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.
From 2008 to 2012, 61 buildings were built in Brooklyn that will receive $158 million in tax breaks — but only five include below-market-rate apartments, according to the report from the Real Affordability for All Campaign.
And only 6% of the 4,395 units created were affordable for lower moderate-income households, the study shows.
From that data, it sounds like Bloomberg wasn't as effective at getting affordable housing built as he was for getting tax money into the hands of developers.
From that data, it sounds like Bloomberg wasn't as effective at getting affordable housing built as he was for getting tax money into the hands of developers.
Exactly, this seems possibly criminal. The city paid $158 million for 264 apartments, that's almost $600,000 per unit.
If you read the article, it is not affordable housing that is vanishing, it is virtually free housing, or rent that is affordable to those who are indigent or living on $700 a month social security.
The median rent in the "highly sought after gentrified" neighborhood of Brooklyn Heights, and the in-the-middle-of-gentrification Fort Green increased from $933 in 2000 to $1,474 in 2012 for all size apts. That's about a 4.5% increase per year. Scary? NOPE!
Rising rents partly reflect neighborhood improvements, the researchers noted, but housing experts say the loss of cheaper units is largely driven by annual rent increases for rent-stabilized apartments, whose median rent is already over $1,100. Scary? NOPE!
The biggest loss of apts were those available between $500-$900 a month in rent, while those which grew spectacularly were priced from $1,300 to $1,800 for all size units. Scary? NOPE!
Like much of the news, it is hype to sell papers. The "affordable housing crisis" according to this article is really about the loss of housing for the destitute, not working/middle class residents, and driven largely by normal year-over-year increases in rent stabilization. Unless of course you believe working/middle class residents should not pay more than $700-$800 a month in rent, for a 2-3 bedroom apt, in 2012? Really?
Apparently there is nothing to worry about at all, except that NYC needs to do a better job of servicing the destitute.
I wish one of these articles analyzing the housing situation would talk about the market inefficiencies that New York's bizarre housing policies have introduced. Instead they focus on introducing more inefficiencies, which I'm sure are nice for people looking only to "get theirs," but bad for people looking for regular market rate apartments.
I wish one of these articles analyzing the housing situation would talk about the market inefficiencies that New York's bizarre housing policies have introduced. Instead they focus on introducing more inefficiencies, which I'm sure are nice for people looking only to "get theirs," but bad for people looking for regular market rate apartments.
I wish the same, but for the opposite reason.
NYC had a system in which virtually all apartments were rent-regulated for decades, and it worked. Now it has become widely accepted, without any evidence, that any such regulations are always "inefficiencies" and that a completely unregulated housing market is optimal. If journalists looked at the historical context, it would reveal the current conventional wisdom to be false.
NYC had a system in which virtually all apartments were rent-regulated for decades, and it worked. Now it has become widely accepted, without any evidence, that any such regulations are always "inefficiencies" and that a completely unregulated housing market is optimal. If journalists looked at the historical context, it would reveal the current conventional wisdom to be false.
It didn't work because it encourages the inefficient use of space. You get a single old person living in a two or three bedroom paying a pittance who justifiably won't move because going to a market rate one bedroom would mean a dramatic rent increase.
BinxBolling, who claims that the rent regulations have worked for decades? There is lots of evidence suggesting that rent regulations were the primary driver for the loss/abandonment of tens of thousands of housing units in the city during the 70s, and ultimately destroying entire swaths of this city. Thanks to rent regulations, it was impossible to get non-paying tenants out (and still is), and buildings were left to rot or worse.
Purely market driven housing is not optimal, and any reasonable person understands regulations are necessary. But the current rent regulations, like guaranteed renewal rights and inheritance rights are primary reasons why housing in this city is such a dysfunctional mess.
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.
