http://www.stuytownpetercooper.com/
Below are several statements made by our buyers Blackstone & Ivanhoé Cambridge. My response follows each statement.
"We are pleased to have the support of Mayor de Blasio, Councilman Garodnick, Senator Schumer, the Tenants Association, and those who call this neighborhood home."
Not so quick, please. "Those who call this neighborhood home" must digest the deal made, questions must be answered, concerns addressed, etc, before you can make such an expansive, positive statement. Frankly, you seem to be trying to fool the non-ST/PCV public and press with such a hasty statement.
"We intend to own STPCV for many years to come, and view this investment as a lasting partnership with the STPCV community."
We who call this place home will see what kind of partnership it will become.
"The same dedicated employees that you know well will continue to deliver high-quality service for all your living needs and we will apply our decades of asset management experience to preserving and maintaining the complex at high standards."
Unfortunately, not all of the "same dedicated employees" that we know deliver quality service. BTW, have you taken a walk through our community and seen the disrepair of the walkways, the filth left behind by our lovely four-legged pets? Have you gone inside our buildings and seen the garbage pile-ups in the recycling areas? The non-working washers and dyers of some laundry rooms? Have you perhaps stayed the night at one of our apartments and been awoken by loud frat parties, or the noise of returning party-goers at 2 or 3AM, or the early morning wake-up calls from construction or room renovation?
"We believe this is a very exciting development for residents, employees and the community as it delivers a long-term solution for STPCV and ensures stability and responsible management."
Hopefully, but we shall have to see.
"We are pleased to have the support of Mayor de Blasio, Council Member Garodnick and Tenant Leaders on this transaction."
Sorry, but this doesn't carry that much weight with many of the tenants here.
"We have voluntarily signed a regulatory agreement with the City of New York implementing supplemental affordable housing provisions at Stuyvesant Town/Peter Cooper Village to safeguard the affordability of 5,000 below-market units for a 20 year period."
Thank you, but what happens after this 20-year period?
"We believe this is a very exciting development for residents and employees as it delivers a long-term solution for STPCV and ensures stability for the community. We recognize the importance of maintaining the character and heritage of the community and are committed to preserving the affordability and culture of STPCV."
We'll see about that, too.
"The amenities offered by STPCV are a key part of its culture and reason that people seek to make STPCV home."
You are wrong. The "amenities" are not, and never were, a part of our culture here. They are relatively new fabrications that are used by a small number of residents, though now they are part of our landscape. The fact that you don't know this is indicative of your lack of knowledge about our community. But I suspect you do know this and will be using amenities as a way of just attracting potential renters, as that's the current "meme" in the real estate business. Also, be aware, as you should be, that amenities were never the reason people sought to live in this community pre-Tishman Speyer. Affordability, the community's family-oriented ethos (not student ethos), and fine grounds and building maintenance were the crucial factors in people going on a waiting list for years so that they could live here. "Amenities" is bullshit stuff for a new age and real estate "best practices." And even if you ask tenants who came here in the past several years, you will probably never get "amenities" as the main reason they chose to rent here. For non-students, it's still primarily about raising a family in a safe community with playgrounds and nice landscaping.
"We will also add additional amenities and services including making an onsite social worker available, creating a senior community service, offering wellness checks, health screenings and senior activities."
Amenities for seniors are always welcome, but please no more "amenities" that ruin the Oval and the green oasis of what this place used to be. Please do not make this a circus.
* * *
As a comparison, here is Robbie Speyer's letter to our community back in the day when Tishman-Speyer took over:
It's Miller time!
ReplyDeleteNew family here, new as we moved in last year from Harlem. Our apartment was renovated as the man who lived here before us was here for 38 years!
ReplyDeletenow what? i make 67K and want to raise my dcs here. WHAT the H will happen to my new rent now????
HA!! Sounds to me like they're taking units out of rent stabilizateion, Aside from the 5k they are saving - who needed no saving - the other 6200 are not going to be stabilized, now or ever.
ReplyDeleteHow about a committee to address carpet inspections, excessive partying, and college kids shitting and pissing in the stairwells because they live 16 scumbags to one bathroom.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone have a copy of Robbie Speyer's first intro letter to tenants when Tishman-Speyer bought the property? I believe I posted it on the blog, but can't seem to find it now. It would be interesting to see the comparison between that letter and Blackstone's, as I believe there are some similarities.
ReplyDeleteHere you go STR! http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2006/11/tishman_buys_stuy_town_plays_n_1.html
ReplyDeleteI'm agonizing! Swaying to and fro with grief!
ReplyDeleteBTW, this could be a more important date in ST/PCV's history than we know. It just could be a date when the complete loss of affordable housing in this community was finalized. Yes, to take effect 20 years down the line, but signed today.
ReplyDeleteConsider that.
Here you go STR! http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2006/11/tishman_buys_stuy_town_plays_n_1.html
ReplyDeleteThanks!
NOBODY WANTS THE SAME MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES RUNNING THIS PLACE!
ReplyDeleteFor God Sake, they are incompetent and criminal and Blackstone knows that.
What would be seamless is to get rid of all of them, Sorise, Knapp, Habersham, Cenzoprano, all of them! and get back to operating the property with the decency and civility we had with MetLife.
They didn't save 5000 affordable housing, they gave away 6500. The only reason the remaining 5000 remain is because tenants fought back against the TA and Dan and RE. Dan, Susan, Compass Rock, the entire TA board was trying to evict us with their golub hunting. The woman's name the earlier commentator wanted is Margaret Salacan, who was in the NYTimes hunting her neighbors and more often than not, ruining the reputations of good people who were not guilty of her witch hunt accusations.
ReplyDeleteSame as Tishman bullshit!
ReplyDeleteBut this time Steinberg and Doyle are admitting their alliance with Blackstone. Tenants have to get a real tenant association that will protect tenants, hold Blackstone accountable to being a lawful landlord, and not promote Blackstone on their new twitter and website.
At least this time the TA Steinberg is not hiding her true alliance, with the landlord.
so by age 75 i'll be thrown out of here. better start saving.
ReplyDelete3 24 you are royally fucked. Stone doesn't want you here.
ReplyDeleteAt least the condo deal is dead. That was worse then Blackstone, and Blackstone is as Vickie says on Town & Village - with Blackstone replacing Compass Rock it is like Hitler moved out and Stalin moved in.
ReplyDeletebut now we know Stalin is keeping Hitler as the management so I guess they will all change their linkedin accounts. Same game, same players, different company name BS
4:20
ReplyDeleteI don't think Sorise, Knapp, or any of the CR management team will remain. I think they are probably referring to the onsite management employees, like Resident Services, Finance, etc. Yes, that probably means Habersham remains!
I'm agonizing! It's time we get organized! It's time we get POSTCARDS!!!! WHO'S WITH ME?!?!
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely no mention of Rent Stabilization. Appears they think they can take the apartments out in return for twenty years of something that is unsaid, vague and ominous. Their handouts and press releases are useless, no detail whatsoever. They are hiding what the deal means. We know nothing.
ReplyDeleteNothing says good intentions quite like a Go Daddy website! I guess they don't want PCVST going through the main Blackstone website...
ReplyDeleteGiven what's known now, sounds like a not so bad outcome. Some of the cranks posting here complain for the sake of it.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe anyone said anything about taking occupied apartments out of rent stabilization. It's NYS law, they can't do it as long as the RS laws stay in effect. Assuming current RS laws are still in place in 20 years, you'd still be entitled to a renewal.
ReplyDeleteQuestion is, what happens when a current RS tenant leaves? Do they renovate to get the legal rent over the $2700 threshold, thereby deregulating it, with the promise that the next "means tested" tenant won't be charged over $3025/mo? Or do they not renovate, keeping it under RS regs, with a potential rent ceiling of $3025?
These buildings are ancient. Good luck turning them into luxury with paper thin walls and college kids partying - remember, as they say, they can't discriminate against young people. The toothpaste can't be put back in the tube. We are too far gone. It's either suffer or move.
ReplyDeleteI'm rubbing my wishnik for good luck.
ReplyDeleteThe amenities are not part of the culture! Totally agree STR. We live in the greatest city in the world - we don't need amenities - we need or peace and quiet back! That was the greatest amenity on earth - the peace and quiet of the Oval when it was filled with tall trees. There was no other place on earth like it - this wonderful peaceful oasis in the middle of the most energized loudest wonderful chaos of NYC. That was luxury. Now it is common.
ReplyDeleteThink they got their online presence up so quick because they are afraid of STR getting the truth out before they can get their spin out.
ReplyDeleteWere this blog so powerful!
ReplyDeleteThe more I think about this deal, the more it stinks. What's really grating is the back slapping on the part of the politicians and the TA. More like back-stabbing affordable housing.
Whatever Garodnick states, this is NOT the deal that the TA and some tenants were hoping for. Go back and read how important home ownership was to the Garodnick-TA plan. I thought that plan sucked, but at least be honest about how much the new deal dissolves home ownership.
This place sure gone crazy.
ReplyDelete>>The amenities are not part of the culture! Totally agree STR. We live in the greatest city in the world - we don't need amenities - we need or peace and quiet back! That was the greatest amenity on earth - the peace and quiet of the Oval when it was filled with tall trees. There was no other place on earth like it - this wonderful peaceful oasis in the middle of the most energized loudest wonderful chaos of NYC. That was luxury. Now it is common.<<
ReplyDeleteThe fact that Blackstone stressed amenities is of concern, because it indicates that they are going to go full blast on them. Nice ploy just to mention amenities for seniors, but the company has much more up its sleeve.
Even though I didn't have a high opinion of the TA, I am near shock at the spin they have placed on this deal. Garodnick, I can understand. He's looking at a future mayoral bid and doesn't want to have any impression out there that he failed this community. So the PR spin from him is a necessity. But the TA?
ReplyDelete>>Given what's known now, sounds like a not so bad outcome.<<
ReplyDeleteOkay, what are the not so bad outcomes that have substantially changed what was already there through rent stabilization and other landlord-tenant laws?
Anonymous Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteGiven what's known now, sounds like a not so bad outcome. Some of the cranks posting here complain for the sake of it.
October 20, 2015 at 6:00 PM
That is one way to look at it. Here is another. When it is "a not so bad outcome" and you are fine with it you are saying you are fine with low expectations. We deserve a great outcome. Not "a not so bad outcome"
Blackstone is one of the worse landlords as would be expected from Wall Street as your landlord. They very well may be the best of the worst - but they are still in a pool of the worse. Why should we accept being mired in the worse that there is? How is it in the best country in the world our government cannot even get something as "housing" for all right?! Failure! They should and could do better. Food, Clothing. Shelter. Basic needs. We should at the very least have the best of the basic needs.
The TA always went hand in hand with Dan. They were NEVER loyal to tenants. From that abysmal bunker meeting to now - they have thrown tenants under the bus and a lot worse. Do not trust them. They are not even hiding their alliance. This announcement, the website, the statements on the website by the TA, Dan and Mayor were all planned and approved by one another in a carefully planned scheme. Really at leas they are not pretending to hide their alliance, even using the fannie freddie necessary language to grab those billions. Then again Steinberg made a joke about continuing to be an advocate for the tenants. With an advocate like Steinberg, who needs enemies.
ReplyDeleteRead the press release from the city; you will gag.
ReplyDeleteBlogger Stuy Town Reporter said...
ReplyDelete"Does anyone have a copy of Robbie Speyer's first intro letter to tenants when Tishman-Speyer bought the property? I believe I posted it on the blog, but can't seem to find it now. It would be interesting to see the comparison between that letter and Blackstone's, as I believe there are some similarities."
you beat me to it STR.I was thinking the exact same thing.
A comment on the TA Facebook page:
ReplyDelete"I think if the condo conversion plan was dead, it should have been announced. There is something very suspicious about how quiet this deal was kept."
I wonder if we will ever know, through an act of atypical transparency, just when the TA knew the condo conversion plan was dead.
I have to laugh at the remark about Blackstone preserving amenities. The junk they have here is not amenities. All of their amenities cheapen the property: oval concerts, oval sunbathing and picnicking, a café, oval movies. Pure garbage that
ReplyDeletenobody wants. Of course the NYU dorm dump issue was not mentioned. That is because they are here to stay in 50% of the units, a plague we cannot get rid of.
Haha STR... there will be no transparency from this group of frauds!
ReplyDeleteMarsh the Knife, Susan "No Bikinis" Steinwitch, Green Goblin and the rest of their secret society never kept us up to date. Why should they start now?
ReplyDeleteDan Garodnick is congratulating himself on preserving half the apartments as affordable housing as if he did anything to keep 5000 tenants in their homes.
ReplyDeleteHe did not help us one bit. We were on our own to fight to keep our homes.
We were on our own to fight for quality of life.
Did anyone get any help from anyone at Garodnick's office in their battles to keep their rent stabilized home? NO. He helped no one and he is taking all sorts of credit as if he saved us.
Dan Garodnick helped nobody.
Knowing some of the TA people working on the condo conversion I think it was dead years ago. How could they be so naive and led on? It's truly embarrassing. Water under the bridge,,,, does not matter.now.
ReplyDeleteDid the meeting about noise go forward?
ReplyDeletePredatory Equity Investment by Fortress and now Blackstone...
ReplyDeleteThey are all one in the same, we need corporate Philanthropy, and efforts to build similar communities across the country. FH Ecker plaque should be mandatory reading by these developers and investors...
Robert Rosania is funding No on I in SF California the no monster in the mission project, and mission moratorium was the response.
Be very ready that in 20 years they will try and redensify PC Stuy Town, similar to other re-densification projects....
A.Goodman
SF, CA
Nothing says 'take my business seriously' like a Go Daddy account. Did Danica Patrick flash her breasts during the checkout process? Vroom! Vroom! Bro!
ReplyDeleteSTR 7:47
ReplyDeleteThey are all in cahoots, which means Dan made sure that the TA followed him with this whole thing. What worries me most is that my parents believe this crap. They are middle class baby-boomers that have never lived elsewhere. They hear that this deal has gone through and they are happy that they have a place to live for the next 20 years. That is all Dan and the TA are looking to do...
It would seem like now is the ideal time to start planning a real TA. It is obvious that the current TA and Danny G have no interest in the property (for all of you that believe otherwise, read the deal more closely). The question now is whether or not this property can be saved. I hope so, but doubt not…
ReplyDeleteThey did the Brookfield Partner Stuyvesant Town website on godaddy too. So true - nothing says shady shady like a godaddy website
ReplyDeleteThis deal shows that even comrade Deblasio can't save/defend rent stabilization in its current form. Or perhaps he is just incompetent. Dan just looked the other way and jumped on the spin train with comrade mayor. To sum up: the existing RS units get grandfathered and when they turnover, rents will be keyed to income (finally). The result is that most apartments will still be subject to substantial rent increases as leasing agents will be directed to check income of applicants to weed out lower thresholds. Buh bye rent stab laws like magic!! This will keep the new owners busy for the next 20 years as they make a decent cash return on their investment. In 20 years, they get the holy grail: 80 acres of manhattan real estate to do with as they please. Chucky cheese was actually right. Some form of tenant OWNERSHIP was the ONLY way to maintain truly long term affordability. In 25 years, there will be a model of the original stuy town at the Museum of the City of New York for all to see.....hahahhaha.
ReplyDeleteYeah we need a new and real TA but can any TA do anything while we are blocked from mjustice by Cuomo and Schneiderman not letting DHCR and TPU help tenants here and when they let DOB run amok with illegal construction? Who would we report the landlord illegal acts to? When can we vote these two out?
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone else find the press on this deal really strange? The controlled NYTimes piece, the carefully selected tweets by Steinberg, the unusually few tweets by Garodnick and no tweets from Hoylman, Viverito, stringer, James.
ReplyDeleteThe usually loud self promoting politicians are unusually quiet, keeping distance from this shady middle of the night really bizarre real estate deal. The press on this and the underwhelming level of self promotion is really very strange.
Almost everyone who bought into the Brookfield Dan plan was doing so to flip their apartments. None or almost noe of them were looking to buy their apartment to lay down roots. That is not an ownership plan.
ReplyDeleteThe only ownership plan was the Penn South plan. But De Blasio didn't figure out how to do it.
"I don't believe anyone said anything about taking occupied apartments out of rent stabilization. It's NYS law, they can't do it as long as the RS laws stay in effect. Assuming current RS laws are still in place in 20 years, you'd still be entitled to a renewal.
ReplyDeleteQuestion is, what happens when a current RS tenant leaves? Do they renovate to get the legal rent over the $2700 threshold, thereby deregulating it, with the promise that the next "means tested" tenant won't be charged over $3025/mo? Or do they not renovate, keeping it under RS regs, with a potential rent ceiling of $3025?"'
-----
Research Blackstone's history, leadership, tactics, methods and behavior. They are not "patient" in any sense of the word. They do not play by the rules. They get what they want and are 24/7/365 relentless getting it. They saw opportunity in division between de Blasio and Garodnick, and probably reached out to the mayor via Glen, who will receive a nice reward when she returns to Wall Street after completing her public service. My guess is initial outreach took place shortly before "Brookfield" dropped out of the Garodnick-TA vocabulary, receding into a "there but not there" background haze with Marsh and Doyle. This is the mayor's deal, showing Dan he's the boss and possibly taking a rebellious dig at Cuomo that will subsequently be severely punished. Either Glen has the mayor convinced this is a major "victory" for affordable housing (which means he actually is whacked and dense like some claim) or he's spinning the loss of PCVST into a "preserved affordable" number that might eliminate PCVST as a potential re-election campaign issue. Dan failed Brookfield, but that's OK. The outcome is still Wall Street/REBNY gets everything and tenants get nothing. That's what Cuomo wants. Dan is forgiven by all (except his human constituents who don't count) and the wide open spigot showering Wall Street/REBNY $$$ on him will continue in full force.
Blackstone has no intention of abiding with RS legislation or their separate "regulation agreement" with Mayor de Blasio. They will aggressively look to vacate and replace RS tenants paying less than "regulation agreement" rate. They will become the highest paying, most generous political benefactor and lobbyist ordering all NY politicians they own to always be looking for opportunities to dismantle, weaken and kill RS. In $$$ terms of Albany corruption Blackstone will make Speyer, Glenwood, Brookfield, etc., look cheap by comparison. When the time is right they will begin chipping away at their agreement with the mayor. Their attorneys already inserted loopholes and ambiguities to exploit. They will shower politicians with money to insert more loopholes and ambiguities to exploit afterward. When de Blasio is gone and Garodnick gladly steps out of the way, they will commence a reign of terror Speyer could never imagine. It will come down on non-market paying PCVST tenants like a ton of bricks. There is no way in hell that Blackstone will wait 20 years before booting 5,000 middle class out of PCVST. A 10-year turnaround time horizon is too long for them. 20 years simply fails to register anywhere inside Blackstone's DNA.
That Steinberg woman is a piece of work. A real piece of work. We don't need her and she should go away.
ReplyDeleteWe have been royally fucked up the ass (again) by the Steinberg/Marsh/Doyle/Salacan/Garodnick so-called Tenants Association. They are nothing more than a bunch of avaricious, double-talking assholes and no one should ever believe a word they say. If their mouths are open, they are lying. We need a clean sweep of the incumbent pols and the TA should be dissolved and banished. We do not have a TA. We have a bunch of self-serving, [political] ass-kissing liars. DeBlasio is a total loser and a one-term mayor for sure. Who knows what we will get next, but I hope it won't be either Garodnick or Stringer - the Toady Twosome.
ReplyDeleteHere's the money quote. Put this on your refrigerator and remember it every month while you're filling out that rent check:
ReplyDelete“It’s a war,” Schwarzman said of the struggle with the Obama administration over increasing taxes on private-equity firms. “It’s like when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939.”
-- Stephen Schwarzman, the chairman and cofounder of the Blackstone Group, July 2010
Stuy-Town Deal’s Affordable Housing is Barely So
ReplyDeletehttp://citylimits.org/2015/10/20/stuy-town-deals-affordable-housing-is-barely-so/
"According to The Times, the affordability requirement only extends for 20 years. Affordable housing advocates are increasingly concerned about term-limited affordability, since a major factor in today's housing crunch is the expiration of affordability requirements on tens of thousands of units financed in the 1980s and 1990s."
Clearly, Mayor de Blasio's "permanent" and "long term" affordable preservation schemes are actually shortsighted, short-term patches failing to keep pace with the current ongoing loss of affordable housing disappearing with the expiration of similarly shortsighted, short-term programs instituted by Mayor Koch. Our current mayor's long term affordable PCVST preservation scheme was cynically designed to fail the moment it was conceived.
-----
"City Hall just released details of the deal. Another 1,400 apartments that were going to lose all rent protections in 2020 will get another five years of such protection with rent hikes capped at 5 percent per year."
There's a bone tossed out by Mayor de Blasio to appease the struggling, most ripped off, most betrayed PCVST RS tenants paying MR rents. Instead of hoping for an opportunity to get ripped off purchasing an unnecessarily expensive Brookfield condo, the "new stabilizers" are enticed with five annual 5% rent hikes after their Roberts Settlement-diluted RS protections expire (paltry incentive covering 1,400 PCVST residents was probably secured to meet Fannie/Freddie funding guidelines). Is this a consolation prize worth sticking around for?
For all who were against conversion, now not only do we not have ownership, but we don't have long term affordability either. Good job TA.
ReplyDeleteI pay nearly $4800 for a PCV 2BR even though we're stabilized. How the hell can a 5% annual increase after 2020 be spun as a good deal?
ReplyDeleteFor all those calling for a new TA, I strongly agree and there should be some sort of gathering to explore such. Perhaps it's entirely futile but it can't hurt to try.
As for the Schwartzman quote above - I think I'll lead with that quote when I ask a question on Saturday (if we're allowed to ask questions and make comments).
This community is awesome and intelligent and strong and righteous! 9:15 we look forward to your opening line on Saturday!
ReplyDeleteThis community blows. I have neighbors in my building I have lived with for over 20 years, and not ONCE, have they said my first name. People are soo unfriendly here,
ReplyDeleteand nobody cares about anyone, only what goes on in their own individual prison cell. Miserable people!
I'm confused.
ReplyDeleteThe only beef people people should have is with the TA not updating tenants on the possibility or lack there of re: tenants purchasing the community.
If you own the property you have rights, if you are rent stabilized you have less rights, (you have the right for your rent to be increased annually and MCI'd).
What were the expectations of another corporate entity buying the complex?
Blackstone was nice to cap increases to $3,200.00 for 20 years, they didn't have to do that.
I understand the need to preserve rent stabilization until the people who are in the units pass but why should rent stab be preserved indefinitely so people can pass the units to their kids? Why should the same people get affordable housing why others don't?
What were the expectations for the Roberts units, (which are Rent Stab in name only, essentially market rate) to roll back to real Rent Stab prices? Blackstone added another 5 years to the Roberts expiration, (they didn't have to do that either).
Last, I think the income of $128K is appropriate for anyone who is working, (maybe not appropriate for a senior on a fixed income but then maybe that senior should be in a 1br and not a 2br, give the 2br to a family). This is 2015, 2 people need to be working to cover expenses, this should not be a shock. $3,200 can be covered by a household making $128K and its not over 50% of take home pay as others have said, (prob around 40%).
Given this is a rental property I feel most people have unrealistic expectations,
>>Blackstone was nice to cap increases to $3,200.00 for 20 years, they didn't have to do that.<<
ReplyDeleteThey had to do something like that to get financial perks from the city and the blessing of its politicians and our TA.
>>I understand the need to preserve rent stabilization until the people who are in the units pass but why should rent stab be preserved indefinitely so people can pass the units to their kids? Why should the same people get affordable housing why others don't?<<
Good reason: You get a community with a tradition and stability.
>>Given this is a rental property I feel most people have unrealistic expectations,<<
Ultimately, if we apply your principles, we will have a fragmented society where only money rules and the more ruthless will win. I know we are already there in large part, but that's a prescription for societal disaster and, possibly if things go too far, revolution.
On second thought I agree, Blackstone was not being nice, the $3,205 cap and the $77M/1% loan is probably close to monitory wash, they sacrifice the upside of possible funds over $3,205 and take a tax break up front). The $3,205 makes the deal more palatable by addressing the major issue from when Tishman took over, illegally raising rents to boot people from the complex so they can charge market, (what is market now, $4K?).
ReplyDeleteBut the crux of it is its unfortunate, money does rule, especially in the center of capitalism, NYC.
With that said this is why I am so confused, what were the expectations outside tenants going coop/condo and addressing the fear of tenants being booted a la Tishman?
Provided rent stabilization is still law in 20 years units will still be rent stabilized, (except some will have been benefited by the $3,205 cap)
Roberts units were lost to RS forever, that is old news. Was there an expectation to have them rolled back to RS rates that are actually low?
Despite the hoopla not much has changed, per the loan documents the special servicer (CW Capital) had to sell the property by 12/31/15 or 12/31/16, you were going to get a new owner.
But in general, why do people get to pass units to their kids, have second homes, etc.
All for community stability, unrealistically defined as forever? Forever is not the only condition where community happens. I'm not advocating NYU style transience but maybe lifetime RS is enough.
I'm for rent stab producing a mixed income community but not this version where some have second homes, old timers get 2br/3br to themself, not fully utilizing space when many families live in 1br and the succession rights screwing other families that want a chance at affordable rents!
Old timers with two or three bedrooms as homes, used to have spouses that may have passed, or kids that grew up. Why should they be forced out of their home when their spouse dies? That is awful.
ReplyDeletehttps://research-and-analytics.csfb.com/ura/htmlcontent/984131241/984131241.html
ReplyDeletefinancial analysys on the property
I agree with 7:19.
ReplyDelete3:39 what you are saying is awful. Just because your family grows up and you become an empty nester does not mean you should have to lose your home. It is that entitlement that the market raters in our building have to. They think they can take whatever they want away from the rent stabilizers. They treat the rent stabilizers like they are less than human. The market raters in our building think they are entitled to take away the homes of the rent stabilized and treat them like they are third class citizens who have no rights. It is criminal what they do to the rent stabilizers in our building and we are going to do everything possible to help the rent stabilizers protect themselves from their market rate neighbors assaults.
>>It is criminal what they do to the rent stabilizers in our building and we are going to do everything possible to help the rent stabilizers protect themselves from their market rate neighbors assaults.<<
ReplyDeleteI truly believe, and I think my belief is backed up by facts, that it is someone else that is assaulting us.
"Just because your family grows up and you become an empty nester does not mean you should have to lose your home"
ReplyDeleteNot saying anyone should lose their home, not kicked out of the complex, not losing your community. Just moving from a 2br to a 1br for the greater good and once that person passes on no pass down rights to family members, let another middle income family have it.
The apartments all look the same, the only difference between a 2br and a 1br is the bedroom that can be used by a family.
I guess its an argument of who is entitled, you think I'm entitled for wanting expensive real estate to be used efficiently and homes for working families. You feel entitled to waste expensive real estate. I'm for more flexibility which would allow the units to be used more efficiently & provide homes for more working families.