northridger's Profile
- Brooklyn
- Bay Ridge
- 41
Author's Comments
The Bay Ridge house is surprisingly small for the neighborhood. And the square footage looks way off. I know prop shark as well as Corcoran are claiming 2,604 sq ft but it looks closer to 2,000 to me, and you only get there by including the basement.
Looks more like a $750K-$800K place to me.
Posted by: northridger at November 13, 2009 1:30 PM in response to Open House Picks
Yep, normally the lease carries over, unless there's a very specific clause in the lease that covers this. Which is pretty unlikely.
But also prepare yourself for the possibility of being put through hell. I went through this process awhile back, and in my case the real estate agent wanted constant access to our apartment and wanted open houses every week.
This leaves you with a few choices. You can choose to not be there when they show the place. I know some owners prefer this option. The problem here is that RE agents don't background check people before showing a place, and they don't watch over them at all when they snoop around. So you have complete strangers going through your apartment and picking through your stuff. If you google it lots of thefts happen in this way.
Alternatively, you can insist on being there when they show it. Few people know it but you have a legal right to be present whenever they show. The problem here is that the RE agent will probably want to show the place constantly on little or no notice.
If you're lucky you have a reasonable LL and they have reasonable RE people, and you can work out something that's painful but livable. If you're not lucky, prepare for your life to be significantly disrupted.
The main problem here is that the LL legally has to have "reasonable" access when selling the place, but no one defines what "reasonable" actually means. Once a day? Once a week? 3 times a day? Who can say?
Posted by: northridger at November 12, 2009 10:15 AM in response to Landlord Selling Building
This is a really good article that explains the whole "real estate professional" tax deduction thing:
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/pf/06/rentalowner.asp
I don't know much about this area, this is all personal google-fu :-)
The relevant paragraph:
" If you spend the majority of your time in the real estate business as a real estate professional, your rental losses are not passive. This means that your losses are fully deductible against all income, passive and non-passive. Otherwise, your losses are passive and only deductible up to $25,000 against your rentals' income (deduction phases out if your modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) is between $100,000 and $150,000). However, losses of more than $25,000 can be carried over to the following year.
The IRS defines a real estate professional as someone who spends more than one-half of his or her working time in the rental business. This includes property development, construction, acquisition and management. You must also spend more than 750 hours per year working on your real estate rental properties. (To find extra resources about owning rental properties, see Investing In Real Estate and Tips For The Prospective Landlord.)"
Like I've said in other threads..if you're making individual deductions of >$10K then see a tax professional.
As a complete aside, you think it's easy to claim that you've worked more than 14 hours/week managing your building? Sounds like quite a stretch to me...
Posted by: northridger at November 11, 2009 4:13 PM in response to Audit Hell
Very interesting reading. You can condense it quite a bit by just looking at the arguments by each side..particularly the summaries at the beginning.
The IRS' POV:
..and the Scheidelman's POV:
Personally, I think the Scheidelmans are going to get creamed, but you never know. They have a very good lawyer from reading through this.
But their argument looks pretty weak compared to the governments. For all the hundreds of pages of documents, at the end of the day they claimed a massive tax break for a "loss" that they didn't incur, and the value of their property went right on increasing, easement or no.
If they can keep the argument to a narrow "valuation" argument then they've got a shot (e.g. "the govt and us disagree on valuations, but so does everyone else!").
If the IRS manages to keep the focus on the purpose of conservation easements and the impact of organizations like LPC on valuation in these cases, then the Scheidelman's will have a very, very big bill to pay.
Posted by: northridger at November 5, 2009 4:41 PM in response to Easement Audit Nightmare
Rob...if you're not talking rent stabilization/control, then yes, a LL has the right to not to renew the lease.
At the same time, courts are pro-tenant and if someone refuses to go it can turn into a real ordeal.
So smart landlords ease problem tenants out. The big increase is a common way to do it, and one that decreases the chance that the tenant will balk.
If you're mean and are in-your-face about not renewing...then one of two things typically happen. Thing one...the tenant is cowed and flees in terror. This is pretty common, probably the most common result.
Thing two...the tenant digs in and gets mean themselves. This is less probable than thing one, but the downside is massive. You now have a tenant in possession of the apt that can do a lot of damage, and it's going to take months to get them evicted with lots of pain all around.
Posted by: northridger at November 5, 2009 2:44 PM in response to Help with Demanding Tenant?
As usual we're only seeing one side of the argument :-)
But that said, assuming this is even close to true, don't renew her lease. You said she's refusing to sign one anyway (I assume this is one coming up?) so there's your out right there.
But you also don't even have to give a reason.
In the meanwhile try to be nice to her until she is out so that she doesn't do anything nasty to the apartment or require eviction proceedings.
Posted by: northridger at November 5, 2009 1:36 PM in response to Help with Demanding Tenant?
Zip cars used to make sense financially for full day or full day+ outings, and we used it as such.
About 1.5 years ago that changed. The prices went up significantly, so that as people mentioned here it cost as much or more as a regular rental car. The only advantage at that point is convenience...it's much easier to schedule a zipcar pickup than to do the paperwork at a rental agency.
Even then the convenience factor has gone down as well. We've had two cases where the car came back so late that we had to pick up another car at another garage. Ugh. Plus the vehicles aren't being maintained, every car we got within the past 24 months had one or more minor issues. No breakdowns thank God, but clearly Zipcar is stinting on basic maintenance and cleanup.
Having our own car parked nearby is a winner in every category, including financial. Again, so long as you get a used one in good shape, and you've got a spot for it. The key factor really is how much day/day+ usage you anticipate. The more of that the more likely it is to work out. For just plain regular city driving it almost certainly is a loss financially.
Posted by: northridger at November 5, 2009 12:13 PM in response to Subway Service on Weekends Is F@#%ed
On cars...the wife and I decided to get a used VW Bug (the new ones, not from the 60's!) after doing an analsysis. The key part for us wasn't the short distance stuff but the long distance pieces. We go upstate a lot and have relatives way out Long Island. For those we'd normally had to rent a car. It used to be that Zip Car could take up this slack but it's gone up significantly in cost in the past 1 1/2 years.
For us we found the car to be cheaper in the long haul...so long as you buy a used one in good shape, and you can find a place to park it. If you're stuck in street parking forget it, the added stress isn't worth it.
Of course we are now much more mobile so we get the added benefit of being able to shop and explore much more widely than we used to. We used to be slaves to where the choo-choo goes, now we can wander at will :-)
Posted by: northridger at November 5, 2009 10:56 AM in response to Subway Service on Weekends Is F@#%ed
@vcthomas... Yes, as WBer mentioned, on first glance it appeared you were saying you were deducting $90K per year for three years.
@WBer...reading the documents I don't think the IRS has backed away from anything. It appears to me that they've tightened the rules to make it clearer what is allowed and what isn't, but the fundamental stance is the same. In particular, those documents reaffirm in detail:
- conservation easements must be shown to benefit the public
- They must be in perpetuity
- Deductions must be based on before-easement and after-easement valuations e.g. you must show that you're taking a measurable loss
- Straight percentages of fair market value of the whole property aren't allowed.
- Valuations have to be done professionally
The most recent link, a letter from Steven Miller to the "National Trust for Historic Preservation", states all of this. And it basically reaffirms a speech he gave back in 2005. Here's the link:
http://www.architecturaltrust.org/uploaded_files/2008%200313%20Letter%20from%20IRS%20to%20NTHP.pdf
He goes into detail on legitimate uses of these easements...and in the abuse that occurs around them as well.
He goes on to state that conservation easements do have value in general, and that congress is clearly pushing to preserve historic structures by these means. But he also says:
"At the same time, it is clear that Code provisions such as section 170(h) attract some who are intent on misuse and abuse, as well as others who have good intentions but who fail to take the steps required to support the claimed
deduction. Our enforcement program in the area of fagade easements is designed to address these situations. We believe that proper enforcement is necessary to preserve the integrity and the success of the section 170(h)
program."
In fact, reading the IRS literature they repeatedly come back to the idea of personal gain. The idea behind these easements and their tax advantages is conservation and the public good. Someone giving away property rights for the public good should get a tax break for the value of what they're giving away.
What they're coming down on is people using this statue for personal gain. In 2006 Mr. Miller says this on the subject, which I think is spot-on:
"Before I state my discussion let me state two things that I know are true. The first is that conservation easements serve a vital role in American Society. I ask you to consider erverything else I say this morning with that in mind.
When conservation easements are appropriately used, they bring real and enduring benefits to the American public. Thney can safeguard - and have safeguarded - fragile ecosystems, critical watersheds, land bordering state and national parks, and stunning views. We value this use of conservation easements.
At the same time there is a second thing I know to be true. It has been expressed best by Comissioner Everson, who has said publically:
'We have uncovered instances where the tax benefits of preserving open space and historic buildings have been twisted for inappropriate individual benefit. Taxpayers who want to game the system and charities that assist them will be called to account. Pretty tough words, but nothing in them, I think that shold be of concern to stewards of the states' public lands.'"
Posted by: northridger at November 5, 2009 10:13 AM in response to Easement Audit Nightmare
You sure did Bob, and your analysis there appears to have been spot on.
And reading the literature the IRS seems to have chosen to single out this sort of abuse and punish it pretty severely. It explicitly calls for excise taxes and "accuracy related penalties" on top of interest. It looks like the penalties are in the range of 45% to 65% on the excess valuation depending on how bad the IRS wants to view it.
This speech by one Robert Miller gives details on the IRS' view of this:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/miller-speechonconservationeasements.pdf
On top of everything else already mentioned here, he states:
"We also are hearing of charities that tell their historic easement donors that they are entitled to claim, as a façade easement deduction, a fixed percentage of the fair market value of their property.
This, of course, is not accurate, since the rules on the valuation of historic property are based on the facts and circumstances of each case, including prior restrictions on the use or modification of the property."
So, vcthomas, I don't think you're going to have much luck since the IRS is explicitly targetting your exact, precise circumstance. You hit every single warning bell the IRS has on this topic. And to make things worse you claimed a valuation way above what out-and-out scammers were claiming was "reasonable".
I'd normally recommend a good tax attorney, but in this case that might be just throwing good money after bad.
Posted by: northridger at November 4, 2009 4:41 PM in response to Easement Audit Nightmare
Ouch, it gets worse if you google it. Take a look here:
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=136337,00.html
The document, from 2005, shows that the IRS explicitly considers an easement on a home's facade in an area with a local historic preservation organization to be an invalid deduction. In fact, the article implicitly calls it a notorious tax scam. Here's the relevant bits...it's #9 on the "dirty dozen" scam list from 2005.
"IRS Announces the 2005 Dirty Dozen
IR-2005-19, Feb. 28, 2005
WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service today unveiled its annual listing of notorious tax scams, the “Dirty Dozen,” reminding taxpayers to be wary of schemes that promise to eliminate taxes or otherwise sound too good to be true.
Abuse of Charitable Organizations and Deductions. The IRS has observed an increase in the use of tax-exempt organizations to improperly shield income or assets from taxation. This can occur, for example, when a taxpayer moves assets or income to a tax-exempt supporting organization or donor-advised fund but maintains control over the assets or income, thereby obtaining a tax deduction without transferring a commensurate benefit to charity. A “contribution” of a historic facade easement to a tax-exempt conservation organization is another example. In many cases, local historic preservation laws already prohibit alteration of the home’s facade, making the contributed easement superfluous. Even if the facade could be altered, the deduction claimed for the easement contribution may far exceed the easement’s impact on the value of the property."
Posted by: northridger at November 4, 2009 3:40 PM in response to Easement Audit Nightmare
I just read the links that vinca provided, and the IRS one is chilling as it relates to this sort of case. The bulletin is:
"Internal Revenue Bulletin: 2004-28
July 12, 2004
Notice 2004-41
Charitable Contributions and Conservation Easements ".
Note that the bulletin is from 2004.
There's lots of talk about the intent behind the easements, and lots of technical terms, but near the end has the chilling paragraph:
"If the donor (or a related person) reasonably can expect to receive financial or economic benefits greater than those that will inure to the general public as a result of the donation of a conservation easement, no deduction is allowable. Section 1.170A-14(h)(3)(i). If the donation of a conservation easement has no material effect on the value of real property, or enhances rather than reduces the value of real property, no deduction is allowable. Section 1.170A-14(h)(3)(ii)."
Reading the whole document, it's pretty clear the intent of the deduction is to allow someone to deduct when they're making clear donations for conservation purposes that in some way contribute to the public good. For example, if the a rich family gave 20,000 acres of land to the NY/NJ trail conference for public use, they'd probably get a tax deduction for the full value of that land.
In the case of facades....the IRS wants you to show that what you're doing is in the public good, and that you're taking a material financial hit in doing so, and that the organization taking the easement is a true non-profit. If this is an LPC area than I'd say based on those rules you are SOL. If it's not LPC, then there's some wiggle room. But $270K still seems very, very excessive.
A question for vcthomas...did a tax attorney go over this deduction with you when you took it? Or did only the "historic preservation organization" help you out? Hopefully not just the latter. If you're taking any single deductions more than 10K or so it makes sense to have a tax attorney take a look at it. Not doing so just leaves you totally open to scammers and people's skirting the fringes of the IRS tolerance.
Posted by: northridger at November 4, 2009 3:30 PM in response to Easement Audit Nightmare
@WBer...yeah. The problem the IRS is seeing is a $270,000 claim on a house appraised at $1.2MM. It seems a long stretch to prove to the IRS that the OP expected a $270K loss from the easement. A really, really long stretch.
It's impossible to say what the IRS valued the easement at without all the details, but if you apply some common sense SWAGs to what the penalties and interest might be, then a $145K bill implies that the IRS thought the loss in sale value of the home was pretty small, if not just plain zero. To do it right you'd have to figure out the taxes owed on $270K for that home owner....
Posted by: northridger at November 4, 2009 2:36 PM in response to Easement Audit Nightmare
Doing the math...it appears you tried to deduct 22.5% of the appraised value of the house. Digging around online it appears that 10%-15% is the norm. You were exactly on 15% of the final sale price in 2007 at 1.8MM...but its the worth of the house when you claim the easement that counts, not how much it's worth 3 years later!
Plus there's the whole issue of already being under the auspices of the LPC.
It looks like the IRS is probably questioning at least two things here - one, your value appraisal in 2004. And two, the actual loss you were incurring from the easement. Given LPC is already restricting you, the easement is practically worthless from the IRS point of view e.g. you'd get the same amount for the house with or without the easement.
Frankly, it looks like you and/or your tax lawyers made a very high valuation and discounted the LPC impact entirely. In other words, you took a very risky deduction for a very high dollar amount. I'm not surprised the IRS is going after you given that. From their point of view it looks a helluva lot like you were trying to sneak out of at least 60K in income taxes.
Posted by: northridger at November 4, 2009 1:54 PM in response to Easement Audit Nightmare
Usually it's the realtors who display the tortured syntax and grammar. Head cold today Brownstoner?
On the place...small and cramped in the living spaces. The walk in closet in the master bedroom is nice but its the only closet worthy of the name. The kitchen is surprisingly large given the bad layout in the rest of the pad. Bathroom is obviously east-village-microscopic in proportions :-) It might be 900 sq ft, maybe, but lots of it isn't very usable.
It's always amazing that people will pay over half a million bucks to live in such a place, but that's BH for you.
Posted by: northridger at November 4, 2009 1:05 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 32 Willow Place, #9
It also matters if you live on-site or not. If you don't, then pushing too hard just might result in a midnight move out and you having an empty apartment on no notice at all.
I saw a lot of these when I lived in Manhattan, the friend's van or U-Haul pulling up in the middle of the night and people furtively looking around as they carried out their stuff.
If you do live on the premises it's much less likely (although some people would still have the balls to do it right under your nose!).
Posted by: northridger at November 3, 2009 2:34 PM in response to Tenants Breaking Lease
Legally they are responsible for the release, unless as other people mentioned there is an out clause. There are such clauses on some, but it's a bit unusual unless someone negotiated for it up front. But in NYC the lease is more about protecting the tenants than it is about protecting the LL. You can try to enforce it...but if the tenants balk you have little recourse. You can go for a long drawn out court fight but you will probably lose money on the deal. And in the meanwhile you'll have unhappy tenants in possession of your apartment.
You could of course do what JuditH suggests. I've known tenants that can be bullied in this way. The upside is they do the legwork for you. The downside is that they might not do it, or they might give you a stream of awful candidates. I guess she's been successful at it, but I've seen situations where it backfires. Badly.
I think the smart landlord would start looking for new tenants now. And do it themselves! The current tenants are almost certainly not going to protest you showing the place if they want to get out so badly.
What you want to avoid is the worst-case scenario of non-paying tenants still in possession of the apartment, or almost as bad, pissed-off tenants who are in possession but not liking you very much. They can do enormous damage while they're there, and in the meanwhile it will take you months to get them out.
Posted by: northridger at November 3, 2009 1:57 PM in response to Tenants Breaking Lease
P.S. I think the price is high, but they're obviously shooting for a one-of-a-kind buyer to go with a one-of-a-kind house. The normal rules don't apply for something like this.
Posted by: northridger at November 3, 2009 10:42 AM in response to The Gingerbread House Hits the Market
It is, in fact, landmarked. So skip the developer idea. Google "Howard E. and Jessie Jones House bay ridge landmarked" for details.
And I also think that, landmarked or not, that the majority of the Bay Ridge population would take pitchforks and skewer anyone who tried to tear this place down!
Posted by: northridger at November 3, 2009 10:40 AM in response to The Gingerbread House Hits the Market
I guess people here see "rainshower shower head" and immediately assume the tenant is some sort of pathological problem person.
As I said, the whole story definitely isn't here. And the LL's story is full of holes. I already mentioned him going from showerhead to some complicated water system. He also fudged a bit on the timing as well. In the original post, OP said:
"I informed him of how the renovation would proceed, and he assured me that it was no problem, he could shower at his cousins or the gym and kept assuring me throughout the job that it was no problem. The plumber that I hired took longer than he first said he would (so what else is new??), so the tenant was without water for 1 day, and without a shower for 2 weeks."
Note that 2 weeks was not agreed to. "guesting" in fact uses a clever arguing technique here to imply the tenant agreed to two weeks, but he actually didn't. Instead he blames it on the plumber "The plumber that I hired took longer than he first said he would".
If "guesting" was being honest he would've said what was _agreed_ to up front, and how much the time overage was. But instead what he did was use a bunch of misleading and slippery language to describe the situation.
If that's how he acts posting on Brownstoner, how do you think he's interacting with his tenant? Completely on the up and up? Or is he using the same slippery approach in dealing with them.
bxgirl...glad you see showering at a friend's as not an inconvenience. I think, however, you are in the minority. This is a basic habitation issue...2 weeks with no way to shower or bathe means the apartment wasn't habitable.
Posted by: northridger at November 3, 2009 9:41 AM in response to Tenant Compensation?
Hmmm...the initial posting said:
" I am a landlord who recently got a new tenant. When showing him the apartment initially, he asked if we would install a new rainshower shower head in the bathroom, and I agreed to do it, as I like to improve my properties.
..followed later by...
"Just an update on what I posted: I had a whole thermostatic system installed, not just a showerhead, as long as I updated the shower."
This is a classic case of a one sided story. I have no idea what really is going on here, but "guesting" is undoubtedly holding back on some relevant details. The first post said the tenant-to-be asked for a shower head. In the 2nd post it's upgraded to a thermostatic shower system.
If I had to completely guess, I'd say that the tenant asked for a shower head and you took it upon yourself to do a major plumbing overhaul, and the tenant is reasonably upset. This is only a guess but it seems to fit the facts better than what was presented here.
P.S. Showering at someone else's place for two weeks isn't quite a minor inconvenient. Go ahead, try it yourselves for the next two weeks. I'll wait :-) If someone did agree to this they are a 1st class idiot or have lots of free time on their hands.
Posted by: northridger at November 2, 2009 3:08 PM in response to Tenant Compensation?
I agree with the other comments about the photos. Very unappealing.
But I also think the copy of the ad is way over done. My initial reaction was to skip over all of the text because it reads like typical broker drivel. "Historic North Park Slope", "Location, Location, Location!", etc. In all you use 127 words(!) describing the location.
You're renting a studio. Just mention it's prime north park slope and describe the apartment. All the fancy verbiage makes it sound like you're hiding something, or a broker really is involved, or something else fishy is going on.
Posted by: northridger at October 6, 2009 1:56 PM in response to Advice on Rental Market
I went through this about a year and a half ago (as a tenant).
The bottom line is that almost all leases (and NYS law) indicate that you have to give reasonable access, but you also have a right to privacy. Courts are somewhat vague about what "reasonble" means, but in non-emergency situations typically it means more than 24 hours notice, and it can't be a constant daily or near daily occurence.
In my case, I had to threaten the real estate agent's license, because they wouldn't back down otherwise. The owner wasn't interested in discussing it and just referred us to the agent. After being threatened we settled on once a week showings.
We also insisted on being present, which is always your right (again, in non-emergency situations). Never trust a real estate agent to watch people, they almost never do - typically they want to give people space to poke around on their own, and there are many documented cases of people having stuff stolen during real estate walk throughs, open house or not.
Posted by: northridger at October 5, 2009 10:24 AM in response to Right of Entry
jre...if he finds a tenant soon most likely his loses will be zero. He might even make money off of the deposit! So what exactly will an attorney go after?
If he doesn't find a tenant soon....then you have two problems in litigating. First, they may very well fight it, and have a good chance of winning in this environment. Then the case will go on much longer in housing court, and he may well lose in this environment. While it's going on he has to prove he's been actively trying to fill the space.
If you do somehow miraculously come through and win, over several months, you then have the job of actually collecting the money. Good luck on that!
I guess a question is...where is the apartment and why is it so difficult to find a new tenant? As usual, there's only one side of the story being told here :-) Yeah, maybe the tenants are scum. Or maybe the LL is being a bit greedy here looking for easy money. Who can tell?
Posted by: northridger at October 1, 2009 4:16 PM in response to Non-Payment of Rent
Janus125 - legally you're right.
But in practical terms, you're not going to be getting anything from a court in this situation. The fact that there's no back rent involved clinches it. Not to sound cruel, but there are judges out there who would most likely laugh you out of court.
Not very fair to the landlord, but that's the way it works in NYC.
Posted by: northridger at October 1, 2009 1:02 PM in response to Non-Payment of Rent
A broken lease in Brooklyn? In pragmatic terms, you should just rent it out to someone else and move on. Not satisfying in terms of justice, or even in legal terms, but this is the reality of the situation.
You can try to go after them, but from what I've seen you will probably lose money and time and hair in the deal. And likely never recover anything from them at all.
Posted by: northridger at October 1, 2009 12:46 PM in response to Non-Payment of Rent
The big problem in this sort of situation is a side effect of the stop work order. What exactly happens going forward?
Sometimes...absolutely nothing. So the neighborhood is stuck with the eyesore for an indefinite period. The owner just refuses to finish it or tear it down. This happened in Bay Ridge, where a jerk just left his incomplete construction around for years.
Posted by: northridger at September 25, 2009 12:04 PM in response to Horror Show Friday: 1715 11th Avenue
DIBS, something like 40 extra posts came in as I was reading, so I didn't see them. Again, you're jumping to conclusions.
Any observation from a long time lurker: about 75% of the time you appear to give good advice here based on a your experience. About 25% of the time you wing it and make a WAG based loosely on experience that's usually not directly relevant to what's being discussed. The problem: you don't tell people when you're talking from experience and when you're guessing. And you seem to often have little memory glitches, like this one.
Plus you post constantly, resulting in large volume.
The result: A very large stream of data that's probably mostly good, but with an unknown amount of garbage mixed in. This means your overall reliability is constantly in question.
You would do yourself an immense favor if you slowed down on your posting in two ways: 1) if you're guessing, say so. Don't be authorative in areas you know little/nothing about. And 2) don't go by memory. You seem to have two or more posts a week saying "oops, there goes that bad memory again".
Who looks like the fool?
Posted by: northridger at September 24, 2009 2:46 PM in response to House of the Day: 786 Putnam Avenue
DIBS, rather than being combative and ornery, why don't you count the blocks on Google Maps?
Start with Putnam. Then you have:
Jefferson, Hancock, Halsey, Macon, Macdonough, Decatur, Bainbridge, Chauncey, Marion, Fulton.
Marion->Fulton is pretty short though.
Some extra difference comes into play because you're one block west and the grid there is skewed relative to Fulton St.
Aside: How many arguments start here because DIBS is going from memory instead of checking a reliable source?
Posted by: northridger at September 24, 2009 2:34 PM in response to House of the Day: 786 Putnam Avenue
+1 on more Bay Ridge restaurants.
Many great places are missing...
Dish (Japanese fusion)
Great for sushi and non-sushi lovers
Elia (Greek)
Pricey but very good
Chianti's (Italian)...
Lobster fra diablo, yumm...
Areo (Italian)
Not a fan but very popular
Cebu (American)
Good American, but gotten very pricey
Chadwick's (American)
Chop's the size of a small child!
For sunset park, at least the hispanic section, there's really only Tacos Matamoros. Everything else is cookie cutter low-end mexican.
Posted by: northridger at September 18, 2009 1:30 PM in response to Bed Stuy Restaurant Suggestions
I used to work in Metrotech about 5 years ago, and all I can say is...who the heck would want to live in that area? And for roughly $2K a month for a 1 bedroom to boot?
I don't get it.
Although I love all the pictures on the web site showing tons of great ameneties, attractions, and restaurants that are _absolutely nowhere near the place_!
Posted by: northridger at November 13, 2009 3:40 PM in response to Development Watch: Avalon All Glassed Up