« A New Model for Affordable Townhouses in Harlem Modernism's Role in the Brownstone Revival »

April 10, 2006

Ratner's Heavy Hand Cuts Both Ways

Concern over the scale of the proposed Atlantic Yards development and the use of eminent domain tend to dominate the discussion, and rightfully so. However, what is often overlooked is how well a few people did in their buyouts. At 636 Pacific Street (photo), for example, The Times reports that most people received more than twice what they paid only a year or so earlier. "We got a premium on this lemon of a building that turned into a great investment for us," said Mark Klein, the former president of the condominium board. The last hold-out at 636 is DDDB's Dan Goldstein, who's reportedly facing condemnation by the state if he doesn't play ball. Renters, however, have had their lives disrupted often with only a few thousand dollars in compensation.

In other Ratner news, Bruce gets a shout-out in the new theme ~~song~~ rap for the Nets:

We brought Kidd from the Suns/Vince from the Raptors
Elite in East/Since Erving was in the rafters
Check the skybox/Blackberry active
Making transactions/ It's Bruce Ratner.

Cringe.
Some Find Greener Grass [NY Times]
A Rap for Nets Owner [NY Post]

Comments

Sounds like people got a good deal. If they had anything negative to say, they would have done so (the gag order was waived for this article). Double the price for an apt. occupied for only one year ain't a bad chunk of change.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 10, 2006 10:13 AM

Of course it should only take about 1 or 2 more posts for someone to point out that the NYT is involved w/ Ratner in building their new headquaters and therefore anything the NYT writes about AY (except critisim) is an outright lie paid for by FCR.

Posted by: David at April 10, 2006 11:28 AM

I was surprised that Ratner et.al (FCR) paid one of the 'displaced' owners 1.1mill for his/her condo apt. The owners had bought the apt. a year earlier for $419K.

The question that comes to mind is, is this a 'fair market' exchange?

IMHO, FCR must see tremendous prospects/potential in AY. They're betting big on this development in the midst of 'bubble' speculations.

What will comparable apts in the near future be worth. I have to believe that they'll be worth far more than 1.1mill. Otherwise, Ratner is a bad businessman and is looking to throw away dollars.

My prediction is that brooklyn property owners will be 'filthy' rich 30 years from now. Their children will thank them enormously for their 'foresight' to buy into an up-and-coming 'marina' resort town. I don't believe the casinos are far off either.

I also predict that 30 years from now the sewage problem will be so bad that Brooklyn will literally begin to reak and that will signal the beginning of the end for property prices.

I'm all for the development but let's show some foresight and fix the sewage and traffic problems now while we still have a chance.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 10, 2006 11:45 AM

"I also predict that 30 years from now the sewage problem will be so bad that Brooklyn will literally begin to reak and that will signal the beginning of the end for property prices."

Typical anti-AY hyperbole. It's amazing how much opponents rely on drama.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 10, 2006 11:58 AM

I found the article to be unbelievably slanted, and without the usual disclaimer that the Times is involved financially with FCR. They totally ignored the point that people must either sell or have their property seized. Towards the end, when the mentioned Dan Goldstein and the financial loss a holdout might suffer it almost seemed like a threat. Or am I too paranoid. Very creepy.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 10, 2006 12:10 PM

Question - are renters offered compensation, or incentive to move, when eminant domain takes their property? (I think I know the answer to that one, but am just checking.)

Seems to me that renters have the same goals and asperations as owners, in terms of expectations to settle down, etc. Not everyone can afford, or wants to buy. See past discussions on this topic on this forum. There are many who do not think that buying is all it's cracked up to be, or even a fiscally sound idea. Those of us who are landlords, albeit very small landlords, one or two units, need renters as much as they need us. People who have their noses in the air about renters would do well to remember that. Point being that dislocation is hard on everyone. It's really nice that the coop/condo/ building owner gets a fat buyout, all issues about whether they want to sell aside. It is not right if a renter gets kicked to the curb with no renumeration, just because they rent in a location that is grabbed for development, either legally or through eminent domain.

Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at April 10, 2006 12:10 PM

Hack Confessore strikes again!

Posted by: Anonymous at April 10, 2006 12:12 PM

Anon 11:58 AM, I thought my posting was relatively pro AY. I was simply pointing out that we need to pay close attention to potential problems as we proceed. Why are you guys all soooo defensive and on-edge?

Posted by: Anonymous at April 10, 2006 12:15 PM

CHP, why do you think renters have rights to renumeration? Don't they already have enough rights under the current housing laws? That's one of the reason I hesitate to become a landlord in nyc. They're so many stories of horrific tenants that take their landlord to the cleaners.

Every renter knows that their 'stay' is only guaranteed for the duration of their lease. They can only hope their landlord will be nice enough to make all necessary repairs, not raise rent the next time around and yes, renew their lease.

I find it a bit disturbing when 'tenants' hold out for more money when a landlord wants to convert the building into condos. Or when the landlord wants the apt. vacant so that they can renovate it and raise the rent to fair market value.

I almost wonder if their isn't some underground system that teaches these tenants how to 'milk the system' and get the most money whenever a landlord wants them out.

I'm pro-affordable housing but really against tenants taking advantage of landlords. They have no ownership rights.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 10, 2006 12:29 PM

The only group worse than the tenants are the landlords so the tenants seeem to garner more public sympathy!

Posted by: Anonymous at April 10, 2006 12:34 PM

Anon 12:29 - I'm not talking about everyday landlord/tenant beefs, I'm talking about in the case of eminent domain.

I'm a small landlord, and I've had the joy(not)of having to have someone evicted, and I lost a lot of money at a time that I really, really needed it to pay the mortgage, and do necessary repairs, and am well aware that the system is pro-tenant. But before I was a landlord, I was a tenant for 20 years, some of that time with a landlady who had the dubious distinction of making the Village Voice's list of worst landlords on year. I was not in a slum tenement, either. At that time, I would have told you that the system is pro-landlord.

Point being that being kicked by eminent domain is not the fault of either tenant or landlord. It's being in the wrong place at the wrong time. A renter in that situation deserves to be helped out. They should at least be given moving expenses and enough security/rent to secure a new apartment. Personally that should come from Ratner, in this case, but someone should step up and do the right thing, considering the situation.

If that makes me a niaeve fool, so be it.

Posted by: Crown HeightsProud at April 10, 2006 12:45 PM

Can't type today - please excuse typos which abound in my reply above.

Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at April 10, 2006 12:47 PM

10 PRINT You're a NIMBY who's against progress.
20 PRINT You're a corporate stooge who was probably paid off by Ratner.
30 GOTO 10

Posted by: Anonymous at April 10, 2006 12:54 PM

CHP, okay. I see your point. But the article did mention that a renter was given 5K to walk. Which I thought was a bit low, considering that many tenants these days are holding out for upwards of 15K to walk.

You're right, the eminent domain situation is a different scenario. I'm surprised that those tenants didn't hold-out for an affordable housing unit (rental or condo) when the development is completed (in addition to the 5K interim relocation money as well).

On a whole though, it sounded as if the homeowners that were displaced did pretty well. One couple sold their condos and move to Park Slope (brownstone maybe). Sounds like a trade up to me. Hate to be crass, but eminent domain can come to my doorstep anytime it allows me to buy a bigger property in a more expensive neighborhood.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 10, 2006 12:57 PM

CHP the article says what happened to renters 1.they were offered the chance to move back into units of comparable rent and size in the completed Atlantic Yards project or paid a lump sum; 2.paid moving costs and broker's fees for those tenants and 3.covered any increase in rent for transitional housing.
Fair to say that a similar arragement will be offered to the 57 rental tenants still remaining. Similar arrangements were also done @ Metrotech...

Posted by: David at April 10, 2006 1:06 PM

This is a sadly blatant piece of propaganda in this morning’s NY Times. The piece pretends to be a thoughtful meditation on the “blessing in disguise” FCRC has been to the displaced former residents, but damningly fails to disclose 4 very important facts:

Not a single word of this article could be written without the cooperation of FCRC publicity department because…
All of the former residents who accepted buyouts signed gag orders forbidding them from discussing the terms (which are spun in this article to make FCRC seem more generous than your favorite cousin), and further…
As part of their contracts the former residents are contractually obligated to speak in favor of the project when requested by FCRC.
And, lest we forget, FCRC is the NY Times’ development partner in their humongous new headquarters in midtown.
Word does get out about these things but obviously not to the New York Times. This shockingly partisan journalism is certainly a step up the shill wagon for FCRC from their pathetic Brooklyn Standard but a sad, sad, slide for the Times to become such a hack tool. They might have at least put the word “advertisement” in the caption!

Posted by: Puca at April 10, 2006 1:07 PM

Anon @ 1254 - very funny!!! very geeky reference but seriously funny.

Posted by: David at April 10, 2006 1:09 PM

Well, anon at 12:29, it's obvious why there are laws to protect tenants- your attitude is a classic example. First and foremost, a rental agreement is a contract, with all of the rights, responsibilities and obligations that implies. Tenants are not living in their homes on sufferance- most of us pay a damn good price for the right to a clean, well-kept and safe apartment.That is YOUR obligation as a landlord. And there are plenty who don't keep their end of the bargain, not only tenants.

"They can only hope their landlord will be nice enough to make all necessary repairs, not raise rent the next time around and yes, renew their lease. " Hope? Are you that ignorant of why repairs are necessary for the upkeep (and value) of a property, as well as the safety of people who are actually PAYING to live in your building? If you think it's a money issue for the poor landlord, see how much bigger that money issue will be if a tenant is injured or dies. Being a landlord means having tenants. You make money off of your tenants- it's not in your best interests to ruin your own market. If you don't want tenants I suggest another line of work.

In sofar as tenants taking landlords to the cleaners- for every story you have I guarantee there are ten tenants who can tell you horror stories about their landlords. Going condo? Wanting to upgrade? I have news for you- your moneygrubbing costs a tenant plenty when they are forced to move. It's more than just money for a tenant- these are their homes. It takes a huge psychological toll.

Tenants are not a property item for you to be shoved around only for your needs.I realize that's not your concern but I have a suggestion. Don't become a landlord. Save some tenants a lot of aggravation.

Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at April 10, 2006 1:11 PM

Sorry for ranting but I am sick and tired of tenant bashing. I've been one all my life and I have never ruined an apartment or stiffed a landlord. I have a great landlord now and in general have been pretty lucky. I have also lived in places where wires were sticking out of the walls and the tiles were falling down and hitting me when I would take a bath. I have seen nightmare places friends have lived in and landlord harrassment. And watched some of them get dragged to court by a landlord who claimed they need the apartment for family (who by the way never moved in). I bet CHP has some fun tales about her landlady who made the 10 worst list. It works both ways.

Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at April 10, 2006 1:17 PM

Folks stop with the NIMBY complaints. The condo owners lived in a crappy building and subsequently made out like bandits. A friend of mine owned in this building. Didn't make much money. Had to borrow from friends, family and credit cards to get the downpayment for the apartment. He made $400k on the sale!!! A lot of the owners in this building were first time buyers who went on to buy brownstones in the neighboring communities; something they could never had afforded to do without FRC! To many, AY was a blessing in disguise. If FRC wants to pay me $4m for my Clinton Hill brownstone I'd sell in a nano second!!!

Posted by: BrownBomber at April 10, 2006 1:25 PM

I could give you the names of at least 2 tenants who lost their apartments after the landlords sold to Mr Ratner. Both received not a single cent of compensation and had to move to smaller, more expensive apts in less desirable locations. I'm well aware that theses poor bastards -- as "mere" tenants -- had no "right" to any compensation but it doesn't prevent me from feeling that they got stiffed in a situation they had no control over.

Posted by: Anon at April 10, 2006 1:28 PM

I guess generally I am for stabilization protections for renters, but I don't quite understand the rationale for renumerating renters in a buyout or even eminent domain situation. Given they don't have an ownership interest in the property for what are they being compensated? Implicit in their perhaps rational economic decision not to buy is a denial of the benefits (or risks - remember properties can decline in value as well). That said it does make sense for government to force developers to build low-income housing or tax all of us to accomplish the same goal.

Posted by: putnam-denizen at April 10, 2006 1:31 PM

Bx2Bklyn, I admired your commitment to being a champion for tenants. I'd be surprised though if you currently are a landlord. Maybe you are; and an altruistic one at that.
I'm not a landlord. Wouldn't do it in nyc. Too big a risk. But that's just my opinion.

It's your choice to label the landlord that wants to go condo as being money-grubbing, but that's just reality. And the truth of the matter is that most new landlords will 'not' make any money off their tenants. They're hardly breaking even.

I wouldn't buy a rent-controlled or rent-stabilized building and then whine about my tenants. I also wouldn't buy a rent-controlled condo/coop and then wait for the old-woman who's renting it to die either. So, you don't need to lump me with that contingency.

I agree with you that 9 out of 10 tenants are good tenants. And I agree with you and CHP that there are some sorry ass landlords out there. The housing laws were no doubt created to defend tenants against slumlords. But the laws have become heavily skewed on the side of tenants (bad ones at that too) that a good landlord can easily be driven to bankruptcy by bad tenants.

If I were tenant, I would never in a million years assume that I had a right to remain where I was forever. That's just not being realistic (unless you live in a rent-controlled building or maybe the projects).

But I disagree with you with respect to 'fair market' renters; they have no ownership right outside of the duration of the lease. Once that lease is up, all bets are on. It's not my rule; that's just reality.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 10, 2006 1:36 PM

Yeah, I saw those places...was called in to give an estimate for re doing the sheetrock...the fits and finishes were very subpar. Even the floors were badly done. The shower tile was crooked...big chip in the countertop from someone installing the stove..very badly designed layout...drippy paint job.. I felt bad for the couple because I thought they really bought a subpar apartment but now...

Posted by: Anonymous at April 10, 2006 1:48 PM

So am I mistaken to believe that the majority of people opposing AY are displaced 'renters' and altruistic home-owners?

Anon 01:28 PM, the story that you told is really sad. But the truth is that they would have been forced to move eventually, if not by Mr. Ratner, by someone who bought the building and wants to use it as a home for his/her family. It was going to happen anyway. How can you whine and groan about that. It's just luck of the draw IMHO.

Life isn't fair. Renters aren't owners. If they want full rights then they have to assume full responsibilites (i.e., pay their portion of major capital improvements, pay their share of property tax increases, pay their share of increased fuel and utility charges, pay their share of insurance costs, etc). They also have to come up with the downpayment for the building as well as closing costs.

I'm sorry if anyone reads this as tenant bashing. I've been a tenant too and I've had landlords from hell. But in all the years that I was renting, I never assumed that the landlord 'had to' renew my lease.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 10, 2006 1:55 PM

My exact point! The condo owners hit the jackpot. I have friends in the Newswalk and they're mad as hell that their building is not in the condemnation crosshairs! That's some serious moullah for a relatively short term investment that's 80-90% leveraged!

Posted by: BrownBomber at April 10, 2006 2:00 PM

Anon 1:28 I say unless you are willing to provide more details your claim lacks credibility. Was the building RS/RC or was it market?, did the tenants have a lease? Was any lease in effect? What building did they live in, which apts? - AY opponents would love to march these victims out if they could so the silence on this undercuts your claim.

Posted by: David at April 10, 2006 2:06 PM

Posted by: David at April 10, 2006 2:07 PM

I never said tenants had ownership rights. I did say they had a right (not a hope) to a safe apartment in well-repaired condition. I don't even say they have a right to brand new kitchens and bathrooms, or anything like that. Just ones that work and are in good repair. And as I mentioned, I am not a landlord. But while you may be right that most new landlords will only break even, but there must be some obvious benefit to being a landlord- otherwise why do it?

Insofar as Putnam-denizen wondering why tenants should get remuneration. Tenants lose a lot of money when forced to move, and often they have to move to apartments that are more expensive. It isn't just the landlord who loses. Tenants do have risk- they pay on a lease that ultimately is really no protection regarding renewal, safety or longevity. Whether or not you choose to be a tenant or a landlord, is no one's business but your own. But to penalize people who are tenants, while obviously needing them seems very odd. A lot of us are in no position to buy in NYC. Yet we pay about 1/2 our income to a landlord. That's a good chunk of change. Yet tenants are the low man on the totem pole. Believe me, I've seen some horrible tenants- but the reality is, if you are going to be a landlord, you do have an obligation to your tenants. Yet most landlords see tenants strictly as a money issue. Well, when a tenant gets kicked out for no fault of their own, it's a money issue too. Businesses get bought out of contracts all the time, or compensated for their loss. Why shouldn't tenants?

Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at April 10, 2006 2:15 PM

Sorry for the double post

On the topic of housing courts favoring the tenants... this is undeniably true, but there is a component that entirely lost upon most 'tenant advocates' - that is that the laws and courts are so skewed against evicting anyone that responsible LLs cant evict tenants that make life miserable for other tenants.
1 illustrative situation that comes to mind is a 6 floor tenant who constantly floods her apt with a washing machine (violates lease but law overrides lease if LL doesnt move to remove w/in 3mo of tenant putting machine in). The flood of course streams down onto the 5 apts below - making life miserable for all. This happens approx once a month. LL goes to court and they assign tenant free Legal Aid attorney (on a washing machine case) who drags matter out for 7+ months and ultimatley wins against LL b/c court rules that LL cant PROVE that floods come from machine (as oppossed to overflowing sink, tub etc...).

Ultimatley in this situation on a day to day basis it is the tenants who suffer the brunt of this problem although the sadly ironic thing is that 2 tenants below 6th fl arent paying rent and when LL goes to same housing court the judge rules for the tenant b/c the landlord should "resolve flooding issue"

Posted by: David at April 10, 2006 2:20 PM

David-
Yeah, well-we all have horror stories to tell, from both sides. And what is your issue with people being opposed to AY? You bash them every opportunity you can get. Ratner paying you? Are you Ratner? This is still a free country- you may not agree with their opinion but they still have a right to state it. You sound like a broken record already- say something new about AY instead of avoiding issues or whining about people who oppose Ratner's present plan (but not all development).

Posted by: feeling puckish at April 10, 2006 2:31 PM

I bash the pro-AY position, generally not the pro-AY person and I do not "avoid the issues" far from it as for being repetitve, I'll plead guilty here - but then again virtually everyone here is guilty of that!

Posted by: David at April 10, 2006 3:03 PM

"Ratner paying you? Are you Ratner? This is still a free country- you may not agree with their opinion but they still have a right to state it. You sound like a broken record already..."

Yeah, whereas this is the first time puckish has ever accused someone of being paid off by ratner.

http://brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2006/04/yards_scaleback_1.html

Posted by: Crimea River at April 10, 2006 3:04 PM

Hey Brownbomber. I live in Newswalk and I am on the Condo Board. I hate to say your friends in the building are amongst the very few who feel that we are the unlucky ones because if condemnation takes place Newswalk won't be part of it. So you're saying they support the abuse of eminent domain? By the way I'm just curious to know who they are.

Posted by: Puca at April 10, 2006 4:21 PM

Bx2Bklyn, I understand your argument about businesses getting bought out of their contracts.

I see a couple of differences however between businesses and residential renters. For starters, businesses are usually bought out of their contract if the negotiations occurs mid-lease. If the lease expires then the owner has the right to refuse to renew the lease.

Businesses usually have multi-year, long-term leases (e.g., 5-10 years), not the short-term, one year or month-to-month leases that are typical of the residential rental market.

I'm typically a 'bleeding heart' but I find it a bit difficult to side with the renters who are being displaced. I don't know all the details but it seems as if FCRC is attempting to negotiate fairly with all the parties involved, renters included.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 10, 2006 4:55 PM

http://atlanticyardsreport.blogspot.com/2006/04/fcr-buyouts-one-time-waiver-on-gag.html

Posted by: More details here at April 10, 2006 5:03 PM

David: Sorry for the slow reply. I'm certainly not avoiding the question -- just (gasp) busy working. These two instances were documented by WNYC reporter Andrea Bernstein. Go check the archives.

Posted by: Anon at April 10, 2006 5:52 PM

Since your trying to validate your point maybe you could provide a link or 2...., I did a search for the reporter and I only found references to a commercial tenant being displaced.

Posted by: David at April 10, 2006 7:13 PM

I'm sure many renters were caught mid-lease. I think it's also important to note how many people think tenants should have no say or rights at all. Again- people are gtting displaced, it costs them a bundle- no one is saying give them the same thing that owners get, but how about being fair?

Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at April 10, 2006 7:35 PM

Bx2Bklyn - except that the renters WERE treated fair, thier moving fees were paid, they were given buyouts and/or right to new apt in AY and they were paid any increase in rent for next 3yrs - isnt that fair? If it isnt what in your mind would be fair- short of no
AYs

Posted by: David at April 10, 2006 8:58 PM

I'd like to use this forum to encourage all renters to seriously consider buying something. There are so many owning options, as long as you're flexible about where you'll live. Once you own, you build equity and have far more control over your life.

And, no, I don't work for a realtor - I'm just a former renter who scrimped and saved for five years to buy something, and am sooooooooooo glad that I made the sacrifice.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 11, 2006 7:57 AM

Good thing all you pundits have your eye on the big picture: The Use of the Threat of Eminent Domain.

Not your fault, considering Nick "House Organ" Confessore couldn't see the big picture if it was tacked on to his belly button.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 11, 2006 10:21 AM

David-

Fair as you define it? And from what I read it doesn't seem that all of them were, and they certainly had to fight for it. And stop telling me what I do or don't want at AY.You wouldn't know because you don't bother to read what people actually write. I'm not repeating again what I've said many times about AY- you obviously don't want to hear it and you seem to think that anyone who has a criticism of AY automatically doesn't want anything built there. I guess if you write it enough times you think you'll get everyone to believe it. You make a point of baiting at every opportunity- no wonder it's hard to have a civil discussion on the boards.

Crimea River- I didn't see where feeling puckish denied repeating statements either. But he or she does so in response to David's baiting.

Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at April 11, 2006 10:23 AM

David is not "baiting", he's being emphatic, which is precisely what you do, Bx2Bklyn. Personally, I find David's commentary to be a fresh balance to the usual anti-AY drumbeats.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 11, 2006 10:32 AM

he's baiting- even if no one says anything anti-AY, he makes a comment. And frankly I find him tiring- and I haven't read all that much anti-AY drumbeating here. Most people just want answers to crucial questions. Why should they be called anti-AY just for asking?

Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at April 11, 2006 10:46 AM

If anyone is doing drumbeating it's David. And there have been quite a few pro-AYers on this board. So what "fresh balance" do you refer to?

Posted by: Anonymous at April 11, 2006 10:50 AM

Yes fair as I define it - and I asked you what would you consider fair for the renters - which I would be interested to hear. And again if some renters werent treated fair (under any definition), please show me where that is written b/c again I would be interested.

I dont know where I have said that you (or anyone else) dont want anything built at AY - I have said (yes repetedly) that [IMO] what opponents seem to advocate being built is generally not realistic (or not enviromentally conscious) and wont be built (thereby resulting in nothing being built) but I recongnize that you do want development.

Please provide me an example where I have "baited" anyone - unless you consider posting a view different from the majority "baiting" I really dont see where I have done so...but seriously if I have - show me and I will address it... but b/4 you do, I hope the standard you apply to my posts acknowledges your own - where for example @111 you ask if another poster is "ignorant";say his ways are "moneygrubbing"; and "suggest another line of work"

Posted by: David at April 11, 2006 10:58 AM

Not denying anything. However in that post I was responding to statements that were perceived as tenant-bashing. That poster and I have had our discussion so leave it at that.

Fair, by the way has to be perceived by all sides in an argument or agreement. So one person's definition may not be another's. That's where compromise comes in.

I honestly don't have time to go back and list every comment you've made but your first post (the 2nd on this thread) starts it off. You sarcastically anticipate that someone will point out the association between the Times and Ratner, as though it's unthinkable that the Times be questioned and only anti-AY people would stoop that low. But the issue is a legitimate one. It casts doubt on the objectivity of the Times.

As far as what gets built, there have been lots of proposals besides Ratners and none of them seem to satisfy you. I would love to see something wonderful at AY- I don't care if Ratner builds it so long as it is not the monstrosity it is now. He has Frank Gehry- if Gehry can't create something that addresses all these issues I don't know who can.

Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at April 11, 2006 11:22 AM

Go Nets!

Posted by: Anonymous at April 11, 2006 11:25 AM

Bx2Bklyn - I dont want to turn this thread into a personal discussion but you have to be kidding....
yes I sarcastically anticipated the response to a seemingly pro-Ratner artice (correctly I might add see post at 107) and somehow this is "baiting" yet you calling and actual poster money grubbing and ignorant is okay and we should "leave it at that"

You are correct that the other proposals dont satisfy me - and I have never denied that they may satisfy you, but I will point out why I dont think they are feasible or desirable - sorry if you find it 'tiresome' - often hearing a counter argument in opposition to your own can feel tiresome.

Finally back to the original article, what would YOU consider a fair settlement for the tenants who will be displaced by development at the site.

Posted by: David at April 11, 2006 11:40 AM

Please reread my first sentence of my last post. And if you read further back you should also see that my posts were not about Ratner being unfair to renters- I was responding to the posts that said tenants should not get anything. It was anon at 12:57 who posted they thought the 5k given by Ratner to a renter was low, not me.

And for the record I am not tired of discussing issues- I am tired of bashing. Yes we all do it. SOme of us in defense, some because they like to and others because they have no better way to express themselves (I don't mean you, David). But there is a pretty thin line between bashing the Anti-AY position and anti-AY people.

If you had simply said why you think the alternatives are not feasible and why I would have been happy to hear your opinion. I wouldn't be reading or posting on the forum if I wasn't here to learn something too.

Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at April 11, 2006 12:45 PM

Bx2Bklyn - When I said the settlements outlined in this article were 'fair' - you replied by saying "fair to you" - I took that to mean that you dont think they are fair - do you? and if not what would you consider fair.

As for the rest, if you feel my posts go past advocating my views into 'bashing' or "baiting" I am more than open to you calling me on it at the time.

Posted by: David at April 11, 2006 12:59 PM

Actually David I was commenting on who gets to define fair. And I would be lying if I said I had a answer for you regarding fairness to the tenants. I have heard that Ratner is fair in his offers to property owners, but I do have a problem with using eminent domain for this purpose.

Rather than calling you on bashing or baiting I'd rather learn what your perspective is- you obviously know a great deal and bring a lot to the forum. You don't need to bash anyone's position- just explain why you think your position is better. :-)

Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at April 11, 2006 1:35 PM

530 IF (post = "question about AY") THEN
540 PRINT "a vigorous defense, maintain a positive spin. Repeat yourself as many times as possible. Use terms such as obstructionist, NIMBY, SELFISH, ANTI-DEVELOPMENT and other labels that objectionists cringe at. No need to carefully read the postings. Silence all objections. Keep defending ALL development propositions. Ignore all future impacts and risks"
550 paycheck% = paycheck% + $150
560 ELSE
570 DO NOTHING.
580 END IF

Posted by: Anonymous at April 11, 2006 1:55 PM

Anon@1:55 causing invalid fact error in Module paycheck.DLL and fatal exception 04 ignore.facts.sys.
Your current application will be terminated.

Posted by: David at April 11, 2006 3:58 PM

funny

Posted by: Anonymous at April 11, 2006 4:28 PM

DAVID: Here's the WNYC link: http://www.wnyc.org/news/articles/48683.
As you'll discover, there were tenants who lost their apts without even hearing about the possibility of help or compensation from FCR, let alone receiving it. It would be so nice if you could put down your reflexively pro-development stance for just one minute to understand that there are real, human stories here involving ordinary people who are NOT being paid $1m+ dollars for their condos but who are just s*** out of luck. A little compassion would go a long way.

Posted by: Anon at April 11, 2006 6:29 PM

I read the article and w/ one exception ALL the tenants got some sort of settlement/deal from Ratner:
In order of the article:

Frank Yost - (owner of Franky's Bar) - no settlement, was not offered a renewed lease when his lease expired (non RS building) - by end of article Yost received letter indicating he could have apt in new complex and offer to talk to Stuckley

Mick Raffle-Raffle says he was able to negotiate a substantial settlement in exchange for agreeing to terminate his lease – but he didn’t feel he had much choice.

Heidi Kinney -Kinney told us she and her boyfriend decided not to fight. They reached a settlement. But Kinney would not give details

So would it be "baiting" you or "bashing" you to ask if YOU read the article?

Did you read the bottom of the article where this exchange between the reporter (bernstein) and Stuckly (FCR) took place?

"He [Stuckley] said there were tenants that he didn’t know about, and who he couldn’t talk to before Forest City took title to the building. Even so, Stuckey said if people have struck deals with individual landlords, Forest City Ratner is still willing to stand by their pledge to offer new apartments in the arena complex."

BERNSTEIN: So even if somebody has moved out and agreed they’re not going to have any claims they could still come to you at this point and say I’d like to move back in and you would sit down with them
STUCKEY: as long as they can demonstrate that they were a tenant on the site when this project began for a period of time the answer is yes.

So does it mean I work for Ratner if I ask where are the tenants that are "sh*t out of luck"???

And finally let me ask does your smug commentary regarding human compassion stretch to compassion for the people who will benefit from the jobs, and housing that this project will create - or was it just thrown is as part of the "civil" conversations that others claim to want?

Posted by: David at April 11, 2006 7:40 PM

It's too exhausting trying to discuss anything with you in a rational manner, David. So take the last word, please. After all, you always do.

Posted by: Anon at April 12, 2006 12:48 PM

Funny where I was educated, a point by point approach to your oppositions assertions, backed up by facts, citations and logical inferences IS how you have a RATIONAL discussion;
and
making hyperbolic statements,with no facts or citations, along with smug value judgements about the opposing party was the DEFINITION of irrational discussion.

Consider that maybe the reason why you are so "exahausted" is b/c your premise - that Ratner is screwing tenants/owners - is just wrong.

Posted by: David at April 12, 2006 1:25 PM

« A New Model for Affordable Townhouses in Harlem Modernism's Role in the Brownstone Revival »

April 10, 2006

Ratner's Heavy Hand Cuts Both Ways

Comments

Post a comment

Get Brownstoner on your Mobile Phone

Latest Restaurant Additions