My First Board Meeting 11/29

President Adam Silvera called the meeting to order, and the first motion was to approve the election results by Honest Ballot Association. It was approved, but there were many complaints concerning long lines due to the breakdown of one machine. It was also unfortunate that some shareholders had to go to the office to authorize their eligibility to vote because they were not listed on the records. The board will do everything possible to make sure this does not happen in the future. We then elected new officers. Adam Silvera was elected President, Ricardo Pamias was elected Vice President, yours truly was elected Executive Vice President, Frank Gardner was elected Treasurer, Jack Kowalcyk was elected Assistant Treasurer, John Poreba was elected Secretary, and Luis Reyes was elected Assistant Secretary. Next month we will be studying the Antonucci capital needs assessment report which I hear is longer than "War and Peace". I guess I won't be able to use the excuse "my dog ate my homework" since I am not allowed to own one. Maybe I misunderstood when my friends said I should run for the board, they might have been saying run for the border!

How safe is our water?

By most standards water in the N.Y. metro area is some of the safest in the world, but an important question was raised at the annual meeting about lead levels. Because the plumbing in Village View is quite old every apartment with young children should have their water tested for lead. Approximately 4% of all children have lead levels high enough to cause learning disabilities and other medical problems. N.Y. offers free water testing for lead, and all you have to do is call 311 for a free kit. I did, although it may be too late for me to get back the 25 I.Q. points I've already lost.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/drinking_water/lead_index.shtml

Is an outdoor kiosk for the security guard a good idea?

Stuyvesant Town Security Kiosk

A suggestion was made concerning having an outdoor security kiosk like Stuyvesant Town and other communities are currently using. The fact is that visible security may be a deterrent to crime, but there is no single location that is without blind spots because of our property layout. Without multiple cameras and monitors the guard cannot see what is going on everywhere and even criminals may not be able to see the kiosk depending where they are. The cost for a security station with surveillance is very expensive so we need to weigh the cost/benefit issue carefully. In the meantime if you are coming home late and are concerned for your safety call or meet security and ask them to escort you to your apartment. They will be glad to assist you. I will attempt to contact an expert in the field who may offer some common sense solutions we may not even have considered. I will update this article as new info is received.

Are the parking fees to high?

You may have noticed the rates for parking in Manhattan are very expensive, and by that measure our rates are very reasonable. There is one fundamental difference and that is they are open to the public who are charged the current market rate. Some local co-ops charge less than 100. a month, and by that standard we are very high. While I was campaigning some residents asked if anything could be done to reduce the rate, and both Luis Reyes and I said we would look into it. Luis even suggested that if we could not reduce the rate across the board maybe we could have it reduced for seniors. Since I pay for parking I will abstain from voting if there is a reduction for everyone. If it is only for seniors I will vote since I won't benefit from it. You didn't think I was that old, did you?

Update: Luis suggested seniors/disabled/retired on fix incomes first.

Get outta town by sundown!

Considering how expensive a security kiosk is maybe we should provide security with a segway type vehicle. While the original costs over $5,000. there are similar products at $1,679. The advantages are that security can perform random patrols many times during the course of their shift giving the impression of being everywhere at all times. This is due to it's 25 mile per charge range. In case of emergency they can quickly transport security all the way to the apartment. Many law enforcement personnel use them, and they make a formidable impression. They are rechargeable, cheap to operate, and are environmentally friendly. How else you gonna drive the bad guys outta town?

http://www.saferwholesale.com/100w-Segscooter-Dual-Scooter-motors-Electric-Sco-p/1000w%20segscooter%20electric%20scoo.htm

A word of thanks

There were many people who gave up their time and energy for the success we had in electing our complete slate. All of our supporters went above and beyond the call of duty, some were even more excited about the outcome than the candidates. I personally was more relieved than excited, and I hope in the future we can campaign in a more dignified manner. Whether you voted for me or against me I will serve to the best of my ability. You won't always agree with me, but I will forgive you anyway.

How do you respond to the flyer that said you lied?

I said I supported the Mitchell Lama program at the meet the candidates night, and the writer of the flyer claims I lied because I told many people I was for privatization. The question posed was concerning my current opinion as candidate for the board. Before I decided to run I talked to both opponents and proponents of privatization and both groups agreed on two issues. Initial costs are very expensive, and  probably  higher carrying charges. No one knows exactly how much, but some of our residents can't even afford a small increase without hurting them financially. Privatization would provide a financial gain for a large group of residents including me and to deny that would be dishonest. However, is it possible to acknowledge the economic benefits, yet oppose privatization on the grounds that many of our neighbors could be hurt by the rising costs? The writer thinks I can't and won't because I am so greedy that I would be willing to evict our neighbors to make a profit. To quote the flyer "They (Dan and Robert) only care about themselves and making the rest of us homeless". They offer no evidence that would lend any credibility to that statement. This is a serious issue and it needs civil, adult discussion on both sides of the aisle. I understand the person at "save village view" is committed to keeping village view affordable, and for this they should be commended. The best way to further their cause is not by demonizing anyone they believe is their enemy, but by using the facts. No one can be manipulated to support privatization if they understood that they could be hurt financially by it. Sorry to be repetitive, but this is the shareholders decision and not the boards. Please read my blog on "Privatization, how I see it", where I specifically stated my objection was based on the economic cost. That's my opinion what's yours?

Is painting the roof reflective white a good idea?

U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu is considering a regulation that will require all roofs to be painted reflective white*. The reason is it reflects the suns rays keeping the roof cooler, and in turn reduces cooling costs. Certainly an advantage when you consider a roof can heat up to 200 degrees Fahrenheit in the hot summer months**. A secondary benefit of a painted roof is that by keeping it cooler it can extend its life by up to 15 years**. Considering how expensive a roof is to replace many homeowners have already made this part of their normal maintenance procedures.The cost is typically inexpensive at .50-1.00 a sq.ft. and is easily applied saving labor costs**. There may be one downside, and that is if it lowers our roofs temperature in the winter will it increase our heating costs? It is also obvious that we will save less money than areas with hotter climates year round. This is one topic that needs further examination, and will be updated. You can be sure of one thing, if Steven Chu's regulations are approved the cost of these paints will go through the roof!

*   http://reflectivecoatings.org/
** http://www.energy.wsu.edu/ftp-ep/pubs/building/res/roof_coat.pdf

Privatization, how I see it.

I believe there are three groups of thought on the privatization of Village View. Group one philosophically opposes privatization, and by this I mean they have unwavering support for the Mitchell Lama concept. They have no interest in the possible economic advantage of going private, and I certainly respect this position. I call this group the "IDEALISTS". Group two also opposes privatization, but is based on economic principles. They fully understand that going private will ultimately be an economic advantage. However they are concerned over the initial cost due to preparation of studies and financial reports, the fact that H.P.D. might require us to lower our loan balance, that maintenance fees may go up (possibly considerably) at first, and the increase in our real estate taxes. Consequently many of our residents may not have the financial resources to comply with these requirements. I call this group the "REALISTS". The third group supports privatization. They fully understand the economic advantages of being in the free market. The equity in their home can be used for their child's college tuition, to obtain a reverse mortgage, and the ability to sublet or sell at current market rates. These options can be a strategic tool in developing a financial plan for the future. I call this group the "STRATEGISTS". So where do I stand? I am a "REALIST". I know that privatization will ultimately be an economic advantage, but I am not willing to take that chance if it hurts our residents who are least able to afford it. Ultimately this is a shareholder decision, and I believe the board should be neutral.

Update: Reverse mortgages are not available for co-ops. Thanks to Oleh Pich for the comment.

Is it necessary to upgrade the lobbies?

We are all cognizant of the fact that building 5 has an upgraded lobby. As equal shareholders in V.V. every building should share a similar upgrade. Can you imagine what would happen if we decided to upgrade the elevators in only one building? In the picture you will see the mailbox panel from building 3 removed, and by looking on the side you will see Roosevelt houses written. Why? Because these are the same boxes installed in city housing projects like those on avenue D, and they were replaced over a decade ago! As many of you know we have been sued for not providing equal access to the disabled. I believe that the board will make every effort to insure that the upgrades will prevent future litigation. There is a link below to read the "American with Disabilities Act". My opinion is that if we pay equal maintenance charges we deserve equal facilities, and if you don't agree I'll request a heated swimming pool be built on the roof of building 2. I just love a few laps in the morning.

http://www.ada.gov/pubs/ada.htm