Oxford Property Group is a Manhattan based Real Estate brokerage, management and investment group.

Oxford Property specializes in residential brokerage, employs 100 active real estate agents and maintains 15 years of outstanding service in the industry.

Contributors to our blog will include Oxford's principals and agents as well as academic, economic and business professionals.

We hope we can spark some lively, thoughtful and informative discussion!

, ,

A Manhattan Co-Op Hyperinflates Babysitting Coupons

[ Saturday, December 3, 2011 | 0 comments ]

Share

BY
GREG HARDEN

In this video, Austrian economist Peter Schiff cites the experience of a Manhattan co-op that issued coupons as a means for sharing baby-sitting services.

While excoriating Paul Krugman, Peter humorously demonstrates that printing money creates inflation and bubbles rather than wealth or prosperity.

The collapse of the babysitting market in the co-op provides an insightful parallel to the housing bubble and may portend future troubles for the U.S. and world economies.

This is a must watch!



Share





J-51 Tax Abatement Stuy Town Ruling Sets Unfavorable Precedent for Landlords, Casts Cloud Upon Real Estate Market

[ Tuesday, November 15, 2011 | 0 comments ]

Share

Earlier this month, a New York appeals court ruled that free-market tenants at Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village may be entitled to rent rebates in excess of $215 million as compensation for illegal rent overcharges.




Stuyvesant Town


In 2007, the tenants filed a class action lawsuit against the building's owners Tishman Speyer Properties as well as the previous landlord Metropolitan Life. The suit alleged that Tishman illegally de-regulated rent-stabilized apartments while receiving a J-51 tax abatement.


The J-51 tax abatement program provides partial property tax exemptions to landlords who make certain renovations to their buildings. The Stuyvesant Town tenants claim that the landlords illegally deregulated more than 3,000 apartments in the complex while receiving more than $25 million in J-51 benefits. The New York State rent stabilization law provides for treble damages for any illegal overcharge.


Smelling blood in the water, tenants at other complexes have filed similar lawsuits. The plaintiffs range from Lenox Terrace in Harlem (home to Gov. Paterson and Rep. Charles Rangel), to Chelsea's luxury rental complex London Terrace and Clermont York Associates on the Upper East Side.








London Terrace




Uncertainty over calculating potential liabilities and even future rent rolls makes it almost impossible for any J-51 beneficiary to refinance or sell. Even investors in the five bond offerings for Tishman's $3 billion mortgage could share in the responsibility to pay back tenants.


While I have no sympathy for the likes of Tishman-Speyer, I am also turned off by well-off tenants and their lawyers trolling for free money. The plaintiffs in these actions are individuals who freely entered into market-rate leases. They should not realize windfall due to a judge’s arguable interpretation of the rent-stabilization statute.


If the landlords were wrong to destabilize, let the fines be paid to the City, perhaps earmarked for affordable housing programs.

Marion Hedges

[ Monday, November 7, 2011 | 0 comments ]

Share

Prudential Douglas-Elliman agent Marion Salmon Hedges was critically injured last weekend when she was hit in the head by a shopping cart tossed over a fourth story pedestrian bridge as she was shopping at the East Harlem Target/Costco mall with her 13 year old son, Dayton.

In addition to being a great mom and real estate agent, Marion is also very giving of her time and energy to a number of worthwhile causes. She is the rock of her family. As a friend of the Hedges-Salmon family, I would like to extend our thoughts and prayers to Marion and wish her a speedy, successful recovery.

The Brick Presbyterian Church has established a fund to help provide Marion with crucial assistance in her rehabilitation and recovery.

Checks can be made payable to The Brick Church. Please write "Marion Hedges" in the memo line and mail to:

Laila Marie Al-Askari
Director of Administration and Finance

The Brick Presbyterian Church
62 East 92nd Street
New York, NY 10128

Phone: 212 289-4400 x257Fax: 212 996-7078
lal-askari@brickchurch


Breaking Down Co-Op Budgets

[ Wednesday, November 2, 2011 | 0 comments ]

Share

By Greg Harden

As we discussed in an earlier blog post, co-op maintenance charges in New York City can be expensive, causing many owners to wonder just where their money is going.

Many shareholders believe that trimming discretionary spending could result in significant savings and hold the line on increases. Unfortunately, about 90% of a co-op’s budget consists of fixed costs, with the largest portions allocated to real estate taxes and interest payments on the underlying mortgage.

Just take a look at a pie chart for one 40-unit non-doorman co-op with a live-in super.


Note that these budget items deal only with daily operating costs. Major repairs and capital improvements are typically paid from a co-op’s reserve fund, which a Board can replenish with an assessment.

The principal driver behind rising maintenance has been property tax increases. For the above building, the annual tax bill has increased over 45% in recent years from about $110,000 to over $160,000.

While co-op boards can retain an attorney to challenge their tax assessments, the savings realized are usually minimal.

Heating and water costs are also increasing. According to the New York City Department of Environmental Protection, water and sewer rates will increase 7.5% for 2012. Oil and natural gas prices, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, are also expected to climb steadily.

In addition to tax and operating cost increases, co-op buildings are also seeing revenue dry up. Buildings with commercial tenants are feeling the pinch of these economic times with losses of tenants and requests for rent reductions. If a building relied on flip taxes, it is likely struggling from the lower sale volume.

Some Boards have searched for alternative revenue sources. Converting extra basement space into rentable storage lockers is one popular method. A few years ago, one enterprising 17 story condominium on Queens Boulevard allowed risqué billboard advertisements to cover two of its facades. While the advertisements were illegal, and had to be removed, the revenue far exceeded the fines.

Fascinating Color Photos of Manahttan from 1941-42

[ Friday, September 16, 2011 | 0 comments ]

Share

These pictures of Manhattan from 1941 and 1942, and published last week in Britain's Daily Mail, offer a fascinating take on life in the Big Apple 70 years ago.

You can view more of these here















Why Is the Maintenance So Darn High?

[ Saturday, August 27, 2011 | 0 comments ]

 Share

by Greg Harden


When reviewing sales listings for a client, some will jump out as great deals - a 925 square foot “junior 4” on the Upper East Side for $199K, a 1000 square foot  “junior 4” in Trump Plaza for $715,000, a one  bedroom condominium in Battery Park City  for $335,0000.  Upon further examination, however, these discounted prices are usually offset by high maintenance.  

Maintenance fees (or, in condominiums, combined taxes and common charges) typically range from $1.50 to $2.00 per square foot. These fees pay the building staff, common utilities, water, insurance and, in the case of co-ops, the underlying mortgage and real estate taxes. When maintenance starts exceeding $2.50 per square foot, some investigation is in order.  

There are a number of reasons why a building can be beset with high maintenance.  At hotel co-ops like the Pierre or the Carlyle, the cost of amenities can drive maintenance for a 1BR apartment to over $10,000 per month.  Even in non-hotel buildings, health clubs, pools, doormen and other services can drive up maintenance, especially in buildings with a small number of units.

High real estate taxes and large underlying mortgages also increase maintenance costs.  At one Upper East Side co-op, maintenance fees run about $3.00 per square foot due to a 99 year retail lease issued by the sponsor when the building converted to a co-op in the 1980's.  The co-op leases two floors of the building to a MRI practice for only $5,000 per month, whereas the market rate is several times as much! The building pays taxes on the space but is deprived of about $400,000 in annual revenue that must be made up elsewhere.

The most frequent cause for high maintenance is the land lease.  There are approximately 100 land lease buildings in New York City. Under a land lease, the co-op or condominium owns or leases the building while a separate entity owns the land upon which it is constructed.

Land leases are common in Battery Park City, where maintenance tends to be very high.  In Battery Park, the land is owned by the Battery Park City Authority. The land rent fee gets rolled into owners' monthly maintenance fees, along with PILOTs (payments in lieu of taxes) and building maintenance costs.

This past May, a group of 11 condo buildings whose ground rents were scheduled to increase 63%, or a combined $14.7 million a year, reached a deal with the Battery Park City Authority that lowered the combined ground rents by $279 million over the next 30 years. Disastrous consequences had been adverted, but scenarios like this keep popping up around the city.

 301 East 63rd Street

Perhaps Manhattan’s most infamous land lease can be found at 301 East 63rd Street, a 16 floor, 166 postwar doorman co-op on 2nd Avenue.  When the initial land lease expired in 2008, the co-op was forced to renegotiate a much higher rate or face foreclosure.  Under the new lease, maintenance fees skyrocketed, and sale values plummeted, leaving many owners with loans in excess of the value of their apartments. Upon the execution of the new lease, a 925 square-foot unit that had been purchased two years earlier for $650,000 was listed for a mere $250,000.  The discounted price was the consequence of maintenance fees increasing from $1420 to $3163 per month!  The co-op has since purchased the land for $45,000,000, so owners can now at least deduct the interest on the loan payments.

 160 East 61st Street

At 150 East 61st Street. a 16 floor, 131 unit postwar doorman co-op, a potential land lease disaster was resolved more satisfactorily for  homeowners.  The $135,000 annual land lease was set to expire 2008.  The landlord was upset about "artificially low" rent and not receiving rental income from retail space that was going to the co-op.  He sought to raise the annual rent to a rate that would have quadrupled the maintenance fees and left open the possibility that they would climb even further.  The co-op and the land owner eventually reached a compromise.  In late 2010, the co-op and the landlord entered into a new 99-year lease. The landlord controls the retail space, while the landlord and the co-op share the expenses of managing the building and paying the real estate taxes. The land rent was set at $260,000 per year and increases to a little over $1 million after five and a half years, with CPI adjustments for the remaining years. 

Brokers and buyers looking at these buildings must determine the degree to which prices should be adjusted to offset the high maintenance. It has been accepted that, in the case of two like apartments, the sale price of the apartment with higher maintenance should be lowered by $10,000 for each $100 difference in monthly maintenance.  However, with interest rates so low, it costs only $50 per month to borrow $10,000 on a 30 year mortgage with a 4.5% interest rate.  At this rate, a buyer should adjust the sale price by $20,000 for each $100 difference in maintenance.

Purchasing an apartment in a land lease building like 301 East 63rd Street may provide an unusual opportunity for an adventurous buyer. Purchasing a 925 square foot apartment for $195,000 would require less than $40,000 down for a qualified buyer. Furthermore, a 71% tax deduction would provide an additional monthly savings of about $1,200 for a buyer in a high tax bracket.  Should the co-op eventually pay off the land lease mortgage, the apartment could regain much of its former value.  So don't let the high maintenance scare you away!
 
 

A New Rent Stabilization Deal is Reached. More Welfare for the Wealthy?

[ Saturday, June 25, 2011 | 2 comments ]

Share






BY GREG HARDEN

This past week the New York State legislature reached a deal on a new rent stabilization law. The major provisions are as follows:

• The destabilization threshold was raised from $2000 to $2500.
• The income limit for luxury decontrol was raised from $175,000 to $200,000.
• The allowable pass through for renovations was lowered from 2.5% to 1.7% of renovation costs.

The law will make it only marginally more difficult for landlords to destabilize, or at least bring to market rate, below market apartments. The $2,000 threshold was set in the mid 1990s, and the amendment does little more than index this amount for inflation.

The majority of stabilized apartments are located outside of Manhattan. The market rent for most of these apartments is less than the destabilization threshold and often less than the legal rent. Even in Manhattan, a non-doorman studio or small one bedroom will rent for less than $2000 per month. The changes in the law will have little effect on these apartments, except perhaps to make the fixtures for some newly destabilized apartments a little nicer.

The major problem I have with rent stabilization – on both a philosophical and economic level - relates to luxury apartments. The hike in the destabilization threshold provides a stay to wealthy renters who are holding onto to multi-room apartments into which they moved decades ago.

In my own Upper East Side doorman building, I know of one high income, empty nest couple who were planning on buying an apartment because the rent on their 3 bedroom / 3 bath /1500+ SF apartment was about to reach $2,000 per month. The market rate for their apartment would be at least $6,500 per month. The increase in the threshold translates into a housing subsidy of over $50,000 per year for at least another seven years. If they choose to retire by the time the rent hits $2,500, and their annual income dips below $200,000, they will be able to live out their days in the apartment so long as they spend at least 180 days per year there. This subsidy is far more generous than a Section 8 voucher!

Meanwhile, indebted college graduates making $50,000 per year pay an equivalent rent to cram into railroad or converted apartments. An established couple raising a family also will not be able to avail themselves to the apartment (which just happens to be located in the P.S. 6 school district). With one less multi-room apartment on the market, the rent for others in the neighborhood will increase.

I do not see why an apartment should have to reach $2,000 or $2,500 per month to become eligible for luxury decontrol. If someone makes $250K+ per year, they can pay market rent, buy an apartment or move to a smaller apartment or less expensive neighborhood.

Not all landlords oppose rent stabilization. Developers and owners of free market buildings (essentially any building built after 1974) love rent stabilization because it creates shortages that increase the value of their free market apartments. Meanwhile, many small landlords are stuck with static rent rolls while property taxes and other operating costs continue to rise.

Considering some of the proposals offered by the Democratic assembly, such as a $3,000 destabilization threshold and $300,000 per year income threshold for luxury decontrol, the legislation could have been much worse. Let’s be thankful for divided government!

Retried superbroker Alice Mason's East 72nd Street apartment.  Alice pays just over $2,000 per month for this six room, 2000+ s.f. apartment.  The apartment is no longer subject to luxury decontrol becasue the Legisture just raised the deregulation threshold to $2,500 per month.