1) What John pays the landlord is none of your business... Your agreement is with John, not the landlord.

2) Pay what John says, or leave.

It's that simple.

I'm sure John has his own perspective, he probably put money up front and perhaps built the place out.

Obviously there's some reason you're not simply going a renting your own place and finding people to move in. It's a big in the ass. John probably feels he can rightly be compensated for this.

If you disagree, move. But why go causing troubles for this guy?

Posted by: streber at November 4, 2009 2:00 PM in response to Sublet/Share Legal Issue

"please feel free to post your address so a few of us can park ourselves outside your bedroom windows for a fortnight while blaring music through some speakers."

Visit Ocean Avenue & Parkside. Let's see if your system can compete with the others in the neighborhood.

I doubt it.

Posted by: streber at September 28, 2009 2:42 PM in response to Noise Recourse?

"It would suck to have to spend $50K on soundproof windows..."

50K? Exaggerate much?

Posted by: streber at September 28, 2009 12:12 PM in response to Noise Recourse?

@wine lover:

"another day, another story of people with zero morals/ethics in NYC."

Are you confusing unlawful with unethical?

Please explain.

Posted by: streber at September 11, 2009 5:11 PM in response to DOB Vacates 400 South Second

One more thing: The other weakest point will be your doors. Get solid core doors and read up on ways to make them close properly... we built them in such a way that the doors compress against foam making a nice seal when they are closed.

And don't forget ventilation! That's a tough one :)

Posted by: streber at September 11, 2009 4:57 PM in response to Soundproofing Cost

I did this... and I _think_ it cost under 7,000 (I did all the labor). I stopped keeping track at around 5.

What I did:
Two sets of walls that don't meet each other.
The walls are triple thick (5/8" drywall - 1/2" sound stop - 5/8" drywall).
The walls are 10" apart, with pink stuff in between.
All walls that meet are seperated by 1/4" neoprene.
Each layer is FULLY sealed (drywall is mudded, soundstop is caulked)
I had put a subfloor down that the inner wall rests on, the outer walls rest on the natural floor.
I floated a false floor (1/2" plywood - 1/2"soundstop -5/8 drywall - 1/2" plywood all sandwiched together) which sits on 2" neoprene rubber blocks inside the soundroom.
I carpeted with 2 layers of carpet felt (NOT foam!) underneath.

Important points:
-If you are going to have low bass waves, the total thickness of your walls needs to be at least 8". Bass waves are long.
-sound waves easily transfer, isolate with neoprene (I cut 4" strips of neoprene for the edges of the walls where they meet).
-seal everything! Think of sound as water... if water could leak out, sound will get out.
-In my opinion, the floors are the toughest... a drummer is still pounding on the floor with the kick drum, and that is tough to mitigate. I sometimes consider building another drum riser to further separate.
- it is preferable to set your walls on the floating floor... my room was too big to engineer this well.
- lots of resources out there... perhaps start with messageboard.tapeop.com

I'd agree that not having anyone below is a BIG plus. I would carefully consider what is there already... if I did the same work in a fully concrete building (we have wood floors) my results would have been even better.

It's great to play drums whenever you want and not have any complaints!

Good luck!

Posted by: streber at September 11, 2009 4:54 PM in response to Soundproofing Cost

I love seperated bike lanes!

Posted by: streber at August 10, 2009 5:49 PM in response to Closing Bell: Sands Street Bike Lane Opens

"There are other crime statistics besides "homocides"

That would be the one i would be least concerned about actually."

Well, I'd venture to guess that areas with more homicides have more narcotics issues, etc... However I don't have those stats.

If you've got a map with other crime statistics, let's see it.

"Was that deliberate, given the previous conversation?"

huh?

Posted by: streber at June 23, 2009 4:42 PM in response to Development Watch: 277 Gold Street

Why not check the Nytimes homocide map?:
http://projects.nytimes.com/crime/homicides/map

Whitman houses (about a block away) seem worse than Farragut.

Posted by: streber at June 23, 2009 4:23 PM in response to Development Watch: 277 Gold Street

Besides the projects, the low quality of life in this building doesn't end once you get inside.

You've got the smells and sounds of the BQE on three sides, the fire department across the street, and mcdonalds.

It will be fun watching crowds of pedestrians crossing Tillary and Flatbush every morning once this thing fills up.

Posted by: streber at June 23, 2009 4:16 PM in response to Development Watch: 277 Gold Street

Now I guess we have to tear down everything on Myrtle Ave too, right?

http://www.brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2009/06/fourstory_build.php

It's hilarious that people here insinuate that the collapse of this building posed any danger at all to people on the street... You did notice they left the front face of the building standing, right?

Preserve Admirals Row. In 30 years you can have something beautiful, or you can have a retail nightmare.

Posted by: streber at June 22, 2009 10:26 AM in response to Admirals Row House Collapses from Water Damage

"the suggestion to leave the building alone is idiotic."

Go tell that The National Guard, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Navy Yard Corporation who have done just that for the last 40 years.

Posted by: streber at June 19, 2009 1:30 PM in response to Admirals Row House Collapses from Water Damage

It's also surprising that P Heights has intimate knowledge of the fire in this building, but fails to mention it when he uses the collapse of this building as evidence for the condition of the others.

Posted by: streber at June 19, 2009 12:42 PM in response to Admirals Row House Collapses from Water Damage

"I actually stood on flushing avenue that cold january day and watched the NYFD put out the fire in that building. DId you? I doubt it."

No, I didn't... because I don't work at the Navy Yard. But I do recall how amazing the building looked later in the day after all of the water had turned to icicles and the building
looked like a big ice castle.

I would think the substantial water and ice damage could have also contributed to this building's accelerated deterioration.

If no-one has any profit motive, and they are too expensive to repair, why not simply leave them be?

But the important piece remains. The state of this building in no way reflects the state of the others. This building was damaged by a fire.

Posted by: streber at June 19, 2009 12:37 PM in response to Admirals Row House Collapses from Water Damage

It's quite clear from all of P Heights comments (if you look back in his history) that he is associated with, and likely works for, the Navy Yard Corporation.

The Navy Yard Corporation saw the success of the Fairway in Red Hook and banking on the political impotence of the poor people in the neighborhood saw a way to make money by tearing down these buildings situated in a very automobile accessible area.

This building's collapse says nothing about the structural integrity of the others. This building suffered very significant damage in a major fire.

Posted by: streber at June 19, 2009 11:41 AM in response to Admirals Row House Collapses from Water Damage

100 feet away? Have you ever even been to Flushing Avenue?

Somehow the windows lasted from 1966-2008... and in the last year they all fell out.

I've been going past these buildings every day for the last 8 years. This particular building has been deteriorating MUCH quicker than the others since the fire.

There's lots of pictures from inside these buildings. Some of the ones that haven't suffered major fires are in pretty good shape.

What's your motivation P Heights?

I'll tell you mine. These buildings are an amazing aesthetic asset to the neighborhood.

What's your motivation?

Posted by: streber at June 19, 2009 11:19 AM in response to Admirals Row House Collapses from Water Damage

To further illustrate the accelerated deterioration this _particular_ building had been experiencing....

A pic from November 2008:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/danmechanic/3048778062/

And then a pic from April 2009:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tomvu/3433805927/

Notice that in 6 months all of the upstairs windows are gone? (particularly the upper-right one?)

Posted by: streber at June 19, 2009 11:05 AM in response to Admirals Row House Collapses from Water Damage

Here's a pic of that building from 2005:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/callalillie/3000048/

This picture, taken of this building probably a year or so after it suffered a major fire, gives a hint at the damage this building suffered during the fire.

You can clearly see this buildings facade and roof damage.

A building with no roof after 4 or 5 years... sure, something is going to happen. Similarly, a store collapsed just a few blocks away on Cumberland and Park a few years back when the adjacent building was left without a roof for a few years. Also that historic building on Clark street in BH left without a roof...

Again, this building's lack of structural integrity has no bearing on the others.

I had actually commented several times to one of my neighbors about how this particular building seemed to be deteriorating exponentially faster than the others since the fire. It genuinely appeared as if people had been in the building kicking out windows and walls.

Posted by: streber at June 19, 2009 10:47 AM in response to Admirals Row House Collapses from Water Damage

This particular building had a major fire a few winters back.

That is why it has no facade... the facade fell off in the fire.

The structural integrity of this building does not represent the others.

Posted by: streber at June 19, 2009 10:27 AM in response to Admirals Row House Collapses from Water Damage

Wow. There's room here for 223 rentals, 102 co-ops or Condo, 23 4-story 2-family townhomes and 95 supportive housing units... but they need to tear down Admirals Row to make space for a supermarket???

No need for on-site parking? In an area nowhere near a train?

With a major supermarket and all this new housing...

I guess we'll just have to tear down a bunch more historical stuff to make room for parking garages.

Posted by: streber at June 12, 2009 10:49 AM in response to CB2 Recap: Navy Green, 470 Vanderbilt Green-lighted

"Salary for independent bookstore clerk -- $8/hour.

Salary for Barnes & Noble or Borders' clerk -- $12, plus benefits even for part-time."

And so what is the motivation to be an independent bookstore clerk?

Because you actually love books, and you want to share that.

The fact that the staff are there because they love books is exactly why shopping at Greenlight will be a more satisfying experience than shopping at a place where the clerks are simply there to punch a clock.

Posted by: streber at June 3, 2009 11:47 AM in response to Greenlight Bookstore Location Revealed!

I think it's great that these people decided to take a risk and displace a much younger demographic.

Posted by: streber at June 1, 2009 10:40 AM in response to New Jersey Couple Opts for McCarren Views

Peace and quiet is an expensive commodity in NYC, as are most things.

I find it amusing that there's clearly a deficiency in the way your building has been built:

"I had no idea about the lack of soundproofing and had no idea we were making ANY noise. From that point on, she came up or left a note about once a week about our perceived "noise." Often, she claimed we were making noise at a time when we were asleep! Every time we drop something on the floor (which is rare), she bangs on her ceiling."

...but instead of addressing that, you are trying to change your neighbor.

Yes, soundproofing your place will be expensive, but it's your building that is deficient... (and perhaps your belief that just because you want peace and quiet, everyone does).

Start by gifting your neighbor with some speaker isolation stands, and neoprene rubber blocks...

@squaredrive: you can't find a solution? Soundproofing is a well-understood science.

Posted by: streber at April 23, 2009 5:06 PM in response to Excessive Noise in a Co-op?

Actually, I'm a pretty good neighbor...

I can play drums at 2 in the morning and my neighbors won't ever know it because I do it in a sound-proofed a room.

"Soundproofing has to be done on the side making the noise to work, not the offendee's side of the wall. "

traditionalmod clearly knows nothing about soundproofing. Believe me, when I am in my soundproof room, I cannot hear my neighbors.

...and if you think I'm mean spirited, you're wrong. I just understand that 1) many buildings are poorly built and let too much 'normal' noise transfer and 2) good fences make good neighbors.

You can go around trying to change everyone and getting yourself upset, but guess what? Some people make noise (babies, people wearing clogs, people who like loud music, etc) ... and to a certain extent they should be allowed to. That's why you have 'quiet hours', which your neighbor seems to respect.

It's called being pragmatic. If you did a bit of work to your place, you will _never_ have this problem again and you won't have to worry about trying to change people who live differently than you.

or do what 'MAT' says... start a tenant war over nonsense.

Posted by: streber at April 23, 2009 3:06 PM in response to Excessive Noise in a Co-op?

"She almost always turns off the music by 10 pm"

Sounds to me that although this person is living in accordance with her own values, and not yours, she is being respectful. The co-op has quiet hours and your neighbor respects them.

She probably doesn't like you because you moved into the building and get all involved in peoples business. This is a disease. When I'm listening to loud music, that's what I want to be doing, not chatting with annoying neighbors.

You own? So, why don't you soundproof your place? You moved into a building with people likely above, below, and on both sides of you. This requires patience and tolerance to live happily.

Posted by: streber at April 23, 2009 10:26 AM in response to Excessive Noise in a Co-op?

"Wallabout" is realtor marketing baloney.

Sure, I know, "Wallabout Bay" and "Wallabout Market", but that was much further east than this house, and using 'Wallabout' as a moniker for this neighborhood has only occurred in the last few years (unless you go way back). This is fort greene, although most neighborhood maps put the border of fort greene at Park Ave, and this house is on the other side.

They say 'Wallabout' because they don't want you to think "Across from the Walt Whitman houses", or "under the BQE".

Posted by: streber at April 17, 2009 3:33 PM in response to Open House Picks

Worst Location. BQE on three sides! Across from the sirens of the NYFD! McDonalds! Projects!

Also, horribly ugly yellow brick.

Posted by: streber at April 10, 2009 5:55 PM in response to Development Watch: 277 Gold Street

Why are they putting a supermarket there?

There nothing beautiful to tear down first.

Posted by: streber at April 1, 2009 11:09 AM in response to From the Ashes of the Associated Comes Concord Market

Awful location, BQE on 2 sides, fire station and mcdonalds.

And the new parts they're adding. ugly. ugly. ugly.

Great for people who like fumes, noise, and a congested walk to the subway.

Posted by: streber at February 19, 2009 3:31 PM in response to Development Watch: 235 and 277 Gold Street

InsertSnappyNameHere...

If you think that's ridiculous; I don't have access to my basement, but Coned had once put a 50 (FIFTY) dollar charge on my bill for not providing access to them. I am a tenant, only the landlord has access.

The charge, after several lengthy frustrating phone calls, was removed.

I've gotten negative bills.

They apparently don't have the tech to simply drive by my building.

Posted by: streber at January 8, 2009 3:48 PM in response to Higher Charges for Charges

Anyone else think it's kind of ridiculous that it's 2009 and coned still sends (presumably decently paid) human beings around the city to look at analog meters?

Posted by: streber at January 8, 2009 12:48 PM in response to Higher Charges for Charges

I guess the cops have nothing to do ever since they caught the Times Square bomber...

oh, wait a sec.

Posted by: streber at November 21, 2008 11:52 AM in response to Stoop Drinking Still Illegal

I don't think the developers are clueless, however that IS a horrible, horrible location.

The BQE is basically on three sides AND there's a firehouse across the street. The McDonalds and the traffic on Tillary is not a big plus either.

The developers aren't clueless, they're just counting on buyers to be.

Posted by: streber at August 5, 2008 12:25 PM in response to Development Watch: 277 Gold Street

@billyboomer:

If you are driving into Brooklyn on the Manhattan bridge, provided you are taking the outer roadway, you can:

1) Take the second exit ( a nicely hidden exit before Tillary that puts you at a light on Jay St ).
2) Left Onto Jay
3) Left Onto Tillary

Posted by: streber at July 21, 2008 6:59 PM in response to Checking In On the Adams Street Bike Lane

" so yeah finally i looked at the lease (which was on a shelf in the common area) to confirm that i knew what the amount was (initially he had left his rent check out before sending to the LL and i was like, that can NOT be the whole amount!? but it was...)"

This story keeps changing. If John was trying to conceal that he was profiting from your rent, why oh why would he leave the lease on a shelf in a common area and leave his rent check out??? [Buzzer sounds] Next contestant, please!

Posted by: CarrollGardened at November 4, 2009 2:49 PM in response to Sublet/Share Legal Issue

carroll go back and read the posts. he denied overcharging the rent. he probably just got a little lazy.

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at November 4, 2009 3:09 PM in response to Sublet/Share Legal Issue

it doesnt matter he OVERcharged. it was agreed to that youd pay 700 dollars a month, doesnt MATTER that he was paying less. at ALL. and maly your scenario is completely ridiculous and doesnt relate to this issue at all.

*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at November 4, 2009 3:11 PM in response to Sublet/Share Legal Issue

if the 4 of you are paying $2800/month to him, why does he have $5000 in security deposit? did he make you all pay more than 1 month's security?

Posted by: CG_ups at November 4, 2009 3:25 PM in response to Sublet/Share Legal Issue

*rob* sounds like you would do the same to your friends?

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at November 4, 2009 3:30 PM in response to Sublet/Share Legal Issue

That was my guess, CG_ups. First and last month's, plus $400 for something.

Posted by: CarrollGardened at November 4, 2009 3:30 PM in response to Sublet/Share Legal Issue

$400 is for chips and margarita mix, but, sadly, not the tequila.

Posted by: antidope at November 4, 2009 3:35 PM in response to Sublet/Share Legal Issue

he made us pay "1 month rent + $500" as a security deposit. so he has actually $4800 of our money if you want me to be specific.

last year he said i could have a copy of the lease if i wanted, and so i said ok i would like one. then anytime i'd ask him to pony it up, he would say he didn't know where it was. (we have a lot of shelves/common space in our loft and much of it is cluttered with his shit, so he would just motion toward the shared office area and say "it's in there somewhere".) i finally just rifled through some of the shelves one day, and found it in an envelope marked "lease."

the day that i saw the rent check, he had left it on the kitchen table and ran out to get stamps or something (to mail it to the LL). since we all have office jobs, and he quit his (since he has like no expenses) i assume he didn't realize i was home sick that day and that i saw it when i woke up.

this has become insane. i was just wondering if we had recourse to take over the lease since he pretty much moved out so long ago. guess not. thanks to those of you who are understanding of how stressful it is to live with a greedy sociopath.

Posted by: mightierthanswords at November 4, 2009 3:49 PM in response to Sublet/Share Legal Issue

main reason that we don't all pack up and leave is that he has $5000 in security deposit money from us that i know he will try and find any way not to return.

You were never getting that money back from John. You think a guy who's done this to you won't find some pretext to keep more of your money?

If I've got this right, when you moved in he told you the rent was $3500 per month and it would be split equally? Or he told you you paid 1/5 of the rent, which was $700 (same difference).

Well, then, since the rent was only $3000, that means you were overpaying your agreed-upon share by $175 per month before the new roommate moved in. And since the new roommate moved in, you've been overpaying by $200.

So, stop paying him.

I'd tell him that since there is a new roommate, you will be paying 1/6 of the $3,000 rent from this point forward ($500 a month), and that he should take the first however many months out of your security deposit, and the next however many months out of your overpayments to date. If he comes back at you, don't negotiate, don't explain, don't discuss, this is just how it is. Give him a lot of "I'm so sorry you feel that way. I felt pretty terrible when I found out I'd been overpaying for so many months." And then just say nothing.

He mis-represented the terms of a contract that is probably unenforceable anyway. It doesn't matter how you found out he was lying. Blah blah blah, don't get sucked into his drama. Just, these are your terms. And if he gets all "and if I don't accept your terms," just say "I'm sorry." And hang up. It's not your job to solve his problem of not liking the fact you'll be paying him less, and only start paying him again after your overpayments/security have brought you back to an even balance.

Tell your roommates you are doing this, as an FYI. If they want to do it, too, be supportive of them. But do this with or without them. But be clear that this is between you and John, it's John's name on the lease, it's HIS problem (not theirs) to find the money to pay.

He will undoubtedly try to get you out of there. But odds are, he would have tried to get you out of there anyway since you're the pesky troublemaker who exposed his scam.

Remove all your valuables from the apartment NOW. Put some clothes at a friend's house where you could crash for awhile if he changes the locks. Make sure none of the utilities, etc are in your name. Have a plan for what to do if you come home to find the locks changed. Get all illegal substances out of your place (pot, whatever) in case he calls the cops. Change the password of all your accounts to something that's hard to hack.

And start looking for a new place. If this works out and he doesn't give you a hard time, once you've lived there long enough that all the overpayments are even, ask yourself if you want to live in this place for $500 a month, given the trust situation with John. If the answer is no, start looking for a new place.

But under no circumstances does John get any more of your money until the balance comes even.

Posted by: bkrules at November 4, 2009 3:50 PM in response to Sublet/Share Legal Issue

I think the issue is black and white. You all agreed to pay what he was asking. It doesn't matter what he is/was paying.

If I felt an item is worth $100 and I buy it for $100, do I have the right to to get my money back if I found out someone else bought it for $20? No.

I still agree that "John" is a douche... AND he is the one who has his credit at risk here. If you want to stick it to him, you have the option.

Posted by: mrkknox at November 4, 2009 3:55 PM in response to Sublet/Share Legal Issue