MattSchapiro wrote:
Quote:

by getz011 on 2015/4/15 0:00:12
...

I stand by my comments. I believe that Dixon should be held to a consistently high level of responsibility and accountability wherever it invests, not just within a couple of blocks of the PATH. I would expect the same of Americans investing in Australia.

I sympathize with the inclination toward higher or lower expectations for a property owner depending on the perception of their wealth. But ownership standards are not determined by the bankroll of the owner.

Standards are the same for homeowners regardless of their economic status and it should be that way. Otherwise they would be impossible to enforce.

If neighbors accepted the conditions of a property prior to the acquisition by new owners, it seems a bit capricious to attack the new ownership for the same previously accepted conditions. Had they created the conditions about which there are now complaints, that would be a different story. But that's not what is being said here.

There is a place for how we as neighbors act based on who owns a property. For example, if a large corporation was not shoveling its sidewalks, I might be inclined to report them. If the senior citizen next door was not shoveling her sidewalks, I would just shovel it for her.

At the same time, if any homeowner is causing a nuisance or is in violation of the law or housing codes, neighbors should feel free to address the owner directly and if unsatisfied, report them to the appropriate authorities.

Dolomiti wrote:
Quote:

loco wrote:
There are three different generations in the home. They would need to find three homes.

So it's acceptable for them to live in one apartment because they're already there, but if they take the buyout they must live separately? Huh?

$200k may not be enough to buy a home, but after taxes it should cover the cost of moving and about 4 years of rent in JC. That really does not sound terribly unjust, considering that they don't own the apartment.

If they were trying to evict them without cause, that's a problem. A reasonable buyout offering is not.


Quote:

The family has lived there for decades. Its their home.

Unfortunately, that doesn't matter. They don't own the apartment, they are renters. They do not have the same property rights as an owner.

loco wrote:
There are three different generations in the home. They would need to find three homes.

The family has lived there for decades. Its their home.

Adonis wrote:
Quote:

MattSchapiro wrote:
Quote:

by getz011 on 2015/4/15 0:00:12
...

I stand by my comments. I believe that Dixon should be held to a consistently high level of responsibility and accountability wherever it invests, not just within a couple of blocks of the PATH. I would expect the same of Americans investing in Australia.

I sympathize with the inclination toward higher or lower expectations for a property owner depending on the perception of their wealth. But ownership standards are not determined by the bankroll of the owner.

Standards are the same for homeowners regardless of their economic status and it should be that way. Otherwise they would be impossible to enforce.

If neighbors accepted the conditions of a property prior to the acquisition by new owners, it seems a bit capricious to attack the new ownership for the same previously accepted conditions. Had they created the conditions about which there are now complaints, that would be a different story. But that's not what is being said here.

There is a place for how we as neighbors act based on who owns a property. For example, if a large corporation was not shoveling its sidewalks, I might be inclined to report them. If the senior citizen next door was not shoveling her sidewalks, I would just shovel it for her.

At the same time, if any homeowner is causing a nuisance or is in violation of the law or housing codes, neighbors should feel free to address the owner directly and if unsatisfied, report them to the appropriate authorities.

1000% correct. Apparently a lot of people are haters, they just like to hate on Dixon because they follow the tired mentality of hating on anything that, in their minds, has "a lot of money". In reality the hate stems from the particular individual being discriminatory in applying their personal standards of what's right or wrong.

MattSchapiro wrote:
Quote:

by getz011 on 2015/4/15 0:00:12
...

I stand by my comments. I believe that Dixon should be held to a consistently high level of responsibility and accountability wherever it invests, not just within a couple of blocks of the PATH. I would expect the same of Americans investing in Australia.

I sympathize with the inclination toward higher or lower expectations for a property owner depending on the perception of their wealth. But ownership standards are not determined by the bankroll of the owner.

Standards are the same for homeowners regardless of their economic status and it should be that way. Otherwise they would be impossible to enforce.

If neighbors accepted the conditions of a property prior to the acquisition by new owners, it seems a bit capricious to attack the new ownership for the same previously accepted conditions. Had they created the conditions about which there are now complaints, that would be a different story. But that's not what is being said here.

There is a place for how we as neighbors act based on who owns a property. For example, if a large corporation was not shoveling its sidewalks, I might be inclined to report them. If the senior citizen next door was not shoveling her sidewalks, I would just shovel it for her.

At the same time, if any homeowner is causing a nuisance or is in violation of the law or housing codes, neighbors should feel free to address the owner directly and if unsatisfied, report them to the appropriate authorities.

by getz011 on 2015/4/15 0:00:12
...

I stand by my comments. I believe that Dixon should be held to a consistently high level of responsibility and accountability wherever it invests, not just within a couple of blocks of the PATH. I would expect the same of Americans investing in Australia.

brewster wrote:
I think the judgement is a little harsh, especially as it sounds it was no better before their purchase.

getz011 wrote:
Things may be sweetness and light with Dixon downtown, but my neighbors and I have a different perspective as Dixon neighbors one neighborhood out.

1) They purchased a house on our block more than a year ago. The house had been empty for 5+ years, and within a month or two of purchase Dixon put it back on the market.

The house is a major eyesore on the block, and Dixon has done zero renovation. The walls are stripped to the studs, and the residents on either side complain of freezing conditions in winter and elevated heating bills. One home registered temperatures as low as 34 degrees on the adjacent wall of the Dixon property during this winter's cold snap.

2) Upkeep is spotty. They send guys out to shovel when it snows, but that's obvious and easy. On the other hand, there's been a giant patch of broken glass on the sidewalk in front of the house for more than the past month. (I have time stamped photos.) This is on the same block as an elementary school, and little kids tramp past the jagged glass shards twice a day. I pointed this out to Dixon's security staff and there was no response.

3) Attitude. With the unit on the market, Dixon has sent out representatives to pitch the place; we've overheard loud discussions about how the neighborhood is "so ghetto." Not that it should matter, but we have Ph.Ds, JDs, and authors on our block; in addition to countless people who pull their weight every day.

So our perspectives and experiences obviously vary. But if you ask me, I see the Dixon operation as a classic example of carpetbagging. They've added zero value to my neighborhood.

They are not going to get anywhere close to that, the ones who can afford 10k a month will not rent in that area/building despite how nice the interior looks.

07310 wrote:

I agree, posting in a NJ bulletin board about your landlord problems in Brooklyn??

Certainly, looking through Trulia seems to indicate that is the case, with several stunning renovations of brownstones around VVP. At 9K and 10K per month, that should net a nice, tidy profit every month.

bodhipooh wrote:
At 9K and 10K per month, that should net a nice, tidy profit every month.

bodhipooh wrote:
There is no sense engaging with "loco". As his name suggests, he (she?) is insane. Never engage with insanity. It's a waste of time. Not even sure why he is posting here, a Jersey City bulletin board, as his beef is happening in BK.

But, again, there is no reasoning with people like that. His absolutist views and opinions do not afford any room for dissension and discussion.

MDM wrote:
Curious...

How does Dickson plan to make a decent ROI / positive cash flow? If it is rental, the property would still be rent controlled wouldn't it? The only way I know around rent control is to go Section 8 or reduce the number of units in the building to 4 or less.

I know the State law exempts new construction from rent control for 5 years. I don't think it applies to gut-renovations of existing property though.

PEC0905 wrote:
You are completely wrong SRhia and apparently have no knowledge of rent control laws in Hudson County or NYC.

If you are the legal resident of a rent stabilized unit, it is illegal for the government or a greedy landlord to force you out. When a building or large community "goes private" the residents are offered cash buyouts at market rate, or the opportunity to keep their unit at an adjusted rent.

Like it or not, rent control is a fact of life in this area. These families lived here long before the neighborhoods became popular with post college trust fund babies from the midwest and foreign investors. Once an apartment is legally in your name, it's yours unless you willingly move out or violate the bylaws of the building.

Gentrification is positive on some levels when planned properly. That being said, Dixon is an investment fund. These Australians are absentee landlords looking to force out rent stabilized residents so they can eventually flip their properties for huge profits. That just leads to generic neighborhoods that have lost their character and end up being like Murray Hill, Park Slope or Hoboken.

SRhia wrote:
I agree with @bodhipooh: if you're renting, you do NOT own the place, even if you have lived there for infinity generations.

Heck, even if you own the place, they (the government, whatever) can still kick you out (with eminent domain, other legal BS).

So, just because you have 10 generations living in the place for 1000 years, you are not entitled to the place, even if you have been paying the rent forever.

I know this is harsh, but that's the truth.

loco wrote:
Are you a real estate agent or a republican?

SRhia wrote:
US Masters got this brownstone for a steal and spent about 1.5 yrs renovating it. Now it's on the market for rental.

I just don't understand - if I have that much money to throw away on rent every month, why would I want to rent in JC? Even in Manhattan, that amount can get me a really nice sized rental. I don't get it.

loco wrote:
The family has lived there for decades. Its their home.

loco wrote:
We are residents of a US Masters Residential Property Fund. We hate it. It is clear they want us out. They are hell bent on clearing this building even attempting to evict a 70 year old senior suffering from depression and agoraphobia claiming she didnt live here. She had been living there for decades and Jacob Schulder one of Dixon henchmen saw this senior all the time.

When they saw they were going to lose trying to evict her, they offered the three generations living in their 1200 sq foot apartment $200,000 to get out.

We need to join forces with ALL US Masters Residential Property Fund. I say its time we start the:

US Masters Residential Tenants Union

And join the incredibly successful CHTU- Crown Height Tenant Union in our fight.

ITS TIME TO JOIN HANDS, FORCES AND FIGHT TO GET THIS FOREIGN BANKS OUT OF OUR BACK YARD!

For those interested please read our blog:
BEDSTUYMOVEORDIE.BLOGSPOT.COM