could be a mortgage scam.

Posted by: armchairwarrior at September 25, 2007 3:03 PM in response to House of the Day: 23 South Portland Avenue

way too many bed stuy boosters on this board.

Posted by: armchairwarrior at September 25, 2007 3:10 PM in response to Streetlevel: Olivino Part Deux Opens in Bed Stuy

person A sells to person B for x amount of money. person B gets mortgage for x amount of money.

Person B defaults on the mortgage.

Person A probably inflated the sell value of the building to person B who is covered by the mortgage. Whom probably didn't have to pay anything down since person A and B were in collusion to default the bank.

Posted by: armchairwarrior at September 25, 2007 3:20 PM in response to House of the Day: 23 South Portland Avenue

if you remove the stoop. the garden floor becomes the only entering point to the place from the front. it frees up sq ft on the first floor.

Posted by: armchairwarrior at September 26, 2007 1:32 AM in response to Stoop removal...why?

its cheap to begin with cause its pretty close to the projects.

Posted by: armchairwarrior at September 28, 2007 11:07 AM in response to Just Sold in Brooklyn

funny thing about the prospect heights house. i called about a billion times to see it, before it re-listed. nobody ever bother to call me back.

Posted by: armchairwarrior at September 28, 2007 5:50 PM in response to Open House Picks

if the garden gets more light better. since nobody would see in the back yard. you'll get light in the back side.

Posted by: armchairwarrior at October 2, 2007 7:24 PM in response to South Facing Brownstones

i'm sure alot of guys would now start telling their so',they got gonohorrea from swimming in the canal.

Posted by: armchairwarrior at October 3, 2007 11:17 AM in response to The Gowanus Canal: From PCBs to STDs

they are probably holding out till they get enough info on him. to put him away for longer periods.

Posted by: armchairwarrior at October 3, 2007 4:32 PM in response to Brazen Drug Dealer

from my personal experience a lot of them do lie.

after i make them a offer they would say there is a higher offer.

I would get my friend to go see the place. they'll make slighly higher offer than me.

They would call my friend to tell them they have the highest offer.

they then call me saying someone has a higher offer. you sure you don't want to make a another offer. or they'll go into contract soon. i say let them.

my friend resends the offer. they'll call me back and go oh that person didn't want it any more.

and then you know they lied.

Posted by: armchairwarrior at October 3, 2007 8:44 PM in response to Putting in an offer

Check it out Montrose. Unfortunately, if owners ignore the letter it can be unfortunate. Check your facts before giving people bad advice: http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/html/faqs/faq_enforce.shtml
"How is the amount of a civil fine determined?
The amount of a civil fine is dependent on the severity of the violation. The Landmarks Protection Law defines two types of violations: type A and type B.

Type A violations include serious alterations to important architectural elements, such as cornices, stoops, windows, and storefronts; additionally, construction of rooftop or backyard additions may fit into this category. First-time type A violations are punishable by a fine of up to $5,000, if a second NOV is issued, there will be a fine of up to $250 per day, with a minimum fine of $5,000.

Type B violations include all other, less serious infractions, such as painting a facade a new color, replacing a single window, or installing a light, sign, flagpole or banner. First-time Type B violations are punishable by a fine of up to $500; if a second NOV is issued, there will be a fine of up to $50 per day, with a minimum fine of $500."

I'm not saying that I'm for, or against this. I just think you should know what you are talking about before being so free with bad advice that could end up costing an owner some bucks -- especially if a change is small and might be legalized retroactively for no cost at all.

Posted by: guest at July 4, 2008 7:41 AM in response to Landmarks Preservation Commission and Window Bars

"When I mentioned that I see window bars in the neighborhood that curve out to accommodate air conditioners, the said those window bars do not comply with Landmarks standards either"

So Landmarks doesn't allow people to have both security and an air conditioner at the same time??? Oh my god, please. It shows they believe the human population is such a lesser concern, that we should have severe health and safety risks inflicted on us just to comply to THEIR sense of aesthetics.

SICK. What obsessive uptight freaks, I'm sorry. I like pretty buildings too who doesn't, but let's all remember..

FORM FOLLOWS FUNCTION

And come on, the OP's building does not look bad at all!

Posted by: guest at July 4, 2008 11:07 AM in response to Landmarks Preservation Commission and Window Bars

7:41, since MOST of the advice given on this, or any other forum, is anecdotal, at best, I hardly think you need to jump down my throat. If I am wrong, I apologise to the OP, but I was going by advice given to me by others who had dealt with LPC.

I still stand by my other advice to try to get them legalized by showing them photos of other houses in the neighborhood, and giving them more information than they could possibly need to argue your case. Perhaps crime stats, specifically break-ins in the neighborhood, a report of some kind from the local precinct extolling bars as a deterrent, or some such. I still find it hard to believe that they would ban security bars, or allow for curved ones. LPC people all live in the city, too. They know what is realistic and necessary.

Good luck to the OP.

MM

Posted by: guest at July 4, 2008 12:23 PM in response to Landmarks Preservation Commission and Window Bars

If LPC wants to start handing out grants to install central AC so we don't have to have window units, great.

Otherwise they need to get a grip on reality and shut up about it.

Posted by: guest at July 4, 2008 1:33 PM in response to Landmarks Preservation Commission and Window Bars

It is tough to reconcile maintaining the 1890's look of a facade with modern needs for AC and security.

Back then, they had awnings to cool buildings, and people died much younger of heart or pulmonary disease rather than live to be old with it. And, they didn't have AC, so they had no other option.

As to security, while ground floor brownstones seem to have always been built with bars on the windows, they seemed not to worry about the upper windows, or doors. Maybe because someone was likely home when the windows were open - they had larger households, so the children, women and servants were around - maybe this scared away burglars. Now, we go to work all day and leave the home unattended.

Landmarks should come to understand that the modern needs for AC and security have to trump the 1890's look. I like your bars. The problem is, it is very much in the eye of the beholder - I have seen some I wouldn't like at all.

At least if landmarks set standards for what was acceptable for curved bars that allow window ACs, then people would know what to do to be in compliance with them. Saying that the curved bars that fit ACs aren't acceptable isn't really helpful.

And if they are OK with the square cages of straight bars that allow for window ACs (don't know if they do), that's just dumb, as neither is authentic from the 1890's, and the square ones are so much uglier than the curved ones, which tend to look nice, as do yours.

Posted by: guest at July 4, 2008 2:49 PM in response to Landmarks Preservation Commission and Window Bars

Where did you get those? Where they custom?

I'm not landmarked and have been looking for something EXACTLY like that so I can install window A/C's on our first floor in the rear of the building.

Sorry you're having a hard time of it with the LPC!!

Posted by: guest at July 5, 2008 9:37 AM in response to Landmarks Preservation Commission and Window Bars

Vinnie's Italian Ironworks, 38 Bergen St, Bklyn 718-857-1362

I think they had the bar shape, otherwise they are custom.

Posted by: chill225 at July 5, 2008 10:05 AM in response to Landmarks Preservation Commission and Window Bars

I believe what Montrose Morris was trying to say was that the LPC does not have the manpower to roam landmarked neighborhoods looking for violations. And they don't- they have a very small staff. Montrose was not implying that LPC has no enforcement powers- it quite obviously does.

And homeowners also have the right to fight the ruling.

Posted by: guest at July 5, 2008 2:58 PM in response to Landmarks Preservation Commission and Window Bars

If I was going to break in to your house I would break the upper sash glass or use the fire escape to access the upper floor apartments. Thanks for the photo.

Posted by: guest at July 5, 2008 7:46 PM in response to Landmarks Preservation Commission and Window Bars

Only suggestion is that you should only purchase where you will be comfortable. It doesn't make any sense to spend all that money buying an apt in a neighborhood you don't feel safe in regardless if your concerns for safety are actually founded.

Posted by: guest at July 6, 2008 4:04 PM in response to Armory/Homeless Shelter in Crown Heights