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.
Everyone I know, quite a few people actually, who moved into "mixed income" buildings could not WAIT to get out. And they did so as rapidly as possible. Reasons: Littering, hanging out, noise until all hours of the night, and crime. There is additionally the problem of the adjacent buildings, which in Harlem, in any case, are too often social service housing and similar.
There is a general "mixed income" thing going on in Harlem now and this is for the benefit of the developers. People of modest salaries given career choice (non-profit, social worker, teacher) are forced to live in ghetto culture, and to gentrify this - in the end, realizing gains for those people who have invested in the neighborhoods but, of course, do not live here. And that's just if moves toward improvement are successful. If I have not learned anything else living here, it is that the anti-socials will simply never change. With rare exceptions, they will not properly care for their children, they will not stop littering, they will not work toward gainful employment - period. They will continue to shoot and ride motorbikes in reckless and unlawful ways. They will continue to have irresponsible barbecues, dumping their garbage and killing the trees by using the roots as a place for coals. It is quite literally a losing battle.
Harlem you bring up a good point and I totally agree with you. I can't stand ghetto people as well and as a landlord I don't rent to them. I rather have the apartment vacant than to rent to that trash. And to take it a step further on your point, I know based on your previous post that you are pro-rent stabilization but I hope you do know that a contributing factor in preventing the "cleansing" of the neighborhood from such ghetto people you talk about is without a question the Rent Stabilization law.
If the RS law didn't exist anymore in NYC, landlords that want to clean up the neighborhood from the ghetto trash you speak of can single handedly do so by simply not renewing the ghetto tenant's lease. The ghetto tenant leaves the neighborhood, making it a little less ghetto and a little bit safer until the lease is up for the next ghetto tenant and repeat the process with same results. Unfortunately for you and me, RS tenant are entitled to get their lease renewed which makes it hard to dilute the ghetto concentration a neighborhood has thus keeping the ghetto culture intacted in the neighborhood.
Harlem you bring up a good point and I totally agree with you. I can't stand ghetto people as well and as a landlord I don't rent to them. I rather have the apartment vacant than to rent to that trash. And to take it a step further on your point, I know based on your previous post that you are pro-rent stabilization but I hope you do know that a contributing factor in preventing the "cleansing" of the neighborhood from such ghetto people you talk about is without a question the Rent Stabilization law.
If the RS law didn't exist anymore in NYC, landlords that want to clean up the neighborhood from the ghetto trash you speak of can single handedly do so by simply not renewing the ghetto tenant's lease. The ghetto tenant leaves the neighborhood, making it a little less ghetto and a little bit safer until the lease is up for the next ghetto tenant and repeat the process with same results. Unfortunately for you and me, RS tenant are entitled to get their lease renewed which makes it hard to dilute the ghetto concentration a neighborhood has thus keeping the ghetto culture intacted in the neighborhood.
I do understand that. But ... I know too many people of modest income, teachers and artists in particular, who could not survive here without their rent stabilized apartments. Everyone should be happy to have these people around, they are interesting, intelligent, very hard-working, contribute tremendously. The trade would be - ghetto people easily out, but they would be out also. That would not be good.
So I have encouraged people to write to landlords about problem people, make nuisance complaints, etc. The landlords usually DO want to get rid of them as well and this just gives them grounds.
And it would not do anything about the TIL building residents - low-income co-ops - for example. Many illegal activities go on in these buildings, drugs, dog breeding, and more. Or the social service housing.
I just want to point out that upper-class people use drugs, too. I knew someone who came from a well-to-do family, spent her parents' savings on meth, had a child at 19, married her boyfriend who introduced her to drugs, and then died of an overdose at the age of 23.
I couldn't believe that she blew her life away when she had enough money to attend college and make something of herself.
Agreed. The thing is that wealthy suburban areas also have a drug problem, but it goes on behind closed doors. Often is the unhappy houswife popping Xanax or Ativan (which are just as addictive as Heroin) and mixes it with alcohol. The hubby is aware of his beloved wifes problem, but is not really interested to do something about it. When the wife starts her daily rant about how miserable her existence is hubby says 3 Xanax and whiskey on the rocks coming up.
I do understand that. But ... I know too many people of modest income, teachers and artists in particular, who could not survive here without their rent stabilized apartments. Everyone should be happy to have these people around, they are interesting, intelligent, very hard-working, contribute tremendously. The trade would be - ghetto people easily out, but they would be out also. That would not be good.
So I have encouraged people to write to landlords about problem people, make nuisance complaints, etc. The landlords usually DO want to get rid of them as well and this just gives them grounds.
And it would not do anything about the TIL building residents - low-income co-ops - for example. Many illegal activities go on in these buildings, drugs, dog breeding, and more. Or the social service housing.
Just curios; Are you actually agreeing with the OP's idea?
Just curios; Are you actually agreeing with the OP's idea?
I am agreeing with the acknowledgment of a serious problem.
I will watch with interest to see how this problem is resolved in Harlem, for example. I have no doubt that it will be resolved.
I just want to point out that upper-class people use drugs, too. I knew someone who came from a well-to-do family, spent her parents' savings on meth, had a child at 19, married her boyfriend who introduced her to drugs, and then died of an overdose at the age of 23.
I couldn't believe that she blew her life away when she had enough money to attend college and make something of herself.
Many stories like that. There are wealthy addicts, and I know a few.
The OP is talking about moving all project residents to one place. He is clearly implying that all of them are criminals.
Yes, it is unfortunate that the problem people become everything.
It is near impossible and quite costly to evict them, and they have teams of advocates. I have been a firsthand witness, just craziness. It stretches for years, and even then, the proceedings are not always successful.
Because the question remains, evict these people ... to where ? Put them where, exactly ? That is the central issue.
I hope you do know that a contributing factor in preventing the "cleansing" of the neighborhood from such ghetto people you talk about is without a question the Rent Stabilization law.
What I was trying to say: Most of the ghetto people live in other sorts of housing, not stabilized. Even the projects are not the same. They may be called stabilized leases (I actually do not know what they call them) but they are subsidized by different programs, not at all the same as rent stabilization.
Modest-incomed people who are not at all welfare recipients would be hurt by removing stabilization, welfare recipients little if at all. It is the prediction about New York being a city of the very wealthy and very poor - the former because they can afford it, and the latter because they cannot be removed. I could definitely see this being the case one day.
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.
