There's actually empirical evidence that raising wages does NOT necessarily reduce employment. Do a search on Card and Krueger.

Posted by: southbrooklyn at November 18, 2009 2:40 PM in response to Wednesday Links

be rude -- You're just not particularly well-informed as to the location of the proposed AY development or what's been going on there over the years. The site is much bigger than the rail yard. It was being developed before Ratner bought up properties and held them without developing them -- ie Goldstein's building, the Newmark building (are million dollar condos a sign of 'blight'?, and so forth. Ratner stopped the development of the area by insisting on a super-block style approach which has been duly and reasonably opposed by lots of people.

Posted by: southbrooklyn at November 16, 2009 2:44 PM in response to Goldstein Offered Less Than What He Paid for Condo

greatest 18m old? she wakes twice a night, at 10 and 4, goes back to sleep pretty quickly, but still. i go to bed early!

Posted by: southbrooklyn at October 26, 2009 4:51 PM in response to NYT: Food Co-op Exile's Story Demands 2,000 Words

heather, no one is shooting down the formation of coops in other places in brooklyn. in fact, if you join the park slope food coop, your work shift can be helping groups in other neighborhoods get their coops up and running. i believe the coop has provided member labor to a coop in east new york, and possibly also fort greene. it is part of the park slope mission statement to support other coops. but i guess it's hard to get a coop like the psfc going. it took a long time for the psfc to grow into something like a supermarket.

Posted by: southbrooklyn at October 26, 2009 4:47 PM in response to NYT: Food Co-op Exile's Story Demands 2,000 Words

northsloperenter --

my spouse and i have an 18 m old. we are active coop members who rarely miss our 6-8:30 receiving shifts. it isn't hard to get up a little earlier once a month.

Posted by: southbrooklyn at October 26, 2009 4:41 PM in response to NYT: Food Co-op Exile's Story Demands 2,000 Words

dreamking --

the people ragging on the coop on this thread are for the most part not members and they are not posting in order to try to improve the coop.

kind of like you. you don't belong, you don't know anything about the history or culture of the coop and the centrality of the work system, and yet you spend your time writing heartfelt critiques of the place. why?

the coop has grown exponentially in membership and sales since i joined over 15 years ago. i guess the leadership is doing something right.

Posted by: southbrooklyn at October 26, 2009 2:09 PM in response to NYT: Food Co-op Exile's Story Demands 2,000 Words

amen petebrooklyn.

join or don't, stay or don't, who cares!!! this has got to be the most played out topic in all brooklyn journalism. i think the only article left to write is WHY does the coop arouse such negative emotions among those who never join or who join and leave? i am a member for a very long time and it works beautifully for me -- why are you so intent on convincing me that i'm just plain wrong about that? what's your goal -- to get me to quit? to stop other people from joining? why would that be important to you?

Posted by: southbrooklyn at October 26, 2009 1:13 PM in response to NYT: Food Co-op Exile's Story Demands 2,000 Words

fsrq, not sure why you are harping on this question that you think is so brilliant -- I don't understand the equivalency you are making. Do you monetize all your relationships? But okay, here goes.

Let's just say for the sake of argument that Bill Thompson has spent a career working hard in public service and in the course of that work has built up many relationships with many people who now know and trust him to do the right thing. Thus, they are eager to see him elected mayor and work hard for him.

Seems pretty different to me from buying an election.

If you are saying that Thompson uses political connections to make FINANCIAL promises then you are talking about corruption.

In arguing against a campaign system that encourages rich people to buy political office, I am in no way endorsing political corruption.

Posted by: southbrooklyn at October 7, 2009 12:14 PM in response to Prices Drop at the Oro Tower

And also -- it seems really obvious to me that the astronomical cost of political campaigns, driven by the bidding up of the cost of buying a politician, is a serious problem, and relates BOTH to how Congress is paid off AND to the huge sums of personal money Bloomberg is spending to crush every rival and even potential rival.

It's a sad thing that our broken system of campaign finance has people cheering when the uber-wealthy buy political offices! Sad that the national political parties specifically recruit really rich people who can finance their own campaigns.

Posted by: southbrooklyn at October 7, 2009 11:49 AM in response to Prices Drop at the Oro Tower

Reasons for why we don't want the super rich to run the governemnt are glaringly obvious (although of course the way campaigns are financed means that many politicians, especially national politicians, are quite wealthy0. The idea that the only way to have a non-corrupt government is to have it run by the super-rich is really weird to me.

100 other things more important to democracy than campaign finance? Care to list them? Politicians spend most of their time raising money to run for re-election. If you think they are not beholden to their big contributors and that they don't base their voting decisions accordingly, you are either naive or stupid.

I agree completely with Minard, that both the best and worst thing about Bloomberg is that he is not beholden to anyone.

Politicians should be beholden to the common good, as represented by the majority of voters. But because of the way money distorts our democracy, they aren't.

Posted by: southbrooklyn at October 7, 2009 11:41 AM in response to Prices Drop at the Oro Tower

Oh, wow, fsrq, if you are unconcerned about how money distorts democracy, you really haven't been paying attention.

How campaigns are financed is the single biggest issue facing American democracy.

On the specific local situation, do you think it's healthy to have a mayor whom no one dares criticize because he is extremely rich and powerful, and because so rich, will continue to be very powerful after he is no longer mayor?

On the broader question of money and democracy, have you noticed that Congress is a bought and paid for subsidiary of corporate America? Ever taken a look at the Medicare Part D legislation? Big pharma bought themselves a real nice piece of real estate right there. Wait until health care "reform" passes -- you'll see some gigantic bennies for the insurance industry there.

Democrats, Republicans -- they won't be different enough until we truly reform campaign finance.

Posted by: southbrooklyn at October 7, 2009 11:05 AM in response to Prices Drop at the Oro Tower

I'm voting for Bill Thompson because I am so disgusted by the Bloomberg campaign, as detailed in a recent New Yorker article -- hiring all available professional campaign consultants, even though they're not needed, just so they can't work for anyone else; continuing to try to destroy Anthony Weiner, even though he's not running any more; etc., etc.

And then there's the incessant parade of Bloomberg campaign literature showing up in my mailbox, and endless campaign telephone calls.

For Christ's sake, Bloomberg has already spent $65 million on the campaign, to Thompson's 3.8.

It's a serious distortion of democracy.

Posted by: southbrooklyn at October 7, 2009 10:27 AM in response to Prices Drop at the Oro Tower

I know those coops in Sunset Park. It's one bedroom, not two. Unless you use the living room as a bedroom.

Posted by: southbrooklyn at September 24, 2009 11:44 AM in response to Brooklyn Sales: Under a Million

you rock brooklyn greene

Posted by: southbrooklyn at September 24, 2009 10:01 AM in response to House of the Day: 526 Carlton Avenue

some freaking touchy comments on this thread! brooklyn loyalty is actually hilarious, and i say this as an extremely brooklyn-loyal person. manhattan is the center of the universe and brooklyn isn't -- i'm not ashamed to say it. come to think of it, brooklyn snobs are more annoying than manhattan snobs (and i say this as a tremendous brooklyn snob).

from a real estate perspective, the point the article is making remains -- manhattan and brooklyn are certainly part of the same market. sounds like an obvious point, but i definitely remember some arguing otherwise a year ago.

Posted by: southbrooklyn at September 21, 2009 10:05 AM in response to Monday Links

FSRQ SAID

Yet now the community needs a voice more than ever - an arena will prove to be an amazing asset to the boro, but only if done correctly - with little to no parking lots, commitments for a certain amount of public events (H.S Basketball, etc...) and coordination on scheduling to maximize public transportation usuage at the arena.

Hey, thanks for laying out just a few of the reasons many of us genreally PRO-DEVELOPENT people are ANTI-AY! These are PRECISELY some of the issues we have been raising that have NEVER been addressed by Forest City/ESDC/mayor/governor, etc, as regards AY. THERE ARE PARKING LOTS in the AY plan. There will be NO COMMUNITY ACCESS to the stadium. There is NO EFFECTIVE PLAN to make sure people take mass transit.

Bxgrl is exactly right -- if you think people from Canarsie and Mill Basin and Forest Hills and Jackson Heights and and and are all going to take the subway if they know THERE WILL BE PARKING, you are blindingly naive.

Posted by: southbrooklyn at September 18, 2009 1:21 PM in response to Russian Billionaire To Bail Out Ratner?

I don't think you should be aiming at 2007 prices! Nobody is going to pay today what was being paid in 2007. Plus, the location the previous posted mentioned -- 44th between 5th and 6th, is probably the most desirable in the neighborhood as it faces the park.

Posted by: southbrooklyn at September 15, 2009 8:49 PM in response to Sunset Park Brownstone Broker?

Actually, as an owner of a coop who might want to buy something bigger in the future, lower prices are to my advantage. Not while they are falling -- too much uncertainty -- but once they settle out. I'll be selling for less, but I will be saving even more on a larger place.

Posted by: southbrooklyn at September 11, 2009 1:32 PM in response to Open House Picks: Six Months Later

I join MM in being perplexed at Brownstoner's lament. Every week he seems heartbroken that HOTDs from 6 months ago haven't sold, or have sold well below ask. Why? Because realtors advertise on this site?

Posted by: southbrooklyn at September 11, 2009 1:03 PM in response to Open House Picks: Six Months Later

no, i don't get told -- ever -- that my child is out of control. i'm just sick and tired of the fact that childless people seem to feel no compunction whatsoever to rag on parents and to brag about how they would do a much better job. go ahead! have your own and show us how it's done. the parents of the world clearly need you to lead the way.

Posted by: southbrooklyn at August 20, 2009 9:53 AM in response to Wednesday Links

yup, the childless are full of opinions about how those of us with children should parent. really, it's rather entertaining. DIBS thinks it's all very simple -- just *don't let* your kid have a fit! Arkady thinks that because a child understands the meaning of the word "no" at a year and a half (and actually, if you had a kid, you would know that it's much earlier than that), it's a short step to having them listen and obey. bxgrl seems to think she deserves credit for the fact that her sister raised a couple of nice kids -- thanks to her amazing advice of "you're the parent"!

again, some of the moms in the article are quite silly, but they irk me far less than the ignorant opinionating of some of the people on this thread.

Posted by: southbrooklyn at August 19, 2009 2:57 PM in response to Wednesday Links

yeah, you can always find someone extremely silly to sound off on something like ice cream trucks. however, i also hate it when a vendor like that sets up shop inside the playground itself. the end result is melted ice cream all over the playground equipment and therefore all over your child, whether or not you bought any yourself.

also, the endless sounding off by people who don't have children about tough they would be if they had children -- really tiresome. don't you get even the slightest bit embarassed about pontificating on a subject about which you have no direct knowledge?

and all the braying about how great it was in the olden days when parents were hardass disciplinarians -- really? how did you know better than to throw a fit, insertsnappyname? b/c your mom beat the crap out of you? was that really so great?

Posted by: southbrooklyn at August 19, 2009 9:39 AM in response to Wednesday Links

"Tenant rights are in fact respected and protected by nyc law, and anyone who thinks they can outsmart the system by buying something cheap and then breaking the law to jack up the value is, well, gonna have to face the consequences."

Actually, this isn't entirely true. When tenants are poor and lack English, unscrupulous landlords have, over and over again, forced them out in order to renovate and greatly increase rents, in defiance of the laws that do protect tenants. The fact that this activity is so common place in NYC is WHY the anti-harassment law was passed in the first place.

http://www.villagevoice.com/2007-06-19/news/the-second-battle-of-bushwick/

Posted by: southbrooklyn at August 11, 2009 10:32 AM in response to Taking Over Rent-Stab Unit

Yum, I really like that house. If I could afford it, I would buy it. If I had it like that, I think I'd believe it was a good value at 1.3, especially b/c I'd be buying for the long haul. This is the really one of the best renos ever posted here.

Posted by: southbrooklyn at August 10, 2009 3:17 PM in response to House of the Day: 66 Clifton Place

pelham -- checked it out -- quite expensive actually.

Posted by: southbrooklyn at August 5, 2009 3:10 PM in response to House of the Day: 439 East 19th Street

area is among the least desirable in bed stuy. no convenient trains, far from fulton street, the only worse parts are those farther north and northeast, abutting broadway/bushwick avenue.

Posted by: southbrooklyn at August 5, 2009 1:49 PM in response to Foreclosure of the Week: 821 Greene Avenue

An area of architectural distinction (check out the old republican club on grand square, now senior housing i believe). Very short bike ride to Prospect Park and then on to Park Slope for your yuppie consumption needs, easy walk to Botanic Gardens, Brooklyn Museum. Not far from my favorite place for doubles. I would live here in a minute, were it not for concerns about the schools in this district. I'm afraid that's why it's affordable.

Posted by: southbrooklyn at August 4, 2009 5:16 PM in response to House of the Day: 638 Saint Marks Avenue

The widget strikes me as more of a game than as data worth parsing.

Posted by: southbrooklyn at July 29, 2009 9:27 AM in response to Widget Underprices for Third Straight Time

but why are you on brownstoner, MWG?

there are lots of reasons people prefer nj burbs over bklyn, but commuting can't be one of them. no way working with a train schedule is preferable to the subway. and just factually, the A from BS to columbus circle does not take an hour door to door, at least not at rush.

Posted by: southbrooklyn at July 22, 2009 3:32 PM in response to House of the Day: 176 Bainbridge Street

ah, one of my little pet issues -- burying the gowanus. that road is killer expensive to maintain because of being elevated -- and it's falling apart. i believe the current plan is simply to keep rebuilding what's there, forever, ie, it will never not be under repair. buried, roads need much less repair b/c not exposed to the elements, and it would be a cost effective move over the long term to bury that road -- amortized over some number of years, repairs taken into account, you come out ahead financially (as per a CUNY grad center study), plus greatly increase the value of waterfront property.

BUT -- it'll never happen.

Posted by: southbrooklyn at July 22, 2009 2:10 PM in response to Sunset Park Waterfront Vision Plan

the parents get a window but the kids live in very large closets? i have a kid and i would never, ever buy this place. good for a couple who both need home office space.

Posted by: southbrooklyn at July 22, 2009 1:56 PM in response to Condo of the Day: 30 Main Street, #4G

how about posting some properties of the day that are actually priced to sell

Posted by: southbrooklyn at July 21, 2009 9:14 PM in response to House of the Day: 455 Henry Street

perfectly nice apartment but another delusion seller who wants 50 percent more than s/he paid at the height of the market. watch it sit.

Posted by: southbrooklyn at July 21, 2009 4:32 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 34 Plaza Street East, #704

MM -- exactly. Which is why the bottom is a ways off -- sellers still very much holding out against serious price cuts.

Posted by: southbrooklyn at July 20, 2009 3:04 PM in response to It Pretty Much Sucks to be a Seller Right Now

The Rogerses should never have agreed to talk to this reporter. The reporter makes it clear they are complete asses, for reasons detailed above, esp. their decision to live in an even bigger apartment in Geneva than their (2000sf) place in Brooklyn, and to furnish it with credit card debt! If they want to sell in Brooklyn, it's going to be at a loss. Buyers are not looking for 2006 prices, they are looking for 04 prices. Why not take what you can get in rent since you have virtually no carrying costs? But no, they're going to sell it and -- what? live off the proceeds? Then what?

Posted by: southbrooklyn at July 20, 2009 2:39 PM in response to It Pretty Much Sucks to be a Seller Right Now

thanks brooklynnate -- exactly what i was wondering

Posted by: southbrooklyn at July 16, 2009 9:39 AM in response to Elliman: Brooklyn Market Improved in 2nd Quarter But...

Historically, what shape does the graph of the bursting of a real estate bubble look like? I mean, what percent off peak were prices in 1990? And what percent in 1993? Wouldn't this give you at least a rough prediction of what the curve should look like this time? On the way to what kind of bottom? Keeping in mind that the crash of 2008 and subsequent recession is already and will ikely be much worse than that of 1989-92.

Posted by: southbrooklyn at July 16, 2009 9:38 AM in response to Elliman: Brooklyn Market Improved in 2nd Quarter But...

Used to work in a supportive housing program two blocks from the Bed Stuy house at Throop and Kosciusko. I wouldn't especially want to live next to Tompkins Park -- pretty big drug vibe there. Kosciusko, two blocks north, is devastated -- quite a few vacant lots and collapsing wood frames. A few years ago someone built a "luxury" loft condo building at Dekalb off Throop. I wonder if those ever sold and for what. Dekalb is three blocks from this house's location.

Posted by: southbrooklyn at June 25, 2009 3:41 PM in response to Brooklyn Sales: Under a Million

4th Ave. is zoned for community service??? That can't be true. Link, denton?

Posted by: southbrooklyn at June 25, 2009 10:09 AM in response to It Came From 4th Ave: The Electryifying Conclusion!

Kensingtonian, I think I read recently that there are tax subsidies that encourage green roofs, for exactly that reason.

Posted by: southbrooklyn at June 24, 2009 11:02 AM in response to Try This Green(point) Roof on for Size

I live in Sunset Park and have a daughter now a toddler. Moved there before having her, before I really thought much about having kids at all. The parents I know in the neighborhood with school age children do stress about the schools, a stress which is somewhat alleviated by the fact that SSP is in District 15, which has a relatively large number of good elementary schools. (I wouldn't pick a nabe based on secondary schools, however -- a whole nother ball game and generally not at all a question of what zone or district you are in.) Parents I know in District 75 (if I recall correctly -- Fort Green/Clinton Hill/Prospect Hgts) are in a much tougher situation -- I would really hesitate to move into District 75 unless you can afford private, although of course that could change by the time your (prospective) children are school age.

Posted by: southbrooklyn at June 24, 2009 10:47 AM in response to Townhouse for $600k?

DIBS -- you seriously think your bed stuy brownstone is going to be worth more than you paid for it in 5-10 years? Really? Didn't you buy at the peak of the market? And you're expecting bed stuy real estate to regain all it's current and anticipated losses and outperform 2007 within 10 years? Sorry, but that is just delusional.

Posted by: southbrooklyn at June 18, 2009 3:24 PM in response to Bank Predicts NYC Market to Fall Another 40 Percent

northsloperenter writes:

"I'm sorry that some delivery-people are inconvenienced by this. There are solutions for this problem. For instance, a dedicated loading/unloading zone on every commercial block is a good idea."

Absurdly impractical.

"It disincentivizes private car use, which is clearly desirable"

If you take the cars out of Brooklyn, property values will go SPLAT.

******

Why is it "absurdly impractical" to have a dedicated loading zone on every commercial block? Wouldn't that do wonders to improve the flow of traffic of all kinds on 5th Ave., bicycle and car?

And why do you equate a disincentive to use a private car with taking cars out of Brooklyn? Who said we should take cars out of Brooklyn?

I'd bet that not a few of the cars parked on 5th Ave. belong to those who work on the avenue and that they are parked there all day. How would it cause property prices to "go SPLAT" if those folks were charged the going rate for commercial parking rather than a measly $4 a day? And if we charged more for parking on 5th, we would certainly reduce the number of people who choose to drive to their jobs on that strip and thus we would have room for both loading zones AND parking for people who drive there to shop etc.

Double parking on 5th Ave. makes traffic there a nightmare. It slows the buses down to a crawl. It creates potentially hazardous situations for pedestrians. It makes it more dangerous to ride your bike. Solving the delivery problem would vastly improve the experience for everybody. It clearly needs repeating that the problem of double parking isn't caused by the bike lane.

Finally, I'm pretty sure that Manhattan has some of the lowest rates of car ownership in the city. Funny how that hasn't made the property values there go splat.

Better streetscapes mean increased property values. A serious plan to address the dysfunctions of 5th Ave. is something all nearby owners should be hoping for.

Posted by: southbrooklyn at June 10, 2009 3:07 PM in response to CB6, Fifth Avenue BID Going After Bike Lane

The more I think about it, the more unbelievable it is that businesses are claiming the bike lane is interfering with deliveries! It's the business owners OWN CARS, illegally parked ALL DAY at meters that are blocking deliveries.

DIBS, ready to back away from your silly "I'm with the business owners on this one" comment?

Posted by: southbrooklyn at June 10, 2009 10:11 AM in response to CB6, Fifth Avenue BID Going After Bike Lane

What tyburg and slopenick said. What idiocy. There's no special fine for double parking in the bike lane. It's illegal to double park, period. Much higher meter prices would create curbside space for deliveries; no parking 8am-6pm on at least one side of the street would be another way to go. As it is, people just feed the meter all day -- ALSO illegal -- hell, it only costs $4 to park for eight hours on 5th ave., why not. 5th ave is a hellish drive because of all the double parking -- has not a freaking thing to do with the bike lane.

Posted by: southbrooklyn at June 10, 2009 10:07 AM in response to CB6, Fifth Avenue BID Going After Bike Lane

why is this important?

Posted by: southbrooklyn at June 10, 2009 10:00 AM in response to Cobble Hill or Carroll Gardens?

"Bikes are not the future. Bikes are for healthy energetic people."

Of course, encouraging biking (as well as walking) creates healthy energetic people. Bicycle ridership has risen dramatically in NYC in recent years, while injuries to cyclists have fallen. Safety in numbers. Other cities in the USA and around the world have successfully dramatically increased the number of biking commuters as part of comprehensive transportation reform away from automobiles. There's no reason NYC cannot do the same.

But the cranky shall remain cranky. Why not -- it's kind of fun to rant, isn't it?

Posted by: southbrooklyn at June 9, 2009 1:11 PM in response to Time Limit to Bike Parking?

bicycles are part of the solution to cars, rob. you seem to be annoyed that people need a way to get around. i understand you get around well on all fours, but that's just not for everybody.

Posted by: southbrooklyn at June 9, 2009 11:09 AM in response to Time Limit to Bike Parking?

bicycles are part of the solution to cars, rob. you seem to be annoyed that people need a way to get around. i understand you get around well on all fours, but that's just not for everybody.

Posted by: southbrooklyn at June 9, 2009 11:09 AM in response to Time Limit to Bike Parking?