Gothamist: 60 Room East Village Building Goes to Family

erinyes

Fri, 27 Apr 2007 18:09:53 -0500

"The real "putz" in this situation was the tenants that were offered new digs close to the place that they are residing." Oh, really? Maybe someone should have told that to the tenants , since no such offer was ever made. And yes, they are corporate landlords. An LLC is a corporation and they bought this building as an LLC, then forced the original owners out, as they have done in the 30 or so other buildings they own. The have been and are being sued by partners (those are owners too for all you property rights folks) in other buildings they "don't" own. "but unless you own it yourself (your own house, your own business), the owner will always have more rights than you." Been reading the papers lately? About the huge increase in foreclosures,even in "nice" neighborhoods? That means the bank has more "rights" than you do.

another

Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:21:56 -0500

"We bet they'll move in, live there for a year, and then move out and redevelop it as luxury lofts." Legally they could not do that. They would have to live in the apts for a minimum of 3 years before they could legally deregulate them. You should also disclose the fact that Jake's Dad is the lawyer for these tenants. Which makes suspect your clear editorial bias in favor of tenants. This is not a "loophole" in the law. It's an understandable provision for owners of buildings to live themselves in something they own. Rent-regulated tenants are not entitled to below market rents in perpetuity, just as people are not entitled to well paying jobs in perpetuity (lay-offs, firings etc). You may not like it, but unless you own it yourself (your own house, your own business), the owner will always have more rights than you.

slick

Tue, 10 Apr 2007 21:57:35 -0500

The facts are that the RSA law permits and individual and not a corporation to take over part or all of the property for personal use. The person who pays than mortgage and the taxes and the insurance and the water bill, and the fuel bill and the BID bill should have some right as to wanting to move into property that they own. Before you castrate the owner, realize the cost of owning property in New York. The real "putz" in this situation was the tenants that were offered new digs close to the place that they are residing. Keep in mind that the landlord also tried to unify the apartments and probably would have left some of the tenants upstairs, but no. Instead they went to one of those free legal services that are afforded to the poor and preceded to litigate this situation for several years. Wasting our tax money and the time of all the different courts that heard this case. Don’t get me wrong, I do sympathize with the tenants, but they should have been reasonable especially when the law is so clear about owner occupancy. Remember this is a private owner, not a large corporate entity. The law is clear that private owners should have the right to exercise his right to ownership. P.s. I too am a renter in New York, and a landlord, and I see both sides of this matter.

Sarah

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:28:11 -0500

Looks like the landlords have their own web site: www.economakis.com

notsofast

Sun, 18 Feb 2007 11:58:16 -0500

"If the renters were so concerned, the 15 of them should have each gotten a $70k mortgage and offered 1,050,000. Problem solved." Not exactly. My fellow rent-tenants and I tried to buy our building, but the owner would not accept offers from us. So now we have new owners, who tried to intimidate us (and our extended families), buy us out, verbally/physically threaten us, etc. to make us leave. I guess all the pro-landlord commenters would have us rent-regulated tenants disappear, despite the new owners purchasing the building knowing full well that we all hold still-legal leases when they bought it. I also know of many people who own their homes and are harrassed to sell for less than what their home is worth, going so far as to have wannabe owners throw feces in their front yards. This is happening all over Crown Hieghts, for example. But that's just the free market working, right?

you think

Sat, 17 Feb 2007 16:06:08 -0500

"read some history, pal." Hey buddy, you seemed to think that conspicuous consumption was somehow unacceptable in the US. Wake up. Manhattan is the international capital of consumption. Hence my statement that we are not under socialist rule, where it would indeed be considered "unacceptable." Your forecast that the US may eventually go through something similar to the russian revolution has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

stewart

Sat, 17 Feb 2007 08:57:15 -0500

revolution - ha! That would mean that you commie weed-smoking peaceniks would have to embrace weaponry.

nick

Sat, 17 Feb 2007 04:57:07 -0500

did you just use the term "McMansion" to describe a fairly nondescript apartment building in the East Village?? Not really sure why I'm splitting hairs, at least you spelled it correctly.

Tom

Fri, 16 Feb 2007 19:13:35 -0500

Wow, they bought a building and want to live in it as they see fit. What scumbags. If you don't want to get kicked out of your apartment when ownership changes, don't rent. I find the fact that a judge would rule that someone doesn't have the right to manage their property as they see fit far more reprehensible than these people wanting to live in the property that they fairly bought. If the renters were so concerned, the 15 of them should have each gotten a $70k mortgage and offered 1,050,000. Problem solved.

Tim N.

Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:44:52 -0500

edEx is right. The Economakis' greed, tastlessless, arrogance, and pure unadulterated selfishness is all perfectly legal. You can't legislate taste. Or morality. All you can do is refuse to deliver their takeout.

hs

Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:28:28 -0500

ah nevermind...found the answer

hs

Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:24:06 -0500

We bet they'll move in, live there for a year, and then move out and redevelop it as luxury lofts. I've always wondered if this is used as a legal loophole when people buy rent stab buildings. Are there any limitations as to how long they have to live there before doing so?

?

Fri, 16 Feb 2007 15:21:29 -0500

This only went to the Appellate Division; I imagine they can take it to the Court of Appeals.

grrrr

Fri, 16 Feb 2007 15:03:20 -0500

get your spraypaint and eggs ready!

think about it

Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:58:36 -0500

"This isn't the USSR buddy" read some history, pal. if we continue traveling on the current road of ever increasing gaps in the distribution of wealth, eventually we could well find ourselves in a similarly styled revolution.

surely you jest

Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:51:40 -0500

"unjustifiable case of conspicuous consumption" This isn't the USSR buddy

timbnyc

Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:48:04 -0500

But, hell, now we all know where they live.

you must be kidding?

Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:44:56 -0500

contrary to what you think, edEx, social darwinism is not right. this is the housing equivalent of taking your hummer and mowing down a four year old. what we have is an unjustifiable case of conspicuous consumption; nothing more, nothing less.

anon

Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:37:33 -0500

money talks

edEx

Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:23:45 -0500

regardless of the size, the bottom line whether it's moral or not, the family who owns it can do what they want with it. and 11K SQFT is a lot, but there are bigger homes in the city.

Jen Chung

Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:05:33 -0500

This story, after three years of following it, is still so crazy. 11,600 square feet! That's not a house, that's easily three very big apartments.