huge news - sty town tenants win

Well, that is kind of what you say- treble damages? for what?

Yea, I kinda think it is, and I didn't go to Yale.

I'm smart enough to make you look foolish every time (which really isn't that hard), and to push your buttons.
Did you read what I said or are you always dishonest?

I don't understand your point, RS. Are you saying RS is OK because there is another bad government program out there?

By that argument, any bad government program is OK, because there is always an example of another even worse government program out there.

Why can't RS be judged by itself?

modern, please try to keep up. this thread hasn't been just about RS ever.

rs and licc who are busy trying to criticize me for my largesse are experiencing their own. you don't think it's legit for me to point out the hypocrisy?

murray, treble damages because of the history landlords have in NYC. it's very difficult for tenants to win, but when they do.

i recall a story told when i took the NY real estate licensing class at NYU. one RS landlord was particularly nasty, and pissed off a huge number of tenants, one of whom happened to be an attorney. he combed through the code with a fine-tooth comb and discovered that the kitchens in the building were a few square feet smaller than required by the law. he sued on behalf of himself and the others and they received treble damages for years of rent. i think that was the beginning of the anti-attorney bias in buildings. lord forbid landlords should have such stressors.

the law is the law. fuck with it at your potential peril.

How are you an aggrieved party under the law?

well, you don't understand the law, do you? in the slightest.

No Modern, not saying that at all. The comparison was made by A.R. equating rent stabilization benefit received by renters with 421A tax abatement and the real estate taxes paid by buyer. The point was to correct the error and to point out her hypocrisy.

aboutready, you are logically inconsistent. The sign of a weak mind. I am not benefiting from largesse when the main benefit of abatements goes to the developer.

Actually, I don't think it's A.R.'S who is supposed to be generous, but everyone else.

ok, so admit to steve that there is NO benefit to the abatement. i'm talking long-term in terms of lasting market value. not short term in terms of your immediate benefit. but maybe that's too sophisticated for you and RS to understand.

and, i'm talking about the costs to OTHER people in our society. i thought that was the focus of the ever-hypocritical RS and you. that RS costs aren't just paid for by the ll, it's a societal cost.

well, as a taxpayer, i'd really fucking like you to pay your full RE tax burden. because we really can't afford to carry you. and i pay both RE taxes and a shit load of income taxes, so get off my fucking back.

. i'm talking long-term in terms of lasting market value. not short term in terms of your immediate benefit. but maybe that's too sophisticated for you and RS to understand.

This is just whacked. I buy a condo and pay up front more money because of the abatement. The higher price is the present value of the abatement over ten years, but suddenly I have a short term benefit? Did we not agree that if there were no abatement I would have paid less up front.

and, i'm talking about the costs to OTHER people in our society. i thought that was the focus of the ever-hypocritical RS and you. that RS costs aren't just paid for by the ll, it's a societal cost.

Do we not agree that the developer is financing low cost housing in exchange for the 421a?

I'm just too confused by A.R.'S logic. The psychology degree must have been in multiple personalities. May have to call you About Sybil

you guys are SOO dysfunctional. RS, don't even start. i can chew you up and spit you out in the psychology area so badly your head would fucking spin 180 degrees. the only reason i haven't done it is that it would be cruel. one phrase as a teaser? need for affirmation.

RS, i guess now you think that it's good to support housing for people with lower incomes in manhattan? do you have any statistics on how "wealthy" the RS tenants are? no? i didn't think so.

but that seems to be a turnaround from your earlier positions? is that because you have a tax abatement?

aboutready:
"i recall a story told when i took the NY real estate licensing class at NYU. one RS landlord was particularly nasty, and pissed off a huge number of tenants, one of whom happened to be an attorney. he combed through the code with a fine-tooth comb and discovered that the kitchens in the building were a few square feet smaller than required by the law. he sued on behalf of himself and the others and they received treble damages for years of rent. i think that was the beginning of the anti-attorney bias in buildings."

And isn't it ironic... don't you think

That a seminal event in lawyering and its impact on NYC RE would involve lying about square footage.

Things that make you go hmmm!

maybe agent Bev and Agent Rachel should take a look.

ne1 know income distribution in STPCV?

For 2000, see http://factfinder.census.gov. PCV is census tract 60, and ST is 44.01.

http://www.manhattan-real-estate.net/manhattan-real-estate/impact-from-stuy-town-decision-may-widen/

THE LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSQUENCES STRIKES AGAIN!

The recent ruling in favor of tenants at Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village initially put the city's landlords on the defensive, but now property owners are asking if the city might owe them money because of the decision. Frank Ricci, director of governmental affairs at the landlord trade group Rent Stabilization Association, said he has fielded calls from "dozens" of landlords asking if the city might owe them for overpayment in taxes. And in recent weeks the law firm Belkin Burden Wenig & Goldman raised more questions in a bulletin, including whether the city must pay landlords for lost tax abatements. Adding to the potential chaos, Stephen Meister, a partner who specializes in real estate law at the firm Meister Seelig & Fein, said he had spoken with building owners who might want to leave the city-run J-51 tax abatement program altogether.

how many times do we need to see the same thing?

riversider, what's your point? and who cares? the law is the law. unintended consequences? do you understand the judicial mandate? it's to consider the law, not the consequences. if the consequences are too onerous then the law may or may not need to be changed. but that's not the job of the court of appeals in new york.

find some sophistication, would you?

oh, and did you see the colbert clip on your bitch heroine, rand? brilliant.

Stytown tenants will never be winners because their whole residential life is based on handouts of one sort or another.

keremk, i'm sure they look in the mirror daily and despise themselves.

get real. metlife got the land for a dollar, after the city had concucted a mericless purge of the slums that existed here at the time. talk about a handout.

Typical entitlement attitude. There used to be slums here, so I should get a handout. Sad.

I heard that some non-stabilized tenants saw rents go down 25%.

hfscomm1: is someone deleting comments on streeteasy? who?

This story and the hope of some tenants to "score" on this one brings back memories of Renters in West Side Coops who got insider prices prior to conversion. The key difference here is the special status of Stuy Town as a rent stabilized/controlled project.

you are a hypocrite.

Anyone sense the irony of those who benefit from rent stabalization/control laws suddenly have the funds after all to purchase units?

why don't you bring out hfscomm1? how does it work? how do you decide which idiot to be?

anyone see the irony of wealthy people not paying real estate taxes?

oh, btw, i opened the rent bill yesterday. reduction was more than $1000. what a horrible place to live, in a renovated 1200 sf (old standards) 2/2 for just a wee bit over $3000 per month. happy new year everyone!

AR....are you now rent stablized??

julia, the rent bill still lists the old base rent, and then lists a j-51 credit. i think this is an interim measure while the parties attempt to settle.

Congrats AR and have a terrific celebration tonight.

Awesome.

Haven't you heard "hard cases make bad law" - who says RS/RC is the best way to keep communities together, provide affordable housing? It's not. And there will always be unintended beneficiaries.

That's how the cookie crumbles.

Never heard that.
Apt phrase though.

Cccharley and Julia curbed is reporting that ts is releasing 100 rs apts on 01/04. I think they had over 600 empty apartments. No idea how many people got themselves on the list. The price differential between the largest and nicest apts and the smallest may be quite small in some cases. Good luck.

AR...I just read the curbed article and it appears the reduction,and in some cases an increase doesn't amount to be very much. Yet your reduction of $1k is great...it seems your two/two is almost the same as a one bedroom in stuytown..they're basing it on turnover, etc. so you really lucked out but for me the balloon has burst. My biggest problem my lease is up and i have to notify them this week if i'm renewing or not.

julia, then it may be too late for you. the reductions aren't particularly impressive for the one bedrooms that have been market for a few years. but what will be interesting is that many of the just recently renovated two bedrooms will be cheaper than mine. it is conceivable that if they have some warehoused units that were renovated right around the time of the decision, that those two bedroom units may go for not much more than $2000. it all depends on when they were renovated and how often they were vacated over the years.

I agree...I'm renewing my lease for one year at a $375.00 reduction. My LL is also in trouble with the J-51 issue...I would love to get into Stuytown,PCV and in a year or less but you're right regarding the warehousing...it's going to be an interesting time in Manhattan for renters.

It is a real shame that these units are being awarded first come first serve and not on a needs based formula. The comment about hard cases making bad laws? This isn't serving a public good more like a lottery.

Going down the tubes on income and holding 600 units vacant. Amazing.

And, BTW, the holders of the notes should probably be going into Bankruptcy Court trying to block this: You really think this is going to be "first come, first served"? or do you think "friends of friends" are getting windfalls in contemplation of the building being about to become someone else's problem?

meanwhile, there's a rent stabilized tenant not fortunate enough to live in StuyTown who lives in a building that mimi is looking to buy. So mimi will evict the tenant.

meanwhile, there's a rent stabilized tenant not fortunate enough to live in StuyTown who lives in a building that mimi is looking to buy. So mimi will evict the tenant, and aboutready with lower rent still is too cheap to have any dignity when using the toilet.

aboutready, if I need to put in a work order to get my toilet fixed, do I have to initiate a class action lawsuit first? I need your expert legal and plumbing expertise.

http://therealdeal.com/newyork/articles/rose-associates-to-manage-stuy-town-in-transition

i was really worried about the elevators.

Advertised rents are now $2250...big difference from $3100.

the majority of the people working in the leasing and operations groups in stuy now are former rose employees hired by TS after the takeover. The services are going to be worse and no one will care bc they cant even get paid the same now. Enjoy living in hell. Sorry to anyone that rented a unit during the months of July- November 2009.

But if they dropped the rent from $3100 to $2250. Why should a person paying $2250 get the services of someone paying $3100? Stuyvesant town will wind up being worse run than city housing projects.

in 2004 i rented my 2/2 for around $2700. by the summer of 2007 TS was renting similar 2/2s for twice the amount. do you think services doubled in three years? actually, they went into the shitter while TS was here. although they added some "services" you could pay a fair amount extra for. since control was granted to the special servicer services have been improving again, not getting worse.

that's like saying TS should get more rent because they paid over $5 billion for the place.

rs, i hope your unit was built with chinese drywall, you nasty toad.

Julia,

Where are they advertising for $2,250. I've looked on craigslist and cannot find.

Thanks

I moved in in Jan -I don't feel like I'm living in hell - I like it. I also like paying $700 less than my other apt. Jas if you don't live here how can you comment?

hi cccharley and ar....$2250 is being advertised on stuytown's website.

A friend of a friend just moved from a 1BR (lived in for years) at about $1,400 to a 2BR for $2,800 - so she might have gotten a fairly good deal on the 2Br because she was freeing up the 1BR

CCCharley, I did live there and i worked for TS on that project. I feel that I am more than qualified as someone that has been on both the tenant and the landlord side. I was even involved on the sale side when CBRE was marketing the prop. I have very intimate knowledge of this property and can easily point anyone in the direction of the truth when it comes to the rumors right now. Im glad you are enjoying it as it is a nice place and the new apt are very comfortable. The place is still hell and if you dont feel it now you will when you hallway becomes infested and neglected.

whats the vacany rate at stuy town?

The future...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wu_iurMP0FE

jas, you worked on the deal? congrats on being part of one of the worst deals in history.

as to hell, give me a break. debt will be written off, new owners will be found, and the rent roll is more than sufficient to carry a lower debt level and reasonable services. the rent roll here was lower when the court of appeals ruled than when TS bought the place. that's what kills services.

I absolutely agree with AR: whoever buys the project will - as opposed to TS - but it on numbers which MAKE SENSE. So the concept that the place HAS top fall apart are a bit of setting up a straw man to knock down. You can't use the old TS numbers (except for what actual rents are perhaps). If someone buys this place at a number which can be supported by the rents (and i can just about guarantee that in the current environment, that is what it going to occur. It might take a while for the pain of accepting such a number to be realized by whoever is in control - if anyone is actually in actual total control - of disposing of this asset, but in the end, it's the biz I've seen for 20 years: foreclosure and new ownership most often result in IMPROVED services and maintenance, because the new folks can afford to do so, and want to be able to RAISE rents, not have them slide further and further down.

Now, if they get some sucker to WAY overpay, betting on the come like TS did, then all bets are off. But do people here think that's going to happen in the current market/economic conditions we have?

David Goldsmith
DG Neary Realty

"But if they dropped the rent from $3100 to $2250. Why should a person paying $2250 get the services of someone paying $3100? Stuyvesant town will wind up being worse run than city housing projects."

Because of a little thing called carry. At $5.4 billion and a blended cost of capital of, say, 6%, it works out to $324 million annually. With 11232 apartments, that works out to $2400 a month per apartment in financing costs. When it gets re-sold for $1.8 billion, you end up with financing costs of $800 a month per apartment. Even though income from the unit dropped $850, costs went down $1600, which leaves $750 more lolly for the new owner to spread around.

If you think the best use of the property is to cut services, then you should put in a bid and see where that takes you. Under your premise, you should pay $3.6 billion for the property, have the same cashflow TS had, but you'd get to cut services and make additional money that way.

If I were buying, I certainly wouldn't pay $3.6 billion because the TS cashflow model never made sense. I'd buy for much less, and I'd do long-term improvements to the property in anticipation of the RS status expiring later this decade.

Because of a little thing called carry. At $5.4 billion and a blended cost of capital of, say, 6%, it works out to $324 million annually. With 11232 apartments, that works out to $2400 a month per apartment in financing costs. When it gets re-sold for $1.8 billion, you end up with financing costs of $800 a month per apartment. Even though income from the unit dropped $850, costs went down $1600, which leaves $750 more lolly for the new owner to spread around.

This is how I look at it, there's nothing the owner can do to raise prices, free market(what an irony) can only mean various parties bid up the rights to rent out units/service the building.

My view is that they are competing with low income housing and regardless of what price they pay, over the long run, they maximize profits by lowering the price of servicing the building..and it's always easier to cut services.

Future of this complex is project status.

future of this complex is project status?

what the hell does this mean? you are once again a raging idiot.

See no reason Stuyvesant rents for more than a modest premium over Flatbush gardens, and only because of location.

http://www.flatbushgardens.net/brooklynapartmentcomparison/

rs, your bias is showing. you're really straining credibility here (more so than usual). I thought you had cc "blocked". making an exception to be the narrow-minded person we know so well?

hey...its understandable...she gets so excited when anyone responds.

Flat 'bush'. Hahahahhahaaaaa. am I the only one that finds that funny? And the fact riversider doesn't think the mkt is in free fall except his coop? Is your apt made of copper?

http://stuytownluxliving.com/2010/04/stuyvesant-town---a-week-in-photos.html

I had NO IDEA that if you didn't have a toilet seat the flushing mechanism would no longer work. Seems odd, because you don't even need a tank or flushometer to get a toilet to flush - simply poor a bucket of water into the bowl with the minimum GPF and.... VOILA!!!!

30yrs, i too have been bemused. i had no idea that you needed two toilets with toilet seats in order to be a decent household. i can't stand myself for existing for two days with only one toilet out of two with a toilet seat. i can't stand myself for asking the landlord for something it was obligated to provide under the terms of our lease. i can't stand myself for pointing out that one of the benefits of renting is that the landlord is obligated to replace fixtures and you don't have to trot off to home depot every time something goes wrong.

how do people with only one bathroom live with themselves? now really. they're indecent even with a functional toilet seat.

30yrs_RE_20_in_REO, I guess you may be on to something if aboutready pees standing up. Hmm

But it seems like a hell of a lot of work to avoid saving $9.

"how do people with only one bathroom live with themselves? now really." Pitiful. What a toilet whore. Perhaps that explains this statement from aboutready, "blow baby blow." http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/19820-its-still-a-terrible-time-to-buy

I cannot see why anyone would renew a lease in a developmetn that's not responsive to plumbing requests if they had the flexibility to rent elsewhere. There's saving money and being cheap.

Riversider, I think you've proven you aren't me. This isn't about ST's plumbing responsiveness. This is about the aboutready household who is more proud to require their landlord to replace the toilet seat (ignoring the potential delay due to ST's lack of responsiveness that AR complains about), than proud to have a working toilet by spending $9 herself.

This is about a woman who is worried that she needs to "trot off to home depot", the horse that she is, despite not having anything else to do all day.

rs, I realize that reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, but I never said I had any difficulties getting the seat. The first visit they accidentally sent the plumbing guy. The next day or so they showed up with a toilet seat. I had another toilet so I didn't care.

btw, how many limo liberals live in the projects? Enjoy your depreciating asset

aboutready
about 5 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse
...
rs, I realize that reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, but I never said I had any difficulties getting the seat.
...
So no real problems with TS after all? Why then do you want to sue for treble monetary damages? You can't have it both ways.

On the plus side no downside to a 32bj strike

By the way, why did 30yrs and aboutready just suddenly bring up the little "toilet seat" problem yesterday out of the blue?

By the way, why did 30yrs and aboutready just suddenly bring up the little "toilet seat" problem yesterday out of the blue?

By the way, why did 30yrs and aboutready just suddenly bring up the little "toilet seat" problem yesterday out of the blue?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-s-margules/aftermath-of-stuy-townpet_b_534363.html

In 1998, the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), the agency which oversees the rent laws and compliance, issued an official opinion that during the J-51 benefit period, apartments which became vacant could qualify for high rent vacancy decontrol. For 12 years, owners had been relying on this opinion and had been operating accordingly. But now, it seems the courts have ruled against this policy.

In the Peter Cooper/Stuyvesant Town case, the landlord was adhering to the 1998 DHCR opinion. The courts have now ruled that when any J-51 is in effect, all rents must remain stabilized. Because of this new ruling, Landlords now are not only subject to rent rollbacks, but are subject to having to refund millions of dollars in rent to tenants, possibly subject to treble damages.

This is devastating to landlords who are now subject to strict review of their years of rent registrations, which are compared to J-51, 421(A) and MCI filings; to buyers of multi-family housing, who thought they knew what they were getting into, but now face uncertainty of future exposure; to sellers of real estate whose sale price will be discounted by what may or may not crop up. But mostly, it's devastating to New York City real estate and the New York City economy.

If the courts can legislate from the bench and reinterpret years of case law and regulatory intent, then who knows what may come next?