buying nycha apartment

[SobroGuy]

What you are proposing is essentially an indirect buyout to remove tenants. They receive "ownership" of the apt, but can only sell for a maximum of $25,000 for 1 bedroom, and $5,000 more for each additional bedroom (for example). They then move out, and free up the apt for someone that will actually purchase and invest, with similar sale restrictions (higher but still restricted).

One caveat however: In theory they can sell for $30,000 and move out, spend it all (waste it!) within a few months and then be broke again and simply walk back to the shelter for yet another apt (either NYCHA or section 8 or some other program). There has to be some mechanism to prevent this from happening, but I don't see how it would be possible as the city must house everyone who needs it.

[Kefir King]

I think that we have a Panglossian situation in place: "this is the best of the best of all possible worlds."

By that I mean that what has evolved into the NYCHA is pretty much the only thing that COULD have evolved. Tinker with it and you will have unforeseen consequences galore.

Unless one posits concentration or extermination camps, or a vast redistribution of income, or dragging guillotines into the town square, those who are economically forced to live below the median income MUST have a place to live with the income they are allowed to earn. Here, it is called NYCHA and "homeless shelters."

[SobroGuy]

You do not need concentration camps, extermination camps, or any sort of redistribution of income. We need to simply recognize that you do not have a right to live in NYC, although you do have a right to housing (IMO). So what we need is a federal program (it is only city law at this time) which houses everyone who needs it, so that NYC is not the only city in the country obligated to house people of little/no means. People can then be distributed across the country, and not simply concentrated in a few neighborhoods in NYC....the burden is released from NYC, and people have the opportunity to leave and start anew elsewhere.

Who could possibly be against this? Yes we will still have low-income people who need housing, however we will not be obligated to house everyone in NYC because they expect to live here, or because they have simply always lived here at taxpayer expense, or because no other city will house them.

[JayJay1980]

SoMetimes I feel like a sucker for working. I worked my way to college, stayed up late studying, and work 55 hrs a week now and live in a very small studio in the outskirts on the Bronx. Meanwhile, some mook who partyed while I was in college, wakes up at noon everyday and lives in a high rise on the west side - steps away from Central Park and midtown. This is not an example - I actually know the guy.

I don't expect the poor to suffer, but shouldn't they not be rewarded with brand new buildings built in midtown?

The guy lives better than I do. I really think this is going to enable people to not put any real effort in life because they feel that they're entitled to these "benefits." This is the root of the working man/woman's anger today.

[Kefir King]

"EFFORT" into life might be highly overrated.
The end might only be a larger tombstone.

Stop and smell the roses and leave all that "effort" to the suckers too stupid to learn to avoid unpleasantness like the daily grind.

After all, the large bulk of the wealthiest people all through history made their money the old fashioned way...they INHERITED it.

Remember, the grasshopper and the ant eventually wind up exactly the same way.