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.
"As with the former 421-a program, the program will cost the city and its taxpayers billions of dollars in uncollected taxes. The previous 421-a program is costing New York City about $1.4 billion a year in foregone property tax revenue, said Doug Turetsky, chief of staff of the city’s Independent Budget Office."
"He said an analysis showed that a similar 35-year tax-abatement program would cost an addition $5.6 billion to $7.1 billion over the next decade. It would also produce between about 10,000 and 15,800 affordable apartments at a cost of up to $568,000 per apartment in lost tax revenue."
I am disappointed that this program is making a comeback. The state cannot resist intervening into the housing market.
^
For buildings that got 421a exemptions, the question becomes, would they have gotten built without the exemptions, and if they did now would they be different> In some areas of the city, it just wouldn't have been worth building without the exemption. And in the areas that it would be, the builder has to add affordable units to qualify. So If there was no program, there would have been no/less affordable units built.
So the question is not how much it cost the city in lost taxes, because it likely wouldn't have has as much gross tax revenue (what taxes would be on the currently build properties without the exemption.) Also, what is the value affordable units built under the program.
But I tend to agree with you. Leave the program expired, and let the builders build what they would at the current tax rates. Just realize that very little to no low income housing will get built, which to my mind, is an advantage. We shouldn't be building housing to keep people here who otherwise can't afford to live here.
Eh, this city is already overtaxed (see the other ongoing thread). Anything that will lessen the tax for someone, anyone is better than not having it.
If the city gets more tax money, they'd just waste it anyway. Better to let some people keep more of their own money and who will do more with it than the city would.
The program isn't back as yet. I can see many Democrats opposing this in the State's legislature.
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.
