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.
As a desperate lottery participant, I have spent lately some significant time researching market-rate apartments. The observation I have to share is that anything advertised for 130%+ population is priced the same if not more than the market. Same building. This affordability does make sense though for those in lower AMIs (as myself).
Now, I understand the market trend of now and all, but NYC has the entire _agency_ to deal with affordable rates (to note, total HPD staff is 3,000 ppl), then they employ hundreds of marketing agents, then they might employ Department of Investigation to investigate for Goodness sake, and all this for what? I think, we all noticed since the new portal started how few below-130% projects there are. And of course, the same was true before. How many lottery participants did they effectively serve in 2020, meaning those AMIs for whom it does make a difference, was it 3,000?
I guess I just came to realization how serious city government does take themselves and how awfully ineffective they are in what they proclaim. Wait, nobody in the room surprised?
Last edited by showbiz2002; 12-13-2020 at 08:56 PM..
As a desperate lottery participant, I have spent lately some significant time researching market-rate apartments. The observation I have to share is that anything advertised for 130%+ population is priced the same if not more than the market. Same building. This affordability does make sense though for those in lower AMIs (as myself).
Now, I understand the market trend of now and all, but NYC has the entire _agency_ to deal with affordable rates (to note, total HPD staff is 3,000 ppl), then they employ hundreds of marketing agents, then they might employ Department of Investigation to investigate for Goodness sake, and all this for what? I think, we all noticed since the new portal started how few below-130% projects there are. And of course, the same was true before. How many lottery participants did they effectively serve in 2020, meaning those AMIs for whom it does make a difference, was it 3,000?
I guess I just came to realization how serious city government does take themselves and how awfully ineffective they are in what they proclaim. Wait, nobody in the room surprised?
I'm not surprised. New York politicians need to make money from property taxes - they're the most expensive besides New Jersey and San Francisco- in the nation. Therefore, some property owners cannot afford to take in less rent than 130 AMI.
I'm not surprised. New York politicians need to make money from property taxes - they're the most expensive besides New Jersey and San Francisco- in the nation. Therefore, some property owners cannot afford to take in less rent than 130 AMI.
Renters make up nearly 60% of NYC housing, and of that number a majority are rent controlled, rent stabilized, NYCHA, voucher or other sorts of subsidized housing. Those tenants are protected to some extent from true costs (including LL's property taxes) because rents are set elsewhere.
NYC taxes rental properties (other than in two-three family homes) at commercial rates, which means landlords pay plenty. In fact rental properties pay more in taxes than single -three family homeowners who pay the least amount of property taxes in city. But again rent regulated and such units have rates set by city or federal government. So even if a LL is getting hit with huge taxes they cannot pass along whole costs to tenants unless they happen to be free market units.
New construction or substantially gut renovated rental housing just always costs more, and the former is often taxed accordingly. That is why city and state have to come up with various schemes to lower effective tax rates. Otherwise no one would build rental housing, at least not for the low to middle end of market.
These rants about rents for "affordable units" being too high are just that; city knows in advance what rents will be and gives their tacit approval before things hit those lotteries.
At end of day things are what they are; city does not own enough land (nor can afford to buy at current rates), to build new cheap rental housing in numbers needed. So it puts the screws to developers to do so; but even there city can only go but so far because costs per square foot for building and renting are what they are; period end of discussion.
Have said from the get go; what most NYC residents seeking rental housing need is *LOW INCOME* housing. They don't want to admit it to themselves but they aren't middle class but working to poor.
As a desperate lottery participant, I have spent lately some significant time researching market-rate apartments. The observation I have to share is that anything advertised for 130%+ population is priced the same if not more than the market. Same building. This affordability does make sense though for those in lower AMIs (as myself).
Now, I understand the market trend of now and all, but NYC has the entire _agency_ to deal with affordable rates (to note, total HPD staff is 3,000 ppl), then they employ hundreds of marketing agents, then they might employ Department of Investigation to investigate for Goodness sake, and all this for what? I think, we all noticed since the new portal started how few below-130% projects there are. And of course, the same was true before. How many lottery participants did they effectively serve in 2020, meaning those AMIs for whom it does make a difference, was it 3,000?
I guess I just came to realization how serious city government does take themselves and how awfully ineffective they are in what they proclaim. Wait, nobody in the room surprised?
in my opinion 130% is good for low middle income affordable for new building. the 165% range is market rate. i think they should go by % of income instead of range. some range fall between 130% and 165% which doesn't make sense. anything below 130% is considered low. i'm not sure why they even have 165% range it looks like regular market rate to me no discount.
The 165% is basically market rate, except that the units are rent-stabilized, and that means you're not looking at possible astronomical increases in years ahead. That's extra handy if you're looking to stay for a while.
Last edited by macnyc2003; 12-29-2020 at 10:04 AM..
Yes, rent-stabilized means that the rent goes up each year by an amount determined by a panel of real estate owners and members of the public.
Lately it has gone up 1% or 2% or even zero, but in years past it has been higher. It depends on inflation and the cost of fuel and other factors.
Rent stabilization also provides other important benefits, such as the right to a lease renewal. In other words, the landlord can't just say, "You're outta here." And landlords aren't allowed to reduce services without lowering rent. They can't just take away doorman service, for example.
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.
