[EVG file photo]
The Post provides a quickie today about the former PS 64 and CHARAS/El Bohio community center on East Ninth Street.
There isn't any new information for anyone who has been following the story… more of a primer bringing the issue to people's attention outside the neighborhood.
Anyway, a quote from Councilmember Rosie Mendez:
"We don’t need a dorm — we’ve never wanted a dorm," Mendez told the Post. "When the building was sold to this developer . . . he was supposed to develop it. He has not. The city can negotiate to get the building back."
Previously on EV Grieve:
Local elected officials urge Mayor de Blasio to help return the former PS 64 to the community
The Landmarks Preservation Commission approves application for modifications at PS 64
'Misinformation' cited as DOB issues Stop Work Order at the former PS 64; community meeting set for Sunday afternoon
They should make it into a mall filled with little shops that are being priced out of this neighborhood.
ReplyDeleteThere is no way a little crafts store can survive much longer in a neighborhood where rent on a small storefront can hit $20,000 a month.
That's a good idea. Really there are so many uses for this bldg other than ANOTHER dorm. When do the citizens who pay taxes for yrs & yrs get a say in what happens to NYC owned properties?
ReplyDeleteIts private property, he can do what he likes as this is AMERICA. The councilwoman is just sore she lost this case and she should move on. Im sure the dorm is not ideal, but it will bring a lot of money to the local business in the area. We do not live in a communist society and private property cannot be taken back without being paid fare price, this would cost the city over $100 Million by todays value of land. The councilwoman needs to move on and focus on other issues we have in the neighborhood and stop being a sore loser.
ReplyDeleteDid the City put something in the sales contract telling the buyer that they had to develop it, or otherwise couldn't turn it into a dorm? Of course not, because then either the buyer would have walked away or the price would have had to be lower because it would have come with a big string attached.
ReplyDeleteTypical of doing business with the City. "I am altering our deal. Pray I don't alter it further." Scumbags.
It did come with those big strings attached.
DeleteYipes away! Ignorance is rampant on this comment post. First of all, this property was sold with a ‘community facility deed restriction’. This does mean that a dormitory can be one of the "community facility" options. A mall with small shops, a nice idea, however, is not an option given the strictures of the deed.
ReplyDeleteNow back to the dorm: The problem is that Singer has been trying to slink around the definition of a real dormitory and the required relationship between the property owner and its renters--He has negotiated very questionable deals with his potential dorm renters: Cooper Union and the Joffrey Ballet and this is why the city has rightly placed a stop work order on his initiative.
It remains to be seen if Singer will ever be able to create a truly legitimate deal. Our councilperson is not being a sore loser, she has been fighting steadfastly to preserve this building as a truly valuable and useful community facility, and she has been fighting to insure that there is real, legitimate community input into the future usages of the building.
A dormitory filled with transient college students will not bring much money or business to our hood. Their presence will crowd the surrounding blocks, create more noise and confusion, and the building will not have the feel of a college community, rather it will be filled with random students from different programs and schools, who feel no loyalty or affinity either to this community or to the non-campus Singer’s vision will bring to the building.
It is true that the City or some combination of City and philanthropic investors would probably have to pay a pretty penny to reclaim the building from Singer, however, $100 million is a ludicrous guess at an accurate amount. Something closer to $25-$40 million would be a much more realistic supposition.
However, once reclaimed and paid for, the cost of renovation would likely add another $50 million to the price tag. Once again, this wont all necessarily be paid for by the city. Finally, Singer has owned the building for over 15 years—during this time he had developed little more than a cold. Developers develop; Singer is not developing anything at all. But he has used it to leverage huge loans and no one quite knows what he has used that money for.
In addition, to date, all he has done with the landmark is deface it. He has no interest in negotiating honestly with the community. He has pursued his absurdist vision all the way up to the State Supreme Court and lost every time. He may not be the worst developer to attempt to ruin our community but he has certainly been the most stubborn, recalcitrant and lacking in scruple.
The argument that this is a battle between evil communists and pure hearted capitalists is a specious one. Singer is not behaving like an honest capitalist, he is trying to game the system. Calling our elected officials communist is absurd and laughable. It is not communist to attempt to represent one’s community; it is the fact that our elected officials are elected to represent the best interests of their community.