Letters, Week of July 17, 2014

Southbridge pros & cons

To The Editor:
Re “Southbridge Towers: Should we privatize? Yes or No” (Talking Points, June 19 – July 2):

We have to make the most important decision (as shareholders in our co-op) soon in voting about whether to remain ordinary tenants or become owners of our apartments.

Voting yes will mean having owner equity immediately, varying from $350,000 to $900,000 according to the appraisal tables in the approved Black Book.

Since you will own the apartment, you may sell it, leave it to a member of your family or it will become a part of your estate. Any upgrading renovation you pay to do in the apartment adds to its value (and comfort) and will be retained and not passed on to a stranger on leaving in the future.

You may be able to use your apartment as collateral for a low interest home equity loan to pay off expensive debt or invest.

If you vote no and the co-op stays in Mitchell-Lama, tenants will continue with the current rate of  fee increases  and not face a possible transfer tax now on appeal before the court as mentioned in the Black Book.

No one can accurately predict the possible impact of privatization on monthly apartment fees presented at great length in the Black Book scenarios in spite of the assumptions of both sides of a yes or no vote.

If you are interested in becoming an owner of your apartment with an immediate huge increase in your net worth with no cash investment and other benefits  as previously described, the risk range  of potential increases in the monthly fee is miniscule compared with the huge rewards, not found anywhere. Vote yes.

If you solely desire the knowledge that your monthly fee increases shall continue at current levels and are satisfied in being  a tenant, vote no.  

Personally, I never intend to move from our beautiful courtyard oasis development in the middle of the Manhattan concrete jungle.

I urge everyone at Southbridge to consult a professional financial advisor (as I have), who only has your interest and welfare in mind, someone who you can be certain has no underlying political, personal, or blind fear-based motivation.
Sy Schleimer

“Seaport Report, Week of July 2, 2014” ( “Puzzles and Parties,” Posted Jul. 2)

This is hopeful news but the tourism service workers are really in need of a low cost food court type of deal to replace Pier 17. Yes, the food options at pier 17 were horrible, but we desperately want to bring tourists back to Fulton St. and the Seaport district and we have to have some place where we can feed 4 or 5 buses at a time with less sophisticated fare. Something like the dining concourse at Grand Central Terminal would be ideal. What are the plans for the Fulton Market where that horrific Bodies exhibit resided?
Matthew  

Reports of surveillance drones in Battery Park City (Posted, Jul. 2)

There was a concert last month in Washington Square Park that was completely spoiled by overhead flying things’ motors. It was the same day as the President came into town, so maybe that was the reason; but WHY do we need all these flying objects making noise? 

The open-air concert was a bust because of them.
Jane Heil

“Four Seasons gets OK for overnight construction from C.B. 1 committee” (Posted, Jul. 11):

How will night construction limit noise for the residents at 10 Barclay tower……..? This makes no sense.
Guest

Spread the word:

2 Responses to Letters, Week of July 17, 2014

  1. We have an unprecedented occurrence at Southbridge Towers. There are many who want the co-op to leave the Mitchell-Lama program and become a private co-op. The problem is the FNMA’s regulations on asbestos which clearly states that it is an impediment to buyers getting a mortgage (co-op buyer loan). The Board has not shown in the reconstitution plan “Black Book” that our shares of stock will be acceptable by lending institutions as collateral. This is the heart of the whole problem. The entire reconstitution is dependent on much additional income which will be needed to cover the high property tax which will happen when or if the co-op becomes private. Several trial attempts to get a buyer loan “mortgage” giving all necessary facts and figures about SBT, have been rejected. In addition there is the problem of the “Real Property Transfer Tax”. If the City appeal is against Trump 3&4 successful, then SBT will pay $28M

    • I would like you to show me the trial attempts of selling an apartment at Southbridge have been rejected. I also read the FNMA form and it clearly states that it may want the buyer to either remove or encapsulate the asbestos. Why would this be a problem for a buyer who is investing in a apartment that has such a low maintenance.

      II would pay for the removal and still walk away with 300 to 400 thousand. I will also remove it if I want to get an equity line of credit. There are thousands of buildings in Manhattan that have asbestos and people are buying and selling everyday. Also, you guys continuously talk about the transfer tax. As of right now , we do not have to pay it and I doubt the court of appeals will even listen to the case. They do not have to listen to the case.

      I have read countless law firms opinions on the case and everyone of their opinions was that appellate court was correct in their decision. Also you should know that trump village won the case with a unanimous vote. I doubt very much if we have to pay that tax. What we at Southbridge is the entire truth and I will be very satisfied with that. The people at the head of the anti-privatization movement have never shown one positive of going private.

      The odds of that are just impossible. Bells should go off in your head when you do not hear one positive on Privatization.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


× 7 = fourteen

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>