Swig technically defaulted, but may have broken even on UWS sale

July 11, 2008 11:37AM By David Jones

201 West 92nd Street

Six months before selling his Upper West Side tenement buildings for $61 million, developer Kent Swig was sued by the lender after technically defaulting on the property's mortgage, according to documents obtained by The Real Deal.

Swig, president of New York-based Swig Equities, had originally acquired 201 West 92nd Street and 200 West 93rd Street in 2005 for $54 million, with plans to add a total of 56 condo units atop the roofs of the two six-story buildings and convert the complex into condominiums. By selling the property for $7 million more than he paid for it, Swig might have been able to break even after carrying costs.

The deal was financed by a $52.49 million acquisition and development loan taken out with Fremont Investment & Loan in March 2005. The 18-month loan was based on Swig's ability to build two nine-story structures atop the 134-unit complex.

In January, a subsidiary of New York-based iStar Financial Inc. filed suit against Swig in New York State Supreme Court seeking to foreclose on the property. Records from PropertyShark.com show a lis pendens filed against the building on the same date as the suit.

Swig, who originally put the buildings up for sale in early 2007, denied any connection between the bank proceedings and the sale price.

"We sold the buildings at the highest price we could achieve," said Swig, who said he would not discuss the building's finances, citing a confidentiality pact with the new owners. "We found a buyer, who seemed like a very nice, smart person. It was pretty straightforward. There was no big thought process and complication."

However, Swig said that the overall lending and building sales environment remains very difficult and will probably last through this year.

"There is clearly a capital liquidity squeeze in the marketplace," he said. "The balance sheets of the banks are all taken up and not free to make new loans. There may be more lookers, but that doesn't mean there are closers."
Despite a slowdown in sales and rental income, it remains relatively rare for multifamily buildings to become delinquent in the New York metropolitan area, though the numbers are rising. Data from Foresight Analytics shows that multifamily delinquencies in metro New York rose to 0.9 percent in the first quarter, from 0.4 percent a year ago. The national average increased to 1.7 percent in the quarter from 1.1 percent a year ago.

Attorney Richard Nardi, counsel to the Mortgage Bankers Association of New York, said it made sense for the lender to slow down the proceedings long enough for Swig to sell the building.

"They'll basically give certain borrowers an opportunity to sell," said Nardi, who was not aware of the Swig case. "There's a deal in place between the bank and the lender as to where the proceeds are going."

The suit alleged that Swig failed to make an interest payment of $392,033 on Oct. 1, 2007. When the loan came due November 1, he failed to pay the principal of about nearly $52.5 million, the records show. By December 2007, Swig owed the lender iStar Financial Inc. more than $61.3 million, including principal, interest and penalties.

The lender, which had acquired Fremont's commercial real estate portfolio for $1.9 billion in 2007, reached an agreement with Swig that would extend his deadline to respond to the complaint until March 24 of this year, according to court records.

A source familiar with Swig, who asked to remain anonymous, said that all issues with iStar were resolved prior to the sale of the complex to Adorama Inc. affiliate 92nd Street Equities, which was finalized last week. The firm is led by Eugene Mendlowits, whose family owns Adorama Camera and is a veteran landlord in Brooklyn and Manhattan.

Swig, along with partners Yair Levy and Charles Dayan, had submitted an offering plan in June 2006 to then Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, to sell the 56 newly built condo units for $145.5 million. The plan called for Swig to continue renting the existing 134 units and generate revenue from 14 retail stores and restaurants.

The Department of Buildings had initially approved Swig's construction plans, which were put on hold amid opposition from tenants.

By early 2007, Swig hired Massey Knakal Realty Services to sell the building for $90 million, based on the premise that a new developer would be able to still convert the building into condos.

A copy of the Massey Knakal offer sheet shows the building had a net operating income of about $2 million, based on $68 per square foot in retail income and about $20 per square foot in residential rent.

The DOB issued a stop-work order on the property on April 17, 2007, after Swig failed to respond to an inquiry regarding his construction plans. Sources say that Swig continued talks with DOB and other officials, but that revised construction plans were never submitted for public review.

Massey Knakal cut the asking price from $90 million to $79.6 million and set a deadline of April 27, 2007 for bids.

Sources familiar with the sale said that several prospective buyers were brought in to look at the property, including Boymelgreen Developers and Chetrit Group, but were not interested in completing the deal at the price Swig was looking for.

Swig eventually replaced Massey Knakal with Eastern Consolidated in October 2007 to market the building at an asking price of $72 million. Officials at Eastern Consolidated, which brokered the $61 million deal, declined to comment.

Comments

Anthony

Clearly he didn't default because he was strapped, in fact from his recent deals he must be flushed, this was a strategic move and it looks like it paid off as he pocketed $7M.

Comment #1 Posted By: Anthony 07/11/08

Anonymous

This is a common strategic move by investors. He came in with big ideas and when he faced obstacles, in this case the city, he broke even and left the opportunity for someone else.

Comment #2 Posted By: Anonymous 07/11/08

Anonymous

"technical default?" don't pay/can't pay mortgage = default. There was a foreclosure proceeding alleging non-payment - there were no allegations of a "technical default" only the allegation that swig was not meeting his obligations.

Comment #3 Posted By: Anonymous 07/11/08

Anonymous

swig it!!!! lol

Comment #4 Posted By: Anonymous 07/11/08

Anonymous

amusing this article isnt even that old and already the first posts are pro Swig . lol Thats what you pay PR people for . Obviously this was a forced sale to pay off the lender .

Comment #5 Posted By: Anonymous 07/11/08

Anonymous

Another forced sale coming at Sheffield57.Look around,it's not to hard to figure out. Costruction is almost at a stand still. Say goodnight Kent

Comment #6 Posted By: Anonymous 07/11/08

Anonymous

#5, there are sales at the Sheffield everyday, which is why Swig is going to make a hundred million. The deal is not even a home run, it is a grand slam. Love the suckers of the flailing tenant association (do-nothing association) who are left to post lies on blogs.

Comment #7 Posted By: Anonymous 07/11/08

Anonymous

The Sheffield was a huge undertaking and not for everyone. What Swig did for that building was a blessing for the area, the building and New York City. He created value where there was no value, how can you people be angry about his ingenuity.

Comment #8 Posted By: Anonymous 07/11/08

Anonymous

#7, because Swig is making a huge profit and the tenants are not. And they are pissed off because he is already rich and they are not. And because someone told the tenants that there would be money in it for them, and now that there is not, they are sad, confused and angry at the world.

Comment #9 Posted By: Anonymous 07/11/08

Anonymous

5,6,7....if you have some spare cash...and you all claim to be very wealthy, you might want to buy a piece of that sheffield grand slam....your boy has been touring around some potential new investors looking for some new capital come on in and buy a piece! steve k, greg k....you may have a leak!

Comment #10 Posted By: Anonymous 07/11/08

Anonymous

Tenants rent, they don't own and when you don't own, you only have as many rights as your lease and nothing more. So if your lease is up in 12 months, that's that, stop crying about it. You can't argue that Swig is not cool, the guy has a surfboard in his office.

Comment #11 Posted By: Anonymous 07/11/08

Anonymous

I live in the Sheffield and I cannot see how a profit can be made on this deal. There are no sales happening, very few new owners moving in (owners are renting their apts...mostly renters moving in) on going ineffective construction for the past 2 years with the use of inferior products (carpet is awful, doors inferior to original doors, sinage for apt #'s literally dangerous..the metal is so sharp)..it is truly a sad state of affairs and a significant indication of hubris and greed. There is no win win here! The banks need to move in to get their money

Comment #12 Posted By: Anonymous 07/11/08

Anonymous

#11, that is why you are a tenant and renting and blogging on website with your fake gripes about a successful development. Are you privy to the sales? The profit margain? Are you in construction? No, you are just a renter on the sidelines hoping that you would walk into some money. The building is done, the risk is already done - from now on it, it is pure profit for Swig. It's over. You lost. Please get over it and enjoy your life.

Comment #13 Posted By: Anonymous 07/11/08

Anonymous

The Sheffield is the biggest residential project in NY, of course the whole thing didn't sell all at once. There are hundreds of units in there, some rent, some buy and there are some still available. Overall, its been a success.

Comment #14 Posted By: Anonymous 07/11/08

Anonymous

You can look it up. ISTAR FM LOANS LLC v. 201 WEST 92 OWNER, LLC, KENT M. SWIG, and others. Supreme Court NYCO index 100788 of 2008. Complaint filed 1/15/80, claiming that the mortgage became due on November 1, 2007, and was not paid because the October 2007 payment had not been paid. He was several months behind -- that's more than "technical"

Comment #15 Posted By: Anonymous 07/11/08

Anonymous

#16, I assume you are not in finance. Go back and look at Comments #0 and #1 - Swig walked away with $7,000,000 - look like a winning deal to me... if a Building is in contract when the mortgage is due, it is standard to simply let interest payments accrue until the sale. The lender files a court case simply to protect their interests on a dual-track basis. This is nothing unusual.

Comment #16 Posted By: Anonymous 07/11/08

Anonymous

#17 - simple math. Swig owed the bank over 61 mil in January, 2008 and sold the building for 61 mil six months later. Where do you find a profit in that??? He was still accruing interest for another 6 months.

Comment #17 Posted By: Anonymous 07/11/08

Anonymous

The loan's principal was $52.5 - I bet he paid back the principal, the interest was waived while they waited for the sale, and he walked away with $8.5 less closing fees. There's the simple math.

Comment #18 Posted By: Anonymous 07/11/08

Anonymous

on Swig article "Surf's up we were told Swig would make $400 million on the Sheffield conversion..then the next article,,UWS unit sold..the shills said it would be $200 million dollars..that was only about last week. This article says Swig will make $100 million dollars on the conversion. If you are paid shills, you should be fired..you are the people who are brain dead. The Sheffield is being shopped by outside investors, cause it is a distressed property..the banks want the payment due July 9th. We will just stand on the sidelines and watch..see ya shillies! Past behavior predicts future behavior...the article above and the one about 25 Broad tell it all. The Sheffield is next, can't wait to read the doom and gloom reports.

Comment #19 Posted By: Anonymous 07/11/08

Anonymous

#19..why would a bank want to take all the risk and make nothing and "waive" interest fees, so Swig could make a profit?? The bank held the note for almost three years. That building was under construction on the outside. The whole plan for that construction on top of such and old and occupied building was an outrage..and we applaud the tenants of that building for stopping it. This was another plan for tenant abuse, and Swig planned to put all of them in a very dangerous situation..what a creep.

Comment #20 Posted By: Anonymous 07/11/08

Anonymous

But #20 - Other than schadenfreude, a sale of Sheffield wouldn't do you any good, would it? Any new buyer would go ahead, complete construction, and sell the unsold units. The construction period would be inconvenient for those tenants living on floors where work is ongoing. That's kind of the same situation that you have now.

Comment #21 Posted By: Anonymous 07/11/08

Anonymous

Can't the shills read? The project was a failure - Swig was the developer - Swig failed on this project. To say the Sheffield has no risk left is absurd - hundreds of unsold units in this market (after 3 years - 2 of which were the hottest years in NYC real estate history) - please - the Sheffield is a dud. Any closings at 25 Broad yet? Didn't think so.

Comment #22 Posted By: Anonymous 07/11/08

Anonymous

#22 oh yes it would do us some good..we still have a 7A on the building and a lis pendence, and about 5 other lawsuits. Some one would have to address us at some point, before the building changes title. The avoiding the tenants game would be over.

Comment #23 Posted By: Anonymous 07/11/08

Anonymous

Swig is in a hole and thats that, he will prevail later in the future.

Comment #24 Posted By: Anonymous 07/11/08

Anonymous

The Sheffield tenants are desperate, they can't figure out which is up and all they know is they are not getting paid. It is sad/pathetic/amusing/lame all at the same time. No wonder their numbers are dropping... Swig makes millions, the "do nothings" continue to post on blogs. The Sheffiled has no risk left for Swig, he has made his money, anyone posting otherwise is either brain-dead or has an agenda - with the price per square foot this one is selling at, easy math says Swig will make $200 million. The fact that these tenants are promoting 5 losing lawsuits is telling - they are throwing their money away, the courts are telling them they won't win, yet they still seek more and more and more money to pay their lawyers. What's the point? You will never get paid and you will look in the mirror and cry. Units are closing every day and you accomplish nothing. The Sheffield Do-Nothings is a fine title for this delinquent crew.

Comment #25 Posted By: Anonymous 07/11/08

Anonymous

#24 - define what you mean by "someone would have to address us". Are you hoping to be bought out of your lease, be sold an apt at a steeper discount to market, or something else?

Comment #26 Posted By: Anonymous 07/11/08

Anonymous

#24 - what is the subject matter of 5 other lawsuits?

Comment #27 Posted By: Anonymous 07/11/08

Anonymous

It's not the subject matter of the lawsuit, we don't have a prayer of WINNING them, but that's not the point. We will just keep them going until a stupid judge makes us stop of SWIG PAYS. We're betting that Swig will pay before a judge wakes up and digs through the paper we are throwing at them. And to answer all the claims that we are broke, our attorneys support us - we may not have the numbers we used to but our attorneys are not in this for the money - it is the principal! Swig will pay, and then we will move, or we will not go away. I never thought that signing a lease would be my ticket to wealth, but I guess Swig was wrong in thinking that we would just move. Pay up, Kent.

Comment #28 Posted By: Anonymous 07/11/08

Anonymous

#28 they are all public documents that can be looked-up in Supreme Court. They are not in housing court. Some have 45 tenants names on them, others have about 60. They are various complaints, concerning the warrenty of habitability, harassment, illegal asbestos abatements while tenants were in residence etc. I think one case has about 100 items.

Comment #29 Posted By: Anonymous 07/11/08

Anonymous

We have lots of complaints against Swig, and while most of them are made up, some are legitimate. We have lots of tenants signed up for this fight, and we are not going away. We don't need to allege facts - if we keep posting on blogs, someone will throw us a few bucks to shut us up. I am hoping for $10 so I can buy myself Chicken Lo Mein.

Comment #30 Posted By: Anonymous 07/11/08

Anonymous

Thanks, can you also answer question #27? Curious what your end-game is.

Comment #31 Posted By: Anonymous 07/11/08

Anonymous

Actually #31, you don't even need $10. Kennedy's across the street has a great burger and fries deal for $6.50.

Comment #32 Posted By: Anonymous 07/11/08

Anonymous

How can I contribute to the tenants' legal fund?

Comment #33 Posted By: Anonymous 07/11/08

Anonymous

#29 HA HA you are funny..New York Lawyers do not work for nothing. No one lives on principal, unless they have a trust fund. I love how you make up stories, the beginning the middle and the end, this one was especially good. You are right about one part though..we are not going away.

Comment #34 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

#32 there are so many tenants involved, that I think each one would have to be addressed individually, to get a real picture. I think different people would say different things. There are alot of issues involved..we have been suffering with this developer for about 4 years already.

Comment #35 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

#35 - WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT - "NY lawyers do not work for nothing" are you kidding me - what is pro bono then - are you telling me that no NY lawyers do pro bono work. Swig should hire more intelligent shills. #26 - Swig has not made his money - do you know anything about real estate development? The developer makes his money on the last units sold - the banks get the money from the first units sold - Swig has huge risk here -he is not "closing units everyday" that just a lie - he has hundreds of units to sell in a dead housing market (ask around - nothing is moving right now) - the project will need to sell out at a much faster pace for Swig to not lose his shorts.

Comment #36 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

that is right #37, and there are several floors that are not done, I would say at least 10 floors. They lie when they say the building is done..it is far from finished. They even told this lie to a judge in court during the 7A.

Comment #37 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

Hey Swig shill - can you say "Interest Expense" and "preferred return" - every day that goes by Swig is getting crushed by his ever mounting interest expense and his investor's preferred return - having the project take years longer than expected is crushing his IRR's. The tenant association is winning. Now it's years later than expected, units still aren't renovated and the market it dead - 100% dead - who would want hundreds of unsold units in this market? Swig's inability to reason with the tenants has cost him millions and may ultimately be what forces him to give this property back to the bank.

Comment #38 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

of course the building is done...i was talking about it with the swig shill just the other day while we were working out in the health club....in fact the tenants association is having its next meeting up in the restaurant. we all will pull up in the driveway, drop our kids off in the day care center, our pets in the pet spa and after another great pilates session, have our meeting. gotta run, i need to get my swim in in the roof top pool so i can get some sun in on the sun deck....dont worry about me....i use sunscreen.

Comment #39 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

haha #40. I heard that the pool allows surfboards.

Comment #40 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

"technical" surfboards

Comment #41 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

If a Tenant Do-Nothing Association says it is "winning", but they are not accomplishing anything and the building is selling more and at better pricing than anyone anticipated, are the tenants actually doing anything? The tenants have accomplished NOTHING because this building is blowing away its sales pro forma. Tenants lie to make themselves feel good and TO TRY TO CONVINCE OTHER TENANTS TO KEEP CONTRIBUTING. Don't believe their hype - the tenants do-nothing assocition is floundering and their attorneys are DEMANDING that they pony up more money, and they have none to pony up... Sad, but Greed will kill ya, Do-Nothings.

Comment #42 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

Swig's failure to negotiate with the tenant terrorists has cost him nothing - it was brilliant and it changed the NYC conversion process (see other developments following his lead). This tenants association has blown it for themselves and everyone else living in a converted building - a shame.

Comment #43 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

Swig's risk is over because he has sold so many units at such high prices that the REST of the deal is a sure thing. If he was "IN" the deal at $1,000 a foot, and he is selling at $2,000 a foot, then the remaning units only need to sell at $400 a foot to break even (which, obviously, is a sure thing). Their sales performance has taken the risk away in a troubled market - the fact that they are selling more units at higher prices NOW is unbelievable. This project has no more risk, and Swig should be commended for a job well done. What an accomplishment!

Comment #44 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

The tenants association has lost. It is over. And the holdovers are breaking the law by illegally staying in an apartment that they have no right to stay in. They should all be arrested.

Comment #45 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

43,44,45....wow that was fast....you guys are really working hard here and are worth more than you are paid.....im glad i live here...otherwise i would just be poor and homeless....of course i blog here...i have no job, no life....i couldnt even do that if i didnt still wi fi from starbucks. btw...that tenant terrorist line is priceless....very funny btw ...if your so rich and have such a full life...why are you blogging here satuday morning...shouldnt you be in the hamptons?

Comment #46 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

i meant steal wi fi from starbucks....just a typo

Comment #47 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

I live in the Sheffield, and I am sick of my greedy, Do-Nothing neighbors who do nothing all day except scheme and lie about how to get Swig to pay us. I will not contribute to your legal fund anymore, no matter how much you beg, pressure, and threaten me! Go find another sucker to fund your pointless treasure hunt - there is a reason so many of us despise you, you are not a good person, not a good soul, and we wish you would move.

Comment #48 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

now sounding like a tenant...nice touch...give us your name and we will take you off of the suit..... oh wait...you really arent a tenant... gotta go...need to go out and collect some cans! im going to going to shop lift my lunch at whole foods later...let me know if you need anything

Comment #49 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

How do the tenants feel generally about the new condo owners? Is there tension?

Comment #50 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

Swig is going to pay - swig is going to pay, and I will be rich!!! This is our opportunity, and we will take advantage of it. We will not stop until we get a piece of the pie.

Comment #51 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

Swig is going to pay - swig is going to pay, and I will be rich!!! This is our opportunity, and we will take advantage of it. We will not stop until we get a piece of the pie.

Comment #52 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

51....yes...we hate them...they hate us...guards will be posted on each floor soon

Comment #53 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

#54 - and how do you tell each other apart? Gang colors?

Comment #54 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

#49's comment seems directed at a particular individual rather than the tenants' association as a whole.

Comment #55 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

#49's comment seems directed at a particular individual rather than the tenants' association as a whole.

Comment #56 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

54...funny...i like your style

Comment #57 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

well, i just returned from my can collection and made enough to pay my stabilized rent for next month.....not only that but i have enough extra to see wall-e this afternoon.... i hope the theater takes cans!

Comment #58 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

Swig will never be Will Zeck... Never!

Comment #59 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

From what I know, I don't think Swig would WANT to be like Will Zeck.

Comment #60 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

If the project is so successful why would someone sit on a blog on Sat and try to convince us that it is? Swig is on the ropes - he has hundreds of unsold units that will take years more than projected to sell. He's paid people to produce lies. If the project is so successful and selling units so fast why not put it in official advertisements?

Comment #61 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

If you didn't have some agenda to discredit the developer and hope to affect sales, why would you flood a real estate blog with negative comments, many barely supported by fact? p.s. Don't work for Swig, have no economic interest in situation, but know the situation well

Comment #62 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

we are so poor...many stabies have been on a rent strike for over 18 months with no end in sight...I think I will look for some more cans and bottles to pay for my utilities.

Comment #63 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

# 55 we tell each other apart by the apartment doors...litigants have the origional doors..and have the origional windows too.

Comment #64 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

64..stop stealing my line!

Comment #65 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

#65 - Do non-litigating rent stabilized tenants have new doors or original doors?

Comment #66 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

# 49..there is definitely more than one of us.. I like the terrorist touch..after all this is still hell's kitchen, it kind of works.

Comment #67 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

#65 new doors.

Comment #68 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

Do litigants not have new windows/doors because they don't give the building personnel access to apartment?

Comment #69 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

#64 - Rent strike must be nice. I'd love to not pay for my housing. Alas.

Comment #70 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

#70 yes we are advised to do this..Swig gets nothing from us.. we HATE him for treating us like animals during the demolition/new construction.

Comment #71 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

70...because they havent put them in yet,,many owners still have the old windows...lucky them...the new windows suck.

Comment #72 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

Hello shillie..I think you should change the tenants do "nothing association"..to the tenants pay nothing association...this rent strike could go on forever for all I care!

Comment #73 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

#72 - At some point in life, one has to channel the hate and rage into something productive. Trust me, you want the new windows. They will further improve your already low-cost living experience.

Comment #74 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

#72 - I don't think they mind NOT being able to give you new windows and doors. Less money spent on their part.

Comment #75 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

#72 so you are saying we should channel hate and rage into new windows? You don't get that this is a fun game for us now..just like it was for all of you when we were being constructively evicted.

Comment #76 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

No #77 - what I mean is, if you're getting something of some value for free, take it.

Comment #77 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

if the rent strike lasts forever, don't you at some point get evicted?

Comment #78 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

#79 no, because the rent srtike is tied-up in supreme court with all of the other lawsuits. When those get setteled, the rent strike will be dealt with..we do not care if this goes on for years.

Comment #79 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

Long live the Do-Nothings. We might not accomplish much, but we sure can post on blogs and waste our own legal fees!!! Next week, we should post more comments on blogs and undoubtedly accomplish nothing!!!

Comment #80 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

So you basically want to be bought off. Nice.

Comment #81 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

Didn't the courts already say you have to pay rent? Thought so... Liar.

Comment #82 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

Didn't the courts already say you have to pay rent? Thought so... Liar.

Comment #83 Posted By: Anonymous 07/12/08

Anonymous

You can bet that if Swig even thinks about the tenants, this is MUCH more of a game for him than for you. Think about it - by all accounts, the tenants have puþ a lot of effort and money into accomplishing very little, Swig's sales are allegedly going very well, and he doesn't need your units to become "effective" - clearly, you think about him a lot more than he thinks about you. By the way, he also doesn't need your $2,000 a month, not when you'll eventually have to pay use and occupancy for a heck of a lot more than that going back to Day 1 of your proud rent strike. You guys are funny - you think you are shouting from a mountain top with a loudspeaker only to find out that no one is listening to you and no one cares. Good luck to all.

Comment #84 Posted By: Anonymous 07/13/08

Anonymous

#83 the courts say the market people have to pay rent..rent stabies have a seperate suit concerning this and they are not paying rent...you can check the facts, as they are public records. Love it when you are WRONG WRONG WRONG.

Comment #85 Posted By: Anonymous 07/13/08

Anonymous

#85...knew you would say that...shillies have all the answers.... stabies will not pay use and occupancy for more than $2000...are you serious..some do not even pay $1200. per month..you are dreaming. But anyway there is a rent strike, and it will continue until all of the other lawsuits are dealt with....this was done 1 1/2 years ago. I guess you thought you knew everything...there is always more to know.

Comment #86 Posted By: Anonymous 07/13/08

Anonymous

#77 We will check to see if we will get an assessment for that.. if so, we do not want it..nothing is for free.

Comment #87 Posted By: Anonymous 07/13/08

Anonymous

When you lose an illegal rent strike you have to pay the past due rent plus interest plus landlord legal fees - that's a tough piull to swallow, especially for lower-middle class folks like rent stablized tenants.

Comment #88 Posted By: Anonymous 07/13/08

Anonymous

#89 well i guess i will have to just start collecting more bottles and cans, oh well, or maybe I'll just turn this apt. into an illegal hotel and sublet an apartment in a real building.

Comment #89 Posted By: Anonymous 07/13/08

Anonymous

Funny how the tenants are living in such an alternative universe. The conversion is going well (exceedingly well) and Swig could not be happier. Wonder what they expect to gain from all of their anger/frustration. Well, the answer is obvious - they want money. So sad, the law is on Swig's side and these poor saps will end up broke or bankrupt if Swig decides to take them to the cleaners to pay for his legal fees. Hope Swig takes it easy on these village idiots.

Comment #90 Posted By: Anonymous 07/13/08

Anonymous

I am a rent stabie and everyone should know there are a lot more happy tenants than the crazies that post on this board. The building is BEAUTIFUL - most of us are so grateful that we life is such a wonderful building, there are a few GREEDY folks who think this is their big windfall. Trust me, they are in the minority and most of them who are involved only remain involved because of the pressure of a few crazies. I know that everyone is frustrated with the mounting legal fees - I dropped out earlier this year, and I know a bunch of my friends are at the breaking point where they will stop funding this losing battle and start to re-live their happy lives without this ridiculous stress.

Comment #91 Posted By: Anonymous 07/13/08

Anonymous

#91, #92 we do not care if the conversion is going well...which it is NOT we just want to have a Roman Holiday..like we are doing right now... investors for the titanic, anyone?

Comment #92 Posted By: Anonymous 07/13/08

Anonymous

ok, enough is enough...my shills are doing a terrible job and if you dont get better at this i will fire all of you and hire new ones...get better at this and dont let these tenants push you around or ill find someone else! you guys know who you are and you better keep your cell phones on this afternoon...ill be calling

Comment #93 Posted By: Anonymous 07/13/08

Anonymous

89....i know imitation is the sincerest form of flattery but stop appropriating my bottles and can line..... i know who you are:) and you shills...get off line go out and get some sun...you look pasty

Comment #94 Posted By: Anonymous 07/13/08

Anonymous

Dear all, When you are responding to someone, you should use that message's number, not the number of the previous message that they were referring to. For example, #95 - you intended to respond to #90. But you said #89 (because #90 started their note with a response to #89) Thanks!

Comment #95 Posted By: Anonymous 07/13/08

Anonymous

you are correct....my bad

Comment #96 Posted By: Anonymous 07/13/08

Anonymous

Swig will paaaay or I will go crazy. I haven't invested my heart and soul into this thing to not get paid. If I don't get paid, that will be a 0% return on my blogging. I want at least $100 per comment. I derserve it! I did, after all, sign a lease on an apartment.

Comment #97 Posted By: Anonymous 07/13/08

Anonymous

I am confused - All of these posts are calling the Tenants "shills" and "shillie" and also calling the Tenants "Do-Nothings." I guess they are shills that are not accomplishing anything. Seems like a waste of time to me. If I spent all of my time attacking a developer and the project was a huge success despite my blogging, I would reassess my life, my actions, my legal fees...

Comment #98 Posted By: Anonymous 07/13/08

Anonymous

99...bad shill...bad shill... awful post... do better or you wont get any cans!

Comment #99 Posted By: Anonymous 07/13/08

Anonymous

I think some clarification of terminology is needed. Shill - anyone who voices an opinion questioning the litigating tenants. Invariably accused of being paid PR operatives of the developer. In reality, a mix of a. real estate market obsessives, b. non-litigating tenants who just want to move on, c. Sheffield individual condo unit owners, d. unfortunate losers who spend all weekend commenting on stale threads on The Real Deal.

Comment #100 Posted By: Anonymous 07/13/08

Anonymous

like yourself..... go outside...the weather is nice

Comment #101 Posted By: Anonymous 07/13/08

Anonymous

Again, Swig shills, if the project is doing so well why not announce the stats in a public advertisement. It's common practice to do so. The reason there is no such advertisement is because the project is failing and to advertise a lie would be construed as false advertising. The project is not selling nearly as well as was hoped. Granted at the beginning many were impressed by the price/ft of some of the units -but many didn't close at those prices and right now the sales office is dead.

Comment #102 Posted By: Anonymous 07/13/08

Anonymous

So not true - you are clearly not a RE professional. The sales are recorded you idiot - this project is beyond a homerun, it is so moronic that some fools could actually pretend otherwise. Sheffield has issued press releases every month - it is a killer project, easily one of the top-5 most profitable ever. But you wouldn't agree because you have an agenda to get paid by the developer. So be it. This thing is selling better than Swig ever dreamed. He could not be happier. Look at the stats! The proof is in the numbers - these tenant lies are clearly to push for whatever agenda they have. Pathetic, but funny.

Comment #103 Posted By: Anonymous 07/13/08

Anonymous

Dear #103, The number of units closed and their prices are not a state secret. They are recorded with the City. It is accessible from the ACRIS website. Spend 5 minutes to do your research. (I just looked it up on the website, and I am not a 'Swig shill'). During the last few weeks, closings have been recorded for 38th - 40th floors.

Comment #104 Posted By: Anonymous 07/13/08

Anonymous

You simply can't believe anything the Sheffield "Do Nothing" Association says or does. They have a stated agenda - to get paid. They confuse "filing" a lawsuit with actually "winning" the lawsuit on the merits. They somehow think that their $1,200 month rent (that will eventually be paid) means ANYTHING with respect to a billion dollar conversion. And their sense of entitlement to someone else's money is simply staggering. But it is obvious to me that they have no other options - I wouldn't be surprised if they were posting as the "swig shill" simply to continue the conversation. Otherwise, they would have no one else to talk to because no one cares...

Comment #105 Posted By: Anonymous 07/13/08

Anonymous

Sheffield tenants have 5 lawsuits, because no-one cared to file the project as an asbestos project (which it eventually was, check DOB) we lived in the building under extensive demolition, including exposure to asbestos, silica, mold and other contaminates. We know you do not care...what we want is a jury trial..and if we could send people to jail we would do it. Swig Equities is the terrorist group. Look above at the subject article. Swig was planning to build this addition while the building was completely occupied. This building was over 100 yrs. old. Do you even care that maybe you could kill someone doing such a thing? The sheer greed knows no bounds, loosing the building was well deserved. We only want the worst for all of you.

Comment #106 Posted By: Anonymous 07/13/08

Anonymous

Comment #107 Posted By: Anonymous 07/13/08

Anonymous

You can't send anyone to jail because no one did anything wrong - you know it, every commenter on this blog knows it, the world knows it. ýou have a lease - you do not own the building, you simply have a lease without ownership rights. Get over it. YOU are the greedy one. Swig made 7,000,000 on this building, and will make $200,000,000 on Sheffield. If you really want money, you should invest with Swig. No wonder the "do nothings" are dropping in numbers week by week.

Comment #108 Posted By: Anonymous 07/13/08

Anonymous

Long live the Sheffield "Do Nothing" Terrorist Tenants Association! We don't accomplish much, but we sure can post on blogs!!!

Comment #109 Posted By: Anonymous 07/13/08

Anonymous

Dear 107, Who do you include in the "all of you" that you wish the worst upon?

Comment #110 Posted By: Anonymous 07/13/08

Anonymous

We post on this blog because people all over the country read the articles and look at the blogs. Everyone should know what pigs all of you are....the company with the proud business model of harassment and abuse...look at the building of the subject article. A completely occupied bldg. with rent regulated tenants were going to suffer in there, while the bldg. was going to be jack hammered inside to bits and riddled with concrete columns, to support the new structure above. Keep telling everyone how much money you will make, and we will keep showing everyone how little integerity any of you have.

Comment #111 Posted By: Anonymous 07/13/08

Anonymous

#111 The swig machine, and all of it operatives.

Comment #112 Posted By: Anonymous 07/13/08

Anonymous

I know you can go on ACRIS and find the units sold - what you can't see is the number of units in contract. If Swig is so proud of the success of the building he would put it in his ads - something like "40% of the units sold in just 4 years." He hasn't made $200M on this building and if sales don't pick up the bank will take it back. No more debt is available - thus the fire sale of the UWS building. With no more debt out there he has to sell units or the bank takes the project and right now the sales market is dead. Again - he didn't make $7M on his other building - transfer taxes alone would have crushed him (not to mention broker fees, interest expense, legal fees, architect fees you get the idea) -don't be an idiot - reread the article and do the math again -there's no way he made ANY money on the deal.

Comment #113 Posted By: Anonymous 07/14/08

Anonymous

Transfer taxes are $1.5, broker fee is probably a point. He walked away with $5,000,000 easy. These tenants are pathetic losers. All these posts with lies of "harrassment and abuse" prove it. Converting a building is legal. Construction is legal. Living through construction is legal. Being a rent stablized tenant and getting a new lobby, new hallways, new driveway, new amenities is legal - someone would say you hit the jackpot. If you are concerned that the construction is taking too long - fine, but don't say that the simple act of construction constitutes harrassment. Blame Rose for selling the building at a price that could only have a conversion as an exit strategy. Your constant praise of Rose only shows your ignorance - at the end of the day, it is Rose's fault.

Comment #114 Posted By: Anonymous 07/14/08

Anonymous

Long live the Sheffield "Do Nothing" Terrorist Tenants Association! We don't accomplish much, but we sure can post on blogs!!!

Comment #115 Posted By: Anonymous 07/14/08

Anonymous

#113 - Yes, you can't see the # of units in contract on ACRIS. They'll show up as they close, what's your issue? Last 2 months on ACRIS shows about 40+ closings. A developer can use whatever marketing technique they want. Who made you the PR expert? Frankly, I find the ads that say 'x% sold, get it fast before its gone' smack of a bit of desperation. Your comments on the 92nd St bldg are a separate matter. They decided to abandon the project because the market changed and there was a lot of opposition to it. Has nothing to do with the Sheffield.

Comment #116 Posted By: Anonymous 07/14/08

Anonymous

Finally, #114 says it. Yes, the moment Rose decided to sell the building, any tenant should have known that big changes would be afoot. The price of the building (and land/property in Manhattan in general) became so high that a developer would HAVE to sell to the higher end of the market to make $. Why? Because there is so little inventory of residential land that trades. Why? Because so much of the housing stock is locked up in rent stabilization, so no one has the incentive to invest in it due to the red tape and depressed income potential. I'm all for public policy that supports socioeconomic diversity in the City and facilitates affordable housing. The present system of rent stabilization warps the market and creates wacky incentives. The City/State should just send a check or voucher to rent stabilized tenants instead, and have them use that $ to pay a market rent. Without some reform of this system, the City's housing stock will continue to age, be under-invested in. And unnecessarily adversarial relations will continue between landlords and tenants.

Comment #117 Posted By: Anonymous 07/14/08

Anonymous

113, They haven't been marketing for 4 years. Less than 2 years, to be accurate. But you're not interested in accuracy. I had so much sympathy with the tenants situation when I read about it first last year, until seeing that all the arguments are riddled with lies. If your argument is so strong, why undermine its credibility by lying, exaggerating, fabricating?

Comment #118 Posted By: Anonymous 07/14/08

Anonymous

#117...people knew that there would be changes after the building was sold...that is true..but people did not fully understand what was going to happen to them in here. The developer knew..and therefore should have explained to the tenants the sequence of demolition/construction events. There was never a meeting with us, or even a letter. We did not even know the start date.. There are people who live in here that have never seen this kind of construction, and did not know what to expect. We did not know we would be exposed to contaminates and toxins from all the demolition. To say that it was un-fair is an understatement...to say it was harassment and tenant abuse..is more accurate. The bldg. on 92nd St. has something to do with the Sheffield...it was full of rent regulated tenants..and it would have been the same business model....take under-valued real-estate, change it for profit..and ignore the people who are in there while you do it. That is a constructive eviction and any court will tell you it is tenant harassment, with intent to inflict harm to the people who are in the way.

Comment #119 Posted By: Anonymous 07/14/08

Anonymous

Comment #120 Posted By: Anonymous 07/14/08

Anonymous

Comment #121 Posted By: Anonymous 07/14/08

Anonymous

#119, fair points you make. Did you really get no communication? Why did so many other tenants move out? (I know, leases weren't renewed - but that obviously didn't stop a certain subset from staying put)

Comment #122 Posted By: Anonymous 07/14/08

Anonymous

119 - In June 2005 petitioner submitted a proposed offering plan ("the plan") to the New York State Department of Law for review by the New York State Attorney General ("Attorney General"), and *** provided the tenants of the Sheffield with copies of the plan. ***

Comment #123 Posted By: Anonymous 07/14/08

Anonymous

Seriously - there is a difference between "not being informed about the plan" and "not liking what the plan says" - the sooner everyone realizes that these tenants are just fabricating issues in the hopes of getting $$$$, the better off everyone will be. The tenants are greedy, greedy, greedy.

Comment #124 Posted By: Anonymous 07/14/08

Anonymous

Wow, just reading this thread after the weekend. 106. So much anger and hate. It's not good for the soul. Even if you do get some recourse in court, it is probably not worth the cost in terms of mental tension and stress. Better to move on - even if your rent is low, don't subject yourself to this.. your heart and soul and mind will thank you for it.

Comment #125 Posted By: Anonymous 07/14/08

Anonymous

4 years of ownership not 4 years of sales

Comment #126 Posted By: Anonymous 07/14/08

Anonymous

absurd to blame Rose -just absurd

Comment #127 Posted By: Anonymous 07/14/08

Anonymous

#114 - they owned $61+ to the bank and sold for $61. After transfer taxes and broker fees they lost money. Plus interest expense, arch fees etc. And as has been previously stated no bank is going to waive the money owned to them so the developer can make money. Ridiculous to think Swig didn't lose money on this.

Comment #128 Posted By: Anonymous 07/14/08

Anonymous

#126, Mr. 118 here again - On May 20, 2005, the building was sold by Southcroft (Rose) to Swig for $418mm. That is from ACRIS, the official source. It took me 30 seconds to find that fact. Today is July 14, 2008. Three years and two months of ownership, not 4 years. And less than two years since the condo offering plan was approved by AG and sales commenced. I mention this because you can't seem to stop exaggerating and misrepresenting facts to bolster your argument. Again, if you want to appear credible and on the right side of this argument, there is no reason to lie.

Comment #129 Posted By: Anonymous 07/14/08

Anonymous

#122 The sponsor flatly refused to talk to the tenants. We did get all of the ammendments to read but it still does not change what I said in post #121. Even the AG's office told the sponsor to inform us of the construction schedule because we complained...the building is tremendous..there were over 350 workers in the building every day. The jack hammers were going constantly, and contractors yelling for everything including the elevators. There were not enough bathrooms for the workers, and the passenger elevators were being used for cartage of demolition. The laundry rooms on each floor were being used by workers as make-shift toilets. (there were no toilets) The exodus of people initially, were people who did not get their leases renewed..that was about 1000 people altogether. The people who stayed were the rent stabied tenants, about 90 units, and about 23 hold-over tenants who were market tenants that refusted to vacate. Of this sub-set almost everyone is still here..perhaps 5% left.

Comment #130 Posted By: Anonymous 07/14/08

Anonymous

Thanks #130. So was it worth it? More importantly, how do you feel now that most of the construction is behind you? It must be a relief and at least a little bit pleasant. How do you like your new neighbors? You can't change what happened in the past.

Comment #131 Posted By: Anonymous 07/14/08

Anonymous

130 how do you feel now that construction is mostly behind you? must be a relief. was it worth it to stick it out and cope with the construction

Comment #132 Posted By: Anonymous 07/14/08

Anonymous

#129 The bldg. was turned into an illegal hotel by the sponsor prior to demolition..this went on for a year. This was lawsuit #6, I almost forgot about that era of tenant abuse.

Comment #133 Posted By: Anonymous 07/14/08

Anonymous

#131 I would say no...because we have not gotten the benefit of the renovated amenities, because they do not exist. Truthfully, I would wish all of this never happened. But it did. There is the worry about the asbestos exposure and other contanimates from what was in a 30 year old building that was gut renovated. That will always be a lingering concern.

Comment #134 Posted By: Anonymous 07/14/08

Anonymous

Wait - but the short-term hotel never happened - it was just an allegation. How can the tenants so easily confuse facts with their own fabricated fiction? Its almost as if they have been telling so many lies they can't keep their facts (or lies) straight. Sad.

Comment #135 Posted By: Anonymous 07/14/08

Anonymous

I am a tenant and the sponsor did meet with us. If I remember correctly, we made so many "demands" of the sponsor that we scared him off. We were probably out of line. And while it sounds nice to say that the construction workers used elevators and laundry rooms as urinals, I was ACTUALLY IN the meeting where we concocted this lie, so it sounds wierd to read this as "fact" two years later.

Comment #136 Posted By: Anonymous 07/14/08

Anonymous

#136 sorry you mis-understood..they only used the laundry rooms as toilets not the elevators to my knowledge. This did not happen 2 years ago but just this past year, when the washers and dryers were removed and the drains were exposed. We have dozens of photographs of this situation. One of an actual toilet installed in the laundry room, by contractors who decided this would be necessary for themselves and others. It is you that is the LIAR. And since when would a real estate mogul like Kent Swig be scared off?? you really are an IDIOT..and if you work for this man you should be fired.

Comment #137 Posted By: Anonymous 07/14/08

Anonymous

#135 It was an ECB violation lodged against the building..this is an easily verified fact with a paper trail. Don't try to re-write history..that does not work.

Comment #138 Posted By: Anonymous 07/14/08

Anonymous

Wow. Looks like the tenants themselves can't keep their story straight. What one says as fact, another said was a tenant-fabricated story - sounds fishy to me. These tenants are really the tits!

Comment #139 Posted By: Anonymous 07/14/08

Anonymous

#139..if you are too dumb to understand who is who...don't post.

Comment #140 Posted By: Anonymous 07/14/08

Anonymous

Was the violation for an entire year? Or was it a single instance? If I recall correctly, a violation such as this costs $250 to pay, and $25,000 to fight using lawyers. Even if Swig was innocent, it makes sense to pay the fine rather than fight such a ridiculous violation.

Comment #141 Posted By: Anonymous 07/14/08

Anonymous

Sounds like there are a lot of inconsistencies in the tenants' tales. This is what I have come to believe - certainly the developer didn't do everything right, but the ongoing actions of the tenants who are litigating are basically extortion and landlord harassment.

Comment #142 Posted By: Anonymous 07/14/08

Anonymous

The building was in contract months before it sold -from the time they starting looking at this deal -that is - from the time they started spending money on the Sheffield it's been about 4 years - my number is good.

Comment #143 Posted By: Anonymous 07/14/08

Anonymous

#143. One only starts spending money on the property after taking title to it. (other than modest architectural and consulting fees) Similarly, once can only start selling apts after the offering plan is effective.

Comment #144 Posted By: Anonymous 07/14/08

Anonymous

$25000 to fight a violation - idiot - try free - one visit to 66 John. It's like a traffic ticket - Perhaps Swig spends $25K to fight a traffic ticket - I guess I wouldn't put that passed him.

Comment #145 Posted By: Anonymous 07/14/08

Anonymous

No - you need an attorney to fight a violation such as this. Plus a hearing. $25,000 might be at the high-end, but certainly $10,000-$15,000 is a fair estimate. In my opinion, the smart thing to do would be to pay the fine and move on, even if you are innocent.

Comment #146 Posted By: Anonymous 07/14/08

Anonymous

* yawn * alright, everything that needs to be said here has been said.

Comment #147 Posted By: Anonymous 07/14/08

Anonymous

If the violation is an ECB violation you do not need a lawyer - you might pay an expediter a couple hundred bucks so you don't have to worry about anything but people don't hire attorneys for ECB violations. Generally though, most people just correct the ECB violation, certify that they've fixed the issue, and pay the fine - no lawyers needed.

Comment #148 Posted By: Anonymous 07/14/08

Anonymous

I work for shity habitats up the block. The only one that made out is Rose Assoc who saw this fellow putz coming.

Comment #149 Posted By: Anonymous 07/15/08

Anonymous

there is one more thing ..why does the building have an ECB violation for not enough ventillation in the corridors, and failure to maintain building? This was never cured for several years , and the hallways are stiffeling hot...why can't this be fixed?? There is no air circulating. (see DOB) I have never seen a luxury building with this condition..is it going to get fixed?

Comment #150 Posted By: Anonymous 07/15/08

Anonymous

#149 and #150, please end it.... no one believes that you are impartial commenters without a hidden agenda to profit from your fabricated 'complaints' about the building...

Comment #151 Posted By: Anonymous 07/16/08

Anonymous

I invite anyone to come up into the corrodors in this building, and see if you can breathe in the heat and humidity. Let the truth be told..come and see for yourselves. Why not? Are you going to fix this situation??

Comment #152 Posted By: Anonymous 07/16/08

Laquanda

Now, Laquanda just wants to ask a question -- what is the difference between a technical default and foreclosure, are the millions of people who are losing their homes able to use this sugar coated description or does this only work for the rich and well connected. Will all King's horses and all the King's men be able to put the Sheffield back together again?

Comment #153 Posted By: Laquanda 07/16/08

Anonymous

I live in the Sheffield and the hallways are 100% comfortable - no excess heat, good air flow. I don't need you to invite me - I am there everyday! Why spread lies? We, tenants, lost whatever battle there was to fight. Let's all move on.

Comment #154 Posted By: Anonymous 07/17/08

Anonymous

Laquanda, a foreclosure occurs when you can't pay your mortgage. A technical default is when there is a non-material default on some non-material provision in a loan document. Or if a loan matured when a project was already in contract, as I think is what happened in this case - happens all the time, especially with the 2 and 3 year terms that were prevalent in the last cycle of securitized debt.

Comment #155 Posted By: Anonymous 07/17/08

Anonymous

#153 shill..knew u would say that..all others that are wondering who is a liar and who tells the truth..please come into the'building and SEE FOR YOURSELF!!

Comment #156 Posted By: Anonymous 07/17/08

Anonymous

Here we go again... more tenant shill. The sales office and all floors are open and available for all to see.

Comment #157 Posted By: Anonymous 07/17/08

Anonymous

Hi. I just came home from a day at work. I stepped into the Sheffield lobby, and was greeted with the cold air of a well functioning AC system. I then went up a very comfortable, cool elevator, and into a similarly comfortable corridor. It is 90 degrees and humid outside. Everything is fine. Stop whining. More importantly, stop lying.

Comment #158 Posted By: Anonymous 07/17/08

Anonymous

You are pathetic #157 Shill..so the answer is: it is not going to get fixed, this is the way it will be left. I am glad I will not be paying for the MCI..it is about 85 degrees on my floor. It is not in the range of acceptability, but then again, I do not have to overcome that objection to sell this stuff, like u do.

Comment #159 Posted By: Anonymous 07/17/08

Anonymous

Keep in mind that number 158 is the loser who thinks that he is going to get some big pay day simply because he is below-middle class. Income with a rent stablized lease. Pathetic is right, but it is YOU who is pathetic. I am thankfully no longer a part of the Sheffield Do Nothing Terrorist Tenants Association. I now have my money going to ME rather than to fund these lunatics crazy legal fund. There was an article recently of loopy New Yorkers - these village idiots should have been profiled front and center.

Comment #160 Posted By: Anonymous 07/17/08

Anonymous

#158 keep in mind that 175K is the cut off for rent stabies, what lower middle class world do u read about? What is lower class is the take-out window in the lobby that u have to put your hand through to call the elevator. How much longer will we have that? Every week it is something else in here. Is any-one going to fix the key system for duplicated keys? The computer to access that is broken for over 2 months. Everyone says the hallways are too hot, and there is no air moving in the lobby, which should be about 10 degrees cooler. U would be suprised how little it costs to fund all of the things we are doing. I like the terrorist touch..it means that we are effective using very few resources. TKS for the encouragement.

Comment #161 Posted By: Anonymous 07/20/08

Anonymous

well it is the weekend..and the air is off in the lobby again..front doors wide open to the 90 degree plus heat...what is going on??

Comment #162 Posted By: Anonymous 07/20/08

Anonymous

What a disgusting shame that you people take pride in being labeled a terrorist. Join the Jedi Knights, leave the Dark Force and realize that we live in a truly wonderful building that is 1,000,000 better than what we had when it was a Rose rental. I went from living in a unremarkable rental building into a state of the art luxury condominium - and someone else paid for it! I thought the Tenants Association would protect my rights, but now I know that your lying and schemes to get some big payout is nothing more than fools chasing gold - you are looking in someone else's pocket to try to get some for yourself. It is pathetic, it is not surprising that your numbers are DROPPING and I, for one, will no longer contribute to your sucker legal fund that accomplishes nothing.

Comment #163 Posted By: Anonymous 07/20/08

Anonymous

#162 the building is not done, and it has been under demolition/construction for 2 years. There are hardly any workers here now. There is not one amenity finished that has advertised photos all around the building. Who cares if the tenants association has members dropping...when is this place going to be finished?? Without the amenities is is just an ordinary high rise, There is nothing special about this place, except for the views that were always here. The outside looks like a circus with all of the billboards...and would you please take down the filthy flag that is 10 stories high on the 57th St. side? We are all getting really tired of the whole charade. Please either finish this building, or sell it to someone who can finish the job!

Comment #164 Posted By: Anonymous 07/24/08

Anonymous

anyone know what % of the building has been sold?

Comment #165 Posted By: Anonymous 07/25/08

Anonymous

The building is not supposed to be done by now - they are renovated 500+ units, it's SUPPOSED to take 2 years plus and amenities are ALWAYS the last thing done in a conversion. It is all about how you present the facts - why do these tenants use lies/innuendo to put this wildly successful project in a negative light?

Comment #166 Posted By: Anonymous 07/25/08

Anonymous

is the building not supposed to be done, and not supposed to be under construction anymore either? How many more years will this take to complete?

Comment #167 Posted By: Anonymous 07/26/08

Anonymous

yes #165 that is true, it is how you present the facts...and how you want to spin the details. Just how many units were renovated altogether, and how many were sold? I think alot of people may want to know those exact details. spin away!

Comment #168 Posted By: Anonymous 07/27/08

Anonymous

Let's see... according to ACRIS, they released 300 units and sold 260. Doesn't see too shabby.

Comment #169 Posted By: Anonymous 07/28/08

Anonymous

only 260 units sold in 2 years - ouch!!! That means they still have hundreds of units to sell in this market - banks aren't lending - people aren't buying -wall st. is laying people off - glad I'm not holding on to all this inventory.

Comment #170 Posted By: Anonymous 08/02/08

Anonymous

Wow, 260 units in 2 years - that's a LOT of apartment sales... this is probably one of the most prolific conversions in terms of number of sales ever, and certainly the best in new york city in the past 5-6 years. well done to the sheffield.

Comment #171 Posted By: Anonymous 08/05/08

Anonymous

there are at least 200 units left..I would not want to have all of that inventory! Plus the inventory that would become available are the most expensive units on the upper-most floors. This deal is far from done.

Comment #172 Posted By: Anonymous 08/11/08

Anonymous

August 22nd 2008 DEP wins case in court for The Sheffield Tenants. Swig was fined $4800. for illegally removing ASBESTOS, while tenants were in residence. Docket# 500-39875M The sad thing is, we wish all of this never happened, because the health risks will always be there.

Comment #173 Posted By: Anonymous 08/22/08

Anonymous

Wow. Swig got all of the DEP complaints dismissed! What a victory!

Comment #174 Posted By: Anonymous 09/01/08

Anonymous

#174..are you an idiot...we can put a link on this blogger to a copy of the origional document. Swig lost...for illegal removal of asbestos filled popcorn ceilings...this is not funny, or a game..alot of people were exposed to a dangerous amount of asbestos...this is a serious permanent health danger that has to be watched for a lifetime. We did not count on being poisened, when we decided to live here during the gut renovation. SHAME ON ALL OF YOU.

Comment #175 Posted By: Anonymous 09/01/08

Anonymous

okay, let's see the link. Popcorn ceilings do not contain asbestos.

Comment #176 Posted By: Anonymous 09/02/08

baron

I`m interested there`s a lot of articles on casino gambling. There are distinguishable from methods, tactics, strategies, algorithms of counting, calculations and so on. But these items are without equal pile up of ads and i don`t homelessness to analyze them `convince on i don`t observation any inform knowledge. It`s inefficacious. aspect i studied on compel be wrong. Is there anyone here who is attracted in such topic? I`d value someone`s explaining to me is there any systems or strategies, what are they (what approaches or concepts lay in underpinning) and in which casinos could they be applied to? Thanx a lot.

Comment #177 Posted By: baron 01/11/09

baron

tnx a lot, i`ve downloaded the program, installed it. Didn`t get into all features but there are some results already. My account is slowly filling with money. Great thanx:-)

Comment #178 Posted By: baron 01/13/09

The Real Deal reserves the right to delete any comment it finds to be rude, obscene, racist, sexist, bigoted, irrelevant or repetitive, as well as inappropriate comments about anyone's personal appearance. The Real Deal does not endorse any comments posted on its Web site nor does it verify the veracity of comments or the identity of posters.

The Real Deal

Top Agents

CBRE Represents

Rector Square

read the issue online