Glimmers of Hope for 475 Kent Residents

let them move to bushwick

Posted by: guest at February 11, 2008 9:10 AM

let me sum up how this thread will go:
hate artists
love artists
fuck artists
yuppies, trust funds,
fire department, sprinklers,
i care
who cares
good
bad
blah blah blah

Posted by: guest at February 11, 2008 9:11 AM

I hope they are able to move back in. These people are real artists not the yuppy hipster scum on bedford ave.

Posted by: guest at February 11, 2008 9:21 AM

I hate artists that fuck other artists as well as yuppie trust funders that tamper with fire dept sprinklers, but who really cares, I care!
Its not good or bad , just BLAH

Posted by: guest at February 11, 2008 9:30 AM

They broke the law, so they must leave.

Let's not forget the firefighter who died last year due to a fire in a building that was ILLEGALLY setup as apartments.

Posted by: guest at February 11, 2008 9:38 AM

Repairing sprinklers is not such a big deal depending on how extensive the repairs. replacing all the sprinklers on a building this size is a pretty bid geal and would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Of course once that is done, the tenants will need to face the two-hundred other issues facing a large multi-story multiple dwelling built eighty years ago and suffering from a lack of maintenance. Every sigle building system from the plumbing risers to the boiler to the house pumps to the elevator to the electrical to the gas service will need overhauling. The facade inspections will probably uncover three dozen expensive problems. Bringing a large building back is a daunting task. We have been at it in my building for twenty years and are just now reaching a state of equilibrium. And we are a legal residential co-op. Bohemian life is one thing, trying to make things legal and up to code is something else entirely. It separates the kids from the grown-ups let me tell you.

Posted by: guest at February 11, 2008 9:42 AM

it seems everyone is being cool with the landlord (building owner) because a lot of the tenants were landlords themselves - they leased full floors from the landlord (building owner), chopped them up and sub-leased the spaces as illegal residential spaces. So many people are equally responsible for what was going on, and were making money off this building.

Just FYI, as this doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere.

Posted by: guest at February 11, 2008 10:06 AM

Well golly gee whiz, I'll show you that I'm grown up gosh darn it.

Posted by: guest at February 11, 2008 10:07 AM

This is SUCH a boring topic - enough with 475 Kent - truly, who cares???

Posted by: guest at February 11, 2008 10:37 AM

That's an awfully big brownstone. Wait, it's not a brownstone or even in brownstone brooklyn? Why are we talking about this again?

Posted by: guest at February 11, 2008 11:39 AM

It's wonderful to see how many of Brownstoner's readers have such simple and childlike notions of the law, and know all they need or want to know from hearing at second or third hand a place is "illegal" or someone broke "the law." Certainly this is a whole lot easier and cheaper than getting an actual professional legal opinion, or, god forbid, working to change laws that don't seem to be doing an especially good job of advancing worthy goals like allowing those who'd like to, to live AND work in the same place (perhaps because of the nature of their work).

Raymond Chandler stated the issues nicely in the Long Goodbye:

[Lawyers]write the law for other lawyers to dissect in front of other lawyers called judges so that other judges can say the first judges were wrong and the Supreme Court can say the second lot were wrong. Sure there's such a thing as law. We're up to our neck in it. About all it does is make business for lawyers.

As for 9:42, yes 9:42, some of us at 475 have been at those very things for close to eleven years (and even spent some real money). Perhaps "Bohemian" need not be so purely pejorative or convey all the negative connotations you seem eager to imply.

Perhaps it's time to jail those who litter. Or confiscate and exterminate the dogs of those who allow them to fowl the streets. Or maybe, just maybe a few other people-- even those without MFAs-- will wake up and see that fighting things you believe are wrong-- in both principle and as executed-- is worthwhile. But perhaps it's too much to hope that if we get things right at 475 it might inspire others to pitch in and help make NYC occupancy law a bit more sensible and human.

Posted by: guest at February 11, 2008 2:51 PM

And for those of you who forget how important artists are to the life and economy of this city- just remember who brought back SoHo (and got forced out). Artists. In Dumbo, in Williamsburg- every place artists went to find big loft spaces to live and work in, eventually were "discovered" by gentrifyiers and the real estate market. After years of investing their lives and money into salvaging unwanted, uncared for buildings and neighborhoods, artists brought a cachet to them that made other people with money and no imagination take notice. I watched it happen in Soho- watched anvibrant exciting neighborhood filled with fascinating shops and incredible people turn into a funky mall. Those of you who need your upscale clothing chains everywhere - you'll just never know what you lost.

Posted by: guest at February 11, 2008 3:02 PM

2:51

sorry, you cannot equate your breaking this law with littering - but, nice try.

the tenants of 475 knowingly entered into a relationship with a crook - thereby funding him for his next criminal escapade.

you are not a good person. good people tell that landlord off - insist that you wont do business with him until he obeys code and fixes the building. PLEASE do not lecture law abiding citizens until you get your shit together first!

get real. there are plenty of people who do do the right thing - these people are to be admired - not the horrible people of 475 Kent who want to get away with their illegal activities.

the people who had children in that building should have their children taken away from them.

please grow up and learn to live within the frame work of the law and within whatever budget you have.

Posted by: guest at February 11, 2008 4:23 PM

Hey 2:51: Chandler was an artist who paid market rate rent and did not benefit from illegally occupying a one-time warehouse building that the residents KNEW did not have a residential C of O. I love art and artists, too but they have to pay their own way just like everyone else. No exceptions.

Posted by: guest at February 11, 2008 4:36 PM

One major issue brought up by the Times article was the loss of business which accompanied the vacate order, aside from the loss of homes. Commercial use is allowed by the terms of the zoning, the (lack of) C of O and (presumably) under the leases signed by the tenants. Why not allow limited *commercial* access while the building is being brought to residential code, especially if fire guards are in the building anyway while contractors work on the sprinkler system?

Posted by: guest at February 11, 2008 6:55 PM

Hear ye, hear ye! I am a proud yuppie gentrifier who couldn't give two shits about poor artists being forced out of the hood due to high rents or a crackdown by the FDNY. As long as I'm happy in the place I call my home and can get a good cup of coffee and an egg & cheese on my drive to work where I make lots of money I am a happy man. No one is entitled to own an entire neighborhood and those who get pushed out or priced out, well, tough titty for you. You're all a bunch of whiny babies and could use a good ole spankin' like the bitches you are.

Posted by: guest at February 11, 2008 8:44 PM

Are we to be sympathetic to these people who knew full well the situation, but insisted on taking their chances?

Tenants feeling sympathy for a "devastated" landlord? The person who is largely responsible for this whole mess? Tenants pitching in to help "rectify" the situation? This is like one big whip skippy lovefest.

Instead of wasting your time, why not start coordinating legal action against this helpless landlord and his corporation? Do something positive for a change.

Posted by: guest at February 12, 2008 9:02 AM

Tenants of 475 were ousted due to fire hazards, not to illegal living. That said, I agree with 9.02 that the landlord was the one who allowed unsafe conditions (including a broken standpipe!) in the first place. Why all the good feeling?

Posted by: guest at February 12, 2008 11:34 AM

Collecting rent, and utilizing a property for residential purposes without a valid Certificate of Occupancy is certainly not legal. The sprinkler system and matzo factory expedited the mass evictions. As unfortunate as it was, it had to be done.

I just don't quite understand the love and affection towards the landlord. Here is the person most responsible for all this misery, and the solution is to hug him, and help him rectify the situation?

Posted by: guest at February 12, 2008 2:29 PM