Naysayers?

naysayers

UNTIL the spectre of privatization reared its head no one here was talking about any solvency problem at Southbridge Towers. You would think, if you read some flyers, that the complex is in imminent danger of financial ruin under Mitchell Lama, and that we must go private to keep the wolves away from our doors. This flyer does not help its case by saying it’s a “well-scrutinized plan” which of course doesn’t mean it’s a good plan. The AG is not passing judgment on the worthiness of the plan, and the people the flyer calls naysayers are the same people doing all of us a favor by pointing out potential problems in the plan.

Telling us that “There is no ‘buying’ … in to” a new privatized SBT for co-operators – well that’s not entirely true. SBT co-operators do have to buy into the plan since the deposits we all made for our Mitchell Lama apartments plus accued interest will be forfeited under privatization. And please don’t tell me I will get that back, and more, when I am able to sell my apartment in the future. If I have $10,000 as an apartment deposit at SBT that adds up to $10,000 of my money that I can consider lost in any future sale. I can subtract this on top of the flip fee, taxes on the sale, cost of asbestos abatement, any real estate commissions, moving expenses, etc. (I believe this is called death by a thousand cuts.) Ultimately it seems to me that what I get won’t replace what I have, unless I move to some place like Detroit.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s