Greenpoint
Lorven Pharmacy
Culture on the Cheap
New York Shitty Day Ender: If At First You Do Not Succeed…
Our City Councilman writes to yours truly on April 11, 2012 (regarding this post):
…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…
Cityslicker24 writes on April 8, 2012:
…Furthermore, an application for legalization under the NYC loft law is pending, and indeed the building has undergone modernization, including new windows, floors, and fire sprinklers installed throughout each unit. I was in the units two days ago and saw that there have been significant projects intended to make the building appropriate for dwelling use…
hav writes on March 29, 2012:
non-surprisingly someone decided to complain to the DOB which ordered the building to vacate yesterday. As of today there are some interesting developments but nothing solidified yet. It is however looking like the building has a strong possibility of getting covered by the NYC Loft Law which will protect tenants from being vacated…
Given that 239 Banker has— at long last— overcome their recent brush with vandalism, the above-listed comments; and Mr. Levin’s apparent confusion as to whether or not this rather notorious edifice qualifies for Loft Law protection, I decided to do a little research. First, I perused the Loft Law proper. Then I proceeded to parse through each and every post I have authored about 239 Banker Street. You see, unlike our City Councilman, I actually lived here when this shit show started.
My conclusion is as follows: I can assure cityslicker24, hav and Mr. Levin that 239 Banker Street is in no way, no HOW entitled to Loft Law protection. And the best reason of all can be found on the New York City Loft Board’s own web site:
In June of 2010, the State Legislature expanded the Loft Law to include tenants who lives in a commercial or manufacturing building where three or more families have lived independently from one another for 12 consecutive months from 1/1/08 through 12/21/09, in a building that lacks a residential certificate of occupancy.
So let’s review a (somewhat) concise timeline of 239 Banker Street with the previous data in mind, shall we?
1. For starters, the permit approving the conversion of 239 Banker Street into a “hotel” (as seen at left) was not granted until July 30, 2008. This expired on July 30, 2009 and was not renewed until December 11, 2009.
2. Advertisements shilling apartments at 239 Banker Street were noticed on Craigslist May 28, 2009 (as seen below). In fact, there was a website created for the sole purpose of marketing “The Sweater Factory Lofts”. Alas, this is long gone, but you can view screencaps by clicking here.
3. Individuals were spied moving into 239 Banker Street May 31, 2009 and June 2, 2009. Following me so far? Great!
4. A Stop Work Order was issued shortly thereafter. This was (naturally) disregarded. So complaints were filed July 31, 2009.
5. The Department of Buildings actually saw fit to cite 239 Banker Street for violating a Stop Work Order (at right, which you can view in larger format by clicking here). This came to pass September 8, 2009.
6. And last— but hardly least— the Department of Buildings issued a Vacate Order citing “conditions imminently perilous to life” on September 29, 2009. Among their dismal discoveries were disabled/concealed sprinkler heads and uncapped electrical wires.*
Follows is ABC’s footage of this death trap. Seeing is truly believing folks!
Post-script: as of December 28, 2010 this Vacate Order was still in place.
Let’s review:
- The Loft Law requires that three or more families reside in a commercial or manufacturing building for twelve consecutive months between January 2008 and December 2009.
- 239 Banker Street did not have tenants— much less three families living independently of each other— until at least May 31, 2009.
- 239 Banker Street was vacated by the Department of Buildings September 24, 2009.
- This makes five months total— not even close to what the law requires.
So why file such a spurious application in the first place? Well, as one commenter noted recently:
they can apply for loft law status, but they will have an almost impossible task of getting coverage. The problem is that once they apply and receive a docket number they are actually protected from any action from DOB, which actually sucks because there is a 2-3 year back up to hear the case with the loft board. So while they will almost certainly lose the hearing they will keep moving people into the space who will get evicted in 2 or 3 years at best…
Unless of course in the meantime someone changes the law**:
Assemblymember Vito Lopez told more than 200 tenants gathered at a meeting last night on his 2010 law protecting their right to live in former industrial spaces that he is their best ally — and suggested that Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez is the one they should throw out of office this year.
“[Councilmember Diana] Reyna and Velazquez wanted the area carved out of the law,” said Lopez, who also heads the Brooklyn Democratic Party, referring to the industrial zone bridging Williamsburg and Bushwick that lies within his district. “They really don’t like you. This was Velazquez’s way of saying you don’t matter.”
Velazquez faces a primary challenge this June from term-limited Councilmember Erik Dilan, a close ally of Lopez who sat at his side onstage at the event. Flanking Lopez on the other side was
WilliamsburgGREENPOINT Councilmember Stephen Levin, who formerly served as Lopez’ chief of staff…
*Which, it is interesting to note, netted them a paltry $25,000 fine. Not they they have bothered to pay it or the litany of other penalties they have accrued. They haven’t.
**You do not honestly believe Mr. Lopez and Mr. Levin are pushing for an expansion of the Loft Law out of the kindness of their own hearts, gentle readers? No sir. Rather, this is simply an expedient means to use voters so as to rezone by decree and reward landlords/political backers who have no regard for zoning laws— or their tenant’s safety. Landlords like Meserole Factory, LLC.
From The New York Shitty Inbox: Apartments For Rent At 239 Banker?
An anonymous tipster writes:
Hello Heather,
I’ve been apartment hunting in Greenpoint and responded to this Craigslist ad about a “newly converted warehouse”:
http://newyork.craigslist.org/brk/abo/2786376022.html
The agent set up a showing with me today, and told me to meet her at the corner of Meserole and Franklin. When I arrived, she was 10 minutes late, so I called her phone and she told me to come meet her outside of 239 Banker.
Well I know quite a bit about 239 Banker, thanks to your blog. And I couldn’t resist going in and having a look-see.
I asked the agent whether this is the same building where all the tenants were forced out because the building was unsafe/illegal. She tried dodging the question at first but eventually conceded that it was in fact the same building. I then asked her if the building was still owned by the same guy, and whether it was up to code/legal. She assured me it was and that he had fixed all of those issues.
She showed me a number of units on the 4th floor, all priced between $3000 for a moderately-sized studio loft up to $3300 for a larger loft, and apparently all prices are negotiable. In fact when I told her I’d looked at a different loft building on Kent (59 Kent), she pressed me for details on how much they were charging for units there.
I’d say the units seem semi-habitable. Some looked as though they’d recently been spruced up, most did not yet have any appliances, and the laundry rooms did not have any machines in them. One unit still had evidence of the old tenants- a makeshift lofted space still intact, and some artwork left sitting above the kitchen cabinets.
One unit I looked at literally had a hole in the brick wall about the size of a baseball that went straight through to the outdoors. I joked that perhaps there were squirrels living in the unit. The agent did not seem amused.
Many of the floors showed signs of water/environmental damage. They were uneven in many units, and peeling up in others. It’s actually quite sad, because the space could be very nice. The original details are great, and the square footage of the units are pretty well-sized.
Anyways, I thought I’d let you know because I’m VERY curious to know if 239 Banker is legally habitable. Regardless, I won’t be renting there given the history of the building.
To address Anonymous’s question, the answer is an emphatic NO.
239 Banker Street is located in an Industrial Business Zone. Curiously enough, hotels are permissible in such areas (take the proliferation of such establishments on the Northside, for example). Residential property, however, is not. The owners of 239 Banker Street could seek a zoning variance through our local Community Board to make this arrangement legal. (They haven’t.) They can also file paperwork with the Department of Buildings to “convert” this manufacturing property into residential. This they tried…
and it was declined. Inasmuch as I can ascertain work has been conducted on this property without the auspices of any applicable permits whatsoever. Peruse the permits on file and see for yourself. This just goes to show if something strikes you as being amiss about an apartment you are viewing, gentle readers, it is best to go with those instincts (and consult the Department of Buildings’s Building Information System).
Caveat emptor, apartment shoppers.
UPDATE, January 9, 2012: It would appear this tome has come to the attention of a former resident. Here’s what he/she has to say:
Hilarious! Those pictures (well, two of them) are of my former pad pre-vacate order.
Classy.
UPDATE, January 9, 2012; 5:40 p.m.: A tipster found these units listed on Street Easy.
He/she writes:
FYI
All units are up on street easy as available. I started a discussion at the bottom. Good looking out.
While this is clearly a listing from the previous owner, it is informative nonetheless. In 2009 these “units” went for $2,100 plus. Three years later you can have the luxury of living in this illegal apartment building at the starting price of $3,000 a month! Nice.
P.S.: In the event the above-mentioned apartment advertisement is removed by Craigslist, you can view a screencap of it by clicking here. Do give it a read. Your truly’s favorite passage is as follows:
Several units to choose from at this point! Some are complete 2 or 3 bedrooms while other are beautiful open spaces.
One has to admire this rather artful spin on an illegal (and unfinished) apartment building. And yes, there are plenty of units to choose from after a building has been, say, vacated by the Department of Buildings for conditions imminently perilous to human life. Genius!
From The New York Shitty Inbox, Part I: A Question About 467 Troutman
J writes:
Miss Heather:
I’m apologize in advance if I am wasting your time, but you seem like you might be able to shed some light on a certain amount of confusion I have around 467 Troutman.
I’m looking to move into a 3 BR loft in the area and have been shown several decent options. We were recently shown a space in 467 Troutman – I went in with very low expectations resulting from some internet research and a landlord/manager that I (think) I respect telling me the following:
Eeks! 467 troutman st has no certificate of occupancy, same landlord as 260 Moore street + 315 siegel .I don’t recommend living in that particular landlords buildings-besides the dept of building violations the buildings has bedbug issues and shanty build out of the building…Anyway, the space I saw was the nicest I’ve seen so far – kitchen/bathroom seemed relatively new and clean, the hallways clean, the buildout seemed better than most I’ve seen, etc…. the overall vibe seemed good – and the the tenant who currently occupies the space told us she’d been there 4 years and had nothing negative to say about the landlord.
Do you know of any good reason to not live there? My feeling is that the building had issues in the past but things are better now… Am I missing something? It seems like Max Starck and 467 Troutman come up often enough on your website in a negative light… so I thought I’d ask you for your opinion.
Thanks so much for any info you might be able to provide, and thanks for doing what you do. It’s an invaluable resource.
Aside from having walked by 467 Troutman (and knowing that Max Starck) is its owner I know very little about this building. For this reason I am putting your inquiry to my readers, J. This having been written I am familiar with a number of Mr. Starck’s other buildings. For the purposes of this post I am going to narrow my focus to two: the Sweater Factory Lofts and the Greenpoint Hotel. Both are located in Greenpoint.
As you have probably learned by perusing my site, the Sweater Factory Lofts were vacated by the Department of Buildings last year for harboring conditions dangerous to human life. Among the violations cited were uncapped electrical wires and sprinklers being sealed over with sheet rock. A rather appalling fire safety hazard if you ask me. It should also be noted that the space in question (239 Banker Street) was zoned to be a hotel but Mr. Starck and his partner were marketing it as residential property. This may seem trivial but the fact of the matter is there are different safety requirements for transient and residential properties. See where I am going with this?
Now let’s consider the Greenpoint Hotel for a moment. Until fairly recently it was owned by Mr. Starck. The new owner (whom I have met and it should be noted acquired this property at a public auction— it was seized) is spending a lot of money to get this facility back to code. Among the violations being corrected are a sagging wall, an inoperative bathroom and, drum roll please, repairing a number of inoperative sprinkler heads.
These are but two examples be they are enough to establish a pattern of neglect and general disregard for tenant safety. I have little doubt if you were to search his other properties (like 315 Seigel Street, for example) you will find similar such stuff. While I applaud your due diligence for talking to a tenant of 467 Troutman Street I have to go with the landlord/manager on this one: keep away from anything this chap owns.
This having been written does anyone— preferably tenants of Mr. Starck’s properties— have any advice for J? If so please leave them in the comments or email them to me at: missheather (at) thatgreenpointblog (dot) com. All tips/anecdotes will be kept anonymous if you so desire.
Thanks!
Miss Heather
New York Shitty Day Ender: Turn Out The Lights
Filed under: 11222, Bloomblight, Culture War, Greenpoint, Greenpoint Brooklyn, Greenpoint Magic
(Or, 239 Banker Street Revisited)
Today on a lark I decided to swing by 239 Banker Street (formerly known as the Sweater Factory Lofts) to see what’s shaking. I was not disappointed.
After I shot the above photograph a gaggle of hipsters took notice and stopped. One of them (who I would presume to be their leader) initiated contact:
I’m guessing you broke that glass because the landlord ripped you off?
I turned around, pointed to the plywood gracing the entrance and replied:
Like I would live in a place like this? I don’t think so.
There was a pregnant pause and then my new friend told me about how the former tenants of this building were ordered out of the building, screwed out of their security deposits and so on and so forth. Although I know of all of this already I listened attentively as he gave me the whole run-down. After he concluded his speech out rolled the corker: he was one of the tenants vacated from this building! There is undoubtedly a life lesson to be had here, dear readers. I will leave it to you to ascertain what it is. But I digress.
When this gent finished his tale of woe I brought it to his attention that he and his neighbors were not the only people Max and his funky bunch owe money to:
(Insert punchline here.)
Miss Heather
P.S.: In (somewhat) related news it would appear that someone has egged the entrance to the Pencil Factory Lofts.
From The New York Shitty Inbox: Canceled
Filed under: 11211, 11222, Greenpoint, Greenpoint Brooklyn, Greenpoint Magic, Williamsburg, Williamsburg Brooklyn
Since I wrote this post there has been a great deal of commentary and speculation about Zip112, better known as Zip Hostel. E.g.; is it legal? Well, I have word from someone whose sister was going to stay there this upcoming weekend that it has been shut down. In fact, it would appear almost the entire building has been vacated. T writes:
…I actually got hold of the owner of Zip112 on Monday evening and he assured me everything was OK with them (that they were legal etc.). Now my sister has had an email saying the whole building is getting shut down and canceling all reservations.
So whether they are legal or not, they are closed!
Thanks for the advice – my sister has had to forsake Brooklyn and get a bed in a hostel in the East Village instead. Oh well!
On a lark, Monday afternoon I searched for “vacation rentals” in Greenpoint on Craigslist. What I found was sobering.
Presenting the Dobbin Street Lofts.
As you can see, they’re doing brisk business. Who knew April Fool’s Day was a U.S. holiday? I thought that stopped after George W. Bush left office. But I digress.
Here is a photo of said “loft”. And here is what I found on the Department of Buildings web site.
No Certificate of Occupancy
“COMMERCIAL OFFICES”
Same song, different verse. This is not to suggest there isn’t humor to be found here. There is.
239 Banker Street (AKA: The Sweater Factory Lofts), a “hotel” illegally pressed into service as living space, is clearly visible in the background of their photo showcasing the roof deck of their illegal hostel. Nice.
Miss Heather
P.S.: For more reading/commentary about the debacle at 112 North 6 Street I strongly recommend you read Brooklyn 11211’s follow-up post.
New York Shitty Day Starter: Feministing
Filed under: 11222, Culture War, Greenpoint, Greenpoint Brooklyn, Greenpoint Magic
From Banker Street.
Miss Heather
Note: The second image hails from none other than the SWO’ed and vacated Sweater Factory Lofts.
New York Shitty Day Ender: All Apologies
Filed under: 11222, 11237, Asshole, Bloomblight, Bushwick, Dog Shit, Dung of the Day, Greenpoint, Greenpoint Brooklyn, Greenpoint Magic, Other Shit
From 239 Banker Street.*
Miss Heather
P.S.: Those of you who are wondering about 718-STANDUP’s provenance you can see it here. I suppose Max was a supporter of Isaac Abraham for the 33rd City Council District.
*Formerly known as the Sweater Factory Lofts.
New York Shitty Day Ender: It’s Move In Day At 239 Banker Street!
Filed under: Greenpoint Magic
On May 31, 2009 Anonymous wrote:
i saw residents moving into the illegal, non-c-of-o, stop work ordered 239 Banker (neighbor of 259 Banker Street— better known as Studio B*— the edifice graced with the blue sidewalk shed in the background of the above photograph— Ed. Note) yesterday afternoon. Saw the Uhaul, asked the question myself. called in the complaint. they are advertising on C(raigs)L(ist):
Indeed they are! (To view a larger image click on the above jpg or any of the following jpgs.) What’s more, this hotel— oh, I mean loft— has its own web site! Here are some highlights:
Most importantly, no matter what time of day you come home, there will be a safe and cozy environment upon your return.
Hmm... this sounds kind of familiar. Wait— I remember— the Greenpoint Hotel has been advertising “safe and cozy” rooms for some time. Coincidence, you ask? Hardly: 239 Banker and the Greenpoint Hotel are both owned by my good buddy Max Stark! Let’s see what’s on the “Lofts” page, shall we?
From dinner parties to a quick fix after work, you’ll never be lacking space and functionality for your culinary excursions.
Heh, heh, heh… they said “fix”!
Ten minutes from the Bedford Avenue stop of the L? That’s kind of a stretch. But then again so is securing a permit from the Department of Buildings under the auspices of converting a manufacturing space into a “transient hotel”, offering two bedroom units for $2,100 a month in a building which— did I mention this already— has no Certificate of Occupancy?
Not that I really blame Max. If an illegal hostel can exist at 184 Eagle Street— for MONTHS— despite numerous complaints to the Department of Buildings why shouldn’t he get in on the fun?
But what would I know? My apartment building doesn’t have washer/dryer units on every floor. Maybe I should live in a hotel instead?
Miss Heather
UPDATE, June 2, 2009: After learning the very questionable legal status of 239 Banker Street Nicole has ceased to be the real estate agent for this property. No worries, now Liz is one the job…
and it would appear someone else is moving in.
*Whose rooftop terrace is still getting 311 complaints.
From The New York Shitty Inbox: And Now A Word From Our City Councilman
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.
NYS Flickr Pool
You must be logged in to post a comment.