Upcoming Lottery- 875 4th Avenue, Sunset Park Brooklyn (title, pet friendly)
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.
Has anyone who is not CB heard back from Rikki?
I still feel like this process is taking WAY too long.
She JUST finished with my file, being CB, and told she is still working with the lower CB log numbers with their applications. I think she will be finishing up soon with CB folk.
She JUST finished with my file, being CB, and told she is still working with the lower CB log numbers with their applications. I think she will be finishing up soon with CB folk.
Congratulations!!! Yea last week she said she was backed up so that makes sense. Ahh the anxiety lol
that should not be allowed, its up to you if you want to choose paying for amenities, can you call hpd housing connect line to get clarity around it.
Many multi-family of all sorts have mandatory amenity fees. Condo, co-op, free market and even "affordable" or whatever housing rentals.
Once built and or installed amenities cost a building money regardless of who often or how many persons use. If enough residents opt-out then the thing sits there costing money and but isn't generating enough or any income.
Far as rental buildings are concerned if a service, amenity, appliance or whatever is mentioned in lease as being provided by LL it cannot be removed easily if at all. Doing so may trigger tenants to push for reduction in rent because a service once provided, now is not.
Finally, human nature is what it is; people may say they don't want or need a particular amenity to get out of paying, but then try to sneak in anyway.
Many multi-family of all sorts have mandatory amenity fees. Condo, co-op, free market and even "affordable" or whatever housing rentals.
Once built and or installed amenities cost a building money regardless of who often or how many persons use. If enough residents opt-out then the thing sits there costing money and but isn't generating enough or any income.
Far as rental buildings are concerned if a service, amenity, appliance or whatever is mentioned in lease as being provided by LL it cannot be removed easily if at all. Doing so may trigger tenants to push for reduction in rent because a service once provided, now is not.
Finally, human nature is what it is; people may say they don't want or need a particular amenity to get out of paying, but then try to sneak in anyway.
most affordable units, especially the ones that are not 130 amis, during the CB approval process to get higher FAR have language that alludes towards not charging fees to the lower AMI units.
If you look at quite a few recent housing connect developments with lower ami's the base amenities are covered (lounge, gym, etc). The reason is that the developer adding more fees to people with lower incomes and in lower AMI's is an additional burden that should be avoided and the lower AMI's should be exempt from.
This building is a combo of 130 and 80 AMI's, and the developer not installing washer dryers in the lower AMI units yet leaving a space for the tenants to do so definitely rubs me the wrong way, and to top that they are charging an unavoidable amenity fee whether you use it or not.
In this example, there is a preference / set aside for mobility and other impairments and I am pretty certain the developer did not go out of their way to allow access and usability for each kind of impairment.
most affordable units, especially the ones that are not 130 amis, during the CB approval process to get higher FAR have language that alludes towards not charging fees to the lower AMI units.
If you look at quite a few recent housing connect developments with lower ami's the base amenities are covered (lounge, gym, etc). The reason is that the developer adding more fees to people with lower incomes and in lower AMI's is an additional burden that should be avoided and the lower AMI's should be exempt from.
This building is a combo of 130 and 80 AMI's, and the developer not installing washer dryers in the lower AMI units yet leaving a space for the tenants to do so definitely rubs me the wrong way, and to top that they are charging an unavoidable amenity fee whether you use it or not.
In this example, there is a preference / set aside for mobility and other impairments and I am pretty certain the developer did not go out of their way to allow access and usability for each kind of impairment.
1. Community board "approval" or whatever is advisory only. While city government may (and often does) take whatever comes out of those bodies into account, that's far as things go. Local council person has far more pull in these matters.
2. Whatever final result regarding rents, amenity charges and so forth are baked into cake when city approves project.
Person or persons in city government obviously examined things and said "um-hum, ah-ha, ok, that seems fine" and approved the deal.
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.
