The Times picks a line of inquiry we posted on last week:
When the Church of England walked away from a £40 million investment [with Tishman Speyer] in a Manhattan apartment complex last week, it simply wrote off the entire amount, promising that “lessons would be learned”.
But many of the tenants of the 11,000 apartments are still dealing with the fall-out. Left in limbo as a new buyer is sought for the buildings, they have serious concerns about who will maintain the complex while they wait.
Just how the Church of England became involved with the Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village, overlooking the East river, is something of a mystery.…
It is not clear how Tishman’s aim of turning the complex’s rent-stabilised units into luxury apartments fits in with the Church’s ethical investment policy. The Church Commissioners’ defence is that this was “established practice”.
Here’s the link to The Times article. Yes, it’s gone 404. And doesn’t seem to under another url at the time of this writing. But it did exist; here’s proof from the memory hole. [The same reporter had an article the same day on walking away from underwater mortgages, and gives Tishman Speyer as an example — without referring to the C of E.]
[UPDATE: The article has been brought back to life and is now dated February 15, 2010. Here’s the new url: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/management/article7028091.ece]
Here’s our post from last week which raised some heat in the comments.
Was it ethical to convert the apartments from rent-controlled to market-rent? Economists give plenty of ammunition for a defense of the practice.