100 Clark Street Hits the Market
It’s been a while since we’ve heard any news from 100 Clark Street, the building at the corner of Monroe Place that owner Penson Companies let deteriorate until DOB ordered a partial emergency demolition on Memorial Day Weekend 2008 because conditions had become “imminently perilous” at the site. The prevailing theory at the time was…
It’s been a while since we’ve heard any news from 100 Clark Street, the building at the corner of Monroe Place that owner Penson Companies let deteriorate until DOB ordered a partial emergency demolition on Memorial Day Weekend 2008 because conditions had become “imminently perilous” at the site. The prevailing theory at the time was that it was all part of a grand plan to rid the building of its three pesky rent stabilized tenants who were paying a combined total of $1,742 per month in rent. The new listing from Stephen Palmese at Massey Knakal notes that the three tenants still retain occupancy rights but that preliminary settlement papers have been drafted. The total buildable square footage is also given as 7,976, along with a disclaimer which probably has something to do with the fact that the building was overbuilt by more than 1,200 square feet before it was torn down and it may not be crystal clear what size it could be rebuilt to. The rendering, at right, gives some sense of what might be possible though. There’s no asking price, just a request for bids. This’ll be interesting.
100 Clark Place Listing [Massey Knakal] GMAP
What’s Up at 100 Clark Street? [Brownstoner]
Emergency Repair at 100 Clark While Court Fight Continues [Brownstoner]
Emergency Demo at 100 Clark Clears Tenants [Brownstoner]
‘Dereliction of Duty’ in Brooklyn Heights [Brownstoner]
And i also agree with lechacal but was unwilling to go that far. The system breeds entitlement, laziness and other social ills.
it’s time it was phased out, at least for all of those making above a certain amount.
No where else in the US is it as prevalent as here, no where.
Donatella: As I said, it was a one-time wealth transfer from owners to renters at the time the laws took effect. From that point forward there ceased to be a meaningful correlation between those who need assistance and those who get it. The only prerequisite for getting rent control is keeping your lazy undeserving ass in the same place.
I know RC/RS tenants that own multiple properties. One family in particular has a RC apartment on Central Park West…FACING THE PARK!!! They all file their tax returns at that address and the apartment is basically used by multiple family members as a crash pad. The son stays there for a few months then the daughter, then a visiting cousin etc… This family has houses all over the country. No Bullshit.
Brownstoner – not sure but I think the “preliminary settlement papers” statement refers to a settlement the former owner was negotiating with tenants prior to bldg demo. My recollection is that the proposed settlements averaged around $300,000 each, which were not acceptable to tenants.
Rent control and rent stabilization have nothing to do with income. I know a Wall Street guy who had a 1 bedroom rent controlled apartment on E 88th Street for 200 bucks and made a lot of money. Another Wall Street person I know has one in Brooklyn Heights. It has no logic whatsoever — it had a kind of non-free market logic after WW II when soldiers were coming home and starting families and there was a shortage of housing. But it lingers on. Having said that, it is a strange, prisoner mentality a lot of these people get, hanging on to their cheap, ugly apartments for a lifetime.
RC tenants can all go bite a wang. Back when RC laws took effect it was basically just a one-time wealth transfer from owners to renters of RC buildings. Now it’s a quasi property right held by people who don’t deserve public aid. Why should I effectively subsidize some lazy asshole’s rent (through my paying higher rent than I would have to pay if there was no RC law) just so he can suck off of the public teat by paying below market rent? The ones who are “middle class” are probably only “middle class” because they don’t HAVE TO earn much money to live where they do. Fuck them. Make them work their asses off to live in New York just like I do (oh wait, I have to work even harder than I should to live in NYC because of these lazy leeches).
I never said “all” of them, BHG.
Funny Dave but I know tons of people who live in RS and RC apartments. None of them have homes in the Hamptons. They have jobs. Maybe (only) a decent living. And thusly can afford where they live. If RS and RC landlords wanna try and get rid of their tenants for good cause i say go ahead. But I read so much negativity on RS and RC tenants you’d think they’re all super wealthy.
Listing language:
“. . . seeking equitable relief and money damages totaling $18,000,000 plus the recovery of legal fees for the improper demolition of the property. There is significant upside for a buyer to carry out the lawsuit or settle and redevelop the property into a single family or multi-family.â€
Those two sentences are incongruous.