building at 70 Charlton Street

Oops, should've said "life of the building" rather than life of the lease. The landowner gets the building and its obligations when either the lease ends or the co-op defaults.

The deal with the city includes some interesting financial disclosures. The Extell LLC ante'd up $70,000,000 and borrowed $148,000,000.

Of that $218,000,000, $54,000,000 went to buying out the former lessee, $108,000,000 to hard costs, and the remaining $56,000,000 to soft costs, financing, etc.

If the 91 apartments' shares sell for the $294,000,000 anticipated in the offering plan, then Extell will double its money.

Who is the landowner? Trinity?

The Moinester family. An LLC of theirs owns the land under another co-op, but I can't remember which one.

It's a perfect place for buyers who believe the city isn't doing enough to provide low-income housing in the city -- their maintenance will most likely increase faster than other buildings as expenses outstrip any increases they can extract from the tenants, and they will have a clearer understanding of the true costs of this form of social engineering. This is certainly more transparent than the city's current practice of extracting greater RE taxes by increasing land valuations for buildings (thus higher taxes), rather than simply raising the tax rate and explaining the actual reason why they need the tax dollars.

I'd love to see the offering plan.

The agreement with the city has the co-op taking over Extell's role as landlord for the 29 rental units. In that case, the co-op would collect their rent, and the expenses would just be rolled into the pot.

On the other hand, it might be that shares will be allocated to the 29 rentals, with Extell continuing to own the shares. Extell would collect the rent, pay the maintenance, and take the loss. I.e., the same role a co-op sponsor in a conversion plays in owning the shares for the apartments whose tenants didn't buy. Those tenants, of course, eventually go away, whereas these 29 tenants and their successors never will.

It'd be simpler if it was a condo. Then, if the sponsor has to include low-income units, they form one condo unit that the sponsor continues to own. Sponsor collects the rents, pays the CCs, and the condo itself isn't affected. The sponsor's monthly loss is offset against the money they got by selling the extra floor area, and/or the money they got from buyers paying more because of the 421 tax abatement.

Curious what people think of this area. Also looks like they have move-ins, but less than majority sold, is that common? What is the typical time to sell out a new development?