outrageous coop board requirements

That's not all that bad. Compare to Park & Fifth Avenue co-ops (3x or more liquid assets equiv. to FPP).

In some Park Ave buildings those are considered lax requirements. For an UES coop tower on 2nd Ave it would be crazy. Really depends.

ok, i hear you. but its not like this building is across the street from the met. without being to specific, i'd describe it as close to central park, upper upper east side, nice block, doorman but nothing else. lobby is very nice but hallways a little shabby frankly. i know people who live in much nicer /better located buildings that dont have these requirements.

- Price fixing? Buyers with a certain amount of money don't mind paying the extra premium for below...
- A form of discrimination? (don't want "poor" neighbors? Bill Gates might not want to live near Donald Trump?)

How many people really pay extra for "location, location, location" vs. "neighbors, neighbors, neighbors"? I think most people are really paying for the latter.

i'm all for living well within your means and like that its a conservative building, but this just strikes me as irrational (and agree its some form of discrimination - "i just want really old rich people living next to me"). if i have 3 years of living expenses in the bank and a proven track record of holding down a job for 10 plus years (including during the worse financial crisis in recent memory) this cant possibly be about making sure the coop owner doesn't default.

It's not about default, you are right about that. You are also right that it is discriminatory. However, not all discrimination is illegal. If this sort of community isn't your idea of perfection, move on.

A co-op is like a partnership. The other partners are looking for assurance that if times get tough and there's a call for capital, you'll be able to ante up and carry your share of the weight.

If a building's very stringent, that may well be reflected in the price to buy in, and they're willing to live with that. If too stringent for you, there're lots of other co-ops, so you keep looking for the right fit.

The opposite situation is what scares me about condos. I should depend on any yutz who could scare up 10% down and is going to be devastated if values drop?

satsu, I think you are being naive about high end coops with stringent requirements like this and why they have such requirements. Clearly you do not want to be a member of a club like this, so why grouse about it. Move on to a building with a vibe more to your liking. But to each his own: if this building likes it this way, so be it--it's their right, they own it.

i agree. when i first started working, i worked for a real estate lawyer who would tell the story over and over again about how he worked on the first "modern" condo in nyc (i think it was in the 60/70s or so) that was put up so that, as he called them, "the white powder people" could find a place to live. now i work with a bunch of people who would never consider a coop - why would you open yourself up to that kind of rejection. i, on the other hand, take great comfort in living in a building where i at least theoretically have a say in who my neighbors are. i agree with maly - if its not for you then move on. i am. and thats fine.

i'm frankly just curious to hear from other people on what coop boards require.

Satsu, New York City has really changed over the years. I'm over 40, and Jewish, and my friends' parents all lived on Central Park West because they couldn't get into the good East Side buildings. Period. Co-ops discriminated pretty blatantly in those days. Also, people made money differently one and two generations ago, and it seems to me obvious that having such high asset requirements is an attempt to keep younger people (and their presumably noisy children) out of a building.

Now the world is different, and the younger people (especially those in careers where they're amassing wealth that their parents couldn't have dreamed of) rail against that kind of discrimination. I agree with Kylewest -- you've found a vestige of it, and it's not for you -- just move on. Be thrilled to live in a New York City where you actually DO have a wide range of choices. And realize that the mere word "co-op" isn't necessarily synonymous with that type of attitude anymore.

ali r.
DG Neary Realty

20 year co-op resident is attempting to buy larger unit in the same building. Offer is accepted by seller (also a long term resident.) Co-op board will not approve sale until buyer puts up $200,000 in escrow account which will be forfeited to building if original apt is not sold in 2 years from closing date of new apt. Also, co-op board requires that resident may not use original apartment in any way after move to new apt.

30yrs - Would love to know your take on slgslc's bulding's stance. On the surface, seems pretty outrageous (that is a LOT of money to put in escrow).

satsu'case is odd as my understanding is that a bldg this consrvative would simply be all cash, with significant additional assets required--never heard of a bldg this conservative allowing a mtge

in slgc's case, many bldg's dont want a concentration of risk or voting rights within the bldg--the 200k escrow would serve to incent the owner of two apts to rapidly sell one, as agreed, without delay or litigation

could be that the buyer is not financially capable, based on coop's requirements, of qualifying for both apt's and they want to help the buyer out but want to incent the buyer to get to a properly capitalized situation quickly

requirement of escrow happens often in coops as they seek to incent owners to abide by agreements relating to purchases, renovations and other activities that could affect the corp as a whole--actually makes sense often

and 200k is not a lot of money--could be these coops are worth multiple millions ea

The thing is, maybe someone is the WASP blue-haired old lady with $3million dollars stuffed in her mattress that that the board of this building seems to want, but who does (her estate in this scenario) sell it to? What is the potential upside? And why allow mortgages at all? I am more Tribeca than UES so it is not surprising it is lost on me.

"I'm all for living well within your means and like that its a conservative building, but this just strikes me as irrational (and agree its some form of discrimination - "i just want really old rich people living next to me"). if i have 3 years of living expenses in the bank and a proven track record of holding down a job for 10 plus years (including during the worse financial crisis in recent memory) this cant possibly be about making sure the coop owner doesn't default."

Not necessarily.

Co-op board VP here. Nice to meet you.

First of all, "3 years of carrying costs" is NOT the same as "3 years of living expenses". Welcome to the Obama Economy, where NO ONE'S job is secure anymore, and ironically, the most vulnerable among us are the highest paid and most experienced. Paradoxically, it's the young and low-paid who are better able to weather an economic storm, since they're already used to living cheaply, are more economicially nimble, and have much less financial baggage than the 35+ crowd.

If you were to lose your job tomorrow and not be able to find another job for 18 months, those "three years of carrying costs" in the bank will be tapped for ALL of your living expenses (who's kidding whom here), and will evaporate in less than a year.

"Proven track record of holding down a job for 10 plus years." Wow. Bully for you. You and ... like ... everyone else on the planet over the age of 30. What's next, you're going to crow about how you've never been to jail?

*****

"(and agree its some form of discrimination - "i just want really old rich people living next to me")"

If this is truly the case in this building, you don't have a shot in hell to begin with, so you might as well move on.