good grief.

First of all.. the AY are a ugly hideous hole in the ground which meet every worthwhile definition of "blight" one could apply... particularly when dead center of a highly residential area.

Anyone who genuinely thinks the Yards themselves arent blight should consider a move to many of our nations less valuable yet just as wonderfull train yard areas, or perhaps a nice stay in a lovely aprtment beneath a freight train bridge would be amenable to you.

The issue with Ratner is he's used Public domain to seize not ONLY the yards but the perfectly viable housing units adjacent to them. This is in my opinion horribly wrong and a fundemental problem with Eminent Domain...

I would have no problem at all with them building a platform over the yards themselves and putting up the building they proposed (i didnt mind the designs so far)... mainly as i would consider that a gigantic improvement over the utter crap-pile that exists there today (and ive lived nearby for a loooonnggg time).

But the land grab on a couple of the brownstone blocks through ED was just wrong... had ratner bought out those buidlings with ED... then fine... but he didnt, he used a state organ and politcal connections to essentially dis-enfranchise less powerful people of their rightfull property... something that should frighten all of us.

ED was NEVER intended to be used as a cudgel for financial gain... it was meant to service the ENTIRE public as whole with generally fundementally important improvements that could not otherwise be built at all. In my opinion Ratner could have built over the yards ALONE just fine. it was sheer greed that extended his range into the actual brownstones.

And by the way... "middle income" housing should be no better or less protected than lower or upper income housing. Though its never the case, ED should be blind to how wealthy the effected people are. There are MANY poor places in this country which have better and more beautiful housing stock more worthy of protected status than their wealthier neighbors.

Posted by: lionballs at January 5, 2010 5:27 PM in response to George Will on Atlantic Yard's 'Cognitive Dissonance'

hey guys, its actually uh... LionBalls not iron balls :)
From what i can tell through these posts it would seem your costs would absolutely be out of hand so long as the cables have already been run.

Accordinging to how many rooms (and thus how many outlets) you have... your punch doesn will match accordingly.

While you CAN get really cheap materials as mentioned above, you actually will spend more money for a home as the quality youll want is gonna be higher (though not much more).

Id figure on a cost of 5-10$ per location (bearing 2-4 jacks). And then with a backend cost of 100-300$ or so for a pacth panel, basic switching gear and your odds and ends.

I dont know whats there, hopefully youve got boxes at least so you'd just have to buy faceplates and jacks. Ive used monoprice and some others according to what was needed.

If you did the work yourself, which is tedious as hell... you cold get it all done for under 400$, and thats probably an over-estimate. You however would need some stuff, a wire tracer would be nice just in case, a network cable tester would be an extremely good idea when doing your own cabling, a crimper and a telco style punch. Combined cost of somewhere near 100$ or so.

Technicly as your wiring female ports only, you might not need the crimper at all... though its a really good idea to have one on end.

If your network is anything but a basic plain jane home network, you should do some planning on where which equipment should go before you lock your cables down (though im guessing it would change too much), ideally youd wnt to centralize your patch panel and your network gear and your internet connection in a cool dry area (basement?) and to distribute your wireless in centrally located spots.

If you wanna chat you can call me at 917 855 9500 or lionelc @@@@ lionquest.com, Im not sure what politics denton didnt like... lol... i must have ran my mouth... ah well.

Posted by: lionballs at November 2, 2009 10:23 AM in response to Brownstone Ethernet Network

If your a diehard brooklynite feel free to ignore this post.

Everyone else, just suck it up and face the facts... we all have a price tolerance, If manhattan prices continue to drop and brooklyn prices dont drop accordingly... there will be an increasing appeal to owning and/or renting in the "city".

While there are many who have no need to go to the city at all, a HUGE portion of brooklyn residents must and do commute on a regular basis to manhattan. This is the core reason manhattan is more "valuable" than the regions that border it. Denying this is really sticking your head in the sand.

Clearly people can become irreversibly attached to their residences, all the more so if they were local to begin with... but the majority of people really are operating on a "is it worth the effort" basis. Where they are primarily looking for a "deal" and once they see a reasonable offer, they're really debating if the troubles of moving and so forth are worth the reward of likely being closer to their work, and many friends, and the many amenities and events and so forth manhattan has (rental cars anyone!!! :) ).

A complete idiot could understand the process, rent goes down , more people will be attracted... the MORE rent goes down the more attractive it becomes, even to people who had previously not even considered it... consider this effect MAGNIFIED in border neighborhoods (such as park slope, williamsburg, LIC, hoboken, etc...).

If your comparing your 900$ one bedroom in brooklyn, manhattan is clearly far away from affordable... but if prices fell that far... a whole ton of 900$ one bedroom renters in BK would be thinking about leaving.

If the LES prices crumble ill bet you dollars to donuts half of williamsburgs "trendy" residents would jump ship in a heart-beat.

If i could buy a similar brownstone in chelsea or the UWS near the park for the same price as one in PS, you can bet most people wouldn't blink twice before choosing the manhattan one.

--LionBalls

Posted by: lionballs at May 18, 2009 1:46 PM in response to Will Everyone Go Running Back to Manhattan?

putting a toll on the bridges inside the city is very elitist. Effectivly reducing ease of access and general fluidity of movement to the wealthier.

When your proposing tolls as a way to make YOUR neighberhood nicer and increasing YOUR property value, its even more elitist and really an inverse form of NIMBYism.

Double the complications of living on an island which is best connected to the mainland through ANOTHER island.... but hey paying 2 tolls in the SAME CITY is awesome great right!!?

I wont even begin to mention the Cab fares.

I don't have a car, i prefer the bike where my awesome subway access doesnt cover things... but i still see how wrong and greedy the toll would be.

I rent cars (when i need them) in manhattan (access and availability is FAR better there for rentals), so now i should pay a double toll to get to my apartment and go wherever i need to go? Not to mention some car companies (hertz & dollar) charge a 55$ fee if you live in the outer boroughs.

not to mention a toll would only diminish brooklyn's "up-scale" neighborhoods (potential home buyers would have yet another financial reason to prefer manhattan), and further divide the city into poor and rich areas.

we really should be trying to keep our WHOLE city as integrated as possible, with as few barriers as we can feasibly support.

This of course doesnt stand so well when talking about the verazano. That bridge is HUGE, and services a bourogh that should be part of new jersey.

why do we keep encouraging taxes on people who dont live in manhhatan?

--lionballs

Posted by: lionballs at December 6, 2008 11:46 AM in response to Majority of Readers Opposed to Bridge Tolls

Dont get me wrong, i can also go to europe through my spouse, and have considered it simply as a fun thing to do. But in so far as politics go, leaving the country should be the dead last thing a person feels compelled to do.

To even compare our situation through the last crappy 8 years with the geniuine strife of hitlers rise in germany (godwin) or stalins, lenin, mousilinis, the shah, etc... is a huge dis-service to this country.

Things have not gone anywhere near great, but we are so far from the sort of descent implied by such a comparison its entirely disegeniuous.

If you cant stomach a multi-party system where the other guys get to run things for a while and democracy occasionaly means things dont go your way, then feel free to move to china... where there is only one way all the time.

Were likely headed into a democratic majority in huse senate, and executive... but hey right... if obama isnt elected lets leave!!

its just ridiculous... the type of divisive polarization thats helping to make it even harder to fix things in our country... so yea... if your part of the problem AND you dont want to help fix it... by all means... leave.

enjoy russia.

--LionBalls

Posted by: lionballs at October 29, 2008 2:49 PM in response to The Obama Escape Clause

Also, please forgive my grevious lack of a spell checker!! :)

--LionBalls

Posted by: lionballs at October 28, 2008 7:03 PM in response to The Obama Escape Clause

rh, then get the h*ll out... we dont want you. The country did elect bush twice (or one and a half times if the florida thing gets you bothered)... depending on your stance, it's the beuty or the flaw of a republic and a democracy.

I despise bush, bush senior, and reagan as much as the next liberal dem... but we have a country with a lot of people who feel differently (expecially when it comes to reagan), the overwhelming bias underlying partisan liberals is revolting sometimes (like neo-cons are all the time)... Just because the other guy one doesnt mean the country is on a one way trip to babylon... it just means either A: your guy sucked as bad or almost as bad (kerry!!) in the public eye, or B: you havent done eneough to properly educate people as to why you and your candidates POV is supirior.

BTW, it takes a lot more than a single man to cause a problem, we may make bush our kicking boy scape-goat (as he well deserves) for every problem under the moon, but the truth is he didnt make the mess... we got there collectively, democrats, liberals, conservatives, republicans, green partiers, and libertarians alike. People are so quick to forget how the whole country got up in arms just after 9/11 and decided to do some world wide ass-kicking, hello iraq & afghanistan... forgot how weve been de-regulating the market (including bill clintons term) slowly but surely for over 30 years... in addition to loosing credit restrictions... hello credit crisis. and the list goes on.

So yea, if you want out... please go. You'll find politics even in our most open and liberalized economies of france, UK, ireland (sorta), the lowlands, japan, and others to be WORSE. Sure theyve got better social protections (health care, Social security)... but theyve also got a whole lot less freedom when it comes to free speech, free association, free trade and the like. People think the expectation to privacy in the US is bad, i DARE YOU to compare it with the lack of privacy and diminshed personal freedoms anywhere in europe or even canada.

Dont run away, stay... and help fix it.

Support net neutrality, fight the DMCA, fight the patriot act, support reducing the "acceptability" of public surveliance (NYC becoming like london?), Fight the allowance of "free speech zones", fight Electronic voting machines without verifiable paper trails, wright a goddamn letter and stop whining about how your gonna leave if the other guy gets elected.

--LionBalls

Posted by: lionballs at October 28, 2008 6:58 PM in response to The Obama Escape Clause

I know that block quite well, the brownstones are 20 X 60 (very deep) with 40 foot yards. Four floors (including english basement).

The violence and other issues have fallen tremendously over th eyears, and the block itself has a lot of young proffesionals on it.

There are two brownstones in the middle of the block that must have rent control/stabilized tenants, and they had people hanging out in front of them, but one was boarded up, so thats almost gone away, next to third is another of these buildings. rents are between 1800 and 2400 for a floor (ive known people in several differnt buildings on the block).

There continues to be people hanging out near third avenue, and drug traffic has diminshed significantly but is still present. The price is definitly right, i wonder if itll come down more.

THAT building has a completely concrete backyard, which is a shame because the lots adjacent have gardens.

Posted by: lionballs at October 15, 2008 5:53 PM in response to House of the Day: 18 St. Marks Place

Hi denton, Ill throw my hat in the ring as well, first things first, i have a now 5 year old company which does tech support for a variety of clients in different situations (some in corporate offices, some in brownstones). Weve done many wiring jobs of varying situations.

you can contact me at 212 202 5553 x100 or Lionelc@@@AT@@LionQuest...DOT..com (weird addressing to prevent spam harvesting).

Now to the point, Your network is and should be extremely straight-forward, cat6 to each location, with termination, i wouldnt run extra cable (extra cost) since being residential your more likely to want new cabling (fiber optic for instance) by the time your considering more ports (also a small switch will serve you just fine if for some strange reason you decide you need 8 computers instead of two at the location).

The best setup would likely be one/two ports (cable runs) per room you think a computer would be in. Wireless routers are ridiculously cheap, and also have switches built into them... this means you can turn any single physical cable run into 3/4 ports for computers AND a wireless hub (one per floor? - though i have one for my whole 3-story building).

In the end, your greatest expense is going to be cabling. standard rates vary between 90 to 125$ per run. So if you can localize the cables to one central room per floor, and use wireless for secondary machines... then youll have a solid backbone for a tolerable cost.

I have done a variety of jobs and we work hardest to match our clients needs to the network created. If this is primarily residential you shuoldn't go overboard with cabling.

At some point down the line, you may consider having two internet connections, pairing cable and DSL with a linksys rv048, if thats even a remote consideration, you shuld take care to place your patch panel in a location both cable and dsl can be easily joined (youd also want to give thought to having servers in the same place if you had any thought to that).

Feel free to give me a call if you just want advice...

good luck.

Posted by: lionballs at October 14, 2008 12:33 PM in response to Looking for network consultant

Burning the candle at both ends now.

We have pressure from the outer edges of the buros... you can see on hotpads.com how all the edges of NYC are foreclosure rich already (lots of sub primes, low income).

But now with the bank failures, and the huge loss of jobs in manhattan, your going to see the same happen dead center (starting in manhattan. It shouldnt be as sharp, simply because their properties should be more valuable... but with the world economy now catching the american flu, youll have less foreign buyers keeping the prop up.

Housing in the US was over-valued by 20-35% (bubble peak vs US average) when looked at as compared against GDP, NYC was the same (slightly higher). Most of the country has had a hard correction (drops up to 25% or so). NYC hasnt.

While NYC is more inured agaisnt drastic price changes (co-ops, income, foriegn investment).. the relative value simply cant stand out with the outer buros dropping, and with the dead center loosing nearly a trillion dollars (and countless attached jobs and income).

Long story short, i think NY is in for a short term correction (-15%), followed by a long slide (additional -15%)... the distribution should sandwich the blue chip areas.

The only saving grace would be for NY to take a medium hit now (say -20%), and remain stagnant for 8-10 years.

--Lionballs

Posted by: lionballs at September 22, 2008 12:09 PM in response to What Lies Beneath?

Is that a good thing?

no idea who he is.

Posted by: lionballs at September 17, 2008 11:07 AM in response to More Tickets for Stoop Drinkers

with one boob or two?

Posted by: lionballs at September 16, 2008 4:08 PM in response to More Tickets for Stoop Drinkers

but only pinot noir!!! dare you bring boons and straight to jail you miscreants!!

Posted by: lionballs at September 16, 2008 3:54 PM in response to More Tickets for Stoop Drinkers

omg, you guys shuold get a room. ;)

Posted by: lionballs at September 16, 2008 3:39 PM in response to More Tickets for Stoop Drinkers

:)

no doubt there was dramtic flair there, but the point remains, drafting a law to actually specify what types of drinking (or other activities) are and arent exceptable is ludicrous at best, and would be incredibly contentious. Because guess what, class issues would be all over the legislation, everyone would get up in arms over what would almost certainly be a law that at the minimum (looks) to be terribly elitist, when the simplest thing is, just dont be obviously drinking on your stoop (put it in a glass... i mean you do LIVE there, so its not like you dont have access to a mug).

And no, i DONT drink on my stoop, i drink in my apartment or in my backyard. I have an issue with people drinking in front of my place as it is (who arent "hurting" anybody), and i prefer not to encourage it or give it any degree of legitimacy... indeed i'd be a total hippocrite if i did.

and while it may be your property, its not terribly private is it? if it were, there wouldnt be an issue to talk about. this is NY, where the abutment of private and public is a real continuous problem (first floor apt bedroom & no drapes?), no need to exacerbate the issue by believing you have some god-given right to act entirely as you please where you are openly and completely viewable to every man woman AND child, expecially when there are several easy, no-cost, amenable solutions.

There simply ARE limits, and i think its entirly reasonable to say to people.. please keep the drinking inside (or at least dont look like your drinking so some degree of decorum is preserved for the neighborhood).

--LionBalls

Posted by: lionballs at September 16, 2008 3:17 PM in response to More Tickets for Stoop Drinkers

lol, hillarious.

Theres no question the situation is a sticky one, and we can all come up with scenarios to test what is and isnt ok...

end of the day, there is some degree of public order involved. And the problem of WHO to apply a ticket to is where class does come into affect. Of course you feel entitled to drink on your stoop.. i mean omg its your stoop. hell, you shuold be able to have sex there too right? full on doggystyle maybe? and heck, since you can drink, may as well have the whole liquer cabinet out.. put a keg on the stoop, whats it matter? its your right isnt it?

Or maybe we should have the law tailored... its ok to have a glass of wine, but not a case, its ok to have a stella, but not a 40, its ok to have missionary, but not cowgirl. Cause these sorts of tailored laws wouldnt be elitist/classist, nor abused by the cops... like... ever.

and lets totally ignore escalation, because that never happens right?

Maybe we should allow people to do whatever they want (short of murder) on their stoops... sex, drinking, drums, pooping (with a proper toilet), etc...

At some point you have to understand that your stoop 5 feet off the street is not analgamous to a front yard with 20 feet, a picket fence, a hedge and a tree (and even then there are some rules).

i mean, i get it... your ticked off cause some cop didnt make a good judgement call and not harass someone who was being totally chill and not disturbing anyone, but should that make it ok? i dont think so. Its like getting a speed ticket for going 1 mph over the limit... totally BS, but a rule that does exist for the greater good.

--LionBalls

Posted by: lionballs at September 16, 2008 2:35 PM in response to More Tickets for Stoop Drinkers

dave you are correct in saying that my problem is different, however as also pointed out by itsages this whole thing brings up class issues, in that it will be percieved as unfair (and to a certain degree would be) if we ticket only the "degenerates" who abuse the lee-way given to those considerably less disturbing (your couple drinking wine).

It's a thin line between penalizing those who are a nuisance and racial profiling.

And i kid you not, all it takes is two half-deaf (machine shop workers) guys drinking to make it near impossible to get to sleep.

Apartments over restraunts/bars tend to have greatly reduced rents as compensation for the distrubance, and those premises CAN and HAVE been ticketed when they dont adequately control their clientelle.

My point is, it does suck we cant all be drinking on our stoops (quietly) without being harassed, but in a mega condensed area like NY, your behavior has an effect on others when in plain view (as a stoop clearly is), it creates an atmosphere that such behavior is acceptable (and it may be), which then lets the next guy take it one step further... and so forth... until you have a problem (not to mention when people openly drink outside, teen-agers will inevitably THINK they can do the same).

It just accelerates.

--LionBalls

Posted by: lionballs at September 16, 2008 11:46 AM in response to More Tickets for Stoop Drinkers

I for one support this, and wish the cops would be more active about it.

I know im swimming against the tide, but i have people who hang out semi-regularly in front of my building drinking and being loud. calling 311 continuously (every day) barely works to help them get the idea...

Most of you will say i should confront them... in the first 4 years (out of 10) of living here i and my neighbors did, and in a polite but firm manner, but all that did was bring grief to everyone, and hostility.

we started calling 311 instead, and half the problem went away.

Now were left with the guys who think that since theyve been in the area for 20 years (or have a friend who was).. they can do what they damn well please just like back in the days when the cops didnt care if the place burnt to the ground.

The cops dont ticket the guys, so they basicly disperse them maybe for that night, but the next night... theyll be back again. If they ticketed them, the guys would get the hint, do your drinking and partying INSIDE YOUR HOME.... like everyone else. Or at least in your backyard. Stop disturbing other people who have to work the next morning and who dont want to have your loud drunk party in their bedroom (even if YOURE not loud and drunk, it creates an environment indicating accepatable behavior for those who ARE loud and drunk).

I know everyone gets uptight about cops, and socialist like laws... and this certainly IS one of them. But in the long run, the overall Quality of Life issues are what this adress's. Making the distinction of a small gate doesnt help... if the guys who hang out in front of my place knew they just have to sit on my stoop (gate closed) to avoid a ticket... id have an even worse problem (they tried that and got screamed at by my less than pleased neighbors - everyone has limits).

This is the sort of law that is appropriate for high density areas, and would become increasingly less appropriate the larger the space between homes. One of the few things i like about bloomberg/guliani was the QOL focus.

--LionBalls

Posted by: lionballs at September 16, 2008 10:50 AM in response to More Tickets for Stoop Drinkers

Awesome, im glad my taxes are now paying to bail-out / help all these idiots who took on loans they couldnt afford out of greed.

Sweet. I do the right thing, act within my budget and do so conservatively. and get screwed several times over.

fiasco.

Posted by: lionballs at September 8, 2008 2:06 PM in response to Government Rescues Fannie and Freddie

Camoflague? seriously... whats the deal?

Posted by: lionballs at August 27, 2008 11:48 AM in response to Bed Stuy Program for Teens and Brownstoners

The owner of Palo Santo is a very old friend of mine, and he (as a proffesional and very experienced chef) spent about 2 years building that place, from a full gut to constructing the bar and tables himself (he hand-built almost everything - with help of course).

In the course of that build-out, despite having a pre-existing commercial space... he had to invest TONS of cash to properly outfit the restraunt to pass the dozens of inspections at various stages (imagine having to halt construction so the city inspectors can see the plumbing & electric before you cover it up?)... his roof now houses several HVAC units and fans, etc... Its no-joke.

However the space was grandfathered in as a commercial option... and more specificly HIS BUILDING was grandfathered in, most buildings on that block have lost any chance of having commercial spaces.

Union was once upon a time a major street which had shops and so forth. Your chances of getting a commercial right without an existing zoning or grandfathered clause is fairly remote.

sorry.

Posted by: lionballs at August 18, 2008 4:47 PM in response to Restaurant on garden floor

Thanks er um Lionballs/Lionel. I will be contacting you one way or another with the details.

Posted by: Juno106 at November 2, 2009 4:57 PM in response to Brownstone Ethernet Network