Leasing agent for property said to make sure income stays within AMI for years after winning lottery (New York: co-op, neighborhood)
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.
Yes. And to this I add. Rent increases are not mandated or automatic. A LL, for whatever reason, might not raise the rent on RS and RC units. For example, neglect. This can explain some long term tenants who have hard to believe low rent. A hypothetical example, is a building with commercial/retail first floor tenants where big money is paid by the businesses; here the LL neglects the residential units above the stores because there is not much rent revenue there.
Even if LL does not take rent increases (hard to believe), renewal leases still are mandated by law.
Cannot see a LL not taking RGB voted increases for ten or more years, that would put them at a serious legal disadvantage of ever getting legal rent. More so after 2019 brought serious changes to law.
I've had plenty of friends accepted into Housing Lottery and there has been NO income check after they were accepted and moved in.
Essentially, once you lock in a unit, you can make whatever, you'll always pay the same amount of rent which sucks for people that might be on a waiting list for the units.
Again wrong... Rent increases are in line with whatever RGB votes each year for one or two year leases.
Low income, voucher and others in RS apartments with various subsidies have their rent capped at percentage of income (usually around 30% but varies), with city (rather taxpayers) picking up rest of tab.
Other low income/RS lottery units have restricted rent increases; that is tenant will pay no more than a certain percent regardless of what RGB votes, again with city/taxpayers picking up balance of tab. So if RGB votes 4% for one year leases such tenants might pay only pay 2% or 3%, with taxpayers paying difference.
I've had plenty of friends accepted into Housing Lottery and there has been NO income check after they were accepted and moved in.
Essentially, once you lock in a unit, you can make whatever, you'll always pay the same amount of rent which sucks for people that might be on a waiting list for the units.
I would assume your friends aren't under any kind of government assistance, correct?
I also think the rules may be different if you are middle income as well....for e.g. I was able to transfer to another apt in building because of my income bracket, while lower income tenants are not given that option....
I've had plenty of friends accepted into Housing Lottery and there has been NO income check after they were accepted and moved in.
Essentially, once you lock in a unit, you can make whatever, you'll always pay the same amount of rent which sucks for people that might be on a waiting list for the units.
Until state got rid of luxury control there was a high income limit for RS tenants.
But basically yes, while there isn't any sort of income check, nonpayment proceedings act as a check in some ways.
RS rents go only one way; up. That this absent findings of illegal behaviour by LL in certain instances RS rents cannot and are not decreased. If you cannot pay, then you either must bust some moves, or sooner or later end up in housing court.
By law ”unable to pay” is not a valid defense in housing court. Unless there is some legally valid reason for withholding rent payments, tenant must either pay up or move. Court may give some time if there are extenuating circumstances such as waiting for a check/payment from some third party, and of course there are stipulation agreements. But none of this changes fact that if for some reason household income is such a RS tenant or tenants cannot pay their rent on time easily.
There are scores if not hundreds of RS tenants who are ”rent poor”. That is they are paying one-third or more of total household income towards rent. These people really have no other choice, unless they can find cheaper accommodations that hopefully also are rent regulated, they are stuck where they are because won't ever find similar again.
You see this with these ”affordable” or ”low income” housing lotteries where people have to put down on paper household income. Looking at information submitted there isn't any way possible they are paying rent where they are now, especially on time. Worse all those with side gigs or hustles (usually most always off the books), cannot include that income to justify being considered for lottery apartments.
I've had plenty of friends accepted into Housing Lottery and there has been NO income check after they were accepted and moved in.
Essentially, once you lock in a unit, you can make whatever, you'll always pay the same amount of rent which sucks for people that might be on a waiting list for the units.
Until state got rid of luxury control there was a high income limit for RS tenants.
But basically yes, while there isn't any sort of income check, nonpayment proceedings act as a check in some ways.
RS rents go only one way; up. That this absent findings of illegal behaviour by LL in certain instances RS rents cannot and are not decreased. If you cannot pay, then you either must bust some moves, or sooner or later end up in housing court.
By law ”unable to pay” is not a valid defense in housing court. Unless there is some legally valid reason for withholding rent payments, tenant must either pay up or move. Court may give some time if there are extenuating circumstances such as waiting for a check/payment from some third party, and of course there are stipulation agreements. But none of this changes fact that if for some reason household income is such a RS tenant or tenants cannot pay their rent on time easily.
There are scores if not hundreds of RS tenants who are ”rent poor”. That is they are paying one-third or more of total household income towards rent. These people really have no other choice, unless they can find cheaper accommodations that hopefully also are rent regulated, they are stuck where they are because won't ever find similar again.
You see this with these ”affordable” or ”low income” housing lotteries where people have to put down on paper household income. Looking at information submitted there isn't any way possible they are paying rent where they are now, especially on time. Worse all those with side gigs or hustles (usually most always off the books), cannot include that income to justify being considered for lottery apartments.
I thought the same but I'm like hey better to turn it down give someone else a shot at housing.
But to turn it down for this reason makes noooo sense. I literally went to a talk about affordable housing via the Actors Fund last week where someone asked if your salary changes does it have an impact on your rent and the man hosting it said no. Also someone was in the call who had been in his lottery apartment for 12 years. No rent increase.
So its very shocking someone would turn it down for this specific reason. Unless you have a voucher your rent will not increase based on your income. Vouchers are another story and they 100% do change if your salary increases.
That wasn’t the only reason I turned it down plus there were other reasons I did. I’ll be okay, life doesn’t end just because you choose not to accept a lottery apartment. I have other options.
That wasn’t the only reason I turned it down plus there were other reasons I did. I’ll be okay, life doesn’t end just because you choose not to accept a lottery apartment. I have other options.
It’s great you have other options. Honestly people in higher AMI brackets do have other options and I actually read that a few ppl on here are okay where they are currently living unfortunately people who make less than 70k don’t have as many options.
People at a higher AMI are at a higher advantage than lower AMI people in the general sense of housing.
People who are at a higher AMI can worry about things like the unit not having laundry directly in it (not saying you are but I’ve read ppl make comments like that) when people like me are in situations where I would take it regardless of what the buildings lack in amenities because the place I’m living in now is infested with mold and but unfortunately I don’t have the funds to move or can even afford the rent in an older pre war building that is actually maintained well by the landlord.
I’m not in it for the amenities or shorter commute to work. I’m literally out here trying to find affordable housing. A decent place to live in a well maintained building.
I read a story about someone who was houseless here and it’s just wild to me that there are people in those positions looking for affordable housing who would take a unit at any chance they got and then there are others just fine where they are applying and complaining about things because this affordable housing is just another option for them. Really think we’ve forgotten what the point of this lottery even is. A lot of people applying in higher AMIs are lacking in recognizing how they are truly at a position of privilege when it comes to these lotteries. & idk how it even got that way.
I remember back in the day when there were more lower AMI options people were just happy to get out of the horrible situations they were in. Affordable housing to me is for people who are inneed of it. Now it’s something different…
Last edited by Gilmoregal; 03-20-2022 at 10:53 AM..
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.
