This site is closed to new comments and posts.

Notice: This site uses cookies to function.
If you are not comfortable with cookies then please don't browse this website.

Stuyvesant Town Peter Cooper : Middle Class Squeezed — Brooklynian

Stuyvesant Town Peter Cooper : Middle Class Squeezed

I saw this all over the news today...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/story/448248p-377350c.html

A neighborhood goes up for sale

Middle class fears being squeezed out


Reported by LISA L. COLANGELO, JORDAN LITE, PHYLLIS FURMAN, ADAM NICHOLS,
RICH SCHAPIRO and JIMMY VIELKIND
Written by CORKY SIEMASZKO

Two of Manhattan's last surviving middle-class enclaves were threatened with extinction last night after MetLife confirmed it was considering putting Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village up for sale.


The sprawling developments along the East River were expected to fetch nearly $5 billion, and developers from as far away as Dubai were drooling at the chance to eventually convert hundreds of modest apartments into high-rent havens or condos.

But for the 25,000 teachers and nurses, clerks and cops, and hundreds of retirees who have lived in the plain, brown-brick buildings on the East River for generations — the announcement was a bolt out of the blue.

"We used to say that there were only two ways to move out of here, in a wheelchair to go to a nursing home or in a box, and that was true," said Randy Blackner, 64, who has lived in Peter Cooper for 25 years. "It seems it isn't true anymore."

A sale would not change the status of rent-stabilized units, even if buildings are converted into condominiums, experts said. Any new owner would have to go through the same procedures to make the case to the Real Estate Board of New York before raising rents on regulated units.

Still, civic advocates warned the fabric of Manhattan will be torn forever if "StuyTown" and Peter Cooper are transformed into luxury high rises.

"New York's already losing the war to hold onto the middle class," said Jonathan Bowles, director of the Center for an Urban Future think tank. "The writer, the aspiring filmmaker, the fashion designer — they will go elsewhere. Fifteen years ago there wasn't much competition. Now New York is competing with other cities for creative people."

MetLife, which built the complexes for veterans returning from World War II, has hired CB Richard Ellis as its broker and has already received several "robust" offers for the 110 apartment buildings, which sit on 80 acres on the East Side from 14th to 23rd Sts.

"It's still a process that's ongoing, and we haven't made any final decisions yet whether to sell it or not," MetLife spokesman John Calagna said.

One hitch for potential buyers is that about two-thirds of the 11,232 units are covered under state rent-regulation laws, which limit rental rates owners can charge.

Since 2002, MetLife has removed dozens of units from rent regulation as the leaseholders have died or moved on — making the requisite capital improvements where necessary to justify the rent hikes.

If MetLife sells the buildings, current tenants in rent-stabilized apartments would be protected if the buildings remain rentals — and be offered an insider's price if it goes condo. If they refuse to buy, they can still remain in their apartments under rent-stabilization laws.

"It's not the owner, it's the apartment" that's rent-regulated, said Peter Moses, a spokesman for the state Division of Housing and Community Renewal.

In addition to various pension funds, other potential buyers are real estate titans like Sam Zell and the Dubai-based Istithmar, which has been aggressively purchasing New York office buildings and hotels.

"The prospect of owning irreplaceable real estate in the middle of Manhattan is obviously going to appeal to a broad swath of investors," said Dan Fasulo, director of market analysis for Real Capital Analytics.

"The location of these buildings is premium," added Kathryn Wylde, president of the pro-business Partnership for New York City. "You're talking about extremely valuable real estate."

Donald Trump, however, told CNBC he's not interested. "It will be a heated bid and that usually means somebody will overpay," he said.

Mort Braverman, 82, was one of the original Stuyvesant tenants in 1949, when the rent on his two-bedroom apartment was $73 a month. It's now $900.

"They would love to get us out," he said. "They could probably get four times what we are paying."

Comments

  • When I first heard about this I was worried about all the middle class tenants that might be evicted due to the buildings being converted into condos/ co-ops. But thankfully that won’t happen due to the law rent-stabilized tenants cannot be evicted or face rent increases simply because of the purchase. But if you aren’t stabilized (market rate) than the owner can evict you and the end of your lease…

    Just curious to see what others thought about this?
  • Very bad news - just one more sign that Manhattan will eventually be home to only the very rich and the very poor. The legacy of Bloomberg Administration is that only housing for the upper classes have been developed in NYC over the last 6 years.

    I have a friend who went into Sty Town at market rates - a one bedroom at $2300 per/month. Just before the end of her 1 year lease she was informed that the next lease would carry a 20% increase, $460/month more. Thinking what we all think, that that's outrageous, she and her partner left and found an apartment in Queens.

    And this is happening in Brooklyn also. I recently drove down Atlantic and looked at about 4 new buildings that are going up, jotted down the web sites and phone number and went on-line to see what the deal was. All the apts were either coops or condos, 1 and 2 bedrooms from between 500,000 and 750,000.

    Welcome to the brave new world.

    My wife and I are looking seriously at Philadelphia :roll:
  • I hear the condos in the new tower on Livingston (going up now) toward the top (15th floor and up) are going to be in the $900k - $1.6M range.
  • I understand everyone's concern, and it is a natural reaction to see a bunch of units go from $1K/month to $3K/month and think, "Man, the middle class are getting squeezed."

    However, this is an issue I'm (obviously) very passionate about, and just need to add a counterpoint to the rather simplistic conclusion that many seem to be drawing. As I've posted a thousand times, there are a host of huge problems with rent control, and one of the worst is the effect it has on the availability of mid-priced housing. The high number of controlled apts severely limits the number of market units, people who get controlled units cling to them for as long as possible, and the inability of developers and landlords to charge market rates discourages the construction of new rental units. All these factors work together to create a perfect storm that has directly led to the runaway inflation of housing prices in this city. In fact, the real result of rent control is that it eliminates housing for median income people, leading instead to a polarized housing situation with regulated units on one end that suffer from under-investment and maintenance, and insanely expensive units on the other end that only the rich can afford.

    In the short run, the transition of a place like Stuy town is bound to draw headlines and lead to the type of reaction posted here. However, the long term solution to bringing down housing prices is to dramatically increase the supply of market rate units and scale back (or better yet eliminate completely) the controlled/stabilized units. Then, aid could be directly allocated to those who need it, instead of being tied to the housing itself. I know this is an old tale, but I can't tell you how many investment bankers and hedge fund managers I know who live in rent-controlled units. In fact the only person I've known closely who lived in Stuy town was a wealthy corporate lawyer.
  • escap wrote: However, the long term solution to bringing down housing prices is to dramatically increase the supply of market rate units and scale back (or better yet eliminate completely) the controlled/stabilized units. Then, aid could be directly allocated to those who need it, instead of being tied to the housing itself.
    escap, you make some very interesting points (got me thinking), especially about the indiviuals that live in rent controlled apartments that can afford to pay market rate...

    How do you propose the governmnet provide housing aid for those who need it... I admit to being seriously ignorant to the whole topic of government aid ,so I guess this is happening somewhere... but I wonder if the city would pay landlords the difference between market rate and what the city suggest mid-low income renters should be paying... (e.g market rate is 3k for 2 bedroom, low income tenant pays 1.5k and the city pays teh remaing 1.5k)? But then I guess taxes would go up?!!? I don't know random thoughts...
  • escap wrote: However, the long term solution to bringing down housing prices is to dramatically increase the supply of market rate units and scale back (or better yet eliminate completely) the controlled/stabilized units. Then, aid could be directly allocated to those who need it, instead of being tied to the housing itself.
    escap, you make some very interesting points (got me thinking), especially about the indiviuals that live in rent controlled apartments that can afford to pay market rate...

    How do you propose the governmnet provide housing aid for those who need it... I admit to being seriously ignorant to the whole topic of government aid ,so I guess this is happening somewhere... but I wonder if the city would pay landlords the difference between market rate and what the city suggest mid-low income renters should be paying... (e.g market rate is 3k for 2 bedroom, low income tenant pays 1.5k and the city pays teh remaing 1.5k)? But then I guess taxes would go up?!!? I don't know random thoughts...
  • escap wrote: However, the long term solution to bringing down housing prices is to dramatically increase the supply of market rate units and scale back (or better yet eliminate completely) the controlled/stabilized units. Then, aid could be directly allocated to those who need it, instead of being tied to the housing itself.
    escap, you make some very interesting points (got me thinking), especially about the indiviuals that live in rent controlled apartments that can afford to pay market rate...

    How do you propose the governmnet provide housing aid for those who need it... I admit to being seriously ignorant to the whole topic of government aid ,so I guess this is happening somewhere... but I wonder if the city would pay landlords the difference between market rate and what the city suggest mid-low income renters should be paying... (e.g market rate is 3k for 2 bedroom, low income tenant pays 1.5k and the city pays teh remaing 1.5k)? But then I guess taxes would go up?!!? I don't know random thoughts...
  • jaha127 wrote: [quote=escap]However, the long term solution to bringing down housing prices is to dramatically increase the supply of market rate units and scale back (or better yet eliminate completely) the controlled/stabilized units. Then, aid could be directly allocated to those who need it, instead of being tied to the housing itself.
    escap, you make some very interesting points (got me thinking), especially about the indiviuals that live in rent controlled apartments that can afford to pay market rate...

    How do you propose the governmnet provide housing aid for those who need it... I admit to being seriously ignorant to the whole topic of government aid ,so I guess this is happening somewhere... but I wonder if the city would pay landlords the difference between market rate and what the city suggest mid-low income renters should be paying... (e.g market rate is 3k for 2 bedroom, low income tenant pays 1.5k and the city pays teh remaing 1.5k)? But then I guess taxes would go up?!!? I don't know random thoughts...

    I think that Section 8 offers something along that line. For example you find an apartment for $2000 and you can only afford $1000 of the rent Section 8 pays the remaining $1000.
  • jaha127 wrote: [quote=escap]However, the long term solution to bringing down housing prices is to dramatically increase the supply of market rate units and scale back (or better yet eliminate completely) the controlled/stabilized units. Then, aid could be directly allocated to those who need it, instead of being tied to the housing itself.
    escap, you make some very interesting points (got me thinking), especially about the indiviuals that live in rent controlled apartments that can afford to pay market rate...

    How do you propose the governmnet provide housing aid for those who need it... I admit to being seriously ignorant to the whole topic of government aid ,so I guess this is happening somewhere... but I wonder if the city would pay landlords the difference between market rate and what the city suggest mid-low income renters should be paying... (e.g market rate is 3k for 2 bedroom, low income tenant pays 1.5k and the city pays teh remaing 1.5k)? But then I guess taxes would go up?!!? I don't know random thoughts...

    I think that Section 8 offers something along that line. For example you find an apartment for $2000 and you can only afford $1000 of the rent Section 8 pays the remaining $1000.
  • stacey wrote: [quote=jaha127][quote=escap]However, the long term solution to bringing down housing prices is to dramatically increase the supply of market rate units and scale back (or better yet eliminate completely) the controlled/stabilized units. Then, aid could be directly allocated to those who need it, instead of being tied to the housing itself.
    escap, you make some very interesting points (got me thinking), especially about the indiviuals that live in rent controlled apartments that can afford to pay market rate...

    How do you propose the governmnet provide housing aid for those who need it... I admit to being seriously ignorant to the whole topic of government aid ,so I guess this is happening somewhere... but I wonder if the city would pay landlords the difference between market rate and what the city suggest mid-low income renters should be paying... (e.g market rate is 3k for 2 bedroom, low income tenant pays 1.5k and the city pays teh remaing 1.5k)? But then I guess taxes would go up?!!? I don't know random thoughts...

    I think that Section 8 offers something along that line. For example you find an apartment for $2000 and you can only afford $1000 of the rent Section 8 pays the remaining $1000.

    That's right. There are problems with this system as well but it's far better than rent control. And no, I don't think it would require tax increases at all, b/c rent control, by reducing investment and mobility (to name just two of many reasons), costs the city untold billions in unrealized revenue.
  • Uh-oh, having failed to infiltrate our national defenses by buying P&O and running our maritime ports, pernicious Arab corporations are now trying to destroy the US of A by attacking the middle class. Call Lou Dobbs!!

    http://www.nypost.com/seven/10072006/business/count_vornado_among_stuytown_bidders_business_braden_keil__and_lois_weiss.htm
  • alafairnadia wrote: I hear the condos in the new tower on Livingston (going up now) toward the top (15th floor and up) are going to be in the $900k - $1.6M range.
    If it's 110 Livingston, the range is 400k-1.6m. 10 to 15 ft ceilings.
    They are beautiful. They are also going to have a public theater on the first floor.
  • News.
    Tishman Spier won the bid for the sale of Sty Town foe 5.3 Billion.
    Although, I don't think this will affect the rent stabilized Apts.
Sign In or Register to comment.