Peter Cooper Village

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

Money came from the taxpayers. Not from market rate tenants who knowingly, on an arms length basis, entered into the lease and received the benefit of the bargain.

NO you imbecile. The money came from the tenants, and is being returned to the tenants. Your stupidity is amazingly tenacious. If tishman hadn't grossly and stupidly way overpaid for the complex the massive rent hikes would not have been necessary.

Lets just say as an example that the landlord illegally jacked up the rent on a two bedroom from $3000 to $6000. How are the taxpayers benefitting from that? How are they harmed when the landlord is stopped from imposing the illegal increases? You may have problems accepting the validity of the J51 program, but that is another issue.

Look, you and the rapaciously greedy landlord lost. Over. Done. Get over it.

"For the umpteenth time ALL rents are lower than they would have been but for the lawsuit."

From http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/nyregion/manhattans-biggest-apartment-complex-agrees-to-drop-some-rent-increases.html?_r=0:

"The notices of a sudden rent increase came like a phantom in the night, slipped under the doors of 1,100 tenants on May 14"

"The June 1 start of the rent increase was postponed, and on Tuesday, State Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman announced that the company that controls the complex, CW Capital, would rescind the mid-lease increases for tenants who had been told by agents that they would never occur."

So the mid-lease increases were cancelled. Doesn't that imply that these increases will just take effect when the lease ends?

Greensdale: So the landlord should be able to get the tax break and illegally de-regulate apartments?

The law is clear, sure it hasnt been enforced in the past but no one brought suit.

The way this played out tenants who entered into an arms length transaction unknowingly signed a rent stabilized lease, ignorance of the law works both ways.

Its not dirty money, the landlord charged illegal rents, very clear. The landlord should have been forced to pay back the tax incentive to the city too.

Also, rents are not lower, all rents are rent stabilized but the formula devised to determine
what is the rent stabilized rents have 1brs at $3,500, that is market rate.

The mid-lease increases were rates that never would have been signed on to in a "arms length" transaction.

What seems wrong is that the leasing agents routinely told unsuspecting RECENTLY NEW tenants about rent stabilization while omitting a lot of important facts.

And I am not sure 3500 is even "market" rates that far east with no doorman. Just go on SE and look for non-doorman 1 bedrooms east of 2nd ave. Even doorman bldgs that far east.

>Greensdale: So the landlord should be able to get the tax break and illegally de-regulate apartments?

No, they shouldn't have been able to get the tax break from the government. And when it came time to rectify the situation, the money should have gone back to the taxpayers, not to Aboutready.

>Its not dirty money, the landlord charged illegal rents, very clear. The landlord should have been forced to pay back the tax incentive to the city too.

Pay to the government, sure. Pay to Aboutready, no.

AR now even acknowledges that the money isn't deserved by her, that's why she's telling us about how she's spending the money on a child she determined otherwise belongs in the prison system.

Wrong. Asshole. Nobody would interpret my comments that way. Are you so desperate for validation of your opinions that you need to lie? Repeatedly? Get over yourself. The crime was the landlords. Your sleazy attempt to make it the fault of this tenant is bogus and deceitful. You know full well that the higher court found in favor of the tenants, and it had nothing to do with income, etc. quit lying.

You are so stupid it defies logic. You have zero knowledge of the law. Or the RS program. I am through with you on this subject.

Jason, the current property manager is charging WAY above market rates for one bedroom units. Rent stabilization doesn't set a ceiling on the rent that can be charged here, just the yearly increase. I'm at a loss to understand the rational for the rents for the one bedrooms, because most of the ones that are eligible for such increases are already at or near market rate.
Am

aboutready
about 1 hour ago
Posts: 15645
Member since: Oct 2007
ignore this person
report abuse
Wrong. Asshole. Nobody would interpret my comments that way. Are you so desperate for validation of your opinions that you need to lie? Repeatedly? Get over yourself. The crime was the landlords. Your sleazy attempt to make it the fault of this tenant is bogus and deceitful. You know full well that the higher court found in favor of the tenants, and it had nothing to do with income, etc. quit lying.

Now now AR, who says it is the fault of the tenants? Who is being dishonest in this discussion, AR? No one said it is the fault of the tenants. But few have bought into your argument that you, as a market rate tenant were a victim. Give it up AR. The money was never for you. You should not receive taxpayer funded benefits intended to subsidize lower and working class income New Yorkers.

Tell it to the court. Give it up, hb. You, like Tishman and MetLife, lost.

You don't understand this situation, or the decision, but don't feel too badly about your limitations. It's complex.

Oh I understand the decision. I don't understand why you are running away with a windfall and the non-regulated residents are suffering with higher rents.

Troll.

Everyone is regulated YOU STUPID ASS. The entire fucking complex. Yes, clearly you have a firm understanding of what is happening.

Aboutready, why would you be regulated? You entered into a market rate lease and chose the market rate lease at PCV among other market rate options.

Bigger question, why are you always a taker? Free education, husband does all the work, taxpayer subsidized cash windfall, etc.

Troll. Stupid troll..

Name calling doesn't support your argument or make the SE reader and taxpayer sympathetic to all the money you received at everyone else's expense.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/30/nyregion/high-cost-runoff-for-public-advocates-post-prompts-calls-for-reform.html Remember to Vote for Public Advocate!

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-20/blame-rich-overeducated-elites-as-our-society-frays.html

After 8 years, wonder what the OP's rent is.

Wish the OP would come back.

CW Capital Asset Management selling Stuyvesant Town-Peter Cooper Village. Blackstone Group is a possible buyer:

http://therealdeal.com/blog/2015/10/18/town-to-hit-the-market-once-again/

deep pockets ... someone else for aboutready to go after.

Big announcement yesterday on this, price seemed relatively low to me. Terms are a certain number of apts must remain rent-reduced for 20 years.

NYC (i.e. taxpayers) kicked in $225 million to preserve some of the apartments as "affordable."

Probably would have been less than $225 million but for people like Bburg.

Deblasio and Viverito are coming up with a plan to protect the middle class . . . uhhh . . . . never mind