« Weekday Events Open Thread »
September 8, 2009
Renters Become Their Own Landlords
The New York Times this weekend chronicled the housing woes of Mariah and Dominique Freda, two sisters who started out by playing the rental game in Park Slope. They were leasing a two-bedroom for $2,050, but the poor conditions and the inflexibility of the landlord motivated them to look into buying a place of their own. The buying game turned out to have obstacles of its own, but the sisters eventually settled on a 1,400-square-foot, two-bedroom, three-bathroom condo in Park Slope with a spiral staircase leading to a basement recreation room. The apartment had started out with a price tag of $639,000 but had recently been reduced to $599,000 and had a deal fall through; with some help from Dad, they were able to make an all-cash offer that beat out a higher, competing bid. The common charge and taxes were slightly less than $400 a month. "I didn’t realize how annoying a landlord is until I didn’t have one anymore," Dominique told the Times. From the article, it seems that the Freda sisters could not have purchased the condo without their father's assistance, who provided the up-front cash and is acting as the girls' mortgage lender—a luxury that not all renters have—but their story is also one of renters who persevere to take matters into their own hands.
Theirs to Fix and Fix Up [NY Times]
Photo by Angel Franco for The New York Times
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/11299
Comments
"but their story is also one of renters who persevere to take matters into their own hands."
you're kidding right?
Posted by: eh at September 8, 2009 9:07 AM
I wouldn't begrudge these young women for having the luck of being born into a somewhat wealthy family, but "persevere"? How do you define persevere? As the ability to call daddy to get a suitcase full of cash?
If you're under the age of 30 and you own a $600K apartment, you don't know perseverance. You're lucky.
Posted by: Ditmas at September 8, 2009 9:12 AM
yeah really. more like daddy's hand. and why are two adult sisters sharing an apartment? creepy much? these new york times articles always seem to push at my buttons. grrr
*rob*
Posted by: Butterfly at September 8, 2009 9:14 AM
Ditmas,
I was just coming in to say the exact same thing.
Good for them. It sounds like they were able to work out a pretty sweet deal for themselves but did they persevere? Hmm, maybe not so much.
Posted by: TownhouseLady at September 8, 2009 9:17 AM
I am going to have to agree with eh and Ditmas, persevere entails prevailing against unbeatable odds. these girls are just lucky to have a father that can enable them this opportunity.
not that I need to begrudge them, but come on.
although there renting situation wasnt great, I am sure all of us know people that have lived in much worse rental/ landlord situations.
and the minus side to owning, is that when things break, you have to take money and effort to fix things yourself. how can they be sure they will be able to afford to pay for things, or will they have to run to daddy?
Posted by: bkheightscoop at September 8, 2009 9:18 AM
oh im sure their internships at Vogue will help them pay for the inevitable sanity napkin clogged toilet. (a super in my old building said that was the # 1 thing he was always called for lol)
*rob*
Posted by: Butterfly at September 8, 2009 9:20 AM
Oh my god... This story is a real inspiration to me. How these two women found the *strength* to make it through this harrowing experience. First, they had that annoying, inflexible landlord. Then they had to deal with writing a check with all of those zeros -- they probably even had to persevere through a 10 min visit at the bank.
I wish them the very best and hope their life struggle isn't too much of a burden. They do have THREE bathrooms to clean now... hopefully they have a good cleaning lady.
Posted by: tybur6 at September 8, 2009 9:24 AM
Rob, their father is a contractor from Jersey, and one of the daughters is a school teacher in Sunset Park. Guess this is what it takes to house our teachers.
Posted by: IMBY at September 8, 2009 9:27 AM
hmm glad im not the only bitter betty this morning
*rob*
Posted by: Butterfly at September 8, 2009 9:28 AM
What an insulting story for all of us who aren't wealthy, spoiled 24 year olds from Jersey with rich developer fathers. Their rental was unacceptable because the shower suddenly went from hot to cold and the heat was spotty?? C'mon!! When you're 24 and have no money, thats kinda par for the course.
Though I think this is my favorite part:
"They found a new condo listing with potential, and Mr. Freda called the listing agent, Maxine Resnick of the Corcoran Group’s Park Slope office, to say his two daughters would be attending the day’s open house, and if they liked the place, they would buy it."
Daddy not only bought them an apartment that my girlfriend and I (at 30 with savings and good career track jobs) cant afford, he even HAD TO SET UP THE VIEWINGS for them and apparently deal with the broker!!!
I wonder if he got the condo to put up a big red ribbon on the front of the building so he could give it to his daughters as an Xmas gift, like in those silly holiday season car adds where the guy goes out to the driveway and the new car is there with a bow on it. So sill.
Posted by: clintonhillbuyer at September 8, 2009 9:28 AM
"but their story is also one of renters who persevere to take matters into their own hands."
Yeah, I'd also argue that stories of renters who take matters into their own hands probably involve housing court, or at the very least, doing a few chores and repairs around the building to save a few bucks on rent.
Getting fed up with renting and then buying at a young age is hardly an inspirational story.
Posted by: Ditmas at September 8, 2009 9:29 AM
Oh, and to be fair, we shouldn't chastise these young women for Brownstoner's poor choice of words.
Posted by: Ditmas at September 8, 2009 9:30 AM
Come on, don't be so jealous. I bet almost all of us wish we'd had the ability to have the same opportunity at that age?
The dad is a smart cookie. Instead of having his girls flit away their money on rant or mortgage interest he's keeping it in the family.
I say good for them!
Posted by: TownhouseLady at September 8, 2009 9:34 AM
Ditmas, totally agree with your 9:30 comment. The article doesn't make any mention of "their story [being] one of renters who persevere to take matters into their own hands", that appears to be jscheff's editorial. While the article is kind of envy inducing, it's not quite so ridiculous as to imply the girls viewed their situation as rough as the last line of the post implies.
Posted by: CG_ups at September 8, 2009 9:35 AM
the sad thing is im sure the girls DID find the whole experience rough, so jsheff is probably spot on with this one.
*rob*
Posted by: Butterfly at September 8, 2009 9:39 AM
If these sisters think that dealing with a landlord is "annoying", just wait till they experience the joys of a Park Slope condo board.
Posted by: benson at September 8, 2009 9:40 AM
look them up on twitter. im sure they tweeted the whole harrowing experience.
*rob*
Posted by: Butterfly at September 8, 2009 9:40 AM
someone forgot to tell them they're going to lose their shirt(s) buying brooklyn real estate. obviously, they and sugar daddy don't avail themselves of the sage advice available here for free.
Posted by: antidope at September 8, 2009 9:46 AM
"Come on, don't be so jealous. I bet almost all of us wish we'd had the ability to have the same opportunity at that age?
The dad is a smart cookie. Instead of having his girls flit away their money on rant or mortgage interest he's keeping it in the family. "
THL;
This is really a philosophical issue, but I strongly disagree. In my book, this father has done his kids no favor - probably postponed their maturity, which is a common phenomenon these days.
I don't have time to go into it, but rather I would suggest that folks read the book "The Millionaire Next Door", which goes into depth on this topic. Despite the title, this is a serious research book from two professors who studied the ways of the truly wealthy. One of their conclusions is that parents who give their kids a home are doing them no favors. In most cases, they wind up like lottery winners: squandering wealth that they never earned.
Posted by: benson at September 8, 2009 9:51 AM
Benson,
I agree with you to a point about having your kids learn and do for themselves, as my folks did with us. However, in this instance the girls are sharing a place and the daughter is a teacher, which while being a very noble profession is not exactly the most lucrative.
Besides, it says that he's acting as their lender, which I'm assuming means he's having them pay him the mortgage and interest.
That's hardly the same as gifting them a home.
Posted by: TownhouseLady at September 8, 2009 9:57 AM
**barf**
Posted by: dirty_hipster at September 8, 2009 10:06 AM
THL... I also agree with Benson on this point, but I think you're missing something when you talk about the daughter being a teacher and the dad being a "lender." There is NO WAY that the combined income of these two chicks can possibly cover the mortgage, maintenance and taxes of a $600,000 property.
This is ridiculous. The father is basically subsidizing the rent of his two daughters... and since one is a teacher, it's gonna be a long long long time before her salary catches up to the price tag.
JScheff... next time, think about posting these anger inducing posts later in the day. My blood pressure is already too high.
Posted by: tybur6 at September 8, 2009 10:06 AM
" it seems that the Freda sisters could not have purchased the condo without their father's assistance, who provided the up-front cash and is acting as the girls' mortgage lender"
I bet they shell out at the most 1,000 bucks a month each, interest free of course.
How annoying must these chicks be to have THAT many problems with their landlords?
Posted by: dirty_hipster at September 8, 2009 10:16 AM
guyincognito:
you nailed it.
how can it make any sense as tybur6 points out, the numbers dont add up.
how is that any different than banks making mortgages to people that can't afford the monthly payments?
and let's face it, two adult sisters living together will eventually blow up in their faces!
Posted by: bkheightscoop at September 8, 2009 10:19 AM
Sour grapes I say!
Posted by: TownhouseLady at September 8, 2009 10:21 AM
I think JScheff is taking some well deserved heat on this one, but thank God he got the job and not that inane Gabby. He's posted pretty intelligent posts all in all. She was the worst. Typos all the time, misread half the stuff she posted to, and once posted to a real estate advertisement which I remember trying to drum up business with a bogus story about the market. I guess with the downturn in the economy you can find much more intelligent people to work for you now, hey Stoner.
Posted by: Brooklynnative at September 8, 2009 10:22 AM
Why would they (or their father) agree to be profiled for this story in the NYT?! Did they really think that this process was informative at all?
Umm... (1) When you rent you have to rely on the landlord fixing the things that break and they generally suck at it even though you pay them a crap load of money. (2) buying a co-op for 3/4 of a million dollars using daddy's suitcase of cash is a much better option.
Seriously? Did the Times actually *pay* this Joyce Cohen to write this crap?!
Posted by: tybur6 at September 8, 2009 10:24 AM
"how is that any different than banks making mortgages to people that can't afford the monthly payments?"
their father bought it cash. no mortgage.
haha benson - no thanks. did you see their picture/pics of their bedroom? not my type
Posted by: dirty_hipster at September 8, 2009 10:25 AM
d_h
my point is basically that the sisters, purportedly paying to their father can't afford it. it is still a loan, whether it is a bank or a father lending the money.
Posted by: bkheightscoop at September 8, 2009 10:30 AM
No sh*t tybur
What is up with these Times articles? It seems it is always some young twenty-something getting cash from mommy/daddy to buy an overpriced condo. What does this have to do with the NYC real estate market?
Posted by: dirty_hipster at September 8, 2009 10:31 AM
The mean spiritedness and jealousy in these posts is sort of staggering.
To me, the real problem here is the fact that a 2 bedroom apartment in Brooklyn costs more than a 4 or 5 bedroom home in the rest of the country. How on earth is a twenty or thirty year old person supposed to afford a place to live without either an MBA (which won't help you all that much these days anyway) or some help from their family? Renting is always an option (I'm a renter), but it can be painful to write all those checks to contribute to someone else's equity.
In addition, mortgaging an apartment to your children can be a good deal for everyone. Many parents would be happy to get a 4 or 5% return on their investment (better than they could do in a CD, and likely better than their children could do with a commercial lender) while helping their children get a good deal by offering cash, and providing some flexibility in case of a financial setback.
Posted by: snowbunny at September 8, 2009 10:33 AM
anyone else get a possible whiff of incestuality in this whole story? adult sisters do not live together, especially buy a place together.
*rob*
Posted by: Butterfly at September 8, 2009 10:33 AM
DH;
To add to to what Bkheightscoop said:
If these sisters had to take out a real mortgage (which never would have happened, but let's just assume it for the sake of argument) they would have faced the reality of making payments on time, or else dealing with late payment fees and degraded credit scores.
Somehow, I get the feeling that late payments won't be a problem with Daddy.
Posted by: benson at September 8, 2009 10:35 AM
Snowbunny
"How on earth is a twenty or thirty year old person supposed to afford a place to live without either an MBA (which won't help you all that much these days anyway) or some help from their family?"
Not everyone who is 20 years old can live in London, Paris, or Brooklyn. If they could, those cities (or Boroughs) wouldn't be what they are. In the 70's when I was growing up, anyone could live in Brooklyn but few wanted to. Now that everyone wants to because it's improved so much, not everyone can. It's not a God-given right to live where you want to. Plus, from what I hear, rents in East New York are still pretty affordable. (Yes that's part of Brooklyn). Must say though, I love that name Snowbunny.
Posted by: Brooklynnative at September 8, 2009 10:39 AM
The older one doesn't even work... she's a drama student at one of the most expensive schools in the country. And the other one is a teacher at the "with masters" initial salary step.
So, I think this ACTUAL situation is the following: (A) Daddy is planning on paying for BOTH of their rents until the end of time, (B) daddy doesn't want to pay $2000/mo to a landlord, (C) daddy bought the apartment and made all of the arrangements because his daughters won't be adults until they are married off and start popping out babies, since they can't live independent adult lives a husband will have to be involved unless they decide to go the spinster sister route, and (D) daddy seems to have buckets of cash to support this infantilizing behavior and lifestyle... i mean even their bedrooms are decorated like little perky princess rooms.
Is it evil to be having thoughts about getting them drunk and having a dirty animal 3-way with them both... then telling their Daddy all about it?
Posted by: tybur6 at September 8, 2009 10:39 AM
rob,
you are so right about that.
you couldn't pay me to live with my sister, we get along so much better living apart!
Posted by: bkheightscoop at September 8, 2009 10:42 AM
oh tyburg your posts make my brain wet somnetime hahah
*rob*
Posted by: Butterfly at September 8, 2009 10:44 AM
A throw-away NYT story without much relevance BUT the tidal wave of bitterness/jealousy/hypocrisy on this thread is more telling than anything in the article.
So very Park Slope to 1) get some BStoner street cred dissing the protected Daddy’s girls; 2) attack the rich; and 3) give heaps of “parenting” advice.
Well done! All have conformed to their pre-assigned stereotypes. Next.
Posted by: Mr Joist at September 8, 2009 10:46 AM
also why not just buy each of them their own place, but cheaper? like a 1 bedroom or something for each for 300k each.
*rob*
Posted by: Butterfly at September 8, 2009 10:47 AM
It's like a car crash - I don't want to read the article yet feel compelled to do so. And now that I have, I can't unread it...
Posted by: the chicken at September 8, 2009 10:49 AM
Living in Brooklyn isn't a god-given right - and it's also not some sort of reward for getting here first or saving up for 10 or 15 years for a down payment - it's simply the result of being able to make the highest or most attractive bid for an apartment, which this family was able to do. Having to get by without help from your family doesn't make a person morally superior to someone who is lucky enough to receive help. Being the beneficiary of your family's good fortune does not necessarily mean that you are infantile, spoiled, lazy, etc. Good grief.
Posted by: snowbunny at September 8, 2009 10:51 AM
Mr Joist, when people put themselves out there like that in the NEW YORK TIMES, it is our god given right to poke fun. yes some of it clearly comes out of jealousy for some, but these attention wh0re types who like their privileged to be mocked. plus this particular article takes place in park slope, clearly the most mockable neighborhood in America!
*rob*
Posted by: Butterfly at September 8, 2009 10:51 AM
Also, I used to work in East New York, and really can't seriously recommend it as a place to live.
Posted by: snowbunny at September 8, 2009 10:52 AM
quote:
Being the beneficiary of your family's good fortune does not necessarily mean that you are infantile, spoiled, lazy, etc. Good grief.
wake up and smell the ten dollar clovered organic mocha latte! YES it does (in like 99.9 percent of cases)
*rob*
Posted by: Butterfly at September 8, 2009 10:57 AM
The article and its subjects come off just fine. Dad's got some cash and wants to use it to help his daughters live a little better. Don't know why anyone would have a problem.
The whole "persevere" the rental market makes me a bit sick though. I really hope it was somewhat tongue in cheek, but I fear that it wasn't. I don't care who it is or how much they are spending, renting is a perfectly acceptable way to live. The more we perpetuate this stupidity that renting is to be "perservered" and owning the ultimate goal of all Americans the more we distort real estate prices which gives rise to the bubble econmics that hurt so many.
Posted by: Ledbury at September 8, 2009 10:59 AM
You know, I was getting all let-them-eat-caked over this yesterday, wallowing in bitter envy recalling our penniless struggles for a lousy ruin to call our own, all made worse after reading the inane item above (yeah, perseverance, right!)...but now I feel sort of cathasis'd-by-proxy and then some. Even poor little rich girls whose Jersey dad buys them a "cute" $600K apartment in cash don't deserve to fall under the mudslinging locker-room banter of some of youse guys.
My dad lived by his own mother's words of wisdom: "You treat a woman like a lady, not because she is a lady, but because YOU are a gentleman." He didn't leave a suitcase full of cash, but what he did bequeath me was (as they say) priceless.
Posted by: Brenda from Flatbush at September 8, 2009 11:00 AM
Even if they are spoiled....SO EFFING WHAT??? Most if not all of us would LOVE to be in a position to have a financially abled family member be the lender for us in the apartment/home of our dreams. How many of you would really turn down such an offer? Or at least not like to have the opportunity to turn down such an offer from a family member? The only real problem I seen in this story is Jscheff's use of "persevere" because this doesn't quite meet my definition of perseverance. But, these girls, I'm sure, don't give a rat's patootie about what I think. They've got a home to live in and a lender they can work with (so to speak). They are clearly happy with their situation and dad was happy to help them out. Next.
Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at September 8, 2009 11:02 AM
"Being the beneficiary of your family's good fortune does not necessarily mean that you are infantile, spoiled, lazy, etc."
Snowbunny;
True enough. However, I assume that these two women have been receiving the benefits of their family's good fortune for some time (schooling, childhood home,etc.). Despite what Mr. Jerk - er Mr. Joist - states above, no one is begrudging them that good fortune. The question is when will they decide to make something of themselves, with whatever God-given talents they are endowed.
Also, I think there is a happy medium between living in one of the most expensive neighborhoods in Brooklyn with Daddy's money and slogging it to ENY. There are many happy mediums out there. Windsor Terrace is just one neighborhood over.
Posted by: benson at September 8, 2009 11:04 AM
Goodness gracious, where does this all come from? Incestuous? Are you nuts? These posts are just offensive.
1,400-square-foot, two-bedroom, three-bathroom condo in Park Slope.... I would live there with (almost)any of my relatives!
It is a typical NYTimes story, illustrating what wealthier folks can do. Oh well. Call the NY times and ask them to talk about what really matters.
Posted by: coopfornow at September 8, 2009 11:07 AM
Would everyone here be happier if we had the same fact pattern but changed the neighborhood to say, Sunset Park? Bay Ridge? Or Canarsie? Are everyone's panties in a bunch because it's Park Slope?
Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at September 8, 2009 11:08 AM
I agree with you, snowbunny. It doesn't.
I do take exception to the blithe statement that all a renter needs to do is "persevere" and take matters into their own hands. A parable its not. The girls are lucky and more power to them that their father could help them out. But jscheff's implying this is an example of how to take charge of your life and buy an apartment is way off base. The most perseverance they had was in convincing their father to help them and it seems as if that didn't take much "perseverance" at all.
Posted by: bxgrl at September 8, 2009 11:08 AM
i read this, and took it to simply mean that renting is stupid, and that buying is the way to go. how it's financed is irrelevant.
dad is a smart guy.
Posted by: wine lover at September 8, 2009 11:09 AM
And I'm so over this whole 'renting is stupid' bullshit. Not everyone wants to buy. Not everyone can buy. WTF???
Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at September 8, 2009 11:12 AM
Snappy... I think everyone's panties are in a bunch because we have two 15 year olds with a biological ages of 24 and 26, with barely any income between them, being basically handed a $600,000 apartment.
Do you think they are really paying dad the $2,000-3,000 a month for the "mortgage"? And the additional $1,000 a month for maintenance and taxes? I really don't think either of them paid the full amount when they were renting... why should they start now?
This story could take place in any neighborhood. The size of the property would just change.
They are little princesses that got to be in the newspaper! We should be so proud of them.
Posted by: tybur6 at September 8, 2009 11:15 AM
It's their money and their father who has the right to decide how he wants to spend it. I doubt any of you in the same circumstances would think otherwise. As if none of us would do the same thing for our families if we could and it was needed.
And I am with snappy. WTF, indeed.
Posted by: bxgrl at September 8, 2009 11:20 AM
Tybur, let's go ahead and assume that they are not repaying their father for the apartment. I say again, so effing what?
Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at September 8, 2009 11:21 AM
snappy- really.
some of these people make it sound as though they personally offended them. Silly.
Posted by: bxgrl at September 8, 2009 11:25 AM
the new season of 90210 starts tonight. at least the rich daddy's girls in the 90210 zip own their spoiledness. cant really same the same for 11217 (not the poster)
*rob*
Posted by: Butterfly at September 8, 2009 11:27 AM
"I doubt any of you in the same circumstances would think otherwise. As if none of us would do the same thing for our families if we could and it was needed."
Bxgrl;
I would kindly ask you to speak for yourself. I AM in a similiar situation - I have a 25 year-old daughter - and I DO have the means to replicate this Daddy's "kindness". I chose not to, and I think my daughter is the better for it.
My daughter was renting a place on Union St. that was a sh#thole. You know what she did recently, all by herself? Talking advantage of the weak rental market, she was able to get a much better place in Greenwood Heights for just a few dollars more. I am pleased with her maturity.
As I said at the beginning of this thread, this is a philosophical issue. There is no right or wrong answer, it comes down to one's value system, really. If this father wants to do this for his daughters, it is his right to do so. In my opinion, he has done them no favors.
Posted by: benson at September 8, 2009 11:27 AM
So they were "paying" $2,000 a month for rent. Now they are paying $2,900 a month ($600k x 5% divided by 12 plus $400/month maintenance) to "rent".
Yeah, they're the smart ones.
Posted by: the chicken at September 8, 2009 11:28 AM
benson- I would also ask you to speak for YOURSELF. I wasn't referring to you and here you are again, making a general statement personal. Paranoid much?
And I am still willing to bet not even you would refuse to help her if she asked.
Posted by: bxgrl at September 8, 2009 11:38 AM
I'm not irritated at the father, or the daughters, but more at the NYTimes because they think this is a newsworthy story.
Posted by: dirty_hipster at September 8, 2009 11:40 AM
dirty hipster,
you are right about the Times.
this story wasnt much worth printing.
Posted by: bkheightscoop at September 8, 2009 11:48 AM
"Having to get by without help from your family doesn't make a person morally superior to someone who is lucky enough to receive help. Being the beneficiary of your family's good fortune does not necessarily mean that you are infantile, spoiled, lazy, etc."
I respectfully disagree. In my value system, people who pay their own way are morally superior to the leeches who live off of others. And I respect those who are self-supportive more than the dependent on others types because they have achieved on their talent and tenacity; the latter group achieves because of the privileges and perks handed to them.
Posted by: orestes at September 8, 2009 11:51 AM
Poor Benson, you bare your foolishness with your last two posts:
“There is no right or wrong answer … I have a 25 year-old daughter … I am pleased with her maturity.”
“Despite what Mr. Jerk - er Mr. Joist - states above, no one is begrudging them that good fortune. The question is when will they decide to make something of themselves …“
TAKE-AWAY: I’m sooo proud of my scrappy-do daughter. She has pluck, she is resourceful, I am the better parent. Also, a Masters from Columbia and teaching at a public school is not “making something yourself.” Trying to act is a spoiled rich kid’s dream. Lastly, I am a sanctimonious as*hole.
Posted by: Mr Joist at September 8, 2009 11:53 AM
wow, the puppet master strings the crowd along once again - throws "persevere" into mix then sits back to watch the page click counter going up, up, up,.... and away!!!!!!!!!!!!
come on guys, the word selection was no accident, oversight,... it was INTENTIONAL and it was classic baiting
Posted by: more4less at September 8, 2009 11:56 AM
Mr. Joist;
No point in "debating" you. Have a nice day!
Posted by: benson at September 8, 2009 11:57 AM
Snarky's take-away: I'm gonna find me a rich daddy.
Posted by: DitmasSnark at September 8, 2009 12:01 PM
M4L- we're working hard here to give you lunchtime reading material. A little gratitude please :-)
Posted by: bxgrl at September 8, 2009 12:02 PM
bxgrl, unfortunately I read all this b4 lunch
Posted by: more4less at September 8, 2009 12:11 PM
Some of you come across as so incredibly jealous and bitter, it's not even funny.
What a bunch of whiners.
Posted by: 11217 at September 8, 2009 12:15 PM
M4L :-( Well, who told you to do that?
Posted by: bxgrl at September 8, 2009 12:20 PM
"In the 70's when I was growing up, anyone could live in Brooklyn but few wanted to. Now that everyone wants to because it's improved so much, not everyone can."
You're right about this, Brooklynative. Still, I grew up here, always wanted to live here and never seriously considered living anywhere else.
OK snowbunny, that's enough about East New York. It's a tough neighborhood I agree, but there are actually are some OK sections and plus, I grew up there, so it can't be ALL bad!
Posted by: East New York at September 8, 2009 12:56 PM
I think we all agree that the NYTimes article was a bit annoying as these articles usually are. But, indeed, it *is* about *something* that has recently happened: a father in NJ who financed his daughters getting an apartment together in Brooklyn. Not exactly a "perseverance" story but nonetheless an occurrence in the real estate market...
In the end, I have to agree with Benson more than with Townhouse Lady. My father squandered a small fortune...the classic "wine, women and song" (you can throw "fast cars" into that mix) and, as a side note, predeceased his own mother (who, although she supported a lot of his adventures over the years was astute enough to hold back sometimes). Luckily, my aunts and uncle were more altruistic and involved with many charities and not-for-profits. They got involved in many organizations and worked hard in their chosen careers as well.
All in all, my father was probably a classic example of the spoiled son who had too much handed to him. Because of his example, I have tried to be very circumspect and think twice before the generosity reflex kicks in. Let the kids wear out their stuff. It used to be clothes, and junk...now it's computers, cars and the like-- let them make their own choices on what they can afford. It is not a good idea to always rush in as the deus ex machina mother.
Posted by: BrooklynGreene at September 8, 2009 1:11 PM
*this just in*
DH's parents bought him groceries and toiletries this weekend - be on the lookout for NYTimes article about a shift in consumer spending habits for under 30 year olds in NYC.
Posted by: dirty_hipster at September 8, 2009 1:12 PM
"not everyone can" really seems to mean "not everyone can in the neighborhood or building that they want". Brooklyn does have something for everyone and what I love about neighborhoods like Crown Heights and Bed Stuy is that they are really proactive in making the neighborhoods better- without waiting to be "discovered."
Posted by: bxgrl at September 8, 2009 1:13 PM
Obviously DH you are a spendthift, profligate, no good, spoiled, lazy person. Your parents have raised you to feel entitled and elitist. :-)
Posted by: bxgrl at September 8, 2009 1:17 PM
on some levels this kind of situation is worse than welfare.
*rob*
Posted by: Butterfly at September 8, 2009 1:22 PM
Bxgrl:
Sorry to take issue with something you said here, because I really do agree with you on most of your points, but you said above that "what I love about neighborhoods like Crown Heights and Bed Stuy is that they are really proactive in making the neighborhoods better- without waiting to be "discovered.""
While I'm sure this is more true than it isn't, I do seem to recall a NYTimes article not long ago about some residents of Crown Heights wondering where all of their high end retail and dining was now that they have arrived in the neighborhood and spent close to a million smackers for it.
Let's not be delusional here...most of the newer residents to both of these neighborhoods who spent a pretty penny on their home in the last few years want more high end stuff to come their way. They just might not be as vocal about it as those of us who enjoy those things in our own respective neighborhoods.
Posted by: 11217 at September 8, 2009 1:23 PM
Listen, I gave up buying groceries and toiletries for my daughter probably 15 years ago. It was annoying when I discovered she was spending her money on Evian, magazines and the most outrageously priced beauty products and that I was enabling this by providing food and other basics. I said "no". When she took up smoking (ugh!!!) in grad school I started to flat-out refuse to support her budget so she could spend a small fortune on cigarettes--and believe me, I let her know my opinion!
Posted by: BrooklynGreene at September 8, 2009 1:24 PM
11217- Yes, they did come to CHN and in Crown Heights' case, it really isn't here yet. But I know a lot of the old timers from CHN- they have tried for years and worked for years to little avail. But they have managed to get landmarking and in the long run I know we'll see more businesses and services. Bed-Stuy has seen a real uptick in restaurants and retail. All you have to do is look at Tompkins St. to see its evolution and also at great restaurants like Peaches and Saraghina.
In CHN there is a merchant association but a big part of hte problem is there are only 2-3 landlords who own most of Nostrand and they are not doing anything to help business come in and grow. they charge outrageous rents so small business don't even have a chance to open and build a clientele.
But on the other hand, if I were looking to spend big bucks in a neighborhood on a house I would do my homework before I bought in. I don't have much sympathy for homeowners who bought expensive (but gorgeous) houses in CHN and then bitch about the lack of hi end retail. Did they not research beforehand?
That said, the new homeowners who I know are trying to better the neighborhood and its services. They aren't sitting around complaining that they spent big bucks and where are the restaurants and hi-end boutiques. In that sense I do feel there is a more proactive, do-it-yourself attitude here, because with the way the City treats CHN and Bed-stuy, we don;t have much choice.
Posted by: bxgrl at September 8, 2009 1:36 PM
BG- You were right in that case, but every situation is different. If these young women are responsible, and take care of business, I don't see how anyone cold have a problem with this.
Posted by: bxgrl at September 8, 2009 1:46 PM
Oh come on...give it a break. The father is using it as a write off. If structured properly (and if the girls are mature), it'll be a good situation for all of them.
Also, I think the sisters have a great opportunity to become adult friends here. I doubt they'll live together forever (heck, it already says they have different hours), but if they are close, they should treasure it. Family is important.
Posted by: Minmin at September 8, 2009 2:24 PM
I know plenty of sisters and brothers who live together in the city. It's really not all that uncommon if they are close and both live in NYC. Often better than a total stranger.
I don't get why that's so odd for two 20 something sisters to want to live together.
Yet another example of how irritating some of the brownstoner crowd is. You hate your sister and therefore everyone else must, right?
Posted by: 11217 at September 8, 2009 2:36 PM
Yeah, I have to agree about that aspect of this issue. I don't find it weird for two sisters to be live together. Actually kinda nice, in this day and age.
Posted by: benson at September 8, 2009 2:40 PM
I know many will call me sexist and politically incorrect...but many of the daughters of generous daddies make their choice by marrying someone who is as affluent and generous as daddy. The schoolteacher is unlikely to marry another schoolteacher.
Posted by: Petebklyn at September 8, 2009 2:41 PM
You're right, petebklyn. It is sexist. I respect her for becoming a teacher, going for a high paying corporate career. Her priorities seem to be in the right place and I bet her dad had something to do with that.
Posted by: bxgrl at September 8, 2009 2:45 PM
Umm... Bxgrl... her priorities are in the right place?! She's decided to live beyond her means on her daddy's dime. Her choice of career is irrelevant. The only thing it tells us is that she's NOT making the $250,000 a year that you would normally need to afford this apartment.
I guess since she can get away with living beyond her means, then more power to her. However, being dependent on daddy (as is clearly the case) is going to leave her less than prepared for the future if she ever decides to grow up.
And who says she actually any good at being a teacher? Or could have pulled off a "high paying corporate career." Obviously, her dad doesn't want to test her self-sufficiency... so I wonder if she's even capable.
So, yeah, while it might seem sexist... this girl has made this decision. She wants to live with this level of comfort (or more comfortably) for the rest of her life. Consequently, she will need to have another person basically supporting her -- be it a husband or her daddy. She couldn't deal with the "annoying" world of renting within her price range, so she leans on someone else to take up the slack... and give her what she deserves as a adorable princess.
I mean, think about how her teaching would be affected and how the children in her classroom would be harmed if she didn't have a really nice place to live?!
Posted by: tybur6 at September 8, 2009 3:00 PM
Tyburg:
You know I love you, but from listening to your posts it seems that you basically want the same thing that these girls have. You've made comments before about finding a rich chick and if someone offered you an apartment like this, would you not take it...
It's comments like your last one that just ooze jealousy. If you can admit it, no problem but please don't make it seem like you are all high and mighty when you know you'd love to be in their position.
Posted by: 11217 at September 8, 2009 3:05 PM
tyburg- what 11217 said.
Posted by: bxgrl at September 8, 2009 3:09 PM
11217;
Let me jump in. Your question to Tybur6 is sort of like asking someone: "Do you want to win the mega-millions lottery". Of course, almost all of us would instinctively answer "Yeah baby!!". However, I'm sure you have seen the studies that find that most winners eventually wind up in worse shape then before they won, indeed, some even end up in debt after a few years.
That is really what we are talking about here. Sure, on one level, who wouldn't want to be handed a $600,000 apartment? On the other hand, someone could be handing you a narcotic (in the form of a 2-bedroom apartment in PS). Not every one becomes addicted when they take a narcotic, but many people do.
Posted by: benson at September 8, 2009 3:13 PM
it's not weird for two sisters to live together.
IF THEY ARE 75 YEARS OLD AND HAVE 100 CATS!
*ROB*
Posted by: Butterfly at September 8, 2009 3:15 PM
Hahahaha... 11217. No, I have made comments about finding a sugar mama before and they are really just jokes. I don't think I would like being in their position. Money does not come free, as they say. If I found myself a lady friend that already had a fancy shmancy house, then of course I would move in... but honestly, I think I'd be quite uncomfortable about it for a while. I would much rather have been able to provide what I can to make a home together (whether that's 5% or 75% of the mortgage payment)
That being said, there's a BIG difference between a couple (where one of the two is rich) and being subsidized by your parents *deep* into adulthood. That's what this is... they are postponing growing up by letting their daddy pay their way. This isn't daddy helping out with a "little gift" like $15,000 to help with a down payment. His subsidy probably amounts to more than that EVERY YEAR.
Why would anyone who is an full grown adult want to put themselves into a position of dependency on someone that is not their spouse/partner?!!
Posted by: tybur6 at September 8, 2009 3:15 PM
Rob, when did you change your species?
Posted by: tybur6 at September 8, 2009 3:16 PM
Fair enough Ty!
I don't agree that all people who grow up with money are automatically spoiled brats though. Good parenting is good parenting and bad parenting is bad parenting. I don't see it as a money-based issue. PLENTY of rich kids grow up to be good, self sufficient people. Gifted apartment or not.
Posted by: 11217 at September 8, 2009 3:20 PM
Two words: Selma. Patty.
Posted by: DitmasSnark at September 8, 2009 3:20 PM
"Why would anyone who is an full grown adult want to put themselves into a position of dependency on someone that is not their spouse/partner?!!"
50% of marriages end in divorce.
I don't believe the same can be said for siblings.
Honestly, I think dependency on a partner is MUCH scarier than with a family member.
Posted by: 11217 at September 8, 2009 3:23 PM
For god sakes Benson!
"Sure, on one level, who wouldn't want to be handed a $600,000 apartment? On the other hand, someone could be handing you a narcotic (in the form of a 2-bedroom apartment in PS). Not every one becomes addicted when they take a narcotic, but many people do."
Now helping your kids get a jump start in the world by helping them get an apartment to share is tantamount to giving them a narcotic?
Yeah, there's a direct comparison if ever I saw one ?!?!? Um, Dramatic much?
and tybur6:
"Why would anyone who is an full grown adult want to put themselves into a position of dependency on someone that is not their spouse/partner?!!"
Are you for real? How many marriages end in divorce vs. how many parent/child relationships? Somehow I don't see their Dad taking off and leaving them.
Agree to disagree and move on but please drop the hysterical platitudes. You guys are unreal.
Posted by: TownhouseLady at September 8, 2009 3:24 PM
"Why would anyone who is an full grown adult want to put themselves into a position of dependency on someone that is not their spouse/partner?!!"
A stranger at the bank holding your mortgage is better than a parent??
Posted by: bxgrl at September 8, 2009 3:26 PM
11217 -- absolutely, I know lots of rich kids that have grown up to be strong, self-sufficient types. It is ALL about parenting it seems. This situation just doesn't seem like a good choice. All-cash deal, i.e., NO risk for the daughters. They are dependent and BEHOLDEN to daddy. And they are put in a situation where they don't have to be an adult or worry about real consequences.
What happens if she doesn't want to be a teacher any more? Does she have to slog through teaching for a couple more years while she works on a new career path/training etc? Or does she just quit her job, get a part-time job at Starbucks and stop paying her daddy her monthly payments.
What happens when sister #2 figures out that being an actor is really hard? That combined with daddy looking for rent.
Posted by: tybur6 at September 8, 2009 3:30 PM
"Now helping your kids get a jump start in the world by helping them get an apartment to share is tantamount to giving them a narcotic?"
THL;
I respect your difference of opinion on the matter. However, I remain in my point.
If you think I am being "hysterical", I would like to point out to you that this country is going through its biggest financial crisis in over 80 years PRECISELY because alot of people are living in homes they have no business being in. Poor financial thinking has ramifications, be it in the form of sub-prime mortgages, or Daddy Mortgage, Inc.
As Tybur6 just pointed out, they were not just given a "jump start". They were given an apartment.
Posted by: benson at September 8, 2009 3:31 PM
ABSOLUTELY bxgrl.
A stranger at the bank can't (potentially) use the $600,000 suitcase of money as leverage in your relationship (consciously or unconsciously, it's inevitable)... and the stranger at the bank doesn't give a crap about you except that you make your payments. This actually requires you to be an adult and care about making payments.
(And REALLY care about making payments... not, "Oh, daddy will be pissed off if I don't pay him this month.")
Oh right, and the stranger at the bank would NEVER have given these two overgrown teenagers a loan.
Posted by: tybur6 at September 8, 2009 3:34 PM
THL... being dependent on your parents deep into adulthood?! 24 and 26 years old is far from being a child. That is MUCH MUCH different than being dependent on a spouse.
You enter a marriage as a contract. If the marriage doesn't work out, you figure it out. You build things together as a unit and you deal with the fallout if things don't work.
A parent subsidizing your housing even though you're an adult is a different kind of relationship.
Posted by: tybur6 at September 8, 2009 3:39 PM
Now Benson... if you could just get on my side about streetcars, we'd be all set!
Posted by: tybur6 at September 8, 2009 3:41 PM
A friend of mine was given an apartment by his parents. They bought it with cash, no mortgage.
He pays the maintenance. He does this by going to his job and working hard every damn day like the rest of us.
I am, admittedly, a wee bit envious.
And it is envy that stinks up this thread like a fart in an elevator.
Posted by: DitmasSnark at September 8, 2009 3:43 PM
Direct quote from the article:
"The sisters are using their father, who provided the money, as their mortgage lender."
Direct quote from Benson:
"As Tybur6 just pointed out, they were not just given a "jump start". They were given an apartment."
How can you say this when frankly, you have no idea what their payment arrangements/structure may or may not be?
It's o.k. though, We've become quite used to those pious sweeping assumptions.
Posted by: TownhouseLady at September 8, 2009 3:48 PM
"And it is envy that stinks up this thread like a fart in an elevator."
AMEN!
Posted by: TownhouseLady at September 8, 2009 3:51 PM
Methinks I detect a green-eyed monster.
Posted by: East New York at September 8, 2009 3:52 PM
are they at least attractive? i havent seen the picture yet.
oh wait, ive decided not to turn straight
*rob*
Posted by: Butterfly at September 8, 2009 3:54 PM
THL;
Have a lovely (remainder of) the day! My mud-slinging sensor is ringing, so it's time to shut down the debate.
Posted by: benson at September 8, 2009 3:57 PM
tyburg- you and benson seem to have unresolved issues that you are projecting onto these women and their father. You know nothing about them yet you seem to feel capable of making pronouncements about their lives, their personalities and their father's parenting skills. Based on a newpaper article. I hope you don't decide everything in life according to a lifestyle reporter.
Posted by: bxgrl at September 8, 2009 4:00 PM
Your mud slinging sensor must be going off the charts since you've been tossing bombs at this family since your first post.
Posted by: TownhouseLady at September 8, 2009 4:00 PM
Amen, THL (Are we having Vulcan mindmelditis?)
Posted by: bxgrl at September 8, 2009 4:02 PM
Seems so!
Posted by: TownhouseLady at September 8, 2009 4:07 PM
Rob, they're pretty cute.
Posted by: Kensingtonian at September 8, 2009 4:08 PM
I just love how the same article a month ago - sub two cute school teachers in park slope for a 20 something in a williamsburg condo got vastly different reactions summed up by "dirtbag hipster trustfunders living off mommy and daddy" by some of the same people defending these 2 girls/parent.
Posted by: dirty_hipster at September 8, 2009 4:17 PM
DH- that is something I never said. And I don't think that way either - although I have to say the fact that you allowed your parents to buy you food and toiletries doesn't bode well for your ability to fend for yourself without your trust fund. :-)
Posted by: bxgrl at September 8, 2009 4:28 PM
Which thread DH?
Posted by: InsertSnappyNameHere at September 8, 2009 4:37 PM
I have one comment. This NYT article, like last week's (the Italian), shows exactly what has been the state of NY real estate -- parents' with some accumulated wealth subsidizing their children's ownership. Thi sis why somany $500K one bedroom apartments were built (and some sold). Since when did twenty-somethings even WANT to own homes before? Who ever wanted to be tied down that way? For the past 5-10 years it seems that everyone drank the owner's koolade. It is not sustainable (as we know) and not good for anyone.
Posted by: BH76 at September 8, 2009 5:08 PM
We keep calling Benson out on his stupidity and his only response is:
“THL: Have a lovely (remainder of) the day! My mud-slinging sensor is ringing, so it's time to shut down the debate.”
“Mr. Joist: No point in "debating" you. Have a nice day!”
Do you have a form letter or Magic 8 Ball or something? Better keep them handy if you continue to post nonsensical drivel.
Posted by: Mr Joist at September 8, 2009 5:31 PM
Back again: I actually am a bit envious that so much of what counts for "ordinary housing" is out of the reach of many hard working New Yorkers with combined incomes of $130,000 or thereabouts.
I know a young couple (about 28), with professional jobs in upstate, making good but not fabulous salaries. They have a house in a decent neighborhood, reasonable commute for each, a small vacation house on a lake, two cars, and seem to be a lot happier than many of us. Did they get help from their parents? Maybe a little, but I kind of doubt it. All I'm saying is things are a little twisted here in the city; the recession is evening the playing field a bit more.
We own, but quite frankly, I want to see more leveling! (More chances for people to buy, yeah, probably without too much assistance from their parents, but I'm not going to begrudge these two sisters the opportunity their father has provided them.)
Posted by: Minmin at September 8, 2009 5:50 PM
H'mmm...I guess there was a lot of back and forth from all of you today. Well, I have to say that I wish the two sisters in the article well. Parents helping kids out and/or buying a property outright is not uncommon. It can often seem like a great place to stick a wad of cash...and sometimes it can be protected under your kids' names--and/or can be gifted over a number of years to them. A friend of our bought houses for his married daughters and a number of income properties and I think this was his angle more or less (he's an accountant so knows the ins and outs).
In the end though, from my experience, you really can risk retarding your kids' development if they're not already mature in the way they relate to money and spending. It all depends. My father was handed life on a gold platter and, frankly, he wasn't better for it, but my aunts and uncle were pretty well adjusted...well, kind of...
;-)
I would personally NOT pay my daughter's rent. She pays what she can afford out of her university professor salary...end of story.
Posted by: BrooklynGreene at September 8, 2009 5:51 PM
Latest Restaurant Additions
-
Le Barricou
added November 20, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Der Schwarze Kölner
added November 19, 2009 12:00 PM in Fort Greene -
Oak Wine Bar & Café
added November 18, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Mr. Wonton
added November 17, 2009 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Casa Rosa
added November 16, 2009 12:00 PM in Carroll Gardens -
Cousin John's Café & Bakery
added November 13, 2009 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Elote
added November 12, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Miracle Grill
added November 11, 2009 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Phoebe's Cafe
added November 10, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Ruthie's
added November 9, 2009 12:00 PM in Clinton Hill, Downtown Brooklyn
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.