From said Daily News article re: Atlantic Yards:

Forest City spokesman Joe DePlasco said Atlantic Yards was "not included in the application" and "is not eligible for this money."

Every for-profit corporation knows that eventually in order to survive it must drop certain money-losing projects, however cherished they may once have been -- perhaps even Bruce Ratner's brothers have had enough of his money-wasting, boondoggling ways?

Posted by: babs at November 4, 2009 2:46 PM in response to Wednesday Links

Super -- thanks!

Posted by: babs at November 3, 2009 12:04 PM in response to Landmarking Efforts In Bed-Stuy

I think it's because of the ACORN connection and the CBA. I haven't bothered to check to see if FCR has actually funded the WFP directly.

Posted by: babs at November 3, 2009 12:03 PM in response to Tuesday Links

Actually, I may only have to write-in for City Council (40th district). I think the Green Party has people for all the others.

Posted by: babs at November 3, 2009 10:37 AM in response to Tuesday Links

I don't think Tish wants the WFP endorsement, considering their support of Atlantic Yards and their relationship to ACORN. If not for their AY support I would vote for their candidates but purely because of that I'm not, including Bill Thompson and Bill DiBlasio. I know I will continue my only once broken (Obama) string of never voting for a winning candidate but isn't that part of what it's about? This is the only time I may actually have to resort to write-ins however as all the candidates pretty much disgust me in one way or another.

Posted by: babs at November 3, 2009 10:32 AM in response to Tuesday Links

It doesn't look like this proposal includes the Alhambra Apartments or the old Girls' High School on Nostrand. Are they already landmarked?

Posted by: babs at November 3, 2009 10:24 AM in response to Landmarking Efforts In Bed-Stuy

Gotta agree with you there, MM -- I was really surprised to see him at the CHN II landmarks hearing!

Posted by: babs at November 2, 2009 1:41 PM in response to Monday Links

Wrong -- 207 Fenimore taken off the market and refinanced by its owner.

Posted by: babs at October 30, 2009 2:03 PM in response to Open House Picks: Six Months Later

Whoah, hot gossip there -- Kathryn Lilly is no longer on PDE's website either...

Posted by: babs at October 30, 2009 1:30 PM in response to Open House Picks

Left THERE to die. Please.

Posted by: babs at October 29, 2009 9:20 AM in response to Closing Bell: The Pumpkins of Cobble Hill

What building is that with the three renos? Turner Towers?

Posted by: babs at October 29, 2009 9:05 AM in response to Thursday Links

Yesterday's testimony from several long-term residents was so inspiring! Good luck to all, and here's to CHN III!

Posted by: babs at October 28, 2009 11:45 AM in response to LPC Tees Up Phase 2 of Crown Heights Landmarking

Those apartments, I believe, specify that you must be an all-cash buyer, due to the fact that it is being converted to condominiums one unit at a time and is majority rentals.

Posted by: babs at October 27, 2009 3:08 PM in response to Condo Conversion Question

Unfortunately, I think some of the property owners on both Parkside and Chester are anti-landmarks as well. If you recall, there were only 2 opposing owners at the original Ocean on the Park hearing at the LPC. I think there would be more in these cases.

Posted by: babs at October 27, 2009 2:44 PM in response to BREAKING: Ocean on the Park Houses Landmarked

But considering they are non-contiguous, do we need two names? Or what about Parkchester (isn't that in the Bronx?)?

Posted by: babs at October 27, 2009 2:22 PM in response to BREAKING: Ocean on the Park Houses Landmarked

Thanks for the clarification Bob -- yes, let's move on to Parkside and Chester. Is someone going to come up with a cutesy/catchy name for them too?

Truly the most exciting Landmarks session I've ever witnessed!

Posted by: babs at October 27, 2009 2:09 PM in response to BREAKING: Ocean on the Park Houses Landmarked

I think anything built would have to be approved by the LPC in terms of appropriateness -- see examples in Brooklyn Heights. Certainly what was proposed (an eight-story condo wit a cantilvered projection over the driveway of the house next door) wouldn't pass.

Posted by: babs at October 27, 2009 1:11 PM in response to BREAKING: Ocean on the Park Houses Landmarked

This district was originally proposed for inclusion in the original Prospect Lefferts Gardens historic district in 1979, but the LPC was not into non-contiguous districts at the time, so this is really an add-on. Still to come: Chester Court, Parkside Ave.

This turned out better than we could have hoped -- the lot adjacent to 189 Ocean (the former house that sparked it all) has now been calendared as well.

Well done everyone!

Posted by: babs at October 27, 2009 12:54 PM in response to BREAKING: Ocean on the Park Houses Landmarked

Answer -- none. Darkness is so ironic.

Posted by: babs at October 26, 2009 4:29 PM in response to NYT: Food Co-op Exile's Story Demands 2,000 Words

This is standard practice for new construction/conversion, but the timetable is notoriously unreliable. Unless one or more banks have already pre-approved the building, and you're obtaining financing through them, closings generally cannot start until at least 50% of the units are in contract.

How many units are in the building? What % are currently in contract? If this a townhouse conversion with four units or fewer you will have a tough time getting financing regardless -- you should definitely run this by your mortgage broker before proceeding.

And, yes, once you've signed the contract and put that money down you're pretty much stuck, even if there are delays in closing, unless there is a subtantial amendment to the offering plan that would allow you to get out and get your deposit back. A careful review of the offering plan will let you know what your eventual options are. Once you get a copy of the offering plan you should have your lawyer review it.

But I thought you were working with a real estate broker. That person should be able to provide complete answers to all your questions on this -- he or she is probably familiar with the building and may know the answers to some of your questions already.

Good luck!

Posted by: babs at October 26, 2009 3:50 PM in response to Condo Conversion Question

I really love this building -- the amenities are fabulous and it has the world's best doorman (Robert, formerly of One Main). The triple-glazed windows really keep out the noise from the Manhattan Bridge, even in the 9th floor units, which are right at roadbed-level.

Posted by: babs at October 26, 2009 12:58 PM in response to Condo of the Day: 100 Jay Street, #30A

Such a sad story -- I have dealt with several owners here who sank their life savings into these unsafe units and were looking for any way out. Of course, with no C of O, they couldn't sell or rent them out.

And while I certainly am no expert in NYC building codes, some of the more egregious violations (fire stairwells opening directly into the units, terrifyingly unprotected spiral staircases on the corner roof decks -- one slip and you're soaring over Willoughby Ave.) were immediately visible even to me.

How dod The Developers Group, which sold these units, escape this lawsuit? I should think they should be held responsible as well.

Another reason to work with a buyer's broker, BTW (not to re-ignite that argument).

Posted by: babs at October 26, 2009 12:55 PM in response to Mendel Brach Barred from Condo Business

For most co-op members, it isn't solely about the great prices, fresh (mostly local and organic) produce, and good selection of natural foods, it's also about the camaraderie that comes from the experience of knowing that you and all of your fellow-members, who come from all walks of life, are treated identically, and that you are all working together to support the organization. Too crunchy granola for you? Don't join. Seriously, everything in life isn't about money.

Posted by: babs at October 26, 2009 12:27 PM in response to NYT: Food Co-op Exile's Story Demands 2,000 Words

That was not a sales pitch and I have never hidden the fact that I am a broker -- as anyone who's ever read my posts can attest. No BS involved and I am currently working with enough buyers not to be trolling here for business.

Posted by: babs at October 23, 2009 3:32 PM in response to Using a Buyers Agent?

And yes, jace, the fact that the seller is paying the entire commission may seem counter-intuitive for a buyers' broker acting in the buyer's best interests, but most brokers I know do a good job of keeping it that way. And isn't it in the buyers' best interests to get the property they want as smoothly and at as fair a price as possible?

Posted by: babs at October 23, 2009 12:40 PM in response to Using a Buyers Agent?

Sorry, joe, I don't work for Corcoran, so I'm not familiar with their sales pitch when working with buyers. And I'm not saying there aren't less-than-honest brokers out there; I'm just saying that a good one won't betray his/her client. And, yes, at times I would rather give up half of my commission for a smoother, speedier closing so that I can devote my time to other, more lucrative, areas. And I'm successful enough as it is, thanks, so I don't think that most of my clients and customers feel I'm conning them in any way.

Unless Mr. Brownstoner wants to restrict posting here to non-brokers only you'll just have to deal with it, joe.

90% of the properties in brownstone Brooklyn aren't on the Brooklyn MLS, which is primarily in southern Brooklyn and is subscribed to only by smaller firms and those not even in Brooklyn.

But noodlemania, if you've lost three places, it's time to ask your agent (and yourself) why. Are your offers too low? Are your offers presented in their best light (meaning do your finances look as good as they should)? Do you have a good mortgage pre-approval? Are you putting a sufficient amount down?

As a seller, I would go with a lower offer from someone who had a higher downpayment and better mortgage pre-approval/pre-qual than a higher offer from a low down payment person, because the liklihood of closing is much higher.

This is not a buyers' market in the sense many people here would like to understand. It doesn't mean that you can submit lowball offers and have them embraced with open arms. Most selling prices out there now are already considerably lower than they would have been a year or two (or even three) ago, and I personally have seen several properties go for over ask. Again, your agent is the best person to counsel you on the state of the market -- and if you don't feel you're getting the information and attention you need either speak up or change agents. Good luck to you in anay case.

Posted by: babs at October 23, 2009 12:36 PM in response to Using a Buyers Agent?

I completely disagree -- every buyer should have someone on his/her side. The seller's broker's undivided loyalty is to the seller. Buyer's brokers also bring a wealth of experience with previous transactions and can offer all kinds of advice -- from what to look for in evaluating different buildings, co-ops vs. condos, referrals to mortgage brokers, lawyers, inspectors, movers, and more.

What you can't see on the internet, for example, is that the board of such-and-such co-op doesn't like board packages submitted in binders, or doesn't meet during the month of August; or the people who bought the townhouse next to the one you're looking at are getting divorced and will need to sell at a good price in a few months, etc.

And in terms of direct vs. co-broke deals I will say that, as a broker, yes, a direct deal is nice, but it's also nice to do a co-broke so that you don't have to deal with the buyer and the seller, both of whom may be high maintenance. Most brokers I work with welcome co-brokes and those who don't generally don't have the best properties anyway.

And any broker who puts his/her own interests ahead of his seller's is violating his contract with that seller. The broker should promote the offer that is best for the seller, period -- and in the case of equivalent offers that means considering the two buyers' financial positions, downpayment, contingencies, mortgage pre-approval, and liklihood to be approved by the board. Believe me, no broker wants to push a less-than-qualified buyer only to have the deal fall apart and send everyone back to square one.

In the end, internet aside, there is no match for the human element. Wouldn't it be nice to have someone to whom you could ask all your questions and whose job is to answer them for you, while providing you with market intelligence and ideas you may not have considered -- for free? That is the kind of buyer's broker you want to work with.

Posted by: babs at October 23, 2009 11:49 AM in response to Using a Buyers Agent?

And BTW real estate prices are no longer sinking daily -- according to an appraiser I spoke with yesterday, his firm (one of the largest in NYC) is preparing to reclassify many Brooklyn neighborhoods (Williamsburg, Brooklyn Heights, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens, Park Slope) as "stable" instead of "declining," based on absorption rates. He said they really don't have enough statistics in other areas to make any determination yet, but he imagines conditions would be similar.

Posted by: babs at October 22, 2009 3:57 PM in response to Combining Apartments

"Big apartments there are fairly easy to find." Not really -- of all the co-op sales I've seen in PLG in the last several years, the vast majority have been studios and 1 bedrooms. At 50 Lefferts Ave., for example, only 1 two bedroom unit has come on the marke tin the past five years (sold as a FSBO). There was also a two bedroom at 135 Hawthorne St over the summer. The only other sizeable apartments in PLG have been at 80 Winthrop St., a problematic building due to its low owner-occupancy percentage. I would think that a large apartment on Ocean Ave. would be very desirable, but potential problems include 1. Co-op approval needed to combine units and for all construction, 2. the % of owner-occupancy in some of the buildings on Ocean is still below 50%, making financing problematic, and 3. many people moving to PLG want houses, and houses are available (even in Lefferts Manor) for less than $850K -- 29 Maple St sold for $830K in July and 19 Maple is currently in contract for the same or slightly less.

Posted by: babs at October 22, 2009 3:38 PM in response to Combining Apartments

Please see the New Yorker's recent piece about the different Nobel Prizes out there: http://bk.ly/Qw.

While some, like the ones for the various sciences, do require hard evidence of success, others, including the Peace prize, have always been based on "softer" characteristics (and the literature prize seems to be the most overtly political in its concentration on authors from "developing" countries).

How easy it becomes to knock an amazing program based on one's ignorance and dislike of our President. Useless snarkiness and sour grapes.

Posted by: babs at October 22, 2009 12:06 PM in response to Kudos, Sorta, from The Village Voice

The real reason Ratner wants to use ED is to get the remaining RS tenants out. Under rent stabilization laws the LL is required to offer the tenant a renewal lease (provided the tenant is not in default) ad infinitum, unless the apartment is needed for the LL's family (obviously not the case here!) or the property is seized by eminent domain -- Ratner owns these buildings, but even he can't get rid of the tenants who refused his buyout offers (which weren't that great for renters -- he agreed to pick up three years' worth of rent payments and to pay the broker's fee, as well as offering them a unit in one of the to-be-built buildings -- as market rates) without ED. He wants the state to take his property away from him so he can get rid of them.

Posted by: babs at October 19, 2009 4:57 PM in response to DDDB Holds Fifth Fundraiser Against the Yards

"There has been no public referendum on this project" That's part of the problem -- we've all been swept aside by this developer and our mayor (for life, or so he seems to think), with this deal being made directly in Albany, with help from Mike and Marty.

Posted by: babs at October 19, 2009 4:23 PM in response to DDDB Holds Fifth Fundraiser Against the Yards

Please note that Senator Eric Adams is sponsoring a community meeting tomorrow at his office, 572 Flatbush Ave. (at Midwood), from 7 - 8:30 to address the issue of violence in our neighborhoods. He is also holding a meeting tonight in Prospect Heights/Crown Heights at the Hope City Empowerment Center, 650 Washington Ave., also from 7 - 8:30. Hawthorne St. has more info, as well as an excerpt from a note sent by the senator: http://bk.ly/OZ

Posted by: babs at October 19, 2009 4:17 PM in response to Closing Bell: In Memoriam

The reason the Unity plan is feasible is precisely because it breaks the site down into several independent project/developers, so it's not an "all or nothing," or "all or arena and parking lots" proposition.

Posted by: babs at October 19, 2009 2:05 PM in response to One More Atlantic Yards Lawsuit

How about some nice, contextual yet modern apartment buildings and no arena? Check out the Unity plan, which is still very much a possibility once FCR goes away: http://unityplan.org/home.html

Posted by: babs at October 19, 2009 12:09 PM in response to One More Atlantic Yards Lawsuit

I'd say dad will just have to live with the gift tax -- should be OK if his son really wants the apartment and he really wants him to have it. But I also hope you're continuing to do everything possible to find another buyer. And seriously, if it seems that he won't be approved, do not go to contract with them. The worst would be to have a board turndown after all that.

Posted by: babs at October 19, 2009 11:48 AM in response to Co-Purchaser vs. Guarantor

The NYS and city offices in Metrotech pay well over market rates to subsidize the well under market rents given to the commercial tenants. Ratner wins, we lose. Enough!

Posted by: babs at October 19, 2009 11:30 AM in response to DDDB Holds Fifth Fundraiser Against the Yards

No just realistic, but everyone is entitled to their fantasies.

Posted by: babs at October 19, 2009 11:27 AM in response to One More Atlantic Yards Lawsuit

Actually Brooke devoted most of her life to giving away as much money as possible, in part (as she's said) because of guilt over how some of the money was earned, so she knew very well where it came from. But that doesn't make her a bad person; quite the opposite.

Posted by: babs at October 19, 2009 11:24 AM in response to Co-Purchaser vs. Guarantor

That doesn't seem like a bad purchase price. Why is the son's income so low? Is he just starting out in a career and will make more in future years? Or is he in a lower-paying, but "socially redeeming" career -- schoolteacher, social worker, etc.? Those situations might be more palatable to the board than the "spoiled rich kid" scenario.

How much is he putting down? If the father is that well off, and the down payment is big enough, and if the co-op itself is in good enough financial condition, a good mortgage broker should be able to find a willing lender, even with a guarantor. it may not be the greatest rate in the world, but even the "high" rates now are at historic lows, and he can always refinance later.

Posted by: babs at October 19, 2009 11:22 AM in response to Co-Purchaser vs. Guarantor

Well, arena or not, I am fairly certain that future won't happen.

Posted by: babs at October 19, 2009 11:16 AM in response to One More Atlantic Yards Lawsuit

Actually Ysabelle a lot of the Astor fortune was made on shady dealings (like the Rockefellers, Kennedys, etc.), but that's not really the point.

And var, depending on the people in your building, acting out might just make them more determined than ever to sink any buyer you put up, and to have you evicted and your shares taken by the board.

Posted by: babs at October 19, 2009 11:13 AM in response to Co-Purchaser vs. Guarantor

The fact that you are even mentioning that there might be an outcome (b) shows you're making progress Corey -- congratulations!

Posted by: babs at October 19, 2009 11:08 AM in response to One More Atlantic Yards Lawsuit

Seems an earlier post of mine has gone missing, so I'll try again, since it does relate to the original question. var, do the co-op's by-laws specifically prohibit co-purchasors? If so, it's not likely they will change them just for you. How attractive is the buyers' offer? I have heard of co-ops that turn down applicants if they believe the offer is too low, as a low purchase price will negatively impact their property values. Quite honestly, if this guy's income isn't cutting it and he's getting a bargain price to boot, I might not want that precedent in my building either. So I'd say that if it's a good price and apart from the son's low income he seems like he'd be a good addition to the building, it may be worth a shot. But if it's a lowball price and/or it seems like he won't get along with existing owners, you're probably better off holding out for someone else. If you are selling through a broker, he/she should talk to colleagues who have handled transactions in the building before and get their advice. Otherwise your lawyer should be able to come up with some suggestions. Good luck!

Posted by: babs at October 19, 2009 11:06 AM in response to Co-Purchaser vs. Guarantor

"trust fund money is dirty money, it's no different than drug dealer and prostitution money, in fact it's worse. "

OK that's just plain stupid (unless whoever established the trust was a dealer or pimp). I generally ignore this sort of posts but that's just too much to let pass.

Posted by: babs at October 19, 2009 10:56 AM in response to Co-Purchaser vs. Guarantor

Please see the details of the new lawsuit for the full description of how this is so not about "affordable" housing. The Empire State Development Corp has now stated its willingness to make the affordable units contingent on public subsidies when no such condition exists in the approved project.

Posted by: babs at October 19, 2009 10:47 AM in response to DDDB Holds Fifth Fundraiser Against the Yards

If only the kid is a shareholder it's much easier to get him evicted (for breaking house rules, for example) than if the co-op had to go against both him and daddy. If both parties are on the stock and lease the place would be considered owner-occuppied; what can't happen in a co-op (unlike a condo) would be having daddy the sole owner -- that would reduce the owner-occupancy %.

Posted by: babs at October 19, 2009 10:14 AM in response to Co-Purchaser vs. Guarantor

Yes they are babs along with Boys High

Posted by: Amzi Hill at November 3, 2009 11:58 AM in response to Landmarking Efforts In Bed-Stuy

Super -- thanks!

Posted by: babs at November 3, 2009 12:04 PM in response to Landmarking Efforts In Bed-Stuy

These are the Bedford Stuyvesant Historic Districts: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF&msa=0&msid=104137522593583797349.0004761194952b7c73b25

Posted by: Amzi Hill at November 3, 2009 3:07 PM in response to Landmarking Efforts In Bed-Stuy

Amiz, thanks on posting the link to the google maps. There are efforts for the other areas on the map. If you want more information, please send me an e-mail from the Bedford Corners website.

Posted by: BedstuyMaven at November 4, 2009 8:07 AM in response to Landmarking Efforts In Bed-Stuy