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]
I’m the 10:53 poster (girl?). Yes, if anyone is able to give info on how to look up permits/drawings etc., I’d be more than happy to hear it.
To the 11:16 poster, what’s interesting is the building *I’m* referring to is apparently intended to be built by the same people you’re talking about– the ones who built the restaurant in the “community group” space and then added a boring club below it.
To everyone making excuses for developers attempting to get around the law: they know what they’re doing wrong; they’re simply hoping not to get caught. Robbing a bank and getting away with it 9 times is not “setting precedent”– it’s breaking the law. Getting caught the 10th time is not the law being unfair. It’s the *law* being exactly that.
And of course the Department of Buildings has people who can be (and actively are) bought. I hope that doesn’t suprise anyone here. The question is what to do about it. I wonder what would happen if they were all suddenly replaced with the Landmarks Commission, heh heh… then nothing would be built in NYC ever again! (And, okay, this would be terrible.)
JoshK, remind me again how zoning resolutions push up the cost of housing? And what are those strong arguments that zoning is unethical?
Would it be ‘ethical’ to put up a hazardous waste site next to a housing project? Presumably without unlying zoning regulations such an (admittedly extreme) example would be allowable.
This is unreal. It’s about time the city cracks down on these developers. Here’s a thought: I wonder if the owners could get their mortgage company’s involved somehow. They are also at risk since they technically own the units.
Iceberg,
I don’t agree with your world view, but good for you, never the less, for trying to get the law changed. We need more people involved in the political process in this city. Until you get those laws changed however, follow them or be prepared for the consequences.
As far as bringing up Goodwin’s Law. I did it not to refute economic law, but as a reminder that comparing DOB bureaucrats to those who murdered millions of innocent people and started a horrific world war might tend to distract from your argument just a tad. I hope you will at least consider this point for a little while before responding.
I’m baffled by the description of restrictions to what can or cannot be built on a particular property as ‘unethical’ – as a previous poster noted, the restrictions were certainly in place when the property was purchased, so the owner/developer should have known the rules of the game. While I can understand that someone might object to zoning regulations, to seek to characterize them as unethical is a bit of a stretch.
Furthermore, there seems to be tendency here to justify what appears to be a fairly blatant gaming of the system under the noble guise that it is providing additional low-income housing. Zoning resolutions and quality low-income housing are not mutually exclusive, and lack of zoning sure ain’t gonna guarantee you abundant, quality low-come housing.
I’m baffled by the description of restrictions to what can or cannot be built on a particular property as ‘unethical’ – as a previous poster noted, the restrictions were certainly in place when the property was purchased, so the owner/developer should have known the rules of the game. While I can understand that someone might object to zoning regulations, to seek to characterize them as unethical is a bit of a stretch.
Furthermore, there seems to be tendency to justify what appears to be a fairly blatant gaming of the system under the noble guise that is providing additional low-income housing. Zoning resolutions and quality low-income housing are not mutually exclusive, and lack of zoning sure ain’t gonna guarantee you abundant, quality low-come housing.
“As far as what they did with the zoning, it appears that they were very agressive, but within the law. They got the variance b/c of a school’s involvement. The school canceled their interest.”
Its an agressive game which is played over and over – to the disadvantage of developers who work on the up-and-up (yes, they do exist – I know quite a few). There is ongoing litigation in the East Village over a similar bait-and-switch by developers.
The community facility bonus is another area rife with abuse – there are loads of newly constructed vacant storefronts in Williamsburg and elsewhere which were constructed in order to get a density bonus.
If a developer applies for a bonus based on the community facility or dormitory loopholes, knowing that they have no intention of following the law, they should be held accountable. (So too should the architect, since he/she is signing the plans.)
“Most disturbing here is the undertone. That someone who aggressively works within the system to create more housing is called greedy. And then they are called villains!”
If they hurt people in the process, then yes, they deserve to be called villains.
“Unfortunately in this era developers resort to deception in order to skirt what I consider harmful, and asinine zoning regulations. And at least lying in this case equates to cheaper housing for everyone.”
“³ They are stuck without a (permanent) CO because of bureaucrats who refuse to give them, not because the building doesn’t meet safety or quality standards.”
A) If you consider it so harmful and asinine, get the law changed. Until then, its not up to the developers to skirt the law in the name of some supposed higher purpose. They are stuck without a CO because the developers lied in the permit application – why should the government be compelled to sign off on a project when the developer lied (I mean skirted the law)? Oh, right, I forgot: you don’t like the law.
B) Cheaper for housing for everyone except the poor saps who bought into this project – their property is unmarketable because of the actions of the developer (not the government).
“² Where does it mention anywhere that this project was shoddily built?”
In the article.
Iceberg, it’s not like being robbed, the zoning restrictions were in place when the property was purchased, no surprises.
re: i hate henry fan club post
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
If this clown Radusky has been doing the old switcheroo project after project, someone at DoB is clearly in on it. The question is: now that it’s public knowledge, will anyone do anything to stop it?
As for the shoddy eyesores that have already been built — you can’t un-ring the bell. Hopefully these jokers will be sued out of business.
Also, it’s very sad that people would misuse so-called religious organizations for this purpose, even worse if these groups are actually complicit in this scam.