Peter Cooper Village

Who do you think pays the bill for rent controlled/stabilized tenants? Well, naturally, you do.

why would anyone live in peter cooper...the bldgs. look like prisons

It is beautiful, bright, quiet - I wake up to birds chirping and can picnic on the grass in the summer. That is why I moved here. However it is way to far from any public transportation and the rents are far too high. Turns out they lie about what they'll raise your rent and won't let you sign a 2 year lease the first year you move in.

Banker: From what I've learned during the sale of this place is that PCV/ST is profitable with the rent stabilized apartments alone.

My point was only that rent stabilization simply shifts the burden of rent from the stabilized tenant to the market tenant. Public housing cuts down on available supply of land, but doesn't cause the basic problem of rent stabilization in privately owned buildings, because the goverment effectively pays most of the subsidy. For all of its social benefits, rent control creates equally problematic social consequences, in my (biased) opinion.

what a nice capitalist

Yes, I am.

Nice to meet you too, Che.

:)

(please note the smiley)

i did, thanks..
your maybach is outside, see ya

is this ub?

Everyone who pays market rent ANYWHERE in the city is subsidizing the rent controlled/stabilized market - if there was no rent control rents would be MUCH more sane because the supply of apartments would be greater (nobody gives up their 5 bedroom $100/month apartment) - I really wish they would get rid of it - though it might push out some of our poorest residents to the outer boroughs it would let the middle class enter the city and allow a greater standard of living for those who can afford it (don't we live in a free market??) - down with rent control/stabilization!!!

To pay $3,000 a month in Peter Cooper and not have a doorman is crazy. I lived in Stuyvesant Town and paid $860. a month until six years ago...at that rent it was terrific but now it's way too much...Sitting on the grass????

Try paying 4500$ for no doorman - when your neighbor in the same exact layout next to you pays 1600$.

Although I hear there is a lawsuit going on because Met Life was still receiving rent-stabilized tax breaks on 3000 apts that they were charging market rate rents on. So if this turns out to be true Met Life/ Tishman Spyer will either have to roll back rents to about 1900$ a month - or pay a butt-load in back taxes.

Ha-ha.

#7 Banker, whats Che, Banker?

#3 i lived in PCV--I agree they do look like prisons on the outside-- but the apartments are absolutely beautiful and sprawling..my friends said we can roller skate in my living room bc it was that big. High ceilings, sound proof, etc. I used to pay $2900 for a brand new renovated 2bd/2bath...if i had to pay $4500--would not want to live there anylonger

I agree with #11. I had to move out of my building because a 2 bedroom was too expensive, and we needed an extra bedroom for our little one. The 2 bedrooms were so expensive because our very high rent was going to subsidize the 20% of apartments in the building that were rent reduced. I work about 80 hours a week, make a decent salary (not wall st. salary though) and my husband does too; We were pretty miffed that my family had to move so that families who made much less money and worked less could afford to live in the city. I know this doesn't sound terribly humanistic, but well, there you go.

#14, #7 is referring to Che Guavera, a communist revolutionary who helped castro overthrow cuba.

Ernesto 'Che' Guevara. 'Motorcycle Diaries' deals with his years right out of university, an excellent film.

#7 Che Guevarra is Castro's mass murdering scumbag executioner and a possible role model of Hugo Chavez's

Che's communist beliefs went against the American principals of free markets capitalism (among other things). Many hail him as a revolultionary hero. He was eventually killed by the CIA.

And what makes Hugo Chavez such an awful person? If Bush doesn't like him then he's my man. In Latin America the wealth is in the hands of a very few & everyone else is a peon, much the way things are going in this country.

#21, in this country the president cannot single-handedly alter the constitution so it gives him untimate authority to change the laws unchallenged...and be 're-elected' till the end of time. If you speak out against bush nobody going to show up at your house at 2 am and escort you somewhere where you'll never be seen from or heard from again. US gov't employees don't have their votes monitored so if they vote against bush they may lose their jobs.

Also anyone who lives here has access to education & resources to make it. If you don't believe me go back to Venezuela.

eponymous
about 6 years ago
Posts: 23
Member since: Jan 2007
ignore this person
report abuse
(Discussing Peter Cooper Village) I rent a 'market rate' apartment and my rent has been increased by 12% each year.

What has happened in the past 6 years? Have you recently paid the Aboutready tax?

No, eponymous is likely eligible for a hefty amount of money back, and it is very unlikely that his/her rent is not less than it was six years ago.

But once again, keep on showing your ignorance.

Why don't we let eponymous answer the question. It's quite possible that he did receive some money back, and then had to pay more subsequently. We just don't know about eponymous' situation. We just don't know.

"We just don't know about eponymous' situation. We just don't know."

It's the not knowing that's the worst!

We know a fair amount. His post implies he was there from at least 2005. I moved in in 2004, the odds are very high that he did comparably. Btw, you still don't get it. All rents were lowered, most of them substantially. I haven't heard of any later increases that resulted in a rent that was higher than the rent when lowered, when also allowing for legal rs increases. Virtually everyone paid less as a result of the lawsuit, although some, including me, did better than others.

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/35173-compass-rock-decides-to-raise-rents-midlease

Which they didn't do. And still does not mean that the tenants affected would pay more than they would have if there had been no lawsuit. You have no legitimate argument, so you just repeat incomplete info in a deceptive manner. You're such a clever one.

oh?

Oh yes. You don't and have never understood what the ramifications of the lawsuit are. Nor the intricacies of the settlement. You've just made assumptions based on what you'd like to believe is true. How very riversider-esque.

Who needs facts when you can have your own personalized fiction?

>riversider-esque.

Is it bad to be Riversider-esque? How similar does someone have to be in order to become "esque"? Is it 10%, 90%?

What are you doing with your big lawsuit windfall for which others are paying it off right now in the form of higher rents?

What were the circumstances of this lawsuit?

Parties paid money because of successor liability to other parties who were successor beneficiaries. So basically neither were the responsible parties held accountable nor the victims made whole.

,as a result of the lawsuit everybody paid less in total. You still don't get it.

I'm using the money to pay for special education for the child i took in from off the streets. $50000ish a year. And the therapy, $1500 a month. Go bother someone else.

Did you adopt the child because you won the lawsuit?

A facile description. Litigation and particularly settlement implies that few are made whole. As well you know.

You were not harmed and you made a lot of money, so you were more than made whole. What is $$$$$ divided by zero?

No, but im perfectly willing to use money gained as recompense for the atrocities he has endured, and the monies I need to expend because the system will not meet their mandate.

Look, you've so lost this argument. Move on. You are embarrassing yourself.

Stupid. So stupid. Desperate.

Atrocities?
You justify hard working New Yorkers paying higher rent by bandying about diverted spending on private school tuition and private therapy sessions?

oh hfs....how happy are you?

Hi C0C0!

pretty damn happy, right?

C0C0, how was the weather in C0lumbia C0unty today?

when was the last time you were outside?

In C0lumbia C0unty or in New York?

whats it like to be you?

Wait, still on the outdoor question, I was seeking clarification.

when was the last time you saw sunlight?

We had Manhattanhenge just 20 minutes ago. Do they have something similar in C0lumbia C0unty where the sun lines up with the corn rows or something?

more stupid blather.

we are feel bad for you.

You and?

have you ever seen sunlight?

A better question C0C0 is what happens to Y0U if sunlight strikes you?

Wtf? Are you out of your mind? This is a kid who has a high average iq (110) but is 18 and has a 6th grade reading and math level. You tell me what public option would work? He needs to start 9th grade for the third time. He was the victim of severe abuse. The system didn't notice until he wax 15,and a runaway.

Get over your fucking self I'm doing something with my money. What have you done for society recently?

You're such a nasty little person.

I'm glad to hear you are doing something for someone else in need.

Else? Asshole. I will have spent well over $100k through the first three years.

What was your annual rent at PCV?

Who have you helped recently?

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

So in addition to $69 million, these tenants had their rent increases rolled back and re-stabilized?

"The agreement ... will at the same time mean the rents for a large block of apartments will rise by hundreds of dollars a month"

>Who have you helped recently?

First you have to ask who was harmed by me (hint, none) before asking that question (hint, more than none).

9d8, IIRC, the destabilized apartments went back to stabilized status in 2009. Their rents were set at temporary amounts while the parties argued over what their rents would've been had they never been destabilized to begin with. Those rents were finally set in 2012, and were in many cases higher than anticipated in 2009. (But still, of course, less than market.) The landlord had the right to immediately get its increases, mid-lease, but has apparently backed down.

>the destabilized apartments went back to stabilized status in 2009.

So now what we have are people who were comfortable with market rate rents (entered into the market rate rents on an arms-length basis after comparing to other market rate rentals available at the time), now receiving regulated rents, supported by a tax benefit to the developer paid from the State of NY. Whereas the people who needed regulated rents and couldn't afford PCV or ST and so never moved in, have received no reprieve. Many of those same people who are now getting the newly regulated rents despite never expecting or needing it, received a windfall settlement originating from money from the taxpayers of the State of NY.

Sort of like winning a mini-Lotto without buying a ticket.

The settlement money comes from the landlords, though, not NYS. You could look at it as coming from NYC taxpayers, as the landlords got a J51 reduction in RE taxes in return for making building improvements and keeping apartments stabilized.

For many years the government and landlords agreed that if an apartment became destabilized due to luxury decontrol, income, etc., then the building's J51 benefit would be reduced proportionately. Everybody was OK with that. Then the court in 2009 said that if a building was getting J51 at all, then no apartment within it could be destabilized at all. Hence the refund of difference between market and stabilized rents.

That's the quick and dirty summary as far as I get it. I'm sure books are being written about the history of it all, and RE lawyers have been trying since 2009 to interpret it.

>You could look at it as coming from NYC taxpayers, as the landlords got a J51 reduction in RE taxes in return for making building improvements and keeping apartments stabilized.

Yes, that's how I see it.

That settlement is disgusting on many levels.

- government meddling in the housing market through special tax breaks and "stabilization" laws
- greedy tenants taking millions of dollars that they did not earn
- greedy tenants getting below-market rent while others in NYC pay market rate or are forced to live outside the city and commute
- greedy lawyers milking the system and making millions out of this mess
- overly complex laws and regulations causing these lawsuits to drag on for years
- taxpayers forced to pay for this mess

Is it any wonder that only luxury housing is being built in NYC? What developer in his right mind would want to build regular rental housing? I sure as hell would not after reading about this case.

NWT & greensdale, thanks for the explanation

Government has a role in helping the neediest and most vulnerable among us. But I agree and i suspect everyone does here too that taxpayer subsidies shouldn't benefit folks like Aboutready. Even AR didn't initially expect to be the beneficiary as she entered into a market rate lease on an arms length basis. She just happens to have, as NWT put it so eloquently, won the lottery without having bought a ticket.

no one agrees.

except....

you should drop dead.

everyone agrees.

So what? You said I should donate the money for a cause more worthy. Would adoption of a poor abusused youth who needed $50k worth of services count? for the first year,and more going forward?

Actually I said donate the money to housing for the poor.
Nevertheless, I find it odd that this weekend is the first that you mention of this $50k child whereas I've been expressing my hope that you would do the right thing for at least 6 months.

"Government has a role in helping the neediest and most vulnerable among us."

Agreed.

So put them into government housing in Utica if they're really that needy. Not prime real estate in Manhattan.

Don't be an idiot.

How is that idiotic?

How is this the first time I've mentioned the expensive child? And why does anyone need to perform for you? What have you done for anyone? Seriously, I have zero need to justify my actions to you, but a kid like this, without decent health insurance, needing therapy twice a week, braces, special education, not to mention the basics of feeding and clothing, believe me, I've given back, and then some.

Fuck you if my mentioning it now doesn't suit your agenda.

And obviously I'm housing him.

The "expensive" kid? Wow, way to humanize him.

The other one is expensive too. Most are. I haven't mentioned it until now, but I've been enjoying the obvious idiocy of your comments for quite awhile.

No idiocy. Your undeserved windfall means higher costs for others.

"Government has a role in helping the neediest and most vulnerable among us."

I believe that that is best done through private charity. However, given that we live in a mixed economy, which I would call "interventionism," there are far fewer employment opportunities than there would be in a free economy. So an argument could be made that further government intervention is required to house people because there are not enough economic opportunities for everyone. Even if one accepts that argument, the degree of intervention is still open to debate.

The government has done substantial harm through its interventions into the housing market--the Peter Cooper fiasco is just one small example. The federal policy of trying to increase home ownership through loan guarantees and subsidies via Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, FHA, etc is a bigger example. NYC's policy taking 1 million apartments off the market through rent stabilization is another. No other U.S. city has 1 million rent stabilized apartments--yet miraculously people in other cities find places to live.

I think the moral thing to do in the Peter Cooper case would be to refuse the settlement money. However it is probably a rare person who is able to resist the temptation of a free lottery payment.

"However, given that we live in a mixed economy"

everyone on Earth lives in a "mixed economy." Even Singapore and Hong Kong have things called "taxes" and have government run universal health care. This is not now, nor has there ever been that pink Unicorn you types like to call "libertarian" countries.

what other circumstances would lead you to believe that the moral thing is to refuse the money?

Hi C0C0! Why don't you share some wisdom from your idol Robert Kiyosaki?

oh...
what a surprise.

did i address you?

"what other circumstances would lead you to believe that the moral thing is to refuse the money?"

Not sure I understand your question, but I think it is immoral to accept this settlement for several reasons:
1. There was no real injury done to these tenants.
2. These tenants voluntarily signed market-rate leases. That implies that they are capable of paying market-rate rent, as 39% of NYC renters do.
3. This payment is made at the expense & injury of other people including taxpayers, the building owners, and other renters.
4. Based on NWT's comments, the J51 was vague and unclear and had been applied much differently in the past.
5. This type of fiasco creates an economic and political climate in NYC which discourages development of new housing.

i'll try to make this simple.

what other circumstances of any kind would lead you to believe that the right answer is to not accept the money?

Idiot. If I keep a kid out of the prison system have I saved enough money for you? Just not having him in the public system last year saved the system about $26000.

And no it doesn't. For the umpteenth time ALL rents are lower than they would have been but for the lawsuit. You are SO stupid.

Whateverthefuckyourstupidhandleis,

If people decline the settlement money it first increases the awards of the others although not hugely, then any extra money goes to the attorneys.
Nobody seems to recall what assholes MetLife, and to a far greater extent, tishman, were to the tenants.

"If people decline the settlement money it first increases the awards of the others although not hugely, then any extra money goes to the attorneys."

Not sure if that is correct--2 news articles state otherwise:

NY1: "Nearly $44 million isn't spoken for. If the money isn't claimed by next Wednesday, the landlords get to keep almost all of it." (http://manhattan.ny1.com/content/top_stories/181844/deadline-nears-for-stuy-town--peter-cooper-village-residents-to-claim-settlement-money)

Stuyvesant Town Rpt: "...if you fail to act, your unclaimed money will be returned to CW Capital and Metropolitan Life." (http://stuytownreport.blogspot.com/2013/05/claim-form-deadline-may-15-for-roberts.html)

Why don't you just admit that it was wrong to take dirty money, but at least you did some good with it? I'd wager that very few people were able to resist the temptation.

why don't you answer my question?

No, the money was dirty when the landlord illegally took it from the tenants.

in case you forgot.

about 1 hour ago
Posts: 12130
Member since: Jan 2009
ignore this person
report abuse
i'll try to make this simple.

what other circumstances of any kind would lead you to believe that the right answer is to not accept the money?

Well it certainly doesn't go to a good cause.

I would argue that the end doesn't justify the means. But you at least you did some good with it, which is probably more than most people did.

aboutready
about 1 hour ago
Posts: 15632
Member since: Oct 2007
ignore this person
report abuse
Idiot. If I keep a kid out of the prison system have I saved enough money for you? Just not having him in the public system last year saved the system about $26000.

Why do you assume your "expensive kid" should otherwise be in prison?