You're probably right. I think the issues I'm concerned with probably belong in another thread. I'll leave it alone.

Posted by: chorosch at June 1, 2009 2:49 PM in response to Teen-on-Teen Shooting on Downing Street

Well, I wouldn't call it a conspiracy theory. And I never once made reference to the length of your time in the neighborhood. I agree with you that the issues you are raising are important, and I hate this idea that newer residents aren't "real" if they've only been in the neighborhood a few years.

My comments were more based on the fact that, regardless of the subject of the post, just about any conversation in this neighborhood can devolve into a binary old/new rich/poor black/white debate, because that's really what's on people's minds.

Now, whether or not you post on some of the neighborhood's downsides to add a degree of authenticity to your "news" coverage, or whether you are just really genuinely invested in the area, I don't know. But I do think, as a business owner, your actions point your interest in a very particular direction. That's all. I'm not saying people need approval to move into the area or anything like that. And, unlike some of the suggestions above, I do in fact know exactly what it's like to lose my home and move to neighborhood after neighborhood looking for a nice place to live, including all the hostility that can come with it.

I just don't get why we are expected to think your motivations are neutral because you also occasionally report on crime. Correct me if I'm wrong! Maybe you are doing community work I don't know about. I'm willing to change my mind if there's reason to.

Posted by: chorosch at June 1, 2009 2:38 PM in response to Teen-on-Teen Shooting on Downing Street

I guess that last one was directed at me? What I mean to say is that I do not think Brownstoner is merely an innocent observer of his neighborhood. Of course reducing crime (especially shootings!) is in everyone's interest. But sometimes he tries to come across as a plain old dad who doesn't want his kids to get hurt (no harm in that,) I just think he does it to deflect criticism.

The connection to the Flea is that, in my opinion, Brownstoner is trying to make a living by turning FG/CH into a brand that he can profit from. That is very different from engaging with the community as it stands, and working for social change & neighborhood improvements. The change is being imposed on the community whether it's appropriate or not. He's the polar opposite of the What, and I think both extremes are harmful to the social fabric in their own ways.

Posted by: chorosch at June 1, 2009 1:04 PM in response to Teen-on-Teen Shooting on Downing Street

Isn't this really just the case of an unhappy, powerless person expressing rage over the conditions of his life? Whatever comfort and security comes from living among people who share those conditions gets ruined by the sudden presence of newcomers (who, of course, have very different priorities, potentials, etc.)

Of course the What doesn't want things to change, because that change is a daily reminder that he is powerless to effect his situation.

Of course Brownstoner wants things to change, his entire family structure and business model revolves around the idea that even if you're priced out of one neighborhood, you can always move into another, fix up your brownstone and wait for things to improve. It's disingenuous to pretend that it's just a school shooting or drug dealer you want to clean up. If that were the case, we wouldn't be subjected to the Flea.

You both do the community a disservice, and deserve each other.

Posted by: chorosch at June 1, 2009 12:49 PM in response to Teen-on-Teen Shooting on Downing Street

Ah, another Monday in New York's most racist neighborhood....

Posted by: chorosch at June 1, 2009 12:26 PM in response to Teen-on-Teen Shooting on Downing Street

The problem in FG / CH is that things are so binary. Everybody talks about how "diverse" things are here, but that is really not true on a larger social level. This discussion is a great example.

Posted by: chorosch at June 1, 2009 12:01 PM in response to Teen-on-Teen Shooting on Downing Street

Hope you didn't leave your kids with the What(ever)

Someday this vacation's gonna end....

Posted by: chorosch at May 21, 2009 9:19 PM in response to Closing Bell: Amalfi Coast, Here We Come

I think my original post may have been misinterpreted. What I was trying to say is that I don't agree with the apocalyptic vision of "the What" (heretofore referred to as "the Whatever") and I thought that the post by FSRQ was good, in that it recognized the market realities of new units coming on the market in a recession, in terms of affordable housing and how things trickle down or up based on the economy.

I was not making a point about the number of units being built as a percentage of overall available units in Brooklyn, but instead offering up the idea that each development is only subject to the recession as much as its parent is. A huge, multi-borough (multi-city) developer can absorb a temporary loss. So, before everybody freaks out, let's think about who built these towers and why. I am not in any way arguing about supply and demand.

But thanks to "the Whatever" for injecting racial and class bias. Just as he/she accuses Brownstoner of doing all the time.

Posted by: chorosch at May 21, 2009 9:11 PM in response to 80 Dekalb Tops Out

Right, but I'm not contesting that more supply doesn't equal lower prices. I'm just saying that I don't think a couple thousand new units on the market is going to bring the whole house of cards down. My point about the number of units being small has to do with the overall health of the parent companies, not the situation at any particular building. If a developer has all his money sunk into one luxury project that he can't sell, that building may well go under. But is Forest City Ratner going bankrupt if rentals at 80 DeKalb have to come down in price a little? I actually think this whole thing is GOOD for a completely overinflated, overvalued market.

If Atlantic Yards were about to be completed and we were really looking at 5,000 or 10,000 new units (as described above) that would be a different story.

Posted by: chorosch at May 21, 2009 3:15 PM in response to 80 Dekalb Tops Out

Well, I can afford to live in Manhattan but I don't. There are a lot of reasons people choose to live here. Economic necessity is not the only factor. Plus, I think you're not considering the types of buildings these are and who they appeal to.

The only condo project that may survive as planned is the Toren, which reportedly has well over 50% of the units in contract. The others are going to be rentals. And yes, they will probably not get top dollar and yes, there is high unemployment at the moment (the What can use the internet!)

The ones in trouble are places like the Clermont Greene, a small building that is still trying to get away with $700-$800 per sq ft. with only a handful of contracts.

Instead of total financial calamity, the developers will go rental, file for tax abatements through rent stabilization, drop the rents a little and try to get through the next 2 years with a few hundred thousand per month in rental income. You're only in trouble as an owner if you bought a new condo in 2007 and need to unload it quick.

There are a few projects stalled already that will remain a blight for years I'm sure. But you're acting like the situation isn't fluid. The market is changing.

Posted by: chorosch at May 21, 2009 2:19 PM in response to 80 Dekalb Tops Out

Hmmm. As compelling as your completely fact-less "argument" is, I guess I'll bite. It's a slow day at work.

I'd guess between the Forte, the Toren, 80 DeKalb and the Avalon, we're looking at about 1,000 units. If all the projects planned for development in downtown BK / Atlantic Yards were in progress right now, I'd say you might have a point, but the people most affected would really only be the ones who bought at the height of the market.

The recession has already killed or delayed at least 50% of residential development planned for those areas. Yeah, you're going to have a few hundred vacant "luxury" apartments, but proportionally to the Brooklyn housing stock, that alone is not going to bring ruin to homeowners or cause rents to plummet. As soon as those buildings bring their rents down 25%, they will be full.

If there is some unforseen global economic meltdown in 5 months, then maybe the game changes. But that's like saying Fort Greene is going to be hit by a meteor in 5 months, so anyone who lives there is an idiot.

Posted by: chorosch at May 21, 2009 1:44 PM in response to 80 Dekalb Tops Out

I guess all I meant was that people tend to look at developments as single entities, when in fact they are quite often (relatively) small parts of much larger agencies. Of course you're right... if the loans come due and the development group had no assets to cover the short term loss, they'll have to liquidate. I'm just not as convinced as some others that these things are all massive gambles by developers who never saw an end to the boom. Some of the smaller ones are, certainly. But those towers you're talking about downtown? Those are not going to be SROs in five months or five years.

Posted by: chorosch at May 21, 2009 1:15 PM in response to 80 Dekalb Tops Out

@ fsrg

Good post. We are seeing this already, the rental market is softening a little. By no means, however, will you be able to live in the Toren for $1000. In building like that you are talking about rents going from $3800 to $3300... hardly affordable housing.

But also take note of who the developers are for these various condo projects. I spoke with a real estate agent involved with the Forte, and he basically said that the owners have so much property in NYC that 100 unsold units doesn't even show up on their radar. Sure enough, the Forte has not gone rental and still only has about a 25% occupancy rate. Some of these big players can afford to wait the economic crisis out.

Posted by: chorosch at May 21, 2009 12:37 PM in response to 80 Dekalb Tops Out

BHO - you're really growing on me. I liked the football analogy. But here's my question: since realtors seem to base everything on comps, doesn't the price schedule have to come down incrementally? If a newly constructed 2BR 2 bath in Kensington is $500K, why would a seller accept $250K in Fort Greene? Isn't the "half off" premise kind of a philosophical/moral point more than a realistic one?

Posted by: chorosch at May 20, 2009 12:47 AM in response to Clermont Greene Gets Its C of O

The dollar store that used to be there was not all that great, but it had its purpose. That particular block of Fulton (at least during the day) is really busy with people coming and going to the government offices next door. (Social Security Admin, Food Stamps, etc.)

I wouldn't mind having a mid-size grocery in the neighborhood, but it can go somewhere else. The BAM "cultural district" has a much smaller radius than brokers want to tell you. Just about everything west of Ashland is downtown BK in my opinion.

Posted by: chorosch at May 19, 2009 10:05 AM in response to Streetlevel: Former Dollar Store to Become...a Dollar Store

These threads tend to degenerate so fast, which is a shame. There is something really interesting going on in FG / CH right now - from many angles. There is class consciousness, racial tension, and the ramifications of gentrification on a neighborhood with important history. There's the intentional rezoning (and "yuppification") of downtown BK and all that means for the surrounding areas - overloaded classrooms, transit strains, lack of parking and eventually a lack of affordable goods. It's enough of an issue to merit citywide attention on WNYC. But in the end, all we end up doing is arguing anonymously.

Here's an idea: since Brownstoner is so good at organizing things (and thanks, by the way, for making it impossible to get into a restaurant on a Saturday afternoon in Fort Greene,) why don't we organize a community meeting to discuss these issues face to face?

It could even be in Fort Greene or Clinton Hill, unlike the NY Times recent event! Give back to the community you mine for profit, Brownstoner. I already know my neighbors, but I want to meet these people posting who seem to have such a bad opinion of me because I don't fit their mold. I want them to see that I am not here to disrespect or abuse the neighborhood, and I want to learn from their perspective and shared history.

It's so easy to construct biases based on lack of information. If we were all in a room, shaking hands and looking each other in the eye, I doubt comments like some of the nastier ones above would be made.

Brownstoner, I challenge you to make something real out of this. You have the tools at your disposal, even if Thurston Moore doesn't show up.

Posted by: chorosch at May 8, 2009 11:42 PM in response to Rosie Revisited

I just hope they catch up to the neighborhood more quickly than they did in Williamsburg. The Times seems to only comment on the ever expanding gentrification there. So, good luck Mr. Newman. There are only a handful of good blogs about FG, so here's hoping this is a positive addition. Just try to keep the breathless "Visit from Manhattan, there are white people on the streets at night!" columns to a minimum. FG is a complex and storied neighborhood that deserves better than updates on who was spotted at the Flea market and which TV show is filming there next.

Posted by: chorosch at February 27, 2009 5:04 PM in response to The Times To Launch Local Blogging Initiative

I don't know... Chase, Walgreens and Verizon all in the same 3 months? Sounds like the corporate location scouts have their sights set on Myrtle.

Now if we could just get them to work on those grits...

Posted by: chorosch at February 27, 2009 4:49 PM in response to Streetlevel: Chase Revealed on Myrtle

What amazes me is how the Downtown Brooklyn Partnership can call this area "underused." It's one of the liveliest shopping districts in the city. The very fact that it's weathering this economy proves its relevance.

Bloomberg and Doctoroff are systematically attempting to wipe out anything that serves lower income classes. Did anyone see the screening of FUREE's documentary on this subject the other night in Fort Greene? I missed it.

Posted by: chorosch at February 27, 2009 4:41 PM in response to Fulton Mall Appears To Be Bucking Retail Downturn

I suspect that last post may have been written by either the owners or realtors. I have lived in this building since November, and the "list of grievances" you refer to is undoubtedly an e-mail I sent to the new management company a couple weeks ago. The tenants association was formed solely to share information, and we have never advocated withholding rent or seeking reductions. I think a few tenants may have pursued those means on their own, but that's their choice I guess.

When the building was first occupied, it became clear that there were a lot of things to be worked out. The realtors gave a VERY hard sell (and still do.) Initially, the owners acted as if we were crazy to complain about anything since we didn't purchase for $800K.

There are still a number of things going on, but in fairness to the owners, they are fixing the problems. I have had major structural issues, and all have been addressed within 48 hours. I think this is just an all too common example (these days, anyway,) of a project that was started back when no one could see an end to the real estate boom. the developers probably thought they were going to make a few million and walk away. What scares me is not a relatively small building like the Clermont, but all the stuff going on down by Flatbush.

Posted by: chorosch at February 27, 2009 4:30 PM in response to A Rocky Start at The Clermont