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.
Usually Presidents unit. We meet four times a year just the board. Once a year for annual meeting so the lazy owners can yell at the board members who volunteer their time
Usually Presidents unit. We meet four times a year just the board. Once a year for annual meeting so the lazy owners can yell at the board members who volunteer their time
How weird. You don't have monthly meetings?
Nightcrawler, what do you mean by LL? Do you mean the sponsor?
Citizenrich, isn't it odd meeting in the lobby where anyone can be walking in?
The are 32 apartments
12 are individual owners
19 are owned by the LL
1 superintendent apt
I started renting here, then my friends on the top floor were getting a divorce and didnt want the apartment anymore so (long story) the bank let me assume thier mortgage. I basically took over from where they left off at. The apt has been paid off long ago.
The sponsor ( LL ) treat the owners 100 percent better than the renters. I had my whole kitchen installed by the LL's men for free, all I did was tip the guys. (they are the best).
When did this place go co-op?
It sounds like the landlord might never relinquish control to co-operators. This is often a terrible thing for "tenants" whether they have stock or just leases. What the landlord says GOES. Isn't there some law that forces landlords to walk away from decision making after a certain period of time? Co-oping was not set up to be a means of letting landlords escape rent stabilization.
With 12 owners, that means the building was converted in a non-eviction plan and thus at the time of conversion the rent stabilized apartments REMAINED rent stabilized at least for the life of the current tenants.
Did you find your maintenance payment was more or less than the comparable stabilized rent you were paying, maybe per square foot to compare apples to apples?
Friend in a conversion in the Village, lovely place on Greenwich Street, went co-op 30 years ago. He was offered his apartment at a pretty good price and declined. His $600 stabilized rent would have gone to a $900 maintenance payment. He's still there, retired, renting, and stabilized.
Of course, had he bought, he'd have a $million dollar apartment to leave to nobody (single, gay with zero intention of ever moving) but he'd have had to pay a hefty increase every month for 30 years...PLUS the cost of the buy-in.
When did this place go co-op?
It sounds like the landlord might never relinquish control to co-operators. This is often a terrible thing for "tenants" whether they have stock or just leases. What the landlord says GOES. Isn't there some law that forces landlords to walk away from decision making after a certain period of time? Co-oping was not set up to be a means of letting landlords escape rent stabilization.
With 12 owners, that means the building was converted in a non-eviction plan and thus at the time of conversion the rent stabilized apartments REMAINED rent stabilized at least for the life of the current tenants.
Did you find your maintenance payment was more or less than the comparable stabilized rent you were paying, maybe per square foot to compare apples to apples?
Friend in a conversion in the Village, lovely place on Greenwich Street, went co-op 30 years ago. He was offered his apartment at a pretty good price and declined. His $600 stabilized rent would have gone to a $900 maintenance payment. He's still there, retired, renting, and stabilized.
Of course, had he bought, he'd have a $million dollar apartment to leave to nobody (single, gay with zero intention of ever moving) but he'd have had to pay a hefty increase every month for 30 years...PLUS the cost of the buy-in.
- Building went co-op in the mid 80's
- yes, it was a non eviction plan, the RS Rc tenants were still there, but like i said over the years some died and some moved and that just leaves 2 RS, and one tenant is around 89 or so, and not in good health.
- the maintenance was very little and still is.
- when I rented there first I was paying X amount of rent, then I moved up to the bigger apt and for 50 bucks more a month it was worth it, because that included both my maintenance and mortgage.
To me, I dont care that there are more renters than owners, because the LL / sponsor charges more rent because they are now market rate and keeps our maint low, and they treat the owners 100 percent better than the renters. basically they dont care about the renters, they can move all they want and the rent keeps going up, and my maint stays the same...so for me it is a win win situation.
The LL lets me do the gardens out front because he know i like to do it, and reimburses me for the flowers and mulch etc. We all get along well, like I have stated many times before I am here around 27 years.
When did this place go co-op?
It sounds like the landlord might never relinquish control to co-operators. This is often a terrible thing for "tenants" whether they have stock or just leases. What the landlord says GOES. Isn't there some law that forces landlords to walk away from decision making after a certain period of time? Co-oping was not set up to be a means of letting landlords escape rent stabilization.
With 12 owners, that means the building was converted in a non-eviction plan and thus at the time of conversion the rent stabilized apartments REMAINED rent stabilized at least for the life of the current tenants.
Did you find your maintenance payment was more or less than the comparable stabilized rent you were paying, maybe per square foot to compare apples to apples?
Friend in a conversion in the Village, lovely place on Greenwich Street, went co-op 30 years ago. He was offered his apartment at a pretty good price and declined. His $600 stabilized rent would have gone to a $900 maintenance payment. He's still there, retired, renting, and stabilized.
Of course, had he bought, he'd have a $million dollar apartment to leave to nobody (single, gay with zero intention of ever moving) but he'd have had to pay a hefty increase every month for 30 years...PLUS the cost of the buy-in.
^^^^ this post should be required reading for...everyone. You make a brief , clear, considerred and incontrovertible argument for why when it comes to personal finance and housing, there are no universal truths.
People need to chill with projection, confirmation bias and reaction formation when it comes to I guess what would be called real estate advice.
Nightcrawler, what do you mean by LL? Do you mean the sponsor?
Citizenrich, isn't it odd meeting in the lobby where anyone can be walking in?
Via emails and phone calls I spend like ten hours a week on stuff. Illegal subletting, Illegal renovations, Arrears, sales, checking insurance documents, reviewing RFPs, yadda yadda
When the entire board has to meet in person it is usually do to some major issue.
Some nut bought into building and cut up a small apartment into rooms and decided to rent out to multiple people that was a recent in person board meeting
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.
