tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1541468051247516447.post5062013288833610604..comments2024-02-19T05:18:27.849-05:00Comments on <center>the Q at Parkside</center>: Does Section 8 Have a Future in Caledonia?Clarkson FlatBedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13463744536115119388noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1541468051247516447.post-30083699311665660542011-03-21T21:27:08.127-04:002011-03-21T21:27:08.127-04:00Q, thank you for the cogent and prescient post. Y...Q, thank you for the cogent and prescient post. You have yet again placed your finger on the pulse of the nabe (or at least the place where the pulse should be, ha). The neighbor hood is divided in many ways, but this particular division is one which is most interesting, because it is truly ideological at it's core, not purely racial, economic, ethical, or otherwise originated. The opinions, I believe, come primarily from how folks here envision this hood and its future - some see it as a place for everyone, and some see it as a place for everyone who can afford it, which appears to be a moving target (moving on up). There are those who quietly wait for the continued abatement and decline in the violence and crime, and that group sometimes links the level of crime with the economics of the residents. Is this fair? I don't know. I know plenty of poor folks who refuse charity, and plenty of well off folks who got that way by stealing. So I see no need to conflate wealth with virtue. But I also see no particular reason to assume that poor folks are any more deserving to have the inalienable right to live in a particular unit, building, neighborhood, city than anyone else. The problem is thorny, to be sure. People who fear the wholesale selling out of this neighborhood need not fear the worst, however. The rent laws will be renewed, tenants will be able to live in drastically below market rate apartments, and the beat will go on, with perhaps some change at the margins, but nothing dramatic. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1541468051247516447.post-59876305113414316152011-03-18T11:00:11.880-04:002011-03-18T11:00:11.880-04:00Actually, a sponsor doesn't necessarily contro...Actually, a sponsor doesn't necessarily control a majority of the shares, just whichever ones are associated with unsold (long-term rental tenant-occupied) units. In some buildings this may be as few as one or two units. Banks are very reluctant to make mortgages to buildings in which the sponsor owns a majority of the shares.babshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08365488181982105888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1541468051247516447.post-8256926519706113902011-03-17T22:04:15.070-04:002011-03-17T22:04:15.070-04:00wall street's best chum in the senate looks ou...wall street's best chum in the senate looks out for the little guy. how adorable! I wonder if chuck would like a nice big section 8 building near his lovely "middle class" home in park slope… this nabe is more than pulling its weight i'd say.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1541468051247516447.post-35743190036687729632011-03-15T16:11:44.247-04:002011-03-15T16:11:44.247-04:00I'm probably goofing on some points (I'm n...I'm probably goofing on some points (I'm no real estate lawyer), but here's how I understand it:<br /><br />A co-op building is owned by the co-op, which is a bunch of people who own "shares" in the co-operative corporation. A sponsor owns a large percentage of these "shares", making him the majority vote on all matters. Hence they don't need to get board approval to sell an apt, make changes, etc. But they don't OWN the building, they merely own a controlling number of shares. Make sense? <br /><br />A true "owner" owns the building outright - as I'm guessing is the case with 148 Parkside. <br /><br />-PaulAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1541468051247516447.post-85929735915485066362011-03-15T13:58:20.485-04:002011-03-15T13:58:20.485-04:00Hey Anonymous - what's the difference between ...Hey Anonymous - what's the difference between "sponsor" and "owner?" Not sure I understand the terms. But thanks for your constructive comment!<br /><br />timClarkson FlatBedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13463744536115119388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1541468051247516447.post-82848215632784655052011-03-15T13:40:53.757-04:002011-03-15T13:40:53.757-04:00Sheesh, so Chuck is asking a businessman to forgo ...Sheesh, so Chuck is asking a businessman to forgo greater profits out of the goodness of his heart? <br /><br />Neamonitakis is the sponsor of our building on Ocean. I've talked with many of the long-term residents in the building (some go as far back as the early 70s) and they love all the positive improvements made to our building since Neamonitakis bought out the old sponsor. He comes to the co-op board meetings to meet with everyone, is very responsive to questions and concerns and is very approachable. And none of the long-term rent stabilized tenants have experienced any harassment(that I've heard of). He's no Mother Theresa, but I'll take a professional businessman who treats his property well over a slimy slumlord (a type I've had too many freaking times) any day.<br /><br />The larger problem of how to maintain affordable housing in NY is a thorny, difficult problem that keeps getting worse. We've got to find some way to make it worth landlords' while to keep lower rent units on the market. <br /><br />Asking them to do it 'cause it would be nice is laughably naive and lazy. Hey Chuck, how about you propose some real legislation to FIX the problem instead of just writing a pointless letter?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com