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.
(I live a block away) we would like to see into this neighborhood-affecting proposal. Thank You
ReplyDeleteI 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.
ReplyDeleteThe 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.
Perhaps HPD isn't up to par?
DeleteAs 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.
ReplyDeleteRegarding 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?
ReplyDeleteIts income based
DeleteI 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.
ReplyDeleteI really appreciate you making it so very simple for those of us non-academics
DeleteI 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.
ReplyDeleteI 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.
ReplyDelete@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.
DeleteThat said, VV should focus on courting shareholders who don't own cars; a lot of New Yorkers still don't have cars.
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?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous Sept 2, 2:26 PM
ReplyDeleteExactly.
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.
ReplyDeleteGood point $2 million debt for 1200 apartments is literally nothing. Its actually around $1667 to per apartment to be exact. I think this entire sale is a giant kick back and an opportunity for graft and grift.
DeleteYou make a very good point about how Mitchell Lama governing laws look at shareholder income. This affordable housing program definitely needs to be updated and strengthened in the next round of Mitchell Lama reform laws. It is a no brainer (and a third rail issue) to raise the cap on the 50% surcharge for those who upon residing in this housing are allowed to stay when their incomes surpass that allowed for in original application. Success is great! And some of that success must be credited to the fact of living in an affordable housing complex. Without the fear of being rent burdened, it definitely frees people up in their life choices, and adds to the potential of success! So, why not look at how easy it would be for some successful shareholders to maybe double their surcharge?
DeleteSee you all tomorrow September 3rd, 2026 6pm Sharp at 121 East 3rd. Street. It will be an open discussion!
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, VV should think and act like a developer themselves and invest in long-term, income-generating development rather than simply selling off a valuable asset.
ReplyDeleteI interact with developers every through my work, and most would be jumping at the opportunity to acquire a property of this size—especially one sitting on some of the most expensive real estate in the world. Developers routinely secure financing based largely on a property's income-generating potential.
An opportunity of this magnitude is going to attract plenty of cheerleaders—people looking to score political points or pad their pockets by getting involved in a multimillion-dollar transaction. But VV shareholders and management should be focused on one thing: doing what is best for the entire Co-op and its long-term financial future.
What concerns me most is the lack of transparency. The current VV Board has refused to open the books to independent accountants, and information about the potential sale was kept largely under wraps until very recently. Before shareholders are asked to support a transaction of this magnitude, they deserve full transparency, independent financial analysis, and a clear understanding of what this property could generate if developed rather than sold.
I guess I'm the only one on this Blog.not afraid to State their first and last name! What have we become East Village a bunch of faceless nameless people?
ReplyDeleteIt could make more sense for VV to do a 99-year lease of the parking lot to a developer, rather than selling it. This is not uncommon in NYC real estate, though the general public seems largely unaware of it. If the deal is structured right, the VV would have income.
ReplyDeleteYes, like Penn South. Lease the land. Penn South is another affordable cooperative on the west side That has successfully kept the maintenance affordable for working class shareholders. They receive land rent from the developer that they contracted with for a small portion of their property. On top of the annual land rent, which is structured to bring in I’m not sure how many millions annually, but I did hear from someone who lives there, the overall financial reaping of rewards over the lifetime of the lease is about $926 million. The board at Village View seems to believe a one time injection of 30 million is somehow going to maintain affordability for the working class residents that this program was designed for.
DeleteVV board is not thinking long term. They need to lease the land not sell
DeleteI don't know much about real estate law covering VV. But if the apts. are coops are they allowed to sell them and are they allowed market rate sales? And is subletting allowed? Makes a difference.
ReplyDeleteRun by HPD. Not allowed to sell. not market rate no subletting allowed
ReplyDeleteHere are the details regarding the Penn South redevelopment project and its financial structure for VV shareholders review for your meeting tonight straight from the web.
ReplyDeleteTo protect its shareholders from steep maintenance hikes, the co-op board worked with Washington Square Partners to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to redevelop the site via a long-term ground lease. In late 2022 or early 2023, Penn South finalized an agreement with the developer MAG Partners, in a joint venture with equity firm Safanad.
Key details of the deal include:
- The Deal: MAG Partners acquired the 99-year ground lease for $63.8 million.
- The Redevelopment: The old commercial structure was designated for demolition to make way for a new seven-story, 200,000-square-foot mixed-income residential building. This new building will include 188 units of affordable housing and ground-floor commercial space for a new grocery store.
- Financial Sustainability: Instead of carrying heavy debt for building repairs, the transaction guarantees Penn South a steady influx of long-term ground rent payments.
This steady stream of non-residential revenue directly subsidizes the cooperative’s extensive infrastructure needs, such as its on-site cogeneration power plant and HVAC updates. By offsetting these capital improvement costs, Penn South successfully mitigated the need to drastically raise monthly carrying fees, keeping the community viable and affordable for its working-class shareholders.
Perhaps VV’s board of directors should reach out to Penn South’s board of directors for guidance.
I’m a VV shareholder who just attended the meeting Regarding the sale of parking lot seven.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, leasing is not an option for VV since our property consists strictly of residential units.
If the property consists strictly of existing Mitchell-Lama residential units, you would not be able to execute a ground lease or redevelop it the way Penn South did while remaining in the program.
The regulatory restrictions governing Mitchell-Lama housing make a commercial-to-residential ground lease successful, while a residential-only ground lease faces immense legal and operational barriers.
Do not need to lease just keep it and use it as you wish. Build a garage
DeleteWe are not a residential-only property. We own a commercial space located at 80 1st Ave that has not been used for years. The Board of Directors has informed us that the space is not attracting any interest. It was a medical office at one time I think. While it is possible to lease parking lot 7, it would require the Board to pursue permits, a lengthy process. As noted in the replies here, there already is money earmarked for the two roof repairs. A poor lobby renovation included horrendous or no intercoms service, entrance/exit doors not meeting ADA Standards, or proper elevator repairs, a local law 11 contract that was passed without HPD approval and signed by a the superintendent (since gone) and a costly error in cogeneration contract with a company that never had experience with a complex this size. BTW, I don't think the local law 11 chaos was ever reported to the shareholders via board minutes. All of this has occurred in the years/decades of service from some of the current directors and Management Co. VV shareholders are already incurring double digit percentage increases and will continue to do so with no end sighted for the near future. So while the sale seems necessary, let's agree we've at least been compromised by poor management and oversight.
DeleteThis is a nice story but without comprehensive independent audit it’s all “he said she said” type of argument..
DeleteThe money from a sale can easily be mismanaged and be gone just like in the previous years. Bringing politicians into this will not benefit the shareholders. . Politicians do not represent the share holders of VV they are in it to score political points for the next election and get some more donations along the way. I wouldn’t be surprised if they combine the First houses air rights and the parking lot and we get a couple of 20 story high- rises on that block.
@ sept 6, 6:31 pm. Not he said she said. I have a recording of that meeting where the contract was exposed, the signed check by the superintendent for $100,000 + and the deal made without HPD approval. The meeting was held on 9/24/2019. Current board president held the meeting. Fiduciary negligence was my opinion.
DeleteI was just thinking about the irony of the situation—wouldn’t it be funny if, after the sale, the developers put up a multilevel indoor parking garage?
ReplyDeleteIt immediately brought to mind the song "Big Yellow Taxi" by Joni Mitchell and that classic line:
"They paved paradise and put up a parking lot."