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.
It's shocking to me that it's even possible for Mitchell Lama coops to privatize.
Once affordable housing should remain always affordable housing!
All these affordable housing schemes are affordable for a set period of time to get certain taxbreaks. From their very conception there are not meant to affordable forever, unless you're really with NYCHA, shelters, or LAMP buildings.
If I were you, as long as it wouldn't hurt me financially, I would vote yes. If you and your partner can afford the mortgage, there is no downside to you. You could stay there for the rest of your lives. Or as property values skyrocket due to phase one of the Second Avenue Subway being open, if you and your partner need to sell, you could sell for a lot of money and make a huge profit.
If later on this year his orangeness funds the remaining phases of the Second Avenue Subway like he said he would as a part of his transportation initiative , your property values would go up even further.
There is nothing wrong with looking out for your own economic self interest. However, this is your choice and your call.
If I were you, as long as it wouldn't hurt me financially, I would vote yes. If you and your partner can afford the mortgage, there is no downside to you. You could stay there for the rest of your lives. Or as property values skyrocket due to phase one of the Second Avenue Subway being open, if you and your partner need to sell, you could sell for a lot of money and make a huge profit.
If later on this year his orangeness funds the remaining phases of the Second Avenue Subway like he said he would as a part of his transportation initiative , your property values would go up even further.
There is nothing wrong with looking out for your own economic self interest. However, this is your choice and your call.
Yes, initially the tax breaks were given to developers etc because it's the only way things get done for the middle class otherwise nobody really cares we help the poor we gives breaks to the rich in hopes of it "trickling down." So while that was the rhetoric for it happening it does not justify the end means. Affordability was the purpose and the purpose is the same. People who had the opportunity where already subsidized. The idea of selling the middle class out of affordability to own should have not been in the equation because money is very tempting especially such a sum.
To give others on the list the same opportunity you had. If you believed this it wouldn't matter how others were voting that is why I said it. However, it seems that it is not really an option for people now with the potential of such a windfall. Sorry that it has to be at the expense of people who are waiting on the list in good faith. I understand the allure.
The point of my pithy reply to "If your vote is likely meaningless given 654 other voters, why not vote yes?" My vote is likely to be as pointless, be it yes or no, as my vote for Hillary Clinton.
First general meeting is tonight to find out the P&Q's of this process as it relates to us cooperators. I don't even know if a majority or a super-majority applies to the decision. And, of course, the amount of the flip tax is all important.
I will vote YES to privatization, because, assuming my vote matters, if New York turns bleak for me, this would help me with an easy out.
<Guy next door with a 2 bedroom apartment moved out last week, just days before we got the love note from management. Will he be pissed when he finds out about his rotten timing, although I think probably the process can linger for years.>
Last edited by Kefir King; 03-28-2017 at 06:26 AM..
The point of my pithy reply to "If your vote is likely meaningless given 654 other voters, why not vote yes?" My vote is likely to be as pointless, be it yes or no, as my vote for Hillary Clinton.
First general meeting is tonight to find out the P&Q's of this process as it relates to us cooperators. I don't even know if a majority or a super-majority applies to the decision. And, of course, the amount of the flip tax is all important.
Exactly. Somebody handed you a ladder and you pull it up after you. Very selfish. People who vote yes. Are selfish people only concerned with their own self-gain.
Analogies: You win the lottery but you know if you choose NOT to claim your winnings, the prize for everyone else is increased at the next drawing.
If you saw a $100 bill on the sidewalk, are you in any way duty bound to leave it for the next person to pick up?
You are offered a large, lucrative promotion at work but if you take it the person next in line will not get it.
Is it selfish to claim the prize?
I would be very much for eliminating Mitchell Lama privatization IF I had Mayor de Blasio's salary AND IF I was given nice free digs like Gracie Mansion.
It is for elected officials to eliminate ML privatization, not me. I just play by the rules others set up in 1955. If the rules are changed, I will abide by them.
What they need to do is create more Mitchell Lama buildings - obviously they were successful. Make them all coops and have the people pay up for the apartments.
Well, the first meeting was last night.
From the tenor of the crowd (boisterous) I am guessing that the first of three votes, to draw up a feasibility study by a 50-50 vote will fail. Estimated cost will be 100K, and although that would amount to about $150 per apartment, many seem not very good with long division.
The LAST two votes need a 2/3 majority for privatization.
So I guess I will remain at Ruppert House forever (well, MY forever anyhow.)
Interesting wrinkle for very poor cooperators. After privatization, any resident can sell his apartment back to the co-op for the measly 10-20K and remain for life as a rent stabilized tenant starting at the maintenance fee he paid at the time the offer went through. I cannot see many opting for this.
Dickens described the meeting of near 1000 people best: "like a chorus of scorched cats."
Oh yeah, last attempt at Privatization never got past even the first vote either.
And to everyone who thinks Mitchell lama co-op owners should have the right to privatize you are dead wrong.
NY State law very clearly says otherwise.
Last edited by Kefir King; 03-29-2017 at 06:31 AM..
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.
