1%'ers own real estate. A lot of it.

One Percenter's can afford to burn money ... that's hardly news.

Real estate holds value far better than a flat screen tv, i-phone, an audi etc.
It's the single most important asset you should hold.

assuming you have a positive cash flow, it's an investment that its depreciation is a recognized expense...it's an investment that its interest is fully deductible....its an investment that appreciates with inflation...and so on...

This discussion is as thrilling as the new Fox reality hit, http://www.examiner.com/article/stars-danger-the-high-dive-has-celeb-contestants-diving-not-dancing

Unless it's a trump development.

You must be joking. You can do much better and with far less risk and need for monetary commitment without buying. Unless you are stoopid.

It's called diversification dumboy, they put tops 10% of net worth in RE not all of it like you. Have you heard of portfolio theory? In some cases even assets with very little appreciation potential can improve risk/reward of your portfolio due to correlation or lack thereof. That applies to portfolios with more than one investment though so not applicable to you. worth a read though.

1%ers own yachts and planes too, even more disproportionately than they own real estate. So I'm shopping for a yacht today. It's the surest path to wealth.

Correlation vs. causation is a cool concept.

W81st - don't forget to open restauarant on your new yacht; sure path to even greater wealth!

> You must be joking. You can do much better and with far less risk and need for monetary commitment without buying. Unless you are stoopid.

totally agree. add to that the lack of liquidity, high carrying costs and high transaction costs... RE is for morons or for those who are lucky enough to already have enough productive assets. we are still accumulating productive assets, so RE will have to wait till it's cheap enough we can't say "no". it's fun to watch though.

> It's called diversification dumboy, they put tops 10% of net worth in RE not all of it like you.

think that the middle class used to do this financially literate thing too, the idea of minimizing what they spend on housing to maximize savings rate and real wealth formation. 99% used to have healthy savings rates till mid 80s, we'll see if they can come back to that as current savings rates are pitifully low.

In this country the tax structure is very pro own vs rent. Agree the 10% comment, but assuming one is not over-committing owning has advantages renting does not.

Renting (at least in NYC right now) has the advantage of saving you a lot of money to put into actual good investments.

big if

You're just awful at investing. I had 11% last year with very conservative choices. A lot of people did much better, but I never lost, having got out at almost the top.

I own but my total costs are less than 2/3rds comparable rent, not counting tax benefit. And I only put 10% down, without pmi. Read it and weep.

You don't own if you have a mortgage. But big step up from rent controlled housing. Hope it works out.

Aboutready, you were very long-term negative on equities just 2 years ago. What turned you around?

Riversider, when was aboutready in rent controlled housing?
And how do you reconcile your statement that "you don't own if you have a mortgage," with your statement that "the tax structure is very pro own vs rent"?

Exactly. A mortgage is an investment decision. Only a fool doesn't take advantage of the spread between mortgage rates and returns assuming the rent/buy ratio is as favorable as mine is. But keep complaining about your non-existent returns.

I'm still not positive equities. I'm in bond funds.

Not the best investment decision, but I can only do funds, not individual stocks, so not so bad. And come next year I'm going to get a fairly large settlement check from the Roberts class action. Must make RS choke on his own bile.

>And come next year I'm going to get a fairly large settlement check from the Roberts class action.

I assume you are donating that money to charity for the poor.

Only if tishman matches it.

That's a cop-out.
You and I both know that rent regulations are intended to provide for affordable housing in NYC for the working class. Your husband is an equity partner in a top law firm. The settlement windfall may come to you, but it isn't for you.

He wasn't an equity partner when we moved there. And the law generally is intended to prevent abuse at least as much as it aims to redress harm. So there.

As I will repeat two thousand times, we signed a market-rate lease. Without knowing that it was illegal, or that tishman would behave illegally. Go attack rapists or something.

>And the law generally is intended to prevent abuse at least as much as it aims to redress harm. So there.

Perhaps you ignored what I said: I didn't say you should give the money back to the plaintiff. I said you should donate the money to charity for the poor.

But I get it: Tax rates went up, so you are cutting back on charity like Ari Fleischer.

>As I will repeat two thousand times, we signed a market-rate lease. Without knowing that it was illegal, or that tishman would behave illegally.

So you weren't even personally harmed - on an arms length basis you entered into a market rate lease and received the benefit of that bargain.

What's your income and what do you give? My daughter and I also work together weekly at a soup kitchen. WTF is your problem, and why would you make such assumptions? My husband has worked for years for both asylum seekers and wrongly sentenced death row inmates. What have you done?

>My daughter and I also work together weekly at a soup kitchen.

Well, then you deserve money from the settlement that was intended to help the poor and working class.

No, this settlement was intended to punish a landlord for abusing a system. The RS system encompasses many levels of income, and development incentives. There was no income level established for PCV rent-stabilized tenants in the latter years. Do your research.

>No, this settlement was intended to punish a landlord for abusing a system.

You entered into a market rate lease, on an arms-length basis. How were you harmed? You even refer to it as "abusing a SYSTEM" (emphasis mine).

Nobody, other than family, wanted to live there.

>Nobody, other than family, wanted to live there.

I don't understand your post.

Really, you have no knowledge of how tishman behaved? They increased our rent over 100% but yes we could have moved. But I don't mind in the slightest taking a windfall from those assholes who relentlessly went after so many people and uprooted them. This is real estate contract law, they illegally overcharged me.

You have no understanding of RS laws. Many buildings today are built with RS units, in very expensive buildings.

Because you're not so bright.

>But I don't mind in the slightest taking a windfall from those assholes who relentlessly went after so many people and uprooted them. This is real estate contract law, they illegally overcharged me.

Others were harmed. You weren't. On an arms-length basis, you, a sophisticated individual, entered into what you believed was a market rate rental.
If you are so concerned about the many people who Tishman "relentlessly went after" and were uprooted, then do what I suggested, donate the money appropriately.

bs. Tishman should donate. I do and I don't feel any need to add the rent overpayments. Harm is a relative term. Tishman overcharged. You donate every excess dollar life offers.

>bs. Tishman should donate. I do and I don't feel any need to add the rent overpayments. Harm is a relative term. Tishman overcharged. You donate every excess dollar life offers.

Look, I get it, you work on the soup kitchen each week.

What do you do?

>What do you do?

I don't partake in a minimum wage feel good family bonding activity more for my own benefit than for those who are supposedly benefitting.

I also don't take money that belongs to the poor.

AR, how big is the check going to be?

Excellent question.

3.5" x 8.5". Blue. Safety.

Alexander Schmidt, a lawyer for the tenants, said the $68.7 million agreement, combined with past rent rollbacks, brought the total recovery to $146.85 million. His firm, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, and a second firm, Bernstein Liebhard, will receive 27.5 percent of the settlement, $18.9 million.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/nyregion/68-7-million-settlement-on-stuyvesant-town-rents.html

Under the terms announced Thursday, it would amount to an average check of $3,250 to be paid to each of the 21,250 current and former renters who leased any of the affected 4,300 so-called luxury apartments between 2003 and 2011, according to the tenants’ lawyers at Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP. Tenants who lived in rent-regulated apartments before 2009 wouldn’t be eligible to receive payments.

http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2012/11/29/settlement-reached-over-stuyvesant-town-charges/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsGZAN0ol3U

So? Many class members got kicked out early on and thus have, unfairly, limited damages. Others left their apartments after they got the renewal with a huge increase and thus have no "real" damages. Others got kicked out and aren't part of the class.

We, on the other hand, signed a lease for a newly destabilized apartment and stayed for eight years of rent increases that have been deemed illegal. hb, sorry, but you have NO understanding of the legislative intent of RS over time.

I think about $35-50k. It depends on if the court agrees to the original rent determination, which I don't think it will.

>I think about $35-50k.

You deserve every penny. Let the people who the rent regs were intended for eat soup kitchen soup. Or drink the soup. Depends on how chunky the soup is.

Lemmesee. $35,000K check based on a NYS tax benefit to a landlord in exchange for benefits to be given to the NYC working class instead going to the wife of an equity partner at a top law firm who spent $10K of her own money on upgrading the kitchen that the market rate rental wasn't good enough for her. Subtract from that a generous amount of work done at the soup kitchen. Soup kitchen work we'll have to peg at minimum wage, since we can't go lower based on lack of performance requirements and abundant scheduling flexibility that it affords, unlike actual minimum wage jobs. So @ $7.25, that's 4,827 hours of work, divided by 2 for AR's school-aged daughter equals 2,413 hours which isn't quite the number of hours a partner at a law firm works but is more than full time wages of a full time minimum wage employee who works about 1750 hours a year.

huntersburg:
"...35-50k"
Plus "working weekly" at a soup kitchen.
You have no understanding, huntersburg.
The city is a better place, bowl by bowl.
Go seek asylum and just try to get off of death row without a corporate attorney.

Anyone know if the payment is considered a return of overcharges, or a taxable punitive damage?

hunter - don't think she will. She is convinced she is entitled to a rebate for the free market apartment rent increases to which she agreed, all while boasting about the low percentage of rent/income she was paying.

where youve worked yourself to the bone to get to a place where you can BOAST about your penthouse in a c building in a c neighborhood

Looks like phsnob has switched alliances, yet again.
The drinks on that side are no longer flowing freely.
She's no longer boasting with the toasting.

I've got to wonder what this bitch has threatened se with. I had a sincere conversation with them, in which they promised to be fair and review commments if i agreed to give it a rest, supposedly truth had suggested it. i agreed and things were low key for awhile. then truth started up again. And then "truth" was removed. And then reinstated and now the crazy bitch seems to have zero restraint again. Or this "psycho" has entered another manic phase. You go bitch.

Return of overcharges. No punitives, otherwise it would have been trebled. Would never have happened in a negotiated settlement.

Please, rewards serve many purposes. Including discouraging large landlords from acting like assholes. Tenants have little to no representation. This has nothing to do with my income. Every class-action litigant was market-rate. You are so ignorant.

>Please,

Please!

>rewards serve many purposes. Including discouraging large landlords from acting like assholes.

Right, and I didn't suggest you give the money back to the plaintiffs. I merely said that this money should be donated. It's not for you. It's not for the wealthy luxury oriented wife of an equity partner at a top law firm. It's for the working class or the poor. Give it up. Stop justifying selfishness. Stop cheating the people you profess to protect.

And let me say once more: you and your family were not personally harmed.
With this windfall, you should do the right thing.

Oh please. This is a question of legal equity. It doesn't involve your definitions of morality. It does involve whether or not Tischman overcharged. They were ALL market rate leases, every one of them. And every tenant was heavily scrutinized by this landlord for the ability to pay. This provides a disincentive for abusive behavior. And I'm happy to be involved in that.

And I'm happy to pay the increase in tax rates, which I'm sure will cover this debt to society in short time. How about you?

You really don't understand the RS system. It often doesn't involve income limits at all, and it didn't at PCV. It was just a wait list.

Oh, oh: she's calling me a "bitch" again.
She had "conversations" with streetesay, which is a step up from having "a chat" with them, about her giving "it a rest".
"A rest" from what?

Take your meds.

Before you start talking about my family again.

>Oh please. This is a question of legal equity. It doesn't involve your definitions of morality.

I understand why you don't want to discuss this issue from a moral point of view.

Sure, let's. defend Tischman, and their actions. If you willingly purchase something and the other party is not acting in good faith and is breaking the law but you don't know it at the time of purchase, well, what happens? Tischman never had any legal grounds to receive that money, so we get it back. Tough shit if you don't like it. It's the law.

>Sure, let's. defend Tischman, and their actions.

I did not defend Tishman.
I find it difficult to defend your actions against the poor and working class, and taxpayers of NY.

>If you willingly purchase something and the other party is not acting in good faith and is breaking the law but you don't know it at the time of purchase, well, what happens?

What's your claim now? You made a purchase? Or that you are the law? Becasuse we know that they didn't break your contract.

Listen, you justify taking from the taxpayer and the poor. You are wealthy, but it's not enough, so you deserve. That's your position.

Listen aboutready, I think you've been exposed.
Plenty of streeteasiers don't like me. But none have been able to come to your defense here and your entitlement at the expense of the taxpayer or the poor and working class.
Even columbiacounty who spent the past half hour attacking me kept changing the subject when I asked him to defend you.
I still hope you do the right thing, though right now I see you digging in your heels. Maybe after you have some time to reflect.

Oh please, who other than truth has responded to your crap? Ask Tischman to donate.

>Ask Tischman to donate.

Are you a charity?

How were your harmed?

HB, you should take your complaint up with the state legislature. The language and intent of the law is to pay back the market-rate tenants, not have the money go to the state and/or charity rather than able-to-pay market-rate tenants. I don't see the law as immoral, but if that's how you see it, that's your prerogative. But no sense wasting your efforts on $35-50K when there is over a hundred million there.

>The language and intent of the law is to pay back the market-rate tenants

No, you are wrong. We are discussing the proceeds of a law suit.

But since you mention the law, the law by the NYS legislature was to give a tax break to a developer, in turn to provide affordable housing to those in need.

Aboutready was never in need of this affordable housing, evidenced by the fact that she freely and knowingly entered into a market rate, non-subsidized, lease, which she was happy to do and chose to remain in for 8 years, even going so much as to invest $10K for a kitchen upgrade.

Only retroactively did Aboutready learn that the unit she rented continued to be intended by the State for affordable housing. So while Aboutready and I are in agreement that the landlord acted improperly, and in fact neither you nor I seem to believe that the law providing for affordable housing is immoral, where I do disagree with Aboutready is that somehow Aboutready is a victim entitled to recompense.

This windfall settlement payment I strongly believe should either revert to the State which provided the tax break to the developer or landlord, or should revert to the general population of people for whom the affordable middle class or working class housing was intended. I continue to encourage Aboutready to do the right thing and make sure that these proceeds are directed appropriately by making a charitable donation once she receives the money from the lawsuit.

I believe that for the violation incurred (improper conversion of apt to market-rate), the law is very specific that the money be returned to said market-rate tenants (all of whom, like AR, could presumably afford market-rate).

Are you in disagreement with the law on this issue, or that the above is even the law?

>I believe that for the violation incurred (improper conversion of apt to market-rate), the law is very specific that the money be returned to said market-rate tenants (all of whom, like AR, could presumably afford market-rate).

>Are you in disagreement with the law on this issue, or that the above is even the law?

I will address your questions because it is a fair question.  I’m not certain it’s the right question, and for sure it isn’t how I’m focused on the issue as it was first raised above.

 The answer to your questions is (a) I don’t know if it is the law or not, and (b) that if it is the law by the NYS Legislature that directs how these monies are to be paid, then yes I would disagree with the law (or better said, I would dislike the law) if it were to **direct money to market rate tenants who were not tenants at the time of the improper conversion to market rate.**  If this is in fact that law - that new tenants **post conversion** should benefit (again, I don’t believe this is the right question and I’ll get to that in a minute) - I believe it is wrong and I dislike it because the tenant who signs the new lease after the improper conversion did so on an arms-length and market rate basis and was therefore not harmed any more than any other citizen or taxpayer of the State of New York. New tenants shouldn’t be in a position to search out new leases where they can potentially find gold under the floor boards that may have been left there by the government.

 The reason I believe your question is wrong is because these moneys are being directed based on a settlement of a lawsuit.  The State Legislature has not created a law that is directing the money in this case.  I could be wrong.  Either way, if it were guided by NYS law passed by the Legislature, or as I am assuming, directed by the lawsuit settlement stipulations, I don’t believe that these monies should represent a windfall for tenants who were not directly harmed and were not tenants at the time of the improper conversion.  Nor do I believe that the original benefits of the law by which tax breaks were given to the landlord in exchange for rent reductions for the poor and/or working classes – I don’t believe those benefits (via the lawsuit settlement) should inure to Aboutready, a non-injured party, AND a party who was never intended to be a direct beneficiary of these rent regulations.  Because in the settlement, the money will go to her, I’m suggesting that she do the right thing and give it to an appropriate charitable organization that focuses on housing issues related to the poor and/or working class.  She still can do the right thing here.  And to your point about hundreds of millions vs. the $35-$50K going to AR, others similarly situated can do the right thing too.

Nada - You are brave to wade into this one. The law seems whacky on this one and the result does not seem quite right, which is what I think HB's real issue is. I now want to read the case and particularly to find out what, if any, objections were raised at the fairness hearing because what I have read here does not make sense, but it would not be the first time that a class action settlement did not achieve justice.

HB - I see your point re results being not quite right here, but come on, if you were in AR's shoes, would you donate the money? No doubt it is a windfall, but who wouldn't keep it?

Inonada,
The key point here is that A.R. intentionally stayed a renter at Stuy-Town in the hopes of profiting. Was she harmed? If the critiera is paying above market rent, then yes, but her conduct suggests the oppositite. She intentionally stayed in the hopes of profiting from the situation.

HB - You must have been typing as I was. I, too, have a problem with the settlement, but again, class action settlements are not known for achieving justice.

No I would not keep this money. I also voluntarily comply with tax laws. And I voluntarily give money to charity. And voluntarily do charitable work.
I think my argument was a pretty clear indicator that I would not personally take and keep it. So your question, "who wouldn't keep it?," I hope is not an indicator that you would.

I wasnt even making Riversider's case that this became an intentional act by AR to profit. That would be nefarious if true, whereas I was just reflecting on the greed arising from what I thought was a happenstance situation arising out of her normal tenancy.

I would like to think that I wouldn't, but I have to admit that when faced with a somewhat analogous situation, I did keep the money. When I went to work for the government, the agency that employed me had the absurd policy to pay for the person, rather than for the work performed. The misguided idea is that the government could attract more talented individuals by paying based on a person's experience and education rather than on the job performed. As a result, people working next to me who were performing exactly the same work as I was were being paid approximately 50% of what I was being paid. I recall thinking that the right thing to do would be write a letter insisting that I wanted a salary as low as that of my co-workers. Instead, I wrote a scathing critique of the policy, but I also kept the money. I never said I was perfect.

Oh yes, I had the lasagna.

I don't know what the means.

that

I had no idea what your post meant either so I responded in kind.

Oh - I should also add that when I accepted the job, they offered me $X, which was fine with me. 6 months into the job they told me they had made a mistake and that I was entitled to $2X, and they sent me a fat check, plus corrected my pay going forward.

Whole situation arose because they had instituted the policy right about the time that I joined the organization and were apparently in the process of reevaluating everyone's salaries in light of the new policy. Now I have really digressed, but the new salary policy was something Colin Powell apparently fought for. I have no idea how it came to be, but in my opinion, it was misguided indeed.

The point of my post was that I got a windfall at the taxpayer's expense and did not give the money back.

Huntersberg. It's like learning that there's a class action brewing against McClaren strollers, rushing out to buy one hoping your child loses a finger, and then becoming eligible for a claim. The only difference is that in the hypoethical McClaren case you're guilty of criminal conduct against your child.

RS - Hadn't she moved out by the time she learned that anything improper had occurred?

I remember looking at things a year or two ago, and I believe the law stipulates that the money be paid back to post-conversion tenants. The only reason the lawsuit was settled with said parties (the post-conversion tenants) is because they are the only ones that have a legal claim. Why else would the LL settle with these people? If party X has a legal claim against you, settling you with party Y does not absolve the party X's legal claim. The settlement imitates the law.

On the issue of the "proper" writing of the law, how would you have written it? There were probably: (a) pre-conversion tenants who were displaced by the illegal conversion; (b) post-conversion tenants who were RS-eligible; (c) post-conversion tenants who were not RS-eligible; (d) potential post-conversion tenants who were RS-eligible but passed on the place because it was not RS; and (e) society at large. Given that the whole point of the law on this point is to serve as a deterrent, perhaps the law was purposefully written to have the money paid back to the most legally viable set of people and would be in a position to initiate recovery -- the tenants who were over-charged beyond the legally-allowed amount. Are you suggesting that monies paid by (b) be distributed to others as well, or just monies paid by (c)?

I am troubled by the fact that as I understand it (just from these posts), the people who were truly harmed (those who had to move because they could not afford new improper rent) are not getting compensated. When there is public policy involved, frequently there is not a private cause of action but rather enforcement/remedies are left to Attorney General. I have no understanding of this particular area of law, but something here does not seem right. Let's say AR and her family were on fixed income; they moved into apartment X, and within a few years had rent for said apartment rise by such a percentage that they had to move, incurring all sorts of costs. Aren't such families the ones who are supposed to benefit from RS? Where are they in this settlement? To me they are the ones who were actually harmed and should have viable claim. I cannot figure out how/why they are not receiving compensation, or are they?

>I remember looking at things a year or two ago, and I believe the law stipulates that the money be paid back to post-conversion tenants. The only reason the lawsuit was settled with said parties (the post-conversion tenants) is because they are the only ones that have a legal claim. Why else would the LL settle with these people? If party X has a legal claim against you, settling you with party Y does not absolve the party X's legal claim. The settlement imitates the law.

Valid point. In which case, I dislike that law inasmuch as I was saying I dislike the lawsuit settlement.

Where is NWT when we need him - does anyone have link to salient judicial opinion/decision?

>
Are you suggesting that monies paid by (b) be distributed to others as well, or just monies paid by (c)?

For sure (c). Isn't Aboutready a (c)?

I need to review the split of cash payments vs the rent rollbacks. Aren't we in agreement that (d) and (e) are the real victims, (b) is now harmless or better, and (c-Aboutready) is making out like a bandit?

NYCNovice:

http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/PubArticleNY.jsp?id=1202434866672&Roberts_v_Tishman_Speyer_Properties_LP&slreturn=20130009144840

HB: I would guess that most of the payout goes to (b) in any case. On re-directing money to (d) and (e), I get why you're saying it. But given that it's all meant to be a deterrent, I question the legal practicality of such an arrangement.

By saying (d), then that means that any individual making less than $175K in the tri-state area can put in a claim against any of the 40K apts that were illegally converted.

By saying (e), then you are relying on gov't agencies to do the work. Problematic in general because of a lack of interest, but especially problematic in this case because gov't agencies had been looking away w.r.t. LLs' double-dipping on J-51.

Perhaps the thinking behind the setup is that by keeping the legal right in the hands of (b)/(c), then you have a viable litigant to act as a deterrent. Perhaps (c) is not the best choice, but better a viable litigant than a non-existent one if a deterrent is what you seek.

Novice pointed out that this could have been handled by the AG.
Given that Tishman stopped out on their investment, this isn't even a punitive matter. The $10mm paid by prior bad actor MetLife hardly seems to matter in context of their sale for North of $5bn. So all we have is some loose deterrence which could best be handled by the DHCR or the AG.

Right now, the working class loses:
John Marsh, president of the Stuyvesant Town-Peter Cooper Village Tenant Association, said the settlement brought “much needed resolution for residents who have had to live with uncertainty for years now.” But, he said, “These rents are still out of reach for working families, and weakened rent laws will only continue to turn our community into a place that firefighters and teachers can no longer afford.”

and Aboutready gets a $35 to $50,000 windfall between her and her husband who is a managing partner of a top law firm. I still hope she does the right thing.

why don't you worry about yourself and you doing the right thing?

I looked at the case - thanks Nada. I also pulled up salient code provision on westlaw, and I would say that the problem is with the law to the extent that those who were tenants and moved due to improper rent increases are out of luck. I would put these people in category (d)(1), and their issue would be one of proving that the reason they moved was due to rent increase, but they could make a prima facie case by demonstrating that they lived in one of the affected units during the time period in question and then moved out. They would then have to prove that they moved because of rent increase and it would be up to finder of fact to determine whether they were telling the truth, but seems that should not be too difficult to ascertain by looking at unit they moved to - what was rent? where was it in relation to old apartment? Damages would be cost of move, which would likely be small. Intangibles could be captured by trebling actual damages. I would also add civil fines on the landlord for added deterrence. I must be missing something because I just don't understand how the law leaves these people out.

Also maybe these (d)(1) tenants who moved found new apartment where rent was higher than their old apartment, but not as high as renewal rent that forced them to move; this would add to their actual damages in the amount of difference between new apartment rent and legal rent for their old apartment.

1%ers probably also own a metric fuck ton of stocks. They probably own way way way more cars than the average person. What kind of car should I buy dealboy because I want to make it rich!!

Yes, the correlation vs causation principal is in full force.