In the spirit and stewardship of “Transparency” and “Neutrality,” we must equally show and discuss both sides the “Pros and Cons” of converting from Mitchell-Lama Article 2 to HDFC Article 11— including questions, opinions, concerns, challenges, and opposing ideologies without prejudice; yes, even if we don’t agree! … … Is not “Democracy” wonderful?

To be clear, we (writing this) remain undecided on converting to Article 11 and are NOT aligning with one side or another!  This blog posting is strictly about ongoing transparency, censorship, twists and spins, and controlling narratives, in flagrant, blatant, and obviously coordinated manners.†  Many of us have witnessed this for a long time, and it is become too much to stay silent or tolerant.

Make no mistake, there are many families “struggling” at Cadman Towers, especially after the economic fallout from the pandemic on top of the 44% maintenance increase!

† An example is the recent 44% maintenance increase administered over the last three years, yet packaged as “three incremental 13% increases,” hiding the fact that they compound one after the other.  This creative accounting is much like the ubiquitous .99¢ strategy used by merchants, only this one is not a 0.1¢ difference but a 4% difference. It looks like under 39%, but it is actually 44%.  How clever and devious—by design!

If we are incorrect, and this was not “compounded,” please provide evidence and adjustments thereof!

---

Above, and linked HERE as PDF, is the controversial “Yellow Memo.”

Below are the only four (4) responses we found deep in our mailbox from a year ago regarding “The Yellow Memo.”  If anyone has additional responses, Meeting Minutes, or implicit challenges to this “Yellow Memo,” kindly share them, and we will post them below for equal transparency.  Currently, it looks like the “Yellow Memo” has substance, research, details, and verifiable sources, e.g., Bloomberg, NYC.gov, New York Times, Census.gov, Uhab.org, etc., and some may agree, it even has “heart.”

There is a philosophical tone to all this altogether—on all sides, of course.  Yet, the latter narrative (the below 4 emails from the Board) begs for equal “substance, research, details, and verifiable sources” in their responses and presentations to compete with the “Yellow Memo,” without sounding like hearsay or personal emotional opinion.  Still, we remain confident there is more from the “Pros” side that is not being adequately communicated outside the limited Zoom meetings and outside the Board’s “required legal silent period(s).” However, these types of adverbs, adjectives, character attacks, and “Facts” without ‘sources-and-specificity,’ as seen in these email replies, are always the side that falls flat as “conjecture.”

Replies to Yellow Memo

One of these replies states, “let’s work together.” Of course!!  But without this censoring, attacks, and denigration—and especially not allowing others to discuss among themselves without a Board Member present—as our Facebook screenshots evidence shows! …Really?!? We are NOT in High School!  The proverbial elephant in the room is that whenever anyone, anywhere, under any circumstances, feels the sociopath need to censor and control others’ opinions and discussions, even on Facebook or the bulletin Boards, that is when many of us feel there is definitely something to hide.  What are we hiding, which does not need to be hidden? And why? 🤔

Rest assured, until that is fixed, those of us who can see this optic will be forced to vote “against” any censoring side—though even still undecided—that’s a default of “sanity!”

---

Margret E. Roberts writes in her book Censored: “Censorship could be seen as a signal that the political entity has something to hide and is not, in fact, acting as an agent for citizens.”  We do not want to fall into that MAGA optic! Do we??

---

Arguably, We Know We Can Do Better!

When some of us (clearly not all) hear or read these adverbs and attacking adjectives, as seen in these email replies, without substantiation of proof and source, such words as “insane, sad, disingenuous, gripes, aggressive, irresponsible, unethical, misstatements, questionable,” etc., on top of clear and proven evidentiary “Censoring,” makes us immediately think, “They are Duplicitous, do not trust them!!” In fact, some public ‘personal apologies’ may be in order to the several dozen members of the Committee to Preserve Cadman Towers (CPCT) for denigrating this “Yellow Memo” and its authors!!   They are our neighbors…

NEED A “FIX?”

We keep hearing the “Definition of insanity” from the Board (‘doing something over and over and expecting different results’).  What can be more fitting a definition than continuing to have small limited Zoom virtual meetings† for over two years on such a gargantuan complex legalese topic?  And with only those few dozen who can attend, while censoring and limiting questions, no follow-up questions, no meeting video recordings, and not allowing any open discussion or information sharing “unless the Board is present or gives permission,” which it never does, over and over, and over again? How is that (“sanity”) working out for us?

†  …and especially way after the pandemic “State of Emergency” has been declared “lifted” by Federal, State, and City Governments!

The “sane” and “responsible” math here, if we may challenge one opinion with another, is to halt and request the Attorney General to find a way to a “Temporary Hold” (or TRO) of proceedings until we can all meet in person to truly get the correct information without opinion, conjecture, or selective philosophical or emotional slants.  What are the facts, from both sides??

Do that, and you just may have our vote!  And from talking to people, we do believe we speak for many.

Let’s Start With This Little Philosophical Conundrum

At least to some of us, it appears that the authors of the “Yellow Memo” used The U.S. Census Bureau’s accurate data to identify the start of a crucial discussion.   Bravo!  Of course, with equal authoritative sources, we would like to see detailed opposing evidence of how this is not a ‘Big Price’ to pay for hallway carpets while we shop for Electric-Car-Charging-Stations for all our Teslas—pun intended.

Sarcasm aside, the “Yellow Memo” inadvertently shouts out a collective voice to much larger considerations—indirectly.  “How are we spending our maintenance fund?” The 2023 value of the dollarsc† spent on attorneys and legal resources, for example, over a decade, first for full privatization ten years ago, and the current zeal for semi-privatization—averaging half a million dollars from our fund—may have paid for some of the repairs, maybe into the boilers, or other repairs.  As per the “Yellow Memo,” we need more details, from the “Pros” side, with specificity to justify the proposed dismantling of a program that fights homelessness, and which without all of us would not have been able to afford to be neighbors in this beautiful Brooklyn Heights.

†   Legal costs: The $315,000+ reportedly spent between 2004 and 2009 would today have a purchasing value average of over $475,000.  In 2012, the Board authorized a vote for an additional $100,000 to be spent; the vote was defeated in June 2012.  In May 2018, Cadman Towers Shareholders voted to spend $75,000 to develop a proxy statement for the 2 to 11 conversion.  The Board’s attorney for the proxy statement has been working pro-bono as most of the $75,000 has been spent.
~Source: An anonymous educated shareholder

Additionally, the entirety of the “Yellow Memo” brings up the question, “Why not spend all that time, energy, and money to come together as shareholders, with other Mitchell-Lamas, to push Government to fix Mitchell-Lama, rather than dismantle all our ‘Implied Promise?’”  The logic of the “Yellow Memo,” in all innocence and indirectly, screams, “if you don’t like the Mitchell-Lama ‘middle’ income affordability, move to an HDFC Article 11 higher income building!” Therefore, it also begs the “Pros” side to, “please provide more substance with sources” to convince us all.  (Without Trumpian adjectives and adverbs).”

Moreover, according to the research of the “Yellow Memo,” if we convert to Article 11, our future loans will be limited to 15-year rather than 30-year loans.  This is huge!!  While at the end of 30 years, the savings are 2/3, the catch is that monthly payments will be 38% higher.  Therefore, with Article 11, according to the “Yellow Memo,” your monthly maintenance could be raised by 38% of each loan with each loan we get for repairs, in perpetuity.  This all means that for those of us not struggling—still here in 30 years—we would have saved 2/3 of the interest on repair loans.  The rest of us, now struggling, will not be here!!  If the “Yellow Memo” is correct, our maintenance in only a few years could likely be into the thousands at the market “rental” rate of area gentrification.  Will a non-Board Member, who is “Pro” Article 11, kindly educate us on this complicated logic?

From our still neutral undecided POV, this email argument against the “Yellow Memo” falls flat at the cost of half a million dollars, a lot of work, as “the first of its kind,†” and an incredible gambling problem with the 15-year loans!? We await the Board’s input with equal detail as soon as they are allowed to speak in person publicly on all these details and reasonable questions.  And the question remains: Why will non-Board Members “Pro” article 11, convinced, not share?

†   "The First of its Kind?" – This Board representative declares in the above emails, “Article 2 to Article 11 has proven successful with Mitchell-Lama rentals since the mid-2000s.” With all due respect, rentals, and coops are apples and oranges—arguably different animals in different universes. Cadman Towers will be the first Coop to try this. With whom is this not a gambling problem?  Why not let other Mitchell-Lamas try first?  Do we need that notch in our belt at a possible disastrous cost to so many?
~Source: A takeaway from the "Yellow Memo"

Therefore, the Optic Remains:
With so many uncertainties, ONLY those in the higher income bracket below (dashed-oval)
may be able to stay at Cadman Towers!

Verifiable information direct from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Incidentally, the inadvertent “heart” in the “Yellow Memo” optic is the Socially Responsible reflection to ‘Preserve or Not Preserve’ the momentum wave of Housing-Affordability in New York State to battle “houselessness”—and even our own, and others like us on the waitlist, yet-to-be-defined affordability moving forward.

---

There are so many questions we all have on both sides, and all sides.  There are those “Pros” for “HDFC Semi-Privatization, those “Cons” who wish to maintain Cadman Towers as a Mitchell-Lama, there are the undecided, and then there are still some for full Privatization if and when it comes around again in a few years.  There is no lack of questions to discuss, research, and share for answers and opinions.  Therefore, we are building, with your help, an FAQ archive, even for questions to which we may not yet have answers.  Please send your FAQ questions to Cadman.Transparency@gmail.com

Three items stood out for us when reading the above email responses.  Yes, when we can meet in person, “there should be representatives from HPD and HDC to debunk misstatements” as we all identify them in public sessions—awesome! Thank you.

However, the statement about “the overly aggressive nature of the folks handing out the yellow memos.” Our investigation shows that occasionally one person sits at a table outside.  They are not “allowed” to use the lobby—as does Verizon and the hundreds by the Board of Elections.  Also, without being “allowed” to deliver information under apartment doors, in front of doors, on door knobs, bulletin boards, the Facebook “Community” Group, or even post in the laundry room, and no “Committees” at all have access to mailing lists.  What to speak of, censoring all posting on BuildingLink meant for everyone, but only to sell old wares, “certainly not for opinions or discussion invites.” Therefore, what appears to be an “overly aggressive nature” is actually the calculated, all-channels-protection and overall altogether censoring, which we have recently proven with evidence.  That, right there, is the attack, which is unethical, aggressive, disingenuous, questionable, duplicitous, and even arguably illegal as per “Oppressive Conduct.”

And, yet, we have indeed seen the initial good intentions of the “Pros” side; however, it is these type of tactics that fail them and push us away.

Lastly, as little as we know about the various sides of the very complex subject—during the course of investigating and writing this article—our alarming epiphany was that the many people we have spoken with know even less than we do! We have an information situation!!

As one cooperator inquired, ”Are we to understand that we are to take a vote simply by reading the 185 page legalese Proxy Statement, viewing the legalese Deficiency Letters, without information for 1+ years, and now with only one or two Zoom virtual limited meetings??” YES! Apparently so!