gemini - i don't have a car so i have no dog in this fight, but your second paragraph makes no sense. we can set aside the semantic debatability that to permanently grant something that otherwise is a shared good to a single individual is, in fact, to "take [it] away" from the shared good. beyond this, the person with the curb cut isn't magnanimously granting others the right to park in the cut when his car is elsewhere. hence, at least one spot that would be available at least some part of the time to others is in fact being taken away.

Posted by: i disagree at November 17, 2009 4:27 PM in response to City Planning Targeting Curb Cuts

good lord, other than some idiot posters, who is saying that they were fighting *about* chicken wings? not the cops, and not brownstoner. but a couple others seem to be saying that we should expect shootings and stabbings anytime there's a school holiday, and i just am not getting that from this story, nor does it make logical sense. arguments don't tend to work when you try to ignore the facts!

put simply, NO - it's not typical that there would be thousands of teenagers (black, chinese, hasidic or otherwise) in this mall, even if all other circumstances were the same. for an incident of this magnitude, it seems to require an atmosphere where kids are looking to entertain themselves (as opposed to, say, taking a test), little to no supervision, and most importantly *LOTS* of kids. the latter really only seems to arrive when there's a special event of some kind, and to pretend that's not a part of this is idiotic. yeah, fights will happen here or there whenever you have 20 teenagers gathered together, but three shootings and a stabbing? are you seriously trying to argue that a huge crowd doesn't play a role?

Posted by: i disagree at November 11, 2009 1:02 PM in response to Two Teens Shot on Fulton in Fort Greene

oh, yay, more conspiracy theories. what would be the point of nefariously putting "too much emphasis" on the hot wings promotion? if anything, wouldn't it be in the PD's interest to say they had no idea why there were so many kids there and no forewarning that there would be? assuming that the police captain is telling the truth - that there were *thousands* of kids there - you have to be kidding me to suggest that to offer an explanation of why is somehow racist.

beyond that, i'm not sure what CSA's point is - that we should all be afraid that this kind of violence is going to break out anytime there's a day off from school? that we shouldn't be comforted by an explanation of why there were so many teenagers in one place at one time?

Posted by: i disagree at November 11, 2009 12:18 PM in response to Two Teens Shot on Fulton in Fort Greene

i hate to suggest this, but just because they came in a fire truck doesn't mean what they were doing was legitimate FD business or, conversely, that some of the information they may be legitimately gathering may be making its way to less legitimate sources. not sure what is going on, but it seems to me that there couldn't be any harm in contacting your FD to figure out why "they" inspected, and to ask for any official paperwork. that way you have a record of the visit should something happen in the future.

Posted by: i disagree at November 9, 2009 11:55 AM in response to Fire Dept Inspection

my abstention (and my husband's) helped Thompson.

Posted by: i disagree at November 4, 2009 10:32 AM in response to Wednesday Links

i understand what this article intends to say, but it's kind of bs. the problem isn't "inherent," otherwise why does any enforcement system whose enforcers make much less than the enforcees work any better than the DOB (and, as i understand it, it's accepted fact that the DOB is much more broken than the rest of these kinds of systems)?

Posted by: i disagree at November 2, 2009 11:03 AM in response to DOB: A Challenge for All Times (and Mayors)

the hubs and i had this same debate when we were renovating, and eventually compromised on some recessed lighting in certain hallways, bathrooms, tv room and kitchen - spaces where pendants either just wouldn't work or that were a bit more modern. this has worked out well. i ultimately agreed that recessed lights would be distracting and/or unnecessary in the entry and parlor, bedrooms and certain hallways. keep in mind, too, that recessed lighting points directly downward, so you can get some harsh shadows and dark spots anyway.

we didn't try to use historical lighting in the areas where we chose to do pendants. we used mostly modern stuff because that was our style of renovation. although we agreed to have lamps and "layers of light" as others have suggested, in order to provide sufficient light, it wasn't practical or affordable to do sconces (fixtures were expensive; we'd have to channel into walls; we weren't ready to decide on placement before we really had any interior design). problem is, once we were done with our renovation, we didn't really have the funds to spend on appropriate, nice lamps. so it remains a little dark for my tastes in certain rooms but ultimately, with floor and table lamps, i think it will look and feel nicer than with recessed lighting. lastly, we used modern fan company for the fan lights in bedrooms and the kitchen - the light is okay but you definitely will need to supplement.

Posted by: i disagree at October 29, 2009 11:44 AM in response to Thoughts on Recessed Lighting

agree that the place sounds poorly managed and that the incentives are kind of bizarre. but it's not as if this is some big secret - i've lived near the coop for about a year and don't actually know anyone personally who is a member, and yet not one single word of the article was a surprise. what comes through most loudly in the article is the author's ridiculous sense of entitlement to break the rules and not pay the price, even though she clearly knows what that price is in advance, and has no reason why she shouldn't have to pay it. hence her delight at the lady at the greenmarket who let her walk away with a pie based on her word alone. 'cuz we all know that the author deserves to get her pie without paying the entire price for it, and definitely, absolutely, is gonna come back with that $4.

Posted by: i disagree at October 26, 2009 12:49 PM in response to NYT: Food Co-op Exile's Story Demands 2,000 Words

during the bubble, we were given an estimate of $50k for a slightly smaller extension as part of a larger reno. my guess is you could find someone to do it for about that, maybe $5K or $10K more given your smaller overall project but larger square footage.

Posted by: i disagree at October 22, 2009 10:34 AM in response to Cost for Adding Extension?

um, yeah, there are no private homes across the street from this place, and they're clearly starting off way too high psf. that said, i watched the building go up and it looks a lot more solid, with a lot better workmanship, than much of what i've seen being done elsewhere in brooklyn. and i'm not sure what MM means by "the edge of the wilderness." these condos are right off vanderbilt, in central PH, 3.5 blocks from the B/Q, right near a decent public school, a terrific playground, plenty of cafes, restaurants and bars, and a ~10 minute walk to the park, the museum, the botanic gardens and the library. if that's the wilderness, then i'm shudder to think what the rest of brooklyn is.

Posted by: i disagree at October 21, 2009 5:52 PM in response to 324 St. Marks Launches

or it could be goo that's on/in the drain itself, not in the water.

Posted by: i disagree at October 21, 2009 10:36 AM in response to Brown Water?

notignorant - setting aside the incomprehensible and irrelevant parts of your post, what do you mean by gag orders? presumably, you are talking about a confidentiality agreement signed by the people who were given piles of cash, with their own free will? not something a judge forced these people into, right? when you insist on hyperbolizing and making stuff up, it really weakens whatever merit your argument may have had.

Posted by: i disagree at October 19, 2009 10:59 AM in response to DDDB Holds Fifth Fundraiser Against the Yards

dang, the owners appear to be korean, based on the permits posted. i was hoping for a korean spot, but i guess not.
:( loves me some good thai food, but for some reason, this part of brooklyn doesn't really have it.

Posted by: i disagree at October 16, 2009 4:07 PM in response to Streetlevel: Thai Food for Flatbush

i am biased toward PH, but i really like that washington ave building.

Posted by: i disagree at October 8, 2009 11:17 AM in response to Brooklyn Sales: Under a Million

agreeing with benson and pete on the zzzzz factor here. reblogging a laundry list from the AY Report isn't exactly scintillating. jscheff, before you write your next ay post you ought to set aside the righteous anger for a second, and slow the steam from your ears. what has anyone learned from this posting? nothing that anyone with half a brain doesn't already know. what good discussion will come from it? none. and it's a shame, because my guess is that with, a few minutes of thought you could have come up with a thesis about the import of these supposed "omissions and lies" that would actually be illuminating and spark some interesting dialogue.

Posted by: i disagree at October 8, 2009 11:15 AM in response to Omissions and Lies in Atlantic Yards Study

joe: that makes sense, relatively speaking.

Posted by: i disagree at October 6, 2009 1:42 PM in response to Last Week's Biggest Sales: Bay Ridge on Top

joe: i think you're right that ps 321 certainly can grab a premium, but i think a lot of buyers (or, at least, buyers who opt out of the 321 zone) don't really translate it into monthly dollars quite like that. people, even those who buy apartments for $1.3 million, have widely variant approaches to schooling, particularly in the early years, so they may not demand as much of a discount as you seem to be implying.

Posted by: i disagree at October 6, 2009 12:32 PM in response to Last Week's Biggest Sales: Bay Ridge on Top

linkin/11217: yes, sit and wonder is at st. marks and washington. and there is also glass shop cafe on classon somewhere around prospect, which serves really wonderful espresso drinks and snacks. but neither has late hours nor booze/light cafe fare, which i think tea lounge does and which i agree would be great somewhere within close walking distance of the museum/library/botanic gardens.

Posted by: i disagree at October 6, 2009 12:22 PM in response to Tea Lounge Closing and Unopening

kinda funny that you aren't all up in arms about the bait-and-switch here. just imagine if the developer was big, bad RATNER what you might all be saying...

anyway, i'm ambivalent about this one - houses are better, but if the houses really won't happen (as opposed to a developer just trying to back out of a deal that turned out not to be as good as it seemed), what next? but the point is, i don't own there and, at this scale and type of development, it really is the neighbors that are the most important stakeholders. and there are lots of reasons to prefer the residential development that was promised to a non-profit (i.e., no taxes), selective (i.e., no benefit for local families) private school. scale of the buildings, context, effect on other undeveloped properties, increased traffic on small streets, and the closed-times dead zone that institutional properties create. also, keep in mind that just as this developer is now trying to renege on its agreement, who's to say that brooklyn friends won't do the same? back out and sell the land or a big empty building (now, ten years from now, whatever) to another institution that you all might find less cute?

Posted by: i disagree at October 6, 2009 10:52 AM in response to Brooklyn Friends Relocation Gains Support

i agree with antidope that this really is reaching to find scandal. but for accuracy's sake, the article actually says they are contracted for a max of $40K *per month* for spearheading the entire relocation effort. seems reasonable to me.

Posted by: i disagree at October 6, 2009 10:16 AM in response to Atlantic Yards: the Profits from Eminent Domain

jack slade: yes. ignorant. there's no "thin line." the survey IS the line. in this situation, your property ends where the survey says it does. plain and simple. challenge it all the way to the supreme court if you can - you will make a bunch a lawyers rich and annoy a lot of judges and that's about it.

Posted by: i disagree at September 25, 2009 4:44 PM in response to DOB Posts Letter of Intent to Revoke on St. Marks Ave

bxgrl - wrong all over. a) this site does relate to all things brownstone, including quite frequently things like the building code. we don't see you protesting about inappropriate content when the subject is the legalities and agencies involved in AY, do we? b) no one's acting as "judge and jury" here. the request was for the proper authorities to revisit (or visit for the first time, as it were) a decision that appeared to be against regulation. it's not as if people are conducting a sit-in in front of the bulldozers; c) i, personally, and i'm guessing most people here don't give a flying feather what her motives and story are, as they are totally and 100% irrelevant to the situation, and the things i care about. there's no intent to embarrass or harrass; the intent is solely to stop this person from doing something that flagrantly is against code and outside of the established procedure; and d) not that it matters, because this isn't a trial. but you can convict on circumstantial evidence in a court of law. absolutely, 100% permissible. "circumstantial evidence" is just as admissible as any other type of evidence in the eyes of the law.

Posted by: i disagree at September 25, 2009 4:42 PM in response to DOB Posts Letter of Intent to Revoke on St. Marks Ave

the argument that you own the sidewalk in front of your brownstone because some people "think" you might or because you are required to keep it clean and may have other liabilities related to it is one of the most ridiculous and stupid contentions i've ever heard, even on brownstoner. your deed and survey will state exactly what you own and i am willing to bet that in most if not all of brownstone brooklyn you could not locate a single townhouse that actually owns the sidewalk or the land underneath it. that the city and other authorities can require property owners to do certain things as a condition of ownership does not actually alter what you own. and saying that the property "in that sense is not public" is totally meaningless. jack slade's ignorance will not changes hundreds of years of real property law. what a joke.

as for the DOB's action, i highly support it. as for this semi-public campaign to get the DOB to revisit their decision, i also support it. the personal stuff yesterday was and is out of bounds, but like it or not, the laws we all live by make some modifications of private property the business of the public, and are fair game. it's not a matter of jealousy regarding a curb cut. it's a matter of preserving for the public what the law says belongs to the public, which includes the curb, the sidewalk, and now, thanks to landmarking, certain aesthetic values related to the historical condition of homes in this neighborhood.

and hey, if she really wants a curb cut, the owner can just sell and buy up on park place where at least 4 or 5 houses have them.

Posted by: i disagree at September 25, 2009 2:29 PM in response to DOB Posts Letter of Intent to Revoke on St. Marks Ave

to clarify, my last paragraph was in reference to infinitejester's "joke" and dibs' question about construction trailers and fences going up.

Posted by: i disagree at September 23, 2009 6:56 PM in response to A Curb Cut on Landmarked St. Marks Avenue? Really?

wow, what fun i missed in here. the personal comments and the speculation aren't right, no doubt. but like it or not, ownership records, dob filings and permits, particularly in a now-landmarked district, are public actions that are public record despite that they may (in part) concern private property. so the issue generally is fair game.

posting the address is also fair game. part of the point of the post was to make people aware. we all know that the DOB isn't the most transparent of agencies, and even charitably assuming everything was on the up-and-up here, what's the likelihood that one or two "cranky neighbors" making a complaint would bring enough visibility to challenge whatever forces led to the owner being granted what, based on the prima facie evidence, looks to have been at the very least a questionable and nonstandard determination? and how are people supposed to voice their concerns to the proper authorities without knowing the address? z is right.

as for dealing directly with the neighbor instead of posting a complaint, it might be "neighborly" to do that, but it's certainly not an obligation. do you think the owner asked her neighbors for input before she decided she was going to go for a curb cut and garage? i am guessing not - so why do we suggest that the neighbors have the unique and unilateral social obligation to do so? particularly when, from the look of things, the owner could have started cutting that curb any day? and before you say, "because it's her property," i call b.s. on that. the curb cut affects the whole block, and we all have a common interest in making sure that rules get applied fairly and consistently.

finally, it's interesting that one of the most vocal posters crying witchhunt in fact was trying to foment awitchhunt. for the record, i live near here and there's nothing going on at this address.

Posted by: i disagree at September 23, 2009 6:12 PM in response to A Curb Cut on Landmarked St. Marks Avenue? Really?

the broker appears to be the owner, thus explaining why the manhattan broker. thus making even more perplexing why she's misidentified the neighborhood and failed utterly to stage it appropriately.

boerumresident - though i do agree that this ask is overambitious by a decent mark, i don't think 571 carlton is a good comp at all. 571 is not only narrower and unrenovated (since at least 1978, according to property shark), it's also got no rental, is a floor less and is on a lot that is 20' shorter. agree that 571 is on a better block, but certainly nowhere near better enough to void the renovation and extra space and income potential.

Posted by: i disagree at September 23, 2009 5:41 PM in response to House of the Day: 526 Carlton Avenue

i'm in support of the landmarking in PH, but just wanted to note a couple of things. first, though PH is definitely a mixed neighborhood in terms of economic classes of *residents*, i do think it's a misperception that many owners there are "working class." there may in fact be owners who *were* working class at one point, but PH (in terms of its brownstones, anyway) has been a $1 mm neighborhood for a while, and doesn't appear to be sliding below that for brownstones in good condition. my point is that most working class owners, regardless of landmarking and regardless of the downturn, have for a while been sitting on a major asset that easily takes them out of the middle class as it is defined in this city.

second, as for renters, there appear to be a lot of owners of multiple buildings, many of which are stabilized or even controlled units, and a lot of these owners didn't really have the practical option of selling to developers anyway. on the flip side, they also don't seem particularly motivated, one way or the other, to make major upgrades with or without landmarking. i've definitely seen a ton of non-permitted cosmetic work (sidewalks, entryways, facades) going on in the last couple months. not much that appears geared toward pushing current tenants out - and with more condo stock coming on line soon, my guess is there will be replacement rentals should people start getting pushed out.

third, the landmarked area is pretty small, though a bit larger than it probably would/should have been in the absence of atlantic yards, in my opinion. i think there are at most four contiguous blocks in any one direction in addition to at least three or four new condo that already have been built. and there are *plenty* of open lots in the non-landmarked edges that are perfectly available to more "efficient" development of new housing, if developers choose it. lots of these blocks are a max 3+ minutes from subway options as those within landmarking.

lastly, the argument that new condos are more efficient because they have parking spaces is just weird. tearing down solid masonry construction to stick a finger building in the middle of a block is not efficient. there will be tear-downs that are left in limbo by landmarking, but my guess is that the statistical significance of these types of buildings is practically nil. on the other hand, half-empty, shoddily-built condos are not efficient, encouraging car ownership is not efficient, air conditioning is not efficient. converting to gas, upgrading your plumbing, replacing windows and doors, airsealing and adding a whole-house fan - now those things are efficient and will be just as do-able even at the 10% cost increase that landmarks seems to imply (assuming people do it with permits, which they may not).

Posted by: i disagree at September 21, 2009 1:00 PM in response to City Council Signs Off on Prospect Heights Landmarking

anyone wanting to buy in this area would be advised to wait until (or to bargain heavily in light of) the two condos that seem close to completion on st. marks on the two blocks between vanderbilt and washington.

Posted by: i disagree at September 18, 2009 3:02 PM in response to Price Cuts at 542 St. Mark's Avenue

this has to be one of the weirder threads i've seen on brownstoner. AY aside, what's the point of comparing something like bridges during the wpa or the 2nd ave subway to this expenditure, which is a relative drop in the bucket that never would have gone to those larger outlays anyway? government spending just doesn't work that way, and it's $84K fer crissakes! but it's an $84K that will make a huge difference in the lives of those homeowners, subsequent owners, and the neighborhood.

by the way benson, it's easy to focus on the grander of FDR'S projects, but i'm sure you know that a ton of spending during that era was devoted to projects like employing artists to make murals, writers to draft pamphlets about our national parks and filmmakers and photographers to otherwise document the country for posterity. all of that seems pretty obviously directed to preserving our history, or, at least, making things more beautiful while employing a few people. so you can call it navel-gazing if you like, but it's just inaccurate to suggest that both devoting money to, and finding value in, this kind of work represents some kind of change in this country. it doesn't.

Posted by: i disagree at September 18, 2009 2:56 PM in response to LPC Makes It Official at Alice & Agate Courts

i, a person of PH, do mind the hole. you do not represent me or all of PH, jack slade.

smeyer - what exactly do you think a few sports bars is going to do to the ambience of flatbush and atlantic? have you been to 4th avenue at atlantic? bars, trashy delis, electronics stores. seen what's on flatbush currently? empty storefronts, bad pizza, outpatient treatment services. as long as they handle their own trash and have enough restrooms, i think even sports bars would be an upgrade (or, at least, not a downgrade).

Posted by: i disagree at September 10, 2009 4:40 PM in response to Ourousoff Weighs In On Barclay's Center Design

fsrq: cute. perhaps they can generally read as well as men, but can they specifically read as well?

Posted by: i disagree at September 10, 2009 11:30 AM in response to Sitting Down with Prospect Park West Penner

they excerpted the book on gawker. i don't mind guilty pleasures, but i just can't read ones that are so poorly written that i'm cringing every other sentence. maybe it was dumbed-down for broad appeal, but it really is sad.

Posted by: i disagree at September 10, 2009 11:03 AM in response to Sitting Down with Prospect Park West Penner

rob, if you bothered to read the article you would see that there are multiple other options to this "service," many of which do not require 10% of a possibly collusively set bail amount to be forfeited for the privilege of not remaining in custody while the state figures out how to prosecute someone who has not been proven guilty.

Posted by: i disagree at September 9, 2009 1:37 PM in response to New Retail Tenant at The Smith

what parking lots? those are renderings of flatbush and atlantic, just with an unrealistically small number of cars.

i like it. i agree it's not contextual, but that doesn't really bother me.

Posted by: i disagree at September 9, 2009 11:43 AM in response to New Barclay's Center Design Revealed

agree that these are quite nice. windows not just big, but with multiple exposures. and priced fairly for 2 bed + 2 baths.

Posted by: i disagree at September 9, 2009 11:37 AM in response to Checking In On 587 Washington Avenue

in most of the rest of the world, and in many states, private (i.e., not done directly between the court and the defendant) bail bonding is illegal. so its legality is not at all universal, and one can and perhaps should question its morality. not saying the answer is clear, but just because it's legal in NY doesn't mean it's a great or good or fair thing. interesting article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/us/29bail.html?_r=1

Posted by: i disagree at September 9, 2009 11:24 AM in response to New Retail Tenant at The Smith

this thread is funny. whenever someone posts something like, "my neighbor listens to music too loud," or "the old dudes on my block are outside drinking and making noise until 2am," the response is always "grow up whiner, you live in brooklyn, get used to city life and deal with it or move to the suburbs!!" but just throw the word "children" in there and the sanctimonious preachers all come out. (some of the responses are reasonable, but most just make clear the self-righteousness is much less about how we affect each other than it is about judging parents.)

Posted by: i disagree at September 8, 2009 1:44 PM in response to Running Child Upstairs

for me, it's not so much the safety of the projects as the fact that there is always a ton of car traffic around them and that for whatever reason (don't receive very good services like trash pickups? i dunno) they are often pretty dirty in a way that no amount of good neighborliness will ever improve. not necessarily more so than other parts of brooklyn, but in the case of douglass in particular, gmaps suggests that it looks directly into the trash dump area of the housing complex, which i would not want outside my window. $1.6 is a decent price for that place, and strong for the area. still, i have to think that unless they got a crazy bargain on their initial purchase, the sellers couldn't have made that much on the post-reno sale.

Posted by: i disagree at September 8, 2009 1:22 PM in response to Last Week's Biggest Sales

no, there isn't anything "fishy" going on here. if norman oder doesn't think there's anything fishy, you've got to be pretty paranoid to think there is. but maybe you all should put on your tin hats and see what the frequencies tell you.

Posted by: i disagree at September 8, 2009 10:33 AM in response to Times Endorsements Spark Debate

everybody, get out your tin hats!

Posted by: i disagree at September 2, 2009 10:52 AM in response to Atlantic Yards Misrepresents Ownership

tobikun, how long have you been looking for a place? given what you say about the quality of president street, $1.65mm ask sounds like kind of a joke. when we were looking, at the "top of the market" as they say, places in the condition you describe generally were selling for around $1.4 - $1.5 - on the lower end for the narrower places and the closer to the BQE or the projects. this really doesn't seem like that much of a drop from those comps to me - $50k? $100k? - but i haven't looked that closely at the comps in this neighborhood so could be wrong.

Posted by: i disagree at September 1, 2009 2:18 PM in response to Last Week's Biggest Sales

OPP has definitely been "making deals" lately. the carroll gardens townhouses are interesting. who knows what condition they are in (over 30 years with same owners at both; timing of contract/closing on woodhull suggests possible issues) and the proximity to the BQE would be a negative (for us - we're not car (or car noise and car exhaust) people). but given that they are both in ps 58 zone on decent blocks and not too terribly far from at least one train, i have to say these sales are the first since we bought that make me even slightly jealous.

Posted by: i disagree at September 1, 2009 12:18 PM in response to Last Week's Biggest Sales

this is not about fixing a little mistake between friendly opposing counsel. in this country, in order to force a change from the status quo, generally speak, the person who is trying to force that change is the one with the burden of proving he's entitled to it. if you can't provie it, then you are out of luck. what is so hard about that to understand? it is no more of a "policy decision" to uphold the law against a corporation than it is to uphold the law against an individual.

jail bait, have YOU read the opinions? if no, have at it. link here: http://homeequitytheft.blogspot.com/2008/07/brooklyn-trial-judge-nixes-rubber-stamp.html

Posted by: i disagree at August 31, 2009 6:39 PM in response to The 'Judicial Don Quixote' on the Foreclosure Frontlines

just to be totally clear, in my 3:41 post i meant to type "this guy isN'T actually 'taking away' banks' securities..." and also, with respect to bias, the judge was pretty careful to avoid suggesting he was biased, but it's clear where his sympathies lie, in general. "sophisticated" litigants will take any possible thread they can to claim bias, and the rules on recusal can be a little circular, so unfortunately this kind of publicity will make it harder for him to do his work (and, perhaps, create headaches for some appellate judges). on the other hand, a quick web search makes it clear that this judge has been making these kinds of decisions for a while now, and is pretty well known for it. my guess is that, for him, getting the word out is worth denying a few recusal motions and putting up with a few more meritless appeals.

Posted by: i disagree at August 31, 2009 5:09 PM in response to The 'Judicial Don Quixote' on the Foreclosure Frontlines

this guy is actually "taking away" banks' securities. he's making them prove they have such a security interest in the first place, as he ought to do, and demanding that the banks meet the procedural rigors that apply to anyone. in other words, he's probably not even getting to the point of interpreting the contract (as fascinating as this 1L discussion of contract interpretation has been).

are you telling me that it would somehow be more fair to take away someone's home (and give it to some bank, who then sells it to some bargain hunter, at which point it can't be clawed back) when it's not clear who's actually entitled to it, rather than to force the bank to do the work to show it has standing, or a prima facie case, or a valid claim? if the banks are afraid of a "jail sentence for an illegal right on red," perhaps they, like all civil litigants, ought to wait until they have a clear case before they file. or are you suggesting that we ought just to take away the house from the individual, since we know he can't afford it, just to punish him for his misdeeds, even in the absence of proof? sorry, but that's not how civil law works.

keep in mind that this problem is, as antidope says, a direct symptom of the sloppy securitization of mortgages, and if banks haven't figured out they need to fix that, then they deserve the "jail sentences" they're getting.

setting that aside, what's the inherent problem with the notion that businesses should be run correctly, as defined by the law, and that costs of running them correctly are passed on to consumers? and won't those banks that can do this most efficiently be able to offer lower rates, and thus competition thrives? and isn't this how a (regulated) capitalist system ought to work? isn't it, in fact, MORE activist, more socialist, to suggest that we ought to rubber stamp banks' mistakes in favor of what some brownstoner posters have deemed is the greater good?

agree with the general point about perceived bias, though. this judge just bought himself a recusal motion in all of his mortgage cases.

Posted by: i disagree at August 31, 2009 3:41 PM in response to The 'Judicial Don Quixote' on the Foreclosure Frontlines

lechacal - i think you'd have to read all of his decisions before making your determination that they are "policy" decisions as opposed to sound exercises of a judge's discretion. have you done that? if not, then all the article says is that he's holding the corporations to the same procedural requirements that individuals are ordinarily held to. dismissing petitions based on procedural defect happens all the time - what's good for the goose is good for the gander, is it not?

Posted by: i disagree at August 31, 2009 12:22 PM in response to The 'Judicial Don Quixote' on the Foreclosure Frontlines

my guess is mission dolores refers to the church that gives the mission district, in san francisco, its name. the mission district is a great place, generally speaking, to drink good beers. not a meat pie person myself, but since 4th ave doesn't have much in the way of foil-wrapped burritos, i guess they'll have to do!

Posted by: i disagree at August 26, 2009 1:47 PM in response to Brooklyn Food & Drink Round-Up

well i'll be. i like it too.

Posted by: i disagree at August 26, 2009 12:04 PM in response to Atlantic Terminal Station May One Day Be Complete!

wow, three of the nine restuarants in the metromix article are in PH! looks like it's going to be a good fall eating season!

Posted by: i disagree at August 26, 2009 11:57 AM in response to Brooklyn Food & Drink Round-Up

fine by me. would love to be able to walk across it, but most importantly it keeps carlton traffic down and pushes it to flatbush and vanderbilt, where it should be.

Posted by: i disagree at August 26, 2009 10:42 AM in response to The Carlton Avenue Bridge: Closed Through 2011