Eviction threat after 50 years in Park Slope is 'like a deat
Comments
-
Your right , I was wrong on the assumption non profit inst. were not able to evict
-
vidro3 wrote: [quote=Hamilton]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.
wow, that's interesting. 501 status trumps rent law? Bad ethics, that.
Doubt it said in her lease anything to the effect that 'this rent control situation goes out the window if a non-profit buys the building.' -
[quote="booklaw"]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?
You are the only poster whose every post reflects a single political agenda... i.e. to criticize the yuppies and hipsters who (you claim) have ruined your ancestral neighborhood.
[quote="Obamanut"]
What is your problem? Like there aren't other posters on this site that are "predictable"?
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.
You attempt to hijack every single thread you enter by turning it into a referendum on gentrification.
Why don't you ask Brooklynian to add a new message board, specifically for Disaffected Old-School Old-Time Residents of Gentrified Brooklyn Neighborhoods, and then play in that playground with anyone who shares your negativity? -
pitu wrote: [quote=vidro3][quote=Hamilton]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.
wow, that's interesting. 501 status trumps rent law? Bad ethics, that.
Doubt it said in her lease anything to the effect that 'this rent control situation goes out the window if a non-profit buys the building.'
This is why a judge, not bloggers, get to decide the outcome.
P.S. This thread is back again!? -
whynot_31 wrote: [quote=pitu][quote=vidro3][quote=Hamilton]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.
wow, that's interesting. 501 status trumps rent law? Bad ethics, that.
Doubt it said in her lease anything to the effect that 'this rent control situation goes out the window if a non-profit buys the building.'
This is why a judge, not bloggers, get to decide the outcome.
Here we are on a message board to exchanging ideas and information. Maybe what we collectively come up with will effect how we view our lease agreements, or our neighbors.
Maybe we can use this info to elect judges that do what we want...
:roll:whynot_31 wrote:
yeah, right?!
P.S. This thread is back again!? -
I blame applepants.
-
booklaw wrote:
This thread is about a longtime resident being forced out of her home, so I am not quite sure why you are posting in it telling me that I'm off topic and out of line. As a lawyer, you of all people should have a grasp of the concept of "relevance."
You are the only poster whose every post reflects a single political agenda... i.e. to criticize the yuppies and hipsters who (you claim) have ruined your ancestral neighborhood.
You attempt to hijack every single thread you enter by turning it into a referendum on gentrification.
Why don't you ask Brooklynian to add a new message board, specifically for Disaffected Old-School Old-Time Residents of Gentrified Brooklyn Neighborhoods, and then play in that playground with anyone who shares your negativity? -
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?
Off topic here, but what would like to happen? Certainly you're not advocating that someone be silenced because you don't like their comments? Who the hell agrees with everybody all of the time?
MODS... has Restless Native returned with a new screen name? Can anything be done? -
Eggcream, I rarely agree with your posts, but I have no objection to them, because you do not interpret every issue through exactly the same ideological prism.
As I wrote previously, Obamanut tries to turn every single thread he enters into a debate about gentrification and its impact on Park Slope.
Whether or not I agree with his perspective is not the issue... the issue is whether we have to have the same tired arguments in every thread. -
booklaw wrote: Eggcream, I rarely agree with your posts, but I have no objection to them, because you do not interpret every issue through exactly the same ideological prism.
First of all, I'm going to point out once again that this is a thread about a senior citizen, longtime resident being pushed out of her home by "The Berkeley Carroll School." If that's not enough of a direct and obvious clue to you that this thread is about "gentrification" then I don't know what else I can do for you.
As I wrote previously, Obamanut tries to turn every single thread he enters into a debate about gentrification and its impact on Park Slope.
Whether or not I agree with his perspective is not the issue... the issue is whether we have to have the same tired arguments in every thread.
Second, the members of Brooklynian are grown men and women who are capable of choosing who they interact with, and what about. Last I checked, I was not a spammer. If you aren't interested in what I have to say, simply scroll past my posts and I will happily do the same to yours, and we will both be fine. -
The school was chartered in 1886 (per their website). I hardly think that's a sign of gentrification.
-
Anastasia Beaverhausen wrote: The school was chartered in 1886 (per their website). I hardly think that's a sign of gentrification.
You know what, you are completely right; the current-day incarnation of Berkeley Carroll is an authentic remnant of Park Slope's working-class past. Now that I think about it, everyone I knew growing up was having their parents shell out the 1980's equivalent of $30k a year for grades 1-8. It's simply incredible that it's been able to hold out after all these years. Good call. -
Must you argue about EVERYTHING? Jesus.
-
Anastasia Beaverhausen wrote: Must you argue about EVERYTHING? Jesus.
No, I agree with you really--I was mistaken in thinking that the expansion of a school that charges $30k/yr for grades one through twelve was the result of gentrification. I agree with you, I also now "hardly think that's a sign of gentrification." -
on a more factual basis, does anyone know when this will actually go to court?
It's an interesting enough conflict that Case Law might be established as result of it.
...the first effect that comes to mind is on insitutions such as Columbia University (which has purchased large chunks of the Upperwest side, that it hopes to tear down; including occupied rent control and rent stabalized units) and the ever expanding NYU.
If the tenant wins in this case, it would certainly put a damper on the expansion dreams of such non-profits. (for better or worse) -
Obamanut wrote: First of all, I'm going to point out once again that this is a thread about a senior citizen, longtime resident being pushed out of her home by "The Berkeley Carroll School." If that's not enough of a direct and obvious clue to you that this thread is about "gentrification" then I don't know what else I can do for you.
Please - the reasons your posts infuriate so many is because all your old time buddies who lived here sold out to what you call the gentrifiers - if you were a real brooklynite you wouldn't be taking the money from those your spew hatred about and instead offering this elderly couple a nice apartment in your building - you know cause that's how the old timers did it.
And I think that booklaw hit it on the head - sharing one's differing opinions is all well and good but when you constantly post the same bs over and over, how is someone supposed to take your seriously or even try to have a meaningful conversation. -
stacey wrote:
Thanks for the information on what "all my old time buddies" did, but if I recall correctly, most if not all of my buddies were priced out of their apartments along with their families.
Please - the reasons your posts infuriate so many is because all your old time buddies who lived here sold out to what you call the gentrifiers - if you were a real brooklynite you wouldn't be taking the money from those your spew hatred about and instead offering this elderly couple a nice apartment in your building - you know cause that's how the old timers did it.
And I think that booklaw hit it on the head - sharing one's differing opinions is all well and good but when you constantly post the same bs over and over, how is someone supposed to take your seriously or even try to have a meaningful conversation.
What I do with my building will have all of zero effect on what happens in my neighborhood. It's already dead and buried, it's toast. You and the rest of "your buddies" came up with some ridiculous image of 'urban living' after watching too much TV, set your crosshairs on Park Slope to carry it out, and then came from Pennsatucky with wheelbarrows full of that red state Republican money.
Back not too long ago, owning a building in Park Slope was a liability, not a luxury, because of a large number of deadbeat tenants and anti-landlord laws. So, when some newcomer rolled up with that wheelbarrow full of what (at that time) appeared to be a lot of money, a lot of these naive natives jumped at the chance. I don't fault them for it. But that doesn't change my feelings about any of you, and your thinly-veiled animosity towards Park Slope natives which oozes out of your post like rancid Food Co-op tofu. -
Obamanut wrote: What I do with my building will have all of zero effect on what happens in my neighborhood.
Well when I purchased my house (which by the way was sold to me at a discount from a long time neighbor), I was able to keep the same tenant at the lower rent because it's what neighbors do for each other. Now my tenant's children will be able to go to better schools in NY, my tenant and her family can be closer to their families. Guess you don't see it that way you just see the $ signs.Obamanut wrote:
Sorry to disappoint but I was born and raised in Brooklyn. So take your sweeping generalizations to someone who gives a shit.
You and the rest of "your buddies" came up with some ridiculous image of 'urban living' after watching too much TV, set your crosshairs on Park Slope to carry it out, and then came from Pennsatucky with wheelbarrows full of that red state Republican money
I apologize to the other posters here and will not add more since it would be going off topic. -
Obamarnuts responses should read, see my previous response.
Actually, I find him very entertaining ,as he gives everyone ,someone to vent on.
Keep it up old boy. -
stacey wrote:
Stacey, you are the exception. How do you know how much your tenant makes? All you are doing is putting off the inevitable. Ultimately the lower rent will be too much to bare and reach up and bite you in the ass and then there will be another story about some poor old women being tossed by a heartless landlord. Or maybe your tenant's kids will grow up thinking that they will be able to stay close to their parents. Hopefully they can go to Harvard Law since their parents have so much money and afford to stay in your neighborhood. By then they can also harass the shit out of their parent's landlord and keep them in a under market apartment for the rest of their lives. Oh gee, I forgot they can legally inherit said under market apartment.
Well when I purchased my house (which by the way was sold to me at a discount from a long time neighbor), I was able to keep the same tenant at the lower rent because it's what neighbors do for each other. Now my tenant's children will be able to go to better schools in NY, my tenant and her family can be closer to their families. Guess you don't see it that way you just see the $ signs. -
I like him too Hamilton...keeps the hipsters on their toes, lol
-
Stacey, it sounds like you own a two family home, If you do, is your tenant protected by rent control laws.
-
modsquad wrote: [quote=stacey]
Stacey, you are the exception. How do you know how much your tenant makes? All you are doing is putting off the inevitable. Ultimately the lower rent will be too much to bare and reach up and bite you in the ass and then there will be another story about some poor old women being tossed by a heartless landlord. Or maybe your tenant's kids will grow up thinking that they will be able to stay close to their parents. Hopefully they can go to Harvard Law since their parents have so much money and afford to stay in your neighborhood. By then they can also harass the shit out of their parent's landlord and keep them in a under market apartment for the rest of their lives. Oh gee, I forgot they can legally inherit said under market apartment.
Well when I purchased my house (which by the way was sold to me at a discount from a long time neighbor), I was able to keep the same tenant at the lower rent because it's what neighbors do for each other. Now my tenant's children will be able to go to better schools in NY, my tenant and her family can be closer to their families. Guess you don't see it that way you just see the $ signs.
Im not being snarky but Im not sure I understand what you mean - I would not have bought a house if I had to rely on my rental income to pay my bills or mortgage. Im not sure how them paying lower rent would bite me in the ass. My home is next door to most of my husband's family. Our tenants are my husband's cousin and they are the same age as us. We are very close and friendly with them. They are excellent tenants. So maybe I am the exception but I still feel that sometimes having peace of mind with a stable, honest and good tenant is better than looking at how much more $ I can make.
Hamilton - it is a 2 family -
modsquad wrote: Or maybe your tenant's kids will grow up thinking that they will be able to stay close to their parents. Hopefully they can go to Harvard Law since their parents have so much money and afford to stay in your neighborhood.
Some time ago I read and responded to a letter in the New York Times from Pete Hamill's daughter, who expressed her bitterness that she could not afford to live in Park Slope, where she grew up and where previous generations of her family had lived.
The fact is that my own daughters cannot afford to live in Park Slope, and probably never will be able to... both have chosen to work for 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations... each decided that doing good was more important than doing well.
Are any of us bitter? Not at all. I am extremely proud of their values and their choices, and while they would love to live in expensive neighborhoods, they are willing to sacrifice and compromise to serve their own ideals.
Perhaps Stacy's tenant's kids will attend Harvard Law, or perhaps they too will decide that living next door to mom isn't the most important thing in the world. -
stacey wrote: Our tenants are my husband's cousin and they are the same age as us. We are very close and friendly with them. They are excellent tenants. So maybe I am the exception but I still feel that sometimes having peace of mind with a stable, honest and good tenant is better than looking at how much more $ I can make.
Excuse me, those are not "tenants," those are your FAMILY. You just gave yourself away. You are bragging about giving family members a break on rent, and then trying to throw a guilt trip on me for not using my one building as some sort of last-ditch bulwark against the yuppie invasion.
Hamilton - it is a 2 family
You have the audacity to write "Guess you don't see it that way you just see the $ signs" like you are some sort of saint, when all you are doing is giving family members a break, the same as everyone else in the world does. If giving family members a break qualifies as some sort of egalitarianism, then I guess you could call me a regular Mother Teresa.
Wow, you are a class act, that's for sure. -
Obamanut wrote: [quote=stacey]Our tenants are my husband's cousin and they are the same age as us. We are very close and friendly with them. They are excellent tenants. So maybe I am the exception but I still feel that sometimes having peace of mind with a stable, honest and good tenant is better than looking at how much more $ I can make.
Excuse me, those are not "tenants," those are your FAMILY. You just gave yourself away. You are bragging about giving family members a break on rent, and then trying to throw a guilt trip on me for not using my one building as some sort of last-shot bulwark against the yuppie invasion.
Hamilton - it is a 2 family
Wow, you are a class act, that's for sure.
No Obamanut I am not trying to give you a guilt trip, I had every right not to keep them as tenants when we bought but we did. What I was trying to point out to you is that you seem to rent to people you hate just to make more $ instead of helping out the people you seem to respect. As the working class person you claim to be then you would understand that we don't get much breaks so its seems we need to look out for each other. If that makes me a class act I accept that title proudly. -
stacey wrote:
Yadda yadda yadda, you just got caught with your pants around your ankles, so save it. There's nothing admirable about looking out for your own family, that's what you're supposed to do.
No Obamanut I am not trying to give you a guilt trip, I had every right not to keep them as tenants when we bought but we did. What I was trying to point out to you is that you seem to rent to people you hate just to make more $ instead of helping out the people you seem to respect. As the working class person you claim to be then you would understand that we don't get much breaks so its seems we need to look out for each other. If that makes me a class act I accept that title proudly.
"Guess you don't see it that way you just see the $ signs." - stacey
Hah!! -
booklaw wrote:
That's just it, your daughters CHOSE not to live here. Red state Republican money didn't choose for them.
The fact is that my own daughters cannot afford to live in Park Slope, and probably never will be able to... both have chosen to work for 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations... each decided that doing good was more important than doing well.
Are any of us bitter? Not at all. I am extremely proud of their values and their choices, and while they would love to live in expensive neighborhoods, they are willing to sacrifice and compromise to serve their own ideals.
Perhaps Stacy's tenant's kids will attend Harvard Law, or perhaps they too will decide that living next door to mom isn't the most important thing in the world.
And the condescending little remark about "living next to mom" was a nice jibe at the natives there--ironic, though, how "living next to mom" is one example of the things that make communities strong, cultured, and valuable (as opposed to weak, bland, and transient). -
No... they chose to be unable to live here. That's quite different.
They are every bit as affected by what you call "Red state Republican money" (and that is total nonsense... it is Wall Street bonus money, far more than red state money, that has driven up NYC property values) as is anyone else.
I will remind you that my daughters are natives here. Both were born in the Slope and lived here until they went away to college (and one for some time after she finished college). Both of their parents still live in the Slope, and they could have elevated "living next to mom" above all other considerations. They did not, and we are both proud of them for that.
But I understand that in your world view, they should instead have dedicated themselves to hating everyone who put making money... and living next door to mom... ahead of all else. -
Obamanut wrote: [quote=stacey]Our tenants are my husband's cousin and they are the same age as us. We are very close and friendly with them. They are excellent tenants. So maybe I am the exception but I still feel that sometimes having peace of mind with a stable, honest and good tenant is better than looking at how much more $ I can make.
Excuse me, those are not "tenants," those are your FAMILY. You just gave yourself away. You are bragging about giving family members a break on rent, and then trying to throw a guilt trip on me for not using my one building as some sort of last-ditch bulwark against the yuppie invasion.
Hamilton - it is a 2 family
You have the audacity to write "Guess you don't see it that way you just see the $ signs" like you are some sort of saint, when all you are doing is giving family members a break, the same as everyone else in the world does. If giving family members a break qualifies as some sort of egalitarianism, then I guess you could call me a regular Mother Teresa.
***********************************************
If anyone was to call you anything starting with Mother, I doubt it would be Teresa.
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