[YankeeFan]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2008/10/13/20.....r_50_years_in_park_s.html

It has been home for 50 years.

Ella Taliercio raised three kids in her two-bedroom Brooklyn apartment, laid two of them to rest in the church across the street and still works a few blocks from her front door.

When she moved into the Park Slope home in 1958, there was no hot running water and rent was $33 a month.

Now the 66-year-old faces eviction because the Berkeley Carroll School - which owns Taliercio's rent-controlled home - wants to renovate her building as part of a multimillion-dollar classroom expansion.

"It's my home," a tearful Taliercio said. "How do you just shut the door on something where you've been for so many years?

"It's like closing a box, it's like a death. How do you just go on?"

When the Berkeley Carroll School - which charges up to $29,000 a year per pupil - bought the site in the 1980s, Taliercio was offered $50,000 to move out, she says.

Her rent was $147.08 a month, and she refused the offer. But as every other tenant vacated the building, she and her husband, Steve, became the sole occupants.

Two years ago, she was approached again and told she would receive $20,000 if she left. Her rent is still $147.08 a month.

"I can't even think about [leaving] because it really upsets me," said Taliercio. "My children are buried at Green-Wood Cemetery five minutes away, and I can go over there a few times a week. That's why I don't want to leave. I just don't think they're being fair."

Rent-controlled tenants are exempt from eviction unless the landlord is a nonprofit organization, like Berkeley Carroll.

The school, in an application to the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal's Office of Rent Administration, says it intends to renovate the entire premises to "provide for classrooms, workspaces and support spaces."

Taliercio says the home contains precious memories of her two deceased children, who were twins, and 50 years in a Brooklyn neighborhood that has undergone huge changes.

"Besides the apartment holding all the memories, my whole life has been here," she said. "It's made a big turnaround. I remember the race riots - people left, but I stayed.

"I couldn't afford to rent around here anymore, but I don't want to leave Park Slope."

[YankeeFan]

http://gothamist.com/2008/10/14/longtime_park.....slope_resident_told_t.php

Longtime Park Slope Resident Told to Scram by Berkeley Carroll School
Ella Taliercio moved into her Park Slope two-bedroom in 1958, raised three kids there (burying two of them in Green-Wood Cemetery), and still works in the neighborhood. But now she and her husband have got to go because the fancy Berkeley Carroll School, which owns her building, wants to turn it into classrooms. The apartment is rent-stabilized—Taliercio paid $33 a month in '58 and $147.08 today—but Berkeley Carroll has non-profit status, enabling the school to evict the couple. Taliercio tells the Daily News through tears, "It's my home. How do you just shut the door on something where you've been for so many years?" Don't worry, Ella, Berkeley administrators will have the eviction marshal help you with that.

[booklaw]

If she's been the sole occupant of the building since the 80's, which is what the article implies, paying a pittance each month, then she's an idiot to expect the owner of the building to tolerate her forever. She should have taken the buyout and found a rent-stabilized apartment.

[caseopele]

How do they have non-profit status when they charge 29k a year tuition?
_________________
A man needs a little madness, or else he never dares cut the rope and be free. -Nikos Kazantzakis

[booklaw]

I don't think that non-profit status rules out making a profit... it just requires that any profits be used for the educational (or charitable or whatever) purposes of the institution.

And even with such high tuition costs, the school probably doesn't make much of a profit, because it employs many teachers, custodians, etc., has high building maintenance and renovation costs, and also doesn't charge full tuition to its lower-family-income students.

[caseopele]

I'm sorry but I don't buy that (not you, booklaw). I sincerely doubt they employ that much staff and have that many lower-income students. I'm willing to bet they make a decent profit, no senior staff is hurting for money at that school.
_________________
A man needs a little madness, or else he never dares cut the rope and be free. -Nikos Kazantzakis

[YankeeFan]

booklaw, do you work at berkeley carroll?

[hitokiri]

[homeowner]

You'd be surprised how much it takes to run a school. I've sat on the boards of a few charter schools and I've learned that a lot of the independent schools don't end the year with googobs of money. They rely significantly on alumni donations and their endowments to make ends meet. While the staff gets paid a living wage, even the headmasters and the 20+ year staff aren't raking in Wall Street kinds of dollars.

Besides, BC needs to replace its early childhood center so this is really just the domino effect of institutions growing in high market neighborhoods with limited space availability.

[metalnyc]

she once gave me attitude at the gym. to the curb with her, i say!

fyi, just because you are non-profit doesn't mean you don't make a profit, it just means the profits are not distributed to any owners and/or partners, they must be used for the betterment or operations of the organization.

[scarlett]

I worked at a private school on the UES and they charged more than $30K tuition even for pre-schoolers. They had a strict budget of capitol improvements, increasing salaries to be in line with education and of course the endowment. That endowment factor is huge. It ensures the future of the school. Just sayin.

I feel bad for her, but think of all the money this woman has saved. She is at retirement age and she should have quite a nest egg to buy something or rent something. If she had been paying half of what I pay for the last twenty years she would have almost $300k. Um yeah.

[bullyboy]

I always start out siding with the occupant, but she lost me.

We pay many many times that rent and honestly, we can't afford to stay. Which is why we're making plans to move next year.

[new2hood]

I feel as if this woman is parroting some sob story her lawyer fed her to make this a PR story. I understand she doesn't "want" to move, but she's paying an absurd amount of rent and has been given several opportunities to leave with $$ in her pocket, which, combined with $$ she should have saved paying such a small rent, would allow her to avoid financial hardship.

I have memories of beloved family members in several homes at which I no longer live, and not once did I think those memories gave me the right to hold on to those properties (although looking back, I wish they did).

I can understand why she's sad, certainly, but she had to know this good thing would come to an end. And perhaps it will be good for her happiness to look forward, not back.

[bohuma]

I think it's sad that she's losing her home, but reality is reality. In 1980 she should have taken the buyout money and paid a broker to get her another rent stabilized apartment in Park Slope, or bought a co-op. I'm sure that if she's very hard up, she'll qualify for public housing or a section 8 benefit. The upshot is that she can't stay where she is and unless she has saved a buttload of cash by having what amounts to free accommodation for the last twenty years (possibly longer), she'll have to leave the area. She's made her bed, now she has to lie in it. What is it they say about putting all one's eggs in one basket?

[whynot_31]

two nit-picking points: The wait list for NYCHA is years. Section 8 waiting lists and lotteries are frozen.

Now back to the topic at hand: Yes, it sucks to be her. She should have taken the buyouts. If you rent, you can never be assured of permanence. ...she should have saved some of that money she wasn't spending on rent.

And definately "she should look forward and not back". She got a deal for years; how many of us can say that?
_________________
Hey you! Enlighten up.

[modsquad]

This is just the beginning of the exit negotiation. Generate some bad press for the school and get the money up there to ease her pain of moving. Is it backfiring? Hard to tell. She needs to suffer a "condition" that brings her to the emergency room (in an ambulance if possible) if the sympathy doesn't move in her favor

[whynot_31]

Berkley Carrol hopefully has hired a good attorney/spin artist as well. ...C'mon, it'll be fun, just like the Lower East Side eviction battles all over again!

...needless to say the school has a lot to lose with their lefty tution paying parents if they end up being portrayed by the press like greedy entitled jerks.

Or rather, what parent would ADMIT to wanting their kids taught by greedy entitled jerks?

...maybe the kids are the jerks for wanting to evict her so they can get an expansion.
_________________
Hey you! Enlighten up.

[bullyboy]

Seriously, that 50K would have made a tasty downpayment.

[tajmb]

If you think for a second that this woman doesn't have a nice country home somewhere or another apartment in the husband's name, you are crazy. She has had a job at a local bank (where she's reportedly a not very pleasant person to deal with) and a good income the whole time she lived at her landlords expense.

She is nobody's victim. She has enough money to buy a place right here in park slope if she doesn't already have one she's renting to someone else for 3k/mnth.

[Jamzer]

[LongTimeSloper]

[caseopele]

I didn't say teachers, I said senior staff. Good teachers should be paid accordingly, please don't claim that I said otherwise.
_________________
A man needs a little madness, or else he never dares cut the rope and be free. -Nikos Kazantzakis

[new2hood]

I don't see it as cold for people to call this woman on trying to scheister the system, regardless of where her personal ghosts live.

[LongTimeSloper]

And how is she trying to sheister the system? By not wanting to be thrown out of her apartment.

I guess I am missing something here-is she trying to sheister the system because she refused the buy outs from years ago? Is she trying to sheister the system because she is refusing to leave? Where is the sheistering? Please explain this to me.


One of my neighbors for years refused to be bought out of her apartment, because even with 50k -where would she go? She was a single woman who worked as a secretary for many years and did not make a lot of money-maybe 40k to 50k. So, while 50k would make a nice down payment-she wouldn't be able to afford the rest of the living expenses unless she moved out of NY which she did not want to do. Again, not everyone living in Park Slope is making 200k per year!

[Drano]

"It's like closing a box, it's like a death. How do you just go on?"

Uh, I know it's tough to part with a sweet, sweet deal but let's not overplay the hand here; this isn't like a farm that's been in the family and worked for generations. It's an apartment that the occupant doesn't even own.

So to answer the question: you move and you cope. My grandparents ran into a similar situation well into their 60's and although they were certainly less than pleased they dealt with it. Even if there had been some legal framework that allowed them to squat for years, they would have considered it wrong to do so - but they were crazy and old-fashioned like that.

[new2hood]

The scheistering (although that may have been a tad strong, my bad) is in the PR effort and transparent heartstring tugging that's going into this woman's efforts to stay in an apartment that is not hers. She does not own it. She gave B-C a paltry sum in exchange for her monthly stay in this space, and now they need/want to use it. I've had to move when I didn't want to, my parents had to move when they didn't want to, there are lots of people that have to move when they don't want to.

As I said, I understand her sadness, but this seems to be a ploy to buck the rules.

[vidro3]

[LongTimeSloper]

I don't care what paltry sum she gave BC all these years-it was a rent controlled apartment and I assume she had a lease. I don't see why everyone thinks that just because she doesn't own it and had a good deal all these years, she should just walk away! I mean, she was a tenant, she did her end of the bargain by paying the rent and she is by no means obligated to just take the buy out offered if she doesn't want to.

Every one here seems to think that oh well, she had a good run, leave now because the landlord tells you to leave. But, I see it as she also has rights as a tenant-no matter what she has been paying all these years!

[caseopele]

[whynot_31]

Well, the rumor is that as a nonprofit, the school can evict her regardless of being rent controlled.

So, her rights may be only in her mind. ...and her attorney's. ...the judge will decide.
_________________
Hey you! Enlighten up.

[LongTimeSloper]

I still love that non profit status!! yet, they are going to do a multi million dollar renovation!

[LongTimeSloper]

[whynot_31]

Non-profits can pay their staff as well as they like. ...and have as nice of facililites as they like.

Harvard ...Columbia. You don't have do donate, or send your kids to them, but you'll likely have to move out of their building if they own it.

As vidro3 stated all good things must come to an end...

Advice: First reform the tax code to bring integrity back to the term "non-profit". Then, reform the rent control laws. Then, finally, tell your neighbors weather you are proud of them.

Until then, the judge will likely tell her it sucks to be her.
_________________
Hey you! Enlighten up.

[new2hood]

...or you could offer her space at your place for $147 a month.

[tajmb]

LTS, you are missing the point. It's not that anyone thinks she can buy an apartment now for the $20k buyout she's now being offered. She could have bought one in the 80s for the $50k buyout she was offered then. But the real issue is that she and her husband have had decades with a minimal rent and reasonable incomes during which they no doubt piled up cash somewhere. She can now use that to buy a place they cannot be thrown out of.

[booklaw]

YankeeFan, I have no relationship of any kind with the B-C school. Both of my kids went there for pre-school, and one went (unhappily, in fact) to Middle School there. She is now 31 years old. It's been a long, long time, and I have no feelings of loyalty to the school.

Long Time Sloper, I did not suggest the lady should have found another rent-controlled apartment. I said she should have found a rent-stabilized apartment.

I submit, LTS, that you are allowing your sympathy for a supposedly poor old lady to overwhelm your good sense. She milked the rent-control system (as well as her landlord) for many, many years. Her landlord has not constructed a phony excuse to get rid of her in order to raise the rent (as many landlords would be tempted to do). BC has a good reason, and apparently a reason which is sufficient under the rent control law, to remove her from its building. She should stop whining and move.

[Anastasia Beaverhausen]

I'm confused - does rent-controlled vs. rent stabalized mean that there is no percentage increase of rent? She's been paying 150.00 a month for over 20 years. Regardless of the situation - I can't feel sorry for her for that.
_________________
Babies aren't meat! They're not even people!

[eggcream]

The article clearly states she's been there since 1958.

I think it's a disgrace and she should stay put or the school should give her a lot more money.

[new2hood]

But she's been the ONLY tenant in the building since the 80s.

[eggcream]

How do you know they have cash piled up? Do you know her life's story?

[Hamilton]

sounds like a lot slopers are suffering from low rent envy.....

[Jamzer]

[Jamzer]

[The Chipster]

She had it good. She should be grateful, and I'm sure is FULLY aware of what's been going on around her, so how long did she expect her golden parachute to last?! Yeah, I told my kids we'd "live here forever!" and that was 2 rentals ago...so I have no sympathy for her either.
_________________
Ask a burning question, get a burning answer.

[vidro3]