Posted by Mark Smith on November 12, 1999 at 21:40:09:
From the Monday, November 15th edition of the New York Law Journal, a Manhattan Supreme Court
justice has refused to order DHCR and the Board
of Directors of a Roosevelt Island co-op to
impose the higher surcharges found in all other
Mitchell-Lama developments -- rental and co-op.
The court was obviously conned by DHCR and the co-op into believing that lower surcharges will promote economic diversity in the development.
What it really does is raise the maintenance (rent) for all residents and, more importantly, brings in upper-income people who can afford to pay market maintenance and who will vote to have the development leave the Mitchell-Lama program, so that they can sell their apartments at huge profits. For example, they would pay no more than $15,000 for a Mitchell-Lama apartment and might be able to sell it for $250,000 or more if the development leaves the program.
The remaining lower-income residents may not be able to pay the new and higher purchase price, probably won't be able to pay the higher maintenance (at least three times the present amount), and will have to move.
or click on the link below
Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup