Why so many vacancies on 7th Avenue?
Comments
-
thanks cat. i agree with you. and those that criticized me, if they will notice...i did mention a wine bar, but i also mentioned a meatmarket or fishmarket. those were just a few ideas i threw out, and the latter two are not particularly chi chi, in my opinion. i'm not looking for upscale anything, but things that stay open past 5pm that add to the street life and diversity on 7th avenue and provide some sortof value to the largest group of people in the neighborhood possible.
i believe it was eggcream and garfunky who seem to prefer a lifestyle that harkens back to a civilization run by monarchy. sounds like they'd be proponents of extending the gowanus to build a full fledge moat around park slope, appoint berman and kotsonis kings of the neighborhood, and we are all just supposed to follow them blindly. it's silly to suggest that in this day and age that people in the community can't be actively involved with trying to improve their communities.
as cat said...my main goal is to reverse the trend of declining diversity in park slope. these two have a main goal to pillage as much money as possible from park slope. it is indeed a "values" issue which makes it all the more frustrating when this guy comes on here and says how much he cares about the neighborhood.
perhaps i'm totally offbase and as someone else said...maybe i'm just not the aerosoles/tast d lite/kidville/brown harris stevens kinda person and the rest of the neighborhood is.
i hope i'm wrong. -
I'm flattered.
But I think Hillary Clinton has that all wrapped up.
Being annointed Queen.
As to the other points...well... to each their own.
Diversity, however, also means respecting opinions and methods that one is in disagreement with. Be it, ethnicity, race, gender, sex, political affiliations, etc. -
i love the fact that you've now come on and posted on this thread mupltiple times but STILL have not once addressed the fact that in March you said there were three leases out for that spot, and it's still empty.
it just shows me what a shady character you are.
i'll take hillary as my queen anyday over you. -
Brill!!!
It may please you to know that actually that store was signed up almost 2 months ago, but it took the SCORE legal team, based in San Fran dude, all this time to ratify the move.
Yes, I've rented to the existing tenants in the building. BHS is expanding it's space, ARGHHHHH!!!!
OH MY GOD!!! IT'S LIKE A DISEASE!!! IT'S EXPANDING!!!!!!
And SCORE is moving to the next store.
There were 3 leases out. One to BHS, one to SCORE and one to T-MOBILE.
The T-MOBILE lease was my negotiating hedge against BHS & Score.
You will be pleased to know that they will be with us for the next 10 years.
So, that's it.
I was raised never to discuss something until it's done. -
belzjm wrote: i love the fact that you've now come on and posted on this thread mupltiple times but STILL have not once addressed the fact that in March you said there were three leases out for that spot, and it's still empty.
Mod here. belzjm, you asked a general question, which, actually, nkotsonis has given a more concrete answer to than pretty much anyone else. there have been other threads about specific buildings he owns.
it just shows me what a shady character you are.
i'll take hillary as my queen anyday over you.
1. Be Nice. No Name Calling.
2. Twisting the general thread YOU STARTED around to be an attack on a specific situation seems disingenuous to me. -
Subject: Score?
Score, the sporting goods store? The consulting firm? I'm always curious as to what's coming to the neighborhood...the only thing sadder than another Bank is empty retail space!! -
escap wrote: [quote=nkotsonis]Hello,
Doctorj, if you're reading this, you once argued with me that property tax acts as a deterrent for landlords to leave their property vacant, but the particulars of the tax code apparently work the opposite way, according to this. If tax was only based on income, not ownership, then landlords would not have this incentive to leave property vacant, and I doubt we'd have this problem on 7th avenue.
Greedy capitalist landlord here. Just following this post. Few factors that should be considered before passing judgement on myself or Joe Berman.
Rents are based on market rates. In the rent, is included water & sewer bills and Real Estate Taxes. Now before everyone starts saying that I'm passing the buck and blaming Bloomberg, again, When leases expire, R.E. Taxes and W/S are factored in the negotiations. The city R.E. taxes on the building is based on income. Our income taxes are also based on income. So in effect, commercial buildings are taxed twice for the same income flow. Owners have no choice but to try and pass this on to the commercial tenant. When the cost become too great, stores stay vacant.
Now, here's the kicker. The city will lower your R.E. Taxes only in the event of vacancies. The city is telling us to keep places vacant in return for lower taxes.Show a lower income, they lower the R.E. Taxes. Since R.E. Taxes are at a far greater rate than income taxes, it is favorable for the owner to keep a space vacant for a longer period of time due to the R.E. Tax base year. This is the reason why stores will stay vacant longer. Owners are willing to wait for the right commercial tenant that will have to pay the higher R.E Tax increases.
It is economics that dictate this situation.
Indeed. The obvious evil here is that the tax is levied according to the income, rather than the land. The incentive is backwards -- nkotsonis saves taxes when it's vacant. If a vacant shop cost as much as a leased one, landlords would maximize utilization quicksmart. When deciding tax structures, how does the city get it so wrong?
I'm still a strong proponent of land taxes, because property is local and immobile, and the money raised can be proportional to and support the services and infrastructure provided locally and enjoyed by the users of the land, which increases the value and utility of that land. -
Your father has my sympathy. It's not an argument, it's a discussion. Learn the difference. Typical of you to avoid the discussion when it doesn't go your way just as your intent to start this thread. The owner has put in tenants that do add to the neighborhood as I and others have discussed but since it doesn't appeal to you well then he's running a monarchy blah blah blah. An immature comment at best. We already have two fish markets practically back to back on 7 ave. @ 3rd and 4th street. Plenty of wine bars around too. Again, invest in a building then rent the commercial space out to whomever you please.
belzjm wrote: anyone who stands up for walmart is not someone i want to have an arguement with.
it's like having a conversation with my father about politics.
goes nowhere.
fast. -
cat wrote:
It's none of the OP's business whom a landlord rents to and whether said landlord was on the "up and up". Yes, you can have an opinion, voice your suggestions, but in the end it's up to the landlord. The public does have a vote. They can vote not to spend their money at these stores.
That's NOT how it works. We may be so overcome by capitalism that money, real estate, greed and a certain nastiness take over any other prevailing viewpoint but that is not how it *should* work.
It sounds like original poster does his part in the community, OP is just asking another poster who is a landlord who OP feels was not on the up & up about a situation, to (a) come forth about what was previously said and (b) consider looking at his property differently. There is nothing wrong with that. It doesn't mean HE or SHE (OP) has to go out and buy his own property.
Those are my views on the topic.
Thanks.
Take the Elementi thread, lots of people are voicing their complaints for various reasons and are not going to eat there. That is the best one can do to show their displeasure. Spend their money elsewhere. If a lot of people do that well, eventually, they might close down. Same with this particular building.
All I can say is thank God for capitalism. -
"escap" wrote: [quote="nkotsonis"]Hello,
Doctorj, if you're reading this, you once argued with me that property tax acts as a deterrent for landlords to leave their property vacant, but the particulars of the tax code apparently work the opposite way, according to this. If tax was only based on income, not ownership, then landlords would not have this incentive to leave property vacant, and I doubt we'd have this problem on 7th avenue.
Greedy capitalist landlord here. Just following this post. Few factors that should be considered before passing judgement on myself or Joe Berman.
Rents are based on market rates. In the rent, is included water & sewer bills and Real Estate Taxes. Now before everyone starts saying that I'm passing the buck and blaming Bloomberg, again, When leases expire, R.E. Taxes and W/S are factored in the negotiations. The city R.E. taxes on the building is based on income. Our income taxes are also based on income. So in effect, commercial buildings are taxed twice for the same income flow. Owners have no choice but to try and pass this on to the commercial tenant. When the cost become too great, stores stay vacant.
Now, here's the kicker. The city will lower your R.E. Taxes only in the event of vacancies. The city is telling us to keep places vacant in return for lower taxes.Show a lower income, they lower the R.E. Taxes. Since R.E. Taxes are at a far greater rate than income taxes, it is favorable for the owner to keep a space vacant for a longer period of time due to the R.E. Tax base year. This is the reason why stores will stay vacant longer. Owners are willing to wait for the right commercial tenant that will have to pay the higher R.E Tax increases.
It is economics that dictate this situation.
Indeed. The obvious evil here is that the tax is levied according to the income, rather than the land. The incentive is backwards -- nkotsonis saves taxes when it's vacant. If a vacant shop cost as much as a leased one, landlords would maximize utilization quicksmart. When deciding tax structures, how does the city get it so wrong?
I'm still a strong proponent of land taxes, because property is local and immobile, and the money raised can be proportional to and support the services and infrastructure provided locally and enjoyed by the users of the land, which increases the value and utility of that land.
Hi DoctorJ,
The city got it wrong by taxing the income flow. What they should have done, is to apply a hefty VAT tax when buildings are sold. Because it is only when the property is sold that the market value is determined.
This is how it is done in every other country in the world. VAT taxes are the fairest way for property taxes to be collected. It is also the most responsible, because it holds the governments more accountable for spending. -
nkotsonis wrote:
In a large country with multiple layers of government, we need to distinguish here between the kind of tax a federal government can charge at sale and the kind of ongoing revenue stream a local government needs to provide local services. Even in countries where there is a large capital gains tax (what you're calling VAT) at sale, that goes to the crown/federal/commonwealth level, which would then have to redistribute it to the state/county which would then have to apportion it to the council/borough/city. So even in those coutries, local government levies rates on property in exchange for local services, and I think this is efficient, and if done properly, fair. I'd see all of the tax going to the central government as then being less accountable not more. What we agree on is that taxing the property in proportion to the income stream, on top of federal and state income tax, is bad. What I'm arguing is that council rates for the land underneath the property is a better way to go, so that local money still goes to local services, but the incentive is to then maximize productivity and profit from the land in order to minimize the income to tax ratio. Compare that with capital gains tax, where if you invest in improving the the property, by renovation or construction, you lose part of your investment to tax, which is a disincentive to improve or maintain. So yes, I support limited capital gains tax, as a part of the mix, since they accurately track the value of the property, but I don't want a borough that wants to open a park or library during a housing bust petitioning the federal government to get some of the capital gains tax raised in the previous boom. And most of all, I want a tax structure that doesn't discourage improving properties and deriving increased income from them.
Hi DoctorJ,
The city got it wrong by taxing the income flow. What they should have done, is to apply a hefty VAT tax when buildings are sold. Because it is only when the property is sold that the market value is determined.
This is how it is done in every other country in the world. VAT taxes are the fairest way for property taxes to be collected. It is also the most responsible, because it holds the governments more accountable for spending. -
"We already have two fish markets practically back to back on 7 ave. @ 3rd and 4th street. Plenty of wine bars around too"
you're right. and we don't have nearly enough real estate offices.
can't wait for the expanded brown harris stevens!!
enjoy it, eggcream. -
Hi DoctorJ,
I do agree with you that the tax, however colllected, should go to the local municipalities.
But applying a value to the land, brings us back to how R.E. Taxes got into this mess.
Land valuation would be done by a purely subjective manner. I believe that is the rason why the city decide on income. Far more neutral.
They should not, however, tax the same income twice.
I would be willing to pay a higher income tax and even a flat tax. At least this way, you knew where you stood, and did not have to play legal games challenging the assessment.
This current system favors only the attornies who file the challenges.
I've been to the court proceedings. It's like "let's make a deal"
Attornies and judges have their own understood language.
Give me this one this time judge, and we'll let the other one go.
Is it unethical, YEAH!!! Illegal? NO! -
ha...
I seriously hate walking down 7th around Berkeley and Union because its all banks and real estate offices.
Lame -
i dont pretend to know you.
i dont care.
you presume to tell others how to run their building.
you presume to tell others how to run their business.
feel free to put your money where your mouth is.
then we can start calling you out by name and talk about how youre screwing up 7th ave ok ?
a) if your favorite restaurant or dance studio was truly needed theyd still be in business.
theyd have found another location at the least. get over it.
b) if the other business were not needed they would not survive.
i seriously doubt a large bank would open up a branch if they hadnt done an analysis and believe that they would be profitable.
i dont need another bank, but apparently somebody does.
i guess those members of the community dont matter ?
indeed, all of these local businesses that you spend so much time hating provide alot of jobs for people in the immediate area.
but i guess that doenst matter either
so long as you have your dance studio that cant pay the rent ... -
** i believe it was eggcream and garfunky who seem to prefer a lifestyle that harkens back to a civilization run by monarchy. sounds like they'd be proponents of extending the gowanus to build a full fledge moat around park slope, appoint berman and kotsonis kings of the neighborhood, and we are all just supposed to follow them blindly. it's silly to suggest that in this day and age that people in the community can't be actively involved with trying to improve their communities. ***
boy , you really are deluded.
just because you can type words does not mean you have the right to attribute them to someone who has not spoken them.
got that ? -
< There is nothing wrong with that. It doesn't mean HE or SHE (OP) has to go out and buy his own property >
There is nothing wrong with asking. LL does not have to disclose private info on a public bb . NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT EITHER.
BUT op is not asking.
op is demanding
op is presuming.
op is happy to play with others money but not his own.
envy -
I know how to make this thread die.
nazi, nazi, nazi.
Die thread, die. -
so many angry people.
too bad you can't use your anger for a useful purpose other than attacking someone interested a better park slope.
so sad. i feel sorry for your wives. -
nkotsonis wrote: Hi DoctorJ,
It would be easy to derive a completely objective formula for determining the land valuation and thus the tax. For example: take all the sales of any kind within one mile of the block within the last 3 years, work out the average price per square foot, charge 1% of it. Readjust every year. As a neighborhood develops, it will slowly become more and more expensive to leave a lot vacant or a store unrented. This is known as Land Value Tax, and has been tried various places to various extents. Rather than rely on capital gains tax or VAT at sale, which goes through booms and busts, LVT provides a fairly steady local stream of income. There are other nifty effects: to the extent that landlords pass the tax onto tenants via rent, those living in higher density pay lower rents, which promotes affordability and energy efficiency. I would never take a purely Georgist stance, i.e. only LVT; it's best to mix sales tax, progressive income tax, and real estate tax, each at low rates, to spread the burden and minimize avoidance.
I do agree with you that the tax, however colllected, should go to the local municipalities.
But applying a value to the land, brings us back to how R.E. Taxes got into this mess.
Land valuation would be done by a purely subjective manner. I believe that is the rason why the city decide on income. Far more neutral.nkotsonis wrote:
I agree; real estate taxes should not be levied according to the income, they should be independent of the income in order to promote development. And no 421-a exceptions.
They should not, however, tax the same income twice.nkotsonis wrote:
I agree the current system is insane. But it's easy to imagine a fairer more uniform system that still raises local revenue from local real estate, and that encourages rather than discourages improving the property. No complications and no exemptions, complete transparency via a simple mathematical formula, and no court challenges. Check out Urban Tools.
I would be willing to pay a higher income tax and even a flat tax. At least this way, you knew where you stood, and did not have to play legal games challenging the assessment.
This current system favors only the attornies who file the challenges.
I've been to the court proceedings. It's like "let's make a deal"
Attornies and judges have their own understood language.
Give me this one this time judge, and we'll let the other one go.
Is it unethical, YEAH!!! Illegal? NO! -
belzjm wrote: so many angry people.
if you were interested in a better park slope you would have suggested a shelter for battered women, housing for the poor, a methadone clinic, an aspca , but you suggest a wine bar....
too bad you can't use your anger for a useful purpose other than attacking someone interested a better park slope.
youre using "community" as a guise to enable you to get the bleeding hearts behind what is clearly a personal not community minded agenda.
the fact that I and others see thru your charade does not make us angry people.
indeed no one but you singled out an individual by name to attack.
food for thought ... -
i guess i'm more of a realist than you are garfunky. i am familiar enough with park slope to know that a methadone clinic isn't going to open at 7th and union. not in this economy, anyway.
apparently you are new to the neighborhood?
i was actually trying to come up with viable suggestions rather than ridiculous commentary just to make a point.
i would have zero problem with a battered women's shelter or any other such use. the day you get kotsonis to get that into that space or any of his other spaces is the day i'll also be watching pigs fly outside my window.
this was not a charade. this was commentary and a discussion. you turned it into something ugly just as you did on the other thread about the shoe store at lincoln and 7th. i didn't start that thread but you still made a snide remark about a "whine bar"
you're kinda sick, aren't you... -
MOD NOTE: keep it clean, kids, or i'm coming in redactin'.... there's plenty to argue about here without stooping to personal attacks.
-
belzjm wrote: i guess i'm more of a realist than you are garfunky. i am familiar enough with park slope to know that a methadone clinic isn't going to open at 7th and union. not in this economy, anyway.
um , in the course of your demands you have admitted your are both extremely angry and nutty. You use community to disguise a personal agenda, and even now cannot manage a sensible discussion.
apparently you are new to the neighborhood?
i was actually trying to come up with viable suggestions rather than ridiculous commentary just to make a point.
i would have zero problem with a battered women's shelter or any other such use. the day you get kotsonis to get that into that space or any of his other spaces is the day i'll also be watching pigs fly outside my window.
this was not a charade. this was commentary and a discussion. you turned it into something ugly just as you did on the other thread about the shoe store at lincoln and 7th. i didn't start that thread but you still made a snide remark about a "whine bar"
you're kinda sick, aren't you...
you attacked and discredited a private entrepeneur for not giving back to the comminuity when you want a WINE BAR.
precisely how does the wine bar help the community hmm ?
feel free to explain that
nick should offer discount rent so someone can make a mint selling 6 dollar beers ?
or do you expect the bar owner to offer deep discount drinks ?
did you consider the other people in the building ?
did you consider that there are no wet businesses there and maybe the LL doesnt want to deal w vermin or fire ?
are you aware that if anything an LL charges more for wet business ?
when you demanded to know who was or wasnt negotiating did you consider the confidentiality that prospective tenants generally expect ?
wanting for , hoping for ... is great. we all do it.
but you DEMAND things which you have no right to DEMAND.
you denigrate and insult others in the process.
all while holding up "community" as the validation.
community my tuchus.
:roll:
the only person youre thinking about is yourself. -
So many mis-statements hard to know where to start.
1st - People (inc landlords)are SO STUPID when it comes to taxes - under no circumstances is it economically advantageous to hold a commercial property perpetually vacant - even if you paid more in taxes, you get ZERO income on a vacant store.
2nd RE taxes are not "Based" upon income rather they are based upon valuation and in commercial real estate the valuation is tied to income (not dependent on it) - You may be able to protest your assessment based upon a claim of lower valuation b/c you can't rent space at the assumed market rent - but the city isnt dumb - they know what comparable properties are worth (recent sales etc...) and they arent going to massivley cut your property taxes simply because you hold a perfectly good store vacant. (BTW even if they did - the lower taxes would be far, far, far lower then the lost market rate rent on 7th Ave)
3rd - Even though RE taxes are tied to income/rent (not based on them - they are based on valuation) - Landlords are not taxed twice on income - thats because RE taxes are an expense, directly deductible from income - therefore you only pay "income" taxes on the income net taxes.
4th - Calling landlords who are seeking higher rents "greedy" is dumb unless you when your boss offers you a raise - you typically decline and tell him to give it to a worker more in need, or stores start basing their prices based upon the individual needs of each shopper.
5th - It is fair to call a landlord "dumb" - if he tells you he makes more money holding vacant stores on 7th Ave then renting them. -
Folks, can we kill this thread please?
What's done is done. The building is 100% rented. End of story.
People are entitled to their own opinions.
We should not attack others out of whatever.
I'm willing to let it go.
So should everyone else. -
looks like people *have* let it go ... there have been no comments on this thread in a week.
-
dailyheights wrote: looks like people *have* let it go ... there have been no comments on this thread in a week.
stating the obvious aren't we
. hehe you own! -
armchair_warrior wrote: [quote=dailyheights]looks like people *have* let it go ... there have been no comments on this thread in a week.
stating the obvious aren't we. hehe you own!
hey armchair, I thought you quit bumping old threads!
-
pitu wrote: [quote=armchair_warrior][quote=dailyheights]looks like people *have* let it go ... there have been no comments on this thread in a week.
stating the obvious aren't we. hehe you own!
hey armchair, I thought you quit bumping old threads!
wasn't me it was dailyheights himself lol. check time stamp.
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