Why so many vacancies on 7th Avenue?

belzjm

i think i've mentioned this before, but it's just a pet peeve of mine...

does anyone have idea why it takes so long to rent out commercial spaces in park slope? in particular the blocks of 7th avenue between union and president and from union to berkeley. there are at least 2 spaces that have sat with store for rent signs for months and months and i'm still dying to know what the story is with the former olive vine space next to the ace supermarket that just sits there.

i had heard that there was a waiting list of people interested in commercial space on 7th avenue, but given this, i'm wondering if i heard incorrectly??

since this is a prime north slope location, i'm just shocked that this particular stretch has become so sparse. i think a nice wine bar similar to total wine bar down on 5th would do exceptionally well.

or a meat or fishmarket.

innocent x

People want commercial space at an affordable price. But that's not really what's going on right now. Prices are high and the landlords are waiting for that perfect, cash-flush tenant. Guess they'd rather let the property sit than allow someone to take the space. Some places have sat for years and years. Like those "Laundromat - Coming Soon" joints between Brooklyn Industries and 200 Fifth. That laundromat was coming soon when I moved into Union Street like 5 years ago.

whyfi

Could be a lot of things.

Could be a matter of a difference in opinion on what constitutes a fair rate for the space...

Could be that the owner's haven't liked the businesses vying for the spots...

Could be that the business owners have finally realized that PH is where it's at!

kirby

If you notice how many of the empty store fronts have a for rent Berman Realty sign, you will realize one person who is responsible for this phenomenon. He is not renting these spaces for another person, he owns them and half of Park Slope.

belzjm

yes, i've heard many an unflattering story about mr. berman.

that's a shame.

i personally have it out for mr. kotsonis who owns the building on 7th and union, but that's neither here nor there...

quigley

belzjm wrote: i personally have it out for mr. kotsonis who owns the building on 7th and union, but that's neither here nor there...

we know...

raw

belzjm wrote: yes, i've heard many an unflattering story about mr. berman.

that's a shame.

i personally have it out for mr. kotsonis who owns the building on 7th and union, but that's neither here nor there...

Why?

belzjm

you'll have to do a search for the thread on the dance studio that was kicked out after 30 some odd years. it was back in march. and yes, i see that kidville is taking over that spot now (oh goody) but he told me the space below it had 3 leases out, and still remains with a store for rent sign as of tonight when i just walked by.

i know i'm a little nutty about it, but he pushed my buttons.

the moral of the story is that i don't like greedy landlords who keep stores empty when it makes more business sense to fill the spaces at perhaps slightly lower costs. i realize their goal is to make the most money possible, but this particular guy has lived for many years in, and supposedly cares about park slope. i just don't agree. if he did, these places would not sit empty for so long and every other one wouldn't be filled with a bank, atm, duane reade or real estate office.

in my opinion, it's what's killing the vibrancy and unique-ness of the city, so it's a subject i get quite passionate about.

evilbert

belzjm wrote: if he did, these places would not sit empty for so long and every other one wouldn't be filled with a bank, atm, duane reade or real estate office.

in my opinion, it's what's killing the vibrancy and unique-ness of the city, so it's a subject i get quite passionate about.

It's just another phase in the development of neighborhoods. Pretty soon, people will see PS as a less desirable place to live and leave. I for one will be not be buying property around here should the trend continue - I have no emotional attachment to PS (although I've had a good time living here over the past 9 years) so I'm quite willing to take my money and buy elsewhere. $600K for a 2-bed apartment is not exactly my idea of value for money at present.

That and we're baby planning at the moment, and the though of sending my kid to school with the insane liberal nutballs in this neighborhood gives me nightmares

nkotsonis

Hello,

Greedy capitalist landlord here. Just following this post. Few factors that should be considered before passing judgement on myself or Joe Berman.
Rents are based on market rates. In the rent, is included water & sewer bills and Real Estate Taxes. Now before everyone starts saying that I'm passing the buck and blaming Bloomberg, again, When leases expire, R.E. Taxes and W/S are factored in the negotiations. The city R.E. taxes on the building is based on income. Our income taxes are also based on income. So in effect, commercial buildings are taxed twice for the same income flow. Owners have no choice but to try and pass this on to the commercial tenant. When the cost become too great, stores stay vacant.
Now, here's the kicker. The city will lower your R.E. Taxes only in the event of vacancies. The city is telling us to keep places vacant in return for lower taxes.Show a lower income, they lower the R.E. Taxes. Since R.E. Taxes are at a far greater rate than income taxes, it is favorable for the owner to keep a space vacant for a longer period of time due to the R.E. Tax base year. This is the reason why stores will stay vacant longer. Owners are willing to wait for the right commercial tenant that will have to pay the higher R.E Tax increases.
It is economics that dictate this situation.

brooke lynn knight

I always knew that somehow owners could make nearly as much or more money with an empty storefront. How did I know that? Because there have always been lots of empty storefronts, and if everyone who owned one was losing tons of money, they would be rented, come hell or high water.

I always figured there was a tax dodge angle involved somehow. Thanks for explaining how this government-encouraged travesty works, nkotsonis.

nkotsonis

Your welcome.
Scary isn't it how the government can get involved in something as basic as supply and demand.
Oh.. wait... they do anyway with all the rent regulations, price controls, tariffs, taxes. Everything that's anti-freedom.

8thandprez

Yea, taxes and government control are terrible. I mean, who needs Medicare, or clean water, or vehicle mileage standards, or environmental cleanups, or social security? Useless government intrusions into my personal life!

cat

a friend of mine has a space on atlantic avenue and the city does dictate how much money you have to charge. she wants it to be an activist space and they raised her real estate taxes 3 times what they were and told her to rent to Starbucks or The Gap! Apparently tho' this is something that the Bloomberg administration put into place TWO years ago. I wish I could remember all the specifics. Maybe mr. landlord knows... because according to her this is somewhat new. ?? is that accurate?

This is way crazy and what IS destroying the fabric and uniqueities of the city .... while I do think capitalist landlords would still be doing x and y, it is probably provoking the situation further!

I am sure I sound naive but who decides these things? IS it the Mayor ? Can City Council get involved? Thanks for any education. !!

daver

8thandPrez wrote: Yea, taxes and government control are terrible. I mean, who needs Medicare, or clean water, or vehicle mileage standards, or environmental cleanups, or social security? Useless government intrusions into my personal life!

Taxes and government are inevitable, and not necessarily a bad thing. BUT- that is a far cry from saying that ALL taxes and government control are just and good. It is an overly simplistic view to conclude that since some tax money is used to do good things, therefore all taxes are good. I'm don't think that I agree with RE taxes being used to manipulate properties in the ways stated above.

nkotsonis

"cat" wrote: a friend of mine has a space on atlantic avenue and the city does dictate how much money you have to charge. she wants it to be an activist space and they raised her real estate taxes 3 times what they were and told her to rent to Starbucks or The Gap! Apparently tho' this is something that the Bloomberg administration put into place TWO years ago. I wish I could remember all the specifics. Maybe mr. landlord knows... because according to her this is somewhat new. ?? is that accurate?

This is way crazy and what IS destroying the fabric and uniqueities of the city .... while I do think capitalist landlords would still be doing x and y, it is probably provoking the situation further!

I am sure I sound naive but who decides these things? IS it the Mayor ? Can City Council get involved? Thanks for any education. !!

Hi Cat,

Without knowing the specifics to your friends situation, it is rather hard to give advice. However, is she involved with any low interest loans or rebate programs that are sponsored by City housing or the city govt.?
If so, then she could find herself under certain govt. restrictions.
I would advise that she contact a good real estate attorney to look into this.

belzjm

that still doesn't explain the lies about the fact that mr. kotsonis said in march on this very board that there were three leases "out" on the space next to aerosoles. it's august tomorrow. where are they? i still see a for rent sign. you'd think if there were three out, ONE of them would have panned out.

you all are playing into this guy way too much. please don't accept whatever his says as god's word. i have spoken to a couple of the establishments in the building he owns on union and 7th, and they all had quite negative things to say about him.

think about the building for a second...brown harris stevens, tast-delight, slope fitness, aerosoles, a new kidville where he kicked out that dance studio. hmmmm. you'd think he could get SOMETHING in there to enhance the neighborhood. instead it's a shopping center from anytown, usa.

the taxes are for the building, i'm guessing. which means that having those other tenants should more than offset the cost of bringing in something truly wanted by the neighborhood.

i understand this is business and it sounds like there are troubling issues with the taxes, but i don't appreciate the dishonesty at all.

mr. kotsonis: if there is no one interested in the space, just say so. this board could be a way for you to find someone potentially interested, instead of as a forum that you seem to use to constantly cover your as*.

cat

nkotsonis wrote: [quote=cat]a friend of mine has a space on atlantic avenue and the city does dictate how much money you have to charge. she wants it to be an activist space and they raised her real estate taxes 3 times what they were and told her to rent to Starbucks or The Gap! Apparently tho' this is something that the Bloomberg administration put into place TWO years ago. I wish I could remember all the specifics. Maybe mr. landlord knows... because according to her this is somewhat new. ?? is that accurate?

This is way crazy and what IS destroying the fabric and uniqueities of the city .... while I do think capitalist landlords would still be doing x and y, it is probably provoking the situation further!

I am sure I sound naive but who decides these things? IS it the Mayor ? Can City Council get involved? Thanks for any education. !!

Hi Cat,

Without knowing the specifics to your friends situation, it is rather hard to give advice. However, is she involved with any low interest loans or rebate programs that are sponsored by City housing or the city govt.?
If so, then she could find herself under certain govt. restrictions.
I would advise that she contact a good real estate attorney to look into this.

Hi... I don't think she's involved in any low interest loans or rebate programs. I'm not sure if she's talked to a real estate atty. I would think so because she appealed but she also tries to do things herself so let me ask!

I'm curious... could the City Council regulate this? What City agency is in charge of this? Dept of Buildings I guess?

Thanks!

cat

belzjm wrote: that still doesn't explain the lies about the fact that mr. kotsonis said in march on this very board that there were three leases "out" on the space next to aerosoles. it's august tomorrow. where are they? i still see a for rent sign. you'd think if there were three out, ONE of them would have panned out.

you all are playing into this guy way too much. please don't accept whatever his says as god's word. i have spoken to a couple of the establishments in the building he owns on union and 7th, and they all had quite negative things to say about him.

think about the building for a second...brown harris stevens, tast-delight, slope fitness, aerosoles, a new kidville where he kicked out that dance studio. hmmmm. you'd think he could get SOMETHING in there to enhance the neighborhood. instead it's a shopping center from anytown, usa.

the taxes are for the building, i'm guessing. which means that having those other tenants should more than offset the cost of bringing in something truly wanted by the neighborhood.

i understand this is business and it sounds like there are troubling issues with the taxes, but i don't appreciate the dishonesty at all.

mr. kotsonis: if there is no one interested in the space, just say so. this board could be a way for you to find someone potentially interested, instead of as a forum that you seem to use to constantly cover your as*.

That is true. If a landlord is getting market rate and maybe above what the city would designate (my friend is trying to NOT do that and so it's that much harder...) then it would be possible to offset that with something 'else,' no?

nkotsonis

R.E. Taxes are done by the Dept. of Finance. So she should also hire a certiary, tax attorney, to challenge the tax assessments.
Another thought, was the building reclassified or rezoned in any way, or C/O changed?
This would cause a reassessment on the value of the property to take place. This happened to that woman in Harlem to turned a one family into a three and saw her taxes increased 4 fold. The city was suppossed to have engineered some kind of relief program. Your friend should also challenge the finance dept.

garfunky

<<<< you'd think he could get SOMETHING in there to enhance the neighborhood >>>

so then why dont you pour YOUR life savings into a business you think will enhance the neighborhood ?

instead of just whining at / about people who can afford to own a building and can afford to open a business but dont to do it to your ever so exacting specifications on what the hood needs.

every time I read a post of that nature one word comes thru loud and clear.

ENVY

belzjm

excuse you. you are dead wrong, garfunky. i have no interest in opening a business. i work in music. i AM, however interested in improving my neighborhood that i love and not having it turn into a sterile place lined with atm only banks and such.

and if you knew me at all instead of making asinine comments about someone you don't know, you'd know that i have actively been trying to better the neighborhood, have corresponded on more than one occassion with trader joe's about possible sites in park slope and have helped find two people i know commercial spaces for their shops.

you, my friend are way off base. and quite angry, i might add.

eggcream

I happen to agree w/Garfunky. Rent the space yourself if you want to change the neighborhood belzjm. Put in what YOU think we all need here. Trader Joes in this area? Can you imagine all the traffic. No thanks. I like walking to Aerosoles to buy shoes. Nothing wrong w/working out so what's so bad about a gym? Then after you work out treat yourself to some Tasty d lite. I just looked up Kidville online and it sounds better to me than the Dance Studio. I'm sure lots of PS kids and parents will appreciate it. How is that place not an asset to the community or the others you mentioned?

I love how some people just assume what is best for others. If people don't like something it will not survive. Obviously that is not the case here.

It's just like the libs keeping out the evil Walmart. No union so no Walmart. Lots of people shop there, lots of people are employed at Walmart but the libs know whats best. You can also thank them for having the highest taxes in the country.

When you get your own building then you can do whatever you want otherwise let's leave the capitalist landlords to do what they want with their buildings.

eggcream

" Yea, taxes and government control are terrible. I mean, who needs Medicare, or clean water, or vehicle mileage standards, or environmental cleanups, or social security? Useless government intrusions into my personal life!"

You left out the poor and the minorities.

belzjm

anyone who stands up for walmart is not someone i want to have an arguement with.

it's like having a conversation with my father about politics.

goes nowhere.

fast.

evilbert

8thandPrez wrote: Yea, taxes and government control are terrible.

I couldn't agree more.

I mean, who needs Medicare

medicare is a shining beacon of government incompetence and waste. It is a national embarrasment and would be the laughing stock of the western world if the US didn't try to keep it quiet.

or clean water

Water standards are a responsibility of local government, yes.

or vehicle mileage standards

I've no idea what you mean by that

or environmental cleanups

The responsibility of the person/corporation who made the mess. Didn't your mother teach you about cleaning up after yourself?

or social security?

Enforced re-distribution of wealth is communism, and communism is bad. I'm all in favor of vast reductions and eventual scrapping of all social security.

Useless government intrusions into my personal life!

I agree. Useless and wasteful.

evilbert

belzjm wrote: you'd think he could get SOMETHING in there to enhance the neighborhood.

Enhancing the neighborhood is not the responsibility of a property owner. If you're so concerned about the lack of chi chi coffee shops and boutiques then I suggest you buy your own commercial property and rent it out yourself.

What's that? There's no commercial property in PS for sale? Jeez.....aint life hard :roll:

raw

belzjm wrote: you'll have to do a search for the thread on the dance studio that was kicked out after 30 some odd years. it was back in march. and yes, i see that kidville is taking over that spot now (oh goody) but he told me the space below it had 3 leases out, and still remains with a store for rent sign as of tonight when i just walked by.

i know i'm a little nutty about it, but he pushed my buttons.

the moral of the story is that i don't like greedy landlords who keep stores empty when it makes more business sense to fill the spaces at perhaps slightly lower costs. i realize their goal is to make the most money possible, but this particular guy has lived for many years in, and supposedly cares about park slope. i just don't agree. if he did, these places would not sit empty for so long and every other one wouldn't be filled with a bank, atm, duane reade or real estate office.

in my opinion, it's what's killing the vibrancy and unique-ness of the city, so it's a subject i get quite passionate about.

Thanks for your honesty.

I was afraid you were going to inform us that he used eminent domain to force you out of your home.

I'm bummed that the block between Union Street and Berkeley Street that had businesses that burned down is still dead. The construction on 7th Avenue and Sterling Place isn't so lovely either.

escap

nkotsonis wrote: Hello,

Greedy capitalist landlord here. Just following this post. Few factors that should be considered before passing judgement on myself or Joe Berman.
Rents are based on market rates. In the rent, is included water & sewer bills and Real Estate Taxes. Now before everyone starts saying that I'm passing the buck and blaming Bloomberg, again, When leases expire, R.E. Taxes and W/S are factored in the negotiations. The city R.E. taxes on the building is based on income. Our income taxes are also based on income. So in effect, commercial buildings are taxed twice for the same income flow. Owners have no choice but to try and pass this on to the commercial tenant. When the cost become too great, stores stay vacant.
Now, here's the kicker. The city will lower your R.E. Taxes only in the event of vacancies. The city is telling us to keep places vacant in return for lower taxes.Show a lower income, they lower the R.E. Taxes. Since R.E. Taxes are at a far greater rate than income taxes, it is favorable for the owner to keep a space vacant for a longer period of time due to the R.E. Tax base year. This is the reason why stores will stay vacant longer. Owners are willing to wait for the right commercial tenant that will have to pay the higher R.E Tax increases.
It is economics that dictate this situation.

Doctorj, if you're reading this, you once argued with me that property tax acts as a deterrent for landlords to leave their property vacant, but the particulars of the tax code apparently work the opposite way, according to this. If tax was only based on income, not ownership, then landlords would not have this incentive to leave property vacant, and I doubt we'd have this problem on 7th avenue.

cat

nkotsonis wrote: R.E. Taxes are done by the Dept. of Finance. So she should also hire a certiary, tax attorney, to challenge the tax assessments.
Another thought, was the building reclassified or rezoned in any way, or C/O changed?
This would cause a reassessment on the value of the property to take place. This happened to that woman in Harlem to turned a one family into a three and saw her taxes increased 4 fold. The city was suppossed to have engineered some kind of relief program. Your friend should also challenge the finance dept.

Hi. Thanks for this advice. I don't know all the specifics but I will run this by her. ! Thank you.

cat

Hi. I want to offer another viewpoint to some of the more recent posts suggesting belzjm start his/her own business and that comments like his/hers are pure envy.

Back up a minute. A community takes all different people working to create it. If a factory comes in and leaves pollution behind, should I not say something because I didn't get there first and create my own clean factory??

That's NOT how it works. We may be so overcome by capitalism that money, real estate, greed and a certain nastiness take over any other prevailing viewpoint but that is not how it *should* work.

It sounds like original poster does his part in the community, OP is just asking another poster who is a landlord who OP feels was not on the up & up about a situation, to (a) come forth about what was previously said and (b) consider looking at his property differently. There is nothing wrong with that. It doesn't mean HE or SHE (OP) has to go out and buy his own property.

We all have ideas about what we'd like our neighborhoods to look like. Park Slope IS becoming real estate companies, cell phone stores, hi end chi chi shops, expensive restaurants and whatever 'edge' it once had (and please I don't need the comments here about how I'd like to go back to the time when there were drugs and gangs ... that's NOT the point either) is long becoming lost. People who come here want the diversity but that won't last much longer if the diversity gets pushed out.

I heard a talk about gentrification in Park Slope and a speaker said landlords have to use their "values" in deciding who to rent to... but if the prevailing view is your "values" are to get as much as money as possible then I don't think it's up the individual landlord. I think it's up to US, people who live in the neighborhood, to register our displeasure. Like we have here to ONE landlord. But there are others. There must be a way to get this concept across. And the Park Slope Civic Council is not going to do it (headed by a realtor).

Even residential landlords are doing the same thing... so it's about, in my view, changing the societal view and then the rest will change.

Those are my views on the topic.

Thanks.