Eviction threat after 50 years in Park Slope is 'like a deat
Comments
-
daver wrote: So the answer to my question then is that you _do_ in fact believe that it is fair to remove all deductions, and tax a married guy with four kids making $20k/yr the exact same rate as a single guy pulling $5mil/yr?
yyyup.
Your evil/good subterfuge and subjectivity aside. -
LongTimeSloper wrote: [quote=daver][quote=LongTimeSloper]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!
Your understanding of what non-profit means is faulty. It does _not_ mean that they aren't making a profit, necessarily. Rather, a non-profit exists for the purpose of providing a benefit to some group as opposed to earning money for someone. A non-profit can most certainly make a profit, but they are restricted as to what they can do with such a surplus. They have to use it to further their exempt purpose, basically. I'm not an expert on this particular non-profit, but if their purpose is education, then purchasing and renovating a space to provide that service would certainly fit within their exempt purpose.
FWIW.
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.
LTS, FYI, my family is not the only far-from-wealthy Berkeley Carroll School family. -
greetings.
As someone who works at a non-profit, I subscribe to Guidestar (a website that publishes the 990's of non-profits)
The 990 is the equivalent of the federal form 1040 used by for profit companies. Guidestar does this in order to promote accountability among non-profits.
If you PM me your email address, I will send you a PDFs of Berkeley Carroll's Federal 990s for the last three years.
Special treat: Non profits list the salaries of their 5 highest paid employees on the form.
Guidestar publishes publicly available info, its just that a lot of non-profits don't make their info easy to get... I support their mission.
P.S. I remain neutral in whether it is a good school or whether their staff is paid too much. I would just like to enter some actual information into the debate.
PS #2: You've gotta PM before 7:00PM on Friday, that's when my weekend begins, and I won't be spending it on Brooklynian
. You folks will have to resolve the "should a non-profit evict a long term tenant?", and the "how rich is that private school?" questions without me. -
metalnyc wrote:
If a $5M a year stock broker can't figure out how to put money in a 529, and then save some money from the roughly $3M he gets to keep after taxes, his kids don't deserve to go to Harvard.
Value is subjective. If you tax the $5mil/yr stock broker so much that he can't send his 2 kids to Harvard, and they worked they asses off so they could go there, aren't you diminishing their value? (of course this is an example not using real dollars.) Like i said, you're seen as evil when you do what your supposed to do.
Perhaps that how the country got into this whole economic mess in the first place. -
"U.S. Tax System Explained in Beer
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. 'Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers?
How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $20,' declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10! "Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man.
'I only saved a dollar, too.. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I! "That's true!!' shouted the seventh man.
'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two?
The wealthy get all the breaks!
"Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!
'The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man ( the richest) didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
-Reido" -
eh, everything on the Internet can be debunked somehow.
"Although it is not specified, I think we must be discussing Federal income taxes. But taxation in the United States is more complicated than that. There’s state income taxes, payroll taxes, estate taxes, capital gain & dividend taxes, property taxes, sales tax and more.
But to simplify, let’s discuss the distribution of wealth. In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth.
Just for fun, let’s see how the distribution of beer would work out in your example.
With that bill of $100, let’s say our heroes purchased a total of 50 beers at $2 apiece.
• The first four men (the poorest) all shared 1% of the beer, or half a can.
• The fifth man drank 3% of the beer, which was a can and a half.
• The next four men drank 25% of the beer, or 12 ½ cans – about 3 cans apiece.
• The tenth man (the richest) drank 35 ½ beers.
I don’t think we should begrudge the first four guys for their measly 1 ½ ounces of beer apiece. I guess the fifth guy got a good deal on his 1 ½ cans for only $1. But the next four guys (mostly the middle class) paid $40 for 12 ½ beers, while the richest guy drank $71 worth of beer and only paid $59. Then, when the price of beer is reduced, the richest guy ends up paying even less of his share, giving guys 6 thru 9 the shaft.
I would have beat up the rich guy too. And when he didn’t show up the next night the remaining 9 guys would have had plenty of money to go around. They could consume 14 ½ cans of beer just like the night before. But without the rich guy there they would only have to pay $29 instead of the $41 they paid the previous evening. And with that $20 price reduction they would only have to pay a total of $9. Not a bad deal." -
This thread has become quite taxing, if you have a moment there is a photo and supporter of the Taliercio family in todays Voice of the People section of the DAILY News.
This should keep everybody busy for another day. -
whynot_31 wrote: greetings.
I have returned. ...PM me your email address for more than you ever wanted to know about Berkeley Carroll, or -don't- if we are now talking about taxation.
As someone who works at a non-profit, I subscribe to Guidestar (a website that publishes the 990's of non-profits)
The 990 is the equivalent of the federal form 1040 used by for profit companies. Guidestar does this in order to promote accountability among non-profits.
If you PM me your email address, I will send you a PDFs of Berkeley Carroll's Federal 990s for the last three years.
Special treat: Non profits list the salaries of their 5 highest paid employees on the form.
Guidestar publishes publicly available info, its just that a lot of non-profits don't make their info easy to get... I support their mission.
P.S. I remain neutral in whether it is a good school or whether their staff is paid too much. I would just like to enter some actual information into the debate.
PS #2: You've gotta PM before 7:00PM on Friday, that's when my weekend begins, and I won't be spending it on Brooklynian. You folks will have to resolve the "should a non-profit evict a long term tenant?", and the "how rich is that private school?" questions without me.
I tried to get the mods to post the pdfs on the site (to protect my identity and yours) but they said it wasn't possible. (I'll use my yahoo email, you;ll have t be really bored to learn who I am) -
you can easily upload them for free on rapidshare, post the download link and anyone can download it.
http://rapidshare.com/ -
vidro3 wrote: you can easily upload them for free on rapidshare, post the download link and anyone can download it.
thanks.
http://rapidshare.com/
Bored readers, here's that info:
2004's info http://rapidshare.com/files/155852330/2004-112611384-1-9.pdf.html
2005's return http://rapidshare.com/files/155852733/2005-112611384-026322fc-9.pdf.html
2006's return http://rapidshare.com/files/155852994/2006-112611384-02c511e8-9.pdf.html
the 2007 return is not yet posted because it is a fiscal year document (fiscal year ends 6/30/08, they have months to file, then guidestar will upload....
It should be an interesting debate. Page 31 of each document lists the salaries. Net assets etc are listed. Have fun... -
I feel bad for the old lady and her husband. It's gets harder to deal with major life changes as you get older. Plus if she's still working and she's already 68, then she must not have that much money to begin with. Unfortunately, that's the plight of the renter. You have to expect that one day your landlord can ask you to leave. I don't agree with other posters blaming the greed of the school either. It's their building and they need it for classroom expansion. They have every right to use their building as they see fit. Also, most private schools and hospitals are non-profit organizations. It does not mean they don't make a profit. It's just what is done with the surplus that distinguishes a for-profit from a non-profit. A for-profit company can use their surplus to enrich their owners and shareholders, or to reinvest it in the company. A non-profit company can only do the latter. As for the multi-million dollar renovations, that money is usually generated from capital campaigns, fund-raising and private donations, not from the tuition they charge.
-
The article that started this thread is a perfect example of just what a sick and warped caricature Park Slope has become. Not many people seem to notice the elephant in the room in the fact that there is now a visible and severe lack of older/elderly folks in this neighborhood thanks to its ridiculously overpriced and transient nature.
And yet Park Slope carries an image as a 'happy' and 'healthy' 'family neighborhood.' What a sick joke.
-
Obamanut, you're so predictable. You express your bitterness with every post. Don't you have anything better to do? Any place better to be? Must you constantly rain on everyone else's parade?
MODS... has Restless Native returned with a new screen name? Can anything be done? -
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.
What does lifetime residence have to do with anything? She entered a rental agreement, just like anyone else. Renting = The apartment is not hers to claim, period. Age/personality/landlord irrelevant. It is the unfortunate yet real consequence every renter could face.
Maybe they should offer her 100,000.00 tax free dollars to move on,they sure can afford it. -
[quote="Obamanut"]The article that started this thread is a perfect example of just what a sick and warped caricature Park Slope has become. Not many people seem to notice the elephant in the room in the fact that there is now a visible and severe lack of older/elderly folks in this neighborhood thanks to its ridiculously overpriced and transient nature.
************************************************
you left out one thing old people die and the ones that didn't are virtually impossible to uproute them from their rent controlled or rent stabilized apartments and rightfully so. being the great humanitarian you seem to be presenting your self as , when one of your overcharged tenants leave , why not take a senior, who is not protected by either of these laws , under your wing and charge them the rent the that was being charged when your ancestor purchased the building , which was probably $42.00 a month, at this stage the building is all profit and you would be the true revolutionary you claim to be. -
arieshine wrote: [quote=Hamilton]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.
What does lifetime residence have to do with anything? She entered a rental agreement, just like anyone else. Renting = The apartment is not hers to claim, period. Age/personality/landlord irrelevant. It is the unfortunate yet real consequence every renter could face.
Maybe they should offer her 100,000.00 tax free dollars to move on,they sure can afford it.
*****************************************
Over the years She paid the mortgage and your indifference to her problems are that of a true speculator, who doesn't give a shit about anything ,but profit at any human cost. -
I'm thinking you all get teary eyed over this old bitch because she's the only one left. If this neighborhood or your building was chock a block full of rent controlled antiques you all would be screaming about the high rents you pay to support their retirement. Obamanut is only stating the truth. We are the reason this old women had to leave. This is class warfare and she happens to be one of the last causalities.
-
Hamilton wrote: [quote=arieshine][quote=Hamilton]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.
What does lifetime residence have to do with anything? She entered a rental agreement, just like anyone else. Renting = The apartment is not hers to claim, period. Age/personality/landlord irrelevant. It is the unfortunate yet real consequence every renter could face.
Maybe they should offer her 100,000.00 tax free dollars to move on,they sure can afford it.
*****************************************
Over the years She paid the mortgage and your indifference to her problems are that of a true speculator, who doesn't give a shit about anything ,but profit at any human cost.
Well now that wasn't really very nice, was it. Let's stick to the discussion at hand and maturely avoid personal criticisms. We're technically anonymous here, and a single post of mine you've read is hardly justification to make such rash statements about my attitude towards life as a whole. I respect differing opinions, so please respect mine. -
booklaw wrote: Obamanut, you're so predictable. You express your bitterness with every post. Don't you have anything better to do? Any place better to be? Must you constantly rain on everyone else's parade?
What is your problem? Like there aren't other posters on this site that are "predictable"?
MODS... has Restless Native returned with a new screen name? Can anything be done?
The subject I speak of--the near-complete absence of elderly residents in Park Slope--is a disturbing and shameful trend.
I realize that you would ideally like to use this board as a gentrification celebration echo chamber, but the reality is that everyone doesn't share your views.
As for me being another poster, this is the only handle I've ever used and the only IP address I've ever used, so I'm not sure why you're trying to use that as some excuse to shut me up. -
Hamilton wrote:
For your information, I already have two, smart ass.
you left out one thing old people die and the ones that didn't are virtually impossible to uproute them from their rent controlled or rent stabilized apartments and rightfully so. being the great humanitarian you seem to be presenting your self as , when one of your overcharged tenants leave , why not take a senior, who is not protected by either of these laws , under your wing and charge them the rent the that was being charged when your ancestor purchased the building , which was probably $42.00 a month, at this stage the building is all profit and you would be the true revolutionary you claim to be. -
arieshine wrote: [quote=Hamilton][quote=arieshine][quote=Hamilton]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.
What does lifetime residence have to do with anything? She entered a rental agreement, just like anyone else. Renting = The apartment is not hers to claim, period. Age/personality/landlord irrelevant. It is the unfortunate yet real consequence every renter could face.
Maybe they should offer her 100,000.00 tax free dollars to move on,they sure can afford it.
*****************************************
Over the years She paid the mortgage and your indifference to her problems are that of a true speculator, who doesn't give a shit about anything ,but profit at any human cost.
Well now that wasn't really very nice, was it. Let's stick to the discussion at hand and maturely avoid personal criticisms. We're technically anonymous here, and a single post of mine you've read is hardly justification to make such rash statements about my attitude towards life as a whole. I respect differing opinions, so please respect mine.
*********************************************
Your opinion is very difficult to respect, when it comes to your indifference to the fact she has lived in the apartment for so many years and has some very sad and personal memories that keep her there .
She and her original landlord are from a different time when renters and landlords respected each other, we now live in an era where no one protects the underclass as the politicians are nothing but whores for the developers who are destroying Brooklyn.
Contest that if you can, as delicate as you are.. -
I don't lack sympathy for the woman, and I do not doubt that it's going to be very difficult for her to leave. As it is for any man or woman of an age where they find they can't live in what they consider to be their lifetime residence, for monetary reasons or otherwise. My post wasn't to express my indifference or say that she "deserves" this situation. I actually made no comments regarding my feelings toward her personally at all. My point was to express that, right or wrong, her move is inevitable, within the law, and our feelings about what the owner "should" or "should not" do are irrelevant.
Still I see that you cannot resist adding a personal insult to each reply you make. It took a lot away from your post. -
Hamilton wrote:
Respected each other? You can't be serious? Is that why we have Rent Control laws, Rent Stabilization laws, Landlord/Tenant Court in every boro, because LLs and Tenants respected each other. I don't know what era you are from or planet.
She and her original landlord are from a different time when renters and landlords respected each other, we now live in an era where no one protects the underclass as the politicians are nothing but whores for the developers who are destroying Brooklyn. -
modsquad wrote: [quote=Hamilton]
Respected each other? You can't be serious? Is that why we have Rent Control laws, Rent Stabilization laws, Landlord/Tenant Court in every boro, because LLs and Tenants respected each other. I don't know what era you are from or planet..
She and her original landlord are from a different time when renters and landlords respected each other, we now live in an era where no one protects the underclass as the politicians are nothing but whores for the developers who are destroying Brooklyn.
************************************************
My statement was based on conversations with seniors ,aunts ,uncles who lived on the planet Brooklyn in the 40's through the 60's and knew their landlords on a first name basis.
If you read my post it clearly states ,She and her original landlord are from a different time., -
arieshine wrote: I don't lack sympathy for the woman, and I do not doubt that it's going to be very difficult for her to leave. As it is for any man or woman of an age where they find they can't live in what they consider to be their lifetime residence, for monetary reasons or otherwise. My post wasn't to express my indifference or say that she "deserves" this situation. I actually made no comments regarding my feelings toward her personally at all. My point was to express that, right or wrong, her move is inevitable, within the law, and our feelings about what the owner "should" or "should not" do are irrelevant.
***************************
Still I see that you cannot resist adding a personal insult to each reply you make. It took a lot away from your post.
I read your statement " what does lifetime residency have to do with anything" as an indifference to the renter and feel you could have used a different lead in. -
Obamanut wrote: [quote=Hamilton]
For your information, I already have two, smart ass.
you left out one thing old people die and the ones that didn't are virtually impossible to uproute them from their rent controlled or rent stabilized apartments and rightfully so. being the great humanitarian you seem to be presenting your self as , when one of your overcharged tenants leave , why not take a senior, who is not protected by either of these laws , under your wing and charge them the rent the that was being charged when your ancestor purchased the building , which was probably $42.00 a month, at this stage the building is all profit and you would be the true revolutionary you claim to be.
Yer grammie and pop pop don't count. -
Whatchuwant wrote: [quote=Obamanut][quote=Hamilton]
For your information, I already have two, smart ass.
you left out one thing old people die and the ones that didn't are virtually impossible to uproute them from their rent controlled or rent stabilized apartments and rightfully so. being the great humanitarian you seem to be presenting your self as , when one of your overcharged tenants leave , why not take a senior, who is not protected by either of these laws , under your wing and charge them the rent the that was being charged when your ancestor purchased the building , which was probably $42.00 a month, at this stage the building is all profit and you would be the true revolutionary you claim to be.
Yer grammie and pop pop don't count.
There is no need to try and play gotcha with Obamanut. He is obviously a saint. I am sure he also volunteers at a soup kitchen, reads to blind people, and is working on a cure for cancer. -
Hamilton wrote: [quote=arieshine]I don't lack sympathy for the woman, and I do not doubt that it's going to be very difficult for her to leave. As it is for any man or woman of an age where they find they can't live in what they consider to be their lifetime residence, for monetary reasons or otherwise. My post wasn't to express my indifference or say that she "deserves" this situation. I actually made no comments regarding my feelings toward her personally at all. My point was to express that, right or wrong, her move is inevitable, within the law, and our feelings about what the owner "should" or "should not" do are irrelevant.
***************************
Still I see that you cannot resist adding a personal insult to each reply you make. It took a lot away from your post.
I read your statement " what does lifetime residency have to do with anything" as an indifference to the renter and feel you could have used a different lead in.
Well, what does it have to do with anything?
How is having had one arrangement for 50 years justification for it continuing in perpetuity? -
It means everything in this case as Berekely Carroll bought the property knowing it was rent controlled and she could not be evicted.
I guess her arrangement ,under the rent control laws will keep her there another 50 years -
Hamilton wrote: It means everything in this case as Berekely Carroll bought the property knowing it was rent controlled and she could not be evicted.
actually, Berkeley Carroll bough the property knowing that it was rent controlled and that she could be evicted since the eviction exemption does not apply to Non-profit institutions.
I guess her arrangement ,under the rent control laws will keep her there another 50 years
I guess ignoring a possible, legal, outcome of your agreement for 50 years entitles you to stay for another 50.
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds