Page 10 - NY Cooperator October Expo 2019

10 THE COOPERATOR — OCTOBER 2019 COOPERATOR.COM Make the Right Mortgage Choice. $170,000 Brooklyn, NY Residential Underlying Co-Op $300,000 New York, NY Residential Underlying Co-Op/Retail $250,000 Brooklyn, NY Residential Underlying Co-Op 220 RXR Plaza, Uniondale, NY 11556 • www.FlushingBank.com Patrick Akosah 718.512.2798 MLO #674966 Patrick Dolan 718.512.2817 MLO #1016524 Cindy Lam 718.512.2816 MLO #410081 Daniel Lee 718.593.8067 MLO #64756 Anthony Montalbano 718.512.2731 MLO #1180405 Christopher O’Hara 718.512.2809 MLO #673112 Michael Pollis 718.512.2911 MLO #1703994 Community lending expertise with personal service. At Flushing Bank, we are focused on exceeding your goals. Composed of experienced lenders with local market knowledge, Flushing Bank’s Real Estate Lending team is ready to help you with your real estate mortgage solution. As a leader in community lending, we provide competitive rates, including long-term, fixed-rate loan programs. Call us today to discuss a mortgage solution that is right for you. Flushing Bank is a registered trademark FB 952 - RMU Cooperator UPDATE.indd 1 12/13/18 11:13 AM CONT... rable to the approach employed in Western Europe vis-a-vis the middle class.” Examples of these projects include Rochdale Village in Queens, Co-op City in the Bronx, and Penn South in Manhattan, among others. A sterling example of the eff ectiveness of Mitchell-Lama type development might be the single-building approach employed as part of the Upper West Side Urban Renewal District in Manhattan. Th e district, which is bounded by 72nd Street on the south, 96th Street on the north, Central Park West on the east and Amsterdam Avenue on the west, is home to many Mitchell-Lama buildings which served as anchors to the redevelop- ment of the entire district, a renewal scheme that included both private and public invest- ment for projects large and small. Th e neigh- borhood – now one of the most desirable in New York City – features middle-income Mitchell-Lama co-ops, privately owned apartment buildings, renovated townhouses, and luxury developments. Can a Mitchell-Lama 2.0 happen? “With the Federal government off ering very little assistance,” says Tanaka, “it makes it very dif- fi cult. In the Mitchell-Lama era, cities didn’t worry about where funding came from. To- day, we are in a diff erent environment. Fed- eral programs are decimated. Cities need to think carefully about who are the vested interests in their economies. Th ose are the major employers in those cities, and other institutions like hospitals and universities, as well as large developers and landowners who are interested in economic vibrancy. If a city becomes too expensive, the base will shrink.” Robert Snyder makes a similar observa- tion. He contemplates that as New York be- comes increasingly more expensive, young people who would otherwise come to New York to start their lives and careers – and in so doing contribute and uphold the city’s sta- tus as a place where not only money is made, but culture is created and innovations are born – will choose other places to live and work if New York is too expensive to allow them a reasonable standard and quality of life. In the end, Tanaka suggests, a Mitchell- Lama 2.0 approach is a challenge. “It’s a political question. Allocating money to the middle class is a challenge. It’s a trade off with respect to the very poor, the neediest.” With that thought in mind, the ultimate question about creating a more aff ordable future New York may be, ‘Aff ordable for who?’ n A J Sidransky is a staff writer/reporter for Th e Cooperator, and a published novelist. A MORE AFFORDABLE continued from page 9 ley Haft and president of her co-op in Park Slope, Brooklyn, agrees. “In co-op communities, people talk to each other,” she says, but social media is another thing all together. “Shareholders rumi- nating on Facebook or Twitter can get pretty ugly pretty quickly. Misinforma- tion gets disseminated.” The temptation to unload on social media is too great a risk, especially in the rarefied, insular world of a co-op or condo building. Giv- ing residents the opportunity to say on- line what they wouldn’t say in the hallway could quickly set not just a bad precedent, but could also create a toxic atmosphere among neighbors that could prove very difficult to repair. So What Is it Good For? Led Black, a social media consultant based in Upper Manhattan, says he has never encountered a Facebook group for a co-op or condo – but where he has seen it used is in the sales and marketing of co- op and condo units. “As far as real estate is concerned,” Black says, “social media is a cost-effec- tive way of reaching potential custom- ers. I would advise sales agents, man- aging agents, and brokers to maintain active social media accounts where they can broadcast their listings – but more importantly, \\\[where they can\\\] also listen to what their customers are looking for via their online comments. I also would advise them to look into advertising on Facebook and Instagram, because you can set your own budget and get very granu- lar with your targeting. A healthy mix- ture of organic and paid engagement can get more properties sold.” (For a deeper look at how younger buyers are approach- ing the home-hunting process, check out: https://cooperator.com/article/younger- buyers-new-approaches - Ed. ) Bobby Woofter, a real estate agent in Boston with MyBostonCondo.com, con- curs. “Social media leans more towards advertising,” he says. “Condo associa- tions themselves are not looking to hook in new people. When units are for sale, you see social media used by the market- ing team. The social media presence for the unit – or for the entire building – isn’t maintained after the property is sold, or after the project is sold out.” So What Do Co-ops & Condos Use? Web-based technologies are primar- ily used by co-op and condo residents, boards and managers for the purpose of notifications and communication about CO-OP/CONDO... continued from page 1