Hot Lot on Central Park North – Harlem Gas Station in the News

Harlem Corner Gas Station (HP)

Several articles surfaced today in the papers and on local news channels about the corner Harlem gas station located on 11oth Street and Frederick Douglass Boulevard.  This is an unfortunate situation that the city will most likely end up winning.  With this prime real estate location a business is vulnerable to the city and eager real estate developers.  The HP Harlem gas station is getting pressure from the city to sell.  This location would provide incredible central park and unobstructed downtown city views.  The Owner Carmie Elmore, and a partner took over the gas station in 1981.  The pressure has increased for them to sell and their response to that is Hands off!  Situations like this have often occurred with the city in the past and if history repeats itself it does not look good for the  gas station owner.  Read more from one of several articles about the ongoing battle here

The story was big enough to hit NY1  today.  Twenty employees would lose their jobs if the gas station was sold.  The neighborhood has changed with the booming businesses on Frederick Douglass Boulevard.  What once was an undesirable property now has become the hottest piece of Real Estate on Central Park.  I’ve stopped by this 24 hour market many times at night all the years I’ve lived here.  I do not own a car but the need for a gas station at this location can easily be supported by the continuos flow of cars and cabs 24 hours.  They also do repairs here which is very convenient.  I imagine the gas station on 96th Street will double in business if the 110th Street gas station closes but that location is small, on a hill and very dangerous.

We will have to wait and see how this plays out but undoubtedly big business will win in the end.

16 thoughts on “Hot Lot on Central Park North – Harlem Gas Station in the News”

  1. I didn’t know there was a gas station there I am new to the neighborhood and live up near Columbia. If the gas station is needed then it should stay. From reading the article and the following comments it sounds like another case of gentrification to me.

  2. The owners should thank their lucky stars that they had the foresight to buy such an amazing piece of property when nobody wanted it. They should not let the city get it and instead get many many millions for it, and give their employees many thousands of dollars severance.

  3. I realize that I have issues, however I confess I looked up the deed on acris and have included relevant sections. I would assume this is a play to get more cash out of the deal. I included relevant portions and looked up the indexes and calculated (a). While for (b), given SL depreciation, they will most likely be getting 25 to 50% back on all improvements. I would assume the major gripe is that the city would be buying back the land for less than a million and it is obviously worth significantly more. I bet there are a lot of 16 year old contracts people would like to get a redo on.

    In the event of acquisition by the City by condemnation or otherwise of any part or portion of the premises lying within the bed of any street, avenue, parkway, expressway, park, public place or catchbasin as shown on the present City Map, Grantee and its heirs or successors and assigns shall only be entitled, as compensation for such acquisition by the City, to the amount of One ($1.00) Dollar, and shall not be entitled to compensation for any buildings or structures erected on the Premises which may lie within the bed or lines of any street, avenue, parkway, expressway, park, public place or catchbasin so laid out and acquired. This covenant shall run with the land and shall continue until the City Map is amended or changed to eliminate from within the bed or lines of any street, avenue, parkway, expressway, park, public place or catchbasin, any part or portion of the Premises and no longer.

    The City shall have the right, for a period of twenty years from the date hereof, upon notice to Grantee (or its successor or assign) to acquire the Premises, for an amount equal to (a) the Purchase Price paid by Grantee, plus an amount equal to the product obtained by multiplying the purchase price paid by Grantee by the percentage increase (If any) in the Current Index (defined below) over the Base CPI (defined below), plus (b) Grantee’s costs of constructing the Improvements (including without limitation the testing for and remediation of Hazardous Substances on the Premises), and such other capital improvements as may have been made to the Premised, subject to depreciation on a level basis over a twenty-year period from the time any such capital improvement was placed in service, plus (c) appraisal costs paid by Grantee in connection with the Closing and closing costs paid by Grantee or its successor or assign in connection with the conveyance under this deed and the acquisition of title by the City. The foregoing acquisition right is supplemental to and not in substitution for the City’s power and authority to acquire title to the Premises pursuant to the New York Sate Eminent Domain Procedure Law or any successor statue.

    If the right of the City to acquire the Premises is not exercised within twenty (20) years from the date of the Deed, then such acquisition right shall lapse, and the City and Grantor shall provide such further reasonable assurance as Grantee or its successors or assigns may request that such acquisition right has lapsed.

    “Base Index” means the Price Index for the calendar month in which the date first set forth above occurs
    “Current Index” means the Price Index for the calendar month immediately preceding the calendar month in which the date first set forth above occurs.
    “Price Index” means the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor for the New York-Northeastern New Jersey Area, all items (1982-1984=100), or any successor index thereto.
    Deed date: July 24 1996
    Purchase Price: $366,500
    Current Index (July 2012) 252.016, Base Index (July 1996)=166.7, Curr/Base=1.511794, P*C/B=$554,072

  4. I disagree with Harlemguycondo, I don’t think it’s bullying but looks more like it was in the agreement to begin with and if thats the case the city should be able to take it back. Replacing one business with several new businesses and rental property seems like a smart move and would create more jobs for the community then one gas station on a large lot of land.

  5. I don’t like it. And the word “condo” is in my name. It feels like the bully is trying to take the little guy out.

  6. I agree it sounds very much like a David and Goliath situation. Keep us posted if you hear any new developments. I’m on the fence I can see the advantage on both sides of the coin

  7. Thank you for your comments. I watched on CBS and NY1 as well basically saying the same thing.
    Like George P said (above) it will all boil down to the paper work. If the clause to buy it back expired in 2008 then the owner Carmie Elmore might have a case. We will have to wait and hear how the city responds and what the Judge decides.

  8. I hope they stay its great having a gas station store open past midnight in the neighborhood. Its also bright at night when getting off the train.

  9. I read about this a month ago. I believe that the city is still within it’s right to purchase the property back from the owner. The article I read explained that the owner purchased the gas station with the understanding of the right to purchase it back. I thought it was earlier than 81′ but I could be mistaken. I don’t remember the specific conditions or even know if this is fact or fiction. If it is true though the owner you wrote about may not have much of a choice but to sell. It doesn’t seem fair but whatever the paperwork says… will be the final decision. I would hope that if it is sold that the gas station makes a very descent profit.

Leave a Reply