So eloquent (sarcastic tone). Is that the way you speak to your mother?

There’s another factor that hasn’t been mentioned during the discussions, news feeds, etc., and that’s the involvement of the NY Fire Department. Apparently they are calling the shots here in their own way. So, it’s possible the DOB could have approved an initial plan allowing us to return to our homes a lot earlier than anticipated. But the NYFD could put the kabosh on that. Based on their interpretation of whether it’s safe for us to return or not. This is just an example of two agencies determing the future of a building without any direct communication with one another. And if one says “okay” it could easily be rendered moot if another agency says “no.” And vice versa. So whether the building is “commercial” or “residential” can be rendered moot at a certain point.

Actually, if you cared to look and not just show off your very elementary real estate knowledge, you would see that even the designation of our building was murky. Yes the C of O was for light manufacturing, but the more recent DOF designation was C-7 (walk-up residential apartments with 6 or more units), which means the building is taxed appropriately and that there is a disconnect between agencies. For the DOB to come in heave everyone on the street for a CO that’s been outdated for decades wasn’t “Byzantine”, it was just stupid.

Here’s a little lesson for you Professor Dresden, When the NYC building code was updated in 1968 any commercial use building built before that time was required to have fire doors and sprinklers (which is why we are currently homeless), but it was not deemed necessary in residential buildings from that time. The issue is that the building is not commercial and has not been for a long time. If it could be proved that the building was used for residential purposes from a certain time then the old residential codes would be grandfathered, but no one is really sure what gets grandfathered and what doesn’t. This is why the City is working on a totally new building code.

I totally agree that the City is doing its job when it clears out a building where there is real immanent danger to life, and although they really need to give the residents more notice in these eviction situations, I basically agree that life and safety issues override. But, to render innocent people suddenly homeless for building code technicalities when there is no structural or other immanent danger – that just shows an unthinking inflexibility that is way out of proportion to the real risk of the situation.

Dresden: you are correct. Somewhere the landlord must’ve fucked up. But it’s also way more complicated than that. And, yes, the DOB were just doing their jobs. However, the DOB initially cited a lot of violations as justification for kicking us out, ALL of which were invalidated except for one: lack of fire sprinklers. That’s it. And why? Because this is deemed a commercial building by the DOB. But we can still live there. Only after the sprinklers are installed. Now this says more to the byzantine, complicated and contradictary zoning laws and building codes of industrial-turned-residential areas of Brooklyn. And I’m pretty certain that almost every residential building along Broadway from Halsey all the way to Peter Lugers are in violation of some code and, because of this, would be in the DOB’s right to shut down.

One of the main points of dispute (one that Shawn touched upon) was with regard to two points of egress in terms of fire safety. Now, that C of O you posted on the site earlier… that is for ONE address. The building itself actually comprises of TWO adresses. It’s still one building. Just two separate exits/entrances with different adresses. That’s because our building was originally two buildings combined into one and that has been the source of every confounding interpretation made by the DOB. There’s also a C of O granting permission to do residential work on the building in 2003, then another that contradicts that which simply states “in preview.” Not only that, but the building has been fined for an elevator that does not exist, and has been held accountable for an incomplete work request that was made in 1994 — when the current owners only bought the building in 1998.

Now, do I completely trust the landlord? No. But I don’t trust the DOB, either. Largely because it’s a system so bureaucratic as to be rendered detrimental to what’s fair to both tenants and landlords. It’s a system built to be non-progressive in many ways. In terms of this case, somebody tipped off the DOB about something and apparently there was enough time between the tip off and when the DOB shut the building down to warn somebody, anybody. But this did not happen. The landlord found out when we found out. According to the landlord, a fire marshall seemed to be okay with the building a week before. Another issue was lack of fire doors in the hallways. This was pointed out to the landlords while the firemarshal was there. And an agreement was made to install those doors. And they were in the process of installing those very doors the day the DOB showed up to shut us down. So… who knows?

The point is we were the victim of circumstance and the best we can do is partake in a process of expediting our return, which all of the tenants have attempted to do.