So as most already know, this year Linkedin changed their InMail policy. Instead of getting back all the InMails that didn’t get a response, Linkedin now only credit back InMails that are replied to. They also implemented their new policy around a commercial search limit in which in any given month you can only run a limited amount of searches as beyond a certain number they deem that it is being used for commercial purposes. I’ve seen a number of posts for and against the changes and for what it’s worth, I say bring it on!Here’s why…Sometimes, just sometimes, I shudder when I see some of the activities that are being passed off as “recruiting”. In the last month I have received a number of batch messages that not only are not personalised to me, but have zero relevance to me at all. E.g. I’m an IT/software development sourcing specialist/recruiter and therefore, I have a few technologies listed on my profile. In the greater context of my profile, this is clearly in reference to positions I regularly find myself recruiting and not related to my personal IT experience, YET – I still get messages asking about my interest levels in an exciting and fantabulous open position as a Developer. I’m all for looking at ways to find efficiencies but sending a batch message to anyone with a specific technology(ies) listed on their profile (due to a standard keyword search) is just plain lazy and is certainly not what the vast majority of the recruitment world would identify as effective, solid recruitment/sourcing practice. To date, given the limited InMails available per month on different subscriptions, recruiters were almost incentivised to not be engaging in their InMails and just throw buzzwords in the hope of either a) Quickly engaging a professional who might be actively on the market; or b) being completely ignored, as opposed to opening up conversations with candidates who are not “active” but may be open to discussing other opportunities. If by LinkedIn changing its policies it encourages the careful and more considered use of InMails as a tool of value and as the medium that could be used to open doors to new networks/candidates/business partners/leads, then I’m all for it and can only see it having a positive effect on the industry.Link to info on new InMail policy: http://sales.linkedin.com/blog/linkedin-changes-inmail-policy-to-improve-quality-of-messages-and-response-rates/On commercial search limits. I believe that the impact on this will be minimal to any recruiter who considers themselves to be somewhat social media savvy as most will be well versed in other online sourcing techniques and know e.g. know how to run x-ray searches via search engines, should they reach their search threshold. The knock-on effect of this is that recruiter who is perhaps not quite as used to other online search methods will have to begin to increase their knowledge of online sourcing methods which surely can only positively affect the recruitment industry?.Link to info on new “commercial use limit”: https://help.linkedin.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/52950/~/commercial-use-limit-on-search LinkedIn policy changes – Good, Bad or Ugly?Shared from missc on 20 Jan 2015 in Personnel Today Read full article Previous Article Next Article Related posts:No related photos. Comments are closed.
beRead full article beRead full article Related posts:No related photos. Previous Article Next Article Previous Article Next Article Comments are closed.Work Musing | Musings on the world of workShared from missc on in Personnel Today Comments are closed. Work Musing | Musings on the world of workShared from missc on 15 Apr 2015 in Personnel Today Related posts:No related photos.
Technology, analytics, data, life – start from the beginningShared from Change-effect on 25 Apr 2016 in Personnel Today Previous Article Next Article I’ve just got back from the HRTechFest in Washington. Last time I went to one of these, I wrote this about Technology being HR’s biggest asset. I still think it is – so take a look.Read full article Comments are closed. Related posts:No related photos.
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedinShare via Email Share via Shortlink Stephen Ross of Related (Getty, Wikipedia Commons)After 12 years of loving Michael Bloomberg and seven despising Bill de Blasio, some titans of real estate are ready to splurge on a pro-business mayoral candidate.But which one? And can real estate’s money make a difference anyway? Don’t count on it.First, the news: Related Companies Chairman Stephen Ross just poured $1 million into a campaign fund to influence the city’s 2021 elections for mayor and City Council, the New York Times reported Monday. Jack Cayre of Midtown Equities gave $100,000 to the independent expenditure Common Sense NYC, which has received $1.47 million.Jack Cayre of Midtown Equities (Urban Land Institute)Some perspective: Bloomberg spent $75 million to $100 million on each of his three campaigns for mayor. He won them all, but Common Sense NYC is unlikely to raise anything close to that. One campaign veteran said it would have to spend $25 million to have any real effect. And, as an independent expenditure, it cannot coordinate with a candidate directly.Moreover, evidence is accumulating that campaign advertising is not as effective as once believed and is often inconsequential. Campaign consultants insist that good ads — especially negative ones that define a candidate — do work, but ad gurus obviously have a financial incentive to say that.(It is widely believed that de Blasio owes his victory in 2013 primarily to his son Dante’s campaign ad, but a larger factor was probably that voters soured on the other Democratic candidates.)Read moreMayor’s race goes from bad to worse for real estateCatsimatidis considering mayoral runCorey Johnson drops out of race for mayor Share via Shortlink Full Name* Message* Real estate’s bigger problem in the 2021 Democratic primary for mayor, though, may be too much of a good thing: pro-business candidates.Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams, former Obama housing secretary Shaun Donovan, banker Ray McGuire and Rep. Max Rose can all be considered “common sense” candidates by Ross and his brethren. If elected, they would not stand idly by as proposals like Amazon HQ2 and the Industry City rezoning die, deprecate the city’s billionaires, or fantasize about government getting to decide exactly what gets built and who can live where, all of which de Blasio has done.Kathryn Garcia, the former sanitation commissioner running as a manager type, will likely go after the business vote too, as will former veterans’ services commissioner Loree Sutton. A digital media CEO named Zach Iscol is in the race as well.If these folks split the pro-business vote, real estate could end up with a mayor who cozies up to real estate’s enemies. City Comptroller Scott Stringer, who in September launched his mayoral campaign pledging to “end the crushing cycle of speculation, eviction and displacement,” and a month later called for shutting down office buildings although they were already 87 percent empty, comes to mind.Several candidates are running to Stringer’s left: former de Blasio counsel Maya Wiley, City Council member Carlos Menchaca (the Industry City killer) and social services executive Dianne Morales, to name three. But Stringer is the only citywide official and established name of that bunch. A bigger problem for him could be ex-presidential candidate Andrew Yang, he of the universal-basic-income platform.The mayoral contest is by far the most important to New York’s real estate executives next year. The money they muster, though, will not likely move the needle much. They might also consider trying to stop six Democratic Socialists of America candidates from winning City Council seats. Those races will present a different dynamic and could be even more difficult for the industry.The primary is in June. It’s going to be an interesting next six months.Contact Erik Engquist Email Address* TagsBill de BlasioPoliticspolitics and real estatescott stringer
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedinShare via Email Share via Shortlink Full Name* Breather’s Bryan Murphy (LinkedIn, iStock)Breather, a startup that rents office space by the day, has run out of air.The Montreal-based company plans to shutter more than 400 locations in the United States, Great Britain and Canada. In some cases, it will assign outposts to third parties, who will close them to repay the company’s creditors, the Globe and Mail reported.“Breather, in its current form as an operator, doesn’t make sense, and, to be frank, I’m not sure it ever made sense,” CEO Bryan Murphy said. “I want to be like Airbnb,” he said, and pivot to an online platform that lets users rent flex-space operated by others.Read moreBreather explores sale or capital raise Breather launches membership program Breather, which has raised $112 million from investors since 2012, furloughed most of its 120 employees this spring, but the company recently said it had started to bring them back. In October, Breather pivoted to a membership model. But a month later, it reportedly hired bankers to explore a capital raise or sale.Last week, Breather laid off most of its staff, giving former employees between two and six weeks’ worth of severance, according to Commercial Observer.The co-working sector has suffered since the onset of the pandemic. With a pay-as-you-go model, Breather offered an even more flexible model than rivals WeWork, Industrious and Knotel.But a former Breather employee told CO that competition between the companies inflated office rents in the most desirable neighborhoods, and Breather may have overpaid for some locations. Last week, IGS Realty sued Breather over nearly $91,000 in unpaid rent at 334 West 37th Street.For its part, Knotel is facing a string of lawsuits over rent and is looking to reduce its footprint.[Globe and Mail] — E.B. SolomontContact E.B. Solomont Message* Email Address* Share via Shortlink TagsbreatherCo-workingoffice market
TagsIndustrial Real EstateInnovo Property Grouplong island city Share via Shortlink Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedinShare via Email Share via Shortlink Innovo Property Group’s Andrew Chung and the LIC property (IPC)Long Island City may have lost out on Amazon’s corporate campus, but the area is quickly becoming New York’s unofficial package headquarters.Andrew Chung’s Innovo Property Group plans to build an 842,175-square-foot, five-story warehouse at 23-30 Borden Avenue in Long Island City. The last-mile distribution facility will have three stories of industrial space and two stories of studio and accessory space, according to plans filed with the Department of Buildings.Innovo partnered with Atalaya Capital Management and Hong Kong-based Nan Fung Group to buy the property about two years ago for $75 million from Atlas Capital Group.In a sign of strength for the industrial market, the property sold for 56 percent more than its 2016 sale price.ADVERTISEMENTThe site was previously home to a warehouse for FreshDirect. The online grocer completed a lengthy and controversial move of its headquarters from Long Island City to the South Bronx in 2018.Innovo’s project will sit at the entrance of the Midtown Tunnel and is close to Williamsburg. It is expected to be completed in 2022, according to NanFung Group’s website, pending zoning approval.Innovo has become one of New York’s most active warehouse buyers. In April, the firm scored $305 million in construction financing for a 1 million-square-foot industrial development in the Bronx. The firm purchased the site in 2017 from Extell Development.In September 2019, the company reached a $430 million agreement in September to buy out Westbrook Partners’ majority stake warehouse at 24-02 49th Avenue in Queens. It marked the largest deal in Queens in about a year.
The city in 2018 had created a reform commission, initially co-chaired by Been. It has yet to make final recommendations for the city and state legislatures, through which property tax changes must go.De Blasio was asked about this unmet goal during an unrelated state Senate hearing last week. He claimed the idea of reviving the reform effort had just been discussed internally and promised final recommendations soon. On Monday he told NY1, “We’re going to have the final report out in the next few months.”As with everything he failed to get done in 2020, de Blasio blames Covid. The pandemic apparently prevented the property tax commission from gathering feedback on the 72-page report it issued in January 2020. Never mind that community boards, agencies, judges and the rest of the universe have been holding hearings via Zoom for the better part of a year.New Yorkers would have appreciated some Been-like honesty from de Blasio about why this has not happened with property taxes. It would have been refreshing to hear, “We screwed up,” or, better yet, “Sorry, my approval rating is not high enough to increase anyone’s property taxes.”With all the means of communication these days, the reform commission has lots of ways to hear from New Yorkers other than its archaic plan for public gatherings in each borough. Having people schlep to a school auditorium and line up behind a microphone won’t make the recommendations any better or people any less upset when their taxes go up.Besides, the commission has already held public hearings in every borough, plus three hearings with invited experts and two other public meetings. That’s 10 meetings. Its preliminary recommendations were mostly sensible but not new. Zoom will suffice from here on out.No one denies that fixing property taxes will be hard, but this is the year to do it. De Blasio cannot seek re-election and has nothing to lose. Most City Council members also cannot run again, so they vote purely for the city’s benefit, not their own. And it’s an odd-numbered year, so state legislators are not on the ballot either. The stars are aligned.Adding to the urgency, Affordable New York, a program that eliminates or reduces property taxes on new apartments for up to 35 years in much of the city, expires next year. Developers must start planning now to break ground then on desperately needed housing. They need to know what the tax regime will be.Affordable New York, like 421a before it, is a workaround that is supposed to encourage apartment development but increases the price of land, which obviously does not help affordability. We need a tax system that does not depend on temporary carve-outs to get new housing built.Making property tax reform even more imperative, the system is unfair to minorities, whose financial disadvantages got even worse when Covid hit. Pound for pound, rental housing is taxed more heavily than single-family homes that sell for millions, tens of millions, and even hundreds of millions of dollars. Tax reform is a way to keep rents down.Moreover, houses in white areas have lower property taxes relative to their value than houses in places like Brownsville and the South Bronx. This is because assessment increases are capped at 6 percent per year (and 20 percent over five years) while home values in gentrified enclaves have risen much faster. De Blasio’s two Park Slope houses are commonly cited as examples, but there are far more egregious ones.The list of problems with the system goes on from there. Virtually no one understands how their taxes are calculated or the rationale behind them. For instance, a co-op or condo is taxed based on what “comparable” units rent for, even though they are not rentals.I used quotes because often the “comparable” units are anything but. Tax assessors don’t actually visit the apartments. How could they possibly know what units are similar?Market-rate apartments are sometimes compared to rent-stabilized units, which gets especially absurd when ritzy Park Avenue co-ops are assessed. And no one can explain to Mrs. Jones why the taxes on her humble house in Ocean Hill are much higher relative to its value than the taxes on Ken Griffin’s $238 million penthouse.The eventual reform is supposed to be revenue-neutral, meaning that the increases on some properties will be entirely offset by the decreases on others. This is supposed to make things easier for the politicians — “We’re not raising taxes,” they can say. Perhaps, but it will also pit winners against losers. That provision could be rethought.It has been eight years since de Blasio made fixing property taxes part of his campaign for mayor. Covid was a bad excuse for stalling in 2020 and no excuse for all the other years. Reform needs to get done now, before another mayor takes office and creates another commission to kick the can down the road yet again.Contact Erik Engquist Share via Shortlink Full Name* Message* Tags Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedinShare via Email Share via Shortlink Deputy Mayor Vicki Been and Mayor Bill de Blasio (Getty/Illustration by Kevin Rebong for The Real Deal)Deputy Mayor Vicki Been is known for policy expertise, not political savvy.Case in point: When she was asked in September 2019 whether property taxes would be reformed during the de Blasio administration, she answered honestly.“I don’t know that that’s realistic. I think the foundation can be laid,” Been said. “Laying the foundation now makes it a topic that has to be front and center in the next mayoral election, and I think that’s really important.”Her boss, Mayor Bill de Blasio, did not appreciate that. Been had to quickly walk back the statement. “The de Blasio administration is working to reform property taxes before we leave office,” she wrote to Crain’s.ADVERTISEMENTRead moreSame-old, same-old: Reformers pan tax commission’s reportState’s highest court dismisses property tax reformers’ lawsuitCity announces panel to reform property taxes Email Address* Bill de BlasioPoliticsProperty taxes
Share via Shortlink 2111 Frederick Douglass Boulevard and 214 West 109th Street, two buildings as part of the portfolio (Photos via Google Maps; StreetEasy)Owners of a large multifamily portfolio in Manhattan are looking to bring on a partner who will value the “recession-proof” collection at north of $700 million.Josh Gotlib’s Black Spruce Management is looking to recapitalize its 1,800-unit portfolio of workforce-housing buildings in Manhattan by selling a stake in the collection of buildings, according to marketing materials for the offering.The collection of buildings is made up of five smaller portfolios mostly concentrated in Upper Manhattan, with another one around Hell’s Kitchen in Midtown.The privately held investment firm is open to selling a stake of 49 percent to 90 percent in the entire 97-building portfolio, and is eyeing a valuation of $700 million to $750 million, according to a source familiar with the offering.Representatives for Spruce Capital could not be immediately reached for comment. A Cushman & Wakefield team of Adam Spies, Adam Doneger, Doug Harmon and Josh King is marketing the portfolio. The brokers declined to comment.The buildings receive a tax abatement under New York City’s Article XI program, which offers 30- to 40-year property tax exemptions for projects that are at least two-thirds affordable. The program has been an alternative to the now-defunct 421a.The Article XI program slowed down during the pandemic, but the city’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development in February issued a new term sheet for the program, signaling that it’s a priority under the city’s affordable housing initiatives.Demand for affordable housing far exceeds supply: The city’s housing lottery application system has received more than 25 million applications for about 40,000 units since it launched in 2013.The marketing materials for Black Spruce’s portfolio say it has an estimated historical occupancy of about 97 percent.Black Spruce paid $200 million last year to acquire one of the sub-portfolios around the northern edge of Central Park in November, which at the time was the largest multifamily deal to close since the start of the pandemic.Contact Rich Bockmann Black Spruce ManagementMultifamily Market Email Address* Message* Tags Full Name* Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedinShare via Email Share via Shortlink
House of Yes in Brooklyn (Getty)New York City’s live music scene went silent when the pandemic began last March — but even with loosened restrictions, venue operators are hesitant to reopen.The state gave permission for small and medium indoor arts venues to reopen on April 2 at one-third capacity with a maximum of 100 people, according to the Wall Street Journal. But some venue managers claim these restrictions make it impossible to turn a profit and are keeping their doors closed.Read moreBars and and music venues across America worry they’ll never reopen NYC, New Jersey restaurants to open at 50 percent capacity Lower east side home of mercury lounge for sale Some venue owners also say that it would be difficult to restrict close physical interactions at concerts.ADVERTISEMENT“It’s pretty simple for us: It’s not financially viable,” Kae Burke, a co-founder of the House of Yes in Brooklyn, told the publication. She said the venue lost millions in revenue since it closed its doors last March.Other venues are awaiting relief funding from a federal grant program, which includes some $16 billion in grants, according to the Journal.But mostly, these owners claim that music venues needed packed crowds multiple nights a week to turn a profit. Some venues were challenged by rising rents and increased competition.A recent survey of 45 of New York’s chapter of the National Independent Venue Association found that the majority of large venues plan to reopen in the fall, the Journal reported. Eleven smaller venues and four larger venues expect to open this month, according to the survey.[WSJ] — Keith Larsen Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedinShare via Email Share via Shortlink Tags Share via Shortlink Andrew Cuomobrooklyn
Share via Shortlink Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedinShare via Email Share via Shortlink Tags Investment SalesManhattan Condo MarketProptech Stuart ElliottIt’s a golden age for golden ages.We are sitting at home during the so-called golden age of TV, with enough quality streaming to last us several pandemics. And there will probably be a golden age of partying and travel after we’ve got this virus kicked.We are entering a golden age of big government, comparable to FDR’s presidency and the New Deal days. That’s going to include a golden age for climate change initiatives, which will force real estate to adapt.And, as our cover story this month points out, it’s also a golden age for tech disruption of real estate.Proptech is not new, but it seems to be only picking up steam.A decade after the Silicon Valley legend Marc Andreessen proclaimed that “software is eating the world,” software is now eating the home, as E.B. Solomont reports in a series of pieces.“It’s almost like a tipping point that’s been 10 or 15 years in the making,” said Max Simkoff, CEO of Doma, which is trying to disrupt the title insurance industry. Long dominated by four incumbents, it’s a $16 billion sector that hasn’t changed much since the 1800s.Overall, investors poured $3.9 billion into 89 proptech deals during the first quarter of 2021, more than double the value of the preceding quarter.And in the past eight months, four proptech startups focused on the residential industry have hit valuations of $1 billion or more. Three others — Airbnb, Compass and Lemonade — have gone public.In the broader world of startups, in 2013 there were just 39 companies valued at $1 billion or more, a number that has surged to more than 600 today. That’s a sign of a lot of innovation, an indicator of overheated valuations, or both.Zillow’s venture into iBuying could be one of the biggest proptech bets of them all. If CEO Rich Barton is successful in buying homes directly from sellers through Zillow Offers, some see Zillow becoming one of the next FAANG companies (Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix and Google).We also take a look at Compass’ IPO last month. The residential brokerage’s public offering raised $450 million — less than half the firm’s original target. But that it even got that far — and created a windfall for its founders, top executives and many rank-and-file agents — is a testament to its initial vision.Elsewhere in the issue, we look at climate change and the big role for real estate innovation in addressing the problem. As Hiten Samtani points out, “real estate is the quiet sinner in the climate crisis.” Some estimates say it accounts for up to 40 percent of global carbon emissions.Brendan Wallace, a co-founder of Fifth Wall, the country’s largest real estate–focused venture capital firm, is starting a fund that seeks to invest in technologies that help real estate combat climate change.Landlords, Wallace says, are going to be forced to evolve in order to reach the goal of zero carbon emissions.“Regulators are coming after you, and they are going to tax you. Tenants are not going to lease from you. Capital markets are not going to lend to you or insure you. And you might be underwater, because you can’t move your buildings,” Wallace said. “Capital markets Darwinism does work.”Finally, back to present-day brick and mortar: Read our annual ranking of top investment sales firms. Surprisingly, while the sales volume of trophy office properties was down significantly last year in New York City, pricing didn’t drop that much. And check out our story on Manhattan’s condo market, which is now showing some strong signs of life after a tough year.Enjoy the issue.