Goodbye, Crazy Lane

Ben wrote: This is from the Massey Knakal site:

355 & 427 Saint John Place, Brooklyn, NY (Saint Johns Place between Washington Avenue and Underhill Avenue)

These are two 4-story multifamily buildings with approximately 28,986 square feet, located on Saint Johns Place between Underhill Avenue and Washington Avenue. There are a total of 32 apartments. In addition, there are air-rights for approximately 15,176 square feet of residential space. The buildings were renovated 1983 under the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Project-Based Section 8 Program. The owner did not renew the Section 8 status for the buildings. This is a great investment opportunity. Asking Price: $5,000,000

Only $172 per square foot, not even counting the value of the air rights? That seems really low.

Subject: Re: Goodbye, Crazy Lane

Jack Krohn wrote: Wow, that's great news! That should speed up the gentrification of so-called "Crazy Lane", something that I support without apology.

It's fucked up to cheer while 32 families pack up their belongings.

Subject: Re: Goodbye, Crazy Lane

heights249 wrote: Wow, that's great news! That should speed up the gentrification of so-called "Crazy Lane", something that I support without apology.

This comment alone makes me sick - and ashamed...I'm really hoping that this attitude is not reflective of the majority of you participating on this board. If it isn't, I would implore you to say so - if it is - your silence will be enough.

Although I've been posting here a while, I've only been living in the neighborhood a couple of weeks. I haven't had to deal with "Crazy Lane" like many of the other posters here, so I don't feel like I have a lot to say on the subject. The above comment certainly wasn't particularly diplomatic, sensitive, or helpful, but neither is trying to shame everyone into piping up on an issue about which they may not have anything meaningful to add.

the issue os gentrification - there already is a "sandbox" on the topic

I actually didn't state that there was a definitive "line in the sand" or allude to the fact that gentrification didn't exist - obviously it does - and I'm a part of it - no matter what I think of it - I was trying to persuade people to comment on the consequences of gentrification i.e.: the pushing of long-standing tenants out of their established neighborhoods and homes. It is a complicated issue and therefore the line, like the zones of affordable housing are more fluid than we may be comfortable with. However, to suggest a celebration in regards to the pushing out of a whole block of people due to them not being able to afford the housing is where I think a line, if one existed, might start to be drawn. To diminish what others are trying to say by throwing out blanket statements such as "hooey" or "I don't know the issue firsthand" - is in my own opinion just an attempt to deflect the issue and perhaps, one's own feelings of guilt. For the record, I'm all for feeling safe in one's own neighborhood - duh. That's really only one aspect of the complexities of gentrification - that there is a sense of safety in a predominatly white neighborhood. The issue is broader than that.

2 things:

1. it's 2 buildings, not a whole block.
2. nothing in the ad says that the buildings are being delivered empty. I don't know the legal implications of non-renewal of section 8 status beyond the fact that section 8 housing would no longer be offered to tenants moving in to those buildings. how this affects their leases, their rents, and their status as tenants is something I have no clue about - I'm not a new york city real estate lawyer and I don't have a copy of anyone's lease in those buildings. just because the buildings are being sold doesn't mean folks are getting evicted: my building, which is co-op, still has at least one rent stabilized legacy tenant (my building is very small - 14 units).

I believe that programs like Section 8, welfare, food stamps, etc. are needed and have a place in our society. I understand that people sometimes fall on hard times and need some help to get them on their feet and towards the path to self sufficiency. Programs like Section 8 that allow people to pay very little for their housing (usually around $100-200/month or so, often even less) allow for the burden of high housing payments to be removed for a period of time until they are able to provide for themselves and their families.

Many people use these programs in the way they were intended, a temporary solution until they can make it on their own. However, there are others who abuse these programs and simply use the money saved to buy nicer clothes, stereos, etc. Additionally, many people just work off the books so they still qualify for the almost free rent even though they don't need it.

Since these programs should be used as a transition towards self sustainability, tenants should not be living under them for more than a few years. If everyone used these programs in the way they should be used, there would not be any long term tenants being forced out of their neighborhoods when the programs ended.

For those who still need the help and have section 8 vouchers, they can be transferred to another building that accepts section 8 which there are many of in NYC. Having to move to a different neighborhood should not be that big of an issue for these people, the important thing is getting help with their rent in the short term so they can get themselves to a place where they won't have to take the subsidy.

For those who have been living in these buildings paying $100/month for the past 20 years I feel no sorrow if they have to move elsewhere to continue paying that type of rent. These programs are not meant to pay someone's rent for life.

The government continues to offer incentives to landlords to renovate buildings in areas where they are being neglected in exchange for agreeing to programs such as section 8. So while these 2 buildings on St. Johns are being taken out of the program after completing their obligations, there are others in other areas that are entering these same programs, much as these buildings did 20 yrs ago. This allows for affordable housing for those who need it to continue to be provided.

What people are saying, heights249, is that you are the latest in a long, and not beloved, line of people who have marched onto this site, told us off, and then huffed back out again when we don't act the way you want. Demanding that people discuss a matter in the manner that you prescribe comes off as arrogant. It would be annoying in a person whom we know well, but at least in that case we'd know other things about them that might mitigate the negative impression. As it is, the only thing most of us know about you is what you've said in this thread. If you had hung out here a bit longer, you'd know that Jack Krohn is a poster whom many (most?) of us don't agree with a lot (most?) of the time, but because he is a good citizen of the board, sometimes people don't get into big arguments with him. Does that mean that we want people thrown out of their homes? No. Only someone who wanted to start a fight would assume that based on evidence of their own manufacture.

It's interesting that you saw me as "marching in" and "telling you off" - When really, I don't think I did either of those things. But, if that's how you percieve it - then so be it. I haven't posted a lot because I haven't found most of the posts very interesting or compelling enough to comment on or needed further commentary. That's not to say I don't value this board, I do, again for the more practical information that it provides, I just haven't had the occasion to offer any new practical information. Now, all of my new posts could be own attempt to put off further my own obligations to work on final papers that are due next week...so, I'll self-disclose further and let you know that I'll be graduating in May with an MSW - and I've been interning all year with kids that have been born into and currently live in now gentrified neighborhoods. I've also been working with kids in Chinatown and am well aware of the racism and biases that occur for them on a daily basis. I've been struggling for two years with my own biases and guilt - and being more aware of their existence has helped me to try and move past them to a more productive place. We all bring in our crap when we communicate with others - and this being a very different form of communcication we not only are communicating our own issues but we're interpreting them from others as well - whether it was intended or not. Okay, I've procrastinated enough and really have to get to work. For the record, again, if I made you feel defensive - that was only partly my intention - the other was to get you to think and perhaps react to something beyond what I was saying.

Candicissima wrote: As person who lives on the block, I think it's pretty sad. It might be "Crazy Lane" -- something which I feel is presently undeserved label -- but it's one of the few blocks that's more Prospect Heights than ProHo. I live next door to one of the buildings being sold and there might occasionally be the young guys hanging out at all hours, but there's also senior citizens and families who live there and where are they going to go in the neighborhood when the new rental prices for an equivalent apt just on the block is over $1700? A fair amount of the remaining rental buildings on the block are run by slumlords and they would do anything to flip an apartment over and jack the rent up past the magic $2000 mark.

what's interesting to me is that despite reports that average rents in manhattan are climbing wildly (10-15%), anecdotal reports from this board that area market rents are climbing even more wildly (20-35%), and Bloomberg saying in public that affordable housing is an important issue, I don't have a real handle on how I can effectively do anything to help the situation. like, I would like to see enforced responsibility to the building's buyers via the terms of the agreement - either stabilizing some or all of the apartments, or making them affordable for low-income purchasers if that's the goal. I'd also love to know what will happen to the leases these folks have - do they have stabilized leases that are being subsidized by section 8?

like Carnivore said - $5M is a really low price for 2 buildings of that square footage - I'm thinking they're not going to be delivered empty, and that (at least some of) these folks do have valid, stable leases. I guess we'll see what happens.

I do think that the worst-case scenario is that everyone gets booted.

Subject: Re: Goodbye, Crazy Lane

nybt wrote: [quote=apollonia666] ...but neither is trying to shame everyone into piping up on an issue about which they may not have anything meaningful to add.

Ditto. If you're going to draw a 'either you're with me or against me' line in the sand... well, get your own sandbox.yeap i agree. there are lines of grey. and hell i'm a fence sitter . i dont like to be force to do anything or go along with anything.

from what i read alot of builders are using some type of goverment assistance/money to build buildings and they are suppose to set aside some sort of low cheap condo or rent property.

Ben wrote: armchair, you may want to look into this yourself. I believe you may be able to take advantage of a J-51 tax abatement for the significant amount of renovation work that you are doing. There may be other programs as well. More info here: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dof/html/property/property_tax_reduc_j_51.shtml

man i could make love to you right now.

kosherdave wrote: [quote=heights249]...I don't hang out with you at Soda,

How come no one hangs out with me at Soda, I mean, except for Brookfetish... who won't even openly claim to know me anymore!! hahaha
It's the shades, man, the shades... 8)

Ben wrote:

man i could make love to you right now.

Whoa there armchair, a simple thank you will suffice.

hehehe thanks bro .