« Condos of the Day: 480 Eastern Parkway Thursday Blogwrap »

July 26, 2007

House of the Day: 234 Baltic Street

At first blush, the asking price of $1,650,000 seemed too good to be true for the four-story brick house at 234 Baltic Street. Turns out, it was. The house, which just got a nice exterior tune-up, has a rent control tenant in the owner's duplex. Doh! So how does this look as a pure investment property? Well, the rent roll is $61,200. Figure $15,000 for taxes, insurance and maintenance and you're left with $46,200. Let's say you put down $350,000 to buy the place. Your $1,300,000 mortgage will run you a good $100,000 a year. Hmmm. Looks like you'll be subsidizing your tenants to the tune of about $50,000 a year. Update: At the risk of being completely morbid, a tipster just emailed us to report that the rent control tenant is indeed an elderly man. About 80, she's guessing.
234 Baltic Street [Smith Hanten] GMAP P*Shark

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/1693

Comments

Figure 2000 for each of the floorthrus, means that the r/c tenants are paying 1100/month for a duplex.

Put another way:
I'd probably bid 1.4

Posted by: Anonymous at July 26, 2007 1:51 PM

can't they (eventually) be evicted under owner-occupancy (unless they’re old, etc.)?

Posted by: Anonymous at July 26, 2007 1:53 PM

$1.65 mil = "too good to be true"?

Guess you also think John Edwards got a pretty sweet deal when he paid $400 for his haircut.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 26, 2007 2:06 PM

I would assume the tenant is old.
Depending on who tenant is - a long-term equity jump evenutally coming.
Current owner bought 3 years ago for $700k.
Consider it 1/2 a house of $1.5m.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 26, 2007 2:07 PM

If it hadn't had rent control issues, it would have been a very sweet deal at $1.65

Posted by: Brownstoner at July 26, 2007 2:13 PM

Extremely sweet, as a house on that Block could easily fetch $2.1.

Posted by: crouchback at July 26, 2007 2:56 PM

so if that's true and it really would be worth about 2.1 million, this might be a good way to look at it.

spending 50 grand a year to keep the tenant in place. 500K is 10 years of that. if you think this tenant will no longer be with us in 10 years or less, and if you think this place will still be worth at least 2.1 million in 10 years, then it's still not a bad deal.

semi sweet, i'd say.

Posted by: anon at July 26, 2007 3:03 PM

I can't do math so I leave that to you guys but I'll say bravo to whoever thought to have the windows professionally washed before putting the place on the market. Doesn't it look great? If only the realtor had cleaned up the crap on the stoop before taking the pictures.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 26, 2007 3:08 PM

cobble hill one fams and decent 2 fams go for over $3 million, so i'd say this may be worth it if the house is in good condition.

Posted by: anon at July 26, 2007 4:30 PM

Yes, under the Rent Stabilization Code, you can refuse to renew a tenant's lease if the owner will then use the apartment for his or her personal use and occupancy. Not sure if the fact that the tenant is elderly has an impact.

Posted by: CarolineCohen at July 26, 2007 4:37 PM

At the risk of being completely morbid, 80 year olds have been known to last quite awhile. Years ago there was an article about an investor who bought a condo in a building being converted...it came with an 80-something life tenant. The tenant had the last laugh when he was still going strong 20 yrs later...and the investor was dead. With all due respect to senior citizens, this isn't a great bet.

Posted by: Despina at July 26, 2007 4:37 PM

there's always the buyout option (e.g. give the tenant $250k in cash to move out), although presumably the current owner would have done that if it were a viable option.

Posted by: z at July 26, 2007 4:43 PM

how much is he paying? 1100 a month?

Posted by: Anonymous at July 26, 2007 4:46 PM

80 can be considered a youngster when it comes to rent-stabilized or control tenants. What's with no pics on the website???

Posted by: North Sleeper at July 26, 2007 4:53 PM

Kick him out and occupy it yourself. The RC parasites need to move on.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 26, 2007 4:55 PM

You can't evict a rent controlled tenant who is over 62 years old, even for the purposes of owner occupancy:

http://www.dhcr.state.ny.us/ora/pubs/html/orafac10.htm

Posted by: Anonymous at July 26, 2007 4:56 PM

the rc tenant in the building next to me pays $323 a month.

she told me herself.

prime. park slope. ladies and gents.

and she wonders why the building is collapsing on itself.

takes a little more than that to upkeep a brownstone, babe.

Posted by: anon at July 26, 2007 4:59 PM

Some of the nastier posters on this blog have called me a moron in the past because I have written that old houses can come complete with rent control tenants. Duh!
And do not kid yourself, even if you want to use the space for your own use, be ready for a battle royal. Think about it, if the renter could have been budged, the seller would have done so and sold the house empty. The new owner will have no more legal rights than the prior owner to evict the tenant.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 26, 2007 5:04 PM

Is the succession for family members living with a rent control tenant also a rent control tenancy, or does it become rent stabilized on succession?

Posted by: Anonymous at July 26, 2007 5:12 PM

5:04 Fran

Posted by: Anonymous at July 26, 2007 5:18 PM

Also, it would not be that surprising to see that a family member near or over the age of 62 moving in to help take care of a tenant who is over 80 -- meaning that the teant who inherits the rights under the rent control law also could not be evicted even for owner occupancy.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 26, 2007 5:20 PM

RC laws are obsurd

Posted by: fu at July 26, 2007 5:22 PM

hey junior, the old lady can last another twenty years.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 26, 2007 5:23 PM

hey junior, the old lady can last another twenty years.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 26, 2007 5:23 PM

5:20 Fran

Posted by: Anonymous at July 26, 2007 5:26 PM

Sucession becomes rent stabilized after the rc tenant moves on. Then owner use is possible, but that could take a while.

Posted by: too at July 26, 2007 5:26 PM

There is a thirty-something fellow in my building who inherited his rent-control apartment from his parents. In a very real way, this is his inheritance and perhaps the single best thing he has going for him in his life. This fellow may marry and pass it on to his children who may have limited aspirations like their father and live there for the rest of their lives as well. It is a nice 2-bedroom apartment, his rent is up to $420 a monh now, but he rents out the spare bedroom -perfectly legal- for 900 a month.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 26, 2007 5:29 PM

Remember the French guy who bought that investment property occupied by the 90-year-old lady? I think that's what was being referred to in the earlier post. Karmic payback's a bitch ... she became the World's Oldest Human! Died at about 122 and easily outlived the investor.

Did nobody here see "Duplex" either?

Posted by: cgwatcher at July 26, 2007 5:33 PM

Rent control really has an effect of longevity. Tenants live forever and owners die young. The New England Journal of Medicine should do a study.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 26, 2007 5:41 PM

5:29, it's only legal for the guy to rent out functionally half the apartment for half the rent. That's grounds for kicking his sorry butt out, and the sub-lettors can sue for the over-charge.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 26, 2007 5:41 PM

Actually 5:29, I am not sure if it is legal under the rent stab laws to rent out a room in an apartment for more than the total rent of the apartment (i.e., an RS tenant cannot profit on the tenancy).
Does anyone know for sure?

Posted by: Anonymous at July 26, 2007 5:41 PM

Let's get rid of all Rent controlled tenants I hate them Lazy do nothing but hang out all day. It really does not make you want to advance your life does it? why should you do anything if you live in a nice hood for 300 a month. This is a bad idea and so are co ops. NYC has some really stupid laws.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 26, 2007 5:43 PM

I know for sure that a RC tenant can do anything they want. Why would they tell a judge, or the IRS, or anybody, that they are renting out a room for twice or three times what they are paying?

Posted by: Anonymous at July 26, 2007 5:46 PM

420 a month...??

mmm...what a good number.

Posted by: stoner at July 26, 2007 5:58 PM

" really doesn't make you want to advance your life".... that's funny...
it seems that all those rent control tenants have the goods that most of you folks wish you could get your hands on.

I hope the old coot lives to be 150 years old!

Posted by: bren at July 26, 2007 6:29 PM

Just wait a month or two until the owner defaults on his mortgage and then buy it from the bank for 750 mil.
Which is about what it's worth w/a permanent r/c tenant.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 26, 2007 6:36 PM

Only buy if the RC leech is "accident" prone.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 26, 2007 7:05 PM

I hope your grandparents all receive the same love and respect you give to the elderly.

I also hope they've left you nothing, but I suppose if that was true, none of you would own the real estate you're so precious about, would you?

Posted by: Anonymous at July 26, 2007 7:12 PM

my grandparents owned their own homes.
They also had tenants, whom they treated like friends. Rent control laws broke down that human relationship by bringing in the courts and the state into the equation.
It was a mistake. But remember that New York City was rooting for the other team during the Cold War. We have always been anti-American, and prefer to side with foreign powers than with our own.
The Soviet world went kablooey, but rent control lives on.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 26, 2007 7:22 PM

NYC was rooting for the other team during the Cold War? Where the hell do you get that from?

Posted by: Anonymous at July 26, 2007 7:53 PM

NYC was rooting for the other team during the Cold War? Where the hell do you get that from?

are you kidding? did you live here in the 70's and 80's?
Capitalism was bad, greedy private interests were thought of as passe and barbaric. Socialism and Communism was the wave of the future don't you know? Nobody in a million years thought that the private sector would revive NY. Of course those were the years of subway car graffitti and Ford to NY: drop dead, etc etc.
NY was often referred to as "Moscow on the Hudson: and I don't think it was because of the gold domes.
I worked with so many dyed in the wool commies in those days, it was normal.
nobody remembers those days I guess,
it was not so long ago, like maybe twenty years?

Posted by: Anonymous at July 26, 2007 8:58 PM

80 years old? This listing needs to include actuarial tables along with the floorplans. And a medical history.

Seriously, wouldn't you to be a fool to buy this place in the expectation of how much linger he'll live? Because damn sure since this post went up, he's been contacted by several prospective "nieces" and "nephews" if he doesn't have one already.

And the old guy's probably a red-diaper baby who'll take on a fake family member just to screw over all the bloodsucking plutocrats on this site.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 26, 2007 9:22 PM

I live on the block and walk by his front room. The tenant has a pc and is probably reading this crap. There are a lot of selfish children on this site.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 26, 2007 10:25 PM

Hello all. Rent control normally cant be kicked out, but if they are rent control AND elderly, they are actually untouchable under ANY circumstances under NY State law. We have one of those in my moms place here in LIC, It's Rent Stabilized. He floods out his one bedroom at least once a year, sometimes we believe intentionally, sometimes he falls asleep. He doesn't care. The cops and the fire Dept cant to anything when he does it. He's been trying to get us to buy him out for many years now. We refuse. We never asked him to leave. He just wants a payday off all our years of sweat equity. F him and all the other RC leeches like this nasty sob we got stuck with. Also, he's 87-ish we think, but he's tough as a horse! Still works and leaves everyday at 6am. He's gonna be with us for awhile. Seems like how it usually works out. $250. and change is his rent BTW. We wouldn't mind the low rent, if he wasn't such a prick. We also bought mid-90's, decent price compared to today's market, though it was a wreck initially, also because it was filled with so many troubled tenants, that the previous owners would walk away, till my tough as nails Mom had the guts to take a chance on it, so getting involved in something like that, with today's prices, especially this house, I would have to say stay away, just my opinion. But for someone with enough capital and a longterm outlook, this could workout for someone, especially if the geezer is nice at least. RC is a pain, but RC and acting like a scumbag, like our guy, man, it sucks.
As far as succession rights our lawyer explained it to us that a person (close relative obviously) would have to have been living there continuously for two years with a very solid paper trail to follow to prove they're living there, but only one year if they're elderly. Also, per posts 5:29 and 5:41, that person in 5:29 can give his landlord grounds for eviction if he collects more than his payment of rent for profit, at least under rent stabalization laws and in RS buildings. I'm not sure how that would apply to say this unstabilized townhouse on Baltic. Maybe the geezer is renting out the lower duplex to some of those cute sweaty tattoo'd girls who usually work the Gowanus Yacht Club ;)
Seriously, I hope this has been of some help, sorry about the long post, and much love to Bk form Queensbridge! Cheers.

Posted by: -JB- at July 26, 2007 10:35 PM

That's right, JB. Much better to continue to put up with aggravation than buy your tenant out. You're probably giving each other a reason to live.

And Anonymous 8:58. I was in NY in 70s and 80s. Geez, let me think...I started a nice capitalistic business then, as did quite a few other people. Excluding you, I guess. And, if I recall correctly, wasn't 'Wall Street' made in the 80s?

Posted by: Anonymous at July 26, 2007 10:41 PM

RC is absurd...

Oh my most humble apologies for not having made a billion dollars in 1950 and now that I have been paying my rent in the same place for 50 years and living my effing life..you schmucks come along with your fancy smartass commentaries and tell me that I'm in your way..excuse fricking me for living past 60, collecting social security, my little pension(from 50 years in a brick factory) and climbing those same 43 stairs with my bad hip from that bullet I took in WWI and most of all for F'ing living..MY BADDD!

I'll go live in a tenament if that works for you..Oh wait! you took those over flipped em and now there all swanky lofts...so I should live where?..Wyoming perhaps..

Wait till you get old and some young half assed virgin over educated daddy milked robot-type 115pd 6' skinny cropped hair corduroy wearing sketchers like bit'h comes along and moves your ass out of your once fancy brownstone 40 years from now, cause your stocks fell, your portfolio got recycled, you lost your artsy fartsy gig at the once trendy SOHO fartsy fenggggg-shuieiei depot, your miserable flighty wife took you for half, or better yet your greasy drugged out kid sold it from under you or best yet, the neighborhood goes to crap after 2 or 3 years of Ratner like Stadium loving...Maybe youll get lucky and your pissy cock-eyed kid will knock up one Ratners daughters and you'll be almost entitled to a half-a-crap cause your kid can throw a good bone..if your really lucky your property values will triple due to manhattan being anniiihilated..I see you smiling you sick sh't...

I personally can't wait to be reincarnated as a mutt and take dumps on you when your sleeping in the streets..assuming those havent been sold off to the all too familiar new yuppy fck's of 2047...Jerks!

Have some respect for those people that gave you the ability to make that kinda money to buy a place like this in a country that for many years could have went to sh't if not for people like that 80yr old your desperately trying to weasel out of HIS (probably) damn earned apt.

Unless he's just some welfare, Housing, Section 8 leftover b'tch then light him up, push him out the first floor window on to the fence, call the decorator and say your wife did it..she's leaving anyway stupid a's!..get movin you skinny b'tch!

Posted by: idiots at July 26, 2007 11:13 PM

"I Don't Know That the Police Look at Us as Human"

Apartheid Americana

By SUSIE DAY

Two of my friends were just beaten and arrested by Brooklyn police. My friends, Michael Tarif Warren and Evelyn Warren, are African-American attorneys whose work consists, in part, of defending victims of police violence. I want to tell you about how police punched and humiliated these good people on the corner of Vanderbilt and Atlantic, in their own, predominantly Black neighborhood on June 21st; about Tarif's clothes being torn almost off--I don't want you to miss a thing. But many facts must wait until the Warrens' trial. Here, excerpted from a legal brief, is how Tarif describes what happened:

"At approximately 5:45pm, petitioner and his wife were in their vehicle, stuck in traffic, when they saw members of the New York Police Department apprehend a young man, handcuff him, and physically abuse him while he was prone on the ground. Petitioner and his spouse exited their vehicle to inquire why police were engaging in that behavior, but immediately returned when ordered, without getting near the police or the young man. Sergeant Steven Talvy, however, approached the petitioner and his spouse and, after they identified themselves as attorneys, proceeded to strike petitioner numerous times in the head and face and strike petitioner's wife in the face."

Sergeant Talvy handcuffed Tarif and pushed him into the police van. Evelyn, though "stunned," remembered her legal training and walked toward the mostly African-American crowd of onlookers:

"I said, 'Did you see what was happening?' Naturally, they did. All these people had poured out of a nearby McDonalds, plus it's rush hour and traffic was deadlocked. I say, 'Did anybody take photographs?' They said, 'Look at your jaw.'

"I didn't know it, but my jaw was swelling up. So I said, 'Take a picture of my jaw,' you know?"

I saw Evelyn three days later; her jaw was still swollen. It could have been worse: Seeing that Evelyn was trying to retrieve her confiscated driver's license, Sergeant Talvy ordered police to throw her to the ground, but the onlookers' shouts stopped them. Evelyn and Tarif were taken to Brooklyn's 77th Precinct.

"We were lined up against the wall with other prisoners. Tarif's clothes were ripped and falling off him. I will never forget, there was this blond officer in Talvy's unit--they were laughing together--and the guy said, 'What's this, a strip show?'

"You have to remember that Tarif and I were involved because the police were kicking this young man viciously. He was Black; probably around 18. His face was a bloody mess. Obviously, Talvy thought he could get away with it because he said, 'Well, it's your word against mine. Let's see what happens.'"

What happened was that Tarif was charged with Obstructing Governmental Administration, Disorderly Conduct, and Resisting Arrest; Evelyn, with Disorderly Conduct. Reactions poured from the Black press and community; there was almost no coverage from mainstream media; and a resounding silence still emanates from the New York Times.

Three weeks later, I visit Evelyn at home. She tells me how she's fighting to put her life back together:

"I grew up before segregation ended. My father was a contractor, a small-business person. He used to go to Mississippi to work. And every time he would leave for Mississippi, my mother would cry. So I recognize racism.

"I guess I was raised to be the best I could be in whatever I chose to do--by being the best, I could overcome certain conditions. I was foolish enough to believe that. I still know my value, but this incident tells me that they don't know my value--whether you're a kid wearing baggy pants, or a lawyer wearing a suit and driving an upscale vehicle--it doesn't matter to them.

"I should have been more aware of this. Tarif and I represent police brutality victims. I've heard accounts and seen the evidence, but to experience it firsthand--it's earth-shattering. So I have a new appreciation for what people go through. While you live in a world that's in turmoil, you still have a little corner where you feel safe and secure. I no longer have that. Before this, I was concerned about what was going on in Iraq, Africa, Venezuela. Now, I'm concerned about what goes on within ten blocks of where I live.

"Black people are hit harder by police than any other community--I know that. Tarif and I went to a meeting last Saturday where, in the projects, Black people are accosted coming out their door. Police say, 'Let me see some identification.' Now, if you're coming out the door, you must have had some right to be there. Unless you're seen carrying a TV or stereo system, why should you show ID?"

I ask Evelyn what she wants white people to know.

"I want them to know that what I'm telling is the truth. That any people of good moral standards should be concerned about law enforcement that's out of control. At minimum, they should ask questions of Police Commissioner Kelly and of Mayor Bloomberg: 'What's going on, here? This is unacceptable.' If those officers knew they could face charges just like any civilian, they'd think twice."

Then Evelyn says something that stops me cold:

"I don't know that the police look at us as human. I don't know that they would hear us if we spoke to them."

And I realize that, like many white people, I have lived for years with the genteel, self-protective assumption that, if I believed hard enough that Black and White people are equal, then the world must be OK. I realize it's never been OK--that my friends are in danger--that our lives remain deeply divided.

"Tarif keeps saying this happened for a reason, that the Creator is on a mission here. But my overriding emotion, aside from sadness and feeling powerless, is anger. I'm determined to change things. Because, if that officer can do what he did to us, in broad daylight, with 50 to 100 people watching--what happens when nobody's around?"

Posted by: The Truth at July 26, 2007 11:42 PM

Wrong post, wrong place..im sure..

OK that said...really there are bad cops? really? there is abuse in the system..no? really? There are young youths of every variety causing issues and thus ending up in restraints..no? really?

What I hate and I must say again hate..is this grouping together of all individuals because of a few individuals actions..In other words..a few "supposedly" bad apples get carried away on a "supposedly" guilty individual who happens to be black, so now all cops are the bad guys. And yes this is the implication of your diatribe as you state “I represent victims of police brutality” as a lawyer. This implication on your part that this not only happens all the time, but is so rampant that you can implicate most police officers or their actions in some way or another and state so simply ("when there’s no one around, I wonder what happens").

I wonder why this all sounds so familiar, perhaps its because this is the same argument used to incriminate all black people, all poor people, all homeless people, all gays, all those who have at some point been grouped together because of the individual actions others. This stereotyping is what you are guilty of, thereby making you no better than the enemies you so claim are foerever guilty.

“Well I wonder what happens when there’s no one around” and that cop has to defend him/herself against the elements that be? I wonder in your story why there is no mention of what the 18 y/o was doing beforehand. If you did not see his actions then surely you cannot speak as to what happened before you started "watching"..Most lawyers would know not to even attempt any level of involvement during a police action..or guess what happens? You get arrested(its not a black, white, gender thing..its a safety thing)...Why because your interfering? Because you to are a threat no matter what you drive, who you are , how your dressed or why you think you should get involved…you see something like this, you follow the police van or get the license plate or a badge number or precinct number and make things happen. You’re a lawyer right?..if possible following the van to the station and demanding to see someone in charge is the way to go..not by getting involved in something you have no clue about..In fact if that 18y/o had just assaulted someone, shot someone, hit one of the cops, resisted, raped someone, murdered someone you wouldn’t have a clue. Perhaps he had a weapon? You were not only endangering yourselves you were endangering the other bystanders, the cops(who now had to deal with you)..How were they to know your intentions? Good or Bad?..You think because you know you’re a good person they know? C’mon, there are better ways to deal with this situation..

You make no mention at all the description of this 18 y/o was he 200 pounds, 100 pounds, built like a wrestler? Were his friends being chased around the corner, down the block as you looked on. How big were the cops? Was he fighting back at all?..Was there a brutally beaten old lady lying in an alley down the block? Well? These type of missing descriptive aspects are often left out of these type of stories to gain sympathy for the "victim" and hatred for the ever-evil cops. Details so heavy on one side can only lead to biased argument. Your attempt at sympathy for the ‘victim” in my mind failed; perhaps you should tell your stories to a more biased crowd, although I cannot account for the future posts to your story and the sides that will be taken on this site about all things Real Estate related.

I say to you, stop writing stories on a real estate websites and make some phone calls, Sharpton I’m sure would love to hear this story and get some action going; so would the NAACP and local civil rights groups and for that matter the police review board. There are things you can do but getting in the way of police actions(no matter what you think at the time) is not the way to ago about it..

It always makes me wonder hearing stories like this..where are the stories of the cops that are killed. Where’s that same level of contention when you hear a young officer is killed protecting your streets; When a black, Hispanic or Asian officer dies by the hand of a black, Asian or Hispanic punk. I don’t here anyone screaming of change then. No it’s pretty silent out there. No, lawyers such as your-self, take greater pleasure in demonizing the system to a fault all the while ignoring those “young men” that have no problem taking the life of a cop of any color without thought. Where are those rants, screaming for pics/video from the very crowds that watch cops fight with gangs and thugs twice there size. Where are those witnesses to those scenes of death and atrocity? Will you so simply defend your defendant in court while the young mother, wife, parent and love ones of said slain officer looks on?

A police officer just lost his life to the likes of those who you would surely defend if even a single bruise was to be left on those alleged perpetrators..no consideration or apologies for what they have done. No, instead you defend them with excuses like” my client did not mean to kill the officer or was not directly involved. No your honor, my client was in fact just along for the ride in the stolen vehicle with the illegal semi-auto guns that were to be used to rob and whatever else innocent pedestrians going about there business. This is the excuse or better perhaps appropriately titled alibi for your clients “innocence”. Yes protect them to the fullest.

This mentality of there(the cops) are wrong because your seeing part of a story(the cops fighting with the 18 y/o) is nothing more than your own prejudices kicking in. You’re not saying oh I wonder what he did? You’re saying Oh why are they doing that? If he had just assaulted a family member of yours I wonder what you would have thought instead. Sure no one deserves to be beaten or abused by anyone no matter what your position. But going half cocked under your assumed ideals is a sure way of getting involved in the wrong way. Just remember the next time your home all alone and you hear that noise downstairs, I don’t think your going to go check it out first(without calling 911), just to make sure its you know, not some wayward youth who’s lost his way or better perhaps found his way. No, No, instead regale him with your stories of triumph against the system of all corrupt cops and perhaps he will thank you for all you’ve done for those like him, drink his milk and be on his way.

Posted by: The whole truth at July 27, 2007 1:33 AM

Maybe the Real Estate broker should make some charts on the health of the 80 year old tenant to hand out, along with the floor plan of the building and projected mortgage rates?

Posted by: justjoking at July 27, 2007 7:17 AM

The house is co-listed with Brown Harris Stevens. There are some additional pics on their site.

Posted by: Anon at July 27, 2007 12:59 PM

brownstoner your acting like the brokers were try to pull one over on buyers.
some facts you should know: Buildings on this block are selling from 2.3m too 2.9m recently, plus it has a good school district.
so say the building is worth 2.3m with out the rent controlled tenant now, some day in the future
you will get a nice wind fall if you buy it for 1.65m. it's very possible that the value of this building over the next 10 years
could appriate at a nice rate, and the tenant gone. that is called an investment which some of you twits would not know about, plus family homes are getting harder to find?
I think some of you are jealous that you did not buy this building. the person who bought this building three years ago took a chance, must of thought it was a good investment, so why can't someone do the same? A building is worth what somebody wants to pay for it,
not what you think it should sell for? Rent controlled or no rent controlled tenant.
Rent control should be abolished it was introduced at the end of the second W.W.II for returning soldiers which was right to do so, but most rent controlled tenants these days do not deserve to being living for a pittance of the market rent. The city should step up to the plate and subsidies the owners of these buildings the difference to market rent who have rent controlled tenants and not expect owners to absorb these losses. most rent controlled tenants live like pigs and abuse there apartments which is not fair to other tenants and landlords. some rent controlled tenants have second homes. I once stayed at a hotel that had a rent controlled tenant living there, there was no smoking in the building
but this rent controlled tenant was smoking a pipe with a look on his face like fuck you? Rent controlled tenants think they've earned the right to get cheap rent, they've earned nothing, if they had earned it they would be sitting on a nice pension now, but instead are living off other peoples hard work? Lazy bastards.

Posted by: onlooker at July 28, 2007 12:53 AM

May that man live to be 105. Can you step away from real estate transactions for one moment to listen to yourself?

Posted by: anon at July 29, 2007 10:09 PM

yes may they all live to be 105 and goto hell..

Posted by: The Devil at July 30, 2007 1:28 AM

« Condos of the Day: 480 Eastern Parkway Thursday Blogwrap »

July 26, 2007

House of the Day: 234 Baltic Street

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Get Brownstoner on your Mobile Phone

Latest Restaurant Additions