Wow -- this is so nice to see! Well done!

Posted by: babs at November 19, 2009 2:56 PM in response to Development Watch: Turnaround at 424 Waverly Avenue

Indeed -- however, just two final points: UNITY Plan, a very viable alternative: http://unityplan.org/ and also: I do not live in Fort Greene/Prospect Heights/Park Slope or anywhere touching the footprint and I am against it, so I can't be called a NIMBY, and there are quite a few of us out there, so that argument is bunk.

Have a good evening!

Posted by: babs at November 16, 2009 6:54 PM in response to Goldstein Offered Less Than What He Paid for Condo

Just like with any other vermin situation (mice, roaches, etc.) the landlord is required to provide extermination services, regardless of the source of the problem.

Posted by: babs at November 16, 2009 4:14 PM in response to Bedbug Clause in Lease?

1. Continuous calls to 311 2. Is this a building-wide problem? Tenant organizing is the answer. Get a tenants' organization going, document ALL HPD violations and call them ALL in. Speak to a lawyer about depositing your rent monies in an escrow account until these problems are corrected. Good luck!

Posted by: babs at November 16, 2009 9:59 AM in response to No Hot Water...Help

"The constitution is a meaningless document." That is so wrong on so many levels I wouldn't even know where to begin and I can't imagine why anyone who believes that would even live in this country.

Posted by: babs at November 16, 2009 9:55 AM in response to Goldstein Offered Less Than What He Paid for Condo

Again dittoburg the concept is just compensation. A price hunderds of dollars per square foot less than recent sales (and I'm not talking about what Ratner paid Dan's neighbors years ago here) is not just. Hopefully the Court of Appeals will rule against Ratner and this will all become moot.

Posted by: babs at November 16, 2009 9:53 AM in response to Goldstein Offered Less Than What He Paid for Condo

"A wrench in the works"? How about the first to sound the alarm about a major scam to fleece NY taxpayers for the benefit of a rich real estate developer? While Dan's neighbors were happily counting their Ratner-supplied profits and moving far, far away from the mess, Dan cared enough about his neighborhood to fight on. It's payback for Ratner time, as the smelly details of his liitle scam become more and more odiferous!

Posted by: babs at November 16, 2009 9:51 AM in response to Goldstein Offered Less Than What He Paid for Condo

How about caring about a precedent that imperils your constitutional rights as a property owner, CookieCutter? This means the state can take away your proerty without just compensation. Or maybe you'd be OK with that, as long as something cool like a basketball arena, luxury condos, or a shopping mall was going to be built there instead.

Posted by: babs at November 16, 2009 9:46 AM in response to Goldstein Offered Less Than What He Paid for Condo

Relax dibs, neither Dan nor anyone else knew what was afoot when they bought. And the price offered by the state is completely ridiculous -- look at recent sales in the area, including the Newswalk building. Really makes it look like this is punitive on the part of the state and Ratner. I certainly hope the Kelo debacle will wake these judges up!

Posted by: babs at November 16, 2009 9:44 AM in response to Goldstein Offered Less Than What He Paid for Condo

I stand corrected -- if Bob says it's the south side, I know it has to be true. Thanks!

Posted by: babs at November 14, 2009 3:52 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 40 Clarkson Avenue, #4F

Amd they are usually shared by 2, so $1500/mo. each. Long live pressurized walls!

Posted by: babs at November 13, 2009 4:36 PM in response to Brooklyn Gold Joins the Downtown Rental Party

May not be material, but should certianly be known (and mentioned) by stockholders/investment managers discussing the situation, as opposed to saying that it was a facility linked to one product only. Actually less risky for big pharma to build something than for a financially-strapped RE developer to promise to build an arena for a basketball team of which he is a minority shareholder, financed by munis which are probably not even going to be investment grade.

Posted by: babs at November 13, 2009 3:55 PM in response to Friday Links

Actually this will be more along the model of the Normandie (a/k/a Dormandie) Court on the UES -- three recent grad sharing a 1 BR by converting the LR into two BRs. And the atmosphere is very college dorm, just like that building on Houston and the Bowery where the Whole Foods is -- doors left open, marijuana smoke wafting through the halls, random keg parties. Not for adults.

Posted by: babs at November 13, 2009 11:38 AM in response to Brooklyn Gold Joins the Downtown Rental Party

Actually, accroding to the article, it was the Pfizer-Wyeth merger that prompted a re-assessment of their real estate holdings, and that the New London facility was the headquarters for its entire research division, not just one product. Really doesn't seem like that hedge fund follows the activities of its holdings too well...

Posted by: babs at November 13, 2009 11:22 AM in response to Friday Links

Actually the New London site was to include a hotel, stores, and condominiums adjacent to the office complex Pfizer already occupied and is now leaving (from the NY Times article):
The city had created the New London Development Corporation to buy up the nine-acre neighborhood and find a developer to replace it with an “urban village” that would draw shoppers and tourists to the area.

"Economic development officials in Connecticut used that plan — and a package of financial incentives — to lure Pfizer to build a headquarters for its research division on 26 acres nearby. With an agreement that it would pay just one-fifth of its property taxes for the first 10 years, Pfizer spent $294 million on a 750,000-square-foot complex that opened in 2001."

Sound a little more familiar now? And as everyone in Brooklyn knows, sports teams can be bought, sold, and moved to other cities, leaving us with what? An outsize, inappropriate arena, surrounded by a barren wasteland...

Posted by: babs at November 13, 2009 11:12 AM in response to Friday Links

A (good) sales manager provides inspiration and assistance when necessary, and does get a paycheck, but also has intense pressure to produce results, and doesn't want his/her agents wasting time, energy, and effort on unsaleable listings and unreasonable sellers or buyers. I don't think any of PDE's Brooklyn offices would have wanted this listing, unless the seller was willing to be more flexible on the price. They know better -- Manhattan doesn't. On the other hand, hopefully (for the sellers) a Manhattan buyer won't either.

Posted by: babs at November 12, 2009 6:31 PM in response to House of the Day: 75 New York Avenue

If this is on the south side of Clarkson (and I believe it is) it's not in PLG. This is not as egregious a lie as the place on Linden Blvd, bet. Nostrand and NY, featured as PLG in last week's Times, but still...

Posted by: babs at November 12, 2009 5:19 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 40 Clarkson Avenue, #4F

Maybe none of the Elliman agents in Brooklyn would take the listing, knowing the house's history and the apparently delusional nature of the owners' wishful-thinking pricing. Someone from Manhattan, who'd maybe been to Brooklyn once or twice, might have taken it out of ignorance.

And real estate agents and brokers are paid on a commission basis, so there's no paycheck without work!

Posted by: babs at November 11, 2009 8:51 PM in response to House of the Day: 75 New York Avenue

Sounds like this will have to be an all-cash buyer -- I don't think banks will finance a place without a kitchen.

Posted by: babs at November 11, 2009 8:43 PM in response to Creating a condo

From said Daily News article re: Atlantic Yards:

Forest City spokesman Joe DePlasco said Atlantic Yards was "not included in the application" and "is not eligible for this money."

Every for-profit corporation knows that eventually in order to survive it must drop certain money-losing projects, however cherished they may once have been -- perhaps even Bruce Ratner's brothers have had enough of his money-wasting, boondoggling ways?

Posted by: babs at November 4, 2009 2:46 PM in response to Wednesday Links

Super -- thanks!

Posted by: babs at November 3, 2009 12:04 PM in response to Landmarking Efforts In Bed-Stuy

I think it's because of the ACORN connection and the CBA. I haven't bothered to check to see if FCR has actually funded the WFP directly.

Posted by: babs at November 3, 2009 12:03 PM in response to Tuesday Links

Actually, I may only have to write-in for City Council (40th district). I think the Green Party has people for all the others.

Posted by: babs at November 3, 2009 10:37 AM in response to Tuesday Links

I don't think Tish wants the WFP endorsement, considering their support of Atlantic Yards and their relationship to ACORN. If not for their AY support I would vote for their candidates but purely because of that I'm not, including Bill Thompson and Bill DiBlasio. I know I will continue my only once broken (Obama) string of never voting for a winning candidate but isn't that part of what it's about? This is the only time I may actually have to resort to write-ins however as all the candidates pretty much disgust me in one way or another.

Posted by: babs at November 3, 2009 10:32 AM in response to Tuesday Links

It doesn't look like this proposal includes the Alhambra Apartments or the old Girls' High School on Nostrand. Are they already landmarked?

Posted by: babs at November 3, 2009 10:24 AM in response to Landmarking Efforts In Bed-Stuy

Gotta agree with you there, MM -- I was really surprised to see him at the CHN II landmarks hearing!

Posted by: babs at November 2, 2009 1:41 PM in response to Monday Links

Wrong -- 207 Fenimore taken off the market and refinanced by its owner.

Posted by: babs at October 30, 2009 2:03 PM in response to Open House Picks: Six Months Later

Whoah, hot gossip there -- Kathryn Lilly is no longer on PDE's website either...

Posted by: babs at October 30, 2009 1:30 PM in response to Open House Picks

Left THERE to die. Please.

Posted by: babs at October 29, 2009 9:20 AM in response to Closing Bell: The Pumpkins of Cobble Hill

What building is that with the three renos? Turner Towers?

Posted by: babs at October 29, 2009 9:05 AM in response to Thursday Links

Yesterday's testimony from several long-term residents was so inspiring! Good luck to all, and here's to CHN III!

Posted by: babs at October 28, 2009 11:45 AM in response to LPC Tees Up Phase 2 of Crown Heights Landmarking

Those apartments, I believe, specify that you must be an all-cash buyer, due to the fact that it is being converted to condominiums one unit at a time and is majority rentals.

Posted by: babs at October 27, 2009 3:08 PM in response to Condo Conversion Question

Unfortunately, I think some of the property owners on both Parkside and Chester are anti-landmarks as well. If you recall, there were only 2 opposing owners at the original Ocean on the Park hearing at the LPC. I think there would be more in these cases.

Posted by: babs at October 27, 2009 2:44 PM in response to BREAKING: Ocean on the Park Houses Landmarked

But considering they are non-contiguous, do we need two names? Or what about Parkchester (isn't that in the Bronx?)?

Posted by: babs at October 27, 2009 2:22 PM in response to BREAKING: Ocean on the Park Houses Landmarked

Thanks for the clarification Bob -- yes, let's move on to Parkside and Chester. Is someone going to come up with a cutesy/catchy name for them too?

Truly the most exciting Landmarks session I've ever witnessed!

Posted by: babs at October 27, 2009 2:09 PM in response to BREAKING: Ocean on the Park Houses Landmarked

I think anything built would have to be approved by the LPC in terms of appropriateness -- see examples in Brooklyn Heights. Certainly what was proposed (an eight-story condo wit a cantilvered projection over the driveway of the house next door) wouldn't pass.

Posted by: babs at October 27, 2009 1:11 PM in response to BREAKING: Ocean on the Park Houses Landmarked

This district was originally proposed for inclusion in the original Prospect Lefferts Gardens historic district in 1979, but the LPC was not into non-contiguous districts at the time, so this is really an add-on. Still to come: Chester Court, Parkside Ave.

This turned out better than we could have hoped -- the lot adjacent to 189 Ocean (the former house that sparked it all) has now been calendared as well.

Well done everyone!

Posted by: babs at October 27, 2009 12:54 PM in response to BREAKING: Ocean on the Park Houses Landmarked

Answer -- none. Darkness is so ironic.

Posted by: babs at October 26, 2009 4:29 PM in response to NYT: Food Co-op Exile's Story Demands 2,000 Words

This is standard practice for new construction/conversion, but the timetable is notoriously unreliable. Unless one or more banks have already pre-approved the building, and you're obtaining financing through them, closings generally cannot start until at least 50% of the units are in contract.

How many units are in the building? What % are currently in contract? If this a townhouse conversion with four units or fewer you will have a tough time getting financing regardless -- you should definitely run this by your mortgage broker before proceeding.

And, yes, once you've signed the contract and put that money down you're pretty much stuck, even if there are delays in closing, unless there is a subtantial amendment to the offering plan that would allow you to get out and get your deposit back. A careful review of the offering plan will let you know what your eventual options are. Once you get a copy of the offering plan you should have your lawyer review it.

But I thought you were working with a real estate broker. That person should be able to provide complete answers to all your questions on this -- he or she is probably familiar with the building and may know the answers to some of your questions already.

Good luck!

Posted by: babs at October 26, 2009 3:50 PM in response to Condo Conversion Question

I really love this building -- the amenities are fabulous and it has the world's best doorman (Robert, formerly of One Main). The triple-glazed windows really keep out the noise from the Manhattan Bridge, even in the 9th floor units, which are right at roadbed-level.

Posted by: babs at October 26, 2009 12:58 PM in response to Condo of the Day: 100 Jay Street, #30A

Such a sad story -- I have dealt with several owners here who sank their life savings into these unsafe units and were looking for any way out. Of course, with no C of O, they couldn't sell or rent them out.

And while I certainly am no expert in NYC building codes, some of the more egregious violations (fire stairwells opening directly into the units, terrifyingly unprotected spiral staircases on the corner roof decks -- one slip and you're soaring over Willoughby Ave.) were immediately visible even to me.

How dod The Developers Group, which sold these units, escape this lawsuit? I should think they should be held responsible as well.

Another reason to work with a buyer's broker, BTW (not to re-ignite that argument).

Posted by: babs at October 26, 2009 12:55 PM in response to Mendel Brach Barred from Condo Business

For most co-op members, it isn't solely about the great prices, fresh (mostly local and organic) produce, and good selection of natural foods, it's also about the camaraderie that comes from the experience of knowing that you and all of your fellow-members, who come from all walks of life, are treated identically, and that you are all working together to support the organization. Too crunchy granola for you? Don't join. Seriously, everything in life isn't about money.

Posted by: babs at October 26, 2009 12:27 PM in response to NYT: Food Co-op Exile's Story Demands 2,000 Words

That was not a sales pitch and I have never hidden the fact that I am a broker -- as anyone who's ever read my posts can attest. No BS involved and I am currently working with enough buyers not to be trolling here for business.

Posted by: babs at October 23, 2009 3:32 PM in response to Using a Buyers Agent?

And yes, jace, the fact that the seller is paying the entire commission may seem counter-intuitive for a buyers' broker acting in the buyer's best interests, but most brokers I know do a good job of keeping it that way. And isn't it in the buyers' best interests to get the property they want as smoothly and at as fair a price as possible?

Posted by: babs at October 23, 2009 12:40 PM in response to Using a Buyers Agent?

Sorry, joe, I don't work for Corcoran, so I'm not familiar with their sales pitch when working with buyers. And I'm not saying there aren't less-than-honest brokers out there; I'm just saying that a good one won't betray his/her client. And, yes, at times I would rather give up half of my commission for a smoother, speedier closing so that I can devote my time to other, more lucrative, areas. And I'm successful enough as it is, thanks, so I don't think that most of my clients and customers feel I'm conning them in any way.

Unless Mr. Brownstoner wants to restrict posting here to non-brokers only you'll just have to deal with it, joe.

90% of the properties in brownstone Brooklyn aren't on the Brooklyn MLS, which is primarily in southern Brooklyn and is subscribed to only by smaller firms and those not even in Brooklyn.

But noodlemania, if you've lost three places, it's time to ask your agent (and yourself) why. Are your offers too low? Are your offers presented in their best light (meaning do your finances look as good as they should)? Do you have a good mortgage pre-approval? Are you putting a sufficient amount down?

As a seller, I would go with a lower offer from someone who had a higher downpayment and better mortgage pre-approval/pre-qual than a higher offer from a low down payment person, because the liklihood of closing is much higher.

This is not a buyers' market in the sense many people here would like to understand. It doesn't mean that you can submit lowball offers and have them embraced with open arms. Most selling prices out there now are already considerably lower than they would have been a year or two (or even three) ago, and I personally have seen several properties go for over ask. Again, your agent is the best person to counsel you on the state of the market -- and if you don't feel you're getting the information and attention you need either speak up or change agents. Good luck to you in anay case.

Posted by: babs at October 23, 2009 12:36 PM in response to Using a Buyers Agent?

I completely disagree -- every buyer should have someone on his/her side. The seller's broker's undivided loyalty is to the seller. Buyer's brokers also bring a wealth of experience with previous transactions and can offer all kinds of advice -- from what to look for in evaluating different buildings, co-ops vs. condos, referrals to mortgage brokers, lawyers, inspectors, movers, and more.

What you can't see on the internet, for example, is that the board of such-and-such co-op doesn't like board packages submitted in binders, or doesn't meet during the month of August; or the people who bought the townhouse next to the one you're looking at are getting divorced and will need to sell at a good price in a few months, etc.

And in terms of direct vs. co-broke deals I will say that, as a broker, yes, a direct deal is nice, but it's also nice to do a co-broke so that you don't have to deal with the buyer and the seller, both of whom may be high maintenance. Most brokers I work with welcome co-brokes and those who don't generally don't have the best properties anyway.

And any broker who puts his/her own interests ahead of his seller's is violating his contract with that seller. The broker should promote the offer that is best for the seller, period -- and in the case of equivalent offers that means considering the two buyers' financial positions, downpayment, contingencies, mortgage pre-approval, and liklihood to be approved by the board. Believe me, no broker wants to push a less-than-qualified buyer only to have the deal fall apart and send everyone back to square one.

In the end, internet aside, there is no match for the human element. Wouldn't it be nice to have someone to whom you could ask all your questions and whose job is to answer them for you, while providing you with market intelligence and ideas you may not have considered -- for free? That is the kind of buyer's broker you want to work with.

Posted by: babs at October 23, 2009 11:49 AM in response to Using a Buyers Agent?

And BTW real estate prices are no longer sinking daily -- according to an appraiser I spoke with yesterday, his firm (one of the largest in NYC) is preparing to reclassify many Brooklyn neighborhoods (Williamsburg, Brooklyn Heights, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens, Park Slope) as "stable" instead of "declining," based on absorption rates. He said they really don't have enough statistics in other areas to make any determination yet, but he imagines conditions would be similar.

Posted by: babs at October 22, 2009 3:57 PM in response to Combining Apartments

"Big apartments there are fairly easy to find." Not really -- of all the co-op sales I've seen in PLG in the last several years, the vast majority have been studios and 1 bedrooms. At 50 Lefferts Ave., for example, only 1 two bedroom unit has come on the marke tin the past five years (sold as a FSBO). There was also a two bedroom at 135 Hawthorne St over the summer. The only other sizeable apartments in PLG have been at 80 Winthrop St., a problematic building due to its low owner-occupancy percentage. I would think that a large apartment on Ocean Ave. would be very desirable, but potential problems include 1. Co-op approval needed to combine units and for all construction, 2. the % of owner-occupancy in some of the buildings on Ocean is still below 50%, making financing problematic, and 3. many people moving to PLG want houses, and houses are available (even in Lefferts Manor) for less than $850K -- 29 Maple St sold for $830K in July and 19 Maple is currently in contract for the same or slightly less.

Posted by: babs at October 22, 2009 3:38 PM in response to Combining Apartments