The Rushmore

Just saw the new info on the further completion of Riverside Blvd. I had no idea that the street was to become a major exit for the west side highway. Did other people know that when they bought? It changes a nice quiet sleepy street(yes with highway noise) into York ave in the 60's.

can you be a little more specific? this will replace 72nd exit? i assume there won't be an entrance as well?

Very informative

I will be curious that these potential buyers are getting better deals then we that bought a couple years ago. I would love to know,new-owner, if those people that are being shown the Rushmore, are being offered the condos below the official asking price.

The "major exit" comment is new to me, Skippy; can you post the source, pls? I am looking in Avery as well as Rushmore; n-owner, do you like the Avery or are you looking at Rushmore for yourself also?

There is no exit being built from the WSH to RSB.

ok skippy...what's the deal...did you make it up?

Today in Curbed, they talk about the increase in inventory that will come to fruition shortly when the casual sellers become serious. How will this affect the existing purchases and remaining purchases at the Rushmore...will they have greater competition to sell these condos. And in your estimation, does the Rushmore stand out because of quality, amenities, and location? And will they be able to stand on their existing prices?

I like the full-floor CD combo. 3 of them listed right now. Too bad the Rushmore is zoned for a crappy PS.

Did you guys see this?
http://www.nestseekers.com/Properties/20391

One rent this unit for A LOT less than pruchase carrying cost.

Streeteasy, what does this mean? Also, wouldn't most people that live at the Rushmore prefer to send their kids to private school? Do you think that it is another deterent for people if the zoned public school isn't good?

streeteasyfan, do you have a floorplan layout for that unit? at 1170 sf, it seems quite large for a 1 br. regardless, the premium for owning this unit looks to be about 30% (and thats assuming there's no room for negotiating the $4,200 asking rent). unit 4y sold in 2007 for $1.325 million according to streeteasy. if you utilize their assumptions for the purchase, 20% down w/ a jumbo mortgage at 5.75% (lofty when you consider the difficult of obtaining jumbos in this market), the total monthly payments would amount to $7,147. factor in mortgage tax deduction and your net payment would be $5,471 = 30% greater than $4,200. i guess you can take is a step further and note that archstone is renting large 1 bedroom apartments (900 sf) down the block at 101 west end avenue for $3,500 and smaller one bedrooms (672 sf) for $2,600.

also, who's renting out these units? extell? usually the senior lender doesnt want you to rent out new units because it immediately diminishes the value (or perceived value) of the apartment. i would have to think its the developer, because i'm not so sure you can list an apartment before you actually close.

I think the people renting our investors. A group of investors bought in the Rushmore, just like they did in 120 RSB and the Avery. Also, i think calling the ownership premium is a bit misleading, i'd say it's a premium of there is upside potential, but that may never materialize. I'd actually see the 30% as the amount "overpriced" the unit purchase price is vs. current market - if you think about using rental income to derive the total asset value.

i don't have a floor plan layout. And, i wouldn't trust the Streeteasy sales prices - only closing prices count. Developers have friends and family with whom they are generous with..

BDS - I think it'd hard to make a case that the new zoning will not impact the home value. part of the reason why people move to the neighborhood b/c of the ps 199 zoning. the idea of sending kids to private school is fine, but getting into a private school is crazy hard in NYC. There are 10 kids for every open spot, but that ratio might be going down in this economy.

The original plans for RSB is to connect to the west side Highway at 59th Street. This is nothing new, plans have been in the works for about 15 years as the road is built slower than 1 block a year. It is built up to 63rd tsreet. The last 4-5 blocks will probably take Extell (or whovere the next buyer is) 5-10 years to complete. The street will run from 72nd near the WSH to 59/58th sh and the West side Highway. I believe it will simply be an intersection prior to the highway rise. It will make our quiet street much louder. nosier and dangerous, it is what it is. There will be no exit ramp on 72nd so it will be traffic beetween the boat basin (96st?) to 59th street.
When I went to the showroom, there was a broker showing rentals on closed units as well. They were not affiliated with the Rushmore sales office. They(Corcoran)almost seemed annoyed taht they were showing the rentals at the same time.

I cannot imagine that at some point like NOW with this 90% possibility of taxation on bonuses, will get more in line with dropping some of these prices. Who will be buying these apts? I am not being facetious, I really want to know.

No I didn't make it up. I think I saw it on Curbed on the day that I wrote the post. That day must have been the day that the info from Extell was unveiled about the further plans at the bottom on Riverside South. You have to look at it closely and then you say Wow!!?

it is hard to be buying anything or selling anything when the global market is anything but stable. But all should look back and remember why your signed the contract in the first place. If you bought to flip in a few months then I suggest you walk or FIGHT for your deposit back.

If you bought to live in the unit then enjoy the unit, you are buying in a quality building from a reputable developer/architect and contractor; you will be able to sell for a profit one day. Stop stressing and once the building is complete which it seems like it will be before the summer, live your life! Worst case scenario is that you hold onto the unit and live in it (or rent it) longer than you had originally anticipated.

I live in the area and I swear I really love the physical location. Retail will come once the area fills in a bit over the next year or so...

People on this board are acting like the Rushmore is in a dangerous area in the Bronx and was built non union by amateurs.. it i far from it..!!!! If you think you overpaid and cant afford it then try and renegotiate the price or get concessions; worth a shot,

Congrats to all those that will be moving to this incredible neighborhood and building!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Get past the doom and gloom, its not healthy,

wow, prepare for your beating on 2 rushmore threads!

Hey are people actually moved in and living at the Rushmore?

believe a few have. Building looks nice.

My condolences.

why condolences? they are carpeting common halls now and the building looks good. someone i know that lives there says that the only negative is that it is empty! you are almost "over" attended to by the staff.

The city built an amazing volley ball court in Riverside Park near the Rushmore. Area has become a real community.

Well that compensates for the instant depreciation. tell me rs, if people bought unwisely but with a bunch down, are they responsible investors?

From Wikipedia
Overspending is spending more money than one can afford. It is a common problem when easy credit is available.[1].

Are we discussing spending more than one has or buying and learning the price has dropped? The two are quite different on many levels. And also quite different from appreciating that a quality building has joined the upper west side and that people of the area are seeing Riverside Park extended(price not withstanding)

Read Atlas Shrugged :)

I have. I took economics and libretarianism at Yale, years ago.

The worst faux philospher i've ever encountered. Faux economist as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/business/15atlas.html

One of the most influential business books ever written is a 1,200-page novel published 50 years ago, on Oct. 12, 1957. It is still drawing readers; it ranks 388th on Amazon.com’s best-seller list. (“Winning,” by John F. Welch Jr., at a breezy 384 pages, is No. 1,431.)

For years, Rand’s message was attacked by intellectuals whom her circle labeled “do-gooders,” who argued that individuals should also work in the service of others. Her book was dismissed as an homage to greed. Gore Vidal described its philosophy as “nearly perfect in its immorality.”

But the book attracted a coterie of fans, some of them top corporate executives, who dared not speak of its impact except in private. When they read the book, often as college students, they now say, it gave form and substance to their inchoate thoughts, showing there is no conflict between private ambition and public benefit.

“I know from talking to a lot of Fortune 500 C.E.O.’s that ‘Atlas Shrugged’ has had a significant effect on their business decisions, even if they don’t agree with all of Ayn Rand’s ideas,” said John A. Allison, the chief executive of BB&T, one of the largest banks in the United States.

Hannity and Palin probably read it. 2007, riversider, 2007. that's a lifetime ago. go worship at Reagan's gravesight. Historians, philosophers, econonomists, all disdain this work. But you go.

And didn't you put this up earlier? Only to be removed?

RS, look inside. Find some empathy. If you can't, fuck off.

Wow liberals are so vicious!

Yea, I think it got removed because people started cursing and putting up Nazi references. Quite sad.

found some empathy yet?

Milton Friedman anyone?

"I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism"
Ayn Rand.
Nice girl!

the master of no empathy? you are a relic aren't you? chicago is DEAD. DEAD. DEAD.

naomi klein. read.

you have so thoroughly discredited yourself. bye.

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--406-FAQ_Virtue_Selfishness.aspx
OUT OF CONTEXT!

Ayn Rand rejects altruism, the view that self-sacrifice is the moral ideal. She argues that the ultimate moral value, for each human individual, is his or her own well-being. Since selfishness (as she understands it) is serious, rational, principled concern with one's own well-being, it turns out to be a prerequisite for the attainment of the ultimate moral value. For this reason, Rand believes that selfishness is a virtue.

In the introduction to her collection of essays on ethical philosophy, The Virtue of Selfishness (VOS), Rand writes that the "exact meaning" of selfishness is "concern with one's own interests" (VOS, vii). In that work, Rand argues that a virtue is an action by which one secures and protects one's rational values—ultimately, one's life and happiness. Since a concern with one's own interests is a character trait that, when translated into action, enables one to achieve and guard one's own well-being, it follows that selfishness is a virtue. One must manifest a serious concern for one's own interests if one is to lead a healthy, purposeful, fulfilling life.

Rand understands, though, that the popular usage of the word, "selfish," is different from the meaning she ascribes to it. Many people use the adjective "selfish" to describe regard for one's own welfare to the disregard of the well-being of others. Moreover, many people would be willing to characterize any instance of desire-satisfaction in these circumstances as "selfish," no matter what its content. Thus, many people arrive at the following composite image: selfish people are brutish people who are oblivious to the negative consequences of their actions for their friends and loved ones and who abuse the patience, trust, and good will of all comers to satisfy their petty whims.

ooo,ooo,ooo,somebody's rand dream is being defiled!!

go fuck off riversider. you have zero compassion. you are a nasty piece of work. and i'm so happy for you that altruisism is meaningless, so i don't have to feel compelled to go beyond my feelings of extreme distate for you and be compassionate.

and you're polluting the rushmore thread.

That theory goes against life. We ultimate are willing to sacrifice everything for our kids well-being, and (some of us), to give our livin order to save thousands. This way we survive as species. Rejecting altruism is negating one of the most fascinating features of human beings.

as my husband, who is a historian,says, rand was perhaps the worst but most (temporarily) influential hack of all time.

without love, what are we? really? and to love we must care.

and i'm going out on a limb here. but i'll do so.

>> The city built an amazing volley ball court in Riverside Park near the Rushmore.

Where?

64th street approximately. It doesn't appear officially open yet. Actually it's not one but two courts.

any updates on the Rushmore? We are thinking of buying.

Pretty quiet. Some more closings taking place. Seems like a nice building. Very important to ask lots of questions and maybe in writing about first year budget and ability of sponsor to fund building and for how long if they don't sell out in the next year or two which is not only a reasonable assumption but probable. Units seem to be 10-15% above what slightly older buildings go for. You have to decide if that's reasonable.

riverside612 - there is a large pending case (30+ buyers) with the attorney general's office for the right of rescission due to buyers because the developer missed an important date indicated in the Offering Plan. Extell is past due (deadline to respond by 8/31 but have not yet done so)in giving a response to the AG's office regarding this pending complaint. It would seem wise to see what the end result is on this case since this is an important data point you might want to consider in committing to a purchase. I'm not at all trying to interfere with your decision but thought you might want to know this publically available information for your own benefit.

This is the article that was in the Times a couple of months ago:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/realestate/26deal1.html?_r=1&ref=realestate

I understand there have been 45 closings so far, though only 35 have shown up in StreetEasy. As the Times article indicates, there are those who need to get out and truly can not afford to lose 15% deposits on seven-figure plus apartments, and there are those upset, understandably though maybe not sympathetically, that new buyers are being offered substantial discounts (one unit on Streeteasy appears to have closed 20% below listed price but I've seen some serious errors on other listings in StreetEasy so ya never know), while Extell refuses to renegotiate their purchase prices. Their only point might be that by signing contracts they helped make the plan legally "effective" and Extell is now playing hardball. If the ruling goes the plaintiff's way, some in this category hope to use it as a lever to get better prices (not walk away) ...at least as good as new buyers. One point, though, many of the tower apartments -- those with killer views, windowed kitchens and windowed baths -- were the ones signed up early, and it is reasonable to believe that part of the reason for signing so early was to get what was considered a prime unit, especially since there was no secret that the per foot price was, at the time, breaking new heights. I agree with those who say that it is a very pretty building with nice amenities and attentive service...so far anyway. And, yes, if I were to buy I'd want some assurances that Extell and its partners (the Carlyle Group, or more likely one of its investment funds) can carry their share of the building for the next few years as units slowly sell, that CAM charges will remain under control, that promised amenities to the neighborhood, like finishing the park, etc., are completed, that the sponsor will not turn unsold units into rentals...yes there are concerns, but the building IS being completed, the pool IS full, and Extell IS moving forward with the building next door, its plans for the area to the south, the diamond building on W. 47th...so maybe the world is not ending, after all, but only being repriced.

Mlwest - good analysis. I would counter your point that "Their only point might be that by signing contracts they helped make the plan legally "effective" and Extell is now playing hardball."

What happened here is that Extell missed a KEY date in the offering plan, a binding contract to the buyers, and they are trying to claim "mistake" in order to get out of honoring the contract. I am sure you know how many tens/hundreds of lawyers have read the offering plan (prior to the offering plan even being made public - think of all the lenders lawyers and Carlyle's lawyers in addition to Stroock).

so while the economy rendered some buyers upset, that is separate from the legal issue at hand, which is what this group of buyers have asked the AG's office to rule on. Contract law is very clear in this case - can you imagine the courts rule that one can get out of a contract because a party made a 'mistake'? That would be a disastrous precedent to set for ALL contracts contended going forward.

For what it is worth Streeteasyfan, clearly you are not a lawyer. I couldn't really care less what happens here, just following the situation (like others) out of curiousity, however, "mistake" is actually a legal argument in contract law. Mutual mistake or mistake on one party in a contract that is or should be obvious to the other can be grounds to amend the contract to reflect what the intent of the parties actually was (a question for the court or jury). It would not be a disastrous precedent for ALL contracts, in fact it is settled contract law. There have been cases where the incorrect placement of a comma changes a deal from a million dollar deal to a ten million dollar deal. The party that benefits from a clear mistake in a contract does not get to dance a jig and go collect 10 million, the court determines (if the parties do not fix it) what the actauly intent was. Bottom line, was this a ministerial mistake, akin a typing error of 08 vs 09 or was the intent always 08, and perhaps can the plaintiffs demonstrate that they believed 08 to be correct and indeed relied on 08 as part of their decision to buy. All questions for the fact finder who will look at the offerring plan as a whole (not just that provision) to help make their decision as to what the date was intended to be.

Just an FYI that admittedly is off the cuff, but again, not a big deal to me.

Mktmaker - the case is with the AG's so none of our musings matter anyways..but just FYI, these were unilateral contracts and intent is interpreted by the black and white, which is this case was 2008 NOT 2009. Also note that apartments begin selling in Oct 2006. 2 years between sale and completion is reasonable and common.

mktmaker/streeteasyfan - I think mktmaker's points are well taken. The issue will be, was the 2008 date persistent in other documents, or was it a one-time, one-pace 'typo'? For example, did all the constuction documents contain 2009 dates? The 2-year issue may be more relevant, however, but not necessarily the final word. Extell may argue that the city itself was largely responsible for month-long delays by truly nit-picking every construction site in the city after the fiasco with the construction crane accidents. This is just a plain fact that any builder can confirm. Besides, when the AG rules, will the losing side take the decision to court, delaying resolution further? Again, those who have to get out can afford a scortched earth approach; they have little more to lose. Extell ought to suck it up and cut deals with these folks. Those who really like the building but are angling for a better price ought to be careful because if the building is really put into financial jeapordy by these cases, to a degree they may be undercutting the reputation and future value of their asset. Finally, if Extell loses, expect them to sue Strook for malpractice.

mlwest. Agreed, re-pricing is good... I'm just waiting for the "world is ending" kind of pricing from a flipper/should've never bought/RE borker who can't hang on/HELOC out the wazooo/2004-2008 buyer lost both income.... you know that kind of end of world re-pricings....

And you are absofreakingly right, the world is not ending.. at least not for me and the fam.

Actually mktmaker's musings are spot on. Here's a nice review:

http://kids.law.yale.edu/ayers/mutual.htm

I believe the term that Streeteasyfan fan is looking for is not "unilateral contract" but rather "adhesion contract" - altho one could probably argue with a straight face that all contracts to purchase RE from entities like Extell are adhesion contracts.

It seems to me that Extell is just paying its lawyers to fight for the right to keep the deposits--it seems that many of these units won't close either way. Related anticipated this problem and began demanding 20% deposits in recent years.

What is most telling is that The Donald's son sold his RSB condo to move away from the coming RSB tsunami.

w67thstreet -- Most condo 'contracts' -- or sale options, whatever... -- in new developments (like the Avery before the Rushmore) contain clauses barring buyers from putting their units on the market for one year from closing. I suspect (but do not know) that this is a reason why some units appear for resale from certain brokerages only to be removed within a week or so. I am not sure if the actual resale is forbidden, but I'm pretty sure listing a resale is a no-no. As for keeping 15% of $2m, or $3m? Sure it's a nasty business and probably one that Extell thinks is winnable, though it sure seems to be willing to take the PR hit. Maybe their bank has a gun to their head. I wouldn't expect much from Extell by way of compromise offers until the 2008-2009 issue is resolved by the AG's office. After all, one always has time to return money. And other units are slowly being sold and closed. Ok, so it will take an extra year. If PMG's tsunami turns out to be only a category 3 hurricane, bad as that is, maybe the calculation is that situation is survivable.

Not sure if there's bad p.r. here. It would not take much for Extell to spin the buyers running the A.G. as "disgruntled buyers looking to change the terms of a valid contract". There has been some discussion on this board and others that buyers would close if the price was lowered. The law does not take protect buyers from entering into bad deals..

The buyers will clearly spin this in another direction.

"Most condo 'contracts' -- or sale options, whatever... -- in new developments (like the Avery before the Rushmore) contain clauses barring buyers from putting their units on the market for one year from closing."

On which planet is this?

Definitely occurring in a few buildings. Just another case of buyers agreeing to bad terms and an increase in risk should they intend to sell.

30-yrs_re_20...Ya know, that wasn't the craziest of clauses that were included...we tend to forget how insane the market was back in 2005-6 -- but, sadly, 'tis fact, not opinion. Great for the developer, bad for the buyer. I believe the rational from the developer was, 'we don't want to encourage flippers; we want people who will live in the building..." Of course, that protected them from competition of buyers forced to sell in a bad economy, but, as with the entire sub-prime mess, people weren't looking at what happens when the music stopped.

I'd really like to see an example of such a clause. I've seen plenty not allowing assignments of contracts, but this would call for a deed covenant, and we've seen SO many sales within one year in so many buildings, I just can't believe that it is prevalent (i.e. "Most").

30yrs."PROHIBITION AGAINST ADVERTISING AND SELLING. Prior to the closing of title to a residential unit, the agreement prohibits Purchaser from listing the Residential Unit for resale or rental with any broker or from advertising or otherwise offering, promoting or publicizing the availability (of unit)for sale or lease, without sponsor's prior written consent. In addition, a purchase (other than a purchaser purchasing for such Purchaser's own occupancy) may not advertise, list or sell a residential unit acquired from Sponsor for 12 months after acquisition of such residential unit(provided however,such limitation shall not apply from and after the date that the sponsor conveys title to all of the residential units). Any such conveyances in violation of the foregoing will be voidable by Sponsor."
So it pretty much rules out selling prior to a closing and the pissing match would be determining when a purchaser is purchasing for own occupancy...Whose to say unless purchaser has not yet "occupied" said unit prior to selling...but that's for lawyers to argue about -- but it will be a pissing match. In this economy, I don't think Extell has a strong case -- nobody is likely to make a quick buck -- but it may try to delay such sales so they do not compete (at a lower price) than their offerings (though today Extell is discounting nicely).

Geee...... someone left out a MAJOR part of the clause, huh? (not in the penultimate post, when they were describing it).

It also doesn't say "this shall survive the closing". And I'd love to see the restrictive covenants in the deeds.

What happened to all the people pulling their hair (and the hair of this blog) out trying to decide whether to close or not, or strategizing how to get some discount from the contract they signed (which didn't seem to be working)? Did they walk?........

It appears quite a few have closed at absurd prices....does that say something about this market (that they didn't think it was economically justified to walk away)...or say something about psychology (can't bear to walk away, even if it would be more economically sensible)?

The A.G. action is still ongoing last count. There are a few lawsuits that are pending resolution of the A.G. review.

At night, the building is still looks pretty much empty.

they may not have gotten the c.o. for the higher floors yet.

But from your point of view, Riversider, what percentage of this bldg has closed?

More. Check ACRIS.

30yrs_RE_20_in_REO
about 2 weeks ago
ignore this person
report abuse "Most condo 'contracts' -- or sale options, whatever... -- in new developments (like the Avery before the Rushmore) contain clauses barring buyers from putting their units on the market for one year from closing."

On which planet is this?

No selling clause in New Development is very common in NYC. You should know this if you at least looked into few new dev. properties in nyc.

ba294, you just waded into waters you know little about. read the thread. closely.

bds, they are clearly closing up to the 20th floor or so. not lovely. extell shill.

actually it's 30 or so, in terms of floor where closings are occuring.

Am having trouble finding the closings on Acris for the Rushmore. How do you find it?

BDS -- According to Streeteasy, there have been 47 recorded sales (closed sales). That's only about 18 percent of the building's 247 units. FYI, Streeteasy is rarely up to the minute, and for some reason its spiders sometimes miss ACRIS closings. Also, as I recall from the Times article on the AG issue, about 30-36 buyers are supporting the suit for varying purposes (either to get out completely OR to negotiate a better deal), so they're not closing. Streeteasy has 65 units listed as under contract, but again, you can't take that as gospel.

bds

A google search yielded the following block and lot for apt 7a

Block 01171 lot4087

change the lot # for different apartments

thank you. very helpful. How can Extell sustain this kind of burden with only 47 closed. Won't they be getting pressure from their financing. Also I would have concerns about buying into a bldg that only has 18%closed.

Has anyone weighed in on whether '08 was actually the developers intent at any point in time? It could have been in early documents, no?? Especially since they started marketing early. I have no idea but it occurred to me that Extell was facing a monster s**t storm with their buildings in Miami in 07 and 08. Maybe they had 08 in mind for Rushmore but when their other troubles started, they wanted to push the date back, but maybe it just fell through the cracks. In that case would it still be considered a typo?

From what I can tell Extell has sold... 40-50% of units by years end, with a tilt toward lower priced units. Building has turned out beautiful. Questions are whether Extell can fund the common charges on the unsold units. As a buyer, if you were not planning on selling in the next few years, your biggest worry is dealing with the potential of sponsor rental units.

you have reached a new high in your ongoing delirium.

1. from what I can tell---don't you mean from what you can fantasize?
2. building has turned out beautiful --- what does this mean other than you like it and who cares?
3. question are whether extell can full common charges --- yep.
4. i always love the few years crap like somehow magic will occur in a few years. how many is few?

bottom line, what have you told us?

Upper west side demographics are very different....
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36/36021.html

come on give us a youtube.

Person buying a 3+million dollar unit probably has multiples of that. This is not the five or ten year wall street veteran and very different from Columbia county demographics.

Households, 2000 24,796 7,056,860
Persons per household definition and source info Persons per household, 2000 2.43 2.61
Median household income definition and source info Median household income, 2007 $53,214 $53,448
Per capita money income definition and source info Per capita money income, 1999 $22,265 $23,389
Persons below poverty, percent definition and source info Persons below poverty, percent, 2007 10.0% 13.8%

what does this have to do with the rushmore?

have you finally flipped your lid?

My understanding after looking at the closings on ACRIS is that only 18& of this bldg has closed. Unless there is some miracle by the end of Dec 09, I do not see that half of this bldg has closed condos

there must be a youtube that explains this.

bds, I've heard a number of people say that C.O. hasn't been granted for highest floors yet. Also interesting is the filing of new suits by buyers who do not wish to close.

you still haven't explained how 18% magically turns into 50%.

So finally we have some opinion and not some spam political commentary from Riversider.

And we still have nasty columbiacounty. Obviously just a personal vendetta - take this comment "2. building has turned out beautiful --- what does this mean other than you like it and who cares? "

So, this is a real estate site, and someone can't comment on how a building looks?

Is it possible to be more angry at the world than columbiacounty?

How long before columbiacounty accuses Riversider of having a flat screen TV up his butt, similar to the rant he went on a few months ago with another poster.

cc: there is a youtube to explain it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ubsd-tWYmZw

priceless.

There have been closings up to at least the 30th floor and the pattern of removing units from the market would indicate to me that they are ready to close on all.

In today's Real Deal, the 35th person has now sued the Rushmore for recission joining the other 34. At what point does Extell see the reality of their inability to close condos with this growing litigation?

Disagree. Extell has nothing to gain. All these cases are being deferred until A.G. makes a ruling. No reason for Extell to do anything until then.

give us a youtube. please.

don't

Must say, after reading the real deal, that sixteeth amendment sounds pretty sleezy.
My layman's take on the 16th amendment was that there was no legal purpose, and that it's real purpose was to intimidate buyers.....

"Instead of offering the plaintiff the right to rescind the agreement, as required by the offering plan, the defendant sponsor's 16th amendment to the offering plan states that purchasers have no right of rescission related to the first closing," attorneys Philip Hines and Marc Held wrote in the complaint.