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, October 4, 2014

Follow the Trail to Find Whether Councilman Dan Garodnick Voted for NYU's Controversial Plan to Remove Current Park and Playground Space

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/henry-stern-de-blasio-side-villagers-nyu-article-1.1962540

From the above opinion piece by Henry Stern, former city parks commissioner:

LaGuardia Park, LaGuardia Gardens and Mercer Playground are in NYU’s crosshairs for development. The university claims they’re not really parks — based on the fact that they’re technically overseen by the city’s Department of Transportation.
 
That argument holds no water. Not every slice of open public land is technically part of the city’s official park portfolio, but it’s how the space is used by the community that determines its status.
 
In this case, even though the strips of land in question were never formally turned over to the city’s Parks Department — as Parks Commissioner for 14 years, I tried repeatedly to make this happen — they have been used by the community as parks for decades.
 
A recent decision in state court set back NYU’s plans — by declaring that LaGuardia Park, LaGuardia Gardens and Mercer Playground are, in fact, entitled to basic protections as public space.
 
The city is now appealing that court’s decision, fighting in court on the same side as NYU. If successful, not only could the already scant open space available in the area become greatly diminished, it would be a continued violation of the Public Trust Doctrine.
 
That doctrine, which dates back to the time of the Roman Empire, is a crucial part of America’s common law tradition. It maintains that the government holds the titles to certain waters and lands in trust for the people. 

This has evolved to extend protection to scenic resources, open space in general, energy generation and preservation of ecosystems and historical sites.
 
In New York State, if an entity wishes to develop or remove a parcel of parkland from public ownership and use, it must follow a legal process called “alienation,” which, among other conditions, requires approval from the state Legislature.
 
Not only did NYU fail to take these steps, but our City Council then blatantly disregarded its obligations.

Naturally, I'd like to know how our City Councilman Dan Garodnick voted on the issue. It took a bit of time. Click on "Action Details" on the line that has City Council to find the answer:

 http://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=1154264&GUID=6B49A1B7-9F3D-49EF-8BE1-807DB445FB09&Options=ID|Text|&Search=Ulurp

The petition against the City Council, among other person and entities, which Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Donna Mills ruled on:
Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Donna Mills rule

http://www.gvshp.org/_gvshp/preservation/nyu/doc/petition-09-24-12.pdf

169 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yes, he did. I'm not surprised because I think that he is a two-faced, opportunistic little jerk. I can't wait for his third term to be over and for him to disappear from view. If he ever runs for office again I will personally campaign for whomever is running against him, even if it is a republican. I totally loathe Garodnick, Brewer, et al. Such a bunch of lying, conniving lowlifes.

Anonymous said...

Years ago Trump was granted a variance to put in a huge, disproportionate building on the west end of Spring St. All surroundings about 20 stories tall; Trump's is 46. He wanted condos but for strict zoning reasons he had to designate the place a condo-hotel. Owners are supposed to live there a max of 6 months per year, can rent out for the rest. It was all just corrupt bullshit under Bloomberg. Anyone really tracking how long owners live there?? The corruption on so many levels in NYC has gone on unquestioned for far too long. Look how many on the council voted for the conversion of these parks. Throw all the bums out.

Anonymous said...

NY and NYC has been corrupt for so many years. Google states with most corrupt politicians. No one talks about it since we're all so BLUE. Laughable.

Anonymous said...

This makes me sick and so does the Trump comment. We need Preet to investigate REBNY now and stop this corruption. Did you read the complaint? Quinn removed the public from the chambers for the NYU vote then tried to sneak the NYU people back into the chambers to hear the vote while leaving the constituents out in the hall and not one council member on that list said it was wrong to do that to their constituents.

Anonymous said...

Candidate for NYC Mayor and/or beyond?

NYU - Endorsement - Essential - Check
REBNY - $$$ - Essential - Check
ST-PCV Residents - Not Essential - Who Cares?

Anonymous said...

Bears Repeating

Blogger Stuy Town Reporter said...

You are wrong. ST is not just affordable ONLY to me. There are many, many long-term RS tenants with similar rents. Yes, we are currently protected, but the less of us, the more apartments go out of true RS. I'm "protecting" affordable housing, therefore, which our TA and politicians should be protecting, too.

The TA and our politicians should also be suing our present and past landlords in a massive lawsuit that tacks on every abuse and illegality that can be uncovered here, including the rental of apartments to transients who exceed the three unrelated persons law. And all those DoB filings for partitions should be examined. Add on the harassment of tenants through continual and excessive construction noise, the lack of proper laundry facilities, the lethargic renewal of all facilities in Peter Cooper Village post-Sandy, etc., etc. Ideally the city should take over ST/PCV, lower rents for "market-rate tenants" and throw the bums out who have been using this property as a cash cow at the expense of its middle and working class tenants.

October 5, 2014 at 8:51 AM

Anonymous said...

"The TA and our politicians should also be suing our present and past landlords in a massive lawsuit that tacks on every abuse and illegality that can be uncovered here, including the rental of apartments to transients who exceed the three unrelated persons law. And all those DoB filings for partitions should be examined. Add on the harassment of tenants through continual and excessive construction noise, the lack of proper laundry facilities, the lethargic renewal of all facilities in Peter Cooper Village post-Sandy, etc., etc. Ideally the city should take over ST/PCV, lower rents for "market-rate tenants" and throw the bums out who have been using this property as a cash cow at the expense of its middle and working class tenants."

ABSOLUTELY SPOT ON!!!

Anonymous said...

Dirty little man.

Anonymous said...

Thank you STR for doing the research and posting the links and information on the Greenwich Village struggle and fight to protect their parks and open space the City council is selling to the highest bidder again and again. It is horrifying how the City Council illegally approved this plan for their Sexton buddy and his cronies.

Greenwich Village is fighting with a lawsuit in the courts, Riverton is fighting with a lawsuit in the courts, ...

Anonymous said...

How and how much NYU funnels through its non-profits in some of its real estate and tax scams

http://wallstreetonparade.com/2013/06/nyu-channels-wall-street-new-documents-show-lavish-pay-perks-and-secret-deals/

From the hundreds of records examined, NYU, under the leadership of President John Sexton, looks like a real estate developer in drag as a university. According to its federal tax returns from 2006 through 2010 – just a five year period, its five highest paid independent contractors received over $568 million for construction work and an eye-popping $173 million to clean its buildings.

Last year, Newsweek magazine ranked NYU as the fourth least affordable university in the country with an annual on-campus cost of $58,858.

Sitting in close geographic proximity to the rapacious denizens of Wall Street, with a Board sprinkled with the chummy financial titans and chaired by their go-to legal counsel, Martin Lipton, it seemed only a matter of time before NYU would succumb to Wall Street’s brand of crony capitalism as a business model.

NYU also adopted the Wall Street catchphrase, globalism, with NYU campuses spreading to Abu Dhabi and Shanghai and international academic centers springing up in far flung locales like Buenos Aires, Prague and Tel Aviv.


Anonymous Comment
NYU is FAILING ITS STUDENTS, FAILING in NATIONAL RANKINGS, FAILING ITS COMMUNITIES,
and they made middle class tenants here pay for their CAMPUS water valves and security for their dorms because no one stopped them.

NYU HAS BECOME THE POSTER CHILD FOR CORRUPT UNIVERSITIES.



Anonymous said...

I wish to God we had a councilman and a TA like they have at Riverton. What we have are an opportunistic predator of a councilman who is trying to make money for his pals and is pandering to CW in the [false] hope that they will look with favor on his plans FOR US and a TA that isn't even worthy of being called a TA because they are devout followers of the Garodnick Cult of Conversion.

Anonymous said...

4:56 Good Lord stop. You're going on and on about a conversion for what reason? When cows fly. It won't happen. Focus on reality.

Anonymous said...

Garodnick is part of the corrupt culture that panders to John Sexton and the filth at REBNY.

Giovanni said...

Trump Soho just went into foreclosure a few weeks ago, the property is being auctioned off. Sound familiar? This was the big project that was featured on the first season of The Apprentice back in 2006.

The bottom line is there is now an oversized luxury condo with almost no one living there except for the transient hotel guests.

Between this disaster and his bankrupt casinos, Trump better stick to trying to find Obama's birth certificate.

via the WSJ:

Trump SoHo Hotel Lender Plans to Put Property Up for Sale

CIM Group is Foreclosing on the New York 'Condo-Hotel' and Will Auction It Off

Trump SoHo has had success as a luxury hotel, but the developers have struggled from the start to sell condo-hotel units. Buyers may use their units up to 120 days a year. The rest of the time, the units serve as hotel rooms, with owners and the developers sharing the profit.

Less than one-third of the hotel's 391 units have been sold, said people close to the property.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/trump-soho-hotel-lender-plans-to-put-property-up-for-sale-1410885344

So much for the zoning variance

Anonymous said...

Let the TA focus on reality. Forget the conversion crap and focus on the egregious abuses committed by CW/CR. Dump Garodnick.

Anonymous said...

Hey Danny boy,

Are you going to help us fight this new bogus BUILDING FACADE MCI?

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the Trump Soho update. One construction worker fell & died on the project. The whole hotel-condo variance was bogus. Now in foreclose and the NY skyline left with a 46 story eyesore, out of proportion with all its surroundings. So city council & mayor Bloomberg....worth it?

Anonymous said...

Dan is too busy getting the ice skating rink ready.

Anonymous said...

Hate to break it to the anti conversion group, but the TA ain't working on a conversion. Stop.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

The most recent mailing from the TA states they are still hopeful and working toward condo conversion for the tenants that want it.

Anonymous said...

you really think they're working on that or anything for us?

Anonymous said...

"The most recent mailing from the TA states they are still hopeful and working toward condo conversion for the tenants that want it."

They are clearly NOT a tenants association any more. They are so hellbent on getting a conversion and that slimy little Garodnick is leading them by the nose because it is going to mean so much profit for himself, his former law firm and a couple of other pals who have an interest in making $$$$$ off of a conversion. The TA disgusts me and so does Garodnick.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

I dunno how much profit Garodnick will make, but I'm sure he'd buy his apartment.

Anonymous said...

No. CWC is not selling to the tenants and there won't be a conversion. Sigh - this silly conversation is getting old.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

I'm sure you're right. But there may be an outside .01% chance, no?

Anonymous said...

Dan buy his apartment? Why does he have to - since we're all RS now and thus so is he.

Anonymous said...

Maybe when pigs fly.

Anonymous said...

Take a good looking on what's going on around here, OUR HOMES.
Do you really think "they" are going to sell to us? With all the s*$@?%1 that is being done here? I don't think so. Sorry................. Could be wrong though.............

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>Dan buy his apartment? Why does he have to - since we're all RS now and thus so is he.<<

If this place ever went condo, which is very doubtful, Dan would buy.

Anonymous said...

After Hours Construction

http://www.nyc.gov/html/mancb4/downloads/pdf/agendas/2013_06/14-QoL-Letter%20to%20%20DOB%20and%20DOT%20re%20re%20after-hours%20variances.pdf
Manhattan Community Board 4 (CB4) requests
immediate changes to the method by which
after-hours variances (AHVs) are issued by the Ne
w York City Department of Buildings (DOB)
and Transportation (DOT) in District 4. We reque
st that AHV for night work on a given block or
a given street, by both DOB and/or DOT be appr
oved for duration of no more than seven (7)
days out of any rolling 30 days on a certain
block, and weekend work be approved for no more
than one weekend out of four cons
ecutive weekends. This is acutely
needed in our district where
so many massive projects are underway as a
result of the rezoning on the west side.
MCB4 therefore urgently requests that DOB does everything in its power to ensure that
new construction does not disrupt residential
communities more than absolutely necessary

Our neighbors on the office building site had two to four weeks straight of after hours work and weekend work.

Who are the politicians signing these permits - is it the manahattan borough president and who is that?

Anonymous said...

October 5, 2014 at 4:56 PM

The City Councilman for Riverton also voted "yes"on Res 1469-2012. The only "no" vote on the entire city council came from Charles Barron, who was at the time repping Brooklyn's 42nd District.

Anonymous said...

The Awesome Greenwich Village is suing the entire City Council for their RE wheelings and dealings against communities! Wish we had your balls!

Anonymous said...

Our interior has just been repainted, recarpeted. There was no need to replace the carpet. That notwithstanding, the net result is ugly. Light yellow walls, light blue-gray doors and trim, textured light gray carpet. A low contrast eyesore. Totally tasteless. Nothing about this looks luxury. But it does look somewhat institutional...just like...guess what....a dorm. So I figure it's already been determined. The sale will be to Fortress. Will keep it rental for more students and more bogus MCIs.

Anonymous said...

REBNY owned the City Council the entire Bloomberg era. Corruption at its worst and no representation of the people. It should be abolished.

Anonymous said...

"If this place ever went condo, which is very doubtful, Dan would buy."

I heard he has family members here too. I'm sure he would help them buy.

Anonymous said...

What in the world is going on in front of 17A Stuyvesant Oval. They are tearing up the sidewalk again.

Anonymous said...

Every time I walk by their signs and read their press releases saying "Your" oval, "Your" management office, "Your" study space, "Your" Tenant Association, "Your" home to rent, ...
All I see is YOUR alliance. None of this is for us not the new building for the office or even the TA.

Anonymous said...

Tiny fines for construction company cover up of asbestos is incentive to cover up again. PCVST own so called Big Dig site posted then removed the contaminated soil mention on their blog. The cover up runs deep and the fines are a joke.

http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20141006/fort-wadsworth/construction-crew-hit-with-67k-fines-after-lying-about-asbestos-city

Anonymous said...

"Your" money paying for every MCI until the end of time.

Anonymous said...

Any other building receive this new MCI notice? I know of only 2.
1 in ST and 1 in PCV.
Please let us know.

Anonymous said...

What in the world is going on with that big construction hole in front of 17A stuy oval?
More construction. IT DOES NOT STOP HERE!

Anonymous said...

A Brooklyn landlord accused of trying to push out tenants in rent-stabilized apartments has signed an agreement with the state’s Tenant Protection Unit to end the alleged harassment.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced on Wednesday that landlord Yeshaya Wasserman agreed to end the reported harassment and intimidation of tenants in Flatbush and Crown Heights.

“Everyone deserves a safe, affordable place to live and this administration will not tolerate landlords who seek to harass and bully tenants out of their homes,” Cuomo said. “We created the Tenant Protection Unit
to make it clear to all landlords that the State would hold them accountable for their actions. This settlement is tough, fair and should serve as a reminder that our administration is not afraid to stand up for all New Yorkers.”

Anonymous said...

Meanwhile, somewhere far, far away on a remote exotic tropical beach, Mr. Guterman is sipping on a nice cold piña colada and saying, " I told you so."

Stuy Town Reporter said...

A lot of people have been saying "I told you so." But serious action does not involve soliciting a plan through a blog--and that's it.

Anonymous said...

"A lot of people have been saying "I told you so." But serious action does not involve soliciting a plan through a blog--and that's it."

After the shambolic and unprofessional way Mr. Guterman went about pushing his plan on STR's blog, together with his weird, money-soliciting "agreement," I will never even read another post from him or about him!

Anonymous said...

According to the internet Mr G is around 75 years old. What he was offering is his knowledge, advise, and brainpower. We should have tapped into that and used his knowledge instead we expected him to run the show. Its our show - we should run it and get his advise. Enough with expecting a 75 year old man to do it for us.

Gerald Guterman
Gerald Guterman is an international real estate developer and investor. He is one of the largest co-op and condominium converters in the United States. Wikipedia
Born: 1941, Brooklyn, NY

Anonymous said...

8:06 your comment is offensive, selfish, entitled, and unprofessional. You must be TA as you are trying to discredit the only person who tried to help tenants. Your comment is shameful and a disgrace.

Anonymous said...

I agree with 8:17. However, I'll be happy if Mr Guterman has indeed dropped his effort. I understand that when someone takes a shot the way he did, you have to expect any number of responses from the audience. There's no way of knowing if the rudeness came from TA sympathizers but suffice it to say, it was posted. The general insistence by some that a guy like Guterman has to do a better job coordinating in order to help us when it is OUR homes at risk OUR community at risk....makes no sense. But it's over now. Best dropped and forgotten.

Anonymous said...

The comment by 8:06 is despicable and not reflective of me, my neighbors, this community.

Whether or not you agree with the way he went about trying to help us, he was trying to help us. You 8:06 are harshly disparaging him personally because you don't want anyone helping the tenants in any way.

Anonymous said...

I think we should adjust our expectations of Mr Guterman and see if Mr Guterman will advise us on the ways we can use the system as well as RE uses it against us.

Anonymous said...

Dan was trying to help us.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

I disagree with everything 8:06 says and hope you are not my neighbor or in my building. It is unfortunate you are in this community.

Anonymous said...

I would like to propose to STR that every future post on this blog mention Mr Guterman in some indirect way just so that the rude 8:06 troll never reads nor comments here again.

People who are not even willing to have a respectful and open debate with people they may not agree with are not here to promote ideas or to find solutions, they are just here to destroy new ideas and to shut the discussion down.

2+ year resident of ST said...

Nothing that 8:06 said is out of line - except to the Guterman shill or shills who monitor, or should I say infest, this blog. Unless you are the one and only person who signed onto the Guterman plan I doubt you even live in ST-PCV 10:21, 8:55, 11:04, and 12:27.

25+ year resident of ST said...

That should have read 25+ years, not 2+.

Anonymous said...

Now we get a new and increased a/c/ charge set by the DHCR. ASsholes as we know this is part of the scam. Now you'll be paying $36.63 per month per a/c.

Anonymous said...

Dear 1:03 PM

I'd like to propose that you shut the hell up. We are not employees of G Guterman, we are residents of ST-PCV and as such have every right to express our opinions even if they upset your boss.

Anonymous said...

We need Guterman's knowledge on fighting the corrupt DHCR COB NYC/Albany system and its commissioners that are robbing us blind.

Anonymous said...

Everything 8:06 said is repulsive and not how grown ups behave.

Anonymous said...

The a/c charge is always around $20 - $25 per month for 12 months. It is unusually high already. To raise it by 50+ % to $36 warrants an explanation as that is glaringly wrong.

This charge applies to all RS apartments in the city, yes? What does Riverton have to say about this charge? We need to ask them how they are addressing it and follow their lead. We need a nonTA PCVST person in touch with Riverton.

Anonymous said...

Thanks STR for posting this. It is appalling how the City Council voted and how they went about their vote. Good for Greenwich Village for suing the corrupt City Council! Agree - out with all of them and in with new ones who know their job is to serve the people not make business deals for their buddies who fill their heavily greased coffers.

Anonymous said...

Commentators trying to protect affordable housing, thank you for doing what you do and please be very careful.
You are being targeted by all those pushing for the Brookfield RE deal.
I am no longer and will never again be a member of them.

Anonymous said...

To the person who keeps posting negative remarks about Mr Guterman...keeping on posting them. Everyone should know that each post is just another red mark, another negative against the TA because you are surely from the TA-Garodnick camp trying to malign someone who offered an alternative to your less than effective work.

Anonymous said...

A new a/c charge IN ADDITION to this new MCI pending charge? Where do they think we are going to get this extra money from? I live on a tight budget as is?
I don't know how I am going to afford to live here anymore.
Anyone else feel the same?

Anonymous said...

Thank you DHCR for AGAIN, "rubberstamping" your approval on my new a/c charge for NOT using my a/c from OCTOBER THRU MAY. Three quarters of the year, THREE QUARTERS! THANK YOU. We can ALWAYS count on you for being on the owners side. THANK YOU. Oh, in case I forget, THANK YOU!!!!

Anonymous said...

T.A.? What do YOU have to say regarding this large increase in our new a/c charges? Why soo silent? PLEASE RESPOND.

Anonymous said...

Maybe a small group of us should email Mr G and talk about fighting the MCI charges. With the TA trolls obviously we can't give our names here so let's email him separately and comment on our conversations with him here.

Anonymous said...

Bad News

The City is giving subsidies to the wealthy and programs to the poor and screwing the middle class again. The middle class gets NOTHING. Even the ratio of 20% affordable housing favors the banks and the wealthy and screws the poor as the wealthy are 1% of the population yet they get 80% of the housing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/10/nyregion/policy-change-could-benefit-citys-landlords-and-tenants.html?ref=nyregion&_r=2

Anonymous said...

It appears that all renovated apartments are now getting "indoor" air conditioners
and not the traditional "outside" ones. See where this is all going?
Think the current owners are leaving anytime soon? Another 'major' improvement probably added permanently to the rent.It's getting really bad around here again. Really bad.
WHERE IS THE T.A. TO MAKE ANY STATEMENT(S) AS TO WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON AROUND HERE? WHERE ARE YOU T.A.?

Anonymous said...

F Y I

REBNY pays ZERO taxes because Albany gives them nonprofit status

REBNY members are given millions in subsidies because the rich need to be given tax money or they will "leave"

REBNY paid for lawyers to oppose us on the Roberts Ruling

REBNY members party and dine with the politicians like its their birthday everyday


Time to tax REBNY

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>T.A.? What do YOU have to say regarding this large increase in our new a/c charges? Why soo silent? PLEASE RESPOND.<<

In a previous post where I stated that there was a possibility of an AC increase, one person kept badgering me that I was wrong and doing a disservice to my readers. He, or she, got fairly insulting toward me, which is why I didn't let the comments through. Somehow, I had and have a feeling this was a TA member of "higher standing." I wonder what he or she would say now.

Anonymous said...

YES YES YES.

Very large increase in AC and why???? huh?

TA TA TA, SPEAK UP, DO SOMETHING OR STEP DOWN.

Anonymous said...

and the NEW A/C charge is retroactive. Lmao. Extra charge for last month to all of us.

Anonymous said...

Corruption at Riverton Tenant Association Investigated by DA

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/uptown/east-harlem-tenant-association-worker-fraud-rap-article-1.1958790

East Harlem tenant association treasurer Rita Copeland is charged with stealing tens of thousands in rent program funds
Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. said Copeland used her position in an E. 129th St. apartment building to forge signatures and submit phony documents to the city, stealing $52,000
BY Jan Ransom
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Tuesday, September 30, 2014, 9:45 PM

Anonymous said...

We need transparency from the TA

Their secrecy is suspect.

their behavior on this blog in the comment section is anti-tenant.

Anonymous said...

DHCR Operational Bulletin about the air conditioner charges

Anonymous said...

well, not sure there's a conspiracy, and why would the TA be anti -tenant?

They are just negligent imho.

Anonymous said...

I agree that the TA's secrecy is a bad thing, 5:24 PM. But you don't have to be pro-TA to find Guterman's decision to push his plan via this website a little odd and his and or his "supporters" repetitious hall monitor-like comments on this thread a lot tedious and off-putting.

Anonymous said...

We need to know the formula for determining the a/c charge and to fight it along with the MCI charges. We cannot let the TA "negotiate" for us anymore. What is Mr G's email? Anyone have it?

Anonymous said...

Formula for calculating a/c: Wondering same. How the F did they come up with such a large increase? We get a letter, we get a bill telling us the new numbers of all these increases but with no calculations, nothing! Seriously? We're being played over and over here.

Anonymous said...



"well, not sure there's a conspiracy, and why would the TA be anti -tenant?"

Because banks won't give mortgages to apartment buyers in buildings that are more than 20% renters so both Brookfield and Fortress Compass Rock aligned in efforts since the Tishman foreclosure to churn the property turning buildings closer to 20% renters through massive illegal evictions. No conversion is possible without massive eviction of renters, otherwise known as kicking people out of the sanctity and safety of their homes = anti-tenant.

Anonymous said...

Seems like someone is not doing their job when NY costs for electricity are this far out of whack with the rest of the country. Are there not regulators for this?


The 20.8 cents per kWh New York households paid for electricity in July 2014 was 45.5 percent more than the national average of 14.3 cents per kWh.

Last July, electricity costs were 51.8 percent higher in New York compared to the nation.
average energy prices, new york-northern new jersey-long ...
www.bls.gov/ro2/avgengny.pdf
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Anonymous said...

- 2
-
The 20.8 cents per kWh New York households paid fo
r electricity in July 2014 was 45.5 percent m
ore
than the national average of 14.3 cents per kWh. Last
July, electricity costs we
re 51.8 percent higher in
New York compared to the nation. In
the past five years in the month
of July, prices paid by New York
area consumers for electricity have exceeded the U.
S. average by at least 45 percent. (See chart 2.)

http://www.bls.gov/ro2/avgengny.pdf

Anonymous said...

They are allowed to legally put the electric charge (well played again) as an AC charge. Very sneaky. and so next year it can be as high as $200 a month.

Anonymous said...

No longer buying in to this bad deal.

If the cost of a/c went up that much because the DHCR says the cost of electricity went up that much then these guys are not the brightest by installing electrical neon storefronts and garage signs and the oval stores -- way to up the operating costs.

Between not being shown the finances for the property and having at least three independent auditors analysis of it and a thorough inspection of the property and the $1.9 billion appraisal a few years ago to the highly questionable numbers that led to an appraisal of over $4billion today there is no way any tenant in their right mind would buy in unless they were flipping the apartment. This is not an investment for a community or families who want to raise their kids - its a set up for tenant flippers to increase the facade of an even higher appraisal then to a developer who wants the land.

Anonymous said...

Brookfield wants increased profits which means increased mci charges to tenants which is anti-tenant. Therefore the TA who wants what Brookfield wants is the same.

Anonymous said...

Not to digress but what really bothers me still about our Roberts settlement is I am not sure if us tenants who are shorted should use the same attorney, whether he "got played" or "played along", he is not best suited for the task at hand. It was under his representation we got shorted in the first place, expecting a different outcome in a second attempt with the same representation is nonsensical.

I hoped his offer to represent those shorted was a noble offer and not a way to control the situation steering it to a predetermined outcome but with the way things have gone on this anything less than 110% payment is a failed and we did not go down that road again so we are still angry at being robbed by the settlement.

Anonymous said...

9:19 Good point. I agree this might violate the land deal with the Con Ed plant at our corner. This is not an a/c charge its an electric bill.

Anonymous said...

Marsh lied to my face. That says it all.

Anonymous said...

8;50 am - No. YOur logic makes no sense. If it were true, they'd be warehousing and they are not. Walk in and play tenant seeking housing. They will rent you every and any apartment that is empty. Nice try. Next?

Anonymous said...

ELECTRICITY (WE ERE TOLD) WAS included in the rent. So why am I paying electric?

ONly the a/c was to be separate. LIARS.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>Marsh lied to my face. That says it all.<<

In fairness to Marsh, this needs an explanation, please.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>ELECTRICITY (WE ERE TOLD) WAS included in the rent. So why am I paying electric?

ONly the a/c was to be separate. LIARS.<<

That's still true, no?

Anonymous said...


In fairness to Marsh, this needs an explanation, please.

Don't bother asking him about MCI charges.

Anonymous said...

So now the a/c charge is ac+ electric charge? next up: water bill

Anonymous said...

Renting to transient students/post-grads paying MR to live dormitory style in chopped up apartments is de facto warehousing.

After a conversion plan is filed with NYS AG it will take one year to vacate these units for sale at full market rate prices.

$$$ windfall to Brookfield.

That's why Garodnick-TA-Brookfield are pushing an expensive condo conversion unaffordable to the overwhelming majority of tenants aspiring to ownership/self governance. They are targeting ripped off RS paying MR to achieve 15% overall participation and will price accordingly. If selling a $700,000 MR condo for $695,000 to ripped off RS paying MR rent will generate 15% participation, then $695,000 will be the "reasonable" and "fair" price giving tenants a false option and a false choice.

I want to be an astronaut, but can't afford to pay Russia's $60 million round trip charge. So, it's doubtful I will be an astronaut. But it sure feels good knowing I had the option.

Anonymous said...

3:35 No. There is a windfall for the owners to make in rent alone. They can cash out later with a larger windfall when they sell the land. That'll be 25 years away but a cash cow in the MEANTIME.

Anonymous said...

>>So now the a/c charge is ac+ electric charge?<<

No, the a/c charge is just that. It is not also an electric charge.

Looking back in this thread, I see that the commenter on 10/11 at 9:19 AM said "They are allowed to legally put the electric charge (well played again) as an AC charge." Is that how this rumor got started? 9:19 AM, would you mind saying where in the world you got that from?

Anonymous said...

I don't understand why we have such a big increase in ac charges. Seems like a scam!

Anonymous said...

How do you charge anyone then $73.00 per month x 12 months just for a/c? HOW IS THIS FAIR AND NOT AN OVERCHARGE?
If you can charge a tenant for a/c even when not in use (& at a high rate) seems to make sense that it is an electric charge - not just ac.

Giovanni said...

Where's the person who always complains about the laundry rooms when you need them? The a/c is included, but air conditioners are extra, there is no controversy here.

The issue at hand is the miserable state of the TA leadership in Dan Garodnick and how the city gives developers so many breaks they not only do not deserve but then they abuse in order to tear apart our communities.

The plan to do a condo conversion is being presented by the TA as the only way to save affordable housing. That's like saying the best way to save money is to never spend any of it.

The TA needs to come up with a better solution, but like many other developments the privateers/profiteers have taken control and their "solutions" are the ones that benefit their on pockets. By definition those solutions do nothing to preserve affordable housing. The TA's solution is a condo conversion which turns StuyTown into a commodity, not a community.

If you need a good laundromat there are plenty available in the neighborhood. If you need affordable housing solutions and you go along with what the TA wants to do then stick around, because it is you who will be taken to the cleaners.

Anonymous said...

PCVST should have and should file a lawsuit that is a of the Greenwich Village and Riverton lawsuits. PCVST is overpaying (and has overpaid for years) the illegal MCI charges and their application thereof, the renovation work, along with the illegal leasing practices, and the blatant and brazen City Council acts against the Greenwich Village are committed in PCVST too. The DOB, City Council, RE and TA all had a hand in every action against tenants to get closer to a 80/20 owner renter capacity so banks will agree to mortgages (another proven shady practice).

We in PCVST should either file our own lawsuit or join theirs, both Greenwich Village and Riverton, as there is a lot of evidence here that supports both. We are a combination of those two lawsuits - hit doubly hard.

Anonymous said...

3:35 Genius. Brilliant. Spot on.

Anonymous said...

3:35 you make some very interesting, and I think valid,points. These NYU apartments have the school or and individual as the lease holder? Either way, why wouldn't whomever is on the lease have the legal right to buy in the event of a conversion? If you're correct, and they don't have the right to buy, then I suppose it is de facto warehousing.

8:16 I think you're way off. There are still way too many people like myself who are paying low rents to make remaining a rental viable. Yes, I agree they would like to sell the land in 25 years but it is not a "cash cow" in the meantime. If it were, then I would agree with you. If everyone was a fake R/S renter then yes, but not now, not yet.

Anonymous said...

The city council is supposed to
act in accordance "for the preservation of the public
health, comfort, peace and prosperity of the city and its inhabitants;"

..not to conduct transactions for RE deals for NYU nor Brookfield. The inhabitants are supposed to be the priority. Us.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/charter/downloads/pdf/citycharter2004.pdf

Anonymous said...

CHAPTER 26
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS
§ 641. Department; commissioner. There shall be a department of
buildings, the head of which shall be the commissioner of buildings.
The commissioner shall be a registered architect or a licensed
professional engineer in good standing under the education law.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1837176580996082182&postID=7378615110009658957&page=1&token=1413126691449

The comissioner of DOB who carried out Bloomberg's vision and the PCVST dorm scheme approving hazardous walls constructed for NYU did not meet this requirement.

Anonymous said...

Sec. 31. Size of rooms.

http://www.habitatmag.com/Publication-Content/Habitat-s-Purchasing-Primer-News-for-New-Buyers/New-York-State-Multiple-Dwelling-Law/New-York-State-Multiple-Dwelling-Law-Title-1#.VDqe1lfAETA

6. a. Except in class B dwellings and dormitories, no room shall be occupied for sleeping purposes by more than two adults, considering children of twelve years of age or more as adults and two children between the
ages of two and eleven years inclusive as the equivalent of one adult. Children under two years of age need not be considered as occupants. No room shall have sleeping accommodations for more persons than can be accommodated in conformity with the provisions of this subdivision.b. Every room in every dwelling, whenever erected, shall have at least four hundred cubic feet of air for each adult, and two hundred cubic feet of air for each child occupying such room. Except in class B dwellings, dormitories and except as otherwise provided in subdivision two of section thirty-one or in section thirty-four for dwellings erected after April eighteenth, nineteen hundred twenty-nine, and in sections one hundred seventy-four, two hundred fourteen and two hundred sixteen, every living room shall (1) contain sixty square feet or more of floor space, (2) be at least six feet wide at its narrowest part, (3) if a sleeping room, contain seventy-five square feet or more of floor space and (4) if less than seventy-five square feet in floor area, shall not be occupied by more than one adult.

Anonymous said...

Sec. 56. Frame buildings/extensions.

1. Except as provided in section 193 and subdivision 7 of this section, no frame multiple dwelling shall be erected and no frame dwelling not used as a multiple dwelling on April eighteenth, nineteen hundred twenty-nine, shall be altered or converted to such use or occupancy.

2. No existing frame multiple dwelling shall be increased in height nor shall it be altered to permit a greater occupancy on any story than provided for on April eighteenth, nineteen hundred twenty-nine; except that, if the walls of such a frame dwelling are faced with brick veneer or with another material or combination of materials having a fire resistive rating of at least one hour, and the entrance story thereof is occupied by not more than one family, such entrance story may be altered so that it may be occupied by not more than two families.

3. No frame building of any kind whatsoever shall be placed or built upon the same lot with any multiple dwelling.

4. No multiple dwelling shall be placed or built upon the same lot with any frame building.

5. No frame multiple dwelling, no wooden structure of any kind or class on the same lot with any frame dwelling or with any multiple dwelling, and no other building on the same lot with any frame dwelling, shall be altered or converted so as to be enlarged, extended or increased in height or bulk or in the number of rooms, apartments or dwelling units therein; except that:

a. An extension seventy square feet or less in ground area the side walls of which are of frame and brick filled or of masonry construction may be added to any existing frame multiple dwelling if used solely for bathrooms or water closets; and

b. An extension constructed with fireproof walls may be made to a frame building if the first story of such extension is used solely for business not prohibited by any local law or ordinance, or if such extension contains not more than one living room on any story. No yard or court shall be diminished by such extension so that its area or least dimension is less than required by this chapter for a yard or court of a multiple dwelling erected after April eighteenth, nineteen hundred twenty-nine.

6. None used as a store or other non-residential use to no more than one additional dwelling unit; provided, however, that:

(a) such space has been vacant for at least one year, and

(b) such space has a minimum of three hundred square feet of floor area, and (c) the conversion must be for a class "A" use, and (d) said unit shall contain a cooking space and a complete bathroom, and (e) all walls and ceilings of the new dwelling unit shall be fire-retarded with one hour rated fire-retarding materials, and (f) the height and bulk of the dwelling shall not be increased, and (g) the dwelling will be in full compliance with this chapter and other related and local ordinances, except that the owner of said dwelling shall be entitled to consideration for variances permitted in subdivision one and subparagraph five of paragraph a of subdivision two of section three hundred ten of this chapter for multiple dwellings and buildings existing prior to November first, nineteen hundred forty-nine.

http://www.habitatmag.com/Publication-Content/Habitat-s-Purchasing-Primer-News-for-New-Buyers/New-York-State-Multiple-Dwelling-Law/New-York-State-Multiple-Dwelling-Law-Title-2-Sections-50-59#.VDqgklfAETA

Anonymous said...

http://www.habitatmag.com/Publication-Content/Habitat-s-Purchasing-Primer-News-for-New-Buyers/New-York-State-Multiple-Dwelling-Law/New-York-State-Multiple-Dwelling-Law-Title-2-Sections-50-59#.VDqgklfAETA

Sec. 56. Frame buildings and extensions.

1. Except as provided in section 193 and subdivision 7 of this section, no frame multiple dwelling shall be erected and no frame dwelling not used as a multiple dwelling on April 18, 1929, shall be altered or converted to such use or occupancy.

2. No existing frame multiple dwelling shall be increased in height nor shall it be altered to permit a greater occupancy on any story than provided for on April 18, 1929 except that, if the walls of such a frame dwelling are faced with brick veneer or with another material or combination of materials having a fire resistive rating of at least one hour, and the entrance story thereof is occupied by not more than one family, such entrance story may be altered so that it may be occupied by not more than two families.

3. No frame building of any kind whatsoever shall be placed or built upon the same lot with any multiple dwelling.

4. No multiple dwelling shall be placed or built upon the same lot with any frame building.

5. No frame multiple dwelling, no wooden structure of any kind or class on the same lot with any frame dwelling or with any multiple dwelling, and no other building on the same lot with any frame dwelling, shall be altered or converted so as to be enlarged, extended or increased in height or bulk or in the number of rooms, apartments or dwelling units therein; except that:

a. An extension 70 sq ft or less in ground area side walls of which are of frame and brick filled or of masonry construction may be added to any existing frame multiple dwelling if used solely for bathrooms or water closets; and

b. An extension constructed with fireproof walls may be made to a frame building if the first story of such extension is used solely for business not prohibited by any local law or ordinance, or if such extension contains not more than one living room on any story.

No yard or court shall be diminished by such extension so that its area or least dimension is less than required by this chapter for a yard or court of a multiple dwelling erected after April 18, 1929.

6. None used as a store or other non-residential use to no more than one additional dwelling unit; provided:

(a) such space has been vacant at least 1 year, and

(b) such space has minimum of 300 sq ft floor area, and (c) conversion must be for class "A" use, and (d) said unit shall contain cooking space and complete bathroom (e) all walls and ceilings of the new dwelling unit shall be fire-retarded with 1 hour rated fire-retarding materials, (f) height and bulk of the dwelling shall not be increased, and (g) the dwelling will be in full compliance with this chapter and other related and local ordinances, except that the owner of said dwelling shall be entitled to consideration for variances permitted in subdivision one and subparagraph 5 of paragraph a of subdivision two of section 310 of this chapter for multiple dwellings and buildings existing prior to Nov 1, 1949.

Anonymous said...

10:31 - you are incorrect. Many many more (increases monthly) those paying MR here.

Anonymous said...

zzzzz- there will be no conversion. Get a hold of yourself. Pipe dream of some tenants for 25 years now. Aint' happening. Talk about something more viable.

Anonymous said...

Ahhh, and CR CWC wins again: They annoy the crap out of tenants, continue to slap an mCi or an ac charge or raise the rent up to $500 a month, tenant moves out, yeah!!!! win win, The RS rate gets risen two fold and the new lease gets more obtuse. It's very simple folks, you are being played like a violin over and over.

Anonymous said...

After another totally sleepless night courtesy of hard-partying students (and yes, I know for a fact they are students) notwithstanding Public Safety being called twice, I am wondering why in the hell anyone would want to buy their apartment! Supposing the place did go condo as per the TA's and Goradnick's only interest in the place, what is to stop NYU or some other college from buying up units and making them into permanent dorms?

The TA sucks, Goradnick sucks and I firmly believe that every New York politician, including (maybe especially) our cowardly and corrupt Governor, is owned by the REBNY. The REBNY is to tenants what the Mob used to be to the fish market, garment district, etc.: Total Control or we breaka you legs.

MJB said...

>>How do you charge anyone then $73.00 per month x 12 months just for a/c? HOW IS THIS FAIR AND NOT AN OVERCHARGE? If you can charge a tenant for a/c even when not in use (& at a high rate) seems to make sense that it is an electric charge - not just ac.<<

No.

You really need to read the recent DHCR Operational Bulletin on air conditioner charges to understand how this works.

First, the charge is not $73 per month. It is $36.63 per month, per air conditioner. (But if you have two air conditioners, it is true that the charge would be $73.26 a month.)

Second, a landlord can apply this charge for the use of air conditioners only in "electrical inclusion" buildings, which are buildings where "electricity costs are included in the rent."

I get that the air conditioner charge is high, but that's not because it includes electricity, because it just does not.

Anonymous said...

People need to remove the extra air conditioners. No one needs two air conditioners. One works fine for these size apartments. That is $36 per apartment less a month they can collect from us. So remove the extra air conditioners!

Anonymous said...

"The city council is supposed to
act in accordance "for the preservation of the public
health, comfort, peace and prosperity of the city and its inhabitants;"

..not to conduct transactions for RE deals for NYU nor Brookfield. The inhabitants are supposed to be the priority. Us.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/charter/downloads/pdf/citycharter2004.pdf"

Tell that to the sleazeball, Goradnick! He is Christine Quinn only prettier.

Anonymous said...

AC charge my arse. That is pure horse shit. We are newish tenants who had an uptown apartment prior to this larger than a one br and also with two a/c, with not efficient a/c (Pcv a/c are efficient low energy and do not even cool a one br ) and we never paid $876 a year in the a/c bill. IT IS a rip off. We're being ripped off. We use the a/c in NYc maybe 3 months of the year - the bill is never more than $400 for a year. HOW THE F did this get passed. and why are we laying down to get __ed by these holes over and over. I'm not paying it. I am not paying it.

Anonymous said...

8:04 - remove them how? are you sure that we are allowed? who, what where. Be specific please.

Anonymous said...

Total BULL%$*!%$*!!!!

Anonymous said...

To the TENANTS ASSOCIATION:
With regard to this new MCI application, when old a/c's are taken out of the windows, bricks and the previous MCI work done on the façade are being REMOVED .Soo an argument can be made that how can you be charged for something THAT IS BEING REMOVED. Eventually, all the old a/c's will removed for these new internal a/c's and a lot of this MCI WORK WILL BE MISSING!!!!!! GOT IT?

Anonymous said...

Good call - remove the second air conditioners!

Anonymous said...

Good call - remove the second air conditioners!

Anonymous said...

Garodnick-TA trolls successfully hijacked this thread by steering discussion away from Garodnick corrupted by real estate industry.

100% of ST-PCV is RS. Every ST-PCV resident, no matter how much monthly rent is paid, holds tremendous RS bargaining leverage worth several hundred thousand dollars.

Senator Schumer empowered ST-PCV residents with approximately $3 billion - 3.4 billion to seize control over our destiny. That allocates to approximately $270,000 - $303,000 per apartment. Schumer didn't give it to Garodnick. He didn't give it to the TA. He certainly didn't give it to Brookfield.

We are being defrauded out of our 100% RS leverage and $3-3.4 billion Fannie/Freddie funding.

What should we do?

Let's allow ourselves to be distracted into petty bickering over a monthly air conditioner fee, defective laundry equipment, noisy students, unenforced pet and carpeting regs, etc... all items easily resolved via self governance.

Anonymous said...

Giovanni

Seriously, what other solutions? The mayor acknowledged what everybody remotely familiar with Albany already knows: there will be no rollback of too-high rents in ST-PCV *renovated* apts. So the old unrenovated apts will remain as affordable RS rental housing, but what to do about the approximately 50% of high-rent renovated ST-PCV apts?

I'm not nuts about the TA plan, but I have yet to see here or anywhere else an alternative that makes any sense.

Anonymous said...

11:33 right. Schumer gave it to the tenants. The Tenant Association does not represent us they represent the buyers, Brookfield. and they barely have enough members to matter.

Anonymous said...

It is legal to remove the air conditioners if you own them. Those of us in unrenovated apartments (the real RS units) own our own air conditioners and can do what we want with them. I'm sure management will charge a fee to replace the windows, but that will be a one-time charge.

If you live in one of the so-called "luxury" MR/formerMR/New Stabilizer whatthefuck overpriced units, then the air conditioners are owned by the bloodsuckers and you probably cannot remove them.

Anonymous said...

"all items easily resolved via self governance."

Sorry, but the noncompliance of the QOL regulations here is a major issue, these are not “side shows”. Who the F wants to live here for much longer under these horrifying conditions? You try living being surrounded by “dorm” style apartments, I’d bet you would change your tune. We can chew gum and walk at the same time. This is why the TA's reputation in the shitter right now, no major attention (and current solutions) to the QOL issues. And, sorry, your statement that these issues can solved via self-governance is simple at best; it’s a lot harder than that.

Anonymous said...

"and they barely have enough members to matter. "

Guess what, I posted this before, there won’t be any tenant’s organization, current or future, that has on its membership (or signing an agreement allowing the TA to represent them on an issue) anything more than 10% of the tenants here. Since my own conservative estimate is that at least 35% of the apartments here are dorm style, you can kiss off these parental funded transients, they will never join ANY tenant’s organization. And the other percentages of the tenants here, long term, short term, does not matter, are docile and clueless. So we are back to a 5-10% range at best, shrinking every year, for a tenants association. And again, I am waiting of for all the posters who always just say the TA sucks, to organize an alternative group which I would join. But as usual, nothing ever comes out of that internet rage. BTW, all the Guterman supporters that would post here, only ONE tenant signed the agreement. And please, again, don’t call me a TA troll; again, I was the one who suggested to Guterman to hold a meeting. Which he bailed on.


Anonymous said...

It is not illegal to remove an air conditioner if you follow the procedures.

Anonymous said...

According to this it seems we can't be charged the air conditioner surcharge since it is already in our base rent.

When the owner purchases and installs a new air conditioner
in a vacant apartment, tenant consent is not required for the owner to collect the increase from the next tenant.
This charge becomes part of the Maximum Base Rent (MBR) of a rent controlled apartment or the legal regulated

http://www.nyshcr.org/Rent/factsheets/orafac27.pdf

Anonymous said...

Buying is the only alternative for a growing majority at stpcv. The plain fact is that RS does not and never will offer affordability. So, the idea that a conversion would mean loss of RS stock means absolutely nothing as far as the affordable housing situation.

Anonymous said...

4:16 Did he really bail out on your meeting because I would have attended. Did you speak with him directly or just through the blog commentary section?

Anonymous said...

To the TENANTS ASSOCIATION:
With regard to this new MCI application, when old a/c's are taken out of the windows, bricks and the previous MCI work done on the façade are being REMOVED .Soo an argument can be made that how can you be charged for something THAT IS BEING REMOVED. Eventually, all the old a/c's will removed for these new internal a/c's and a lot of this MCI WORK WILL BE MISSING!!!!!! GOT IT?

Anonymous said...

The tenants association is keeping us all in the dark? Hello?
Where are you?

Anonymous said...

9:25 that simply is not so. Conversion/Buying is the most lucrative option for developers and the least secure option for inhabitants whether buying or renting.

Conversion = great profits and tax reliefs for developers.

Period.

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't buy here if you promised me the moon. (including a normal laundry room). Sorry OCD blogger.

Anonymous said...

9:31 conversion equals mortgage payment not subject to yearly increases, building equity, end of year tax write offs, and incraed control.

Remaing renter means increasingly unaffordable rent payments regardless of RS status.

Period.

Anonymous said...

Conversion is Garodnick's wet dream.

Anonymous said...

4;52 pm Not illegal to remove a/c if you're a newer tenant?

How? if you post , you must type details.

Anonymous said...

http://www.nyshcr.org/Rent/factsheets/orafac27.pdf

WHO IS THIS FOR THOUGH? Older tenants, new leases?

They are purposely attempting to confuse all of us.

Anonymous said...

increased control for dan and ta
not for residents with their 1 little vote
this ta is a wannabe condo board that has run the property into the ground and will continue to bleed residents in the name of profit.
period.

Anonymous said...

I absolutely do not understand how the conversion plan can be considered a good idea unless you are a developer or a wannabe flipper (and I'm not talking about the dolphin). It will be terrible for the real rent stabilized tenants who have been living here for a long time and have their lives invested in the community. I am such a tenant and I know that the best favor I could do for the landlord, Garodnick and the so-called Tenants Association, is just drop dead or move out. They don't care which.

Unfortunately for them, I have no plans to move and am in excellent health at the age of 57. I am so sick of being the target of fucking ghouls and I include the TA and the slimy politicians, especially You-Know-Who. They will have to take me out in a pine box to get my apartment that is my home and which I've lived in for over 30 years.

To CW, Garodnick and the TA: Fuck You, You Bastards.

Anonymous said...

11:04 You are forgetting the monthly maintenance fee which of course will have no transparency in its calculation or logic in its amount.

Anonymous said...

Why didn't anyone take Guterman and his lawyers up on their offer to file a lawsuit?

You will pay through the nose and get what you deserve if you do nothing. We have no balls.

Anonymous said...

Conversion means monthly maintenance subject to arbitrary increases on top of monthly mortgage payment.

Anonymous said...

Yes, conversion is happening and the tenants will pay for it with $3 billion Fannie/Freddie funding delivered to help them by Senator Schumer before it was intercepted and diverted to Brookfield by Garodnick and the TA.

Non-buying RS tenants will get nothing they don't already have.

Ripped off RS paying MR will get ripped off again buying back the same Fannie/Freddie funding Senator Schumer delivered to help them before Garodnick and the TA confiscated it for delivery to Brookfield instead.

Brookfield will get everything for just being Brookfield contributing a small fraction and promising to do nothing that will overtly hurt tenants.

Moelis and Paul Weiss will rake in millions for engineering the scam and making it look legal.

Garodnick and the TA have to get something for betraying their constituents. ???

Anonymous said...

For a growing majority of tenants, RS dies not offer affordability and never will. A conversion, which is inevitable regardless of anyone's wishes, will offer a fixed mortgage, equity, and the GREAT middle class entitlement of writing off your mortgage taxes and a portion of maintenance. If you are content to let the bastards that own the place build all the equity and get all the tax write offs - you are an idiot.

Anonymous said...

I wish the AG would investigate Garodnick and the TA. There is something going on that they are not telling us about, and I don't think it is going to be for the benefit of the tenants and in the interests of "affordable housing."

Anonymous said...

Maloney and Schumer were at our protest rally in May and all the whie they were passing legislation to strip us of protections and enhance developers profits?!! WTF

Anonymous said...

10:01 your majority of tenants are a majority of transient students who do not count and do not get have a say or a vote. Their leaseholder NYU has a say in what happens but I would think they get 1 vote but we all know they think they are above the law and will find a loophole left wide open by Garodnick / Maloney because it benefits developers and not residents.

Anonymous said...

The liabilities and crumbling infrastructure covered with the facade of shiny new commercial buildings outweigh your equity and tax write off here.

Anonymous said...

10 06 please tell us the conspiracy plan you think is going on by the TA. Please - again, also not a TA fan, but come on dude.

Anonymous said...

Wow this is appalling. The City government / RE aligned fighting against the people.

The gov't is supposed to be on the side of the people, to serve the people, to work for the people.

We need to ask ourselves what we can do to help our friends and neighbors in the West Village in their fight against NYU and unfortunately the City government too. NYU owns the City Council.
Wow.

WTF

Anonymous said...

10 06 please tell us the conspiracy plan you think is going on by the TA. Please - again, also not a TA fan, but come on dude.

Anonymous said...

10:01 beg to differ, I'm real RS with monthly rent over 2k now and with endless MCIs's and a payback for the 1% sure to come, I will be unaffordable very soon.

Anonymous said...

Unless you don't have two nickels to rub together, equity and write offs beat renting every time.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone really believe that a conversion spearheaded by a REBNY-owned slimy councilman is going to be good for middle-class renters? I don't think so.

I wish the TA would get off its duff, get rid of the useless lawyer they have and start addressing real concerns, e.g., why are we being ripped off on the a/c charges; why are we getting these nonsense MCIs; why is this place deteriorating into a stinking, unsupervised student dorm?

Anonymous said...

"Their leaseholder NYU has a say in what happens "

There is a lot of BS posted on this site. This is one of them. The vast majority of student rental leases (and they can be other schools such as The New School, Parsons, etc.) here are under the students name’s with their parents guaranteeing the lease. There is a small amount of graduate school apartments that NYU is the leaseholder. See page 218 and pages 362-363 of Charles’s Bagli’s “Other People’s Money”. If fact, as I have posted here before, anyway who thinks they post here with authority but has not read this book is blowing smoke. Does NYU have a major dotted line relationship with CWC/CR? You bet they do. But if you are going to throw around a legal/contract term such as “leaseholder”, you better have your facts straight.

Anonymous said...

The Tenant Association Board trolls are out in full force on this site with a load of BS cover up. There is a lot of merit to what tenants are saying in their comments and they need to act on that, soon.

Anonymous said...

We too are now over 2,000 and climbing pretty fast. We are not the "MR" set but we are moving swiftly away from affordability and real RS.

Anonymous said...

Yes, pure b.s. A lot of people here don't know what they are talking about.

Anonymous said...

Has any other building received an MCI notice? Please indicate your building number

Anonymous said...

By Sabina Mollot
The east side of Peter Cooper Village where there’s currently a spacious lawn could become another playground.

A resident of 8 Peter Cooper Village told Town & Village that last week he saw a man walking around on the lawn between his building and 541 East 20th Street, measuring things like the circumferences of trees and the length of shadows the trees cast. When the resident, who didn’t want his name published, asked the man what he was doing, the reply was that he was an architect hired by CWCapital and that the owner was thinking of turning the lawn into a playground.

According to the resident, who’s since started circulating a petition against changing the lawn to a playground, the green space is already utilized as active play space by kids to play ball. Additionally, he said, the other playgrounds aren’t over-crowded.

“Even people in our building with children are against it,” he fumed. He added, “If I hadn’t asked the guy what he was doing, all of a sudden there would have been bulldozers tearing it up.”

After the conversation with the architect, the resident spoke with fellow PCV resident Council Member Dan Garodnick, who in turn, spoke with management to say he too was opposed to repurposing the green space.

“This is a bad idea and I hope they shelve it,” Garodnick told T&V. “The playgrounds in our community are great. If anything, they should do a better job making sure that people are respecting the rules. As to the green spaces, community members don’t know if they’re for dogs or for people or neither or for both.”

Anonymous said...

A lot of people don't know what their renter's rights are because the buyer's association is keeping renters in the dark and hit bad leasing practices and $ gouging - that is a real crime.

A lot of politicians are opening loopholes for RE to circumvent rules and laws to feed their greed and closing loopholes that protect tenants to squeeze them out of house and home - that is a real crime.

A lot of politicians pass legislation swiftly for RE buddies yet for tenants they wait until it is too late or blame slow moving Albany for why legislation isn't getting through.

A lot of politicians gala-fundraise millions for REBNY and take millions from REBNY while posing with tenants for photo ops decrying REBNYesque antics - that is a real crime.

Anonymous said...

Regarding a complaint filed for overcharges of renovated apartments with DHCR: Who can I speak to about this? Has anyone here filed and what was outcome? It's been months since we sent in paperwork and no reply. Please advise.anyone who has done so or knows. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 10/13 4:53 said: According to this it seems we can't be charged the air conditioner surcharge since it is already in our base rent.

When the owner purchases and installs a new air conditioner in a vacant apartment, tenant consent is not required for the owner to collect the increase from the next tenant.This charge becomes part of the Maximum Base Rent (MBR) of a rent controlled apartment or the legal regulated

http://www.nyshcr.org/Rent/factsheets/orafac27.pdf

You're misunderstanding this. If the owner installs a new A/C in a vacant apartment, 1/60 (formerly 1/40) of the cost becomes part of the permanent rent--it's an Individual Apartment Improvement. That's just the cost of the machine itself and it contributes to getting the rent up. If electricity is included in the rent, the owner can collect a surcharge.

Anonymous said...

On the air conditioners

The charges are shady. Period.

The commentators posting their interpretations as if they are an authority albeit an anonymous authority are trying to convince tenants to take it up the a**

If landlords wanted something they would not take no for an answer.

So if you want to fight the 2nd air conditioner, or to have it removed,or to challenge the outrageously arbitrary electric charge under the disguise of a/c then challenge it. Fight it. and Kill it.

Because clearly 5:01AM is pocketing the $$ and does not want you to find out it can be challenged and reversed and reimbursed.

Anonymous said...

You'll get no replies here or help regarding forms filled out to DHCR from anyone here or in ST.pcv. or even from the TA.

No one wants to help as we're all thrilled you're being overcharged. Someone has to pay the bills here.

Anonymous said...

Garodnick is a self serving skell who is in the pockets of the big builders..follow the money.. When he is done with his meager political career he will end working for one of the big developers. It will be payback for him voting in their favor all these years..