Last Post

This is the last post for this blog. The blog will hereafter be inactive and eventually deleted. My reasons for doing so are multiple. I cannot touch on them all, but the main reasons are my lack of time, which has rendered this blog inactive by default. When I originally started this blog I was hoping to spur community involvement in co-op issues. I am not convinced I had much effect, except that I got the Board's attention, and I flatter myself with the belief that the seeds I've planted will ultimately take root. Also, I was aiming at being a "voice crying in the wilderness." I "cried" about energy and real estate bubbles long before these became obvious. The fact is that these crises, and their aftermath, have become obvious. There's no reason for me to fuss further. As for community involvement, I continue to encourage folks to participate in cooperative living. Also, if you have a problem with the Board or Management, sometimes its just best to go to HPD. My next blog will be about the culinary wonders of our great borough of Queens, but that won't be for while yet.

New dog policy

Once again, the Board has found a new way to pick your pocket. I am still getting over the sting of the fuel surcharge that got through. The first proposal was for $12.00 per room per month, and I countered with $8.00, which is still more than I care to pay. The fact is that fuel spiked and ate into our reserve funds. These funds are important and do need to be replenished because we always have an emergency at BST--some pipe inevitably will leak. Nevertheless, the rate at which it is replenished is the question.

Now there is a new cost the Board is seeking to add--a $25.00 fee for dogs. The intent is to apply it to dogs living here now, not just those coming into the co-op in the future. I wonder about the legality of this, but I don't wonder at the fairness of it. It is unfair! It is an unnecessary burden on shareholders, especially seniors who can't afford it. The rules penalizing dog owners were written over forty years ago! I would say it's time to acknowledge that the world has changed, dogs in apartment buildings is not a new concept, and we are behind the times. Do folks need to pick up after their dogs? Sure. However, a lot of the dog poop around here comes from non-residents. It is also true that no one ever gets a summons around here for violating this rule.

Addressing the Board on this issue is a waste of time. The real folks to contact with your opinion about this is HPD. They have the power to stop this and I think they're more responsive than the Board is on these issues. Call Gary Sloman at (212) 863-6500.

recycling bulbs

Recycling fluorescent bulbs just got a whole lot easier. Folks have expressed understandable concern that improper disposal of compact fluorescent bulbs would release the small amounts of mercury they contain and pose an environmental hazard. Well Home depot has tackled that problem, and decided to accept spent bulbs for recycling at any of their stores, which are everywhere! Read all about it: http://stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_read.asp?id=704146242008. Just goes to show that for every problem there's a solution.

Re-financing

There's been a little drama here at Big Six of late. It seems that a Boardmember has gone out of his way to make his disagreement with a Board decision I agree with, quite apparent. That's quite all right, I am not opposed to free speech, and he is entirely within his right to disagree. I find myself on the disagreeing side quite often, so I don't have a problem with it. He has also cast aspersions on the integrity of the rest of the Board--essentially because we happen to disagree with him. That's not okay, but I won't deal with that here. There are two ideas touched on in the recent "memos" being circulated that I question. These are the comments regarding privatization, and section 8.

First of all, regarding privatization, there is a pre-existing stipulation in the first re-financing mortgage agreement, which prevents us from going private until 2033. This re-financing does not change that at all! I did not know about that aspect of the mortgage agreement until this re-financing came up. I wasn't pleased about it because while I am not a confirmed privatization fan, it's nice to have the option.

Perhaps I'm nuts, but I really don't see why anyone today could care about going private in 2033. It's really a moot point. I'm fairly young, but in 2033 I will be over sixty-five--I daresay the author of the letter being circulated will be older. I have to believe that his unspoken hopes are based on being able to go private much sooner than that. That's understandable, but if it is, then he hasn't been straight-forward about it, or addressed the fact that no amount of wishful thinking will change the fact that there is no legal reason I am aware of--or that he is for that matter, or he would have put it forth--that allows us to go private before that. Never mind the legal costs, the lack of legal advantage on our part, and the cost of losing a deal for things we need now that the re-financing addresses!

The thing that bothers me much more, is the suggestion (intentional or not) that 200 Section 8 recipients are poised to enter Big Six in a wave, as a result of this particular deal. He refers to up to 200 Section 8 vouchers HPD will make available, but does not say that these are intended as assistance for our current residents in case they fall on hard times. However, there seems to be no concern for these people expressed in the letter.

Another concern that never gets addressed is how to deal with present infrastructure problems. The Board has identified several major projects that need doing. Most of them are not very sexy. The water tanks for example, may need replacing. There is local law 11 work on the facades that must be done. The Shopping Center is in pretty bad shape. If we throw in the windows, then there are about 11 million dollars worth of capital projects that need doing right now. If you leave out the windows, then its about 5 million. The Board could seek another capital assessment for these items, but the cost would be heavy, and the money would come in slowly. If we did it just for the items that need to be done and left out the windows, then folks would be poorer and much less than satisfied. Obviously, a capital assessment for 11 million dollars would be heavy and because of the years we'd have to wait for the money, we'd have to ask for even more. These are problems faced by the Board. The re-financing deal would provide us with the 11 million dollars virtually without increasing our debt payments! Why wouldn't we do it?

The much bigger concern isn't privatization, or re-financing, but carrying charges, which I strongly believe are too high. We must find a way to lower costs, and the Board is working on some things, but this is an emergency! Ironically, the dissenting Board member and "memo" writer has, however, historically championed higher carrying charge increases than the rest of the Board. I would normally be too polite to mention it, but it's true.

You don't have to agree with me, if you think this is a deal worth losing, if you think we don't need capital improvements like windows and prefer to spend money on dubious legal battles, fine, but I don't think it makes any sense. Someone always chooses to be a disagree (sometimes they're right and sometimes wrong), and that's okay, but facts are facts.

Elections and the Economy

It is said that politics and religion don't mix well in polite company, or maybe it's not polite in mixed company. Either way, I, like most people have strong opinions about both. What's the point of having a forum, if you can't express yourself on it. These Iowa Caucasus have been turned in breath-taking results! The people of Iowa and Barak Obama have made history together! It's a beautiful thing! Edwards is actually my first choice, but I could live with Obama--Hilary was a last resort (and not a very palatable one at that!)! It was exciting to see Iowa--a nice, white, middle American state--reject the status quo! Quite frankly, the status quo has been killing us!

It was equally exciting to see Mike Huckabee win the Republican nomination. I like Huckabee best of the Republicans because he describes himself as a "Main Street Republican, not a Wall Street Republican." Huckabee's win demonstrates something the media will be very hesitant to take up--a potential decoupling of the social conservatives from the economic (or corporate) conservatives. It has the potential to be very big! Huckabee has got a way to go yet, but there's hope.

All this is related to an issue that is very pertinent to us all. There is an article on the Yahoo! homepage that covers the rise in unemployment: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080104/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy. The article reports something that I was discussing with a friend quite recently, the other shoe (unemployment) to the economic downturn is waiting to drop. Well it dropped! It came on stronger and faster than I expected. In the last quarter a mere 18,000 jobs were created. About 100,000 jobs are needed to keep the economy on even keel. Even though the official unemployment rate is a mere 5%, the change for this quarter was a drop of over 80%! Unemployment is always bad for working people, but economists generally agree that anything over 5% is a bad sign.

The article itself is full of wishy-washy language whose only purpose is to downplay the seriousness of the situation. My favorite was, "High energy prices....probably made workers feel as if their paychecks aren't stretching as far as they'd like." I don't think they feel it, they know it! The other annoying thing is the talk of "if" there's a recession. It's more like when are they (the media) going to admit there's a recession! All this only makes the happenings in Iowa more important, as change is not just about preference, but necessity!

Light bulbs, Laws and Recycling

I've written about compact fluorescent light bulbs before. I think they're important way to save energy. It happens that a lot of people agree. I was listening to 93.9FM (WNYC) and a guest came on speaking about a new energy bill that will impose new lighting standards that will phase out the incandescent bulb in a few years. It would require light bulbs to operate more efficiently by 30%, effectively eliminating the incandescent bulb. As currently written the law will begin taking effect in 2012--only four years away--starting with 100W bulbs. By 2014, the requirement will take in 40-60W bulbs. For more info, check out http://globalwarming.house.gov/energybill/lighting.html, which details the bill. The future is now!

Section 8

I've been meaning to write a number of posts, but there never seems to be the time. This one's overdue. Notices were placed under doors re: the availability of Section 8 vouchers for BST residents. The way it works is that residents whose income may fallen to levels that qualify are eligible for this program, which freezes your housing costs to roughly a third of your income. A third of household income is the general federal standard for housing affordability. I think this standard is something for everyone to ponder, including a Board of Directors.

Unfortunately, there has been a little rumor mongering about the matter. There's been some talk that a tidal wave of Section 8 outsiders are coming! First, we need to get over how outsiders are seen at BST. Second, this has no basis in fact. Third, there have been changes to the program, so that landlords (and co-ops) do not have to accept applications. Fourth, if our residents are in good standing, and need this assistance, on what basis should they be refused? I find the stigma that some attempt to attach to this issue repugnant and foolish.

I encourage those who need the assistance to take advantage of this opportunity. I also encourage them not to delay. Section 8 was closed for some time, and only after much struggle did the federal gov't. re-open it. I, for one, will not stand in the way of any shareholder with a history of good faith and good standing.