landlord, wish everyone thought that way and we could avoid streets dotted with long-empty properties.

Your approach definitely makes for much more useful, varied, welcoming and neighborly streets.

Posted by: jeffrey at July 26, 2008 1:28 PM in response to The Tea Lounge Bids Adieu

...and by 70s-80s I mean streets, not years. Although if we are to discuss years, there have been examples of this during extended periods during each of the last 3 decades, when landlords overshot boom cycles by deliberately raising rents so high their clients could not afford renewal, at which point they let properties sit a year or two (or more) and reaped benefits of lower RE taxes.

All one needed to do was walk down the street during any of those down cycles to see the proof.

Posted by: jeffrey at July 25, 2008 5:16 PM in response to The Tea Lounge Bids Adieu

Even Madison Avenue in the 70s-80s goes through periods when legions of storefronts are left idle.

Not sure what you mean.

Posted by: jeffrey at July 25, 2008 5:10 PM in response to The Tea Lounge Bids Adieu

"Except no rational landlord is going to keep a vacancy in order to lower his taxes." - fsrq

Not at all the case.

One of the biggest landlords of 7th Avenue, Nicholas Kotsonis, freely admits and explains this as commonplace in various brooklynian.com forums posts here:
http://shurl.org/xnKve

Your post is mistaken as follows:

1) It IS about a tax reduction incentive loophole

2) There are PLENTY of well-managed businesses that are seeking these spaces, it has nothing to do with questionable management of 100% of interested parties.

Posted by: jeffrey at July 25, 2008 4:46 PM in response to The Tea Lounge Bids Adieu

Biff, just to clarify or reiterate what I mentioned above, fair market price is the highest price point where demand actually exists, where the market is cleared.

Yeah, I agree, I absolutely do not support penalties.

What I do support is a limit on how long one can seek lower taxes for an idle property.

You'd better believe that if landlords were only allowed one year to reset their tax base, that they'd adjust their prices to actual demand (offers made) like the rest of businesses out there that are subject to pricing whatever the market will bear.

Posted by: jeffrey at July 25, 2008 1:03 PM in response to The Tea Lounge Bids Adieu

Biff, what rent is "reasonable" if there is no demand for it (at that level)?

Everything rents at fair market price.

Fair market price is where demand meets supply to clear the market, not where supply artificially thinks it should be propped up to be.

That said, taxes should absolutely be in lock step with increases or decreases in income on a property.

But gaming the system as described above (limiting supply to artificially high prices, to get gov't benefits as if demand did not exist) goes against the principle of that.

Again, set the right price, and any property (especially in these neighborhoods, yeesh) will have sufficient demand.

Posted by: jeffrey at July 25, 2008 12:37 PM in response to The Tea Lounge Bids Adieu

Regarding why landlords let properties sit vacant for years...

nkotsonis here has posted on prior occasions that landlords (like him) do this because it lowers the tax basis of their property. They set supply at extremely high prices calling it "market" (because some loaded -- but, hah, failing -- chain like Starbucks overpaid somewhere near that recently or somesuch) and let matters play out such that...

1) either someone else comes in at that nutball rate and they make greater profit margins

or

2) the property sits empty, forcing the city to lower the taxes on the place considerably, enabling much larger long-term profit margins when they finally do get someone to pony up to higher rents.

So yeah, long-term, they make much more profit by letting things sit empty.

Whee.

Posted by: jeffrey at July 25, 2008 11:56 AM in response to The Tea Lounge Bids Adieu

I should add that our house is one of those less common ones that Bob mentioned with a telephone pole at back corner of the property along the fence line.

Posted by: jeffrey at June 5, 2008 7:08 PM in response to How Much is Commercial Space Worth?

Regarding cable: I am on the north side of Midwood I and have had Cablevision and their Optimum Online Boost service (30Mbps down, 5Mbps up) since we moved in last summer.

I know there has been a history, but ours works great, and the speeds are indeed as advertised (I clock it regularly).

Posted by: jeffrey at June 5, 2008 6:54 PM in response to How Much is Commercial Space Worth?

Nokilissa,

See:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mrnd-rO456Q

Caveat: Sadly, the clip above doesn't have the toepick scene in it.

And yeah, links come out as plain-text here, not clickable. Relegated are we to the mirth of copy and paste.

Posted by: jeffrey at May 16, 2008 10:58 AM in response to Another Shooting on Grand and Putnam

toepick.

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d118/pi_icons/icons/kate_toepick1.png

Posted by: jeffrey at May 16, 2008 9:52 AM in response to Another Shooting on Grand and Putnam

Heh, oops. Must work on editing skills today.

Posted by: jeffrey at February 1, 2008 9:49 AM in response to Cabinets

Ysabelle,

On a related note, have you taken a look at recycled concrete instead of Corian?

It runs

See the following for examples:

http://reclaimedhome.com/2007/12/12/eco-x-recycled-concrete/

Prices range from $87-120 per sq. ft., and there's a manufacturer located in the Navy Yard that has local dealers:
http://www.icestone.biz/new/

Very attractive stuff.

Good luck...

Posted by: jeffrey at February 1, 2008 9:47 AM in response to Cabinets

11:31,

To abuse an old John Lennon lyric with respect to Dubai, etc...

"Glacial karma's gonna get you."

(hah)

Posted by: jeffrey at January 28, 2008 2:00 PM in response to Open House Picks

Forget my initial post...it's clear that it's the property at the 2nd link I just posted above.

Quote:
"I am looking for an investor for a development site in Brooklyn, $1,500,000 I have plans for 28 condos 29000 SF, I am ready to give commission pleas email me @ ..." [email redacted for politeness, but it's the same one he used in this forum post]

So I guess his plan is to tear down the brick house, and build that 28-unit condo thing.

Posted by: jeffrey at January 25, 2008 8:58 AM in response to real estate

http://www.brownstoner.com/forum/archives/2007/12/investor_needed.php

Posted by: jeffrey at January 25, 2008 8:53 AM in response to real estate

I wonder if it is the two adjacent homes he posted about, regarding advice for demolition and asbestos removal:
http://www.brownstoner.com/forum/archives/2008/01/demolition_and.php

The surrounding buildings in the rendering don't match well, but then again...since when do renderings have to be realistic?

Bob, any ideas where that might be?

Posted by: jeffrey at January 25, 2008 8:50 AM in response to real estate

"CG and PLG what happend in these hoods to make the homes over there so high in price?"

"They thought they were in Park Slope."

Wow, show me a house near the park in Park Slope that looks anything like that for $1.4MM (not $3.0MM) and I'm all over that.

Heh, people are commenting here as if Park Slope isn't over twice the price. Typical.

Posted by: jeffrey at January 18, 2008 2:20 PM in response to Open House Picks

"142 Fifth Ave. in Prospect Heights..."

Hah.

/me sets up lawn chair.

Posted by: jeffrey at November 16, 2007 9:51 AM in response to Friday Links

Or perhaps he spelled it "Bugs."

Eh, what do I know. Rabbits can't spell, just multiply.

Posted by: jeffrey at October 29, 2007 11:16 PM in response to Roslyn Huebener Strikes Again

I prefer Buggs Bunny's version:

"What a maroon..."

http://faultgame.com/images/ltbb_052.wav

Posted by: jeffrey at October 29, 2007 11:14 PM in response to Roslyn Huebener Strikes Again

Okay, I confess. I said "the home of" just to get your goat, as a similarly inaccurate claim.

(hee)

Posted by: jeffrey at October 26, 2007 3:41 PM in response to Open House Picks: Houses

Heh, here we go.

Since when are zip codes an indication?

By that logic, I guess all of Prospect Heights (the home of 11238) is in Clinton Hill, too?

Posted by: jeffrey at October 26, 2007 3:38 PM in response to Open House Picks: Houses

For the Green Demolitions site, go to the .com version instead of the .org I mentioned above.

The .org mentioned above is thir site for donating/selling household salvage items.

Posted by: jeffrey at October 26, 2007 1:04 PM in response to Source for Salvage/Remnant Countertop Material?

Check out http://reclaimedhome.com for articles on the subject, I have seen many there.

For example, here's what a search of their site brings up:
http://reclaimedhome.com/?s=countertops

One specific example:
http://greendemolitions.org

Pretty cool.

Good luck with the kitchen...

Posted by: jeffrey at October 26, 2007 12:42 PM in response to Source for Salvage/Remnant Countertop Material?

I agree with several of the above posters re: $500k for this "trainwreck" (as someone very aptly called it).

And granted, I am only going on the pictures presented and overall knowledge of what is otherwise a wonderful, classic Victorian neighborhood, so bear with me.

But in all seriousness, who in their right mind would pay to inherit the current state of this specific property...

- the partially completed, conspicuously less attractive non-historic house in a historic neighborhood

- all the legal red tape

- the need to pile in massive additional amounts of money, and still not get a classic home in that historic neighborhood

- all the other related headaches in spades

...for any more than $500k.

At least if they had completed it they would appeal to at least some of the much larger majority of home shoppers seeking move-in-condition.

If it were completed and in move-in condition (with C of O), they could probably get as high as $1.2 for it, perhaps from some former condo types looking for more space and a nice block, if things were really in demand nearby at any given moment. Probably not the case at the present moment, but just saying.

With the less attractive, McMansion style of this house (paled in comparison by surrounding nicer, historic Victorians), they definitely won't appeal to most of the smaller, gut-reno home buying minority crowd that has the tolerance for buying homes in need of major works, as much of the gut reno crowd in that area would probably be looking to by and reno a classic Victorian.

The neo-classic-burb, garage-as-centerpiece (eek) design of this home probably serves to alienate most who come to that neighborhood seeking a classic grand dame of a home to restore.

So, incomplete for the move-in condition types that might pay more for the convenience, and totally not the house for the gut reno restoration crowd.

Again, $500K. (to get the privilege to dump in another $500-800k on a conspicuously blah-looking, red-tape-and-hassle-bound house).

As for listing it at $1.9 (or anything above $1.0)?

If that was the seller insisting that price, I would think that brokers careful of preserving their reputation would simply walk away from such "opportunities," as taking it on with their name representing it and attempting to sell it to others at that absurd price would (and does) clearly reflect poorly on their reputation as a trusted source for real estate properties and advice.

It just reeks of greed and opportunism, the kind that a broker should take great care to avoid.

If any sellers out there want to be outrageously greedy and attempt to push garbage for utterly unrealistic prices, fine, they should be allowed the chance to do so and risk learning the hard way.

It's a free market, their option to hang themselves if they insist.

But, in a free market, no one has to take that business either.

I would think that any self-respecting broker or brokerage would want to have certain realistic standards (at the very least a gut check) that call for them to avoid those deals like the plague to maintain their own good name, lest they more permanently be associated with rip-offs and dead horses.

So, giving the benefit of the doubt to the above-mentioned brokers who have represented this property and hoping that it's just the seller that is nuts here...

Why would these brokers take on this business?

Isn't it better for their name to avoid the taint of shady transactions?

Posted by: jeffrey at October 26, 2007 11:53 AM in response to House of the Day: 1216 Albemarle Road (Revisited)

Sorry, but this looks like someone's transparent attempt to spam this site to drive business to theirs.

Feh.

Posted by: jeffrey at October 25, 2007 11:33 AM in response to No-Fee Manhattan Rentals

I. I. I. I.

Ain't gonna play Sun Slope...

Posted by: jeffrey at October 19, 2007 9:47 AM in response to Unfortunate New Neighborhood Name: Sun Slope

(posting again as I did in your 9:52am forum post of the same message)

Trying to help the OP here, honestly.

I would probably take this "advice" more seriously if...

1) it weren't repeatedly posted as new items in the forums (like a spammer or self-serving troll would do)

2) if it actually came from a registered user, where readers could check the history and nature of their prior posts to see if they are legitimate or just someone that always posts malicious and/or otherwise damaging items

Forums are about trust, and thus far the OP here might consider that there are probably more credible ways to earn that trust and make their viewpoints more efficiently considered by others instead of taking the low road and being instantly ignored and not credible from the onset.

Also, I believe that (perhaps for some of the above credibility issues and other reasons) anonymous criticism of businesses and/or business persons are not allowed under the policy rules of this site, as recently mentioned by Mr. B.

I am probably not alone in also noting that your credibility may take a serious hit when you post your views in a manner that is not permitted on this site.

Again, no offense, just trying to help.

Posted by: jeffrey at October 12, 2007 1:16 PM in response to alex fradkoff not an architect

(posting again as I did in your 9:52am forum post of the same message)

Trying to help the OP here, honestly.

I would probably take this "advice" more seriously if...

1) it weren't repeatedly posted as new items in the forums (like a spammer or self-serving troll would do)

2) if it actually came from a registered user, where readers could check the history and nature of their prior posts to see if they are legitimate or just someone that always posts malicious and/or otherwise damaging items

Forums are about trust, and thus far the OP here might consider that there are probably more credible ways to earn that trust and make their viewpoints more efficiently considered by others instead of taking the low road and being instantly ignored and not credible from the onset.

Also, I believe that (perhaps for some of the above credibility issues and other reasons) anonymous criticism of businesses and/or business persons are not allowed under the policy rules of this site, as recently mentioned by Mr. B.

I am probably not alone in also noting that your credibility may take a serious hit when you post your views in a manner that is not permitted on this site.

Again, no offense, just trying to help.

Posted by: jeffrey at October 12, 2007 1:14 PM in response to walker 247's profile

(posting again as I did in your 9:52am forum post of the same message)

Trying to help the OP here, honestly.

I would probably take this "advice" more seriously if...

1) it weren't repeatedly posted as new items in the forums (like a spammer or self-serving troll would do)

2) if it actually came from a registered user, where readers could check the history and nature of their prior posts to see if they are legitimate or just someone that always posts malicious and/or otherwise damaging items

Forums are about trust, and thus far the OP here might consider that there are probably more credible ways to earn that trust and make their viewpoints more efficiently considered by others instead of taking the low road and being instantly ignored and not credible from the onset.

Also, I believe that (perhaps for some of the above credibility issues and other reasons) anonymous criticism of businesses and/or business persons are not allowed under the policy rules of this site, as recently mentioned by Mr. B.

I am probably not alone in also noting that your credibility may take a serious hit when you post your views in a manner that is not permitted on this site.

Again, no offense, just trying to help.

Posted by: jeffrey at October 12, 2007 1:13 PM in response to spsnisfish's profile: Alex Fradkoff not an architect

Trying to help the OP here, honestly.

I would probably take this "advice" more seriously if...

1) it weren't repeatedly posted as new items in the forums (like a spammer or self-serving troll would do)

2) if it actually came from a registered user, where readers could check the history and nature of their prior posts to see if they are legitimate or just someone that always posts malicious and/or otherwise damaging items

Forums are about trust, and thus far the OP here might consider that there are probably more credible ways to earn that trust and make their viewpoints more efficiently considered by others instead of taking the low road and being instantly ignored and not credible from the onset.

Also, I believe that (perhaps for some of the above credibility issues and other reasons) anonymous criticism of businesses and/or business persons are not allowed under the policy rules of this site, as recently mentioned by Mr. B.

I am probably not alone in also noting that your credibility may take a serious hit when you post your views in a manner that is not permitted on this site.

Again, no offense, just trying to help.

Posted by: jeffrey at October 12, 2007 1:11 PM in response to alex fradkoff is not an architect

boundsk2,

I can totally relate. The whole process can definitely be very unnerving, especially considering that it can be so easy to get emotionally attached to a particular property as "the one."

The "be patient" suggestions above are very good advice, looking back at our adventures.

Hard as it may be (for it is about your home, after all), try not to put so much added pressure on yourself by taking on the all-or-nothing burden of any given property being "the one."

The heart and mind tend to want to go there, but in our experience, it ultimately occurred to us over the course of looking for more than 2 years for just the right house and neighborhood that we saw many properties that were absolutely "the one" for us, and in actuality any one of them would have been wonderful, especially the one that is now our home.

So once you love a place, try as best you can to remove emotion from the conversation until the deal is done. You may save yourself seemingly endless grief and also many potentially costly mis-steps.

It's a huge financial investment so you should definitely look to keep the edge of reason over the next guy, and you should always know at what point you are willing to walk away should the bidding and/or dealings foment into the ridiculous.

Same thing with buying a car (to me). Know your numbers and stay rational, seek the right deal at the right terms for you, get to know the motivations of the seller/agents early on and position your actions according to what is meaningful to them and above all else be confident that there will always be other just-as-great options elsewhere. Do these things and you will avoid many of the potential pitfalls present in the marketplace, and you will remove a good amount of the angst from your day-to-day.

At least that's what worked for us. :)

Posted by: jeffrey at October 12, 2007 12:48 PM in response to Making an Offer and the Shady Real Estate Broker

boundsk2,

To paraphrase a certain bard, "the contract's the thing."

A final sealed bid deadline or a subsequent accepted offer are still meaningless in reality.

Until someone has signed a contract and is legally bound as actually "taking it off the market" (else risk losing their 10% escrow deposit, deemed a fair compensation for the buyer's default), a lot can still happen that may leave the seller at great risk.

It's a quid-pro-quo situation, really.

Seller should stop marketing it when someone has legally signed for it.

Posted by: jeffrey at October 12, 2007 11:46 AM in response to Making an Offer and the Shady Real Estate Broker

Homeowner here, *not* a broker, just giving feedback since I've been through this a few times (buying then selling coop, then a condo and now finally having just bought a house).

For sellers, nothing is worse than a property that sits on the market for a long period of time to the point of being considered stale. Hopefully it's priced well enough to avoid this, but there are many cases of buyers that make a verbal offer and then back out before contract, and that only punishes the sellers for making the property remain on the market longer, appearing stale and not wanted (despite prior bids).

On the contrary...the property should be shown as much as possible while it is still considered new and "fresh," as you only get one shot at having your substantial investment of a home be considered "fresh."

So until a contract is signed and deposit exchanged, it is perfectly normal and reasonable for open houses to continue until contract is signed and escrow deposit exchanged.

I have gone through this several times from a buyers' perspective (as we were outbid a few times over the course of the 3 times we've prevailed so far).

People just have to look at it from the other side...someday they will sell, and are they willing to take it off the market (risking later stale, diminished perception and *much* lower/reduced resulting sale price) merely based on the unqualified, non-binding verbal offer someone cares to make (when they might also be making several other offers on other places they like?)

Okay, that was kind of long. Just look at it from both sides, for ultimately you may be on the seller side too...

Posted by: jeffrey at October 12, 2007 11:35 AM in response to Making an Offer and the Shady Real Estate Broker

Ideal candidate for Brownstoner video #2?

Go go go... :)

Posted by: jeffrey at October 11, 2007 1:15 PM in response to Prepping for the Prospect Heights House Tour

Very professionally done, but at the same time very approachable and captivating.

Loved the destructo-pr0n and the well-informed discussion.

This stone rocks.

(woohoo~!)

Posted by: jeffrey at October 10, 2007 1:27 PM in response to Video: Inside the Bed Stuy Reno Blog

Hah, Siler.

+1 for 5:27p.

Posted by: jeffrey at September 14, 2007 6:07 PM in response to Condo of the Day: 11 Terrace Place

Someone on Brooklynian claims to have additional details:
http://brooklynian.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=37046

Posted by: jeffrey at August 14, 2007 10:19 AM in response to Gunshots heard

A quick QA/debugging note to mgmt:

Comment count for this post is still
Comments (0)

Posted by: jeffrey at August 10, 2007 4:22 PM in response to Open House Picks

Hm...31 Cheever Place had an open house on June 2 (over 2 months ago) at a much lower,
$1,790,000:
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:yVmStPIQQCgJ:www.brownstonelistings.com/public/openHouses.do+%2231+cheever+place%22

It hasn't sold, and yet they raised the price to $1,850,000?

What gives?

Posted by: jeffrey at August 10, 2007 4:12 PM in response to Open House Picks

Jon/David,

One quick usability issue:

Can you control session timeout settings?

If so, it would be great if you could change the settings to allow for longer sessions, say...24 hrs before inactivity timeout.

It appears to be set to time out (and punt you back to anon/unlogged mode) after only ~20 or 30 minutes of inactivity, and it'd be much better to push that wayyyy out so users don't unnecessarily have to keep logging in several times per day.

Like many, I keep this open in a tab that I check in on from time to time during the day, and having to log in each time I want to comment would be a bit of a nuisance.

Am guessing others would prefer to avoid this as well.

Thanks!

Posted by: jeffrey at August 10, 2007 1:00 PM in response to Brownstoner 2.0 Coming At You Today

Yep, works for me.

Posted by: jeffrey at August 10, 2007 11:47 AM in response to Is this thing on?

When our friends come here by car they always find parking right in front of our house or on our street. Either daytime or early evenings. I don't think it's as much a problem as some make it out to be. But if I ever owned a car I'd still gladly rent a garage from a neighbor, simply for the convenience. It's not the parking that'd be a pain for me but the moving of the car for street cleaning. I'd rather park it and forget about it for days or weeks at a time.

Posted by: guest at June 7, 2008 11:41 AM in response to How Much is Commercial Space Worth?

My experience parking in PLG is that it can be very challenging in the Flatbush to Bedford blocks due to the large apt buildings at the Flatbush corners. Those who live in the blocks between Bedford and Rogers seem to have an easier time parking. The garages attached to tis property would be a breeze to rent out and $200 seems a safe number, tho one might get above that.

Posted by: guest at June 7, 2008 11:14 PM in response to How Much is Commercial Space Worth?

I'd even pay $250 a month for a parking space so close to my house. Some might pay more.

I think the garage not far from here on Flatbush and Midwood (where the PLG Zip Car pickup/dropoff is located) is $300 a month for parking for private cars.

Posted by: guest at June 8, 2008 12:39 PM in response to How Much is Commercial Space Worth?