Comment Policy

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

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

The Reality

Unless there's some big surprise coming (very, very doubtful), the REBNY has won in general terms. There will be a few small victories for the crowd that's concerned about New York, but if you look around, you can see who is winning.

In Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village, the "battle" is about over, if not over. The new landlord, basically Blackstone, has won. The dogs are here to stay and their population will increase; the dog waste will increase, too. Oops, there goes an accident! Sorry about that!

Our population has also increased, by the thousands. A lot are students, which will not change; and a lot are new family tenants, which will not change either. Money, money, money. Partitions, flex apartments. As long as most tenants are white with a good sampling of Asians, we don't care. This may change in the future, but I'm not interested in that battle, and I doubt there will be one.

The old Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village is gone, never to return.

As I said, I think the best we can do is to hope for relative peace and quiet as we await, or are already into, our "golden years." If you want to continue the fight, go ahead. You are more than welcome to it, but I do think you are basically wasting your time.

162 comments:

Anonymous said...

I hope this isn't your Swan Song, STR.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

Kinda is, kinda isn't. I think that the dog issue was the straw (?) that broke the camel's back. I actually like the little ones, but enough is enough, and I don't think that's the way management looks at it. We'll see more, just as we'll see the bicycles running around. We will see more partitions and "flex" apartments going for $4K plus. We'll see more of the old crowd dying off, and the new crowd (students and new family) taking over.

Anonymous said...

It took you this long to come to this conclusion? Seriously?
I mean really,seriously?????
So you thought they would reverse the dog policy? Grandfather in existing ones until their death? They were going to stop renting to students who are pretty much the only group who would pay these prices to live in a project? I'm trying to get my head around what you were hoping for?

I'm sorry STR, it's been over for quite a while.....

Stuy Town Reporter said...

It's a conclusion I've reached numerous times, unfortunately.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

I've just seen a woman with three dogs walk very nicely about the Oval. No one stopped her. No one cares. "What's it to you?"

Stuy Town Reporter said...

And I've just seen a young woman parade her dog around the inner Oval pathway. No one stopped her. No one cares.

Anonymous said...

That is nothing STR. I see a guy walking probably five every night on the pathway between the 14th St Loop and the Avenue C Loop. He is generally accompanied by three or four other people who have two each. This group has no compunction to hold the leashes nor do they think anyone is entitled to walk past them as they normally take up the width of the path. I haven't paused long enough to see if they clean up after the dogs but with the generally rude attitude that they don't have to hold the dogs so that others can pass, I would doubt it.

On another note, I am out fairly early in the morning. There used to be a street sweeper that would wash (yes with a soapy material) the walkways. Since the advent of the dogs and their presents, I don't see that anymore. But is may just be another money savings instituted by CR.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

I do believe I know whom you are referring to. I think he's from the outside, though his adoring crowd may not be. I'd love to see PS go after him, if they haven't already. Which I doubt.

Anonymous said...

Please don't abandon us, STR. We love you. And we need you.

Anonymous said...

Maybe it would help if, when you see these things, such as three dogs being walked, people walking their dogs where they shouldn't, and the gang of dog walkers, you could take a photograph and email it to Rick whasisname. Maybe even post the pics here, too. I don't mean just you, STR, but anyone with a camera or cell phone. I am going to do that from now on.

Anonymous said...

If you mean the commentator on the previous post, I have to agree we should use our votes, get out and vote, and vote them out. Whether or not they won and took our small business lease and now our StuyTown home, we should still vote them out. Anyone but them, vote for the other guy whoever that is. I appreciate the link they posted to the WSJ news that maybe some of them will be behind bars and are scrambling just like they make us scramble just to keep our businesses open in the same location. But if you do not, then this will be the last comment on our lost small, business lease fight that we put on your blog and please know we appreciated the short time we got to know your blog. Good luck to all.

Anonymous said...

ps we enjoyed having many of our Peter Cooper Village and ST neighbors as customers and hope to see you all around the Oval for many years to come.

Anonymous said...

Rick doesn't give a "crap" when it comes to dogs and rules. Sure, put up some new signage and pretend to care in tenant emails etc etc.

It will get worse.

Wait.

Anonymous said...

4:19 & 4:23 pm: who are you? I think you are on the wrong thread. You

Anonymous said...

When walking home tonight around the oval, I was thinking about what a nice place this would be to live without the students and dogs. Too bad that it has come to this. I do foresee an increase in dogs, students in dorm apartments, and illegal tenants. Blackstone is no panacea, as bad as compass crock . Just has a good PR system and Mr.Rick to keep a lid on the nasty goings on.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

I will say, even though I think I said it before, that there is a urine smell around the chess tables/Oval Study area. I doubt if it's human urine.

Also, the chess tables, though they are new, are filthy now, and look just as bad as the old chess tables.

I know. "What's it to you?"

Dismayed said...

What's wrong with us young families? We want our kids to have a beautiful and safe place to grow up, just like you wanted for your families.

Anonymous said...

This is a big surprise and reality may change if Mr Bharara cleans out the REBNY real estate loving City Council. The US Attorney investigation got a lot closer to the City Council payoff of half a million dollars to the NYPD between 2014 and 2016.

Bottomline, the City Council paid the NYPD half a million taxpayer dollars funneled through real estate developer witness #1 for what amounted to a "museum tour".

This stinks worse than urine around the chess tablea, smelling like the City Council gave a payoff of half a million taxpayer dollars from 2014 - 2016 to the NYPD disguised as "sensitivity training" funneled through a real estate investor under investigation by the US Attorney Bharara. Clearly the money was used for something else all together since the NYPD does its own sensitivity training and coincidentally the City Council did not give again this year so they must have completed the 2014 through 2016 half million dollar real-estate-money-funneled "museum tour" project and no surprise a co-sponser is Stuyvesant Town Councilperson.

Sounds like witness #1, Jona Rechnitz may be spilling the dirty deeds of the City Council to the US Attorney General. Cleaning House and clearing out the City Council is a long time coming.

Stuyvesant Town City Council representative is a sponsor of this half million dollars "museum tour" that replaced formal sensitivity training by NYPD Headquarters listing himself as the representative of "Tudor City".

"Other municipal legislators, who co-sponsored the Fiscal Year 2015 grant for the sensitivity training, included Councilmembers Costa Constantinides (D-Astoria), Elizabeth Crowley (D-Forest Hills), Daniel Garodnick (D-Tudor City), Vincent Gentile (D-Bay Ridge), Mark Levine (D-West Harlem), Ydanis Rodríguez (D-Washington Heights), and Alan Maisel (D-Canarsie).

Councilmember Crowley sponsored a separate, one-time grant of $5,000, also in Fiscal Year 2015.

A third grant of $350,000 was co-sponsored by Councilmembers David Greenfield (D-Borough Park), Levine, and Crowley, along with Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito (D-Spanish Harlem), according to the Fiscal Year 2016 Schedule C.

http://nypost.com/2016/06/15/de-blasio-donor-funneled-655k-from-city-council-to-fund-law-enforcement-seminar/


http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/06/14/simon-wiesenthal-center-funds/

http://therealdeal.com/2016/04/18/rechnitz-funnelled-255k-in-city-money-to-wiesenthal-center-program-report/

http://www.progressqueens.com/news/2016/4/18/daniel-dromm-co-sponsored-discretionary-funds-for-nypd-training-program-linked-to-jona-rechnitz


City Council Backpeddlars to CBS news Marcia Kramer
“I’ve got to take a look at where things stand,” Councilman Dan Gorodnick, D-Manhattan, said.

“There was concern about appearances,” Councilman Mark Levine, D-Manhattan, explained. “It wasn’t my call, but I think there were some tough questions that had to be asked.”

“If there are questions about an organization, I think it’s appropriate for the council to take a step back,” Councilman David Greenfield, D-Brooklyn, stated.

Anonymous said...


Maybe your readers would be interested in reporting the $60,000 payment your landlord gave to your councilman to the City Council Watch.

http://citycouncilwatch.net/about/

citycouncilwatch.net/blog/2016/6/6/the-coming-council

Dan Garodnick. There is a host of contenders for the seat, and with the amount of money that will probably be raised in this race it is hard at this moment to pick a winner. Among some of the likely candidates are:

Renee Cafaro, an Ohio mall heiress who lives in the Plaza;

Keith Powers, former staffer for Jonathan Bing and currently working at Peter Vallone’s lobbying firm;

Jeff Mailman, Liz Crowley staffer; has a twin brother and a campaign website;

Marti Speranza, state committeewoman;

Bessie Schacter, state committeewoman;

**ADDITION** Mark Thompson. Executive at powerhouse lobbyist Capalino, Thompson wanted to run in 2013 when it seemed like Garodnick was going to run for comptroller. Thompson got Ed Koch's (!) endorsement.


On ferries, buses and street cars that have burdensome costs

http://citycouncilwatch.net/blog/2016/3/21/bill-de-blasio


On Pay their 30% pay raises for their backbreaking work while the NYPD officers got 1%
http://citycouncilwatch.net/blog/2016/2/4/salary-follies


It needs explaining, that your councilman takes $60,000 from your landlord during the most intense increased evictions and commercial development.

Contact City Council Watch

http://citycouncilwatch.net/about/

Anonymous said...

Here is the public notice of the Board of Health hearing to clarify whether or not Health Code 161.03 (curbing dogs) applies to private property:
https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/notice/2016/noi-161.pdf

People can submit their comments. I hope folks will take an interest. This could have an impact here with respect to dogs. Once this is clarified, we'd have to see where this could go.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>What's wrong with us young families?<<

Not saying anything is wrong. Just a fact of life. I will say that it is possible that some young families have children that are misbehaved, but that was probably also true of older families.

Anonymous said...

Yes todays "young families" and older "young families" probably have some similar issues but some parents in the playgrounds have one distinct difference because of technology advances they are on their phone more than they are interacting with their children making some of the kids louder and acting out in trying to get attention from their parent and at least one parent is on the computer more than spending time with the children in their home. Times have changed parenting too.

Anonymous said...

NO doubt str is right, but we still have to fight, even if we lose.are losing.

fuck them at least we go down making their lives hell( Blackstone and nyc politicians and more)

Stuy Town Reporter said...

There are two parents, at least, who let their daughters run around topless. I don't know the exact age of the daughters but they are older than one or two, that's for sure. Now I don't mind topless or bottomless, but at the right place, not in a playground in Manhattan I would think. I could be wrong. It was just surprising to see twice in a week!

Stuy Town Reporter said...

You are right about cell-phones and the attachment not only parents feel about them. I could say more.

Anonymous said...

Most of the young mothers (and fathers) I see around are either glued to their cell phones or reading their texts/emails. Their children are pretty much ignored. I think that is very bad parenting.

Anonymous said...

Another reality Hornblower Cruises and Events

The Ferry is not for commuters. It is a party service with bars and live music on the boats that will bring drunk foot traffic through Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village.

https://hornblowernewyork.com/

Mayor Bill de Blasio in March announcing that Hornblower Cruises and Events, a San Francisco-based company, will operate the ferry service. Credit Uli Seit for The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/16/nyregion/new-york-city-ferry-service.html

Anonymous said...

the topless child thing is very european i guess they dont realize how many preditors are all around them but A&B is great just yesterday SECURITY was buzzing in folks in my building who couldnt speak english but in quazy itialian 8A please we know to call to get it ... how nice we do have doormen

Anonymous said...

Re Hornblower Cruises: We unleashed a demon when we put Bill DeBlasio in Gracie Mansion. He is the worst of the worst when it comes to taking a dump on PCVST. I hope he doesn't get re-elected.

Anonymous said...

Don't mean to stir up a hornet's nest here, but I seem to remember a vast majority of readers on this blog - STR included - being anti-tenant ownership, when it was so painfully obvious the alternative was what we have now. We all had the chance to effect REAL change here. And yes, now, sadly, it is over for both those willing and unwilling to fight for something that made complete sense on every level.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

I'm still anti-tenant ownership, at least for me. Doesn't make sense to pay for Robbie and his cronies to get out of debt. Tenant ownership would give some people more rights, but take away from those who are not owners, like me.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>the topless child thing is very european i guess<<

These were not Europeans. Americans all the way.

Anonymous said...

"I'm still anti-tenant ownership, at least for me. Doesn't make sense to pay for Robbie and his cronies to get out of debt. Tenant ownership would give some people more rights, but take away from those who are not owners, like me."

Take away what exactly from non-owners? You rights don't change as a renter.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

I think we'd establish a class of individuals, the owners, who would very soon want to get rid of the "leeches" who aren't paying their fare share. I, and others like me, would be "leeches."

We've been at this discussion before, of course. My position hasn't changed, and now both our positions are moot.

Anonymous said...

i dont know Str. There are many successful conversions going on in all boroughs. owners buying for $$$$$ living next to those paying $500 a month. It's ny, no one forces you to buy or rent. I think most of us are ok with this. It's been this way for decades. Kwim?

Anonymous said...

Tenant ownership relied on us getting up to 80 or 85% buyers and us getting up to the $5 billion price tag. Tenant buyers would not get a good deal. If the deal were for true tenant buyers then we should have fought for the $3 billion price tag and the real market value. But the TA pushed for the $5 billion price tag that is good for Brookfield investors. The partnership was all wrong for tenants. A co - op was the only way for tenant ownership. But as STR says it is moot.

Anonymous said...

Anybody get the letter from Garodnick about the budget? He thinks the Mayor hired too many people and it's a strain on the budget. Maybe if the corrupt City Council hadn't voted themselves a 32% raise for doing just about fuck all, there would be more in the budget to pay City workers. Can't wait for this lowlife to disappear off the scene along with the Mayor and the rest of the parasitical, REBNY-owned trash.

Anonymous said...

The Roberts Settlement expires in 3 1/2 years. (for those of you on borrowed time).

Anonymous said...

Good man that Dan Garodnick.

Anonymous said...

7:00 agree. The corrupt city council that funneled $655,000 taxpayer $ to NYPD through a De Blasio donator real estate developer Mr Rechnitz under investigation by the city, and feds clearly indicates the city council corrupt top to bottom. Sensitivity training my ass, that was for real estate developers interests and the city council members who sponsored that money funneling should be under investigation too. That includes your Stuyvesant Town Peter Cooper Village councilman Garodnick.

Anonymous said...

I thought he was a good man until he cooked up the deal with Blackstone, along with the other politicians. I don't see him as an advocate for the tenants anymore. He doesn't speak out against the airbnb or dorm situation and this place is really going down the drain.

Anonymous said...

Top users renting out apartments on Airbnb, by zip code, shows NYU is in the top three. NYU represents 23.59% of Airbnb users. These NYU students rent out rooms and whole apartments on average 251 days a year.

"These virtual year-round listings o er additional indications that Airbnb’s business comes from commercial operators removing apartments from the city’s rental market; not the struggling tenants the company has depicted in its advertising."

http://nycommunities.org/sites/default/files/Airbnb%20in%20NYC.pdf



The illegal hotels in Stuyvesant Town are here to stay as long as the leases are given to corporations and not individual people. The pols know this and they will never stop the real illegal hotel operators in Stuyvesant Town - "commercial operators".


Anonymous said...

Who does the Tenant Association work for? They took $27,000 from Dan Garodnick City Council funds. The politicians are paying the tenant association probably more than the tenant fees add up to in a year.

2016 Dan Garodnick gave the Tenant Association $15,000
2015 Dan Garodnick gave the Tenant Association $12,000

No wonder they do whatever Dan tells them to do. What kind of tenant association is this?



STPCV Tenants Association Foundation, Inc. 15,000 Garodnick Local
Funding will support tenant education programs and support organizational costs, and administrative support.

Address: PO Box 1202, New York, 10009-1202

Fiscal Year EIN Status Agency
2016 274554330 Cleared DYCD



STPCV Tenants Association Foundation, Inc. 12,000 Garodnick Local
Funding will support tenant education programs and support organizational costs, including legal fees and administrative support.

Address: PO Box 1202, New York, 10009-1202

Fiscal Year EIN Status Agency
2015 274554330 Cleared DYCD


http://council.nyc.gov/html/budget/database.shtml

Anonymous said...

Dan is good at being corrupt, nothing else. Period. POS!

Anonymous said...

HA! For all their shouting, the City Council would never go after an NYU student renting and charge them $100,000 fine! Nor would the Attorney General of the Mayor! NYU is almost 25% of Airbnb users and NYU does whatever NYU wants to do. The dorms and the Airbnb hotels are all the same! Let's see these loud shouting politicians go after NYU. I won't hold my breath.

http://nypost.com/2015/10/31/councilman-threatens-100k-fines-on-airbnbs-illegal-hotels/

Anonymous said...

Tenant ownership is over with but the anti-tenant ownership sentiment still bewilders me because it makes unjustified assumptions and seems illogical. Why assume tenant owners would turn against the renters? I would have sympathy with the older tenants. My tendency would be to ensure they're well taken care of. Certainly, in greater sympathy than the corporate landlords. Also we would have much more control over our fates if we were owners. Dog policy might change, MCIs would be reasonable instead of targeted to raise rents. Apt. partitioning would stop. Overcrowding would stop. People who violate rules could be dealt with effectively. Those paying mortgages wouldn't be subject to anymore rent increases. A lot of good benefits. What is a compelling downside?

Anonymous said...

Who gave Wall Street/REBNY slave Garodnick the dirty, filthy $27,000 that he laundered into our incredibly conflicted TA board's slush fund @ STPCV Tenants Association Foundation, Inc. ???

Was it major Wall Street predator, Garodnick owner and our incredibly conflicted TA board's financial advisor Moelis ???

Was it major REBNY predator, $25 million Speyer investor, Garodnick owner and our incredibly conflicted TA board's business partner Brookfield ???

What did our incredibly conflicted TA Board members do with that dirty, filthy $27,000 laundered into their slush fund @ STPCV Tenants Association Foundation, Inc. by Wall Street/REBNY slave Garodnick ???

Is Preet so busy chasing rats that he can't see the elephant?

Stuy Town Reporter said...

I don't think there's enough staff to make a go of this, unless the staff gets many more workers. That's happening to a certain extent (there are more PS people around than before, for instance) but some people being some people will try to game the system.

And why is that no bicycle riding around the Oval still a rule? Unless there's a PS officer standing right there (actually in several spots around the Oval), it is one of the most ignored rules of this complex. I count over 50% are ignoring the rule, and that's a lot. Over 50%. More like over 75% at certain times.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>Why assume tenant owners would turn against the renters?<<

The natural state of things, I'm afraid. Even while this was being realistically discussed, you had some who were considering us "leeches." That's a fact.

Anonymous said...

@10:22 there was no downside to the tenant ownership bid. However, a certain element felt that their dignity was at stake if they remained a renter when ownership was available. Some would rather remain vassals to the corporate overlords than scrape together the funds needed to free themselves. These timid, fragile souls should not be compliaining about current conditions since they were complicit in ensuring another round of corporate ownership here.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

And unless it gets rescinded (fat chance of that happening!) the worst decision was to allow dogs into the complex. Robbie Speyer introduced that to the complex, and it's been a growing headache since then. Now you not only have new tenants for whom the dog rule is already an age-old done deal, you have a general manager who has two dogs, too, and a good number of senior citizens (mostly female) who are alright with the concept and have at least one dog to keep them company...and the rest of us. It's a noisy and stinking free-for-all, but that's what this property has become, and nothing can change that.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>@10:22 there was no downside to the tenant ownership bid. However, a certain element felt that their dignity was at stake if they remained a renter when ownership was available. Some would rather remain vassals to the corporate overlords than scrape together the funds needed to free themselves. These timid, fragile souls should not be compliaining about current conditions since they were complicit in ensuring another round of corporate ownership here.<<

Ah, where to begin? Let us say we were always "vassals." At the start and life of this community until MetLife decided to sell, we were certainly vassals. We existed because the local government felt that it was necessary for us to exist. Once we were sold, things started to change. We were still vassals but under a different set of rules. Those rules have not changed, even if the players have.

Again, we have had this discussion before. While some feel they would have been high on the hog with a tenant buy-out, others wanted to remain as "vassals" but under the old set of rules. Rules that were humane at least. The TA and Dan the Man were not willing to even give that a realistic possibility, with Dan the Man leading the TA down a path of compromise. Something for the REBNY, something for the tenants. It only needs to be said that Dan chose to have a third term as city councilman while voting against third terms! That is sleazy, period.

You, and others like you, were willing to pay very good money (more than many of your vassal friends could pay) to get in good and have a decent say in the running of things. I think it's a difficult and probably near impossible path that would mandate, ultimately, getting rid of your vassals. And you'd pay a lot for the pleasure.

Anonymous said...

@10:14 so you prefer the devil you know, faceless avaricious corporation, owning this place over your neighbor. Says a lot.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

Should I repeat what I wrote? You would not just turn out to be a "neighbor." You, and others like you, would turn out to be the "lords." In league with an "avaricious corporation," as was the plan. The vassals, us, the lower class, would be at your mercy.

And where did you get so much money that you could be considered a "lord?" In Manhattan, these days, no less? Or did you think that the inside price would be so low that you could afford it?

Stuy Town Reporter said...

What's amusing, if one laughs a lot, is that the ball was never in your, or my, court. It doesn't matter. The REBNY has already decided which way this property will go. It's a done deal, long before any huffing and puffing from the tenants.

Anonymous said...

That pricing would not be prohibitive to middle class tenants was a tenet of the plan, if it were to fail on this point, so be it. And, to repeat, opposition from some was based (irrationally and quite selfishly) on a perceived loss of dignity they would feel being a renter along with owners.

Anonymous said...

And one pint of history, once freed, the serfs did not become lords, they continued to ply their respective trade with a small difference, heritable property rights!

Anonymous said...

>Why assume tenant owners would turn against the renters?<<

Because Dan Garodnick "advocated" for the market rate to move into the rent stabilized apartments at a lower rent than their market rate apartments with Blackstone paying their moving costs and Blackstone waiving the penalty for breaking their market rate lease...this is indicative of the favoritism the would-be buyers have received since the 2011 Brookfield Partnership was announced and it includes the "Tenant" Association with their tenant law firm Collins Dobkins "negotiating" with Compass Rock resulting in the market rate paying less for the same MCI than the rent stabilized tenants.

The favoritism by the Councilman and the Association is obvious for years now.

All tenants should pay the same for the MCI's. If the prospective market rate buyers spoke against the unfair MCI negotiations then it would be believable that the tenant owner would not turn against the renters. But the market rate would-be buyers happily and quietly accepted the unfair MCI allocation so they already turned against the "renters" / rent stabilized.

It is a fact the market rate apartments are paying less for the same MCI's all tenants use the same way and manner. The Tenant Association felt the market raters were already paying enough so they gave them a big break and put a heavier burden on the non-market rate. That was a telling moment for the people who call themselves a tenant association and act contradictory. The market rate tenants under the leadership of the Association already turned against those who would have been the "renters"

Anonymous said...

June 18, 2016 at 9:07 AM you are fooling yourself if you think Brookfield is not another corporate owner and not the "partner" they called themselves. They are partners with Tishman Speyer in Hudson Yards, and partner with Tishman Speyer in ventures around the world. They are not partners with tenants anywhere and would not be a partner but rather a corporate owner and majority stakeholder. Puhlease.

Anonymous said...

itda str. Nyc has had millionaires living next to low income people forEVER. why do you assume the worst. My dad owns a 2 million dollar apartment, right next to a great friend now and neighbor who pays very little. stop.

Anonymous said...

Two of the units on our floor were in the Brookfield partnership deal because they wanted to flip their apartments and move to Florida, another unit the tenants wanted to buy to run a business that catered to the illegal hotels in the complex out of their apartment.

The tenants looking to buy are not the noble in character of nobility in landlord status being depicted. They are greedy wannabe real estate investors and real estate developers. Operative word being wannabe because the real estate developers like Brookfield would never regard an individual unit owner as an equal.

Greedy real estate developer is not something to aspire and one unit in a complex of 11,000 is insignificant once a Brookfield partnership ownership would have gone through they would have turned their backs and closed their doors to the individual tenant owner calling themself a Landlord. Plus STR is spot on, the price was being driven up by Brookfield.

What kind of deal is it where the buyer and the seller are both driving up the price? A deal where the buyer is a fool.

Anonymous said...

Steve McLaughlin Retweeted
Fredric U. Dicker ‏@fud31 17h17 hours ago

NFIB:"“Simply, the 2016 legislative session will go down as the worst for small business in recent memory.''


NY Democrats are owned by corporations. Brookfield is no different. Brookfield with tenant ownership or Blackstone with all rentals is no difference. Individuals are always on the losing end of the deal as long as these Democrats are in office. Before anyone says the Republicans are the same, the difference is Republicans don't lie to your face, stab you in the back. They admit they favor corporations over citizens. At least that makes it a fair fight when you see the hit coming your way. These Democrats are two faced. Goodbye to the small businesses.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

This is one thing I want, the return of this:

"... who with the vision of experience and the energy of youth conceived and brought into being this project, and others like it, that families of moderate means might live in health, comfort and dignity in park-like communities and that a pattern might be set of private enterprise productively devoted to public service."

If you single out racism, leave the general message. And if you can't find the plaque (a good bet), you can very easily create a new one and put it where it belongs: in the Oval. How's about it???

Atomic Man said...

"It is a fact the market rate apartments are paying less for the same MCI's all tenants use the same way and manner. The Tenant Association felt the market raters were already paying enough so they gave them a big break and put a heavier burden on the non-market rate."

Do you have any proof of this? Because it would be blatantly illegal. MCIs are calculated by dividing the total expenses of the "improvement" by the number of rooms, complex wide. The landlord can choose to not add on the MCI charges to high rent tenants, but it would be clearly illegal to add extra charges to the other tenants to make up for it.

Anonymous said...

Prior to a sales decision, I think the very outfront involvement of the TA in the bidding process really confused the matter.

Back in 2005-2006 era, the first 'TA' attempt to buy seemed different in nature. As I recall, there was never any mention of competing plans. There was just the one effort primarily by Garodnick to work with one group of investors to come up with a bid.

This last time TA and Garodnick involvement was much higher profile. And the TA kept acting as if what it was doing really mattered...and it involved itself in a lot of advocacy.

At any rate, nothing the TA & Garodnick did mattered the first time or this time and there's no business reason why it should have.

Looking at the business aspect alone what would happen if a conversion did come up? No tenant opinions would really matter. By law, if priced so that at least 15% here were willing to buy, that would be the end of story.

Except for one factor which seems to have disappeared from the landscape. Tenant leverage has always been 'acting up'. So if an owner felt that 'acting up' was actually in play, pricing might be a little softer in order to minimize problems.

Even if acting up were in the cards, people would have to be mostly on the same page. This blog shows that might be unlikely.

All seemingly irrelevant thoughts...except you never know what may happen in the future. We've seen 2 real estate busts in the last 30 years. It could happen again.

There is a lot of sure money to be made here with a conversion. Owning and running as a profit-driven business during periods of such volatility can make the realization of hoped-for super-profits a little problematic.

Anonymous said...

"Do you have any proof of this? Because it would be blatantly illegal. MCIs are calculated by dividing the total expenses of the "improvement" by the number of rooms, complex wide. The landlord can choose to not add on the MCI charges to high rent tenants, but it would be clearly illegal to add extra charges to the other tenants to make up for it."

I thought the same.

Anonymous said...

no proof of it, but isn't everything this management does towards tenants illegal? If only there were a book written, a reporter exposing all this... Just wow.

Anonymous said...

Our building has several hotel type things going on in it. BS needs to get serious about these as people are angry, complaining and breaking leases, walking out.

They are mainly kids under age 25. Renting out rooms daily, weekly to any EV kid who can't get a real place , unqualified. Several in our building are dealing drugs from apartment. Called, notified PS to no avail. Very very fucked up here people.

Anonymous said...

Concerning the rooms calculated for MCIs: are those one br units that have been turned into 2 brs, etc., have an extra room counted or are they still counted as one bedroom units?

Anonymous said...

Mr Bharara just cleaned out a few more corrupted people in powerful positions

https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20160411/civic-center/whos-who-fbis-nypdcity-hall-corruption-probe

https://editorial-ny.dnainfo.com/interactives/2016/embed/05/de-blasio-probe-map/fed-network-graph.html



It is tied to the money de Blasio received from the "employees"(and gave back only after the news broke it was illegally-gotten donations)

https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20160516/inwood/mayoral-fundraiser-tied-businessman-whose-workers-made-unusual-donations


Sooo, that makes at least three people on De Blasio's Inaugural Committee tied to the corruption probe so far .. with hope more will follow.

Atomic Man said...

1:00,

They would still be counted as one bedrooms. The partition is not a permanent, structural wall. No extra rooms have been created, the living room has been partitioned into two spaces.

Anonymous said...

LL can't do much. No one can prove there are 10 in a room living there. Drugs is an nYpd issue. but many people live ten in a flat. That's going to be life here now -get used to it.

Anonymous said...

MCIs are calculated by counting rooms with windows. Exclude kitchen and bathroom.

Anonymous said...

we love the smell of cigarette smoke wafting into our infants bedroom here. WTF , non smoking laws STUYTOWN NON SMOKING INSIDE.

Anonymous said...

It is absolutely true that market rate people were given a break on that MCI. Not only did the TA come to that agreement with the landlord but both the landlord and the TA threatened that if even 1 person filed a PAR the "great deal" was off and the landlord would apply for a much larger MCI so no one protested and the MCI is completely legal. It was my contention then as it is now that RS tenants should have filed a lawsuit against the TA for making that deal. I still think tenants should sue the TA to cease and desist but I am not a lawyer or wealthy enough to do it alone. Yet we (all old timers) will feel the TA and Garodnick's betrayal in our pocketbooks forever as the increase grows exponentially with each lease renewal. Complacency of the RS tenants is a good part of what has taken Stuy Town down. The TA and Garodnick played on that complacency.

Anonymous said...

"Concerning the rooms calculated for MCIs: are those one br units that have been turned into 2 brs, etc., have an extra room counted or are they still counted as one bedroom units?"

Counted as 1 bedrooms.

Anonymous said...

Atomic Man and 7.58 PM. Some MCI background.



http://stuytownreport.blogspot.com/2014/05/my-response-to-tim-collins.html

https://town-village.com/2014/05/16/mci-settlement-was-best-possible-deal-for-tenants-ta-attorney-says/

Anonymous said...

7:58 pm, if I had realized that, I would have filed a PAR! I will never again assume that the TA is good for us. It used to be, but that was before Garodnik corrupted them.

Anonymous said...

7:28 pm - go live somewhere else. There are properties where smoking in the privacy of your home is prohibited. Go live in one of those places. I trust you don't take your infant outside where it has to breath NYC traffic fumes and ConEd fumes. Put a draft excluder on your door if the offending smell comes under your door; keep your windows closed and, better yet, raise the kid in a bubble.

Anonymous said...

6:56 pm : they have always counted the kitchen as a room.

Anonymous said...

The partitioned one bedrooms are listed on rental sites as two bedrooms. Is that legal?

Anonymous said...

http://stuytownreport.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-team-thats-going-to-take-care-of-us.html

100% Same team from 2012 in 2016 "taking care of us"



Anonymous said...

For the purposes of figuring MCIs the rent stabilization codes define a room as an enclosed area of at least 80 sq feet. By this definition, the spaces created by the partitions in the flex apartments are rooms.

Landlords play games with definitions within the laws. Politicians and bureaucratic hacks seem more than happy to go along with them.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>7:28 pm - go live somewhere else. There are properties where smoking in the privacy of your home is prohibited. Go live in one of those places. I trust you don't take your infant outside where it has to breath NYC traffic fumes and ConEd fumes. Put a draft excluder on your door if the offending smell comes under your door; keep your windows closed and, better yet, raise the kid in a bubble.<<

I'm glad you mentioned this problem, as I was going to do it also. My take is dramatically different. Why is it that when New Yorkers decide to make something better in their environment, there are always voices (mostly of people who are from other areas of the country) who claim, "But this is New York!" as if this invalidates a New Yorker's need to upscale their environment? Fuck that shit, I say, and let's go for less noise and less pollution. Thank you.

Anonymous said...


<" there are always voices (mostly of people who are from other areas of the country) who claim, "But this is New York!">

So true, in fact, at the EV Grieve blog, the line of “If don’t like noise in the EV, move to....” has been parodied to death and rightfully so.

Anonymous said...

The House Rules state that smokers must be 50 feet from the buildings. Rules do exist they just aren't enforced. If you are affected you can call public safety. Keep a log of calls and times when your right to a smoke free environment are infringed upon. At some point you can either take the landlord to small claims court to get your rent back or the landlord could do their job and start the eviction process for the offenders if they refuse to comply with the rule. No need for you to move, you just need to fight the good fight and it will be the smokers and the ones telling everyone else to leave if they don't like it that will be out in the long run. Good luck.

Anonymous said...

who is anyone here to tell anyone else to go live somewhere else? such a common, trite, hackneyed, crude empty-headed response. how about this. don't like listening to complaints? go blog somewhere else.

Anonymous said...

1;20 so right. I can only imagine who that poster is!

Anonymous said...

i do not know if the older leases state non smoking in our buildings. so are those tenants able to smoke here? if so, would be ok for me since my new 'roommate' wants to light up.

Anonymous said...

Off topic

Is management going to replace the kids shower sprinklers in the basketball playground?

Maybe they just decided that working on the system could be done best during the hottest weather when the kids could really enjoy them. Typical ass backward planning. Thanks Rick.




Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>Is management going to replace the kids shower sprinklers in the basketball playground?<<

I've noticed that too. Wonder if new sprinklers are soon to come.

Anonymous said...




Where does it say we can't smoke in our apartments? There are no signs so, yeah, I'm SMOKING here. Lighting up now.

Anonymous said...

Walking through PCV today & I see a homeless man - drunk or on drugs - unsteady & carrying a 6 pack. He then proceeds to take a nap on the bench. He has a hospital band on his wrist & is filthy. I have seen him 2 other times in PCV. I informed the guard at the booth & he said he would report it. I watched for 1 hour & no PS arrived. The man left after a short time but he could have stayed there because there was no security. Does anyone care???? Is anyone home????

Anonymous said...

Most of the smokers are the younger tenants. Maybe it is a youth thing. Two older obnoxious female tenants in our building are always complaining about the smoking accusing anyone and everyone of smoking even if they do not. They just like to complain to get attention for themselves. Smoking is not a problem inside but outside at the building entrance doors it is a problem where it blows into our window.

Anonymous said...

Do the new leases prohibit smoking in the apartments? Is that why so many smokers congregate in front of the building? I find that odd because the stairwells of my building usually reek of marijuana

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>Does anyone care???? Is anyone home????<<

I've reported things to PS and the answer is "I dunno." Sometimes, if it's real serous, they are there very quickly. Other times, it can take some time. I assume that it's a matter of priority, but it doesn't place one faith wholeheartedly in the system.

Anonymous said...

With Roberts expiring and what should have been a legal tenant victory turned into a landlord victory by a crappy dirty "settlement" 1. can we file a class action suit and 2. who are all of the responsible parties for the Roberts fiasco?

One minute the Tenant Association and Councilman are taking credit for it if they can get good press for themselves from it and the next minute they are distancing themselves from it. After the past few recent years lumping them in with the landlord and special servicer in a class action suit seems like the right thing to do. Roberts apartments really were to be rolled back to rent before the illegal increases but the settlement blocked that from happening so the real estate deal could move forward at a high price and Compass Rock could get its windfall.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/nyregion/in-bid-to-be-council-speaker-a-tenants-champion-fights-an-uphill-battle.html?_r=0

The deal depended on the number of buyers increasing, which depended on the number of renters decreasing by being priced out with high rents, so they kept our rents at the high level instead of rolling them back pre-illegal increases proved in the Roberts Ruling.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-11-30/brookfield-joins-stuyvesant-town-tenants-in-bid-to-buy-manhattan-complex

Compass Rock windfall
http://www.wsj.com/articles/stuyvesant-town-how-one-firm-is-reaping-a-windfall-where-investors-lost-billions-1446546780

Roberts tenants should get the CW compass Rock windfall to cover what should have been rolled back but now we face extinction because of the City deal.


Anonymous said...

I think PS should throw vagrants off the property. Who wants to sit on a bench where somebody who probably has body lice, could be carrying bed bugs and all kinds of dangerous bacteria, has been sitting or sprawling? I do feel sorry for them because they are the poorest of the poor, but they should not be allowed to bring health risks onto the property. They are also very gross and disgusting to look at and be around. We can't avoid them on the subways, but we don't have to have them on the property.

Anonymous said...

Smoking is allowed inside apartments. It is forbidden in the public hallways and elevators, laundry rooms, and stairwells. You are well within your rights to light up in your apartment.

Anonymous said...

6:39 - I don't necessarily agree with your comment that most of the smokers are younger tenants. Most of the tenants that smoke outside seem to be younger, but that is because most of the older tenants are used to smoking inside, and still do. Younger tenants have roommates that may be opposed to the smoking, so they go outside. I have 3 older tenants on my floor, and all 3 smoke in their apartments.

Anonymous said...



I think we can smoke in our apartments. My lease does not state that I cannot. And furthermore, if Rick wants specific stuff he should post it in the buildings, CLEARLY.

NOT HIDING BEHIND SOME ELEVATOR THAT HAS WALL COVERINGS AND NOT IN SMALL TYPE ON A DOOR WHERE MOST FOLKS CANT EVEN READ IT. W.T.F. IS THIS SHIT.

SAY IT, OR DONT SAY TI. POST IT OR STFU.

Anonymous said...

Between Air Rights and Tax Breaks City Hall gave Blackstone $1 Billion to replace Brookfield. City Hall could have instead actually done what the former Mayor pretended to do and leave it up to the private sector to sort through their real estate debacle here and that could have resulted in a 3 or 4 Billion dollar auction / sale price tenants could have afforded, purchased and run as a co-op. Why would City Hall have to pay close to $1 Billion for someone to step in and replace Brookfield and why didn't City Hall do right by the tenants and let the property price fall to the correct place allowing a tenant purchase?

Anonymous said...

Just a FYI. As a tenant who faces the Oval, after a long day at work, tonight, around 7 PM, my wife and I’s quiet enjoyment of our apartment destroyed by the so called movie night which is basically a HD TV on a truck with unusually crappy fidelity. I will do further research on this shit Carnival Cruise event and explore my options on dealing with it.

Maybe I’ll contact Dan Garodnick's office?...........Hysterical laughter ensues.

Anonymous said...

I live on the oval too and am bothered by these stupid so-called amenities. I think that Blackstone has continued them because there really are no amenities for these
overpriced apartments. They like to advertise the movies and concerts as "amenities".
They have actually increased the number. Yes, contacting Garodnick's office is a joke.

Anonymous said...

What happened to those beautiful Belgian Brick walkways?! They are all gone. Now there is black tar pavement. Gross and ugly black tar pavement. When did that happen?

Anonymous said...

Maybe I’ll contact Dan Garodnick's office?...........Hysterical laughter ensues.'

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


What a schuyster! Thanks for the laugh!

Anonymous said...

"Maybe I’ll contact Dan Garodnick's office?...........Hysterical laughter ensues."

Wishful thinking.

BlackStone owning our NYC Councilman Dan Garodnick, elected to defend his 25,000 PCVST neighbors/constituents against Wall Street predators like BlackStone, would be hysterical funny if it wasn't so sad.

The damage Dan inflicted on PCVST residents is an epic, tragic scandal and, absent a recalcitrant or convicted whistleblower, probably permanent.

Good luck banging your head against a brick wall asking Dan to do something "real" that might benefit PCVST residents.

Anonymous said...

I also live on the oval = 20+ years. i think it's noisy and insulting, my friends who are also long timers don't think it's a problem, they don't live near the oval but can't see that it might be putting some of us out. yeah, they argue that we're too sensitive. No support at all.

Anonymous said...

Garodnick, Glen and DeBlasio begged and bribed Blackstone to take over from Brookfield. Blackstone owns all of them.

Anonymous said...

And don't forget...

Thursday's are LIVE MUSIC nights.

ON THE OVAL!!!!!


Quiet enjoyment, my ass!

Anonymous said...

Every Thursday


LIVE MUSIC.


ON THE OVAL!!!!


Enjoy your quiet relaxing summer evenings all.

Anonymous said...

12.26--7.08 here.

I think you may have misinterpreted my post. My text of “"Maybe I’ll contact Dan Garodnick's office?...........Hysterical laughter ensues." is ironic. To the 100th degree.

"Good luck banging your head against a brick wall asking Dan to do something "real" that might benefit PCVST residents."

That's a given these days. I have previously recommended reading Charles Bagli’s “Other People’s Money” on this blog. Slightly dated now but still required reading for all who post on this blog. If you read it, you can see that back in the day, Garodnick was a thorn in the side of TS, then CWC/CR. However his third term has been anything but. His regurgitating of the REBNY talking point that the Small Business Jobs Survival Act (SBJSA) is unconstitutional is particularly galling. The third time is definitely not the charm in his case.

One must always look at the macro picture here. Without this bill being enacted into law, we will have nothing but chain stores and Bro bars geared to the young millennial transient demographic that REBNY loves. The Democratic Party’s CC won’t even entertain a vote on this bill. Who do they think they are, Republicans?

Anonymous said...

Is there any way to get rent back for these loud events that make apartments unlivable? I include the @#$&^%& dog days in this too. You can't even imagine how loud that is. I was told I could withhold a portion of my rent and ultimately go to small claims court to plead my case. Sounds too weird to be true. Does anyone truly know what the law is? I would ask a Tenants Association but we dont have one.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

I don't know what the law is, but I wish you the best in your endeavor. I've lost faith in most that occurs here.

Anonymous said...

A tenant got 30% rent back from the noise on one of the construction sites a while back. Record the noise, video the noise makers and go to court with it. Record and video everything.

Anonymous said...

Do not trust anything the tenant association says. They will steer you wrong and help the landlord. Do not hire any lawyers affiliated with the tenant association or any lawyers they used on the MCI negotiations or any lawyer the tenant association has ever used ever at anytime for anything. They are not to be trusted and they will not do right by you. Hire a lawyer who is family, or friend. Stay far away from all lawyers associated with any of the tenant association board members or associated with councilman Garodnick.

You can get a rent decrease for the noise.

Go get 'em!

Anonymous said...

"Does anyone truly know what the law is? I would ask a Tenants Association but we dont have one."

Call Dan Garodnick. He's an attorney. He's our elected NYC Councilman. He"s your government representative. He swore an oath to defend your rights and always act in your best interests.

Dan was born and raised here. He puts on a great show claiming he lives here. Dan is your neighbor. More than anyone, he knows PCVST is/was the best place in Manhattan, check that NYC, check that the world (NO EXAGGERATION!) for hard working people to settle down, raise a family and grow old enjoying the company their children and grandchildren every day, secure in the knowledge their children and grandchildren will enjoy that same American Dream his parents strived for and built for him.

Dan never sleeps. He's always working hard against all odds, fighting for PCVST residents 24 hours a day.

Just call Dan. He's every NYC tenant's hero. You won't be disappointed.

Please report back informing us how Dan improved your circumstance.

Anonymous said...

What about the piss wall around the new oval cafe? I don't here anyone talking about that.

Anonymous said...

June 23, 2016 at 11:01 PM the day that politician lives up to his own erroneous pr hype is the day hell freezes over.

Angello Morra said...

i will visit your new oval cafe. sooner.

Anonymous said...

You cannot simply "withold" rent, you will be evicted. You must work within Housing Law guidelines, and establish the circumstances properly. Then you are allowed to place a portion of your rent in escrow while the case is adjudicated. Good luck.

Anonymous said...

Our one bedroom stuytown, got the new floors, kinda new, tons of brown gook in our water and our rent is $3350! great price you say but the other number on it is $5100. Blackstone can kiss my Carolina ass - keep it you evil slumlords.

Anonymous said...

11:12 that is only partially legitimate advice. All circumstances are unique and different.

Tenants, get your advice from a lawyer who is not affiliated with Stuyvesant Town, Dan Garodnick, the Tenant Association. Get advice from an independent source with no political affiliation to your property. Unfortunately that rules out NY Housing authority since it was run by your current landlord Blackstone and is still run by the guy who appointed Blackstone to run the NY Housing Authority while tens of thousands were kicked out of their Stuyvesant Town homes.

Anonymous said...

Angello Morra are you from Europe? Were you visiting Stuyvesant Town recently?

Anonymous said...

"and our rent is $3350! great price you say but the other number on it is $5100."

Were there not some know-alls giving a long timer grief for saying that his/her unrenovated one bedroom would go for $5,000 after he/she died or moved out?

Anonymous said...

HOLY MOLY IT JUST BECAME A WHOLE NEW REALITY.
They just told former three term Mayor Mike Bloomberg the world is onto him and his buddies causing inequality.

Small businesses, entrepreneurs and citizens just told Mike Bloomberg and his greedy investor buddies the days of their investment strategies that serve them so well while hurting everyone else are OVER

They did not give up, they were not browbeaten by those rigging the rules against citizens and they just told three term Mayor Mike Bloomberg his self serving rule rigging is OVER.

It is a whole NEW REALITY for the "big businesses" with new rules to be written by people of better ilk than the self serving.
Don't give up Stuyvesant Town!

"Mr Bloomberg's name appeared on a letter in the Financial Times on Wednesday, signed by a number of major multinationals investing in the UK, warning of Brexit dangers.

The letter, signed by executives from firms such as Airbus, Microsoft, Cisco, Hitachi, Mars, and IBM, warned that leaving the EU could "materially affect future investment decisions" by companies such as theirs.

It added that "if there is one thing we as investors don't like, it is economic uncertainty", and concluded that "as investors, it is therefore very much in our interest that Britain stays in the EU".
'Stitch up'

Responding to the multinationals' letter, Employment Minister Priti Patel, who is campaigning to leave the EU, said: "Of course Brussels is good for big businesses and fat cats who care about their bonuses - they can afford to spend huge amounts of money on lobbyists and lawyers to help them stitch up the rules.

"But it is bad for smaller businesses and entrepreneurs.

"The British people will not be browbeaten into making a choice against their interests on 23 June."

"Leave campaigners said the EU helped "big businesses and fat cats" but did not "work for the British people".

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36327456

Anonymous said...

June 24, 2016 at 1:31 PM that is because the Mayor and Deputy Mayor negotiated with the landlord best interest and profits in mind and not the tenant's best needs. They practically begged developers including Blackstone to take over from Brookfield in 2014.

Crazy Eddie said...

"Is there any way to get rent back for these loud events that make apartments unlivable?'


Major hurdles to overcome. Good luck.


http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/stories/2000/03/06/smallb2.html?page=all

Stuy Town Reporter said...

Every law in the book is being broken. Thanks, Rick!

Stuy Town Reporter said...

"And what's it to you?"

Stuy Town Reporter said...

The thing is that you can best remain calm and collected if you recognize that rules are meant to be broken and will be broken in this place. And that few people really care.

Anonymous said...

“Right here in New York State, three million New Yorkers were denied the right to vote in the Democratic primary,” the candidate, who lost the state by fewer than 300,000 votes, lamented. “It doesn’t take a politically sophisticated person to figure out that that whole ethic, on the part of the Democratic and the Republican leadership in this state, is about making it harder for people to get involved in the political process.”

http://observer.com/2016/06/bernie-sanders-wants-to-overthrow-new-yorks-political-establishment/

If the UK can rid of David Cameron then surely New York can rid of the entire Cuomo regime from top level Albany to bottom level City Council.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

People pay over 4 thousand for a "flex" apartment--of course they have more rights than us peons that probably are paying twice as less and don't have "flex" apartments.

Anonymous said...

Except that in America Rights are no something one buys. They are afforded to all equally.

Well they are supposed to be afforded to all equally. Otherwise the rent stabilized are being discriminated against - is that not what is called Housing Discrimination?

Mayor de Blasio created a tale of two cities right here in StuyTown. So much for his campaign message and good luck to him showing his face here come re-election alongside his Rivington House pal Capalino.

Anonymous said...

The current Governor runs New York more like Russia than like a State in America.

Anonymous said...

"Were there not some know-alls giving a long timer grief for saying that his/her unrenovated one bedroom would go for $5,000 after he/she died or moved out?"

Since when did the "legal rent" have anything to do with what apartments actually rent for? The "legal" rent may as well be $25000.00 per month. This stuff isn't difficult, go to the website and find a one bedroom (regular or "flex") that rents for $5000.00.

You should make sure that you're not a "know-all" before you call other people know-alls.

Come on now,don't be a dullard. Think before writing.

Anonymous said...

Str, posts are not reallymaking sense. Everyone knows there is a 'legal' rent here and another number one a lease.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

There's a HUMONGOUS dog in the Oval Stuy patio. Been there for quite a while. Of course, it could be a "service" dog.... Rick, you are doing a fine job. Congrats.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

>>Str, posts are not reallymaking sense. Everyone knows there is a 'legal' rent here and another number one a lease.<<

You are very free to go to a blog that makes more sense than this one.

Anonymous said...

12:55 Ha. There seems to be a lot of service ' dogs here now. cmmmmmmmmm

Stuy Town Reporter said...

Don't forget the students. I see so many of them now....

Anonymous said...

The student population appears to be exploding. In my building, the elevators are full of them. As we know, families will not be renting these overpriced apartments. As the older tenants pass on, the apartments will be made into divided dorm structures. It will get worse and worse.

Stuy Town Reporter said...

I also see something I wasn't aware of until now: People with small traveling luggage. Now they could be new residents, of course. Of course.

Anonymous said...

Without the illegal hotels there is no way for Blackstone Ivanhoe Cambridge to make the rent roll numbers Compass Rock has been churning with their illegal hotels and is still running. Compass Rock brokers and leasing agents are all the same ones in StuyTown Property Management. So much for de Blasio telling Blackstone Ivanhoe Cambridge absolutely no hotels and for the New York Attorney General calling them the most unsafe conditions in the world and the City Council charging $100K for each hotel. Dan Garodnick, Jumaane Williams, and Helen Rosenthal would never make Blackstone pay $100K for the 127 hotels listed on Airbnb and the unlisted ones Compass Rocks lets brokers run in multiple listings. Can you see Dan Garodnick ever telling Blackstone to pay $12,700,000 for the illegal hotels listed on Opendata Inside Airbnb posted on STR a few months back?! Or Jumaane Williams telling Blackstone to pay that fine! What a joke all these kids with their luggage strolling through and de Blasio says no hotels in the terms of the sale deal.


Councilman threatens $100K fines on Airbnb’s ‘illegal hotels’
http://nypost.com/2015/10/31/councilman-threatens-100k-fines-on-airbnbs-illegal-hotels/

Anonymous said...

Pity StuyTown citizens are giving up because the UK just voted against modern day robber baron scheme called Global Applied Sciences Research Universities and Campuses and the hardest hit by this vote are the billionaires investing in the Global Applied Sciences University Campuses, Research Visitors and Luxury Dorm Housing the politicians and corrupt economic development corporations both NYC EDC and NYS EDC began building in 2011 in a pursuit of profits for the City and State but no profits for the citizens of the City and the State. Economic Development Corporations are robbing the People blind in schemes for the government to profit off the People instead of the government protecting the People's profits.

The other implications of Brexit can be worked out but this billionaire robber baron scheme of stealing of homes to turn them into luxury dorms and medical research short term stays had to be stopped and the citizens of the UK just put a serious thorn in former Mayor's side and his plans for StuyTown's dorm and visiting medical researchers future source of income. This is not about investing in students. Profiting off of student housing, visiting researcher housing, short term stay housing.

Money Money Money - yes you are right STR it is all about Money Money Money. It is all about making more money for the developers and the politicians in New York who don't give a damn about the small businesses and homes of New Yorkers. They are nothing more than common, ordinary, average robber barons.

This was never about anything else other than the billionaires getting richer off of the education industry by taking the world's assets and land from citizens and that includes your community of Stuyvesant Town for a Global Applied Sciences Campus housing short term stay researchers, students, medical and corporate housing complex that is pushing out the Middle Class from StuyTown and the same is being done to the Middle Class all over the US and world. Bloomberg and his friends are taking our assets and homes for this century's robber baron scheme.

Never before was there a more perfect definition than this scheme taking away basic human rights to safe and secure house and home which they are able to do thanks to dirty corrupt New York politicians, dirtier than Tammany.

rob·ber bar·on
noun
noun: robber baron; plural noun: robber barons

an unscrupulous plutocrat, especially an American capitalist who acquired a fortune in the late nineteenth century by ruthless means.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/12189587/Stephen-Hawking-leads-150-Royal-Society-scientists-against-Brexit.html

http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/24/12023230/brexit-impact-science-research-uk-eu-funding-collaboration

http://www.fastcompany.com/1790988/nerd-york-city-why-bloomberg-wants-nyc-tech-campus

Anonymous said...

June 25, 2016 at 6:23 PM Just look at who is at the REBNY real estate lobbyist gala to see which City Council members will viciously go after any tenant whether guilty or innocent while letting guilty big landlords skate by on illegal hotels. When the City Council's relations are so close they pen editorials together there is a clear line being crossed, especially when the lobbyist expressly states their mission is to rid the city of rent stabilized tenants. At the core of those anti-tenant politicians are in the gala link below....

Worse, this is another REBNY written law that has a very big protection for landlords and a very big loophole for landlord. Holding accountable the advertiser of the illegal hotel is REBNY's way of writing a law that allows brokers to run hotels in multiple units but only advertising / listing one unit, a unit that can be used as a Airbnb hotel then diverting travelers to their other unlisted / unadvertised units saying the unit that is advertised is already booked. That is surely how Stuyvesant Town is operating so many hotels while not advertising them, by having leasing and real estate brokers operate and run the hotels in multiple buildings around the city and divert hotel guests to Stuyvesant Town hotel units that are not advertised.

This writing of laws with lobbyists has to end. Lobbyists are the second biggest problem, with politicians owned by lobbyists being the biggest problem in government.

If a hotel is operating next to us, we will take photos and report it to the press because clearly Stuyvesant Town landlords since Brookfield CW Fortress Compass Rock invaded in 2010 are allowed to break laws and run hotels in Stuyvesant Town while the New York Attorney General targeted only tenant.

Last, where is the politician writing the law to protect the tenant who is falsely accused of an illegal hotel by an unscrupulous landlord? Where is the law and the huge fine for that egregious defamation of the rent stabilized tenant being pushed out falsely accused of running an illegal hotel? So much for a government if the people who writes laws to protect the People at least as much as they write laws to protect the business profits of the corporations who finance their campaigns.

This City Council deliberately works for the REBNY lobbyists and does no work for the Citizens and they don't hide it. they party with the lobbyists, write laws with the lbbyists and run PR campaigns with the lobbyists penning editorials with lobbyists. That is what is known as crossing the le line so far over there is no way back.

The core of the problem:

"Deputy Mayor Alicia Glen showed up, as did Public Advocate Tish James, City Planning Chairman Carl Weisbrod, Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer, New York City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito and council members Daniel Garodnick, Jumaane Williams and David Greenfield. And Mayor Bill de Blasio made a brief cameo.

And of course, the city’s top developers and brokers turned out en masse. Ray Kelly, former NYPD commissioner and now a top executive at Cushman & Wakefield, was at first reluctant to pose for photos but warmed up as the evening went on."

http://therealdeal.com/2015/01/16/spinola-gets-a-princely-send-off-at-rebny-gala-photos/


http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/williams-banks-airbnb-crackdown-city-badly-article-1.2685700

Council Housing Chair Jumaane D. Williams & REBNY President John Banks voice their support for crack down on Airbnb.

https://www.facebook.com/REBNYonFB/

Anonymous said...

Even the Queen Mum knew the EU was being used to harm her People. The citizens of the United Kingdom most certainly did just deal a beautiful blow to Wall Street Goldman Sachs for the widespread misery they cause with their consolidated control by a few extreme-greedy billionaires trying to corner the market on education and healthcare market housing trends by taking homes away from the Middle Class. The former Mayor and his cronies are now capitalizing on tech jobs from new residents they are trying to bring in now that they kicked out hundreds of thousands of rent stabilized tenants from their home. He is ans was the worse thing to happen to StuyTown and the whole New York City!

The EU could have been a great endeavor had it not been misused by the oligarchs, titans, Wall street, and corrupt political leaders to hoard all the wealth from the citizens. The EU needed drastic changes perhaps too drastic than it could achieve. The UK did the right thing to leave. So did golf-playing David Cameron when he immediately left his position.

The Queen Mum saw the way the EU was being used by the titans, oligarchs, and billionaire controllers was bad for her People. It was very good for the billionaires, oligarchs, pillagers and corrupt leaders and very bad for the People in the UK and the USA and Stuyvesant Town obviously with the disastrous results to the community here. Too bad we don't have a Queen Mum and instead are stuck with a real estate owned City Council that funnels money to and through real estate developers to the NYPD.

Someone should inform the New York City Council this is not Russia and they do not get their own private NYPD arm to push the real estate agenda on the People.

http://nypost.com/2016/04/17/de-blasio-donor-spent-655k-of-city-funds-on-museum-program/

http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/brexit-decision-deals-another-blow-obama

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/21/queen-asks-guests-to-give-her-3-reasons-why-britain-should-remai/

Anonymous said...

That is great news.

Vote out the incumbent status quo old establishment that have pushed out our communities and decimated entire neighborhoods in NYC and London. A vote counts, a voter counts, a lot more than the established incumbents monied-puppetmasters. Change can happen if NYC does as the UK and vote out the establishment that is destroying our small businesses and housing for their global corporations and corporate housing.

Just get out and vote - and vote them out. Vote ALL incumbents out along with their designs to turn Stuyvesant Town into global corporate housing instead of local community homes where we have raised successful Middle Class families for generations.

Stuyvesant Town is not a lost cause as the establishment wants us to believe and to give up. Just as London is no longer a lost cause of empty luxury towers and private plane airports. They already know the tech Applied Sciences Campuses are no longer going to go to the over developed London luxury short term housing. How long until the hoarders start divesting? And the Middle Class can move back into their homes. Let the real estate markets in London and NY crash so the citizens can have permanent homes again and not the short term numbskulls occupying our New York City apartments

http://www.wsj.com/articles/barack-obama-says-u-s-respects-brexit-vote-special-relationship-endures-1466776957

http://time.com/4381313/brexit-vote-david-cameron-elites/

Anonymous said...

This photo is the future if these politicians get their grubby way.

The now peaceful, enjoyable Stuyvesant Cover waterfront will be crowded with traffic and pollution, the waterfront in all 5 boroughs will be jammed with corporate towers on corporate owned land with empty towers blocking sunlight as most of the apartments will be corporate owned or 3rd, 4th and 5th homes for the very wealthy who use them as places to park money and not place to live. There is nothing progressive about New York politicians letting Goldman Sachs run the show. They are the same old, same old, establishment greedy for power and money.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/economy/the-worlds-most-expensive-city-is%e2%80%a6/ar-AAhqHUw?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=mailsignout

Stuy Town Reporter said...

A number of very big dogs being walked casually about the complex. They seem Stuyvesant Town dogs. No one cares, of course. So why should I? Why should you?

Anonymous said...

Best to just not care about anything here anymore. You'll drive yourself nuts if you do. I took my recycling down last night, looked at the mess down there and decided that "this will be the last time." The LL doesn't give a shit, notwithstanding all the "feel good" PR, so why should we?

Anonymous said...

10:11 AM, I have every intention of voting against incumbents, starting with Maloney on Tuesday. Anything BUT the status quo.

Anonymous said...

Health issue: Dogs doing their thing on floor of food patio of 5 Stuy cafe ! Not cool ! Who took down the signs?

Stuy Town Reporter said...

All that said, I notice that the admin office is very friendly to long-term tenants. I don't think it's just me. However, I just don't think whoever is in charge (?) can handle all the people, all the dogs.

Anonymous said...

All that said, I notice that the admin office is very friendly to long-term tenants.

And they have a bunch of Stuyvesant Town pens for the taking. If you take one a day and sell them for $1 each you can get 30 bucks off your rent each month...hmmmm...that's my plan....

Anonymous said...

Now there's a lot of people on Facebook asking to put up family, friends... at other apartments in stuy for a few days, a week a month. How is this is different than Airbnb and landlord allows?.

Anonymous said...

I may or may not smoke so just want to know the rules. ARE WE ALLOWED TO SMOKE IN OUR APARTMENTS, IN EITHER STUYTOWN OR PCV?

There are no signs saying NO, SO, I'm good right? Thanx.

Anonymous said...

Of course you are allowed to smoke in your apartment! If your family or room mates object, you have to sort it out with them, but THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO RULE OR REGULATION FORBIDDING YOU TO SMOKE Puff away and enjoy!

Anonymous said...

Hell yeah, i'm puffing all night, fuck the neighbors with the infant adjacent to us.

Anonymous said...

I agree with 9:46. This is very different then having friends stay with you in your own apartment!

Anonymous said...

I find it interesting that for the past few weeks the Town and Village newspaper has not published any letters to the editor that are critical of management or what is going on in ST/PC. The letters no longer deal with problems in the development.

Anonymous said...

9:04 PM I noticed that too! I don't think T&V is an independent paper and, really, it never has been.