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

Jamzer wrote: [quote=daver] But I make less than half that and my taxes will start at $1,200 a year higher on Obama's plan than McCain's one, and the difference goes up yearly from there.

How do you figure?
With my fingers, unless I gotta count above ten.

I used http://obamataxcut.com , utilizing the number at Tax Policy Center.

As I recall, in a previous discussion on this topic in another thread, I wasn't the only one on this board making far under $250k that faced higher taxes under Obama than McCain. FWIW.

Hamilton wrote: I'm amazed how some of these posters take the side of a tax free organization ,that specializes in educating wealthy children over the plight of a senior citizen that has lived her whole life in the neighborhood.

Maybe they should offer her 100,000.00 tax free dollars to move on,they sure can afford it.

They did that in the 1980's when the offered her $50k. Adjusted for inflation that's about $132k in today's money. http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

Look, as I have said before, I do not wish this woman ill but I have a hard time seeing her as a victim. She had a great benefit for a long time and now it is over. And like I said earlier, this did not come out of the clear blue. They offered her money to leave in the 80's and in 2006. An eviction requires significant notification and court proceedings. So she knew that this was a possibility and instead of making contingencies her plan was to try and get public sympathy to pressure the school into reconsidering.

The whole "but she lived there all her life" argument does not hold water either. It relies solely on sentimentality and nostalgia, not on any logic. Why should having lived there for 50 years entitle her to live there for another 50? How many millions of people in this city over the last 50 years have had to leave a place that had emotional significance to them? That's the pattern of new york city.

this woman should be saying, well i've had it great for 50 years, i guess this has run its course, instead of trying to get sympathy. Maybe we have become a nation of whiners.

LongTimeSloper wrote:

i just can't stay away from this thread, but, I will try to remain calm

thank you for that info. But, to me to say that BC is providing a benefit to some group-umm, ok. yes, they are a school, but a school for wealthy people who can afford to pay their exorbitant tuition (IMO). I guess that is beneficial to the people who can afford to send their children to a private school, but, beneficial to the community? No, and I don't see why they should get special tax breaks for it. JMO of course. But, thank you for the info.

Whether you agree or disagree with the concept of private school is not the issue. They are a legal not-for-profit. They own the building. They told her years and years ago they wanted her out, and even offered her money to move. That they wanted her to move should not be a surprise to her.

Any by the way, they do provide tuition assistance in certain instances for students who need it. I am in no way affiliated with Berkeley Carroll, but they are hardly the picture of the evil landlord.

While agreeing with the overall socialist stance on sharing the wealth, I disagree deeply with sense of entitlement shown by this woman. She's not claiming poverty. She's claiming inconvenience. She gambled and lost.

Hamilton wrote: then offer her $132,000.00 instead of a paltry $20,000.00. I don't know what benefit she received as a renter , as she paid the required rent .
Does anyone know why she turned down the offer in the 80's,should someone address that before labeling her as greedy or an out of touch whiner..

she had the benefit of living in a rent controlled apartment at a rate far below market rent for several decades.

vidro3 wrote: The whole "but she lived there all her life" argument does not hold water either. It relies solely on sentimentality and nostalgia, not on any logic. Why should having lived there for 50 years entitle her to live there for another 50? How many millions of people in this city over the last 50 years have had to leave a place that had emotional significance to them? That's the pattern of new york city.

She's using her two dead kids and the fact that they're buried in the nearby cemetery as her main excuse, it seems.

i still suspect she has a nice fortune saved up

hitokiri wrote: i still suspect she has a nice fortune saved up

***************************

I guess that's why she works in a bank, she wants to be near her money.

Jamzer wrote: [quote=caseopele]Jamzer, I don't know what the senior staff earns at BC. I just find it completely ridiculous that they charge $14,000 for Pre-K Half Day(!), then up to 29k for the senior year. Plus they get donations so I'm pretty sure the staff at that school is doing real good.

My guess is that BC pays the going market rate for its staff and not a penny more. Just because they are a non-profit does not mean that they should not pay a sufficient salary to attract the best people for the job.

And LongTimeSloper - you are confusing a not-for-profit with a charity. You also don't know what "profit" means. A charity should operate on a shoestring budget so that most of the money it gets goes to providing services. A not-for-profit has no such obligation. BC does not make a profit because everything it earns goes back into its programs or improving its physical plant. Harvard, Yale, Berkely Caroll, etc are all expensive and exclusive, but they do provide a public benefit.


this is what I always thought the word "profit' meant:

"prof·it /ˈprɒfɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[prof-it] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1.Often, profits.
a.pecuniary gain resulting from the employment of capital in any transaction. Compare gross profit, net profit.
b.the ratio of such pecuniary gain to the amount of capital invested.
c.returns, proceeds, or revenue, as from property or investments.
2.the monetary surplus left to a producer or employer after deducting wages, rent, cost of raw materials, etc.: The company works on a small margin of profit.
3.advantage; benefit; gain. "


Anyway, now that I have been educated by you, just how does a private school provide a public benefit?

LongTimeSloper wrote: Anyway, now that I have been educated by you, just how does a private school provide a public benefit?

just for the sake of argument, one way private schools benefit the public is by removing students from the public system. their parents continue to pay taxes (and given that these parents are likely to have more money than average and likely to therefore pay higher property taxes, the dominant source of school funding). their money goes into the public system, where it is shared around a smaller number of public school students than would exist without private schools. the remaining public school students receive more resources per capita than they would otherwise.

of course, this simplifies the situation -- the effect of removing the more educated parents from the likely volunteer pool, the problem of removing the parents likely to have higher connections and higher donations to politica campaigns, etc -- but the broad strokes are still true

LongTimeSloper wrote: Anyway, now that I have been educated by you, just how does a private school provide a public benefit?

If we are talking about IRS regulations, then here are the allowed purposes for 501(c)(3):

The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.

A private school would most certainly serve the advancement of education.

How does this help the public? Another reg:

A section 501(c)(3) organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, such as the creator or the creator's family, shareholders of the organization, other designated individuals, or persons controlled directly or indirectly by such private interests. No part of the net earnings of a section 501(c)(3) organization may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. A private shareholder or individual is a person having a personal and private interest in the activities of the organization.

The private school (presumably) doesn't exist to enrich the organizers of said school, therefore it is not serving a direct or indirect private interest. Ergo, it serves the public.

That has the coin to go there.



I know somebunny was making a funny, but yah, cemeteries can be nonprofit under 501(c)(13), providing that they are operated for the benefit of their members, and not for the profit of their owners. If ya know whaddi mean.

All of which has not a hell of a lot to do with rent control, the subject at hand. In my mind, whether she shoulda/coulda/woulda or has been saving her spare coin these fifty odd years is completely immaterial. None of anyone's business but hers. The two issues would be
1) Is it legal to give her the boot?
2) Is it right?
Apparently the answer to #1 is yes, so the only thing left to debate is #2. I'm of the opinion that rent control and rent stabilization are self eliminating. Meaning, that if the landlord enacts the allowed rent increases every year, eventually the unit becomes non controlled or stabilized and takes care of itself. Apparently BC never raised her rent, which I believe would be 7.5% per year (possibly more) in a rent controlled unit. One can say that they were doing her a favor, I would say that it is more likely that they just never had it together enough to keep on top of it. Or that it didn't register on their radar. Or it was an oversight. Whatever. And now they are in a bit of an untenable situation, looking to rectify it.

Legally, ya, I suppose they can kick her out. That doesn't make it right. I would like to see them work with her and come to some sort of agreement to resolve the situation amicably. They obviously have a fuckton of resources, it seems that they could place her somehow in a fashion that would be agreeable to everyone involved.

good post daver

If she plays her cards right she an probably rake in $200-$350G's.

Seems like BC was in the same position

http://www.brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2008/10/berkeley_carrol.php#comments

hitokiri wrote: Is it right to kick her out? Well...should morals even be brought into the equation?

Why shouldn't they? Especially for an elderly person who has buried two of three children and a non-profit educational institution?

hitokiri wrote: She has been renting for over 50 yrs. When you rent, you automatically enter into an agreement that you can be kicked out because you do not own the property.

Not exactly, you are forgetting that this isn't a simple rental situation. This is a NYC rent controlled apartment, to which special rules and stipulations, and yes _guarantees_ apply.

hitokiri wrote: Well...hers *IS* a special case because you need to be a special organization in order to kick her out. But thats exactly what happend.

Does it suck? Yes.
Is it right morally? I dont think that should be a question.

Whyever not? Should not such concepts always be taken into consideration? Just because something is _legal_ does most certainly _not_ make it right. Or just. Which are things that we, as a people and society _should_ be concerned with.

hitokiri wrote: It's more along the lines of legality. And the school has every right to do so. They dont even have to offer her money or set her up with anything. They can flat out kick her out onto the street.... not a good rep for the school, but they can. And I think thats the point.

If she makes them mad, the school could go all mafioso and say "listen, we were being nice and offering you money, but now you pissed us off. Out you go!"

Yes, I suppose they could.

Bully for them.

LongTimeSloper wrote: Anyway, now that I have been educated by you, just how does a private school provide a public benefit?

By educating children.