 per month? Or is he asking $10 per month from us as a body? If 5000 units sign up, if we're paying as individuals, that would net $50K per month. If we're paying as a body, that would net $10 per month. Please clarify.
ReplyDeletehttp://nypost.com/2014/08/10/upper-east-side-co-op-sues-to-save-trees-from-gas-line-work/
ReplyDeleteour 80 year old trees could have been saved too or at least fought for - had the three amigos, Verizon, the current TA board and CW hadn't colluded to commercialize the property and to build themselves an office building.
The Verizon deal is illegal.
The office building is an ugly toxic shame.
There was no fight for the trees because all these players were involved in tearing them down.
Mr. Gutterman is correct, actually there are many legal avenues to reopen the Roberts Settlement which would at least get more media attention and put pressure on CW Capital to negotiate or face years of litigation which will depress the value of the property.
ReplyDeleteThe tenants can argue that there have already been violations of the agreement in the way payments have been delayed or calculated, and demonstrate how parts of the agreement were broken. They can also argue they were not adequately informed of the agreement provisions by their own attorneys.
There are many technical issues and issues of equity that can be brought in a court case to force CW to negotiate or risk having a potential sale held up in court. By dismissing these kinds of tactics before they even try them, tenants will just give CW the upper hand.
There is no guarantee that the tenants would ultimately win, but they sure can gain some additional leverage if they would just once stop acting like sheeple and stand up for their rights.
I take it Mr Guterman wants roughly $10 per .quarter per person signing up. At 5000 people that's around $250K for a year. Not bad for...what? The only clause that talks about services is #1. It's so general I don't have clue what is being offered. The offering is only implied by the front part of the letter. Which talks about:
ReplyDelete1. Re-opening Roberts litigation. This case appears to be settled. At the very least re-opening would require lawyer expenses. Who's going to pay these? This feels like a non-starter.
2. MCI increase handling. Challenging MCIs is done according to administrative procedure. You shouldn't need a lawyer for this. It just requires some dedicated centralization. That should be the TA. Not sure we need Guterman for this. Is he saying he'll do this on our behalves? Not specified.
3. Stop dangerous landlord actions. I have no idea of any proposed solution. For example, with students spread throughout the complex, will the city conduct raids to find too many occupants in a unit? I doubt it.
4. Achieve rent reductions. Again there are administrative means to apply for reductions. Not sure we need Guterman for this Is he saying he'll do this on our behalves? It's not specified..
5. Possibility of future abuses like being moved to other apartments. What does Mr Guterman propose to do for us in this case?
Sorry. This sounded good at first, but I can't sign on to a pig-in-a-poke. So far as I'm concerned, we still have the same problem. A TA that isn't fairly representative of the community and an inability to form a new means of centralization.
Who has zero knowledge and zero voice in these negotiations? Stuyvesant Town Peter Cooper Village residents have no voice at the table and are not kept apprised on the negotiations of the deal. They just have to take the deal that Dan et al shoves on them - just like MCI and Roberts negotiations.
ReplyDeleteWe need our presence at the negotiation table so we don't get another crappy deal.
"and an affiliate (of Brookfield) has been in negotiations to carry out a non-eviction condominium conversion at the 11,000-unit Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village.
- See more at: http://therealdeal.com/blog/2014/08/11/brookfield-in-contract-for-1b-upper-manhattan-portfolio/#sthash.0Gk8RW8U.dpuf
>>Does Mr. Guterman work for CWC?<<
ReplyDeleteNo.
@August 12, 2014 at 11:52 AM:
ReplyDeleteWell said.
Never realized there were so many lawyers on this site. Why didn't any of you stand up before when you were needed? Cleary, this is the "Centralized" response that everyone is bitching we need since the TA is on the take and Garodnick only profits if Brookfield gets the place so his boys at Moelis(sp) make a fortune. Yet its just more bitching. You cant re-open this you cant re-open that. I spoke with an actual RE lawyer who said all these things CAN be looked at again exactly as Guterman said but I guess he doesn't know all about the closet lawyers on here saying you CAN'T. Either piss or get off the pot but just stop complaining and either do something or just continue to bend over for the TA, Garodnick and CW (all one and the same)!!!
ReplyDelete>>I spoke with an actual RE lawyer who said all these things CAN be looked at again exactly as Guterman said . . ..<<
ReplyDeleteWill this RE lawyer that you spoke with take on the Roberts and MCI cases? If so, how much will he or she charge? And who will pay for it?
I think the so-called naysayers here are just trying to be realistic.
7:25 PM: Money talks, landlord walks. DOB are all part of the racket.
ReplyDeleteHey, 5:13...I don't care if Roberts can or can't be reopened. Who's gonna pay for it? You? You know how long so-called justice can drag out? You know how much these things cost? Oh, and yes, let's take some centralized action just as you suggest. Shall we all meet at you apt? Just let us know who you are and where you live. Right.
ReplyDelete"Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteBut is Mr. Guterman putting up the 4 billion, 5 billion AND we 'd pay him ? SO CONFUSED MR GUTERMAN. Where do you live? SET UP A MEETING face to face somewhere, make it in Central park if you have no 'office'… WE'RE CONFUSED and your letter is lengthy, not understandable to us.
August 11, 2014 at 12:14 PM"
Most ungrateful residents don’t know how lucky we are to have Garodnick and the TA reading and analyzing all those confusing documents for us so we don’t have to. They make all those complicated decisions affecting our homes and futures without consulting with us beforehand so we don’t get more confused and our heads will explode.
Just think, Garodnick and the TA analyzed dozens of offering plans from dozens of real estate developers before deciding our homes and futures will be entrusted to Brooklfield equipped with a magic suitcase filled with $5 billion cash and a condo conversion offering us an option to buy our apartments for a “fair” and/or “reasonable” price. If a market rate condo sells for $700,000, then $700,000 is a fair and/or reasonable price and we get an option to buy our homes from Brookfield for $700,000. Garodnick and TA say Brookfield is nice, so maybe we’ll get an option to buy our apartments for $650,000, a discount bargain price. Residents unable to afford a Brookfield condo will still be RS trusting Brookfield is nice.
We should give thanks to our sharp-eyed neighbors posting comments exposing the real Guterman. I read the same documents and must be so very confused that I didn’t realize Guterman:
• Has decades of experience that count for nothing because he is old.
• Does not have a magic suitcase filled with $5 billion like Brookfield does.
• Is a spy working for CWC.
• Has no plan except to charge us $10 every week.
• Beats his wife.
• Is weird.
• Never proposed the most affordable, tenant-friendly coop conversion possible offering residents the lowest possible purchase price affordable to the highest possible percentage of residents aspiring to ownership and self-governance. (Garodnick said this affordable coop plan is too good to be true. That means it’s good for tenants and a threat to his TA-Brookfield partnership that sells a more expensive condo to RS paying MR and absolutely nothing for everyone else.)
Just read the agreement all the way through. Exactly what we'd be signing on to is far too vague: "certain consulting and representation services" (1st paragraph) and "certain services and programs" (item 7). I've used many agreements for independent contractors (both hiring them to perform services for me and for specifying what I will do for a client), and I've handled many contracts with movie companies that have major intellectual properties to protect. Aren't our homes as important as the latest Disney blockbuster? No lawyer I've ever dealt with would have let me agree to anything that didn't fully lay out rights and responsibilities on both sides. I am not comforted by the termination and confidentiality clauses because they apply to a murky premise. This agreement doesn't even indicate how the Client (that's us) is supposed to pay the quarterly $10. Check? Credit card? Bitcoin? As those tenants paying market rate rents have discovered, you need to be careful what you sign and make sure you understand it fully.
ReplyDeleteWill this RE lawyer that you spoke with take on the Roberts and MCI cases? If so, how much will he or she charge? And who will pay for it?
ReplyDeleteIf he did he would be on the other side, so NO. However, isn't that what Guterman said he would do??? It's certainly more than any other of our watchdogs (I include the TA, Garodnick, Hoylman, Kavanaugh, Stringer, James, DiBlasio etc)are doing or would do. No?
8:31 the naysayers are not being "realistic" as you claim
ReplyDeleteThey are trying to instill fear and convince people not to do anything that might just help the residents here.
If they were just being realistic they wouldn't be trying so hard to stop people from standing up for themselves or "fishing" for information that could help residents.
Bottom line it can only help to know more and to stand up for ourselves because no one is standing up for us.
Everyone with issues of confusion or vagueness in what Mr Guterman is offering needs only to email him and ask your questions directly to him.
ReplyDeleteEveryone whining about confusion and vagueness is just trying to stop anyone from finding out the truths.
Mr Guterman's proposal is clear as need be on the blog post and further questions and information need only asked of him. Then if you like what you hear, sign up. Or don't sign up if you are still confused.
But don't let CW / Brookfield / Moelis shills intimidate you with comments to convince you not to even look into it for yourself.
>>If he did he would be on the other side, so NO.<<
ReplyDeleteWait, what? How is an attorney who challenges the Roberts and MCI settlements on the other side??? In this post and comment thread, we're talking about Guterman's advice that the Roberts and MCI matters be re-settled, presumably on terms more favorable to PCVST tenants.
But more importantly, Guterman has absolutely NOT said he will do this. He clearly says that it should be done, but not that he would do it. He and his colleagues are not attorneys.
So the question remains, who are the attorneys who will take this on, and more importantly, who will pay their fees? (I guess it could be a contingency arrangement, but you still need someone to pay the attorneys' out-of-pocket costs.)
Another "note" from the frazzled, incompetent Marsh The Knife? I can't wait! I hope it's a postcard!
ReplyDeleteI wrote the comment at 11:52 AM. I liked the original Guterman plan. To this day I don't understand why the TA didn't endorse this plan and the lack of detailed explanation is what immediately led me to completely lose faith in Garodnick and the TA. However, in spite of my support of the original Guterman plan, I don't see where Mr Guterman's consultancy offer adds sufficient value for us and I don't support it. Following his lead on Roberts we'd be struck with huge legal fees. And with respect to all administrative procedures that can be invoked, Mr Guterman hasn't specified any work that his organization would do. I can't see paying $25OK for a year to someone who will be jawboning with no skin in the game. I believe we're back where we always were...with no effective TA and no new means of centralizing for action.
ReplyDeletePretty clear the TA and Garodnick shills are out in force. Since we have a proven track record of them doing NOTHING for tenants, I'll take the risk with Guterman. I'm in.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDelete"Most ungrateful residents don’t know how lucky we are to have Garodnick and the TA reading and analyzing all those confusing documents for us so we don’t have to. They make all those complicated decisions affecting our homes and futures without consulting with us beforehand so we don’t get more confused and our heads will explode. "
True they read the documents. False they do what is in tenants best interests. Therein lies the problem and is why less than 5% of tenants are TA members! CWC knows this and laughs at the TA.
See how the naysayers operate? They just spread fear, doubt, confusion, for them there is no hope. They have no ideas, and just seem afraid that others will move ahead without them. The only way there is no hope is through inaction, inertia, and fear of trying something new. For the rest of us there is hope in taking action, and ignoring the voices of doubt which hold us back is the best way to move forward.
ReplyDeleteTo 1:08 PM. I don;t think you get it. In effect we're being asked to sign a contract but the contract doesn't clearly specify services rendered. Maybe you sign contracts like that. I don't. And your advice to go with verbal assurances from Mr Guterman...hah! Really. I'm sure Mr Guterman would be the last person alive to sign a contract based on verbal promises about services. And just to be clear...I am no fan of TA. I just don't believe in signing vague contracts.
ReplyDeleteDid someone say POSTCARDS??? It's time to get ORGANIZED!!!
ReplyDelete7:49 Why don't you email Mr Guterman and asked for clarity and if you need ask him to put his answers in writing in an addendum to you. Mr Guterman is making himself accessible and available with two way dialogue. Is anyone else doing that for residents? Go to him directly and ask for what you need to know. If he gives it, then sign on. If he doesn't give you what you need then don't sign. Either way be an active participant in the fate of your home and don't let greedy self serving people who have been robbing residents since 2007 with NYU campus mci charges, Roberts settlement shortchanges, gouging contractors on renovation work, etc.
ReplyDeleteAugust 13, 2014 at 6:03 PM
ReplyDeleteLooks more like the Guterman shills are out in force.
Not a naysayer and not a fan ot the TA. Have asked Mr. Guterman ? Still sounds vague, weird and sketchy. and we're not stupid here. Get it together and spel it out why I'm giving him $10 and my John Hancock or I'm not playing ball. Duh.
ReplyDeleteOff the topic, but 3 more valuable parking spaces taken away on the 18th street loop, opposite playground 9, for MANAGEMENT BICYCLE PARKING?
ReplyDeleteARE YOU KIDDING ME?
Funny! Too true!
DeleteNo way in hell am I signing this!
ReplyDeleteCan't hurt to get all the information we can from wherever we can get it because there are too many secret deals by Brookfield Moelis and CW that have cost us too much already. These three have been calling the shots since Tishman left. We should sue Tishman too!
ReplyDeleteHave spoken and emailed Guterman. Still confused.
ReplyDeleteI guess it's just me. ? And a few others....
Not being a naysaer, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS MAN AND HIS POSSE can do for me and my $4k apartment here. WHY DON'T YOU JUST SPELL IT OUT MR. G , CLEARLY. omfh. It's not that complicated.
7:49,,,why don;t you email Mr Guterman...
ReplyDeleteWhat and get one off answers that may vary from person to person. Is that any way to business?
This whole thing is a non-starter now. There's no way even close to 5000 units will sign up. And STR knows though google analytics how many participants he's had over the past few months. Judging from the comments I really doubt if it's 1000.
Time to move on. Maybe to just more venting. But that seems to be our reality.
PS If you are interested in rooming with undergrads see earlier comment in ULOOP by Sanjeev Darisi
ReplyDeleteCollege
Bernard M Baruch College
Class Year
2018
Major
Accounting
We need protection FROM Garodnick and the TA and this is it. I am in. Worse case scenario is it costs me 10 bucks. I wasted far more than that every year supporting the TA in the past.
ReplyDelete@ 8/13 6:19 PM:
ReplyDeleteWhy all the hyperbole? A few posters here have offered their views on Guternman's offer, pointing out the problems they see. If you are not persuaded and want to sign the contract, then go right ahead. But calm down. There's no need to paint your fellow tenants as sowers of "fear, doubt, [and] confusion, for [whom] there is no hope." That really is a bit over the top.
We are moving out at the end of the month and it can't come quick enough. This place is a war zone, the community is divided, and the rent is too damn high!
ReplyDelete"Off the topic, but 3 more valuable parking spaces taken away on the 18th street loop, opposite playground 9, for MANAGEMENT BICYCLE PARKING?
ReplyDeleteARE YOU KIDDING ME?"
Agreed, but do you think that these ghouls give a damn about our parking problems? I've been here over 15 years and have to have a car for work. I think we must have lost about 200 spots around the project since 9/11.
I want to read my partnership contract with Brookfield that my elected NYC Council Member Garodnick, my tenants association, my attorney Paul Weiss Rifkind and my financial advisor Moelis negotiated and executed for us nearly three years ago without any real consultation or input from tenants (not fooled by the insulting dog and pony show inflicted on us).
ReplyDeleteDo any tenants have a copy of our Brookfield "partnership" contract secretly negotiated and executed for us nearly three years ago?
If yes, then please post it online here @ STR so we can all read it and discuss how our elected, legal and financial advisors, all owing us multiple, powerful fiduciary obligations to always act only in the best interests of their constituents/clients (us), could negotiate and execute a partnership agreement on our behalf that, at best offers an unnecessarily expensive, "reasonable" priced Brookfield condo to the 2-3,000 highest earning, highest rent paying, most abused "partners" forced to buy and does absolutely nothing for the overwhelming majority 8-9,000 middle class "partners" unable to afford an unnecessarily expensive, "reasonable" priced Brookfield condo.
The less wealthy, non-buying partners will be told a story about a pretend life and death struggle waged and won to preserve their eroding RS protections that date back to when they 1st executed a RS lease however many years ago. It's just too bad if they aspired to ownership/self governance and couldn't afford a more expensive Brookfield condo. These lucky "partners" receive nothing and should be grateful for it. Their Brookfield partner promises to wait patiently before sucking the equity out of their RS apartment when they vacate.
Did Garodnick-TA ever ask any tenant what their preference would be if given an option to choose between an affordable coop conversion offering the lowest possible tenant buy-in price that will result in the highest percentage of self governing resident owners or a condo conversion offering a more expensive Brookfield condo most middle class tenants could never afford to purchase? That would be a real option, a real choice for tenants deciding what's best for tenants.
The same type permanent affordability safeguards via tax incentives can be inserted into either conversion plan. Actually achieving same amount affordability in a more expensive condo conversion will be more complicated and require more tax incentives.
And no Dan, an affordable coop conversion offering lowest possible purchase prices within reach of the vast majority of middle class ST-PCV residents (your neighbors and constituents) is not too good to be true. If Brookfield objects because it's less profitable for Brookfield, as an elected representative, attorney, fiduciary, tenant and neighbor, you are obligated to dump Brookfield.
I came home tonight to human excrement in the lobby. A big steaming pile. Speechless.
ReplyDeleteMarsh The Knife, Susan Stasi, Green Goblin, and the rest of the TA need to put this community first and step down. They're wildly incompetent and out of touch. It'll never be 1962 again.
ReplyDeleteIf it is a real tenant bid then the tenants need to have a say in the negotiations. The Brookfield bid is not a real tenant bid. To be clear, it is a Brookfield bid and tenants are being "told" what they will do instead of tenants "telling" what we want and what we agree to do.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I see it, Guterman is the only one giving tenants a way to have a say.
I am very angry about the Roberts ruling. To me it's just another indication of how our justice system has been hijacked by economic interests. There ought to be more popular indignation about this because it shows how our system is broken. If the j51 tax break meant that the complex owner was required to provide affordable housing, then that means the renovations that were done to deregulate the apartments were illegal.
ReplyDeleteThe complex owners should not have been taking steps to deregulate apartments that they weren't allowed to. The proper punishment in this case would have been to roll back the rents on the market rate apartments to an amount under $2000, rather than freezing them where they were when the Roberts ruling was made. If I were the judge I would have rolled them back to $1000 just to make a point.
Lawyers can dispute what I say with their technicalities but when it comes down to it, a great part of the law is interpretation, which is subjective, and also subject to error. If you don't believe that then just look at the rulings coming out of the Supreme Court lately.
Whether or not relitigating the Roberts decision is a possibility, we ought to express our anger. How about a march in the STPCV complex? It's convenient, and CW will look really bad if they crack down on us for not having permits.
>>I am very angry about the Roberts ruling. To me it's just another indication of how our justice system has been hijacked by economic interests. There ought to be more popular indignation about this because it shows how our system is broken. If the j51 tax break meant that the complex owner was required to provide affordable housing, then that means the renovations that were done to deregulate the apartments were illegal.<<
ReplyDeleteAgreed. The only just resolution to this whole mess would be to roll back the MR rents and make Tishman-Speyer completely culpable for the financial burden placed on the complex due their avarice and mismanagement. This should have been the focused aim of our elected politicians (excepting Bloomberg, who would have never signed up to go against his RE pals) and the TA. Instead, the goal became the pipe dream of condo conversion/tenant ownership, which if it ever became a reality, was going to place apartments out of affordability.
STR will let us wear bikinis lol!
ReplyDeleteWell, I have to say I've just about had it. If Guterman were truly motivated to help us as he originally said, he wouldn't be looking to clear about $50K per quarter from us. He'd be doing this for next to nothing. Guterman consultancy won't happen and the STR site is just leading to more more and more actionless venting. I'll check in everything month or so. But this is pretty much the end for me. Nothing is leading us to any action.
ReplyDeleteHow about a march in the STPCV complex? It's convenient, and CW will look really bad if they crack down on us for not having permits.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to march, it should be to our lawyers office who won the Roberts case for us, they made $26 Milllion off us, and most Roberts tenants received a check for $150 and saw there rent go up, not down, the only winner in the case was the tenants lawyer who was working on the Roberts case. They sold us down the river.
>>STR will let us wear bikinis lol!<<
ReplyDeleteDon't forget to send photos.
Bears repeating.
ReplyDelete"If you want to march, it should be to our lawyers office who won the Roberts case for us, they made $26 Milllion off us, and most Roberts tenants received a check for $150 and saw there rent go up, not down, the only winner in the case was the tenants lawyer who was working on the Roberts case. They sold us down the river."
They sold us down the river so whoever buys (CW or Brookfield Moelis) could increase profits and get more money out of us. They stole our court victory ruling out from under us. We need to see all communications on the negotiations, all communications the lawyers had and with whom, and we need to consider filing an ethics complaint because this is all around wrong on so many levels.
We don't need to march in the complex. They would like us to so they can get on camera all those exposing and opposing their fraud. We need to keep taking action just as we are currently. Maintain the course.
ReplyDeleteIt is time for the doubters to step aside and for everyone else to take action. Time is running out. There may dsoon be a new owner or a condo conversion plan.
ReplyDeleteIf people are happy with the TA, which by the way is also is not providing any of the information being demanded of some by Guterman, then please support them.
But if they want to try a new course of action, go with Gutterman. I find it hard to believe 10 dollars a year will be breaking the bank or is too much to risk vs the tens of thousands a year everyone is paying in rent.
If 10 bucks is still too pricey, if people are just giving up or just don't care, then stop posting off topic comments or spreading negativity as that is helping no one to acheive anything.
It's time to either take a big giant poop or get off the pot.
>>I find it hard to believe 10 dollars a year will be breaking the bank<<
ReplyDeleteJust for the record, it's $40 a year ($10 every three months). Not that that makes much difference, but it is one of the few things that is clear in Guterman's contract.
Pay me to leave? Sure. Pay to own? No chance in hell. The walls are too thin, it's noisy with round the clock maintenance, and there are too many students.
ReplyDelete>>We don't need to march in the complex. They would like us to so they can get on camera all those exposing and opposing their fraud.<<
ReplyDeleteActually, my experience with the CW management leads me to believe this wouldn't be an issue. They seem too disorganized to carry out a harassment campaign.
>> We need to keep taking action just as we are currently. Maintain the course. <<
I guess you're right. I'll feel better when I hear how many people have signed the Guterman Consulting Agreement.
It's not $10/yr, it's $10/quarter.
ReplyDeleteIt's $10 per quarter, which is comparable to the $35 annual dues for TA membership.
ReplyDeleteHow a co-op plan is good for Stuy Town, secondary only to returning to 100% RS pre tishman rents.
ReplyDeleteNote the words democracy and one person one vote fairness in the community.
http://www.pennsouth.coop/publicpages/about.html
Handsome Dan never met a camera he didn't like. He'd be the first one to show up and talk the talk but then do dick about anything. All the players in this fiasco are either crooks or do nothings. Pathetic, all of them.
ReplyDeleteAs a longtime RS tenant I want to go on record as saying (and speaking for a lot of my neighbors of same vintage): I have no interest in buying into this dump. I don't care whether it's Brookfield and Slimy Dan or Guterman proposing anything. I am not moving, am not interested in buying into this money pit and if I ever am forced to move, they have to pay me big bucks and I'll move to somewhere better. Ain't losing a wink of sleep over this place apart from when the NYU whores and bros come home. Then I call the cops. And keep calling and calling the cops. As my late husband was a police captain, I know who to call to get these assholes scared shitless and made to shut the fuck up. It's amazing how these macho bros get very edgy and scared when they are confronted by a REAL MAN!
ReplyDelete10 bucks a year, 10 bucks a quarter, whats the difference, Netflix costs more than that! If people are whining about Gutterman's proposal because it costs less than Netflix, they are using more of their negative naysaying to dissuade everyone else from taking action.
ReplyDeleteSee how the nit-pickers always focus on the trees and never on the forest, the big picture? Everyone in StuyTown is a renter, and whether they stay here or move they will probably aways be renters so long as banks refuse to give credit to anyone who doesn't fit their picture of the perfect credit score, higher income borrower with a ton of cash for a down payment.
So as renters we have an interest in changing the laws for all renters, not just for StuyTown, since many who move will be in the same situation in the next rental.
Any tenant who argues against more tenant rights is either mentally ill or is a shill for the greedy landlords, or is probably a landlord themselves.
You rule 10:15p!
ReplyDeleteWouldn't STPCV have to return to rent stabilization with rolled back rents before a coop conversion would be possible? I don't know why Fortress was willing to pay as much as they were, either because of some shady business between them and CW, or maybe because this place is actually starting to make money. I don't know. But if this place is making money then why wouldn't the next buyer just decide to keep things going the way they are now if they can keep charging the rents that are currently being charged?
ReplyDelete"Handsome Dan never met a camera he didn't like. He'd be the first one to show up and talk the talk but then do dick about anything. All the players in this fiasco are either crooks or do nothings. Pathetic, all of them."
ReplyDeleteAint that the truth! I don't hold out much hope for DeBlasio doing anything for STPCV. Big as he is, I think he's a wimp. He just made Al Sharpton the de facto Police Commissioner! Bratton will probably retire soon in disgust.
I don't miss that little toad, Bloomberg, but I just feel very disappointed in Bratton. I think he's a lot like all the other politicians are: all promises and no delivery. He can't even put an end to the carriage horse abuse which was something he got elected for.
"I know who to call to get these assholes scared shitless and made to shut the fuck up."
ReplyDeleteI know you want to keep this on the QT but is there anyway you can give us more info on this? I assume you are referring to NYPD, not CR PS?
Can anyone tell me what services are promised by the TA? That group is so secretive. If I send $35 to the TA, what do they agree to do? Nada! They just whine and say, but we are only volunteers! But if I send $40 to Guterman I get the services of a paid professional RE consultant.
ReplyDeleteI thought by now we would receive a proposal in the mail from Mr. Guterman. This proposal via blog doesn't seem professional or authentic. I was planning to sign the Agreement and send it in but am rethinking now.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous @ August 16, 2014 at 10:15 PM said...
ReplyDelete"I have no interest in buying into this dump. I don't care whether it's Brookfield and Slimy Dan or Guterman proposing anything. I am not moving, am not interested in buying into this money pit and if I ever am forced to move, they have to pay me big bucks and I'll move to somewhere better."
What makes you think anyone will ever pay you big bucks for this dump so you can move to somewhere better?
Brookfield will own the ST-PCV condo assoc. You can buy an expensive Brookfield condo for a "reasonable" or "fair" price, whatever that means (no hint whatsoever from Brookfield - Guterman says it means "low discount"). Or, you can still live in this dump and Brookfield will sell an expensive Brookfield condo for market price to someone else after you vacate or get booted out.
Mayor de Blasio believes RS still means "affordable" and will pay Brookfield to help you live in this dump. Then he will pay Brookfield more to help someone else live in this dump after you vacate.
Under what crazy scenario should anyone ever have to pay you "big bucks" so you can move someplace better?
Actually Guterman posting the agreement online and in a pdf is more professional then sending it by postal mail. No one does business by postal mail anymore. I don't recall Guterman ever saying he was going to mail it anyway. I think a commenter said that.
ReplyDeleteWhat about all of the potential resident-clients who don't read this blog or T&V? How will they all find out about Mr. Guterman's proposal? I believe he should mail or distribute hard copies of his proposal to every residential unit in ST/PCV if he hopes to meet his target of 5000 signed clients.
DeleteHas anyone filed a complaint tiwht the City on the strain the CWC increased population by 25% - 40% puts on our elevators, plumbing, walkways, electrical, etc? We know CWC admitted increasing the population by at least 25% and that at least 4000 apartments are now dorms and we have seen the many ads for roommates beyond the CWC reported population. It is safe to say our population probably increased close to 40% with all the wall partitioned dorms and the extra roommates the students bring in that aren't on the leases. That is serious strain on the infrastructure that should be formally reported to the City and serious safety violations too.
ReplyDeleteHow do we formally report it on record?
Tishman should pay off $2billion of the debt.
ReplyDeleteCW should be audited for its illegal take and schemes.
Tenants and Stores should have their rents restored to 2007 pre-Tishman illegal actions carried out by same Tishman employees calling themselves CW Capital.
Either we return ST PCV to the 100% RS or implement a tenant bid at $3Billion for co-ops.
A purchase price above $3billion for the property is a bad deal.
We must stay a unified community.
ReplyDeleteTell that to the TA and Garodnick (and the other politicians) trying to break us up. Doubt they'll listen though. The TA has watched their membership drop precipitously and still haven't budged.
Not everybody who lives (as in resides, not just passing through) in PCVST reads this blog or even knows about it. Guterman is limiting his "audience" by not mailing his proposal.
ReplyDelete"...Has anyone filed a complaint tiwht the City on the strain the CWC increased population by 25% - 40% puts on our elevators, plumbing, walkways, electrical, etc? ..."
ReplyDeleteWhat you are suggesting here is a good example of the service Guterman proposes to provide to its clients (those of us who sign). . He/they would file these sorts of complaints as our representative.
>>What you are suggesting here is a good example of the service Guterman proposes to provide to its clients (those of us who sign). . He/they would file these sorts of complaints as our representative.<<
ReplyDeleteReally??? Where do you get that from? The contract talks about consulting services. I see nothing at all to suggest that he would do anything along the lines of filing complaints as our representative. Maybe he would advise us to file such complaints ourselves, but don't we already know that we can do that?
Mr. Guterman, if you are reading these comments and I am wrong, please let us know!
That last comment really confuses me. Didn't the many families that raised their children here use the elevators and large amounts of water?
ReplyDeleteThat last comment really confuses me. Didn't the many families that raised their children here use the elevators and large amounts of water?>>
ReplyDeleteThey probably did, but I don't think they used as much water and electricity as a bunch of students crammed into the dorm apartments would use. How they manage with one bathroom per unit is beyond me because one bathroom for a family of two to four can be a headache! I am sure that in the "old days" there was nowhere near the demand for electricity that there is now because, apart from fewer people living here, they didn't have multiple television sets, computers, printers, etc., not to mention the dishwashers that the MR units have. Actually, the dishwasher is the only thing I envy the MR tenants for. I feel pity for them on all other counts!
I often here tenants that have been here for 14 plus years say they proposed leave ac on all day even in winter. I also often hear newer tenants say they will leave garbage where they want scream loud as hell as they pay top dollar and will do as they please. This is not new news.
DeleteDrain the Marsh! Squash the Green Goblin! Bring back Al Doyle!
ReplyDeleteDrain the Marsh! Squash the Green Goblin! Bring back Al Doyle!
ReplyDeleteAl Doyle has been in on this from the beginning. Stop holding him up as some kind of hero since he is as culpable as John Marsh, maybe more so.
Who is the Green Goblin? I know who the other losers are.
ReplyDeleteThe mystery of Al Doyle. Why did he quit just when the TA was rolling into action with Brookfield? Was he tired of the job? Or did he not like the direction of the TA?
ReplyDeleteNot sure why all the rubes here think Marsh is king of the TA. Al Doyle is still connected to the TA and Marsh is just one of however many board members. It's doubtful that when he speaks it's the final word. He probably gets overruled a lot.
ReplyDelete11:27 I dont think anyone actually believe Marsh is a king or leader of anything. Marsh took on the title of President and does most of the spokesperson statements. Frankly these guys should not have titles as President or Board of Directors. Having met most of them - none are qualified for the title and know nothing about what it is they are supposed to do. They are order takers from the three amigos.
ReplyDeleteHaving met most of them - none are qualified for the title and know nothing about what it is they are supposed to do...
ReplyDeleteInteresting. Most of the boardmembers are attorneys. I suppose that makes you an expert in an awful lot of arcania, much of it legal. Or just another online know-it-all.
I'm trying to follow the logic in these threads but it is difficult. From my time as a human resources executive, I can tell you, 6:06, that attorneys and business people have different skill sets. That middle managers and top level executives have different skill sets.
ReplyDeleteJust because someone is an attorney does not mean they are a good leader. I think 3:27 is trying to say that looking at the track record and the state of PCVST it seems we do not have the right people in the right jobs. They current Board and President are better suited for other jobs where their strengths match the needs of the position.
I think it is safe to say there are too many failures here to leave the current Board in place. We need to change the leadership to a more qualified one.
I read the G letter a few times now and I'm confused. What is this about ? Sounds like $10 for nothing. Like my fees to the T A. For nothing.
ReplyDelete