VTMBH Article: Body
Despite management and board of directors efforts, the tenant and shareholders of the subsidized co-op Warbass in South Brooklyn, overwhelmingly rejected privatizing the co-op. Further, the members refused even to explore privatizing Warbass.
Russian-speaking Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients and low-income American senior citizens worked to defeat the privatization measure.
We chronicled the struggle that led up to this vote it wasnt always clear whether the outcome would favor of low-wage and immigrant residents. Heres what I reported just a month ago (on May 24, 2002):
* * * * * * * *
South Brooklyn: Clash in the Co-ops, by Arkady Kagan.
<i>Letter from a Russian Russian Forward Reader</i>
Hello respected editor! In your newspaper, in mid-January, you published the conditions for conducting a housing lottery in the subsidized cooperative Amalgamated Warbass Houses. A month earlier, all tenants and shareholders of that cooperative were sent a letter signed by the management and board of directors, in which they discussed the upcoming plan to privatize Warbass. Later we received a lengthy document entitled Questions and Answers about privatization. And finally, in April of this year, we were invited to an extraordinary gathering of shareholders in a Brooklyn school named after Abraham Lincoln, in order to discuss a vote to study the questions surrounding transferring the co-op from the Mitchell Lama program (government subsidized) to privatization.
Even those who speak English well couldnt understand anything in all these contrivances. Given that, you can imagine the situation for many of our elderly immigrants, who havent mastered the language. Clearly this is a very serious legal question, yet a legal analysis or consultation with a lawyer has been nowhere to be found. Management and the board of directors are located, as they say, behind the seventh lock, and its impossible to clarify anything. Help us figure this out.
I urge you not to publish my name, and not to show my letter in the management office. Why? In the beginning of the dispatch the Warbass board of directors sent in December, they refer to their numerous appeals to shareholders over the last several years, requesting privatization. Look, except for governing members of our co-op, the only ones interested in privatization are those illegally moving into Warbass. We think they bribed their way in and subsequently wasted several thousand more dollars on renovating and altering the apartments. Now, naturally, they want the right to transfer their apartments through inheritance, or to sell them at market prices. Theyre not concerned about the sharp increase in monthly maintenance costs and the necessity of turning over 50 percent of the profits from the sale of the apartments to the heads of the co-op. But what about the poorer residents of Warbass?
<i>The Russian Forward replied</i>
In order to understand the course of events at the Warbass co-op, you have to know its present day advantages: the peaceful, safe, green region its located in; the active neighborhood community and patrols; the average monthly rent (between $300-$400, including gas and electricity); and the very low cost of purchasing apartments (from $9,000 to $13,000 for a one-bedroom). Now I hope its clear why there is such agitation around the fate of this co-op. I can imagine the outraged reaction of Russian Forward readers who took part in the recently advertised housing lottery in Warbass. So if the idea of privatization has seized the masses (privatization requires a minimum of two-thirds of shareholders votes), here its already commonly understood that you cant talk about the lottery, housing delays and general cheapness. But initially, the board of directors requires the support of a majority of the co-op in order to, as our reader communicated, conduct a study concerning a move to privatization. So far, the board of directors has had no luck: at an extraordinary shareholders gathering on April 28, 51 percent of those eligible to vote opposed such a study.
The board of directors and management faced sharp criticism from the opponents. They asked, on what basis was the co-op planning to keep for itself 50 percent of the profits from any future sales of the privatized apartments by their owners? Why the relatively low reimbursements for residents who rejected privatization, and why would they be offered only for the upcoming 3-4 years? Whose idea was it to try to pacify SSI (Supplemental Security Income) recipients and poor clients of Social Security with stories of the advantages of the rent freeze program for apartment payments and stabilized rent, which offer absolutely zero compared to todays subsidized housing costs? Why mislead those who wish to move into Warbass with announcements of new housing lotteries?
You cant say that the board of directors has avoided answering these tough questions. The desire to get away from state control and make some good money (the market price for a one-bedroom apartment in Warbass right now is approaching $80,000) is inducing the heads of the co-op to seek victory at any price over the vacillating shareholders. If you think, respected reader, that being rebuffed at the last meeting caused the board of directors to retreat, I will hurry to disappoint you: The Russian Forward has learned about the preparation being done in anticipation of a June 6 meeting and urgent vote on the question of studying privatization process. Now Russian-speaking co-op members are being lobbied in their native language, with references to the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the well-known decline in the level of the economy, the rising costs of oil and gas, and even the war in Afghanistan. In other words, we must all quickly vote for privatization, or the accused bin Laden will have won.
Its not as if Warbass management doesnt know about the annual, limitless rent increase for tenants in all New York private co-ops. Its not like the board of directors havent heard about the arbitrariness of co-op management, which from time to time fixes excessively high prices for maintenance. And of course, its impossible to compare the control of management in private and government subsidized co-ops. Its enough to attentively read the pages of the Russian Forward about the suffering of co-op members who cant seem to get the attention of the New York State attorney general. The more the board of directors repeats, like an incantation, that no one will ever force senior citizens and poor people to sell their apartments or move, the less shareholders believe them.
I dont want to give to much attention to the question of bribes, which our reader addressed in her letter to the Russian Forward, but this entire story of privatization once again confirms: in subsidized housing, residents need the government not only for generous subsides, but its watchful eye as well.
* * * * * * * *
As soon as it became clear that this popular residential community wanted nothing to do with privatization, the management finally agreed to conduct the housing lottery that they had initially advertised back in January of this year. Three hundred and fifty happy people out of several thousand applicants received notification of their success and forthcoming inclusion (after some conversations and provision of the necessary documents) in the line for the favorable apartments. Those who didnt luck out had their sealed envelopes and money orders returned.
Now the big concern of the residents of Warbass is the maintenance costs. From July 1, this cost increased 7.5 percent, and in the upcoming year, it threatens to increase by another 10 percent. A lot depends on the position of the New York State legislature, capable of influencing the dimensions of subsidy assistance for cooperatives. Voters who live in subsidized co-ops in the 46th district should ask State Assemblywoman Adele Cohen and to State Assembly candidate Susan Lasher how they propose to finance the housing complexes in the next year.
Meanwhile, the New York Supreme Court announced a decision that will be good for residents and apartment owners of so-called pseudo-cooperatives. Well recall that the sponsors (landlords) often sell only 15 to 20 percent of apartments in their buildings, leaving them, the landlords, the owners of the rest, but avoiding rent regulations, which dont apply in co-ops. The State Supreme Court, reviewing the suit prepared by lawyer Stuart Saft, chairman of the board of the Council of New York Cooperatives & Condominiums, unanimously decided that the landlords were obliged to sell all apartments in converted buildings quickly. The Courts decision affects hundreds of New York cooperatives, including those in South Brooklyn, Riverdale in the Bronx, and central Queensregions of housing complexes where tens of thousands of Russian-speaking immigrants reside.
Russian-speaking Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients and low-income American senior citizens worked to defeat the privatization measure.
We chronicled the struggle that led up to this vote it wasnt always clear whether the outcome would favor of low-wage and immigrant residents. Heres what I reported just a month ago (on May 24, 2002):
* * * * * * * *
South Brooklyn: Clash in the Co-ops, by Arkady Kagan.
<i>Letter from a Russian Russian Forward Reader</i>
Hello respected editor! In your newspaper, in mid-January, you published the conditions for conducting a housing lottery in the subsidized cooperative Amalgamated Warbass Houses. A month earlier, all tenants and shareholders of that cooperative were sent a letter signed by the management and board of directors, in which they discussed the upcoming plan to privatize Warbass. Later we received a lengthy document entitled Questions and Answers about privatization. And finally, in April of this year, we were invited to an extraordinary gathering of shareholders in a Brooklyn school named after Abraham Lincoln, in order to discuss a vote to study the questions surrounding transferring the co-op from the Mitchell Lama program (government subsidized) to privatization.
Even those who speak English well couldnt understand anything in all these contrivances. Given that, you can imagine the situation for many of our elderly immigrants, who havent mastered the language. Clearly this is a very serious legal question, yet a legal analysis or consultation with a lawyer has been nowhere to be found. Management and the board of directors are located, as they say, behind the seventh lock, and its impossible to clarify anything. Help us figure this out.
I urge you not to publish my name, and not to show my letter in the management office. Why? In the beginning of the dispatch the Warbass board of directors sent in December, they refer to their numerous appeals to shareholders over the last several years, requesting privatization. Look, except for governing members of our co-op, the only ones interested in privatization are those illegally moving into Warbass. We think they bribed their way in and subsequently wasted several thousand more dollars on renovating and altering the apartments. Now, naturally, they want the right to transfer their apartments through inheritance, or to sell them at market prices. Theyre not concerned about the sharp increase in monthly maintenance costs and the necessity of turning over 50 percent of the profits from the sale of the apartments to the heads of the co-op. But what about the poorer residents of Warbass?
<i>The Russian Forward replied</i>
In order to understand the course of events at the Warbass co-op, you have to know its present day advantages: the peaceful, safe, green region its located in; the active neighborhood community and patrols; the average monthly rent (between $300-$400, including gas and electricity); and the very low cost of purchasing apartments (from $9,000 to $13,000 for a one-bedroom). Now I hope its clear why there is such agitation around the fate of this co-op. I can imagine the outraged reaction of Russian Forward readers who took part in the recently advertised housing lottery in Warbass. So if the idea of privatization has seized the masses (privatization requires a minimum of two-thirds of shareholders votes), here its already commonly understood that you cant talk about the lottery, housing delays and general cheapness. But initially, the board of directors requires the support of a majority of the co-op in order to, as our reader communicated, conduct a study concerning a move to privatization. So far, the board of directors has had no luck: at an extraordinary shareholders gathering on April 28, 51 percent of those eligible to vote opposed such a study.
The board of directors and management faced sharp criticism from the opponents. They asked, on what basis was the co-op planning to keep for itself 50 percent of the profits from any future sales of the privatized apartments by their owners? Why the relatively low reimbursements for residents who rejected privatization, and why would they be offered only for the upcoming 3-4 years? Whose idea was it to try to pacify SSI (Supplemental Security Income) recipients and poor clients of Social Security with stories of the advantages of the rent freeze program for apartment payments and stabilized rent, which offer absolutely zero compared to todays subsidized housing costs? Why mislead those who wish to move into Warbass with announcements of new housing lotteries?
You cant say that the board of directors has avoided answering these tough questions. The desire to get away from state control and make some good money (the market price for a one-bedroom apartment in Warbass right now is approaching $80,000) is inducing the heads of the co-op to seek victory at any price over the vacillating shareholders. If you think, respected reader, that being rebuffed at the last meeting caused the board of directors to retreat, I will hurry to disappoint you: The Russian Forward has learned about the preparation being done in anticipation of a June 6 meeting and urgent vote on the question of studying privatization process. Now Russian-speaking co-op members are being lobbied in their native language, with references to the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the well-known decline in the level of the economy, the rising costs of oil and gas, and even the war in Afghanistan. In other words, we must all quickly vote for privatization, or the accused bin Laden will have won.
Its not as if Warbass management doesnt know about the annual, limitless rent increase for tenants in all New York private co-ops. Its not like the board of directors havent heard about the arbitrariness of co-op management, which from time to time fixes excessively high prices for maintenance. And of course, its impossible to compare the control of management in private and government subsidized co-ops. Its enough to attentively read the pages of the Russian Forward about the suffering of co-op members who cant seem to get the attention of the New York State attorney general. The more the board of directors repeats, like an incantation, that no one will ever force senior citizens and poor people to sell their apartments or move, the less shareholders believe them.
I dont want to give to much attention to the question of bribes, which our reader addressed in her letter to the Russian Forward, but this entire story of privatization once again confirms: in subsidized housing, residents need the government not only for generous subsides, but its watchful eye as well.
* * * * * * * *
As soon as it became clear that this popular residential community wanted nothing to do with privatization, the management finally agreed to conduct the housing lottery that they had initially advertised back in January of this year. Three hundred and fifty happy people out of several thousand applicants received notification of their success and forthcoming inclusion (after some conversations and provision of the necessary documents) in the line for the favorable apartments. Those who didnt luck out had their sealed envelopes and money orders returned.
Now the big concern of the residents of Warbass is the maintenance costs. From July 1, this cost increased 7.5 percent, and in the upcoming year, it threatens to increase by another 10 percent. A lot depends on the position of the New York State legislature, capable of influencing the dimensions of subsidy assistance for cooperatives. Voters who live in subsidized co-ops in the 46th district should ask State Assemblywoman Adele Cohen and to State Assembly candidate Susan Lasher how they propose to finance the housing complexes in the next year.
Meanwhile, the New York Supreme Court announced a decision that will be good for residents and apartment owners of so-called pseudo-cooperatives. Well recall that the sponsors (landlords) often sell only 15 to 20 percent of apartments in their buildings, leaving them, the landlords, the owners of the rest, but avoiding rent regulations, which dont apply in co-ops. The State Supreme Court, reviewing the suit prepared by lawyer Stuart Saft, chairman of the board of the Council of New York Cooperatives & Condominiums, unanimously decided that the landlords were obliged to sell all apartments in converted buildings quickly. The Courts decision affects hundreds of New York cooperatives, including those in South Brooklyn, Riverdale in the Bronx, and central Queensregions of housing complexes where tens of thousands of Russian-speaking immigrants reside.