East New York goes condo

whynot_31 · June 2013

Ok, I realize that many of the readers of this message board may have never been to the Starett City section of ENY.

Hence, I provide this map:

source: urbanomnibus

Allow me to describe this area in neutral terms:

-Lots of NYCHA in the neighborhood.

-A large, reaking, sewage treatment plant.

-A large industrial park.

-Low flying airplane noise from JFK

-If you don't have a car, you take the bus up Pennsylvania Ave to the 3 train.

-It is in the 75th precinct, which is objectively described like this

In that context, I give you the "Meadowwood at Gateway" real estate development, which is adjacent to Starrett City:

http://www.meadowwoodatgateway.com/?gclid=CJySit7IyrcCFRKZ4AodOUcAlQ

Given the present demand for condos and the fact that these units have outlived the "low income renters" restictions imposed by the Mitchell Lama program, the management company of Meadowwood Gateway has decided that it should quickly sell as many units as it can as condos.

Yes, by NYC's current standards, it is quite affordable: http://www.meadowwoodatgateway.com/home-ownership.html

I even accept that this may be representative of what NYC presently has to offer to a first time homeowner: It is no worse, it is no better.

...One whom -perhaps- has worked for MTA, DOE or HHC for a few decades and saved up a deposit.

However, I shake my head and think to myself, "this is nuts. We are not going to be able to attract and retain hard working, bus drivers, nurses or teachers if places like this are the only places they can buy a home."

However, it would not surprise me if the units all sell in literally weeks.

homeowner · June 2013

There are a bunch of people currently living in Starett City and the other Gateway project (low-rise townhouses adjacent to the original Starett City project) that LOVE the complex.

I think that those people mostly

1) Are older and have lived in South Brooklyn and/or Starett City for years

2)Are car-centered and don't rely on public transit other than the express bus

3)Work in and around Southeast Brooklyn, Queens and/or LI

4)Do not send their kids to local schools after elementary schools

According to their wikipedia page, Starett City has managed to remain affordable to a diverse groups of people

The demographics of Starett City were 44.7% African American this includes African and West Indie immigrants, 38.0% White this includes Russian and Polish immigrants, 18.4% Hispanic or Latino and 4.1% Asian. As of 2000, the median household income was $56,919

This area is never going to be attractive to people looking to be actively attached to Manhattan either for business or leisure. But if you are someone who goes into the city only occasionally and who has no interest in spending time in North or Central Brooklyn, this might be the perfect place to live. It's clean, well-maintained, it has private security, and is a highly self contained community. People from the local housing projects don't wander into the complex and people from the complex rely on their cars to get them to anything that isn't located within the community such as movie theaters, restaurants and entertainment. With the construction of Gateway Plaza shopping area, issues about access to shopping have pretty much been resolved.

I think that for a certain type of Brooklynite, this is a golden opportunity that people will hop on. The original low-rise condo Gateway project did extremely well and I expect the rebranded high-rises to do the same.

whynot_31 · June 2013

Yes, I think of it as an "island of civility".

Whenever I have been there, security has been very visible.

It is, in many ways, a gated community for the lower middle class, a demographic I loosely describe as composing the union workforce of MTA, DOE and/or HHC.

It just amazes me how much better this group might live in a city other than NYC. This, of course, assumes that they could find similar jobs.

Although an assumption, I suspect that they would not have to face the issues I describe elsewhere.

In my mind, they would get a neighborhood that they could freely and safely explore with their medium size dog.... They could attend their local middle school.

pragmaticguy · June 2013

I lived in Starrett when I first got married. We were there from 1977-1980. For $235/mo we had a two bedroom apt with a balcony and all utilities included with central air. The garage spot was another $36/mo. It was such a fantastic place to live when my wife (at the time) kept bugging me that we should buy a house I didn't want to, though we did anyhow. When I first moved there, they didn't take people on welfare and they actually came out to your present home to make sure you were clean and tidy, else you wouldn't be allowed to move in. We were the first in our apt. so everything was brand new. Not the same today, but when I lived there they had the most dynamic and forward thinking management company you would ever want.

whynot_31 · June 2013

From my understanding, Starrett City has changed hands several times, and is now marketed as Spring Creek Towers. Although no longer under the Mitchell Lama program, I believe all are still rental units, and all but the largest apartments are still covered by rent stabilization. From my understanding, the investors who bought the property after Mitchell Lama expired, did so under the condition that it remained affordable.

Given the area today, in my view the difference between those rents and what the market rents would be is very small.

I state that because of how cheap the condos at Meadowwood are presently selling for, despite having nicer finishes and potentially better immediate neighbors.

idlewild · June 2013

The smartest move you'll ever make.

pragmaticguy · June 2013

The apartments are not rent stabilized. Rent goes according to your income. I have a client there who has about $50,000/yr income and is a retired senior citizen. He's paying nearly $1200/mo for his one bedroom. Other people pay less as they require the tenant to provide a copy of their taxes. If there's a big jump in income a big jump in rent will ensue. If there's a smaller income the rent may be lowered.

pragmaticguy · June 2013

I watched the commercial and the funny thing is, is that apartments were never "sold" they were rented. Originally, it was supposed to be a co-op development on the order of Co-op City and it was called Twin Pines Village. My parents had a $500 deposit on an apartment back in the late 60s. Financing fell through as not enough people signed up and my folks got their money back. They were quite excited when they told my sister and me that we would be moving there in a year or so and that was back around 1967 but it never materialized. Parents ended up buying a two family house in Canarsie and that's where we moved.

whynot_31 · June 2013

PragmaticGuy said:

The apartments are not rent stabilized. Rent goes according to your income. I have a client there who has about $50,000/yr income and is a retired senior citizen. He's paying nearly $1200/mo for his one bedroom. Other people pay less as they require the tenant to provide a copy of their taxes. If there's a big jump in income a big jump in rent will ensue. If there's a smaller income the rent may be lowered.

This sounds as if the development is now governed by HUD Section 8 rules, as opposed to DHCR rent Stabilization rules.

Usually when Mitchell Lama buildings expire, the landlords are given an incentive to submit to either HUD or HCR, in order to preserve the affordable housing for longer.

When the developement are in attractive parts of the ciy, the incentives sometimes are not enough, and the properties eventually go market rate.

Peter Cooper Village - Stuyvesant Town [located in prime Manhattan] is slowly going market rate as a result of a similar scenario.

pragmaticguy · June 2013

By the way, when I lived there back in the late 70s there it was Mitchell Lama but I was required to provide copies of my taxes as well. I think this was for the management to show that they still qualified for funding and that they were meeting certain guidelines, whatever they may have been.

whynot_31 · June 2013

Yea, most of the affordable housing that is developed as rentals requires that people recertify by showing their income every year.

I have a friend whose income was too LOW to get into a Mitchell Lama co-op, and they check the amount of income you paid taxes on for the preceding year.

So, she actually inflated her income by claiming that she worked at cash jobs, and paid tax on income she never received, in order to get in.

Thankfully, her income has improved since then. She is now "rich enough" to live in affordable housing.

pragmaticguy · June 2013

At the time mine was too low as well, had to have my father co-sign on the lease.

whynot_31 · June 2013

They would not accept cosigners or even a large deposit. They used the proof of earned income as a way to screen out people who did not work.

pragmaticguy · June 2013

Well, since this wasn't a co-op but a rental they did accept a co-signer. And you can just figure out how low my income was at the time if the rent was only $235.

whynot_31 · June 2013

Above, you stated that was in 1977. I think I may have received a better deal in 1996. Here's some background:

In the 60 and 70s, HUD funds were available to large non-profits and hospitals to create housing for their (generally-very-under-paid) staff.

From 1996 thru 2000, I was lucky enough to live in such a complex, despite not being completely broke.

I paid $463 a month. By surviving largely off ramen, at the end of the 4 years, I had saved up about $20k.

I used that as a downpayment to buy a small, $80k coop in 2000. Said coop then appreciated as did future purchases, but I largely credit that affordable housing as giving me that first big leg up.

East New York goes condo

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories