Whitman Shareholders Vote “No” on Proposed Pineapple Walk Tower Deal

By on January 15, 2016 6:37 pm in Brooklyn Heights, Development, Real Estate

This just in!  In a vote of 191 to 112, the shareholders of Whitman Owners Corp have voted “NO” to further investigate a lucrative offer to purchase 387,000 square foot parcel of land on Pineapple Walk.

“I’m thrilled that the majority of our fellow shareholders were able to see past this seemingly attractive, but short-sighted and destructive deal and vote no. Our sense of community for the greater good within our own building, and towards our neighbors and local small business owners has won.” said Mary Kim, a Whitman resident of 11 years.

During a closed-door meeting held Monday night, where shareholders learned that Andau Enterprises had upped the offer from $75 to $130 million, the board made it clear that a “NO” vote would not only affect this offer but how they respond to potential future offers.  It was not however, made clear under what conditions the Board would re-consider this position.

 

 

 

 

Share this Story:
←  Older Comments
 →
  • Bornhere

    Yikes — this is very interesting. I also went to the BHS website, and they do seem to be very clear about usage rights and fees, and it appears that the copyright on the wonderful picture Andrew provided is “restricted.” Their fees for something like this blog seem reasonable, but there do seem to be fees.
    So … safer/fairer might be for everyone to mosey over to BHS (or their website) and bask in the beauty of what was!

  • MaryT

    Andrew – Cadman Towers redid their south side half of the walk several years ago, and I can still feel the difference. Yep, the north side is long overdue.

  • Taters

    We could all join hands and sing “Fa-hoo Ra-hoo” like in How the Grinch Stole Christmas. Or at the very least, a nice gift basket for 75.

  • http://selfabsorbedboomer.blogspot.com/ Claude Scales

    Not too early; I’m putting this on my tickler file.

  • Roberto Gautier

    I’ll contribute.

  • Beth N

    Congrats and thanks to the owners of 75 Henry.

    Funny how this $130mm offer makes that library sale look like a bit of a steal (for the developers, from the city residents).

  • DIBS

    Nice to see.

  • martinlschneider

    Perhaps you will find that there is an underlying restriction that limits the usual zoning, kind of a restrictive covenant that contains exceptions to subsequent regulations. I’m not a lawyer, of course, but it does seem possible that the original condemnation provided for certain limitations on its re-use.
    Glad you are pursuing this;
    Can I help with the search?
    I am curious.

  • Banet

    This site has a *substantially* larger footprint (2x? 3x? 4x?) that would support a much larger building, hence the much higher price offered.

  • Ed Townes

    Put the champagne back on ice, please. Yes, it is wonderful, wondrous and just this side of unbelievable that a couple of hundred co-operators said no to a big payday.

    But here are my concerns – Why is the City quicker to give stuff away (arguably ALL OF OUR STUFF) than private citizens are – even when the latter clearly have a tougher call, given that this might be the bulk of their net worth. Is it that that the City has so little “in reserve” that they take the equivalent of coins found in a sofa … or is it ye olde corruption at work – Steve Levin hoping that R.E. money will take him to some statewide office …just to throw one obvious possibility out there.

    Did anyone see the graphic showing what Brooklyn’s skyline is shaping up to be? About 10 years after the Donnell branch was sold – instructive, this – to a developer wanting to put up a hotel, the hotel is about to open and the library is …
    literally (hopefully) “coming soon.”

    My point here is that bubbles almost always burst, and hot as Brooklyn is – and cool, too! – do you really think there are thousands of folks wanting to buy a Downtown Bklyn apt. for $1 MM+?!

    Who approved all those projects? What are they/were they thinking? Maybe, we can get the 2-3 train in Brooklyn as close to bursting at the seams as the Lex in Manhattan … and then spend a century remediating that situation.

    I’m sure some of the “tenants” are absolutely wonderful. But “Peas & Pickles??” It’s like Cruz and Trump when one judges them vs. Gristede’s – i.e., each dreams of a buyout, because stealing a few thou each month is too darn hard.

    On the plus side, it looks like the BHA may have awakened from its 50-year nap under Ms. Stanton – at least a year or 2 late, given Pierhouse and the Library boondoggle, but it will take OUR VILLAGE to keep those wonderful soon-to-be-ex-neighbors, the JW’s, from chortling over their tax-free earth being scorched as they migrate to less speculative real estate upstate.

    All the developers will need to do is promise some “affordable” housing in Bushwick or Crown Heights and Bill will try to squash any opposition. Hard to believe how one man could screw so many in so short a time.

  • Andrew Porter

    Ya know, Judy wasn’t the President of the BHA: she was the Executive Secretary, aka the Point Man [Person] of the org. She also answered the phones…

  • Ed Townes

    Sorry, Andrew – you were at the meeting where the new E.D. (your use of “secretary” may not come with a wink, but it ought to) showed what could/should be done in that role … and much more importantly, what role the org. can/should play. There’s still the casino for B.H. bluebloods to network about landscapers, The BHA in contrast might actually make an impact on BH if they chose to, especially with pols spending most of their time & energy chasing campaign $. Right now, it’s simply too tempting to “play ball” with developers and have a career like the late (?) great Gerges.

←  Older Comments
 →