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.
It's not that they're "poor", it's that they're not paying into common services and amenities like everyone who pays market rent is. Seriously, ask a doorman (who could also be considered "poor" by NYC standards) how he feels about his "low income" residents.
It's bad enough I have to pay taxes so someone can rent a $4200 apartment for $600, but I have to pay for their lap-pool and sauna too?
Why are they not paying into common services like everyone else?
Try working as a doorman or porter in an 80/20 building for a couple days, especially around Christmas when they get their envelopes. You'll see the kind of riff-raff that make up the 20 percent. They should be THRILLED to be living the high life on the taxpayers dime even if they have to use a different door.
For the record, the 20% will not be paying anything less than $1500 a month, so they're not exactly what you'd call "riff raff".
Why are they not paying into common services like everyone else?
IIRC access to various "services" in many luxury buildings including "80/20" is determined often by a fee on top of one's rent/common charges (if a condo or co-op). So you can be in theory paying $600 per month for a $3500 apartment, but still have to pay extra for access to the pool, gym, etc.... For some shelling out an additional one hundred or more each month is chump change, others cannot swing it and that is what often separates the "affordable" families from others.
In rental buildings you find two situations. Either one pays as above or access is covered by rent. In buildings that were formerly RS and or still have many such tenants left they are often denied access to "enhanced" services because they are not part of the original lease. Many such persons living in what are not luxury rentals or condo/co-op buildings find while they obviously can enjoy common areas such as new lobbies and elevators, everything else such as gyms, children's playrooms, etc.. are off limits even if they are willing to pay up.
Try working as a doorman or porter in an 80/20 building for a couple days, especially around Christmas when they get their envelopes. You'll see the kind of riff-raff that make up the 20 percent. They should be THRILLED to be living the high life on the taxpayers dime even if they have to use a different door.
Actually think you'll find a bulk of that "dime" comes from the market rate tenants who on average pay more for their units to offset the loss of income from the "affordable" apartments.
It's bad enough I have to pay taxes so someone can rent a $4200 apartment for $600, but I have to pay for their lap-pool and sauna too?
I have good news for you then, since your "tax dollars" weren't used to pay for the construction of the luxury buildings in this city. The developer got to create more units/build higher if they agreed to include affordable apartments so you can rest easy! The developer got something out of it.
Unless if course you are referring to the tax abatement so that the wealthy owners at One 57 got when they bought their condos. That and other tax breaks for similar buildings is costing millions in lost tax revenue.
I really don't care honestly. I'm just here for the comments of everyone agreeing with the ruling and how their "tax dollars" is "paying" for certain people to live among their rich counterparts. They make it seem like these "poor" people will be coming from the projects to move in. LOL!
I really don't care honestly. I'm just here for the comments of everyone agreeing with the ruling and how their "tax dollars" is "paying" for certain people to live among their rich counterparts. They make it seem like these "poor" people will be coming from the projects to move in. LOL!
I'm specifically referring to your "status" under your screen name...
I have good news for you then, since your "tax dollars" weren't used to pay for the construction of the luxury buildings in this city. The developer got to create more units/build higher if they agreed to include affordable apartments so you can rest easy! The developer got something out of it.
Unless if course you are referring to the tax abatement so that the wealthy owners at One 57 got when they bought their condos. That and other tax breaks for similar buildings is costing millions in lost tax revenue.
I'm guessing they paid the transfer tax and the mansion tax when they bought their condo. And unlike 80/20 tenants, we won't need to pay to educate their delinquent children.
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.
