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.
Actuslly, I'd take this to the next level. I wouldn't even require the developer to build the affordable units in the same building. They could build them anywhere in the city. But if they take advantage of this, they'd have to build twice as much affordable housing, than if the built the affordable component on the same site. I would also increase the amount of bonus FAR they could get, subject to the affordability requirement.
This would be a win for both sides. The developer would get to make more profitable use of the high value property, and more affordable housing gets built.
When it comes to other amenities like pools or million dollar views, I absolutely understand why the 20% would not be allowed to enjoy those luxuries in a practical sense. However, separate door entrances?! That is just ridiculous, come on! The underlying message that condo owners are too good and have too much money value to be walking in the same space with renters is beyond petty to me.
Discrimination in the amenities has never before been allowed.
I would be very much surprised if DeBlasio doesn't overturn this odious ruling.
Another wrinkle is that one of these "poor door" joints may run afoul of HFA or even IRS rules about deductions attached to affordable housing.
Perhaps having the 20% all sit in front of the GRAND entrance with cups asking for change might sway/embarass the developers. But faster action might come with a retraction of their generous tax breaks.
Norword Boy, HOW is someone making say $55k a year walking in the same entrance as a millionaire going to be a "problem"?
I've never understood this.
It's a form of modern day sanctioned financial segregation and I'm really not surprised by the people sucking up in this forum agreeing with it. It's like you guys think you'll get some medal or special gift from rich people for siding with them in this fight NOT to be seen in the same vicinity with people like YOURSELVES.
I don't get it, but then again I do which is sad.
The reality is that developers really don't want mixed housing at all. You want to avoid all hurt feeling and second tiers. Build housing for 55k a year and build luxury housing.
But the REAL reality is that they all want the tax breaks that go with mixed housing.
A guy I know said the community board would not even green light the project if 20% of the apts weren't set aside for low income. Nothing to do with tax breaks. Look at the project near the Barclays center. Bruce Ratner has enough cash but had to set aside apts in order to build. Remember years ago pathmark wanted to build in Southern Queens? The politicians basically wanted Pathmark to build a YMCA or housing.
Morally wrong? Possibly. But the developers followed the law to get the tax break AND had it approved. I dont know what the affordable rental rates for Riverside, but if they are structured similar to the Brooklyn Northside piers where condos range $385,000 to $2.9 million and rentals start at $395 PER MONTH!!, my answer is deal with it, and good for you if you are lucky enough to score one. Don't complain buying a coach ticket, and not getting first class amenities.
Still better then a bunch of ugly crime ridden housing projects. I personally wouldn't mind using a "poor" door, you're still in a nice, likely gentrified, neighborhood.
I was banned for a week, because of something I said in another forum. They accused me of "trolling" when I wasn't.
People can't take the truth and you give it them straight up!
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.