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.
This is not about weed smoking. You can use that as an excuse if you want to for the email or the landlord actions but in reality, weed smoking has nothing to do with it. The issue is that there are guys from the neighborhood that are standing in front of a building and having a conversation. That is it, point blank. BK never once said that he was smoking weed or smokes weed. It is not about harrassing women that walk down the street. It is not about a group of thugs. It is not about devaluing of property as the property in Clinton Hill is constantly on the rise. It is about guys from the neighborhood doing what they have always done and what countless other people do in their lives. You come home from work and you see a neighbor and you stop and talk. This is something that is basic in most working class neighborhoods. You can justify as much as you want that because someone smoked a joint then it is okay for them to be subject to illegal harrasment and they are just complaining because they want to hide their illicit activity but that is just a cloud of smoke, for want of a better expression. Just because someone does not like the idea that a group of people are talking does not make it wrong. Just because someone may feel uncomfortable does not make it wrong.
There is nothing in the blog or a post that would justify coming to the conclusion that everyone is standing around, passing out Blunts and getting high. It was stated that truthfully, a couple of guys may smoke a joint. That is the only thing about weed that was really mentioned. From that statement, all of these conclusions are being drawn but not once has anyone stated that the accusations in the email are outrageous or the possibility that what the landlord is doing is offensive. In fact, what I am getting is that since one or two guys in the group smoke weed, then the landlord or the "community" has the right to make whatever unjust accusations that they want to and damage as many people as necessary to ensure that property values remain high or to evict the riff raff. I guess if it was a bunch of guys playing Dominos outside, then it would be fair to say that they are running an illegal gambling operation especially if 2 people out of 10 make a bet. Or even better yet, a bunch of women standing around talking and one of them is flirting with some dude in a suggestive manner. Oh my, there must be a prostitution ring going on and all of them are prostitutes so we can accuse them of anything so long as we get them out of the neighborhood. As I stated earlier, he did not even have to mention the weed in his post but he was letting everyone that reads it know exactly what the situation was, from his viewpoint. And his viewpoint is more valid then anyone else's since it is something that has affected him. Also from reading the comments on the blog, I can't recall anyone in the actual neighborhood being offended.
Hypnotizzed, as far as why I think he is a positive influence in his neighborhood is because, from all indications, he is trying to preserve the history of his neighborhood as he knows it and bringing to the forefront things that may not be correct. Clinton Hill is nice and it is diverse but the biggest thing is that it is a neighborhood, which is slowly becoming a rarity. IMO, people who are fighting to preserve the good in their neighborhood and not letting themselves be run rough shod over are positive people in the community. Also, from having lived in Clinton Hill, it was not the type of neighborhood where classism was an issue and I appreciate that. People were more concerned about the human condition then the financial condition. What I mean by that is you celebrated people's acheivements but you did not ignore them when they were downtrodden. You kept sendng them positive messages and when they got themselves together you celebrated the fact that they were able to overcome whatever was holding them back. You did not look at somebody and make a determination based on how they might adversely affect your financial situation just by being.
Why dont you really focus upon the real cost of gentrification. Ex-New Yorkers like myself are increasingly alienated by the place. That is Websters definition of tragedy. There is an increasingly smaller gap between the benefit of living there and/or Northampton, Portland ME, Portsmouth etc...
Most of my NYC-Alumni friends find the place a facade of its former self. And thats just sad.
Darkman....what you are missing is that it is in fact about the drug use happening IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING. What YOU are making it about is a supposed unscrupulous, seedy, greedy LL that is anti-locals and trying to eliminate people of color from the building and the community. The reality is WE DO NOT KNOW WHO SENT THESE ACCUSATIONS, and it is just speculation that it is the LL, but it can be a Tenant/Neighbor/passerby that does not like the drug use/congragtion in front of the building or is aware of other activities besides just the "hanging out" which we do not know. The reality is simple, these guys are hanging out in front of the building, and some are smoking weed. As a result SOMEBODY complained about participation in a drug ring, and since they are smoking weed then YES they are part of the drug ring (ring = the circle of buyers, pushers, suppliers, look-outs, etc). The accusation was not that they were drug dealers, but part of a drug ring, which according to the OP himself, they are smoking weed therefore part of the ring. As for this guy trying to preserve the "history" of the community, that's an absolute joke. Since when is the history of Clinton Hill a bunch of guys in front of a building doing drugs? Is that all the community is about? Is that all they have to be proud of? Hanging out/smoking weed? A positive member of the community first and foremost would NEVER set such a poor example of himself by either hanging out so blatantly with drug users, nor do it in front of his building and reinforce this behavior to kids as "normal." I too am concerned about the human condition, and the next generation for that matter. What does it say to the kids when a group of guys using drugs assert their "right" to do so at the expense of the community. And again I say that if you believe the Tenants/neighbors/passersby are thrilled with having these guys congragating in front of the building and smoking weed, whether it is 1 or all of them, you are only deluding yourself. The evil LL story is all smoke and mirrors to frame these guys as "victims", when the realty is that they are in fact perpetrating a crime, including loitering and drug use. It is much easier to make up a gentrification story and garner sympathy than it is to acknowledge " Hey maybe people don't like us hanging out in front of the building and smoking weed. Maybe we should take it elsewhere, like our homes, or some other location where we will not bother anyone." These guys are a joke.
It seems unfortunate that even in this day and age many people in NYC still do not feel comfortable living in neighborhood with people different than them. They want shorter commute times but do not want to live next to the original neighborhoods. This has to stop. There is a genuine need for affordable housing in NYC for working people.
The funny thing is as "luxury" million+ dollar condos spring up all over my increasingly less and less working-class neighborhood the developers are having a tougher time selling them. Yep, the housing woes are reaching big bad NYC. One condo building in my 'hood has had no buyers for any of the apartments since it was completed months and months ago. The developers are now trying to rent the units. And yet the developers just keep on with the condo construction binge.
That's because developers don't care about neighborhood issues. All they care about is putting up buildings; what happens after they're built--that's obviously someone else's problem. So...the city has to put a leash on the developers. See? That's where we have a little control, depending on who we vote into office (assuming that somewhat over the usual 35% decides to turn out for municipal elections).
Drkman: I very much enjoy your posts because you are a fair and concerned person. But I don't understand where this post is going. This isn't china or russia - we have the blessing of a reliable legal system. Tenants have rights. If the landlord attempts to evict tenants wrongfully with false, trumped up charges, the tenants can and should defend themselves and ultimately recover damages from the landlord. Obviously, if a tenant is engaging in illegal activity in the building, that tenant can and should be evicted. The debate here seems to be about who is telling the truth. That's what we have courts for. You may be right about this particular landlord being a crook. If so, the court system is there to protect the tenants.
There is a separate issue about the effect of gentrification on long term renters. In the absence of rent control, long term renters take the risk that their rents will rise. Owners get the benefit of a rising market and take the loss in a falling market. That is the nature of renting and owning. Is it fair to an owner who put capital at risk on the hope of appreciation to change the rules and prevent the owner from reaping the reward of appreciation?
That's why I think the government should continue to promote home ownership. Owners care for their property and community more than renters because they have a greater economic stake in the property. They benefit from the improvement in the neighborhood. Young people should live below their means, save and buy property. Otherwise, they risk having to move in their old age to a less expensive area. Gentrification is good, not bad. The people being displaced either benefit as owners from the higher prices or took the risk of being forced out by higher prices by renting.
Change is also inevitable. People wax poetic about the neighborhood of their youth and the tragedy of change. One man's tragedy is another man's opportunity. Neighborhoods change. People come and go. You can't stop the march of time.
ClassicalGuy, I will try and explain what my purpose of starting the thread was about. When I read the initial blog about the email, it bothered me because of the way the "Clinton Hill Residents" attempted to resolve the issue. For situations like that, too me, it is best to take it up in a legal manner or even at a community board meeting, so that everyone is aware of what the concerns are. By circulating an email that appeared to target a specific group of people, making accusatory statements, and sending this email to places like public schools it appeared to be a way to cause harm to a group of people. I was not privy to this email and have not, and have no reason to read the whole contents of the email but it appeared that there were was much more to it then just making random accusations. From my understandng, people licenses were also included in this email and those people had no way to defend themselves against the accusations. For example, I still live in the neighborhood and while I parked my car in front of this building, my license plate gets placed on this email and sent to my child's school. The principal is now aware of and has taken notes of what licenses were listed, because as I responsible adult, you do not want the kids in the school to be around someone who is involved in a drug enterprise, and are terrorizing the neighborhood in order to keep their enterprise going. The principal sees my license and now knows who my child is. My child will then be subject to increased scrutiny and normal things that may occur in school with my child, may make the principal and teachers view them as related to my drug enterpise. I may also get a visit from Child Services because of something that the school believes based on their thoughts being formulated behind this email. This would directly affect my life and my children's life all based on an accusatory email that has no bearing on reality. This is slanderous and since it is anomymous, I have no way of even proving the allegations are untrue. The scenario that I presented may seem extreme but the email, too me, seemed extreme.
Having been a resident of that neighborhood, and a resident of New York City, I have seen groups of people congregate outside of buildings and talk all of my life. This does not make them bad, evil, drug dealers or terrorists. If you pay attention to a group of people in your neighborhood, a house, or a particular buidling, you can basically identify if there is illicit drug activity occuring because there will be multiple signs and hanging out and talking is not one of them. At least, not in the immediate area that the email was referencing. In addition, in that particular area, there have been several business accused of runnng drugs, when that was not the case. The businesses that were accused though, tend to be older businesses that newer residents do not frequent and not as "nice" as some of the newer businesses.
But even with all that, I was not inclined to start a thread since the community was planning on sitting down and actually talking about the concerns that people in the neighborhood might have. Dialogue between the groups, if that was the issue, would be good so that people will be aware of the dynamics of the neighborhood. I don't feel that just because someone moves in or purchases a property, then the neighborhood has to conform to what they envision. When you purchase or move in somewhere, especially an urban area, you have to deal with the dynamics of the neighborhood. I am not talking about illegal things but just basic things that occur that you may not be accustomed to. Personally, I don't like large groups of people, but that is my own preference and I cannot nor will I attempt to stop people from congregating just because it is not something that I like.
What prompted me to start the thread, was the comment on the blog from someone who appeared to know the particular landlord of this building and the tactics that this landlord uses. I was hoping to show people, on both sides of the issue, that sometimes there may be someone using tactics that are causing tension between older and newer residents, when none or very little existed for the purpose of increasing their own net worth. It is not about the community or the people but about profits and whatever damage that may occur is okay, since they are not directly affected by it.
I have stated before, I have no issue in a landlord getting as much profit, as they legally can, from renting or even turning the building into a co-op or condo. Just do it legally and do not use people's ignorance of the rent stabilization code to do it. I know that some people have an issue with rent stabilization and feel that everyone should be paying market rent, and the landlord should make as much money as the market will bear on their buidling but, when someone purchases a rent stabilized buidling they know exactly what they are getting. It is not hidden, it is not thrown in at the last moment. You know what the rent roll is and I am positive that, unlike a buyer of a free market house or apartment, they could not even get approved for a mortgage on the building unless the rent roll was able to cover the mortgage and they still have the opportunity to make a profit. Maybe not maximum profit but enough of a profit that it makes sense to purchase. (I know this is kind of long winded but please stay with me).
I personally, do not hold or think that someone who purchases a rent stablized building should have some kind of unlimited profit rights. If that was the case, then they could have purchased a building where free market rent reigns and their profit is as much as the market will bear. I doubt, and I may be wrong, that a rent stabilized building is appraised or brought at the same value as a free market buidling since any lending company, would have to take into account what the rent is. For example, I seriously doubt that if someone purchase an apartment building that has 10 units and each unit is paying 200 a piece that you can get a buyer or a mortgage that exceeds that amount as well as the maintenance costs. It does not make business sense, so then why would it be okay to turn around and evict everyone so that your profits can increase over tenfold. A very simplistic view and I am sure that there is more involved but I do think that when someone is talking about a rent stabilized building and the landlord rights to make as much profit as a free market buidling, then they are talking about apples and oranges since they are not the same and would not have been purchased for the same amount. The complaint is that somehow, tenants of rent stabilized buildings are abusing the system and should not have rights, especially if they have lived there for years but the actual price of the buidling and the maintenance of the buidling is not taken into account and the landlord profits is not taken into account. The only thing that is taken into account is you did not purchase your apartment so you are not an owner and you have no rights to have your maximum rent legally mandated.
Now, I said all that because if this landlord actually was behind this email, and he turned around and brought another building on the same block that is also stabilzed then he knows exactly what his profit margin is and knows about the stabilzation code. In fact, from investigating through the internet, he is very knowledgable about rent stabilized buildings since those are the kinds of buildings he purchases. Why is it okay for him then, to turn around, purchase a building and then divide the neighborhood for the purpose of increasing his net worth and do it with inflammatory emails and illegal practices?
So that was the purpose of the thread, my thoughts and the posts that I made regarding the subject. I honestly believe that people should know the price that can occur to some people due to gentrification, when the price being paid is not for the betterment of the neighborhood or the community but just for the betterment of someone who was fully aware of what they were purchasing when they made their purchase. Illegal practices are commonplace in some of these buildings and people tend to turn a blind eye towards these practices because it is not affecting them or they believe the end justifies the means. I don't really understand this. If you are lucky enough to find a stablized apartment that you like, at a rent you can afford, and with the space you and/or your family require, why should you be made to feel like you are doing something wrong just because a neighborhoods property value has increased? Would these same people feel that way if the holder of their mortgage decided that property values has increased so they should raise the percentage rate on their loan? Or even if the mortgage company held to the practice of some credit card lenders that were allowed to raise your APR if you were late on one bill, even if the bill was not theirs. Most of these "owners" do not own either. They may be in the process of owning, have more of an ability to see a profit when they move (I say that because from what I read this week, 25% of people who purchased in 2006 now have negative equity in their homes so if they sell they will not realize a profit) and have the right to change the place as they see fit but until they pay that last note, that property belongs to their lender (and even after that they still have to pay property taxes so this thing that they own can still be taken away from them). They are in a contract and would be highly upset if their lender changed the terms. The same way "old timers" or "newcomers" in a neighborhood that live in a rent stabilzed building. They enter into a contract with their landlord and have the right to be upset when the landord tries to illegally change the terms of that agreement and attempts to have you evicted when you have lived up to your part of the contract. Another example are the people living in Prospect Heights that are being evicted due to Bruce Ratner's construction. They "own" their property but due to eminent domain, they have no rights to hold onto their property since it is for the betterment of the city. Even though it is different there are similarities, as some people believe that once someone purchases a stabilzed building, the tenants only live there through the grace of the landlord and if the landlord feels that eviction is needed for his/her betterment they have the right to some kind of personal eminent domain.
So, after my essay my basic thoughts was just for people to understand the possibility of what can happen and if so, to maybe have some understanding of what could be causing rifts in the community. I did not realize that it would turn into a forum bashing the guys that were targeted in this email. As far as the weed thing is concerned, I do understand that some people have an issue with weed smoke or at least, weed smoke in public. I for one, really do not have that issue. I don't particularly care for the smell and I do "get" the idea that it should not be smoked in public. I don't like it when I come in my foyer and am confronted with the smell but this was not about weed smoking, at least not from my point of view. I can only go by my thoughts, but I doubt that grown men in their 30's and 40's who are out working and just talking on their way inside are pulling out blunts everyday in front of that building and puffing up a cloud. I think it was something that only occured occassionaly and the blogger mentioned it so that everyone was aware of a "kernel" of truth in the email but that kernel should not be used to somehow justify all of the accusations against all of the guys that were targeted.
P.S. I am only talking about rent stabilized buildings because in the free market, none of this would apply. When you rent a free market apartment you take into account that as the neighborhood changes, your rent may increase due to rising property values or fall due to decreasing values. In that case, unless you are not planning on staying in an apartment for over 5 years, it would probably be best to look into purchasing if possible, unless you just have to live in that neighborhood.
hey drkman, sorry I missed you at the meetup a week ago. I left before you got there. I understand the fervency with which you write and put forward your viewpoints.
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.
my basic thoughts was just for people to understand the possibility of what can happen and if so, to maybe have some understanding of what could be causing rifts in the community. I did not realize that it would turn into a forum bashing the guys that were targeted in this email. As far as the weed thing is concerned, I do understand that some people have an issue with weed smoke or at least, weed smoke in public. I for one, really do not have that issue. I don't particularly care for the smell and I do "get" the idea that it should not be smoked in public. I don't like it when I come in my foyer and am confronted with the smell but this was not about weed smoking, at least not from my point of view. I can only go by my thoughts, but I doubt that grown men in their 30's and 40's who are out working and just talking on their way inside are pulling out blunts everyday in front of that building and puffing up a cloud. I think it was something that only occured occassionaly and the blogger mentioned it so that everyone was aware of a "kernel" of truth in the email but that kernel should not be used to somehow justify all of the accusations against all of the guys that were targeted.
