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.
If people were to read the article, they'd see that the "gym" is a 15 by 20 foot room. I doubt opening up the gym to all of the building's tenants (417 units) would be plausible.
It doesn't matter.
Management should have thought about that before they tried to enact their own version of Jim Crow.
Even if the lower courts rule in favor of this nonsense, I can see it moving up to various higher courts.
It's not segregation by race you *****. We all know what you are hinting at using jim crow as a reference.
I never said it was by "race". Did I? I said it's a "form" of Jim Crow. You know what the f---k I mean.
Quote:
It's all about MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No s__t Sherlock. Who can't decipher that from the article.
Quote:
It's about the PERK of using a gym simply because the tenant pays a significantly higher rent than an RS tenant.
Why can't that RS tenant pay a fee to use a gym that was built in THEIR building?
The higher paying tenant isn't to blame. Management is for trying to play SEGREGATIONIST games.
It's wrong and Management knows it's wrong which is why they never responded to current tenants who wanted to use the facilities. They now have egg on their face.
You can't perform "gentrification" inside a building of EXISTING TENANTS.
Honestly, I'd much rather pay the CHEAPER RENT than care about partaking of any of the amenities. So, I'd just join a local gym with the hundreds I'd be saving living in a RS apartment in Manhattan. No question.
if they can't pay - legally or otherwise - then they can't use it. i mean i dont see what the problem is.
I don't either. The higher income tenant doesn't have to pay, because it's already a perk of their lease.
The RS tenants should be required to pay something in order to use it just like you would a regular gym.
I think it's fair.
If they don't stop it at this level, then I can see management building separate entrances, stairwells and elevators for the RS tenants to use. Of course, the higher paying tenant will use the front entrance/elevators while the RS tenants will have to use the "service" entrance with the rest of the riff raff.
Honestly, I'd much rather pay the CHEAPER RENT than care about partaking of any of the amenities. So, I'd just join a local gym with the hundreds I'd be saving living in a RS apartment in Manhattan. No question.
But this is fine if you CHOOSE to do this not because it's mandatory.
From the description, the gym doesn't seem worth it anyway.
Management should have thought about that before they tried to enact their own version of Jim Crow.
I'm finding it quite offensive that you think the lower rent tenants are black people. Rent Stabilized tenants are actually people from a vast spectrum of ethnicities (white included) and financial backgrounds
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.
I assume you will never respond to anything I type every again? 
