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* Am thinking you have humble and *ghetto* confused. Am here to tell you they are not one and the same.
One cannot think that you don't enjoy seeing poor people pushed out, given your need to focus on it incessantly and speculate.
I've personally known people evicted, and there are renovations and new construction in many neighborhoods considered bad. I personally know people who moved to the MidWest, Florida, etc. This displacement is a fact of life in NYC, and anyone who doesn't want to discuss it is merely putting their head in the sand.
They should be converted to ML-style developments. One of the main drivers of racial wealth gap is the lack of home ownership. These new affordable housing developments are actually going to cause greater income inequality because they do not provide a pathway to ownership. If more low-income/working class NYers owned their homes there wouldn't be as much displacement nor would displacement be as deter mental since it'd represent an income flow from rich to poor. While people treat gentrification as this great moral evil, the truth is many low-income individuals profited in other cities from their properties being more valuable. NYers miss out because so many rent.
True, the excessive percentage of renters leaves things wide open to displacement.
I've personally known people evicted, and there are renovations and new construction in many neighborhoods considered bad. I personally know people who moved to the MidWest, Florida, etc. This displacement is a fact of life in NYC, and anyone who doesn't want to discuss it is merely putting their head in the sand.
They should be converted to ML-style developments. One of the main drivers of racial wealth gap is the lack of home ownership. These new affordable housing developments are actually going to cause greater income inequality because they do not provide a pathway to ownership. If more low-income/working class NYers owned their homes there wouldn't be as much displacement nor would displacement be as deter mental since it'd represent an income flow from rich to poor. While people treat gentrification as this great moral evil, the truth is many low-income individuals profited in other cities from their properties being more valuable. NYers miss out because so many rent.
Public housing cooperatives are great but in reality don't function to differently than mainstream public housing
Tenants cannot afford Mitchell-lama equity purchase. For instance my ML unit cost $15,000, but I have a decent job. Many public housing residents can't save that much or get a line of credit for that.
It would have to be structured more like HFDC buildings were where the city sold the units for $250 a piece to low-income tenants in abandoned buildings.
Another thing is cooperatives rely on cooperators paying all maintenance costs while cutting out the landlord which is what keeps monthly payments low. Again low-income public housing residents cannot hold up the costs of the project like ML residents can (who make a bit more)
Another thing is the units need to remain frozen-equity to ensure that they are not just sold for gigantic profit and remain as affordable housing in perpetuity
The only thing that this model offers is the democratic control, the board elections and committee membership. This ownership would be helpful for residents who feel like wards of the state
Public housing cooperatives are great but in reality don't function to differently than mainstream public housing
Tenants cannot afford Mitchell-lama equity purchase. For instance my ML unit cost $15,000, but I have a decent job. Many public housing residents can't save that much or get a line of credit for that.
It would have to be structured more like HFDC buildings were where the city sold the units for $250 a piece to low-income tenants in abandoned buildings.
Another thing is cooperatives rely on cooperators paying all maintenance costs while cutting out the landlord which is what keeps monthly payments low. Again low-income public housing residents cannot hold up the costs of the project like ML residents can (who make a bit more)
These issues can be resolved by public financing and mixing low/working/middle incomes in developments. I like the HFDC idea, as well as the city offering to buy out landlords in low-income neighborhoods to give buildings over to tenant cooperatives.
Quote:
Another thing is the units need to remain frozen-equity to ensure that they are not just sold for gigantic profit and remain as affordable housing in perpetuity
I very strongly disagree. This solidifies the racial and class wealth gap. If people of color continue to be steered into housing agreements that remove the promise of equity-building you're in effect ensuring an enduring pattern of Black/Latino household wealth lagging behind White/Asian. A working class family of color selling their co-op for profit might mean sending their first kid off to college, buying a house in a good school district, or investing in a business venture/secure retirement.
The main inequality in America is not income, it's assets. This is what truly separates the haves from the have nots.
Quote:
The only thing that this model offers is the democratic control, the board elections and committee membership. This ownership would be helpful for residents who feel like wards of the state
Agreed. if people feel vested in their communities they're more likely to take better care of it.
These issues can be resolved by public financing and mixing low/working/middle incomes in developments. I like the HFDC idea, as well as the city offering to buy out landlords in low-income neighborhoods to give buildings over to tenant cooperatives.
This worked when people were fleeing the city, but now with the real estate market so hot this doesn't work as well, but yes I agree if the city bought out buildings to turn to tenant co-ops or expropriated buildings from slumlords who have serious violations
Quote:
I very strongly disagree. This solidifies the racial and class wealth gap. If people of color continue to be steered into housing agreements that remove the promise of equity-building you're in effect ensuring an enduring pattern of Black/Latino household wealth lagging behind White/Asian. A working class family of color selling their co-op for profit might mean sending their first kid off to college, buying a house in a good school district, or investing in a business venture/secure retirement.
The main inequality in America is not income, it's assets. This is what truly separates the haves from the have nots.
People's homes are not assets if people know they can make windfall profits they'll sell and end up back in substandard housing. It won't create affordable housing stock meaning there will be a shortage. Very few people will access this type of affordable housing because it has a one time use. With ML sand public housing tons of families will pass through units
The question we should be asking is why is the city picking winners and losers? Housing is the single biggest expense in this city. Why is the city choosing to help some but not all? In cases like this, it's either all or none. Either the city chooses to correct the housing imbalance and create conditions for affordable housing for ALL city residents or it stays out of the housing market entirely.
What makes a "low income" household any more deserving of a home than a middle income household?
DeBlasio is a buffoon, but he's going to get re-elected since there is no strong opposition candidate. He is a such an embarrassment to NYC, and anyone with an IQ above room temperature.
The question we should be asking is why is the city picking winners and losers? Housing is the single biggest expense in this city. Why is the city choosing to help some but not all? In cases like this, it's either all or none. Either the city chooses to correct the housing imbalance and create conditions for affordable housing for ALL city residents or it stays out of the housing market entirely.
What makes a "low income" household any more deserving of a home than a middle income household?
It's even worse than what you said. To apply for a particularly low income apartment, one may need to make between $19,000 and $25,000 a year. If one makes a few dollars above or below, one could be denied.
There are affordable housing units for middle income people, including affordable co-ops. But the problem is the same. An unit aimed at people making between say 70k-80k would deny people making slightly above it and slightly below it. So this is definitely creating winners in losers. Due to the tight income restrictions most low income people can't qualify, and most middle income people can't qualify either. Those apartments have preferences for people who work for the city, who live in certain community boards, who are disabled, etc. A lot of legal discrimination going on.
This worked when people were fleeing the city, but now with the real estate market so hot this doesn't work as well, but yes I agree if the city bought out buildings to turn to tenant co-ops or expropriated buildings from slumlords who have serious violations
It would be financed by windfall profits from developers being allowed to build to their hearts content in Manhattan below 96st/LIC/Williamsburg/DT BK
Quote:
People's homes are not assets
Anything you own outright is an asset. Middle class suburban families use home equity to send kids to college, pad their retirement or just outright spend. One of the main pillars of economic inequality along racial and class lines is the extent to which a) the rate at which people own versus rent plus b) home values in white neighborhoods versus neighborhoods of color
Quote:
if people know they can make windfall profits they'll sell and end up back in substandard housing.
I'm not trying to be rude but this makes no sense. With more outreach to communities on financial planning, more low-income/working class people can make informed choices wither to sell or stay. If people genuinely feel they can better their situation by selling, then they should have every right to.
Quote:
It won't create affordable housing stock meaning there will be a shortage.
It'll aliveate poverty, which is the main reason affordable housing is an issue in the first place.
Quote:
With ML sand public housing tons of families will pass through units
This has never been the case. Let's face it, people wanna live in NYC, and too often people hold onto subsidized housing even to the point of turning down opportunities to advance themselves because of that. For every supportive housing unit/project apartment you build their will be a family/person coming in from somewhere else in America if not the world who'll see their opportunity to live cheap in the greatest city in the world while you as a born and bred NYer will sit and watch your friends and neighbors continue to struggle. There will nevernot be an affordable housing "crisis" unless the city turns to garbage ala 70s/80s. As long as NYC remains what it is today, people will want to come here and will take full advantage of any "affordable housing" that gets built.
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.
