Income levels increasing/unaffordable (New York, York: low income, sales, apartments)
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.
Is it just me or do 99% of the latest listings start their income level requirements around $60k+? Now if you’re a family of using combined income, understandable, but it seems like there’s no affordable options for single people lately. I haven’t been able to apply for anything for months. Very discouraging. Idk how I’ll ever find a place of my own here through the lottery. I make decent income, have good credit. Will probably cave and get a broker.
Is it just me or do 99% of the latest listings start their income level requirements around $60k+? Now if you’re a family of using combined income, understandable, but it seems like there’s no affordable options for single people lately. I haven’t been able to apply for anything for months. Very discouraging. Idk how I’ll ever find a place of my own here through the lottery. I make decent income, have good credit. Will probably cave and get a broker.
I also want to point out that I find the pricing ridiculous. Many times I technically meet the income requirements, but I would go broke trying to pay that "affordable" rent. It's way more than half my monthly income.
Is it just me or do 99% of the latest listings start their income level requirements around $60k+? Now if you’re a family of using combined income, understandable, but it seems like there’s no affordable options for single people lately. I haven’t been able to apply for anything for months. Very discouraging. Idk how I’ll ever find a place of my own here through the lottery. I make decent income, have good credit. Will probably cave and get a broker.
What's "decent income"? If that's the case then you can afford market rate rent which will probably give you a better deal then looking for some "affordable housing" crappola.
What's "decent income"? If that's the case then you can afford market rate rent which will probably give you a better deal then looking for some "affordable housing" crappola.
I think what shes trying to say that people who are low/middle income but still some how make enough 40- 55k range, are being left out of these affordable housing lotteries. most lotteries are 130%AMI or above or 50% AMI or less. these lotteries were to help people who were considered low income but now they are generally favoring and more available for people in higher income brackets. and when lets say you meet one of those income brackets you are still not neting enough income to make the rent "affordable" for example a 3k rent for a family of 3 that are making roughly 100k a year is not very affordable in my opinion.
I think what shes trying to say that people who are low/middle income but still some how make enough 40- 55k range, are being left out of these affordable housing lotteries. most lotteries are 130%AMI or above or 50% AMI or less. these lotteries were to help people who were considered low income but now they are generally favoring and more available for people in higher income brackets. and when lets say you meet one of those income brackets you are still not neting enough income to make the rent "affordable" for example a 3k rent for a family of 3 that are making roughly 100k a year is not very affordable in my opinion.
No, that is not correct.
Low income (homeless, domestic abuse, etc...) housing/lotteries were created for poor or persons below certain income level. Affordable housing means just that; units priced at whatever percentage deemed "affordable" by average income for local area.
Despite what many seem to believe these lottery apartments require deep subsidies. Just as with any building rent or sales per square foot must meet a certain number in order to earn profit; and make no mistake that is what building/owning rental housing is supposed to do (other than non-profit, NYCHA, etc...). Thus when numbers are crunched because low or affordable tenants pay less, market rate tenants must pay more coupled with subsidies from city or state to make numbers work.
As have repeatedly stated, what vast number of NYC residents need is low income housing because quite honest they are either poor or busted. However city is hard pressed to force private sector to create huge numbers of that sort of housing because there just isn't any money to be made.
You only have to look at NYCHA to see what happens when rents do not cover costs of maintaining/owning property.
Keep in mind initially these lotteries go by gross household income not net. NYC/NYS is a very HCL place, much of it due to taxes. Easily one-third of most persons' paycheck goes to FICA, state and local taxes. Lucky ones don't pay federal (or very little, maybe get money back), but still $80k is now down to around $53.600 per year. That is before healthcare, retirement and other deductions. That is what people have to live off. If they have debt (credit cards, student loans, etc...) number goes down further.
City is not doing itself nor LL's any favors by sticking people into these apartments who likely will face issues going forward paying rent on time. So income limits likely are "high" because after taxes and whatever applicant must be able to show adequate income to pay their rent.
Because these units fall under various rent regulations getting tenants out once approved (even for non-payment of rent) is difficult to impossible. Everyone knows this including city, thus also know if high percentage of lottery tenants cause issues developers won't buy into program.
Low income (homeless, domestic abuse, etc...) housing/lotteries were created for poor or persons below certain income level. Affordable housing means just that; units priced at whatever percentage deemed "affordable" by average income for local area.
Despite what many seem to believe these lottery apartments require deep subsidies. Just as with any building rent or sales per square foot must meet a certain number in order to earn profit; and make no mistake that is what building/owning rental housing is supposed to do (other than non-profit, NYCHA, etc...). Thus when numbers are crunched because low or affordable tenants pay less, market rate tenants must pay more coupled with subsidies from city or state to make numbers work.
As have repeatedly stated, what vast number of NYC residents need is low income housing because quite honest they are either poor or busted. However city is hard pressed to force private sector to create huge numbers of that sort of housing because there just isn't any money to be made.
You only have to look at NYCHA to see what happens when rents do not cover costs of maintaining/owning property.
Keep in mind initially these lotteries go by gross household income not net. NYC/NYS is a very HCL place, much of it due to taxes. Easily one-third of most persons' paycheck goes to FICA, state and local taxes. Lucky ones don't pay federal (or very little, maybe get money back), but still $80k is now down to around $53.600 per year. That is before healthcare, retirement and other deductions. That is what people have to live off. If they have debt (credit cards, student loans, etc...) number goes down further.
City is not doing itself nor LL's any favors by sticking people into these apartments who likely will face issues going forward paying rent on time. So income limits likely are "high" because after taxes and whatever applicant must be able to show adequate income to pay their rent.
Because these units fall under various rent regulations getting tenants out once approved (even for non-payment of rent) is difficult to impossible. Everyone knows this including city, thus also know if high percentage of lottery tenants cause issues developers won't buy into program.
Although I completely understand what you are saying. As a born and raised New Yorker, my understanding of the housing plan 2.0 was for more people who are classified as low-income to have housing and provide housing for those people since most of us are being pushed out the city due to housing cost. So excuse me if I may have used the wrong word but I was referring to low income housing. Low income housing is still expensive for low income people AND the housing 2.0 plan was to make it more available and it’s failing to do so, all you have to do is look at housing connect and see what’s available for anyone who is 100% AMI or below.
As have repeatedly stated, what vast number of NYC residents need is low income housing because quite honest they are either poor or busted. However city is hard pressed to force private sector to create huge numbers of that sort of housing because there just isn't any money to be made.
The reality is that land and labor are very expensive all over NYC. Which is why I believe that the NYC taxpayer will ultimately get stuck with paying out the subsidies required for this financially risky program.
Although I completely understand what you are saying. As a born and raised New Yorker, my understanding of the housing plan 2.0 was for more people who are classified as low-income to have housing and provide housing for those people since most of us are being pushed out the city due to housing cost. So excuse me if I may have used the wrong word but I was referring to low income housing. Low income housing is still expensive for low income people AND the housing 2.0 plan was to make it more available and it’s failing to do so, all you have to do is look at housing connect and see what’s available for anyone who is 100% AMI or below.
Understand what you are saying, and you are not alone in your observations. Simply Google the issue and you'll find plenty of people upset that BdeB's grand plans aren't producing enough truly "low income" or "affordable" apartments. Recent events where city is now going to force developers taking city funding to set aside fifteen percent (15%) of units for homeless was proof how much leverage such persons have atm.
Reality is however what it is; building anything is very expensive in NYC/NYS and this includes housing. New York and city already tax the life out of businesses and residents so there is little room (or appetite) to increase rates even more to pour more subsidies into "low income" housing.
Again you only have to look at the hot mess that is NYCHA to see what happens when buildings cannot pay for themselves.
Median household income in NYC is only $57,782. Using one-third or less monthly income towards rent that means you'll need tons of housing at rents of around $1,000-$1,400 per month. Again remember we're talking about gross income, not net. Using latter number you'd need rents < $1,000 month, for some well below.
Understand what you are saying, and you are not alone in your observations. Simply Google the issue and you'll find plenty of people upset that BdeB's grand plans aren't producing enough truly "low income" or "affordable" apartments. Recent events where city is now going to force developers taking city funding to set aside fifteen percent (15%) of units for homeless was proof how much leverage such persons have atm.
Reality is however what it is; building anything is very expensive in NYC/NYS and this includes housing. New York and city already tax the life out of businesses and residents so there is little room (or appetite) to increase rates even more to pour more subsidies into "low income" housing.
Again you only have to look at the hot mess that is NYCHA to see what happens when buildings cannot pay for themselves.
Median household income in NYC is only $57,782. Using one-third or less monthly income towards rent that means you'll need tons of housing at rents of around $1,000-$1,400 per month. Again remember we're talking about gross income, not net. Using latter number you'd need rents < $1,000 month, for some well below.
What deBlasio is trying to do is to create the monster of a NYCHA 2.0 at taxpayer expense of course.
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.
