Create Discussion
Create New DiscussionSearch Discussions
Categories
Sales (21,035)Rentals (2,329)
Developments (551)
Market (1,418)
Financing (419)
Neighborhoods (503)
Schools (96)
Boards (214)
Brokers (311)
Renovation (1,391)
Services (413)
Anything (2,167)
things are so wacky in manhattan...I'm in the market earlier and start talking with the woman behind me on a very long line when, of course we start talking about rents, etc. She lives in a Mitchell Lama bldg. on 24th and 1st avenue...2 bedrooms for $350.00 a month. My jaw dropped and I immediately fainted. Almost.
inonada: looks like your ward is having a hell of a time tonite. nice work encouraging him.
Hey, AR luv,
Gots to disagree with you re: treble damages. When I was practicing, had many cases where DHCR did not impose treb dam because I showed O had no bad intent, but rather it was an error. Puni dams are puni because they punish wrong doing. Here (as I read the case), the O had no 'bad intent' & they didn't do anything wrong, but rather (ironically) they obeyed the law by following DHCR's interpretation. Thus, there's no wrong doing as a result of bad intentions or bad actions, but rather a change in the interpretation of a statute.
I know a lawyer who worked on the RS issues & complaints that emanated from the Ansonia; bought a country house & got college tuition for his kids. Yup, Aunt Sonia was the gift that kept giving.
Yes, this decision is karma biting Tishman in the ass for overpaying & for treating Ts like crap. But, I dislike decisions like this because they create uncertainty for many people: Ts, Tishman, banks & NYC. A really good decision would have tied up some of the loose ends so that people could glean where the ultimate disposition was heading & thereby make plans accordingly. I don't like decisions which are game changers that leave everyone in limbo, wondering where it's all headed.
cc, the ward seems to be like a compost pile. feeds off of itself. inonada is busy poking fun at the ward. maybe encouraging, who knows, who cares? hfs has continually lied about me, called me foul names, and yet oddly seems to feel the moral glow of superiority. i guess it's ok to attack me and call me foul names such as whore and to obsess over a toilet seat that even i don't really care that much about if you have some issues (and i'd say there are some issues). it's fine to attack people who have, btw, spent hours helping people with comps, helping many others (including my husband helping a couple of people for nothing), have formed relationships with a couple of dozen people from the website, etc.
hfs, wtf do you add to this? but i won't really find out, in the unlikely event you have a real answer, because i won't read your reply. but i don't need to read it, because the answer is so clearly nothing. happy holidays. i hope you find some peace.
dwell, sweets, yes and no. i think the damages issue comes within a different statutory authority, for this, but i could be wrong. and here we aren't talking dhcr. we're talking the state courts. so if there are any unresolved issues, the roberts case goes back to judge lowe, who my hubby says is one of the absolute worst, so the fact that the parties are trying to resolve this without going back to a judge who is landlord friendly indicates to me that TS needs to get this shit wrapped up to get out of the complex. that para was very convoluted and now that i wrote it i think the analysis could be changed, all along the way, but the result is likely the same so i'll let it go.
but there is more than $300M in escrow. i can't possibly think that's simple damages for 4400 apartments, many of which wouldn't get much at all (the one bedrooms).
the problem with the decision was that it was a court of appeals case on one issue of law. you might dislike the uncertainty, but sadly that was all that court was asked to adjudicate. and now you have a banktrupt ll who has to deal with the decision and get out. so they won't likely return to the legal battlefield, and they'll create some presumption of possible obligation but not a certain one. hard for a landlord, i'd agree.
http://www.chpcny.org/pubs/Court%20of%20Appeals%20Decides%20Stuy%20Town.pdf
This article discusses the impact of the uncertainty left by the Ct of Appeals.
dwell, yes, about 25,000 units, if you split the numbers, are at issue here. not so many, if you think about it. and 4400 are in PCV/ST. i think a similar number are in another large development. so you have roughly 15000 units that may be affected and in limbo. that's out of all of NYC.
hfscomm1...it's almost Christmas how about being kind for the holiday...
julia, i don't think kindness is an option for this person, sadly.
Here, Ct can impose punis cuz RSL allows punis for willful overcharge. But, this ain't a willful overcharge case.
impose penis? What the hell kind of judgement is that?..... oh...
dwell, i'm sorry, i'm not totally conversant. but it's not a question of the court imposing punitives. as far as i know treble damages are just built into this situation. nothing discretionary involved. or punitive. that's my point. it's not a question of punitive damages.
w67 said p*nis!!!!!! teeheehee
essentially, treb dams are puni dams
g'nite folks
So it seems like it could happen, (the tenants buying stuytown)
I mentioned a price of 2.5-3B, the price wasnt really the issue,
whether it can happen or not is more of what I was asking.
Also, that price was after all the back rents were paid back.
I thought the fannie/freddie debt was like 3B, maybe I'm wrong,
someone said its 1.5B.
I was thinking 2.5-3b because the lower debt holders arent going
to simply walk away from this are they? Even though they have written
this off they have no interest in just selling and getting nothing.
They would probably want to ride it out and possibly see profits long
term. In this case they would need to be paid off. (comments) Again,
maybe 2.5B-3B wasnt the right number, maybe closer to 2B.
Also someone said why buy when rents are so cheap. I would say the average
price for the 4350 re rent stabilized apartments are about $2,350 1br, maybe $2,550
for a 2br. Who wouldnt want to buy that for $250K-$300K. First the mkt price on an
apt like that is like 550K 1br give or take. Second the mortgage on lets say 275K minus
20% down plus 900 main is about $1,600.
Someone said the original tenants, the other 6,850 whos rent has always been rent
stab have rents of about $1,500. This makes sense to them as well. Also, the 6,850
portion, for some reason, was willing to buy at 4.5B in 06.
dwell, the recourse itself is punitive. you don't have to go for punitives, they're just a given. think about it. most of the one bedrooms that have been destabilized have little in the way of damages, so probably half of the 4400 have damages. the ones destabilized recently have greater monthly damages, but less time accrual of damages. so about 2200 units have relatively significant damages, give or take a few. $300mm for that many apartments?
rraphael, i agree with much of what you write. but many of the elderly will not want to buy. the tenants had no voice in '06 when the tenants' association was trying to put together a deal. whether or not it could have been accomplished is now just a matter for conjecture. although a much better conceived notion than TS's in its structure, it too would have failed, so we can only be grateful they weren't successful. but yes, it makes a great deal of sense at this valuation.
i'm fairly certain the GSE debt is $1.5B. maybe you're thinking of the mezz. debt? and in this case i've read and am fairly certain that all but the senior debt holders are doomed. sometimes bad decisions do have consequences. pennies on the dollar isn't exactly a new concept.