Gothamist: Last Ride Out of Claremont

Tracey

Fri, 25 May 2007 22:42:31 -0500

"...it is not the responsibility of a private property owner to lose money..." Not quite. The city sold the property to Mr. Novograd for a relative song as a subsidy, just as he'd been renting the property for the subsidized rate of $90/month prior to buying it. The subsidy was part of a program designed to keep businesses and jobs in NYC. The intent of the sale was that he would continue to operate Claremont as a stable and provide a unique service as an element to the fabric of the city, and not as just another random real estate transaction. The moment the 7-year term of the subsidy was up, he put the property on the market, and flipped it. He broke the spirit of the law, if not the law itself. He could have honored that spirit (and still reaped an enormous profit) by selling to the buyer who wanted to maintain it as a stable. He also did not negotiate in good faith and was secretive and sneaky about the whole transaction. His argument that ridership was down due to park conditions was specious at best. He made no effort to reach out to the Central Park Conservancy to address issues of trail maintenance and proper signage to remind pedestrians that horses had right of way. He did virtually no advertising for business. And he allowed his office staff to treat customers rudely and drive customers off. He deliberately let the business run down once he decided to sell. It was still a viable business that could still be in operation today had Mr. Novograd simply stepped aside (with $10.9 million in hand) and allowed someone else to continue the tradition of providing horseback riding in Central Park. They probably would have done it better. It was stubbornness as much as greed that created this sad vacuum, and short-sightedness on the city's part to allow it to happen.

katharine

Wed, 02 May 2007 07:14:15 -0500

i rode there its happy and sad the horses are going to farms to roam free!!! but so many memories. lost

Bill S

Mon, 30 Apr 2007 21:41:58 -0500

I took a bunch of photos yesterday - they're here on flickr: www.flickr.com/photos/swerz/sets/72157600159771810/show/

Tim N.

Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:17:19 -0500

"...it is not the responsibility of a private property owner to lose money..." No, not at all, and sorry if I was unclear. The issues comes with Novograd's saying that he tried everything to keep the stable open. If all that's been reported is true, then his comments are disingenuous to say the least. Certainly no one wants to see anyone go bankrupt, and a bankrupt stable owner is pretty useless. And maybe he just wanted to get out of the horse business, who knows? But if he had the "interest" in keeping it open as a stable, why not sell to someone who was willing to do that? Was $100,000 on a $10.9 or $11 million deal that important? My point was that he could have made close to the same money (or probably the same money if he had allowed the time for matching bids) and it would still be a stable. I believe the solution was out there to be had, if he was interested in taking it.

cpw

Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:03:15 -0500

I'm not really following you Tim. You say "there was never any interest on the part of Novograd of keeping it a stable". Why should the seller care what the new owner does with a building? I'm not trying to defend the condo developers because I am as tired of all of the redevelopments that made this city bland and homogenous but on an individual basis it is not the responsibility of a private property owner to lose money so you can have a place to ride horses. I would have to see his books to see just how much money he was really losing. Also, what other assets does Novograd have? If your wealth is tied up in one asset I think most people would be inclined to see eventually.

Tim N.

Mon, 30 Apr 2007 12:41:50 -0500

We were there both days this weekend, and I'll tell you, it was sad, man, real sad. And apparently, all too unnecssary. The Post is reporting today (now granted, it's the Post) that the building was sold to developers for $11 million. It also quotes an older, and apparently wealthy, rider who bid $10.9 million for the place to keep it a stable. If this is true (and I'll say here it's an if) then there was never any interest on the part of Novograd of keeping it a stable. It's also apparent that the deal was probably down when he announced the closing, and would also explain why the place had to be cleared out in ten days, and why none of the many movements made to save the place gained any traction. While we are not wealthy by any stretch, it is obvious that this is a community that is not without its resources. The bridle path "issue" could have been resolved by the CP Conservancy and/or the City if there was that much of a threat to the horses (IMHO, pretty vastly exaggerated, but I could be wrong), and, as we've seen with other businesses, bids could have been taken to keeping it a stable first, then if none of those were satisfactory, take the next step and sell to the developers. Everyone knew what the property was worth (the figures thrown around above are not surprising), ten or twenty more days and a little bit of a heads-up could have saved the place. In other words, some care. It didn't have to happen, and that's what makes this very sad. The quote from the rider is completely on the mark. We'll miss the place.