wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Comments

• [1] Gregory Galligan from Stuyvesant Town, Rent-regulated apartment since 1990 September 17, 2008 - 08:44AM

  This morning's news story on Tishman Speyer's recent financial woes in converting Stuvesant Town to luxury housing missed some important subtle components of more direct significance to current tenants. The so-called "targeting" of young professionals has more than a commercial impact, and the term "young professionals" hardly explains it. The fact is, market rents are so high now that virtually only students and young professionals can afford to live here, so they are regularly doubling and tripling up to share the rents, split one-bedroom apartments into dormitory-like units, and so forth. They live here for one or two years and move out, care nothing about neighborly values or lifestyle, and use the premises increasingly for round-the-clock activity. Our floor alone is 50% market rate tenants in their 20s, and 50% of the apartments on our floor alone have turned over every two years. The only professional couple here had to leave several months ago for Queens when their $3,000+ rent was increased by 22%! This is especially insidious when you take into consideration the implied element of "harrassment by proxy," as it were, by young market tenants and their dormitory lifestyle versus settled, rent-regulated families. Tishman knows exactly what it is doing. Stuyvesant Town is now a dormitory and hotel culture with pretty landscaping.

  
  
• [2] Robert from NYC September 17, 2008 - 10:26AM

  GOOD!!

  
  
• [3] Jon September 17, 2008 - 11:15AM

  The implication that rent stabilized families are better than other people is insulting. When I last checked, everyone is equal in this country. If you want to stay up all night that is your right. Furthermore this is NEW YORK CITY. The City that never sleeps. If you want a quiet family environment move out of Manhattan.

  One last point: harrassment by proxy is a very silly idea. If Tishman was denying college students from living there to protect you that would be against the law, because it would DISCRIMINATION. They are renting to people willing to pay the rents they are charging. Its called capitalism. Dont like it? Move to a more socialist country of your liking.

  
  
• [4] Aline September 17, 2008 - 02:40PM

  This seems to show that with age comes wisdom. It seems a bit unethical to take all that money from young people who aren't smart enough to understand they are overspending.

  Fortunately it also seems like they are learning from their mistake - since if living in this "dorm" was so great for the money they would probably stick around longer.

  
  
• [5] dd from sunnyside September 17, 2008 - 05:30PM

  As Jerilyn Perine mentioned at the end of the segment, it is other housing, less famous than Stuy-town that may end up suffering more from similar practises by companies- some of which are buying up buildings and actively sueing long term residents to get them out while driving up the rents of the vacated apartments closer and closer to the $2000 mark where they can declare it 'luxury'. There is a company called VANTAGE in sunnyside who seems to be doing just that. Can Brian please do a further show with Jerilyn to warn people looking for apts. on how to deal with these type of companies and also to give advice to those who live in one of their buildings already?

  
  
• [6] Scooter from New York January 13, 2009 - 12:57PM

  I think it's their intentional strategy to entice you to move there with a reasonable market rent and then really stick it to you once you're there. I've lived there only a year, and they're trying to jam a 15% rate hike down my throat. Why? My apartment is not any nicer now than it was when I moved in. I hate being duped. Now either I pay moving expenses, or I face being raped even further next year. Ouch. Lesson learned.