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.
If a fee is charged, even a small one there are some good features. A resident named ‘Smokey’ pays the $1 per month amenities fee. A terrace is among the amenities. No smoking is allowed on the terrace signs posted there say so, and the user agreement states no smoking on the terrace. ‘Smokey’ does not obey the rules. ‘Smokey’s” amenities privileges can be easily revoked. The relationship between users and the amenities has clear definitions including a fee of $1. The relationship can be defined including grounds for cancellation.
Lottery applicants don’t fall in love with amenities. It not my guess that they are regulated or required in anyway by the various rules of affordable housing development. Some buildings have many amenities others none. The government seems to be with regulated rents or purchase price of the unit. Presumably amenity fee are a decision for management and independent of affordable housing regulations. Consider parking.
I move into an affordable unit in a new building with rent of $1000. I take the option of a parking space for $100 a month. It’s mandatory that I am offered a lease renewal. And the maximum % of rent increase is regulated. However, when my parking agreement ends, I don’t think the government requires that it be renewed at all. Perhaps after two years, building management decides to build a new building where the parking lot is. Or if parking is still available when my parking agreement ends, they might decide to double the fee. I don’t think the government is concern with the price of parking at my affordable housing building unless commitments were made about parking there.
City and or whoever leans hard on developers of "affordable" or "low income" housing to provide discounts or some sort of accommodation regarding amenity fees for those renting such units. Working under theory that said households already "low" or "moderate" income do not have same sort of finances as market rate tenants. Obviously higher income households have more disposable income so amenity fees are less of a bother. OTOH even at "low" or "affordable" rents many lottery tenants will find their finances tight.
Usual tactics are to get either amenity fees lower or gone (which would have to apply across board since you cannot treat MR tenants differently than lottery). This or city or whoever will seek to bit shaved off rents for lottery apartments to compensate for what they may be paying in amenity fees.
Saying those who live in lottery units simply can decline paying amenity fees (thus be excluded) smacks of discrimination and goes against all that progressive liberals seek to do by having lower income households in luxury housing. If said household decide on their own not to pay amenity fees that's a different story.
On other side of things developers spent money and otherwise gave up revenue from what could have been housing often to create these amenity spaces. Either way the things must generate revenue and or somehow hold up their end of producing for building.
City and or whoever leans hard on developers of "affordable" or "low income" housing to provide discounts or some sort of accommodation regarding amenity fees for those renting such units. Working under theory that said households already "low" or "moderate" income do not have same sort of finances as market rate tenants. Obviously higher income households have more disposable income so amenity fees are less of a bother. OTOH even at "low" or "affordable" rents many lottery tenants will find their finances tight.
Usual tactics are to get either amenity fees lower or gone (which would have to apply across board since you cannot treat MR tenants differently than lottery). This or city or whoever will seek to bit shaved off rents for lottery apartments to compensate for what they may be paying in amenity fees.
Saying those who live in lottery units simply can decline paying amenity fees (thus be excluded) smacks of discrimination and goes against all that progressive liberals seek to do by having lower income households in luxury housing. If said household decide on their own not to pay amenity fees that's a different story.
On other side of things developers spent money and otherwise gave up revenue from what could have been housing often to create these amenity spaces. Either way the things must generate revenue and or somehow hold up their end of producing for building.
Yeah, we really do feel excluded here. The $75 monthly fee doesn’t seem like much, but once you factor in rent and electricity, and other bills .. we just can’t afford the hefty fee lol especially since the pool isn’t open year round. It just sucks that I feel like I’m in less of a community because I’m not paying for the amenities. I was even told the reason I’m not getting certain emails about events happening in the building or other news is because I’m not an amenity member. But that’s just how it’s run and I can’t complain too much.
These are all valid opinions. But if it's extra for market rate, I can't see how people feel excluded. Getting a break on a luxury building apartment with all that entails and to then feel excluded because they aren't given a pool or a gym for free can be viewed as entitled just as easily.
These are all valid opinions. But if it's extra for market rate, I can't see how people feel excluded. Getting a break on a luxury building apartment with all that entails and to then feel excluded because they aren't given a pool or a gym for free can be viewed as entitled just as easily.
I agree. There are just as many market rate tenants that are also at the top of their budgets for various reasons (child care costs, parking, student loans) and they may also opt out of the amenities. That’s just a fact of life not everyone has the same experience. The point of affordable housing is to provide safe and clean housing - not access to a free pool and sauna lol
Oh I’m not looking for a free pool or sauna lol when I did have access to the amenities, I didn’t even use the pool. I think it’s pretty crazy to pay for roof access though but that’s just me
I signed a two year lease as welll but wasn’t offered that. Congrats! What borough is that?
Thanks, I'm in Brooklyn. I agree that charging for rooftop access is ridiculous. If they insist on charging something, then they should offer the rooftop at a separate, lower rate.
Just curious: When you did have access, why didn't you use the other amenities (whatever they were)? What borough are you in?
I agree. There are just as many market rate tenants that are also at the top of their budgets for various reasons (child care costs, parking, student loans) and they may also opt out of the amenities. That’s just a fact of life not everyone has the same experience. The point of affordable housing is to provide safe and clean housing - not access to a free pool and sauna lol
Not exactly....
Original point of "low income" or "affordable" housing lotteries may have been "safe and clean" back decades ago when scheme started, but once BdeB and other leftist socialist democrats came into office things changed.
Whereas before BdeB came into office developers could build luxury market rate housing where they liked and put the low income elsewhere (usually way out in Bronx, Brooklyn or Queens somewhere) Sam the Eagle changed all that. Point of housing lottery now was social, racial, and economic integration, they are going to bust well off areas of NYC (read Manhattan) by forcing developers to put "low income", "affordable", supportive/homeless in same buildings as market rate. Doubling down on this city calls shots in how households are vetted, including basically forcing landlords to bend over backwards to take tenants they otherwise might not.
People who never would have gotten a foot past luxury housing doors in Manhattan now do, that is what these lotteries are largely about now. This is reason why so many are against community board preferences. Luxury or whatever housing in Bushwick is still Bushwick. People who want out of East Brooklyn, huge parts of Bronx and certain areas of Queens want to move into Manhattan. They feel CB preference just reinforces old housing lottery scheme where low income housing was built in areas other time prime rich heartland of NYC (read Manhattan).
Original point of "low income" or "affordable" housing lotteries may have been "safe and clean" back decades ago when scheme started, but once BdeB and other leftist socialist democrats came into office things changed.
Whereas before BdeB came into office developers could build luxury market rate housing where they liked and put the low income elsewhere (usually way out in Bronx, Brooklyn or Queens somewhere) Sam the Eagle changed all that. Point of housing lottery now was social, racial, and economic integration, they are going to bust well off areas of NYC (read Manhattan) by forcing developers to put "low income", "affordable", supportive/homeless in same buildings as market rate. Doubling down on this city calls shots in how households are vetted, including basically forcing landlords to bend over backwards to take tenants they otherwise might not.
People who never would have gotten a foot past luxury housing doors in Manhattan now do, that is what these lotteries are largely about now. This is reason why so many are against community board preferences. Luxury or whatever housing in Bushwick is still Bushwick. People who want out of East Brooklyn, huge parts of Bronx and certain areas of Queens want to move into Manhattan. They feel CB preference just reinforces old housing lottery scheme where low income housing was built in areas other time prime rich heartland of NYC (read Manhattan).
I moved from manhattan to brooklyn so the above isn't universal.
My view as I've said before; it's the people who move in to these buildings that are the problem less so than the system. Some are thankful, appreciative and make an effort to either be a good neighbor or avoid annoying anyone or anything at the very least. The cost of building upkeep is a fact that nobody can argue. If the rents are too cheap or the tenants don't participate, then a dump is a dump no matter where it is.
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.
