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 would never understand how someone making 70k and up a year needs affordable housing. I get very upset seeing a requirement for 100k
You know nyc is bad when you see people making upwards of 100k a year looking for affordable housing in nyc smh. Our elected official don’t care at all. We need to rise up and do something about it.
I would never understand how someone making 70k and up a year needs affordable housing. I get very upset seeing a requirement for 100k
Because NYS and NYC pile on insane taxes, so that 70k gross pay per year is about $50k net. Net income is the number you live off, not gross.
In above example that only included taxes (income and FICA), pile on health insurance and other payroll deductions then you're down to about middle $40k or so.
There are plenty of paycheck calculators online that will easily run numbers:
As I said, landlords and as for this thread city/HPD want to see a nice spread between income and rent ( 40x general rule for market rate apartments), because everyone knows rent is paid out of gross wages.
Someone earing $100k per year would be comfortably in upper middle class outside of NYC/tri-state area. But again because of high local income and other taxes they may only take home $80k - $85k.
If average rent for a studio apartment is $2,300/month that works out to around $27,600 or so in rent per year. Using 40x rule household would need yearly income of $92k per year to qualify.
On another note by broadening these lottery "affordable" apartments to upper income households it also incorporates same into rent regulation system. Thus democrats in Albany and city hall hope to blunt the attitude that RS mainly benefits lower income households. That hopefully will get people to vote for something that is in their own interests (keeping RS). Because we know if GOP ever gets in charge again in Albany first thing on their agenda would be to scrap or severely water down RS.
Looking at the AMI chart, it's easy to see why certain incomes that look reasonable on their face, are actually defined as low-, if not moderate-income, as per the guidelines.
Granted, they--as landlords--are looking for income of 40 times the rent, but on the tenant's side, it makes sense to go more conservative.
An old rule of thumb is that rent plus utilities should be 25% to 33% of net income after taxes and any deductions, for insurance and retirement as examples. At 25%, that gives you enough money to save, buy food, pay off any debts, cover entertainments, and invest if you are able.
For all the moaning about higher income brackets for these "affordable" apartment lotteries, they are units most difficult to fill.
Households at certain income levels and above just aren't interested in either going through the intrusive vetting process, and or simply have other options. This and or they just don't like the apartments being offered.
For all the moaning about higher income brackets for these "affordable" apartment lotteries, they are units most difficult to fill.
Households at certain income levels and above just aren't interested in either going through the intrusive vetting process, and or simply have other options. This and or they just don't like the apartments being offered.
This is very true with the recent reposting of lotteries with rental units still available. So why not lower the income bracket so it’s more units available for the lower income AMI
This is very true with the recent reposting of lotteries with rental units still available. So why not lower the income bracket so it’s more units available for the lower income AMI
As I said previously, cost to develop these properties is what it is, and more to point city and developer entered into agreements based upon (among other things) distribution of units by AMI. Lower AMI units require deeper subsidies because LL must be made whole.
To put it plainly higher income households require less taxpayer money per unit than lower. That is one of the big reasons why you see rather puny amounts of "low income" units compared to "affordable".
There is (again) also fact these units are RS; you start messing with income to rent ratio it increases odds percentage of these lottery households will be severely rent burdened in future. Worse still chances for late payment of rent increases to point things end up in housing court. Since RS tenants basically cannot be touched, no LL wants to go down that route.
Besides LL doesn't have to do anything. If city wants those apartments filled it can make up difference in income by issuing vouchers, subsidizes and or other payments.
Much depends upon tenant mix of building. Where "affordable" or whatever make up only 20% or less, a LL has wiggle room if demand for market rate units is otherwise stable. Those tenants are already paying more in rent to subsidize RS/lottery/affordable/low income units. A bit more likely wouldn't deter many, long as they felt were still getting value for money.
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.
