The landlords allege they just want to create better apartments — not just for people who may want to purchase — but for tenants. Which, as this blog proves, is not true: They’ve had opportunity, but instead gutted our apartments around us -repeat shoddy repairs, take an abusive amount of time, left or created new conditions… We do not want to relocate, we just want the few repairs, and peace!
Below: At the informal DHCR event January 8, 2019 the landlords (who are attorneys), and their attorneys claim the 2016 offering plan will definitely be approved and the AG had no objections. They said that the Attorney General is not colluding with them, but did come to the building. They then presented a temporary relocation agreement (below) as “from” the AG. They offered it to us immediately and with a deadline from the Attorney General.
The Attorney General (REFB) has claimed it was reviewed as part of the offering plan, but not “from” the Bureau. Originally, when queried, the AG claimed it was enforceable under the Martin Act and made no implication that it wasn’t a current offer. In the last emails, the Bureau Chief said it is not their offer, nor is it enforceable until the offering is approved. (see conversations with AG). It should be noted the agreement may waive rights.
In contradiction, two other attorneys have also claimed the Agreement is from or collaborated on the Attorney General (available)
The landlords claimed they made us a relocation offer before. We have been asked to vacate, never before to relocate. In fact, they denied 1B a hotel when their apartment was being gutted around them. We do not want to relocate. We want to stay in our apartments and achieve peace and quiet enjoyment of them.
(Also note, there are also no apartments ready on the ground floor where a senior tenant and disabled tenants could relocate to. (see #1C)