« Oral Arguments over Eminent Domain at Atlantic Yards Closings and Move-Ins at 420 Classon Avenue »

October 15, 2009

Tenants Claim Negligence at Flatbush Gardens

Tenants at the 59-building, rent-stabalized, East Flatbush housing complex called Flatbush Gardens (previously Vanderveer Estates) claim that the owner, Clipper Equity, is neglecting repairs in order to drive out tenants and drive up rents. "You call, but they never come to fix anything," one tenant of 25 years told the Daily News. Needed repairs include flooring in disrepair and exposed or non-functioning outlets. Tenants also claim that Clipper began charging $30 air-conditioner fees as part of its intimidation tactics, and raised rents in stabalized apartments beyond what is legally permissible. The owners will renovate an apartment as soon as tenants vacate, tenants say, but ignore maintenance requests for occupied units. Finally, the tenants point to television and subway ads for the complex as more evidence that the owners are trying to attract new money. A Clipper spokesperson said that the owner works through all maintenance requests, and highlights $10 million in upgrades such as new elevators, intercom systems, and playgrounds. Tenants say these are simply cosmetic upgrades, and a lawyer representing them told the News, "It's clear the landlord wants to bring in new business." GMAP P*Shark
Landlords Letting Flatbush Gardens Rot to Flush Us Out [Daily News]
Rent Wars: Flatbush Gardens Achieves Stuy Town Dream [Curbed]
Image by Nicholas Strini/PropertyShark

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/11882

Comments

negligent spelling also

Posted by: dittoburg at October 15, 2009 9:36 AM

ah... the infamous Vandeveer Gardens housing complex. they have ads everywhere.. trying to lure people there. it's basically a low rent version of stuy town. studios are 900 tho. pretty good! and it's renovated. watch out, ive read numerous stories about people moving in and getting the CRAP beaten out of them literally in the hallways. not a nice place. i actually looked into it but they dont allow pets. wtf?

*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at October 15, 2009 9:41 AM

I see their TV ad every morning on NY1. This is a small scale Stuy Town saga...

Posted by: bitdot at October 15, 2009 9:42 AM

Rob, you can get a studio in my hood for 900/month. It's most likely safer and way more convinient to get to the city and park slope.

Posted by: Kensingtonian at October 15, 2009 9:43 AM

I read the article this morning and I can't say I surprised. I hope this article sparks an investigation into the owners practices. They simply should not be allowed to treat people this way.

Posted by: A CrownHeightsLady at October 15, 2009 9:45 AM

No wonder they have to spend $5k on upgrades for any new tenant (according to their many, many ads, hope they are getting a bulk rate from time warner cable)

Posted by: CG_ups at October 15, 2009 9:53 AM

Agree with ACHL. Sounds like a scumbag.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 15, 2009 9:54 AM

If we never had rent stabilization laws, we could assume the following about Vandaveer Gardens:

1) Market rents would be lower because tens of thousands of rental building would not have been converted to coops, tens of thousands of rental buildings would not have been torched or abandoned, and tens of thousands of additional rental units that would have been built were not built. Higher supply = lower market rents.

2) The buildings would never have deteriorated because with a higher supply and higher turnover, the owners would have had to keep the building in good shape to attract tenants. Since rent stabilized tenants never leave, why bother?

3) Chances are the buildings would be owned by a responsible owner, rather than the current scumbags who either break the law or come within inches of breaking the law to clear out and harass below-market rent tenants.

Posted by: Suburbandude at October 15, 2009 10:26 AM

This sounds like greed at its slimiest. There is nothing wrong with making a profit as a landlord, there is something very wrong with what they are doing. I hope they are stopped.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at October 15, 2009 10:28 AM

900 bucks to live in that shit?

id rather have a roommmate.

Posted by: Santa at October 15, 2009 10:35 AM

That is the problem when you forced someone to provide services and goods well below market price - they are not motivated to give you the best service in return. They do 'just enough' to be legal or finds way to even go lower than what the law required instead of trying to provide something better.

RC/RS is broken. We don't have to get rid of it but fix it so tenants do not suffer for years with a bad landlord.

No one likes taking over a RS/RC property unless they can a see way to make them market rate. So the motivation to repair and upgrade is minimal - actually comical.

And abusive tenants - you get what you paid for.

B.R.O.K.E.N.

Posted by: crimsonson at October 15, 2009 10:39 AM

I'm not going to opine on the sovcial issues surounding RC/RS. But what both suburbandude and crimson said are the economic realities; and by that I mean rational economic behaviour.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 15, 2009 10:42 AM

hogwash.
"No one likes taking over a RC/RS property"....uh they purchase it..and nobody forced them to purchase it.
ANd plenty of RS bldgs get sold every year and the prices as multiple of rentroll have increased past several years ...so plenty of buyers out there have been more than willing to buy.

They knew the rent roll but were willing to pay big premium with desire to kick out and get bigger return. Not as easy money as they hoped.

Posted by: Petebklyn at October 15, 2009 11:19 AM

This is typical Daily News cheap journalism. Does anyone know the history of this development???? Vanderveer Gardens was one of the WORST developments in the history of Brooklyn: cheaply built,and then poorly run. This story gives no perspective on what this development was like BEFORE Clipper Equities bought them: an absolute hellhole that brought down the surrounding area.

Only in NYC could a landlord who decides to invest $10M in a complex be demonized by the usual combination of lazy journalists looking for a cheap sensational story and RC/RS tennants looking to continue the ride for their "cheap" apartments.

Posted by: benson at October 15, 2009 11:32 AM

Benson is 1000% right

Vanderveer was a total hell hole...crime infested, deteriorating and dangerous.

Sure maybe the new owners arent making repairs - (the easiest way is to check the violations on the buildings (if you need a repair and it isnt done all you have to do is call 311 and an inspector will right up a violation if it is a founded complianit)- I note they arent mentioned in the article (the only thing shown in the DailyNews article are two pictures of the most minor issues its laughable).

A MUCH MORE LIKELY scenario, is that the old/existing RS tenants do not want to be subject to the rent increases that are LEGAL, and PERMISSIBLE under RS laws, when a Lnadlord makes major capital improvements (mind you the maximum 1yr increase is only 6%). Those so called "cosmetic changes" like new intercoms and elevators are subject to permissible increases by the LL - it is very likely the current tenants don't want to pay the LEGAL increases and so they are claiming that the LL is doing something wrong, or not making repairs. I'd also bet that the new LL (who has invested 10's of millions) is much more strict about non-payment of rent - also a potential source of complaint from tenants used to more lackadaisical management. The new LL is also probably preventing tenants from having washer/dryers in their apartments (cause terrible flooding problems) and also the LL is charging the LEGAL and PERMISSABLE $5 A/C unit charge.

So what is the story here, I certainly dont know for sure - but I suspect, this is about a LL acting 100% within the law, improving the development and trying to collect the rent he is due, and tenants who would prefer to pay less (even if it means a crappy development) and would prefer that the LL didnt try to enforce his lease and the RS laws so much.

Posted by: fsrg at October 15, 2009 11:47 AM

So because it was a hell before justifies what the current owners are doing now?!? That's just a ridiculous.

Posted by: A CrownHeightsLady at October 15, 2009 12:03 PM

"...uh they purchase it..and nobody forced them to purchase it."

Uhm if you are going to quote at least do the WHOLE FUCKING sentence.
"No one likes taking over a RS/RC property unless they can a see way to make them market rate. "

And thanks for proving my point IN THE SAME REPLY

"They knew the rent roll but were willing to pay big premium with desire to kick out and get bigger return. Not as easy money as they hoped."

Posted by: crimsonson at October 15, 2009 12:05 PM

Learn to read A CrownHeightsLady -
FSRQ is theorizing (I do not agree or disagree since I do not know the facts) the story is one sided and that there is a good chance that some tenants are claiming these things in order to dodge rent increases.

Posted by: crimsonson at October 15, 2009 12:07 PM

"A Clipper spokesperson said that the owner works through all maintenance requests, and highlights $10 million in upgrades such as new elevators, intercom systems, and playgrounds. Tenants say these are simply cosmetic upgrades, and a lawyer representing them told the News, "It's clear the landlord wants to bring in new business.""

I'm pretty sure of 4 things:

1. The management company does not rush to do repairs for tenants they would like to get rid of.

2. Unless the old elevators, intercom systems, and playgrounds were all in good condition, new elevators, intercom systems, and playgrounds qualifies as much more than "cosmetic" upgrades.

3. The lawyer's comment is really dumb.

4. While throwing little old ladies out of their homes is bad, so are the consequences of NY RS/RC laws.

Posted by: northsloperenter at October 15, 2009 12:22 PM

Although I agree the story is blatantly one-sided, i object to the automatic demonization of rc/rs tenants. These are not UES geriatrics with money in the bank, by any stretch of the imagination. And the bigger issue is while there is a huge market for apartments with reasonable rents, there aren't a lot of them out there for lower middle and working class poor. I'm sure we'll differ on what is a reasonable rent and for what.

Posted by: bxgrl at October 15, 2009 12:23 PM

It yet again exposes the flaws of rent stablization on both ends - the biggest flaw of which, is gov't mandating private owners to bear the costs.

Posted by: Crownlfc at October 15, 2009 12:25 PM

But I think, crownlfc, it's also true that landlords get tax breaks and other considerations for their investments. When you buy an rs/rc property it was my understanding you pay quite a bit less than market value because of it. Is that true?

Posted by: bxgrl at October 15, 2009 12:34 PM

who is demonizing anyone???

People (RS or not) do not enjoy paying more $ for rent...and when new LL comes in and makes improvements and LEGALLY raises rent and enforces LEGAL rules (like no Washers and $5 A/C charges) - tenants get upset.....and when people get upset they tend to see things from a very one-sided and often biased perspective.

It isnt that the RS tenants are demons - its that tenants like the part of the RS that keeps rents low - but tenants DO NOT like the part that allows increases.

Posted by: fsrg at October 15, 2009 12:37 PM

No bxgrl - you pay market price - the price is based on the rent roll and the RR is kept low (and will virtually forever stay low) due to RS - the cap rate (i.e. the income you earn is genrally the same or lower than on non-rs buildings)

Posted by: fsrg at October 15, 2009 12:40 PM

"So because it was a hell before justifies what the current owners are doing now?!? "

Crown Heights Lady;

WHAT exactly is the new owner doing??? All the Daily News shows is two relatively minor violations, and acknowledges that the owner is sinking $10M in the complex Is this the best evidence that the tennants could bring forth? Between this weak evidence, and their absurd statement that new elevators and intercom are "cosmetic" changes, I am drawn to conclude that what they are really complaining about is that their rents will be increased in a LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE way to pay for the upgrades that were SORELY needed in this complex.

Pete states above that when owners purchase RS properties, they go in with their eyes wide open. 100% correct. It is also 100% true that when TENNANTS rent a RS apartment, THEY should abide by the rules of the game, which allows the owner to recover his costs for capital investments in a property.

Posted by: benson at October 15, 2009 12:41 PM

fsrg- does anyone like increases? And if you're on a limited income it has much more impact on your day to day. I was actually referring to benson's last line. But I agree- when people get upset they tend to see things from a "very one-sided and often biased perspective." And that also includes landlords. The unfortunate thing in NYC is that landlords and tenants need one another but are adversarial- made more so by the laws and the economics.

Posted by: bxgrl at October 15, 2009 12:43 PM

thanks for the clarification, fsrg. I recall someone saying the forum that the price was less but as we've all seen on b'stoner- with free advice you get what you pay for :-)

Posted by: bxgrl at October 15, 2009 12:47 PM

"And the bigger issue is while there is a huge market for apartments with reasonable rents, there aren't a lot of them out there for lower middle and working class poor."

Indeed.

"As City Adds Housing for Poor, Market Subtracts It"

http://bit.ly/2PQ97V

Posted by: East New York at October 15, 2009 12:53 PM

absolutely Benson, if the capital improvements are legit, and they have to go thru a process with DHCR the tenants should shut up, pay the increase and be happy that building is improving. That increase encourages owners to update the housing.
If they are harassed to move out - that is another matter. I didn't read the article so don't know if that is a charge.

Posted by: Petebklyn at October 15, 2009 2:01 PM

Vanderveer Gardens was one of the WORST developments in the history of Brooklyn: cheaply built,and then poorly run. This story gives no perspective on what this development was like BEFORE Clipper Equities bought them: an absolute hellhole that brought down the surrounding area.

One of the worst? A bit of an exaggeration. It was no Red Hook, and never was meant to be public housing. Vanderveer was middle class housing in the 60s and 70s. I've heard older people say it was actually nice to live there back then, that doctors lived there.

What changed was the admittance of section 8 tenants, whenever there is concentration of those tenants in an area, crime usually follows. I think majority of section 8 tenants are gone now. I have family living there still, and not everyone who can't afford to pay $2000 for a 2 bedroom apt are lowlifes and dirty. There are teachers, and health care employees living there, security guards, those who for transit, regular working class and low middle class families.

But at the same time, I think there are some people there that needs to be "pushed out", who lived there for years and bring nothing but crime and dysfunction to the community. I know that is harsh - where will they go is the cry - but I don't know. Why should a community tolerate dysfunctional families and people with no thought on busting locks and drug dealing, and peeing in hallways.

Posted by: Mikela123 at October 15, 2009 2:26 PM

Mikela;

I'll stand by my statement. I know many folks who grew up in East Flatbush, and virtually all of them point to Vanderveer Estates as the source of its troubles. You are not correct that this complex was still a haven for middle class families in the 70's. By the 70's folks who had the means were fleeing this complex. One doesn't go from doctors to section 8 tennants overnight, as you imply above. Ten years after this complex opened, it was clear that it was in trouble. Its trouble are similiar to that other red-brick-tower monstrosity in Queens, Lefrak City.

Having said all that, I agree with your conclusion. I shed no tears for SOME of the residents there - those who are not respectful of their home and neighbors.

Posted by: benson at October 15, 2009 2:55 PM

Mikela;

OK, I'll soften my statement in one regard. Here is my modified statement: it was one of the worst private developments in the history of Brooklyn. Not as bad as the Red Hook projects, I agree, but nevertheless it has been a troubled complex for a long, long time.

Posted by: benson at October 15, 2009 3:00 PM

If you think that Clipper Equity is neglecting Flatbush Gardens you should see what they are doing at Belltel in Downtown Brooklyn! The building is falling apart at the seams and Clipper Equity does not want to finish it and owes suppliers a fortune, even Con Ed. Rumor has it that they are going to the Attorney General!!! The lobby is beautiful but just look under the covers!!! Very sad, such a beautiful building going to pot!!

Posted by: Bklynista at October 15, 2009 9:45 PM

Benson is completely right, and most of these comments are absurd.

Flatbush Gardens (formerly known as Vandeveer Estates) was HORRIBLE. One of the most dangerous complexes in the city.

The new owners have completely renovated the complex and it looks quite nice now (from the outside, at least; I have not been inside).

The old complex was literally a hellhole. Grafitti, garbage, and muggings. Now it's manicured lawns, security and middle class tenants.

I bet you some of the old-school rent-controlled tenants don't like the new rules (like pay your rent on time, and don't litter) so they complain to the press.

Posted by: osito57 at October 16, 2009 1:25 AM

I worked at the new & improved Vandeveer aka Flatbush Gardens for a day showing the rehab apartments. I must say the rehab apartments are nice. However, I had friends & family that lived in Vandeveer, and boy-o-boy. Nothing got done. Nothing.

I'm all for housing for low-to-middle incomers. But, there needs to be a balance. Tenants can't bring their guests to the buildings only to urinate in the hallways; write gang signs all over the property; sell crack out of their apartments; have sex in the hallways; & expect their landlord to make reasonable repairs when need be. Oh, the elevator. Fuggedaboutit it never worked.

Now for Clippers Equity, at the end of the day, that's still their building so they should fix whatever needs to be fixed. But, I can't put all the blame on Clippers. I've been to Vandeveer & my goodness. I would never live in that place. Not all the tenants & their guest abuse the building. But, jeez louise, when a 10-year-old throw a bike from the roof of Vandeveer & kills a cop-you know the complex has much bigger problems than repairs.

Posted by: Miss Breukelen at October 16, 2009 9:11 AM

It does not take away from the fact that Clipper Equity owners are slum lords

Posted by: Bklynista at October 16, 2009 10:04 AM

« Oral Arguments over Eminent Domain at Atlantic Yards Closings and Move-Ins at 420 Classon Avenue »

October 15, 2009

Tenants Claim Negligence at Flatbush Gardens

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions