Wassup At 2nd Street and 7th Avenue?

I read somewhere that an elderly lady ownes and resides at that location, years of taxes are due, yet the city is letting her reside there.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 28, 2007 10:01 AM

That young girl is the owner's daughter. I don't remember her name but she used to run two vintage clothing shops from the side of the building.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 28, 2007 10:36 AM

the building is not for sale the sign says for commercial lease or rent. I'm guessing it finally is going to be available for just that purpose.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 28, 2007 11:17 AM

owner is Dorothy Nash. also owns 472 2nd street.
Lawyer daughter is Rachel Nash.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 28, 2007 11:18 AM

That lease sign has been in the window for years...If I remember correctly that daughter was a hottie...easy on the eyes.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 28, 2007 11:34 AM

Oh shut up, you real estate whores. I'm sick of all the investors out there, gutting everything and turning it into fugly ass interiors while exploiting an exterior that they have no attachment to except for the fact that "brownstone" sells.

Thank god for the Dorothy Nashes. If you're afraid for your life, cross the street.

I dread the day some jackass moneyhoarder gets a hand on this peice of property and does to it what happened up in Lexington in harlem -- guts it till the whole thing collapses on the construction workers.

The people who own and live there have every right to do whatever they want with it, and I for one am really grateful to them for being attached to their properties, however neglectfully. Their property, their way. I only wish more of the city's eyesores were of this kind, and not the nouveau trash that's been rising everywhere.

Power to ya, Nutty Nash.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 28, 2007 11:35 AM

Yah, I'm with Anon 11:35 - viva derelict heaps that no one lives in (birds aside) and are rotting from the inside out.

We need more of those!

Posted by: Anonymous at March 28, 2007 11:49 AM

11:35 said, "I dread the day some jackass moneyhoarder gets a hand on this peice of property and does to it what happened up in Lexington in harlem -- guts it till the whole thing collapses on the construction workers."

Has 11:35 ever actually SEEN this place? The windows are all busted out, and the place looks like it's already collapsing. This is hardly some poor person hanging onto their family home in Harlem, keeping it up as best they can. Get a grip, and try doing a little research so you can comment on the FACTS. Not on whatever bitterness about completely unrelated issues are swimming around in your angry brain.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 28, 2007 12:18 PM

This building is proof of the following:

* NYC's DOB does not really exist and does not really do anything.

* NYC's DEP does not really exist and does not really do anything.

* NYC's residents are entirely on their own, in trying to deal with bad neighbors. Imagine how fun life is for the building next door to this one. They get more pigeons, more rats and roaches, and a nice big fire hazard. And the value of their property is depreciated. Nice! And don't even get me started on how NYC does nothing to help those with noisy neighbors or insane neighbors.

* Lastly, this building proves the whole eminent domain claim Ratner and NYC used to take "blighted" properties for AY is a sham. If they could take all those non-blighted properties so easily, they could and should seize this one.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 28, 2007 12:25 PM

Where's the Park Slope association, or block associations, or city councilperson? What are they doing about this building? Or about any of the other several abandoned buildings in Park Slope? There's one on Berkeley Place between 5th and 6th, too. Somebody needs to be making more noise.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 28, 2007 12:31 PM

I cannot for the life of me believe that this building is allowed to remain as is, especially with PS 321 across the street! - the daughter attorney must be very adroit at evading some type of action/seizure from the City. I wonder Who will be responsible if someone is killed or injured?

Neighbors might do well to pool resources and:

1. Inform the owner's insurance agency of the situation (if some company out there actually has the stupidity to continue insuring the building)

2. Adjacent neighbors should file a suit against the owner AND the City for damages arising from the suffering of lowered property values due to extreme neligence.

3. Encourage squatters to live in the building; after a period of time, they will have rights and it might force the City to take legal action. It will also create more liability for the owner if people are living in the building.

4. Shame the woman and her daughters publicly.

This is arrogance on steroids, and completely unforgivable in the current RE market.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 28, 2007 1:22 PM

I love the Nash family!

Posted by: Anonymous at March 28, 2007 3:01 PM

Why is everyone all up thier ass? I'd love to be like them one day without worring about renting or selling. I do feel bad about the poster who almost got hit with falling debris. Public safety is important but this "information age" thing is too much for me some times.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 28, 2007 3:18 PM

And you'd love to snatch it from her.

you my friend are green with jealousy.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 28, 2007 3:53 PM

Yeah, I remember the Landmark Pub. Just like others said -- open when it was warm enough (no heat), toys strewn around, lots of tambourines for sing-alongs and stuff. Vibe closer to old key west or Madison, WI, than early hipster Billyburgh. Fun for awhile, then you outgrow it. 25 years ago people I knew complained of no heat in the apartments, as well. There's a lot to the story of this strange building with a strange past and strange owners that no one will ever really know.

Also, in posts re: other abandoned slope buildings, no one has mentioned the one on 3rd Street just below 7th Ave. Anyone know the deal?

Posted by: Anonymous at March 28, 2007 5:32 PM

Can the same person who keeps posting over and over again, defending this crazy woman who is abusing the law that is meant to protect low-income people, NOT wealthy people like her, please sign in and use their real name? Go ahead, do it. Or is your last name Nash?

Posted by: Anonymous at March 28, 2007 5:34 PM

501 SECOND STREET HOLDING CORP. is the record owner on the most recent deed to the property. 501 SECOND STREET HOLDING CORP. also took out a one million dollar loan from Norma Vigo, with an address of 2179 Bogart Avenue, in the Bronx, in 2004. Bogart? Sheit! Maybe that million bucks was used to pay back taxes because its clear that it didn't get invested into the building's upkeep. I would like to bogart this building and turn it my park slope fantasy palace paradise.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 28, 2007 5:49 PM

anon 4:01 dont misquote me I said "I'd love to be like them one day without worring about renting or selling". all that other crap was added by you. why dont you learn to fucking read before calling people names.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 28, 2007 10:26 PM

5:34pm -- I posted once, at 11:35 am, the rest is other people. Don't be a child. You're anonymous too. Part of the fun of ripping into each other. I would be REALLY psyched to find out that the Nashes are actually gracing our middling, mediocre presences on this dull real estate site with their weird selves.

Yes, I agree that it is toobad the place is causing so much trouble for neighbors and passersby. That, I will agree, I was being naive about. But I have seen the place and I have no problem with it, other than the danger, and for that I have a choice of where to walk.

Where are the real new yorkers? Have we been overrun by suburbia?

I am too young to have had the opportunity to party at the Landmark. WISH WISH WISH. I'm so envious of your memories, older people.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 28, 2007 11:44 PM

11:44 and 8:50, since when is falling glass and debris, and disease-ridden rats and pigeons, and a structure that is becoming basically just a huge pile of kindling and a major fire hazard, some kind of charming landmark full of character? It's obvious you resent aspects of Park Slope. But please, don't wish for a fine old building to gradually disintegrate, just because you hate people in Park Slope. You're going to be in your late 30's, pushing around a child in a stroller one day too, worrying about schools. Perhaps not as obessively and in such a status-obsessed way as some, but it'll happen. And you can think back to when you took so much pleasure in the fact that families on this block were forced to live next door to this monstrous travesty of a building. As for whatever it is you are taking issue with, nobody is saying make luxury condos out of the building. They're just saying don't let it fall to pieces. Hello, how can anyone in their right mind argue with that? You can see why someone thought you might be one or all of the Nashes themselves.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 29, 2007 10:47 AM

If there is in fact a genuine and critical mass of community concern - consistent with that of the comments at 10:47 - then there is a simple (and very neighborly) act that those with a vested interest in the neighborhood might want to consider.

Why not - in the spirit of a Quaker 'Barn Raising' or other communal act of kindness - gather a small group of concerned individuals (possibly from or through the Park Slope Association, Block Association(s), or somesuch) to volunteer to perform the sort of small scale and non-demanding stopgap fixes (removing broken and dangling windows, re-boarding exposed openings, ect.) that would seem be in the best interest of all involved?

Seriously, as opposed to the sort of (seemingly) vindictive machinations suggested by commenter 1:22 or the somewhat machiavellian attempt to buy out a clearly disinterested seller of commenter 1:30, why not try for a win-win solution that continues the growing sense of community in the area?

If you care enough to spend time fretting online about this circumstance would it be that much of a bother to take a saturday to not just help a member of the community and better the neighborhood but to additionally teach the children (whose safety and welfare are in part the reason for your concern) a lesson in helpfullness and community to boot?

Posted by: Anonymous at March 29, 2007 12:51 PM

As someone who lives next door to the other abandoned building further down on Second Street, let me assure you that these run-down buildings are not an asset to the neighborhood in any way. While some people here have said that they add character or make Park Slope more interesting, what they don't realize is that these abandoned brownstones don't just rot from the inside out, they contaminate the buildings they are connected to on either side. Our building's roof (we live on the top floor) is infested with squirrels who have come over through the firewall connecting our building to the abandoned building. Because the hole is on the abandoned building's side and the landlord is unreachable (and could care less), there's no long-term solution to the problem. We've tried every solution possible, but until the delinquent landlord begins the long process of gutting and renovating the building, we will live with animals constantly scurrying above. But maybe that's just another person's idea of "character."

Posted by: Anonymous at March 29, 2007 1:52 PM

12:51,

The family that owns the building is not destitute and has been uncooperative with past requests from neighbors and the city agencies to protect the structure from further decay, much less a restoration.

You need the building owner's permission to perform work on any building; a "communal act of kindness" represented by a group of caring citizens doing work for free, even if they were experts or professionals, would not be exempt from this rule.

This is why everyone just wants the family to sell the property if they won't fix it. Pretty simple concept.

Neighbors have the right to be pissed off - nothing has been done and it's been many years. I once parked next to this building some months ago and when i returned debris had fallen on the sidewalk. There was no shed then, either. Not cool.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 29, 2007 2:42 PM

Anonymous 12:51- "barn raising"? Get real- Just because neighborood folks feel strongly negative about the property doesn't mean they have any obligation or even inclination to put out for a renovation for insensitive, decidedly un-neighborly types like the Nashes. Reward them for their bad behavior and for owning a $5+ million property to boot? Just nonsense. All they are doing is leaving the biggest trash heap out for everyone to see for as long as they can- and it's been years. When was the last time the City missed a fine for someone leaving garbage out on the sidewalk for years? If they succeed at this in the end no one will have gained but the Nashes. How cynical of all of those who are critical of folks who want to see this property improved or at least made safe.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 29, 2007 4:19 PM

Im for made safe but improve is up to the owners. Park Slope has very strong community board, group, team association whatever just look at how fast it took them to shut down the DOT's plans. We at Prospect Heights are struggling with a major Rat problem. Why not just contact the Nashes and force them to make it safe?

Posted by: Anonymous at March 29, 2007 6:11 PM

I would rather give to a real charity than to a nut who just happens to be rich and doesn't care about their neighbors property rights and the neighborhood safety. They obviously are under some sort of pressure from somewhere to pretend that they are marketing this property (or why the bogus offer to lease for 50 years for a ridiculous sum?) Wish I knew where the pressure came from because maybe that's how we could get them to sell for real instead of this bs.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 29, 2007 8:55 PM

Anonymous 4:19 -

Respectfully, your OWN comment - when repeated back to you with the nouns reversed - clearly reflects the problematic reasoning central to the standoff (and preventing the problem from actually being resolved)...
=======================================
"Just because neighborhood folks feel strongly negative about the property doesn't mean [THE NASHES] have any obligation or even inclination to put out for a renovation for insensitive, decidedly un-neighborly types like [ANONYMOUS AT 4:19]."
=======================================

The REAL issue - or at least when your own expectations are being placed onto OTHERS - is the NEIGHBORHOOD and COMMUNITY as a whole.

Feeble points about...'Reward[ing] them for their bad behavior and for owning a $5+ million property to boot?'... are meaningless red herring issues: in-point-of-fact the same FINES from the City you so bitterly references already serve to PUNISH any non-neighborly behavior on the Nashes part.

My earlier point at 12:51 is that - as long as you wish to see "neighborliness"
as a one-way expectation you place on others as opposed to a genuine ACTION - your seeming selfishness (and envy?) shines through and REINFORCES the hesitancy/recalcitrance on the other side.

Stop concerning yourself merely with PREVENTING the ...'gain[s] [of] the Nashes'..., and focus on ACTIVELY PROMOTING the gains of the COMMUNITY.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 6, 2007 1:52 PM