I do feel sorry for Mr. Selbert, and the Zobels certainly fit the greedy and obnoxious NYC stereotype (not exactly a small demographic cohort), but after reading in this same newspaper about the suffering of refugees in Europe much of my pity for Mr. Selbert evaporates. He will walk away with more money than any of these refugees would likely see in 10 lifetimes, and will never worry about having food and shelter. Further, we do not know his overall circumstances, only that he will probably have to move out of a nice apartment in a nice neighborhood. Too bad, but in the scheme of things not that big a deal.
3
Aside from all of the cultural and societal implications mentioned so far, it sounds like a change in law is needed to require 100% of all shareholders in a co-op to collapse the corporation.
That would shield anyone from being backed into a corner like Mr. Selbert.
Another law is needed to impose severe height and mass restrictions on new buildings in existing neighborhoods, using the existing heights and masses as the starting point of calculating what can be done. If there is for example a low rise wall of buildings, say five stories, that becomes the basis for determining the height of new building on the same block.
It's odd that a place like New York with a large inventory of historical architecture has such a feeble activist community around landmarking. As some have mentioned, no help is expected from the municipal government, or the state government.
That would shield anyone from being backed into a corner like Mr. Selbert.
Another law is needed to impose severe height and mass restrictions on new buildings in existing neighborhoods, using the existing heights and masses as the starting point of calculating what can be done. If there is for example a low rise wall of buildings, say five stories, that becomes the basis for determining the height of new building on the same block.
It's odd that a place like New York with a large inventory of historical architecture has such a feeble activist community around landmarking. As some have mentioned, no help is expected from the municipal government, or the state government.
5
I just don't get New Yorkers. There's a whole, giant country to the West of them, yet they fight and sue each other and make themselves crazy and unhappy over their one little, overpriced spec of living space. News Flash: art and music and theater and restaurants and shopping do exist other places. Sell your apartments. Take your millions and move somewhere else. Life doesn't begin and end at the borders of Manhattan.
13
Obviously the situation in NYC is out of control. It's time to have legislation requiring transparency in ownership, residency requirements, and on-going, full payment of taxes.
13
Way back when, in 1991, I was offered an empty four unit mulitfamily in the west village for $300k. All the units were small two bedrooms and I envisioned myself living on the top floor for free, as the rents, then around 1700, would pay my expenses. I was only 25 years old, but I had 50k in cash that I was hot to invest. Guess what? I passed. One of my great regrets, as that building sold for almost 3 million a few years ago. Now I'm almost 50, and I've done fine with real estate outside the city, but I wish I had a time machine.
8
Nobody even wonders any more why I'm leaving NYC. This time next week, I'll be on the road and gone.
12
According to LinkedIn, Ms Zobel is Vice President for Acqisitions for a development company. Did she tell the coop board her profession? And is there a reason the NYT didn't mention this fact?
26
"We were foolish,” Mr. Selbert said. “We thought we were just being nice guys and letting her have what she wanted. So we both voted yes. Then, of course, it wasn’t long before we discovered we had done the wrong thing and we were stupid.”
I can't stop thinking about the young Zobel's plotting from the beginning to take Mr. Selbert's home. Looking him in the eye, misrepresenting their intentions, knowing all along that they would be giving the old gentlemen the shaft. Bet they were very charming.
I can't stop thinking about the young Zobel's plotting from the beginning to take Mr. Selbert's home. Looking him in the eye, misrepresenting their intentions, knowing all along that they would be giving the old gentlemen the shaft. Bet they were very charming.
24
Mr. Brady says he uses: "what he calls “guerrilla marketing,” which involves, among other things, getting inside buildings to slip handwritten notes under people’s doors.
“I write to show them it isn’t just a form letter,” he said, adding: “I tell them I am not looking for an exclusive, but that I am representing a developer who wants to buy their home and is willing to pay top dollar. I tell them we can pay all cash, close in three months and help them find a new apartment.”
What Mr. Brady is really doing is demonstrating that he's an aggressive intruder who can invade you personal space, and instead of sending a discardable solicitation in your mailbox, will confront you with a terrorist real estate broker note under your door that purports to represent an offer.
Presumably on any indication short of "stay away or I'll get an order of protection" or "I've made a police complaint," Brady will represent to a developer that he has a client. This is fraud and trespassing. Town should rein him in or they are complicit with his behavior which is unethical, possibly illegal, and last I looked potentially in violation of the Real Estate Board's own guidelines for brokers.
“I write to show them it isn’t just a form letter,” he said, adding: “I tell them I am not looking for an exclusive, but that I am representing a developer who wants to buy their home and is willing to pay top dollar. I tell them we can pay all cash, close in three months and help them find a new apartment.”
What Mr. Brady is really doing is demonstrating that he's an aggressive intruder who can invade you personal space, and instead of sending a discardable solicitation in your mailbox, will confront you with a terrorist real estate broker note under your door that purports to represent an offer.
Presumably on any indication short of "stay away or I'll get an order of protection" or "I've made a police complaint," Brady will represent to a developer that he has a client. This is fraud and trespassing. Town should rein him in or they are complicit with his behavior which is unethical, possibly illegal, and last I looked potentially in violation of the Real Estate Board's own guidelines for brokers.
15
Maybe the market has become so ruthless that we must shield food, water, medication, healthcare & home fuel from speculation & profiteering. Maybe a stable civil society should not allow basic human needs to be hedged by gamblers with no skin in the game.
The Bill of Rights should shelter the basics for life !
The Bill of Rights should shelter the basics for life !
12
The arrangement that if someone owns 75% of the building, that they can force the others out -- that seems a giant loophole in a situation where each resident is an OWNER of their unit. It also seems to contradict basic concepts of property ownership.
11
It's too bad that Mr. Selbert didn't do a quick Google search on Teodora & David Zobel. Besides the lovely wedding photos posted (Jimmy Choo shoes, OMG! NOT….) you'd quickly learn that David is a VP of Paramount Group real estate investments, routinely snapping up properties for flipper opportunities No doubt David sent his lovely wife Teodora to do the dirty work of landing this deal, i.e. "letting her have what she wanted." Dang, it's like a scene out of the TV series, Mr. Robot.
19
The Zobels are despicable people. Hopefully Mr. Selbert's lawyer is looking into the special rights of senior citizens in NY as well as the validity of business transactions based on a lie. And any laws regarding elder fraud protection. Good luck, Mr. Selbert. I hope this resolves quickly and in your favor.
16
Both sides in this play are trying to get the very most they can out of the other side at any cost. The players in the Mamhattan real estate market deserve each other.
1
Any way you slice it, what is happening in this co-op is so sad and so wrong. The Zobel's are morally bankrupt and someday, when the tables turn for them, maybe in a way that is not related to real estate, they can look back on this and realize that karma is powerful and that what they did was very, very dishonest.
13
What a great article. My building at 101 W 23rd is currently having the same issue. The Board (with its Head as the Chief agent in the sale) has approved a sale, and we are in a voting period. The rent-controlled tenants are being told to move with questionable information supplied by the Board. We are being told to sell or lose everything, which is clearly contradicted in this article.
11
This is disgusting and borders on criminal.
I live in the country in Maryland. A developer who bought land adjoining my property needed my property to create a road to come out to another road from the land he bought.
He sent a representative who pretty much told me, We will buy your property. Name your price.
I told him I didn't want to sell.
He said, You don't understand. We must have your land. What is your price? Name it.
I told him no.
He let me know that they would not go away and that a lot of money was riding on this deal and that I would not be permitted to obstruct it. They would use any means, and he emphasized, any means, to get me out.
I informed neighbors to be on the lookout for acts of vandalism and any violence or harassment.
Eventually, the developer moved on to greener pastures.
But what happens to people who are not willing to take a stand, people who are old and infirm, those who are intimidated?
Who will protect us from these predators?
I live in the country in Maryland. A developer who bought land adjoining my property needed my property to create a road to come out to another road from the land he bought.
He sent a representative who pretty much told me, We will buy your property. Name your price.
I told him I didn't want to sell.
He said, You don't understand. We must have your land. What is your price? Name it.
I told him no.
He let me know that they would not go away and that a lot of money was riding on this deal and that I would not be permitted to obstruct it. They would use any means, and he emphasized, any means, to get me out.
I informed neighbors to be on the lookout for acts of vandalism and any violence or harassment.
Eventually, the developer moved on to greener pastures.
But what happens to people who are not willing to take a stand, people who are old and infirm, those who are intimidated?
Who will protect us from these predators?
19
Ms. Julie Satow states, "But with the ever-increasing demand for residential real estate..." Demand from whom, Ms Satow? The demand is artificially created by greedy developers who are being encouraged, supported, and enabled by even more greedy politicians at all levels of government. Why are they selling our land, buildings, houses, air rights to foreigners? If you remove foreign sales from the picture, the demand would go back to normal. But then so would the prices. And that would not be what the top 1% wants.
What can you say about a city, state, country that doesn't take care of its residents first? Why should I have to compete with someone that is not a stakeholder? This is not capitalism, this is corrupt, crony capitalism.
It should be criminal for a government to allow this.
What's going on today in our real estate markets is the wholesale grabbing of the land by a handful of people.
What can you say about a city, state, country that doesn't take care of its residents first? Why should I have to compete with someone that is not a stakeholder? This is not capitalism, this is corrupt, crony capitalism.
It should be criminal for a government to allow this.
What's going on today in our real estate markets is the wholesale grabbing of the land by a handful of people.
8
This international class of real estate developers bring obscene amounts of cash to buy out NYC. But, they don't live here, they don't work here, and they stuff their money in tax havens. The people to whom they rent are often transient too.
This is the class of people Donald Trump is distracting the country from. At least the illegals want to be American and actually work. This other class of border crosser will come here on a visa, hi-jack your home, and pay just enough in taxes to grease the palms of the hands that feed them.
They are not only in Manhattan, either. This rapacious class of "developers" are a problem in all five boroughs, Westchester and Jersey from slum apartments to family houses, to luxury condos.
I fear my beloved city will end up a city of absentee landlords with everyone else scrambling to keep off the streets.
This is the class of people Donald Trump is distracting the country from. At least the illegals want to be American and actually work. This other class of border crosser will come here on a visa, hi-jack your home, and pay just enough in taxes to grease the palms of the hands that feed them.
They are not only in Manhattan, either. This rapacious class of "developers" are a problem in all five boroughs, Westchester and Jersey from slum apartments to family houses, to luxury condos.
I fear my beloved city will end up a city of absentee landlords with everyone else scrambling to keep off the streets.
7
The capital concentration in the world is causing this kind of thing. Soon, pop, pop, fizz, fizz. It will be interesting to see what happens with all those 45 bedroom tower apartments with 15 baths that have 421a tax exemptions as the city flounders. Don't look for tax relief from us upstate.
6
I hope I'm alive when the super-rich start eating each other. You know it has to happen, only a question of when.
5
let's see, the rules allow for a super-majority to dissolve a corporation, coop here in this article, condo elsewhere (where I live) or any corporation
and those who 'play by the rules' are now vilified
next time buy into a coop where 100% is required for liquidation, and think about corporate democracy and 'holdouts'
I see no problem with the future occupancy of this space replicating this holdout's space, say by building him an apt to his specifications,
these are all market negotiations, and operations of law, and we are free to take sides, but taking sides with all of our prior biases is what we are doing, the law is clear enough, from this reading
"badges we don't need no stinking badges' (for us older readers )
and those who 'play by the rules' are now vilified
next time buy into a coop where 100% is required for liquidation, and think about corporate democracy and 'holdouts'
I see no problem with the future occupancy of this space replicating this holdout's space, say by building him an apt to his specifications,
these are all market negotiations, and operations of law, and we are free to take sides, but taking sides with all of our prior biases is what we are doing, the law is clear enough, from this reading
"badges we don't need no stinking badges' (for us older readers )
1
I've got to get out of this city...
4
While I emphasize with the co-op residents who are being forced out of their homes, I wonder, too, if the city needs to address the larger issue of the wanton destruction of historical buildings that will result from these aggressive buyouts.
5
OMG! Is that my heart bleeding? Oh, its just the sweat forming from climbing all those stairs.
Interesting that the latest real estate scheme involves destroying co-ops. http://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/27/realestate/the-anatomy-of-a-co-op-conv...
I live in another city in a neighborhood that developers covet. I go through periods of harassment with fire inspections and code violations. (Leaving the trashcan out after 5 pm when I didn't get home until 6 pm.) Flooded with offers to buy. When they can't get me it dies down for a while, but then another investor comes along.
3
The Zobel's did the wrong thing, on many levels. Not only were they deceptive, they were highly cynical using Mr. Selbert's decency against him, negotiating in bad faith.
Mr. Selbert now forced to hire attorney's to fight to stay in his own home, to fight off someone he had welcomed as a neighbor. Very sad set of circumstances. The Zobel's lack of empathy, lack of conscience should make all around them beware of how lacking in common decency they are, they're the ones selling you down the river for a dollar.
Mr. Selbert now forced to hire attorney's to fight to stay in his own home, to fight off someone he had welcomed as a neighbor. Very sad set of circumstances. The Zobel's lack of empathy, lack of conscience should make all around them beware of how lacking in common decency they are, they're the ones selling you down the river for a dollar.
5
This is the NYC that Bloomberg and the people who voted for him wanted so live with it.
2
I think it's funny how people are so against "greedy developers," when greedy developers are probably the ones who are responsible for producing the apartments they live in!
1
Word to the wise: don't let any single "investor" own more than one unit.
1
If only Mr. Selbert and his co-op board members had spent 30 seconds doing a Google search on Mrs. Teodora Sobel! They would have learned, for example, that she is the Vice President of Acquisitions at the real estate firm Midwood Investment & Development, which is located on Park Avenue. Surely, such info would have revealed her true intentions.
Incidentally, the initial Google results for Mrs. Sobel yield images of a happy recent bride, pictures that stand in sharp contrast to the image of Mr. Selbert, who, at 75 years old, must now fight to remain in his apartment of thirty years. The visual juxtaposition couldn't be more striking, and, unfortunately, more telling.
Incidentally, the initial Google results for Mrs. Sobel yield images of a happy recent bride, pictures that stand in sharp contrast to the image of Mr. Selbert, who, at 75 years old, must now fight to remain in his apartment of thirty years. The visual juxtaposition couldn't be more striking, and, unfortunately, more telling.
4
I can't relate to anyone described in this article. Would that I had their problems.
1
What will happen when the billionaires get tired of NYC?
Sharks eating each other. Disgusting. And the "developers" are selling at exorbitant prices to foreign investors who are hiding wealth - tax free- from their own countries. New York, and every city in the world should nationalize these "developments", which are primarily paid for with OUR taxpayer-funded "economic development" dollars, and provide decent housing for average workers and homeless families. Economic development for the wealthiest people on the planet MUST stop. WE must demand it.
31
As a foreigner, if you are really looking for something to get outraged about, I get solicited by my rich NYC broker friends for buying a U.S. citizenship through EB-5.
Look it up: http://www.uscis.gov/eb-5
You'll suddenly figure out why you can't afford your own city and have all Chinese neighbors. It lets 'real estate development' qualify as a 'job creator.'
Your Mr. Trump must have thought up that one.
Look it up: http://www.uscis.gov/eb-5
You'll suddenly figure out why you can't afford your own city and have all Chinese neighbors. It lets 'real estate development' qualify as a 'job creator.'
Your Mr. Trump must have thought up that one.
Who is 'we?'
The rapaciousness of the greedy developers and rich househunters knows no bounds. I realized today while walking in the far west village how much it has changed even over the last few years in favor of the billionaire and multimillionaire classes.
In Manhattan now the greedy developers have devoured the East Village, the West Village, SoHo, Tribeca, Gramercy, Chelsea, Midtown, the Upper West Side, Harlem, the Upper East Side (always a precinct of the rich but not this kind), and so on.
Washington Heights and Inwood are next, one must suppose. It's disgusting, but our laws set up to enable this, and the feckless mayor and indifferent city council appear incapable of addressing it or unwilling to do anything about it.
In Manhattan now the greedy developers have devoured the East Village, the West Village, SoHo, Tribeca, Gramercy, Chelsea, Midtown, the Upper West Side, Harlem, the Upper East Side (always a precinct of the rich but not this kind), and so on.
Washington Heights and Inwood are next, one must suppose. It's disgusting, but our laws set up to enable this, and the feckless mayor and indifferent city council appear incapable of addressing it or unwilling to do anything about it.
71
Vultures. And those these people are from the US, time to limit sales to foreigners.
19
When that much is being paid for land and condo is the destination at $5,000 per square foot to absorb that land cost, then, the investor at the end of the chain is likely as not going to be a foreign investor. But, the immediate vultures and desperado real estate agents pushing terrorist notes under your door? Made in the U.S.A.
Thanks for another article validating my decision to leave the City and move to Phoenix!
24
I spent a month in Phoenix one night! Yuch!
Yikes. Sorry!
A fourth floor walkup (I presume) at age 75? It's time to move. Ms. Zobel may be doing him a favor.
7
Wow... Nice favor, evicting him! Wait until this happens to you.
5
@ObservantOne: You think he needs to leave a walk-up at age 75? Only if Mr. Selbert wants to.
I know a 79-year-old who lives (alone) in a SIXTH floor walkup, and another neighbor of mine made it to age 91 going up & down to & from a fifth floor walkup. The exercise involved in taking the stairs is a remarkably good workout for anyone who is not otherwise disabled.
I know a 79-year-old who lives (alone) in a SIXTH floor walkup, and another neighbor of mine made it to age 91 going up & down to & from a fifth floor walkup. The exercise involved in taking the stairs is a remarkably good workout for anyone who is not otherwise disabled.
6
@ObservantOne Who are you to presume what is good for Mr. Selbert at his age? He may be in better physical shape than you.
4
Buying in a small co-op has its perils. What happens if one of the three of four owners goes bankrupt? what happens if they lose their job and can no longer pay the carrying costs? In a large building, this financial burden is shared among many. But it sounds like this 75 year old gentleman is being offered a gift in disguise. I assume he has to climb the stairs to get to his top floor unit. How much longer does he think he will be able to do that as well as carrying the laundry and groceries etc. He should sell and move to a building with an elevator. Sooner or later he will understand how smart he was to do so.
9
When you yourself are a healthy 75 and are enjoying the life you have spend years creating, I imagine you might resent others telling you it's time to fold up your tent and slink away. Look at that beautiful room he has created, and tell me really, why Mr. Selbert should now give it up? You know absolutely nothing about how well he is able to negotiate stairs, etc. , etc.
Blatant ageism--would you tolerate others judging you in this way?
Blatant ageism--would you tolerate others judging you in this way?
2
@Navigator: Please see my comments in reply to "Observant One." Both of you seem to think a walkup apartment is somehow un-do-able after a certain age. It's NYC, for heaven's sake, where you can get EVERYTHING delivered to your door, including getting laundry & dry cleaning picked up & delivered, food delivered - so being in a fourth floor apartment is not as big a deal as it would have been 20 years ago.
Believe me, Mr. Selbert is NOT being offered a "gift" in disguise. If Mr. Selbert *wants* an elevator building, I'm sure he is capable of finding a home in one; meanwhile don't be so ageist as to write him off in this breezily cavalier way. This is his HOME, and he deserves to be able to stay there as long as he wishes to.
Believe me, Mr. Selbert is NOT being offered a "gift" in disguise. If Mr. Selbert *wants* an elevator building, I'm sure he is capable of finding a home in one; meanwhile don't be so ageist as to write him off in this breezily cavalier way. This is his HOME, and he deserves to be able to stay there as long as he wishes to.
2
Good point, Navigator, and a professional carer can visit daily and help out in order for this gentleman to enjoy his apartment of many years, and put an end to these 'sewers'.
"According to the board minutes, Ms. Zobel said she might combine the two units and rent them out."
This would seem an obvious act of bad faith.
I root for Selbert, hope that the vampires don;t get him. Thank you NYT for reporting on this.
This would seem an obvious act of bad faith.
I root for Selbert, hope that the vampires don;t get him. Thank you NYT for reporting on this.
101
The Zobels are vile. I hope they get their just desserts.
68
Wake up, peoples. This was only to be expected, and it was a long time in coming. First we have renters being evicted from their homes for the profit of the millionaires and billionaires. Now, it seems that even if you own your own home, you are are not secure. You will be evicted from the home that you own so that the billionaire can benefit from your real estate, not you. You will have to move somewhere else or live as an insecure renter paying exorbitant rents through your nose.
This is a land grab, plain and simple. Not only are the billionaires scheming to come after the libraries, the schools, the hospitals, the parks, real estate, they are coming after YOUR HOMES. For many years, America was the land of opportunity, where people were able to rise up by owning their own homes. No longer. We are witnessing transfer of real estate from ownership by the 99% to the billionaires.
There are schemes to buy out coops from their owners. Have corrupt board members run down the coop, and sell to developers and get a commission. That should be criminal. Or, have investor buy coops units posing as homebuyers. etc.
The question is, what is the coop association going to do about it? Coop owners need to get together to fight this kind of land grab that is in the works. Maybe they should try to push for legislation to stop this kind of criminal corrupt activity by the billionaires and coop board members.(But with the city hall we have, good luck. How sad.)
This is a land grab, plain and simple. Not only are the billionaires scheming to come after the libraries, the schools, the hospitals, the parks, real estate, they are coming after YOUR HOMES. For many years, America was the land of opportunity, where people were able to rise up by owning their own homes. No longer. We are witnessing transfer of real estate from ownership by the 99% to the billionaires.
There are schemes to buy out coops from their owners. Have corrupt board members run down the coop, and sell to developers and get a commission. That should be criminal. Or, have investor buy coops units posing as homebuyers. etc.
The question is, what is the coop association going to do about it? Coop owners need to get together to fight this kind of land grab that is in the works. Maybe they should try to push for legislation to stop this kind of criminal corrupt activity by the billionaires and coop board members.(But with the city hall we have, good luck. How sad.)
83
Hold on to your home, Mr. Selbert, unless you start looking at your long-time nest as an investment. Keep reminding these business people that while this is another transaction for them, it is your life they are interfering with. This is serious. And while they are watching you, we are watching them.
62
It's really hard to believe that this headlong rush to redevelop every square foot in NYC for super rich folks and folks willing to pay huge money to live in mediocre spaces they will quickly outgrow will end up well. Necessity is the mother of invention and when a city is filled with rich people with no necessity, NYC will have no invention. It makes me think of the blindingly fast transformation of Santa Monica a few decades ago from frumpy seaside burg to stuffy first choice of the arriviste. The frumpy burg was fun; the current one isn't.
81
bingo.
27
Yes, Santa Monica, Boston, and New York were all targeted by the real estate industry and faulted for having rent protection regulations. Well, the lizards won.
My spouse & I, a writer and a librarian, figured this out, and are leaving next week. Anyone want to buy a small house in South Beooklyn?
At the end of the day, this is mostly about everyone wishing to get the biggest dollar value possible. The developers, the coop owners, and all those with "a number in mind". It's leverage, and everyone wants to walk away rich.
6
It's not our humanity that we lose; it's our youth.
3
Co-ops are how the poor can afford to live in Manhattan. It's sad to see them go, as the rich are pretty boring.
28
i guess you have no clue as to how expensive cooperative apartments in Manhattan really are.
Check out Soho, then tell me how 'Co-ops are how the poor can afford to live in Manhattan'
Check out Soho, then tell me how 'Co-ops are how the poor can afford to live in Manhattan'
38
yes, it's so odd--people who focus on earning money tend to be dull, dull neighbors. nyc will be importing interesting people from Austin within the decade to try to return to cultural hegemony.
11
No "poor" are living in Manhattan co-ops! Holy cow. I am not poor (but I'm poor by today's NYC standards...) and I did live there for a number of years, and couldn't afford to buy a co-op.
Fascinating story.
It reminds the rest of us in the real world that NYC is in another world.
It reminds the rest of us in the real world that NYC is in another world.
21
Just remember that New York greed, in the form of voracious Wall Street, helped tank the US and global economies in 1929 and 2007-8. Everyone's tax dollars bailed them out. Believe me, it's not just a NYC issue, because this greed is usually a symptom, not an isolated problem.
28
It's all well and good that developers pay ridiculous prices for these buildings but that begs the question of who is foolish enough to spend enough money buying them from the developer for developers to realize a hefty profit from all the hassles involved in making these deals.
Money launderers.
Money launderers.
47
Even during the heyday of Ellis Island, my good American Lover of Liberty, those traveling in First Class were ushered right into society and 1040 Fifth Avenue. It was those nasty people in steerage who had to jump through hoops after being deloused. We are going through a global capital boom that is in its final throes, and London, New York as well as other 'destination cities,' are gaining in wealthy slime as they shred their middle class.
"creative development options"?
As soon as I read that phrase, I knew what to expect...
Why does "creative" and "fiance" equate to shady, devious, and potentially harmful for most people? (cf. CMOs, etc)
As soon as I read that phrase, I knew what to expect...
Why does "creative" and "fiance" equate to shady, devious, and potentially harmful for most people? (cf. CMOs, etc)
36
Reminds me of the SNL bit, "White People Problems".
12
Perhaps, Nothing Better to Do. But in my neighborhood, we have black homeowners and also blacks who own condos and co-ops. While much of Flatbush sees gun violence and poverty, most black people here go to work, come home, and deal with their problems.
And when something goes wrong with their co-ops, I'd like you to tell them, personally, "White People's Problems." Especially because they, like most other people, including whites, work very hard for what they have, and that means their homes.
And when something goes wrong with their co-ops, I'd like you to tell them, personally, "White People's Problems." Especially because they, like most other people, including whites, work very hard for what they have, and that means their homes.
57
So "white" people can't have problems and if they do who cares? What a nasty racist thing to say. I hope when you get old and want to stay in your home no one will turf you out!
1
THE RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP become complex and shift when the designation of a property changes from a cooperative to ownership by an individual purchaser. Where that leaves the rights of the remaining coop tenant and the contract he had with the coop board looks like a no-man's-land. I sincerely hope against hope that the owner of the coop described in this article will be permitted to remain or will be offered a fair price so that he can afford to move. Turning Manhattan into a borough for the rich and very rich will guarantee that its politics will swing to the far right and the city will become unlivable for anyone but the 1%. The 99% need not apply. Is this really what we want for the future of our cities? Racial segregation will be supplanted by economic segregation. It's happening already in a neighborhood near yours.
59
Sadly, I fear your prediction has already come true. I recently visited Manhattan (from my current home in Dubai, which has its own issues in real estate fairness, for sure), and was shocked all around by the upscaling of not just Manhattan, but Brooklyn as well. I lived on the UWS for 15 years and saw neighbors progressively priced out by Columbia students and their parents' cash each year. I have friends in Bed-Stuy who stroll down the block waving to neighbors, all of which have purchased 3 story houses and are renting out the top floor to tenants, which is great, unless you were part of the family that couldn't afford the neighborhood anymore and had to move to East NY, or wherever. We used to run for our LIVES in Bed-Stuy, which sucked, but milk-toast strollerville is equally horrible in a way. My aunt bought her brownstone on 11th street in Park Slope in 1977 for 60K... Those days are over. NYC and its surroundings will soon be the holdings of Aby Rosen and the like, whether co-op owners and the rest prefer it or not. I still can't get over that ridiculous building on 57th street that is now twice as tall as any around - scary...
36
The word is "milquetoast" and it means : a timid, meek, or unassertive person
"Turning Manhattan into a borough for the rich and very rich will guarantee that its politics will swing to the far right and the city will become unlivable for anyone but the 1%. The 99% need not apply."
The article said nothing about Todd Selbert's financial status in terms 1% or 99%.
The article said nothing about Todd Selbert's financial status in terms 1% or 99%.
Just a little reminder here. Sellers don't walk away with the "sale price." By the time everyone involved--including the city's tax man--gets their cut, you have a sadly eroded "profit."
I sold my extremely modest Queens co-op, after 17 years, for almost three times what I paid for it. But after satisfying the remainder of the mortgage, giving the realtor and the lawyer their cuts, and paying the co-op's enormous "flip tax," I basically broke even. I wasn't left with enough cash to purchase anything comparable, had I wanted to stay in NY.
As for mocking the "foolishness" of people who buy co-ops and think they have their own homes after doing so--the Mitchell-Lama co-ops that transformed New York City in the '50s enabled my parents' generation to live middle-class lives on modest incomes. Many of them came from poverty and those co-op apartments represented an extraordinary leap from crowded shabbiness to almost country-like living, with huge lawns and landscaped grounds. My mother and her remaining original neighbors had comfortable old ages because they were protected from the ravages of "market rents."
And I--not THAT old yet--am the last generation of Noo Yawkas who were also able to live respectable middle-class lives without much education or fancy jobs. Rents have increased twenty-thirty-forty-fold without a correspondingly equal rise in wages. It's a rat's life there now.
I sold my extremely modest Queens co-op, after 17 years, for almost three times what I paid for it. But after satisfying the remainder of the mortgage, giving the realtor and the lawyer their cuts, and paying the co-op's enormous "flip tax," I basically broke even. I wasn't left with enough cash to purchase anything comparable, had I wanted to stay in NY.
As for mocking the "foolishness" of people who buy co-ops and think they have their own homes after doing so--the Mitchell-Lama co-ops that transformed New York City in the '50s enabled my parents' generation to live middle-class lives on modest incomes. Many of them came from poverty and those co-op apartments represented an extraordinary leap from crowded shabbiness to almost country-like living, with huge lawns and landscaped grounds. My mother and her remaining original neighbors had comfortable old ages because they were protected from the ravages of "market rents."
And I--not THAT old yet--am the last generation of Noo Yawkas who were also able to live respectable middle-class lives without much education or fancy jobs. Rents have increased twenty-thirty-forty-fold without a correspondingly equal rise in wages. It's a rat's life there now.
98
I am curious as to the amount of the flip tax as they usually are a very small percentage of the sales price.
7
You sold it for three times what you paid? That must have been a truly enormous flip tax then, considering the realtor's percentage and lawyer's fees are relatively modest costs. And the mortgage would have been, at most, a third of what you got for the place--unless you took out home equity loans along the way. Not sure how what you're claiming is possible.
14
Small percentage? I saw a co-op for sale in Queens. Flip tax was over 15,000. The apartment was going for about 160,000. Crazy.
Dear Mr. Selbert, I do hope that you -- and your fabulous, enviable jazz album collection --can stay put in your beloved home. (If you need me, I'll mind your collection while you relocate. My mother calls me Stella by starlight :). All the best to you!
28
I don't understand. What sort of co-op allows a single shareholder to obtain 75% of the shares? Or even 50%?
27
The smaller the coop the greater the chances of 'shareholder concentration.' It does disqualify many small coops from conventional mortgage lending - one of the standard questions on a coop questionnaire is, "does any shareholder or interest in this building exceed 20%?" If yes: disqualified.
1
A charming group, these developers. Those who are mindlessly supporting the candidacy of Trump should put more effort into examining the nature of his ilk.
46
This is disgusting to read. It makes my stomach turn. These amounts of money are so outrageous.....
60
Hard to believe that you live in San Francisco where property is more expensive than NYC?
6
It may be "more" expensive, on average. But there's MORE of it. Visit San Fran someday. It's a lot larger than Manhattan and has more varying real estate options.
1
Well, heck. What's more fun than ruining someone's golden years?
For people like Mr. Selbert, it's really not about the money. Nothing can compensate you for the loss of a neighborhood; of a home lovingly established over decades; of the genuine comfort of a long-familiar space.
And with prices as they are these days, you can never purchase anything comparable to what you're losing.
Thank God I had the wit to flee NY. The proceeds from the sale of my mother's mid-century co-op, and mine, wouldn't have allowed me to live in those neighborhoods again. Up here, what I pay for a lovely rental is perhaps a quarter of what the square footage and amenities would cost in NY--and I have a river--a clean and beautiful tree-shaded river--literally right outside.
The destruction of NY, street by street, is shameful. But who wants to live with those oligarches anyway?
For people like Mr. Selbert, it's really not about the money. Nothing can compensate you for the loss of a neighborhood; of a home lovingly established over decades; of the genuine comfort of a long-familiar space.
And with prices as they are these days, you can never purchase anything comparable to what you're losing.
Thank God I had the wit to flee NY. The proceeds from the sale of my mother's mid-century co-op, and mine, wouldn't have allowed me to live in those neighborhoods again. Up here, what I pay for a lovely rental is perhaps a quarter of what the square footage and amenities would cost in NY--and I have a river--a clean and beautiful tree-shaded river--literally right outside.
The destruction of NY, street by street, is shameful. But who wants to live with those oligarches anyway?
101
I realize that my situation can easily be dismissed compared to many in much worse situations, but for the record : the reason I hired Mr Bailey was to try to keep my loft which I have owned for 18 years, not to increase its sale price.
I am being told that I need to make the best deal since I can't afford or endure the stress of ending up as a squatter with my kids like the other gentleman mentioned in this article.
I am being told that I need to make the best deal since I can't afford or endure the stress of ending up as a squatter with my kids like the other gentleman mentioned in this article.
72
I wish you well, Jill. I am reading this story from many, many miles away. Things aren't perfect out here by far and my state has its own problems (such as an opiate crisis of its own), but no-one should have to lose their beloved home to greed.
Reading between the lines regarding your building - it would appear that no single owner controls a super majority, rather a speculator/developer has secured collateral sale agreements that are contingent on them achieving control. Mr. Bailey is a highly capable attorney from what I've read, and should be able to protect you and obtain your objective of staying in the building another 18 years if that's really what you want. If on the other hand, you entered an agreement to pay Mr. Bailey on a contingency basis, rather than hourly, because you lack means, then whether you realize it our not, you're ultimately bound to sell. This is frequently the conundrum of the high cost of litigation.
1
"Mr. Brady employs a variety of strategies... which involves, among other things, getting inside buildings to slip handwritten notes under people’s doors."
So he admits he trespassed. Sounds like the basis for the start of legal action.
So he admits he trespassed. Sounds like the basis for the start of legal action.
79
The basis for legal action would be to file a complaint against Town, the brokerage that hold's Mr. Brady's license, and the actionable grounds would be several, since Mr. Brady isn't representing a contractually enforceable offer, but is inducing naive owners to enter a slippery and contentious path that can alienate their neighbors and make their buildings a very unpleasant place to live. It's been going on a long time in NYC. Read up on block busting, red lining, and the history of Harlem real estate - or that of the Lower East Side.
1
As an ex-New Yorker I can understand this play for Park Avenue- but $5M + for lofts that are on or near ninth avenue, ya gotta be kidding - convenient to the methadone clinic as I remember it, and SROs. It can't have changed that much in two years? Maybe what's going on is all the foreign money that has no idea about neighborhoods? Any real estate moguls out their to enlighten me?
9
You have no idea.
5
@Ralph: David Binko is right. If you haven't been around lately, you would not believe what is happening. You'd have to see it first-hand. New Whitney museum is WEST of 9th Avenue. Meatpacking district totally upscale beyond your imagination. And no, not all foreign money.
7
Oh, you'd be surprised. There won't be any SROs or methedone clinics or anything else of that ilk by the time these wolves are done.
7
Bwah bwah bwah. New York City used to be a gorgeous melting pot filled with hard working recent immigrants striving for a better life. It was also a manufacturing and creative mecca. Now ... it is simply the American capital of conspicuous consumption and superficial entertainment, not much different than Las Vegas.
As for the cited "victims" of voracious real estate developers, GIVE ME A BREAK! Tens of thousands of poor, working and middle class families in NYC have been displaced by both private and public development over the decades without receiving a penny for the severe disruption in their lives. While Mr. Selbert and other similarly situated NYC residents will have to bear the disruption of relocation, they will be well compensated for their troubles.
Welcome to the real world folks.
As for the cited "victims" of voracious real estate developers, GIVE ME A BREAK! Tens of thousands of poor, working and middle class families in NYC have been displaced by both private and public development over the decades without receiving a penny for the severe disruption in their lives. While Mr. Selbert and other similarly situated NYC residents will have to bear the disruption of relocation, they will be well compensated for their troubles.
Welcome to the real world folks.
21
"Bwah bwah bwah. New York City used to be a gorgeous melting pot filled with hard working recent immigrants striving for a better life."
It still is a melting pot, and hard-working immigrants and hard-working "native" New Yorkers make up the bulk of our enormous city. Only a few spots glitter.
Most visitors explore the spots that visitors explore, in the same way that visitors to Athens visit the Acropolis and Monostiraki and Lykobettos, and visitors to Rome explore the Capitoline, and visitors to Paris stroll the banks. They don't go into the neighborhoods where cars are repaired, or ironworkers make window gates, or where x-ray technicians in small clinics do mammograms, or wholesalers sell surgical supplies, or small companies fix sewing machines or make or restring Venetian blinds.
But what can you know of it? Some people just know what they read about in The Times.
It still is a melting pot, and hard-working immigrants and hard-working "native" New Yorkers make up the bulk of our enormous city. Only a few spots glitter.
Most visitors explore the spots that visitors explore, in the same way that visitors to Athens visit the Acropolis and Monostiraki and Lykobettos, and visitors to Rome explore the Capitoline, and visitors to Paris stroll the banks. They don't go into the neighborhoods where cars are repaired, or ironworkers make window gates, or where x-ray technicians in small clinics do mammograms, or wholesalers sell surgical supplies, or small companies fix sewing machines or make or restring Venetian blinds.
But what can you know of it? Some people just know what they read about in The Times.
4
Thisooks like a Donald Trump type of deal. He has ruined so many wonderful homes and views. I hope Todd Seibert wins this one.
31
I'm disappointed that some of these coop owners and developers would try to structure these deals to avoid being double taxed. These are New Yorkers and New Yorkers believe in paying their fair share. Wilhelm and Chuck would be disappointed too.
4
Oh my goodness what a disgusting couple these Zobels must be! Appealing to the kindness of someone who has lived in a home for thirty years and now may be forced out by trickery and underhanded behavior of the worst kind. When one hears stories like this it shatters one's faith in basic humanity. I'm hopeful that any judge will rule against this couple and allow Mr. Seibert to remain in the home that he loves. This couple should be truly ashamed of themselves, but you'd like to think "what goes around, comes around". They deserve all the bad karma surely heading their way.
158
Bingo!
1
Mr Selbert is 75 and owns his apartment and thinks he is safe and secure, until along come the Zobels who try to destroy his life in order to make a few bucks and they actually say "it is not an easy way to do business"
The saddest part - "we were foolish, we thought we were just being nice guys and letting her have what she wanted" Mr Selbert's decency was used against him
The saddest part - "we were foolish, we thought we were just being nice guys and letting her have what she wanted" Mr Selbert's decency was used against him
178
No, Mr. Selbert does not own his apartment. As a co-op member, he owns shares in a corporation, and that entitles him to live in the apartment. Although I feel for Mr. Selbert, he's always known he lives in a co-op, and he seems like an educated man, so I assume he understands what that means. In a small building it's easier for a developer to get a supermajority. It's 5th grade arithmetic. A supermajority in a building with only 5 apartments is easier to get than on one with 50 or 75 units. So small co-ops in desireable neighborhoods are particularly vulnerable.
13
Please stop making excuses for the ethically underendowed. Mr Selbert has lived in his apt for 30 years. Why should he be held soley responsible for what's happening, when it's the developers and the wealthy who want to do deals that have created this market - and have put Mr. Selbert into this sorry predicament.
23
@ATCleary: Which is why small co-ops need to be VERY VERY careful in deciding who can buy an apartment in their building. The bldg. I live in has a huge flip tax if you sell before living in the bldg. as your PRIMARY residence for at least 3 consecutive years; we also have a very tough sublet rule.
For those who say co-op boards are control freaks, this article gives you some idea of why a good co-op board seeks to prevent situations like those described. We used to trust people's good intentions, but not any more!
For those who say co-op boards are control freaks, this article gives you some idea of why a good co-op board seeks to prevent situations like those described. We used to trust people's good intentions, but not any more!
32
I hope I thanked all the individuals who replied to my what is a co-op vs. what is a condo question. Much appreciated.
I hope that Park Ave building isn't torn down. The ceilings alone have historical value!
Best wishes and good luck to Mr. Selbert.
I hope that Park Ave building isn't torn down. The ceilings alone have historical value!
Best wishes and good luck to Mr. Selbert.
26
PrairieFlax, your Midwestern decency is the antidote I needed to this depressing story.
1
Whenever money is involved, especially irrational amounts of money, by which I mean, overpaying for land and being locked into building luxury properties in neighborhoods that might not support such a model and fail in order to recoup such a gamble, people can get nasty and greedy.
For those wondering how the provision for dissolving coops with a super-majority vote probably evolved, it is helpful to understand that coop ownership evolved in New York against a history of failure.
One of the first buildings that was developed as a private coop was the Philip Hubert designed red brick, Queen Anne brocaded iron balcony facade building familiar to most New Yorkers today as having been the Chelsea Hotel on 23rd Street. It became a hotel several years after opening in 1884 as a coop apartment building and going bankrupt during the Depression of 1893 known as the 'sugar panic.' During this same time span the theater district moved well north of the Chelsea. In the 1920s there were a number of speculative coops constructed as well, many succumbed to the Great Depression of 1929. So it is fair to say that the intent of the coop charters that come down to us today are the product of conservative fears of fellow owners becoming insolvent. That's why coops are so intrusive and sometimes even arbitrary, paranoid and possibly even discriminatory in their consideration of applicants, and that is why they have an exit strategy for dissolution requiring a super-majority to bail out.
For those wondering how the provision for dissolving coops with a super-majority vote probably evolved, it is helpful to understand that coop ownership evolved in New York against a history of failure.
One of the first buildings that was developed as a private coop was the Philip Hubert designed red brick, Queen Anne brocaded iron balcony facade building familiar to most New Yorkers today as having been the Chelsea Hotel on 23rd Street. It became a hotel several years after opening in 1884 as a coop apartment building and going bankrupt during the Depression of 1893 known as the 'sugar panic.' During this same time span the theater district moved well north of the Chelsea. In the 1920s there were a number of speculative coops constructed as well, many succumbed to the Great Depression of 1929. So it is fair to say that the intent of the coop charters that come down to us today are the product of conservative fears of fellow owners becoming insolvent. That's why coops are so intrusive and sometimes even arbitrary, paranoid and possibly even discriminatory in their consideration of applicants, and that is why they have an exit strategy for dissolution requiring a super-majority to bail out.
73
Thank you, I could care less about whether a few spoiled brats get their extra million, but, I appreciate the insight into why NYC got to be as crazy as it evidently is.
5
This is a fair and historically accurate portrayal. Of the comments I've read, the most informative to outsiders. But, frequently, it should be pointed out that the smaller coops came about more or less as partnerships that had to become legal entities in order to sell their apartment as opposed to interest. Many informal groups of people in the post Depression years bought buildings together and later converted them without going through the full rigors of a rental building non-eviction plan. These buildings would obtain in the Abrams years a ''no-objection'' letter from the NYS attorney general. You put your finger on it - the more the money to be had, the nastier the fight usually.
2
Ms. Zobel sounds like a truly lovely woman.
44
I thought I had heard everything about the vagaries of NY real estate until I read this. In this case, couldn't all co-op buildings be similarly vulnerable?
As to 150 East 78th, David and Teodora Zobel may have education and wealth but they're ethical underdowed, regardless of the legality of co-op laws to support their devious behavior. Not a full picture of the whole of their class, but a glaring snapshot of some of it.
As to 150 East 78th, David and Teodora Zobel may have education and wealth but they're ethical underdowed, regardless of the legality of co-op laws to support their devious behavior. Not a full picture of the whole of their class, but a glaring snapshot of some of it.
112
I was just curious to see what the Zobel's looked like and googled their name. Judging from the first entries they appear they want and are living the 'NY' life.
For a long time, the general impression of consumers who own co-ops has been "I own my apartment". As a result, from a consumer protection point of view, the vacuum in New York law, which allows people like Mr. Seibert to be forced out of their homes is simply unbelievable.
Not to be smug, but in California the Legislature saw fit, approximately 35 years ago, to protect true tenants in apartment buildings which were being converted into condominiums or co-ops. At the very least those true renters had a right of first refusal to buy their apartment, and the converter/developer had to pay their relocation costs if they did not buy. I suspect that those old laws in California would protect stockholder/tenants in the state's few true co-ops.
That's why it is my view that the New York State Legislature, and each and every one of them, are complicit in the totally unethical removal of co-op tenants from their apartments, just so that someone else can profit from the sale of the rest of the apartments. If the New York Legislature does not pass legislation to fix this problem immediately, like the California Legislature did 35 years ago, then all New York State residents will know that their legislators are crooks and scoundrels. The same will hold true if Governor Cuomo vetoes co-op resident consumer protection legislation.
Not to be smug, but in California the Legislature saw fit, approximately 35 years ago, to protect true tenants in apartment buildings which were being converted into condominiums or co-ops. At the very least those true renters had a right of first refusal to buy their apartment, and the converter/developer had to pay their relocation costs if they did not buy. I suspect that those old laws in California would protect stockholder/tenants in the state's few true co-ops.
That's why it is my view that the New York State Legislature, and each and every one of them, are complicit in the totally unethical removal of co-op tenants from their apartments, just so that someone else can profit from the sale of the rest of the apartments. If the New York Legislature does not pass legislation to fix this problem immediately, like the California Legislature did 35 years ago, then all New York State residents will know that their legislators are crooks and scoundrels. The same will hold true if Governor Cuomo vetoes co-op resident consumer protection legislation.
34
Anyone who owns a co-op knows that s/he doesn't own the apartment. And the laws you refer to that protect rental tenants in buildings converting to co-op or condo status exist in New York. This article isn't about a renter, it's about a shareholder in a co-op who is being forced out by another shareholder who owns a supermajority of the shares. The ability for the Zobels to do that comes from the co-op's bylaws. If the New York State legislature wants to pass something to fix the problem, it would have to amend the laws governing corporations, not provide assistance to rental tenants that a) already exists and b) would have no bearing.
14
I don't think you read the article very carefully. Mr. Selbert is not a tenant in a building that went co-op. He is a co-op member, and owns shares in the co-op, which is a form of corporation under NYS law. And NY State already had non-eviction protection for tenants in a building that undergoes conversion. It's possible that California affords both shareholders and tenants greater protections than NY, but from your comment, I'm not sure this situation exemplifies that.
4
This was also done in NYC. When apartment buildings were first being converted, plans could go through with as few as 15% of the tenants voting for them; everyone else was forced out. Thus the "non-eviction co-op" law was passed; those who don't vote for the plan, nor wish to move, can continue to occupy their rented apartments.
3
The majority of Developers are looking to tear down the old beautiful properties of NYC to build glass towers that will maximize square footage and sell ridiculously expensive Penthouse apartments. They do not care about the city's skyline or the character of a neighborhood. They care about profit only.
What can you do if you live in an old building and want to ward off these pests?
Apply for Landmark status with the City.
You will be doing a service not only for yourself, but also to help keep NYC great and not just another generic town of hideous glass towers.
What can you do if you live in an old building and want to ward off these pests?
Apply for Landmark status with the City.
You will be doing a service not only for yourself, but also to help keep NYC great and not just another generic town of hideous glass towers.
111
Landmark status will only go so far. The current LPC appears hellbent on fast-tracking applications out of the system; legislation has been submitted impose a time limit on considering each landmark designation. This Wednesday, September 9, at 11 am there's a hearing at City Hall on this very proposal. Come show that you care about the city not turning into Singapore East!
I feel bad for Mr. Selbert. The Zobel's are are probably shortening his life. When you get to a certain age who needs the aggravation? The judge should enjoin the Zobel's from going further with their plan until he dies or sells on his terms. This kind of stress can kill you.
114
"In retrospect, Ms. Zobel said, the deal has been far more difficult to pull off than she imagined. “It’s not an easy way to do business. We are definitely not looking to do it again,”"
WOW. Just wow. Outright going in like parasites to wreak havoc. How do they sleep at night? Looking at other peoples lives as doing business and something to profit on. Boggles the mind. How do people get to be so unethical? Why are they so down and dirty evil? Can't they make an honorable buck some other way? Boggles the mind.
WOW. Just wow. Outright going in like parasites to wreak havoc. How do they sleep at night? Looking at other peoples lives as doing business and something to profit on. Boggles the mind. How do people get to be so unethical? Why are they so down and dirty evil? Can't they make an honorable buck some other way? Boggles the mind.
218
Trouble is, after lying low for six months to let the heat die down, the Zobels will be right back at it. People with the capacity to do such a thing even once lack the capacity to reform.
2
This reminds me of F. Engels’ classic line. After Engels pointed out the poor housing conditions in Manchester, England, to one of the city’s leaders, this stout fellow replied, "And yet there is a great deal of money made here, good morning, sir."
16
Well pointed out. Thank you.
1
If I were in Mr. Selbert's position, I'd be looking for a partner with deep pockets with a promise to deed them my shares upon my demise. Anything but let the weasels have it.
15
If I were in Mr. Selbert's position, I'd be calling the NY State Attorney General's office, for starters.
9
Who came up with the bylaw provision of a supermajority and why do co-ops see it as beneficial? Has any co-op shareholder lost money in a forced sale to a majority shareholder?
5
Require coop buyers to execute a pledge acknowledging their participation in any hostile business plan intended to collapse the coop will automatically forfeit their coop shares to no-vote shareholders and constitute immediate grounds for eviction.
Introduce a "poison pill" into coop docs that will force majority shareholders strong-arming a hostile collapse to provide no-vote shareholders with golden parachutes worth 10x market value of their shares + buy them a same or better residence nearby.
Introduce a "poison pill" into coop docs that will force majority shareholders strong-arming a hostile collapse to provide no-vote shareholders with golden parachutes worth 10x market value of their shares + buy them a same or better residence nearby.
39
Would some of you please explain to this small-town Nebraskan why co-op owners can't sell to whom they want, when they want? For example the Chelsea co-op cited in the story in which Mr. Mackie lives. Serious question, as I truly don't know. Thank you.
Also still confused about the difference between a condo apartment and a co-op apartment. From what I have read, it seems challenging to own a co-op.
Also still confused about the difference between a condo apartment and a co-op apartment. From what I have read, it seems challenging to own a co-op.
7
i'll give it a try. key point is that in an apt, it's crucial who lives next door, above and below, because you hear it all. and in the rest of the bldg since everyone shares the space. in a condo, you can do anything to your space, sell, rent, run machines, etc. full freedom, and so a higher price than a coop. in a coop you don't actually own your space, you own shares in a corporation which leases you the space. so the corp owns the space and controls the conditions. there is an elected board that runs it. generally the goal is to control the environment so bad neighbors don't happen. boards have free approval without having to explain when people try to buy in. so finances are vetted = no scofflaws which could bring down a bldg. no annoying people. no renting = control over who lives there, no high heels overhead at three am, no loud music or tv, etc.. so it's less free but you have better chances of your bldg community.
7
PrairieFlax - the issue with a Co-Op (or CoOperative), is that you don't actually own your apartment, but instead own shares in a private corporation. Those shares then have allocated to them a specific apartment, with lease rules allowing you to occupy that apartment as long as you comply with the rules of the corporation's lease (the Proprietary Lease, or Prop Lease). As a private corporation, the board of directors can have very strict rules on who you can sell your shares (your apt) to. It leads to ALL sorts of problems and complaints. A Condo, on the other hand, is a situation where you actually own your apt, not shares in a corporation. That's a very basic explanation from a non-lawyer who's owned both.
7
In a condo, you actually own the apartment and pay your own real estate tax. Its like little houses stacked upon each other with common spaces such as halls and lobbies that the homeowners are responsible for. When you want to sell your apartment it is simpler than a co-op because their is no interview by the co-op board and if the condominium wants to block to sale, the building must buy your unit and sell it themselves. In a co-op you are a share holder in a corporation; a member of a club whose board decides who should be able to live there.
12
Another potential tall high riser on the East Side.
And we have the sun blockers on Central Park South being built.
Great - soon I won't have to wear any sunblock in Central Park.
No words of protest as the city gets ruined.
And we have the sun blockers on Central Park South being built.
Great - soon I won't have to wear any sunblock in Central Park.
No words of protest as the city gets ruined.
91
In 1974 I was young and dumb but had the foresight to invest $9,500.00 into a one bedroom co-op in the West Village. Co-ops weren't selling well then. Needless to say, the apartment quickly became very valuable and as Manhattan became more and more difficult to live it (remember the late 70's and early 80's?) I decided to become a commuter. When I sold my modest one bedroom co-op I was able to buy a house in Westchester. Now I live on the West Coast and for years have longed for the time I had my nifty little one bedroom place. Reading this article makes me realize that the time I loved living in Manhattan is truly a bygone era. I'm grateful that I got to experience it for many years but it really is gone forever. Time moves on. Sadly we loose our humanity little by little.
138
I am no fan of real estate developers, but ordinary people get forced to sell houses they love all the time, usually because they cannot afford to keep them. They leave with nothing. I can't quite work up tears for people who will involuntarily leave their beloved co-ops with literally millions of dollars simply because they were lucky enough to buy in an area where there is apparently no end to the housing bubble. Poor and middle class people have to do things they don't want to do every day.
44
I think it's possible to have sympathy for both- or at least it used to be.
17
So you get to decide which folks should suffer the theft of their property and which shouldn't?
13
No one's property is being stolen in the situations described in this article, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. If anything, this article is a text book example of why owning a coop is a bad idea. It's all the headaches and expense of ownership and very few of the perks. People have an emotional stake in the place they call home, whether they rent or own. That's why there are laws in place to prevent tenants from being pushed out when a building goes co-op. But the law does not see shareholders as homeowners and, indeed, under the law they are not. Buying and selling shares is a cold, hard bottom line kind of business. If you can't see your home in those terms, owning in a co-op building is not for you.
16
Checked the real estate listing for 1025 Park and it appears that though the building is made up of 10 apartments, only 4 of them are included in the $65 million price. How is that possible?
8
It's a shame that these beautiful, character-filled and in many cases, livable, approachable neighborhood apartment homes are being gobbled up and contorted to create something huge and sun-blotting.
Easy for me to say, I don't live in NY, and it's not my money to gain ... but as a visitor to the city, I do find it too bad a lot of the distinctiveness is being sucked out of the city and sold to the highest bidders for another tall, glass facade.
Easy for me to say, I don't live in NY, and it's not my money to gain ... but as a visitor to the city, I do find it too bad a lot of the distinctiveness is being sucked out of the city and sold to the highest bidders for another tall, glass facade.
80
I was recently in Boston for vacation. The glass towers are taking hold, there, too. I hardly recognized the Seaport district from just 2 years ago.
5
When we get tired of visiting a City that is no longer what we came to visit, but merely a bunch of former communist party millionaires taking selfless with the Jackson Pollock at the MoMA, then the cycle will atrophy and the host will die. Only then will the parasites depart as their source of nourishment will be deceased.
1
It would be great if the Times were to do a piece on converting a co-op to a condo in a larger building.
17
The By-Laws of a cooperative corporation most likely has some provision regarding its dissolution. This matter could arise in the event the building was destroyed by fire, etc., as well as a change in ownership form. In my building, it requires a 2/3s vote of the board members and 2/3s vote of all the stockholders.
I never understood the attraction of condominiums other than row houses where each unit paid its own utilities. Evicting a condo owner for not paying the monthly charges is next to impossible. The best you can do is place a lien on the property and wait and wait. Meanwhile, the building is out the money it needs to run the place. Since a condo cannot take out a mortgage on the property, it must rely heavily on assessments that can prove to be financial shocks to tenants.
There seems to be a great fear of the board approval of applicants in co-ops, but most simply decide on the basis of the credit check. The social status thing does not arise outside of certain areas of the city. The undesirable practice of subletting is more common in condos. A more basic question in a conversion to condo would be, what is the tax liability if the ownership of your unit is given to you by the co-op?
I never understood the attraction of condominiums other than row houses where each unit paid its own utilities. Evicting a condo owner for not paying the monthly charges is next to impossible. The best you can do is place a lien on the property and wait and wait. Meanwhile, the building is out the money it needs to run the place. Since a condo cannot take out a mortgage on the property, it must rely heavily on assessments that can prove to be financial shocks to tenants.
There seems to be a great fear of the board approval of applicants in co-ops, but most simply decide on the basis of the credit check. The social status thing does not arise outside of certain areas of the city. The undesirable practice of subletting is more common in condos. A more basic question in a conversion to condo would be, what is the tax liability if the ownership of your unit is given to you by the co-op?
5
David,
Are referring to condominiums in NYC, specifically? I'm confused by "Since a condo cannot take out a mortgage on the property, it must rely heavily on assessments that can prove to be financial shocks to tenants." A condo owner in CA can take out a mortgage, HELOC, REFI or second mortgage. Or are you referring to the HOA/Condo association?
Sincere question as I know State laws can vary greatly.
Are referring to condominiums in NYC, specifically? I'm confused by "Since a condo cannot take out a mortgage on the property, it must rely heavily on assessments that can prove to be financial shocks to tenants." A condo owner in CA can take out a mortgage, HELOC, REFI or second mortgage. Or are you referring to the HOA/Condo association?
Sincere question as I know State laws can vary greatly.
A condo corporation owns only the common areas unlike a co-op corporation that owns the whole building. A bank is not going to give a mortgage with just the common areas as collateral. What would happen if the bank repossessed the lobby? Individual unit owner can get mortgages on their units in a condo. Co-op purchasers can also get mortgages provided it follows the rules of the building.
3
I love reading about all the tax dodges these multi-millionaire developers have to choose among.
God forbid they contribute their fair share to America--after all, only our people and our infrastructure are at stake.
God forbid they contribute their fair share to America--after all, only our people and our infrastructure are at stake.
173
It sounds like Ms. Zobel bought the 2 apartments under false pretenses. In other words, she lied.
212
If the 2 apartments were purchased under false pretenses, isn't that a form of fraud and wouldn't there be laws protecting Mr. Selbert in such circumstances?
87
@JenD: Yes, she lied, which would also be under the heading of "fraud," meaning fraudulent representation to the co-op, depending on what Zobel said when she was buying. Lying/fraud would be grounds for a lawsuit, and I think it might be of interest to the NY State Attorney General's office (which might take its own action).
But it would have been far better had she never been allowed to get this far.
But it would have been far better had she never been allowed to get this far.
12
To quote Marlon Brando's character in the Godfather - "it's not personal, it's just business". This is the "American way" - just ask the native Americans.
8
In the case of Mr. Selbert and 150 E. 78, I wish him well. The new would-be owners have taken an underhanded and corrupt way to force him out of his home. No doubt they sleep like angels each night.
182
Wow. People's homes aren't their homes even if they own them?
150
In co-op one owns shares in the corporation not the physical space that those shares represent.
29
People who buy into a co-op are buying shares of that corporation, not the physical space that those shares represent.
11
Nope, because their homes aren't homes they own. They are shares of stock that give them the right to live there.
26
Let's guess: The buyers are an anonymous LLC. The real owners will be Russian oligarchs, Arab sheiks, or Chinese Communist Party members (who knew that Communism was so profitable?) who buy NYC apartments for all cash, so they can launder their ill gotten gains, while the US government looks the other way.
That about sums up all multi-million dollar Manhattan real estate deals.
That about sums up all multi-million dollar Manhattan real estate deals.
259
"there goes the neighborhood"
4
That about incorrectly sums up almost all Manhattan real estate deals.
1
What, are Americans either so dumb or so noble that we can't have greedy oligarchs of our own? We've got plenty of billionaires who claim primary residence in other more rural areas (think ski chalets somewhere in Idaho) to dodge taxes on their super profitable NYC investments.
4
I already knew from experience that co-ops represent all the responsibilities of ownership and none of the privileges. But this is foul icing on an already bitter cake.
134
"We used to make [stuff] in this country, build [stuff]. Now we just put our hand in the next guy's pocket."