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]
Bx2Bklyn, I admired your commitment to being a champion for tenants. I’d be surprised though if you currently are a landlord. Maybe you are; and an altruistic one at that.
I’m not a landlord. Wouldn’t do it in nyc. Too big a risk. But that’s just my opinion.
It’s your choice to label the landlord that wants to go condo as being money-grubbing, but that’s just reality. And the truth of the matter is that most new landlords will ‘not’ make any money off their tenants. They’re hardly breaking even.
I wouldn’t buy a rent-controlled or rent-stabilized building and then whine about my tenants. I also wouldn’t buy a rent-controlled condo/coop and then wait for the old-woman who’s renting it to die either. So, you don’t need to lump me with that contingency.
I agree with you that 9 out of 10 tenants are good tenants. And I agree with you and CHP that there are some sorry ass landlords out there. The housing laws were no doubt created to defend tenants against slumlords. But the laws have become heavily skewed on the side of tenants (bad ones at that too) that a good landlord can easily be driven to bankruptcy by bad tenants.
If I were tenant, I would never in a million years assume that I had a right to remain where I was forever. That’s just not being realistic (unless you live in a rent-controlled building or maybe the projects).
But I disagree with you with respect to ‘fair market’ renters; they have no ownership right outside of the duration of the lease. Once that lease is up, all bets are on. It’s not my rule; that’s just reality.
I guess generally I am for stabilization protections for renters, but I don’t quite understand the rationale for renumerating renters in a buyout or even eminent domain situation. Given they don’t have an ownership interest in the property for what are they being compensated? Implicit in their perhaps rational economic decision not to buy is a denial of the benefits (or risks – remember properties can decline in value as well). That said it does make sense for government to force developers to build low-income housing or tax all of us to accomplish the same goal.
I could give you the names of at least 2 tenants who lost their apartments after the landlords sold to Mr Ratner. Both received not a single cent of compensation and had to move to smaller, more expensive apts in less desirable locations. I’m well aware that theses poor bastards — as “mere” tenants — had no “right” to any compensation but it doesn’t prevent me from feeling that they got stiffed in a situation they had no control over.
Folks stop with the NIMBY complaints. The condo owners lived in a crappy building and subsequently made out like bandits. A friend of mine owned in this building. Didn’t make much money. Had to borrow from friends, family and credit cards to get the downpayment for the apartment. He made $400k on the sale!!! A lot of the owners in this building were first time buyers who went on to buy brownstones in the neighboring communities; something they could never had afforded to do without FRC! To many, AY was a blessing in disguise. If FRC wants to pay me $4m for my Clinton Hill brownstone I’d sell in a nano second!!!
Sorry for ranting but I am sick and tired of tenant bashing. I’ve been one all my life and I have never ruined an apartment or stiffed a landlord. I have a great landlord now and in general have been pretty lucky. I have also lived in places where wires were sticking out of the walls and the tiles were falling down and hitting me when I would take a bath. I have seen nightmare places friends have lived in and landlord harrassment. And watched some of them get dragged to court by a landlord who claimed they need the apartment for family (who by the way never moved in). I bet CHP has some fun tales about her landlady who made the 10 worst list. It works both ways.
Well, anon at 12:29, it’s obvious why there are laws to protect tenants- your attitude is a classic example. First and foremost, a rental agreement is a contract, with all of the rights, responsibilities and obligations that implies. Tenants are not living in their homes on sufferance- most of us pay a damn good price for the right to a clean, well-kept and safe apartment.That is YOUR obligation as a landlord. And there are plenty who don’t keep their end of the bargain, not only tenants.
“They can only hope their landlord will be nice enough to make all necessary repairs, not raise rent the next time around and yes, renew their lease. ” Hope? Are you that ignorant of why repairs are necessary for the upkeep (and value) of a property, as well as the safety of people who are actually PAYING to live in your building? If you think it’s a money issue for the poor landlord, see how much bigger that money issue will be if a tenant is injured or dies. Being a landlord means having tenants. You make money off of your tenants- it’s not in your best interests to ruin your own market. If you don’t want tenants I suggest another line of work.
In sofar as tenants taking landlords to the cleaners- for every story you have I guarantee there are ten tenants who can tell you horror stories about their landlords. Going condo? Wanting to upgrade? I have news for you- your moneygrubbing costs a tenant plenty when they are forced to move. It’s more than just money for a tenant- these are their homes. It takes a huge psychological toll.
Tenants are not a property item for you to be shoved around only for your needs.I realize that’s not your concern but I have a suggestion. Don’t become a landlord. Save some tenants a lot of aggravation.
Anon @ 1254 – very funny!!! very geeky reference but seriously funny.
This is a sadly blatant piece of propaganda in this morning’s NY Times. The piece pretends to be a thoughtful meditation on the “blessing in disguise†FCRC has been to the displaced former residents, but damningly fails to disclose 4 very important facts:
Not a single word of this article could be written without the cooperation of FCRC publicity department because…
All of the former residents who accepted buyouts signed gag orders forbidding them from discussing the terms (which are spun in this article to make FCRC seem more generous than your favorite cousin), and further…
As part of their contracts the former residents are contractually obligated to speak in favor of the project when requested by FCRC.
And, lest we forget, FCRC is the NY Times’ development partner in their humongous new headquarters in midtown.
Word does get out about these things but obviously not to the New York Times. This shockingly partisan journalism is certainly a step up the shill wagon for FCRC from their pathetic Brooklyn Standard but a sad, sad, slide for the Times to become such a hack tool. They might have at least put the word “advertisement†in the caption!
CHP the article says what happened to renters 1.they were offered the chance to move back into units of comparable rent and size in the completed Atlantic Yards project or paid a lump sum; 2.paid moving costs and broker’s fees for those tenants and 3.covered any increase in rent for transitional housing.
Fair to say that a similar arragement will be offered to the 57 rental tenants still remaining. Similar arrangements were also done @ Metrotech…