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 do agree that social services lag in other parts of the country, and that's not ok. Other parts of the country need to follow NYC's leadership in this area. But NYCHA and Mitchell Lama for instance, safeguard against becoming a dumping ground by preventing non-New York State residents from residency in their housing. In NYCHA you get second priority, AKA you'll never get picked unless by some miracle there are no New Yorkers on the waiting list. In Mitchell Lama, you're straight up banned.
I never thought I'd say this, but I agree with you here...
And why would Eisenberg think he will fare any better?
They are buying the property at a significant discount through government intervention. They will receive over $100mm in subsidies. In 30 years when the deal with the city expires, they can sell to a developer who will rebuild it as expensive luxury buildings or sell to another owner who will demand more government subsidies to maintain the property as it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HellUpInHarlem
i was about to say, didn't we just see this a few months ago? it's a repeat of the stuy-town deal
Stuy-town was a better deal for Blackstone as they received more subsidies per unit and are in a better location.
So next time someone tells me that the difference between a low stabilized rent and the market rent is not coming out of MY pocket, I will correct them. The $100 million in tax breaks is coming out of my pocket and all other New Yorkers. It's being taken from me and you, and given to the developer who in turn subsidizes these people's rents.
I realize this is not true of every case and every building, but it seems like there are more and more examples of this coming up in the news and it's getting more prevalent.
So next time someone tells me that the difference between a low stabilized rent and the market rent is not coming out of MY pocket, I will correct them. The $100 million in tax breaks is coming out of my pocket and all other New Yorkers. It's being taken from me and you, and given to the developer who in turn subsidizes these people's rents.
I realize this is not true of every case and every building, but it seems like there are more and more examples of this coming up in the news and it's getting more prevalent.
The ridiculous part is the developer for 138th and 5th Avenue could not have gotten 4k rents any time soon.
The developer is happy to take the taxbreaks now. If that part of Harlem takes off at some point before the next 30 years they will find ways out of the agreement and de Blasio will be long gone.
They are buying the property at a significant discount through government intervention. They will receive over $100mm in subsidies. In 30 years when the deal with the city expires, they can sell to a developer who will rebuild it as expensive luxury buildings or sell to another owner who will demand more government subsidies to maintain the property as it is.
Stuy-town was a better deal for Blackstone as they received more subsidies per unit and are in a better location.
Who says they are going to wait 30 years? If the area takes off before then they'll sell then to a developer that rebuilds it as expensive luxury buildings. But in the meantime they received over 100 million for subsides for an area presently that there is no way they are getting 4k a month in rent for those units. Honestly the city was played for a fool by this deal.
And why would Eisenberg think he will fare any better?
Eisenberg only paid 125m for the complex, so he isn't as over leveraged compared to previous owners.
Next Eisenberg already knows what happened with STPCV in terms of getting rid of RS tenants/raising rents and that celebrated court case. So they have obviously planned out how fast and far rents will rise in future.
To that end deal with City gives new owners considerable breathing room financial/tax wise so they can manage said debt and realize gains even with the agreed 40m of improvements mandated.
Deal expires in 2046 (30 years), by that time most all current residents except the very youngest will likely be dead and if things go as planned that part of East Harlem will be a totally different area. Already if you read Yelp reviews the tenancy of RH is varied and includes white couples (gay and straight) along with white singles (gay and straight).
As pointed out elsewhere in this thread RS does not automatically mean "affordable". Many of the renovated units are going for >$1500 per month (one bedroom) putting them well out of reach of many local area residents. Once de Boob and his loony rent board are gone and annual increases again flow over thirty years many of even the non-renovated RS apartments will be "expensive".
Smart persons in real estate play for the long haul. Thirty years is nothing; if Eisenberg is dead the guy has heirs (children, grand-children) who will see the thing out.
So next time someone tells me that the difference between a low stabilized rent and the market rent is not coming out of MY pocket, I will correct them. The $100 million in tax breaks is coming out of my pocket and all other New Yorkers. It's being taken from me and you, and given to the developer who in turn subsidizes these people's rents.
I realize this is not true of every case and every building, but it seems like there are more and more examples of this coming up in the news and it's getting more prevalent.
Not really it's just not coming out of the developers pocket. They are getting a tax break not a subsidy. It doesn't mean you'll pay any more taxes. Not that I agree with this particular tax break. $1800 1br is about as cheap as lobster and caviar.
Not really it's just not coming out of the developers pocket. They are getting a tax break not a subsidy. It doesn't mean you'll pay any more taxes. Not that I agree with this particular tax break. $1800 1br is about as cheap as lobster and caviar.
You can kid yourself like that if you want. But if the developer would normally be paying taxes to the city and now he's not because the city allowed him not to, then guess what, the city has that many millions less in their budget ... and how do you think they're going to make up for that? It DOES come out of our pockets, even if you think it doesn't.
You can kid yourself like that if you want. But if the developer would normally be paying taxes to the city and now he's not because the city allowed him not to, then guess what, the city has that many millions less in their budget ... and how do you think they're going to make up for that? It DOES come out of our pockets, even if you think it doesn't.
For de Boob and CC none of that really matters. It is all a numbers game. Adding 975 to the list of "affordable housing" preserved or created gives another notch to that belt and looks good come re-election time and or for legacy purposes. In thirty or whatever years after all these schemes expire de Boob and the current CC will long be out of office if not dead. It will be left to whoever is mayor in 2050 or whatever to sort out.
It is the same as with Mitchell-Lama; everyone patted themselves on the back for creating "affordable middle-class housing" that was supposed to be *forever*. Well that changed soon as the real estate landscape of the City did; which is how Riverton Houses ended up in this mess.
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.
