BY SAM SPOKONY | Chinatown’s new Wyndham Garden Hotel will open for business in a week, and its owners are attempting to end years of controversy surrounding the project. They’re reaching out to the former tenants of 128 Hester St., who charge they were wronged when that building was demolished in 2009.
Last Friday, for the first time since demonstrations against the Wyndham began, hotel co-owner William Su held a press conference, aiming to clear a path toward a more peaceful opening for the hotel, at the corner of Bowery and Hester St.
Su — who appeared at the press conference with his attorney and a spokesperson — has been the main target of the virulent protests led by the Chinatown advocacy group Asian Americans for Equality.
Although his presence was certainly notable, Su sat silently as his associates gave statements and fielded questions inside the Ling Sing Association building, at 49 Mott St.
“In good faith, the owners are extending their hands,” said Vincent Wong, a spokesperson for the owners. “We encourage the tenants [of 128 Hester St.] to contact us so we can offer them appropriate compensation.”
Wong and Stuart Klein, attorney for the hotel owners, also stressed that an open letter has been sent to the tenants, which provides contact information for Wong and implores them to call him in order to schedule face-to-face meetings.
AAFE and other community groups had previously condemned Su for what they called his repeated refusal to provide housing or compensation to the eight families — a total of 29 tenants — who were displaced when the city’s Department of Buildings ordered 128 Hester St. demolished in August 2009.
Su and his associates purchased the Hester St. building in 2007, and AAFE asserts he intentionally neglected it, leading to the demolition. AAFE has also claimed, citing comments reportedly made by D.O.B., that Su’s construction of the Wyndham, at 93 Bowery, played a part in the structural deterioration of the adjacent 128 Hester St.
But Klein went on the offensive on Friday, rebuking AAFE and presenting city and state documents aimed at casting doubt on the advocacy group’s claims — namely those of intentional neglect and a refusal to comply with orders to compensate former tenants.
“These rumors that have been spread in a very unprofessional way, and in a very scandalous way…they’re just not the truth,” he said.
Some of Klein’s rebuttals appeared to be effective, but some did not.
Among the documents Klein brought was a public D.O.B. record showing that in 2007 the owners of 128 Hester St. did in fact invest in structural repairs to the building’s masonry. However, while Klein has claimed that the owners spent “well in excess of a hundred thousand dollars” on building repairs, the document he produced only showed about $15,000 worth of work. D.O.B. records do show two other proposals for repairs in 2009, but the costs of those are not specified in the files.
Also, D.O.B. records show numerous complaints about structural problems with 128 Hester under the ownership of Su and his associates: Several records described cracks in the walls of the building, and several others claimed that construction on the adjacent hotel was causing 128 Hester to shake and buckle.
A more compelling document was one Klein showed to rebut AAFE’s repeated claims that Su and his associates are refusing to comply with a 2010 Division of Housing and Community Renewal order forcing him to pay relocation fees nearing $1 million to 128 Hester St.’s former tenants. Klein said on Friday that the order never existed.
And according to a State Supreme Court deposition filed in February 2011, which Klein produced at the press conference, that order in fact does not exist — or at least not anymore — because the court withdrew its action and ruled that the matter should be settled at the administrative level, rather than through a judge’s order.
Peter Gee, an AAFE spokesperson, declined to respond to specific questions about the accuracy of his group’s claims, but continued to assert that they are correct. He also deflected questions about a rumor that his organization has asked the former tenants of 128 Hester St. to sign contracts that would force them to give AAFE a portion of any compensation money they receive.
Instead, Gee accused the Wyndham owners of continuing a streak of dishonesty that he believes has characterized their interactions with the former tenants.
“There’s nothing new here, because the reality is that they’re just stalling, and they’re not really serious about getting this resolved,” he said. “It’s unfortunate, because the tenants have been waiting for three years for just and fair compensation.”
Gee added that AAFE will soon hold another protest outside the Wyndham, which is scheduled to open on Nov. 1.
At 18 stories, the Wyndham will be the largest hotel in Chinatown. Klein asserted on Friday that the hotel will be a “major boon” to the community, and that it will provide jobs to about 60 area residents.
A Wyndham spokesperson declined to comment directly on the ongoing dispute, saying only that the company will not be involved in any negotiations or dealings undertaken by the building’s owners.
