Streetlevel: Nigerian No Time Soon in Fort Greene

sidestepping permits doesnt pay, it costs! Budding business owners, please research what you need to do before opening a business. I see this sort of stuff all of the time. Mr. B is right, it will take minths to get the permits straight. Now, the restaurant is so much further in the red before they're even close to opening.

Posted by: guest at December 31, 2007 11:32 AM

The Nigerian connection and the lottery fraud. Stop sending me those millions $$ UK scam e-mails. What wrong with these peeps?

Posted by: guest at December 31, 2007 11:44 AM

I'm not surprised. I was wondering how they got approval for the cheapo iron railing they bolted into the sidewalk around the building.

Posted by: guest at December 31, 2007 11:46 AM

11:44,
That was tasteless and has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Posted by: guest at December 31, 2007 11:51 AM

Crooklyn, once again.

Posted by: guest at December 31, 2007 11:54 AM

Please, 11:44. America is synonomous with all types of fraud. Subprime Slime, Iraq, Katrina...shall I go on? What's wrong with the U.S.?

Posted by: guest at December 31, 2007 12:19 PM

Look,

It's not crooked or some massive underhanded thing going on. As we all know, the building is not that thrilling to look at and what has been done to it hasn't changed it for the worse,

The owner has been in the neighborhood for over 40 years running his business on the ground floor.

He worked hard and looked to retire and rent the space. He succumbed to the pressure of the bodega guys across the street who wanted to set up the son in a business but may have had ulterior motives as well.

The lease with them had all the bells and whistles and required permits, reserves, owner approvals, licensed contractors, etc.

Once the bodega owners got in, they had some kids immediately doing demolition (without securing permits) who cut out the main central beam. The upper floor started falling in and emergency repairs were needed. A ton of steel, money and work went into shoring up the building all handled by the owner.

The owner got retroactive permits for the work. The interior has not changed in terms of layout. It’s still one big open space. What was done after the steel work was mostly cosmetic. What appear to be “new” openings are actually openings that already existed but were closed when the owner took over more of the store spaces in the building. There were originally 3 or 4 businesses on the ground floor but the owner took over the spaces to expand his dry-cleaning business.

The window and door configuration on the front (Cumberland side) were put back as they were when the owner bought the building. The owner had changed the entry years ago and pulled the windows back to create a covered area in front of the door but decided to go back to the way it was.

The fence is legal in terms of the property line.

Maybe the work is not gorgeous/top flight but it's better than what was there. Sure, with a huge investment, maybe, a “Victorian” recreation could be made like the one on DeKalb…

We shouldn’t knock the owner/restaurant as doing something heinous. The owner has periodically gotten permits, etc. and intended with the rental that the new tenant would also do everything above board. Unfortunately, the first tenant did not and led the owner into a costly and upsetting drawn out process.

Posted by: guest at December 31, 2007 12:24 PM

The first tenant holding a lease was the bodega posse across the street. They'll give you a different story...suffice to say, they didn't meet most, if any, requirements of the lease.

The second lease is with the Nigerian restauranteur.

The timeframe, at this point, is anyone's guess...

Posted by: guest at December 31, 2007 12:52 PM

12:24, you seem to be missing the point. The current appearance of the building, your opinion that the changes couldn't make the building look worse, the fact that the owner has been in the neighborhood for 40 years, the alleged comprehensiveness of the lease terms, the integrity or lack thereof of "the bodega guys," the facts that the interior lay-out has not changed and the windows and door are as they originally were, that the fence is on the property ... all irrelevant.

As 'stoner wrote, "all the work on the ground-floor space—including new storefront windows—was done without permission from either the Department of Buildings or the Landmarks Preservation Commission." That's what's relevant. There are no mitigating factors in the "back-story." If you don't play by the rules, you run the risk of getting slapped with violations.

Posted by: guest at December 31, 2007 1:28 PM

You do need the approvals and permits, of course. That said, there are FAR worse storefront than this one. The fence thing is tacky but the rest is fine.

Posted by: guest at December 31, 2007 1:33 PM

1:28
There ARE permits, hello. Mr. B. wrote his mini-blurb without full knowledge of the situation and possessing some misinformation. Now...maybe not everything was included on the permits...am not sure, BUT it is clear the interior work was permitted.

When the bodega guys' got into the space, before they began any work, the lease agreement called for permits to be in place and the job to be funded. They were armed with neither. When the people working for the bodega owners cut out the main central beam, emergency work had to be done to stabilize the house.

Permits were filed for after this after the repairs were underway: Shut out for causing unbelievable damage and not meeting the lease requirements, the bodega guys apparently, and vindictively, sicked DOB on the owner immediately when he rushed in to do the emergency work (the family lives upstairs and the floors were falling in).

So, the owner got a fine but filed for the work to be done. The permit should still be in force timewise.

Posted by: guest at December 31, 2007 2:06 PM

2:06, Mr. B wrote his blurb based on a conversation he had with me, the person who contacted LPC and DOB. After the fact permits for only some of the work? Hello, I'm still not impressed. Yours truly, 1:28

Posted by: guest at December 31, 2007 3:05 PM

P.S.: My conversations with Mr. B, LPC and DOB were with regard to the exterior only. Sincerely, 1:28

Posted by: guest at December 31, 2007 4:11 PM

What silly boys. It's about a dumb sidestepper and the nimby snitch. Excuses, excuses. So you got caught and didn't get away with it.

Posted by: guest at December 31, 2007 4:28 PM

1:28,
Oh, well. Meanwhile, a longstanding member of the community, now elderly, who has already spent tons of money on this will be further delayed getting a real tenant into the space. Guess you showed'em.

Since you're so knowledgeable, you should have offered to help guide this home/business owner through the process.

By the way, the "after the fact"/"sidestepper" permit was obtained AFTERward because the repairs from the first tenant were EMERGENCY repairs that had to happen immediately. The bad-boy tenants were the ones who called in the "violation" of the repair work that was fixing the demolition nightmare they had caused without permits.

So, the permits were obtained at least for the interior work... Am not sure how horrible final results have been on the outside. As we all know, it was not gorgeous before.

If the exterior work was not permitted properly, how long and what will it take to have it permitted? Is it really that cumbersome or will it just take calling Schnall & Schnall (sp?) on Atlantic?

Posted by: guest at December 31, 2007 5:15 PM

I get it. This owner gets to benefit (with higher rents, more affluent customer base) from the beautification of the neighborhood that his neighbors had to pay for when they stupidly follow the rules and he gets to just fudge it because he's an old guy. Sorry. If you can't abide by landmarks rules and processes you should sell your landmarked building. Why should we have to pay a fortune to get new windows and the same? What excuses would we have to give landmarks then? And since when does everybody get a say as to what's okay in a landmark area? The poor guys who own the deli on Cumberland and Dekalb got so held up by the whole process and they didn't 'get a free pass in the end. Why should you??

Posted by: guest at December 31, 2007 5:42 PM

Random points about the situation:

1) The old man dramatically raised the rent on the bodega guys after the lease was signed, but before the construction started. Whether any damage to the central support was done out of incompetence or maliciousness might make for an interesting story
2) The bodgea guys were going to open an organic market or a pet food supply place (if the latter, they were thankfully stopped just in time)
3) Their deposit was kept, and exceeded the costs of repairs/reversals
4) that fence they're installing is really stupid; not wide enough for decent outdoor dining, basically it just squeezes sidewalk traffic

Posted by: guest at December 31, 2007 6:05 PM

I'm really wondering at this point what the hell you all are arguing about. As I see it, someone gave Mr. B a story tip. Having reported it, someone else with more detailed knowledge of the situation, has now provided some of those details. Although the latter poster impressess as clearly pro-owner (maybe the attorney, perhaps?) I don't hear him/her arguing that the violations should be waived or that the owner should not have to comply with LPC guidelines.

1:28, it sounds to me like you are the one, in fact, who is missing the point.
What is the problem here in sharing a more rounded out statement of the facts? In doing so, it might actually help others who may be similarly situated and lurking here to avoid making the same mistakes.

The climate on this blog seems to be getting worse and worse as time goes by. Must every thread descend into a slugfest? It's a new year people! Stop being so damn angry!

Posted by: guest at December 31, 2007 6:28 PM

YEAH...PUSH OUT THE ELDERLY, THE COLORED AND THE POOR...DON'T WANT THEM IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THEY HAVE LIVED FOR YEARS BECAUSE THEY CANNOT HANDLE THE ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN AND COSTS OF LALALAND.

5:42...do you see what terrible taste your comment is in?!

Ugh...

Hhh...sad…

Look, we have jumped through all the hoops in terms of our past renovation so please get it out of your head that I am somehow the owner of the property in question.

Now...

There are LOTSSS of things happening in landmarked neighborhoods (FG included) that homeowners fail to pass through Landmarks: new windows, outdoor lighting, garbage enclosures, mysterious removed front railing (on Cumberland), changes to the color on new paint jobs of clapboard houses (numerous example in the nabe), changed entry doors, etc...

Look, I hate some of the non-historic changes and have pangs when I see old casings, doors and curved top transom frames in dumpsters…half the time I want to call in on the people (the evil doers…) but frankly, I resist even though, yes, it galls me when I know we did everything by the book and paid through the nose…but you have to choose your battles and also, not necessarily wreck other people’s lives.

Okay, listen…In an ideal and decent world, instead of just setting up landmarking and the burdens it entails on middle and low income neighborhoods and then letting so many people get pushed out of their homes over time, there should be funds available, city architects, etc., etc., etc. Even a non-profit like Legal Aid set up with architects would be a start. The burden and costs are laid on property owners, many of whom do not have the chunk of dough associated with privilege and/or a new mortgage to go out and pay the $3K to $5K for "expediting" (i.e. "grease") costs or $10-40K in architect’s fees.

And in neighborhoods where people have aged and are reaching 80 years old YES, there should be help out there. The situation is, frankly, abysmal. You wouldn’t find it this way in Germany or France where there is a great sense of historic preservation. There is state and city help for people, ESPECIALLY, when they are seniors, to get help maintaining the historic integrity of their properties. What? We have the lovely jerks at champagne-brunch the Preservation Trust? Sometimes that group does more harm than good…same goes for NHS.

No…because all the 20 and 30-somethings (and some slightly older and likely privileged people) now moving in who are steeped in the Wild-West/Survival-of-the-fittest upbringing rammed down our throats since 1980 (actually earlier), it is okay to think and write that people should just move along and step aside, or better disappear, when a wealthier set decides to move into a neighborhood?

As I wrote last week on Brownstoner regarding the newbies: "bathed in the waters of retrograde and reactionary rhetoric"
(http://www.brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2007/12/thursday_blogwr_26.php#comments)

Where is Mountrose Morris when you need him to add to this discussion? Probably everyone’s off celebrating…maybe we’ll get more comments tomorrow on this thread.

Frankly, these landmarked neighborhoods have survived to a large extent because they were low income neighborhoods that benefited from benign neglect before and after landmark designation. Because of this, FG, luckily, ended up with few bad examples of "fieldstoning" of brownstone facades, paving of front yards, etc. The main thing that damaged buildings or led to their removal in FG was block busting on the one hand and on the other the Brooklyn Hospital's effort, I hear, to buy up and rip down buildings (back in the day) trying to consolidate enough lots to expand.

Look what happened because the buildings at Greene and Carlton got ripped down years ago: a metal-sheathed tower that ended up much taller than the promised "same height as the old Eye and Ear Hospital"

Some of the infill horrors that have gone up in FG and CH (some small, some rather large) are ugly and some, hideous.

The changes to "Mr. Tommy's French Cleaners" are relatively minor and, ultimately, not that bad.

[Musing] I wonder if the tattletale would have called DOB and the LPC if a different type of restaurant or a chi-chi dress shop was opening?...

Addendum response to 6:05:
1) The rent amount was agreed upon (and not very high) in a solid lease agreement...no measure of lying on the part of the bodega owners can reverse that fact.
2) They said they planned on opening a pet food store. That was the agreed upon usage...are they now saying they planned on opening an organic store?! Hhhh...sounds like revisionism with a sense of PR. If they want to go organic, they can do just as well where they are now in their own space, a building apparently owned by the family, WAY undermaintained, apartments a mess, repointing desperately needed. That bodega building is an eyesore, the rental they have behind for a car service is yucky, they redid their signage and lighting outdoors and never filed...
3)The cost of repairs exceeded the deposit entirely. No questions asked. The owner won against the tenant hands down.
4)Yes, the fencing may squeeze sidewalk pedestrian traffic but it is well within the legal property line...oh well...and frankly, it does enclose a space deep enough for one row of small tables up against the building so will probably be used for outdoor dining.

Posted by: guest at December 31, 2007 6:33 PM

6:33 put up or shut up. all things must pass including you. hipsters are here to take over like or not. my parents and people your age bred us and you created monsters on this planet, then blame it on us. so puhleeze don't cry over spilt milk and be glad it's another year in a few hours!

Posted by: guest at December 31, 2007 7:47 PM

6:33, what is this bull about priviledged kids moving the old poor out? The old are the greedy ones selling for rediculous amounts to people who are finally able to buy a home in their 30s-40s. If the old had treated their own kids better then maybe they'd be there to help them through the bureaucratic crap the officials they elected created long before the newbies arrived. The old guard bought low, so if they're not interested in selling they can take out a damn line of credit and hire an architect, expediter, etc. like the newbies have had to. Or you could just roll over and die.

Posted by: guest at December 31, 2007 9:05 PM

9:05: Are you serious? "The old are the greedy ones for selling for ridiculous amounts"? Excuse me, I'm probably older (or at least wiser) than you, so of COURSE I'm not entitled to fair market value for my property. But I'm a little hard of hearing, so let me see if I heard you right: I should sell to you at a humongous discount because you're "finally able to buy a home in your 30s-40s", when I bought a home a few decades back (in my twenties) at a time when far fewer people wanted to live in Fort Greene - so it was affordable to a graduate student working two jobs. I may be old, I may be deaf, but senile I'm not. And now I'm off to do some serious partying. Happy New Year!

Posted by: guest at December 31, 2007 11:19 PM

11:19 hope you could hear the fireworks and the popping of champagne, enjoy the party!

Posted by: guest at January 1, 2008 8:25 AM

Hey Papi: Is that a crack in the building? Looks like it's going to cave in.

Posted by: guest at January 1, 2008 10:31 AM

11:19 here - Thanks, 8:25, you bet I did. I got out my hearing aids and my old tin hat and kazoo(they're collectible now), and partied down. Just wait a couple years, you'll see - lots of things get better with age, not only the price of landmarked real estate. There's even hope for 9:05 - the youngster still has time to learn spelling and manners before s/he "rolls over and dies."

In the words of the immortal Don Marquis, "There's a dance in the old dame yet!" Happy New Year, whippersnappers!

Posted by: guest at January 1, 2008 11:48 AM

HERE!! HERE!! 9:05! Finally I get some relief! Finally I get to hear someone say what I have to quietly think everyday. Someone PLEASE tell these "NEWBIES" they don't HAVE to pay these "ridiculous" prices. They can just go back to whereever they came from and live there! Tell those HOTSHOTS! They can continue to give Nassau county $10 grand for taxes or Donald Trump $10 mil for 2 rooms or communte to Philly for $800. Someone PLEASE tell "Them" That STILL 150 Years Later They are not "Doing Us A Favor" As THEY have always acted as though they were doing for GENERATIONS!! Someone PLEASE! Tell these GENTRIFIERS with their DAMN Nosy selves that MOST of US who have lived and WORKED in these neighborhoods ALL of our lives don't care what they think! And wish they would show some class and keep their Judgements to themselves. Cause WE Will Sell our Properties, for WHATEVER we See Fit and THEY ARE NOT!!!! The Boss of US!

Posted by: guest at January 1, 2008 8:17 PM

Thanks to the those "newbies" you are set for life, if and when you do decide to sell.

Posted by: guest at January 1, 2008 10:14 PM

Yeah, but if we don't feel like selling, if we just want to stay in our homes (pardon us - check the suburban thread on this same blog for why we might), we aren't "set for life." We're just condemned to watching the newbies do their thing and complain about Fresh Direct and how unfair it is that we didn't pay what they did. Personally, I'm sticking around until I croak (current projections: about another forty years), at which point the then-equivalent of Jerry Minsky is welcome to sell my house for whatever the market will bear. Or just maybe it will go to a foundation I'm establishing to offer emergency housing to jobless hipsters (assuming they, or some variant thereon, are still around at that point), along with classes on how to live within your means.

Posted by: guest at January 2, 2008 7:10 AM

Well, 7:10, change happens, EVERYWHERE. My hometown changed dramatically, and I don't necessarily "like" the new population. But that's just the way the world turns. If your main problems in life are "hipsters" or "newbies" overrunning your neighborhood, making your property values skyrocket and forcing an increase in amenities, well then your life ain't all that bad.

Posted by: guest at January 2, 2008 11:57 AM

BTW, walked by the said house last night and found that the railings are all gone too. I thought only the rolling gates had been removed but it looks like it was all taken out.

Posted by: guest at January 2, 2008 1:42 PM

7:10 here. Not complaining about change, just the fact that those bringing it these days seem to have little sense of humor, history, or perspective. People who live with their heads in the sand tend to get kicked in the butt - by stuff like subprime mortgage meltdowns, for example. They'll be as ancient as we are soon enough, and complaining about the new influx of whatever they're called fifty short years hence...when some academic may be writing tomes recycling our current postings (calling them societal artifacts or whatever), and complaining that they can't afford to live in brownstone Brooklyn. Plus ca change....

Posted by: guest at January 2, 2008 4:32 PM

Hear, hear, 7:10AM!
[Signed]
~The writer who wrote the lonnnng entries above.

PS...I kind of am complaining about "change"...I just don't sick DOB or Landsharks on everyone when I see something that isn't *that* horrible. Figure: it's our taxes at work churning all those person-hours so why make more work? Also, why make someone else's life miserable if you don't r-e-a-l-l-y need to, right?...

I'm like you...planning on being part of my community for a good long while...who knows...

Posted by: guest at January 2, 2008 5:46 PM

I had no idea so many old fogies used the internet!

Posted by: guest at January 2, 2008 7:52 PM

The myth that old fogies are internet illiterate has been greatly exaggerated. You'll find the internet to be an enormous boon when you need a walker to get around - you can just sit at home, warm and toasty on a cold winter's night, put on some good music, order from Fresh Direct, and vent your cranky self on your favorite blog. Did all you newbies think that was your exclusive perogative? Not all change is bad, especially when it empowers old-fogeydom. Now where did I put that dementia medication...in my personal opinion, the great part about blogging is that online, nobody can tell the demented from the non. Take The What, for example....

Posted by: guest at January 2, 2008 11:09 PM