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'm on the lower end of 130% but would make too much to qualify for 90% (the proposed cap) and I still feel that the city is deeply unaffordable for me. On the other hand, I agree that more should be done for people with lower AMIs and that rent-stabilized units for low-income residents should be protected at all costs.
I think the biggest issue is the crazy rent for lottery units... there have been so many where the "affordable" rate makes NO sense for the bracket. Even when I had a lower AMI, there were so many I didn't apply for because I couldn't afford them even if I qualified.
I think the biggest issue is the crazy rent for lottery units... there have been so many where the "affordable" rate makes NO sense for the bracket. Even when I had a lower AMI, there were so many I didn't apply for because I couldn't afford them even if I qualified.
Agreed, most of the current 130 AMI units are unaffordable, especially if you are in the lower end of the limits.
Aren't the official calculations based upon pretax income? It's the easiest metric, of course, but it isn't the best in light of income after taxes.
It seems the only way people cab afford the apartment rental prices they suggest is that they become significantly rent burdened, ie., they are paying something like more than 1/3 of their after tax income on rent.
Tinkering about with AMI in any form isn't going to move needle much if at all.
Scrapping 130 AMI will only mean developers will demand deeper subsidies to offset losses caused by renting units at even lower rents.
Costs to bring product to market is what it is; and it keeps going up. Building anything in NYC isn't cheap, so start with that and work it out.
Fact of matter is what everyone knows; vast number of households in NYC are busted enough that they need "low" to "extremely low" income housing. No one is building much of those units because they just don't pencil out. Unless developer and or whoever is going to manage the place is a charity or other not for profit, there isn't any money to be made. And sorry to be one to tell some of you this, but that is what developers and landlords do; build and rent or sell housing in hopes of making profit.
They've been thinking about this for some time. I think its move in the right direction. the 130AMI option is what most of these developers pick (they have various ones they can pick that also include lower AMIs) its the only way to make these buildings affordable. When they pick the 130AMI they are able to assign rent to match that AMI which is typically on the higher end
Even when am usually part of 130% AMI I think it shouldn't be more than 100%. Their own definition of affordable says that you rent shouldn't be more than 33% of your income. With a lot of those 130% apartments it ends up being close to 50% or more
Even when am usually part of 130% AMI I think it shouldn't be more than 100%. Their own definition of affordable says that you rent shouldn't be more than 33% of your income. With a lot of those 130% apartments it ends up being close to 50% or more
That is also true. The issue is deeper than the 130AMI , that is just scratching the surface but I dont expect them to go any deeper than that to fix the problem.
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.
