Gothamist: 47 East 3rd Street Conversion "Explained" by Owners

Bucephalus2008

Thu, 05 Jun 2008 00:48:16 -0500

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.

alecto

Mon, 30 Apr 2007 12:18:13 -0500

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?

MelvinTheMan

Sat, 28 Apr 2007 16:16:47 -0500

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.

NickTheGreek

Sat, 28 Apr 2007 15:35:55 -0500

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!

Judy S.

Sat, 28 Apr 2007 01:41:15 -0500

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.

Judy S.

Sat, 28 Apr 2007 01:39:03 -0500

Lord Jim

Sat, 28 Apr 2007 01:24:07 -0500

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.

me

Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:35:19 -0500

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.

CrazyJoeDavola

Mon, 12 Mar 2007 10:18:35 -0500

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.

tisiphone

Sat, 10 Mar 2007 19:28:31 -0500

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"

Chris

Sat, 10 Mar 2007 09:59:43 -0500

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.

Lord August Winthrop Autumn-Steele III

Sat, 10 Mar 2007 09:06:23 -0500

ROBBER BARONS ARE BACK BABY!!!

Schadenfreudian Mensch

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 23:08:58 -0500

I see the scum posters from curbed.com has entered the fray of this discussion.

Ed Ucator

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 22:57:52 -0500

"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'.

A. Merican

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 22:55:27 -0500

"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.

Jerky

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 20:14:33 -0500

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.

BklynNative

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 19:59:49 -0500

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"?

BklynNative

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 19:57:02 -0500

BklynNative

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 19:55:16 -0500

hedgehog

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 19:34:29 -0500

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?

Haywood

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 17:57:38 -0500

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.

Jen Chung

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 17:52:25 -0500

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.

Jerky

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 17:46:31 -0500

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.