Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village Complexes are in Foreclosure Trouble

Because they sold STPCV in large part because they needed the money for their acquisition
of Travellers Insurance
Plus Metlife probably haven't stopped laughing at how they snookered Jerry and The Boy Wonder

Because as a public company they have to make the most money for their shareholders and a housing development isn't sufficiently lucrative and doesn't fit with their core businesses.

I don't know why they wouldn't consider bidding along with any other institution. If their IRR targets can be met, I think you could expect them to bid along with everyone else.

Why would being a public company make them less interested? If the opportunity is there, I would expect to see them at the table. And, if it isn't, I would expect the table to be fairly empty.

Implicit in GG's answer is the notion that public companies need higher return projects than private investors. The reality is probably just the opposite. Public companies may be more focused on stable returns but private investors are more likely to take on higher risk to reap a larger reward. Those are the people I would probably be most suspicious of....

Of course, we are all laughing at the wee Speyer now, aren't we...

You know, if his dad didn't bitch slap him in October his mother should have.

If neither did, perhaps we should start a sign up list for people who would volunteer to do it for them. They're fancy folks, after all...can't be expected to do their own bitch slappin'!

I agree wholeheartedly. I have never heard anyone else speak the same words but I ALWAYS assumed that that was their plan.

There was no way that the property, as configured, would be worth what they paid. The only way they could turn a profit would be to raze the whole complex and put up some monstrous 60 story development.

Too bad for them they only gave themselves three years of leeway to get the whole dirty deal done. As a result, you and I are sitting on our respective couches laughing at their hubris and ignorance!

Let us keep in mind that the next owner may have the same dirty intentions.

"I have never heard anyone else speak the same words but I ALWAYS assumed that that was their plan." Actually, I said the same thing a very long time ago under another name on the old TA chat board. There was some discussion of the topic back then. It's not easy to assemble 80 acres in Manhattan.

As for my comments regarding MetLife as a public company: when they were a private company and profitable, they could choose to make less money on a pet project. Once MetLife went public, they became responsible to their shareholders and had to maximize profit. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure about the time they went public is when they started outsourcing maintenance and security--and the place has never been the same. It's not unusual for large companies and conglomerates to divest themselves of less profitable components that don't fit with the rest of the operation. I don't see any reason why MetLife would want to get back into the housing business. If you go to their Web site, you'll see that they're in the insurance and financial services business exclusively.

Without a doubt.

No offense but I have never seen the TA chat board. Not trying to steal your thunder but I'm not familiar with your previous writings, GG.

As for your second comment, a hedge fund or private investment company is probably going to be more aggressive than a company like MET. They will all try to squeeze the life out their host-tenants but the private equity firms will actually be looking for a higher ROI.

The best case scenario for all of us is probably one where the high bid looks unappealing to all but the tenants--as long as it is not too, too high...

I remember when Canal St. was a great place to shop for all kinds of unusual items. Military surplus, Canal Jeans, and all kinds of plexiglas items.

Now...

As you say, knock off purses and phony perfume. Throw in a hot car stereo and there you have it.

Another loss for the city.

You haven't been there recently. Bloomberg went in and had the Buildings Department shut down about 40% of the counterfeiting operations. The whole south side of the street west of Broadway is shut down. Annexed to Tribeca, and the $10 million condos are going up.

Shame about the Lighting district, and I'm sure the Restaurant supply businesses will be gone in short order. The Bowery needs more bars you know... flophouses will follow.

Actually Lifer, I am laughing with tears in my eyes at the hubris of Tishman Speyer because I don't think they really have been hurt much by all this and I don't think they care. They only lost a few million dollars (beer money to them) and maybe a little face, but in their world, the world of greed and avarice, they are probably admired by their peers for their hubris. You have to drive a wooden stake through the hearts of the Jerrys and Robbies of this world in order to get rid of them and that's only in our dreams. Satan looks after his own, so they'll be alright. At least in this life.

Damn Bloomberg and the character he has destroyed in this city. Bastard little POS. His mother should have held him in.

Hey, the whole City is becoming a strip mall populated by Starbucks, McDonalds and Potter Barn....

Little know fact about me: I worked the floor at the Crazy Eddie store on 59th & Third in the mid 80's. Once you've done that, you can do anything.

You are right. I have not been by there in almost two years. Used to pass by every day.

oh..., see if you had said the mid'70's than I would have been impressed. What a bunch of gonifs those guys were. It was like a sport, shopping there. If you managed to get out of the store with your wallet still in your pants pocket... you won !

What a goof it was trying to buy a stereo there. The price went up and down faster than a yo-yo in the course of 5 minutes. (ah... good times)

LOL !

Canal St was preceded by Cortlandt St, and then they knocked all of it down to build the Trade Center. When it fell, it was "like deja vu all over again" for me.

It was bad enuf in the 80's. 12 hour days on your feet. Fighting off the shoplifters and haggling with the customers! Ahh...

Every item was coded so you knew how low you could cut the price for a customer that was going to walk. You had to push the extended warranties if you wanted to make any money.

So what did I do? I bought my car stereo there and got the extended warranty! Go figure...

Met Eddie himself. He was a f-cking character! A drunk and a crook. No big revelation there. It's all been documented now. Still, quite the NY experience.

Sure. The original Job Lot Pushcart was there on Church St. That's long gone now.

Unfortunately, a dozen of my colleagues are also gone, too. They went with the Trade Center.

We all lost friends there. I'm sorry for your loss, a very sad chapter in the lives of us NY'ers.

So I can't blame Bloomberg for that, but I certainly bemoan the loss of all the specialty and niche shopping areas that have been lost due to the mallification of NYC. As neighbohoods got spruced up, rents just drove out those businesses that always existed on the fringes. Granted, some of the material can be found on the net, but the pleasure of the shopping experience has been lost. That Church St neighborhood was home to a couple of dozen great bargain haunts along Warren, Chambers, Duane, Reade, Church that are now all gone. Now, Job-Lot & Odd Job are gone Webers is a shadow of it's former self, forced out by skyrocketing rents. So too, the Flower District and now all the Bowery lighting and restaurant businesses are threatened.

The problem is that there aren't suitable low rent quasi industrial districts for these businesses to move to. So all we're left with is gentrified blah. SoHo is charming, but I really don't need to go to the Louis Vuitton store all that often.

I really, really miss the NY I grew up in, warts and all.

So the office is renting apartments to new tenants these days. Are all of these within the prices that the J51 ruling allows? and are these also stabilized rents for the time being?

they seem high priced still! $2700 and + for one bedrooms. ???

Homebody said: "I believe that Tishman Speyer's real business plan was one they didn't dare speak out loud: they planned to eventually bulldoze the buildings and build anew on the site. The 80 acres of land under these crappy buildings is worth a hell of a lot more if it's rid of said crappy buildings."

Lifer said: "I agree wholeheartedly. I have never heard anyone else speak the same words but I ALWAYS assumed that that was their plan."

I doubt very much that was TS' plan because I think it would be nearly impossible to carry out under present laws.

IMO, the more likely TS plan was:

1. Illegally boot out Rent Stabilized tenants so that their apartments could be rented out at market rates.

2. Use the unused "as of right" development rights of ST-PCV (I don't recall the number, but it's a lot of buildable square feet), and build luxury condos. The most likely areas for where they would build those condos were the areas above the present garages. There are also similar unused airspace areas in the complex.

3. Ultimately, convert the complex to co-ops.

Maybe you're right, but remember that anything is possible for Lord Mayor (for life) Bloomberg's pals if they really want it.

Great link--thanks.

I wish the TA would focus its energies on fighting for the renewal of the rent stabilization laws instead of the "bid to buy." Some of us don't have the slightest interest in buying.

One of the residents was sending around an email for any one int'd in buyingl. But you have to ask to be emailed i think.

I believe the guy who was written up in T&V , Michael Alcamo , is doing that.
As for TA petition, I am a building captain and have received nothing.
I urge everyone to attend the TA meeting on March 13 (particularly if, like me, you would like the option of buying your home). Remember if you don't buy you will remain a rent stabilized tenant (assuming Tom Duane and the rest of the esteemed State Senate extend RS). So a noneviction coop/condo plan harms not a single tenant but gives any tenant who wants to own their home and build equity the option to do so.

Both are very active, very good tenants rights groups. Here's more about them.

About Tenants & Neighbors:

Tenants & Neighbors is a dynamic grassroots organization that harnesses tenant power to preserve at-risk affordable housing in neighborhoods throughout New York State, and to strengthen tenants' rights at the local, state, and national level.

Through tenant organizing, education, leadership development, and grassroots mobilization, Tenants & Neighbors is building a strong and unified tenant movement that has the knowledge and power to effect real change.

TenantsPAC's mission:

The only way that tenants can counter the enormous power of real estate money is to get involved in election activity. Politicians must learn to respect the power of tenants.

Tenants PAC raises funds from tenants and recruits tenants as volunteers in targeted elections. We are an all-volunteer organization, so all contributions are used only for our modest costs of operation and to support our targeted candidates. Tenants PAC targets races where the tenant vote can make a difference, and works to activate that vote in support of pro-tenant candidates.

Is that what the pledge is -that we won't buy our apartments???
I hope you are wrong because that is absurd!

First things first, Homebody.

It's probably a good bet that the reason for the TA's massive building by building organizing effort is not specific to a bid to buy ST-PCV. Tenant activists like Michael McKee (he's the treasurer of TenantsPac and I believe one of the founders of Tenants & Neighbors BTW) and others are surely gonna be counting on big numbers of ST-PCV residents to help push for rent-reg renewal.

McKee is a regular at TA meetings. He'll probably be there on March 13.

I don't know what it is, but that's what it's called. I can't remember what the last pledge said. My point is that regardless of what the pledge says, large numbers of tenants signing it will show a unified front. Dan mentioned at the building captains meeting that the volume of signed pledges the last time made clear to prospective buyers that the tenants were organized and prepared to fight. Maybe that didn't work out so well for us ultimately, but if we're not united, we run the risk of being bulldozed.

I have seen it. That's not what the pledge is about. It's on the way.

In the meantime, can people just take deep breaths...and quit spreading rumors. There will be a meeting in a little over a week.

And the Alcamo thing is just ridiculous. Not sure how or why he or anybody else can throw numbers around when the place hasn't been officially appraised yet.

No-Buy Pledges can take different forms. But it's never an absolute pledge not to buy under any circumstances. Found this good NY Times article from 1982 when there were lots of coop conversions going on:

http://www.nytimes.com/1982/07/11/realestate/talking-no-buys-pledges-are-key-tool-in-co-op-deals.html?&pagewanted=2

Nope. Just Crazy Eddie.

As for the warranty, I often was able to cut the price of the product enough so that the extended warranty was 'free' to the buyer. I got the commission. They didn't pay anything extra and the got the warranty.

Last word on this topic: I actually USED the extended warranty on the stereo I bought from them so it turned out to be worthwhile. It'll never happen again...

I was just thinking about it as I walked through midtown today. All of these hyperactive aggressive taxi drivers laying on their horns trying to encourage the car in front of them to run over the people in the intersection so they can get to the red light first...

I remember that it was weeks after 9/11 before you hear a horn honk in the City. It was strange, disturbing and I'd like to get that back again.

Honestly, I don't think they had much of any plan. It might as well have been to build the 60 story skyscraper on the water because they didn't even come CLOSE to their first, most obvious plan--to convert apartments to market rate.

Roberts didn't do them in, the economy didn't do them in--simple math did them in. Nobody bothered to figure out how difficult it would be to eject all of the legitimate tenants they would have to extract to make 'stage 1' a success. Maybe they really didn't even care.

I don't think that was the problem, though. I think they just paid no attention to the laws of 'residential physics.'

When the Main floor apartment in PCV was vacant and being renovated, they chopped off the room closest to the mailboxes and sealed it off from the apartment and installed a door to the lobby.

They had planned on putting in doormen or concierges. Oval or otherwise...

RR
I agree that Alcamo's numbers are not right.
However, I do not want the 7 or 8 members of the TA Board deciding what plan should be proposed. Few ,if any, of them have any real estate background.
A committee of tenants including real estate professionals, people who can do reasonable projections and lawyers must be formed to do this work and a number of tenants will be requesting just that at the meeting.
This can be done under the auspices of the TA but must be done by professionals among our tenants. The secrecy of the TA Board cannot continue.

Please be patient, Boo, this is an enormous undertaking organizing all 110 buildings. I went to a meeting on Mon nite hosted by our zone captain. Volunteers will be, if they aren't already, entering and organizing building leader/floor leader data. Complex leaders will be able to directly communicate with each building leader through his/her zone leader. You will be able to communicate back directly via your zone leader. If you think the site sucks, you can say so directly. Or even more directly at the meeting on the 13th. This is a 100% volunteer effort from the top down and we're all doing the best we can, and on our own time...

Agreed.

I believe that you recently pointed out that their bylaws require election of members and that that requirement has been 'neglected' of late.

Didn't someone here also mention that the pledge card grants them the exclusive right to negotiate on our behalf? My question is: what is choice 'B?' This is a lot of power to grant to what seems like a loosely regulated organization.

I don't necessarily question their intent but I do question their ability & professionalism.

ziggy

If you start up again I'm gonna track you down and kick your cranky old man ass! Dan and the TA board know they aren't experts, but will have them, so will you PLEASE hold off until we know more at the meeting on the 13th?

And who at this point knows what plans will be presented or how they will be decided upon, but I believe they've made their intentions perfectly clear.

Another one. What exactly are you doing to help the process along? Are you a building leadere, a floor leader, any kind of volunteer or do you just enjoy posing as a middle aged world weary cynic who gets to judge other people's ability and professionalism on comments boards?

These guys are working overtime and against the clock (because you know it's ticking) to organize 110 buildings and the process so that 20,000+ tenants can have a voice in the bid or whatever eventually pans out and what, you wanna hold elections?

Choice B? You know exactly what it is. It's those 20,00+ tenants going it alone.

Can you please wait until the 13th to find out what the story is?

Here's an idea for you. Why not inquire if the TA isn't already trying to work out a process to hear from resident real estate experts? And if they're not, maybe you can volunteer to organize the effort?

Look, I know you are passionate on this topic but you are dodging the core issue I posed: is the TA the best equipped to represent our interests?

The answer is almost definitely 'no.' Now, there may be no one else we can get that is much better but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be asking questions and exploring alternatives.

I'm not a troll, a mole or some other chat board plant. I do, however, think for myself and don't like the prospect of a self-directed, unelected group speaking for me--particularly when there are substantial financial ramifications.

If you think you are going to get 'the story' on the 13th, you are deluded. The creditors haven't even finished deciding how to fight one another yet--much less begun executing that battle. This is going to go on for a while before the opportunity to make a bid arises.

That means we have the luxury of time to ask questions and think. The place isn't on fire, it's just in foreclosure.

Again, I didn't pose myself as the solution to all of our problems. I simply questioned if the TA is our best representative going forward.

I still have that question.

Don't give me that "passionate" shit. I'm simply being pragmatic. Do we have the luxury of time? I don't know that we do. What I do know is that this is about the stupidest time conceivable to suggest what you are suggesting.

I hadn't considered the possibility, but since you brought it up, you very well could be a shill for all I know. I do believe you're another one who only showed up here post-default.

You didn't answer my question? Are you a volunteer? Will you lend your considerable expertise to the effort?

Isn't there a windmill you could tilt at?!?

Yes he has. He leaves me reduced to a moron. For you, this is a good thing.

Re 9-11 losses: May we all give a minute of silence to the walking dead? The tsunami is coming. (And if this is too obtuse for two notable members, then too fucking sad for them.)

No.

Can't you answer a simple question or are you just being modest?

Boo, In my experience they don't want it fixed. In fact they don't appear to want anything from the plebians. (sp)

I am tremendously modest.

I find it fantastically amusing that you accuse me of being a troll, a plant and a pigeon and then you admonish me for not signing up to work along side of you!

We are all fortunate that you aren't in the military or you would be inviting the enemy to man the turrets. Or shooting them. Or both...

Get a grip, man.

It doesn't make much sense to me either.

Websites are cheap to set up and and absolute necessity for any organization that is trying to bring together 25,000 people. Handing out fliers is self-defeating and ineffectual. This website is proof of that. More people get their information from here than from the TA. A LOT more.

Ask Obama what he thinks about using the web to organize support. Or, better yet, ask John McCain...

You're not modest at all. I suspect you think very highly of yourself.

And you know very well that this is no accusation: "I hadn't considered the possibility, but since you brought it up, you very well could be a shill for all I know."

Now I really am gonna leave you two alone. It's been a very long day.

Nite-nite, Rog....

Just curious. Any indication about what they think they will have to pay?

Further on Tenants & Neighbors: They're the only group that musters a visible and vocal presence at Rent Guidelines Board meetings. Their members show up and are well organized--they have posters and noisemakers.

I also don't think those that are clamoring to "buy" into this are interested in long term sustainability, but are simply seeing a windfall opportunity if this is converted into an appreciating asset. And though I could afford it, I think it would be a damm shame to see 60 years of maintaining the middle class status-quo flushed down the toilet for the profit motive of a privileged minority, even though the Speyers have already pulled the handle on the toilet.

I love the Wiki. Tudor City has 2800 apartments.

"In the 1960s, the Fred F. French Company sold Tudor City to the Rabinowitz Corporation, which in turn sold it to the Helmsley Corporation in the 1970s. In May 1985, Harry Helmsley and Alvin Schwartz, sold their remaining properties in Tudor City to Philip Pilevsky of Philips International and Francis Greenburger of Time Equities.[7] The new owners quickly set about converting Tudor City into co-op apartments, as was happening across the city. Conversions were completed with little problem [citation needed] but when the real estate market and economy slowed in 1989-1994, some co-op prices dropped significantly, as owners and investors were concerned that the co-ops themselves would become insolvent. In April 2008, New York Magazine recalled the 1989 slump:
“ ...at Tudor City, owner Time Equities couldn't cover the complex's underlying mortgage and taxes (not to mention utility bills and staff costs), and ended up giving it away, unit by occupied unit, in a jaw-dropping fire sale: In 1992, if the new owner were willing to assume the accrued debts, a Tudor City one-bedroom could be had for $3,500.[8]

"I also don't think those that are clamoring to "buy" into this are interested in long term sustainability, but are simply seeing a windfall opportunity if this is converted into an appreciating asset. And though I could afford it, I think it would be a damm shame to see 60 years of maintaining the middle class status-quo flushed down the toilet for the profit motive of a privileged minority, even though the Speyers have already pulled the handle on the toilet."

You got that right! I think the idea of co-oping or condo-ing PCVST is terrible and will make us nostalgic for the reign of TishSpeyer!

I agree with you completely. I think purchases for the majority of tenants would be a bad decision from a financial standpoint--which means they won't pull the trigger.

Barring the unforeseen, I would probably stay a renter. Because of the sheer supply of apartments, it might well be cheaper to buy one on the open market in 5 years instead of participating in the first tranche.

Has anyone given thought to what the market for these places will be like down the line? 11,200 apartments with, pick a number, 5 - 10 percent of them on the market at any given time? Buyers would likely have many choices so price levels would be naturally attenuated by market forces.

I think the co-op structure you're advocating would be great. I'm not sure we have the support to make it happen, though. I could care less about appreciation. I'd just like to get the specter of predatory landlords out of the picture.

Supporter or not, you gotta love his chutzpah!

You could deal with flippers through a a flip tax , with the amount of the tax decreasing over time. The proceeds of flip tax would go to capital reserve and /or maintenace funds.

It's a great idea, if more than a little ironic coming from someone whose own administration was plagued with scandal--Bess Myerson having a shady boyfriend and arrested for shoplifting, the Queens borough president (can't remember his name or what his offense was) who committed suicide, and probably a couple of others I don't remember.

The list of clean politicians is a short one. For your convenience, I have posted it below:

Not quite sure about the $3k purchase price. I looked at a few of those apartments in 1992-3 and the studios were going for $40-50,000. And they are all of 350 sq. ft.

Thought about buying two and making one real apartment...

I'll try.

Re: Met Life financial needs. Weren't they also being sued big time for something at the time?

Maybe TS was trying to pull a "Crazy Eddie" on the investors.

Re TA site bounces inquiries:

It interests me that tenants refer to the TA (TENANTS *ASSOCIATION*) as some kind of external entity--kind of like TS or DSNY or DHCR or...

Good luck, Boo.

The reason why they're not personally liable for the debt is that they were "non-recourse" loans, i.e., they were loans secured by liens on collateral that were valued much higher than the amount borrowed. The remedy of the lenders for the outstanding debt is to foreclose/seize the collateral and sell it.

Non-recourse secured loans are not limited to high finance. Most home mortgage loans are legally or effectively non-recourse as well.

I have no legal, political or moral issues with people walking away from non-recourse, secured loans. That's the deal that was struck.

What I do take issue with are hypocritical conservatives and business types who say that it's 100% OK for business entities to walk away from non-recourse, secured loans; but it's immoral or un-American for people to walk away from non-recourse mortgages on their homes.

I think the general idea is to keep the place as affordable rental housing, but that it may be necessary to secure some financing through a number of unit purchases. There is also the matter of the TA and its advisers trying to force rental-only down the throats of those who are intent on purchasing, for whatever reasons. At some point we'll have to see options and form some kind of broad resident consensus.

My personal hope is for a situation where we are in some kind of partnership with an entity that is content with a moderate but steady stream of income generated solely from rentals, but that may just be hopelessly naive.

A buyer of property does not automatically or usually assume the existing mortgage on the property. The buyer purchases the property by paying money. This purchase money may come from the buyer's own funds, new loans and/or in the rare case, an assumption of the existing mortgage in whole or in part.

Although there may be $3 billion in existing mortgage loan(s) on ST-PCV, this does not mean that the mortgage lenders will get $3 billion for the property. With the property currently valued at less than $2 billion, my guess is that the lenders will have to sell the property at a loss.

I want ST-PCV to be and remain "affordable" for moderate/middle-income people. So I do not want the TA to pursue a course that does not assure long-term affordability.

But if my wishes for ST-PCV do not come true, then I would not necessarily be opposed to buying my apartment. In my situation as a former market rate tenant, buying my apartment at an insider's price will likely be the financially prudent thing to do.

RR
Do you know that the TA will be trying to "force" tenants to accept "their" plan?

No. Not at all. That sentence was REALLY poorly worded. I do not think pushing something that a majority of tenants would oppose is what the plan is AT ALL.

And I don't "know" anything. This is all just idle speculation on my part.

I'm just worried that those of us who want to continue to rent and be protected by rent stabilization are going to be the ones who have something forced on us by all those who want to be owners. I am totally against the property being converted into co-ops or condos.

ah, yes, criminal. But in America......? and being a corporation, and being a dear friend of the Mayorrrrrr..... hmmmmmmmm

So far the condo people seem to be the ones making the most noise, at least in T&V.

Since the idiot faction of the Supreme Court recently decided that corporations are people, shouldn't they be tried like criminal people when they commit fraud and theft?

You will not lose your rent stabilization rights if the property is converted to co-ops or condos. I am confident that this place will never get converted pursuant to an eviction plan.

My own opposition to a conversion is if it were converted to anything other than a limited equity/limited profit co-op or condo because that will mean that after any present tenant dies or leaves, the tenant's apartment will be subject to market rate rents or sale prices.

It's funny because those seeking a windfall (be it now or in the future) are trying to perpetrate a land grab that's just as onerous, noxious and despicable as the one perpetrated by the Speyers.

Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper should be returned to the middle class status they were built to serve. I'd much rather see an affordable rental, than deprive New York of this important component of it's fabric.

I realize this can't be done without government help, but hey.. you never know.

I'm going to have to question your comment about the TA website as well, I'm a web/graphic designer and expected it to be a train wreck. After visiting it I don't see a huge problem. Sure, it's not the best graphically designed site and maybe their hierarchy needs a little work, but overall it seems fine. What do you and others think should be done differently on their site, I'd like to help them out.

"It's funny because those seeking a windfall (be it now or in the future) are trying to perpetrate a land grab that's just as onerous, noxious and despicable as the one perpetrated by the Speyers.

Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper should be returned to the middle class status they were built to serve. I'd much rather see an affordable rental, than deprive New York of this important component of it's fabric."

AMEN TO THAT!!

Who is talking about a 'windfall'? I have no intention of going anywhere. I would just like the stability of owning my own place and not worrying about things such as rent regulations not being renewed or another TS-type greedmonger coming in and buying us.

I have to say, I think that is an overly harsh and probably completely inaccurate assessment of tenant interests.

There are three generations of my family living here (thankfully, not all in my 1br!) and I can tell you, at least from our perspective, the only real impetus to buy would be to settle the issue of control over our residential destinies, once and for all. I've already told you I don't think there is money to be made here and agree with your notion of a limited appreciation structure.

I certainly don't know what everybody's intentions are but I have a strong sense that very many families' are aligned with mine.

As for the ones that think they are going to 'flip' for a big profit? They will likely be the biggest losers.

You'll have stability in that you'll know you own the place and what your mortgage (assuming it's fixed rate) or loan payments would be, but building maintenance costs are always a wild card. A lot of infrastructure costs have already been incurred (windows, elevators, rewiring, water tanks, roofs), but the remaining known unknown is the plumbing. Then there are the costs of maintaining the property itself, which are no doubt considerable. My point is that ownership is not necessarily a more economical route, leaving the question of future flip profit aside. My personal preference would be for a well-maintained rent-stabilized community (back to the future), but timing is going to count for a lot. It will be hard to choose which way to go without knowing in what form rent stabilization will be renewed.

The real problem with that goal (which I agree with) is that the RS laws will never be set in stone. Changes could easily cause you to lose your home at some point in the future. Likewise, if aggressive tactics by landlords are tolerated by the courts, even with a renewal of the laws, any of us could be at risk.

The unfortunate reality is there is no 'really good' option that is likely to be put before us. We'll just have to make the best choices with the cards we are dealt. Kind of like every election I have seen in my lifetime...

Don't get so upset. I am guessing that many (most?) posters have not taken Econ 101.

Supply and demand equates to the availability of 'baggies' in the park or packages on the shelf at Whole Foods...

So you support an appreciating condo project instead of a project that would guarantee sustained affordability ?

Mind you, I don't have a clue if my preference could be accomplished, but seriously....

I think that, regardless of which (if any) we get, appreciation will be seriously attenuated for quite some time.

I like the limited appreciation option because the investment is far lower and I suspect the opportunity for real appreciation is at least 10 years off in the future--if then.

I don't think I'm being overly harsh in my assessment, and those 3 generation families are far, far, far from the portion of the constituency that I suspect have little interest beyond personal gain.

I have (probably) even more time invested in this community than you at this point, so I'm heavily invested here emotionally, but I'm speaking idealistically, knowing full well that in essence the horse has left the barn. Barring some miraculous intervention that would return ST to it's roots, we're probably speculating about the inevitable.

I will attend the TA meeting with an open mind, but as I've said before, I'm exploring all options to insure the comfort and future stability of my family, regardless of the outcome of this situation.

I also think that the Stuyvesant Town apartments will hampered in free market appreciation in a number of ways, including the lack of amenities and the limits of 1 bathroom. LeFrak even mentioned these facets in the CNBC spot.

Age of construction, amenities, ass-end-of-the-world location, dormitory tenants, garbage, and sheer volume of available units will all hamper saleability. Probably many more issues but no need to go into all of them.

That's why I wouldn't get too riled up about flippers. Leave the flippers to the dolphins...

How much do you think someone can sell a 1br off the Ave C. loop for? It's not a million bucks, that's for sure.

I felt the same way in '01 only to watch the market take off. That said, lightning doesn't strike twice (not sure if that's the attack or the appreciation).

Of course, if you rent here and they strike, you're probably toast anyway. Who cares if the bank is left holding the note? I wouldn't let that be my key decision point.

Well there's little doubt that most properties in PCV will be more salable than the ones in ST.

That said, proximity to 1st avenue or a bus stop might carry some weight so some ST apts have that appeal where the PCV apts close to the river do not.

That apartment looks like a pretty good deal. The maintenance is low, the lobby is attended, and the private park is locked. The asking price is $635/sq ft., which could be considered a little high. There's a playground. There's an exercise room and an underground garage. You can use the laundry room at any time. Plenty of younger people have moved into this area. I'd say this place sounds very competitive with ST.

Right, and these people all bought in for $3400.00 in 1960 and are selling for anywhere between $500 & 700K. You won't see that kind of profit here, and if Grand St. is commanding $650, how much of a stretch would it be to guess what the coming to market price here would be ? (btw, it won't be $30k).

This example of what happens when affordable housing is turned into market rate simply illustrates why we shouldn't want to see that happen here.

BTW, it's really apples and oranges comparing these developments, where the Grand St. co-op's were built by the Garment Unions for their members (as were a bunch of projects), and as their generation passed on, the 2nd and 3rd generation sought to cash in and move on.

I find it kind of comical that we've gone through YEARS of railing about the community being turned into market rate, but suddenly nobody seems to be so concerned. Wonder why that would be ?

PCV doesn't run as far east as ST. And some people might prefer to be closer to the river for the views. I wouldn't want to be on the river, but I know of people who prefer that location.

"I will attend the TA meeting with an open mind, but as I've said before, I'm exploring all options to insure the comfort and future stability of my family, regardless of the outcome of this situation."

Just curious..how are you planning to do this? You're against a condo conversion, yet we all know that rent stabilization may be going away. Do you know of another option that the rest of us haven't heard about?

You're not reading my posts. I'm stating a (very long shot) desire that ST/PCV remain as affordable middle class housing. I didn't say I was against a conversion, I said I favored a non-appreciating asset conversion which might serve to extend the life of the development and return it in some manner to it's roots.

As far as my personal exploration, I'm simply looking at other options besides living here.

All this endless speculation really doesn't accomplish much beyond getting people to think about the possible scenarios. We could all be sitting here chatting while a very well connected friend of LMFL (Lord Mayor For Life) comes in and snatches the whole thing up.

Correct. But the river is farther East where ST is situated--except between 20th & 18th where it is the same as PCV.

My views of the river are the best part of living here, in many respects. The schlep to 1st avenue.....not so much.

The answer is no to a large extent because many people have been unwilling to lower their asking price (I'm talking about individual owners, not developers). If they don't have to move, they'll just stay put and wait for prices to go up, especially because they don't want to take a loss.

The TA has always been rather tight lipped in it's communications efforts.

Just before the Lux Living blog was launched, the TA closed down it's community bulletin board, ostensibly for "maintenance", but never reinstated it. The conventional wisdom is that they really didn't have the stomach for the endless (and faceless) arguing and bickering that was going on in the forums, and they were reluctant to moderate it. I wouldn't expect anything more from them these days as there has been no change in their leadership or obvious change in operating practices.

It's a complicated situation that was brought about because of the relationship of Met Life and their tenants, and then the contentious, threatening situation the community found themselves engaged in with the Speyer's.

Perhaps this desire for tenant ownership will bring about more community involvement and transparency in it's organization. We'll see.

Yes. Which makes this all Conversation.

Lifer, I'm thinking again. I may need an intervention.

What happened at Associated? I have been in there for a few weeks. Are they still promoting the Chinese show?

I needed someone to move a few things and the price they quoted me was obscene. I wound up posting the job here and was extremely happy with the company that I chose. Unfortunately I don't remember their name! You can see other peoples reviews before you decide.

http://www.citymove.com/

Thanks for posting that link! Great site to know about when I want to get the hell out of Dodge.

no don't go!!!

Thanks for the tip. I'm contemplating getting a paint job, but I think I'd rather have root canal!

You're leaving?

Why not get ST-PCV to do the paint job under their rent stabilization obligations (once every 3 years)? Unless you want a custom job.

I heard they weren't doing paint jobs anymore. I have to check into that.

They HAVE to still do them! My neighbors apartment was just painted last week (they are RS)

Homebody,

They are obligated to paint rent stabilized apartments every 3 years. That's the law, period. So if you want your apartment repainted in stock off-white, then I would ask ST-PCV to do it. If it hasn't been 3 years since your last paint job, I would wait until you approach the 3 year point and then ask them to paint it. Their painters are pros and they do good work and use good paint. If you were to hire similar quality painters to paint your apartment and paid them a fair amount, it would cost you at least $1000 (probably more than $1500), plus the cost of paint and maybe supplies.

Almost a year ... that's just plain wrong! (And illegal if your neighbor asked for the repainting 3 years after the last paint job.)

My bet: Tishman misbehaved, underhired painters, and always put vacant apartments ahead of rent stabilized, tenanted apartments.

My apartment was last painted just before 9/11 so I am definitely overdue for a paint job. The thought of all the upheaval gives me agita!

I hear you. The only thing worse is moving.

That must have been a real pain in the neck and everywhere else. I think that on the weekends they close at 10 pm so maybe that's why they don't deliver after 9. They could at least post that information. I stopped shopping there because you just can't depend on them having what you want. They don't consistently restock items and will be out of things for weeks before they restock. Also, the aisles are so cramped and clogged up with shoppers, carts, merchandise waiting to be shelved and employees sitting on milk crates supposedly restocking shelves, that it is an obstacle course just trying to get round. I go to Gristedes now. Costs a little more, but it is much better and a bit closer to where I live. Actually, it costs a lot more but they usually have what I want and I don't let myself get anything I don't actually need!
I hope the leg injury is getting better.

They do have their opening and closing times posted in the window, but they don't post the deadlines for deliveries. I'm surprised they refused to deliver Yetai's cartload though unless they had absolutely nobody left to do it.

Thanks for posting that Meagan!

I order from Fresh Direct sometimes and it's always been a good experience. But I'll definitely give the Food Emporium a try if it's less expensive.

Re: Associated, you can actually call in orders and have them delivered during the day. I wouldn't trust them to do a HUGE shopping, but if you are laid up as you've been and need some basic stuff, it's definitely a lifesaver. And the people on the phone are courteous and professional.

Associated only takes phone orders for deliveries up until around 1:00 PM though. At least that's always been my experience.

I prefer to get my food in the Oval. The Oval Atrocities host weekend brunches all the time. I know this because the trail of food leads back to the dorms. Bagels, eggs over easy, and bacon are a plenty on the grounds by 11 Sunday morning. No napkins though. Strange.

You're luckier than I am. I only see regurgitated bagels, eggs over easy, and bacon on the grounds and dorm stairwells.

Yes, that's right, about 1:00. But if you're home sick and you need some juice and 20 boxes of tissues, it's definitely the way to go.