Juicy Drama in the Clinton Hill Co-ops regarding gentrification (New York: middle-class, apartments)
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.
Thought this was an interesting microcosm of what's happening in the greater Clinton Hill/Brooklyn area. I'd suggest going to the link above and reading the entire article but for those who want to skim, here's a short synopsis:
A little background about Clinton Hill Co-pps..
Quote:
Brooklyn’s Clinton Hill Cooperatives... a sprawling complex of 12 buildings built during World War II. Spurred by a co-op conversion in the early 1980s, the more than 1,200-units had over the years become home to a middle class and racially integrated mix of homeowners and rent-stabilized tenants.
Quote:
In 1984, the apartments were converted under a non-eviction plan. This meant that Greenberger needed only 15 percent of the tenants to purchase their units in order for a building to convert to co-op. Those who did not buy could continue to take advantage of rent control or rent stabilization laws. Prices started at $20,000 for a one-bedroom unit, according to a New York Times story. One longtime resident said individuals could pay several thousand less if they paid in cash. The units began appreciating quickly and over the years, Time Equities offered tenants the opportunity to buy units at a discount. The result was that Clinton Hill became a bastion of middle-class black homeowners, many of whom were teachers and civil servants.
Currently the co-op board is trying to kick out one of the handyman, named Caballero, who has been living there for 19 years rent-free with his family. The co-op's justification is that they don't need to have so many handymen/supers on site. They have a total of 16 handymen working for the co-op and 5 on-site:
Quote:
Caballero, who is 55 years old and has worked for the complex for nearly three decades, was originally one of two handymen asked to leave. The other left quietly.
Caballero, however, stunned and angry, decided to tell some of the residents after being handed a letter on January 15th.
“After 19 years, you’re gonna give me 90 days?” he said he recalled thinking after reading the letter.
This has lead to a ton of residents up in arms about gentrification, particularly as more middle-class and upper-middle class shareholders have bought into the building over the last several years (and yes there is a racial element. Older timers are mostly people of color, mostly black. Newcomers are often white):
Quote:
Last Thursday, around 75 residents staged a protest outside one of the buildings during a closed-door board meeting. According to Donnelly and others, there were security personnel and police positioned in front of the building when they arrived. Over the course of the evening, more police and security staff arrived. Chanting and holding signs that read "Hector Stays" and "Worker Justice," the protesters had unsuccessfully lobbied the board to allow some of them to attend the meeting. At one point, Caballero, along with a police officer, came outside and informed residents that it was “a done deal.” The officer also addressed the crowd: “The eviction is a done deal and we came out here to inform you guys that it's a done deal, there's nothing that you guys can do,” she said.
The Board's response:
Quote:
In a letter to residents dated February 22nd, the board denied calling the police and said they were advised by the officers not to address the protesters directly. In an attached memo, the board delineated its reasons for the decision, citing the presence of two live-in superintendents and the management company’s recommendation that having so many handymen had proven unnecessary and that having a handful of them live at the buildings for free was unfair to others who did not have the same arrangement. “It would not be properly exercising its fiduciary responsibility to unnecessarily maintain handymen in rent-free apartments,” the memo said.
Clinton Hill Co-op is a huge complex of 1200 units. I imagine there must be smaller buildings throughout Brooklyn that are experiencing the old vs new gentrification tension, but that any conflict that results doesn't lead to so much drama... like an anti-eviction activist group created among residents and a 75-person protest leading to police calls....
Last edited by harrypothead; 02-26-2019 at 04:57 PM..
also, another thing to note. Clinton Hill Co-ops, aesthetically speaking, look exactly like public housing. In addition if you are trying to buy property in this building, you're paying out the butt for market-rate hip Brooklyn apartment prices, but when you look at the residents it's VERY clear that your neighbors are going to be a lot of black and latin folks who have bought a long time back, or who are rent stabilized/controlled. So the type of yuppie who decides to buy into these co-ops are not going to be racist, at least not consciously so.
also, another thing to note. Clinton Hill Co-ops, aesthetically speaking, look exactly like public housing. In addition if you are trying to buy property in this building, you're paying out the butt for market-rate hip Brooklyn apartment prices, but when you look at the residents it's VERY clear that your neighbors are going to be a lot of black and latin folks who have bought a long time back, or who are rent stabilized/controlled. So the type of yuppie who decides to buy into these co-ops are not going to be racist, at least not consciously so.
I didn't know Clinton Hill had a large Latino population.
But yeah I agree. It's also not the yuppie's fault if the board decided that they don't need 16 supers living rent free.
also, another thing to note. Clinton Hill Co-ops, aesthetically speaking, look exactly like public housing. In addition if you are trying to buy property in this building, you're paying out the butt for market-rate hip Brooklyn apartment prices, but when you look at the residents it's VERY clear that your neighbors are going to be a lot of black and latin folks who have bought a long time back, or who are rent stabilized/controlled. So the type of yuppie who decides to buy into these co-ops are not going to be racist, at least not consciously so.
While I agree with that from the outside (the inside look nothing like NYCHA, though the indoor "public" spaces don't exactly have a condo-for-the-super-wealthy look either), they certainly have a different vibe from public housing IMO.
I’ve always wondered about the supers that live rent free, is there an adjustment in how much they are paid? Meaning are they paid less becase they are not changed rent?
Also, is the main issue in this specific situation that one of the handy men gets a sweetheart rent free deal but all of the others “on site” have to pay rent? Or that it was decided none of them get to live rent free and this particular guy decided to protest?
I’ve always wondered about the supers that live rent free, is there an adjustment in how much they are paid? Meaning are they paid less becase they are not changed rent?
Also, is the main issue in this specific situation that one of the handy men gets a sweetheart rent free deal but all of the others “on site” have to pay rent? Or that it was decided none of them get to live rent free and this particular guy decided to protest?
In my experience, yes, they are paid "less" to reflect for their rent free living. A similar situation presents itself with live-in resident managers. My condo building's resident manager is paid $40,000, which does not seem like much here in Honolulu. But he also lives rent free in a 2-bedroom condo unit, which could easily go for $2800-$3000 a month.
I’ve always wondered about the supers that live rent free, is there an adjustment in how much they are paid? Meaning are they paid less becase they are not changed rent?
Also, is the main issue in this specific situation that one of the handy men gets a sweetheart rent free deal but all of the others “on site” have to pay rent? Or that it was decided none of them get to live rent free and this particular guy decided to protest?
It is almost universally then and now (even for union buildings) chief part of compensation for superintendents/building managers a free apartment in building. Either that or in some cases where a managing agent/LL owes several properties they might get a unit in another of those buildings. Even then often they are supers for the building they "live in", and also work for the management agent/LL somewhere else.
Some properties throw in free cable and of course there is some sort of salary and other benefits (especially if union), but that is pretty much about it. On average supers don't make that much more than doormen/lobby attendants ($40k to just under $50k per year) which simply is not enough to live in NYC. But throw in a free apartment that is a pretty good perk. It also costs the LL nothing per se.
In many "old school" buildings the super was a married man with a stay at home wife. He worked another job elsewhere (maybe for LL, maybe not), while the wife took packages, dealt with ConEd/utilities, swept/hosed down the sidewalk, cleaned hallways, etc...
All up and down the UES, UWS and other prime areas of Manhattan you have live in supers, some with pretty nice apartments. More to the point their children attend the often excellent local public schools and or otherwise the super and his family take advantage of the neighborhood.
Obviously the higher up a building is on the food chain, better the super's job and perks including compensation.
This being said a good number of NYC apartment buildings do not have live in supers, especially small five or six floor walk-up buildings. This number is increasing as LLs or whoever seek to receive income from the "free" superintendent apartment. In my little neck of the woods of UES there are plenty of buildings where the super lives elsewhere. He shows up daily to sweep, clean up in/around building, take out garbage and so forth. If tenants need something done and or otherwise have issues they contact the LL's office, and or send the guy a text/email. Before that it was paging him via beeper.
Wasn't that long ago (1980's into early 1990's) that Clinton Hill was still considered a hood. Smart money began buying down there after being priced out of Fort Green. It was either there or Prospect Heights if you couldn't afford Park Slope.
By the 2000's however all bets were off for Clinton Hill. All those lovely brownstones, townhouses, mansions are or were some of the best kept housing secrets in Brooklyn, no more they're not. If you didn't buy down there then, you can forget about it today, hence why people are now going further down into Bedford Stuyvesant.
Knew someone who lived in Clinton Hill back in 1991; after her apartment was broken into for second time (the last she caught some brother climbing into her kitchen window), she made tracks. She went back a few years ago (a housewarming party) and couldn't believe how bougie the area had become.
As it relates to this thread, the area around Clinton Hill Co-ops (Lafayette Avenue) is full of beautiful old homes, some are old school NYC wood framed.
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.
