Letters to the Editor, June 28

TA’s core goal is preserving affordability

To the Editor:

I am pleased that a recent independent analysis by JP Morgan confirms that the Tenants Association/Brookfield conversion plan is “the most likely outcome.”

The report validates that the best road to a more stable future for Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper is through the Tenants Association/Brookfield partnership and gives an added boost to our efforts.

As we have pledged since day one, any conversion plan that the Tenants Association will propose must satisfy our core goals: preserving affordability and returning stability to our community, giving tenants an opportunity to purchase their unit if they choose, protecting our open spaces from development, and improving maintenance and upkeep throughout ST/PCV.

The most recent appraisal of Stuyvesant Town-Peter Cooper Village, in September, 2011, was for $3 billion, which happens to be the value of the first mortgage. While JP Morgan speculated that under one model of a partial condo conversion the property could be valued at up to $4.4 billion, our bid does not need to be for that amount. In fact, as we have said repeatedly, we will only present a bid for a dollar amount that we believe will achieve the goals above.

While any credible bid will need to be one that makes sense for bondholders, we are committed to structuring a conversion plan so that it offers meaningful value to current tenants and preserves affordability for future generations of middle class New Yorkers.


Al Doyle, President
ST/PCV Tenants Association 

Introducing the Bluejays

Thanks for a wonderful article highlighting the first ever season for the Epiphany Bluejays baseball team (T&V, June 21).  Next year, we hope to expand the program and have teams for several other grades. (Come the fall, we’ll be looking for interested dads in other grades to step forward.) And while the team is drawn predominantly from the school, CYO rules actually invite anyone living within the Epiphany parish boundaries to participate.

One small note to clarify. In the headline, it labels the Bluejays as a LL — for Little League — team. While it is a youth baseball team, it is technically not affiliated or chartered by the Little League, which is headquartered in Williamsport, Pa. Our affiliation, as the article states, is with the CYO — the Catholic Youth Organization — and we play in the Diocese of Brooklyn.

And as the article correctly states, it is a baseball addition for some of the better players to get more playing time in a somewhat more competitive league — while also continuing the recreational league play that they’ve enjoyed in the Peter Stuyvesant Little League. We hope they both thrive and prosper for years to come.

Keith J. Kelly
CYO coach/PSLL Board Member

Going to the dogs

Dear T&V,

I am writing in appreciation of two letters in your May 10th issue.

The first was Frances Clarke’s letter concerning leaving the Oval free of commercialization and events and keeping it a playful oasis. Agreed.

Second was “Name withheld’s” letter about “restoring the little chain link fences that used to surround the grass, flower and bush areas.” Take them down and what do you expect but people tromping through and dogs relieving themselves anywhere and everywhere.

Allowing dogs into Stuyvesant Town/Peter Cooper Village is the single worst decision concerning “quality of life” ever. You allow dogs in and there is going to be dog crap everywhere. Period.

Richard Luksin,
Minneapolis, MN

How to deal with the squirrel problem

Re: Recently published letters about squirrels

Research has demonstrated that the overwhelmingly number of squirrels are not using PCV/ST as their primary residence. Many actually reside, in the main, in contiguous places: Gramercy Park, Union Square, Murray Hill…

So, management should use their attorneys to have them permanently removed. The same is true for the birds that spend time here sans permanency or paying any rent.

David Chowes, PCV

2 thoughts on “Letters to the Editor, June 28

  1. The TA’s Letter: In what sense is any bid the TA’s bid? It will be Brookfield’s bid. The main reasons for the TA’s ‘condo over co-op’ selection have been discredited as false, one-sided or distorted. And given that there is more than one sponsored non-eviction plan (probably more) meeting the TA’s basic criteria, there appears to have been no need for the TA to have made any ‘partnership’ at all. The TA’s legitimacy to represent the tenants as a whole in this is dubious. Its membership is less that 10% of the complex & it’s even doubtful that all its members support the TA board decisions. Nor is it clear what value the TA has brought to the table by entering into an alliance with Brookfield. What has this alliance gained that Brookfield wasn’t already prepared to offer? What is the TA’s mission with respect to price? Is it enabling the most possible tenants to buy under a plan that gives the bondholders an even return? We only know about one other sponsor to use as a basis of comparison. The G-W plan appears to be much more tenant-friendly than what we know about Brookfield’s. So on top of everything else, at least on first blush it appears that the TA has made the wrong choice. All of this really doesn’t give the TA much ground to stand on.

  2. Jashton is absolutely correct.Believe it or not the TA is actually facilitating the purchase of the community by another huge LANDLORD – BROOKFIELD.Then they will make they’re bizarre,two tiered pricing offer to residents – take it or leave it,because they don’t need tenant buyers.Brookfield will already own the property and what has the TA promised them in return?? They STILL won’t say.

    The TA is going to offer apts. with few resale restrictions but at a price so high it offers little,if any equity.And they’ll try to herd the rest into some post WWII style low priced but heavily restricted so-called “condos”.Of course nobody will buy into such a scheme which is what the TA,local politicians and rent regulation lobbyists want.Brookfield will finance the purchase in a sweetheart deal that delivers the community,still majority rent regulated,to the aforementioned political cabal.Long time residents who’ve paid six figures in rent with dreams of participating in a typical conversion,with a low priced offering and lots of equity can kiss those dreams goodbye.The conversion is a political deal rather than a financial deal meant to benefit residents.So,expect the politicians to get what they want,no matter how much opportunity it denies thousands of residents.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.