301 vs. 300

same, 3 buildings (300, 301, 220 manatthan ave)

300 is at the 'Hot Gates'
lots of crazy Sparten activity

towersonthepark.com

board seems to be a cluster and operating more like a coop.....

The board has pretty much been the same the last two decades. They weren't allowing owners to rent (like a typical condo, which those buildings are )until 2012 citing one page of the by-laws, not realizing the next page superseded the clauses they were swearing by, and did indeed allowed for renting. They decided to not let the other owners know this. And held a vote where they gave the owners the choice of (a) not allowing renting;or (b) renting after 1 year of occupancy. The remaining owners voted b. It shouldn't be too hard to fight them in court if someone purchases a unit as an investment property. There's a quite a paper trail that a lot of the owners were copied on to substantiate that. I know some owners even had outside counsel opine that it was a regular condo and circulated it to other owners.

I looked into that building about 10 years ago. I backed out of a deal when I was given a paper signing over my rights to vote to the Board. It was the last straw with everything else that came out in the "due diligence".

There were a number of owners that came under regulations for people with lower incomes. Some wanted to sell and could not find people who met the income requirements since they had not been updated since the 1980's when the place opened. Some of them stopped paying maintenance.

There were also inexplicable regulations over spots in the garage. Some owners could pass on their parking spot when they sold. If your apartment didn't come with that, there was an extremely long waiting list for parking. That mean waiting a few years for parking. This was a problem since parking is tight in the area, lots were far from the building, and I had to commute by car to the job I had.

I really hated to turn down the apartment. It was a nice apartment with gorgeous views of Central Park and was very reasonably priced. The services in the building also seemed good with laundry off the lobby and pocket gardens.

Yes, it was subsidized and had a tier structure for income restrictions on certain units when it was first built, but that's no longer the case. The garage issue is also a result of the board as you need to occupy the unit in order to have a spot, however, most holders of the spots no longer reside there (either renting or sold). The spots are not transferable as per their by-laws. That website owner is very much open to discussing issues with the board.

I would go with 301, even though it is not a prime number.