We’re sharing this draft online so that cooperators who attended our open meeting last Wednesday can comment before we print and distribute later this week.
As you can see, we’ve tried to summarize the questions that came up specifically in reference to the co-op’s financial position and the need to increase maintenance charges. Other quality-of-life issues that came up were not included in this letter, though hopefully can be addressed in some other meaningful way in the future.
Please leave comments below. If you are willing to virtually add your name to this letter (will not print but will be online) please indicate in the comments. And if you are able to help distribute the letter to apartments in your section, please email hello@cooperativelyyours.org.
I’d also like to know if the board considered Natural Gas co-generation of electricity when the celebrated new boilers were installed. Wouldn’t it be a good idea to make electricity, either for our use or to sell back to Con-edison, in the hot summer months when the boiler isn’t running for heat?
Looks good to me. Thanks for doing this. I’d also like to know the list of contractors that have been used as expenses per contractor per year, and any relationships between them, management, and the board.
You can add our names to the list who support his letter
Hello, you can add my name to this list of support for this letter.
Selling the retail triangle to a developer? You are scaring me badly.
Think about density. Do we not have too much already?
Think about light and air. Do we have enough?
Think about views. Do we want to destroy the views for the hundreds of coop apartments that face west?
Think about ongoing rental revenues. Do we want to lose them?
So many reasons this idea is a nightmare.
I’m just echoing questions raised by other cooperators. One neighbor said selling the retail block had been discussed by board — if that’s true, you would want to know.
Yes, I do want to know. Now I’m really scared.
My sentiments exactly! I responded to the same point prior to reading your entry.
This looks good. You can add me to the list. Thank you for doing this. -KC
You can add my name in support to this letter.
You have my support. Thank you for drafting this letter. I really hope it gets a response from the board. Please add my name.
You have my support and may publish my name, thank you for organizing the meeting last week and for writing this concise summary of our concerns. – Joseph Terranella
You can add our names. Great meeting, Jeremy!
Melissa and Steve Shiffman
You can add our names to the list. Edward Jackson and Carol Forget.
You can add my name in support to this letter.
Thank you, yPlease add
Great ideas.
thank you, please add Michael & Chloe McCabe
Thank you for organizing the meeting and this letter!
Please add Deborah Mills and Daniel Rabuzzi to the letter.
Nice post! I’d also like to know what commission board member Keenan is raking in on apartment sales in the co-op. He has advance knowledge of apartments coming onto the market which provide an advantage for his real estate endeavors. And why is he allowed to showcase his status as a board member to drive his sales, shouldn’t he be concerned with our quality of life and not his wallet. I have a family friend who looked at one of his apartment viewings where he leveraged his position on the board to push them to go through him. And what about the flyers he spams us with monthly touting his apartment sales, they used to even reference his position on the board as a selling point. How is this not a conflict of interest?
Thank you, please add my name.
Thanks, please add my name
Thanks, all, for you comments — we’ve made some changes to the memo to reflect some of your suggestions. The version on this page updates as we make changes, so this is what the final letter will look like. We could still use some help over the next couple days distributing the memo, so please email hello@cooperativelyyours.org if you are able to volunteer about 30-40 minutes to distribute in your section.
We appreciate your efforts! Please add Katherine Skelley and Marc Anders to the letter.
Thanks to the team working to help bring positive change to East River. As a former board member and probably the last one to actually hold a financial open house for all cooperators, I endorse this effort to bring clarity into some of the issues facing East River. As cooperators, we deserve the right to understand what is happening within our cooperative and should not have to wait until an annual meeting to get answers to our questions. Information has been shared in the past, and there is no reason why it isn’t being shared now.
This is definitely a good start. If the board is unwilling to provide answers then maybe they need to be removed. If outside management is working for Seward then I wonder how hard it would be to go that route? Too many conflict of interests with our current board.
What conflicts of interest exactly? You can’t just apply a blanket statement to the board with no actual evidence. It would be a lie to say that everyone, to some extent, doesn’t have vested interests for what they feel is important, even this blog. The creator hosted an event to collect proxies for a board candidate last year (Lee Berman), who lost. There are commenters here who were prospective board members, who lost. Several are dog owners supporting their interests in keeping their dogs (Stephanie Aaron, and probably more).
Yes explication about our financial situation is a reasonable proposition. But to blindly buy into certain skewed sentiments against the board, considering several of those who spout them have actually lost elections against those board members. You must acknowledge a distinct bias in their assertions as well.
Should we really remove the board because “about 100” people drafted a letter with a good number of questions, if they don’t fully respond to a certain contingencies liking.
A good chunk of those questions are talking points from another prospective board member, who lost (Joe Hanania), pushing his own petitions as if he knows whats best for our neighborhood. Ignoring the fact that many of us are long time residents who perhaps may know the neighborhood better than he, a recent transplant, does. Hoping that we buy into his vision of “urban renewal” as if he is some sort of savant that has all the answers to our neighborhoods problems, ie/ roof decks and art galleries in our lobbies (what about the security of our residents)….isn’t the right route to take if you want change. Especially when its coming from someone who constantly asserts, superciliously, that he knows whats best for you.
Finally, how would it be fair towards the collective will of our shareholders if ~100 individuals (not individual shareholders) could remove the board (hypothetically) when they have already been elected by having received ~350 (distinct shareholder) votes each, many of which could account for up to 700 or more people (assuming at least couple people in each household per each single vote).
Lets do some math.
~1650 apartments
lets say on average 3 people live in an apartment
so ~4950 east river residents.
100/4950= ~2% of our population.
Now dont get me wrong, I am not attempting to belittle your views, but I do think its important to point out that just because this blog and the group that support it is the most vocal, and shares the east river name, does not mean they represent the collective will of the co-op. Based on the facts they only represent ~2% of us person wise, and say 60 distinct individual shareholders attended this event then (60/1625) = 3.6% shareholder vote wise.
My point being that if you think the will of less than 5% of our co-op in two different forms of measurement should be able to remove our democratically elected representatives, then you are in fact very misguided about the will of our co-op.
And while i’m on my soapbox, let me also just say that Seward Park isn’t some glowing beacon of urban ideals. Their lobbies are ugly, their buildings are in a worse state of repair than ours (didn’t a gas line just blow last year basically shutting off all gas for a complete section), look at the crap quality of their windows compared to ours. The only reason their apartments are more expensive is because of their more centric location to the subway and the middle of the island. People like to use Seward as an example of change, but is it really positive change? What really happened was a bunch of art gallery owners moved in since they work on orchard street, and tried to change the coop based on their bohemian ideals. Still, can anyone name positives that have been reaped from this “change.” And why is this always the go to reference when referring to east river? As a born and raised LES’er with friends and family in all the co-ops, I have never considered Seward Park as the ideal. In fact, it has always been East River.
I’m not even sure what “removing the board” means. Any shareholder who wants can run for the board, and the ones who receive the most support from shareholders get to serve. That’s pretty straightforward. James C.’s math is right — a meeting of 100 cooperators does not replace our election process.
Great open letter. Please add Jennifer Feraday and Paul Brandenburg to the letter.
I am a lifelong cooperator of both East River and Hillman houses, and have recently moved back into my childhood home at 568 Grand Street, East River’s building 3. I am concerned that some of the questions/proposals discussed in this letter have an overzealousness that could backfire on our community. Many of us appreciate the serenity of this somewhat non-urban, “far-eastern” oasis, away from the busier Seward Park Houses.
In particular, I am opposed to development of the retail triangle on Grand Street. If there were to be more business brought down here it could easily disturb the tranquility we now enjoy. Furthermore, if development of this triangle were to project skyward (heaven forbid!) many of us would lose our open views. The whole community would feel claustrophobic and very urban. Also, the construction that this would necessitate would create unbearable noise and debris for an extended period of time. Some of us truly thrive on the serene quality of this neighborhood and we take pride and languish in our special brand of peace and solitude with a little view of the sky. Consider this before asking for too much.
I concur . The juxtaposition of our serene piece of the LES against the fast paced city life is what makes our neighborhood beautiful and totally unique in what is becoming an increasingly homogenized city. But certain people have crazy ideas, penned under the umbrella of “positive change,” to disrupt the serenity of our neighborhood and turn it into a mutant soho clone.
To relocate the m14d to Grand street for convenience and entitlement sake (ignoring the fact that the m14d runs twice as much as the m14a, tripling the amount of double-long city busses on an already extremely overburdened by traffic grand st.)
Denigrate us because we haven’t brought outdoor cafes to our retail triangle (because Seward park has it so why shouldn’t we.) I can think of a reason, 1. we are not Seward Park. 2. Seward’s outdoor cafes were located in an alcove of the street, providing much more frontage room for a cafe and pedestrian traffic flow and unlike our frontage.
And I’m not even going to go into the logistics of using our lobbies as art galleries….
Its this overzealous superciliousness that comes off as highly unattractive to myself, and I don’t see how anyone who lived here before 2000 would ascertain any sort of genuineness out this supposed “positive change”(despite the fact that they are very polite in their assertions).
It’s as if some people want a badge of honor for living in Manhattan.
Just to be clear, the question of developing the retail triangle was raised because some cooperators reported this had in fact been recently investigated by the board and management. Asking about that prospect in this letter should not be read as an endorsement, just a request for clarity about whether the board is anticipating some big chunk of outside revenue.
Overzealous is not at all how I would describe the cooperators who attended our meeting. You might not agree with everything that was discussed, but I think you’d recognize most of them as neighbors who love living here and just want to feel more engaged and informed.
Jeremy, despite this response, the letter implies that the question of developing the triangle on Grand Street was raised in a discussion regarding ways of creating more revenue for the Coop. I just want it known that I am opposed to this development, particularly if it involves building up. This would destroy the openness of the neighborhood and would obstruct views of East River, Hillman and Vladeck residents.
The personal attacks have begun. I find it interesting that people are willing to make disparaging remarks about other cooperators anonymously. I am not using my full name here to avoid that.
When people try to avoid transparency and resort to personal attack it is normal for shareholders to become suspicious. There was no mention of removing the Board or running against the Board. The letter asks some serious questions about some serious issues every shareholder should be concerned about.
However, Board Members should know when you apparently violate the law enough to get sued by the US Attorney as a board member might be violating your fiduciary responsibility. Look around the corporate world. Lots of CEO’s and Board Members have been removed for just such activity. Shareholders have a right to ask legitimate questions and get clear answers. Board Members are always responsible to shareholders.
Let me be clear that I am not from the board nor do I represent the views of the board, I represent myself, a lifelong LES resident with a deep affinity for our neighborhood.
Just because I haven’t bought into all of your ideas penned under “positive change” doesn’t mean I don’t recognize your right to have them nor does it mean that I am some sort of shill for the board who thinks everything they do is perfect. At the same time it also looks suspicious when the main platform for certain shareholders aspiring to the board is to muckrake and disparage the board for not following through with any given idea he may have suggested at one point to them.
I plainly pointed out gaping logistical issues with some of the current proposals by a group of supposed “forward thinkers” which I think could disrupt the harmony and character of our neighborhood and also lead to further outlandish ideas. If those have support then are those supporters really thinking about the overarching logistical issues, and impacts of such changes, or are they only searching for further convenience and amenities. If they are not taking into account those logistics, then no, I don’t think they are in a position to be pushing drastic changes in the neighborhood.
Further, I increased the transparency of this blog by pointing out the connections between its owner and people he has held events for supporting their run at the board, which you appear to have taken offense to.
And I don’t even want to get into the dog/legal issues. I understand that if you have a dog it will be like a child to you and you will be very passionate about that cause (making for extremely sticky legal situations), which is evident for those shareholders who chose their dog over whatever stipulations were laid out in their lease.
On the dog issue you just dont get it. It does not matter what you signed or what your lease says. The law provides that if your circumstances change there are certain conditions where a pet may be allowed. Why our Board does not understand that and is willing to spend hundreds of thousands of our dollars is very troubling
No I believe I do understand the fair housing act and the issue holistically, considering the facts. In doing so I like to look at the issue from both sides. Keep in mind as I mentioned, emotional ties to a pet can be similar to those of a child and would be incredibly influential on ones views.
Why didn’t the shareholders in the lawsuit present such evidence of circumstantial change upon getting their new dog and why did it take for action brought against them to acknowledge such a thing? This was a big red flag for me in at least in not seeing the board as a spiteful anti-puppy cohort of villains.
Also based on my knowledge and observation the board doesn’t really pursue illegal dogs unless they were given a reason to. IE/ a fellow cooperator reporting some issue with the dog.
Case in point this comment on the NY Observer Article on the issue.
http://observer.com/2014/01/federal-government-sues-co-op-for-barring-emotional-support-dogs/#axzz31QJiwVsF
Here we have a fellow cooperator giving a perfectly acceptable reason for the board to pursue action against the dog owner. But still this case is used as a symbol to galvanize the dog effort and depict our elected board as evil, ignoring glaring facts because of emotional ties.
I’m grateful for the increased and polished communication that Cooperatively Yours has fostered over the last few years.
But I think it’s misleading and disingenuous to ask…
“Are there conservation steps that could be
taken to minimize heating and electricity expenses? (Some cooperators
spoke of keeping their heat off and even needing to open their windows during this past winter to keep their apartments at a comfortable temperature, indicating an inefficient distribution of heat.)”
…as if this hadn’t already been asked publicly of the Board at the last annual meeting, and as if the Board hadn’t answered it publicly then, when a senior member of the engineering staff explained that due to the way that heat rises through the pipes and up the floors, and due also to the buildings’ differing exposures (presumably some colder than others), and due to the design of the heating system, it has been impossible to entirely even out the temperature in all parts of each building, even after adjusting the system; and that it would be prohibitively expensive to rebuild the system in a way that would fully account for this. (I might be getting a few details wrong, but that’s how I remember it.)
More comprehensive reporting from the Board might be a good thing, but ignoring what they have reported is not.