City To Mandate Fifteen Percent Set Aside For Homeless In Affordable Buildings (New York: middle-class, apartments)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think this would have a huge effect on the super luxury buildings. I can just imagine a market rate paying tenant coming out of their apartment and seeing their neighbor who might still look very much homeless coming out from the apartment next door.
I wonder if something like this would have developers looking the other way when it comes to getting a tax cut for their buildings.
I think this would have a huge effect on the super luxury buildings. I can just imagine a market rate paying tenant coming out of their apartment and seeing their neighbor who might still look very much homeless coming out from the apartment next door.
I wonder if something like this would have developers looking the other way when it comes to getting a tax cut for their buildings.
Set aside only applies to developments that receive city funding as in financial assistance; not merely current zoning related (variances, inclusion, etc...).
City already forces developers of affordable housing to include certain set asides for homeless; but apparently numbers are small. Likely because of steep subsidizes required to make rent so dirt cheap (by forcing other tenants to pay more..) just doesn't create enough. Same as with low income "affordable" apartments; numbers just don't always work to get many.
Read linked article; there are already a number of places were developers partnered with city (as in getting funding, land,) to build housing. Bill de Boob, the guy who hopes to have his job in 2021 (Corey Johnson), along with rest of city council's progressive liberal democrats are pushing to put things into stone so future administrations will *have* to continue.
This is really stupid if a junkie had to pay 15 cents for a 2 bedroom it would be way too much
What you see on every street corner with a cardboard sign is the result of your free free free philosophy
Set aside only applies to developments that receive city funding as in financial assistance; not merely current zoning related (variances, inclusion, etc...).
City already forces developers of affordable housing to include certain set asides for homeless; but apparently numbers are small. Likely because of steep subsidizes required to make rent so dirt cheap (by forcing other tenants to pay more..) just doesn't create enough. Same as with low income "affordable" apartments; numbers just don't always work to get many.
Read linked article; there are already a number of places were developers partnered with city (as in getting funding, land,) to build housing. Bill de Boob, the guy who hopes to have his job in 2021 (Corey Johnson), along with rest of city council's progressive liberal democrats are pushing to put things into stone so future administrations will *have* to continue.
Gotcha! Duhh lol it’s literally the first thing the article states “built with city assistance” I should have read more carefully. Thanks for pointing that out. But I guess my question still applies will developers start to look the other way because of this law, we’ll see.
Gotcha! Duhh lol it’s literally the first thing the article states “built with city assistance” I should have read more carefully. Thanks for pointing that out. But I guess my question still applies will developers start to look the other way because of this law, we’ll see.
Only a certain subset of developers get into bed with city like this; usually they are non-profits and some others. No one who can make money without doing so willingly takes part in any of city's various "affordable" schemes. This includes various lotteries and so forth.
With inclusive zoning some developers have no choice but to include affordable component because they otherwise cannot afford to build. Others can and have said "no thank you" and built projects as of right with out any low income/affordable component.
The NYT article is kind of vague as to what 'built with city assistance' really means? Financial, zoning changes, planting trees, or what? No sane market-rate middle-class renter will want to live near a homeless person or family. Too disruptive and potentially dangerous. What city is really doing is two things. First is basically creating 'NYCHA 2.0', and the second thing is an intentional destabilization of middle-class neighborhoods all over the city. The unspoken third thing is the increased placement of troublesome secion-8 tenants also all over the city into otherwise stable apartment buildings.
More madness. This goes hand-in-hand with the new rent laws.
Imagine you own an 8-unit rental building in Manhattan. You have seven tenants paying market rents (say averaging $2,500 for a 1-bedroom in Yorkville). The eighth tenant is an old lady paying $900.
With the old law, when this tenant moved out or passed away, you could gut renovate the apartment and pass along the cost of the renovation to the next tenant, who would pay $2,500. You would hire a contractor, who would employ an electrician, plumber, painter, flooring person, a kitchen and bath company, and others to get the unit in shape.
Now, thanks to the dumbest governor in the US, no matter what the owner does, the rent can only be increased to something like $950 for a lease that is guaranteed for life.
Guess what? That owner will NEVER rent that apartment and NEVER hire that contractor. He will clean it up, paint it, and use if for his own pied-a-terre or for his kids if they need it.
Multiply that one apartment over time by tens of thousands of units, which will be never rented. And all those man hours for the electricians and others gone forever.
More madness. This goes hand-in-hand with the new rent laws.
Imagine you own an 8-unit rental building in Manhattan. You have seven tenants paying market rents (say averaging $2,500 for a 1-bedroom in Yorkville). The eighth tenant is an old lady paying $900.
With the old law, when this tenant moved out or passed away, you could gut renovate the apartment and pass along the cost of the renovation to the next tenant, who would pay $2,500. You would hire a contractor, who would employ an electrician, plumber, painter, flooring person, a kitchen and bath company, and others to get the unit in shape.
Now, thanks to the dumbest governor in the US, no matter what the owner does, the rent can only be increased to something like $950 for a lease that is guaranteed for life.
Guess what? That owner will NEVER rent that apartment and NEVER hire that contractor. He will clean it up, paint it, and use if for his own pied-a-terre or for his kids if they need it.
Multiply that one apartment over time by tens of thousands of units, which will be never rented. And all those man hours for the electricians and others gone forever.
Progressives are REALLY, REALLY dumb.
Many legal experts think that the SCOTUS will overturn the new rent laws as an unconstitutional taking of private property. Starting with the part of the new laws that forbids a property owner from using more than one unit for their personal use. How can that be legal??
The NYT article is kind of vague as to what 'built with city assistance' really means? Financial, zoning changes, planting trees, or what? No sane market-rate middle-class renter will want to live near a homeless person or family. Too disruptive and potentially dangerous. What city is really doing is two things. First is basically creating 'NYCHA 2.0', and the second thing is an intentional destabilization of middle-class neighborhoods all over the city. The unspoken third thing is the increased placement of troublesome secion-8 tenants also all over the city into otherwise stable apartment buildings.
It's financial assistance only, there are other articles out there that can easily found.
People (for whatever reasons of their own) are already paying $$$$ to live in same buildings/developments with busted and homeless. Some time ago now city mandated set asides for "affordable/low income" housing lotteries for homeless.
Intention of this daft piece of legislation is to force homeless into buildings/communities other than usual areas now (Bronx, East New York, etc...) .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
lol it’s literally the first thing the article states “built with city assistance” I should have read more carefully. Thanks for pointing that out. But I guess my question still applies will developers start to look the other way because of this law, we’ll see.
