New York City
Northern New Jersey
Search Better With
Shop for a Broker
Open House Planner
Saved Listings & Folders
Stats and Figures
Manhattan Condo Market Index
Inexperienced in RE.Would you buy a coop that you like in and you think you can really feel like home if you could afford it or you would continue renting given currect market conditions and wait it out ..
I would never buy a co-op again. I've owned two, still own one, CRAZY POWER-HUNGRY BOARDS.
Stick to condos.
Really why you say that? What do the boards do to you? Condos are much more expensive per square foot I ideally would want a 3 bedroom and 3 bedroom condos are much more expensive..
If you want major layout changes, it is an issue for most coops. Also renting out flexibility is limited. However, if all you want to is renovate without major changes to the layout and live there, there is no need to pay a condo premium. In addition, coops have strict financial requirements which these days many banks are imposing anyway. Stay away from coops in stuffy parts of town with a lot of old people on the board as they are likely to be very set in their ways.
Co-ops are a pain to get into, even worse when you want or need to sell. Condo premium is a minor consideration when you look at all of the factors besides initial acquisition costs, like building condition, taxes and maintenance. Co-ops are wonderful for board control freaks and those who need imposed rules to live by.
Radon/stevejhx, some examples of coop problems please.
There are relaxed coop boards which make it an easy transaction. It definitely all depends on the nature of the board.
Selling broker will tell you before you waste your time. In general, if you are not financially strong 30 percent down and 2 years liquidity and solid job, do not bother.
300_mercer: The boards that felt our $3.5 mil cash reserve wasn't sufficient for their $625K 1 bdr POS rear view gems, would not even schedule interviews, reviewed 100+ page support documents ( 8 copies of each) and then declined without any reason (as is the standard practice). "I could go on and on and on ....but who cares."
Why bother begging when one can merely purchase with little if any restriction getting into or out of a place? Scared of the riff-raff? Co-ops were a great idea at some point in ancient history when people needed a friendly corporation to protect them from their neighbors.
Rent somewhere or buy a condo/townhouse.
Sure - how about the two that I've owned:
1) The board decided to fight the sponsor, try to wrest control over the garage in the building, lost in trial court, lost in a summary judgment on appeal. Total wasted money = $1 million in legal fees.
2)The board decided to spend $250k on landscaping before fixing the roof.
3)The board decided to take out a 15-year self-amortizing underlying $3.2 million mortgage in 2010, at the height of the financial crisis, at 7% interest, @ a $500k line of credit (currently at 5%) to pay for solid cedar-plank siding (the most expensive siding in the world), new doors and windows that didn't need replacing, which tripled maintenance, halved the value of the units, caused at least 5% of the units to be sold in foreclosure or distressed sale, and not one unit has sold in 18 months.
Is that enough, or do you want more? Co-op boards are power-hungry fools who stay in power by appointing their friends and hogging proxies.
NEVER get involved in any sort of organization where everything is secret, and no one is accountable to anyone.
This debate of coop versus condo is one had countless times on Street easy over the years. Neither is universally the best choice. Each structure of ownership has plusses and minuses and the choice will depend upon what fits each buyer. For me, coop ownership is preferable. For others condos fit best. And for some there is no meaningful difference and it comes down to the apt itself.
Here is a 133 post thread on the topic: http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/28447-condo-vs-co-op-vs-rent
Here's another old chestnut: http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/8206-parents-buying-withfor-children-and-condos-vs-coops
There are some others, but there really isn't all that much to say after the basics. The first thread link covers it pretty much.
Separate discussion for condos.
Heed the warnings. Co-ops are the result of a lacuna in English law, brought into NY law, that said that no one could own property that was not affixed to the ground. Hence leaseholds in the UK, co-ops in the US - same concept.
They got rid of leaseholds in the UK b/c they were abusive. They should do the same thing w/ co-ops in NY: convert them all to condominiums. It is ridiculous that a housing cooperative should be run under the same rules as a for-profit business corporation like IBM, but that is the way the law works.
Here's a test: ask to see the minutes of the last few Board meetings. If they refuse, RUN LIKE HELL, because it means they're running the co-op like a private fiefdom. In Florida & other states that allow co-ops, Board meetings must be held in the open: NO SECRECY.
Only in NY. RUN.
You can find strict boards in both co-ops and condos.
If you plan on using the apartment as a primary residence, a co-op will keep out the riff-raff. With condos people move in and out since many apartments are used strictly as investments with rotating tenants. If you like rules and regs to keep your inconsiderate neighbors in line, go with the co-op. If you have future plans to rent out the apartment than go with the condo.
As to whether this is a good time to buy, I'd say if you are ready to buy go for it. You won't get lower mortgage rates and 10 years from now it won't matter if you buy today, last year or this year.
I'm with KW that there is no one "right" form of ownership (disclosure: I'm a real estate agent, and I've owned both co-ops and condos -- I currently own one of each).
So much has to do with whether you feel "in sync" with the building -- you can see in raddoc's example how someone who would describe an apartment as a "POS" might not be welcomed by neighbors who had struggled to buy such units and were proud of them.
Stevejhx's problem #1 is much more common -- people as a group, spending money that isn't "their" individual money, are more likely to pursue unlikely legal claims and waste money. The way to balance that risk, of course, is to consider serving on your building's board, which is a hassle and a huge time commitment.
If you're considering a specific building, it might be helpful for you to try to talk to one or two people who already live in the building about what the board is like, what happens when they have problems, etc.
DG Neary Realty
"If you want major layout changes, it is an issue for most coops. Also renting out flexibility is limited."
Funny how these always sound like "minuses" until some poor sap living in a million-dollar condo gets a flood in his living room because the guy upstairs decided to make some "major layout changes" by putting a jacuzzi over his piano.
Or the guy upstairs decides to rent out his unit indefinitely to a revolving door of college frat boys.
When I move back to NY, I'm living in a co-op.
In a condo, you can do anything you want, such as renovate your apartment and fill the floor with hammering noises and idiot construction workers who talk over the noise and have cell phones that blare over *that* noise, for eight hours a day for weeks on end, with no notice to the neighbors, and there's nothing those neighbors can do about it because the condo board doesn't have any real power to kick out the malefactors.
Can you tell that I currently own and live in a condo?
None of what these people is saying about condos is true - it all depends on the organization documents, and most have limits on lengths of subleases, etc., and all have limits on noise disturbances.
If what they are saying were true, co-ops would abound throughout the country, but they don't. Everywhere else in the world people live in condominiums - without problems.
Barring crystal balls, how, precisely, could anybody know in advance who the "riff-raff" is and how to keep them out?
And what if you're trying to sell your unit, and the Board decides your potential, bank-approved buyer is "riff-raff," and denies the sale?
It is so good to have stevejhx back with thoughtful posts expressed in measured ways that consider the possbility that reasonable minds can actually differ without anyone being wrong or right. So glad he isn't contributing to the bombastic, pendantic cadre of posters drawing absurd, extreme generalities from one's own take on limited personal experiences.
welcome back, steve.
easy on the prolific writing, tho. i don't want you to burn out.
stevejhx - it's obvious you hate co-ops. Just wondering why you still own one if you do and why you haven't sold and moved into a condo. If I hated the board that much, I would have moved and go into a building I'm happy with. Just curious
It's been for sale for 4+ years - latest buyer saw the maintenance (tripled - see above) and walked away. Nothing has sold for 18+ months. Right now it's rented - at a loss, but rented nonetheless.
And thank you, KW - but I don't think my posts are any less thoughtful than "fill the floor with hammering noises and idiot construction workers who talk over the noise and have cell phones that blare over *that* noise, for eight hours a day for weeks on end, with no notice to the neighbors, and there's nothing those neighbors can do about it because the condo board doesn't have any real power to kick out the malefactors."
Or, "these always sound like "minuses" until some poor sap living in a million-dollar condo gets a flood in his living room because the guy upstairs decided to make some "major layout changes" by putting a jacuzzi over his piano."
I gave REAL LIFE EXAMPLES that hundreds of people are living with - including me - because of crazy, power-hungry Boards that waste your money. Not hypothetical situations, or "absurd, extreme generalities from one's own take on limited personal experiences."
Real life. Wanna try paying $16k a year in maintenance on an apartment that used to be worth $550k and is now worth nothing because no one will buy it, because maintenance USED to be $5k a year, till the cedar siding and 7% mortgage came along?
Steve, let me ask you, why did the maintenance triple? Would the expenses have not otherwise gone up if the building were a condo?
I'm outgrowing my 1 bd condo that I own and need to upgrade. All this coop vs condo talk makes me just want to eff it all and buy a house in the suburbs.
steve, sounds like most people in your coop is extremely stupid. but on the bright side, that makes you a smart guy when you go home.
there are some condos having ridiculous rules forbidding subletting and renovation too. and i know a good coop that even remedy to lower the final deal price to help both the buyer and seller from falling apart.
it's all depend on people
"and all have limits on noise disturbances"
Steve, of course there are rules on paper, but if the rules have no teeth, it's as if there were no rules. In my building the proposed solution to the neighbor's noise violation was to "ask them to be a little quieter". Another owner down on the third floor is struggling with a string of unruly, noisy renters one floor above -- and their absentee landlord who presumably tosses complaint letters in the garbage.
Nobody likes the intrusiveness of co-ops when you're looking to buy, but once you're in, I want a board made up of like-minded people whose rules are binding. Ultimately the condo owner, as owner of that space, is going to claim an absolute right to do what they want in that space, just as if you had a problem with the house next door.
Triple, agreed that co-ops have better leverage over most tenants. But how many co-ops in the city are stocked with rent stabilized/controlled hold over tenants? No matter what noise they make the co-op can do virtually nothing.
"No matter what noise they make the co-op can do virtually nothing."
Not true at all.
coops noise issues go the other way too - lots of people get harassed for nothing because of old grumpy coop neighbors complaining. god forbid you have a child or two.
NYC, they tripled maintenance b/c there was no underlying mortgage for years & pre-Lehman they got approval (by a ridiculous show of hands) for one, then Lehman and it took them 2 years to find somebody to lend & they signed a $3.2 million 15-year self-amortizing mortgage at 7% - SEVEN PERCENT - and a $500k line of credit (variable interest), both of which they used entirely.
The buildings needed to be re-sided, but a) not all at once; and b) not in cedar planks. They also decided - while they were at it, spending other people's money - to replace the several hundred doors and windows that all worked fine, ostensibly b/c they were paying $10k a year in operating expenses to fix those few windows whose seals cracked.
Which they will still have to do because those seals break over time, but in the meanwhile they have bankrupted a number of owners who in 2010, after having lost money in the 2008-2009 market meltdown, couldn't afford triple the maintenance, and/or who had lost their jobs and were living on savings.
But the Grand Poo-Bahs weren't smart enough to realize that people buy property on a cash-flow basis, so my portion of the underlying mortgage & line of credit, since I'm a large shareholder, works out to about a 30-year $250,000 mortgage at current prices. So if the property was once worth $550k, it is now worth $300k.
And that is the price that the few that sold in bankruptcy went for, but as of now nothing has sold for 18+ months, and nothing is likely to sell, either, until the mortgage is paid off in 2025.
So - they are morons, but you can't talk to them because they know everything.
I've owned 2 co-ops and both boards were morons. Maybe fine if you've owned your unit for a long time, but not if you've bought in the last 10 years, as I did.
And no, co-ops do not have more leverage over owners than condos do. Where I lived in Greenwich Village we had an owner play a jazz band in his apartment at midnight; they cancelled his lease, he went to court, and WON.
And yes - you can't get rid of rent-stabilized or -controlled tenants ever, and they can pass their apartments down to their children and grandchildren. Usually they wind up paying less in rent than owners pay in mortgage, and they have use of almost all improvements FOR FREE.
Sorry - the alleged benefits of a co-op are a fiction. It's all a fiction.
One current plus for co-ops, financing and refinancing are much cheaper since there's no title insurance or mortgage recording tax; however, this could change if the laws change.
@ Stevejhx: just to be clear, you are talking about a NYC Manhattan coop, yes? Or are you talking about bad second home investment gone sour in a multiple-unit dwelling on Fire Island or something? I don't think any NYC coops have cedar siding.
For these purposes, kyle, a co-op is a co-op, whether in Manhattan, Queens, or Rockland.
The problem is not where the unit is - the problem is how co-ops are run in NY.
My mother has a co-op in FL: none of these issues, because everything is out in the open.
And the co-op that decided to fight the sponsor and lost $1 million in legal fees was at 350 Bleecker.
Same deal. Crazy power-hungry board.
You should've led an insurrection and deposed the boards.
The great thing about 350 Bleecker is how open it is. It's almost all on the web. The financials with their notes (which give some of the litigation history) are included in the Offering Plan amendments. The lawsuit was a bad call, I guess, but at the time lots of co-ops were fighting their sponsors over sweetheart leases, and won.
A friend of mine bought at your current place in August 2010. About $500,000 and $1500 maintenance for a 2/2 in the beachfront A building. He's mentioned a couple other closings since then, for more than he paid. Those who can't sell for the prices they want should lower their prices.
The story I heard was that maintenance was kept too low, so upkeep was deferred until the siding and windows/doors were such a mess it all had to be replaced in one whack. The board pays maintenance too, so we can assume they got the best deal they could on the financing. The place is built on sand, after all.
no nyc coops do not use cedar siding--but they do use brick and mortar, which needs repointing regularly, and had better be done properly (and without kickbacks,etc)--certainly as ripe a situation for mismanagement as any faced by steve's board in FI
hey nyc coops have roofs and windows, too--all of which require expensive maintenance, the funds for which get disbursed by a board
coop boards are often a pain in the ass, slow to move on the simplest of issues, including vetting buyers. and when they finally do move they move in ways which benefit them, nit their fellow shareholders--and some are thieves
there is a reason condo is the preferred vehicle for individual ownership of units in multi-unit developments
all this said, one can do pretty decent due dilly on a board, with a good lawyer---and here in ny, as REmom says, to not pay mtge recording tax and title costs has value
now it's clear, it's a case about vacation home investor complain about other investors, thanks nwt
then steve doesn't officially outsmart his fellow shareholders yet
I've given up on insurrections.
350B closed off a lot of what they put on the web, including the litigation history. Lots of co-ops were fighting their sponsors, and most lost. However, the Martin Act would have precluded this particular lawsuit from the get-go, because the place went co-op in 1987: they were about 15 years too late.
August 2010 is about the last time anything sold at the other complex; nothing has closed since then, and nothing in the last 18 months. It doesn't matter the price - nothing is selling at any price.
That's the story you might have heard, but it is incorrect. One building urgently needed siding; the rest did not. None of them needed 100% cedar plank siding - it wasn't even recommended by the architect. The Board itself made that determination, and it is the single-most expensive siding on the market: which nobody on a sandbar would ever invest in if they were sane.
Given the location, cement shingles (which look like painted cedar shakes) would have been a much cheaper, and smarter alternative.
The doors and windows did not need replacing; the windows had just been replaced several years earlier, and the doors worked fine. Some window seals would occasionally crack; that is normal, and it will continue to happen and, in fact, be worse, because they replaced some old single-pane glass with double-pane. Single-pane glass does not have seals.
I don't think anyone questions the need to keep the building properly maintained, and no one would have objected to spending money to do that. But after an event like Lehman happens, and when credit is tight, there are alternatives, which were not taken. Rather, ego-maniacs that they are, they kept on plowing ahead with their original - and still ill-defined - plan to do everything at once, which necessitated a mortgage that has bankrupt a lot of people.
Your friend is very lucky; those units were going for $750k before this fiasco. That is my whole point - somebody who bought at $750k might not now have the cash flow to afford the unit he had just purchased.
It's simply an impossibility to triple the maintenance; other options were available, and could have been taken. The Board has a duty to ALL residents, not just to themselves, or to 51% who might favor what they do.
No investors, caos - just fyi.
when you say,
"The board pays maintenance too, so we can assume they got the best deal they could on the financing. "
this is a huge joke. on any reasonably sized projects, kickbacks are so nice that the maintenance is paid by them for years to come.
stevejhx, thanks for the info. My friend bought after all this, so I tend to hear only one side. He's much less interested than I am in this stuff, so will come back from Saturday's annual meeting without any more details. Instead, I'll have to hear more blah blah blah about intrigues at the fire department....
And right, some of 350 Bleecker's good stuff is gone now. The newsletters used be there, but must've moved to the owners-only area since the site was redone.
I'm not interested in gossip, at the fire department, or anywhere. I just know that friends of mine have lost their properties because there was no way that they could pay the new maintenance. I also know it was completely unnecessary to do it the way it was done. I fully supported the re-siding project, but no one had any input into this decision; we were informed of the terms of the mortgage more than 2 years after the initial approval was given, and 2 years after the worst financial catastrophe in America since 1937.
You should hear what the real estate agents have to say! They've lost what was at one time a constant source of commissions.
No comments about kickbacks - I've heard them made, not by me, and I have nothing to say.
This could happen to ANYONE who owns a co-op: there are worse horror stories out there, too. It is a horrible form of ownership.
Stevejhx, if it has to do with windows and siding or anything outside, even if it's a condo, wouldn't they still have the authority to replace the siding and windows anyway and increase the maintenance. I can't imagine each unit owner deciding what kind of siding they want to replace or when. Otherwise, the building would look really funny. Would you have had any more of a say in the matter if it was a condo other than object? Don't live in a condo so I may be asking a stupid question.
Yes they would, ltcook, but they couldn't take out a loan to do it.
That is the key question - it is the ability of a group to bankrupt an individual that is so insidious in the co-op structure. Condos cannot take out loans, because they can't collateralize someone else's property.
This would not have been possible in a condo - that is why it is so dangerous.
A condo, because it has no underlying mortgage, can't default on one either.
I would never, ever again buy a co-op. EVER. I've had two bad experiences, and I know of others, too.
Here's a good comparison of co-ops and condos - though it's for DC, everything that is there is valid.
And regarding the mention of River Place, I used to live there when I was in college and it was called Arlington Towers (and paid - get this! - $250 a month for a studio with a river view!). When it converted (I didn't buy) the ground lease was for 65 years.
How much you think those units are worth now?
steve, if you'd been living in a beachfront condo, wouldn't your board just have created an assessment? And wouldn't paying that assessment have hurt individual owners just as paying interest on the mortgage and line of credit did?
First, it doesn't matter where the condo or co-op is - it could be on the beach or in Binghamton.
Second, the project as implemented would have been impossible because the Board would have been unable to implement a $3.7 million assessment on 100 owners.
Third, assessments don't come with interest.
So - that is not even a valid question. Of course there would have been an assessment, but the entire project would necessarily have been undertaken in a different fashion, and if an individual unit owner had a problem with the assessment he or she could take a suitable loan - within their financial capacity - out against their unit.
As a condo it would not have been possible to bankrupt as many people as have been bankrupted because of this.
I am completely current and maintain my stellar credit rating - that cannot be said about my fellow co-operators, many of whom were and are in dire straits because of this.
3.7 million per 100 owners seems excessive but shouldn't bankrupt anyone or triple maintenance. Why not assess and pay it down now? Obviously, shares aren't distributed equally but average 37K shouldn't cripple anyone in a position to own.
That is the average, bob420. For some it would have been much, much higher.
Yes it will triple maintenance when the loan is 15-years, self-amortizing, at 7% interest.
Therein lies the problem.
And commercial mortgages CANNOT be prepaid without hefty penalties. I'm sure front will confirm that for you.
In a condo, no one would have approved a special assessment like that, and if they implemented one the whole board would be thrown out. In a co-op, once that loan document is signed, THERE'S NOTHING THAT CAN BE DONE.
You're seeing red when looking at the financials, and that might be blinding you to the numbers.
As bob420 said, $3,700,000 at 7% for 15 years is $34,000 per month. If that tripled the maintenance, then the co-op was running for $17,000 per month. E.g., an oceanfront 2/2 that's now $1500 would've been $500. Doesn't seem possible.
Now I have to figure out a delicate way to get my hands on my friend's copy of the financials.
That is approximately correct - there were some other ancillary charges that went into the tripling of the maintenance, as well, such as different insurance requirements because of the loan, and taxes will have increased because of the improvements.
For an oceanfront it would have been about $750 a month, initially.
There are approximately 53,000 shares. The cost is $0.64 per share per month. An oceanfront unit has about 750 shares, or about $500 a month just for this project.
Add in all of the other costs, and you get an approximate tripling.
This thread reflects Stevejhx at his rare best.
co-ops are fine, yes you have your crazy moments liek trying to agree on paint colors for hallway renovations but realistically who cares, these issues are few and far between.
Flmaozz. Paper your hallway walls with sprint stock certificates. No one will ever want to change it and your maintenance will go down 4% / day. Yep another $70k day for w67. Flmaozzz.
Life, sex, real estate, education, vacation, taxes. Politics, politicians, IT always goes back to $$$$$$$$$.
Cause money is the currency of hopes and dreams. Sit on a POS nyc re and watch all your hopes and dreams go POoooooooof! Cat chow.
Meh, I'm thinking 55 foot express cruiser from Miami for $200k. Sold new to a RE broker in 2007 for $1.5mm. Flmaozz
A building is a building is a building and no matter if it is structured as a co-op or a condo the cost of maintaining and running the building are going to be more or less the same. When buying I think the fundamental decision is not "co-op or condo" but rather "this building or that building". The ownership structure is only one factor in the decision.
If you live there you can also mostly ignore w67's investment comparisons as they are simply irrelevant.
Another poor consumer under the delusion that coops are a real estate investment.
And it's not the boards which are to blame necessarily, It's the landlord (sponsor) who surreptitiously controls the boards and management with entrenched affiliates some of which were placed prior to the conversion. Does anyone ever wonder why coop boards (in large converted rentals) are usually the same people for decades? And why the sponsor never leaves?
Coop leaseholders essentially have no government or private agency who will protect their rights. Ergo, no rights
And powerful real estate interests will continue to block any legislation which attempts to protect the rights of Coop dwellers for years to come.
Coops are NOT a real estate investment.
You're NOT purchasing a home which can be passed on to your children or family. Coops have all of he responsibilities of property owners yet NONE of the rights. All of the risks of home ownership with almost none of the benefits.
Coops are a poor stock investment.
If you view Coop ownership through the prism of being a "shareholder" you'll find yourself just as disenfranchised. A coop might be the only type of stock purchase which affords shareholders little or no transparency or protections. it's certainly the only type to which we must divulge our own financial records as a requisite to investment. And, it's the only type of stock purchase that requires permission to sell.
How many investments are guaranteed to loose 2% of their value as soon as you purchase? The inevitable "flip tax" found only in Coops will insure this.
Try to get the securities and exchange commission to investigate fraud in a NY Coop. Not gonna happen.
Nope, Your still a renter with a really bad stock investment and fewer rights than a monthly renter. Your security deposit is just really really huge and really really hard to get back.
re: Your still a renter with a really bad stock investment and fewer rights than a monthly renter.
my "really bad stock investment" coop is still worth almost 300% of what I paid 11 years ago. That's 9% a year. yup, so not a real estate investment.
up 300% since 2001?--i sold a 6 rm coop in 02 for 1.250mm--might be up 20% from my sale price--might not, too
maybe you put a lotta sweat equity in, and got pretty stoned on solvents in the process?
Somebody include the transaction costs for these fellows, please, as well as the opportunity costs.
Because my stocks are up 25% since July - at that rate, I'll be infinitely rich in just a year.
Can you be denied in a building as a ALL CASH buyer ?
yes--if they dont like you. or if you dont have additional liquid assets equal to a multiple of the monthlies you will be liable for--often 48 times the monthly--you'll probably need to show you have a job, and have had realtively consistent income (based on your tax returns) such that you can show that you accumulated the cash for purchase legally.
@ Yikes ... WOW.. then whats the point of being a all cash buyer if you have basically show you ain't a DRUG DEALER ?? Does this apply to condos also ?
How many new development co-op's have been built in the last 10 years?
re: maybe you put a lotta sweat equity in, and got pretty stoned on solvents in the process?
sorry Yikes, all I've done since the initial closing is vacuum the floor and clean the terlet bowl. Bought well at the time and those are the comps right now -- if you didnt do the same, too bad for you.
and I'm a big stevejhx fan, but c'mon stevie don't be so knee jerk all the time. it'll cost me $20K tops to bail and the S&P has done a heady 19% since summer 2001. Hmmm...275% net return or 19% net return? I'll take the "really bad stock investment" return on my coop.
"Because my stocks are up 25% since July - at that rate, I'll be infinitely rich in just a year."
Maybe if your make back all your losses, you can finally afford Manhattan.
Recently co-ops only on rented land, as far as I know, b/c except for BPC, owned by the state, you can't build a land-lease condo.
W34 - pick & choose your start dates and you can get any answer you like: I'll take my stock from the bottom of the '87 crash, please.
Transaction costs include 6% realwhore fee, flip taxes, stamp taxes, capital gains taxes, etc., etc., and so on and so forth. Some of those are the same as with other investments (cap gains, for instance, at the federal level) but some only exist for real estate.
stevejhx, I found the old co-op newsletters and treasurer's reports. Let's clear up some of your misstatements.
When you bought in 2005, maintenance was $12.40 per share per year. Assessments were $1.71, but can't tell whether annually or quarterly.
In 2012 maintenance is $23.44 per share. No assessment. That's less than double in seven years, not the triple you claimed.
Planning for the residing and windows began in 2006. In 2008 the shareholders (not the board alone) voted upon and approved the project and the $3.7M in debt. It took more than a year to find anyone willing to lend, and the mortgage closed in early 2010.
Oceanfront units went for $725K in 2006, $500K in 2010, and $600-something in 2012.
You said there've been no sales in 18 months. There were nine in 2008, none in 2009, four in 2010, three in 2011, and two so far this year.
None of the facts are good for you, but aren't bad for a beachfront property in a recession. If the whiners you're listening to out there can't hack it, they should sell and be grateful it's not their primary residence.
It's ironic that both of the co-ops you've been unhappy about are models of board-to-shareholder communication, and have so much of it on the web.
I don't recall Steve ever saying he had 8 advanced degrees.
so you make it up and then deny it.
gotta love it.
poor pathetic columbiacounty
even though steve has eight advanced degrees, most of those are like fund raising, public relationship, etc, useless
He's as well-educated as he says. No need to get personal.
He does have a bee in his bonnet about "crazy power-hungry boards" and told some fibs to help make his point. No big deal; happens here all the time.
haha, agree with nwt, just for fun. i like steve
Shoot. I guess that means I like him too.
But the Fed is not "privately owned."
Dear Brooks2 my alias, don't worry. See? Steve's still not learning from the lesson yet. So I would dislike him again for now.
caonima, your English has improved lately. What makes you switch on and off between fake broken English and acceptable grammar?
I hear what you say Steve and yikes and andwin but the reality is no way can get a 3 bedroom condo in ues for less than 1.5 so if you plan to actually live there better than buy a house in the suburbs investment wise don't you tink? Manhattan is better than suburbs...
Do your homework , and discount most of the gibberish that some of these "experts" are spewing
I tink, therefore I am.