Disaster at the Rushmore

And yet no word the A.G. has blessed the Aldyn's offering plan....

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20101014/REAL_ESTATE/101019932

A lawsuit by Carlyle Realty Partners and Extell Development against Attorney General Andrew Cuomo was dismissed by a federal District Court judge, who ordered the release of $16 million in escrow deposits to 41 condo buyers at the Rushmore. The firms filed suit again Mr. Cuomo in May after he allowed the buyers to back out of their contracts.

Judge George Daniels sided with the AG, who contended that the proper forum for an appeal was a so-called Article 78 lawsuit in New York State Supreme Court, and that federal court had no jurisdiction over the matter.

"Under Article 78, CRP/Extell has the right to have a state court determine that the New York AG's determination 'was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary or capricious," Daniels wrote in the order. "If a material issue of fact is raised, CRP/Extell would be entitled to a full trial of the disputed issues."

Yes, Filing the appeal in the wrong court buys Extell more time. Smart lawyers. Probably didn't even cost much to buy these many extra weeks.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303738504575568271302474294.html

Hey Gary, returning deposits is not paying damages. It's not your money!!!! You lied about how many units you sold, and buyers couldn't close because you sold so many units at a discount. Then you tried to take their deposits. Allowing you to keep the deposits is clearly what would be inequitable. You lost at the AG, trial court, and appellate court. Give it up. You know it wasn't a typo you f'ing liar. Two other plans had the exact language you said you would never put in, and even a previous draft had a different date, but the dates still matched. Just wait until you have to pay sanctions and legal fees.

Isn't the real rub with Extell, is they believe some of the 41 were flippers (yes, you know who you are) that got caught in the market slaughter. Why reimburse flippers?

What a prospective buyer planned to do with the apartment is the prospective buyer's business, not Extell's. A flipper has the same contractual rights as any other buyer. Just what those rights are is what is getting sorted out through the courts, although at this point I think it's pretty hard to see how this does not end up at a refund.

Also, what does what Extell "believes" have to do with any of this, or for that matter with their conduct in this proceeding? I have little doubt that they believe that they and their lawyers screwed up big time and that the plain language of the offering plan cuts against their case. That's why they are going through all these legal contortions to argue that the court should ignore what the document actually says. It's about what they want, not what they believe.

Most of the group are not investors. In fact, most of the investors actually closed, because they were in groups, and got a 12% discount, and thought it still made sense. Most in the group that have had the AG and the courts rule in their favor, were people going to move in. As sidelinesitter says though, it doesn't matter. Extell took the position that the contract favored them taking buyers deposits when buyers couldn't close, rather than work with buyers, and have even sold some of the units. The AG and the courts disagreed. Now they've pissed everyone off with their hardball tactics, and have severely hurt their business. Stupid.

How is this good for Extell's reputation. They are currently building a very expensive building at Carnegie Hall. Why would anyone trust a deposit with Extell when they could care less about the buyer's legal rights to their deposit. If the new, very expensive apts at Carnegie come to market in anything other than a feverish bull market, why would anyone buy an apt there unless it was finished and they were prepared to close and move in immediately. I would never let this company hold my money for any reason.

Well, it's a business decision they appear to be willing to ride out. As you say these 41 will disappear once this is resolved. Would the 41 think about settling the matter out of court?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303738504575568271302474294.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

An increasingly bitter legal battle between the developers of a West Side luxury building and 41 condo owners looking to get their deposits back is headed to state court, following the rejection of the developers' case by the New York Attorney General and federal courts.

The developer of the Rushmore, a partnership between Extell Development Co. and Carlyle Realty Partners, asked New York State Supreme Court on Friday to review what they called the attorney general's "arbitrary and capricious" ruling in April, when Andrew Cuomo's office ordered the return of $16 million in security deposits. Those deposits represent more than $100 million in sales and would amount to one of the largest refunds ever.

"There's an awful lot of money in deposits and we don't think the process was fair," Extell President Gary Barnett said. "It was a typo mistake. We don't think it's equitable to pay damages well into eight figures."

The Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan this month affirmed a May district court ruling that said the developers couldn't block the release of the deposits now held in an escrow account.

The developers appealed to federal court—rather than taking the more traditional route to state court—arguing that the attorney general's ruling violated the U.S. Constitution because they were denied due process of law because they weren't permitted to contest and evaluate the charges against them.

Is it possible they are fighting this under instructions from Hypo?

Another Sunday NYT Real Estate Section, another Rushmore significant ad. My guess is your deposits are funding these ads... Not directly of course, but one pocket helps the other one. The Rushmore is turning into "Rushout". Cute!!!

The following was not about real estate but seemed fitting..

3. Legal Docs protect the preparer (and its firm), not you: Ask yourself this question: How often in the history of modern finance has any huge legal document gone against its drafters? PPMs, Sales agreement, arbitration clauses — these are their to protect the firms, not your organization. Any investment that requires a 50-100 legal document means that eventual claims will have the legal rights of the big houses enunciated, and not you, the investor. Hard stop, next subject.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/10/15-inviolable-rules-for-dealing-with-wall-street/

columbiacounty Ignored comment. Unhide

Riversider, what are you saying...that Extell has the distinct advantage here because they framed the contract?

Exclesior!

Yes, bds that's exactly what I'm saying. The contract is written by the seller and for the seller. The only exceptions are those things put in to comply with NY State Condo law.

Following your logic, then a 'slavery' contract would be okay, as long as the provisions don't interfere with the no slavery clause. -huh?!- WTF?

w67thstreet Ignored comment. Unhide

now, who does that remind you of?

Oh Riversider, this is a sad state of affairs...then you really don't see an end point do you?

Barnett and Extell are suing -- another strategy to gain time to sell apts. They contend that they should have had a trial to determine what the real motives of the buyers decision to back out of their contracts.

http://therealdeal.com/newyork/articles/rushmore-developer-files-state-appeal-in-escrow-deposit-between-extell-development-and-the-attorney-general-andrew-cuomo

Cuomo ruled in April that CRP/Extell must rescind the contracts of the 41 buyers at the 80 Riverside Boulevard condo, between 63rd and 64th streets. The buyers argued the developer missed a Sept. 1, 2008 deadline to hold a first closing, while CRP/Extell claimed that the true deadline was Sept. 1, 2009. They said in the Article 78 complaint that one of the lawyers drafting the offering plan made a single-digit typographical error, resulting in the wrong date being published.

CRP/Extell notes that none of the purchasers filed complaints about the missed deadline until February 2009, when closing notices began going out, and they were looking for an excuse to get out of their contracts due to the credit crisis that made it nearly impossible to get condo loans and led to declining home values. The developer says it asked for the chance to question the buyers under oath to determine their true motivations.

The AG ruled that whether or not the buyers relied on the deadline is not relevant, but the language of the offering plan is clear. The AG also noted that CRP/Extell did not provide any evidence to back up the contention that the date was a typographical error.

Apt23, is anything new being argued or presented here? I perused the docket, but it doesn't seem they've perfected anything.

apt23
33 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse Barnett and Extell are suing -- another strategy to gain time to sell apts. They contend that they should have had a trial to determine what the real motives of the buyers decision to back out of their contracts.

If only they could just call the police and report a false crime instead of suing, and then take it back when the police arrived ... at least the courts wouldn't be as busy.

a) doesn't matter if it's a typo, no reformation in unilateral contracts. They keep trying to attribute intent where there is none. very deceptive.
b) typo defense is a lie anyway. All the evidence actually supports it being intentional. previous draft with a different date, but dates still matching, and two other offering plans with similar language, language they claimed they would NEVER use. Avery and Altair lofts.

I keep thinking it boils down to this
Either Gary Barnett is crazy and obsessed and if he's not
then lender prevents him from negotiating or there's a material benefit from delaying
because the analysis must surely be that he ultimately loses, so if there's no side benefit
from appeal he's just throwing good money after bad.(sunk cost theory)

It seems that they are exercising their constitutional rights to screw around in the courts for as long as possible --including filing in the wrong courts -- so that they can have time to earn their way out of this problem by selling apts. One of the lawyers repping the buyers who has been very circumspect said that there were other papers with the 2008 date filed with the AG --indicating this was a crucial part of AG's decision. Extell is contending they have a right to question the buyers about their motives which makes little sense-- especially since they have offered absolutely no proof of typo error.

In the meantime the extend and pretend ploy doesn't seem to be working. Rushmore has only closed one apt in October (although I have not checked Acris to confirm) and I noticed that the "in contract" number was 36 a couple of weeks ago and it is now 34 --with no subsequent closings.

Lenders wouldn't have any say in whether they sue or not, but what they may have say in is that, when the money is returned, Gary has to post collateral to cover. That may be the issue, that when the money is returned, this causes a default, and he doesn't have the money to cover.

No way.

This is in escrow.

Say a sentence starting with a 'yes'. Try it.

escrow accounts can be posted as collateral

CC: the deposits are certainly in escrow -- as Strook has indicated. I think what addict is saying is that if developer has to return deposit and admit that they have 41 fewer sales than they have claimed to have sold, it might trigger some underlying legal covenant with the lender. I have no idea about this but I guess it is plausible. Something is certainly fueling Extells determination to hold on to this money.

It would seem that the buyers should be able to depose Barnett also to determine his motives. If he had been successful in selling out their escrowed apts-- or selling out the building-- would he feel the need to doggedly hold on to their money in the face of 2 court decisions etc.

Why such interest in this development if you aren't even considering moving there?

Maybe something related to number of sales but escrow cannot be used as collateral.

The threat of depositions appears to be a bargaining chip. Maybe the 41 should settle. Otherwise, you'll be around for the next turn down in the RE market. Looking at 2 to 3 years.

Sounds like something the judge would NOT allow

Is it possible that Barnett is waiting for the new AG to come in, assuming Cuomo will be elected as Governor? Perhaps this new guy would be more lenient with Extell or is it already out of the hands of the AG? One of the 41 said that this could take another year...is that possible? Ugh

My feeling is the most likely issue is that Hypo is in bankruptcy and with the construction loan not paid and perhaps in technical default, has instructed Extell to fight this to the end. If Extell loses, they resell the units at drastically lower prices and at later times. Extell would never admit this, since it creates the perception that the project is not financially sound. I would also not be surprised if there are olive branches thrown out by Extell to agre to sell somewhere between original contract price and current market price..

why would anyone agree to purchase at even a penny above market price? they have won twice in court. only way you could get these buyers back would be to offer steep discounts to market price -- these are people who must be angry at having their living arrangements delayed, then their money illegally held thru 2 court judgements. They would want interest PLUS a pound of flesh.

I doubt any of the 41 would want to live in that bldg after all that has happened. Most have moved on. So those olive branches would be too little too late for the original 41

streetview, which do you work for? Corcoran or Extell? What a joke. Not a chance in hell that anyone settles after this. The AG and FOUR judges have thrown out this case at each turn. Extell has no bargaining chips, only delay tactics. This is costing the buyers nothing but a little time, literally the interest on the deposits is covering their costs. No chance of 2-3 years, this went through the federal courts in less than 6 months, and there is an order to return the money within 30 days. You guys really have no shame.

Neither, just a realist. Settle will be the best outcome. Look the deposits are the bogey. If you can get par, then settle for something.

This makes little sense.
Every judge has ruled in favor of the 41. Extell is just exercising their legal right to appeal. And continuing the appeal process has no correlation with succesful outcome, if anything the inverse.

Assuming the 41 thought their case weak and that Extell had no recourse against personal assets and only the deposit then settlement would mean the new underwaterpurchase price was less than the loss of deposit.

It sounds like Extell has not perfected their case, but hopes a judge will open a grand new trial to permit "discovery" via new depositions. This is not likely. Extell needs to prove that the prior judges erred under the facts presented or conducted an improper trial. They're doing this as an article 78(Mandamus-see below), there's a really high bar here. Theyre arguing that the Attorney General wasn't doing his job.

Mandamus is a judicial remedy which is in the form of an order from a superior court to any government subordinate court, corporation or public authority to do or forbear from doing some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do or refrain from doing, as the case may be, and which is in the nature of public duty and in certain cases of a statutory duty.[2] It cannot be issued to compel an authority to do something against statutory provision.

riversider, you da man or maybe, you da wo-man

lol!
BDS, Not that it matters, but the former.

I recall Extell saying months ago, after the AG ruling, that it would file an article 78. Where do the plaintiffs lawyers' fee come from? Are they contingent on the $16 million, as a fixed percentage, then Barnett is really costing them as well, because the fee presumably would be the same percentage no matter how long or short this takes to resolve (unless loosely defined "expenses" are tacked on as extras). If they get paid hourly, then the plaintiffs' money (the $16 million) is being eaten away by all the legal work. Does anyone know if any, and if so, how many, of the original group has settled one way or another?

You have to figure some of the 41 deposits are from LLCs. The lack of progress will cause some of the LLCs to break from the pack. Too many variables for the 41 to stick together. You can already see their anger in some of the comments.

Eric Schneiderman, new AG...didn't he get large campaign money from Barnett?

ALBANY - Attorney general hopeful Eric Schneiderman took $10,000 in donations from a city condo developer who unsuccessfully sued the AG's office this year.

Gary Barnett, president of Extell Development Co., made the donation to Schneiderman in the last days of the bitter five-way Democratic primary battle for attorney general, records show. The primary is tomorrow.

Extell Development filed a federal lawsuit in May claiming that current Attorney General Andrew Cuomo unconstitutionally ordered a $16 million refund to 41 condo owners at the 41story Rushmore building on the West Side. The AG's office has the power to settle payment disputes between developers and condo owners.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/09/13/2010-09-13_schneiderman_donations.html#ixzz14Dq1vbNx

10k doesnt seem like alot for trying to avoid bankruptcy

Latest baby step in the legal process. From their comments welcoming the ruling, it's clear that the buyers' lawyers feel good about their case (duh!).
http://therealdeal.com/newyork/articles/judge-rules-against-former-ag-at-extell-s-rushmore-at-80-riverside-boulevard

Did anyone notice that Extell apparently refinanced the loan on Rushmore, cross-collateralizing it with what appeared to be Aldyn

Interstingly enough Aldyn was just approved today...

http://www.auto-mobi.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=110200&Itemid=56

http://www.observer.com/2011/real-estate/barnett-beats-back-cuomo-rushmore-typo-case

Score another win for Big, Bad Gary Barnett.

A State Supreme Court judge ruled yesterday that former Attorney General Andrew Cuomo erred in pursuing a case against Barnett's Extell Development in federal court when it was clearly a state matter, according to The Real Deal. Buyers want out of their contracts at The Rushmore, one of Barnett's Riverside South developments, but Barnett charges that this was simply a clerical error and no one gets out.

The case, which will now be decided by another court, is now under the purview of incoming Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who is preparing for the latest court fight, along with the attorneys from the other side:

If the price be right would you buy a condo there or the Aldyn ?????? The views are magnificent.

I see A-Rod's rent vs. buy calculator spit out a buy recommendation for the Rushmore. Seems he was put off by all the riff raff poking around in his panty collection over at 15 CPW. Could this mean he has finally jumped the shark?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704546704576150831679103772.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Extell's Barnett calls him "a savvy buyer..."

A-Rod jumped the shark years ago. signed sort-of-bitter seattle mariners fan.

i think of a-rod and tiger kind of in the same league. if not the same sport. both are tacky.

Sounds like a cheap attempt to get people to buy at Rushmore in the hopes of rubbing elbows with a celbrity. If it were true, I doubt the developer would leak it to the press. It's all in very poor taste and does not encourage future sales from other famous people.

Post article said he was looking for privacy, which he'll get since the building is still half empty.

On a side note. ACRIS continues to show a steady stream of closings. Looks like this building will sell out. The predictions of financial collapse turned out to be dead wrong. The only negative for Exell is it is taking them longer to get their money, and the ROI for putting up this building will be less than they would've liked. Discounts are not @ 30% of list anymore. The Corcoran salesperson must have gotten thtat in exchange for commission owed.

Yeah. Hate to say it to the Debbie Downers, but this thread needs a new name.

RS is a fan of extend and pretend. at about 4 closings a month and 120 units remaining it will only take them another 30 months to finish closings.

Extell extended. Their mortgage has been refinanced. They've bought themselves that time. The lenders clearly believe Rushmore is "money good" and that extending was better than foreclosing. From the ACRIS it looks like Hypo was paid off and the new lender cross-collateralized the loan with the now newer building Extell just put up.

>RS is a fan of extend and pretend. at about 4 closings a month and 120 units remaining it will only take them another 30 months to finish closings.

Why can't the developers be patient?

http://therealdeal.com/newyork/articles/extell-development-and-carlyle-realty-partners-admit-it-can-t-prove-typographical-error-claims-at-rushmore-at-80-riverside-boulevard

It is confusing. It looks like Extell has to lose, and that the money will be returned but at the latest possible time.
On a separate note. I received two brochures in the mail advertising Aldyn. Why would someone do business with a firm like this?

From what my broker tells me they are not making any deals, they want to get almost full price offers. I didn't bother showing a bid, and I was only thinking if 12-15% off and I was strongly discourged by my broker after she spoke with them about price flexability.

Extell gets weekly reports from it's sales staff @ Corcoran. They've seen sales pick up a bit. If what you are saying is true, they won't begin discounting again, if ever as long as they maintain the current sales volume. The larger picture also points to an up-tick in transactions.

It sounds like they'd rather take their time and get a good price, instead of throwing a fire-sale. Anyone who wants a lower price will be steered toward their Aldyn product.

Hey cream cheese? How's the manhattan to Orlando rent arbitrage going? Flmaoz.

As to extell, yes the moron who Don't know which year it is is gonna set the high end mkt!!!!!!! FLMAOzzzzz

Shame on the New York Times for saying NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING, about the 41 buyers who are still waiting for the refunding of their deposits after almost 2 years. The Times screams for Extell A-Rod's and Pinchas Zuckerman's purchase of their gigantic apts...if we only knew the purchase price!!!!. And yet nothing is said about the plight of these 41 buyers. Also, all those full page and 1/4 page ads for the Rushmore is wonderful revenue for this paper! Surely one should not have anything to do with the other, if we were to believe the integrity of a highly respected newspaper, right? Think AGAIN.

>Hey cream cheese? How's the manhattan to Orlando rent arbitrage going? Flmaoz.

Manhattan to Orlando rent arb. That's actually worse than the Manhattan to Wayne, NJ comparison someone was making.

Bds, You're expecting too much from the Real Estate section. The stories are obviously p.r. pieces.
On another note, how does an owner feel about sharing amenities with a rental building? Extell will clearly be talking about the very impressive pool,rock climing and bowling alley and leaving out that their big motivation here was putting a building for less money.

Bds: It is unconscionable that the NY Times -- our local newspaper-- does not cover Extell's manipulation of the justice system at the expense of NY's consumers and citizens. But it is not the RE section, which is really just an advertising ploy, that should be covering it. Bill Keller, the editor should send a reporter to get to the bottom of this story. It is outrageous. It is more likely that the NY OBserver would cover it because they don't get the enormous ad revenue from Extell that NY Times gets. Looks like the press can be bought. Complain to Keller.

There's really nothing new to report. There was a fair degree of coverage when the story first hit. No paper that hopes to sell ads would continue to repeat the same facts over and over again. At this point there's no interest except for the small audience affected and a few real estate junkies. Expect one last burried article when the final result occurs, but don't expect front page.

Outrageous! Unconscionable!

Give us a break.

This looks like the first resale at the Rushmore. I was looking for the disaster part, but I can't seem to find it, so maybe this is the wrong thread for this post.

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/502619-condo-80-riverside-boulevard-lincoln-square-new-york
11/30/2009 Previous Sale recorded for $999,921.
03/15/2010 Listed by Prudential Elliman at $1,299,000.
06/28/2010 Listing is no longer available.
10/15/2010 Re-listed by Prudential Elliman.
12/13/2010 Listing entered contract.
03/07/2011 Listing sold.
03/07/2011 Sale recorded for $1,200,000.

I find it interesting that the seller bought when this building was the poster child for bubblemania and unscrupulous developers, and he didn't even hold on to it for 20 years like he was supposed to.

Meanwhile, in other Disaster-at-the-Rushmore news, there were four closings in February on large mid- and high floor layouts (2,500 - 3,600 sf) at prices ranging from $1,534 to $1,955 psf (avg. $1,720 psf). Total sales proceeds $21.9mm.

how do you define "disaster"?

sj - go back to the first post of this thread for the definition as originally proposed (not by me). Then reread my post while keeping an eye out for the sarcasm...

Does $1,500/ft mean disaster? OK, slow sales, ugly lawsuit, closing prices much lower than boom-boom asking prices (with some special deals cut, probably for prestigeous VIPs like Alex)...but disaster? Given the predictions of bankruptcy of just a few months ago, what happened? Developer seems to prefer a slow dime to a fast nickel. Building is being maintained, people moving in, albeit gradually. With about 180+ closed and more in the pipeline, the real blemish is the on-going lawsuit, which, given the way the rulings have come down so far, Extell seems destined to lose. Of course early buyers won't get their money out for many, many years but if it's your primary residence that may not be as much a consideration. Could it all still fall apart? Sure. Is it likely to? hmmm.

What mlwest said...

Where is apt23 feigning her outrage again?

She never returned to the thread about "$500psf through the backdoor" that she started and caused universal laughter at her expense: http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/25684-w-67s-prediction-come-to-pass-thru-the-backdoor

"Where is apt23 feigning her outrage again?"

hb - as batsh*t crazy as this may sound, I don't think she's feigning. apt23 takes herself far too seriously to feign. She believes (contrary to the evidence, mind you, but let's not let facts get in the way of a good prejudice) that neither the press nor the blogosphere is doing its job in covering the predations of the Extell evil doers, so the heavy burden of rescuing engangered real estate buyers from Extell falls solely to her.

Selfless and heroic, when you stop to think about it. WAATAIT (that's 'wiping away a tear as I type')

Extell is not ecstatic. But they are breathing a huge sigh of relief. And with all the turmoil in the world and considering Extell's marketing..they might be in for a uptick of foreign buyers.

"Extell evil doers"

sidelinesitter, you think that apt23 is the George W. Bush of streeteasy?

Disaster or not...I would like to point out one thing. There are no other buildings out there right now with the kind of value for money you get at the Rushmore right now. Tell me one other building you get a 3600 sqft full floor with those amenities for under 6 mill? I agree the lawsuit will be ugly for Extell, but I think the units eventually will sell, because the product is pretty good. As you probably understand I bought a unit at the Rushmore, and the crazy thing is that we already have had offers to sell at a far higher price than we paid.

Last building with a tax abatement in the area too.

Those are over now, right?

Why would anyone offer to buy your unit for far higher than you paid, when the building still has so many units left to sell? I don't believe you.

How can any sane person put money into escrow with Extell's attorney's? Even under order from the AG and a Federal Court they did not return the deposits.

Believe it or not, But all units of the type we bought are sold. Guess our timing was good, so we got a great deal. The offer was genuine. We are settled in and love the building, so wont be selling any time soon, but at least good to know it´s worth what we paid...

Which type of unit did you buy?

Perfectly Conceived. Impeccably Delivered.

"Building Wealth Through Renting
By DAVID LEONHARDT

I replied:

Yes, building equity is a good thing. But the advantages of it are exaggerated.

For one thing, how do you know you’ll be building equity, as opposed to making an investment that will lose money? People who bought in Florida, Las Vegas, Phoenix and much of inland California in 2006 thought they would be building equity. I interviewed some of them. But they did not. In many cases, they lost all of their equity. There is definitely some downside risk in the New York market today.

Second, by buying a house, you’re making a decision to tie up your capital in a specific sector — real estate. It’s entirely possible that the money you spent on a down payment would have earned more money in the stock market, for instance.

Finally, buying also involves throwing thousands of dollars down a hole: in mortgage fees and interest, in property taxes, in repairs and renovations, in tens of thousands of dollars of closing costs. Renting doesn’t involve the huge up-front costs that buying does. Owning also involves some continuing costs (e.g. repairs) that renting does not.

Living somewhere is always going to involve costs, just as education, health care and food involve costs. Financially, the decision to buy is basically a decision that your investment will increase in value by an amount sufficient to make up for all the additional costs of buying. (Put it this way: you’d never buy an apartment if you were staying in a city for just a week, in an effort to build equity. You’d rent — a hotel room.)

Sometimes — often — the decision to buy works out. But it does not work out far more often than is commonly understood."

rushmoreresident -- Did you make improvements to your unit? Just curious. Assume you like it and are not planning to sell. As I said about 3 months ago, if you look at it as a primary residence and not a real estate investment, then the fact that (most) early buyers are not going to get their money out any time soon is not that critical. As of this writing, Streeteasy has almost 200 closings. Not the disaster that the title of this discussion implies.

Well obviously Rushmore was not a disaster.
How do people like living there. Is it well run. I hear it's managed by Penmark not a name typically associated with top tier buildings.. Are they doing a good job?

Yeah, it's every developer's wet dream. They've been flogging these units for 4.5 years now and still have 30% or so to go. They should be finished by 2013 at this pace. Just what everyone had in mind when they broke ground in 2006.

RS, don't have have any money sitting around? Why don't you go buy one as an investment?

Here's a nice one. Asking $1.1M, I bet you could lowball them for $1M.

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/594384-condo-80-riverside-boulevard-lincoln-square-new-york

Then I bet you'll have no problem renting it out at $3200 for an awesome 3.8% gross yield. Never mind the fact that they've had no luck at that price for 3 months now, I'm sure it's just bad luck:

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/rental/751662-condo-80-riverside-boulevard-lincoln-square-new-york