Comment Policy

All comments to posts have to await approval. Approval does not happen immediately. NOTE: Comments reflect the opinions of the person writing them and should not be assumed to reflect the opinion of the blog.

Management has two priorities: 1) Making sure money is made, hence upgrading and filling up apartments is their goal. "Amenities" are important in selling the place, though few residents use them. 2) If someone needs medical attention, Public Safety will be there, if alerted.

Quality of life issues are not that important, however. They tend to be ignored, despite "the rules." So you will see a lot that isn't taken care of properly, and complaints will be met with a creative excuse and a smile.

"Peace and quiet" must be a cruel joke, though this property is sold that way. There can be no peace and quiet as ALL apartments must be upgraded, which includes the installation of an AC unit below the window. Aside from the continual construction about the neighborhood, there is a new and noisy subway extension being built along East 14 st and the shut down of the L line. "Choosing" to live in NYC, now the newest mantra, is a fabrication when the talk is of ST and PCV, which was traditionally quiet, with no construction noise.

Though money was always important, it is now more important than ever. Money rules many things, as you will find.

At this point, 30 years into living here and seeing many things, I can state that Management and their reps are BS-ing us. I can't say that loudly enough: We are being BS-ed. I don't see any genuine change. Sorry.

Thursday, November 12, 2015

Temporary Housing While Owner Renovates or Repairs Tenants' Units

Apparently this is part of the deal between the city and Blackstone.  Page 6:

http://therealdeal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Blackstone-Stuy-Town-Agreement.pdf

"...nothing herein shall prohibit Purchaser from using units at the Property to temporarily house tenants while such tenants' units are being renovated or repaired."

Now for this to make complete sense, it would mean that the tenant would already have to be an existing tenant. I don't know of a case where a repair would necessitate the removal of a tenant (unless something like a flooding disaster or fire occurs), so I'm zeroing in on the "renovated" aspect. So the agreement allows temporary housing, but also, by inference, allows the renovation of apartments either not renovated or not fully renovated (such as the installation of an AC unit in a wall). I'm not that concerned about the AC aspect (which shouldn't necessitate a tenant's temporary removal from the tenant's apartment), but what concerns me is the temporary removal of a tenant from a non-renovated apartment, one that is fully under rent stabilization, pre-Roberts, so that the Purchaser (Blackstone) can renovate the apartment, thereby dramatically increasing the unit's "base rent." (Rent for the current tenant would still have to be within RS guidelines, of course). This renovation could also include the merging of apartments that would provide extra space for tenants who wish to significantly enlarge their current apartments. (More noise! More dust and debris!) Unless the tenant's temporary removal is voluntary from the tenant's perspective (yes, a tenant may wish to "upgrade" and pay more!), in no way can a forced temporary removal be acceptable!

I AM NOT STATING THAT THIS WILL OR COULD HAPPEN, BUT THAT THERE MUST BE SOMETHING IN WRITING STATING THAT IT WILL NOT HAPPEN.

Opinions?

47 comments:

Anonymous said...

Uh oh...

Anonymous said...

Did the Tenants Association know about this?

Anonymous said...

Wow, charming. Why am I not surprised. Fuck, these guys are assholes.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

Don't know what the TA knew. I'm sure they will address the issue if someone informs them on the TA Facebook. (I'm banned from posting there.)

Anonymous said...

I'm pretty sure the TA knew. The sleazy politicians certainly knew! We have NOBODY who we can trust. Absolutely NOBODY.

Anonymous said...

DG and the TA would never tolerate something like this. I pity Blackstone if they ever tried to embark on any kind of initiative of this kind. The TA and DG would hit them like a ton of bricks. They would learn very quickly not to mess with the entrenched tenant support system here.

Anonymous said...

From fact sheet#12- Rent Increases for Individual Apartment Improvements (IAI)

If the subject apartment is vacant when the improvements are made, the owner does not have to obtain the written consent of any tenant to increase the rent.

An owner who pays for a substantial increase of dwelling space or an increase in services, or new furniture or furnishings, or the
installation of new equipment or improvements provided in or to an occupied rent stabilized or rent controlled apartment, and has
obtained the written consent of the tenant to the rent increase, may increase the rent.

Therefore, I think you would have to consent to do this.
Why are you getting everybody nervous STR?
Do some research before you throw things out like this.
I'm no lawyer, but I think common sense says they can not do this to RS tenants.
And, the wording of "...nothing herein shall prohibit Purchaser from using units at the Property to temporarily house tenants while such tenants' units are being renovated or repaired.", falls under the heading of Affordable Units.





Anonymous said...

1:27 I am a lawyer and I think that a LL can do this.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>Therefore, I think you would have to consent to do this.
Why are you getting everybody nervous STR?
Do some research before you throw things out like this.
I'm no lawyer, but I think common sense says they can not do this to RS tenants.
And, the wording of "...nothing herein shall prohibit Purchaser from using units at the Property to temporarily house tenants while such tenants' units are being renovated or repaired.", falls under the heading of Affordable Units.<<

Legally, the wording of a document is important not only for what it says, but what it does NOT say. The wording of "...nothing herein shall prohibit Purchaser from using units at the Property to temporarily house tenants while such tenants' units are being renovated or repaired" does not specifically mention the Affordable Units. "Such units" may indeed come under the heading of Affordable Units, but what does that mean? The Affordable Units that will be renovated? So that DOES mean that previous RS regular units will have renovations and their base rent increased? Right?

Also be aware that I wrote that RS protections would be in place for a RS tenant. So I am NOT stating that such a renovation would mean that the current, temporarily displaced RS tenant would get a rent increase, just that the unit's base rent could increase. Right?

Anonymous said...

"DG and the TA would never tolerate something like this. I pity Blackstone if they ever tried to embark on any kind of initiative of this kind. The TA and DG would hit them like a ton of bricks. They would learn very quickly not to mess with the entrenched tenant support system here."

Are you for real? DG and the TA were probably on board with this plan from the very beginning!

Stuy Town Reporter said...

I believe the plan is that when Blackstone sells this place after 20 years or so, it will have in place most, if not nearly all, of the units here as "renovated" with a high base rent, ready to go for the new Purchaser.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

In other words, they are going to max out everything possible under this deal.

Anonymous said...

Very confusing.You know what STR? Maybe it means that there is a certain time they have to let these affordable people in, and regardless of where they put them temporarily, they will eventually put them in a renovated apartment when one becomes available. That pdf document is soo lawyered up, it is sometimes soo confusing to us regular people. I am still pretty sure we are ok and protected under the current laws, and the leases in which we signed. There are still about 5000 of us left. So I doubt they would like to pay all those moving costs, ripping up rugs, moving furniture, etc, etc, etc,. I am not worrying about it. But, maybe I'm wrong. Doubt it, though!

Anonymous said...

DG and TA? LOL is that a joke?

Stuy Town Reporter said...

Every current RS tenant, pre-Roberts, is protected by RS laws.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

And, yes, this could be just for the "affordable people" on a waiting list, who would be housed in temporary units, while the units they are waiting on get renovated. The question then becomes what happens to these "affordable people" in "affordable units" when the deal expires? I believe the deal gets into that, but my mind spins trying to figure that one out. What seems certain is that old non-renovated units will be renovated once the tenant leaves and that the base rent will rise, dramatically. Remember this is the "base rent," not the preferential one.

Anonymous said...

Yes. It all seems to be designed for when ALL units will eventually be MR. Don't worry STR. That's why these sneaks, I mean lawyers, prepare these documents. Have a good day. :)

Anonymous said...



NEW YORK (CBSNewYork/AP) — Smoking could soon be banned in the nation’s public housing.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed a rule Thursday to require the more than 3,100 public housing agencies across the country to make their properties smoke-free. We have a responsibility to protect public housing residents from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke, especially the elderly and children who suffer from asthma and other respiratory diseases,” HUD Secretary Julian Castro said in a statement.

Castro says the ban would protect the health of more than 760,000 children and save about $153 million a year in health care costs, repairs and preventable fires.


The rule would ban lit tobacco products in all residences, indoor common areas and administrative offices. Smoking also would be prohibited outdoors within 25 feet of housing and administrative buildings.

New York City Housing Authority already prohibits smoking from common areas, including hallways and lobbies. Residents at a public housing complex on Parsons Boulevard in Queens had mixed feelings about the federal ban, which would prohibit smoking inside apartments.

“I honestly don’t have a problem with that. Other neighbors who smoke in the building, the smoke comes out of their apartments and comes into my apartment,” resident Kristy Maxwell told 1010 WINS’ Mona Rivera. “I myself am a smoker, but I do not smoke in my apartment, I come outside to smoke.”

“Personally, I’m not a smoker myself, so I’m totally fine with it [the ban],” said resident Andrew Medina.

“I don’t agree with that at all, people should be allowed to do what they want to do in their apartments as long as it’s not illegal,” one woman said.

“The ban, I don’t think it’s going to do much, people are going to smoke either way,” a man said.

The nation’s surgeon general says the rule is needed to protect public housing residents from the dangers of secondhand smoke.

“Everyone — no matter where they live — deserves a chance to grow up in a healthy, smoke-free home,” said Vivek Murthy. “There is no safe level of secondhand smoke.”

The public has 60 days to comment on the rule. The ban would take effect 18 months after the rule is finalized.

(

Anonymous said...

Maybe one of the lawyers who were in on the deal would care to explain it to us? Dan Garodnick could explain it to us. He's a lawyer and, I've heard, a very good one when he was practicing law.

Anonymous said...

Tenants above us have no carpets. Dog scratching floor all night and we hear it. Kids running amuck and half the time with shoes on.

Who are these kinds of people? I'm notifying 311 and who or what? Refusing to pay my exorbitant rent to be annoyed 8 hours when home with disgusting ill mannered tenants this place rents to.

Anonymous said...

I hope 1:22 is sarcasm. If it's not, I laugh while thinking a large company like Blackstone would be afraid of the ton of bricks that Dan and the ever so powerful TA would throw at them.

Anonymous said...

AGREE

Anonymous said...

Unless the tenant's temporary removal is voluntary from the tenant's perspective (yes, a tenant may wish to "upgrade" and pay more!), in no way can a forced temporary removal be acceptable!

I AM NOT STATING THAT THIS WILL OR COULD HAPPEN, BUT THAT THERE MUST BE SOMETHING IN WRITING STATING THAT IT WILL NOT HAPPEN.

AGREE

Anonymous said...

After going through this as best as I can (I am no way near a housing legal expert), I think one can certainly ascertain without any doubt that the REBNY legal firepower bought up against our so called government representatives' legal team to negotiate this “deal” is like an F-15 going against a Spad biplane. No contest.

Anonymous said...

MR tenant here paying way too much to listen to noise all fucking weekend from above and next door. FUCK this. CROCK and CWC are in violation of not upholding the leases and i'm moving out. Let them try to find me to collect.

Anonymous said...

Not quite related to this thread but more Cuomo evil deeds related to Bridgegate. Such a piece of shit he is.

“The correspondence from Garten to Rechler also reveals that appointees and staff representing the New York side of the bi-state Port Authority were eager to repair their relationship with Governor Cuomo. It is already well known that Port Authority Executive Director Patrick Foye, a New York appointee, had a strained relationship with Cuomo. The Wall Street Journal reported in December 2013 that Chris Christie reached out to Andrew Cuomo by phone to ask him to restrain Foye’s probe of Bridgegate, and it is widely believed that Cuomo cooperated in doing so.”

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/as-campaign-crumbles-christie-hit-with-epic-bridgegate-docu-dump

Anonymous said...

On the one hand Fortress does not deserve to be rewarded for the behavior here.
On the other hand these guys do not deserve to be rewarded or made whole for their bad investment choice and a vile one at that, Rob Speyers Brookfield plan.
None of them deserve, or frankly have a right to, this money.

http://therealdeal.com/blog/2015/11/12/investors-sue-cwcapital-wells-fargo-over-stuy-town-sale/

Anonymous said...

Seeing what damage these guys can do with a loophole, this is truly frightening and needs tightening up by Ms Glen before landlords use this wide open door she created to inflict the extreme stress of being uprooted and displaced for weeks or months on end. Even one day of displacement is highly stressful. Geez, the pols opened a door for landlords to inflict further harassment on tenants, a wide open door -- instead of closing it all together. NY politicians really hate the working class renters. What a bunch of overprivileged overcoddled money hungry REBNY Wall Street owned ignoramus.

Anonymous said...

http://observer.com/2015/10/state-of-confusion-albanys-top-40/

A Who's Who of Albany who could have protected PCVST tenants at anytime since 2007 but chose not to and instead to open the flood gates for developers and wealthy to steal from an entire middle class population of 30,000 people!

At #15....

15. Bill Mulrow, Secretary to the Governor

Official New York State headshotA former investment banker at the Blackstone Group, Mr. Mulrow joined the Cuomo administration this year after several top aides departed. As secretary, Mr. Mulrow has stepped into the job of Mr. Cuomo’s right-hand man, but he’s not exactly a new face to government or the Cuomo family: he worked for Mr. Cuomo’s father and served on the New York State Housing Finance Agency as Mr. Cuomo’s appointee. His position is a powerful one, but Mr. Mulrow has kept a decidedly lower profile than his predecessors, and rumors have swirled that despite his short tenure he might be looking for an exit.

Hippo said...

REMEMBER YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST.
Our new owners have a reputation on Wall Street of total hardball tactics, bottom line comes first, maximizing profit no matter what, earnings, cutthroat tactics, acquisitions and growth at any cost.
Forget the nicey-nicey talk, the brochures, the surveys, we are in for quite a ride.
THEY WANT US OUT.
We'll yearn for the benevolence of Tishman-Speyer, CW Capitol and Compass Cock.
Blackstone will make them look like Mother Teresa.
REMEMBER YOU HEARD IT HERE FROM HIPPO FIRST.
MCI anyone?

Anonymous said...

November 12, 2015 at 1:48 PM

If you are a lawyer, you don't think, you know. Do some research to back up your statement.

Anonymous said...

Enjoy: http://therealdeal.com/blog/2015/11/12/investors-sue-cwcapital-wells-fargo-over-stuy-town-sale/

Anonymous said...

What's going to happen in just 5 yrs is: Blackstone will not re-apply for j-51 benefits which means that apartments can be decontrolled and rents can skyrocket. Then Blackstone can test the waters. If they can make plenty of money by renting renovated units at luxury levels, they will do it. But if that plan falters in any way, then they can always execute a conversion. Conversion is the safety value here because it will render a pile of money at almost any reasonable price per unit. By 2025, the breakout would like look like this:
500K per apt times 40% buyers = 2.25B.
Around 20% long timers who may want to stay RS (with or without the mayor's so-called protection)
About 40% who won't buy but will want to still rent. Blackstone will be able to play with the vacancy rate of these. All they have to do is start charging these tenants the legal rents over the preferential rents and a lot of units will go vacant and Blackstone can keep these vacant legally (not warehousing) because renters will not pay those legal rents which are far over market value. Which means these units can be sold at market rates during a conversion. About $4.5B at least.
Then over time the remaining 2200 units will sell off providing an additional 2.2B.

So given the strategy of renting to students, the right timing and the right plan, this place is really a no-lose investment. The renovations enable either a luxury rental strategy or a best price conversion.

Anonymous said...

Everyone wants a piece of the action. Gotta love it. And all WE do is LIVE here. Can you imagine? Soo much *^%!@# going on in the backround.

Anonymous said...

I emailed Councilman Garodnick and he said that there is no truth to this rumor.

Anonymous said...

OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE

Such a piece of shit he is.

Anonymous said...

Not quite related to this thread but more Cuomo evil deeds related to Bridgegate. Such a piece of shit he is.

“The correspondence from Garten to Rechler also reveals that appointees and staff representing the New York side of the bi-state Port Authority were eager to repair their relationship with Governor Cuomo. It is already well known that Port Authority Executive Director Patrick Foye, a New York appointee, had a strained relationship with Cuomo. The Wall Street Journal reported in December 2013 that Chris Christie reached out to Andrew Cuomo by phone to ask him to restrain Foye’s probe of Bridgegate, and it is widely believed that Cuomo cooperated in doing so.”

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/as-campaign-crumbles-christie-hit-with-epic-bridgegate-docu-dump

November 12, 2015 at 10:04 PM

Anonymous said...

Blame the TA for screwing us these instead of challenging CW Fortress Caissis since 2010. The TA helped the rent roll go up up up up up and the tress go down down down down down

Anonymous said...

you know this community always has had only one source of leverage...it is our ability to act up. i don't think the TA is operational in the old sense. it is now just a puppet organization run by steinberg. and it is really being run like a political tool for her. so what was done by steinberg with respect to this do-nothing deal with blackstone? the meeting really served only one purpose: to provide cover for the politicians. another TA might have just told us point blank we got next to nothing. instead hugs all round for steinberg for helping the politicians sugarcoat a big zero. and the community left anaesthetized, less prepared to act up. so be it.

Anonymous said...

TA screwed us, NYC screwed us, Albany screwed us but most of all MET LIFE shoved it up our ass and gave us away.

Anonymous said...

Why don't you bunch of morons get your own TA?

Anonymous said...

It is getting harder and harder for investors to make money therefore they are fu%king around with our homes and, in essence, our lives. Why can't holding companies of these goddamn asshol* companies be sued and stopped for basically making our lives stressful and difficult as renters. At the end, the holding company is after all the real actual landlord.

Anonymous said...

4:36 PM. Unfortunately, that's the way it is in America these days. We live in an oligarchy and they own our lives and our souls. At least they think they do. Eventually, they'll push us too far and then .... who knows what will happen, but it won't be pretty. Let's see what happens at the Silver trial. It will be fun to watch what happens if he is found guilty and then see Preet drag Governor Glenwood out by his short curlies.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why don't you bunch of morons get your own TA?

November 14, 2015 at 3:24 PM

Because Hoylman, Schneiderman, De Blasio Garodnick like that they control this TA so they will make sure this TA stays in place. Its more of a PA (political association) and not a TA.

Anonymous said...

Something happened toward the end of Al Doyle being TA president, and that's when the TA changed. To all appearances it had a lot to do with Garodnick getting inside the TA and working his way over the conversion. Prior to this politicians weren't 'inside' the TA. They were usually held at the arm's length as invited guests. But by the time Marsh and Steinberg took over, the leadership seemed to be enamored with the illusion of power and prestige with respect to the conversion. So the TA started being run by Garodnick with Marsh and Steinberg as his aides. But with Marsh stepping down and Steinberg taking over, it appears that Steinberg was the real power between those two, the more forceful personality. Either that or Marsh just left when things started looking not so glamorous (that is, CW wasn't even talking to them). Well, Garodnick has gone back to his day job now and we don't really need another TA. We just need Steinberg to step down and someone like Al Doyle to take over again.

Anonymous said...

@9:15 PM. You are absolutely right. I wish Steinberg would step down, but the TA does not have open, fair elections. They are totally rigged. Steinberg has been the kiss of death to PCVST.

Anonymous said...

Saw Danny boy walking through ST the other day. He think's he God.

Anonymous said...

9:15 Al Doyle is no different then Steinberg and Marsh and has been very involved in everything done here, EVERYTHING.

10:20 what an awful way to start the day, crossing paths with that.