Open Thread Wednesday

NYTimes feature on a Brooklyn Heights Townhouse Renovation

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/06/realestate/brooklyn-heights-greek-revival-townhouse-renovation.html

“The Greek Revival house, once home to the Franciscan Sisters of the Poor, needed more than just a simple renovation to function in the 21st century.”

All the talk about horses last week reminded me of Pete on Willow St, who would talk about the old neighborhood.

When she was a small girl living on Willow St, the iceman would make deliveries in a horse-drawn cart. He would carry a block of ice into their kitchen and chip the ice to fit in their icebox. He would offer her the shavings, which were a rare treat on a summer day. Her mother, a no-nonsense “Southern belle” would never take any shavings. The iceman would give Pete a cube of sugar, and she would run out and feed it to the horse, and the horse would let out a loud whinny when fed the sugar.

Saw a couple union rats parked on Cadman right at the end of Clinton this morning (outside Building Bridges Preschool)… anybody know the details? Are they there for 1 Clinton or something else?

“”The Court of Appeals has held for 60 years that co-op residents have a right to decide who will share their homes, and that courts should not tell boards how to manage their co-op,” Luxemburg [an attorney and the president of the Council of New York Cooperatives & Condominiums] says.””

Anyone know of a stronger argument than this non-position Luxemborg is offering for why co-op boards should be allowed to be opaque? I’d love to hear it.

The Franciscan Sisters of the Poor must have…feelings about this.

As a member of a co-op and on its board of directors, I can say this; aside from financials not being up to par, some people simply might not fit in with the other members, and should be rejected. Particularly in smaller, intimate co-ops where there is more interaction between residents.

Where do you guys get local news? Besides this blog that is.

To protect the board and the general membership from any reprisals.
What reason for a rejection is good enough? that is a tough question. I do understand how such anonymous rejections can be misused but the consequences of letting a toxic personality into a group can be very disruptive.

Patch !

The building’s residents were developmentally challenged people, overseen by the religious order. For years, you could see them walking, under supervision, along the Promenade.

Fascinating that the article doesn’t mention the proximity of the BQE, whose constant roar must surely be heard—and felt!—within the house.

Brownstoner, Brooklyn Eagle, Brooklyn Paper, esp. Gothamist.

I feel like you guys are basically rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Co-ops sell at big discounts to comparable condos.
There’s a reason for the huge discount between co-ops and condos, and there’s also a reason why units in a brownstone sell at a large discount to the price of the building as a whole. Times have changed. People have changed.
“Toxic personalities” abound.

An example, In 2010 we had a white, middle aged, single woman apply for membership. She was brought in by another member who had brought in the previous three or so members. Some on the board objected to the “stacking the deck” by said current member and thought we should perhaps reject her on those grounds. Anyhow, she was accepted. later that year she was voted onto the board (as we encourage new members to do) and all went well for the first year or so. Then she surreptitiously started spreading false rumors and lies to some of the general membership about the other board members, It was a calculated attack, an attempted coup d’é·tat. It ultimately failed but it left a big rift in what otherwise had been a very tight knit, friendly community. Only a decade later are we somewhat back to normal.
A hard lesson to learn but we now put in place a a more stringent vetting process.

That could have happened regardless of the new member’s connection to the existing member. How do you vet for that?

And here you are talking about it somewhat openly—openly enough in legal terms, anyway. Clearly it’s something you feel comfortable disclosing. How are the benefits of transparency outweighed in your anecdote?

Glad there is at least one lonely tree in this photo!