Brooklyn Point

You cannot have a Condop on leased land.

so why is it a condop as opposed to condo? What's the benefit of structuring it that way?

At $1,800 psf, a nice amenities package, great upper floor views and a 25 year tax exemption, this looks like a pretty good project. But come on, this is a bit of a unicorn in a part of downtown Brooklyn few would ever bought into 5-10 years ago. Flatbush Avenue extension is not exactly Park Avenue or even Fulton Street. Try flipping this in 5 years. Exclusively for the long-term holders.

Every description I have seen of the building except on streeteasy says they are Condominiums.
https://www.6sqft.com/extell-launches-sales-at-brooklyns-current-tallest-tower-starting-at-837k/

Oops... Found one which says Co-op:
https://therealdeal.com/2017/10/12/revealed-extell-releases-new-rendering-of-city-point-megaproject/

Extells website seems to be bending over backwards not to say what form of ownership it is, including not saying weather monthlies are "common charges" or "maintenance". So my guess is that it's a co-op and they are trying to disguise that from potential buyers anyway possible.

Personally, I find that kind of sleazy.

so it's probably a land lease.

That would be my guess especially since we know other Extell developments like 70 Charlton are the same situation.

It seems like Extell has carefully orchestrated the Press on this for quite a while, going back to the Articles where they "acquired" the land for this project as opposed to either "purchased" or "leased" it.

I do not understand how they think they can get $1800/ft when Nevins still has units at <$1300. On a less busy street.

Perusing ACRIS, this project indeed appears to be a leasehold but also subject to a condominium regime. I am guessing its a condop is the traditional meaning here the coop is also a single condo unit.

The leasehold could make sense if Extell wanted to hedge the risk of land ownership in downtown Brooklyn. Forrest City Ratner took a bath on the residential component of Atlantic Yards in part because they were long the real estate.

How could that be possible on leased land?

Maybe the leased property is the condo unit?

I'm sorry I'm not following that?

The condo unit representing the coop project is leased from fee owner to Extell? Just spitballing here.

Is a commercial condo permitted on leased land?

Sorry. Commercial condo unit is owned in fee and then leased to Extell for a coop. That makes sense no?

No condos on leased land (except for BPC and Roosevelt Island) because you need something fee simple to anchor it to.
I guess that it's possible that you could have "the residential unit" leased to a developer who then coops it, but I'm not sure why anyone would do that unless they were going to play the Rockrose "wrap mortgage" game.

May be Extell’s way to hedge the real estate risk that killed Ratner.

May be Extell’s way to hedge the real estate risk that killed Forest City on Atlantic Yards. With low tax payments due to abatement, ground lease payment might get lost in the shuffle. But like I said, just spitballing here.

I know that the usual way these things happen is a developer finds someone who's willing to sell the building but not the land (at least not at a reasonable price). And the back end can very often be crushing
https://www.habitatmag.com/Publication-Content/Legal-Financial/2017/2017-March/Land-Lease-Disaster

Has an offering plan popped up on ACRIS for this project yet?

I did not see reference to an offering plan. Do they typically show up on ACRIS?

I remember that story. The 1980's were full of projects where sponsors put big mortgages on their buildings (even lending themselves the money) just before conversion and the debt would transfer to the coop. I suspect a few sponsors also created new ground leases just before conversion.

So, taking to an extreme, a developer could:

- convert a property to a commercial condominium
- convert one condo unit to a coop (condop)
- create a leasehold for the condop and charge it ground rent
- developer could retain ownership of all the commercial space (office, professional, parking etc.)
- developer could put a big underlying mortgage on the condop and cash out when plan is effective

Heck, taken to an extreme, a developer could own (or control through a master lease) all the recreational or amenity space at the project and charge usage fees to individual coop owners.

Shades of the 1980's. I know they changed some of the laws to protect shareholders from sweetheart deals in a coop conversion but could this be possible, at least in theory, or would any of it be considered self-dealing?

Condominium Offering Plans show up on ACRIS (Usually labelled as "Declaration of Condominium") but not until the lots are apportioned (I don't think anyway).

Oh, the condo. There are one or two schedules on ACRIS that reference 7+/- condo units so I guess its been created but the tax map just shows the original lot.

It's hard for me to tell because the chain of title is a bit long and confusing, but it looks to me that Extell (as 138 Willoughby LLC) took an assignment of a ground lease from Albee Phase 3 Development?

Yes, too long a chain to spend much time reviewing. Probably can't get to the bottom of it anyway.

I think we will need to wait until the coop plan comes out. Some of this may go away or change when all is said and done.

UPDATE: Plan was accepted by NYS AG on 1/31/2018.

https://offeringplandatasearch.ag.ny.gov/REF/planFormServlet?id=C160008

Thank you for finding / posting that.

This building is a "condop" on a land lease. There is a 25 year tax abatement that has been approved by the city. The land lease payments have all been pre-paid by the developer. After 25 years, the coop has the option of purchasing the land for $1.00 and then the building can choose to either remain a coop or convert to a condo building.

Bklndent, is lessor/lessee on the land lease related parties? Was land lease created by Extell for this project? Is there an underlying mortgage on leasehold?

Seems strange to create a coop form of ownership due to a land lease if it was not pre-existing. Condo form of ownership is much preferred by buyers.

Bklndent got it right. Anyone have any idea what percentage of the building is in contract? The amenities are certainly plentiful and attractive.

Certainly a new price point for the neighborhood.

Keith,
Where are you getting that info from?
From reading what appears to be the Condominium Offering plan, I don't see any mention of a land lease.
What I do notice is that there is a somewhat phantom "DR" unit which is getting any unused development rights, but also being allocated 0% of the common interest and therefore paying no Common Charges or Real Estate Taxes.
In addition, the Retail Unit encompassing floors cellar thru 5 is 58,460 SF out of 530,683 total SF (11.016%) is only allocated 7.8067% of the common interest (note that in general retail is worth much more than residential per SF). So they seem to be overcharging the Residential Unit (especially RET wise).

It's part of their marketing material. We have a client interested in buying the building , actually loves it quite a bit. Having a hard time wrapping her head around the price per square foot.

It will be interesting to see how negotiable they are. I also would love to see a comparison of how negotiable they are here vs 1 Manhattan Sq (i.e does being further away from the completion date make them less negotiable?)

I think Brookly point will sell first due to proximity to transportation. Pricing of 1 Manhattan square probably needs to be down 15-20 percent from the current net ask and they need to get a good Avenues like school there. Something like no common charges for 20 years vs current 3-5 years no common charges. They probably needs to sell a big chunk of it to a corporate housing provider at a discount.

Sales are going extremely well. Another pricing amendment is due out soon. Prices were raised again on some one beds and two beds at the beginning of February.

Land lease is in the offering plan in the special risks section, if you have it. The building has the option to buy the land after 25 years (when the tax abatement ends) for $1. Then the building can decide to convert to condos.

I am not sure what the breakdown of percentages are for the common charges/taxes, but the retail goes from floors 1-4. The Cellar is a pool/spa/ basketball court/storage, and the 5th floor is the 9th floor terrace of the residential. There is the residential portion, a commercial portion, and the DR unit.

Bkl, As an insider, do you know the story about 1 Manhattan Square?

I have no idea what is going on internally with One Manhattan Square. In my opinion the location of that building is really causing difficulties. Even with the 20 year tax abatement they aren't seeming to sell.

Brooklyn Point has been doing so well in part because it is in the center of Downtown Brooklyn, at City Point, where the neighborhood has already made such a huge transformation. Plus, the public transportation is rich and the building has a 25 year abatement.

One Manhattan Square is in an area that is quite remote, lacking public transit, and the new other buildings that were originally planned may never materialize due to ongoing lawsuits over development.

Thank you. I did not realize the issue with lawsuits over development.

This neighborhood is still sketchy.

How are negotiations in this building on price/concessions and purchase agreement riders?

Just passed the 3 year anniversary of construction starting, coming up on completion.
Keith, did you/do you have a handle on how many are actually in contract? (After their recent claim that they have "hundreds more in contract" at 1 Manhattan Square than have closed it's kind of difficult for me to believe numbers coming from Extell).

Has anyone been giving a closing date yet or completed a punch out tour?

Are they pulling the rug out from under purchasers by introducing a "rent to own" program yet?

Confused why the building can buy the land for $1? Whats the trade off here?

Because the developer pre-paid the rest of the money to purchase the land, leaving $1 for the condo owners to pay in 25 years when the tax abatement ends.

That explanation really makes no sense to me. But then again a lot of this deal makes no sense to me, is extremely opaque, and I don't trust that there isn't some upcoming "shoe drop" moment.

And while a year ago we heard "Sales are going extremely well," we don't know how many are in contract but they are approaching closings and it's still well below 50% sold. This seems like another 1 Manhattan Square where Extell is being cagey because they don't want it getting out what a dog the project is. Or they could try being transparent and prove me wrong, but I have asked for answers from the sales team there and gotten nothing but bullshit responses.

What shoe is going to drop? Everything is spelled out in the offering plan in great detail, which is public information that you can read.

The building is built on NYC owned land, which the city leases to the building. The lease is for 65 years. At a certain time, the city has given the building the absolute right to buy the land for $1. The building has a 25 year tax abatement. I don't know what doesn't make sense, but like I said, everything is in the offering plan with supporting documentation.

Bk indent, Out of curiosity, why wouldn’t the developer pay $1 now and end the debate. I am sure there is good reason but wondering if you care to elaborate on the reason.

Is there a huge increase in real estate taxes if the developer bought it?

Without knowing any details, from the paragraph below, my guess is if the developer buys the land, then the tax abatement disappears. Instead, they have paid for 99.99% of the land, have a 25 year tax abatement with "gradual" increases in years 21, 22, 23, 24, until in year 25 the full taxes are owed, at which point the building might as well buy the land for its remaining value of $1.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/23/realestate/downtown-brooklyns-next-luxury-tower.html

"Aside from the location, Extell was lured to the site by a subsidy program approved under the Bloomberg administration. For its investment in the City Point development, Extell received a 25-year tax abatement, in which the building owes no taxes for the first 20 years, then rises gradually in the last five years, according to Anthony Hogrebe, a spokesman for the city’s Economic Development Corporation. As part of the deal, Extell contributed to the creation of 200 affordable housing units nearby."

There are many condos with 25y tax abatement. What is the catch with this one which prevented the developer from buying?

Again, the development is a NYC property on NYC land. This is partially why the building is tax exempt, as it sits on city owned property. After the 25 year tax abatement, the building board has the absolute right to buy the land for $1 from the City of New York. Extell has pre-paid all of the lease payments for the building and land to the city, as well as all of the land purchase price except for $1, so the land still remains city property.

All of these arrangements are documented and available for public review. Again, I would encourage people who have questions for whatever reason to review the offering plan. All of the people who have purchased units in the building have had the offering plan and underlying documentation reviewed by their real estate attorneys, and they understand that the building is leased on NYC owned land, and that they have the absolute right to buy the land from the city for $1. After the purchase of the land, the building can decide to convert to condo ownership.

There is no catch. Everything is spelled out in the offering plan and the arrangement and agreements with the city are very transparent. The other new constructions in the area, 11 Hoyt, and One Clinton, have no tax abatements, and as such, the cost of unit ownership there is much higher.

"Again, the development is a NYC property on NYC land. This is partially why the building is tax exempt, as it sits on city owned property.

Then how does 1 Manhattan Square have the same abatement?

And when I look t the CONDOMINIUM Offering Plan I can't find any mention of a land lease at all.

Of course the building does not have to be on city owned land to get a tax abatement. Buildings were given 421a tax abatements for other reasons as well. I assume that OMS received its tax abatement by building the affordable housing building on their property. Other buildings have the affordable component within the building. Brooklyn Point contains no affordable housing. Every situation is different.

The point seems to be that I am explaining what the arrangement is and no one seems to want to believe it even though it is in writing, and many people have purchased units there with an understanding of the structure as I am explaining it!

Do you have a copy of the actual brooklyn point offering plan? The structure of the land is explained thoroughly in the special risks section. You can't miss it. I am happy to give you a page number if you can't find it.

BKindent, You have done a good job of laying out the facts - land lease payments are all paid already and there is $1 purchase option. I will curb my curiosity about why the city choose to structure the deal in this manner rather than outright sale for equivalent money. I guess if they sold it outright, they would have to collect taxes and this one probably falls into some other tax exemption bucket from the City's point of view. But shouldn't matter to buyer as long as they can buy for $1 and are not paying any taxes as described.

Many people's attorneys read the Offering Plans at 101 West 23rd St and 100 West 57th St too.

Then again, perhaps that's why Extell refuses to divulge how man units they have in contract.

This whole area is still not great. Could explain lagging sales.

What was wrong with the offering plan of 100 East 57th?

This one. That is why people are rightly nervous about land lease.
https://streeteasy.com/talk/discussion/12132-carnegie-house-land-lease-bummer

So did that offering plan contain an option to buy the land for $1 and the seller is not able to purchase it?

I understand the difference after you explained. I am sure this thread is helpful to readers considering purchase in this building.

BkIndent, I don't have a copy of the Brooklyn Point offering plan (I would have to pay to get one, and since I don't have a client interested, why would I do that?) but I support the puzzlement of 30_years and others (Hi Dean!). The "template" for the city to lease land to a developer is through a public authority. That's BPC, Roosevelt Island, and ... here's another for you, 30 yrs., Queens West. What those public authorities have generally supported is master-planned communities with housing for different price points (I'm selling at RI currently, so I'm knee-deep in this stuff right now) and it creates leasehold condominiums.

For the city to lease city land to a private developer without trading for any of that is certainly possible, but it smells... off? corrupt? (can we even use the word corrupt any more?) Certainly friendly deals were done in the South Bronx and Hudson Yards, so this may be one of that string, but in that case it's odd that we didn't hear more about it.

Anyhoo, since they're not using a public authority, it can't be a condo (I believe it would be a violation of the condominium act, although, since I'm not an attorney, saying so would be above my pay grade.) It's a co-op, and, while that building can acquire its land more easily than other land-lease co-ops have, it would still need to convert to a condo, right? So that introduces a many-a-slip-between-the-cup-and-the-lip risk. I do like Downtown BK a lot, and I generally like Extell buildings, so I wouldn't bet against this, but I think that's what's giving my fellow posters pause.

ali r.
upstairs realty

Ali,
Here's what also throws me off:
This is a CondOp: there are multiple condominium units and ONE of them (the residential one) is being converted to a Coop. Why would the City be selling the land under all the Condominiums just to the Coop unit?(Or is this one of the fabled "Lollipop Condominiums" which were proposed a few decades ago, but I don't remember any actually being executed - I think that's because the 1993 change in the Rent Stabilization Regs made them not as attractive a proposition) Wouldn't it be selling the land to all of the Condominium units? And isn't the place where this would be mentioned be the Condominium Offering Plan (as oppose to just the Coop Offering Plan)? What position would that put the other Condominium owners in? (And since those other owners are Extell it's hard to imagine they would hatch a scheme where in the end they would be at a disadvantage)

360 Furman Street(1 Brooklyn bridge Park) is another land lease situation where the land was transferred to New York State. Owners are able to deduct taxes through the PILOT program. I think the developer has to file some paperwork with the IRS so owners can get the equivalent of a tax deduction.

This thread at this point just contains a lot of people speculating about what the land agreement might be or might not be, and I would just encourage people who are actually curious, and don't want to just be negative about the building to go to the attorney general's website and download a copy of the offering plan. It is public information and free to do. Then people won't have to speculate this or that.

The building is a condo building. NYC created a condo building with three units: A commercial unit that the city owns and will continue to own and lease out for a profit, a residential unit, that the city leased to Extell and which Extell subdivided into coop units, and a phantom unit that contains the excess development rights that Extell owns and can sell to another development.

The residential condo unit and the commercial unit already have a percentage of the land assigned to it, just like it would be in a... condo building. So when the residential coop decides to purchase the residential unit and the residential unit's land for $1, it does not affect the commercial space or the land associated with the commercial condo, which is still owned by the city.

Again, we don't really have to speculate or make guesses about the arrangement. Anyone can download the offering plan and see for themselves. Extell really left nothing to chance here with this one.

The coop is structured with condo rules, so Extell is calling it a "Condop." There is no board approval process.

Once the coop board decides to purchase NYC's interest in the residential unit and the land, the coop can decide to convert to individual condos if they want. Or it can stay as a coop with condo rules. If anything, being a coop avoids a big tax for purchasers.

BkIndent, I stand corrected. I have indeed followed your guidance and downloaded a copy of the 837-page offering plan for the Condop (the Tower Residences/138 Willoughby, not the underlying C3 condominium.) I am saying a little prayer to bless Tish James for making my life so easy.

30_, I am only 14 pages in, but I would call the building a "bomb pop" -- do you remember those? C3 is one building with three vertically stacked condos. One of those is a DR unit, which will be housed in part of the cellar, and leased to an affiliate of the sponsor. Let's see... "In the event such Development Rights are transferred to the owner(s) of adjoining properties, a Tower Residence Owner's views and exposure to light may be affected."

Ali,
Please do me a favor and check to see if it is a "Land Lease" as is being stated and not a "Leasehold Interest" in the Residential Unit.

"The coop is structured with condo rules, so Extell is calling it a "Condop." "

Which only shows the obfuscation, because although this property is a Condop, that description is not what a Condop is.

"but I would call the building a 'bomb pop' "

So everyone will end up with sticky fingers and a blue tongue?

BTW Bklndent, what is your affiliation here if any?

The only affiliation that I have with the building is that I have purchased there.

I am not familiar with your terminology of "bomb pop." What is that?

Wow, BKIndent, way to make me feel old! A "bomb pop" is a popsicle with red, white, and blue segments ... so it looks like a tower cut into three segments. (you can google for images). Back in my day, it was an icon of summer.

30, the header of the offering plan is:

"Leasehold Cooperative** Offering Plan for the Residential Condop Unit of the CP3 Condominium***"

[it's actually in all caps -- I put it in title case to save your eyes]

Here are the footnotes:

"**The Corporation has an option to purchase the Residential Condop Unit for a fixed price between July 1, 2031 and June 30, 2055, at which point the lease would be extinguished."

"***The CP3 Condominium also contains a Commercial Unit and a DR Unit, which are not being offered for sale under this Plan."

the front cover also mentions that the co-op contains Tower Residences and Storage Bin Licenses, and that the sponsor retains the right to rent, rather than sell, more than 49% of the tower residences, which may affect future marketability...

The single purchaser of residential real estate is no match for the developers and the teams of highly motivated (by big dollars) lawyers they employ. In those few cases I have dug into, the Offering Plan disclosed the risks that materialized to form the basis of the lawsuit I was then examining. The Attorney General does their best to play "catch up" and enact rules to prevent the last disaster, but the industry is always a step ahead. Much like the banks and consumer finance. A single purchaser would have to have the most dedicated and talented real estate attorney at any pay grade to fully appreciate all the nuances in these Offering Plans.

Ali, haha I totally know what those were, I was unsure how you were applying it to the building!

Most developers retain these rights to lease rather than sell. Interestingly enough, the Brooklyn Point gave up their right to lease the units when they received their mezzanine financing. That information is provided in one of the amendments. It was a condition of the financing that the residences had to be sold and could not be leased. Of course, if Extell pays off the financing, they do have the right to lease the units, which most developers do. Developers would never really give up their right to lease units unless they had a crystal ball and they were 100% sure they could sell all of them within a certain amount of time.

Of course buying new construction is always a risk. A team of real estate attorneys really has to rip apart these offering plans. However, people can read the offering plan and determine whether or not they want to pay the price to live there, and whether or not a new construction building is for them. All of the new construction buildings are going to contain the same clauses and loopholes.

My attorneys went through the offering plan pretty well and really could not find any issues with it. Extell has a great reputation with regard to building quality and issues like this, and everything is spelled out pretty well, so we didn't see any issues here.

Thank you Ali. Sounds like I was right and in fact it is not a Land Lease and they in fact don't have the right to buy the land because it's already been sold. People should familiarize themselves between a Leasehold Coop and a Land Lease Coop before making certain claims, and realize the difference in risks between the 2.

MCR,
When you are having fun and searching out Coop lawsuits, try finding some of the ones where Shareholders are suing Sponsors to "complete the conversion" because those Sponsors were renting rather than selling units.

Also take a look at Extell and 206 West 17th St.

30, I don't understand what you are thinking the difference in risk there is. The coop has the right to purchase the landlord's interest for $1. The landlord's interest includes the condo's land, since NYC is the landlord and owner of the condo unit and land. Am I missing something here?

Are you suggesting that NYC will back out and not uphold their end of the deal and won't sell their interest for the remaining $1 as they agreed?

What does 206 West 17th street have to do with this?

I think you should get an attorney to better explain to you what you have signed on for.

At 206 West 17th Street, the owners got together and bought development rights to protect their existing views. I think 30 is darkly humorously (but really) suggesting that perhaps this might be a similar situation... Extell is keeping the development rights. At some point the firm might want to sell them, and perhaps Tower Residence purchasers (oh can't we just say Tower Residents?) might desire to buy them. So then some point down the road you could be paying for the air that you're used to looking at, just so you can still look at it. Hypothetically. Still not legal advice. Call MCR for that.

This stuff is way outside my expertise. Mercifully for my personal needs I have access to lawyers who draft these things plus the training to ask the right questions when I see drafting conventions being employed to introduce defined terms that raise my eyebrows.

Yes, Extell could sell the excess development rights to a building, but the lots around Brooklyn Point have already been built with new construction, so if they are going to sell it to someone, it likely won't be in Brooklyn point's way. The only lot that hasn't been built up is right in front of it, and permits were already filed for approval for a 23 story office building.

That being said, in this day and age, in New York City, of course no one's views are really protected.

Good thing about Brooklyn Point is that City Point is already there, and to the West of it is a large park. To the East is Flatbush Avenue and the LIU. I guess in the future someone could buy LIU and put a large building there, but someone can buy the building next to anyplace and put something bigger. Always a risk wherever one lives.

If they hold more than 50% of the outstanding shares they could also vote to sell the option to buy the Residential Condo, couldn't they?

In addition once the outside date of the lease/option is within 30 years of expiration, what will happen when people apply for 30 year mortgages?

My point about 206 West 17th St is that there was an existing Condo and 2 small taxpayers which had been in place for many years. The small buildings were owned by very long term Real Estate family in NYC (Duell) which sold most of their portfolio to entities controlled by Barnett/Extell. Immediately after the purchase they turned around and told the condo if they didn't pay them the amount which they paid for the buildings that they were going to build a new building which would block all their light and views (there might be a legal term for that?) And then sold a controlling interest in the properties for more than double what they had paid (NB it's not making a profit which I object to)
https://therealdeal.com/2016/07/06/extell-sells-interest-in-two-chelsea-buildings-in-29m-deal/

Ali,
Of all the Offering Plans you have seen, how many had the risk of Sponsor ownership be so great that the AG's office made them print a warning about on the front cover?

@30yrs - re sponsors not completing the conversion, are you referring to the Jennifer Realty litigation (511 West 232nd?). From the limited offering plans I have reviewed (I have not looked at any for a few years), developer were complying with that decision, disclosing that risk, and purchasers were hopping on board anyway. I am acutely attuned to that risk because we were looking to purchase at one of the few condo buildings in our neighborhood, but on the advice of friends ("no matter how much you think you know what you are doing, NY real estate is DIFFERENT - RENT FIRST"), we rented and saw what a building looks like when that risk materializes. One of the reasons we went with a coop that has been sold out for over 70 years (but that comes with a different set of issues!)

MCR,
AFAIK that isn't the only case, but yes Jennifer Realty is the type of thing I was alluding to (

Sorry to keep asking so many questions Ali, but here's another one:
It's been stated that Extell made all the lease payments up front and then at the end of the lease the Coop has the option to buy the Residential Unit for $1. But you wrote that the Offering Plan says:
"**The Corporation has an option to purchase the Residential Condop Unit for a fixed price between July 1, 2031 and June 30, 2055, at which point the lease would be extinguished."

So, what happens to those lease payments between those two dates? And how much were they? And what changes depending on where in that 24 YEAR time frame the option does or doesn't get executed?

BTW note that I have been insisting for 2 years that this couldn't be a Land Lease and others kept insisting that it was.

@30yrs - Definitely not the only case. There are quite a few "owners" of properties where this "risk"/developer's-business-plan-from-the-get-go materialized. Victims (what I feel they truly are, developers' disclosures notwithstanding) are trapped and at the mercy of Sponsor indefinitely. Worse than a timeshare IMHO because the capital outlay and maintenance payments are significantly higher and likely to be net-worth-altering for the "owners."

My money is on Extell that everything is disclosed, but my money is against any buy-side real estate attorney's fully understanding the disclosures. My money would be on whatever 30yrs' take is. No legal education can substitute for 40 years experience in the industry, with over 30 years in Real Estate Offerings (the screen name has been in existence for over 10 years, so I am just updating the numbers).

@Bklyndent - +1 on 30yrs' comment below. Where exactly did your understanding of the term "condop" come from? If it is in the Offering Plan, look very closely at the definition, but note also that the Offering Plan could define this term, which has been loosely thrown about in the industry over the past decade, however it wants to. Either way, your understanding of the term is alarming, as the term is not legally defined by statute, meaning that those marketing properties can take advantage of the vernacular. In short, I suspect that term might not mean what you think it means were you to ever end up in a contract dispute with the Sponsor.

Response by 30yrs_RE_20_in_REO
about 19 hours ago
Posts: 6859
Member since: Mar 2009
"The coop is structured with condo rules, so Extell is calling it a "Condop." "

Which only shows the obfuscation, because although this property is a Condop, that description is not what a Condop is.

Thought I would chime in even though I don't know this specific development.

I have read other offering plans and it seems boilerplate for the modern day developer to reserve their right to lease unsold units, reserve air/development rights, allow no financing contingency, etc. Every modern offering plan that I have read has these aforementioned risks listed in the Special Risks to Be Considered by Purchaser in the very front of the offering plan. That being said, these are still risks even though they seem to be common across most new developments.

Personally, I would not feel comfortable purchasing in any type of land lease situation even if the terms are spelled out in clear, concise, and concrete language. Too much can change over the years/decades and enforcing contracts in any type of litigation becomes the financial burden of the aggrieved.

@Rock28 - Exactly.

For some reason 90% of my post which started;
"MCR,
AFAIK that isn't the only case, but yes Jennifer Realty is the type of thing I was alluding to ("
got cut off, but this link was part of it:

https://www.habitatmag.com/Publication-Content/Board-Operations/2017/2017-January/Sponsor-from-Hell