United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Homeowners forced to pay over $1K a year just to sit on steps
Source:
NY Post
URL Source: http://nypost.com/2017/01/23/homeow ... k-a-year-just-to-sit-on-steps/
Published: Jan 23, 2017
Author: Julia Marsh
Post Date: 2017-01-23 19:28:21 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 1281
Comments: 8
Luke Gunnell stands on his $1,200-a-year steps he rents from the city. It’s every Brooklynite’s inalienable right to sit on their own stoops — but that didn’t stop a developer and the city from devising a scheme to tax them over it, a group of homeowners claims. Nearly three dozen property owners in Boerum Hill say they are being charged more than $1,000 a year just to use the steps leading to their homes. “It’s one of those weird, bureaucratic things that doesn’t make sense,’’ said resident Luke Gunnell, 50, who is forced to shell out $1,154 every year to use his stoop. He and 33 other residents bought their stunning town houses, on the leafy north side of State Street between Hoyt and Smith streets, for as much as $2.4 million starting in 2008. And they say their contracts included an “illegal” side deal between the developer and city. The agreement allowed the builder to extend the homes’ stairways 6 feet 3 inches beyond the property line and onto the city-owned sidewalk, jacking up the sale price. In exchange, the city would receive a special annual tax — paid by the residents. The tax, which rises bit by bit every year, means the homeowners are essentially “renting” the space where their stoops are. A judge ruled that a group of 34 Brooklyn residents will have to pay a city tax of thousands of dollars a year for the right to sit on their own stoops. The deal is part of a “revokable consent agreement,’’ which also means the city can demolish the steps at any time, leaving the residents without a way to get into their homes. “It is inconceivable,’’ said the homeowners’ lawyer, Jack Lester. Lester sued the city on behalf of the residents in 2015, arguing that the city should be allowed to enter into such arrangements only for temporary structures, such as scaffolding or those involving businesses, including marquees, flagpoles and awnings. While about half the homeowners acknowledge that they were aware of the set-up, they still say it is illegal. The others said they didn’t learn about it until 2015, when they were slapped with an “administrative fee’’ of more than $1,000 for the measure to be renewed. The city’s lawyer, William Vidal, argued in court papers that all of the residents should have known about the deal because it was part of their buyer’s contract. They receive separate bills from the city Department of Transportation for the special tax, since it involves sidewalks. Vidal said builder HS Development Partners made the deal only to “maximize petitioners’ living space.” “The relief requested in this proceeding amounts to a land grab,” Vidal said. “Petitioners were on notice when they purchased their town homes that they may have to one day remove their private structures on the sidewalk of State Street and are simply trying to privatize public space,” he added. Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Joan Lobis finally ruled on the issue last week — and sided with the city. She said the city “acted within its discretion.” A city Law Department rep added to The Post, “The city enters into hundreds of these ‘revocable consent’ agreements to facilitate the construction of housing. Over the last several decades, the city has revoked less than a handful.’’ Lester said he plans to meet with the homeowners to see if they want to appeal or sue the developer. Abby Hamlin of HS Development declined to comment on a possible suit. Additional reporting by Shari Logan 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: cranky, y'all (#0)
Probably not true. The residents could get into their homes through the ground floor, -- what appears to be the basement in the pictures.
I thank God that I do not live in that goofy damn place ! If I was so unfortunate that I did, I would sell out, and move out !! Si vis pacem, para bellum Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."Theodore Roosevelt-1907. I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
Dysfunctional sheep living in urban zoos
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
City Lays Down Law To Some Residents: Lose The Stoop Families Told Big Apple Actually Owns Part Of Their Property By Hazel Sanchez NEW YORK (CBS 2) — Imagine spending a fortune to beautify your front yard, only to find out it doesn’t belong to you. It belongs to New York City. That’s what’s happening in one Brooklyn neighborhood. Residents may be forced to tear down their fences and staircases. As CBS 2’s Hazel Sanchez reports, the city is saying “move it, or lose it.” Veronica Deignan’s family has lived in her Monitor Street home in Greenpoint, Brooklyn since 1945. But the city just informed her that part of her front yard belongs to someone else. When asked if the city had ever approach her family in the previous 66 years to say it owned the property, Deignan said, “No, this was our property.” The City Department of Design and Construction sent the Deignan’s and all their neighbors on Monitor Street letters to inform them their ages-old wrought iron fences and front stoops are on city-owned property. Residents must remove them or the city will — all to make way for sewage and aesthetic improvements. The neighborhood is outraged. “Why do they want to dig it up again? We have new sewers, catch basins, you name it under this ground already,” Deignan said. “I was really angry. I called the property manager but he wasn’t really too forthcoming about anything,” neighbor Arlene Reischer added. Basically the city wants to extend the sidewalk an extra five feet, which would mean one property owner Sanchez met on Wednesday night would have to get rid of an entire staircase landing. Dozens of residents confronted DDC officials at a meeting Wednesday night. “The claim of the DDC is that we’re encroaching. However, these fence lines have been in place since the homes were built in 1900, 1910, long before the DOT existed,” Ricky Carias said. “You’re taking five more feet that give 15 feet. Nassau Avenue, Manhattan Avenue don’t even have 15-feet sidewalks. Are we having a parade that we don’t know about?” Bob Knapp said. The DDC said not all residents will be forced to remove their stoops or fences, but as of now, despite the strenuous complaints, the project is a go for the spring. The Department of Transportation is spearheading the project on Monitor Street, but it did not attend the meeting. Another meeting is being planned so the DOT can address residents’ concerns.
Property owners will now be responsible for the maintenance and repair of public sidewalks in front of their buildings following passage of legislation that transfers liability from the city to the owners of multi-family dwellings. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg recently signed a pair of bills that were part of a tort reform package aimed at reducing the city's liability to pay for accident claims resulting from defective or improperly maintained sidewalks. Intro 193, also called the Adjoining Landowner Liability Bill, will hold building owners liable if they fail to comply with their existing duty to repair and maintain the sidewalks in front of their buildings, and also to shovel snow and remove it from the premises in winter. One-, two- and three family dwellings are exempt. "New York City has 12,750 miles of sidewalks. Laid end-to-end they would stretch halfway around the world. It would cost the city billions of dollars to hire sidewalk repair crews to repair all sidewalk defects and keep the sidewalks perfectly free of defects," says Mayor Bloomberg. Under current law, says Mayor Bloomberg, property owners had been required to keep sidewalks in good repair and free of snow or ice. However, if they failed to comply with this statutory duty and someone was injured, oftentimes only the city would get sued, he says. "In the past three years, the city has paid out over $189 million in judgments as a result of actions brought for damages caused by sidewalk defects and falls on snow and ice," continues Mayor Bloomberg. "Such suits are the most common type of litigation brought against the city. For over 20 years, the city has been trying to change this law, today we are finally successful. This legislation will save the city up to $40 million a year and help us weather our fiscal crisis. This bill will not only save the city millions of dollars but will also encourage property owners to keep the sidewalks in good repair, which will mean safer sidewalks and fewer injuries," says the mayor. Although buildings are certain to have insurance, the bill's passage is a blow to property owners and homeowners, who are already paying higher insurance, real estate taxes and maintenance fees during the city's fiscal crisis, according to Al Pennisi, a senior partner with Pennisi, Daniels and Norelli, and the president of the Federation of New York Housing Cooperatives and Condominiums (FNYHC). "It creates a heavy burden on the cooperatives and the condominiums. Until they changed the law, they also had the city responsible. And now the city is abdicating their responsibility and now saying "˜you, the property owner are totally responsible.' And you're dealing with a public sidewalk, which you do not as an owner have total control over," says Pennisi. "At least until they changed the law, the city had some responsibility. Now they have none." The city installs a sidewalk and may cause damage to it but bear no responsibility for its upkeep and repair. Leaving that responsibility and liability to the property owner "is really not fair," says Pennisi. Putting a Premium on Rate Hikes Insurance companies haven't yet reacted to the legislation's passage, says Alex Seaman of Kaye Insurance in Long Island, but the bill is likely to have an effect. "It definitely increases the exposure to property owners for slip-and- fall claims. Most insurance carriers have not responded formally to the legislation but it could certainly result in significant rate increases on premises liability," Seaman says. Policies do typically cover a property and adjacent premises. All standard policies contain what is called a "designated premises endorsement" clause, which extends to "operations necessary or incidental to the premises, which is generally accepted as walkways immediately adjoining" a piece of property, according to Seaman. "What will happen also," Seaman explains, "is that it could result in far greater loss control requirements by the insurance carriers." Carriers could require more thorough inspections of the sidewalks as a result and mandatory instructions to improve or replace all uneven sidewalk areas, which could be an enormously expensive proposition. Carriers could require a formal engineering inspection or survey be done of any sidewalk they believe to be unsafe as well and this could be a more frequent occurrence. "Minor repairs are not normally terribly expensive - patchwork - but to replace a large section of sidewalk can be huge. And with respect to property owners they'll have to be far more diligent in maintenance, including snow removal, clearing debris, garbage cans," Seaman says. In Seaman's 20 years of experience, in most slip-and-fall cases, claims are more often made against a property owner and not the city. "It's a lot tougher to sue the city than it is a private property owner. Based on my experience, I've seen it far more common to sue the property owner." Buildings are already or should be insured to cover such liability, says Greg Carlson, executive director of the Federation of New York Housing Cooperatives and Condominiums. "If you take most cooperatives or condominiums, it really doesn't affect them because they have adequate insurance. And when someone falls, they sue everybody," Carlson says. The city is limiting its own exposure and transferring that exposure to the property owner. Carlson also is worried that the bill will result in higher premiums. "The bill will probably be something that insurers will use to increase premiums because they have greater exposure - a higher risk." He has heard through the grapevine from brokers that costs could potentially rise as much as 15 percent. "That's another cost affecting buildings that are already tapped out." What Are You Going to Do: Sue Me? A second bill signed by Mayor Bloomberg addresses the existence of property insurance and who would be responsible for compensation should a person become injured on a defective or unmaintained sidewalk. Intro 522 is a local law that would require owners of real property to maintain liability insurance for personal injury and property damage claims caused by the failure of an owner to maintain the sidewalk abutting their property and keep it in a reasonably safe condition. The bill states that if a judgment of personal injury including death is obtained against an abutting property owner and that owner fails to have general liability insurance or is insufficiently covered to satisfy the court's judgment, the city's comptroller upon consultation with the city's corporation counsel, is empowered to pay for that personal injury and the cost of uncompensated medical expenses. No payment shall exceed $50,000 and the total of all such payments for any judgments in a given fiscal year is not to exceed $4 million dollars, according to the legislation. "Part of what makes the city such an inviting target for tort lawyers," says Mayor Bloomberg, "is the fact that the city has "˜deep pockets' - it has the ability to satisfy judgments obtained against it. Much of the opposition to tort reform can be attributed to a concern that others may not have such deep pockets. The city should not be liable for another person's negligence," he says. This second bill, however, attempts to provide compensation whenever a property owner isn't adequately covered or has no other assets, in which to satisfy or pay an injury claim, Mayor Bloomberg says. These bills, according to the mayor, "strike a reasonable balance between the principle that the city should not be liable for the wrongs of another and the principle that persons injured by the wrongs of another should receive compensation." Both bills have taken effect and apply only to accident claims occurring after the signing date.
The city should shovel your sidewalk By Ben Adler on Feb 21, 2014 It’s an odd fact of life in New York City that after a snowstorm the streets are nicely plowed but the sidewalks may remain a mess. The city dispatches trucks to clean the streets shortly after the snow stops falling. But the sidewalks? That’s up to the owners of the buildings alongside them. And if a homeowner doesn’t get around to shoveling? Well, then you’ll just find yourself delicately dancing along a bumpy, icy, and/or slushy stretch of pavement. This is hardly unique to the Big Apple. Cities, and especially suburbs, throughout the country take the bizarre position that roads are a public good but sidewalks, where they even exist, are a luxury that homeowners must maintain for themselves. It is especially perverse in a city where more people walk than drive as they go about their daily lives. Theoretically, New York City can fine owners $100 or more for not shoveling their patch of sidewalk. In practice, enforcement is somewhere between spotty and nonexistent. And so, in this particularly snowy winter — which may become the new norm thanks to climate change — a New York City council member has proposed that the city up the fine to $250 and use the proceeds to pay for the shoveling itself. The New York Daily News reports: Councilman David Greenfield (D-Brooklyn) is introducing legislation that would require the city to shovel sidewalks ignored by property owners and charge them for it. … Under Greenfield’s bill, the city would hire more seasonal snow laborers, paying them $12 to $18 an hour to shovel sidewalks. He said the charges to property owners would more than cover the cost. Greenfield said he decided to act after dozens of complaints from constituents about treacherous sidewalks. This would be an improvement. But it would be even better if the city just took on the responsibility of shoveling all sidewalks. Why should cars get a publicly cleared path while pedestrians do not? Sidewalks are as much of a public good as roads, and pedestrians should be as entitled to safe, ice-free surfaces as cars. Greenfield’s scheme is just a way of getting the cost of shoveling off the city’s balance sheet. But plenty of New Yorkers might support a small tax increase to pay for safe sidewalks. If the city is intent on making property owners foot the bill, it could be done through a property tax surcharge. Building owners aren’t the only ones using sidewalks, however, and there is really no reason they alone should have to pay for keeping them clear. If Greenfield’s bill passes, the city will inevitably still fail to catch many negligent homeowners, leaving their sidewalks unsafe. It will arbitrarily impose those steep fines based on whose block a cop happens to check or which neighbors — generally the wealthier ones — complain the loudest. Some homeowners getting fined will deserve it, but some will have genuinely good excuses for having failed to shovel. For cities to be livable, walkable, and sustainable, they should have high- quality city services delivered by the city government, including usable sidewalks.
Anger over ‘unnecessary’ sidewalk repair BY VERA CHINESE A Queens homeowner who says he was unfairly charged thousands of dollars for unnecessary sidewalk repairs wants the city to be held accountable for the gaffe. John Biagi, who now displays a large sign outside his Fresh Meadows home that reads “another homeowner screwed by NYC,” said the city told him to fix three broken slabs of concrete outside his house in 2004. Biagi held off on the repairs, claiming he was waiting for additional information from the city Department of Transportation. He came home one day in 2008 to find the city had dug up 789 square feet of concrete without warning — 725 more than the original estimate called for, he said. Biagi, a 62-year-old retired mechanic, has a copy of a DOT form that denotes 39 slabs of concrete outside his Utopia Parkway property as defective. But he said most of the slabs, save for the original three, were in good condition. “Whoever did this preliminary inspection should be fired,” he said. “Somebody should be accountable.” A $2,240 charge was added to his property tax bill in 2009 to pay for about a third of the total repair. But after the city Department of Design and Construction handed over photos of the sidewalk before the repairs, obtained through a Freedom of Information Law request filed by TimesLedger Newspapers, the city offered to refund $1,442. In the photos, the sidewalk appears unbroken and no cracks are visible. “They stole my money and called me up and said they want to split it with me,” Biagi said. The city billed John Biagi, seen here outside his Fresh Meadows home, $2,240 to replace the sidewalk outside his home, even though the pavement was in relatively good condition. The city has agreed to refund $1,442, but Biagi wants the city to be held accountable for the gaffe. He displays a sign outside his home that reads “Another homeowner screwed by NYC” to express his anger. The city billed John Biagi, seen here outside his Fresh Meadows home, $2,240 to replace the sidewalk outside his home, even though the pavement was in relatively good condition. The city has agreed to refund $1,442, but Biagi wants the city to be held accountable for the gaffe. He displays a sign outside his home that reads “Another homeowner screwed by NYC” to express his anger. (VERA CHINESE/NEW YORK DAILY NEWS) Biagi said he conferred with City Councilman Dan Halloran (R-Whitestone), who had originally brought the issue before the city, and the councilman advised him to take the settlement. “It wasn’t everything in terms of dollar for dollar, but it was most of it,” Halloran said. A DOT spokeswoman said the city performed the repairs after Biagi failed to fix the cracks noted in the 2004 inspection and after additional breakage was found. As for Biagi’s complaints, she said the agency has had no correspondence with him since 2010. “Property owners must take sidewalk defects seriously and repair them for everyone’s safety, whether they are large cracks, uneven surfaces or smaller defects that could grow into more dangerous problems,” the spokeswoman said in an email. Biagi, discouraged by the prospect of legal fees and a lengthy court battle, said he will not pursue legal action against the city. “I don’t think it’s fair,” he said. “But I don’t have a fight after this.”
Yes, they are. The idiots should sell out now, and move out of the city. Of course, ultimately, property values will plummet. You were wise to get out when you did. Si vis pacem, para bellum Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."Theodore Roosevelt-1907. I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
The deal is part of a “revokable consent agreement,’’ which also means the city can demolish the steps at any time, leaving the residents without a way to get into their homes.
#2. To: cranky (#0)
(Edited)
#3. To: Stoner (#2)
#4. To: cranky (#0)
February 2, 2011
The city has said the front stoops of the homes on Monitor Street in Greenpoint, Brooklyn need to be removed because the city is the rightful owner. (Photo: CBS 2)
#5. To: cranky (#0)
#6. To: cranky (#0)
#7. To: cranky (#0)
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Wednesday, April 18,
#8. To: GrandIsland (#3)
" Dysfunctional sheep living in urban zoos "
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]