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.
Yes, exactly bmwguydc. Perhaps Das - are you speaking of how the complexes originated back in the late thirties? They were planned communities built by Met Life as a way to provide affordable housing for NYers. Not sure how much, if any, money or support was given by the Government.
Yes, exactly bmwguydc. Perhaps Das - are you speaking of how the complexes originated back in the late thirties? They were planned communities built by Met Life as a way to provide affordable housing for NYers. Not sure how much, if any, money or support was given by the Government.
Tax abatements were given for urban renewal. Stuyvesant Town got 25 years. Then, to ease the blow on renters, taxes were phased in over 10 years instead of in one fell swoop.
Thanks saturnfan. There is currently a tax-abatement in place (after the $250 million renovation several years ago), but as that happens in many developments, I'm not sure I would consider that a government subsidy in the normally used sense of the word.
Thanks saturnfan. There is currently a tax-abatement in place (after the $250 million renovation several years ago), but as that happens in many developments, I'm not sure I would consider that a government subsidy in the normally used sense of the word.
I agree with you, since when one mentions government programs, it's more of an expenditure, not a deferral or reduction of tax revenue. If they hadn't done that, the maintenance fees likely would have been prohibitive for the middle class workers.
In fact, one might argue that in the absence of deferrals, the newly refurbished properties would have assessments jump so significantly that it would be prohibitive for current residents to be able to afford the increases in maintenance due to the taxes, which might destabilize the decent neighborhoods that are trying to be preserved and upgraded.
Thank you bmwguydc, nycwoman, and saturnfan for the information. When the subject of government intervention came up, the type of intervention wasn't brought up, just generalized.
Tax abatements would fall under this catagory, we were not referring to subsidy or programs. I think there is a difference. I am not a tenant but I knew something was in place to keep the area affordable for the middle class.
Is a resident allowed to sell the apt for what the market can bear? Or is there some type of limit? I have noticed over the years that the apts stay within a certain price range.
Absolutely, I could sell my apartment tomorrow for market rate. There is absolutely no restriction on that. In fact, the only restriction that the management could place on the sale of a condo would be if a seller tried to sell too LOW. Again, these are condos just like condos anywhere else. The prices have actually been steadily rising (not wildly so, but steadily), which is great as a long term investment.
And remember, corporations and multi-million dollar developments also get tax abatements all the time to spur investment...
Desi I was reading your above comment and I think the kinds of regulations you are talking about hurts people and communities more than it helps. Once people are in their apts they should have a "lock" on rent so that it is not unbearable for families? Hmm...how about the flip side then....I think the city should "lock" my expenses as a Landlord once I buy a building, so things like heating oil and heating gas, electricity, taxes, repairs, maintenance, and all the other costs associated with owning a building and supplying tenants with a home is not "unbearable" to me. Do you think that would fly? Nope....but based on your argument we should subsidize Tenants so their lifestyle is not inconvenienced, but stick it to the LLs and the city for that matter? We must shoulder all of the burden and expense so that RENTERS are comfortable? Secondly, families should have preference in their neighborhoods over "outsiders?" I think this is a very bad policy and only promotes segregation and isolation. What if your policies were instituted in the 50s and 60s? White neighborhoods would never have "allowed" anyone else to move in....the families would never have moved b/c they would have "locked" rent....and any apts that did open up would go first to those already in the community..again locking out anyone else from entering. How is this good or healthy for a community? Thirdly, comparing something that works in Sweden is pointless, as our population and society is 1,000% different. That is like trying to pickup democracy and drop it into a place like, hmm..Iraq...and thinking it would work just the same. It works over here after all! Fourthly, the free market does not have any interest in ANYTHING besides making money, and that includes declining values as well as increasing values, b/c you can make mone on both ends. So there is not natural inclination in the free market to increase the value of anything, it is only to make money, and that can happen whatever way the mrket moves. But yes the free market treats housing as a commodity, and it is different from other commodities as it is a need. And NYC has plenty of regulations and protections for Tenants, so adding more is ludicrous. I also agree that many people cannot afford market rates, but the fact is most people do not pay market rates to live in NYC b/c of all the regulations/manipulation by the city. There is a strong affordable housing initiative that is changing the entire landscape of our city (primarily in the boroughs) and will provide a healthy resource for working/middle income families. I am happy to see it and acknowledge the value/necessity. As for gentrification itself, it is basically alot of hype. What is really happening in the city is a revitalization of areas that were formerly off -limits due to sever crime and horrendous reputations. As a result of the recent investment in these communities, and the sharp drop in crime (and continued decreasing crime in most to this day), the neighborhoods are stable and growing and are now appealing to a wider group of people, instead of just the destitute. This increased interest is in fact GOOD for the community, as most were so isolated and segregated the neighborhoods and people suffered greatly. With new people coming in, there are new faces, ideas, more diversity, amenities, services, investment, etc that are helping the community grow W/O displacing residents in the VAST majority of cases. There is alot of gentrification hype, and it has become a buzz word that people throw around to get attention, and to push their agenda, when the reality is gentrification is not happening, it is really a revitalization of communities, with the locals staying put for the most part.
I live in the South Bronx too, and I love it. It has its trouble but it feels like a community, many people in my building have been here for 30 years, even generations, through the booming 50's to the arson of the 70's to crime ridden 80's and early 90's till now.
I have seen SO many family owned businesses pushed out in the last 5 years because they can't afford the new lease, and what do we get in return? Chain stores. Yes I admit I may shop at them too, but ultimately I feel sorry for those folks who were pushed out and have been here for years. I have also seen many folks pushed here from uptown manhattan because they can't afford their new leases. When I was in school in Washington Heights, families were constantly being torn apart as the markets forced them to abandon their neighborhood and move to the Bronx. Even we had to move because of rent. In fact by graduation, almost all of us lived in the Bronx and still went to school in Manhattan. Families were torn, and neighborhoods were torn apart and disrupted, while big apartment were split up in to tiny "closet spaces" everytime someone moved from our building. And then.... We were next, gone from OUR neighborhood.
I completely agree, no one should be locked out of a neighborhood, that t would have been disastrous, however, locking newcomers out is different from giving preference to those who are here, and like it or not it all comes to mathematics
Say in 2000 your street has 50 apartments, and in 2008 your street only has the same 50 apartments, but in those 8 years 10 "newcomers" moved in. Thats nice and all, but if they moved in only to kick 10 "oldtimers" and their families out, then I am against it. If no one leaves, THEN newcomers should be locked out, because it is harder on someone to be kicked out than it is for someone to move in. If a family chooses to leave then fine.
Now, if your street has 50 brand new apartments in those 8 years then by all means move in. there will be a 50 apartment surplus and they wont simply stay empty
The issue isn't "locking people out", the issue is NOT "kicking people out who want to stay", And If mathematics says that: 1) There are no extra apartments, and 2) No one wants to leave their apartments and are paying a fair rent, then mathematics will say 3) No newcomers can come in, because there simply are no vacant apartments
But for anyone who doesn't like it, mathematics also has a solution 1) Build more apartments so that newcomers can move in.
I guess we just agree to disagree. Kicking people out is never an option if they are paying fair rent
None of my ideas are radical. In fact every single one of them is already practiced on a small scale and I personally think it has worked. In fact all I see is the less that these ideas are used in modern times, our housing crisis seems to get worse. Deregulation is making the problem bigger before our eyes.
Housing preferences is a very old practice, nothing new at all. Neither is rent control.
As for the landlords, the New York City Rent Guidelines Board does a very effective job at keeping rents low for tenants and balancing the needs and costs of landlords. NYC Rent Guidelines Board Locking rents into an affordable range is NOT hurting landlords at all, it just prevents price gouging. The market can't stop gouging, only regulation can.
Thank you bmwguydc, nycwoman, and saturnfan for the information. When the subject of government intervention came up, the type of intervention wasn't brought up, just generalized.
Tax abatements would fall under this catagory, we were not referring to subsidy or programs. I think there is a difference. I am not a tenant but I knew something was in place to keep the area affordable for the middle class.
Is a resident allowed to sell the apt for what the market can bear? Or is there some type of limit? I have noticed over the years that the apts stay within a certain price range.
Definitely, I can see your point as to classifying the abatement program as a government program, since it was a component of the incentive to move the condominium conversions forward with renewed spaces. And, they are quite common as NYCwoman pointed out, which can be a very good policy for spurring development and redevelopment, since maintaining a population of working people paying payroll taxes and consumption taxes is always a good policy, even if it means offsetting property taxes to do it.
Parchester is at market rates, it's not limited equity co-op or Mitchell-Lama, and it's a converted rental complex. It had some rough years after it was purchased and allowed to decline, before it reorganized into two condominium complexes. It's affordable because it's on the upswing, and the rental units were sold to investors, not government-sponsorship.
I don't know how it is now in 2008, But it WAS government subsidized when I applied there back in 2003. I know because the only reason I went there was the newspaper ads for parkchester that made reference to the subsidized rent and income restrictions. The place was absolutely huge, but it was definitely not market value or I would not have applied there.
I don't know how it is now in 2008, But it WAS government subsidized when I applied there back in 2003. I know because the only reason I went there was the newspaper ads for parkchester that made reference to the subsidized rent and income restrictions. The place was absolutely huge, but it was definitely not market value or I would not have applied there.
I did not know that. I wonder which complex it was, since there are two condo boards. I know some were sold off as rental units to investors when the buildings converted, and perhaps they did have some arrangement to keep them affordable.
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.
