« Tuesday Links 'The Real World' Opting for Downtown Brooklyn? »
May 27, 2008
Emergency Demo at 100 Clark Clears Tenants
After years of neglect, the beautiful brick building at the corner Clark Street and Monroe Place in Brooklyn Heights was partially torn down over the weekend due to conditions that were deemed "imminently perilous to life"; two floors of the 15-unit building were torn down following a 311 call that reported visible buckling. "It's been a very, very badly neglected building," Frank Folisi, landlord of the building next door, told The Post. "Everyone who has owned this building has taken money out of it and not put any money into it. I don't walk on that side of the street anymore.
The theory over on the Brooklyn Heights Blog is that owner Penson Companies, which bought the building for $3,650,000 in 2006, had a strong financial incentive not to step in sooner to save the building. Why's that? Because condemnation was the only way to get free and clear of the three remaining rent-stabilized tenants. The marketing document (excerpted on the jump) Penson has been using in recent months to try to sell the building (the price had started at $4.45 million but had recently gotten as low as $3.5 million) reveals that the tenants were paying monthly rents of $550, $617, and $575 and that approved plans had been approved by Landmarks for a rear extension that would have taken the size of the building from 8,000 square feet to 9,750 square feet. So we're talking about the difference between the building being worth $3.5 million and $10 million. Sound like reason enough to look the other way? Now, many questions remain: What happens to the homeless tenants? Will the rest of the building be torn down? What will Landmarks require for rebuilding? Are there any criminal consequences for this type of neglect? Enquiring minds want to know.
Tenants Flee Buckling Heights Building [NY Post]
Penson to Brooklyn Heights: Drop Dead [Brooklyn Heights Blog]
'Dereliction of Duty' in Brooklyn Heights [Brownstoner]
Photos 1-9 by Ali Lovell; 10 by Chris in the Heights
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/5000
Comments
Let me the first to say this.
Those damned trust-fund hippie non-resident commie artists who've been sucking the landlord dry for all these months deserve everything that's happened to them.
Criminal consequences? Only in an ideal world.
Posted by: cmu at May 27, 2008 9:14 AM
I will sound like Ebenezer Scrooge here, but I have very little sympathy for the tenants there. The building was already declared unsafe and evaculated for three months only about a year ago. The handwriting was on the wall and the building continuted to be barely habitable even after the tenants were allowed back in. They certainly had enough time to realize that this arrangement could not go on forever and begin to look around or make other plans. It sucks, but it's also a matter of personal resposibility to look toward your future rather than remaining in denial.
Posted by: guest at May 27, 2008 9:19 AM
This confluence of landmarks rules and rent stabilization laws highlights how good intentions can go bad. The owners had no incentive to maintain the building at the high costs demanded by landmark strictures. This problem was exacerbated by the presence of rent stabilized tenants. The rent stabilized tenants had no incentive to leave (and, of course, may not have had the means to). Sadly, the only pivot point was the building; it eventually gave in.
Landmarks rules are important. They need to be bolstered by penalties for neglect. If an owner can't afford to maintain their landmarked buildings, the City should step in (with our tax dollars) to lend a hand.
Rent stabilization laws are important too. Clearly, though, these laws need to be adjusted for the sake of owners and tenants. Owners shouldn't have to bear the burden of low income housing for the rest of us. The City should increase subsidies for these units. Also, tenants should be required to pay more over time.
Posted by: guest at May 27, 2008 9:30 AM
If you are going to say that the tenants knew what they were in for, then you can say the same for the owners. Are you claiming that they could not have made a profit on this building because of those tenants? I doubt that. They managed to empty out most of the building, just not all of it. And to the first poster: I know you hate those with deals, but since you do not know these people personally, how do you know they are "trust fund" and not low-income? You don't and I don't.
Posted by: guest at May 27, 2008 9:36 AM
Love it! A series of owners milk the building and, according to 9:14 and 9:19, the tenants are the bad guys!
Posted by: guest at May 27, 2008 9:37 AM
AAHH!!! That was supposed to be satirical!
Don't you know I've been practically called a communist here for my real views!?
Posted by: cmu at May 27, 2008 9:39 AM
9:19, so any landlord who wants to get rid of their rent stabilized tenants just has to let the building go into a state of disrepair. Can you imagine what this city would look like if we made it that easy for the two bit landlords in this city.
Posted by: guest at May 27, 2008 9:40 AM
What happened to this building was played out countless times during the 70s and 80s in NYC. Rent regulation led to the demise of NYC housing because landlords had neither the incentive nor the capital return to maintain their properties. Many buildings were burned to the ground by landlords, or angry tenants, or homeless squatters doing drugs.
You can blame "greedy landlords" but they are simply human beings governed by the same impulses and motivations as everyone else. It's amazing NYC survived that crisis, even more incredible that the laws have still not been reformed. They haven't because there are a lot more tenants who benefit from these laws than landlords who suffer and we live in a democracy. If the law makes it profitable for a landlord to destroy their building, that law should be changed. Blaming the landlords, or trying to create even more regulation, is not going to solve the problem.
Posted by: Brooklynnative at May 27, 2008 9:40 AM
cmu, you beat me to it! I was just going to express dismay that people believed you were serious. I thought your closing statement directed at the landlord: "Criminal consequences? Only in an ideal world" made it clear where you really stood.
Posted by: Biff Champion at May 27, 2008 9:44 AM
"If the law makes it profitable for a landlord to destroy their building, that law should be changed."
If it weren't profitable to own the building, then Penson should not have purchased it in the first place. They overpaid for the building with the full intention of illegally evicting the tenants.
Posted by: tscola at May 27, 2008 9:53 AM
9:19 here. The point is I don't think the owners cared that the building was going to fall down, and did. Hopefully the city will bill them for the destruction work done, otherwise they just saved the owners thousands of dollars. They obviously wanted the building to collapse so they can develop something else on the site. If the tenants couldn't see this, it's their problem. The owners were not stupid.
Posted by: guest at May 27, 2008 10:05 AM
Three rent-stabilized tenants in a 15-unit building approved for a significant extension sounds like a profitable deal to me, if not as profitable as zero rent-stabilized tenants. Also, doesn't the landlord have to pay to put up the tenants while "repairs" are being made, and doesn't he have to re-house them at previous rates once the "repairs" are finished? There's a waiting game here, of course, but I don't think the landlord can just walk away from this.
Posted by: guest at May 27, 2008 10:05 AM
tscola has it right.
Penson overpaid for a stabilized building and was only looking to let it decay in order to make a profit.
With that many vacant units they very easily could have renovated and co-oped the building and let the 3 remaining units stay. Instead they had visions of grandure and could have killed people.
Yeah - it's the tenants fault......
Posted by: guest at May 27, 2008 10:06 AM
Tscola - "It's been a very, very badly neglected building," Frank Folisi, landlord of the building next door, told The Post. "Everyone who has owned this building has taken money out of it and not put any money into it. I don't walk on that side of the street anymore."
Why has "everyone who has owned the building" allowed it to fall into a state of disrepair? Because it was in the landlord's interest, ie., profitable, for them to do so. It's the law that produces these results as various landlords all reached the same conclusion.
Posted by: Brooklynnative at May 27, 2008 10:11 AM
Wonder if any of these tenants own a nice house in the Hamptons?
My first proposal regarding rent regulation - if you own a second property, you have no right to a rent-regulated apartment.
Posted by: guest at May 27, 2008 10:14 AM
NYC is the only place I've ever been where a property owner can literally allow a building to sit there and decay and crumble and become a hazard, causing things to fall on people and cars in the street (like the building at 7th Ave and 2nd St in PS) with hardly any consequences. Perhaps some fines that are relatively tiny compared to the value of the property. You won't see this elsewhere in the country. You sure as hell won't see it in Europe. I'm sick and tired of seeing these dangerous eyesores in every neighborhood of Brooklyn. It's an embarrassment and should be shameful for the city. You'd think! I just don't get it at all.
Posted by: guest at May 27, 2008 10:15 AM
There are lots and lots of things that are profitable to do, but just happen to be illegal.
If the building in question is a money pit, then Penson should have done their due diligence before hand. The cost of the building should have reflected the rental income they could have expected, along with the capital costs of any required renovations.
If they could not get a decent ROI on the building WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE LAW, then they have negotiated a lower price, or walked away from the deal altogether.
Posted by: tscola at May 27, 2008 10:25 AM
"two floors of the 15-unit building were torn down following a 311 call that reported visible buckling."
Anyone else wondering if someone from Penson Companies made that call hoping it would get torn down and they could rebuild something more profitable without having to face some sort of involuntary manslaughter charge (or whatever they might face if people died)?
Anyway, I see some solutions to the rent control issue but how do we stop landlords from allowing these places to crumble and force them to make the necessary repairs?
Posted by: Biff Champion at May 27, 2008 10:29 AM
"Why has "everyone who has owned the building" allowed it to fall into a state of disrepair?" Because there are currently no large penalties for doing so.
Posted by: guest at May 27, 2008 10:29 AM
Penson bought this thing when it was already falling down. Who knows what they were thinking, but I doubt 3 tenants factored into their plans too much.
The tenants meanwhile, were waiting for a buyout for Penson and not getting one that met their number. This was a chicken game that I would NOT have been willing to take if I were a tenant, but it was their necks on the line I guess. They were willing to risk dying in the rubble for a check.
Posted by: guest at May 27, 2008 10:37 AM
10:37: Do you have personal knowledge that this is true or is it speculation? It would be great to know which, as everyone here is wondering what about the true situation.
Posted by: Carol Gardens at May 27, 2008 11:16 AM
From Penson Companies website"
'BUSINESS STRATEGY
The business plan of The Penson Companies is based upon seeking well located real estate and finding a way to add value by exploiting below market rents or changing the physical nature of the project, finding the highest and best use for the asset and consequently maximizing income. In the past, investors with The Penson Companies have enjoyed higher than industry - standard returns on investment.'
"Changing the physical nature of the project" must include demolition via dereliction.
Posted by: guest at May 27, 2008 11:22 AM
I hope that the posters who insist that buying an occupied building with rent-regulated tenants is "no big deal" take a lesson from this. The tenants would not budge. Are they crazy? Possibly. There are tons of crazy people in the city. Buying a property with a rent-regulated tenant is a marriage with no divorce provisions. It is literally "til death do us part".
Posted by: guest at May 27, 2008 11:28 AM
10:37 here:
They've been trying to negotiate a buy-out since the last time this place was evacuated back in 2004. That was with the previous owners.
And this was in The Post this weekend:
In August 2004, 14 families were forced to leave the building after a 10-foot-by-10-foot section of the facade crumbled onto the street.
"Conditions in this premises are imminently perilous to life," read a sign that was posted at the time.
"It's very stressful for me," said tenant Ofer Nevo, 55, who took part in both evacuations.
He said that during the latest trouble, a Department of Buildings employee said, "We're here to condemn the building. You have to get out."
Nevo has been trying to negotiate a buyout with the building's owners, Edward and Andrew Penson.
The Penson brothers - who have fought tenants at other properties over maintenance and rent issues - have been slapped with a violation for failure to maintain the building, authorities said.
Posted by: guest at May 27, 2008 11:35 AM
The tenants here overplayed their hands.
Or they simply wished to stay in the building until it collapsed. Now they are in a Red Cross shelter. They are fortunate that they escaped unharmed. Meanwhile the owners must be dancing a jig. Suddenly they own a very valuable vacant lot on a prime location in Brooklyn Heights.
Posted by: guest at May 27, 2008 11:37 AM
10:29, in other words, we need more regulation to deal with the mess that rent regulation creates. Your argument is so predictable - "trying to create even more regulation, is not going to solve the problem."
Posted by: Brooklynnative at May 27, 2008 11:37 AM
evict all rent control leaches. what is this , socialism? why cant i pay $400 for a 2 bedroom in park slope? my low paying job at blockbuster? i have no motivation to earn more money because i only need to make $550 a month to cover my living expenses. thats why i sit on my stoop all day smoking. i live the easy life. my lower wages also contribute less taxes to the city coffers. let all the go-getting yuppies pay for everything. they are the only responsible people in this world. hell, they can pay for my illegitemate baby tool. suckers! i can just keep screwing up and have no consequences because antiquated liberal laws protect my lazy a*s!
Posted by: guest at May 27, 2008 11:57 AM
Government regulations are OK if they are reasonable and have some connection to reality. The rent regulations in NYC are neither.
This leads to the odd scenario of rental tenants clinging ferociously to buildings that are basically uninhabitable. A squatter's mentality sets in and that is harmful both to humans and to architecture.
Posted by: guest at May 27, 2008 12:09 PM
What does that have to do with the morality and legality of neglecting a building intentionally, 11:57?
Whatever you think of rent control in NYC politically, it should be a CRIME to neglect a building so much it can potentially hurt tenants, passers by, or if it falls down or burns down and takes other buildings with it.
If landlords neglect a building consciously and intentionally they should be charged with 2nd degree murder if someone is killed. They know the potential consequences of their actions or non-action and that it could kill someone, and they do it anyway. That's not just manslaughter to do that. A drunk driver is sometimes charged with murder if he kills someone, depending on the circumstances. So why not in a situation like this?
Posted by: guest at May 27, 2008 12:17 PM
12:17
you want to criminalize ownership? Karl Marx would have loved you. "ownership is crime"
Posted by: guest at May 27, 2008 12:33 PM
12:17 first of all, failure to act has always been considered very differently than an intentional act. Compare first degree murder to involuntary manslaughter. Second, how does an owner know when a building has reached the point where the facade might collapse? If the owner didn't know shouldn't he be treated differently than if he did know? So, you may be talking about an owner who did nothing, knew nothing, (perhaps through lack of trying to find out) and then the wall came down. Landlords are not necessarily engineers.
Meanwhile the tenants who live there and pay well under market and pay less than it probably costs to heat their apartments, complain that the landlord should have done more. Well, what actions did they take other than paying their amazingly cheap rent? Did they offer to bear part of the cost of repair? I doubt that.
Posted by: Brooklynnative at May 27, 2008 1:15 PM
That building is toast. Top to bottom.
Maybe Scarano will design a nice new "contemporary statement" for that corner. Something in titanium I hope.
Posted by: guest at May 27, 2008 1:31 PM
The City and the Hgts Historical Society need to be held accountable for the condition of this building along with Penson.
Back in 2004, the City erected scaffolding...the lights didn't work and it was allowed to stay up long after the permit had expired and nobody did anything...oh, maybe some tickets were left on the door. I wonder if the City even took down the scaffolding! No work other than to repair what had fallen from the Monroe St. side was ever done.
Please imagine the number of rodents that have been evicted into the neighborhood...
...watch out, Iron Chef! Watch out next door! Rats, mice and soft cuddly squirells are on the way!
Since the City, et al allowed the problem to sit and fester for 4 years before a significant "bulge" made them act, how long will the remains of 100 Clark sit and attract more vermin, homeless,etc.? Answer:until the pretty hi-rise comes!
Posted by: guest at May 27, 2008 2:41 PM
Oh rats, 2:41! I really like the Iron Chef House, but now you've given me pause to order from them again. Hopefully they don't like sushi!
Posted by: Biff Champion at May 27, 2008 2:46 PM
2:41 oh no! I also really like Iron Chef.
Maybe they have a cat?
I wonder what it would have taken to save that bldg after so many years of neglect. Our neighbors did a serious gut (tearing out the floors and the roof kind of gut), and that place only had about 30 or 40 years of neglect. Sounds like this place could have had twice that.
Posted by: guest at May 27, 2008 3:13 PM
3:13, given this thread may have run its course, speaking of courses, do you have any menu suggestions from the Iron Chef House? I usually rely on the triple spicy roll combo, which is delicious. I ordered the Nabeyaki Udon last time but wondered if you had any faves you would recommend.
Posted by: guest at May 27, 2008 3:26 PM
Love Boat
Posted by: guest at May 27, 2008 3:42 PM
I haven't been disappointed with anything I've had there. I also like the Triple Spicy Roll combination. I haven't tried the House Love Boat, although, after drinking a good amount of sake last time I was there, did imagine seeing Charo and Mickey Rooney talking to Gavin MacLeod at the table next to mine!
Posted by: Biff Champion at May 27, 2008 4:01 PM
Huge fan of IC, as well.
Go for the special rolls (on the menu), not the regular ones. They may be more expensive ($12 vs. $6), but they are well worth it.
Also, occassionally on the boards they will list other "special" rolls and they too are usually excellent.
Posted by: guest at May 27, 2008 5:03 PM
Thanks for the suggestions 5:03! I haven't been as daring as I should be since I'm so happy with my regular orders. I'll give the special rolls a try. A friend was asking me about whether or not a certain sushi restaurant on Montague was decent. I replied honestly that I hadn't tried any other sushi places near me and didn't see the need to as long as IC is there. I've eaten at tons of sushi places in Manhattan and think IC is right up there with the best of them.
Posted by: Biff Champion at May 27, 2008 5:17 PM
aren't there some nice gay restaurant blogs for biff and his friends to post in?
Posted by: guest at May 27, 2008 8:55 PM
I once knew someone who lived on the 3rd floor here
Posted by: guest at July 9, 2008 12:32 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.