Pushing Coop Boards

Does anyone have a link?

As a member of an upper east side co op board, i am looking forward to the day this legislation passes. We have been tracking it carefully. We all know coop rules destroy real estate value. Evident by the spread on condop to co op pricing currently. If this passes, most members on boards would convert to condop rules allowing all to buy without fear of discrimination and increase their values by 10% to 20% in a matter of months. Even many board members I know say they would not another co op after knowing what they know now.

As the article said, the fear is lawsuits if this becomes law.

the fear of lawsuits will be the reason all boards will quickly dispose of the approval process and turn to condop rules. Co op have some good qualities as in restricting the amount of sublets/lower transaction costs/taxes; however, they do discriminate on the approval process. They are similar vehicles like private golf clubs to bypass are fair housing laws. This law will really help co ops as the condo influence increases day by day.

#3, You also have the option of converting a co-op to a condo. It is expensive, but it is an option.

Does anyone know the pros & cons of condos & co-ops once the arbitrary co-op selection process is removed? If the co-op is no longer an exclusive private club, are there still some features to recommend a cooperative building?

#6 condo really not an option for most buildings. Aside from the retirement of the building mortgage, the shareholders face a tax event. Also, 80% vote is required. Co ops are great if the approval process is eliminated.

Don't know how to post the link...so here's the article:

Pushing Co-ops to Explain Why You Can't Buy
By JANNY SCOTT
Published: April 21, 2007

[Edited: Here's the link]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/21/nyregion/21coop.html?ex=1334894400&en=4decca73ebffb142&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

I agree with Mr Monserrate.

Thank you for sharing that article. If that measure passes it will certainly open a can of worms.

As a coop owner I'm all for this. Anything that increases transparency could only be good for market values by eliminating this 'mystique'.

I also think there should be standards for providing better governance of coops - i.e. board meeting minutes (not all boads provide these) - and other practices that can eliminate nonesense like a board member sabotoging a potential sale because she wants the unit for her grandson.

#6 & #8, there's a great article on www.truegotham.com that explains how some coops converted to condos. It can be costly & there are tax implications for shareholders...but if you're going to go there get a good lawyer.

As for coop board getting sued, isn't this why some boards elect D&O insurance, just like companies?

I can understand the racial discrimination issue, but what if an applicant just doesn't seem like a good fit for the building? An example: a 27 year-old trust fund baby who is irresponsible. I had a neighbor like this once....how he passed the board I don't know. After he moved in a lot of people complained because he often threw loud parties.

For this reason I know many buildings don't allow younger people who have a large amt of wealth but unsubstantial income. A way for coops to 'weed out' presumably unresponsible shareholders is to look at their financials...but would this new law affect their decisions?

But what if you have a young person getting help from his/her parents? and that person seems very responsible and has good references? Parental guarantors are a huge selling point for coops.

Any thoughts?

next they'll require women to give explanations to guys they turn down. this is ridiculous. if you get turned down by a coop its normally for good reason. this quinn should be thinking about more important things.

This is great news. The days of housing discrimination are over.

#13 Judging who will be spoiled brat trust fund baby leads to which profession board members don't like which leads to religious preferences etc. This behavior should be restricted to golf clubs not places of housing in city of limited options for people. This perception destroys the value of our co ops. Condos are the status quo in the US and work very well. In terms of controlling noise or other unwanted behavior, we lay down the law with respect to house rules when this becomes an issue. In reality, a nice hard working family with screaming kids will make the most noise.

#12 Your comments are very accurate. Without being on the board of the building, you are on the outside. The reason none of us become activists to change when things like you mentioned occur is the fear of retaliation when we sell.

It's true - if it works for the rest of the US (i.e. condos), why are all these Coops above it all?

There is a reason there are very few coops outside of NYC. THEY SUCK!!! If housing demands in NY weren't as strong as they are most coops in this city would go bankrupt because no one would need to live in them to own their residence as opposed to renting. (yes I know you don't technically "own" your residence when you are part of a coop)

#17, there's a difference btw weeding out a (potentially) irresponsible tenant and rejecting someone based on a superficial factor as religion or race.

Coop boards incur huge expenses to evict people (i.e. legal costs). All house rules say the same thing but enforcing them is another. And in my experience, screaming kids are nothing compared to a 29 year old having a loud party at midnight on a wednesday, who won't respond to complaints from the doorman or the management company.

Unfortunately, the way coops are set up people want to know who their neighbors are b/c it's their investment. So it's a double-edged sword.

How do condos deal with this?

#20, I agree, but honestly you can't really tell for sure if someone is responsible or irresponsible just from meeting them. Sure you can tell if financially they are reponsible and I don't have an issue with finances being looked at, but don't mortgage lenders already do that?

Sorry but coop boards are wrong and need to be fixed.

#21, coops are usually tougher than mortgage lenders because they have to consider the finacial health of the building. If a shareholder defaults the rest of the building picks up the pieces.

For example may coops wouldn't allow people to finance with ARM's just to get their monthly payments low; these folks prob don't have the strongest credit or can't afford to buy, one of the reason why the subprime mess hasn't affected NYC as much as the rest of the country.

Coops are a pain but with the majority of buildings in the city run this way they're tough to avoid.

Of course coops are tough to avoid in NYC! But should they be allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, etc. I agree that coop boards need to be fixed and the proposed city ordinance would be a good start.

#23. It is illegal to discriminate based on race and religion, even for coop boards. get a clue.

I prefer coops, well coops that are run well. Just wait until you live in a condo next door to someone renovating their place endlessly and you are powerless to do anything about it. That and living next door to some trust funder cokehead who sleeps during the day and parties all night.

#24 And who monitors coop boards to make sure they comply with anti-discrimination laws? The coop boards are presently not required to tell anyone why they turned down an applicant.

#24 is right. The proposed law, which sounds good, prob won't be effective since coop boards can already be sued for discrimination.

This new law would mean that coops would have to maintain more documentation (which they should anyway but many don't) and may open them up to more lawsuits. If the coop board is already well run this would mean additional paperwork and possibly higher insurance costs/legal fees.

The law may also result in fewer boards willing to take risks to the benefit the building (for reasons other than rejecting people) and the property values would further decline compared to condos.

The real problem with coops is that the folks responsible for managing them are not always savvy enough to handle the responsibilities (i.e. budgeting).

I always wondered about peolple and entities that are opposed to "transparency".

#26--#24 here. Who "monitors" coop boards??? Well, who "monitors" landlords who violate housing discrimination laws??? um, its the same concept. Much like with respect to traditional lessor/lessee relationships, tenants can be turned down for cause or for no cause. Tenants cannot, however, be turned down for reasons which violate housing discrimination laws.

#28 I don't think the issue is being opposed to transparency, as more of it increases the property values and benefits coop owners. The prob is that the proposed law could have unintended consequences.

#26, if a coop board rejects you you CAN sue just like you can sue anyone else. This costs the board huge amounts of $$ in legal fees, incentive enough to watch what they do. Plus with the internet word gets around.

I can see both sides of this issue & it is a real sticky wicket - unexpected consequences indeed. In response to #31, I wonder why a site like wallfly doesn't have lots of info on these buildings. Wallfly.com is a great concept but for some reason people are not responding.

re: wallfly.com

ppl want a place to live and even if they feel they are right about a stinker board - they dont want to be blacklisted. the process is a blackbox and so they dont understand what could be used against them.

also, the problem with wallfly is the same issue with people writing restaurant reviews on citysearch - you really don't know where they're coming from or what their intentions are. Though sites like wallfly are a start, the folks who live there - who actually KNOW what's going on in the building - prob wouldn't post anything critical for fear of reducing their property values.

OK, so here's a thought. #27, you are right on target. How about board members get elected based on the match between their actually knowledge (professional or otherwise) and the job that they're getting elected to handle. You know, kinda' like the real world, where your actual skill sets (like CPA) make you a candidate for financial positions. I really think if this happened there would be way more savvy and responsible boards. Also, how about a 101 bootcamp for board members? Like a continuing education class; all members would have to go and show the building that they've passed!

#35, #27 here. I think that's a great idea!

Or, how abt establishing a set of standards for coop boards and have an objective body (i.e. self-regulated or city agency) review coops on a periodic basis to ensure these standards are met?

This would be similar to public companies having their auditors review their internal controls. Or bank examiners reviewing banks for safety & soundess. Or a public health inspector reviewing restaurants for cleanliness.

Granted, coops are private companies but they should be accountable to shareholders and unfortantetly that's not always the case (works both ways too, some shareholders are apathetic until their maint goes up and it's too late).

#36--Great!!! More beaurocracy!!! You liberals are priceless!!!

Coops ARE accountable to shareholders, schmuck. Thats what courts are for.

#35 here. Exactly. Or, I'm not even sure if there needs to be an external force...how about an internal one. Something like a good housekeeping seal of approval. If all elected members of the board have gone through board 101 bootcamp their building should be run better and should be more transparent. Values for coops with boards who continue to pass courses should have a higher value....in other words, it's a self-correcting circle. Perhaps this is still too much of the fox watching the hen house, but I think it would be a really great start. There was a post in a different disussion thread about a person who changed financing...more conservative and better rate...better for the coop. But, the coop viewed this as a red flag. PLEASE. If the board had known what it was doing and were actually savvy business folks they would know that this was a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. Anyway, what a great business idea...Bootcamps for Coop Boards....!

#37 - DUH!!! So what's the alternative - litigation and have everyone's fees go up to cover legal costs? so politicians can pass laws that would incur more litigation?

What we're talking abt here is figuring out a way for elisive coops to become more transparent. Even if you are a shareholder you're still at the whims of a board that may be corrupt. And many board members don't have the expertise to do their jobs (i.e. budgeting) or have any idea how to run a business.

#35 To #37...I'm calling your BS. While boards may feel accountable to sharesholders, many seem ill equiped to do the job well, period. Doesn't make then bad people, just makes them human. Rather than government intervention I'm proposing something quite different and fairly conservative. Though I feel I must remind you that NYC is a democratic party city, not republican.

#39--- Novel idea for litigation: LOSER PAYS. Try and get that past the John Edwards crowd. Liberals are always so fond of citing how Europeans do things...well, over there: LOSER PAYS.

Folks, this isn't a partisan issue - why does EVEYONE in this city complain no matter what??

I agree with #35, try to encourage market forces whenever possible. The standards could be governed by REBNY or some other industry group (I mean, someone's gotta figure this out).

i just dont see how holding a co-op accountable is going to solve anything. there will just be more cheesy tv commercials with 800 numbers telling them to call so they can sue the board. it will just make more trouble for everyone on every corner of the real estate world. more money and time just wasted.

#1 I bought in a condo - Thankfully!

But I think coops need to shape up - they will continue to price at a discount if the status quo remains. I spoke with my pocket.

How do people get on co-op boards? I've never really given that much thought before, actually- AND part of the current problem may be that controlling types are the ones who would be on boards?

The end result for the coop shareholders like me who are part of this discussion: Our apartments will continue to be discounted 20% to 40% versus comparable condos until we adapt condop rules. That spread could continue to widen as selection of condos increases. We got away with the board approval process when we were the only game in town. That has changed and I expect the a new generation of buyers to completely shun coops if they can. At what point will we realize it is the price of our investment that matters the most.

#46 I think your post is right on. I am a buyer currently in the market. Based on my past real estate dealings I am completely ignoring coops.

The only problem with ignoring co-ops is that they comprise probably 98% of the beautiful older buildings & those are the only ones that interest me.

#45, to get on a coop board depends on the bylaws of the coop. Usually they hold elections every year and any shareholder is eligible. Many people don't want to be on the board because (1) it takes a lot of time, (2) your neighbors may bother you with problems 24/7, (3) it's a huge responsibility because you're a key decider in how the building is run and (4) it's voluntary so you don't get paid.

As a result you may get people who have more time to dedicate...often are retired, independently wealthy, etc. And some of these folks may not have the expertise to manage a company (i.e. understand budgeting, how to re-negotiate a commercial mortgage). And the folks who do are too busy to serve on the board.

Therein lies the risk with coops. Your investment is tied up at the whim of the board. But not all boards are corrupt and many (thankfully!) know what they're doing.

There's a trend now for younger, new buyers getting involved on their coop boards to become more progressive (recent NYT article).

#49--wasn't GWB lambasted two years ago for using the word "decider" even though it actually is a word? Did the NYT article use that word? just curious.

As #48 points out, coops are most of the nicer buildings in NY -- not entirely, of course, but the majority. So there is an aesthetic issue. Some older buildings have gone condo, but usually with gut renovations that remove a lot of the character that makes for a quintessentially "New York" apartment and with new construction that is either of questionable quality or questionable taste (i.e. bland and common-denominator). I think it comes down to lifestyle and reason for purchase. If you're buying to live there for a long time (7-10 + years), then I like the coop model. If you're buying for a shorter period or for investment, then the condo model makes a lot of sense. I live in a condo now and am moving into a coop. Frankly condos can have many of the same management / oversight problems of coops; I saw a recent post on a thread here about "privacy" and a buyer who had expressly looked only a condos to avoid the extensive disclosure that coops require, only to find that the condo he / she was buying required as much disclosure. So there's some evidence that more condos are adopting coop style policies, and not the reverse. New condos can be a huge headache, believe me; new boards often have a hard time adjusting to actual costs and maintenance / management needs and new construction always has bugs to work out. Coops tend to be long-established and have often worked out all the kinks. In the end it seems to me to come down to this: everyone who lives in a desirable building (well-managed, well-located, well-built) will try to protect their investment and will, over time, become restrictive about who can buy into the building, condo or coop. It's inevitable.

As #48 points out, coops are most of the nicer buildings in NY -- not entirely, of course, but the majority. So there is an aesthetic issue. Some older buildings have gone condo, but usually with gut renovations that remove a lot of the character that makes for a quintessentially "New York" apartment and with new construction that is either of questionable quality or questionable taste (i.e. bland and common-denominator). I think it comes down to lifestyle and reason for purchase. If you're buying to live there for a long time (7-10 + years), then I like the coop model. If you're buying for a shorter period or for investment, then the condo model makes a lot of sense. I live in a condo now and am moving into a coop. Frankly condos can have many of the same management / oversight problems of coops; I saw a recent post on a thread here about "privacy" and a buyer who had expressly looked only a condos to avoid the extensive disclosure that coops require, only to find that the condo he / she was buying required as much disclosure. So there's some evidence that more condos are adopting coop style policies, and not the reverse. New condos can be a huge headache, believe me; new boards often have a hard time adjusting to actual costs and maintenance / management needs and new construction always has bugs to work out. Coops tend to be long-established and have often worked out all the kinks. In the end it seems to me to come down to this: everyone who lives in a desirable building (well-managed, well-located, well-built) will try to protect their investment and will, over time, become restrictive about who can buy into the building, condo or coop. It's inevitable.

One of the ironies of many strict co op approval buildings is they have sponsor and rent control apartments allowing the least desirable people in and out of the building without any board approval. So often is the case a lawyer will get rejected b/c of professional bias or young professional for fear of parties, but rent control and sponsor apartments sometime operate as B&B's in the same building.

The pending NYC municipal legislation was featured this morning in the Brian Lehrer show on WNYC radio. Here's the link to a replay of the show. http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/episodes/2007/04/26

our coop is looking into incorporating into a private "social club" just in case this does pass.
the minimum price in our bldg is 4M or 4k sq ft, we have turned down many many people, but never due to race or religion etc. the board is pretty much a rainbow of colors,
we just want to have the option/power of choosing whom we live with.

CUT TO: #55, arranging brownshirts in closet.

#55, I remember this happening on Long Island in the 1960's. It didn't work then, and it won't work now. If you are urning down people because they are financially unqualified, because you suspect they will be bad neighbors, or even because you don't like them...you won't have a problem under the proposed law. You will just have to develop a backbone and say, "Mrs. X, we rejected your application because we prefer neighbors who are friendly and you are anti-social and akward".

Unless you are discriminating based on race, religion, marital status, etc...you have nothing to worry about.

That may be, 57, but I wonder how many people will be emboldened to litigate. Nobody likes rejection & I wonder if one is better off NOT knowing why one was rejected. Deep pockets & hurt feelings, could get ugly.

Correct me if I am wrong #57 but age is also a protected class right? Which could bring an end to the age discrimination of the young professionals right?

#55, how does incorporating into a private "social club" differ from being a coop from a legal standpoint?

#58, good point. Adding to that - the risk is that anytime something is written down it opens you up to more lawsuits. For example, under the proposed law, I presume if you reject someone for ANY reason you must document this.

So if an applicant appears immature and made an inappropriate comment during your meeting that you found insulting, and as a result you don't think he'd be a good fit for your building full of families, you must document this. Of course this is your opinion but the guy can now come back and sue you. And if your board is smart they'd have to run all documentation by an attorney BEFORE it's finalized to make sure it's litigation-proof.

As a result, higher legal fees, higher maint costs. Unless the board adopts condop rules and just approves people based on financials.

But let's face it - would you REALLY want to live in a building that doesn't want you? Just think of how diff it would be for you to sell.

#57, I agree! Litigation or the threat of litigation can benefit society. IT FORCES PEOPLE TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW. The federal fair housing act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status or disability. The Department of Housing and Urban Development will investigate individual complaints of discrimination in housing but can only ask the Department of Justice to start a lawsuit when it has reason to believe that a person or entity is engaged in a "pattern of practice" of discrimination. The federal fair housing act does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of a person's sexual orientation. It was never intended to protect prospective buyers from coop boards who discriminate. This is what the proposed NYC legislation intends to do. Home ownership is the "American Dream". As a real estate attorney in NYC, I can tell you that unfair and capricious coop board rejections are not only common but also costly to both the buyer and the seller. In 25 years of practicing law, I have never heard of any lawsuits against a coop board for rejecting a prospective buyer. The proposed legislation will protect both the buyer and the seller by forcing coop boards to be accountable for their actions. Lets protect the American dream and support this legislation.

#61 - "In 25 years of practicing law, I have never heard of any lawsuits against a coop board for rejecting a prospective buyer". Interesting...could it be because they end up settling before heading to trial?

Also, couldn't people already sue for discrimination? Maybe they don't because they end up buying condos instead as litigation costs $$. Which is why coop boards either relax their 'standards' or their units continue to sell at a discount on the market. Which is why all new buildings are condos.

I don't see how the 'thread of litigation' could benefit anyone except lawyers.

Agreed. There are other ways of making coop boards accountable for their actions than via litigation (or the threat thereof). Like one of the earlier posters suggested, have coop board members sent to a 'boot camp' or have a self-regulated body set standards and inspect coops for proper management....and posts these on a public web site.

Coop boards are still operating with mid-20th century values. Sad!

#60~poster 55 here,
basically we will move from "share holders" to "club members"
private clubs are immune from litigation regarding how they take in new members.

Our attorneys say it will take some time, but it will work

To poster #55. Very interesting. What I think you're saying is that you want the right to refuse anyone. That's why you own in a COOP and why you're willing to turn into a social club. Fair enough, however, I think that this depresses the value of your home. Many people in NYC, but not all, have turned the corner on the whole Dorian's social club coop (some may say snooty) mentality. They don't want their finances torn apart, they want to be able to sublease, etc. They are willing to pay more for these rights than they are for the right to know every little detail about the person next door.

There's nothing wrong with where you're going, but from a financial perspective, does it REALLY make sense? I mean how much is it worth to you? A depressed 20-30% on your property. Hmmm....

#55 thought of private club is interesting. Co ops with approval process should be private clubs not a veiled attempt at fair housing. Think it is fine for those interested to do. We all know time to sell will double and values per sq foot will drop even further. All new money people in this town want condos. That is why 5th avenue is starting to lose it status and looking older by the day and has legit competition from downtown condos.

Age is only a protected class in that you can't discriminate against someone for being too old. You can discriminate against someone for being too young.

#68 You must be a realtor! See #61.

poster #55 here, to 66 & 67,
without trying to sound "snooty" as you wrote, please take into consideration the proximity of your neighbors in nyc.
you have people living above you, below you and on each side sometimes, being able to choose the people that live among you is not a right but a privilege.
as far as the value of the property being affected by having rules that allow the building the ability to choose the tenants?
well our board requires outright cash transactions, no loans, no mortgages, no parents money either. also we require 2x the value of the property in liquid assets to be available. Tough rules in a tough market, but people never had trouble finding buyers.

#70 Respect your interest in picking your neighbors, but the tough rules lower your apartment value and I am sure take 2X the time to sell. If you are concerned with the type of people in your building lowering your apartment value, then you should be more concerned with onerous board rules doing the same.

#70, To your coop I would say "NO THANK YOU". When I am ready to sell...I want to sell quickly. A coop with requirements such as yours has to be a tough sell.

#71, I think he is also referring to just day to day life. A thoughtless noisy neighbor is the gift that keeps giving.

#71 - I agree with you. I am currently in the market for a high-end family apt. on the UES. Becasue we need 3 to 4 BR's many of the listings we have been shown are on Park and Fifth. While my initial inclination was that I liked the benefits that co-op Boards offer to protect our investment, one just has to read the StreetEasy postings regarding 1056 Fifth Avenue. The Board has truned down no fewer than 3 buyers. Meanwhile, the owner of this $4 million co-op has moved out of state and has watched his apt. and investment languish in limbo - more frightenting to me is that he has ABSOLUTELY no control over the situation. What are the statistical chances that 3 consecutive prospective purchasers are all entirely unacceptable? IT seems to me that there is also politics at work on the board level when apts. come on the market. This building is now "branded" and that will diminish value for existing shareholders.

#71 - I agree with you. I am currently in the market for a high-end family apt. on the UES. Becasue we need 3 to 4 BR's many of the listings we have been shown are on Park and Fifth. While my initial inclination was that I liked the benefits that co-op Boards offer to protect our investment, one just has to read the StreetEasy postings regarding 1056 Fifth Avenue. The Board has truned down no fewer than 3 buyers. Meanwhile, the owner of this $4 million co-op has moved out of state and has watched his apt. and investment languish in limbo - more frightenting to me is that he has ABSOLUTELY no control over the situation. What are the statistical chances that 3 consecutive prospective purchasers are all entirely unacceptable? IT seems to me that there is also politics at work on the board level when apts. come on the market. This building is now "branded" and that will diminish value for existing shareholders.

Exactly. #55, I really think you're not looking at the long term. Because of your tough rules, you have depressed the market value of the apartments in your building WHEN compared to condos. On a slightly different note, when does having 2X the value of anyplace automatically make someone a better neighbor? I think it's funny that you think having money (not having to take a mortgage, etc.) means that you'll like the folks living above, below and on the sides. By the way, I live in a COOP, so I'm not on the outside looking in. I'm on the inside and I hate to see my invetment not compare in value to other properties in NYC because it's a COOP.

I read a newspaper or magazine story about a fellow who was selling his grandmother's co-op. The grandmother told him to give her next door neighbor first refusal. The neighbor was on the co-op board & gave a very low offer so he put the unit on the market. His first, excellent buyer, who made a market rate offer, was refused by the board. The neighbor/board member then came back with her original offer. The fellow got a second buyer, again turned down by the board. All of the RE pros were appalled, believing the two buyers to have been highly qualified. Finally, fearing he would never get past the board & thinking of his grandmother's best interests, he let the neighbor/board member have the apartment but at the market rate. This is so outrageous. I don't know how these boards get away with that type of thing. Overall the system must work fairly well but it's cases like this that make co-ops such an absurdity.

#71,#76. I am on the inside as of a coop (UES board member) as well. If #71 is a legit upscale buyer of the 3 or 4 bedroom apartments in this neighborhood, I know his pain and point almost every new condo development in this neighborhood. (i estimate over 500 apartments) targeting the luxury would mid range ($1.5M to $7M) 5th/park avenue buyer coming the market in the next 18 months. The developers know the younger wealth in this city (under 45 yrs old), despises the coop approval process and would pay more to avoid and have liquidity (just in case). In many cases, you will soon be seeing condos on second avenue coming to market for more per sq/ft than park/5th avenue co ops. This would be really absurd given how nice 5th avenue is, but it would cement the failure of the co op approval process as investment vehicle and a domicile only for the wealthy over 50/60 crowd. Most older board members do not understand what is happening in this neighborhood or the power of internet regarding info on our building restrictions and its effect on prices.

#78 I totally agree. And if the 2nd ave subway actually comes to fruition (a discussion for a whole other thread) all of those 2nd ave condos will edge up in value even more.

And as the older generations residing on Park/5th ave die out the kids handling their estates will realized what a mess the coop system is, finally causing these coop boards to adjust their attitudes to the realities of the market.

#77, This is a real story. After the Seller accepted our offer and our lawyer had done due diligence, we lost the contract the next day to another Buyer. Not unsual in NYC, except for this: The Seller claimed she had been pressured by another broker, who was the FORMER BOARD PRESIDENT of her building and still lives in that building, to take his client's deal. The Seller called me at home and told me this herself; she said that the other broker (the former Board Pres.) called her and pressured her into taking his client over us, even though they were offering less $. She said she felt "afraid," and that he said "it only took a phone call" to get the Board to give us a thumbs down. It was the same story, more or less, that her lawyer told our lawyer about the broker. Who knows what the truth is, but she clearly didn't want to chance having to start the process all over again, if the broker/former Board Pres. carried through with his supposed threat. The very same broker threatening her was the broker who sold her the apartment a few years back, she said, and because he was the current President at the time, "he got her into the building." So much for progressive NYC. Try corrupt.

That's just outrageous, isn't it. As we say in Spanish, "God will pay you!" If you do that sort of thing, sooner or later that energy will come back. Good luck to them; they'll need it.

Co-Op Boards can be miserable. The are great going in as you know the rules of the building, but its basically "the roach motel" trying to get out. They make it impossible for you to sell your apartment. The bldg rulers, as I like to call them, are pretty anal and think they are the lords of the bldgs. Most of the time its the lawyers on the board fighting the CPA's as to who is more clever and can find more fault with the possible new buyer, and the seller suffers. Read www.NYCMOVE.com and www.NEWNEWYORKER.com for more info on all of this.