Thursday Links

Yes, I was a shareholder in a coop, and they fixed a lot of plumbing behind my walls and the floor of my shower. I was responsible for paint and tile. I can imagine a coop that would replace a wood floor with another type of flooring.

K, I’d argue that you are wrong @4:01, and perhaps Mopar (to a point).

You cannot refuse the coop from entering. Remember, as a shareholder, you are still a renter, you rent from the corp under the proprietary lease. The lease will certainly give the coop the right to enter under certain terms, ie, normal business hours, advance notice, etc. And most definitely to make repairs needed by the building.

Mopar, normally the corp is not required to replace surface and decorative finishes like paint and tile, but they would be required to replace walls and floors. However this is a very tricky issue, and the courts might find otherwise here. Normally this arises when there is a flood or fire. The board replaces the walls, floors, etc and the shareholder has to add wallpaper, paint, tile, etc. They apply to their homeowner’s insurance for that.

I’m more in agreement with K @10:16. Why would the board risk a legal battle and all its attendant ill feelings with a shareholder who has a point? They should step up to the plate and do the right thing for this shareholder. They also should look into doing something about the base problem, digging out the foundation, raising the floor and making an entry hatch, something.

But it was a superficial article from a real rag, so there’s probably a lot more than meets the eye.

I live in a co-op and serve on a board of the same one and I’ll argue that both bridges and mopar are wrong on this. Either one of you live or ever lived in one or served on a board of one to argue your points?

Actually, if I refuse to have co-op enter, I can do that. If there is flooding and a potential for fire and lives are at risk, then fire department can break down my door but if I don’t want to let workers enter my apartment, I have every right to do that and the co-op can’t do squat about that.

What’s fishy about the poor woman in Bay Ridge? It sounds entirely plausible. Coops have the right to enter shareholders’ apartments to work on building plumbing. They are not required to replace surface finishes such as floors and walls at all. That is the shareholder’s responsibility.

Unfortunately, this building has no basement (incredible) and so this apartment has the unfortunate drawback of having to have its floors removed every time the building works on plumbing. Completely crazy.

Since she doesn’t want to move, the best solution would be to sell the apartment to the building and buy another unit in the same building.

ok, seriously it looks like they have good intentions on the surface — 20MM for 400 units is only 50K each, hardly enough to move a real high end condo, so I think the word “luxury” in the title is misleading.

But if I were waiting for the inevitable 50K price drop on a 400K pad in crown heights, and the city decided to essentially just go ahead and pay it, and give the place away in a lottery, I’d be pissed. That 50K is MY money in that scenario, because now the developer will not let go similar apartments for less than that 400K. Not to mention the fact that my own income and sales taxes are paying for it.