49 - 57 Crown Street
This is a reasonably complex conversation, and this article does a good job of providing the foundation for it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/nyregion/31landlord.html?pagewanted=allFast forward to 2014....
Despite:
A. Receiving $ incentives to keep it Mitchell Lama, a protracted court battle and lots of work by politicians
B. Very public "victories" claimed by Tish James and many others
The building now has a large number of vacancies, and -hence- isn't providing the amount of affordable housing that is was designed to.
As reported above, the current landlord (which is actually a large real estate firm, and hereafter referred to simply as LL) bought the building in a state of disrepair.
Since this time, repairs are being made in a manner that allows the LL to move tenants from their current units into a different unit. However, the units that the tenants moved to are often smaller (1 BR vs 2 BR), and the tenants are not allowed to return to their prior units. EVER. This tactic is legal, because the tenants' household size has shrunk since they first moved in (often decades ago), and (when combined with income) one's household size dictates the unit size allowed. In light of this, many tenants have chosen to move out of the building rather than occupy a smaller apartment.
The new LL also strictly enforces the terms of lease, whereas the prior one did not. So, tenants have been evicted for breaking house rules and late payment, whereas in the past this rarely took place.
Likewise, the LL puts much more effort in making sure that the tenants do not exceed (or go below) the income guidelines in place for their size unit. Intensive background checks are made on existing tenants to ensure that all income is being disclosed.
Housing advocates have watched the situation closely, and -to my knowledge- have not found that the landlord is doing anything illegal. The LL is simply fully exercising their rights, which causes lots of long term tenants to leave or be evicted.
Now, here's the interesting part:
The LL isn't refilling the vacant units.
As a result of the factors above, the building has become progressively "more vacant" over the last 3 years, and is now rumored to be only about half occupied. When one thinks about it, this LL is able to put progressively more money INTO the building, while receiving progressively less rent FROM IT.
Despite this, the LL is not taking any (low income or market rate) applications from tenants who wish to move in. The LL is preparing the units for tenants who are "unknown".
The next move of the LL is a mystery:
--Once all of the repairs are done, does the LL plan to fill the building with Mitchell Lama tenants, as I believe is required?
--Does the LL plan to sell the building "in a state of good repair, but with a large number of vacancies"?
--Does spending all of this $ on repairs allow the LL to legally escape the complex set of contracts that were signed, and effectively free the building from the rent and income limits that are presently in place?
Needless to say, the building has lovely views of the Botanic Garden, Prospect Park, Manhattan, etc. It also is in a rapidly changing area.
Comments
For example, while conforming with the existing regulations, the LL could (by design or mere circumstance) fill the building with tenants who are:
-Younger.
-More educated.
-At the absolute top end of the income maximums.
-Have better credit.
-Have younger children.
-Have fewer children.
-more transient
-etc
The area businesses are all watching.
Some are confident enough that they are actually already reconfiguring in anticipation.
http://www.brooklynian.com/discussion/37490/the-big-6-developments-in-western-ch-in-2013-the-big-11-developments-in-2014#Item_29
....yes, such actions are very self defeating. I'll let you know if I am able to learn more.
http://www.brooklynian.com/discussion/43995/ms-whynot-and-whynot-lead-a-walking-tour-of-western-crown-heights-sunday-may-4th-noon-#Item_18
Now, if Tivoli starts moving seniors into 1 bedrooms and then keeps the 2 and 3 bedrooms empty...and does not bring new families in...then I see that as a HUGE problem.
I also see this in relationship to the relative lack of affordable senior citizen housing in this city. I think there are a few senior citizen only residences within NYCHA, Mitchell-Lama and non-profits, but there should be more, so that people in there 60s/70s can be encouraged to think about downsizing early on, and there would be options for them.
...this funding won't last for long, and the Feds (aka HUD) look like they will have to impose more cuts (ie do more enforcement of existing rules) as time goes on.
...and not many of us want to show off how stupid we WERE, if we are still acting in the same manner.
That Gluck guy is not to be fooled with.
so, Tivoli is emptying. But nothing can be done with the building until 2024? Or does the owner plan to empty the building, and then raze it and rebuild? I see all the policy and legal language, but what is the plain english?
....the owner could refill the units NOW with folks paying below market rents, but is clearly choosing not to.
http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20140909/lower-east-side/knickerbocker-village-tenants-fighting-13-percent-rent-hike
If this practice is allowed, it may be what finally clears out the remaining tenants of Tivoli.
Note: Speculation re: a practice does not equal support of a practice.
Here's a pretty well researched article on the federal funding cuts that are driving HPD and NYCHA to enforce the rules: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/12/nyregion/budget-cuts-reshape-new-yorks-public-housing.html?ref=nyregion&_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/05/nyregion/new-york-city-housing-dept-eases-rule-forcing-low-income-tenants-to-downsize.html?ref=nyregion&_r=0
I don't believe Tivoli has any studios, so when the LL/HUD/HPD discovered tenants had one only person in their household, said residents had to effectively leave the building as a result of the losing the subsidy.
Step 1 was to force tenants of 1BRs with only 1 person out of the building.
Step 2 was to force "over housed" tenants of 2BRs into the 1 BRs.
The LL and HPD ambitiously enforced the policies. As a result, it isn't clear to me that the "easing" of the rules by HPD will have any effect on the remaining tenants.
....those affected by the policy are gone, and I can't imagine that the policy has been "eased" to the degree that it would allow new or returning tenants to move into a unit that would "over house" them.
And, while the vacant units are being renovated, the occupied units are left to decay:
http://apartable.com/buildings/49-crown-street-brooklyn#building-issues
From NYT article linked at top of thread:
"Eager to stem the loss of housing for poor, working and even middle-class New Yorkers, the city’s Housing Development Corporation has agreed to provide Mr. Gluck with low-interest mortgages totaling about $45.7 million, an amount that includes paying off loans owed by the current owner. Rents will be allowed to rise, in many cases double. Ms. Mitchell, the tenant leader at Tivoli, said rent for her one-bedroom apartment would rise to $1,370, from $656.
But the Department of Housing and Urban Development will provide tenants with larger rent subsidies to cover the increase. Tenants will be required to pay 30 percent of their income in rent.
In return, Mr. Gluck has agreed to rent regulation and is required to keep Tivoli in Mitchell-Lama until 2040. His about-face, he said, represented a change in philosophy and a recognition of the depressed market. “Our plan is to keep this building affordable,” he said.
---end quote.
I have heard of situations where buildings have become so vacant that the landlord elects to turn off the furnace and comply with the heating law by providing the tenants with electric heaters and "free" electricity.
Such situations cause the common areas to hover at around 40 degrees, just warm enough that the pipes don't freeze.
Here's an article that hints at how complex these deals can be:
http://www.silive.com/northshore/index.ssf/2015/07/30_million_rehab_project_of_st.html#incart_river
Hopefully this deal required that the landlord keep the units occupied....
Here's an article that hints at how complex these deals can be:
http://www.silive.com/northshore/index.ssf/2015/07/30_million_rehab_project_of_st.html#incart_river
Hopefully this deal required that the landlord keep the units occupied....
I do not believe many former M-L developments can be described that way.
Returning to Tivoli towers:
Beds
http://www.apartments.com/tivoli-towers-brooklyn-ny/cqngl3f/
So, the building seems to have a total of 280 units.
-Some % of them still vacant.
-The landlord constrained by rent regulation and Mitchell Lama rules until 2024.
I wonder if the city could get the Mitchell lama and rent stabilization rules waived for the vacant units, and then pay the landlord enough to fill them with homeless tenants.
...or -um- "graduates" from the shelter system who have super enhanced Vouchers.
Seems like everyone would win until 2024.