« Tuesday Linkage A Walk Down New York Avenue in Crown Heights »

September 6, 2005

The Bottom Line on Developer Abuses

The NY Times summarizes the bottom line of the abuses of the housing code by Brooklyn developers Mendel Brach and Moshe Oknin:

What all this has amounted to so far is a lot of losers and only one winner. The residents of Bedford Stuyvesant and Clinton Hill are stuck with two clusters of outsize buildings out of character with their surroundings. The owners of the 72 completed condominiums on Spencer Street are caught in an ugly limbo while the legal status of their buildings is worked out. Another 18 potential buyers are waiting to see if they will be able to close on their apartments or get their money back. And the developers? The closed sales to date on Spencer Street have totaled more than $25 million.

Under the Radar in Brooklyn [NY Times]




Posted by Brownstoner at 9:06 AM | Comments (7)
Categories: Development

Comments

"In July 2004, the buildings department received complaints about both projects, alerting officials to a potential conflict of their status as faculty housing and the condo plans. But an inspector signed off on both properties."

Eliot Spitzer's office should get that inspector's name and 1) inspect his/her bank accounts and 2) go over ALL properties signed off by him or her.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 6, 2005 9:09 AM

Corruption in the Buildings Department? I'm shocked!

The DoB needs a Knapp cCmmission -- but developers would never allow this, and since they are major donors to candidates of all stripes, it's ain't gonna happen.

Posted by: bc at September 6, 2005 10:00 AM

That's why you start small, as I suggested below. One investigation into one inspector and all his/her signoffs and all potentially related activity.

Could send a number of the cockroaches (disguised as developers, contractors and other DoB employees) scrambling. Never going to fix everything, but wouldn't it be useful-- not to mention pleasing-- to see at least one group who potentially acted in collusion to deceive *actually punished*?

Posted by: c at September 6, 2005 10:20 AM

When does incompetence become illegal?

Posted by: Anonymous at September 6, 2005 11:45 AM

When does it become illegal? When it's negligence. Though clearly that's not what we're suggesting here-- we're suggesting there was more at work than someone not paying attention. More like the possibility of an inspector getting paid off to overlook the stark difference between the *drawings* and the *actual built product*.

Posted by: c at September 6, 2005 12:20 PM

What a truly masterful understatement!

" More like the possibility of an inspector getting paid off ..."

Posted by: suzy at September 6, 2005 3:28 PM

I was trying to be respectful in answering the previous poster's question. It was quite clear that the illegal activities I'd alluded to could be deliberate.

Posted by: c at September 6, 2005 4:36 PM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions