Eviction threat after 50 years in Park Slope is 'like a deat

vidro3 wrote: [quote=LongTimeSloper]And how is she trying to sheister the system? By not wanting to be thrown out of her apartment.

I guess I am missing something here-is she trying to sheister the system because she refused the buy outs from years ago? Is she trying to sheister the system because she is refusing to leave? Where is the sheistering? Please explain this to me.


One of my neighbors for years refused to be bought out of her apartment, because even with 50k -where would she go? She was a single woman who worked as a secretary for many years and did not make a lot of money-maybe 40k to 50k. So, while 50k would make a nice down payment-she wouldn't be able to afford the rest of the living expenses unless she moved out of NY which she did not want to do. Again, not everyone living in Park Slope is making 200k per year!

all good things must come to an end

Real nice attitude there, makes me so proud that some of you people are my neighbors.

...or you could offer her space at your place for $147 a month.

YankeeFan, I have no relationship of any kind with the B-C school. Both of my kids went there for pre-school, and one went (unhappily, in fact) to Middle School there. She is now 31 years old. It's been a long, long time, and I have no feelings of loyalty to the school.

Long Time Sloper, I did not suggest the lady should have found another rent-controlled apartment. I said she should have found a rent-stabilized apartment.

I submit, LTS, that you are allowing your sympathy for a supposedly poor old lady to overwhelm your good sense. She milked the rent-control system (as well as her landlord) for many, many years. Her landlord has not constructed a phony excuse to get rid of her in order to raise the rent (as many landlords would be tempted to do). BC has a good reason, and apparently a reason which is sufficient under the rent control law, to remove her from its building. She should stop whining and move.

The article clearly states she's been there since 1958.

I think it's a disgrace and she should stay put or the school should give her a lot more money.

booklaw wrote: If she's been the sole occupant of the building since the 80's, which is what the article implies, paying a pittance each month, then she's an idiot to expect the owner of the building to tolerate her forever. She should have taken the buyout and found a rent-stabilized apartment.

How do you know they have cash piled up? Do you know her life's story?

tajmb wrote: LTS, you are missing the point. It's not that anyone thinks she can buy an apartment now for the $20k buyout she's now being offered. She could have bought one in the 80s for the $50k buyout she was offered then. But the real issue is that she and her husband have had decades with a minimal rent and reasonable incomes during which they no doubt piled up cash somewhere. She can now use that to buy a place they cannot be thrown out of.

caseopele wrote: I didn't say teachers, I said senior staff. Good teachers should be paid accordingly, please don't claim that I said otherwise.

OK senior staff. I usually take staff of a school to mean teachers, but fine. My point is the same - how much do YOU think the staff should make? I'm just curious.

whynot_31 wrote: Non-profits can pay their staff as well as they like. ...and have as nice of facililites as they like.

Harvard ...Columbia. You don't have do donate, or send your kids to them, but you'll likely have to move out of their building if they own it.

As vidro3 stated all good things must come to an end...

Advice: First reform the tax code to bring integrity back to the term "non-profit". Then, reform the rent control laws. Then, finally, tell your neighbors weather you are proud of them.

Until then, the judge will likely tell her it sucks to be her.

Well said.

She had it good. She should be grateful, and I'm sure is FULLY aware of what's been going on around her, so how long did she expect her golden parachute to last?! Yeah, I told my kids we'd "live here forever!" and that was 2 rentals ago...so I have no sympathy for her either.

Hamilton wrote: sounds like a lot slopers are suffering from low rent envy.....

Nah, I PWN.

And while there were and are some understandable arguments for rent control, "emotional attachment", "stubborness", and "just don't feel like going anywhere" are probably low on the list. And that's pretty much what her statements amount to.

tajmb wrote: LTS, you are missing the point. It's not that anyone thinks she can buy an apartment now for the $20k buyout she's now being offered. She could have bought one in the 80s for the $50k buyout she was offered then. But the real issue is that she and her husband have had decades with a minimal rent and reasonable incomes during which they no doubt piled up cash somewhere. She can now use that to buy a place they cannot be thrown out of.

And, how do you know what her income is or what she can afford in the way of mortgage and maintenance payments?

And, as for the all good things must come to an end quote-heartwarming again folks, I guess that should be the new line when someone loses their job or their home or their marriage.

Whether she is loaded or dirt poor, she has no right to continue to squat in an apartment she does not own, when her landlord needs to renovate the entire building for its own use.

If she qualifies for welfare or other governmental assistance, that's fine, but it doesn't entitle her to a free or nearly free apartment until she dies.

booklaw wrote: Whether she is loaded or dirt poor, she has no right to continue to squat in an apartment she does not own, when her landlord needs to renovate the entire building for its own use.

If she qualifies for welfare or other governmental assistance, that's fine, but it doesn't entitle her to a free or nearly free apartment until she dies.

She is squatting? you mean she hasn't been paying her rent and is living there illegally without the landlord's knowing about it?:

"Squatting is the act of occupying an abandoned or unoccupied space or building that the squatter does not own, rent or otherwise have permission to use. Squatting is significantly more common in urban areas than rural areas, especially when urban decay occurs. According to author Robert Neuwirth, there are one billion squatters globally, that is to say about one in every seven people on the planet.[1]"

and, so, I take it that you believe there should no longer be any rent controlled or rent stabilized in apartments in NY any longer?

LongTimeSloper wrote: [quote=Jamzer][quote=LongTimeSloper]I still love that non profit status!! yet, they are going to do a multi million dollar renovation!

What does one have to do with the other? Seriously - I don't get it. Being a non-profit does not mean that you have to pay your employers poverty wages and have dark dingy offices.

Do you know that most hospitals in New York City are non-profits? Would you say that they should not spend money to hire the best doctors or purchase the most up-to-date equipment?

To me non profit means they aren't making a profit. But, if they can afford a multi million dollar reno-then they are obviously making a darn good profit and need to drop the non profit status BS. I mean, they can do whatever they want with their money, but, it just seems wrong that they get tax breaks and certain rules don't apply to them when they have this non profit status, yet, there is obviously a profit being made!

I am done here, i guess I feel bad for an elderly woman losing her home after so many years. And nothing is going to change me on that end. On the other hand, obviously most people on this board think to hell with her and losing her apartment, she should have known better and taken the money back in the 80s. It's just all very enlightening. To each their own I guess.

in general, i'm with you on this thread's tone, LTS, but i quibble with the assumption that the building will be paid for out of "profit". in almost all cases, schools pay for expansion through capital campaigns, i.e., soliciting donations for the building. it's not the same as a business expanding.

LongTimeSloper wrote: [quote=Jamzer][quote=LongTimeSloper]I still love that non profit status!! yet, they are going to do a multi million dollar renovation!

What does one have to do with the other? Seriously - I don't get it. Being a non-profit does not mean that you have to pay your employers poverty wages and have dark dingy offices.

Do you know that most hospitals in New York City are non-profits? Would you say that they should not spend money to hire the best doctors or purchase the most up-to-date equipment?

To me non profit means they aren't making a profit. But, if they can afford a multi million dollar reno-then they are obviously making a darn good profit and need to drop the non profit status BS. I mean, they can do whatever they want with their money, but, it just seems wrong that they get tax breaks and certain rules don't apply to them when they have this non profit status, yet, there is obviously a profit being made!

I am done here, i guess I feel bad for an elderly woman losing her home after so many years. And nothing is going to change me on that end. On the other hand, obviously most people on this board think to hell with her and losing her apartment, she should have known better and taken the money back in the 80s. It's just all very enlightening. To each their own I guess.

I don't wish her ill, but nor do I think that she is suffering an injustice. Did she think she would be able to live there forever?

Come on. Does that really strike you as a reasonable proposition?

Vidro, Sweet Tea, I would stop resonding to Longtimesloper, as Longtimesloper has clearly stated that he/she is "done here" and will thus be unlikely to read your responses.

Too, Longtimesloper has stated that nothing is going to change his/her mind about feeling bad for the old lady; although this is admittedly not the real issue at hand, I feel that it is affecting his/her ability to be flexible with regard to any logical points that may be addressed.

wow, modsquad, you've totally convinced me! what right have bags and prunes to housing, anyway?!