Questions, comments or a tip? Let us know.
Morningside Gardens Could Sell at Market Price
By Alex Pianin
PUBLISHED DECEMBER 7, 2007
A crumbling facade could cause the identity of the community within the Morningside Gardens Co-op to disintegrate as well, as the community faces the decision to sell their units at market price or watch their building fall apart.
In the basement of the apartment complex, approximately 40 residents came together Thursday night to discuss the possibility of going to market rate, a move that would officially bring an end to the building’s tradition of affordable housing.
Longtime resident Barbara Williams-Henry said that she would be voting for the rate increase.
“I know what they need this money for,” Williams-Henry said “All these things are collapsing day by day. And I’ve been here 35 years, and I’ve been through assessments and all kinds of things, and I don’t want to see that come back again. And we need the money to get these things done.”
In the first in a series of town hall meetings regarding setting co-op prices to the open market, the Morningside Gardens Bylaws Committee presented the advantages of pricing apartment units at market rate to an audience divided at the prospect of price hikes. While some threw in their support citing desperately needed building renovations, others expressed concern that going market rate would eliminate the diversity that has long defined the co-op.
President of the Morningside Heights Housing Corporation and bylaw committee member Tova Francus said that the apartment buildings were in need of sidewalk repairs, facade renovations, and heating, drainage, and ventilation repairs, all of which could cost more than more than $30 million. The co-op receives a 15 percent flip tax for every apartment sold, and an increase in the going rates would lead to more money from the flip tax, which would then be used for building improvements.
Morningside Gardens faced similar debate last March when tenants voted in favor of an 80 percent price hike and an expansion of the flip tax,
But others were concerned that the apartments would no longer draw in the kind of ethnic and economic diversity that had been an intrinsic part of the co-op’s character.
“This is one of those rare enclaves of the kind of society you need to live in. It’s not only highly integrated racially and ethnically, but also by age and income,” new resident Sheila Geist said. “The joy of moving into a fully integrated community, with their heads screwed on right and who care about their neighbors, who are not just thinking of the bottom line ... to have that taken away just as I arrive is very painful to me.”
Resident Joan Levine was skeptical that going to market rate would provide the money for all the necessary repairs.
“At some point, unless everybody’s always moving out, the flip tax is going to dry out,” Levine said. “That’s planning on the basis of everybody leaving.”
Bylaw committee chair Yvonne Martin-Cozzula stressed that nothing had been finalized yet, and that preserving the diversity of the complex as well as the economic interests of its residents was of the utmost importance to the committee. The bylaw committee expects to present a proposal to the MHHC to be voted on by March.
Alix Pianin can be reached at news@columbiaspectator.com.
Article Tools:
View Comments ( 22)
Post a Comment
Sheila Geist stated in the meeting that she had sold a NY co-op before she moved into Morningside. Now I believe that Morningside is the only co-op left in NYC with fixed selling prices for their apartments. That means that when she sold her apartment she made a PROFIT.
She also claims that her maintenance was lower in the other building. She gives us no information about the number of units, size of her apartment, and condition of the buildings and most importantly, the financial stability of the co-op.
Now I don’t begrudge Ms. Geist her profit. She bought an apartment and sold it for a higher price. That is what has made NY great. Perhaps she gave the difference in the buying and selling price to the poor. Perhaps she pocketed the money – that is her right.
What I object to is her complaint that a Morningside resident is not entitled to do the same.
Ms. Geist was permitted to buy an apartment here because we have no cap on income. She bought at (I believe) the pre 80% price which was quite low. She got a good deal. She is simply outraged that her friend cannot get the same deal. Sorry, that’s life.
The reason for this is that MG has behaved like a drunken sailor the past 10 years. Low prices, low maintenance increases, no repairs made on the buildings or grounds, no income generation has left the co-op financially unstable.
An increased selling price and flip tax means more money for the corporation to right the wrongs of 10-20 years of neglect. I believe that since the 80% increase was enacted that more money has come into the Corporation than in the last 10 years combined.
Ms. Geist seems to think that along with the cheap prices comes the right to cheap maintenance. Anyone who has bought here in the last 8-10 years could see the writing on the wall – that with apartment prices this low maintenance would have to rise in order to pay for much needed improvements.
We all have to pay our fair share of this – the newer cooperators even more so. Raising prices means that the seller will now make a generous contribution (flip tax) to the Corporation when they sell their apartment. The seller will also make a good profit on their investment. That is good for everyone.
Sorry, Sheila, your friend didn’t get in. Maybe you should have lent her some of that profit when she needed it.
So great to see diversity of opinion. This is what makes our community so amazing. We all care, if I may, for each other both in MSG and in the larger community. I would suggest that we not project too much about what we think are people's motivations for going one way or another on this issue. Let's look at the facts and ask the hard questions about what we need(the operative word) to do to maintain our infrastructure. What are the alternatives?
I have lived in Morningside Gardens since 1968, brought my kids up here, and I was always proud of what this community represented. I read this blog and I am sickened by the tone and content. I feel as though my community is being eaten alive by the piranhas of greed--and yes, I know that's a little florid. As the prices go up, as more money is at stake, the Board of Directors gets more and more secretive--it's like dealing with Bush/Cheney. It's achingly sad to watch trust go down the tube. I'd like to put in a word for retired librarians and civil servants--- I'd rather live with them than with a pack of ruthless, dishonest, short-sighted hedge fund managers and inside traders.
I am not an investigative journalist but I did take it upon myself to investigate the facts leading up to this article.
The Committee responsible for these meetings DID NOT extend an invitation to the press.
These are private meetings on private property among Morningside Gardens shareholders.
Alex Pianin misrepresented herself at the sign-in desk in order to gain admittance.
She did not display her press credentials but pretended to be a (confused) shareholder to gain admittance (not uncommon in this community).
Now I suppose in our current CNN / Fox News world misrepresentation is just an accepted fact of life and is considered “investigative journalism”.
It does show how far the 20% opposition have fallen that your reporter was the best that they could get and that they had to sneak her into the meeting.
Who’s crashing the next meeting – the “Weekly Worker”?
My first question to the Spectator. Who are you in relation to me, a 12-year community resident? Will we have a relationship of equals, i.e., can i regard you as a responsible publication, one that cares about what takes place in the larger community. Will you make an effort to find out who we are? We are very aware of your presence.
Second question is would you consider having voices representing "my" community speak in your pages--on a regular basis? This would be a departure for "student journalism" but we are in the 21st century, need new perspectives.
Several in the Morningside Gardens' building in which I live have read your curious article with its narrow focus. We have printed it out to post in our lobby-- before another meeting this week on going to market. A reminder: there are 1,000 apartments in the Gardens, many points of view, populations. Your article reflected just one of the three meetings.
Headline for your article is "What IS in the best interest of Morningside Gardens?" We want to be open to various perspectives. The Spectator could do the same.
Naomi Dagen Bloom, community resident and Edlerblogger, who was unable to register here
Mine was not intended as an "anon" comment but registering did not work.
"Several in the Morningside Gardens' building in which I live have read your curious article with its narrow focus."
The article gives the viewpoint of people who oppose selling at market rate, and also the viewpoint of people who are in favor of it.
What is being left out here? The "confused and angry and complaining about articles in a college newspaper for no clear reason" point of view?
But others were concerned that the apartments would no longer draw in the kind of ethnic and economic diversity that had been an intrinsic part of the co-op’s character.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Translation: keep whitey out. It's also hysterical that they care more about "diversity" than having a building that wont fall apart over their heads. Truly brainwashed. And stupid.
In all my years at Columbia and beyond, you, anonymous troll, are the only person I've ever witnessed using the phrase "keep whitey out." Again. And again. And again.
Sometimes I wonder which team you're playing for.
Hey, I started saying "Keep Whitey out" two weeks ago - let's give some credit here.
Although, to be fair, I was only making explicit what most of the anti-expansion folks were thinking.
Who needs housing any way?
Breaking News: 'Affordable' housing is a really, really dumb idea.
Unless you're a family of 4 with a total income of $25K - still above the federal "poverty line". Where would YOU live?
that is what the projects are for
If I was "a family of 4 with a total income of $25K" I'd move out somewhere in the Midwest with low living expenses.
That's the all-around smart thing to do - living somewhere with living expenses you can afford.
I am a family of 4 with 10x that income, and I live somewhere OTHER than Manhattan. Why? Because I can't afford to live in Manhattan, and I don't expect others to pay for me to live in Manhattan.
At least this specific co-op, as far as I'm aware, is not a situation of people demanding that taxpayers subsidize their Manhattan living.
What this situation will show is the hypocrisy and money grubbing of the people who wanted "affordable housing". They bought their units at "affordable" prices, but now they're talking about letting themselves sell at market rates. I predict that very few of these residents will offer to give away their windfalls for the cause of affordable housing when they sell at market rates.
Mark G.
PS: I agree that "keep whitey out" is getting a little old.
MARK G.is absolutly correct - already those members of the community who opposed Open Market prices are rubbing there hands and licking their lips at the prospect of all that new income coming in. They want to spend it on Playgrounds and Music rooms for their wonderful children and keep the prices low so their friends can clean up as well. They will have no hesitation about selling their apartments at the new prices and pocketing the profit.
Once again this is a lopsided article about the issue. An OVERWHELMING majority of residents are in favor of Open Market. You interview the same tired old turds who bleat about diversity and fairness but represent those who now will cheerfully spend the additional income coming into the corporation and take credit for it. A CO-OP is a BUSINESS - not a welfare organization!
I thought Columbia had a first class School of Journalism. I would suggest the author dig a little deeper and present the TRUTH.
John M.
And yet a good majority of those who favor open market had no qualms availing themselves of this "welfare organization" and buying 3-bedroom apartments for $25K in 1993 or $2K in the 1960's. Not like they took the difference between the limited price and the open market rate of the time and gave it to the coop's treasury.
MG was conceived as a firewall to prevent the spread of urban decay from affecting Columbia and it's corresponding institutions. Those who signed up were given attractive prices as an incentive to put up with the crime and decay. It also received outside funding to suppliment the reduced rates.
The Columbia institutions and the buyers got a good deal - it was an excellent BUSINESS transaction.
The only difference now is that the MG no longer receives outside funding to suppliment it's low cost and it's selling prices have not kept pace with the NY market. In this regard there is no way it can continue to restrict it's prices and generate enough money to repair it's (built on the cheap) infrastructure.
It was never considered "welfare housing" .
It is no different if I go to a bad neighborhood and buy a piece of property and put up with all the s**t in the hopes that prices in the area would rise and I would make a profit if I sold my property.
Yes, the early shareholders got a good deal but they also had to put up with a lot. Those who are buying now enter a neighborhood with reduced crime and better services (including higher property prices).
Please don't turn this into a "we exist so that every retired librarian- civil service worker can have a large apartment at a fabulous price" issue.
John M
Its not my responsibility to pay for someones house who is dumb enough to have 2 or 3 kids while only earning 25k. 25k is enough to live in a cheap apartment somewhere. Stop stealing from responsible taxpayers, loser.
KRAMER: Jerry, this is the way society functions. Aren't you a part of society? Because if you don't want to be a part of society, Jerry, why don't you just get in your car and move to the East Side!
It is not my responsibility to listen to someone who is dumb enough not to be able to use the apostrophe correctly.
Post new comment