State of the Internet, Part 6: That Time Things Weren't Awful

Announcements from the Class Secretary: We're making this one quick.

Apparently, every minute wasted on the internet tonight is another minute of effort to set me up with one of New York's Finest "Hebrarem" as a 12:01 makeout partner sullied. But 2009 was a hell of a year for YM. No?

We took over Deadspin and rocked the joint. Dash didn't even read it. Krucoff's now both the nicest and the most attractive out of any of us. Eli played a Elipalooza, and it was glorious. We've celebrated 9/11. If they didn't know - and they didn't - now they know: Bakes is a better writer than basically everyone.

2009 was the year the inconceivable was conceived, and then, carried out: the School of Hard YMocks graduated a writer all the way up Denton's ass, which was in the same twelve month span that person also got a job with Mohney, who came out for drinks with us. With Spiers. And neither of them beat Krucoff or 99 into a fine frappe, like they probably deserved. For those of you who've been reading YM for way too long, you know this is like one of those alternate futures in Sliders.

But 2009, I think, and I'm sorry to do this to all of you, was the year of FAMILY FIRST.

We can honestly say that YM-Tang grew by, like, 50%. What was once an elite club of fuckheads is now almost entirely a fairly nice group of likable, welcoming people only cared about by fuckheads. Like me.

Maura, Ryan, Michael, it's like, how did this ever happen without you? Even Paolo! And did you ever think you'd be a part of the day when Brian Van felt like, I don't know, a by-marriage relative of this stupid enterprise? While we're at it, Jay Casey, you're a fucking weirdo and you scare me, but no more than I ever scared Krucoff, so I guess you're kind of in on this, too. We even got an ombudsman who cares a lot, and might be right to. Maybe not! But still: family. There are most certainly others who I'm forgetting. Balk, John, Peter, Lilit, AJ, whatever, whoever. There're a lot of them. Sac's still a crunchy asshole which I guess we need, and if he'd ever stop being a pussy, he'd come out to New York so I could say it to his face. Curt was smart and got the fuck out of dodge, but you know what it's like, right? We'll get him back. And speaking of resolutions for 2009, maybe I'll even get Abe Sauer to write for us. Unlikely, but who knows? After the year of GAMECHANGER, pretty much anything can happen.

Anyway. Thank you, all. It's been a good year for family. Truly.

Rachelle Hruska, Dear (Or: "I Am Using Your Name In The Title Of This Post To Ensure The Words "Your Name" Appear Well-Regarded By Google")

Isn't the left-side beautiful? Writing something here is the difference in between climbing into a fluffy, cool, made bed, and laying your head to rest on a pile of angry, craggy rocks.

Anyway. I guess this is where I'm supposed to take the (Kosher-certified/Omaha) beef, right? I was going to wait a week to do this, but in a week this thing would be long gone (and thus, maybe, kinda new again). Two days after and now it's just tired, totally uninteresting, and something we've all moved on from. This is my version of totally burying a news cycle via quicksand effect. Of course, there's that other way of doing it, by just shutting the fuck up, but in the grand tradition of people who can't shut the fuck up (namely: everyone reading this), that's just not gonna to happen.

I've already said: I've had a great time. And if none of the involved parties enjoyed this, you are joyless, sad, and angry. There's been a lot of blood pressure raised over this! I got a stern talking-to in a clurrb! And I'm not going to get into who's "right" and who's "wrong," first, because the only people worth listening to about being right are - and forgive the Garrison Keeler-esque folksy shit here - people who are capable of admitting that they're wrong, who are also (like people who can shut the fuck up) in short demand around these parts. No, the only way to measure this thing is by who "won," and when I say "won," I mean, out of all the people I've interacted with in the last week, who has the lowest blood pressure that isn't plagued by pre-existing medical condition (hypotension, namely). I'm just going to start walking around with one of those portable monitors and being all like "Gimme your arm!" Creepy, yes, but also: statistically effective. And we know how I love me some stat porn (Nic will get this).

Anyway. Here's the email I sent to Rachelle Hruska, and the response I got back. I'm not linking shit. If you're here, you know what happened by now.

1. BlackBook definitely pays guest contributors (well-documented dispute with an in-breach freelancer aside).
2. Real talk: "Largely unpaid staff" is the quote I got from the Times, which you assured me time and time again was "real journalism" and then put me on blast for using that line as a source of information. If other "real journalism" needs to be called up and double-checked, how real is it? If the Times got the story right, they would've written about your "largely paid and cared for" staff and the "largely unpaid content" you receive from friendly contributors on the site. Right? What if I'm not the only reader who drew the conclusions from the Times piece that I did? Should they all call you, too?
3. Paying for writers and paying for journalism are two totally different things. I'm not paid for journalism. I'm paid to blog. Ask anybody at Gawker if they'd call themselves journalists; ask Nick if he'd call any of his writers journalists, I can't imagine he would. [I read the Howard Kurtz piece after writing this. In it, Denton notes that any journalism that happens at Gawker is incidental.] Would you call yourself a journalist? Anybody coming to Gawker for New York Times-level reportage might be a little off the mark (then again, Jayson Blair, so, you know, that whole thing) - they have an obligation towards liability. Gawker's been wrong before; as you said this morning, so have you. Now: let's say an organization only writes what they get straight from the subject (inherently biased in the subject's direction) without providing their readers with context or opinion. Then they're writing press releases and being a mouthpiece of the subject. And what's uglier: an outlet tethered to the information it gets from the subject (and nothing else) or one that can see around the interference the subject's going to post?
4. You blasted me for not calling you before I was going to run my piece. You didn't call me! :(
5. I wouldn't compare what I did to Fox News. Mean! I'm not exploitative and nor do I pride on hurting people; I'd call it ribbing at best and digging into at worst. Fox News is malicious. You know that.
6. You misspelled "plesant." I only care about this because it was the one nice thing I got said about me! Although, in all honesty, I'm probably more plesant than I am pleasant.

Other than that, you were definitely right about the following things:

1. "Populist demagoguery" is pretty much the name of the game with every Gawker Media site [especially those vigilant fucking gadget nerds]. That's what I get paid to do, though, that being said, it's not always the populist fire I'm feeding (sometimes, if you've ever read anything by Gawker's frightening weekend commenters, you'd see it's an anarchist minority. They're a readership worth worrying about). Also, what a phrase to use! Whether or not you give a shit about journalism, the writing is most definitely there. [Though I will say, the Sunday Styles specializes in a certain kind of dem-a-gog-ur-y, though most of their readers would think that's a new skin treatment.]
2. "As you know from the Times piece, I left a secure job in finance to take on tremendous risk and a drastic pay cut to build GofG. As it stands, the world we live in isn’t perfect and the income disparity between industries does not always seem “fair” or “right.” A discourse on the root of the problem is probably one that exceeds the scope of both your and my skill sets." (A) It's admirable, and I've said as much often, and (B) you're absolutely right on all counts here.
3. And as Rachel Sklar will be very quick to tell you, I'm still very much a beginner at this. You know this is my seventh weekend, right? I've done some pretty great things (most recently: scooped everyone on the sale of VSL to the Observer, on a Sunday, no quotes required. And I was right!), but when you're writing Gawker single-handedly, nine to thirteen posts a day, and trying to do it during the weekends, your ability to get quotes is limited. (Cajun Boy has the same problems at night [though he did manage to get ahold of the Megan Fox-fatkid-fan identifier!]; but the Gawker Manna From The Gods - the Sunday Times - isn't coming out for him every night). Does that mean I shouldn't write the stories? Shit, I hope not. In both cases, I could've gotten quotes from you and Sklar, and maybe I was wrong for not making a good faith attempt on both ends (though the situation with Sklar is TOTALLY different; she didn't have the information on you - the Times article - out there on her). So: I'm still learning. Isn't that nice, though? There're worse things than a guy who can take his licks and roll with 'em as lessons thereafter. Nice job. We can buy each other rounds 'next time. -f.

Her response to me, below. My comments in bold.

1. i was talking about their interns- i know a couple they are not paid WTF?
2."I understand how the line in the NYTimes article that described GofG as having a staff “largely unpaid” reads, however, your interpretation and understanding of this quotation is incomplete. This quotation, admittedly deserving clarification, attempts to convey the user-generated component of our content structure." id you read that? I did, but Hruska's the one comparing me to the "real journalism" of the Times that needs clairification. Also, funny aside, though: assuming you do pay four people, the Huffington Post only pays five. So you're still better than her.
3 this is much longer discussion
4.i posted on my wee tumblr, not a site that gets --what is it 22 million hit snow? Fuck if I know. Denton probably piles on the numbers anyway. I think he told Sharon Waxman over eggs that we're more read than Google, or something, and she believed it. Which is superb.
5. feelings have nothing to do with this-it's factss I first read that as "fatass," so maybe I'm just projecting. But yes, factss.
6. thank you i fixed and you are pleAsant:) For my first club-oriented altercation, you were as well. I fully expect Rachel Sklar to shake me out over a roof like Suge Knight next time, though.

Are we done?

Heart Of The City (Ain't No Love) - Jay-Z feat. The Roots

When is a Facade Really Just a Facade?

By AARON HOWELL
Published: Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Tenants living in rent-regulated apartments on W. 14th Street lost their homes two weeks ago when New York City deemed their building’s structure unsafe from a collapsing façade.

Unfortunately for the tenants – who have been in homeless shelters, staying at friends and given shelter by the Red Cross – the city ordered the front facade completely removed and won’t let the tenants move back in until Stanley Wasserman, the owner of 152 W. 14th Street, replaces the façade. (more photos at Curbed. According to DOB records, 150 W. 14th, also well known for violations and disrepair, is not owned by Stanley Wasserman. Both buildings have been ordered evacuated.)

“There is a lack of maintenance that [Stanley] is known for but ours is structurally damaged,” Viktor Luna said last Thursday in housing court as he and other tenants try to force a resolution to the loss of their homes. “We are also human beings that pay rent and doing this to us is inhumane.”

The DOB complaint log on 150 West 14th Street is online here. Among others, you can see in 2007 a violation was issued for: "VIOLATION FILED FOR FAILURE TO MAINTAIN FRONT FACADE BULGING AND BUCKLING AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS THROUGTOUT" [sic]

The Department of Buildings, a city regulatory agency that looks for code violations, issued the order to Mr. Wasserman, but according to the tenants’ lawyer Shafaq Islam, the department cannot force violators to fix a building’s problems. Only a judge in housing court can force a landlord, and in the case of the tenants only Honorable Judge David B. Cohen can force Mr. Wasserman to fix the façade.

So far the tenants have received a rent reduction from the city applied to their apartments, they currently only have to pay one dollar a month for a place they can’t live in, preventing Mr. Wasserman from evicting them for not paying rent. A few of the tenants who have brought the lawsuit against Mr. Wasserman have been offered housing in another SRO building down the street (Mr. Wasserman owns three SRO buildings on 14th Street) after having preliminary hearings in front of the judge, who recommended that Wasserman find the tenants housing.

For tenants to get placed in the new building however, they must agree to certain terms that Mr. Wasserman set. Terms that one tenant, who prefers to remain anonymous, feels he cannot accept. These include permanently giving up any claims to his previous apartment, and dropping the lawsuit against Mr. Wasserman.

“If we do accept new tenancy here in the other building, we are afraid that we will end up in the same situation of being forced to vacate down the road,” said the tenant. “Inside the place they want us to move is in very bad condition, the stairways and such are in very bad condition.”

Susanna Blankley, a tenant organizer for the West Side SRO Law Project that helps protect tenants from predatory landlords, said that for a wealthy landlord, a violation means very little and only helps him remove tenants from his buildings due to poor living conditions.

Mr. Wasserman, who in 2003 owned 70 or so multi-family dwellings in Manhattan and the Bronx, with most if not all of his income coming from his other properties, effectively evicted all of his tenants in the case of the collapsing façade. Ms. Blankley speculates that if Mr. Wasserman gets the building cited as structurally unsound, he can demolish the building and replace the rent-regulated, single-room occupancy (SRO) units with high-end, luxury rentals.

In a downtown Manhattan area like 14th Street, Mr .Wasserman could make a significantly larger profit with luxury rentals, over what he currently makes owning an SRO building. SRO buildings often act as housing of last resort to keep people off the street. Rents rarely exceed $400 a month, and the city sets a percentage limit that the landlord may raise the rent each year through rent regulation. With 24 units currently in the building with the removed facade, half of them held vacant by Mr. Wasserman, he makes little if no profit.

Mr. Wasserman, nor his lawyers have been available for comment. Last Thursday in court Mr. Wasserman’s lawyer Martin Meltzer said he felt it inappropriate to comment since the case currently rests in litigation.

However, with the problem of the façade starting in 2007 when he received a violation but refused to take action, and then in 2009 when the city vacated just the front of the building and he still refused to take action to fix the problem, Mr. Wasserman continually ignored the city until they insisted on May 7th, 2009, that he remove the façade at the price of $140,000, and displaced the entire building.

Currently Mr. Wasserman won’t replace the front façade until he gets the building inspected, making sure that it is structurally sound. The Department of Buildings did a visual inspection and they believe the building to be fine, but still Mr. Wasserman wants his own inspection that he believes could take up to two months. During that time the tenants have no home.

David Arthur-Simon lives in yet another SRO building of Wasserman, and worries that the same fate of losing his home looms in his future. His building recently received a citation from the city for cracks in its façade, a similar violation to the original one in 2007 that displaced the tenants in 150 W. 14th Street. He worries that Mr. Wasserman plans to let the façade go without fixing the violation.

“They don’t come here at all to deal with this stuff,” said Mr. Arthur-Simon, who remembers one Christmas not having heat for a week. “People call up for repairs all the time and the never get help.”

(Photo at top by Jeremy Holmes. All links added by Paolo Mastrangelo.)