Chocolate Factory hosts District 26 City Council forum on the arts in LIC

Totally off topic but why are they digging up brand new extension of Gantry Park? They fenced off half of the great lawn and diggers have made a large trench.

Can’t say it was much of a debate. They all seemed to agree on everything, including the crazy legislation to mandate arbitration regarding lease terms for commercial tenants.

That legislation would be great if your goal is to make sure that non-profits and start-up businesses never get to lease any space in the first place. I’ve never voted Republican in my life but I’d like to hear the Republican candidate’s position.

I think Brent lost his standing in the race by saying the arts would be the last to get money during budget cuts, and he wasn’t going to tell you something different, and spent the rest of the debate talking about how he was going to find a bigger pie for funding. Dierdre at least explained how budgets work, and Jimmy had specific places that might become affordable studio space. A vote for Brent is a throw away vote, the only 2 contenders are Jimmy and Dierdre. I liked how both of them answered what defines an artist, Jimmy in particular had the perfect answer. I didn’t like how Deirdre’s in favor of higher density building in order to get a floor for artists. It’s really not worth the trade off. We are going to be over built as it is. And those development trade offs DON”T PAY OFF! Look at the library.

It seems silly#3 you couldn’t determine anything out of the debate, and how you totally misinterpret the candidates answers to the question about how they would vote on certain legislation. They are only trying to protect small business who basically built communities from being run over rough shod by those developers and owners who are not community minded and only have dollar signs in their eyes.

3, 6, Good luck. All I can say is the Republican candidate did not show nor have I seen any active campaigning in this neighborhood. As a result I know nothing about him.

I personally found the Democratic candidates refreshing, lively, and human. I look forward to Eric Gioia moving on to bigger things and having the neighborhood return to having a down to earth Councilman who is in touch with the needs of real people and businesses.

8, Um that’s why it’s important to elect a representative who will not be mugging for the camera while everyone’s interests are sold down the river.

#5 what was the misrepresentation? They all said they are in favor of legislating mandatory arbitration in commercial disputes. Maybe the intent of helping some “good” tenants is noble, but the reality is the legislation would hurt “good” owners, some of whom have invested greatly in the neighborhood (both financially and through community ties). Also people will be much less likely to invest in commercial space if control of the property is taken out of their hands.

If the tenant’s ability to pay is taken into account in arbitrating decisions, then every property owner is going to close down their property in the hopes of finding a Starbucks-like tenant. This would be a disaster for start-ups and non-profits looking for space. And I did not hear from any of the three any real signs of consideration of the possible down side to the legislation.

It is similar to addressing all complaints regarding shortcomings in schools, parks, open spaces, affordable space, etc. by saying that big bad developers should fix everything. It’s a nice message to the voters that everything can be fixed with no pain on their part. If the reality turns out over the ensuing years that developers don’t build and property owners don’t rent and problems get worse, the candidates don’t care because they’ll be in office or finished their terms before the problems really escalate.

Who is to decide what businesses are staples to the community? We’ve had a lot of strip joints, chop shops. etc. around for years. What if an art gallery or non-profit wants to move into these spaces and pay more rent? For many years this country has operated fine with idea that owners own and control property and commercial renters get the space during term of the lease. This leads to some problems for sure, but trying to fix things through mandatory arbitration will lead to worse problems.

What you are all missing is that this legislation started while Eric Gioia represented us. And this topic never even came into any local public forum.

The only candidate who has discussed bringing property owners to the table is Jimmy Van Bramer and I think that is the correct approach. The idea is to at least put forth an argument for how it might benefit the community and ultimately the local economy. From there seek input from the owners as to what they would need or want in order to sign on to the concept. It’s a give and take situation.

Not all property owners here – including big ones – agree with the course of present development here. They recognize the value of symbiotic growth of business entwined with the community rather than the hype and overheated pace we have witnessed. If the City can provide some give backs in return for stabilizing commercial rent it is a win-win situation.

oops — try this site for the legislation

http://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=452228&GUID=42F34849-58F6-4B80-97FB-3BD48A5DDD7B&Search=&Options

This is a shameful piece of legislation. Anyone who has stood in support of it is disqualified from any further consideration in my book. I don’t care if you were only given 2 seconds to comment on this. When asked if you support this the correct answer is no. What’s next? Will the government tell you that you have to renew the lease of that noisy tenant in your basement? Or maybe they will put a cap on what your next raise can be? Wake up people. Our rights are slowly being taken away from us.

It’s interesting that 19 is using similar scare tactics as the Republicans are using in the health care debate. No substantive proposals whatsoever to solve our economic mess other than keep everything in the same state that got us here.

The principles behind the legislation are (from the link provided above):
“Creating a small business lease program for establishing an environment for fair negotiations in the commercial lease renewal process in order to determine reasonable lease terms.”

For the moment ignoring the pros and cons of how to do this, to me the basic premise makes sense. It is aimed at trying to stabilize local economies that have been disrupted by the overheated residential market.

But 19, 16 etc (likely our favorite local broker) frames this as wanting to take from owners, an attack on property rights, and wants to say it will protect a bad tenant, etc. This is all pure baloney. Typical scare and bully tactics. And it is a diversion from a huge list of concerns that need to be addressed by our elected officials.

22, I sound like Hitler?? I don’t know whether to laugh or cry about that one. You are really out of it. I’m not the person who posted about Chain stores by the way. I’m the one talking about bringing owners to the table to see if a better version of the bill can be achieved.

All I can say regarding the candidates is what I said earlier before the rabid attack. I am supporting Van Bramer. It’s interesting that he has a diversity of endorsements that include the Daily News and The New York Times. I didn’t quite consider the Times to be an anti-development publication.

I am not #19 and I am not a broker. (I love how on this blog the minute you start to say anything that is remotely pro-business you are immediately accused of being a broker.) I also am not responsible for the other posts speaking out against this legislation. There’s more than one person here speaking out against this. Let me put it in simple terms that you can understand. I am just an ordinary person who sees how incredibly unfair it is to a property owner to dictate to him the terms of a lease renewal. As a landlord I would be pissed if on one hand I have chain store x that is ready to pay $100 a sqft, but I’m forced by some bureaucrat to lease to mom and pop under long 10 year leases for $50 sqft. Can you see past your socialistic tendencies and agree that something may be wrong with that? Granted there may be some community benefit to having the small mom and pops, but do the ends justify the means? To avoid screwing the leesor, you screw the lessees? Don’t they also contribute to the community? Pay taxes? Have rights? Also there is the underlying fundamental issue of property rights. People have died fighting in wars for the property rights that we have. I don’t think we should toss them away so cavalierly. If the government wants to control the use of land to the point of getting involved with lease negotiations the why not take all property away from private individuals and go the route of communism where the state owns all property?

Don’t you all know the way to win any argument is to compare your opponent’s views to Hitler. In NYC, it also works if you compare your opponent’s view to a Republican’s.

26, The Times is extremely pro development. That is well known and well documented.

25, my complaint is that in your haste to condemn anyone who supports this admittedly imperfect bill you have over simplified the issue and drawn some rather harsh lines in the sand. There are plenty of areas where we regulate business in order to create a level playing field in the hope of broadening opportunity. And there have been plenty of areas where we have deregulated in order to try to remove obstacles to expansion.

I support the idea that differing views need to be at the table to find solutions that benefit us all. That is not Communism or Socialism or an attack on the rights people fought wars for or any other scary buzzwords or charged statement. It is pure common sense.

Ok 30, we’re all very interested in all your other enlightened social views – not. What exactly is the basis of your completely unfounded statement that rent stabilization is a failed policy or is that just a line you heard somewhere and you like the way it sounds? Let’s hear some substance – not wind.

I also take it you were very pleased with the success(?) of deregulation of the securities, banking, and insurance industries.

This is about your deep seated political views that have little to do with voting in tomorrow’s important primary. For me the topic is which candidate will serve this neighborhood’s needs. For you the answer is apparently no one – except maybe a ditto head. For the rest of us we will try to make a difference by voting on Tuesday for the candidate we feel is best.

Peace.

Why support an imperfect bill. Why not put your effort into making a bill that is better? The clearest evidence of rent stabilizations failure is the fact that the problem that it was supposed to solve still exists after several decades of rent control. If that isn’t proof then I don’t know what is. You have Charlie Rangle with 4 rent stabilized apartments in Harlem. Why does a US representative need rent stabilization? Meanwhile the average joe can’t find a place for decent amount. Why? Because a good portion of the housing inventory never comes to market. Once you get one of these $400 a month deals you don’t leave. You hand it down in your family across generations. Getting a rent stabilizeed apartment is like winning the lottery. Meanwhile since the rents are keep artificially low everyon else rent goes through the roof. Study after study has shown it doesn work. when rent stabilization laws are taken off the books rents actually go DOWN on average. See Boston for a good example. The market like water always finds its level – unless you have people monkeying around trying to do social engeneering through public policy.

I will agree that 33 finally made some points worth discussing. I only wish 33 had the ability to acknowledge the possibility that other views may have merit as well. For example the particular points about rent stabilization are indeed true but this is not the whole picture. Thousands of livelihoods have been preserved by stabilization. And this has not been a detriment to property owners.
But I’m fairly sure 33 will not go there.

People forget that the original debate over rent stabilization was very simple. The tenant groups asked the owner groups to show the facts and figures to support the need for x% increase. Year after year the landlord representation groups fought the concept. Btw, I’m a landlord of more than one property but I feel I know what fairness means.

Charlie Rangels’ livelihood was preserved by stabilization, obviously.

Other examples:

The wife of the former Monkees singer Micky Dolenz pleaded guilty to stealing more than $130,000 in fraudulent rental subsidies from a New York City housing agency, the woman’s lawyer said. Although she had lived in California with her husband after they married in 2002, she was receiving $2,800 a month in rental subsidies for a two-bedroom apartment at 1619 Third Avenue as of late 2007, Manhattan prosecutors said. Her portion of the rent was $819.

The State Court of Appeals, heard arguments in Katz Park Avenue Corporation v. Bianca Jagger, the human rights advocate and the former wife of the Rolling Stones rocker Mick Jagger. Basically, Ms. Jagger’s landlord evicted her from her Park Avenue apartment last year, arguing that she could not maintain a primary residence in the United States because she is a British citizen. Ms. Jagger, the actress and human rights advocate, whose marriage to the British rocker Mick Jagger ended in 1980, has said the apartment is her primary residence. Ms. Jagger paid $4,614 a month for her 18th-floor apt.

Apartment 11L of the Apthorp is 3,000 square feet, 8 rooms, and currently rents for $2,850/month. The O’Neals, who run restaurants O’Neal’s and, just blocks from the building, the 79th Street Boat Basin, started renting back in 1971—back then, it was an outrageous $675/month—and now share the space with their 37-year-old son, his ex-girlfriend, and their 6-year-old grandson. The Times reports, “Having made it through the 15-year real estate boom with their tenancy intact, the O’Neals, who have been careful to keep their household income below the $175,000 maximum allowed for stabilized tenants with rents above $2,000, don’t seem too concerned about any possible fallout from the bust.”

The fact that you supp0rt rent stabilization even without means testing is ridiculous.

Few isolated incidents? Well how about a few more:

Ever wonder why Nora Ephron wrote so fondly of the Upper West Side in You’ve Got Mail? Perhaps it’s because the director/screenwriter was paying just $2,000 a month to live in a fifth-floor eight-room apartment in a full-block limestone building with the vaulted tunnel entranceways, on Broadway from West 78th to 79th.

Few rental buildings in the city have been as hospitable to public officials, past and present, as the Rudin Management Company’s high rise at 215 East 68th Street. Some entered as rent-stabilized tenants; some retain that status, while others are paying deregulated prices, though often below what today’s bloated real estate market could command. Former Mayor David N. Dinkins lives there, as did a predecessor, John V. Lindsay. Norman Goodman, the New York County clerk, and Burton B. Roberts, former administrative judge of State Supreme Court in the Bronx, are tenants, as are Betty Weinberg Ellerin, former presiding justice of the state’s Appellate Division, First Department, and Justice Jacqueline W. Silbermann, administrative judge of the civil branch of State Supreme Court in Manhattan. Also Howard Safir, a former police commissioner; Thomas Von Essen, a former fire commissioner; and John Roland, the former WNYW-TV/Channel 5 anchor. Richard Aurelio, a deputy mayor under Mr. Lindsay, used to live there. So did Andrew P. Beame, a lawyer and grandson of another former mayor, Abraham D. Beame; Hazel N. Dukes, the former president of the Off-Track Betting Corporation who pleaded guilty to embezzlement; and Melvyn Altman, a lawyer who did time for racketeering. Tony Bennett once lived there, and so did the songwriter Sammy Cahn — until, his widow says, they were forced out to make way for a preferred tenant.

The governor of New York pays about $1,250 a month for a two-bedroom, rent-stabilized apartment in central Harlem, even while owning a home upstate in Guilderland and having unfettered access to the 40-room Governor’s Mansion in Albany. Governor Paterson and his wife, Michelle, made about $270,000 last year, according to their tax returns.

Cyndi Lauper, 1980s pop-music icon, and her husband, the actor David Thornton, enjoy their West End Avenue apartment at the cut-rate, rent-stabilized price of $989 per month, even though the state Court of Appeals rebuffed the couple’s attempt to slash that figure even more.

Mia Farrow had a $2,900 a month, 11-bedroom apartment on Central Park West.

Shall I continue? I have more.

Wow 43 seems to have made a hobby of this. Gee, I wonder what the vested interest might be? Could it maybe be real estate?

And 44 is just foul with nothing but hate for others. It’s sad. No need to even respond to that garbage. Fact is we have rent stabilization.

Oh, you will all note that neither of them has responded to my questions about regulation of the financial industries. I wonder why that is?

Uh no, 46 the misdirection was yours.