Comment Policy

All comments to posts have to await approval. Please be aware that, depending on when I'm logged onto the internet, it may take me hours, even longer, to moderate comments, so if they don't turn up in a speedy fashion, they are still in the queue. Comments that cross a line I'm not comfortable with will not get approved. NOTE: Comments reflect the opinions of the person writing them and should not be assumed to reflect the opinion of the blog.

Saturday, August 23, 2014

New Letter from Guterman



GUTERMAN PARTNERS, LLC

Gerald Guterman
E. stpcv@gutermanpartners.com


To the Tenants of STPCV:

It has been almost two weeks since my previous letter together with the Consulting Agreement, was published in The Stuyvesant Town Report.

I would like to clarify any questions you may have concerning the Consulting Services we are offering and the reasons for you to favorably consider our proposal.

The first and most important reason for using Guterman Partners' consulting subsidiary, is the very high level of knowledge and experience being offered. The six principal partners, have been owners and operators of New York City rental housing since 1978. During this period, we have successfully operated over 60,000 apartments in New York City. All of the apartments have been under at least one of New York City's rent regulation programs and in a number properties, have been operated under both Rent Control and Rent Stabilization.

All of these years of "hard fought" experience, has given us very practical knowledge about the positions we can take and the positions we expect to win.

I have also tried to be very clear, that we are offering Consulting Services. We are not attorneys and cannot give you legal advice or represent you in Court. However, that said, the partners do understand how the system works, and how to use the system to your best advantage.

In my previous letter, I posed a series of questions to you. Now, I will state for the record, that the questions presented were in actuality, the actions that we believe can be undertaken and won, with the backing of the residents in the Community.

We propose to coordinate a series of actions that will require several different law firms and several engineering firms,  each with a certain specialty.

We anticipate that the law firms will concentrate on a number of different areas of litigation, including; landlord/tenant, construction, zoning, safety and negligence.

We propose that the engineering firms be retained to do a complete "due diligence" inspection of all the buildings (and all individual apartments where possible) in the Community.

We will suggest the attorneys and engineers. Each firm that we suggest, will agree to receive the substantial portion of their fees based on the success of our litigation strategy. We also propose to have an accounting firm conduct an audit of all of the STPCV individual lease records held by the Homes and Community Renewal Department of the City of New York, to determine whether the correct rent was originally recorded and subsequent rent increases accurately charged. 

We will also seek to obtain a copy of the Landlord's rent roll for a comparison of accuracy with New York City.  

This is of paramount importance because of the history of rent increases in the Community and the  Roberts Decision. The Roberts Decision from the New York State Court of Appeals, ruled that all (11,232) of the apartments at STPCV were (retroactively) and continue to be, subject to New York City's Rent Stabilization Laws.

We will review the full Roberts Settlement Agreement, to understand how many actual leases were audited and whether the audit was conformed with the information maintained by the City or an artificial "cut off" date was imposed as part of the Settlement.  

We propose to have the MCI applications audited, to determine whether they were and are completely accurate and to determine whether MCI increases should have been allowed during the various periods when the landlord was not in compliance with Rent Stabilization Laws.

We believe that the high population, dormitory housing conversion, has created unnecessary physical stress on the building structures, including; electric, plumbing, elevators and smoke and fire protection. Additionally, no changes have been made to the accommodate the large population increase (brought on by the conversion to dormitory housing), therefore creating significant danger to the residents under certain circumstances.

All of the buildings together with their individual structural components must undergo complete property inspections and where necessary be immediately upgraded, to insure the physical safety to each building's residents.

All apartments previously converted to dormitory housing, must be reversed.

We believe that STPCV must not be separated, sectionalized or segregated into moderate priced, "ghetto type" rental housing and market rate rental housing or ownership housing.

Any conversion to ownership housing, must be under the control of the residents of the community.
 
The Oval must be restored to resident use only.

We believe that only specific dog breeds and weights can be allowed in the Community.

As your consultants, we will:

Advise you as to the specific engineering and legal action to be taken,
Suggest legal and engineering representation,
Monitor the work of the suggested firms,
Make sure that all fees for representation are success based,
Advise you (if we are not acting as sponsors) on any proposed conversion to ownership housing.

Our services, including conversion advise, are only available on an individual, apartment by apartment basis. However, the partners continue to believe that to be effective in any negotiation with the landlord, at least 5,000 tenants must be represented. 

Please feel free to write to me, with any questions or concerns.

Gerald Guterman
stpcv@gutermanpartners.com

-----------------------------------


GUTERMAN PARTNERS, LLC
AGREEMENT
FOR CONSULTING SERVICES

AGREEMENT dated ___________ 2014 (the “Agreement”) by and between GUTERMAN PARTNERS, LLC, West Palm Beach, Fl (“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") 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 provide certain services as requested by the Client.  

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 STPCV Partners, LLC, at the time the Consulting Agreement is executed.

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 after the Term.

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, nor constitute either party as the agent or legal representative of the other for any 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:  stpcv@GutermanPartners, LLC



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
 

LINK TO PRINTABLE AGREEMENT

59 comments:

Anonymous said...

Make sure to include engineers or specialists to to address the toxic contaminated soil with petroleum and banned pesticides - cost to address this will be past to current owners and with the upcoming Brookfield Big U excavation and fills this could be an expensive issue.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Guterman, could you elaborate here on what you mean when you say:

- "Each firm that we suggest, will agree to receive the substantial portion of their fees based on the success of our litigation strategy" and also
- "We will . . . Make sure that all fees for representation are success based"?

What are "success based" fees, and what does "substantial portion" mean? Also, does the term "firm" refer to attorneys, engineers, and accountants? Will all three of those groups have a "success-based" fee arrangement (whatever that is)?

More specifically, how much will we tenants have to pay for the services of the attorneys, engineers, and accountants? Please give us as precise an estimate as you can. (I am assuming the $10 we would each be paying to you quarterly will not cover the services of these other professionals.)

Anonymous said...

Mr Guterman
If our numbers surpass the membership number of the TA will that qualify us as a "tenant leader" entity that the City Politicians are talking to and allow us to be a party to the purchase talks? Because with this TA the tenants have no voice in the purchase negotiations, no voice in the deal brokered with Brookfield/Moelis, no voice in MCI negotiations and no voice in Roberts settlement talks. We had no voice in the TA approved construction of the Oval and their new office building they intend for Brookfield to occupy with them.

We have had no voice, no say, and when we speak up we get the wrath of the TA aimed at us (see previous blog).

Mr Guterman if our numbers who sign with you surpass the TA membership can we qualify for a voice in the purchase negotiations?

We need a seat at that table and one with a vote equal to the number of members.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Guterman, I assume you are reading the comment section here. I am asking you my question here, rather than in an individual email, because I think that tenants reading your letter will want to know the answer to this question (and probably any other question that a tenant poses to you in these comments).

You say that you will "Advise you [the tenants] (if we are not acting as sponsors) on any proposed conversion to ownership housing." Your use of the word "if" in that sentence makes it sound as if you have not yet made a final decision on whether you might act as a sponsor in a conversion. Is that the case? Is it still possible that you and your colleagues will make a bid to buy PCVST?

Anonymous said...

Mr. Guterman, with your two recent posts, you have intrigued a number of tenants who read this blog. Their hopes have been raised. But I feel as you are stringing them along, and are not really serious about all this. You have said that you need 5,000 tenants to sign your agreement, but you must know that nowhere near that number read this blog. Yet, as far as I have seen, you are not publicizing your proposals anywhere else.

What gives?

Hippo said...

With all due respect, I believe anyone who signs this document to hire Gutterman as a "consultant" is a fool. And anyone who actually sends this guy ten bucks is doubly a fool. What exactly does he bring to the table? Nada, nothing, zero...oh, I forgot...his expertise...yeah, right. What is his horse in this race? What does he hope to gain or is he simply an altruist? Why should I send him money? Let him send me money...haha. He is going to hire consultants, lawyers, engineers. Who is going to pay for this? As much as I despise Tishman-Speyer, CW Cap and all the predatory ghouls who have raped and ravished our once tranquil oasis, I will not be taken in by a huckster and snake oil salesman who promises, promise, promises and delivers nothing. Send a letter to all 11,000+ lessees outlining your personal and corporate compensation. Mr. Guterman, blow for the 49 cents postage. Oops, then you'd have to incur some upfront out-of-pocket expenses. Ain't gonna happen. And you have as much chance of getting 5,000 signees as the Mets have of winning the World Series this year. Just one man's opinion here. I look forward to other opposing points of view which I surely will respect and ponder. Meanwhile I'm going to save the ten dollars for some take-out Chinese...lol...Have a great weekend all and keep the sense of humor.

Anonymous said...

The fools are the ones paying the blog ettiquette police $35 donations.

Anonymous said...

I still can't get over the TA Board spending their volunteer time trolling comments in this blog and analyzing the writing and tracking the time codes to see who replies to what saying what about what and then asking us to make it easier for the TA President to figure out who is saying what by having us use our names because his head is exploding tracking and trolling.

Anonymous said...

A mailing to all residents could be sent with a bulk mail rate, a lot less than 49cents. Do it!

Gerald Guterman said...

To the STPCV Tenants: At all times, the statements I make herein, are the opinions of my partners and I.

We are not attorneys and do not give legal advice. Our statements are based on our thirty-six (36) years of Conversion and Rent Stabilization Experience in New York.

Anonymous 1. I don't know enough about this matter to speak to it right now. I will find out and discuss the appropriate course of action.

Anonymous 2. I mean that the legal fees, engineering fees and accounting fees, will be paid from the results of litigation not discussed here. A portion of the fees paid for consulting services, will be used to retain the professionals.

Anonymous 3. Let's understand something right now...The TA represents only those individual tenants who agree to be represented by the TA. The TA does not ever speak for any tenant who does not agree. The problem has been that each of you individually can't afford to disagree and therefore, follow the course of least resistance by simply going along. If you will agree to be represented by Guterman Partners, then we will have the same or greater (depending on how many tenants employ our services) position (then the TA) at each and every meeting. If the number who sign with Guterman Partners is large enough, the power and voice of the tenants in the community will shift. Then, you as a group, will become the major voice to be heard and reckoned with.

Anonymous 4. There seems to be some confusion about whether Brookfield, the TA, Guterman Partners or any other owner, can convert this community to ownership housing (condominium or cooperative) without the absolute Agreements to Purchase, from at least fifteen (15%) percent of the legal and legitimate tenants in the Community.

There should be no question in your minds!! IN A NON-EVICTION PLAN FOR CONVERSION, AT LEAST FIFTEEN (15%) PERCENT OF THE LEGAL AND LEGIMATE TENANTS (at the time a plan is filed) WILL BE REQUIRED TO AGREE TO PURCHASE. THERE IS NO EXCEPTION TO THIS SPECIFIC PORTION OF THE LAW.....NO ONE, NO ASSOCIATION, WHETHER IT IS THE TA OR ANY OTHER ASSOCIATION OR GROUP, CAN BIND YOU OR AGREE FOR YOU. NO CONVERSION WITHOUT INDIVIDUAL AGREEMENT BY INDIVIDUAL TENANTS IS POSSIBLE....PERIOD. NO EXCEPTIONS. ALSO, AT THE TIME A PLAN FOR CONVERSION IS FILED WITH THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE TOTAL VACANCY IN THE COMMUNITY (buildings to be converted) CANNOT EXCEED TEN (10%) PERCENT...PERIOD. NO EXCEPTION.

If the owner/sponsor makes an agreement with the TA or any other group, the owner/sponsor still must receive Agreements to Purchase, from at least 15% of the individual, legal/legimate tenants of the Community. However, I caution you that currently the Community is composed of two separate communities and may be offered for conversion with two separate plans. It is also possible but I don't believe practical, nor do I believe that the Attorney General's office would accept such a maneuver, to attempt to offer each building separately.

IF FIFTEEN (15%) OF THE TENANTS AGREE TO PURCHASE, THEN THE NON-PURCHASING TENANTS WILL REMAIN AS RENT STABILIZED TENANTS, IN PERPITUITY. THERE IS NO EXCEPTION HERE AS WELL.

Anonymous 5. Do you really believe that my partners and I would spend the time answering, informing and presenting our Reputations on a lark?

However, it is still up to the tenants in the Community to come together with numbers enough for our effective representation.

Once we receive a certain number of tenants agreeing to our representation, we will solicit the full Community. It is up to you all, to come together and demand the living standard that you are entitled to.

Anonymous 6. Nonsense....


Gerald Guterman

Anonymous said...

I am a senior citizen (not on SCRIE) and have lived in my apartment for 30 years. What benefit would I reap from signing on with Mr. Guterman? I have no faith whatsoever in the TA, but what's the worst thing that can happen to me?

I know that the best thing that could happen to me as far as my vile, corrupt, bloodsucking landlord is concerned is that I drop dead. Ain't going to oblige for a while yet!

Anonymous said...

It's time to stop agonizing and start organizing! If we don't own this place it will own us. Abolish the TA! Marsh The Knife, Susan Stasi, and Green Goblin need to go! We need fresh people with fresh ideas.

Tommyboyardee said...

Patronizing & self serving. Adios Amigo

Anonymous said...

Every time I ask the TA anything all I get is "answers" and not very helpful answers, ranging from technically the landlord can do it legally or here are some tips from the internet on steps you can take (that never amount to anything but wasting my time).

Mr Guterman is offering "solutions".

This community needs solutions.

Thanks Mr Guterman for giving us solutions and a way to be a part of the solution. I'm in.

Signed
Fed Up

PS Now we know we can track all the insults and name calling of tenants to the TA Board.

Anonymous said...

Has the TA yet apologized for all those inane meetings with Moelis and Paul Weiss? Are not apologies due (especially to market raters) for being strung along and led to believe a condo conversion was imminent? Many of the market raters I know stayed on much longer because they were led to believe the propaganda spewed by the TA. Of course, they've now moved on. "Condo, not CO-OP, because that's what you guys want." "Yes of course you will be able to renovate your apartment." "Buy an apartment other than your own?, we'll look into it."

Let's not also forget the "time for you to move on CW Capital" initiative, which, when failed, they pretended like it never existed.

As a real R/S tenant, these issues aren't too important because if there is no conversion I'll simply continue to rent, but many of my neighbors were barely holding on as a result of all these erroneous messages emanating from the TA. At least address them, at least acknowledge them. Instead we get arrogance and insults.

Anonymous said...

TO G. Guterman:

Recently, CW, on behalf of the bondholders, took title to the assets. At the time of transfer, CW separated the assets into 2 legally remote entities, (1) Stuy Town and (2) Peter Cooper. Since the entities are separated now, does the TA have any legal authority to represent the tenants of either asset? It is the STPCVTA not the STTA and PCVTA. Should there be a new election for each entity (how can someone from Peter Cooper be representing someone from ST now?).

Seeing Mr Marsh is reading, how about you answer this one as well... or go back to lurking.

Anonymous said...

G Guterman

It looks like you want to be president of STPCVTA2. Ha ha, best of luck with that one. Now we'll have 2 TAs to knock around here.

Anonymous said...

Sorry to be off topic: ANyone receive a notice from CW/owners? USPS left me a notice to pick up a letter. I know its from CW (by the address). I also noticed that there were several notices laid out at mail boxes so I'm assuming many of us received the letter.

(1) I don't want to acknowledge receipt of the letter until I know what it is and (2) I dread waiting on the post office line!

Stuy Town Reporter said...

A letter was sent out to a portion of residents about whom to write your rental check to. Not sure if this is what's waiting for you at the post office. I received such a letter under the door.

Anonymous said...

At first I was a "No" for signing the Guterman agreement. Since Marsh came on and added his BS 2 cents I've moved to a maybe.

STR: can you ask Mr G. for a one page flyer in pdf format either directing tents to your website or another where tenants can read up on the prospective agreement. I, and probably other, can then print out the flyer and slip it under the doors of our neighbors. For example I live in one of the Stuy Oval building and have about 105 units in the building. I can print 105 copies of the flyer and slip it under the doors of each unit (not in the hallway or elevators because the TA will probably take them down).

I know that there's this question on how to reach critical mass, I think this may help. We can keep track of the buildings covered on this blog until we have all of them papered with the flyer.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

Another caution: While I'm sympathetic to the anger of certain tenants regarding John Marsh's comments on this blog, I can't pass through the more--how shall we call them?--rigorous, inflammatory ones. Such a comment is awaiting acceptance in this thread. I understand, but....

Anonymous said...

10:17 lolllll I know. Remember the funny meeting they held on the corner of 16th Str re: conversion? It was such a joke.
They meant no harm, they're just dumb enough to believe CWC when they said they'd consider a conversion! omg, hilarious the Tenants Assoc here is that dumb and gullible. How totally unprofessional and childish. In fact, even a 10 year old would have been smarter at that. For shame to the TA. Step down now as you're making a mockery of yourselves and Stuytown.

Anonymous said...

Re: Guterman's explanation of how a conversion plan works.

No one, not even the TA, has suggested otherwise. Anyone who can access this blog can find out the laws governing condo and coop conversions in this state. No one needs to be in the dark.

Last time Guterman inserted himself in this debate, he mentioned, if I recall correctly, a possible selling price of $315/sq ft. That couldn't possibly have been an offer because no offer can be made to residents until the AG approves an offering.

As for how the advisers get paid, I too would like a clearer explanation. Guterman seems to be saying that they will take on the work on a contingency basis--but only partially. So it sounds like a fee up front with some sort of payment later. How much of a percentage of the monies will these firms and individuals get? This is all very murky.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>STR: can you ask Mr G. for a one page flyer in pdf format either directing tents to your website or another where tenants can read up on the prospective agreement. I, and probably other, can then print out the flyer and slip it under the doors of our neighbors. For example I live in one of the Stuy Oval building and have about 105 units in the building. I can print 105 copies of the flyer and slip it under the doors of each unit (not in the hallway or elevators because the TA will probably take them down).<<

Good idea. I'm pretty sure Guterman will read your comment.

Anonymous said...

TO STR...when someone like Mr Guterman puts himself on the line, the nature of the forum changes. It becomes more of a business meeting. If we were dealing with each other live, someone would be keeping order. And those out of order would be immediately chastised by the chair and by others. In my opinion you are the chair and you ought to be filtering out anyone who does express with businesslike courtesy. Without this, what Mr Guterman proposes hasn't a chance.

Anonymous said...

Guterman said....

Anonymous said...."As for how the advisers get paid, I too would like a clearer explanation. Guterman seems to be saying that they will take on the work on a contingency basis--but only partially. So it sounds like a fee up front with some sort of payment later. How much of a percentage of the monies will these firms and individuals get? This is all very murky".

To Anonymous....I thought I was and continue to be "crystal" clear. Guterman Partners is offering a "fee paid" Consulting Representation. There has never been any suggestion of a contingency payment to our Firm and you can expect our Firm to live to our Agreement.

As to Contingency Fees payable to Attorneys, Engineers and Accountants....

We expect that some of you will be critical of any Percentage Agreement that we suggest.

However, we continue to believe that "success based" fees are important to the ultimate results. The participating Professionals deserve and are entitled to a significant portion of a Settlement or Court ordered payment.

From where I am standing, your present situation is at least "Poor" and at worst...a "Disaster". So....what do you really have to lose?

There are those with a "Hidden Agenda" who will try to find every small or insignificant point for the sake of trying to weaken the resolve of the large majority of the tenants in this Community. To those with such an agenda, I would suggest only one action available....

Gerald Guterman

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous 4" here. Your answer to my question includes a lot of words, many in BLOCK CAPS, but I don't see that you answered the question I asked at all.

This was my question: "You say that you will 'Advise you [the tenants] (if we are not acting as sponsors) on any proposed conversion to ownership housing.' Your use of the word 'if' in that sentence makes it sound as if you have not yet made a final decision on whether you might act as a sponsor in a conversion. Is that the case? Is it still possible that you and your colleagues will make a bid to buy PCVST?"

If it makes it easier, just answer the last part of my comment: Is it still possible that you and your colleagues will make a bid to buy PCVST?

Anonymous said...

​Mr. Guternman, I have some questions on your answer to Anonymous 2, who asked about how the professionals you propose to hire (the "several different law firms and several engineering firms, each with a certain specialty," as well as the accountants) will be paid.

- When you talk about success-based fees, are you talking about a contingency fee arrangement?

- If the answer to the previous question is "yes," what percentage of the fees will be paid on a contingency basis?

- As to the remaining portion -- the fees that will not be paid on a contingency basis -- will you and your colleagues be paying all of those fees out of the fees that we tenants will be paying to you?

- Is there any risk to the tenants that they will have to pay ANY portion of the fees to this small army of professionals? If so, please be specific about how much we might have to pay.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Guterman, is the Town & Village newspaper correct when it says that your position is that "Tenants should organize and demand conversion"? (Click here for the full article.)

If so, who exactly would be putting up the money and making the bid? You? Or . . . who?

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>TO STR...when someone like Mr Guterman puts himself on the line, the nature of the forum changes. It becomes more of a business meeting. If we were dealing with each other live, someone would be keeping order. And those out of order would be immediately chastised by the chair and by others. In my opinion you are the chair and you ought to be filtering out anyone who does express with businesslike courtesy. Without this, what Mr Guterman proposes hasn't a chance.<<

I am filtering. You just don't see it. I agree with you, but I also am not going to filter comments that have concerns about the Guterman plan or that don't think it will work. But, yes, I am filtering.

Gerald Guterman said...


Anonymous 4. Concerning Guterman Partners making a bid. It is highly unlikely, but not impossible.

Anonymous 2. Success based fee means "contingency fee". Any depositto professionals will be paid by Guterman Partners from the Consulting Fee and repayable to Guterman Partners by the professionals, upon their receipt of the success based fee.

There is no risk to tenants for payment of any portion of the success based fee, except from the proceeds awarded by a Court or a settlement agreement.

Organize and demand Conversion:
A tenant group properly organized, can successfully work with an Owner/Sponsor to complete a conversion to ownership housing. However, the percentage of acknowledged tenant buyers will have to be at least 65% to as much as 75% of the total number of tenants.

Therefore, purchase price, carrying costs and financing will have to be worked out in advance, so that the largest number of tenants will have a very significant monitary incentive to purchase for their residence or for resale.

Gerald Guterman

Gerald Guterman said...

STR: can you ask Mr G. for a one page flyer in pdf format either directing tenants to your website or another where tenants can read up on the prospective agreement. I, and probably others, can then print out the flyer and slip it under the doors of our neighbors. For example I live in one of the Stuy Oval building and have about 105 units in the building. I can print 105 copies of the flyer and slip it under the doors of each unit (not in the hallway or elevators because the TA will probably take them down).<<

Guterman said....The tenants as a group have received enough information from me, to direct other tenants to read the comments and answers and to read the Consulting Agreement published twice on The Stuyvesant Town Report. STR has even twice provided a direct link to print the Agreement.

I have taken all of the steps reasonably necessary to secure tenant participation.

Gerald Guterman

Anonymous said...

No block caps! John Marsh will lose his mind!!!

Anonymous said...

You're filtering? What about 12:27 saying Mr Guterman is angling to be head of the TA? Very funny. Comments like that lead to nothing, have no substance, and have no place in a business discussion. Would much prefer stuff like this gets dropped.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Guterman, in your answer to Anonymous 2, you said: "I mean that the legal fees, engineering fees and accounting fees, will be paid from the results of litigation not discussed here."

I am confused by the word "not" in that sentence. If the litigation has not been discussed here, then what litigation are you talking about? Or did you use the word "not" by mistake? (I'm thinking the latter, but -- I don't know!)

Anonymous said...

Mr. Guterman:

One of the commenters here wrote, in part: "As for how the advisers get paid, I too would like a clearer explanation. Guterman seems to be saying that they will take on the work on a contingency basis--but only partially."

In your answer to that comment, you started by saying that you had been crystal clear that you and your partners would not be working on a contingency basis. But I really don't think the person who wrote the comment was under that mis-impression. I did not write the comment, but it seems pretty clear to me that the person who did write it was talking about the advisers -- the lawyers, engineers, and accountants -- that you have been talking about.

You then go on to defend the use of contingency agreements for those advisers. But I don't think the commenter was asking about the use of contingency agreements as a general litigation payment method. Rather, I think he or she was talking about how you seem to be saying that only a portion of the fees will be paid on contingency, and that the rest of the fees will be paid up front. But how much of the fees will have to be paid up front? I agree with the person who posted that comment -- it is all pretty murky.

I apologize to the commenter if I am mis-reading his or her comment, but honestly, I think that you mis-read it, Mr. Guterman, which means that your answer was not helpful.

And finally -- why not tell us what the contingency percentage would be, for the portion of the fees that will be paid that way? One third? One half? If you don't know, fine, but at least give us a ballpark.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>You're filtering? What about 12:27 saying Mr Guterman is angling to be head of the TA? Very funny. Comments like that lead to nothing, have no substance, and have no place in a business discussion. Would much prefer stuff like this gets dropped.<<

Hardly a comment to get that upset about. Look, I've spent a lot of my time posting these things for Mr. Guterman, which sometimes have to be reformatted to appear here. I could just has well say, "No, thank you," and post photos of the complex. Or I could just decide to move on. Give me a break about being a perfect filterer.

Anonymous said...

"I have taken all of the steps reasonably necessary to secure tenant participation."

Mr. Guterman, that is obviously your call -- this is your proposal, after all -- but how many tenants do you think read this blog?

Anonymous said...

"Organize and demand Conversion:
"A tenant group properly organized, can successfully work with an Owner/Sponsor to complete a conversion to ownership housing. However, the percentage of acknowledged tenant buyers will have to be at least 65% to as much as 75% of the total number of tenants.

"Therefore, purchase price, carrying costs and financing will have to be worked out in advance, so that the largest number of tenants will have a very significant monitary incentive to purchase for their residence or for resale."

Mr. Guterman, what does this all mean?

Who will this Owner/Sponsor be? I have read about Fortress possibly making a bid -- is that who you have in mind? Or Brookfield?

If not either of those parties, then who?

Anonymous said...

Mr. Guterman,

How would tenants "demand" a conversion?

Anonymous said...

Why aren't all tenants sending rent checks to the same place?

Anonymous said...

At his juncture tenants with legitimate questions should email questions to Mr Guterman directly. If its something other tenants benefit from knowing then write about it or as Mr Guterman to write about it on here. Some of these questions above seem to be from the TA trying to poke holes in any attempt by tenants to get at the Truth and to Preserve Our Community.

Anonymous said...

"10:17 lolllll I know. Remember the funny meeting they held on the corner of 16th Str re: conversion? It was such a joke.
They meant no harm, they're just dumb enough to believe CWC when they said they'd consider a conversion! omg, hilarious the Tenants Assoc here is that dumb and gullible. How totally unprofessional and childish. In fact, even a 10 year old would have been smarter at that. For shame to the TA. Step down now as you're making a mockery of yourselves and Stuytown."

Remember the funny meeting? I sure do, I was there. I wonder if the TA would even acknowledge that it ever took place. I do not begrudge them for trying to get things done. That is, after all, their job. I do take exception to the way they conveniently make believe certain things never happened after people in this project spent a great deal of money staying on as a result of the messages they got from them.

Anonymous said...

August 24, 2014 at 9:39 PM

I was only half intending to be funny. What Guterman is attempting is to set up an alternate TA with a discounted membership fee to do who knows what exactly. But you know that. Shill.

Anonymous said...

August 24, 2014 at 9:39 PM

Me again. I should have been clearer. Guterman IS trying to set up an alternate TA and those $10 are membership dues. He will then claim to represent tenants in whatever not very clearly spelled deal he's intending to try to make that will enrich him and his LLC.

Anonymous said...

Comments like that lead to nothing, have no substance, and have no place in a business discussion.

Who elected you Hall Monitor?

Anonymous said...

All these shill comments and other such characterizations get us nowhere. In this case, deal with content, not with name calling. Name calling just makes you look like you come from the TA.

Anonymous said...

The difference I see between the TA and what Guterman is doing is this:

The TA set up makes us sign a pledge saying they will speak for us with City Agencies (to shut us up). Then they betray us by not representing our needs but instead representing their wants.

Guterman is setting it up by giving you ways to speak up for yourself and for the collective to speak up for the community. Guterman is not taking away our right to speak for ourselves like the TA is.

That is a very big difference.

Anonymous said...

10 27 you are so right. And not only that, they never mentioned the lies again. No apology, no we're still working for etc etc. Anyone who is still with them is not to be trusted imho at this point.

Why haven't they addressed those words they spoke back then and why haven't they tried to roll back rents, challenge CW ?

Anonymous said...

Can we set up another FB site re; this and our own "STPC group" to discuss this and other issues at hand?

Anonymous said...

@9:39 start your own blog then. Oh wait, that's right, it's work. Thank you STR for the long hours you put in!

Anonymous said...

What she said. And what's with the TRICKERY of the current price we are now renting at and WHAT will the rent be like in 5 months at our renewal time?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Why aren't all tenants sending rent checks to the same place?

August 25, 2014 at 8:49 AM

I don't know why but we've been sending checks made out to different names for years. Now in PCV our checks are made out to PCVST-DIL LLC (it used to be PCV ST Owner LP and before that it was something else). DIL stands for deed in lieu (the maneuver CW used to transfer ownership), LLC stands for limited liability company and LP stands for limited partnership.

Anonymous said...

"what's with the TRICKERY of the current price we are now renting at and WHAT will the rent be like in 5 months at our renewal time?"

If you really want an answer to this here, you should say if you're paying a preferential rent that's much lower than the legal rent. Both amounts are specified on your lease. If that's the case, possibly you were lied to by the leasing office (that your rent wouldn't go up too much). Or more likely these days, you didn't realize or understand when you signed your lease that your rent could go up to the legal rent on renewal plus the RGB increase.

Anonymous said...

August 25, 2014 at 12:39 PM

You think there would be no difference? Beware the wolf in sheep's clothing.

Anonymous said...

We were lied to about the rent. NOW WHAT -

Anonymous said...

Call me crazy (and I'm sure someone will), but I've gotten the funny feeling that this whole Guterman thing could be a hoax (sorry, STR). What makes me think that? On Guterman's site I watched a video of Guterman doing an interview on a financial news program and he sounded much more pulled-together and more responsible than he does in his postings here (operative word: sounded). His latest contract posted here doesn't have a street address. The terms of the contract are too vague for someone who's been in business as long as Guterman. When he rented the QE2 for his son's bar mitzvah, I'd bet everything was spelled out in excruciating detail. Someone who's computer savvy could set up the email address in his name. He's chosen to communicate via a blog that probably doesn't reach anywhere near the 5,000 apartments he needs to sign on to his arrangement. In the past every apartment got a letter--which has been pointed out here costs money. Crazier things have happened.

Anonymous said...

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THEY PAY. Our Landlord will increase the rent with a huge increase, or an mCi, or an a/c charge, or more and more.

Wait & see folks. You are in for a bigger surprise from this LL>

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>Call me crazy (and I'm sure someone will), but I've gotten the funny feeling that this whole Guterman thing could be a hoax (sorry, STR).<<

It's not. But people can communicate with Guterman and found out for themselves.