New Landlord Hustle (New York, Irvington, York: to rent, condominiums, co-ops)

[SeventhFloor]

Originally Posted by bluedog2

A question for landlords and maybe seventh too: Assuming this was a mistake,wtf do you think their plans were ? Remove the fire escapes and then what ? Put new ones on ? never put any back on and wait to get nailed ? Is it possible to bring a building (built in 1963) up to fireproof code so you wouldn't have to have fire escapes at all ? Would sprinklers be enough ? How complicated would that be ?

The whole thing is just so weird,it's hard to figure out their thinking.The application says remove fire escapes but nothing about installing new ones.

I know everyone jumped at the possibility that they were trying to empty the building to "triple the rents" and it seems as though that wouldn't be worth it but what about the possibility of emptying the building to condo or co op it ? Would that make it worth all the trouble ?

How many landlords do work on their buildings that could/has result in emptying the building ?

AMEN

The LLs are going to say it was the contractor's fault bluedog. But management hired, excuse me, PAID the engineer to file the plans at DOB and PAID the contractor to take down the fire escape. So even if the contractor made a mistake, nobody at management caught this and said anything to the contractor in the midst of removing 6 - and I take a quote from LeBron James here:

"Not 1, not 2, not 3...."

But SIX fire escapes???? The contractor removed six fire escapes without management knowing? Even the super ain't say nothing??? F outta here.

Thank you for reading the link to the DOB application bluedog. No mention of installing new ones. They filed it SELF-CERT, meaning no plan examiner reviewed it. The engineer takes on full liability. Thats why it got approved by a regular clerk at the window. No plan examiner would ever approve that crap.

Now to answer bluedog' questions about improving the egress:

It is goddamn impossible to remove fire escapes from a building and install another means of egress. I bet 5 bucks this building has open stairwells that cannot be enclosed, example below:



Here is the Certificate of Occupancy for 2400 Webb Avenue:

http://a810-cofo.nyc.gov/cofo/X/000/...X000035069.PDF

2400 Webb Avenue is Class 3 NON-Fireproof, meaning the frame of the building is combustible, hence the safest way to get out the building is with the fire escape! No enclosed stairwell, like you will see in most of NYCHA (pic #2), which is a fireproof building:

Public Housing NYCHA pics

I'm telling you I'm going to expose this story for what it is. I don't wanna hear that about landlords do nothing wrong.


2400 Webb Avenue residents, SeventhFloor got your back! Please Google this, create your City-Data account, and respond in this thread!

[bluedog2]

Thanks Seventh !

I just can't figure out how or how long they thought they would get away with this.Doesn't the city send people around yearly to inspect fire escapes? I know in my building every year there is an issue because someone has put a plant on a fire escape or someone's air conditioner is deemed to be blocking the fire escape,etc.I imagine it would be a problem if they showed up to inspect the fire escapes and there were no fire escapes.

[bmwguydc]

A 1BR would be about $1100 or so in today's market. There's a 2BR at Fordham Hill for $1600, which would be a bit more expensive than this building across the street. So, given the old brochure prices, there's not a huge market potential in the building with respect to vacancies. One might pay $1050 under the old building pricing structure, but renovated might pay about $1250-$1300, not worth it to be exposed to damages and lawsuits over this issue, especially since the building would need renovations to get higher rental rates, as have been performed with other buildings owned by the same company in the area. There's no way these units could be put on the market at $2k or higher, to get around RGB regulations, and remove the property from stabilization rolls.

Without hearing all sides of the story, how is one to know exactly whom is responsible for the situation? Of course, the owner is ultimately responsible, but where's the evidence of nefarious intent? That's what I have asserted, as have others, that there has not been evidence released in this case that would lead to the conclusion that this was anything other than a mistake. Yes, it's an egregious mistake, and luckily nobody was injured by the condition of the building, but there's no real financial incentive to do this on purpose because the building's units cannot be renovated and flipped back on the rental market at a significantly higher rate. Where's the payoff? That's the ultimate question as to why one would do this on purpose, and I haven't seen anything other than increased liabilities with respect to this mistake, even if the units are renovated and put on the market at slightly higher rates. It would take years for this to make financial sense, given the fines and exposure to litigation, and the units would still fall under the RGB rules.

[SeventhFloor]

Originally Posted by bmwguydc

A 1BR would be about $1100 or so in today's market. There's a 2BR at Fordham Hill for $1600, which would be a bit more expensive than this building across the street. So, given the old brochure prices, there's not a huge market potential in the building with respect to vacancies. One might pay $1050 under the old building pricing structure, but renovated might pay about $1250-$1300, not worth it to be exposed to damages and lawsuits over this issue, especially since the building would need renovations to get higher rental rates, as have been performed with other buildings owned by the same company in the area. There's no way these units could be put on the market at $2k or higher, to get around RGB regulations, and remove the property from stabilization rolls.

Without hearing all sides of the story, how is one to know exactly whom is responsible for the situation? Of course, the owner is ultimately responsible, but where's the evidence of nefarious intent? That's what I have asserted, as have others, that there has not been evidence released in this case that would lead to the conclusion that this was anything other than a mistake. Yes, it's an egregious mistake, and luckily nobody was injured by the condition of the building, but there's no real financial incentive to do this on purpose because the building's units cannot be renovated and flipped back on the rental market at a significantly higher rate. Where's the payoff? That's the ultimate question as to why one would do this on purpose, and I haven't seen anything other than increased liabilities with respect to this mistake, even if the units are renovated and put on the market at slightly higher rates. It would take years for this to make financial sense, given the fines and exposure to litigation, and the units would still fall under the RGB rules.

They dont have to necessarily be a rental...why cant't they turn it into a co-op after the renovations and buyouts? Mathjak himself spoke of that tactic being performed back in the 1980s. Surprised he hasnt made an appearance in this thread yet.

Even more, what if the landlord thinks he can get money after its all said and done and they wont even get as much as an increase as they think? They already caused this blunder. Maybe they miscalculated on the money too. Let's see if any fire escapes get removed from them lofts by where I work in Tribeca. Crap like this doesn't happen to luxury. It happens to the regular stiffs.

[SeventhFloor]

Originally Posted by bluedog2

Thanks Seventh !

I just can't figure out how or how long they thought they would get away with this.Doesn't the city send people around yearly to inspect fire escapes? I know in my building every year there is an issue because someone has put a plant on a fire escape or someone's air conditioner is deemed to be blocking the fire escape,etc.I imagine it would be a problem if they showed up to inspect the fire escapes and there were no fire escapes.

They don't come once a year. My building has fire escapes and no inspector has come in the 3 years I've lived here to inspect the fire escapes. FDNY is actually in charge of the fire escapes. You're actually not even allowed to build brand new fire escapes unless you're replacing existing ones. No new construction out there is built with a fire escape, but I digress.

[bmwguydc]

Originally Posted by SeventhFloor

They dont have to necessarily be a rental...why cant't they turn it into a co-op after the renovations and buyouts? Mathjak himself spoke of that tactic being performed back in the 1980s. Surprised he hasnt made an appearance in this thread yet.

Given that the owner doesn't have a history of doing this, I doubt that would be a reason to have incur such liability as they have with the serious violtion. And, as a co-op, the prices might not be worth it, given the competition from other Bronx neighborhoods at similar price points. Fordham Hill is in direct competition, and still has sponsor units, owing to the conversion, and could be a more attractive property for a co-op purchaser as it is a gated community with several acres of grounds. Why divest of a rental income when the company's has other buildings nearby? That doesn't make business sense for a company in the business of renting apartments, not an individual landlord who wants to get out of the rental property business.

Taking units off the market would not be a rational move as there is no immediate attraction for demolition/reconstruction of higher density, and/or conversion.

[SeventhFloor]

Originally Posted by bmwguydc

Given that the owner doesn't have a history of doing this, I doubt that would be a reason to have incur such liability as they have with the serious violtion. And, as a co-op, the prices might not be worth it, given the competition from other Bronx neighborhoods at similar price points. Fordham Hill is in direct competition, and still has sponsor units, owing to the conversion, and could be a more attractive property for a co-op purchaser as it is a gated community with several acres of grounds. Why divest of a rental income when the company's has other buildings nearby? That doesn't make business sense for a company in the business of renting apartments, not an individual landlord who wants to get out of the rental property business.

Taking units off the market would not be a rational move as there is no immediate attraction for demolition/reconstruction of higher density, and/or conversion.

Hey, every criminal has a first crime. I'm sorry fellow mod but this is one of the most irresponsible construction errors I've ever heard of. I've heard of the foreman reading the blueprints wrong, which ended up with the building balconies facing the wrong way, etc. But this is inexcusable. You don't remove egress without a way to replace it. Especially with tenants inside that have no way to get out in case of a fire.

[hilltopjay]

Come on Seventh.... you know you so badly want the landlord to take the fall and you would love to prove him guilty of displacing rent stabilized tenants. I see you salivating.

[SeventhFloor]

Originally Posted by hilltopjay

Come on Seventh.... you know you so badly want the landlord to take the fall and you would love to prove him guilty of displacing rent stabilized tenants. I see you salivating.

If it talks like a duck and walks like a duck

[hilltopjay]

Originally Posted by SeventhFloor

If it talks like a duck and walks like a duck

I guess.according to you, the LL is guilty until proven innocent. I see how it is.