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.
NYCHA is govt. owned housing, where the eligibility is based on federal rules. It's "the projects". Usually large complexes of highrise housing. Also, the eligibility rules favor the poor.
The stuff being built in Westchester is very different. It's private housing subject to income requirements. It's generally referred to as workforce housing. The developer builds the income-restricted housing because there are certain valuable tax credits that come along with the construction.
You aren't going to get "the poors" in these complexes anyways. You will get middle income workers. "Normal" familes who have regular jobs. No, it won't be investment bankers, but this is private housing and the developers obviously are very careful who they're renting to. It won't result in any issues in someplace like Chappaqua; no one is going to be harmed if a few nurses and civil servants can live in Chappaqua.
It is much more than "tax credits". When a developer undertakes the risks of building a large housing development (apt/condo/coop), he put's together a financial model. The model must make sense, aka it must make a profit befitting the risk level or there is no reason on earth to take the risk to build the development. In the case of putting up units that are not market rate rent the difference must be made up somewhere. And it is not only tax credits.
If I'm a developer and I could build a 50 unit building and sell the units for market price to achieve my ROI, why on earth would I go and build a 50 unit building that gives me below market price? Charity? The incentive for me to do so must be greater than a tax break. Or the tax break must be so large as to make up the difference in ROIs between the two projects. So let's see, who is really paying for the "affordable" housing? The developer is off the hook via govt sweeteners (taxpayers). The apartment is below market rent with income qualifiers. Your "nurse" better not marry someone with a good job or she will be out of the apartment bc "too much income". And the perverse incentives are just beginning.
Clearly the govt has never nor will ever be able to engineer society in a way that defeats the laws of supply and demand.
This is not "government housing" for the poorest of the poor. So the opposition to it seems very racist and elitist indeed.
Ahhh there it is. Anyone opposed to anything and argues on merit must be "racist and elitist" The ultimate straw man argument to suppress any and all debate and scare away the opposition out of fear of being labeled. My stance is based on the economics and clear poor outcomes of the giant "affordable housing" social experiment that has failed so spectacularly in the most wealthy city on earth. Quite the opposite of racist/elitist, it is also clear that these programs do more harm than help and the statistics bear it out.
Your now arguing "DEGREE" of affordability specifically regarding the one example you put forth, not whether or not the units make economic sense or not to begin with. Clearly they don't or they wouldn't have been built in the first place without the subsidies. So let me ask the next in a series of logical questions. A family of four is in the 3 bedroom apartment at $60k income. Mommy or Daddy has the opportunity to get a position which would push the family to $70k income. Take the job and lose the apartment? These are only the beginning of the perverse incentives.
Where did anyone say anything about race? WTF
Elitist could perhaps be inferred to some measure, but racist? C'mon.
There's a good, civil discussion going here regarding a relevant topic here, and you throw out racism. Absurd.
Basically the opposition is a bunch of entitled jerks who think they are too good to live next to "regular people" making 60k a year. And they're scared some of these "regular people" might be of a different ethnic background.
Their thought process is "I'm paying 25k in property taxes to live in Chappaqua, my mortgage is killing me, why should someone poorer and less worthy live here and ruin my perceived exclusive social status that I worked so hard to attain". It's nonsense, but I guarantee that's what they're thinking.
And the funny thing is that the most expensive neighborhoods in Westchester are already close to low-income areas, so these NIMBYs are clueless. It isn't going to hurt their perceived exclusivity.
The priciest/most desirable areas of Westchester are all in Southern Westchester, in Bronxville, Rye and the like. These are the areas where you get the least for your money. They're also all areas where the super affluent live within walking distance of working class areas, yet there doesn't seem to be a problem. It's a very easy stroll from Bronxville to Mt. Vernon or from Rye to Port Chester. Somewhere like Chappaqua or Bedford is dirt cheap compared to Bronxville.
So if Bronxville isn't harmed by being next to working class areas, if Manhattan isn't harmed by having gigantic housing projects everywhere, then can anyone reasonably say that Northern Westchester will be harmed by a few apartment complexes for middle income earners? Of course not. It won't have any effect.
Basically the opposition is a bunch of entitled jerks who think they are too good to live next to "regular people" making 60k a year. And they're scared some of these "regular people" might be of a different ethnic background.
Their thought process is "I'm paying 25k in property taxes to live in Chappaqua, my mortgage is killing me, why should someone poorer and less worthy live here and ruin my perceived exclusive social status that I worked so hard to attain". It's nonsense, but I guarantee that's what they're thinking.
And the funny thing is that the most expensive neighborhoods in Westchester are already close to low-income areas, so these NIMBYs are clueless. It isn't going to hurt their perceived exclusivity.
The priciest/most desirable areas of Westchester are all in Southern Westchester, in Bronxville, Rye and the like. These are the areas where you get the least for your money. They're also all areas where the super affluent live within walking distance of working class areas, yet there doesn't seem to be a problem. It's a very easy stroll from Bronxville to Mt. Vernon or from Rye to Port Chester. Somewhere like Chappaqua or Bedford is dirt cheap compared to Bronxville.
So if Bronxville isn't harmed by being next to working class areas, if Manhattan isn't harmed by having gigantic housing projects everywhere, then can anyone reasonably say that Northern Westchester will be harmed by a few apartment complexes for middle income earners? Of course not. It won't have any effect.
You mean self-entitled. (Which is effectively the opposite of entitled).
Basically the opposition is a bunch of entitled jerks who think they are too good to live next to "regular people" making 60k a year. And they're scared some of these "regular people" might be of a different ethnic background.
Their thought process is "I'm paying 25k in property taxes to live in Chappaqua, my mortgage is killing me, why should someone poorer and less worthy live here and ruin my perceived exclusive social status that I worked so hard to attain". It's nonsense, but I guarantee that's what they're thinking.
And the funny thing is that the most expensive neighborhoods in Westchester are already close to low-income areas, so these NIMBYs are clueless. It isn't going to hurt their perceived exclusivity.
The priciest/most desirable areas of Westchester are all in Southern Westchester, in Bronxville, Rye and the like. These are the areas where you get the least for your money. They're also all areas where the super affluent live within walking distance of working class areas, yet there doesn't seem to be a problem. It's a very easy stroll from Bronxville to Mt. Vernon or from Rye to Port Chester. Somewhere like Chappaqua or Bedford is dirt cheap compared to Bronxville.
So if Bronxville isn't harmed by being next to working class areas, if Manhattan isn't harmed by having gigantic housing projects everywhere, then can anyone reasonably say that Northern Westchester will be harmed by a few apartment complexes for middle income earners? Of course not. It won't have any effect.
Here we go with the name calling again. You can't be opposed on economic reasons and the clear outcomes of the programs over the last 40 years, you must be an "entitled jerk" or a racist or both.
Your logic is mind boggling. You keep equating high cost of living of housing in close proximity to projects and saying it isn't hurting values. Bronxville is "next to" working class areas. But the projects are not IN Bronxville. The reason lower Westchester house prices are high is because it is close to NYC where most people work and people value proximity to work and a giant city. The reason "working class" areas are also close is the same....proximity to jobs. But guess what, there are working class areas that have sprouted up all over the 5 boroughs WITHOUT the help of subsidies and government social engineering. Thats beautiful. We are now specifically talking about central planning of who lives where by decree and forcing the law of supply/demand out of wack bc no developer would build said projects without the taxpayer footing the bill.
So if we take your logic to its next step, then if we put a giant housing project smack dab in the middle of Bronxville the housing values directly in front and behind it WILL SUFFER there is absolutely no doubt about that. People care about their housing values. That doesn't make them elitist or racist. That makes them human. Pointing to Manhattan all you want doesn't change that especially since the NYCHA program in the city is a proven failure on any metric available. I haven't seen a single response from you other than name calling to counter the factual data presented that shows the utter failure of NYCHA's housing programs.
NOLA is taking groups of unrelated facts and tying them together in order to prove some kind of bigger point. The fact is that each market is completely different and you can't compare one to the other. As others mentioned there are a lot of factors that go into housing prices and desirability. You cannot take something that works in Manhattan and use that as proof that it would work in Chappaqua or Bronxville, or anywhere else.
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.
