From The New York Shitty Inbox: And Now A Word From Our City Councilman

April 11, 2012 by
Filed under: 11222, Greenpoint, Greenpoint Brooklyn, Greenpoint Magic 

It would appear, at long last, my coverage of 239 Banker Street (which is clearly being followed by real estate notables such as Brownstoner and Curbed, real estate agents and ostensible tenants of said space) has gotten the attention of our City Councilman! Steve Levin writes:

Heather,

I have noticed your posts and am glad you continue to bring light to the issue of lofts in Greenpoint and Williamsburg. The Loft Law was designed to protect residential tenants who, knowingly or unknowingly, moved into manufacturing or commercial spaces and it may grant rights for tenants to save and stabilize their housing and avoid the excessive costs associated with being vacated.  With regard to 239 Banker Street, I cannot say whether they will be covered by the Loft Law.  However, when the building was vacated in 2009, many tenants suddenly lost their living spaces as well as thousands of dollars in rent and security deposits.  I do not want to see a repeat of that event.  I will work to ensure that all building code issues at 239 Banker are addressed, but I hope to avoid seeing another vacate order if possible.  All I can do is try to spread the word about the Loft Law so that tenants in such spaces can apply for coverage that they may be legally entitled to.  Of course, the Loft Board will make final determinations about each application individually.

Sincerely yours,
Stephen Levin
Councilmember

To wit I replied (sans visual aides):

Hey,

First off I appreciate the email— and I agree that the loft law (which is much-needed) may or may not applicable in this case. What really upsets me is we are for all intents and purposes seeing the exact same situation (as 2009) play itself out again, e.g.; a commercial building—without the applicable permits I’ll add— is being converted into residential space, this space is being willfully and deliberately marketed/presented as residential space;

people are moving in under the illusion it is legally inhabitable space, etc.

This would suggest that lessons were not learned (bye it by the owner of this property, our enforcement agencies, etc.) the first time around and/or whatever consequences borne by the owner of this space were not a sufficient deterrent from engaging in this (illegal) behavior again. Or to put it differently: the “system” we have in place is not working. I have a very big problem with this. What is the point of having laws on the books, agencies deemed with the enforcement of said laws and due process if they can be bypassed, quite flagrantly I’ll note, in such a manner?

Do I want to see people thrown out on the street again? No, not really. But I am also getting very tired of this building’s owners total disregard for the law— and the fact they have been basically enabled by the upholders of said laws to do so. No matter how you cut it, this is appalling. They tried via the Department of Buildings to have this space reclassified as residential. It was refused.

They could (theoretically) go through our Community Board and get a zoning variance— but have seen fit not to do so. Why should they? There are for all intents and purposes no consequences for their actions, thus they do whatever they want.

I would also be remiss if I didn’t add in closing that real estate agents are seemingly eager participants in this fraud. Each and every one of them (in my opinion) should be reported to the Department of State and have their licenses revoked.

Thanks again!

H

With all due respect, what seems to be lost by our City Councilman is he can, in fact, stop another “repeat” of this event. By simply asking the Department of Buildings to do its job. Months ago.

Photo Credits: All taken today, April 11, 2012, by yours truly.

Comments

5 Comments on From The New York Shitty Inbox: And Now A Word From Our City Councilman

  1. eagle_teater on Wed, 11th Apr 2012 7:42 pm
  2. My ass that’s all he can do. How about hounding the DOB to do their job and maybe getting an ADA to look into fraud charges?

  3. missheather on Wed, 11th Apr 2012 7:45 pm
  4. Why not have the Feds look into interstate fraud charges? Area code 312 hails from Chicago, Illinois. Which, curiously enough, seems to be where the mortgage holder of this property (per ACRIS) is located.

  5. Girl On A Stoop on Wed, 11th Apr 2012 9:29 pm
  6. Eric on Fri, 13th Apr 2012 3:11 pm
  7. I’m all for protecting tenants, whether they knowingly or unknowingly moved into a building not zoned for residential use. Start by protecting them from moving in in the first place! You may be protecting them financially by not forcing them to vacate, but are you protecting their SAFETY by allowing them to reside in a building that hasn’t been properly inspected?

    The real question here is WHO is REALLY being protected? It seems to me the owner(s) of this building have FAR MORE to gain by this building becoming residential. The property value and rent roll will surely sky rocket!

    This looks like another example, of a select few, who maliciously manipulate the system for their own, long term financial gain and use tenants as pawns in their game.

  8. missheather on Fri, 13th Apr 2012 4:14 pm
  9. Exactly, Eric.

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!

You must be logged in to post a comment.