Following is a video recording from the highly informative January 22 Air Rights info session. Click “Watch Again” below. [Note: it looks like the video was edited after it was initially posted to cut out some of the introductory stuff.]
Category Archives: News
Seward Park Liquors denied license at new location
Former SPC commercial tenant Seward Park Liquors will not be re-opening on Ludlow Street any time soon.
After our Board decided not to renew their long-time lease at 393 Grand Street, Seward Park Liquors announced they would relocate to Ludlow Street this month. But the NY State Liquor Authority website now says that a “disapproval letter” was issued on January 8, 2018, with respect to the store’s application to move their license to the new location.
Our sources tell us that the disapproval was related to recent violations for selling to minors. Those same violations supposedly caused the SLA to deny a license to the would-be replacement tenant for the 393 Grand storefront last fall. We understand the new tenant is appealing the decision.
Referee issues decision on garage lawsuit fees and costs
When the court dismissed the garage lawsuit last summer, the judge ordered that the plaintiffs pay reasonable fees and costs incurred by the co-op in defending the suit. Over the next few months the parties submitted arguments to a referee regarding how much the plaintiffs should have to pay.
On December 22, the referee recommended that the court award the co-op $161,088.72 in fees and costs. We assume the court will adopt this recommendation.
It is not yet clear to us, however, how the amount already paid by one of the five plaintiffs (who settled with the co-op a few months ago for his share of the fees that were accrued at that time) will factor into this, or whether the co-op will receive any discount from our lawyers for the portion of the fees and expenses billed that the referee decided were not “reasonable” (although the lawyers are certain to disagree with that decision).
Regardless, it is highly likely that each of the remaining four plaintiffs is likely to have an extra $40k (give or take) line item on their maintenance bill in the near future, which should serve as a cautionary tale to any other shareholder who is considering suing the co-op without a really solid case.
A few air rights fact-checks
Opponents of the air rights deal have been busy mailing, hand-delivering, and e-mailing materials to shareholders and updating their website. We thought it was worthwhile to take a look at a few of their claims:
- “The developer can only build 71,000 sq ft as-of-right, but, if we sell our air rights, will build a massive structure that’s more than 3 times bigger.” True. The developers talk about the deal as a question of 115,000 sq ft as-of-right vs. 277,000 sq ft with air rights, because that’s the floor area that they’ll have to sell post-development. But the 44,000 sq ft landmarked Bialystoker home isn’t going anywhere, so from our perspective, it’s really a choice between whether the developers can build new buildings totaling 71,000 sq ft or 233,000 sq ft.
- “The co-op will net about $26 million after tax.” Probably true. We have not yet seen the tax analysis that the Board has commissioned, but expect it to be in the ballpark of $25-30 million after tax.
- “The deal can pass with 365 (or fewer) yes votes.” Theoretically true but misleading and irrelevant. The bylaws require 2/3 of those participating in the vote to say “yes” in order for it to pass. While in theory it could pass with only 365 “yes” votes, that would mean only 547 shareholders turned out to vote, and we expect turnout to be very high.
- “Shorter buildings with more floor space are more likely [if the deal fails than the 20 and 17 story buildings Ascend says it is ‘considering’].” Maybe true. The deal opponents are correct that 71,000 square feet spread among 37 newly built stories would yield very skinny towers with a high proportion of square feet dedicated to unsellable elevators and stairwells. But higher floor apartments also command somewhat higher prices per square foot, and the footprint of what the developers can build as-of-right may be limited by zoning requirements for setbacks and rear yards (we don’t know enough about those requirements to offer an opinion). So we have no way of knowing for sure what the as-of-right alternative to an air rights deal would look like.
- “This sale is not the last chance for the coop to monetize its assets.” Sort of true. The developers were engaging in some misleading hyperbole of their own when they said in their first big flier that they are our only potential buyer and this is our only chance to sell. It’s true that if we reject the deal, then the developers (or a new developer who might take over the project) could come back with a better offer. And it’s true that our air rights can be used to build something on our own property. But the deal opponents overstate their case almost as badly as the developers. If the shareholders reject the deal by a large margin, it’s equally possible that whoever ends up with the project would decide it’s not worth spending more money to try to do a deal with us, and would forge ahead with whatever they can build as-of-right. And if they build as-of-right, the only way we can use our air rights (absent the City Council changing the rules) will be to build on our own property.
Overall, we’d rate this first flurry of materials (excluding some of the anonymous mailings) from the opponent group as “not terribly misleading.” In the stuff they’ve put their names on, they’ve made some good and important points, called out the developers where the developers edged into misleading territory, and mostly (but not entirely) refrained from going into misleading or disingenuous territory themselves. Some of the anonymous communications have been far less responsible, and we urge readers to ignore anonymous materials and focus on the ones that are attributed to specific individuals or groups.
It bears repeating, however, that shareholders will not be deciding whether they want a 71,000 or 233,000 square foot development next door, but whether we think the downsides of a 233,000 square foot development (and there are definitely downsides) are worth accepting in exchange for the developers putting tens of millions of dollars in our cooperative coffers.
Air Rights Referendum Resources
Several websites have been set up to collect information regarding the forthcoming air rights sale referendum and to advocate for various positions. We thought it would be helpful to compile them here. Continue reading
Anti-Valet Lawsuit Decided in Co-op’s Favor
Hon. Arthur F. Engoron of the New York State Supreme Court yesterday issued a Decision and Order in favor of the co-op on all points.
The Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ lawsuit and denied their motion for sanctions, and said that the co-op is entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees from the plaintiffs (although the amount to be recovered still has to be decided separately).
You can read the full Decision and Order, which knocks down pretty much every argument the plaintiffs tried to throw at the proverbial wall.
But perhaps most instructive for certain members of our co-op community, who seem to feel that every significant decision should be put to a shareholder vote, is the following:
As a matter of public policy, the Board was under no contractual, legal, or equitable duty to involve more than 1,700 cooperators in its decision-making process. Rather, the Board was elected specifically to conduct the day-to-day affairs of the co-op and to take entire charge of the property, interests, business, and transactions of the co-op. It would be nearly impossible for co-op boards to function if every time they had to act, they had to entertain potentially endless debate involving numerous varying positions.
And the winners are…
Congratulations to Karen, David, Darcey, and Carol!
The final, certified vote tallies were:
#4 Karen Suss Wolfson 793
#5 David Pearson 529
#2 Darcey Gerstein 498
#3 Carol Anastasio 465
#1 Arnold Sandler 421
#6 Norma Ramirez 408
#7 Stanley Friedland 394
ABSTAIN 2
Based on these numbers, at least 878 shareholders cast votes.
Thanks also go out to outgoing Board members Norma Ramirez and Harold Aranoff for their service to the co-op.
2017 Seward Spark Board Endorsements
This year’s Seward Spark endorsements come from Micah Arbisser, who publishes the Seward Spark, and Kate Nammacher, who recently served on the Board as a director, president, and treasurer.
After reviewing the candidates’ biographies, hearing their presentations at Meet the Candidates, and reviewing the records of those who have already served, we believe the following four candidates stand out for their high levels of engagement, knowledge, optimism, and professionalism.
#2 Darcey Gerstein – A prolific and transparent Boardroom communicator, Darcey has worked hard to keep us informed, while putting in countless hours behind the scenes on almost every major issue the Board has tackled in the last three years. Her candidate statements convey a long list of impressive achievements. We will all benefit if she is given a chance to double that list’s length with a second term.
#3 Carol Anastasio – With more than two decades managing NYC parks, Carol’s stated priority if elected is to cost-effectively improve our grounds. In her previous term on the Board she proved her enthusiasm and capability with respect to all kinds of issues, and she has a list of achievements on par with Darcey’s. And she has volunteered to help with almost every community event since the day she moved here.
#4 Karen Suss Wolfson – A lifelong resident and a Board member whose service is measured not in years but in decades, Karen is our institutional memory. We have tremendous respect for her business acumen, her ability to sense the desires of a broad spectrum of our community, and her dedication to her work as a Board member. Karen is screening committee chair and a past president.
#5 David Pearson – A first-time candidate, Dave has the most relevant professional experience of any candidate in recent memory. A Senior Vice President of Affordable Development at the Related Companies, he has years of experience analyzing and negotiating operating budgets, contracts, and financing, all with the goal of preserving affordability while upgrading quality-of-life. And he wants to do the same for us.
Whether or not you agree that these candidates are the best, please exercise your shareholder right to vote!
Your neighbors,
Micah Arbisser
Seward Spark Publisher
Kate Nammacher
Former SPC Director, President and Treasurer
Endorsements Coming Soon…
Aside
Stay tuned for official Seward Spark endorsements in the 2017 co-op board election.
Will blocking bridge access from Clinton help traffic?
Currently there is a petition circulating asking the DOT to close the Clinton Street access to the Williamsburg Bridge, in an attempt to address the odious traffic problems.
In 2012, in response to the killing of a middle school student trying to cross Delancey at Clinton, the DOT made a bunch of changes to improve pedestrian safety on Delancey, including narrowing the distance needed to cross and extending the time available to cross. They also banned left turns from southbound Essex to eastbound Delancey (forcing southbound cars to go down to Broome and over to Norfolk before turning onto Delancey), and they reopened the Clinton Street access to the bridge, which had been closed for many years. The rationale given in DOT presentations for reopening Clinton was that it would reduce speeding and red-light running on Delancey, since previously cars waiting at the light at Norfolk would have a vehicle-free path ahead of them inviting them to gun it when the light turned green.
Those changes happened around the same time as a bunch of other things, including:
- Unending construction on Houston,
- Grand changing from 2 car lanes each way to 1 car lane and 1 bike lane each way, and getting traffic-calming medians
- Clinton below Grand having its traffic lanes narrowed and bike lanes added
- Tolls going up (in 2009, 2013, and 2017) on the tolled crossings
As soon as Clinton was reopened, traffic started backing up on Grand, sometimes even on the FDR.
In 2013-2014 the DOT tried to address the backups. They made the green light at Clinton and Delancey longer so more cars could turn onto the bridge with each light. They added back the second westbound car lane on Grand so that cars that didn’t want to turn onto the bridge at Clinton could bypass the cars that did want to turn. They added signs on the southbound FDR indicating that Houston was an alternate route to the Williamsburg Bridge. And those things DEFINITELY helped.
But in the last year or so traffic has gotten worse again. I am not sure why, but suspect Essex Crossing construction has made traffic flow a little slower, and the March 2017 toll increase may have pushed a few more cars toward the free crossings.
It’s possible that closing the Clinton approach would help, as it would stretch the Grand Street traffic out a couple more blocks, and Norfolk still has two northbound lanes (when they’re not blocked by Essex Crossing construction) that allow a higher volume of cars to turn onto Delancey with each light vs. Clinton. But I am skeptical, as I think it will primarily move the problem to Norfolk and reintroduce some of the speeding on Delancey. It will also become dangerous to cross Grand on the west side of Clinton, as there will be many more cars turning left onto Grand from northbound Clinton to try to get to the bridge.
My view is that tolling the bridge is the only real solution. With the MTA moving all their tolled crossings to cashless tolling, there are no real technical hurdles to doing that, but there are big political ones. So stopgaps might include further improving the signage that tells drivers they can use Clinton orNorfolk to access the bridge (almost nobody uses Norfolk, even though at peak times it’s probably faster to bypass all the traffic in the right lane on Grand and just go to Norfolk), and adding traffic cops along Grand at peak times with a mandate to strictlyenforce red lights, turning from the wrong lane, driving in the bike lane, honking, etc.
Fortunately, the Community Board is focused on the issue and the DOT is currently studying it. Only time will tell whether they will come up with a good solution or not.