They will also show up earlier than they say. While they didn't break anything in my house, it was more disruptive than I had realized- you will not be welcome in your own home. I also never got a copy of the film, but my neighbors didn't hate me, and my coop was fine with it.

Posted by: harriet at October 29, 2009 10:23 AM in response to Renting Your Place for Movie

I love my block association. Let me add my voice to the chorus of people who belong to one and encourage you to start one.

It only takes a couple people to turn a block from a bunch of apartments into a neighborhood.

Posted by: harriet at October 20, 2009 2:23 PM in response to Thoughts on Block Associations

Let me give fsrg the prize for today's humorous hyperbole. He or she is saying that giving a billionaire developer MTA land for 1/10 the appraised value is the moral equivalent to helping every American get healthcare. He or she is saying that the MTA should decide which developers should get $100 million or so in subsidies to build luxury housing at a time when the MTA is suffering severe cash flow problems. Obama was elected because the American people were tired of Bush's back room deals that led to things like the Iraq war and huge profits for Halliburton or Blackwater. Now fsrg thinks that Obama stands for taking money out of the pockets of MTA riders and workers to increase the profits of a developer. All for a project with no clears costs or benefits.

I am very proud of the Straphangers for standing up for all New York. If there ever was an example of how handouts to Ratner are hurting the NY economy, it's this one. The MTA broke the law. It has a fiduciary responsibility to look out for itself, not to Forest City Ratner's stockholders.

Posted by: harriet at October 15, 2009 12:27 PM in response to Atlantic Yards: Suit Filed Against MTA

One more great benefit of landmark protect for PH: All you people who don't like won't move into the neighborhood.

Posted by: harriet at September 21, 2009 8:15 PM in response to City Council Signs Off on Prospect Heights Landmarking

I'm super glad that my neighborhood and home have gotten landmark protection. It's a great place to live, and this will help keep

I am proud to celebrate the fine architecture of Prospect Heights, which leads to its close neighborhood feel.

In other cities, buildings over 40 years old are considered ancient treasures. In Brooklyn, we have so many fine buildings that we sometime ignore their value.

These buildings have stood the test of time. I'm glad the LPC has decided to protect these buildings from developers & politicians and such who see no value in good design or public policy.

Posted by: harriet at September 21, 2009 7:50 PM in response to City Council Signs Off on Prospect Heights Landmarking

Bloomberg may be loved for planting a million trees, but he's cutting down 2 million to create all the mailings to get re-elected. He's also planted a couple million (or so it seems) ugly ugly condos that will blight New York for decades. That's his real legacy.

Posted by: harriet at September 2, 2009 12:17 AM in response to Bloomberg Opines on Atantic Yards, Coney Island

Re Big Jugs: "In fact, DDDB, No land grab and ay report do nothing but cross-reference one another."

Norman "thank goodness for OCD" Oder gets his information from the ESDC, DOT and public documents. NLG and DDDb often reprint what Oder writes.

If you disagree with his conclusions, please back it up by going to the primary documents he refers to. Oder comes up with an astounding amount of original investigative reporting.

Posted by: harriet at August 27, 2009 12:41 AM in response to The Carlton Avenue Bridge: Closed Through 2011

Ratner also bought Fort Greene Place (5th Ave) between Atlantic Terminal and Atlantic Center. That's a private street now.

I think Petebklyn has it backwards. People oppose Ratner because they are against privatizing public space (and money), not the other way around.

Posted by: harriet at July 29, 2009 7:34 PM in response to Closing Bell: Ratner Remapping Road

This just in from Crains: Starwood hotels just got downgraded. They are the ones building the two hotels across from the Abolitionist homes. See
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20090708/FREE/907089995

Posted by: harriet at July 8, 2009 5:15 PM in response to Another Hotel for Duffield Street

When I saw the Brooklyn Eagle article, I thought it was a couple months old. The rumors that I have heard tell me that V3 lost its financing months ago, which is probably why 237 Duffield has been sitting abandoned for so long. I spoke with someone who claimed to be working on the design concept for 231 Duffield, and he said that nothing is happening- maybe the only real news is that they hired Thomas O'Hara.

Posted by: harriet at July 8, 2009 2:04 PM in response to Another Hotel for Duffield Street

I just did a quick calculation. For someone who really knows how to crunch numbers, my apologies. But here's a napkin calculation.

Vanderbilt railyards = 8.4 acres = 365,904 sq. ft.
210 Prospect Place = 3,633 sq ft sold recently for $619/sqft
365,904 x $619 = $226,494,576

210 Prospect Place is less than a half mile from Vanderbilt Yards. While 210 is a nice one-family property, it obviously doesn't have the challenges of building over a working railyard. On the other hand, it doesn't have the zoning to build a forty+ story building.

Ratner's $20 Million initial payment for the Vanderbilt Railyards is 8.9 times the value of 210 Prospect Place, which sold for $2,250,000. Ratner's yearly payments over the next 22 years would be a little less than the value of 210 Prospect Place.

I'm just trying to put some of these numbers in perspective. So even if the lowball valuation of the Vanderbilt Yards in 2006 was $214.5 million, Ratner got a very good deal. MTA riders got a very bad deal.

Posted by: harriet at June 25, 2009 4:54 PM in response to MTA Ignores Fiduciary Duty, Approves Revised Yards Plan

It's my understanding that the MTA will technically be the owner of the land under the arena, which Ratner will lease for 99 years for $1. Ratner is trying to finalize the naming rights deal with Barclays for the arena for $400 Million. So, Ratner would be profiting $20 Million a year for 20 years for property that it will not own, and the taxpayers will see none of that income. Oh, but I forgot- Ratner will pay $200,000 a year to the arena's name put on every map of New York City.

Some people take a practical look at this and say, "as long as the trains run on time, I'm fine with the station naming rights deal." The problem is that the MTA is losing out on hundreds of millions of dollars on the arena naming rights deal, so your trains won't be running on time. Add that to the fact that the MTA just agreed to sell the Vanderbilt Yards (appraised at $214 million) for $20 Million now and the rest over 22 years while at the same time it has to borrow money to continue to operate. This is VERY bad news for MTA riders and for New York.

Posted by: harriet at June 25, 2009 1:12 AM in response to More Naming Rights for Barclay's

I can't imagine this is a good deal for the MTA. Changing the name of one of the busiest stations in the United States means that every guide book, every MTA map, every NYC map will have to change. That has to be worth more than $200,000 a year. And what happens after that?

Posted by: harriet at June 24, 2009 10:27 AM in response to More Naming Rights for Barclay's

zinka:
"How is the park/garage being funded? What happens to the air rights from the properties that become the park/garage? Do they get sold to neighboring lots and used to fund construction?"

You're paying for it, wouldn't you know it? So far the City has spent over $35 million to acquire properties to build the Willoughby Square micro-park/parking lot. They are slated to spend a few hundred million more. The air rights will not be sold to anyone- the area was already rezoned to make for much higher density.

But the fun keeps going! While CityPoint, formerly the Albee Square Mall, sits empty and looks like a perfect site for a park, if you ask me, the developers are asking for city bond financing.

One group looking into this is FUREE, which is upset that small businesses are being destroyed by eminent domain but they are getting no help to relocate.

CityPoint will get money to build "low income" housing, but the cost per unit is very high- Pratt has some of those numbers.

Posted by: harriet at March 3, 2009 1:39 PM in response to Demolition of 231 Duffield Street Begins

The parking lot and micro-park are planned to go from Willoughby to 225 Duffield. The city wanted it to go to 227, but they backed off because of the historic significance. At one point, 231 and 233 were also threatened with demolition by the EDC, but that was a few years ago. There are two hotels across the street going up, and one is fairly well along at 237 Duffield. The hotel at 229-231 Duffield will be the fourth hotel on the block.

Posted by: harriet at March 3, 2009 12:37 PM in response to Demolition of 231 Duffield Street Begins

"It’s not really in a neighborhood at all."

Thank goodness people who think that are not moving in any more.

Posted by: harriet at November 20, 2008 1:24 AM in response to Dolkart Down on Prospects for "Fringe Areas"

Our building was overcharged repeatedly for this. The best option is to learn to fix it.

Posted by: harriet at September 24, 2008 1:44 PM in response to Pilot light Q?

"Rich people like space, they like cars, they like their private pools and private tennis courts, they want their children to be sheltered from the less attractive side of life. It makes no sense for these people to work in New York. This is a socialist-leaning, public-transit, goo-goo, egalatarian, politically correct archiapelego."

Right now I'm working late in Midtown, and I've worked at tons of financial and other highly capitalized firms. Most of the people in these firms live in New York, Connecticut and New Jersey, which seem to match your vision of the most "socialist-leaning, politically-correct" states in the country.

Sorry to disappoint you, sam, but rich people love this town.

Posted by: harriet at September 23, 2008 7:56 PM in response to Brooklyn's Financial Class and the Condo Boom

We still have some important sectors of the economy that won't be decimated by the crashing financial markets. Advertising is more based on the pharmaceuticals. Tourists will still flock here to take advantage of the weak dollar

What neither the Observer or any of the commenters mention here is that credit is tightening again, and that could mean that some projects could easily collapse. The Atlantic Yards proposal is just the most obvious example of a project that relies on a more favorable credit market.

"Your assumptions and over-the-top assertions are not needed in a time in which panic could potentially topple this country."

Luckily, I don't think Paulson or Bernanke care what we say, so I think we can muddle through a conversation here without fear of toppling our country.

Posted by: harriet at September 23, 2008 4:06 PM in response to Brooklyn's Financial Class and the Condo Boom

"I'm more concerned about housing, jobs and something positive happening at that intersection where there's been a hole in the ground my entire life."

That's lovely. You still have not even attempted to show how Norman Oder is biased. You have not shown how Norman Oder is devoid of facts.

You have shown yourself a supporter of jobs and housing. I'm afraid to inform you that EVERYONE says that they are in favor of jobs and housing. I would argue that there are much better ways to achieve these goals.

If you don't mind bringing the discussion back to the original thread, we could achieve our common goals much quicker if the ESDC followed the laws. We could achieve these lovely goals if the ESDC or anyone in our government bothered to do a market analysis, which was an important part of the discussion in court yesterday.

Does the project benefits outweigh the negatives? This shouldn't be determined by a blog discussion. It should have been determined by our elected leaders BEFORE deciding to give hundreds of millions of dollars away in subsidies.

DDDB and the other community groups argued that the state was acting capriciously and irrationally. We will find out in a few months whether the judges agree.

Posted by: harriet at September 18, 2008 7:34 PM in response to AY Arguments Heard at Appellate Court

""Maybe you can buy a transcript if you want something free of what you perceive as bias."

I'm not quite that concerned. I have my own viewpoint, and what comes out of this meeting won't change that."

Okay, so you admit that you are biased, and that facts won't change your mind. And then you say that Oder is biased (without giving any examples) because he disagrees with you.

I think I get the picture.

Posted by: harriet at September 18, 2008 3:32 PM in response to AY Arguments Heard at Appellate Court

"Norman Oder's Web site [is] clearly in the anti-AY camp."

Norman Oder says that he is a critic not an opponent of the Atlantic Yards proposal. You may not like what he says, but he is very thorough and is critical of all sides. If you want "unbiased" reporting, then you should at least read his full posting. You can judge for yourself.

There were no other reporters there, and the ESDC lawyers are not likely to post on this blog.

I would say this is telling. If there were a large, silent pro-Ratner crowd, why weren't they attending the meeting?

Posted by: harriet at September 18, 2008 1:35 PM in response to AY Arguments Heard at Appellate Court

I have attended nearly every Atlantic Yards hearing, and I have to say that this was one of the strongest. The panel of five judges seemed very skeptical of the state's claim that the land that Ratner wants is blighted. At several points there was almost disdain in the judge's statements, such as when one of them asked about the company that wrote the environmental review: "Has AKRF ever found an area NOT blighted?"

Norman Oder wrote that the state punted in its response, but I thought in a way the state made AKRF look even worse. The ESDC lawyer essentially said, "well, they don't only study blight," which I would interpret as meaning "yes, they always find blight when asked, but sometimes they are given other tasks." I think the judge who asked this might have the same one who determined that the Columbia eminent domain case was tainted by AKRF's conflict of interest.

Another judge asked of the ESDC whether their definition of blight could mean that they could condemn any property in New York.

There have been other instances of judges asking tough questions of one side and then ruling in favor of them, so the DDDB crowd is tempered in its optimism. I find it hard to temper my optimism in general, so I would say that it is quite likely that these judges will agree with the argument of DDDB and its dozens of community allies: The blight determination is capricious and arbitrary. It was not based on the legal justification of eminent domain, but on the desire of a private developer to get private profit at the expense of the public.

I am expressing my views as someone who was at the hearing.

By the way, the building where the hearing took place was beautiful, and I recommend attending something there just to look at the paintings on the walls.

Posted by: harriet at September 18, 2008 1:02 PM in response to AY Arguments Heard at Appellate Court

"I looked up "killjoy" in wikepedia and harriet's picture was there!!!!"

I am not advocating ticketing bars! I strongly support that people enjoy the rights of their property, and your stoop is your own property (uh, except in Carroll Gardens, where they are technically public property). I agree with cortnyc:

"If someone can be arrested for trespassing then its not a public place."

I'm just afraid that if the police can bend the edges of private property, what will they do next?

Posted by: harriet at September 16, 2008 11:31 AM in response to More Tickets for Stoop Drinkers

Wait a second. Shouldn't this law also apply to all restaurants with tables on the sidewalks or visible for the sidewalks? What about bars with open windows? What about bars like The Gate on 5th Avenue?

Since arenas are considered "public spaces," then following the new logic, shouldn't drinks be disallowed there?

Posted by: harriet at September 16, 2008 11:14 AM in response to More Tickets for Stoop Drinkers

Brooklyn Eagle is a shoddy operation. They aren't going to get their act together any time soon. But they do win the prize for stretching Prospect Heights to an absurd degree.

Posted by: harriet at September 15, 2008 2:16 PM in response to Monday Links

I thought there was an elevator in that building. Could it be that the elevator goes to 4 and the you have to only walk up one additional floor?

I've been in the lobby of the building a few times, and I think it has a doorman, and seems a little old-fashioned.

There is a kiddie park directly next door- you can see a bit of it in the picture. While the block does have some of the sketchiest characters in Prospect Heights, there is new construction there, and a lot of people are pretty bullish about Washington. And Underhill is a really nice nowadays, but this block is outside of the new landmark district.

All that said, I'm usually a big believer in the value of properties in Prospect Heights, but this seems high even to me. And that's saying a lot.

Posted by: harriet at August 19, 2008 6:00 PM in response to Co-op Condo of the Day: 338 Prospect Place, #5E

Re: Make My Heights the P Heights at August 1, 2008 3:27 PM

"The downtown Brooklyn plan calls for rezonings and the buildings of parks. It doesn't say that we've got to kick out wig shops and replace them with H&M."

Actually, it does say that. Part of the plan is to use eminent domain to destroy various successful businesses and homes, and replace them with buildings in tune with the Bloomberg vision. The irony of some of these is shocking- such as demolishing TrackData, a minority-owned high-tech firm with over a hundred employee. In another instance, they wanted to destroy a newly built cultural hot-spot and replace it with... another cultural hot-spot, but one probably more in line with BAM. The City also wants to destroy a book store and replace it with Willoughby Square, which will in turn be rented out to the highest bidder- the City is turning parks into private event spaces for American Express and, conceivably H&M.

So, yes, the plan pretty much says that we (the taxpayers) are paying to kick out wig shops and replace them with H&M.

If the Downtown Brooklyn plan doesn't explicitly say that they want to destroy the existing businesses, it's because these enterprises are invisible to the EDC.

Posted by: harriet at August 2, 2008 1:58 PM in response to DoBro Redevelopment Not So Great for Everyone

Dude, where's da bong?

Ya know, I'm not being completely serious. Maybe I love Prospect Heights too much? Is that possible? In any case, I really hope nobody uses my post as a negotiating tool.

There are apartments on Prospect Place going for about $800,000, and if you multiply that by four, this might hypothetically seem vaguely reasonable.

But I guess my serious point is that it might get the asking price. Not everyone is hurting in this economy, and there are a lot of really strong positives to the house, not just the quality of the reno, but it's location is pretty fantastic. A lot of people love the way that Vanderbilt Avenue is heading, and it's really close to Prospect Park the B/Q and the 2/3. The block is getting landmarked, and this sort of project may be the last of its kind on Prospect Place.

Posted by: harriet at July 24, 2008 2:30 PM in response to House of the Day: 210 Prospect Place

This building is a gut renovation, and from what I've little seen in person, they've done a great job. This is one of the nicest blocks of Prospect Heights IMHO, and I agree it's not $2.5M nice- probably like $3M nice, given what other properties on the block are selling for.... (as if I had that much money for a one-family....)...

Posted by: harriet at July 24, 2008 2:15 PM in response to House of the Day: 210 Prospect Place

Hindy has worked to support the destruction of light industry in Prospect Heights, so he gets no sympathy from me. I found other Brooklyn beers to drink since he was such a jerk in his support the Atlantic Yards proposal.

Still, I hope he could move to Sunset Park. Though I'm sure someone wants to build luxury condos and/or hotels there as well.

Posted by: harriet at July 21, 2008 4:10 PM in response to Brooklyn Brewery Chief Bemoans Lack of Industrial Space

It's really heartwarming that we're donating money from schools and roads to give subsidies to Ratner. It's also so nice for the NY Times to run a free advertisement for their business partners, FCR. They haven't run recent news stories, but they are kind enough to run a fluff piece to drum up sales of the suites.

Posted by: harriet at May 16, 2008 12:35 PM in response to Barclays Center Luxury Suites Hit the Market

I think this was a gut renovation, or it was a severely distressed building that needed a lot of work just to be habitable. It's not like it had been a charming thing with lovely details.

Posted by: harriet at April 21, 2008 11:50 PM in response to House of the Day: 58 6th Avenue

"It is the responsibility of every citizen to accept the execution of the law by the state. This matter - from an ethics standpoint - is decided."

Wow. I guess there's no more need for polemicists if we listen to Polemicist, because all we have to do is listen to our wise leaders.

More importantly, I believe that the AY eminent domain determination by the state does not follow the constitution, even using the Kelo decision as a guide. So doesn't that require that I fight the illegal confiscation of private property?

Posted by: harriet at March 31, 2008 11:54 AM in response to Docs: Low Disclosure Req'd From Ratner For ED Seizure

"i don't disagree with your observation. but if not ratner then who? i'm looking for a specific realistic answer, not something that just sounds nice."

Extell recently said that its bid for the Vanderbilt Railyards was serious, which I consider a specific realistic answer. Of course, the situation in the financial markets has changed recently.

...But I have a feeling that you're not going to like that answer. My preference was well represented by the UNITY plan, which is to get multiple developers for different parts of the area.

The Atlantic Yards footprint was determined by Ratner, not by a transparent process. In other words, the developer said "jump," and the ESDC said "how high?" I would like to see a development plan that's based on the needs of Brooklyn, not of a private interest. Ideally, a plan that serves the interest of the public would also be profitable for a developer.

But it's important to remember that Ratner has not finalized his bid for the Vanderbilt Railyards. It's still officially MTA property.

So to give a full answer your question, I would need to know what area you are considering.

Posted by: harriet at March 24, 2008 5:03 PM in response to Endangered AY

I think BrooklynLove sums up the DDDb position nicely at 7:43 pm:

"the yards are screaming for large scale grand development of this nature - nexus of max transit, nexus of major thoroughfares, nexus of multiple neighborhoods, major cultural institution, one of brooklyn's most destinctive landmarks (wsb)."

DDDb was the organization that found the highest bidder for the Vanderbilt Railyards, and the DDDb-crowd has spent years developing the UNITY plan, which fulfills BrooklynLove's dream of a grand development.

Bruce Ratner succeeded in creating massive controversy and getting $55 Million (and counting) of taxpayer to tear down existing properties without building a thing. Given that many other developers have succeeded in building large projects in Brooklyn, Ratner seems to be failing where others have figured out how to build.

BrooklynLove, if you really want a project built, then it's time to realize that Ratner is not the only one to do it.

In any case, I'm glad that you agree with DDDb in supporting something great at the site.

Posted by: harriet at March 24, 2008 10:16 AM in response to Endangered AY

Something in BH would be great. I have nothing against that- it's an interesting comparison. If you're looking for comparisons, there is about as much evidence of escaped slaves on Duffield as at Plymouth Church, at least according to the New York Times a few weeks ago.

There are not that many basements owned by Abolitionists. The Duffield Street properties are some of the best documented Underground Railroad sites in New York, which shows how poorly the other possible sites have been documented.

I think we should listen to Dr. Cheryl Laroche. She's the academic behind the discovery of slave quarters at George Washington's presidential residence. She says that Duffield Street represents THE BEST site for Underground Railroad research in the country.

There may be other sites, but Duffield is really quite exciting.

Posted by: harriet at December 2, 2007 1:16 AM in response to BREAKING: 227 Duffield Saved From Eminent Domain Death

Many of the 34 comments to this point talk about how horrible NIMBYs are. Well, what about the YIMBYs? There are some people who WANT development in their backyards.

I'm talking literally here. Lew Greenstein, one of the primary Duffield Street owners, has said that he is glad to have people take his backyard, just so his property can be part of the future of Downtown Brooklyn. He would do anything to use his 1840s home as part of a new Brooklyn. He thinks that a museum would be the best use of his property.

The other owner, Joy Chatel, wants her home to be part of this new future as well. And I think she understands what's coming to her neighborhood.

Currently, three hotels are planned for Duffield Street between Fulton and Willoughby, also known as Abolitionist Place. Two are across the street from 227 Duffield, and one is at 337 Duffield. There's also a massive project going up at Fulton and Duffield. Oh, and there's another development on Willoughby and Duffield, but that's easy to miss- it's only valued at $208 MILLION.

My point is simple. There are massive projects popping up all over Downtown Brooklyn, especially on Duffield Street. Letting a few owners keep their properties is not stopping this dramatic growth.

There can even be a parking lot and small park on Duffield, and Ms. Chatel can pursue her vision of a museum. I probably won't convince "guest" (who posted at 1:02, 1:05, 1:20, 1:26, 1:29, et cetera), but this did convince the EDC. They realized that a commemoration of Brooklyn's Abolitionist history is the best thing for all New York.

I applaud the EDC's decision. It's not worth our taxpayer dollars to fight a homeowner who wants use their property for a real public benefit. This is a great day for Brooklyn, and for New York.

Posted by: harriet at November 30, 2007 10:59 PM in response to BREAKING: 227 Duffield Saved From Eminent Domain Death

I have a PDF entitled "Organizing a Block Association" that was compiled by the Alliance of Bay ridge Block Associations a couple of years back.

Please email me for a copy.

Ron at SenatorStreet dot com

Posted by: SenatorStreet at October 20, 2009 6:39 PM in response to Thoughts on Block Associations

My brother did this years ago in Manhattan. He said it was an absolutely horrible experience and would never do it again. It lasts longer than expected and the crew will completely disregard your home, belongings etc. And, they will completely piss off all your neighbors so that your neighbors ultimately resent you for allowing it in the first place.

Definitely don't do it!!

Posted by: BrianR at October 29, 2009 11:07 AM in response to Renting Your Place for Movie

We had units scouted in our building...I believe the payment offered was $1500/day for the apartment owner and $500/day payable to the co-op directly. Fell through in the end (production company changed their mind about the shoot locations).

Posted by: arches at October 29, 2009 11:14 AM in response to Renting Your Place for Movie

Here's something very telling - people who work in film never let film crews use their home as a location. Because they know what happens.

Posted by: traditionalmod at October 29, 2009 11:15 AM in response to Renting Your Place for Movie

We've had our interior and exterior used twice by "Law & Order" (admittedly not a full-blown movie shoot, but you'd never guess it by the massive incursion of rigs and equipment), and they were WONDERFUL--so careful to replace your stuff that they used a Polaroid to re-situate the knickknacks. They were also just real nice folks, considerate and engaging; they have to be, given how much location shooting they do and how much "L&O exhaustion" some oft-used areas develop. Can't speak to movies or commercials, since we haven't had one of those (yet).
We did turn down two offers, btw: one for a Metallica video (that wanted to shoot on a Thanksgiving day and pitched us desperately the day before--now that would've been an amusing Turkey Day!), and one for a cheap ambush-style reality show called "I Hate Your House" (we don't,thank you very much!)
And of course, we aren't co-op'ers, so we don't have to worry about a Board...

Posted by: Brenda from Flatbush at October 29, 2009 11:54 AM in response to Renting Your Place for Movie

jeez brenda. you turned down metallica? ;-)

Posted by: CGmodern at October 29, 2009 12:02 PM in response to Renting Your Place for Movie

Interesting CH5! What are the details? I also liked reading the selection of horror stories and good reports. Do you think you'll pursue it? I guess I think that in a coop, the coop itself does deserve a fee, since most buildings are for residences (only, or pretty close to it), and film shoots can be pretty disruptive.

Posted by: Minmin at October 29, 2009 12:28 PM in response to Renting Your Place for Movie

A film crew used the interior of our parlor floor to shoot street views for that recent Al Pacino/Carla Gugino movie. There is usually a standard contract. It went later than expected, but then we asked for more money and got it. At my BIL's advice, we made the bathroom off-limits for crew usage.

Posted by: tiptoe at October 29, 2009 1:16 PM in response to Renting Your Place for Movie

I work in the industry and I wouldn't do it. The damage that kind of equipment can cause is huge. It may be little things but they are bound to scratch floors, ding up walls, etc.
If you do decide to go for it put hours restriction as part of the deal, make them pay you overtime. Any studio would do the same thing. If they aren't paying hourly they are bound to take longer.

Posted by: jo84 at October 29, 2009 1:51 PM in response to Renting Your Place for Movie

In my professional capacity I've hosted ~15 shoots in various properties (all historic, all with busy schedules) and in my personal life, we've had a 7 day indie release shot in our house. From my perspective, here's a short list of good/bad:

BAD: HUGE numbers of people on your site. A small/mid size motion picture unit is 5-10 trucks plus 50-75 crew. A large is 15 trucks and double the crew. Not all of the crew will be in your space at the same time but all of them will need access to your surroundings. Streets, sidewalks, stairwells, whatever. They'll need it and take it.

BAD: Many film people tend to ask for forgiveness instead of permission while they are doing their job. This comment isn't meant to be slanderous to the profession, it's just the nature of their job. They're under a serious time crunch and chances are that when they're on location, they're working 16 hours out of 24. Anything that slows things down is a problem that they want to solve in the shortest/quickest way possible.

GOOD: For the most part, the first offer of cash is the low ball. Even indie shoots budget much higher than the $1500/$500 offers. For the indie shoot (with major stars) in our house, we got $3k/shoot day plus $1500/prep day. Majors, depending on how invasive they are (I'm thinking special FX here. Pyro, blood, stunts) commonly settle for a LOT more than that.

GOOD: It's fun. Crazy but fun. And you'll have a momento for your grandkids to laugh at later.

The biggest piece of advice I can give is that you should never assume that their understanding of terms is equal to your understanding of terms. If you're not in the business, you won't have the same context for terms as they do. See my note about unit sizes. You might hear them say small unit and think a couple of trucks and they might actually be saying much more. Don't be afraid to ask many, many questions. The location folks that approached you will be more than happy to answer them and unless they're bad, they'll be inclined to give you a clear and honest (ish) answer. After all, there's nothing worse than having to talk a panic ridden location owner down from the ledge as their units are pulling up to the door.

Hope this helps.

Posted by: fauxvic at October 29, 2009 1:51 PM in response to Renting Your Place for Movie