Former president of the Tenants Association, John Marsh, posted on the TA Facebook: "I
would happily pay and [sic] MCI to have my a/c's relocated to below my
window. I would pay because I value light and the ability to open more
windows in the fall."
Thankfully, admin "Peter Stuyvesant" replied: "There
are many people here who can't afford another MCI, and the A/C through
the wall MCI would be huge, especially if it's done in every room that
can accommodate an A/C. The TA, as you well know, has fought every MCI
large and small, and the community has been behind that. Be careful what
you wish for."
Also of concern is the issue of forcing tenants to have this upgrade (placing A/C units in the wall below a window). I don't think this is in works from the landlord, but who knows? So far this upgrade has only been done to an apartment whose tenant has vacated and in preparation for a new tenant. (I'm not sure if a tenant can request such an upgrade, but it's possible.)
This reminds me that in the Spring or early Summer, I saw a couple of young people studying the exterior of buildings and jotting things down on pads. Were they investigating how many A/C units there were? Obviously, management knows how may apartments have A/C, but perhaps this was a study to verify the number. Of course, this activity could have been completely unrelated. I just thought it strange.
94 comments:
He is a rank idiot. If he wants an under window a/c, let him be willing to pay an IAI, and not wish to inflict more expense on the rest of us. Jerk!
Notice the jerk got 4 likes from asshole MR tenants who don't think they are paying enough! Cry me a river over their exorbitant rents!
I noticed this guy also told people to vote "no" to a dog run. I am against a dog run, but if we have to have one I hope it is right under John Marsh's window!
This twit used to run the Tenants Association! No wonder tenants were shafted every way possible! No wonder so many tenants think that the TA is in bed with management. What a maroon!
Good man that Marsh.
11:46 WHY DN'T you post that on FB? Get your balls out and post it there, not here.
John Marsh. Open mouth. Insert foot.
I think they check which units have ACs to make sure that a rent-stabilized tenant hasn't installed an AC unit without paying the associated fees.
In case you did not know, there is ANOTHER MCI in the works for exterior rehabilitation. If any one thinks that Blackstone will be a benevolent landlord, they must be smoking crack. Believe me, they will try and nickel and dime us to death with more and more MCI's. And you can take that to the bank. or should I say THEY will take it to their bank.
There is a WAR against the 5000 remaining rent stabilized tenants.
Don't you forget it.
Do I hear more Golub notices coming?
Just wait.
You can bet on it!
Nice back peddling by Peter Stuyvesant. The truth will come out. The TA did not and does not vigorously oppose every MCI.
For his unobstructed water view of the River. Sure he cuts down and kills our views of trees but he wants to better his already great riverfront view.
This conflicted fool is the #1 reason PCVST residents do not own the PCVST complex and their individual PCVST homes.
http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:162051
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:wCQkcvHBL0gJ:academiccommons.columbia.edu/download/fedora_content/download/ac:162052/CONTENT/Harrison_Thesis.pdf+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDAQFjADahUKEwiXhtSvn5PJAhWGWh4KHb5mAQc&url=http%3A%2F%2Facademiccommons.columbia.edu%2Fdownload%2Ffedora_content%2Fdownload%2Fac%3A162052%2FCONTENT%2FHarrison_Thesis.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGDyd14eUnEJsVEy75TzDkj6KlQyQ&bvm=bv.107467506,d.dmo
Page 68:
““In addition to retaining counsel, they have retained further legal and financial counsel for the prospective bid to purchase the property, but those fees will be assessed on the completion of any deal.
“We met Paul Weiss [through Council Member Garodnick] and were very impressed. And they really set us up with the financial firms. It was an exhaustive process. The entire board sat through 7-8 hours of interviews with firms that wanted to assist the TA in buying the property. We wanted experience, access to capital, restricting debt, that’s what we really needed. Paul Weis and Moelis was really our filter through maybe 60 different entities, but we ultimately settled with Brookfield. We liked their steady band, long‐term view. Their access to capital, extreme credibility and no history of bad or shaky deals, that kind of thing.” – John Marsh””
Fatal Errors
1. Allowing Garodnick, an REBNY owned politician, to designate Paul Weiss as TA legal advisor.
2. Allowing Paul Weiss to designate Moelis as TA financial advisor.
3. Allowing Paul Weiss and Moelis to filter 60 entities to decide Brookfield is TA partner.
4. “assist the TA in buying the property” Conflicted TA should never be a buyer.
5. Brookfield – “no history of bad or shaky deals” WTF? Brookfield’s $25 million Speyer investment automatically disqualified Brookfield. Shared Values??? WTF???
These are just 5 out of many fatal errors that doomed at birth the phony TA-Brookfield partnership's phony tenant led purchase.
Future Reference:
A legitimate TA recommending conversion from rental to ownership always has only one #1 PRIORITY – deliver an affordable ownership opportunity to the maximum percentage of tenants aspiring to own their homes. Even taking Brookfield out of the equation from the outset, TA proposing and bum’s rush steam rolling an expensive, tiny discount condo offering intended to price out affordable ownership for 85% of PCVST residents was a fatal error, splitting tenants into at least 2 (probably more) opposing groups with different goals and agendas that could never be reconciled. From the outset, the TA expensive, tiny discount condo proposal could never muster support from a majority of tenants refusing to rally around Dan-TA shoving a shit turd down their throats.
I now understand why the TA has never been successful in getting MCI's reduced by more than a nominal sum and has never been successful in getting an MCI overturned. Under John Marsh's presidency, we had no TA, just another arm of management. I doubt he was ever bothered by MCIs, but he was always ready to prissily scold or correct somebody on the TA fb (and even on this blog) about their writing style or any comments that did not pass his school-marm test. I remember when he was a very pro-tenant member of the TA, but he changed. I think the Garodnick/REBNY cabal seduced him.
There is a WAR against the 5000 remaining rent stabilized tenants.
Don't you forget it.
Do I hear more Golub notices coming?
Just wait.
You can bet on it!
Steinberg, Salacan, Marsh, Doyle, Collins have been proudly 100% behind the golub notices just like Marsh just admitted he likes MCI charges.
I was hoping that comment made by John Marsh was SARCASTIC. Either that or he was smoking some good stuff when he typed it. Does not seem like something the man would say or believe in after all he's done during his tenure at the TA.
All the current exterior restoration MCIs were filed for by CW. Anything else that comes through that was initiated before Blackstone takes over is from CW, even if we get it after the deal is signed. Don't be confused. In the remaining weeks CW will no doubt try to suck every last penny they can out of this place.
"I was hoping that comment made by John Marsh was SARCASTIC. Either that or he was smoking some good stuff when he typed it. Does not seem like something the man would say or believe in after all he's done during his tenure at the TA."
I suspect that he meant to say "IAI" (or whatever it's called) meaning an individual apartment improvement. I doubt he would want to inflict a major MCI on all of us. Don't think he's that kind of guy. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt.
5:50
There was not a shred of sarcasm in his comment. Also, I would like some of what your smoking to think Marsh did anything to help PCVST during his tenure. His tenure saw nothing but MCI's, dormification, commercialization, and QOL issues up the reae end.
Marsh destroyed this place.
"Anonymous said...
I think they check which units have ACs to make sure that a rent-stabilized tenant hasn't installed an AC unit without paying the associated fees.
November 15, 2015 at 2:32 PM"
You cannot simply install an air conditioner without the landlords cooperation. Every A/C electrical outlet is turned on individually from the master panel that is in the hallway. Highly unlikely that an unused A/C outlet would actually be energized, and you can't plug them into regular wall outlets.
I think your paranoid scenario is highly unlikely.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
I now understand why the TA has never been successful in getting MCI's reduced by more than a nominal sum and has never been successful in getting an MCI overturned. Under John Marsh's presidency, we had no TA, just another arm of management. I doubt he was ever bothered by MCIs, but he was always ready to prissily scold or correct somebody on the TA fb (and even on this blog) about their writing style or any comments that did not pass his school-marm test. I remember when he was a very pro-tenant member of the TA, but he changed. I think the Garodnick/REBNY cabal seduced him.
November 15, 2015 at 4:44 PM
So Right.
CW did everything they did for Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, their "prior" owner before Fortress "bought" CW. The MCI's and Golub will keep coming. Not surprised Marsh supports the MCI for wall air conditioners, am surprised he admitted it publicly, sure explains why the TA has never fought any of the MCI's. That fake rally was a pathetic joke where they pretended to be angry about the MCI and pretended they were going to fight them. The remaining 5000 are not safe with the current TA Board in place but the politicians do want to keep them because they serve the political agenda and not the tenant's needs.
This place is too unbelievable to believe.
If you live on M level why the hell would you want an AC installed under your window? So you can invite thieves more easily in? All you have to do is kick in/rip out the screen and you're pretty much as good as in the apartment. This whole discussion and even the thought of possible conversion is utterly so stupid. I can't even fathom it. But then again, the following unnecessary asinine decisions were made and implemented which have not been improvements but each in itself, another headache and assault on our quality of life here: letting dogs into our complex, carpeting hallways, new elevators that break down all the time, new washing machines and dryers that break down all the time, pressure walls, cheap noisy renovations, contracting out maintenance staff with no background checks, installing bogus new lights in staircases that don't actually dim, installing new intercom that sucks, planting trees and flowers that die within a month, using leaf blowers to stir the dried dog shit, pollen, and mold up from the grass and leaves, planting big bushes and trees to cover our building entrances to entice crime, installing new keycard door system that sucks. How is brickface work even considered an MCI when it is the law that building owners must maintain their exteriors in order to not incur fines for safety measures. If the brickface is crumbling they have to maintain it. It's not a major capital improvement. Fucking ridiculous.
Oh sure, of course he is pushing to increase the property rent roll still.
The Tenant Association along with the Mayor, City Council Gale Brewer and attorney General are using that finance auditing of terrorists system Palentir to invade tenants privacy and tear apart innocent tenant's lives when they should be using it on the GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY Tenant Association board's DIRTY OPAQUE finances to give tenants the transparency they deserve on the tenant Association spending and using it on the CW Capital Tishman Speyer Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec who increased the rent roll and property "Take" in historic record unheard of amounts (impossible without serious abuse of the system and the tenants).
They are all aggressively pursuing the RS tenants for more and more until they have taken everything, all our money and our homes. Steinberg/Hoylman Doyle/De Blasio are no different than Marsh/Garodnick.
What is with this gas pipe leak? Was it only in the buildings with the bunker? Wouldn't that require new pipes be installed to support the huge addition?
7:21
What part of Marsh's destruction. Of this property don't you understand? Is it:
Commercialization - ice skating, giant basketball tent, oval amenities
MCI's - self explanatory
Dormification - NYU and other local universities taking over the property with short term transient students
QOL issues - too many to list.
The Bunker - no true fight from Marsh about this. Now the tenants in 272-274 have no gas for an undetermined amount of time. Coincidence?
He has helped the destruction of this property, so nobody should be surprised with his MCI comment.
All of his backers need to get their head out of the gutter.
WHAT AN IDIOT!
Sh*t stains on the newly installed carpets in 445 East 14th Street.
The dark brown color melds nicely with the institutional gray of the cheap industrial carpet.
And the incessant yapping of the dogs.
Nice, huh?
Luxury living at its finest!
Hey John, What's wrong with you?
what the hell . do you think he was being sarcastic? think he should remove that comment from fb.
What an idiot!
"Residents threatened with arrest in latest scam".
Check out some more interesting comments Mr. Marsh is making on Facebook regarding this topic. OH BOY!
Can you say meltdown?
can we like the fb comments ever here? or copy? i can't find it on fb as there is a lot of garbage there.
Giving credit, I would think you could.
2:58 pm, those are very strong allegations. They may very well be slanderous.
John Marsh and Susan Steinberg are wannabe politicians. They are sneaks that answer to a higher authority - DG
Agree with 75% of what you say. Up until the words "higher authority"
He is not "higher"
He has no authority over me!
What is the point of posting such a strange thing in the first place? Who cares about someone welcoming an MCI --- unless the point was to PR it as a good thing. But it is not as if he has the creds to influence the community. It is a strange thing to post.
I read on the TA fb that somebody was told by a credible source that they are gong to change all the air conditioners to under the window. That selfish jerk, Marsh, will no doubt be all in favor of this, even though it will mean a colossal MCI for everybody. He was the very worst president the TA ever had. Nothing good happened on his watch, but an awful lot of bad things came about either because of him or because he didn't give a rat's ass.
This is the Marsh comment:
" I would happily pay and MCI to have my a/c's relocated to below my window. I would pay because I value light and the ability to open more windows in the fall."
We all value light, you idiot, but some of can't afford the outrageous MCI that would come about because of such a change. I value being able to pay my rent and put food on my table, and that is worth more than a f*cking unimpeded window. Some people won't even get more light, depending on where they face - like over 14th Street - and would be paying for you to have light. Suggestion to John Marsh: Ask them to make that change in your apartment and be willing to pay for an Individual Apartment Improvement and leave the rest of us out of your selfish, grandiose wishes. You useless and self-absorbed man.
Now John Marsh is twisting himself up into a pretzel, explaining that he meant an IAI, not an MCI, and is filled with righteous indignation that he was so misunderstood and is chastising his critics. So why didn't the bloody fool say "IAI" in the first place? Does he think we don't know what an "IAI" is? Such a pompous twit.
Not surprised it is his position. Am surprised he is showing his attitude he had all along, but used to hide. The last round of MCI's were not opposed either. They pretended they fought them with that big show and tell at the auditorium meeting but actually the MCI charges were agreed to by Marsh/Steinberg and their lawyers so they could be applied in a way to speed up the number of apartments that hit the $2700 mark so they can be deregulated by charging the was another deliberate move on the part of Marsh/Steinberg to get to their goal of only 1500 rent stabilized apartments left.
Cuomo refused to rid of deregulation and Garodnick/TA/TA lawyers/CW sped up the process of deregulation in Peter Cooper Stuy Town to evict 3500 more of us between 2014 and 2015 but it did not work. Neither did their last round of golub attacks which Steinberg and Garodnick did not fight. They did not fight the first round by Tishman and they did not fight this latest round as the way to fight them would have been to file a complaint in Housing court for the Harassment. They did NOT do that.
Post it on yelp people. Post it all on yelp.
>>Now John Marsh is twisting himself up into a pretzel, explaining that he meant an IAI, not an MCI, and is filled with righteous indignation that he was so misunderstood and is chastising his critics. So why didn't the bloody fool say "IAI" in the first place?<<
Instead of the pretzel twist, which already has been challenged on that Facebook, Marsh should have simply stated that he made a mistake when he wrote about an MCI, but that would have meant an admission that he made a mistake. Meanwhile, his mistake has made people apprehensive about a complex wide MCI for alterations on where the A/C units are located. He hasn't even changed his original post, last I checked.
>>2:58 pm, those are very strong allegations. They may very well be slanderous.<<
Now that I had a chance to read them in peace, I agree, and am deleting the comment. Please, folks, if you make any charges, back them up with some evidence.
as a former president of the tenant association, he would have the qualifications to know better than to write "mci" instead of "iai"
a president of a tenant association would not interchange tho se two things or make such a big error. a president of a tenant association is practiced and disciplined in use of housing terms.
makes me think this was written hastily by a pr hack, especially with the "value light and opening windows in the fall" romancing the notion in an attempt to advertise or glamorize relocating one's air conditioner. it is written like a very junior pr or advertising person would write it with a soft cell on a big deceit.
What Dan, Susan, and John have done to this property is criminal. Forget a few "slanderous" comments and start requesting that they produce the TA books for tenants to see whether or not there were any improper financial gains to the TA from outside sources.
Until they are open with the tenants, we can only speculate what has really been going on over the past 10 years.
I would doubt very much if any financial gains were directed to certain members of the TA. As for Dan, well, he does get financial support from moneyed Real Estate entities and attends those yearly REBNY parties, always with a big smile on his face. And check out how many zoning changes he's let through, if not championed, to allow the building of sliver high-rises in his district.
Susan and John are small potatoes in this game, and I have no doubt are on the side of the tenants here, though they have been played by the system expertly, which make their advocacy nowhere near as powerful as it could, and should, have been.
So now Marsh is stating:
"We are mincing words here. IAIs still fall under the Major Capital Improvements Law. Indeed the amount of the pass-through changes depending on an IAI MCI versus a Building Wide MCI. And thank you for making my point for me and glad to see some are reading the fact sheets."
Here are some fact sheets at the NYC Rent Guidelines Board:
http://www.nycrgb.org/html/resources/dhcrfact.html
Note numbers 12 and 24, two SEPARATE fact sheets, one for an IAI, the other for an MCI.
He still insists that he was correct in his original post:
"To be clear, in advocating for an MCI, I was referring to a choice that impacts only my apartment."
No, John, you were not advocating for a Major Capital Improvement, but for an Individual Apartment Improvement. You should correct your original post.
Agree with STR! and correct the original post in a way that is not condescending. His correction is vomitously condescending.
John Marsh is so wrong on all accounts with this, but he doesn't want to admit that he was wrong. Someone listened to what was written on here (11/15/15 at 1:32) that they should post something on FB. It looks like someone took him/her up on the offer and John didn't like that and tried turning it into and IAI issue.
Funny thing is that he didn't mention IAI in his initial post. It was only after the extreme backlash on here and on FB that he backtracked.
"Susan and John are small potatoes in this game, and I have no doubt are on the side of the tenants here, though they have been played by the system expertly, which make their advocacy nowhere near as powerful as it could, and should, have been."
Agree, small potatoes and they are on the side of tenants NOW, but they once held incredible, unprecedented leverage after Speyer walked away - Fannie/Freddie guaranteed low interest purchase funding that looks to be around $2.6 billion and should have been deployed to fund a purchase resulting in PCVST residents owning the entire PCVST complex, whether it remained a permanently affordable RS rental property or converted to a permanently affordable coop. Unfortunately, Senator Schumer and Mayor de Blasio recognized the TA holding that leverage. Dan and the TA betrayed their PCVST neighbors/constituents, squandering unprecedented leverage away in their failed attempt to dupe PCVST tenants into giving it all to Brookfield.
In addition to Fannie/Freddie billions, we now know PCVST complex ownership includes around 11 million sq ft of development rights worth billions more that could have been sold to pay down debt, fund infrastructure and maintain low individual PCVST resident costs.
In addition to Fannie/Freddie purchase funding worth billions and development rights worth billions more, PCVST complex ownership includes prime commercial/retail generating rental income or potential sale proceeds worth at least hundreds of millions. Those funds too, could be used to pay down debt, fund infrastructure and maintain low individual PCVST resident costs.
The TA, primarily Marsh and Steinberg, held unprecedented leverage worth billions and worked hard for years keeping PCVST residents uninformed, ignorant in the dark, never mentioning it, never consulting with us about it. They 100% botched it all. Blackstone outmaneuvered them, grabbing all the multibillion dollar windfalls Dan and the TA promised to Brookfield. The TA signed off giving Fannie/Freddie purchase funding worth billions to Blackstone. PCVST residents having no honest representation lost everything.
Amazingly, Marsh at this point is presenting a nice template of how the owner can apply an MCI to a proposed complex-wide alteration of the placement of A/C units, to include those tenants who had elected NOT to have their apartments rewired for A/C (which these tenants did for financial reasons, obviously). I think the acronym STFU was created just for a situation like this.
At STR 12:55
I (and I am sure many others on here) had not even considered that. He is absolutely doing just that. I think you should save this thread in the ultra-important thread folder so that it can be revisited when and if Blackstone goes this route.
Utterly deceitful.
They must be drinking gallons of their own kool-aid. They really believe they are the smartest people on the planet and the only smart ones in the room. They really believe we are all dumb stupid idiots who believe what they tell us to believe and do what they tell us to do and buy what they sell.
They are believing their own spin and they are spinning out of control.
I want a front row seat when these bloated egos of middling intellect implode.
Hey John? See what you stirred up?
John Marsh reminds me of somebody who would say to a burglar: "Don't go robbing my house which is situated at .... and don't go poking in the kitchen drawers where I keep my Rolex watch and you'd better not go into the cupboard under the sink where I keep my bankroll in a cup. I'm not letting you know that my address is ..... because I have so many valuable things there and I don't want you getting your hands on them."
"I want a front row seat when these bloated egos of middling intellect implode."
We all had a front seat when the proximity of billions caused their egos and brains to explode. Unfortunately we are their victims.
Marsh misspoke. He's obviously referring to an individual apartment improvement, not a building-wide apt improvement. It's the same as if he asked for and got a refrigerator upgrade. He alone would pay for that, not the entire building/complex. But by all means, make a federal fucking case out of it.
>>Marsh misspoke. He's obviously referring to an individual apartment improvement, not a building-wide apt improvement. It's the same as if he asked for and got a refrigerator upgrade. He alone would pay for that, not the entire building/complex. But by all means, make a federal fucking case out of it.<<
He didn't just misspeak, he mad a mistake in referencing an MCI to what he was talking about, and he still insists that what he was talking about is an MCI! I've a feeling he is an individual who never wants to admit to making a mistake, but just double-downs on his errors.
Worse are Marsh's follow-up comments that basically state that our owner has a right to slap an MCI for a complex-wide rearrangement of A/C units AND a right to charge an MCI to those tenants who declined A/C from the beginning. These latter tenants must be in a tight financial position, too, as they elected not to upgrade their wiring because of a monthly increase in rent. They are really going to be vulnerable should the owner decide Marsh has a good point. He's letting owners know there will be no fight on this from the TA.
"He's letting owners know there will be no fight on this from the TA."
Same as the 2014 MCI so-called "negotiation" where there was NO negotiation. Only a room filled with people who wanted to raise the rent roll, decrease the number of RS apartments, and NOBODY represented the tenants.
STR-He stated repeatedly that he was referring to an IAI. Where did he say anything about "a complex-wide rearrangement of A/C units AND a right to charge an MCI to those tenants who declined A/C from the beginning?" He said the owner can't do AC replacements until after their shelf life's over according to DHCR (20 Years?). And that moving an AC under the window is cosmetic, which would disallow for a building/complex-wide MCI since DHCR says no to MCIs for cosmetic reasons. And that it'd probably be too expensive for an owner to undertake complex-wide.
That's all I've got to say. This is a nothing burger.
5:21
Is that you John?
Marsh was the leader of the TA when the most MCI's were approved. How many tenants were at those meetings to fight the MCI's?
Dorms?
Ice rink?
Bunker?
Oval destruction?
All on his clock. If a federal investigation were a possibiliyy, I would be all for it!
If John Marsh is a friend of the tenants, then we clearly don't need any enemies. What an egotistical maroon!
>>STR-He stated repeatedly that he was referring to an IAI. Where did he say anything about "a complex-wide rearrangement of A/C units AND a right to charge an MCI to those tenants who declined A/C from the beginning?" He said the owner can't do AC replacements until after their shelf life's over according to DHCR (20 Years?). And that moving an AC under the window is cosmetic, which would disallow for a building/complex-wide MCI since DHCR says no to MCIs for cosmetic reasons. And that it'd probably be too expensive for an owner to undertake complex-wide.<<
He stated that later. His original post still has not been edited by him to reflect this change. "I would happily pay and [sic] MCI to have my a/c's relocated to below my window." He also bullshits away with a comment about others being confused about his mistake that it "only illustrates the point how complex the MCI Law is." No, it's not.
Re: Complex-wide MCI: "If indeed the Owner is going to replace windows on a Complex-Wide or Building-Wide basis it is conceivable that they might be able to sneak through the cost of the work to install a bay below the window, especially since so many air conditioners would have to be moved to reframe the windows.What makes Janine Sarna-Jones's comment more creditable is that the last Window MCI was 'accepted' by DHCR in approximately 1992, and the windows are aluminum, thus their useful life (20 years) has been exhausted."
This question was asked: "Would this MCI be applied to units that have not been wired for AC?"
Marsh's answer: "Unfortunately, the answer is probably yes, in the context described above. When we fought the Electrical MCI in PCV, many of us noted and raised an objection to the extra wiring installed under the sink and behind the stove which were for the benefit of the future tenant. Such objection fell on deaf ears. I suspect the Owner would make the uniform installation argument, since most apartments are now wired for air-conditioning."
STR -1
7:36 - 0
7:36 - have you looked at his initial comments? They are there for the world to see.
This is why they came into our apartments and looked at our air conditioners a few years back. Sneaky inspections that are not an acceptable reason for an apartment inspection but the inspections were not challenged by the TA. Instead the TA told tenants to suck it up and that as Dan likes to say "well it is legal". No it is not. The inspections they did are not legal. The reasons they did them is not a legally acceptable reason. The students they had inspecting doing the inventory are being taught how to deceive, break the law, and steal a persons home.
NYU Ethics 101 in Real Estate
Um, yes, MCI law is complicated. Complicated enough that you don't get it. Nothing in what you just quoted suggests that the owner has a "right to slap an MCI for a complex-wide rearrangement of A/C units AND a right to charge an MCI to those tenants who declined A/C from the beginning." What his comments suggest is that the state MCI law needs rewriting.
>>Um, yes, MCI law is complicated. Complicated enough that you don't get it. Nothing in what you just quoted suggests that the owner has a "right to slap an MCI for a complex-wide rearrangement of A/C units AND a right to charge an MCI to those tenants who declined A/C from the beginning." What his comments suggest is that the state MCI law needs rewriting.<<
Marsh's comments speak for themselves. That is why I cut and pasted them here. Readers are free to make up their own minds just what his comments implied or suggested, inadvertently or not.
4:16am - is that you again John? Losing sleep over the comments you made? Everyone but you and your closest allies seem to be in agreement about your initial comments. Everything afterwards is just fluff to try and justify your comment.
4:16am (and a few others)
What part of this statement is hard to understand - "I would happily pay and [sic] MCI to have my a/c's relocated to below my window."
This was Marsh's original comment. Nothing more, nothing less. It wasn't until he was called out by the masses that he added all of the other crap. And that is all it is - crap. Like one of the earlier posters said, STR needs to keep an eye on this over the upcoming months/years. If this is something Blackstone pursues, you better believe that this thread will come up again. Then what will John say???
Anonymous Anonymous said...
"Residents threatened with arrest in latest scam".
Check out some more interesting comments Mr. Marsh is making on Facebook regarding this topic. OH BOY!
November 16, 2015 at 11:58 AM
Can't find his meltdown. What is he saying now?
The inspections, the projected MCI's eg air conditioner relocation, proximity to a ferry station and subway lines, all ways to increase the price to the $5.4 Billion....They have to do these things or the promised revenue projections are fraudulent. Not that they care about anything like that as these RE guys get away with every crime they commit. But they do care about every penny promised.
John Marsh's remark about arrests was a harmless joke. Stop crucifying the guy.
Then what was his harmless remark November 18, 2015 at 1:19 PM?
I have been outspoken against Marsh for his window AC MCI comment, but I agree with 1:19pm. The arrest comment was a harmless joke.
With that being said, Marsh and the TA have crucified 25,000+ tenants that live in PCVST over the last decade, so I don't feel so bad.
>>The arrest comment was a harmless joke.<<
Of course it was. Though I did a double-take mentally when I read it.
If it was a joke, and I'm not so sure, the guy should delete it now. Anything else shows how little class he has.
Hey, if all of these apartments are being chopped up into more units, shouldn't the MCI room count be re-adjusted for all of the buildings currently paying these things? Anyone? STR?
>>Hey, if all of these apartments are being chopped up into more units, shouldn't the MCI room count be re-adjusted for all of the buildings currently paying these things?<<
Seems logical.
9:44 A major point that should have been resolved under Marsh's TA.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Hey, if all of these apartments are being chopped up into more units, shouldn't the MCI room count be re-adjusted for all of the buildings currently paying these things? Anyone? STR?
November 19, 2015 at 9:44 AM
Seems ethical, moral, and logical.
Problem is Albany and NYC pols and the housing authorities they run may have made loopholes for the landlords and REBNY to get around that logic and fairness.
Can someone with some kind of pull here, mention this to the TA? Maybe they already know this. But just in case. I am just an average Joe, like probably the most of you.
STR - So you can't defend your contention that the comments Marsh made that you cut and pasted don't back up your contention that he claimed that the owner has the "right to slap an MCI for a complex-wide rearrangement of A/C units AND a right to charge an MCI to those tenants who declined A/C from the beginning." Duly noted.
November 18, 2015 at 8:20 AM
No, I'm not John Marsh. And I'm not on the TA board, etc. I do hand out flyers for the TA in my building though.
>>STR - So you can't defend your contention that the comments Marsh made that you cut and pasted don't back up your contention that he claimed that the owner has the "right to slap an MCI for a complex-wide rearrangement of A/C units AND a right to charge an MCI to those tenants who declined A/C from the beginning." Duly noted.<<
You can't connect the links, then? Duly noted.
Is it me or are the TA sympathizers (or maybe just 1 sympathizer) out in full force tonight?
STR No I can't. So please explain.
>>STR No I can't. So please explain.<<
Dear Lord, do I have to repeat myself. One last time. Below is how the owner can replace windows complex-wide to include the cost of "a bay below the window" (obviously for an AC unit). The plan courtesy of John Marsh.
Re: Complex-wide MCI: "If indeed the Owner is going to replace windows on a Complex-Wide or Building-Wide basis it is conceivable that they might be able to sneak through the cost of the work to install a bay below the window, especially since so many air conditioners would have to be moved to reframe the windows.What makes Janine Sarna-Jones's comment more creditable is that the last Window MCI was 'accepted' by DHCR in approximately 1992, and the windows are aluminum, thus their useful life (20 years) has been exhausted."
This question was asked: "Would this MCI be applied to units that have not been wired for AC?"
Marsh's answer: "Unfortunately, the answer is probably yes, in the context described above. When we fought the Electrical MCI in PCV, many of us noted and raised an objection to the extra wiring installed under the sink and behind the stove which were for the benefit of the future tenant. Such objection fell on deaf ears. I suspect the Owner would make the uniform installation argument, since most apartments are now wired for air-conditioning."
Thank you STR. All of us, other then the 2-3 Marsh groupies, understand it. John Marsh is trying to cover his behind in case Blackstone does go forward with this plan. If it does, I hope he has a back-up living situation because there will be a lot of pissed of neighbors.
Below is how the owner can replace windows complex-wide to include the cost of "a bay below the window."
THAT paraphrase I have no problem with.
Yes, Marsh was laying out >>how<< an owner could try to sneak that MCI through. That is far, far different than advocacy, which is what he has unfairly accused of doing on your site. Reminding people of ways landlords can take advantage of unfair MCI laws and how DHCR bends over backwards to apply said unfair laws in the landlords favor and that the courts rarely, if ever, rule against DHCR is a reminder that we need to be working harder to get MCI laws rewritten more fairly.
So Marsh has groupies? STR has his share of flying monkeys.
Oh please, everyone has seen how, for reasons unknown, some of the tenant association board ladies flirt with Marsh and hang on his every word with laser focused eyes.
Post a Comment