Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The way I heard the story was that they first voted their SHARES and privatization won. Presumably the biggest apartments with the most shares stood to sell at the highest prices so those with the most shares were more inclined to privatization.
The courts finally decided that the proper way to vote was "one vote per apartment" and thus a studio apartment vote counted as much as a 4 bedroom penthouse.
This vote was AGAINST privatization.
Oy, $4 million is a lot of money to waste on lawyers.
It is a sad state of affairs when the Board of a Co-op is the enemy of its shareholders.
My apologies for not having noticed this Thread earlier on. For the information of readers, the privatization battle at EMP lasted for 10 years, not 5. It also cost $4 million dollars in shareholder funds that were originally intended to be utilized for maintenance. Instead, the Board improperly used that money to advance a private agenda--to turn affordable Mitchell Lama housing into a luxury co-op, therby also enriching those shareholders who were mainly interested in leaving, plus those who in reality had ALREADY left, but pretended to still be living in EMP full-time. In actuality, only about 300 out of 750 shareholders supported privatization, yet the Board constantly claims they represent a "majority." They are only in power (still) because a large number of apathetic shareholders never even bother themselves to vote in elections. Furthermore, this Board now desires to pursue privatization AGAIN! Any prospective EMP resident must recognize that they are going to be stepping into a minefield. Just google "Mark Andermanis" to see elsewhere online what other kind of hijinks this Board indulges in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kefir King
The way I heard the story was that they first voted their SHARES and privatization won. Presumably the biggest apartments with the most shares stood to sell at the highest prices so those with the most shares were more inclined to privatization.
The courts finally decided that the proper way to vote was "one vote per apartment" and thus a studio apartment vote counted as much as a 4 bedroom penthouse.
This vote was AGAINST privatization.
Oy, $4 million is a lot of money to waste on lawyers.
It is a sad state of affairs when the Board of a Co-op is the enemy of its shareholders.
I understand and now it is starting all over. Are the same amount of people going to be for and the same against approximately? Or will it be closer this time?
How often do the shareholders vote for Board member? How long has this Board been in power?
The board did not propose the currently privatization. I was at the board meeting several months ago when a group of 50 or so people showed up and the board president asked why they were there. The visitors explained they wanted to pursue privatization and they were told that they and not the board would have to gather the required number of signatures required for the co-op to study the privatization.
It is very hard to label the board as enemies of the shareholders when the shareholders voted them in. Several people stating they were opposed to privatization have run for the board over the past 10 years and none were ever elected or came near the number of votes needed to be elected.
As I stated earlier, about 64% of shareholders voted for the study to occur. JoeyJoey is very biased and is not listening to both sides of the argument so I would not take the number of shareholders he states voted for the privatization as fact. My memory says that it was just 1% shy of the 2/3s majority needed when the count occurred one a one unit one vote basis.
I have seen articles stating the reason privatization was included in the Mitchell-Lama program is that costs rise as the buildings age and more money is needed to keep them up. It seems that the fact EMP is now facing tens of millions of dollars in expenses supports this claim. Now shareholders have to decide whether they will pay for the expenses by taxing units that are sold or adding monthly maintenance fees. The deciding factor may be how much the maintenance fees would have to go up to cover these costs. I know there are co-operators who have stood up at meetings and said they are on fixed incomes and cannot pay any more fees than what they are currently paying.
The board did not propose the currently privatization. I was at the board meeting several months ago when a group of 50 or so people showed up and the board president asked why they were there. The visitors explained they wanted to pursue privatization and they were told that they and not the board would have to gather the required number of signatures required for the co-op to study the privatization.
It is very hard to label the board as enemies of the shareholders when the shareholders voted them in. Several people stating they were opposed to privatization have run for the board over the past 10 years and none were ever elected or came near the number of votes needed to be elected.
As I stated earlier, about 64% of shareholders voted for the study to occur. JoeyJoey is very biased and is not listening to both sides of the argument so I would not take the number of shareholders he states voted for the privatization as fact. My memory says that it was just 1% shy of the 2/3s majority needed when the count occurred one a one unit one vote basis.
I have seen articles stating the reason privatization was included in the Mitchell-Lama program is that costs rise as the buildings age and more money is needed to keep them up. It seems that the fact EMP is now facing tens of millions of dollars in expenses supports this claim. Now shareholders have to decide whether they will pay for the expenses by taxing units that are sold or adding monthly maintenance fees. The deciding factor may be how much the maintenance fees would have to go up to cover these costs. I know there are co-operators who have stood up at meetings and said they are on fixed incomes and cannot pay any more fees than what they are currently paying.
I have read those articles yet as older buildings exit due to the reasons you stated other Mitchell lama coops were suppose to open up although the latter does not seem to be meeting the expected criteria this is what seems to be the missing link. So as a person waiting and hoping to have the opportunity to live affordably it's hard to watch them slip away. I get both sides clearly and wish all parties could fairly benefit. Is there an option to borrow money that will not increase carrying charges? Do you know how many votes 1% added up too?
In some ways it does seem unfair. The De Blasio administration studied creating more Mitchell-Lamas but for some reason chose not to or could not. Instead they have given developers incentives to set aside up to 30% of new units for middle and lower income groups. Hopefully this program will be successful.
[quote=fyrisle;46173791]In some ways it does seem unfair. The De Blasio administration studied creating more Mitchell-Lamas but for some reason chose not to or could not. Instead they have given developers incentives to set aside up to 30% of new units for middle and lower income groups. Hopefully this program will be successful.[/QUOTE
Well I guess that's life in the big city. What do you think the chance is for a person with a number between 60 and 70 getting in before the final vote?
I wish I knew. I have the impression many people no longer qualify for the program due to getting married and needing a larger apartment, moving or some other life issue so I think you are probably lower on the list than the number suggests. Good luck.
I wish I knew. I have the impression many people no longer qualify for the program due to getting married and needing a larger apartment, moving or some other life issue so I think you are probably lower on the list than the number suggests. Good luck.
Thank you. Please keep me posted if there are any new updates.
I have said it often and I'll say it again, anyone offered a shot at a Mitchell-Lama co-op would be a fool to say know. You cannot lose. Either you get an affordable apartment for life if you choose or you get a windfall in privatization.
NYC246 - they apparently offered units to veterans and should be moving onto the list you belong to. Anytime you want to get an update you can call the management office at (212) 679-4342 and ask what number they have progressed to.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. What do you think the chance is for a person with a number between 60 and 70 getting in before the final vote?
