« Wednesday On The Record Thursday Links »

April 25, 2007

Co-op Transparency: What Do You Think?

We're going to be on the Brian Lehrer show on WNYC tomorrow at 10:20 a.m. to discuss the recent proposal by City Council to require co-op boards to give a written explanation within five days to people they reject. We thought it would be interesting to see what readers think of the proposal, so please take a minute to answer the three-question co-op survey and then listen in tomorrow. There's a field on the survey for your comments. Thanks!
Check out the results here
When Co-Ops Say "No", They May Have to Say Why [Gothamist]
Pushing Co-ops to Explain Why You Can’t Buy [NY Times]

Comments

All that will happen is that co-op boards will verbally discuss the reasons for a refusal ... then write the first one that is bland enough to put into writing (carefully ignoring race, sexual preferences, age, marital status, etc). The law should just abolish co-ops entirely. If someone can afford to buy an apartment, and obeys the written rules of the complex while they live there, they should be allowed to purchase it. Everything else is dressing racism, or other nasty -isms with excuses. Full stop. End of story.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2007 1:01 AM

I agree, what's the point of co-ops anyway? I understand the structure of a co-op financially but why is a board of a approval relevant?

Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2007 7:55 AM

Board approval is relevant because you're all shareholders with shared responsibility for the finances and upkeep of your property. As a co-op owner, I don't want a misanthropic psycho as a neighbor and partner...and I'll say so when I gladly report reasons for rejection (with apologies to the mentally ill, who aren't protected under housing discrimination laws).

Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2007 8:18 AM

people will say board approval is necessary in order to "maintain standards" and so on but it is all just code for only wanting "people like us".

Condos work just fine in every other city in the world, and in ny!, but co-ops are a uniquely new york institution. they are ultimately organized discrimination - dressed up as something more noble - but the stink is still there.

I expect someone will post shortly how important it is to be able to ensure buyers are financially not over-extending themselves, etc etc, but this is just window dressing the issue. They are not as interested in financials as they are in seeing your face, your clothes, hearing how you speak, checking out your job, your friends, poking around in your personal affairs, to make sure that you're not scary, or different, not too eccentric, won't rock the boat. That you're "PLU".

Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2007 8:28 AM

"Board approval is relevant because you're all shareholders with shared responsibility for the finances and upkeep of your property"

But that avoids the issue - why have shareholders in a corporate body at all? Why not have it be a condo in the first place?

Posted by: EJ at April 26, 2007 8:31 AM

The market has already passed judgement on the coop idea: Condos trade at a 20% premium to coops. So for those coop owners who think their regulations protect them from financial ruin? It's a classic self-fulfilling prophecy. And the more condos that get built in NYC, the worse the trade ratio will become. Coops were a good idea on paper, but in practical application they suck.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2007 8:39 AM

Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2007 8:41 AM

Unfortunately, co-ops cannot simply become condos because of the financial structures of each type of ownership. In a co-op, there's an underlying mortgage on the building. In a condo, there is no underlying mortgage, which is why owners of condos get deeds and pay their own property taxes. The distinction is important, especially to the IRS.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2007 8:41 AM

One of the benefits of living in a coop is that you know who your neighbors are. Sublet policies ensure that you won't be living in a transient building with renters moving in and out all the time. Owners take better care of their property then renters do. There is a place for coops in NY. However, coop boards should be required to put in writing why they are rejecting an applicant. The problem here is that they probably will say that they had concerns about the financials about the applicant 9 times out of 10 and not say the real reason. I can't see them saying "you were rejected because we felt you would be difficult" which is the reason why some boards will reject you.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2007 8:59 AM

the problem, anon 8:18 is that for the most part you can't tell if someone is a "misanthropic psycho neighbor or partner" by their financials and an interview. I read the linked times article and another article written about the same subject in 1986 and these people have great creditials and financials and were still rejected. no one is getting upset because the board rejected a serial killer candidate but the truth of the matter is ted bundy himself was educated and charming by description so what exactly do you have to stand on? can you really convince yourself that you can tell if someone will be a bad neighbor by their interview. more so, a lot of these boards are rejecting people before they even interview. I guess they heard through their golfing buddy that this person would be a "misanthropic psycho neighbor or partner" - thats ridiculous. I agree with the person above who pointed out that condos are doing just fine without this type of nonsense.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2007 9:48 AM

Assuming it is true that condos trade higher, there are good reasons for that. In a coop, you pay maintenacne that includes the underlying mortgage and property taxes. In a condo, there are common charges, but those are, or ought to be, much lower sicne there is no underlying mortgage and you pay your own taxes. Also, if co-ops trade lower, it is simply relative, you buy lower and sell lower, what's the big deal?
There are lots of 4,6 and 8 unit co-ops in Brooklyn that are self-managed because it is not worth it to each shareholder to pay a large sahre fo teh cost of a managing agent or company. I would never want to be in such a small condo, because I would worry about who woudl take real responsibility for teh building. As co-op shareholders, everyone is on the hook for teh whole building. Therefore, in a Brownstone co-op, I want the ability to make sure whoever else is going to become a co-owner of the building with me is someone who has good judgment and will pitch in and be responsible, and has the resources not just to pay the mortgage and the maintenance, but to write a quick check if need be to help pay for a new boiler or something like that. So while there may be all kinds of discrimination at the big fancy CPW and Park Ave co-ops, small brownstone co-ops need the discretion the law affords them, and that discretion is threatened by having to publicly state a reason for rejection.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2007 10:05 AM

Co-op's need Boards and this screening power. If you don't like it don’t live or apply to live in one. Get real...

I would bet that most of the detractors do not live in a co-op, cant afford a co-op or are just bitter for being rejected by a co-op because they could not meet the buildings/developments standards or financial requirements.

Get over it and move elsewhere then....

Posted by: Get a Life and moveon at April 26, 2007 10:38 AM

Disclosing the reasons is just a matter of fairness.

There would be no right under the bill to sue co-ops because you don't like the reasons.

If a co-op made up a reason to try to get around the proposed requirement, then the person rejected would be able to assess whether the reason seems to be a cover-up.

Since co-ops under existing law have to provide a reason at a trial of a fair housing claim, the real question is why the industry is so desperate not to put cards on the table in the first place:

The industry likes the fact that secrecy allows coop attorneys to make up reasons long after the fact.

The industry likes the fact that secrecy deters people from asserting their civil rihgts.

The industry likes the idea of not being accountable to anyone.

Posted by: Never Rejected Co-op Owner at April 26, 2007 11:06 AM

OK, so if you have a four unit brownstone coop with everyone on the board and a slightly uneven distribution of shares and you need a majority of shares to approve an applicant and three people like the pplicant but one, with slightly mroe than 25% of the shares thinks that person will not be pleasant to deal with and therefore votes no, and three people think the financials are fine but a different member, with 25% of the shares, thinks not and votes no, what is the "reason" for rejection that should be disclosed. The "co-op" did not make a decision as to teh "reason" for rejection. Individuals voted their own views.

The risk of litigation is mroeover real. If a co-op discloses a reason -- for example, if everyone thought the applciant came off as a little hostile and shifty at the interview -- and the applicant feels snubbed and insulted, they may find a lawyer to help them claim that the reason was pretextual. Even if the claim is groundless, the motion opractice alone is going to cost the co-op members $5k-$20k before the case is gone. Split that four ways and that is a pretty penny. Small coops will be afraid not to take people who seem like they might be litigious, when, in fact, they should be afraid to take such people.

Small coops do not have the resources to insulate themselves through managing companies and the regular advice of counsel. I think back to my brownstone co-op days and, other than teh fact that we almost never rejected anyone (we were lucky that our sellers always found personable, affluent buyers), I shudder to think how we would have handled disclosure in a difficult case. I am sure that if there was someone we thought would make a bad member, we would have hired counsel just to draft the rejection. Is that where we want this to go?

Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2007 11:30 AM

Isn't it true that the number of turndowns per building per year is very small? Isn't that especially the case in small buildings? Isn't the industry claiming that most of the turndowns are on financial grounds, so that the "rejected for obnoxiousness" or other soft reasons is only a small percentage of a small percentage? Isn't the percentage of turndowns where the demographics of the person is sufficiently different from the demographics of the building to allow even the thought of a fair housing lawsuit a small percentage of the small percentage of the small percentage?

"Risk of litigation" is a scare tactic. We need a more calm discussion.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2007 11:45 AM

The discussion about smaller co-ops reminds me about what happens every time there is a discussion about rent regulation. The big boys always bring out the mom-and-pop landlord to show how greedy tenants are beating up on good people trying to eke out a living. Let's be real: whatever you think about having the law apply to small buildings (fewer than 6 units, say), that's not what drives the Real Estate Board and the other coop industry lobbyists. They are opposed to any disclosure and any accountability PERIOD.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2007 11:49 AM

I have been posting my concerns about the proposed law as a former president of a 4-unit coop I used to live in. Several of my posts are above. I have no ties to, nor love for, the real estate industry in NY. I was once ripped off by a developer and had to sue him. I have also been an attorney in NYC for 12 years and I have been around the local courts enough to see what people sue about. I also know that the one time my tiny self-managed coop board rejected someone, I was called numerous times by the attorney, day and night, trying to pry an answer out of me and I knew the more I said, teh more likely we would be sued. The risk is real, my friends.

So too, as I have posted several times, is the fact of discrimination. In my first post -- on the forum page before Mr. B opened up comments here --I asked whether there was any way to balance both the interest in preventing discrimination and preserve the legitimate discretion co-ops need. I think the law as proposed is going to impose a chilling effect on honest, tiny coops, but it would be great to see some suggestions of how to reach a compromise.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2007 2:10 PM

I've been a co-op treasurer for almost three years, and on the board for more than three.

Contrary to what appears to be a popular feeling, most co-ops are neither snooty nor filled with the wealthy. My co-op is in Washington Heights -- not exactly a tony neighborhood where the elite meet to deny apartments to buyers. In fact, we have never rejected a buyer, and, in fact, have welcomed musicians, actors, parents of small (and noisy) children, and live among elderly renters.

Yes, renters in a co-op -- that's because, like most co-ops, our building was once all rental.

Twenty years ago the landlord decided to sell. The renters could buy their apartments, for which they would get a mortgage. They would also pay monthly maintenance, a healthy chunk of which goes to paying off the mortgage on the building.

That's right, co-op owners pay two mortgages, one on their apartment and one on the building.

That's because the landlord sold the building to a corporation -- not IBM, but a corporation whose shareholders are apartment owners. So the corporation owns the building, and, legally speaking, leases the apartments to shareholders (whose shares entitle them to live in their apartment) who are, legally speaking, renters (or, even more legally speaking, lessors).

Bizarre? You betcha.

(see below)

Posted by: Wally at April 26, 2007 6:43 PM

Co-ops are governed by New York State corporate law (we're an "S" Corporation, for Co-operative Housing Associations, for the juridically minded). Believe me, most co-op owners who understand the law would be ecstatic to be able to change the way our business is run, but we can't. The legislature would have to do that.

To those who believe that a rejection based on a potential applicant's financial status is "window dressing" to obscure the true capricious & malevolent machinations of the board, let me give you an example.

In our co-op, as in most, at least a few people are behind in their monthly maintenance payments. Aside from the obvious problem of being short on cash, a shareholder who can't pay her maintenance creates a problem for the co-op. In our building we don't have piles of money stashed away to pay our bills. We rely on shareholders to uphold their obligation to pay their share in the business.

And bills we have. We pay ConEd. We pay for insurance. We pay property tax. And, the biggest bill of all, the mortgage.

When shareholders withhold their payments, the board either stops paying bills (frankly, not an option when it comes to property tax, insurance or a mortgage) or we have to borrow from a bank to cover the gap.

Guess who pays the interest on that loan? All the other shareholders! Believe me, they are not pleased when they must do so.

(see below)

Posted by: Wally at April 26, 2007 6:45 PM

Aside from paying their bills, many people who move into our co-op are first-time buyers and are surprised to find out that when a pipe in the basement bursts, or the roof leaks, everyone in the building has to pay for it -- even if the pipe or roof leak flood someone else's apartment.

That's when the maintenance increases (or an assessment is levied). In short, the costs of home ownership only increase. Potential owners must be able to afford living in our building now AND in the future. If you would be strapped just making the payments now, you won't be able to afford the payments in five years.

To those who are on the edge we may offer to approve them if they put, typically, one year's maintence in escrow. It's a win-win situation because the co-op knows it has the shareholder's maintenance available if she can't make her payments, and the shareholder gets her apartment. (If you can't afford to put a year's maintenance in escrow, you should probably reconsider investing in an apartment -- or home, for that matter. Then rent "The Money Pit.")

(see below)

Posted by: Wally III at April 26, 2007 6:46 PM

When it comes to this particular bill before the city council, let me say first that I am against discrimination (yea!) and I am for corporate transparency (yea!).

But as many posters have pointed out, you don't always get to go to the prom with the one you have your eye on, or into the college you want, or the job you are absolutely convinced you're perfect for.

Is that because your ideal prom date was racist? Because your college doesn't care for your essay about life as a queer? The job invterviewer felt uncomfortable by your wheelchair? If you think so, call the state attorney general's office. (Take that, non-prom date!)

I was rejected by two colleges. They didn't tell me why. I have been turned down for more jobs than I care to remember. Sometimes they didn't even have the courtesy to tell me they weren't going to hire me! The nerve, huh?

If I thought I had been turned down because of my race, religion, sexual preference, physical limitations, marriage & parenthood status, etc., I could have called the state attorney general's office. They investigate civil rights complaints, and they tend to take such things seriously.

Same thing applies here. If you get your news from Fox, you may be surprised to hear that the former attorney general, Elliot Spitzer (currently our governor), earned his reputation by taking on corporations. (Reminder: A co-op is a corporation too, governed by many of the same state laws.) Our current attorney general, Andrew Cuomo, is showing himself to be a thorn in the side of many huge corporations. (Citicorp, Sallie Mae to name but two.)

(see below)

Posted by: Wally IV at April 26, 2007 6:47 PM

If you believe you have been denied shares in a co-op because of discrimination, please call the attorney general's office at (212) 416-8000. THEY WILL WALK YOU THROUGH THE PROCESS of filing a complaint and THEY WILL HANDLE THE LAWSUIT! You don't have to hire a lawyer or pay legal fees! Please take on the bastards who violate the law!

Finally, a note about our fine friends in the real estate brokerage community. While many, if not most, are fine citizens who strive to uphold only the highest moral and ethical standards, some of them are driven by money.

As Councilman Monserrate (the sponsor of the bill) said today on Brian Lehrer's show (the same one where Our Dear Blog Host appeared), this very legistlation was pushed for by the Real Estate Board of New York.

Well, OK, whatever, right?

Hold on. The legislation (please read it if you live in or seek to live in a co-op) expands the right to sue for discrimination beyond the person/people who was/were turned down. Who else can sue for discrimination? Their REAL ESTATE AGENT ! ! !

So even if the turned-down buyer is to bummed/busy/broken to file suit, real estate agents could ask their staff attorneys (or, for freelancers, find one who's willing to take the case) to file papers at the courthouse.

(see below) (last time, I promise)

Posted by: Wally V at April 26, 2007 6:48 PM

How about this idea:

If a board turns down a potential buyer, it writes a letter certifying that the reason excludes each and all of the state's protected classes. The letter includes the phone number for the state a.g.'s civil rights complaint hotline. And no one but the people whose names were on the purchase application may pursue legal action.

It won't make the Real Estate Board of New York happy, and plenty of lawyer will lose out on plenty of money.

But at the end of the day, if the state continues to investigate and punish discrimination, and the Realtors and lawyers are kept out of things, it's not so bad after all, is it?

Sorry for taking so much of your time. I hope some of the vagueries of the co-op board are a little less mysterious now.

Posted by: Wally VI at April 26, 2007 6:49 PM

Holy shit, Wally, no one asked for a treatise.

Posted by: Anon at April 26, 2007 6:59 PM

Thanks, Wally, you did a better job than me in trying to explain why there are legitiamte reasons to oppose the law in its present form even if you are against discrimination, for transparency, and have no ties to the real estate industry. I know from my days as a brownstone coop president (no I am a homeowner) this law would have had me nervous even though I knew our non-snooty little coop never discriminated. Would a realtor deprived of a $40k commission due to a turndown spend a few bucks on a complaint, no matter how weak the merits? Would a disgruntled applicant? Quite possible.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 26, 2007 8:33 PM

Why are you going on the show? Doyou have some expertise in Real Estate. I assume not, that's why you're asking for our help?? Do you pretend to know anything?? Because I don't see what someones opinion who has no background in real estate means??

Posted by: Anonymous at April 27, 2007 5:47 AM

The Real Estate Board of New York opposes this bill, as it reflexively opposes many pieces of consumer friendly and civil rights legislation (it also opposes, for example, legislation that would prohibit landlords from discriminating against someone just because that person has been a victim of domestic violence).

Wally repeats one of the falsehoods spread over and over again by the coop industry: in fact, NO ONE -- not buyers, not sellers, not brokers -- can sue for discrimination under the bill. All the bill allows is an action alleging that the coop violated its obligations to disclose. Read the bill. P.S. - Under existing discrimination law, anyone injured by discrimination can sue, including brokers.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 27, 2007 8:33 AM

Anonymous 8:33 is technically correct about the bill, but takes too anrrow a view. The risk is a disgruntled applicant will take the disclosure and try to build a lawsuit around it. If the rejection was on financial grounds, what is to stop a disgruntled buyer who is in a class protected against discrimination (once you combine women and ethnic minorities, that's most of the City) from claiming that the disclosure is pretextual ("look at my income, how could they possibly say the rejection was for financial reasons"). It is not lawsuits under the proposed law that pose the problem, it is the way the disclosure will become litigation fodder and will lead to the courts micromanaging how coops are to evaluate applicants.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 27, 2007 10:03 AM

Anon10:03 makes my point better than I regarding Anon8:33. True, the bill itself would, I believe, allow a city attorney to file charges (instead of a citizen filing a lawsuit). (Anon8:33 is referring to Chapter 11, Section 8-1105, of Int. No. 119.)

But any reason a co-op board puts in writing (and certifies to be true) can be read in many different ways by many different lawyers and many different juries.

Which is probably one really good reason why rejections from schools, job offers, and the like come without explanation.

Posted by: Wally at April 27, 2007 12:44 PM

BTW, Mr. B,

For those of us who haven't given up our day jobs, how did it go on the radio? Can you post a link to a transcript, podcast, or just give us a few reflections about the conversation? Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 27, 2007 1:20 PM

To download the audio, go to www.wnyc.org then click "Shows" at the top. Choose "The Brian Lehrer Show," and then on the right select the "Archives" link. The show is "Rejection Made Clear" on April 26.

To attemp to answer Anon5:47 on behalf of Our Blog Host's behalf, the Brownstoner guy said on the show that he had owned in two co-ops. From his answers, however, he seemed unfamiliar with the particulars of how a corporation works. He probably didn't serve on a board -- or if he did it was a very small (fewer than 10 apt's) co-op.

If you click "About" at the top of this page, you get a statement that Brownstoner has an interest in historic Brooklyn architecture and neighborhoods.

We'll have to watch to see if he replies to you, Anon5:47.

Posted by: Wally at April 27, 2007 4:54 PM

If anybody's still looking at this page, let me answer a couple of earlier questions.

From Anon7:55 on the 26th:
"... why is a board of a approval relevant?"

Required is probably the word A. was looking for. The reason is simple. A co-op is a corporation with shares. If you want to invest in it, you have to buy shares, as you would with PepsiCo, IBM or Microsoft.

Those companies' shares are traded publicly. Anyone with cash can by a share.

Co-ops' shares trade privately. Just because someone wants to invest (i.e. buy an apartment) doesn't mean the corporation has to sell the shares. Same thing in a professional corporation such as a law firm or medical practice. (That's what "P.C." stands for in "Boy, Dewy, Cheatham & Howe, P.C.")

Their investors ("partners" in a law firm, "doctors" in a medical practice, to oversimplify) sell shares only to those people they wish. In part, this keeps them from being bought out against their will (which happens often in publicly traded companies).

It's the same in a co-op. Why are co-ops set up this way? It's New York State law, so if you want to change it, you'll have to write your legislator.

Next question, from EJ on the 26th:

"... why have shareholders in a corporate body at all? Why not have it be a condo in the first place?"

Actually, that's two questions.

First one is easy. If you get your buddies to chip in to your lawn mowing business, you don't have to incorporate. But if you need lots of cash -- say, to buy a $10 million building -- you probably do need investors. (Unless you have really rich friends who trust you with their millions of dollars.)

So you form a corporation to sell shares. That's to keep it legal and above-board. When you sell shares, you have investors. If you don't need shareholders, you don't need a corporate body.

Second question is a bit more complicated at first, but actually pretty simple.

So there's an apartment building with a landlord who rents all the apartments. One day he decides to stop being a landlord and sell the building to the renters.

The renters buy their apartments, for which they get a mortgage. They also pay monthly maintenance, a healthy chunk of which goes to paying off the mortgage on the building.

That's right, co-op owners pay two mortgages, one on their apartment and one on the building.

Who owns the building's mortgage? A housing corporation (a.k.a. a co-op), which needs investors to pay that mortgage.

If buyers have enough money to buy out their share of the building's mortgage at the same time they're paying for their apartment, they buy a condo.

That's why condo apartments are worth more -- they include the paid-off building mortgage.

Posted by: Wally at April 28, 2007 5:15 PM

I think a couple of anonymous comments have the lawsuit thing wrong. The bill says "any proper party may commence an action in any court of competent jurisdiction." Proper party means a buyer who got turned down and their real estate agent.

Doesn't action mean lawsuit? Any lawyers on this board?

Posted by: BL at May 1, 2007 3:21 PM

Does anyone know how many bias complaints have been filed with the state a.g. over this?

Posted by: Anonymous at May 2, 2007 10:29 AM

coops should just go condo and get it overwith!

Posted by: Anonymous at May 3, 2007 7:27 PM

Anyone who is thinking of buying a co op should reconsider. What is needd is a blog section about BAD coop management and boards. I live under the tyranny of a meglomaniacal Board President, an ignorant and idiocy prone managing agent and a three monkey board who will comply with the will of the loudest voice.
It is horrid. We are selling after only two years. The turnover here is incredible. People sell after being here only 4 months - a real revenue generator for the co op shareholders, eh? I was Treasurer and admit to considering communicating the positive aspects of an incompetent Board and managing agent. I finally resigned when they - without my knowledge or participation, hired my life partner for a job which meant I had to resign.

Managing agents should be regulated.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 12, 2007 5:13 PM

It's certainly true that not all co=ops are created equal. I've lived in two, and know first-hand that there are good board and bad boards, presidents who are honest & selfless and presidents who ignore their own rules and their shareholders' best interests.

Same can be said of the managing agents.

If you're thinking of buying a co-op, ASK other building residents what they think about living there.

If you live in one with a dysfunctional board, RUN for office or at least shake things up by encouraging others to do so.

Co-ops are only as livable as the people who live in them want them to be.

Posted by: co-op owner at May 13, 2007 2:07 PM

Anon of 5/12:

Unless your co-op has a flip tax, how does the rapid turnover generate revenue for the co-op?

And even if there is a flip tax, the amount collected is probably smaller than it would be if the building were well-run. After all, most buyers would rather live in a well-run building than in one poorly run.

Of course, that means the buyers have to do some research before signing the contract (see "co-op owner," above).

Posted by: Wally at May 15, 2007 7:44 PM

Hey, Brwnstnr,

Just listened to your podcast from the show. Great work, but one thing you and Brian were definitly clueless on was the $300 application fee.

You're right that the money isn't split between the board members. They work for free.

The money covers the cost of the company that checks to make sure all the paperwork is included, to make copies of everything for all the board members (thats like 100+ pages x each board member + the property manager), and messengering the copies to everyone's home/office (our building has 1 board member who represents the old landlord, she doesn't live in the bldg, so it's a different address).

Unlike board members, office workers get paid. The buyers write a check for their work.

Posted by: Manhattan at May 30, 2007 7:17 PM

So if gays, muslims, parents of small children and the like are already protected under state law, does the council bill do anything more than give real estate agents a chance to make even more money?

Posted by: Anonymous at June 15, 2007 6:59 PM

« Wednesday On The Record Thursday Links »

April 25, 2007

Co-op Transparency: What Do You Think?

Comments

Post a comment

Get Brownstoner on your Mobile Phone

Latest Restaurant Additions