If this place is so awful, how has it managed to keep growing? Answer me that, sourpusses. Just as well the complainers here (about an institution that they have never joined) don't go anywhere near the place.

Posted by: David Lewis at October 27, 2009 11:07 AM in response to NYT: Food Co-op Exile's Story Demands 2,000 Words

Why is it that people understand (and are wildly in favor of) markets, when the markets are zooming upward, and then when they come crashing down can't believe that they will continue to go lower? But they can, and, more often than people would like, they do.

Posted by: David Lewis at February 5, 2009 4:09 PM in response to Quote of the Day

BrooklynGreene -- read the materials that came showing how your taxes are figured. Read the comments above. Then figure out whether you would benefit from filing. It's not hard and it's all in your materials, as further explained in the comments.

Posted by: David Lewis at February 3, 2009 8:22 PM in response to S#!t Outta Luck: Values Down, Taxes Up

I'm not exactly sure how the city figures the market values. Brownstoner's sample above showed a 10% drop in market value, while others are receiving valuations that are still going up. It's probably bad PR for the city to show increased market values for properties when, at a time like this, it's pretty clear that values have dropped over the last year. On the other hand, when market values drop and assessed values rise (because they're still catching up), people like brownstoner complain at the disparity.

Posted by: David Lewis at February 3, 2009 7:34 PM in response to S#!t Outta Luck: Values Down, Taxes Up

I think that Gomuppets' note that raising rates on class 1 housing "would not be feasible" should read "would not politically be feasible." You'd have to do it in some less direct way, probably. For example, people seem to like a millionaire's tax. Maybe a surcharge on taxes on houses over a million would fly. But the system seems rigged forever to favor home owners over renters, and I'm not betting on any changes.

Posted by: David Lewis at February 3, 2009 11:39 AM in response to S#!t Outta Luck: Values Down, Taxes Up

Well, tybur6, taxes are based on market prices (phased in), really, but I think your complaint is that they're too low. This is not a popular position, but you are probably right. On the other hand, you could just consider yourself lucky that all those big buildings in Manhattan, and the apartment buildings all over the city, pay a much higher rate in taxes than single-family, small-building, owners do.

The real inequity here is that the burden of property taxes on rental housing, lived in by poorer people as a rule, is much higher than that on people who can afford a house (exc. to the extent rent stabilization alters this???). This is exacerbated further by the fact that the government subsidizes home ownership by making much of its cost (property taxes and mortgage interest) tax-deductible.

Thus, to the extent brownstoner is whining about the predicament of that person who owns the million dollar house, above, he's pretty much off base.

Posted by: David Lewis at February 3, 2009 11:32 AM in response to S#!t Outta Luck: Values Down, Taxes Up

"The limit is 6%/yr, 20% over 5, but this could go on pretty indefinitely. So my query is the same as yours."

Can't go on indefinitely. As soon as you see that your assessed value is more than about 6% of the actual market value of houses in your neighborhood (as established by sales of comparable houses), you can do something about it. (It's actually fairly simple, if tedious; just collect information about the houses showing comparability and sale prices and submit. I think Google will find you forms.) But until your assessed value is actually more than 6% of actual market value, forget it (and if it's close, you have to determine the value of your time).

Posted by: David Lewis at February 3, 2009 11:24 AM in response to S#!t Outta Luck: Values Down, Taxes Up

ProfRobert -- I think it's relatively rare that one can gain by contesting one's property tax, though I've done it. It requires a fairly lengthy period of falling values, so that you can submit evidence of comparable sales producing a lower market value than the one the city assigns and that the lower market value results in a lower assessed value (as I've explained above). You probably have no basis for complaint since, even though your market value went up 26%, your assessed value, on which taxes are based went up at most 6%. But you'd have to do your own arithmetic.

Posted by: David Lewis at February 3, 2009 11:07 AM in response to S#!t Outta Luck: Values Down, Taxes Up

And yes, taxes on class 1 residential property in New York are really, really low. Compare the taxes on the property above to those on a house of that value in any of our suburbs. (E.g., I pay about $2000 on a house valued at about $700,000 in Brooklyn; I pay about $4500 on a house valued at $300,000 upstate. City dwellers have no reason to complain.)

Posted by: David Lewis at February 3, 2009 10:58 AM in response to S#!t Outta Luck: Values Down, Taxes Up

"Everyone's taxes went up, and now the assessed values are going down, while taxes are still increasing year-to-year. WTF?"

I have in the past appealed my market value estimate, but, as I understand it, there are times when even a falling market value may still result in increased taxes. Assessed value is supposed to be a percentage (about 6%) of market value. On the million+ house above, this would be $60,000+. But note that the assessed value on the house above, even increased this year, is substantially less than this. This is because, even when market values go leaping up, the yearly increase in assessed value is capped at 6%, and it may be considerably lower than the assessed value that the house would have, if computed without regard to the historical values. Thus, in the house above, the assessed value was not increased to $60,000+, but was only given a 6% increase to 45,652 (note that the increase, $2584 was 6% of the prior assessed value, $43,068). Anyway, the owner of this house has no complaint, since he or she is paying taxes as if the market value of the house were about $750,000, not a million. When the market value falls below that, there's reason for adjustment.

Posted by: David Lewis at February 3, 2009 10:53 AM in response to S#!t Outta Luck: Values Down, Taxes Up

The shoes go back for many, many decades. I thought from friends who grew up in Brooklyn in the '50's and '60's that they were just one of the forms of torture that bullies visited on their victims.

We had a corner firebox that worked, at least it did about 10 years ago. I remember an uproar about the fire department trying to do away with them (the ratio of false alarms to actual fires or emergencies is really high)

Posted by: David Lewis at February 2, 2009 4:49 PM in response to Closing Bell: Why are There Power Lines in East New York?

I think that commenters here ought to restrain their inclinations to blame the victim.

People ought to be able to demand that new construction be, well, new, not broken, and it's hardly useful to tell them that they shouldn't have such expectations.

Posted by: David Lewis at January 27, 2009 3:18 PM in response to Tale of Woe at the Novo

"That is illogical - the lawyer has no incentive to cater to the interests of the broker over his/her client. There is nothing to be gained, financially or otherwise."

Oh, come on! Everyone agreed above that the broker's interest is in "getting the deal done," and that he chose a lawyer who would do that. That lawyer earns a few thousand dollars every time the broker recommends him or her. That lawyer expects to earn many thousand more in the future via this route. That lawyer has a real monetary incentive not to put obstacles in the way of a deal, even if they're in his client's interest, to keep the money coming. 'Cause a lawyer who causes problems is not, by definition, interested in "getting the deal done," and may well not get further recommendations.

If that's illogical, I'm a real estate broker. Your assertion that there is "nothing to be gained" by the lawyer is, moreover, absurd (and suggests you haven't swum around this polluted world for long).

There's a lot of "faith based" commentary going on here -- lawyers never sell their clients even a little bit short, brokers are entirely even-handed in deciding what lawyers to recommend, etc. Ignores the real world.

Posted by: David Lewis at January 7, 2009 2:17 PM in response to Atty/Broker Conflict of Interest

"The lawyer represents you and not the broker."

But why should you ever hire a lawyer who has an actual incentive not to represent you as strongly as you might wish? What possible reason would you have for hiring somebody even with even a potential conflict of interest? Why should you be an idiot? There's no shortage lawyers capably handling real estate in Brooklyn.

No hard feelings, brokers and lawyers, but money, and the opportunity to make it, talks. Folks, don't let somebody else's money be talking to your lawyer.

Posted by: David Lewis at January 7, 2009 1:04 PM in response to Atty/Broker Conflict of Interest

"There is no gray area - either the lawyer acts in the best interests of his/her client or he/she doesn't."

There's always a gray area -- if you don't think so, you haven't much experince with the world. Moreover, I don't think anybody wants to go from a souring real-estate purchase into a complaint process against their prior lawyer. That's doubling the no fun -- unless you really love being a litigant (and are thus clinically demented).

The trick is to avoid trouble in the first place by hiring somebody who's got no incentive to make a wrong decision or give wrong advice because of his/her loyalty to the broker. Easy enough to do. Get a recommendation from a friend. Or even from a different broker! Make sure the person is experienced in deals involving your kind of property. But get somebody who is totally independent of all parties in your deal.

I note that it is the brokers above who really like having their lawyers chosen. Hmm, wonder why that is? (I agree, of course, that it will make absolutely no difference, not even a theoretical difference, in 75-95% of cases, but you don't want to test the theory out if by chance you fall into one of the remaining cases, where it might make a difference, do you?)

Posted by: David Lewis at January 7, 2009 12:11 PM in response to Atty/Broker Conflict of Interest

Here's the problem, I think. One of the reasons you get a lawyer is on the off-chance there's a reason you should *not* want to "get the deal done." In that case there may be a conflict -- the lawyer may hesitate to give you the bad news about the deal (say, she or he's reviewed the co-op minutes and discovered the board is in total disarray) because he is indebted to the broker, who needs the deal to go through. I know it would be unethical of the lawyer to withhold this information, but I've known of lots of lawyers doing unethical things that were in their monetary interest. Always best to get somebody with no potential conflict.

And by the way, my experience is that "Real Estate Agents" have at best a dim understanding of what a conflict of interest is.

Posted by: David Lewis at January 7, 2009 10:44 AM in response to Atty/Broker Conflict of Interest

The gas company has now gone to every month billing, so your bill was probably for latter Oct., early Nov. That's wintry, but not as cold as it will get. My bills for a 2000+/- sq. ft. row house were significantly less that cmu's. I don't ever remember a 2-month bill over 1000 dollars. My guess the highest has been, on a monthly basis, 400-450, during the coldest 2-4 months of the year.

Anyway, I'd say, based on my experience, that you were about average for your place, maybe somewhat high. Depends on your house of course, whether attached (warmer), wood frame (probably colder), etc. You will really have to wait a couple of months to know.

Posted by: David Lewis at December 1, 2008 3:35 PM in response to natural gas heating costs

There was a Baluchi's on Smith Street, I think. It disappeared. Boring. Expensive for the food. It's no addition to Fifth Avenue.

Posted by: David Lewis at November 20, 2008 3:57 PM in response to Baluchi's Opens for Business

I like the rugs. I might be able to afford them.

Posted by: David Lewis at November 18, 2008 1:09 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 1 Pierrepont Street