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 agree with Shady. Penn South is affordable largely because of tax breaks that the City of New York gives it (and maybe New York State also, I don't know). That means all of us are paying indirectly to keep these apartments reasonably priced. Why should we be shelling out for people who could in theory have unlimited assets? Seems to me there should be an asset cap, as there is for the lottery units on NYC Housing Connect.
Last edited by macnyc2003; 04-06-2021 at 09:48 AM..
I personally feel if you can afford to just buy a house because the wait is too long and then also purchase in PS, you have no business needing affordable housing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macnyc2003
I agree with Shady. Penn South is affordable largely because of tax breaks that the City of New York gives it (and maybe New York State also, I don't know). That means all of us are paying indirectly to keep these apartments lower priced. Why should we be shelling out for people who could in theory have unlimited assets? Seems to me there should be an asset cap, as there is for the lottery units on NYC Housing Connect.
I agree. If you can afford to buy before even living there then Penn South shouldn't be for you.
I disagree. If someone is able to buy a co-op, for example, and build equity, that is better than throwing money away on rent. You don’t have to be a millionaire to do this, and you can sell it to buy into Penn South when the time comes.
But the person said they want to keep it. If you can afford to save up to buy one house and then another (PS) you have no business taking affordable housing from someone who needs it. Yes, the "rules" allow it, but the rules should be changed.
But the person said they want to keep it. If you can afford to save up to buy one house and then another (PS) you have no business taking affordable housing from someone who needs it. Yes, the "rules" allow it, but the rules should be changed.
Not only keep it but rent it out
So you need affordable housing yet you own another place that your turned into a business to make money from.
I have no problem with people purchasing after getting into a Mitchell Lama or Penn South. But before?! You obviously can afford housing... why are you on the list?
I have no problem with people purchasing after getting into a Mitchell Lama or Penn South. But before?! You obviously can afford housing... why are you on the list?
Doubtful I live next door to an available 1BR and only two parties (a lovely older couple and a off-putting individual) have come to see it.
There were some apartments on my list that had people still living in them and they said that they'd had dozens come look. One of them wouldn't show.
The way it's scheduled is that only two people can come look a day, due to the four hour blocks. And theoretically people could opt not to view every apartment, or not have time to. I barely made it through them all, especially with some of the codes not working.
I thought there was an asset limit - and there should be. The upper income limit is quite high, because it helps low- and "moderate-" income people and families. I agree that those who can afford properties at market rates, do not need subsidized housing.
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.
