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.
I'm guessing ours was around 600 sq. ft., maybe a little under that, not including the terrace which some apartments have enclosed. An enclosed terrace would add close to 100 sq. ft..
Thank you fyrisle and joey joey.
I found your opinions both very informative.
Does anyone know whether Mitchell Lama co-op law or HPD decrees a certain flip-tax for first sale
after privatization from ML, or is it a board choice and might some boards call for 10% and others 50% or maybe nothing?
Corollary: If a Mitchell Lama RENTAL goes private, would it not seem logical that the owner/landlord should pay some kind of flip tax into a reserve fund or some such if he sells? Sounds silly I know. But why should it all be pure gravy for a landlord but highly flip-taxed for a co-operator?
joey,
Where would the $20 million from the City come from? Can any ML co-op just ASK for it?
Perhaps repeating:
The vote was taken by number of shares and privatization won.
The vote was taken by one vote per apartment and Mitchell Lama continuation won.
Appeals court ruled method 2 was the correct one.
Obviously the shareholders of the largest apartments (most shares), who stood to make the largest profits wanted to sell out.
Do you guys have any 4 bedroom units in the complex?
It was the choice of our board to put a flip-tax if the privatization went through.
I only know only a little about rental Mitchell-Lamas. Waterside Plaza privatized several years ago and, from what a former resident tells me, the owner negotiated with the tenants and agreed to sell them units for a couple hundred thousand dollars (probably 1/2 to 1/3 of the market price then). Another former Mitchell-Lama across 2nd Avenue from EMP also left the program and gradually raised rents. About 5 years ago, a couple thought they still had a decent rate when they were "only" paying about $3700 for their 2-bedroom. The rates have gone up further since then and they have since relocated.
Is there some provision, as far as you know about rental apartments automatically going into rent stabilization after a landlord takes the place private. I remember something about that pretty long ago when Independence Plaza I believe it's called?? North on Chambers Street and the Hudson River went private.
Memory hazy on it.
Long long ago friends had a big two bedroom there with a large terrace aimed at the river and they were paying bupkis. I think they probably hid the fact that they owned a waterfront home on Fire Island worth sever hundred G's.
But they probably croaked before the owner took it private. Brand new, fireplace mantle...to die for.
Last edited by Kefir King; 11-11-2014 at 10:35 AM..
I know of no provision like that. I do know that when Waterside Plaza privatized there was a lawsuit saying it should go into some type of rent stabilization. The fact that 2 bedroom apartments are now on the market for around $4500 or so makes it look like Waterside won that court battle. That said, I found an old NYT article saying Waterside Plaza had “settlement tenants” which were allowed to stay as long as they wanted with 7.5 percent annual rent increases. That along with what I heard about tenants having the option to buy at a discounted rate make it sound like the privatization was not as simple as leaving the program and then raising all the units to market rate. Another nearby development, Stuyvesant Town, offered rather low rents under a different program. The development was sold and, as people moved out, they brought in market rate tenants. A court later ruled that charging market rate was improper as they were getting tax benefits from the J-51 program which required the units to be rent stabilized. So, I think there are a lot of variables that can cause some type of rent stabilization to occur.
On the UES, there is a former Mitchell Lama rental called Knickerbocker.
I have heard from a resident that when the landlord took it private, the tenants were issued a quasi Section 8 voucher good only on this single building that kept rents increasing only at rent-stabilization rates.
He claimed that he his family still holds one and has a large very affordable apartment.
He said he cannot take that voucher to another place.
I assume the City or state picks up the difference between that affordable rate and some higher version of market rate (perhaps one approved by the state/city?)
I kind of assumed that most ML rentals that stayed rental stayed that way. A couple rental towers owned by the same landlord on Third Avenue went private and are now condominiums and a two bedroom tops a $Million. (One was featured on BUYING NEW YORK...HGTV.)
A lot of the discussion is about Mitchell-Lama rentals so I thought I should mention the East Midtown Plaza is not a rental, you own shares. The results of privatization are much different for owners than renters.
Hey any update on the 2 bedrooms? I will probably check next week.
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.
