« Monday Linkage Pedestrian Plaza Slated, Exact Location Fuzzy »

March 20, 2006

No Regrets (or Complaints) From Dumbo Pioneer

church
While we enjoyed the piece on Pep Gay's slice of old Dumbo for nostalgic and voyeuristic reasons alone, we were also struck by the contrast in attitude between the Spanish-born make up artist and the South 11th Street colonizers that generated so much discussion last week. Pep's had a good run--almost a decade renting the 2,500-square-foot space for an initial price of $1,600 a month and recently a good bit more--and is now resigned to the fact that market forces are pushing him out. Instead of suing the landlord, Pep is focusing his energies on building his savings and dealing with the fact that he won't be able to afford the building or neighborhood he helped colonize.
A Pioneer Knows When to Move on [NY Times]

Comments

Pep seemed like quite a likable guy.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 20, 2006 9:38 AM

Is it wrong that I love this person based solely on his name?

Posted by: A-non at March 20, 2006 10:05 AM

Brownstoner.... I've been reading your site for the last year, and have found it a rich, often inspired resource. That is why I am shocked at your cavalier, wall street inspired stance on the "colonizers" of South 11th. Without their entry, the warehouses along that stretch would still be littered with burned out cars and vacant lots. To give free reign to landlords to evict on will because zoning laws have not caught up to current urban development [that is, until the spaces reach enough value to "allow" them to be zoned residential] without any recognition of value the tenants have brought is a true crime. Capitalism and free-market economy may dictate the laws of our land, but they do not give license for immoral and unethical profiteering based on the sweat equity of the artists that initially created the "value."

Posted by: Anonymous at March 20, 2006 10:11 AM

I think I "pioneered" west chelsea in the late 80s and early 90 and was forced out finally by $$ in 2000. Somehow, I doubt anyone is going to give me any "recognition". That's the way love goes!

Posted by: Anonymous at March 20, 2006 10:15 AM

We hear you, Anon, and certainly understand why you feel that way. And we are certainly sympathetic to the pioneers who are displaced. And we are not against the idea of we as a society deciding to subsidize the living expenses of certain groups (the elderly, poor, artists, etc.), we just don't think individual landlords should be forced to take the hit. Maybe you and others who don't want the South 11th street folks to get kicked out should offer to make up the difference between their current rents and market rents. Oh, and kick in the last year of back rent while you're at it.

Posted by: Brownstoner at March 20, 2006 10:18 AM

anon 10:11
I want to agree with you, but I also find myself conflicted; while it's true that those early "colonizers" helped make the neighborhoods viable in the first place, it would be naive to assume that they somehow have inalienable rights associated with that. I spent much of my early "creative" adulthood in lower manhattan, in a converted candy factory - built out by us - in little italy. the neighborhood, its shops and its tenants got ritzier and we had to start looking in brooklyn. I didn't want to go to brooklyn, didn't want to have my children there, didn't know many people, etc. Now I'm here, in a neighborhood that is sometimes scary to me, but I like it more each year and have had kids here and my "creativity" hasn't been affected by location (mostly by small children...). I've made friends in the community too. long story short - and I'm no capitalist libertarian - i think it may be how the cookie crumbles, or rather, how demographics of neighborhoods shift. Unless you're willing to do some serious squatting, ala east villagers, you may just have to move on. I would love to see some amazing program where the city subsizes artists as well as welfare moms, but unless you go to scandanavia, i doubt it's going to happen. In the meantime, squat or get off the pot, i guess...

Posted by: torn at March 20, 2006 10:25 AM

But then how will the landlord answer for the crime of making money by renting people homes?

Posted by: linusvanpelt at March 20, 2006 10:26 AM

I am an artist and I live in DUMBO/Vinegar Hill. I was able to buy a condo in the area a few years ago, because my husband and I saved our money and focused on the area, buying a small apartment. We knew from experience that the wave of being kicked out of studios to make way for condos was coming, and we wanted to take hold of the reigns. I have to say that in my years of working with artists...alot!...most of us/them do not think about the future much, nor have the resources to be able to save. It's a question of being resourceful and creative and being an alternative thinker.

In this country, the priorities are not in the arts. Period. If you want that type of priority, move to Europe. I really really hate to be so cynical about it, but in my experience that is the conclusion I've come to. This country is not going to subsidize the arts. I can get a grant here and there, but I am highly doubtful that NYC in particular is going to help me pay my mortgage/rent. And I don't have the energy to change the system at this point.

Posted by: SkeptiKal at March 20, 2006 10:32 AM

If this guy is a "Dumbo Pioneer", what was I doing there in the 80's? I guess I am just out of touch....

Posted by: Anonymous at March 20, 2006 11:17 AM

dumbo and williamsburg had artists "pioneering" the neighborhoods well before this current spate of press getters. it seems no one registers any gentrification activity before 1996 as notworthy.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 20, 2006 11:28 AM

Anon 10:11, I'm with you. I always loved this site, but it's become home to smug home-owners who look down on anyone "ignorant" enough to rent. Obviously, there's nothing wrong with owning, but some of us just aren't able to do that. I would much rather own my apartment, but I don't make much money and so I have to rent. Poor people should be able to live in NYC too. The attitude here (and everywhere else in this city lately) is really depressing, but it will make my eventual move out of the city I've lived in for half my life a little easier, I suppose.

Posted by: anonymous at March 20, 2006 11:30 AM

So, Anon 11:30, you think that the landlord should have to continue to subsidize these tenants indefinitely? You're perfectly entitled to your feelings regarding "smug" homeowners, but what do you think should happen in this particular instance?

Posted by: Brownstoner at March 20, 2006 11:39 AM

I'm confused - did these 'pioneers' invest their sweat equity under some promise that they were entitled to remain under favorable rents for as long as they liked OR did they invest their sweat equity in making unhabitable space, habitable in exchange for cheap rent- for as long as their LL allowed???
If someone promised them or even implied that the space was 'theirs' indefinitly then they should stay as long as they like but if they had leases and/or there was no promise (which I suspect) I wish someone could explain why the LL is PERSONALLY responsible to subsidize them indefinitely.

Posted by: David at March 20, 2006 12:03 PM

Pep seems quite happy to get up and go, so it's a non-issue. I'm talking more about the general attitude around here lately. I find that people's attitudes change a great deal as soon as the shoe is on the other foot. Personally, I wouldn't buy a rent-stabilized building in this city, unless I was willing to abide by rent-stabilization laws. Nor would I buy any building if the plan included making groups of people homeless (landlords from hell on E. 3rd Street or S. 11th Street). I guess this attitude is one of the many reasons I'm probably going to remain poor.

Posted by: Anon 11:30 at March 20, 2006 12:15 PM

"we just don't think individual landlords should be forced to take the hit. "

What hit? The landlords are the beneficiaries of gentrification not the producers of it. Presumably they bought the building before the gentrification in which case they are doing quite well with a building that will sell for 3x the value. Or they bought it after gentrification but with the knowledge of who the tenants were and how much they were paying.

I'm not an advocate of 'hit the jackpot' style regulations like rent control but surely there is a value in society in not ripping apart communities whenever rents increase. Rent stabilization seems to take a fair middle ground by allowing increases but not gouging.

(Of course, landlords should- and do- be compensated for improvements they make to their properties. But why should they receive 100% of the benefits of an 'improving' neighborhood they may not even live in?)

Posted by: Anonymous at March 20, 2006 12:25 PM

I am so sick and tired of artists acting as if they are the only pioneers. What about the people that end up in these neighborhoods out of necessity? I am not an artist but I am a PIONEER. Once I can't afford to live there I move out. Simple as that. Artists here are so whiny about everything. They are the only ones that seem to think that they are entitled to live for free for the rest of their lives.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 20, 2006 12:27 PM

It's a great thought though; who doesn't want to live rent free for the rest of their lives. I think this is what inspired many of us to become home-owners.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 20, 2006 12:37 PM

"Of course, landlords should- and do- be compensated for improvements they make to their properties. But why should they receive 100% of the benefits of an 'improving' neighborhood they may not even live in?"

For the same reason a landlord gets 100% of the loss when a neighborhood goes downhill. And for the same reason that the owner of a cow gets 100% of the benefit when beef prices rise because of the Atkins diet, etc. Because they own it. It's only when someone makes a profit off property that suddenly this moral argument comes in--how dare someone make as much money as the market will bear off someone else's home?!

You make your agrument in terms of the benefits of stability to the larger society. The whole society should subsidize it, then, if those benefits are so important.

Posted by: linusvanpelt at March 20, 2006 12:46 PM

Anon @ 12:25 - What about people who owned the building prior to gentrification AND prior to the decline (ie. when industry rented these buildings?) - who compensated LLs for the huge decline in the buildings value (answer=no one) - but I guess you think its okay for LL to sustain huge capital losses but greedy and immoral to gain that value back?

Posted by: David at March 20, 2006 12:48 PM

Actually, if it is understood that renters do not get evicted simply because the neighborhood changes it would be built into the market affecting the value of real estate. So the new landlord would not have to spend 3x the amount to buy the building as the previous owner because it is understood that tenants have rights as well.

Of course it is not only real estate that doesn't operate under a completely unregulated market. We understand that it is cruel to gouge victims of a natural disaster for access to fresh water or gasoline even though economic theory might suggest it is a good idea to provide incentives to sellers.

Posted by: Preston at March 20, 2006 12:57 PM

I started reading this site about a year ago, cause I'd like to own a brownstone of my own someday soon. While I don't totally agree with the poster who complained that your tone has grown smug, I do feel that you should stop editorializing about tenant issues on this site.

I was a pioneer once. Tribeca in 1978. The landlord bought the building--now a 36 unit coop--for $350, a purchase price he made back in the first 2 years of ownership and rental to illegal tenants. When the state Loft Law was enacted, he both promised he wouldn't comply and vowed to tear the building down and put a parking lot in its place. He sued over the constitutionality of the Loft Law all the way to the US Supreme Court. He lost. In the meantime, he made another couple of million in rent, all the while avoiding his obligations under the law.

My point? Don't feel so sorry for the landlords who, in your opinion, are collecting sub-prime rent. (And I would add that you seem to know nothing about the "escalators" some tenants pay to live in lofts, which in some cases double the rents.) The landlords are still making money, believe you me.

Posted by: lofty at March 20, 2006 1:19 PM

Key point being overlooked-- the landlord of South 11th street allowed RESIDENTS to live in an area zoned COMMERICAL? Why? Because he could make more money. Did he bring it up to code for residential living? No. That is why the law will now tend to protect the "pioneers" because the landlord should not benefit from illegally renting out a commerical space as residential -- especially if the residnts made improvements. This legal point seems to elude people. When you own property, you have responsibilities, which include bring them up to code and using it as zoned. When you go outside those rules, there are laws designed to punish you, and protect others. This is a good thing. And as a homeowner and lanlord, I completely agree with them.

On a related note, I hate to admit it, but I am also a year-long reader who feels this blog has gotten too smug.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 20, 2006 1:36 PM

And the tenants knew that it was commercial and that they were also engaging in illegal renting but they did it anyway because they wanted the space. They could have gotten a space with a legal lease somewhere-oh wait but they probably couldn't since most people want to see that a potential tenant actually can pay their rent.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 20, 2006 2:13 PM

Editorializing? It's his site for Pete's sake, not a public space.

Posted by: Amy at March 20, 2006 2:40 PM

Positive and moral law aside, this is still New York, people. Individuals have been pillaging each other over this little plot of land well before it was called New York, and will continue to hussle your ass even if the squeegees are all gone. So, when someone jacks you--whether by three card monte, the NYSE, or real estate--don't act surprised. Give the "pioneers" $22 and a few trinkets and call it a day.

Posted by: 9000 at March 20, 2006 2:44 PM

this thread (i.e., tenants fighting landlords to prevent condo conversion) is getting a bit old. To quote a venerable singer "God bless the child that's got his own". Those who 'got' find it hard to support the plights of those who 'don't. End of story.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 20, 2006 2:55 PM

You may not agree with us all the time, but things would get pretty dull around here without a little editorializing... Plus, people have ample opportunity to express themselves when they do disagree.

Posted by: Brownstoner at March 20, 2006 3:27 PM

True enough, brownstoner. But remember, the site's called "brownstoner," and that's why we started reading it.

Posted by: lofty at March 20, 2006 3:48 PM

You don't think there are landlord tenant issues in brrownstones Lofty? You must be living in Jerzy or somethin'.

Posted by: Meryckawick at March 20, 2006 3:58 PM

smug?? whatever. anyone calling b'stoner smug has ye old chip on ye old shoulder, a common affliction. check out gawker or curbed, my friend and you'll be crying in your organic raw milk.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 20, 2006 4:08 PM

I hear that goat milk is really good.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 20, 2006 4:47 PM

I agree 4.08pm. This site is downright polite in terms of Brownstoner's editorials. Check out the cheeky comments on Curbed for example...

Posted by: Anonymous at March 20, 2006 5:01 PM

pioneering brownstoner posters have grandfathered squatter rights, entitling a say in the editorial tone and direction of the site. possibly a cut of future revenues as well, 'cause, like, we all gentrified this bloghetto(tm).

Posted by: 9000 at March 20, 2006 5:12 PM

Well, I started reading this blog 10 minutes before you did, so obviously my opinion as to the beauty and character of the blog matters, and yours doesn't. I just hate it when new people move into a blog and think they own the place. I was here when there weren't even advertisements for grocery stores and dry cleaners. I liked the blog better when it was dirty and dangerous.

Posted by: Amy at March 20, 2006 6:33 PM

There's a perception, apparent in this thread, that those who own are "haves' and those who rent are "have nots." I rented for 8 years in NYC and then scraped together every spare cent I had, squeezed a few pennies out of reluctant relatives, to come up with a whopping 4K down payment for a tiny rental property upstate. I'm still renting my primary residence, and no I can't afford anything in NYC yet. But the point still holds: when you want to buy, you find a way. Trustafarians annoy me as much as they annoy everyone, but acting like a victim will guarantee one thing: that you remain one.

Hopeless renters reading this site might do well to familiarize themselves with the grants and loans the federal and state governments have for first time homeowners, and then to go out, find a developing neighborhood, and stake your claim.

Posted by: essdog at March 20, 2006 7:05 PM

I might point out that the entire thesis of the New York Times article is flawed. Moving into Dumbo in 1997 is far from being a pioneer. Walentas was a pioneer by acquiring properties others thought had no value. Moving in to Dumbo a year or two before the chocolate factories and the sushi bars is pioneering? If he didn't know Dumbo was being developed into luxury lofts in 1997 he is the only one living there who didn't.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 20, 2006 7:35 PM

Agree with the last post. It's not like he moved here (Dumbo) in 1979.

Posted by: againstwhinyartists at March 20, 2006 9:04 PM

Anon 1:19pm. you are awesome for sharing that story. We forget the context. Good luck with the brownstone shopping.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 20, 2006 10:25 PM

So far I havent' heard any artists whining, only people whining about artists whining.

Can we please hear from the supposed whiners? I want some authentic creative type bellyaches to balance things out.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 20, 2006 10:26 PM

I believe tenants have rights, and my politics are such that I lean towards giving renters the benefit of the doubt, but at the end of the day the renter is renting somebody else's property. You know from the day you move in that you don't own the building, and that's the reason your grandmother tells you not to sink money into improvements you can't take with you and to put that money away instead to pay for your own place. Landlords shouldn't screw people over, we need rent laws and housing courts to protect people's right to the shelter they have paid for and to make sure landlords are responsible and not discriminatory. But artist or not, you can't claim ownership of what you don't own.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 21, 2006 1:10 AM

Right on Anon 01:10am.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 21, 2006 9:39 AM

I agree 1.10am. All of the money spent by the renters to bring the commercial space up to a livable standard is really wasted in the end. It will all be ripped out if the place is ever used for a legal purpose (residential or commercial).

Posted by: Anonymous at March 21, 2006 1:58 PM

Think about it this way, if your son or daughter wanted to live illegally in a commercial loft space, would you advise them to think of it as a long term housing solution? Would you advise them to to sink a lot of money into fixing the place up in the hopes they'd never have to move so they'd be able to realize the benefits of their time and money spent on the illegal rental. This guy in Dumbo is clearly no dummy. He went in with eyes wide open and understood what the arrangement was, unlike the archivist and book dealer "artists" descibed in the other article who clearly did not plan for the future and just hoped their situation would never change.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 21, 2006 2:02 PM

I find it shocking that anyone would criticize someone for illegal occupancy. Everyone knows if you live in a building for more than five years you legally own it.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 21, 2006 7:26 PM

7:26 what kind of stupidity is that?

Posted by: Anonymous at March 22, 2006 6:04 PM

« Monday Linkage Pedestrian Plaza Slated, Exact Location Fuzzy »

March 20, 2006

No Regrets (or Complaints) From Dumbo Pioneer

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions