2022 Seward Spark Board Endorsements

This year finds an unusual number of very good candidates running for the Board, which is a most welcome state of affairs, even though it is harder for us to decide whom to endorse.  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.

#1 Jessica Kramer – Jessica is new here (she bought her apartment in 2021), but has made an excellent impression on all who have met her, and has a resume filled with the sort of education and experience that is likely to make her a very effective Board member.  She has a law degree and has worked in real estate-related legal and technology spaces, plus has experience in startups where she needed to learn complex new subjects quickly. All of this gives us great optimism about her candidacy.

#2 Kate Nammacher – Kate has co-authored the Seward Spark endorsements for the last few years, so we obviously trust her judgment.  But she also had an accomplished term as a director (including serving as treasurer and president) several years ago as the coop undertook complex projects like the transition from ConEd steam to our own boilers.  Those who served with her have only good things to say about her intelligence and professionalism.

#5 Betsy Jacobson – Betsy’s work puts her in daily contact with many of our senior residents, and she is friendly with a number of cooperators who are not particularly friendly with most other Directors. She has therefore become an indispensable Board member, giving voice to those folks’ thoughts and concerns in a challenging but constructive manner, while bringing her own positive energy and intelligence to almost every Board matter. The Seward Spark did not endorse Betsy the first time she ran, but we endorsed her second run three years ago and we enthusiastically re-up that endorsement for this year.

#6 Wei-Li Tjong – Wei-Li has served on the Board for a majority of the last 22 years, and has an excellent record of voting for progress tempered by affordability concerns. He grew up in the co-op and has strong relationships with generations of cooperators. He’s a smart lawyer with highly relevant professional knowledge and gets along well with everyone in the Boardroom.

Regardless of your candidates of choice, please do not forget to vote!

Your neighbor,

Micah Arbisser
Seward Spark Publisher

2020 Seward Spark Board Endorsements

This year’s Seward Spark endorsements again come from Micah Arbisser, who publishes the Seward Spark, and Kate Nammacher, who 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.

#1 Michael Tumminia – When Michael served as the Board president (2010) and treasurer (2011), he accomplished the conversion of broom closets into a community room; created a modern, safe, and legal playroom; expanded our leasable commercial spaces; re-claimed and transformed a padlocked vacant-for-50-years dumping ground into what we now know as our Hester Street lot (and Fair); balanced our budget; and much more. We need his leadership, certified public accounting (CPA) skills, and fiscally conservative outlook now more than ever, with COVID-19 sending commercial tenants (and therefore our budget) into uncharted territory.

#2 Karen Suss Wolfson – A lifelong resident, past Board president, and a Board member whose service is measured not in years but in decades, Karen is our institutional memory.  She has strong business instincts and a tremendous ability to sense the desires of a broad spectrum of our community. And she is truly dedicated to her work as a Board member, especially with the screening committee.  

#3 Darcey Gerstein – A past secretary, treasurer, and president, Darcey has proved her leadership in a variety of Board positions, putting out frequent Board communications, working hard to balance our budget and refinance our mortgage, and advancing major and much-needed capital projects to make sure our buildings will be safe and comfortable for the long haul. Her recent article in the Cooperator well illustrates how much Darcey cares about our community.

#5 Carol Anastasio – Three years ago Carol promised cost-effective and environmentally-friendly improvements to our grounds if elected, and she has delivered. With only minimal increases to our landscaping budget, our greenspaces are looking far better, with more flowers and healthier lawns and plants. Carol helped coordinate the composting program and the retrofit of the “prison yard” lights (now much warmer and more appropriate) between Buildings 1 and 2. We will all benefit from her re-election.

Regardless of your candidates of choice, please do not forget to vote!

Your neighbors,

Micah Arbisser
Seward Spark Publisher

Kate Nammacher
Former SPC Director, President and Treasurer

2019 Seward Spark Board Endorsements

Seward Spark’s 2019 endorsements again come from Micah Arbisser, who publishes the Seward Spark, and Kate Nammacher, who recently served on the Board as a director, president, and treasurer.

The field of candidates this year is by far the smallest in recent memory, but the race remains competitive.  Wei-Li Tjong, Darshan Somashekar, and Betsy Jacobson are the candidates who will continue to ask hard questions and seek good answers in the Boardroom, while maintaining civility and helping the Board to do its incredibly important (and often underappreciated) work.

#1 Wei-Li Tjong – Wei has served multiple terms on the Board and has an excellent record of voting for progress tempered by affordability concerns.  He grew up in the co-op and has strong relationships with generations of cooperators. He’s a smart lawyer with highly relevant professional knowledge and gets along well with everyone in the Boardroom.

#2 Darshan Somashekar – Darshan is a first time candidate and relatively new to the co-op but has lived in the neighborhood for almost 10 years. He brings a fresh young perspective, a genuine desire to serve the community, and technology and business skills that will enable him to make a very real, substantive contribution as a Director. Everyone who meets him seems extremely impressed.

#3 Betsy Jacobson – Betsy’s work puts her in daily contact with many of our senior residents, and she is friendly with a number of cooperators who are not particularly friendly with most other Directors. She has therefore become an indispensable Board member, giving voice to those folks’ thoughts and concerns in a challenging but constructive manner, while bringing her own positive energy and intelligence to almost every Board matter. The Seward Spark did not endorse Betsy three years ago, but seeing her track record while on the board, we do so with high confidence this year.

Whether or not you agree that these candidates are the best, please exercise your shareholder right to vote on Tuesday, June 11!

Your neighbors,

Micah Arbisser
Seward Spark Publisher

Kate Nammacher
Former SPC Director, President and Treasurer

Opinion: Vote Yes on Air Rights

Vote Yes GraphicOn June 12, Seward Park Cooperative will vote on whether or not to sell about 165,000 square feet of our unused development rights (aka “air rights”) to the developers of the Bialystoker Nursing Home and its adjacent lots for $53.7 million in cash.  After much consideration, we believe we should vote YES.

A YES vote is not without downsides. Nobody (except the developer) prefers huge buildings next door, and the buildings they can build with our air rights are significantly bigger than the buildings they could build as-of-right. Rainbow Park, where many of us spend much time with our families, will get a few less hours of direct sun at certain times of year.  And we think the East Broadway streetscape will look better if the buildings are kept smaller.

But at the end of the day, we have a choice between bigger buildings next door, or bigger bills for all of our shareholders.  We cannot justify spending tens of thousands of dollars out of each of our pockets over the coming years (and forcing many of our neighbors who already struggle to pay their bills to do the same) to keep the buildings next door smaller, when we could all save that money by accepting bigger buildings.  Despite our reservations, we will be voting YES, because we think it is the right thing to do for the co-op.

Note that two thirds of those participating in the vote must say YES for it to pass.  Voting in the Board election without casting a vote on the air rights question is an abstention, which is effectively a NO vote.  Please be sure to vote YES or NO on the air rights question.  Do not leave it blank or abstain.

Micah Arbisser, John Bellettiere, Harold Bravo, Minh Duong, Randi Halpern, Jeffrey Hillock, Linda Jones, Caroline Laskow, Brett Leitner, Terry MacAvery, Kate Nammacher, Eric Reich, Ian Rosenberg, Roshni & Jacob Sacks, Gina Sung, Alexis Tomarken, Michael Tumminia, Hilary Weissman, Lori & Paul Weissman, Jodi & Jac Zagoory

For responses to many criticisms of the deal, please click here.

Opinion: Air Rights Naysayer FAQ

Following are our thoughts on a number of issues that have been raised by opponents of the air rights deal:

  • If we vote no, will the developers come back with a higher or better offer?  It could happen, but we think it’s extremely risky to count on it.  At some point the deal will no longer be profitable for the developer.  And if we vote down the deal by too large a margin, they may conclude we’ll never accept a deal at any price and stop negotiating with us altogether.
  • What about sharing of open space?  We read the relevant lawsuits that are trying to change the longstanding practice of allocating specific open space to specific buildings on a combined zoning lot, and we think there is very little risk that the status quo will change in a manner that grants the Bialystoker residents access to Rainbow Park.  If you have questions about this, please reach out to us directly as it is too complex to detail here.
  • What about Ascend’s track record as a developer?  We are selling them air rights, not buying their condos. The problems they had in the past were primarily things like leaks and minor construction defects that affected their buildings’ residents, not their buildings’ neighbors.  Developers and builders are also not the same thing. We don’t know who they will use as the general contractor to build their new buildings.
  • What about the cantilever?  The cantilever will make their building wider, which will affect views.  But cantilevers are not exotic or dangerous–they are extremely common in NYC construction and we do not believe they present a structural risk to our property or theirs (have you ever heard of a 30+ story apartment building collapsing?).
  • What about the shadows on Building 2? Any new tower will produce new shadows.  But when you actually compare the with-air-rights and the as-of-right shadow studies from Ascend’s website (see also the deal opponents’ own shadow study, which is presented more clearly but only shows one time of day), there are only a few hours a day during spring and fall when there is a material difference between the two development plans in how much of Building 2 is in the shade. The rest of the day in the spring/fall, and almost all day in the winter and summer, the two designs produce very similar shadow impacts.
  • What about subway crowding and traffic?  New housing is being built all over our neighborhood.  The difference between an as-of-right development and an air rights development on the Bialystoker site is a tiny drop in the neighborhood’s population bucket.  Even the most aggressive estimates of how many people might live at the Bialystoker site would represent less than a 1% increase in daily ridership at the East Broadway subway station–if every resident took the subway every day.
  • What about how close the new buildings will be to the F section? A “with air rights” development will be about 60 feet (not 37 feet as stated in a flier we saw) from the nearest corner of the F section.  An “as of right” development is likely to be about 90 feet away. For context, the distance between the corner of the J section and the Seward Park Library is about 45 feet, the distance between the F and E section windows that face each other is about 50 feet, the distance between the corner of the A section and the Grand Street Guild building across the street is about 100 feet.
  • What if Ascend flips the property to someone else?  All of the restrictions we have negotiated (the maximum building envelope, restrictions on construction hours, rooftop cell towers, where they put their garbage, etc.) will be in a Zoning Lot Development Agreement that will be recorded like a deed and “run with the land,” so it will remain binding on whoever owns the property.
  • Isn’t it unfair that the maintenance holiday disproportionately benefits people with bigger apartments?  People with bigger apartments pay more in maintenance each month.  Whether the proceeds of the deal are used for a maintenance holiday or to pay down debt or pay for capital improvements or some other purpose, all of the benefits of a deal will accrue in proportion to how we pay maintenance. It is true that the downside impact of doing a deal is not evenly distributed among apartments.  That is unfortunate (we have real sympathy for those neighbors who would lose views or sunlight as a result of a deal–it’s the main reason we considered voting no), but corporate and tax laws largely prevent the Board from applying proceeds other than in proportion to how we pay maintenance.
  • If we vote no, how do we know what they will build?  We don’t know for sure.  They could build one building, or two buildings, or the land could sit vacant for quite a few years.  Three possible scenarios were detailed in architect David West’s January 22 presentation.  But we agree with Mr. West that they would most likely build one approximately 28 story, relatively skinny, building on the eastern lot (where the office building previously stood) in the very near future.
  • But won’t we be giving up our future ability to use the air rights?  We have three distinct pools of unused air rights: one on the building 1-2 lot, one on the building 3-4 lot, and one on the Apple Bank lot. Air rights generally can’t cross streets.  Absent City Council intervention, if we do not sell air rights to the Bialystoker developers, the only other places we could use those particular air rights would be (a) in the front yards of buildings 1 and 2, or (b) to replace buildings 1-2 and/or the garage and Rainbow Park.  None of those scenarios seems remotely likely in our lifetimes, so we see this as a one-time chance to monetize our building 1-2 air rights.
  • Will our property values decrease?  We believe the significant loss of views in a handful of apartments will have an impact on those units’ value, although we don’t believe it will be a large impact. The historical differences in price per square foot between apartments in similar condition with similar layouts but different views are not huge.  We do not believe the deal will have an adverse impact on Seward Park Coop property values generally, as our finances will be in significantly better shape when prospective buyers review them, and nearby development has never adversely affected our property values before (to the contrary, bringing more prospective buyers of expensive condos to the neighborhood generally pushes up our property values).
  • Won’t our property taxes go up?  Property taxes are determined by reference to the rental income reported by “comparable” buildings selected by the city.  The deal is therefore unlikely to have a direct impact on our property taxes, unless we upgrade our property to the point where the city decides our “comparable” buildings should be higher end than they are today.
  • Could they build something ginormous if “something were to happen” to the landmarked nursing home building?  At various informational meetings Board members have mentioned that the contract includes a maximum “building envelope” within which the developers are allowed to build if we approve the deal.  We have not seen the details (Board members, please share!), but this should prevent the developers from restacking our air rights in some crazy unexpected way. There is actually more risk of them building something unexpected in an as-of-right scenario if somehow the nursing home building disappeared.