Denied access to her building’s gym, Jean Green Dorsey can burn off some calories on her way to the bank. Her building now owes her $20,000. Dorsey brought a complaint in 2014 to the city Human Rights Commission after she and other rent-stabilized tenants were locked out of the gym on 97th street between Amsterdam and Columbus, a building owned by Stonehenge Partners.
The renovated gym was only open to people living in market-rate apartments. Rent-regulated tenants had offered to pay extra for access to the gym, but were denied. They’ll now get access.
The city will also fine Stonehenge $40,000, according to the Daily News.
After paying lawyer fees, Dorsey says she will end up with around $6,000 from Stonehenge Partners, which owns the primarily luxury development on W. 97th St.
She plans to give some of the money to the National Museum of African-American History and Culture, the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial and to charities.
“I’m a believer if you can give, you should, and I’m lucky enough to not be as needy as I could be,” said Green Dorsey, who is on a fixed income and in desperate need of a kidney transplant.
“‘I’m a believer if you can give, you should, and I’m lucky enough to not be as needy as I could be,’ said Green Dorsey, who is on a fixed income and in desperate need of a kidney transplant.’
I am proud you be your neighbor, Jean Green!
Oh how nice, another lottery winner in our great city! More people should sue for being poor and not being handed everything they feel entitled to! Why work?
You’re 100% correct. I’m not sure how someone has a divine right to live in a luxury building if they can’t afford it.
Only in NYC.
She doesn’t “have a divine right” – she was in the building BEFORE it was luxury, hence the rent stabilization. Her unit is probably a dumpy, neglected 1970s hole that management won’t fix BECAUSE she’s rent stabilized. Then to be denied the things her neighbors are being offered, just because her building was bought by greedy developers?
This building is far from “luxury”. It was a former Mitchell-Lama housing project that was purchased out of that scheme (legally).
https://therealdeal.com/2014/02/25/james-to-file-discrimination-complaint-against-stonehenge-management/
Vacant units then and those that become so afterwards are being converted into “luxury” housing same as every other landlord does when a RS or RC apartment becomes empty; gut renovation. This and things like redecorating and or renovating common areas along with adding amenities.
Stonehenge Village is no more “luxury” than Stuyvesant Town/Peter Cooper Village. They are a bit more upscale than say the Projects, but Park Avenue they ain’t.
Know before you talk. know the history behind who these people are and where this building came from then talk. Not everyone was born privileged and with a silver spoon in their mouth. This building used to be low income apartments until new management decided to convert them over to luxury rentals. Shut your mouth and educate yourself before you decide to write anything.
You’ve got a lot of anger and hostility in you.
You think this woman has never worked a day in her life? Do you know anyone renting with a stabilized lease? Most people I know are just getting by like everyone else and the one break they have is they lived in this city long enough to have earned a stable lease from putting up with how rough the city was. They still have insurance policies, and utilities among other payments. So why don’t you do something positive with your day instead of stepping on those just living their lives. You sound entitled and bitter.
She brought a valid discrimination suit against her building property, wasn’t looking for a big payout from it, and is donating the $6000 she ends up with from the settlement. Where’s the “lottery winner” in that?
Finally someone strikes a blow for low-income and/or elderly tenants.
It is clear that landlords don’t want these tenants in their buildings because they want to project an image that their buildings are upscale, trendy, luxury apts.
Good for her! I am also proud to be a neighbor!
Nice that Dorsey was compensated. Does that mean she and fellow rent-regulated tenants can now go to the gym?
Yeah, just added that to the article too. Thanks, WSR
I think instead of donating this lawsuit money to museums she should donate it to the folks in her building who are paying artificially bloated market rents that subsidize her lifestyle.
Your envy is showing. Too bad because green is not your color.
Without long-term tenants like her, there wouldn’t be a neighborhood left for the market-rate tenants to enjoy. No one made them move into the building.
Good work, Ms. Dorsey.
Unbelievable. What a greedy freeloader. Instead of thanking her unbelievably good luck for her cheap apartment, she starts demanding services that OTHERS actually paid for. Off the charts entitlement.
The city needs to end rent control, stat.
I agree, the entitlement mentality among regulated tenants is truly disgusting.
End rent control/stabilization. Every individual who is not disabled should be responsible for finding housing that he or she can afford.
Why do you begrudge folks who are on “social security and living in rent stabilized apartments”? Many of them were living here way before luxury apartments became the norm. I don’t live in a rent stabilized aoartment, but some of my older neighbors do. Good for them. I would never ever want to see an elderly person lose their apartment.
“Off the charts entitlement.” – Alison
That tone-deaf comment is one of the most entitled remarks that I have read here, and that is saying a lot.
It is you, Alison who wrote: “Unbelievable. What a greedy freeloader.” This woman has paid her rent AND SHE HAS TAKEN NOTHING FROM YOU. Yet you want to humiliate her with your words. Both insulting and harassing.
Look in the mirror. Look at your own words. Don’t attack Jean Green Dorsey.
I wonder if Ms. Dorsey was part of the elderly group, protesting the Stryker Park open house earlier this spring. They were wearing red shirts and holding signs saying, “Who does this benefit?” I had an elderly woman hand me their manifesto who told me that the people who were in favor of developing Stryker Park didn’t live in the neighborhood. How does she know who lives in the neighborhood and who doesn’t? Who were these protestors to determine what is right for the neighborhood and what isn’t? I assumed the elderly group came from the Stonehendge building, but maybe they didn’t. It is annoying to see those collecting social security and living in rent stabilized apartments complaining. Why can’t we sit on a park bench outside Whole Foods? What’s the harm in it? As it is, we’re mortgaging our future for their present. Can’t we sit down and relax?
That doesn’t make sense. What exactly am *I* entitled to in this scenario? Nothing. I don’t feel I am expressing entitlement at all. More like disgust at this sue-happy woman who greedily demanded things she didn’t pay for.
The thing is, she HASN’T paid her rent. She’s paid a fraction of the rent that she should be paying. She’s freeloading. Her next-door neighbors are paying thousands more per year than she is and she’s demanding access to building services that she hasn’t paid into.
THAT is entitlement. She got a cheap apartment and she STILL wants more. She believes that she is OWED something.
“The thing is, she HASN’T paid her rent. She’s paid a fraction of the rent that she should be paying. She’s freeloading. Her next-door neighbors are paying thousands more per year”
@Alison – she has paid her rent. In fact she has paid her rent longer than her “Next-door neighbors”.
And if “next-door neighbors are paying thousands more per year” that is too outrageous, and no reason to call her a freeloader. Be nice to Jean Green Dorsey.
Another victory for the 50%. SMH. Turns out Mitt Romney was right all along. He was also right about Russia too but that’s another story. This is ridiculous. These folks should be grateful to even be in the building at all and now they demand gym access. Why would anyone pay market rate to be in this building and have to share facilities with those don’t pay? The entitlement in this town is astounding. No these people didn’t ‘earn’ those apts or anything else for that matter. What a joke. Thanks DiBlasio!
In answer to PMW, you didn’t read the article carefully. Ms. Dorsey and other rent stabilized tenants offered to pay, but the management even refused that. As for the rest of your ignorant remarks, including the other clueless posters, they have already been addressed eloquently.
Your “The entitlement in this town is astounding,” comment says it all. And I’m not referring to Jean Green Dorsey, who by the way, offered to pay for use of the gym and was refused access.
When you live in a building with a gym most of the cost of creating and maintaining the gym is included in your rent. The membership fee is usually just a nominal amount.
Ms. Dorsey offered to pay just the membership fee. Her below market rent was not enough to pay for the true costs of the gym.
So market rate tenants are subsidizing her as she is not paying her fair share of gym costs.
“So market rate tenants are subsidizing her as she is not paying her fair share of gym costs.” Shamir
You must know that the Landlord is not asking tenants to ‘chip-in’ to cover his costs, right? The Landlord is trying to extract as much money as possible to reap the highest Profit.
The fact that one tenant doesn’t pay exorbitant rent HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OTHER TENANTS” COSTS. I have explained this to you way too many times.
Do the rent-regulated tenants get free access to the gym, or do they have to pay a monthly fee? There is no question they should be given access, but it shouldn’t be free — the market rent tenants pay for it (through a high rent). So should the others (even if it is a bit subsidized).
Apparently the law is on Ms. Dorsey’s side so she got what was her right.
She is still a paying tenant in her building. That the law restricts what she has to pay doesn’t mean that she doesn’t exist as a resident. What if the owner decided to deny air conditioning to those tenants under rent control? Where does it end? She pays rent to live there and is entitled to all that that entails.
“She pays rent to live there and is entitled to all that that entails.” No, she pays a small portion of the market-rate rent. She’s entitled to a small portion of the building’s amenities. That’s what she got. Instead she wanted a gym too.
@Hannah,
The tenants get equal access to public spaces, irregardless of their rent. Their rent is determined in the Lease Agreement between the Landlord and the Tenant. Everybody uses has equal access to the lobby, or sidewalk, or staircases, or…
Your is a very thoughtful comment. To exemplify your hypothetical: “What if the owner decided to deny air conditioning to those tenants under rent control? Where does it end?”, I offer the following example. In order to show those in other buildings that the renters in public housing were living worse-off, NYCHA inspected tenants’ apartments to make sure they had no air conditioner and so uncomfortable, and no telephone so they couldn’t get work or an ambulance. That answers “Where does it end?”
Stonehenge: build a separate lobby & entrance, not only a gym. Trump would approve.
I suspect many of the “freeloaders” are the reason why neighborhoods are now desirable to live in as they were the first people to live in the city when others did not want to live in them. Don’t blame the rent control beneficiary for you having to pay $3,000 a month rent. Blame the landlord who overpaid for the property. Just like the economic crisis of ’08. Blame the poor and minorities. How rich is that.
Now you can sue for the lifestyle you cannot afford and force others to pay for you. She can sue for a restaurant bill now, or anything else that she wants to have but can’t.
Rent stabilization laws inflate rents, create deficit of housing, and encourage abuse. These laws are of the last century, they outlives their rationale and must be vacated. A person with the guts and the vision who makes it happen gets my vote.
“Now you can sue for the lifestyle you cannot afford and force others to pay for you. She can sue for a restaurant bill now, or anything else that she wants to have but can’t.”
What an absurd comment. Jean Green Dorsey lived in the building before it became a ‘luxury building.’ Are you suggesting the original tenants should have been pushed out so they wouldn’t interfere with what you consider a luxury lifestyle? You do realize that more than half of the UWS would laugh at the fact that you consider $3000 a month for a building with a gym a luxury when they spend that much for maintenance every month? Be careful who you put in office because eventually someone is going to buy the building you’re living in and you’ll find yourself in the same position as Ms. Green Dorsey.
Anyone running for office who has the guts and the vision to stop these outdated, artificial, abuse-encouraging rent laws gets my vote. The fact that one can sue for others to subsidize one’s lifestyle that they cannot afford is pure abuse and lunacy.
“The fact that one can sue for others to subsidize one’s lifestyle that they cannot afford is pure abuse and lunacy.” – bravo
There are plenty of counties where suing is not a fact. Your preference?
Why are so many people so angry because a woman, who has lived in a building for years, resents being treated like a second-rate tenant. Could be jealousy that she’s lucky enough to have been there as long as she’s been, hence has a good rate of rent. Not a good enough reason to deny her access to a gym. What a bunch of snobs!!!!
IMO it was improper for the building to deny access to rent-stabilized residents. Very pleased with this outcome.
Continue to be astonished and saddened by so many comments on WSR which are critical of rent-stabilized residents..?
Can only assume that many posters are in the real estate business.
My family is fortunate to live in a great co-op – but we have friends and family in rent stabilized apartments. We are completely supportive of rent protection laws.
Long-time residents (who are also long-time taxpayers) who are in rent stabilized apartments are the people who hung around and helped make the UWS a safe place.
Also important to understand that rent protection means that residents tend to stay in their housing – this helps stabilize neighborhoods, helps foster civic involvement/voting etc.
In contrast, take a look at the East Village which has been transformed into a transient/NYU recent grad dorm area.
(And BTW the elimination or weakening of rent protection laws have not resulted in lower rents in places like Cambridge, MA)
Good point. It is a myth that rents would be lower if only rent regulation were eliminated. That is the argument often used to bash rent control. It seems though that the anger comes more from jealousy of those paying higher rents. Obviously the landlords have also taken advantage of the human savagery that exists and benefits when the tenant in 4B is pissed at the tenant in 4A for no reason but one is paying less rent. Landlords would rather sit on an empty apartment for years, holding out for the higher rent. We see this in the commercial real estate market on the UWS where store front after storefront are empty for years. Many businesses have left the community because w landlord doubled the rent. So apparently an empty storefront for 10 years is better than a paying business at a lower rent? Ok.
From 1960 to 1970 and through the 1980s, historically no, not much new rental housing stock was built in NYC. The numbers are out there you can look them up yourself. What did get built often were co-ops or condos.
You can easily research this by examining the historical apartment vacancy rate for NYC. It has remained consistently between 4% and a bit over 5% since 2005. https://www.deptofnumbers.com/rent/new-york/new-york/
In the 1990’s the vacancy rate dipped to a low of around 3.2% in 1997 which is still below the official NYC number that constitutes a housing emergency which triggered RC and RS laws in the first place.
In 1998 the vacancy rate was around 2.46%, in fact due to several factors (mostly relating to the overall national and local economy), the late 1980’s through early 1990’s was probably one of the last periods when it was “easy” to find an apartment (even RS) in NYC. This leaves aside after certain tragic events like 9/11/01
By law NYC’s rent control laws are lifted when vacancy rates go above 5 percent. That hasn’t happened since they were enacted because aside from 2009 when the vacancy rate was a tad over 5% (5.04%) it has never gone well above the statutory number and remained.
So obviously regardless of all the “apartments for rent” signs you have been seeing supply still does not fulfill demand.
“Obviously the landlords have also taken advantage of the human savagery that exists and benefits when the tenant in 4B is pissed at the tenant in 4A for no reason but one is paying less rent.”
How, exactly, do landlords benefit from the animosity between tenants that you described? This is not clear to me.
Deflection! Instead of being upset at the landlord, the higher paying tenant is pissed at the RC tenant with the misguided belief that he/she is paying more because of the RC tenant paying a lower rate. The landlord benefits because he/she has effectively shifted blame to the RC tenant (in the eyes of the higher paying tenant), thus creating a friction in the building/community in the hopes that enough people will rally against RC. That’s how landlords benefit.
Removal of rent protection laws in Cambridge, MA did cause some pain to those affected. However the overall benefit was actually quite good both economically and for the housing stock.
Property values increased for both formerly rent controlled *and* even for properties that had been market rate. Also the quality of housing has improved with both new construction and renovation of existing housing stock.
https://www.nber.org/digest/oct12/w18125.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/15/nyregion/when-rent-control-just-vanishes-both-sides-of-debate-cite-boston-s-example.html?pagewanted=all
New York City has some of the oldest (rental) housing stock in the USA. A good part of it is only being held up by hope and the fact a large majority of tenants are RC and or RS making it nearly impossible to move them, and or expensive if you do.
Only in NYC would a property owner have to pay 25 million (Related paid about that sum to a gay couple living in a decrepit tenement to vacate so it could demolish and continue with Hudson Yards project), for something they do not own. To put that number in perspective Rupert Murdoch just sold an entire West Village mansion for nearly the same amount of money, and he owned the place.
Yes, RS and RC do provide some benefits, but face it, at this point those rewards fall to long term tenants who moved into their apartments > 15 years ago and never left. That and or those lucky enough to score an “affordable” lottery unit.
Keep in mind RC and RS were never intended to provide “affordable housing”. Rather the intention by NYS and NYC was to cope with a shortage of rental housing and curb some of the more blatant abuses by landlords. There is no income requirement legally to get a RS or RC apartment. Landlords may require prospective tenants have a certain rent to income ratio, and the unit can be subject to luxury decontrol (which rarely happens today), but the latter is the only one written into law.
Finally the main argument against rent control laws, and this is something universally agreed upon by economists and others going back years; is it distorts the housing market. Between RS, RC, NYCHA, and other government schemes nearly 60% of the rental housing market in NYC is under some form of government control. That is not good my friend, and it helps to explain the perennial shortage of decent affordable rental housing.
“Property values increased for both formerly rent controlled *and* even for properties that had been market rate. Also the quality of housing has improved with both new construction and renovation of existing housing stock.”
Perhaps, but that has nothing to do with the BS lie that eliminating rent control laws will somehow moderate rent price increases. There can be no doubt that rents for all types of housing have increased DRASTICALLY in Boston/Cambridge since 1995 and that those rent increases have served to chase many long-time residents and much of what made them (Cambridge especially) distinctive out. Overall, it’s a loss. Vibrant communities are more important than endless inflations of property value in places no one who earns less than six figures can begin to afford to live. Rent stabilization is an attempt to compromise between those values, but now, having jacked up market rents and eagerly participated in the destruction of much of the working-class economy, people start whining about how they’re being “forced” to subsidize the homes of those people who sustained the neighborhoods in hard times and whose livelihoods they’ve now undermined. Sorry you can’t afford the rental you want because of those mean rent-stabilized tenants down the hall, dude. Maybe if you were just more hardworking and virtuous you could afford to buy.
Rent control laws for Cambridge were put in place back in 1969 to basically ensure “affordable/low rent” housing for students and other low income households. As have previously stated and you are more than welcome to research yourself, the NYS/NYC rent control and subsequent rent stabilization statues were designed to address a shortage of rental housing and certain landlord abuses.
Rents are high in Manhattan and certain parts of Brooklyn, Queens and now the Bronx simply because of supply and demand. Little if any rental housing in this City has been built since the 1960’s or 1970’s and the large reason is due to rent control laws.
You can have RS apartment and still own a home or two or three elsewhere and or earn a very healthy income. Long as you have good accountants and lawyers there is little to nothing a LL or the City can do. An heiress to the Coca-Cola fortune who happens to be a major NYC real estate player kept her CPS RS apartment for years despite having a healthy income and a home in Conn. More so she even managed to get around five million from a developer to surrender that lease.
Again this matter has been studied to death, and even the most ardent supporters of NY’s rent protection laws realize it distorts the housing market. It rewards those who have remained long term over new arrivals. It also depresses investment and maintenance.
You lost me at: “Little if any rental housing in this City has been built since the 1960’s or 1970’s and the large reason is due to rent control laws.”
Take a walk around or look at the apartment rental ads. Do some research before pontificating.
“the NYS/NYC rent control and subsequent rent stabilization statues were designed to address a shortage of rental housing and certain landlord abuses.”
On the matter of landlord abuse, is it not the case that non-rent-regulated tenants are effectively completely at the mercy of their landlords? If not protected by rent control or rent stabilization, what recourse does a tenant have against a landlord who is derelict in fulfilling his legal and contractual obligations? Sure, the abused tenant can file complaints with the appropriate agency or agencies and (if he has sufficient funds for the legal fees) can sue the landlord. But then what is to stop the landlord from simply declining to renew the tenant’s lease or increasing the tenant’s rent to a prohibitive amount?
“Rents are high in Manhattan and certain parts of Brooklyn, Queens and now the Bronx simply because of supply and demand.”
How much of that demand is from super-wealthy people who purchase properties that they rarely use? How much is from investors who purchase properties that remain completely vacant? Granted, I shudder to think how much worse the City’s overcrowding would be if not for all these vacant or little-used apartments. But is something not wrong, even terribly wrong, when such luxury and investment buyers– many of whom are not even Americans– are pricing-out Americans and New Yorkers who have jobs and family here?
“You can have RS apartment and still own a home or two or three elsewhere and or earn a very healthy income. Long as you have good accountants and lawyers there is little to nothing a LL or the City can do.”
Why would “good accountants” be necessary? To the best of my knowledge, neither rent-control (RC) nor rent-stabilization (RS) are means-based.
Whenever the topic of RC/RS is discussed here, it seems that the people commenting fall into one of two highly polarized camps: either completely for retaining the status-quo or completely for abolishing RC/RS altogether. Is there no one who takes a middle ground? No one who thinks that the concepts and goals behind RC/RS are legitimate but that the programs, in their current forms, are seriously flawed and in need of major reform? No one who would assert the motto Mend it, don’t end it? To me, the most obvious change needed in RC/RS is some form of making them means-based, with the maximum allowable rent increase being on a sliding-scale based on a tenant’s wealth.
You lost me at “Removal of rent protection laws in Cambridge, MA did cause some pain to those affected. However the overall benefit was actually quite good both economically and for the housing stock.”
bad for people but good for economics
and housing stock.
See what I mean about people being important?
They sure haven’t. Boston/Cambridge went from a reasonably affordable place to live to nearly as bad as NYC after they abolished rent control in 1995. (Note that the residents of Boston and Cambridge actually voted to keep it, but the statewide vote went against it.) All these people yelling about how rent stabilization drives up market rents should take a look at what happened there. For some reason they never want to talk about it, even though it’s the most recent example of a major U.S. city ending rent controls, so you’d think they’d consider it relevant. End rent stabilization in NYC and within twenty years the entire place will be a wasteland of uninhabited $10K/month one-beds and empty storefronts.
I find so many of these comments frightening and sad. I’m sorry the UWS is becoming a neighborhood of people who are only interested in having rich people as neighbors and don’t care about the people who have lived for years here and made the UWS a popular place to live.
What you folks don’t understand is that NYers are renters. We have always considered our apartments to be our homes, not some transient place to live.
So, let’s say that you grew up in a middle-class suburb.You finished school and moved out of the house, but your parents stayed put because they worked nearby Now the town is becoming so popular that housing prices have gone through the roof. The middle-class can no longer afford the prices but your parents’ house no longer has a mortgage so they live there cheaply.
So shouldn’t your parents be forced to sell the house? They have a big house, too big for just the two of them. A family with kids wants the house, why should they be allowed to stay?
But I guess this way of looking at NYC real estate won’t make you change your minds. You’re just to fixated on your own needs.
You considered wrong. Also I’m a NYer and I own. As do many of my friends. Renting is just one option and your statement that NYers are renters is not true if meant as a blanket statement.
If you rent, your NY apartment is owned by someone else.
According to recent research only one-third of New Yorkers own their own homes; thus we can reasonably assume the other two-thirds are renters. With household income < 60K per year your chances of being a homeowner in NYC are pretty slim. For the record the median income for NYC is $50,711 per.
New York City overall has been a place of renters, and even all the new condo/co-op construction of late isn't going to change things much.
What city are you talking about? See this link: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/hpd/downloads/pdf/2014-HVS-initial-Findings.pdf
64% of NYC apartments are renters unlike the rest of the country.
My family has been living in NYC since the 1900’s Until the 1980’s people (even those who had money) did not expect to own a home or a co-op. When the market in NY heated up. It finally became financially better to buy then to rent. That wasn’t often the case especially if you were single or didn’t have kids.
The point I was trying to make, is that you have to look at housing in general, and being older and owning a home in a desirable area may be just a maddening to someone who wants to live in that town as would a stabilized apartment in NY.
“My family has been living in NYC since the 1900’s Until the 1980’s people (even those who had money) did not expect to own a home or a co-op.” Mine too.
“When the market in NY heated up.” Here we differ. When rent regulations were attacked by coop conversions, THEN “the market in NY heated up.” people paid for apartments to displace rent-regulated tenants. And now that they did that unconscionable thing, they complain about the remaining rent-regulated tenants. Did I say Predators?
Unless you paid all-cash “your NY apartment is owned by someone else.”
No, that is not correct. In regards to condos or private homes with mortgages New York is one of the few states where you do indeed “own” your home. It is one reason why the foreclosure process in this state is a long and lengthy process compared to elsewhere.
If you have a mortgage the Bank owns your home.
How do you like renting from the Bank? I prefer my Landlord, more responsive.
Since few if any researched the background of this matter before posting….
One, the case had nothing to do with RS laws per se, rather that NYC local laws prevent discrimination in housing based upon income. Since the RS tenants are obviously lower income than the market rate new arrivals (or at least the widow Dorsey), local Harlem and other NYC elected leaders pounced.
Two, the so called gym like most such areas carved out of older apartment buildings is hardly “Equinox” or a “New York Sports Club”. It is a 1000 square foot room with some free weights, treadmills, and a bit of other equipment.
Three, there is nothing illegal in denying RS tenants who remain as such tenants in converted co-op or condo buildings various new amenities. It happens all the time.
RS tenants who remain in their apartments after a conversion are governed by the terms of their original lease. This coverage may or may not extend to include any new services and or amenities.
https://cooperator.com/article/home-sweet-hom/full#cut
https://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/13/realestate/your-home-the-rights-of-renters-in-co-ops.html
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-development-nixes-gym-ban-rent-stabilized-tenants-article-1.2412649
In this case the building is a rental (and former Mitchell-Lama at that), with a large minority population. Stonehenge Partners has been attempting to reposition the property as “Stonehenge Village” an upscale/luxury development, but that has not really worked out well for them. The place still betrays it’s Mitchell-Lama roots and no amount of renovations (which by many published accounts are shoddily done), are going to thus far make the place compete with any of the newly built from the ground up luxury housing.
The fee for this so called “gym” was only $25/month. Total sums paid in fines and whatever to settle this case is only $60k, that is chump change to Ofer Yardeni, and may just end up being a footnote in their tax filings as a CODB write-off. It puts the nasty matter and all the negative PR to bed, and that is that.
“It puts the nasty matter and all the negative PR to bed, and that is that.” – B.B.
Not so fast. Read the Comments which preceeded your. Ugly, in my opinion.
Interesting. We looked at this bldg to move into and I made a comment of how unequiped the gym is (I.e., small gym, only 2 treadmills) in order to support 500 units while also charging a ridiculous amenity fee; but I was told that each unit had to pay in order to use the gym; which is a basic standard so I’m not understanding why a rent stabilized tenant should be exempted from paying this amenity fee?
IIRC use of the gym requires payment of a fee (which the RS did offer initially and were brushed off, hence the lawsuit), that all tenants who want to use it pay.
Amenities are where many buildings are making money these days. Garage space, storage space, bike spaces, media rooms, gyms, etc… can be and often are seen as profit makers for a building. Owners/share-holders will say the income is needed to defray associated costs.
As for this particular gym, again it is what it is an not much different than what you see in many older buildings that have been converted into “luxury” housing, or at least trying to crack that market. A former laundry room, staff break room, or whatever space is cleared out and a some equipment brought in and viola, you have a “gym”.
“Owners/share-holders will say the income is needed to defray associated costs.” – B.B.
Owners, shareholders say a lot of things. Very few true.
If you read the article carefully it says that the rent stabilized tenants offered to pay for the use of the gym but where still denied.
“After paying lawyer fees, Dorsey says she will end up with around $6,000…”
The settlement was reported as $20,000. If that’s accurate, that’s a crazy high legal fee.
IIRC there will be taxes due on that 6k, so hopefully the woman has a good accountant or advisor.
Anywhere from a third to around one quarter of settlement/award seems about the current rate. The attorney who got those two guys 25 million from Tishman over the Hudson Yards project got one third of that sum as his fee.
https://nypost.com/2015/10/06/battling-hudson-yards-project-got-these-2-tenants-25m-and-new-luxury-digs/
https://gothamist.com/2015/10/06/tenants_hudson_yards.php
Um, have you hired an attorney lately?
Perhaps Dorsey was simply looking to a) get the rules changed for all rent-stabilized (she did), and b) have her legal fees covered (totally reasonable), and was not looking to cash out with a “Payday” settlement as reported so sensationally by WSR.
The fact that she donated some of the remainder supports this.
Try B.B. He claims to be among the very few, if any, who researched the background of this matter before posting….
Upon further research it seems the initial lawsuits filed were based upon claims of age discrimination.
See: https://therealdeal.com/new-research/topics/property/stonehenge-village/
https://therealdeal.com/2014/08/21/tenants-allege-age-discrimination-at-uws-building/
It turns out about 60% of the remaining RS tenants of this building are senior citizens, thus baring them from using the gym (even when they offered to pay the fee) was considered age discrimination by NYC.
For the record these tenants were not always RS. The new owners of property singed an agreement with NYC to “allow” tenants living in the place when it came out of Mitchell-Lama to remain under RS laws. Many of you may recall starting around late 1990’s or into the 2000’s there was a wave of Mitchell-Lama buildings eligible to come out of that program and go market rate. Rupert Towers was one but others followed. In response to potential displacement of “low income” tenants the City began crafting deals with owners to get existing rental units under RS to afford some protection. IIRC there was movement in Albany to make this law, but don’t think it went anywhere.