475 Kent Avenue: How It All Began

The standpipe will get you every time.

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 10:28 AM

The Jews need to learn, if you live in this country, you need to follow the laws. A lot of Jews have total disregard to the rule of law and cherry it the laws they want to address. They could have killed, no not killed, they could have murdered a lot of people with this kind of disregard for the welfare of there fellow neighbors. It is disgusting.

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 10:31 AM

Whoa, 10:31 AM! Anti-Semitic much? "A lot" of Jews are lawyers, judges, and elected officials who make and enforce the laws. In fact, I would bet that at least some of tenants at 475 Kent Ave. were Jewish too. Get a grip!

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 10:41 AM

That dude was anti-semitic for sure, but the post describes why orthodox communities (of any religion) have such a hard time in the community - they don't participate as part of a larger community. By choice. They like the outsider alien status. They like feeling like everyone is against them. It makes them feel more noble and superior.

All religion is absurd and does nothing good anymore. It's just destructive and backwards and holds humanity back from any kind of progress.

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 10:46 AM

Whoa, 10:41, anti-goyum much? Some Jews are even actual cops and firemen. Not all become doctors and lawyers or, of course, artists like the tenants.

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 10:49 AM

It's funny how jews don't like to be called jews. They make such a big deal about wanting to be different and then get defensive when called a jew. What do you want to be called the?

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 10:50 AM

"They make such a big deal about wanting to be different and then get defensive when called a jew."

The problem was the poster didn't say "a jew," the poster said "the Jews" as if every single Jew was responsible for the landlord's reprehensible and illegal activity. That's called hatred.

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 10:55 AM

North Sleeper -- The violations didn't end in the basement. After a further inspection of the building it became clear that there were myriads of violations -- kinds not unlike the ones that killed the two firefighters in the Deutsche Bank building not long ago, and also similar to ones a few years back when four firefighters were forced to jump from a 5-story window without ropes, killing two of them. Had a fire actually broken out in this building, it would have put not only the residents' lives in danger, but also those of the emergency responders. That is an unacceptable risk only compounded by the fact that there was a risk of a grain dust explosion in the basement.

I find it really unbelievable that these residents are reacting so harshly against the fire department in light of these issues. They knew many of these violations existed for years and did nothing to remedy it. They are also the same people that would have sued the City of New York up the wazoo had there been a fire. So there's a massive double standard in place here making very difficult for me and many others to feel that sorry for them. It could have been a LOT worse.

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 11:00 AM

As a Jew it's painful for me to say this, but I have to co-sign 10:31's statement. I just wish he/she has made the distinction re: Hasidim.

And to the rest of us jews out there, let this be a lesson. When we don't stand up to the way these maniacs break the laws and generally look down their noses at the rest of society, we're going to get lumped in with them.

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 11:28 AM

When I first heard about this story I felt really sorry for the people that lived here. Being run out of their home in the middle of a cold and dark night in the winter. I couldn't understand the urgency to kick people out on the streets and thought perhaps the city could have waited at least a week or few days for the residents to make arrangements to find other places to live.

But, with the eventual news about the clear cause for all this was starting to make sense. I agree the landlord and the owner of the matzo factory put everybody in this building and the school next to it in clear and present danger.

The law should make an example out of them. They could have killed hundreds with their greed and selfish attitudes towards the welfare of the public. I really hope they don't get off with the slap on the wrist for what they did to the people that live here.

The firefighters and city acted rightly on this. It was the correct call to make. Unpopular, the right call.

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 11:28 AM

It doesn't matter who the landlord is - the law should make an example of him because he broke the law and put peoples lives at risk. Its not a ? of why the city shut down the building, its why did it take so long.

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 11:44 AM

We bought a house from Hasid flippers and there were tons of things in their "renovation" that were not up to code, or were simply done badly or wrong. They seemingly don't give a crap about the law or what is standard and just the honorable or ethical thing to do. I would never ever lump the Hasid community in with all Jews though, that's ridiculous. The Hasid are such a specific and odd sub-group that every single Jewish person I know despises.

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 12:54 PM

10:50, we liked to be called God's Chosen People or Master, whichever you prefer

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 1:10 PM

Sigh.

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 2:43 PM

1:10pm.

God's Chosen People huh? God damn, you take racial superioriity one step higher than the Nazis. How about I call you a inbred, bald spot cover wearer? Yeah, I like that better.

God's Chosen People, yeah right! Suck my pole, God told you to do it asswipe!

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 2:52 PM

Serenity now!

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 3:46 PM

10:31 AM and 11:28 AM and 12:54 PM, are all the same bigot looser, I know him, he lives in a dark basement in his parents house....

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 6:53 PM

Kosher does not mean that a Rabbi blesses the food. The food is not blessed by a Rabbi. Go to http://www.chabad.org/kosher to find out what kosher is.

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 7:34 PM

Uh...

I don't know if you all live in NYC...but I have to say, there are landlords and business owners of ALL STRIPES, okay, ALL STRIPES, who cut corners, break laws and regulations, have properties, restaurants, workshops, business codes and practices that are just not up to code. Heck, there is so much white color crime as well in NYC we can't see straight anymore so it's not just the middle range of business or property owner that is up to stuff. It goes all the way up the scale.

Look around!

And, also, those who dismisses the orthodox or hassidic communities with one wave of the hand are so misguided. There are MANY, many, many upstanding and ethical people in these communities. Very upsetting to see this thread today.

Hhhh...very sad...

Sure, what is happening at 475 Kent is a mess. We have friends who moved out with their baby. This is not easy. Let's hope the issue can be resolved and people all back in their homes/studios as soon as possible!

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 7:38 PM

The city should be closing down unsafe buildings. The politicians who are pandering to the former residents of this building should concentrate harder on affordable housing in NYC. Why do creative types think they have more rights?

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 10:28 PM

Gosh, as a long term resident of 475 Kent, I cannot begin to say how very much many of the comments above sadden me, especially those of 11:00.

The chain of events of that Sunday evening, the history of the 10 or so years leading up to it/them, the actual condition of the building (and the basement) that day and before, the City's response then and since, the specific provisions of the building code and safety code involved are not, at least to my mind, easy to reduce to a few simple easy-to-run off at the mouth with facts. Even if we leave out all the hot button issues about what "artists" might or might not have "coming to them" (good or bad). Or how their reasonable expectations ought or ought not differ from "normal" people or "poor" people, etc.

Let me just say this, I think most of us (indeed probably all of us) are quite as concerned as anyone about the lives of rescue workers and fire fighters, and especially whenever they are put on the line to save others in an actual emergency.

As for the owners of the building, let us just say, I have trouble, at least in the abstract, thinking their conduct was any more reprehensible that GM or Ford or Phillip Morris-- and I don't think it is entirely unfair to say that in terms of building maintenance, the basic philosophy was to do as little as possible, as slowly as possible, at the lowest possible cost, BUT that much they did or tried to do. (The whole story, even of the basic big picture is way way way more complicated, and involves, for instance, an enormous amount of above-code standards improvements made to much of the building's infrastructure by long term rental tenants beginning in 1998). Bottom line, they are not bad guys, they are not "the bad guys," and during the course of the past ten years fire, building, health inspectors, policemen, postal workers, and every imaginable other sort of government employee has regularly inspected every foot of the building (including the now legendary seasonal matzoh making ovens and the rest of the buildings basement), and whatever citations were issued, nothing about the building was thought life-threatening in any way. As for the uses and occupancy of the building-- no aspect of it was clandestine in any way, and all city agencies were fully aware of who was there and on what basis.

The nub of the issue, at least to many us is fairly straight forward:

1) was the use of an emergency evaculation procedure proper (during a holiday weekend, at night, when no independent review, say, by a court, was remotely practicable)? The larger question here is simply whether the usual due process protections that apply in civil actions like eviction proceedings can be circumvented in this way.

2) Is it time for the city to face up to the large policy questions of mixed use buildings in which people want to BOTH live and work? And to create avenues by which the owners and tenants of buildings can reasonably comply at reasonable cost within a reasonable timeframe with all applicable laws and regulations? The last time this sort of policy crisis came up was at the end of the 1970s with regard to the newly prosperous neighborhoods of Soho and Tribeca and the Loft Law was the result. Since then, there has been a kind of "Don't ask Don't tell" regime with regard to the many hundreds of buildings that are like 475 Kent, particularly in other boroughs.

3) And, in almost every way, far less important (except to those of us directly affected), how much sense was there to the approach taken that Sunday night? How dangerous were those particular bins of grain ("silo" accidents involving grain are well documented, but the bins in the basement weren't quite in the same majestic league as the Buffalo, New York grain elevators that le Corbusier found so inspiring). How sensible was the cure? About fifty of us were ready, willing and able to go downstairs with shovels at 6pm, if it could have averted the-- to us much more compelling clear and present danger of serious injury presented by 200 people in panic descending a single staircase already crowded with employees of the Red Cross, OEM, Police and Fire Department. (As for the way the dangerous grain was actually removed the following Wednesday, when various bureaucratic obstacles were finally surmounted-- an old truck and a malfunctioning vacuum device, which set off a trail of sparks halfway through the operation, my person safety vote would have gone to guys with shovels). As for the sprinkler question (the other major factual premise for the emergency evacuation), all I can say is that experts have disagreed for ten years about whether we needed it functional or not-- the building is a "daylight factory" of a kind built following the infamous Triangle Shirt Factory fire, and with foot thick cement walls and floors was intended to be an essentially "fireproof" structure.

Bottom line, all of us in the building (owners and tenants together) along with some very decent folks at various city agencies are doing all we can to correct problems, eliminate dangers, and comply with applicable law. It won't be easy. But right now, today, it seems possible if everyone involved can remain calm and focused and brings as much good will as they can to table each day for months to come.

It would have been nice if what the applicable law actually was had been a bit clearer a bit sooner to allow remedies without so much pain and such high costs to so many. But then what "law" is isn't so simple-- jaywalking is "illegal;" littering is "illegal." The city seemed to have an enforcement policy with respect to C of O questions-- at least between 2000-2007-- which may now-- with no public discussion of any kind-- be very different from what it has been. Kind of a shift from zero enforcement to zero tolerance for violations. Since so many 1000s of New York lives are potentially affected, perhaps a little transparency is in order. Perhaps the quasi-military surpise holiday weekend raid is not the best possible approach.

But please, give the mean spirited stuff a break.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 5:03 PM

Oh and one last thing I'd like to add to my 5:03 post.

Judging from what I observed that Sunday night, I had the impression that most of the firemen I spoke to were not altogether thrilled about being used as de facto City Marshals (who get no salary as such but instead get bounties-- percentage fees for repossessed cars, seized money, moveable property, etc.) Profitable city appointments, I am sure, but not for the faint of heart (or perhaps, arguably, for those who possess a heart at all).

I've always tended to assume that firemen chose their work in hopes of being heroes.

Once again, they were not "bad guys" or "the bad guys." Instead, they were simply doing their best to follow the orders they had received from "higher up." And, again, some of don't believe that "high up" should be hiding behind the firemen.

Posted by: guest at January 30, 2008 7:48 PM

OK, so the city found something that had been there forever directly under their noses and overreacted.

They figured: "well shit, what if someone flicks a cigarette butt into these things and the whole building goes up in flames... then we'd have to explain WHY we didn't do anything when it was an obvious problem and then we would have all these lawsuits on our hands".

I mean, can you imagine the field day if anything HAD happened? I can see the post headlines now. And the times. And the DN. And NY1. And so on.

What I think is reprehensible is that anyone who knew about the conditions would allow them to exist without doing anything - effectively looking the other way while endangering lives, health, safety, quality of life, etc. This includes the landlord AND any tenants who were aware that conditions there were shit. It blows me away that given the crap condition of the building, none of the residents called the DOB to report violations.

And now the residents ("residents" is a better term than "tenants" - no mistake that they weren't "commercial" tenants), who most likely knew that their apartments were illegal are pissed that their sweet deal was blown. I'm not sure how anyone with an ounce of common sense could think it was at all legal. And I also know a couple with a baby who lived there and I feel especially bad for them, however, my personal childrearing opinions aside (why would anyone opt to raise their kid in such a place - if they knew about the conditions at the building, and it was hard to miss the dilapidation, grafitti, garbage, disrepair, etc., then they leave something to be desired in terms of looking out for the well being of their child).

The whole excuse of "we're poor so we can't afford to move" is bullshit. If you're poor, get a safe, habitable, legal apartment in queens or further out in Brooklyn where rent is lower than trendy Williamsburg.

I feel really sorry for everyone involved, regardless of any willful ignorance, EXCEPT for the landlord. He should be thrown into his grain, eaten alive by the rats and then burned.

Posted by: guest at February 2, 2008 9:05 AM

We all like Nathan's kosher franks, right so why dont we all get a long now and then. That reminds me, I havint been to Coney for a wile.

Posted by: guest at February 6, 2008 12:58 PM