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]
CHP, okay. I see your point. But the article did mention that a renter was given 5K to walk. Which I thought was a bit low, considering that many tenants these days are holding out for upwards of 15K to walk.
You’re right, the eminent domain situation is a different scenario. I’m surprised that those tenants didn’t hold-out for an affordable housing unit (rental or condo) when the development is completed (in addition to the 5K interim relocation money as well).
On a whole though, it sounded as if the homeowners that were displaced did pretty well. One couple sold their condos and move to Park Slope (brownstone maybe). Sounds like a trade up to me. Hate to be crass, but eminent domain can come to my doorstep anytime it allows me to buy a bigger property in a more expensive neighborhood.
10 PRINT You’re a NIMBY who’s against progress.
20 PRINT You’re a corporate stooge who was probably paid off by Ratner.
30 GOTO 10
Can’t type today – please excuse typos which abound in my reply above.
Anon 12:29 – I’m not talking about everyday landlord/tenant beefs, I’m talking about in the case of eminent domain.
I’m a small landlord, and I’ve had the joy(not)of having to have someone evicted, and I lost a lot of money at a time that I really, really needed it to pay the mortgage, and do necessary repairs, and am well aware that the system is pro-tenant. But before I was a landlord, I was a tenant for 20 years, some of that time with a landlady who had the dubious distinction of making the Village Voice’s list of worst landlords on year. I was not in a slum tenement, either. At that time, I would have told you that the system is pro-landlord.
Point being that being kicked by eminent domain is not the fault of either tenant or landlord. It’s being in the wrong place at the wrong time. A renter in that situation deserves to be helped out. They should at least be given moving expenses and enough security/rent to secure a new apartment. Personally that should come from Ratner, in this case, but someone should step up and do the right thing, considering the situation.
If that makes me a niaeve fool, so be it.
The only group worse than the tenants are the landlords so the tenants seeem to garner more public sympathy!
CHP, why do you think renters have rights to renumeration? Don’t they already have enough rights under the current housing laws? That’s one of the reason I hesitate to become a landlord in nyc. They’re so many stories of horrific tenants that take their landlord to the cleaners.
Every renter knows that their ‘stay’ is only guaranteed for the duration of their lease. 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.
I find it a bit disturbing when ‘tenants’ hold out for more money when a landlord wants to convert the building into condos. Or when the landlord wants the apt. vacant so that they can renovate it and raise the rent to fair market value.
I almost wonder if their isn’t some underground system that teaches these tenants how to ‘milk the system’ and get the most money whenever a landlord wants them out.
I’m pro-affordable housing but really against tenants taking advantage of landlords. They have no ownership rights.
Anon 11:58 AM, I thought my posting was relatively pro AY. I was simply pointing out that we need to pay close attention to potential problems as we proceed. Why are you guys all soooo defensive and on-edge?
Hack Confessore strikes again!
Question – are renters offered compensation, or incentive to move, when eminant domain takes their property? (I think I know the answer to that one, but am just checking.)
Seems to me that renters have the same goals and asperations as owners, in terms of expectations to settle down, etc. Not everyone can afford, or wants to buy. See past discussions on this topic on this forum. There are many who do not think that buying is all it’s cracked up to be, or even a fiscally sound idea. Those of us who are landlords, albeit very small landlords, one or two units, need renters as much as they need us. People who have their noses in the air about renters would do well to remember that. Point being that dislocation is hard on everyone. It’s really nice that the coop/condo/ building owner gets a fat buyout, all issues about whether they want to sell aside. It is not right if a renter gets kicked to the curb with no renumeration, just because they rent in a location that is grabbed for development, either legally or through eminent domain.