NYCMatt, help I am confused

Posters mentioning personal numbers should fax pertinent info to se which should verify everything.

no, jim, proof of all info. pictures of broken toilet seats and the like.

Good point. I am waiting to see the birth certificate of the poster calling himself TheˍＰｒｅｓｉｄｅｎｔ

No wonder the economy is going down the crapper, Obama is wasting the days away on SE.

Well, I'm pretty sure Michelle wants a top-end, high-amenity building, so research must be done.

*ping*

Matt or his accountant's math is not wrong unless the IRS auditors takes a look. Maybe he's busy trying to explain how an extra "0" ended up on the mortgage interest line of the tax return.

Who's who in this example. Matt thinks he knows everything like Khruschev, yet knows nothing like Nixon. Was Khruschev the one with the shoe? I guess we knew something he didn't know.

poorirish -- do i get this right, you're comparing matt's enemies to Khruschev, the murderous peasant

What? No respect for Khruschev?!
Matt is 50's Nixon --- you know, the owner of dog Checkers and the proud husband of Pat who wear's a good cloth Republican coat.
The rest of us are Khruschev.
Khruschev was a guy you have to love! (The murderous peasant was Stalin.)

kr -- lot of blood on his hands too, just not as much as stalin...and he is famously crude and a peasant

wears not wear's

Matt's got a good heart. Well, sometimes more than others. I for one would like to understand how he reaches his conclusions, and hopefully he'll be nice enough to share.

Poorishlady, better to say "While I was looking for Lady Gaga videos on YouTube over my iPhone, I ran across an ancient TV clip of Nixon and ...".

are you implying that matt's significant other dresses in drag, in a pat nixon motif?...sounds fun!

Fine, let's say Matt sucks and you are awesome. Can you explain the logic that flows through his head for me that makes him (along with millions of others) reach conclusions that are diametrically opposite to yours or mine?

Be more specific and I'll try.

and be sure to always explain the "millions" that hold a similar view....

Rhino, the question asked in the OP.

all of us (not all of his)

I still like pissing on the soviet sham. And I don't think matts math is as interesting as his oversimplified views and preachy tude. All this at 26.

Poorishlady, to extend aura if youth, say "Damn iPhone!" every time you correct a typo in a post.

"if youth" => "of youth". Damn iPhone!!!

I didn't know he was 26. He said this at some point?

inonada,

Math is not Matt's strong point. He seemed to think that it was safer for a co-op to have a vacant apartment with an absentee owner than if it was rented to someone. That somehow the co-op owner having some income from his vacant apartment put the co-op at more risk than keeping it empty.

Isn't Matt in his 40's?

modern, have you heard stories about owners having to pay lawyers to get people out of an apartment who was only paying 0 or 1/10 of the rent or tenants who paid every other month. The process sometimes took months. The little rent/deposits that the owner did get was nothing compared to the lawyer fees and renovation costs to fix up the place (damaged floors, cabinets, doors, walls, pipes, etc...). Of course it doesn't happen very often, but the variations of cases I have heard from friends who personally experienced it is enough for me to want to avoid being a landlord as much as possible. So yeah, there is a risk...

I'm afraid Matt's hung over still from a great New Year's Eve. Hurry up and come out to play, Matt!

Pretty sure he revealed he's in his 20s.

HFS, do not address me.

Sunday, there is a risk to the owner of the unit, not to the co-op itself. All costs are born by the unit owner.

Matt was claiming he wouldn't approve a tenant who only had 39x the monthly rent in income instead of 40x, as it was "risky" to the co-op. How? The owner pays the maintenance not the renter. If the owner is collecting rent, there has to be LESS risk of his not paying the maintenance, as he has more money. Pretty simple.

Matt is not bright. Who would argue that a less qualified tenant is worse than no tenant.

Well, Sunday just made an argument. Did you read that?

Rhino86
13 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse Pretty sure he revealed he's in his 20s.

CFA not teach you anything about numbers? Or is counting not sophisticated enough for you?

Rhino86
12 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse HFS, do not address me.

You don't get to make the rules.

I am interested in hearing Matt's breakdown of his apartment tax savings.

modern, ok, I misread your post. With that said, I can actually see Matt's point, though I don't know about the exact multiple to use as a cutoff point. As you said, the owner of the unit is responsible for all the fees. Since the saying that RE is all about 'location, location, location' really means 'neighbors, neighbors, neighbors', and "generally' the lower the income, the worse the neighborhood, teh co-op board might be using the x times monthly rent to income ratio to keep the residents of a co-op within a tight range. Let's go a bit extreme to prove a point, if a potential buyer's income is 300K a year and looking at two buildings located on the same block. One building, all residents makes above 150K, and the other building has half making 150K+ and half making 60K and below. Which building do you think that buyer is more likely to buy at?

Presumably the coop isnt set up to allow or accommodate 1/2 the units being rented at a given time....So in this case we are talking about a handful in a building. The bigger issue it seems to me that if you reject a reasonable renter, as a coop, you increase the chances of a future distressed seller in your building.

Isn't that the main reason why many co-ops have rules against renting out their units?

Rhino, you are correct, but finding that balance is the key. I don't necessarily agree on what the ratio should be. I'm just saying I can see the rationale in general.

I think the reason to disallow renting is that it cheapens the environment...renters dont have enough at stake to govern their own behavior as strictly. Also, yes, you'd rather an owner just sell and get lost then linger on as a landlord. No real good comes of it. However, which is the lesser evil....a distressed seller today, or a distressed seller possibly tomorrow.

I think you want a reasonable qualified renter today in this market rather than a distressed seller. Now that answer may change as the number of units offered for rent in your coop rises.

If I am on the co-op board and I have no intention of moving any time soon, I care more about what neighbors I get than a distressed seller bring prices down temporarily.

that's the big problem from the co-ops point of view; reason for the once for two years rule.

Sunday, what if there are 5 people in a 25-unit coop asking to sell right now? What if there are 10? It gets pretty tricky. 1/2 renters in a coop cheapens a coop....but so does 1/2 the units on sale at once....so does 1/2 the units not paying their maintenance. I dunno what the right answer is. If you have a long horizon and youre on the board....you take the medicine now, and hopefully turn all the struggling owners over into better qualified owners, albeit at firesale prices.

What I meant to say is maybe you do that.

Rhino, as you seem to agree, it is not quite that clear cut. I was just pointing out that what Matt wrote is not completely unreasonable or nutty.

As for the OP's question, I still think Matt is trying to find a good explanation to the IRS for the extra "0" in the mortgage interest line on his tax return. Matt, you can't just blame the accountant, because you're ultimately responsible for your own tax return.

I thought the issue with Matt in this case was an issue of being a stickler about the income/rent ratio after the coop has already decided to let an owner rent his unit out. That seems senseless...unless you are in a strong enough market to assume a better qualified renter is around the corner.

I'm not familiar with that whole discussion. In either case, their board was apparently still more concern about neighbors than prices. Who's to say whether they are wrong or right unless it was so clearcut that without that "poor" renter the co-op will suffer financial difficulties.

It would be nice if the coop board would rather have the owner sell with a renter (and therefore some flexibility) than hold him/her over a barrel.

Can I venture that putting your income out in detail is not wise.

But I sympathize with his view on tipping .

Happy New Year everyone! And Happy New Decade, too!

Inonada, I don't have the exact numbers, but the end result is the same: as a renter I was averaging about $1800 for an annual tax refund, and now as an owner I'm averaging $14,000. Nothing else has changed.

Oh yes, I do make a crapload of deductions.

BTW, just saw "Avatar" -- amazing!

Is this evident post-Avatar adrenaline rush considered a "natural high"? ..

did the sofa tenants go to the movie?

Hey Matt, you know you can't deduct your house guests' usage of your place as a "charitable deduction" right?

Everyone says Avatar is great, maybe it'll be my once-per-year movie at the theaters since everyone says you gotta see it in 3D. You concur, Matt?

Did my question make sense? Do you understand the discrepancy?

Matt, we love you and we hate you.

I sympathize with his tipping views. To each his own.

hey...that's great. don't tip...tip...its up to you and each individual. equating building staff with the mafia is ridiculous.

forgive me i was using the royal we
matt has a lot of energy.
And energy is eternal delight, as Blake pointed out.
I admire his ballsiness in not tipping ..... but it is ungenerous of him.

poorish, i have no problem with HIS not tipping (other than its inherent lack of generosity, and the paranoia he seems to feel toward building staff). but as a board member of a coop he enacted rules that attempt to make it impossible for OTHER people in the building to tip, and he claims they are successful at enforcing the rules. i'd be pretty pissed if someone attempted to dictate to me whether or not i could engage in holiday generosity.

That is psychotic.

Rhino, please. Conventions are often more honored in the breach than in the observance, as Shakespeare had Hamlet say.
But I rush to say you are right and so is AR that Matt doesn't make sense most of the time.
Matt says too many creepy things and he says them loudly. You wouldn't want to be in the same restaurant or bar with him even a few tables away. He'd be overly loud and obnoxious and he'd disturb your enjoyment.
And there's an unfortunate loutishness to many of his comments.

Another thing ------- sometimes these young loutish fellows who think they know it all become board members of coops.
God almighty, then woe betide the shareholders not on the board ..........

Poorish you are so well read and tolerant. I prefer the same inflexibility and absolutism in damning Matt as he demonstrates in his posts.

so...take us to the part where you love him.

One thing you are doing, is reminding me why coops are semi-absurd constructs in the first place...and why I ought to demand an even steeper discount.

I think I'd want someone selfless enough to tip the doorman in the foxhole with me.

Listen, just don't buy into a coop that has now or might have in the future a gold-standard a-hole like Matt on the board.
It could happen!
It happened to me. Luckily, I was able to sell before the market tanked. Then I wanted to buy again immediately, but I was so gun-shy that I couldn't force myself to sign on the line ......
In retrospect I am very, very happy that I had that trepidation .....
Here's the value of Matt: he's an ongoing object lesson to all of us of the dangers we face in the lovely population density of NYC and the various characters that we might find ourselves having to deal with ..........

"Listen, just don't buy into a coop that has now or might have in the future a gold-standard a-hole like Matt on the board. "

You mean any coop?

I guess this is the same kind of math that let people justify buying overpriced homes as smart "investments" the past few years.

I see your point, Rhino. You're right; I shouldn't necessarily run screaming when a Matt type appears in my vicinity.
It's the constant fight or flight question .....
Matt types will always be in our vicinities, and we must learn to deal with them.
However, I wouldn't want to live in a coop where he was on the board.

I didn't read much of all those tipping threads, so I just thought Matt was against mega-tipping, not trying to ban it or not do it altogether. My view is tipping is customary and polite, with amounts set within reason taking into account the kind of building, your own circumstances, how nice the guys are, etc. (not to say that one can't tip a boatload if you're feeling flush, or particularly want to help the doorman you like a lot). So maybe I didn't get the full Matt view on that. That said, yesterday a friend at a nice pre-war in Gram park told me about his building tips of at least 250$ per person that totalled I guess near 2000$ or more, which still seems a lot to me. I never lived in such a nice building, so maybe that is expected there, but I have the feeling tipping on that order of magnitude is also part of the boom times mentality.

matt has said at least 30 times that tipping is the same as mafia extortion. that no one should tip. that people who tip are intimidated into doing so. etc, etc.

I've been trying to stay off this one because Matt makes me want to wail on a punching bag. He's good to his friends, that's nice, one IS good to one's friends; he's mean to his social "inferiors" & that to me is unconscionable. My feeling is that Matt is not as young as Poorish thinks & has long hardened into a boor. Oh well, it takes all kinds ...

As to the tipping, Jim, I'd say you tip at the level of your income & cost of your dwelling so in this case, $2000 is probably in line.

Happy TwentyTen to all.

columbiacounty, more drivel

How about this:

Every year the co-op/condo board should set aside a target bonus pool for each role. A satisfaction survey is given out every year for each role.

Satisfaction Rate = bonus rate
100% Satisfaction rate = 110% of bonus target
95% = 105%
90% = 100%
85% = 90%
80% = 80% (the role gets a warning)
75% = 70% and someone gets fired
<70% = 50% and everyone in that role get fired

you can tweak the numbers, but you get the idea...

Matt has to be at least in his mid 30's if not 40's... I would bet money that he's not in his 20's.

sunday...is your range thing a joke?...

no, I wasn't joking, though the specific ranges are for illustration purposes only.

I'm not the one that said he was 26. If he's 26 or so, I'm willing to cut him a tiny bit of slack. If he's older than that, well, then he's truly the moronic dickbird that he appears to be ....
(However, he serves a purpose on these threads as a consistent devil's advocate (of sorts!!) ...............)

"If something is a convention, I don't know what gives you the right to ignore it. Its part of living in a doorman building in NY."

I suppose you're right.

How dare Rudy Giuliani stop that wonderful "convention" of business owners in New York City paying "association dues" to the mob in order to get their garbage picked up for the past five or six decades.

After all, it's a "cost of doing business" in New York!

sunday...

i think the ranges go against the benevolent, voluntary nature of tipping...

also...due to human nature...not to mention unions...the idea of firing seems pretty farfetched...

and job satisfaction is so variable -- some people love a guy that opens the door even tho he would let a homeless person wander through the lobby without asking who the hell it is...i used to say people could get in one building i lived in as long as they werent brandishing a weapon

also...some people like the hi, how areyou type doorman....i like the subtle nod type, as i find it tedious to have this whole perfunctory interaction every time i walk by the frigging door

i also hate hotels that give faux "personalized" service where they welcome you back or whatever...

but nothing beats old russian babushka bitches manning a door in eastern europe, staring you down for being drunk, coming in late. carrying too many bags, bringing in a guest, or whatever..

Oh, and for the record, I was born into a world in which man had not yet walked on the moon, Hawaii 5-0 came on BEFORE the late local news, and Johnny Carson was still broadcasting live out of New York City.

jim, I see tips, bonuses, salary as part of total compensation 'expected' for a given job. The variable nature of tips/bonuses is meant to address differences in quality. What I outlined above is definitely fair when calibrated properly to current expectations. That's why in my example, I put 90% satisfaction rate as being equal to 100% bonus target. The other key is to have the bonus pool come straight out of the maintenance. The maintenance is never meant to be totally fair. Maybe I always walk up the stairs instead of using the elevator, or I never use the pool, etc...

As for the point about getting fired, if they had to choose between 0% bonus for a 75% satisfaction rate vs. 70% of target and voting off the lowest performer, I think they will pick the latter. In either case, it works the same.

i guess you don't know much about the union involved here.

cc, isn't that Matt's point in a way...

no....matt believes that no building workers are entitled to tips. i believe that tipping is up to each individual and they should do as they see fit. you are suggesting an overly complex bonus structure straight out of HR101 which also completely ignores the reality of how difficult if not impossible it is to fire a union worker.

two wrongs never make a right. just because the union can protect some worthless workers doesn't in any way suggest that other workers should not be able to receive tips or bonuses from grateful residents.

sunday...it does kind of smack of central planning..

"which also completely ignores the reality of how difficult if not impossible it is to fire a union worker."

As someone who's been a member of FOUR labor unions as well as management who's sat on both sides of the bargaining table, I can tell you firing a union employee is not much harder than firing an at-will employee. Yes, it takes longer and requires much more documentation, but if you're a competent manager trying to fire a truly incompetent employee, the process is actually quite simple.

so "it takes longer and requires much more documentation" but its not harder? what would easier look like?

I have somewhat agree with Matt that for the most part, 'tipping' is not really voluntary. He of course might have missed the fact that the building staff were hired with an expectation of a certain total compensation that includes a certain amount of tips, just like waiters are. I agree that what I proposed would be very difficult if not impossible to implement in a current union'ed place. Who's to say new condos/co-ops has to be part of a union. I also don't see it as something that the building staff would be against if presented properly and they work together to define the ranges. i.e. maybe the satisfaction rate has to go down a lot lower for someone to get fired... I personally don't find it to be overly complicated and I think it gives everyone a sense of stability in the long run.

how is it not voluntary?

If you define voluntary as meaning no one is putting a gun to my head to tip, then yes, it is voluntary.

"how is it not voluntary?"

As I've explained umpteen thousand times already (but I'll do so again, for those of you who are slow), it's not voluntary because of the implied penalty for NOT tipping: the super ignores your clogged toilet (or takes his good ol' time in responding to your frantic calls), the porter looks the other way when he sees "movers" taking stuff out of your apartment while you're on vacation, and the doorman refuses to sign for your dry cleaning or packages while you're at work.

except that of course you've made up all of these scenarios. tell us again about how its no more difficult to fire union workers except that it takes longer and requires much more documentation.

Those scenarios are actual events about which I've been told or personally witnessed.

And as far as trying to fire union employees, you may simply re-read my posting, and extrapolate from there.

The tone of this whole discussion is monetary. Whatever happened to., "it's the thought that counts."

Try something personal, like a black velour wall hanging with a flourescent paint map of Puerto Rico. Or, even more thoughtful, take edit one of your videos of the P Rican parade, into a "highlights of" dvd. And that's just off the top of the head.....

silkscreen a photo of yourself on black t-shirts. that way the staff will always remember what you've given.