Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just make the RS tenant pay a set fee to use the gym. Then "you get what you pay for."
THIS is what my proposed solution would be. if they required ALL the tenants to pay a gym fee then I dont see how there would be a problem. But, since this is not the case: the management is tacky for adding the gym that bars access to the RS tenants, and the RS tenants are out of line for expecting to use a new, shiny attachment just because they live in the building.
They moved into those buildings when they were Mitchell Lama over 20 years ago.
Many of them are paying over $1,000 in rent. Only $2k less than the market rent tenants.
It's a freaking GYM!!!! Is the RS "sweat" somehow more dirtier or diseased than the higher income tenant's sweat? Are there scientific studies on this?
Will the jacuzzi and pool have to be drained every time an RS tenant uses it?
Will the showers and workout equipment have to be cleaned with super industrialized disinfectant every time the "commoners" use it?
Just make the RS tenant pay a set fee to use the gym. Then "you get what you pay for".
END OF STORY.
If you don't like it don't live in this building I guess?
THIS is what my proposed solution would be. if they required ALL the tenants to pay a gym fee then I dont see how there would be a problem. But, since this is not the case: the management is tacky for adding the gym that bars access to the RS tenants, and the RS tenants are out of line for expecting to use a new, shiny attachment just because they live in the building.
I might be mistaken, but I believe they actually couldn't require RS tenants to pay a gym fee.
Also, what is WRONG with making the RS tenants pay a fee to use the high end gym?
You never answered the question.
I notice many of you segregationists always seem to avoid the question of fee payment to use the gym.
There is nothing wrong with it. We don't own the building. We didn't pick it. If you have such a bone to pick, why not call up the management company and argue your case.
If you don't like it don't live in this building I guess?
You take things VERY personally.
How am I taking it "personally"?
If the rich tenants don't want to share space with the lower income tenants, then WHY on earth did they move into a building where over 60% of the tenants were commoners?
If I was a snobby rich person, then no way in hell would I move into a building with people who made my skin crawl.
There is nothing wrong with it. We don't own the building. We didn't pick it. If you have such a bone to pick, why not call up the management company and argue your case.
I wasn't talking to you.
All of my posts were in RESPONSE to other people replying to ME.
Being that you're from Ohio, what you say or think is really of no importance to me or any other REAL NYer actually.
If people were to read the article, they'd see that the "gym" is a 15 by 20 foot room. I doubt opening up the gym to all of the building's tenants (417 units) would be plausible.
So because they were their first that makes them entitled? FOH!
Hmmmm, I see you're still dancing around the gym fee question.
Wonder why?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
