Developers Bend Rules and Screw Buyers
We’re supposed to be focusing on other things this week, but wanted to make sure everyone saw Sunday’s article about the C of O quagmire that the buyers of new condos on Spencer Street between Willoughby and Dekalb in Bed Stuy are now in. While this is a disaster for the purchasers who are the…
We’re supposed to be focusing on other things this week, but wanted to make sure everyone saw Sunday’s article about the C of O quagmire that the buyers of new condos on Spencer Street between Willoughby and Dekalb in Bed Stuy are now in. While this is a disaster for the purchasers who are the unwitting victims, we’re glad to see that developers are getting called to task for pulling a bait-and-switch tactic that we drew attention to back in July.
In our post on the South 3rd Street development in Williamsburg, we described how developers will apply to build extra square footage on the premise that it will be used to serve a community purpose (like housing for a religious or educational institution) and then when the project is built the community group will mysteriously not need the space anymore and the developer will sell it on the open market. This has been particularly prevalent in Williamsburg and its environs but obviously it has been happening elsewhere as well.
In this particular case, the villains are a group of developers including Mendel Brach, Moshe Oknin and Moshe Roth and their accomplice is architect Henry Radusky (who has won everyone’s respect and admiration with his pillaging of the South Slope). So now the buyers, who were able to close and get mortgages when the buildings received temporary C of O’s, are stuck in the strange position of being unable to sell their units because the DOB won’t grant permanent C of O’s. Personally, we think the developers should be forced to reimburse everyone for the purchase price plus other incurred expenses and hardship. Then they should be tried criminally. What scum bags.
Do people know of other specific incidents of developers pulling this crap? Let’s out them if we can. Maybe the papers will pick it up.
Caught in the Twilight Zone [NY Times]
South 3rd Street Development [Brownstoner]
More Trouble at Radusky Site [Brownstoner]
Work Officially Stopped on 15th Street [Brownstoner]
Selling condos before a final CO is issued is pretty standard in NY. However, that means that the buyers (and financers) need to be diligent in making sure that the property they are buying *can* get a CO.
I would be very wary about buying anything the developers group is marketing. I have heard that almost any building they are involved with will have problems ie: being auditied, no c of o’s, shoddy work. I think a group of people from the Spencer are starting a lawsuit against them for fraud. The developers group are a bunch of extremely unethical lowlifes and should have their license removed to build or sell anything in New York.. BUYERS BEWARE!!!
“And suppose I own the property from before the regulations were enacted,
You’ve been holding property since before 1916?!?
“would you agree that the restrictions are harmful toward my property interests? Would you then agree that impostions of any sort is unethical, since it is no less than legalized theft?”
I would not. There is a place for the interests of the community as a whole outweighing the interests of the individual property owner. That is where reasonable regulations on zoning, environmental preservation, open space retention and historic preservation have a place.
From the sounds of it, Iceberg would object to even reasonable regulations. For the rest of us, the question is what constitutes a reasonable regulation (taking) in the name of community interest.
“Buying an [condo] knowing that [developers can lie], doesn’t in any way justify the actions of the [developer] who [screws you].”
I think your iPod analogy is more apt for the situation we’re discussing here than it is for your position on takings.
“Pretend you could get an extra floor by having a chicken farm in your building, and there is no requirement for how long you have it, what constitutes a chicken, etc. Would it be wrong to file for the chicken extension and then to close your “farm” on day 1? Would that be illegal? It certainly goes against the “spirit” of the law, which is to encourage chicken farmers – but is it illegal? I doubt it.”
Josh K, it would be wrong and it would be illegal. It is fraud. I am a lawyer and I was being sarcastic when I said that your argument about resorting to the “tort system” were well thought out. And by the way, the developers will most likely be sued not just pursuant to NY State tort (case) law, but most likely also for breach of contract depending on what the sale agreement that the condo owners signed says about the CofO etc.
In any event, knowingly filing plans for faculty occupied housing in order to get around square footage restrictions, while having no intention of housing any faculty, would be fraud, for which the developers could be sued (for fraud) and would potentially have to pay treble (triple) damages to the aggrieved party. The fraud would have to be proven, but that’s what the article makes it smell like. Who knows though, there may be more to the story.
“Pretend you could get an extra floor by having a chicken farm in your building, and there is no requirement for how long you have it, what constitutes a chicken, etc. Would it be wrong to file for the chicken extension and then to close your “farm” on day 1? Would that be illegal? It certainly goes against the “spirit” of the law, which is to encourage chicken farmers – but is it illegal? I doubt it.”
this from a man who is running for office
Economics is a religion not a science and Josh and Iceberg are obviously of the evangelical kind.
The purely philosophical nature of their ideas tend to fail in the real world where the assumptions upon assumptions regarding consumer access to information and “rational” (economic or otherwise) consumer or supplier behavior do not hold up or at the least are not as predictable as in their theoretical models.
It’s just tiresome…really.
this from a man who is running for office
For info go to Brownstoner Home page and scroll down to Dept. of Buildings Site in right hand gutter. Click on B.I.S. Building Information System…enter buildings info. Once the building comes up scroll down to “plans and permits” or to “Actions” or to anything you’re interested in. You can check Property shark as well to cross reference.
If you want to know how to really see whats what, you can go down town to check the folder at DoB which will have such things as the actual plans, copies of phony leases, etc. This stuff is all part of the public record. Just walk up to the window and give them the block and lot number of the building you want to see. While you are there check out the pathetic existence of the ‘Expeditor’.
The housing bubble is about to burst, so I think we won’t have to worry too much more about new condo developments coming online, whether from decent developers or not. Fast forward a few months and I think future posts will be more along the lines of “how can we remove the remnants of abandoned condo projects? They’re an eyesore to Brooklyn.”