Ratner's Heavy Hand Cuts Both Ways
Concern over the scale of the proposed Atlantic Yards development and the use of eminent domain tend to dominate the discussion, and rightfully so. However, what is often overlooked is how well a few people did in their buyouts. At 636 Pacific Street (photo), for example, The Times reports that most people received more than…
Concern over the scale of the proposed Atlantic Yards development and the use of eminent domain tend to dominate the discussion, and rightfully so. However, what is often overlooked is how well a few people did in their buyouts. At 636 Pacific Street (photo), for example, The Times reports that most people received more than twice what they paid only a year or so earlier. “We got a premium on this lemon of a building that turned into a great investment for us,” said Mark Klein, the former president of the condominium board. The last hold-out at 636 is DDDB’s Dan Goldstein, who’s reportedly facing condemnation by the state if he doesn’t play ball. Renters, however, have had their lives disrupted often with only a few thousand dollars in compensation.
In other Ratner news, Bruce gets a shout-out in the new theme song rap for the Nets:
    We brought Kidd from the Suns/Vince from the Raptors
    Elite in East/Since Erving was in the rafters
    Check the skybox/Blackberry active
    Making transactions/ It’s Bruce Ratner.
Cringe.
Some Find Greener Grass [NY Times]
A Rap for Nets Owner [NY Post]
I bash the pro-AY position, generally not the pro-AY person and I do not “avoid the issues” far from it as for being repetitve, I’ll plead guilty here – but then again virtually everyone here is guilty of that!
David-
Yeah, well-we all have horror stories to tell, from both sides. And what is your issue with people being opposed to AY? You bash them every opportunity you can get. Ratner paying you? Are you Ratner? This is still a free country- you may not agree with their opinion but they still have a right to state it. You sound like a broken record already- say something new about AY instead of avoiding issues or whining about people who oppose Ratner’s present plan (but not all development).
Sorry for the double post
On the topic of housing courts favoring the tenants… this is undeniably true, but there is a component that entirely lost upon most ‘tenant advocates’ – that is that the laws and courts are so skewed against evicting anyone that responsible LLs cant evict tenants that make life miserable for other tenants.
1 illustrative situation that comes to mind is a 6 floor tenant who constantly floods her apt with a washing machine (violates lease but law overrides lease if LL doesnt move to remove w/in 3mo of tenant putting machine in). The flood of course streams down onto the 5 apts below – making life miserable for all. This happens approx once a month. LL goes to court and they assign tenant free Legal Aid attorney (on a washing machine case) who drags matter out for 7+ months and ultimatley wins against LL b/c court rules that LL cant PROVE that floods come from machine (as oppossed to overflowing sink, tub etc…).
Ultimatley in this situation on a day to day basis it is the tenants who suffer the brunt of this problem although the sadly ironic thing is that 2 tenants below 6th fl arent paying rent and when LL goes to same housing court the judge rules for the tenant b/c the landlord should “resolve flooding issue”
I never said tenants had ownership rights. I did say they had a right (not a hope) to a safe apartment in well-repaired condition. I don’t even say they have a right to brand new kitchens and bathrooms, or anything like that. Just ones that work and are in good repair. And as I mentioned, I am not a landlord. But while you may be right that most new landlords will only break even, but there must be some obvious benefit to being a landlord- otherwise why do it?
Insofar as Putnam-denizen wondering why tenants should get remuneration. Tenants lose a lot of money when forced to move, and often they have to move to apartments that are more expensive. It isn’t just the landlord who loses. Tenants do have risk- they pay on a lease that ultimately is really no protection regarding renewal, safety or longevity. Whether or not you choose to be a tenant or a landlord, is no one’s business but your own. But to penalize people who are tenants, while obviously needing them seems very odd. A lot of us are in no position to buy in NYC. Yet we pay about 1/2 our income to a landlord. That’s a good chunk of change. Yet tenants are the low man on the totem pole. Believe me, I’ve seen some horrible tenants- but the reality is, if you are going to be a landlord, you do have an obligation to your tenants. Yet most landlords see tenants strictly as a money issue. Well, when a tenant gets kicked out for no fault of their own, it’s a money issue too. Businesses get bought out of contracts all the time, or compensated for their loss. Why shouldn’t tenants?
Anon 1:28 I say unless you are willing to provide more details your claim lacks credibility. Was the building RS/RC or was it market?, did the tenants have a lease? Was any lease in effect? What building did they live in, which apts? – AY opponents would love to march these victims out if they could so the silence on this undercuts your claim.
Anon 1:28 I say unless you are willing to provide more details your claim lacks credibility. Was the building RS/RC or was it market?, did the tenants have a lease? Was any lease in effect? What building did they live in, which apts? – AY opponents would love to march these victims out if they could so the silence on this undercuts your claim.
My exact point! The condo owners hit the jackpot. I have friends in the Newswalk and they’re mad as hell that their building is not in the condemnation crosshairs! That’s some serious moullah for a relatively short term investment that’s 80-90% leveraged!
So am I mistaken to believe that the majority of people opposing AY are displaced ‘renters’ and altruistic home-owners?
Anon 01:28 PM, the story that you told is really sad. But the truth is that they would have been forced to move eventually, if not by Mr. Ratner, by someone who bought the building and wants to use it as a home for his/her family. It was going to happen anyway. How can you whine and groan about that. It’s just luck of the draw IMHO.
Life isn’t fair. Renters aren’t owners. If they want full rights then they have to assume full responsibilites (i.e., pay their portion of major capital improvements, pay their share of property tax increases, pay their share of increased fuel and utility charges, pay their share of insurance costs, etc). They also have to come up with the downpayment for the building as well as closing costs.
I’m sorry if anyone reads this as tenant bashing. I’ve been a tenant too and I’ve had landlords from hell. But in all the years that I was renting, I never assumed that the landlord ‘had to’ renew my lease.
Yeah, I saw those places…was called in to give an estimate for re doing the sheetrock…the fits and finishes were very subpar. Even the floors were badly done. The shower tile was crooked…big chip in the countertop from someone installing the stove..very badly designed layout…drippy paint job.. I felt bad for the couple because I thought they really bought a subpar apartment but now…