100 Clark Street Hits the Market
It’s been a while since we’ve heard any news from 100 Clark Street, the building at the corner of Monroe Place that owner Penson Companies let deteriorate until DOB ordered a partial emergency demolition on Memorial Day Weekend 2008 because conditions had become “imminently perilous” at the site. The prevailing theory at the time was…
It’s been a while since we’ve heard any news from 100 Clark Street, the building at the corner of Monroe Place that owner Penson Companies let deteriorate until DOB ordered a partial emergency demolition on Memorial Day Weekend 2008 because conditions had become “imminently perilous” at the site. The prevailing theory at the time was that it was all part of a grand plan to rid the building of its three pesky rent stabilized tenants who were paying a combined total of $1,742 per month in rent. The new listing from Stephen Palmese at Massey Knakal notes that the three tenants still retain occupancy rights but that preliminary settlement papers have been drafted. The total buildable square footage is also given as 7,976, along with a disclaimer which probably has something to do with the fact that the building was overbuilt by more than 1,200 square feet before it was torn down and it may not be crystal clear what size it could be rebuilt to. The rendering, at right, gives some sense of what might be possible though. There’s no asking price, just a request for bids. This’ll be interesting.
100 Clark Place Listing [Massey Knakal] GMAP
What’s Up at 100 Clark Street? [Brownstoner]
Emergency Repair at 100 Clark While Court Fight Continues [Brownstoner]
Emergency Demo at 100 Clark Clears Tenants [Brownstoner]
‘Dereliction of Duty’ in Brooklyn Heights [Brownstoner]
Many here have blamed the owner, yet from reading Minard’s posts, it sounds as if the *tenants* have a great deal to do with this partial demolition:
Minard at 1:01 PM –The owner wanted to restore the building from top to bottom, and was in negotiations with three tenants for buyouts. . .
Minard at 11:29 AM — The three tenants in this building were just trying to make a killing, but they overplayed their hand and were evicted by the DOB …
———
Again, Rent Control has nothing to do with income. It is just a policy that has been in place for decades. It used to be a coveted situation, yet as many people here have mentioned, RC may have become a tangled situation that led to this sad demolition.
The building next door, 3 Monroe Place, is also for sale, and has been for some time. For some reason, people take one look at 100 Clark aka 1 Monroe, and are loathe to buy.
Rent controlled tenants are not allowed to live more than a certain amount of time in another location, such as a second or vacation home. If alert landlords—and name one who is not anxious to rid themselves of RC (not to be confused with RS) tenants—find and can prove this, RC tenants are Out.
Also, RC allows landlords to increase their rent 7.5% each year. Even if a tenant were only paying $100 in 1968 (the most recent date of occupancy for RC rules), the increases every year would bring rents to a much higher level. Coupled with the fact that such a tenant would be likely to die off eventually.
By Suburbandude on April 8, 2010 4:56 PM
It’s true about the main benefit going to Manhattan and Brooklyn Heights
[WAT?]
So if the market rent for a 1-bedroom is $1,000
[WAT??]
Gotta be schtick.
It’s true about the main benefit going to Manhattan and Brooklyn Heights. A typical 50-unit building in an unhip part of Brooklyn usually has a couple of old ladies who are getting a deal, but everyone else is close to market because turnover is high and the landlords know how to work the system. So if the market rent for a 1-bedroom is $1,000, the typical tenant is paying something like $976.76.
“I asked whether RC owners who are prohibited from charging market rent should have to go out of pocket to fix RC buildings.”
Yeah, they have to. Otherwise, buildings would be collapsing all over the city. Is it social welfare entitlement to expect to be able to walk down a street and not get hit by crumbling
pieces of a building? RC is outdated and should be repealed, but this particular building could have been maintained.
http://www.housingnyc.com/html/resources/zip.html
Scroll down for the lists of RS buildings by borough.
Now of course that just means there is at least one RS unit; might be the only one for that building, or might be one of 20 (or whatever). Doesn’t break down RS units by borough, which I haven’t been able to find.
BUT…the length of each list by borough:
Manhattan – 318 pages (approx. 14,000 bldgs)
Brooklyn – 296 pages
Queens – 183 pages
Bronx – 129 pages
Staten Island – 9 pages
That would lead me to believe the majority of RS/RC units are in Brooklyn and Manhattan.
“Penson Group is not a poor owner of an RC building.”
Who cares? I didn’t ask if they are poor. I asked whether RC owners who are prohibited from charging market rent should have to go out of pocket to fix RC buildings. Ie should private parties be forced to throw money into a hole on behalf of these leeches.
Answer = No. Whether the owner has the financial resources to make the repairs is irrelevant.
Penson Group is not a poor owner of an RC building. They had deep pockets and could have easily paid for structural improvements… their motivation was to get the building condemned to get rid of the remaining rent-controlled tenants.
By thwackamole1 on April 8, 2010 3:18 PM
Actually RC/RS benefits a relatively small number of people in core manhattan and Brooklyn Heights/Park Slope.
200k people max.
Source?
Maybe factual, but would be nice to see census data that backs up the claim.