The meeting starts at 6 p.m. at STAR Academy (P.S. 63), 121 E. Third St. between Avenue A and First Avenue.
Assemblymember Keith Powers, State Sen. Brian Kavanagh and Manhattan Borough President Brad Hoylman-Sigal are also expected to attend.
According to a flyer distributed to Village View residents, attendees will be able to provide feedback on the proposal.
Registration is not required to attend.
As previously reported, the Village View board has been exploring a possible sale of the property.
According to minutes from the co-op's January board meeting, directors voted to hire Alan Cohen of ABS Partners under a six-month exclusive contract to market Parking Lot 7 — located on Second Street between Avenue A and First Avenue — to prospective residential developers.
The board's decision to retain a broker has prompted questions among some shareholders about what, exactly, could be built there and how any future project might affect the co-op and the surrounding neighborhood.
The possibility of redevelopment has raised concerns among some shareholders, who say they want more transparency about the process and assurances that affordable housing will be considered if the site ultimately moves forward with development.
11 comments:
(I live a block away) we would like to see into this neighborhood-affecting proposal. Thank You
I live at VV. Like a lot of Mitchell-Llama co-ops, maintenance costs are rising. Plumbing repairs are more frequent. Equipment is aging. Keeping up a 1,200+, 7 building co-op is costly. We still have a few buildings that needs roofs. We need new intercoms. Some of the building doors need to be replaced.
The plan to sell the lot and then invest the money and use dividends to fund capital repairs is smart. Obviously it needs to be done transparently, and the lost parking spaces should be considered, even in a new development.
But much of this information has been disclosed in shareholder meeting minutes. Trouble is, most people don't read them or attend the meetings. Until a hot topic issue like this comes up, then everyone just begins making rumors or becoming combative.
As a fellow resident of VV, I am writing to share my perspective on the current state of our community. Like most shareholders, I understand that the costs for labor and services are rising. However, the core issue we face is a fundamental lack of trust between shareholders, management, and the Board of Directors.
Regarding our immediate financial and capital needs, the money has already been earmarked for the roof replacements for buildings one and three, so that is not an issue. I also agree that the lot should be sold, as we urgently need new elevators and a reliable intercom system.
A major concern for many of us is our current managing agent, who is difficult to work with. Shareholders frequently have to jump through hoops and escalate requests just to receive basic services, which is unacceptable.
To move our community forward, I believe we should sell the lot, change our managing agent, and proceed with the much-needed repairs—including updating the plumbing for our buildings, which are now 62 years old.
Can I ask... What are the maintenance costs at VV?
I am a current cooperator and have lived at V.V. for 50 years. There are several issues at hand here. Village View is suffering financially; we have aging and deteriorating buildings and we are over 2 million dollars in debt currently. The only money that is collected and used for maintenance and upkeep is raised through the residents who pay rent. More than half of the residents who live at V.V. are senior citizens, most of whom are on fixed income and pay a reduced rent based on their income. The amount of money that is collected from residents does not cover the daily real world costs of up upkeep, repairs and inflation for these aging buildings. V.V. is also not an independent housing corporation. H.P.D. (Housing Preservation and Development) has always had absolute oversight over operations here at V.V. This means that little to nothing can be done without H.P.D. sign off, this includes the sale of any parking lot property. Most if not all independent oversight agencies in NYC have already been contacted and have investigated the proposed land sale and found nothing illegal this includes, The State Attorney General, Dept of investigations, District Attorney’s office, The Mayor’s office, etc… There are only two possible future roads for V.V. One, we do not sell the parking lot and just keep raising the maintenance/rent by double digits till we no longer can be considered affordable housing. Two, we sell the parking lot and create an endowment that will help stabilize the financial picture for this Mitchel Lama for generations to come. It’s really that simple.
I am a resident at VV supportive of selling the lot for housing development (years ago I even emailed our council member to suggest this!), both to support our financials and because housing is a better use of this space, so close to subways and buses, than a heavily subsidized parking lot. I think many people who oppose this just don't want the loss of absurdly cheap parking, although they try to couch their opposition otherwise.
I agree with fellow residents above that there is a range of issues around financial management though. Co-generation took a ton of money and seems to have been a flop too, no?
If that lot is sold and the money is used, what then after the money is gone. What will VV do in the future to stay out of debt and for that matter, why are they in debt. Millions were squandered on scaffolding that was there for years with no visible work and a questionable contractor. Contractor operated out of a regular house with no website, just how did VV find them anyway one wonders. The City should really look into the financial affairs at VV. If the lot is sold, it should have a garage for VV tenants that lost their space. Some kind of rotten cheese thing happening at VV.
Someone had previously commented that using this space as a parking garage would generate income without permanently giving up the land. Is that idea on the table?
Anonymous Sept 2, 2:26 PM
Exactly.
It sounds like the issue was mainly trust with the managing agent. Co-ops have border directors that are usually residence living in the co-op, although it doesn’t have to be. Do they not properly oversee the managing agent? For the parking spots, They can mandate that as part of the sale, a garage needs to be built underground for the tenants. Not everyone that is rich owns a car, but I must say, and walking by the parking lot. There are some pretty expensive cars there. I have to think that some of these spots are being sublet to people that don’t live there. Also, my understanding is that VV Only looks at current income when approving people. You could have $20 million and be retired and still qualified to live here. They should really revisit Their approval process. $2 million in debt sounds like a lot but with 1200 apartments, that’s less than $2000 per apartment. They could simply assess everyone. Nothing is free in this world. Someone has to pay for it.
@Anonymous 4:22PM It would be dangerous and difficult to dig underground parking, but I agree: garage space should be created or found for the tenants so no one has to lose their parking. Maybe parking decks are a solution; many commercial lots have gone multi-level out of necessity.
That said, VV should focus on courting shareholders who don't own cars; a lot of New Yorkers still don't have cars.
Post a Comment