Tag Archives: feature

Next up for East River storm surge project: public comments tonight at Bard H.S.

Extent of flooding during Hurricane Sandy in 2012.
Extent of flooding during Hurricane Sandy in 2012.

There’s a public meeting tonight for the next phase of the design process for the huge project that’s going to re-make our waterfront:

Thursday, December 3rd
Presentation at 7:00 P.M.
Bard High School Early College
525 East Houston Street

This meeting is called a public scoping, which means the public gets to comment on a draft scope of work document that will then influence the environmental impact review that will have to be done on a project like this. That draft scope of work document is long and dense and can be found online here.

If you can’t make it in person tonight, you can also email comments to escr@parks.nyc.gov.

Question: Where are the financials?

It’s election time, with the annual meeting just two weeks away. Meet the Candidates night is Monday at 7pm, when we should be able to ask incumbents and candidates some tough questions about the state of the coop. But without having last year’s financials in hand — profit & loss and balance sheet — how do we even know what to ask?

So here’s a question: why are the financials always withheld until the last minute?

Q5-financials

The fiscal year ended June 30. Four months is plenty of time to get the financials audited and distributed, which would give us all the opportunity to review the numbers, ask questions of the candidates, and make an informed choice. But if the last few years are an indication, the board will wait until just a couple days before the annual meeting to distribute financials.

Ellen Gentilviso is the chair of the finance committee; John Sotomayor is the treasurer. Along with Richard Kenny, they are directly responsible for this lapse and are asking you to re-elect them anyway. On Monday, ask this question and see if they can defend their record.

Question: What’s up with that new sublease policy?

With the meet the candidates forum coming up on Monday night, some questions come to mind that the incumbents should really be asked to answer. Here’s a big one:

Q3-sublease

Last month it was announced that the board had approved — with no input from shareholders and nothing but back-of-the-envelope analysis — a new sublease policy. The new policy raises fees slightly, from 100% of your maintenance to 150%, in exchange for allowing you to sublet your apartment forever. The board memo announcing the changes heralded “hundreds of thousands of dollars a year” that would come from the increased fees — though, more tellingly, the 2015-16 budget, approved after the new sublease fees were enacted, anticipates only $20,000 in additional revenue.

So do these numbers really add up? What’s behind the new policy?

Board candidate Mike Turner ran the numbers, and it doesn’t look good for the coop. Mike writes:

Extending the number of years allowed for sublets will reduce the number of first-sale apartments. That will cause a corresponding reduction in flip-tax revenue, which currently accounts for 20% of our annual income. Nudging even one prospective seller to become a permanent landlord would cost the co-op $140,000 in one year for a first-sale 2-bedroom apartment. It would take this one sublet apartment 13 years to generate that lost resale revenue through sublet fees, AND an ADDITIONAL 11 years for this sublet apartment to pay off the interest incurred on that $140,000 debt. In other words, it would take 24 years before we start to see a profit on this one apartment.

Check that out: 24 years before the coop makes a dime on those new fees. All the while the shareholder — now landlord — is earning an income from their apartment.

So who exactly was this new policy enacted for? For those few new landlords, not for the rest of us who will spend the next 24 years subsidizing their rental property.

Clip the question above and drop it in the hat Monday night — let’s see what sort of excuse incumbents Ellen Gentilviso, John Sotomayor, and Richard Kenny come up with.

Coop budget hides $1.5 million deficit with inflated flip tax forecast

There’s an adage that East River directors have yet to learn, and it may cost all of us $1.5 million before the year is out. That’s how much phantom income the board wrote into its 2015-16 budget with an inflated flip tax forecast.

color chicken
Don’t count those chickens before they hatch.

The board passed a budget three months late and $1.5 million short. It appears balanced only because the board majority inflated forecasts for flip tax revenue to $523,560 per month — even though the two months already in the books fell well short of that target.

How unrealistic is this forecast? Flip tax revenue of $5.7 million for the year would be more than in 2007, the height of the last real estate boom; more than in 2013 when the market finally bounced back (before falling again in 2014); in fact it would be our best year ever for flip tax revenue.

For comparison, Seward Park this year will barely reach $3.7 million in flip tax, and based on market projections has budgeted for even less next year. So does our board have a crystal ball? No — more like a crystal bubble.

The flip tax revenue at East River — 20% for first sales, 5% for all other sales — is our most unreliable income because we have no control over the real estate market. So why would the board choose such bullish projections? Because without this inflated line item, the budget for the current year would show a deficit of $1.5 million.

To cover that gap we’d need an 11.6% increase in maintenance fees. Of course, the incumbents running for re-election don’t want you to know about that maintenance increase until after the election.

But when their chickens don’t hatch, we’ll all be left with rotten eggs — 1.5 million of them.

We need honest accounting by the board and a strategy of increasing outside income to protect shareholders. Annual budget presentations by the board would keep cooperators informed and hold directors accountable to pass responsible, on-time budgets. If that sounds like the board of directors you want at East River, vote for JIM KEENAN, FAITH SCHREIER, JULIAN SWEARENGIN, and MIKE TURNER.

Silver trial opening statements: ‘Power. Greed. Corruption.’

Elizabeth Williams, New York Law Journal
Elizabeth Williams, New York Law Journal

Yesterday, the jury was seated for Assemblyman Sheldon Silver’s trial and opening statements from both sides were made.

The prosecution presented Silver as a man overcome by power, greed, and corruption. As presented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Carrie Cohen, Silver steered money and favors to people who, in return, hired the law firms Silver recommended. Silver then received kickbacks as referral fees, completing the circle of quid pro quo.

Silver’s defense attorneys, on the other hand, described his conduct as normal and legal.

The case turns on arrangements with two law firms — Weitz & Luxenberg, which specialized in asbestos litigation; and Goldberg & Iryami, tax certiorari lawyers. Jay Arthur Goldberg, the partner at Goldberg & Iryami has for many years represented East River Housing and Hillman, where Silver lives. After Goldberg was named a co-conspirator in the federal indictment, Hillman severed ties with his firm but East River continues to retain his services. (Board president Gary Altman has refused to answer questions about East River’s agreement with Goldberg.)

You can read more about yesterday’s day in court in the New York Times, Politico New York, and the New York Law Journal (free subscription required).

Silver trial starts next week — questions about Coop Village involvement still unanswered

Sheldon SilverAssemblyman Sheldon Silver’s trial on federal corruption charges starts Monday. Silver was arrested in January on counts of fraud, bribery, and extortion. The trial is sure to make headlines for weeks, and even some of our neighbors will be called to the witness stand.

Maybe we’ll finally get an answer about East River’s involvement in Silver’s alleged kickback scheme — since our board president Gary Altman continues to ignore the question. News reports continue to surface about the Coop’s tax certiorari lawyer, Arthur Goldberg, along with allegations that Silver steered business his way in exchange for kickbacks.

Click to read.
Click to read.
I sent Altman a letter again this month, asking him to clear the air. Goldberg has been our lawyer for years. Was Silver getting kickbacks for the work? Did anyone on our board or in the management office have a side agreement with Goldberg? Hopefully the answer is a simple no — but why has Altman refused to answer?

The Hillman board voted to sever ties with Goldberg this year. East River did not, and has continued to retain him. If Gary Altman, as president of the board, thinks there’s nothing fishy about our relationship with Goldberg, why not just say so?

Cooperatively Yours announces endorsements for board of directors and house committee

We have a great slate of candidates this year for the board of directors and house committee —

For board of directors:

KeenanJAMES KEENAN is a native New Yorker and 9-year resident at East River. During his previous stint on the board he advocated for more communication with shareholders and more financial transparency. “I care deeply about the tradition and history of our neighborhood, but we must be willing always to stay open to new ideas that will improve our quality of life and strengthen our financial security.”

SchreierFAITH SCHREIER has been a cooperator for more than 46 years and thinks it’s time for a change. “We need new and caring directors who will trust and listen to shareholders. We have a right to know everything about our expenditures and we should be able to read minutes from board meetings so that decision-making is not all done behind closed doors.”

SwearenginJULIAN SWEARENGIN is an attorney and father with 20 years’ experience at some of the world’s largest banks and law firms. “If elected, I would also work to ensure that your right to basic information is never violated, that the Board’s major decisions are transparently reported to you, and that the Board and the Cooperative are professionally and ethically managed.”

TurnerMIKE TURNER is an accountant and small business owner worried that the current board’s strategy of increasing our debt while reducing flip-tax revenue means a big maintenance increase is right around the corner. “We should be looking at every square foot to maximize our outside revenue and reduce the financial burden on shareholders.”

For house committee:

MarinoMICHAEL MARINO is a development officer at NYU and the founder of Friends of Corlears Hook Park. “In my time working with the park group I have become immensely adept at navigating various city agencies and bringing multiple community groups together.”

PenderTED PENDER is a 13-year cooperator, retired horticulturist, and volunteer gardener throughout the city. “I am interested in improving the amenities for our Seniors (as I will soon become one).”

 

You can read their full candidate statements here.

Wild letter from coop lawyer hides true cost of dog lawsuits

First, read this. It’s a letter from cooperator Tommy Loeb to board president Gary Altman asking (not for the first time) for a full accounting of the costs of our litigation against dog owners and the U.S. Attorney’s suit against East River which was settled this spring.

ER lawyer Bradley Silverbush with his Lamborghini.
ER lawyer Bradley Silverbush with his Lamborghini.
Legal fees had increased 462% in the three years before our last published financial statement in June 2014. This excessive cost of litigation was cited by participants in our open meeting and dog poll this summer as a big reason for supporting a more permissive pet policy.

Now read the response Tommy got yesterday — not from Gary Altman, but from Bradley Silverbush, the lawyer who litigated the cases against shareholders and defended the coop against the U.S. Attorney. It’s typical (unfortunately) of the board’s approach to sharing information with shareholders.

Dear Mr Loeb:

I am in receipt of the copy of the letter you sent to me, referencing Gary Altman. As you know, I am one of the attorneys for your coop, and was the lead attorney on the USA v. East River case, as well as the underlying related litigation before the administrative agencies, the housing court, and State court. There is no one in a better position to address any related issue, or any aspect of that litigation, than I. I read your letter in disbelief, because I am astounded that anyone (let alone anyone who knows the truth) would engage in the sort of false allegation and innuendo that your letter wreaks of.

At the outset, when one goes off by sending insulting emails to a board member (especially one who, in my professional opinion, is beyond reproach), and copies it to others, I have to ask myself, “what kind of person would do such a thing?” Here, I believe that the answer is rather apparent; a person who has his own agenda, and is attempting to needlessly and improperly smear the reputation of a person who dedicates a great deal of time to the betterment of the coop. That time consuming and thankless work given by dedicated people like Mr. Altman, where there is nothing in that selfless dedication, except to have rude and crude people like you criticize, second guess, insult, and incite others to engage in similarly reprehensible and unfair innuendo. Mr. Altman does what he does out of a selfless desire for the betterment of the entire cooperative corporation. For people like yourself, on the other hand, you seek to besmirch his reputation for reasons I cannot fathom, except for what can only be some personal perverse please. Your conduct in doing so offends my sensibilities, and again, has me asking “what kind of man are you?”

Mr. Altman is one of 11 members of the elected board, and he has been honored to serve as president for the past year after the resignation of the former president for family reasons. He stepped up, and does what needs to be done to effectively undertake and accomplish the tasks with which he has been charged. Mr. Altman has previously proven himself to be adept at undertaking his duties and performing the difficult tasks with which he has been entrusted; the difficult and time consuming work that is associated with running a coop as complex as East River. In fact, in the over 30 years I have been involved with legal representation of East River, all of the people I have come to know and respect have consistently, and without exception, hailed him as the paradigm of the selfless, bright, compassionate, considerate, smart, and thoughtful individual who exemplifies dedication to the principles that work for the betterment of the coop. What is that you have done, Mr. Loeb, other than second-guess and insult Mr. Altman, for some personal reason? Have you done anything to improve the coop?

Surely you must be aware that the entire board, and not Mr. Altman (nor any one member), publishes the board newsletter. As such, the referenced March 2014 letter, which hinted that after approximately 3-4 years of zero increases that a carrying charge increase may be necessary, was reflective of the board’s position (and not Mr. Altman’s opinion alone). As you must also be aware, to date (more than a year and a half later), no increase has yet been given (as the board has taken other actions to bring in additional revenue up to this point). All of the foregoing has been communicated to the cooperators.

Based upon the information I have, it seems that you have some very close friends on the board, board members who are not shy about releasing board information. Such acts may be, in my opinion, a breach of the board members’ fiduciary obligations. So, why do you play games, and act coy? Why are you attempting to denigrate a person whose exercise of judgment has always been with the coop’s best interest as his paramount concern? Quite frankly, I suspect (indeed….I am fairly confident) that any information you seek has already been obtained by you long ago. As such, it is gamesmanship on your part, and inappropriate, for you to be referring to all board communications as if they came from Mr. Altman (I note your constant use of the word “You” in your correspondence).

When and if I prepare any information regarding the settlement of the dog cases (which was a priority of Mr. Altman’s when he assumed the presidency, along with most of the board members, in their attempt to prevent cooperators from having to face additional mounting legal fees), I am certain that it will be sent to all cooperators at the same time. I seriously doubt that Mr. Altman ever told you that you would receive an exclusive copy of any communication from the coop’s attorneys. We don’t do that, Mr. Loeb; only people like your friends do that. So your statement suggests to me what can only be a fabrication, because you are not special, and you are not entitled to anything other than what is properly distributed to all shareholders. Again, I ask myself, what are you doing with this nonsense of yours, and why would anyone do what you are doing here?

Surely you know that Mr. Altman has spent virtually his entire life in public service, selflessly trying to help others to the best of his ability; so, your implied or actual threats are not only rude and inappropriate, but are meaningless. To a man like Mr. Altman, who has committed no improprieties, threats are of no concern. Why and how people like yourself can get joy from attacking others (and I am not referring solely to Mr. Altman here) in unsigned distributions replete with lies and half-truths, is something I will never be able to fully understand. I have the benefit of knowing what you do not, that while you are an angry and calculating individual with your own personal agenda, Mr. Altman, and others like him, are able to sleep every night cloaked in the love of their family and the knowledge that what they have done is for the betterment of the coop, and the hope that what they have accomplished has helped at least one more person in need that day.

Perhaps your misguided group should for once try to learn how to truly help others, rather than find negativity in everything done in beautiful East River. Maybe if they were to do so, then perhaps others would find more satisfaction in their lives. I am unaware of any other development in our city, and probably in our State, where one can proudly live in such beautiful surroundings for the very low monthly carrying charges all of you pay (and still look out for your very large senior population on fixed incomes).

Finally, please note that any non-confidential (and sadly, if not improperly, confidential) information that you believe you have not yet exclusively received (or perhaps don’t recall receiving) can, I am sure, be obtained from your friends on the board. We both know who your sources on the board are, so do us both a favor, and at least stop with the pretenses. Life is too precious to waste on false, needless, and harmful negativity. But if you want to continue in that vein, then so be it. As always, East River’s annual report (including all financial data certified by independent auditors) will be distributed to all cooperators prior to your upcoming annual meeting, as it has been in the past. You may think that you have some special entitlement, but you don’t. Personally, I don’t give a damn about what you may think you are entitled to. What have you ever done to improve any aspect of East River? Anything? Ever?

Bradley Scott Silverbush

ROSENBERG & ESTIS,P.C.
733 Third Avenue | New York, New York 10017
(212) 551-8409 (Direct Phone) | (212) 551-8484 (Fax)
bsilverbush@rosenbergestis.com | www.rosenbergestis.com

More public feedback this week for East River bridge redesigns

presenting to cooperatorsProject planners behind the East River Coastal Resiliency Project held another community forum this week to discuss the upcoming redesign of East River Park for storm surge protection and the possible upgrade of pedestrian crossings at 10th, 6th, Houston, and Delancey Streets.

The presentation was more extensive than given previously, and new details emerged about those bridge designs. You can view the entire presentation below.

Of course the part of this we all care about is the pedestrian bridge at Delancey Street. You can see in these drawings the three options presented at earlier meetings:

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

And then here you can see the designers’ current thinking based on feedback from previous workshops:

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

You can see the progression from strict flood protection, to park enhancement, to neighborhood enhancement reflected in these drawings. Project planners want to connect our neighborhood to the park in a meaningful, interactive way, and pushing pedestrians only up Delancey Street does not meet their overall goals. That’s why they are still pushing for an option that creates easier access to and from Grand Street, where three city bus lines terminate.

They are also working within several constraints that are not easily shown on these drawings. First is that the park area directly under the Williamsburg Bridge is a Homeland Security zone that cannot be interfered with. A flood wall will be built under the bridge, but the berm needs to rise a certain distance from the concrete wall that’s recently been erected.

The second, more imposing obstacle is that the East River board is unwilling to move the entrance to our parking lot on Delancey Street, so any ramp from the pedestrian bridge needs to end right before that driveway, exactly where it does now. The current ramp, however, is too steep for safe wheelchair access and needs to be lengthened to create an acceptable grade — the only way to lengthen that ramp while making it terminate at the same spot is to loop the ramp around to a pedestrian bridge farther away. That’s why the designers have set the pedestrian bridge a little farther south.

Once you do that, adding a short staircase toward Grand Street naturally lands just in front of building 4. Board president Gary Altman has already pushed through a board resolution opposing that staircase, and board member Ellen Gentilviso was again at this week’s community meeting pushing the project planners to scale back their design to include access only from Delancey.

Residents in building 4 naturally have concerns about how this design will impact them, but project planners’ attempts to meet with cooperators have been blocked by Altman and Gentilviso, who want only board members to be involved in stakeholder conversations. (Board member Lee Berman was also at this week’s meeting, encouraging project planners to seek input from more than just the board.)

What’s unfortunate is that the current board, led by Altman and Gentilviso, are blocking a more creative approach to this design problem. For one thing, refusing to move our parking lot entrance forces the pedestrian bridge south and makes any staircase on the FDR access road intrude more on to coop property.

But there’s another opportunity here that a board open to positive change might embrace: that Delancey Street parking area is inefficiently lotted for cars and has room to spare. Re-configuring the parking spaces could create new spaces for new revenue, and make room for a less imposing pedestrian bridge. If we worked with the ESCRP designers as true community partners, all sorts of interesting possibilities could arise.

Here’s the full presentation: