Extra, Extra
Extra, Extra
Extra, Extra
Extra, Extra
Early Addition
Some fun website fun related to 47 East 3rd Street. The owners, Alistair and Catherine Economakis, have wanted to convert the 60-room, 11,575 square foot East Village tenement into a single-family residence since 2005, but there have been obstacles called tenants. And not just any tenants - these are rent-stabilized tenants (the 15 units rent for $600-1200/month) - and soon the two sides were embroiled in a 2+ year court dispute. To catch you up, last month, a Manhattan appeals court said the Economakises could evict the tenants and try to recover their house in Housing Court, overturning a 2006 Manhattan Supreme Court decision which found the couple violated rent-stabilization code. (This week, the NY Times looked the issue.)
There has been much suspicion that the Economakises would live in the building briefly and then convert the rest into luxury condos, so, in the mean time before another appeal, it seems the that the Economakises are trying to take their case to the public via a website, The Other Side of the Story: 47 East 3rd Street. You get the Economakis version of everything - the history, the appeals court decision, attempts to come to a resolution, etc.
We found the section about "Offers we have made to the tenants interesting" - here's an excerpt:
Guarantee that 47 East 3rd Street would become our home – From day one, we told the tenants that if their concern was that we were not going to make 47 East 3rd Street our home we would take that concern ‘off the table' by offering to guarantee that 47 East 3rd Street, would become our primary residence in whatever reasonable manner the tenants wished. Since this was not an issue for us, we freely offered to have them provide us with suggestions about what would make them comfortable (e.g. we would take out a bond guaranteeing our residence etc.) They never entertained this proposal.But we called the tenants' lawyer - by coincidence, that's Stephen Dobkin, Jake's dad - to find out if these were true.Financial compensation – We have offered the tenants financial compensation numerous times and while indeed some tenants did accept our offers of compensation early in the litigation and successfully relocated, none of the remaining tenants have ever countered any of the offers of financial compensation made to them throughout the years.
Remain as tenants in the building – Because my family and I preferred to move into a unified space in 47 East 3rd Street (as opposed to having two separate living areas as is the present condition), we offered to resolve the entire case, which included not filing an appeal of Justice Soto's decision, by allowing 6 of the remaining 9 tenants to remain in their apartments and provide the tenants in the three apartments that would allow us to unify our space financial compensation. The tenants never even countered this offer and instead stated that they wished to pursue litigation.
Dobkin says that there was nothing stopping the Economakises from getting a bond. And relocating tenants within the building would have forced other tenants to move out, so some tenants didn't want to sacrifice others. There's been question about how sincere many of the owners' offers truly were, and all notices tenants received said that the couple want to take over the entire building. Additionally, in our opinion, so you're getting financial compensation to move - but will it be worth it in the long-run if you could be in a rent-stabilized apartment otherwise?
Here's the tenants' 47 East 3rd Street website. And the photographs above are from the owners' website - they proudly note how they have restored the building's facade.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
Although moving always sucks, I don't see how anyone can tell you what to do with YOUR OWN DAMN BUILDING. No rental tenant should expect to have an ad-infinitem lease, especially at below-market rates. Suck it up people...you had 2+ years to plan ahead and you decided to waste your money on lawyers instead. It'll be your own stupid fault when your both homeless and broke.
Rent-stabilization law is pretty complicated, and tenants actually do have very specific rights. I think it's just as fair for tenants who have been renting under those auspices to question being evicted just as it's fair for the owners to attempt to evict them. A big problem in the city is finding affordable housing - what if other owners of rent-stabilized buildings decide to kick out their tenants claiming they will live there, only to move out later? There are major implications.
I agree with the post above.
This is America.
No one should be able to tell what to do with your property.
Granted I do not care for landlords, but hey they do own the building.
I know if I owned one I would not want people influencing what I can do with my own property.
Sometimes we need less government involved in our lives.
The Economakis' bought the building knowing that it was subjected to Rent Stabilization regulations and laws. They didn't have to buy the building if they did not want to abide by those laws. The tenants are at the mercy of whoever owns the building and that is why Rent Stabilization was created. Do you want to live in a city that excludes the middle class, a city made up of only millionares?
This is really pretty scummy for the Economakis Family to do. They manage to buy an APARTMENT building (15 apartments) below market price and they decide that they need to make into their own mini-mansion.
Did they not realize that there were tenants who had lived there for over 30 years.
I could understand if they purchased a small private house or a trendy brownstone and were looking to evict a tenant or two, but this just reaks of cronyism and payoffs in the system.
What's next for the Economakis? "Prima noche"?
This is really pretty scummy for the Economakis Family to do. They manage to buy an APARTMENT building (15 apartments) below market price and they decide that they need to make into their own mini-mansion.
Did they not realize that there were tenants who had lived there for over 30 years.
I could understand if they purchased a small private house or a trendy brownstone and were looking to evict a tenant or two, but this just reaks of cronyism and payoffs in the system.
What's next for the Economakis? "Prima noche"?
This is really pretty scummy for the Economakis Family to do. They manage to buy an APARTMENT building (15 apartments) below market price and they decide that they need to make into their own mini-mansion.
Did they not realize that there were tenants who had lived there for over 30 years.
I could understand if they purchased a small private house or a trendy brownstone and were looking to evict a tenant or two, but this just reaks of cronyism and payoffs in the system.
What's next for the Economakis? "Prima noche"?
If you people read the court decision, they *have* abided by the rent stabilization laws and have not done anything wrong: "and it is declared that defendants' plan to recover the six remaining stabilized units for owner-occupancy purposes is governed by Rent Stabilization Code § 2524.4(a)(1), which does not [*8]require preapproval by DHCR." Please give evidence of "cronyism" and "payoffs". None exists. The remaining tenants are just plain old stubborn and stupid....I know a lot of people who would jump at the offers they were given. Since when does renting an apartment give you an automatic "live here forever" card. Its a RENTAL. Repeat, RENTAL.
"I agree with the post above.
This is America.
No one should be able to tell what to do with your property."
Too bad cause I was about to suggest you stick yours UP YOUR ASS.
"What's next for the Economakis? "Prima noche"?"
Lol. Good one. For you ignorant mofo's out there, prima noche' translates loosely as 'right to first fuck'.
I see the scum posters from curbed.com has entered the fray of this discussion.
ROBBER BARONS ARE BACK BABY!!!
they offered to move them into better apartments that were also stabalized for the same rent. Then have professional movers move them and give them cash on top. I would have taken it! These tenants think they can hold out and become millionaires because the owner bought the building so cheaply.
Where did you get the information that;
'"they offered to move them into better apartments that were also stabilized for the same rent. Then have professional movers move them and give them cash on top "
Because you are completely WRONG, no such offers were EVER made.
Ask the tenants in the 25+ other buidlings they own about their "generosity"
These tenants are full grown adults who have been lucky enough to enjoy extremely low rents for years. Time to suck it up and pay real rents like the rest of us. I work two jobs to afford my rent and I'm just out of school. Yeah - I really feel bad for them.
No wonder this story is getting so much attention. It doesn't look like a 'coincidence' that the Owner and Co-Founder of this site is the son of the attorney for the tenants.
Responding to the gentleman just out of school and working two jobs, nobody wants you to feel bad for these tenants and I'm sorry you feel pissed off that someone has a better living situation than you do, but if things go on the way they have in New York then even ten jobs won't pay your rent.
This landlord bought the building knowing it was rent stabilized, and then they evict, evict, evict. That's what they have done with most if not with all their buildings; it's how they make their money and it's very cynical. It's partly because of greed like theirs that you are paying outrageous rents.
Are you saying that because you have a hard time of it everyone should? Do you know anything about these people and the contributions they have made to the community over the many years they have lived in the area.
It's very possible that the city would not be the safe and beautiful place it has become over the past 35 years if not for that community.
If you think it's OK to look for loop holes in the law in order to exploit lower and middle class citizens in order to feather your own nest then I guess you have a case.
Along with the law there is ethical behavior and respect for others; when your family owns over 30 buildings in New York City and when you are financially well placed to provide for your family, to exploit these loop holes and say you are within the law is merely a pathological justification of your greed.
This landlord needs to grow up and get a real job. Until coming up against these courageous tenants this landlord was having a fine old time victimizing those who had neither the money nor the knowledge of the law to protect themselves. In this case however they have bitten off a little more than they can chew.
If you think it's OK to look for loop holes in the law in order to exploit lower and middle class citizens in order to feather your own nest then I guess you have a case.
Along with the law there is ethical behavior and respect for others; when your family owns over 30 buildings in New York City and when you are financially well placed to provide for your family, to exploit these loop holes and say you are within the law is merely a pathological justification of your greed.
This landlord needs to grow up and get a real job. Until coming up against these courageous tenants this landlord was having a fine old time victimizing those who had neither the money nor the knowledge of the law to protect themselves. In this case however they have bitten off a little more than they can chew.
If you were the son of a Greek shipping magate, and your father-in-law were a big real estate guy with 30 buildings, and if your father-in-law transferred a building to you for marrying his daughter, you wouldn't have to work two jobs. Hey, CrazyJoeDavola, wake up and smell the coffee!
These folks have had a far too easy ride for too long. If they can't pay market rate rents then there's no room for them in New York. Let them move to Bangladesh or Kazakhstan, why should we subsidize them? I hate seeing all those losers in the Village having a good time while the rest of us are out working day and night.
So, "melvin", You call sweeping up crack vials and stepping over syringes an "easy ride"? That's what people were doing when they moved to the neighborhood, before people like you would even walk below 23rd st. Rent stabilization guaranteed that landlords would get an increase, even in "undesirable" neighborhoods. The tenants in the neighborhood pay rent and work, but now because they have the nerve to work in teaching, social work, arts, or any profession that doesn't pay 6+ figures, it's OK for them to be bullied out of their homes by greed.
rent stabilization is not a subsidy, and if you are so worried about subsidizing housing, then why aren't you applying your "logic" to the developers who get huge 421a tax breaks to build luxury apts & condos?
I have lived in the East Village for many years and have watched as the march of gentrification has driven out the artists, created secondary displacement and is changing the character of this community. The ability of wealthy individuals to purchase an apartment building full of tenants and then proceed to summarily evict them is egregious, despite the rationalizations of the Economakis's. Compensation is all well and good; however, the stock of affordable housing is rapidly dwindling and impossible to find. Unfortunately, the actions of the Economakis's are setting a nasty precedent, leaving tenants in this city vulnerable to this type of abuse.