Wednesday AM Linkage: Stuy Town Sale Edition

1.

That's a great picture! It makes Stuy Town look like a labyrinth.

2.

You thought you were special, huh Stuy Town residents? Because you were part of the "middle class"? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I hope the new owners maximize their profit, kick out the illegal subletters, provide services ONLY to those who will pay for it, and otherwise make it hard for those LOSERS who are living there on the backs of the market rate tenants.

Welcome to the 21st century.

3.

"let market forces play out" (eeeerrr, except when it means providing corporate welfare to Goldman Sachs if they threaten to leave Manhattan, and except for the corporate welfare we dish to the Yankees or Mets, etc.).

"Mayor Giuliani has also provided deals -- including sales-tax exemptions, property-tax abatements and discounted electricity prices -- for media corporations. The beneficiaries include ABC, NBC, Ziff-Davis, McGraw-Hill, Reuters, Condé Nast, Time Warner and Rupert Murdoch's News America. (The New York Times received tax breaks, for a printing plant in Queens, during the Dinkins administration.) The Mayor gave CBS $10 million in tax breaks and subsidies even though it had already committed to stay in the city through 2008".

The Rent Stab person is the easy target, identifiable, connectable. However those that criticize Rent Stab are SILENT on corporate welfare.

We exempt Corporations from "market forces" all the time (and they often don't live up to their promises, lay off by the hundreds, etc.).

4.

Entitlement Generation - your days are numbered!

The rest of NYC's hard working, market rate paying residents are saying "It's about time! The free lunch I'm paying for you is over!"

If Manhattan is too expansive, look elsewhere. If we were all selfish as these rent control & rent stabilization socialist are, everybody in the tri-state area would be living in Manhattan. There would be no Bronx, no Brooklyn, no Queens, etc., etc.

5.

Agreed #4.

After all, it's their "God given right to live in Mahattan!"

Shakes head, rolls eyes.

6.

stop scapegoating the rent stabilized people - aside from the ridiculously overpaid wall streeters, what about all of you people who pay 50% of your salary to live in a $3000/month studio or 1BR apartment? that is ludicrous ... if you didnt agree to pay that rent, the landlord couldnt charge it. who says you are any more entitled to live in manhattan than someone who was lucky enough to land a rent stabilized lease?

7.

...smoke much dope?

8.

I just about spat out my coffee when I read in one of those articles that the $4.5b tenant's bid included a $480 MILLION grant from the city. Those greedy StuyCoop a$$holes are so selfish that they were demanding gazillions in additional subsidies just to continue their privileged ways of life at the expense of the rest of us. I applaud Bloomie for taking a stand against these pigs and for his common sense. Indeed, $480 million could be used to build a TON of NEW affordable housing ELSEWHERE in the city for the middle class, albeit, not the same "middle class" rentocracy that lives in StuyCoop.

It really is no wonder why the StuyCoop rentocrats are quaking in their Prada boots over this sale. There's going to be an exhaustive, massive crackdown. And all of those blue hair snow birds with their Florida palaces will be thrown out. Tax returns will be scrutinized closely. Investment bankers and lawyers will be tossed out. DINKs will be tossed out. Nieces and nephews will be subject to tests of residency. I think this should easily clear out 35% of these scumbags, which translates into 2500 additional market rate units. Combined with the 1600 units exiting stabilization through attrition, the squeeze on market rate housing should be vastly improved. This is a good thing for ALL New Yorkers.

And regarding the concessions to big business, I believe the city is doing whatever it takes to attract/retain business in the city. After all, with no business, you have no jobs and no economy. And heaven knows there are certainly less expensive, less tax burdened areas of the world to conduct business.

9.

Retired couple living in a 3br apartment paying $1500 per month. That's logical...

10.

I don't live in Manhattan because it's too expansive for me. I get it. Just like I get the fact I can't afford Beverly Hills, Chelsea in London, Monaco, and other really nice and expensive locations.

Therefore, I live within my means. I live in Brooklyn and pay $1,500 for a 1BR. AND, my building is an excellent brownstone, NOT some BRUTALISTIC architecture crap blighting the city landscape.

11.

um, what does dope have to do with it?

12.

I hope they hire an arsonist to burn the entire complex to the ground. That is the most hideous part of NYC (meaning Manhattan) north of Canal and south of 96th.

13.

"And regarding the concessions to big business, I believe the city is doing whatever it takes to attract/retain business in the city. After all, with no business, you have no jobs and no economy."

Bullshit.

What corporate welfare has meant is executive pay that has gone through the roof. It has been proven countless times that corporate welfare has NOT created more jobs or kept jobs in any location.

Keep buying into the propaganda.

14.

Hey Ed, did you jizz your pants when you finished typing that post?

15.

Continued from #10.

Yes, I live with my significant other in order to pay the rent. So, my share is $750 in rent per month. Certainly very doable by the majority of working NYC residents.

16.

Rent Stabilized tenants are 100% protected not only by rent regulations but by the NYC courts. There are VERY few circumstances under which a rent stabilized tenant could be made to vacate their apartment against their will. I've had tenants $6000 in arrears that I couldn't evict. The bottom line is that if a RS tenant at Stuyvesant Town/Peter Cooper Village wishes to stay, there's almost nothing that Tishman is going to be able to do to change that. So why all the fuss about this being the end of affordable housing in NYC, or the deathnell of rent stabilization? The amount of attention that this sale has been getting reflects many people's lack of understanding of the rent regulations and real estate management in New York City.

17.

Over here at DCP we were hoping to bulldoze the whole project in favor of an ikea, best buy, and an arby's, along with one and two story detached housing. We've also considered requiring hicks from ohio who are vacationing and working in the city here for a period of two years or more to actually register their cars with the state of NY. This process will of course be tax deductable.

18.

No. 3, I don't think you understand what "corporate welfare" or "market forces" mean. If a government offers a business an incentive to locate (or remain) in a certain place and the business accepts, that IS the operation of market forces. It's no different than your landlord offering you an incentive to sign a new lease. Just because the governemnt chooses to participate in the market, it doesn't mean that market forces aren't at work. Nobody forces the governemnt to make the offer, and nobody forces the business to accept. That's what a free-market means. You may disagree with the governemnt over the wisdom of such incentives, but your argument has nothing to do with market forces.

Rent control is something different. There, the government mandates that a certain price be charged, and if a tenant is already in place, the landlord doesn't even have the option of not renting at all. This distorts the market, depressing the quality of available apartments and rising market prices for those not lucky enough to be in regulated apartments.

Also, it's notable that your examples of supposed "corporate welfare" come from the Giuliani administration. You can accuse Mayor Bloomberg of many things, but he has been notably less friendly to the kind of incentives you write about than his predecessor. Indeed, only two days ago I heard him argue (correctly, in my view) that the City should stop granting tax abatements to developpers to build condos in desirable neighborhoods. Peolpe buying multi-million dollar condos don't need real estate tax breaks, and developpers are falling all over themselves to build such properties.

19.

they will not be able to end rent stabilized living in my lifetime. i agree if you cannot afford to live in manhattan, live somewhere else

if you pay more than 30%-40% of your net salary towards your rent you are living above your means

hey you can always charge those $300 jeans

some people are really clueless

20.

As a Mitchell-Lama resident in Manhattan, I may be biased. But I know what it took for many of these people to get a Stuy Town/Peter Cooper in the first place. They were smart enough to apply for an apartment, waited a few years (the ideal and honest way, not through bribes or connections) and got a place. If anything that is the "paying dues" to live in a particular area.
Maybe that is being selfish, but seriously most of us would do the same thing if we could. The "system" may not be entirely fair but we do whatever it takes to get what we want or need.

21.

you guys have convinced me. if you don't make more than $200,000 a year you have no business living in manhattan. escalating real estate prices are a boon for every new yorker (because everybody expects to make it big time some day right?).

may cockroaches crawl in your mouth while you sleep

22.

So many sour grapes around here. Everyone should take what they get and like it instead of acting like fucking victims. Babies.

23.

can someone please find out what councilman Garodnick is paying in terms of rent over there....this guy is trying to save his own love nest and make everyone think he's fighting for the greater good of the people....really hope he is fair market, but its doubtful, politicians know how to scam a good rental better than anyone...Tishman might give him a free apartment to shut the hell up.

24.

This topic can release a whole can of fucking worms, but this story has a couple of major points. The first being the converting of Manhattan into a "luxury island"--meaning if all low-to-middle class people can no longer afford Manhattan, Manhattan cannot operate as a melting pot, world-class, be-all-end-all city of cities. An island full of multi-million dollar condos and $10,000 per month rents makes an island full of ?? On the other hand, the people living in Stuyvesant for years are rent-stabilized tenants, and lower-to-middle class people have to live in Manhattan to really make Manhattan the place it is.

25.

Manhattan is not the be all, end all for all NYC residents. Yes, there is land and life outside the borough of Manhattan.

Stats from 2000 Census. (approximate figures)
Manhattan: 1.55 Million
Brooklyn: 2.47 Million
Queens: 2.31 Million
Bronx: 1.34 Million
Staten Is: .44 Million

Brooklyn has the most people right now but will be overtaken by Queens in the next few years.

Not everybody wants to or are liveing in Manhattan in the City of New York.

26.

haha: yes, happy ending for me!

jmr: yes, corporate pay is at an all-time high. But guess what? These schmucks have to pay income tax. Tis better to pay those taxes to NYC than some hickified red state, no? And in the electronic age, companies can pretty much set up shop anywhere. The idea that corporations must be located in NYC, or any inner city for that matter, is not the rule anymore. NY State in particular has the worst tax burden in the entire country in addition to the highest costs of living. Why would anyone relocate their companies here?

27.

#26, I nominate Pierre, South Dakota as the new nyc! Wait, why not Erie, PA, or Pigeon Forge, TN!?
Those work.

28.

Do you think that once the condoization of Stuy Town is complete, that the huge bump in inventory will push down prices all over the city, and especially in nearby areas?

Comments? I'm counting on you people.

29.

I would not rent or buy in that junk of an area. Those buildings are very depressing; it's like a giant black cloud permanently over-hanging that part of the city.

Parcel the land up and sell it off to different folks. Then maybe well see another vibrant neighborhood similar or even better than the one that was torn down in a torched earth way to build these monstrosities.

30.

As a lawyer making a six income income, I enjoyed having a one bedroom at Stuy Town at rent stabilized rates. Since the rent was below $2 K, it was perfectly legal. It didn't make any sense to me. If the government really views rent stabilization as a good thing, they should not put the burden on landlords to subsidize tennants, but should pay the landlords the difference from market rates out of tax dollars. Having the entire city bear the costs of rent stabilization rather than simply the landlordsd would really put a test to those who believe that rent stabilization is a good thing. I think we would pretty quickly have a rationalization of the system to something that protects those who need protecting and does not give a free handout to those who don't need it (or who decide that they do not have to work because they pay virtually nothing in rent).

31.

mortonstreeter...you're a moron.

32.

actually, anonymous, im not. im well educated and well paid. the rent-stabilization argument is tired. the market has softened. given a downturn in the financial sector, or entertainment industry, or any other over-inflated sector, real estate in the city (or at least the "peripheral areas" that have only recently become habitable by the moneyed) will come back to reality. as it is, rent-stabilized units continue to come back onto the market at a higher pace each year. what will you whiners say in 10 years when those units are only 25% of the market and you still cant afford what you feel youre entitled to?

33.

mortonstreeter...yeah, you are.

You're obviously not educated enough to admit when you're wrong.

34.

I might not agree with the number and frequency of personal attacks issued in this forum's flame wars, ad hominems, and so forth but, if one must build "affordable housing", why does it "have to" be a brutalistic design sucking the life of its neighbors?

Save $200 million on an ugly building today, but lose $200 million plus tomorrow in devalued home prices, lack of curb fronting stores, commerce, and so on. Cheap housing blocks need to be razed.

35.

prove me wrong big talker.