Tenants Crying Over Stuy Town Spying

With the $5.4 billion purchase of the Stuyvesant Town-Peter Cooper Village apartment complex by Tishman-Speyer, some longtime rent-stabilized tenants have been worried about whether they will be able to stay. Well, now tenants are complaining that Tishman-Speyer has been spying on them.

Some residents have received non-renewal letters, with Tishman-Speyer explaining that since the tenants do not use their Stuy Town-Peter Cooper apartment as a primary residence, then their lease can be over. The AP details some of the residents' complaints:

"It's like they're spying on us!" said Jeanette Besosa, who works at the United Nations.

Besosa was accused of keeping residences in Florida, Pennsylvania and Manhattan's Washington Heights; she's now assembling a thick binder of records demonstrating the Pennsylvania home is a weekend retreat, the Washington Heights townhouse an investment property, and the Florida address her son's rented college apartment.

Suzanne Ryan said the company ordered her family out of Peter Cooper Village by the end of May after discovering that she and her husband owned a Long Island beachfront house.

"Its a little Cape. We had fixed it up ourselves," Ryan said. But the family used it sporadically as a summer beach house, she said, and their residence was in the city where her two children attend Catholic school.

Hmm, there's nothing like digging through public records and credit application databases! Tishman-Speyer's response to the allegations is "If residents feel a notice has been sent in error, there is a process in place to address each case individually ... We only send notices when we believe there is true cause." We foresee a lot of tenants' rights lawyers getting a lot of work in the near future.

There's definitely a moral question about holding a rent-stabilized apartment while having other investments or properties, but that's not the point in this case. Spying on tenants is nothing new, especially when the possibility of raising rent is at stake. And the rent increases for market-rate tenants have been pretty insane.

Update: A tipster sends Curbed a link to some possible renderings of future Stuy-Town.

Photograph of Stuyvesant Town Oval by Marianne O'Leary on Flickr

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Jen Chung in News on May 29, 2007 10:46 AM

Comments [rss]

ny tenant

The point of rent-stabilized apartments is to stabilize the neighborhood. It's not the same as housing projects. It was never meant to be a sliding scale--it's meant to give tenants long-term security and a reason to be a part of their community. The neighborhoods are what made New York great.

The tenant is not meant to lose his home and neighborhood just because he happens to do a little better.

You johnny-come-lately's should learn more about the New York way of life before you come in and try to change things. When these tenants are evicted, those apartments will be market rate--no deserving low or middle income person is going to get them.

If you think that everyone who is not a billionaire deserves to live in squalor, then go ahead, support Tishman Speyer.

I say, the tenants should pool their money and BITE BACK! Hire their own investigators to go after the executives of Tishman Speyer. See who lives in a glass house.

good riddance

Agreed, there's WAY too much abuse of this system. I'm thrilled these guys are getting kicked out, and am just hoping the pace accelerates. Just afraid of expensive legal battles.

ed_Extinct

i met a girl recently who had no issues telling me she was trust fund material and also on the list for lower-income housing on madison avenue in the 20's.

i felt like a private investigator. i didn't rat, but people should be real careful who they talk to... i'm sure stuy-town has private investigators and i'm sure there are people spilling the beans on their lives. people! be! careful! and keep your private life, private...

smitty

But it's not as though these rent-stabalized apartments will go to low-income people, right? They will just be rented out at market rent (ie 2400+) to some yuppies.

Samantha T

Wow. $175K seems a little higher than "middle income" to me, even in NYC. Not a lot higher, just a little higher. Now, is "income" earnings, or do they calculate into it property, inheritances, etc.?

nicemarmot

Yeah, somehow I have a bad time sympathizing with the crocodile tears of my fellow Peter Cooper residents - I'm not rent stabilized and that's fine. I can afford my place. However, most of these asswipes whining about losing their rent stabilized places are richer than I am. They've got condos in Florida, houses in the Hamptons, and spend their summers travelling the world. But doncha know, they NEED that Stuy Town apartment.

Still Not Amused

Well what did you expect ??? They want u out & are willing to do whatever it takes to make that happen ! It's just nice to see it happening to the true Middle Class this time around instead of the poor getting the shaft . The universe works in mysterious, Yet peculiar ways .

JustAGuy

Nisey79, that's not quite true. The $175k rule only applies if the rent on the apartment has, through normal rent-stab increases, gone over $2k/month. If the rent is below $2k/month, there's no income test.

nisey79

The income cap for rent stabilized apartments is $175k/year household income; it is likely that these apartments should have become destabilized long ago.

caroline

call me crazy, but i'm having a hard time feeling bad for someone with a weekend home in pennsylvania and investment property in washington heighs.

fred

"That said, having three+ other residences does seem to go against the spirit of middle-income housing"

exactly...which happens because there is a huge disconnect between the "sprit of middle income housing" (good intentions IMO) and the laws as they stand (horrible, horrible execution)

Samantha T

Is there an income cap for Stuy-Town residents? I suppose if these people are within an income cap and are living there, they should be able to live there without harassment. That said, having three+ other residences does seem to go against the spirit of middle-income housing.

stabilize this

When did looking in public records become "spying"? If it's admissable in court, it isn't spying.

It sucks if the apartments go market rate but it isn't like having well to do people in those units was helping anyone. Those people deserve public ridicule.

awww

cry me a f*cking river

cannot believe the entitlement mentality of these leeches

kick 'em out...and good riddance

Stevennnn

A person like doesn't deserve to be in a rent stabilize apartment. She still has two other places to live in. (rolleyes)

kil

stuytown: the white projects. hahhahhahah.

CR

Yes, taking from the rich to give to the rich.

me so pour

They could spend all they want doing a background check on me. I'm living month to month. I can't handle a $75 a month increase when my social security gives me a $15 increase. And, I have no assets, financial or otherwise.

I bet the complainer has 2 cars, too.

Hopefully a deserved person moves into the apartment.

Gregoire

Yeah, Im not feeling much sympathy here.

jkinnyc

Josh has it spot on. I don't feel bad for the folks with four residences at all. You did good for yourself. You got the hand up. Now give it up for someone else.