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.
A group of New York State Democrats want to revive the 1950s-era Mitchell-Lama program to build thousands of new units of middle-income housing in New York City, Yonkers, Rochester, Buffalo, and Syracuse. The Independent Democratic Conference, which the Journal describes as "a group of breakaway Democrats who share power in the state Senate with Republicans," unveiled a $750 million plan that would require the state to spend $150 million annually to fund more affordable mortgages for developers. The plan also calls for the state to create a new tax credit for the qualifying developments. In New York City, the housing would be aimed at families of four making $75,000 to $100,000, and monthly rents would be about $1,900 to $2,500. Will the plan succeed? >>
Governor Cuomo recently unveiled a $100 million affordable housing plan, but it's unclear how supportive he would be of this type of plan for middle-income housing. John Kelly, an attorney who specializes in affordable housing told the Journal that it would likely come down to the allocation of resources. In other words, if enacting this plan would take money away from housing for low-income families, it would be harder to push through. The Mitchell-Lama program was enacted in 1955, and it created more than 100,000 units, 15,000 of which are in the Bronx's Co-op City. But the program allows buildings to voluntarily leave after 20 years by paying off the mortgage, and 93 of 169 state-supervised buildings have done so, thus the number of regulated middle-income units is dwindling. Mayor Bill de Blasio campaigned with a "Tale of Two Cities" rhetoric that touted more resources for the middle class, and many local pols support subsidized middle income housing, so the plan will likely see strong support in the five boroughs. But the final decision lies with the governor.
A dreadful idea and a waste of resources.
Someone who makes $100,000 should be able to rent his own market rate place instead of looking for welfare. After all, he's likely to be the person touting how wonderful THE MARKET is.
We are in an environment where food is being taken from the tables of the poor, where seniors are seeing Social Security COLA's virtually eliminated, and where federal unemployment compensation has been reduced to ZERO.
This is not an environment where someone earning $100K needs help with his rent, or where landlords need FURTHER concessions from the city's taxpayers.
Yes build apartments and reward those who do, but build them for those who cannot afford THE GLORIOUS MARKET.
Calling this claptrap idea Mitchell-Lama is beyond the pale. Mitchell-Lama was NOT set up to subsidize the rents of those making nearly twice the median income. (For example, the median household income in the Bronx is near $34,000.)
Last edited by Kefir King; 02-08-2014 at 11:05 AM..
One person, yes. But their focus is only on families of 4 making that amount.
Do I assume you mean that a family of 3 or 5 need not apply?
Or have you never seen the same generalization about family income before as relates to housing?
Have you never conceived of a family with one wage earner? There must be ONE left.
See, both of us can parse the meaning out of a simple concept.
We all know what "household income" means just like we all know what a household is.
Do I assume you mean that a family of 3 or 5 need not apply?
Or have you never seen the same generalization about family income before as relates to housing?
Have you never conceived of a family with one wage earner? There must be ONE left.
See, both of us can parse the meaning out of a simple concept.
We all know what "household income" means just like we all know what a household is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HellUpInHarlem
In New York City, the housing would be aimed at families of four making $75,000 to $100,000, and monthly rents would be about $1,900 to $2,500.
Just going by what OP posted. I'm the only wage earner in my family of four. I'm proof they exist.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
A dreadful idea and a waste of resources.
Someone who makes $100,000 should be able to rent his own market rate place instead of looking for welfare. After all, he's likely to be the person touting how wonderful THE MARKET is.
We are in an environment where food is being taken from the tables of the poor, where seniors are seeing Social Security COLA's virtually eliminated, and where federal unemployment compensation has been reduced to ZERO.
This is not an environment where someone earning $100K needs help with his rent, or where landlords need FURTHER concessions from the city's taxpayers.
Yes build apartments and reward those who do, but build them for those who cannot afford THE GLORIOUS MARKET.
Calling this claptrap idea Mitchell-Lama is beyond the pale. Mitchell-Lama was NOT set up to subsidize the rents of those making nearly twice the median income. (For example, the median household income in the Bronx is near $34,000.)
Kefir, I agree with you entirely. It's insensitive for them to even ask to ask for government funds to go directly into the pockets of developers (which is all this is about).
I'm not even sure building apartments for those who can't afford the marketplace is a good idea . What if the MARKET IS FLAWED and needs a serious correction? Working people should not have to live in welfare housing.
My suggestion is to convert NYCHA on Manhattan to Mitchell-Lama. Just a thought.
First they'd need approval from the federal government. Then there's the issue of where would they put all those poor people, and what would happen to them? If Bloomberg himself could not do this, there is no way it's happening under de Blasio.
In a way, its nice that through NYCHA you do have communities of poor people who are able to live in Manhattan and be close to work or whatever other things they do or need. I'm not a big fan of saying because you're poor you need to live two hours away from WORK.
Now of course the city could buyout NYCHA residents, and let them go to wherever. That would be costly.
The state should just stay out of the housing market. The city and state have screwed it up enough already with massive overregulation.
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.
