Neglectful Brownstone Owner Under Fire
Back in 2007, a reader posted a “What’s the Deal?” question about the boarded up brownstone in Park Slope. Today, the Brooklyn Paper tackles the topic. Neighbors have been complaining about the eyesore and potential safety hazard at 174 Garfield Place for many years, but now Council Members Lander and Levin are getting into the…
Back in 2007, a reader posted a “What’s the Deal?” question about the boarded up brownstone in Park Slope. Today, the Brooklyn Paper tackles the topic. Neighbors have been complaining about the eyesore and potential safety hazard at 174 Garfield Place for many years, but now Council Members Lander and Levin are getting into the act, calling on the Bank of New York to force the owner, a real estate investor named Peter Saltina, to fix up or get out. “It is within the bank’s power to urge [Saltina] to fix it up, or put it in the hands of a responsible owner,” Lander told The Brooklyn Paper. “We want to turn this building into an asset to our community rather than a hazard.” Saltina responded with the kind of attitude that has endeared him to the community all along: “Let them complain…I’ve been here since 1969 and dealing with these people has made my skin thick.” According the article, Saltina claims to have a verbal agreement to sell the house, though he’s played that card before to no end. In the meantime, someone could get hurt or killed: Apparently big chunks of cement recently fell into the front yard next door. Hopefully the Councilmen can run this jerk out of town.
Neighbors Want to Save Decrepit Building From Owner [Brooklyn Paper]
Creepy Unoccupied House on Garfield? [Brownstoner]
Photo circa 2006 from Property Shark
People always say it’s a divorce disagreement – I’ve heard the same about the one on Berkeley btwn 5th & 6th. You’d think the DOB could move on it – hazardous violations are issued for much more minor infractions.
Butterfly, unless you’re being sarcastic – your statement is rather naive.
If he wants to leave his property vacant – you’re not going to get an argument out of me but he has a duty to perform basic upkeep of his property, which is located in a densely populated municipality.
It is clearly a health hazard: chunks of cement falling on people, rodents, god knows what damage is being done to the neighboring houses.
“awesome. those people should mind their own business what he does with HIS property.”
Except it’s not “his”, Rob, if the Bank of New York holds the mortgage on it. Why would the bank want to see THEIR house decay so much it’s worth less than the money owed on it? Brilliant idea to go to the bank to bring to their attention what is happening to THEIR investment. If banks won’t lend money to buy a shell of a house, then they wouldn’t like it when they loan money on what is a full house and somebody lets it become a shell. This strategy could be applied to neglected buildings everywhere, where people have mortgages or took out equity loans on the property. That’s what’s awesome, Rob.
“What’s in it for people like this?”
He probably bought it for $10,000 back then. He’s obviously psychologically imbalanced and now obsesses over the right to do whatever he pleases.
What’s in it for people like this? Me, I’m a money kind of person. Letting a potential asset moulder and depreciate when one could get hundreds of thousands for it beggars the imagination. What’s UP?
Now how about the similar house on 3rd St. next door to Barrio, and the Landmark Cafe building at 7th ave. and 2nd (the one that occasionally rains down broken glass on an intersection used by hundreds of kids going to and from school every day)?
Wonder if any banks are holding mortgages on those…
Falling masonry and “a handful of interior fires.” I wouldn’t be “minding my own business” if I lived nearby either.
If it’s a hazard, the City should have power over it.
Look at that house to the left. How wide is that beauty???
We have seveal buildings like this in CHN- one of them a magnficent, landmarked apartment building that could be renovated into beautiful apartments. But it seems the owner is up to date on his taxes. Time for the City to get involved though- dangerous conditions affect the buildings around them, and falling chunks of cement can kill. (this is where benson comes in with his rant about property owners are entitled to do what they want with their property no matter what.)