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.
No, it's not a good thing except for people who want something they don't deserve.
I can see what you are talking about if we are talking about a new construction on in prime area of Manhattan. But what about the neighborhoods that are being taken over and people are being priced out? So the people who were already living there before it became "desirable" no longer "deserve" to live thier because hipsters and yuppies "discovered" these areas and decide that they want pay ridiculious amounts of money to squish 5-6 people into 2-3 bedroom apartments to live there? What of the hard-working people who lived in the neighborhoods before parisian style cafes and organic store came, and the bullets, graffiti and drugs were rampant? They don't "deserve" to live in the neighborhood?
I for one am glad. I am sick of seeing all these new OVERPRICED buildings in Bed-Stuy, Crown Heights going up offering practically NO space for stupid money. There is no reason for 4-5 bedroom on Throop and Kosciusko (A.K.A THE HOOD) should be going for $5,500. These areas are still hood, and while I am glad there is growth it should not be done at the expense of people who have lived in the neighborhood for decades.
What's even more troubling is he isn't doing anything for the people that actually voted for him. I'm willing to bet that it's the middle income people that voted for him, not those making $25,000 a year.
I think both groups of people did. Pretty much anyone who is not making $500k plus.
I can see what you are talking about if we are talking about a new construction on in prime area of Manhattan. But what about the neighborhoods that are being taken over and people are being priced out? So the people who were already living there before it became "desirable" no longer "deserve" to live thier because hipsters and yuppies "discovered" these areas and decide that they want pay ridiculious amounts of money to squish 5-6 people into 2-3 bedroom apartments to live there? What of the hard-working people who lived in the neighborhoods before parisian style cafes and organic store came, and the bullets, graffiti and drugs were rampant? They don't "deserve" to live in the neighborhood?
I for one am glad. I am sick of seeing all these new OVERPRICED buildings in Bed-Stuy, Crown Heights going up offering practically NO space for stupid money. There is no reason for 4-5 bedroom on Throop and Kosciusko (A.K.A THE HOOD) should be going for $5,500. These areas are still hood, and while I am glad there is growth it should not be done at the expense of people who have lived in the neighborhood for decades.
Sure they do, but if they want to well they'll have to pay more.... Supply and demand... It's not as if those people were the pioneers anyway. It's all about supply and demand. If those people can't afford that area, they have options and can move to another area, or they could've invested more in the area when it was still cheap to purchase, but nothing lasts forever. An area is not going to become better unless you have people with money coming in.
Sure they do, but if they want to well they'll have to pay more.... Supply and demand... It's not as if those people were the pioneers anyway. It's all about supply and demand. If those people can't afford that area, they have options and can move to another area, or they could've invested more in the area when it was still cheap to purchase, but nothing lasts forever. An area is not going to become better unless you have people with money coming in.
You have valid points. But one thing that was great about the old NYC, despite how dangerous and dirty it was, was that a young person could come to NYC with nothing but a dollar and a dream and make a life here. It is not like that anymore. While this expected of Manhattan, it is happening in working-class neighborhoods that were traditionally great for working class people, creative types. One of my friends can hardly afford her art supplies because her rent has been raised (again) and when she was looking for new places and thinking of getting a roomate, the prices were practically the same as here staying in her own apartment. Also, if I was my age (26) in the 70's-90's, trust me that I would've gotten a brownstone in Harlem or Bed-Stuy, even if it was a shell. But unfortunately, I wasn't thought of/in diapers at that time, so I am screwed.
If the developer is having his hand out for tax abatements, special city backed/subsidized financing, special zoning exemptions/changes, etc, then the city has the absolute right to A: Deny all of these requests and let this building be "free market" ...everyone would like that right? or B: Provide the developer with HELP, and request as part of that HELP, the developer meet certain city-backed requirements/initiatives, like the affordable housing component. Don't like the city dictating what you can/cannot build? PUT YOUR HAND BACK IN YOUR POCKET AND BUILD/FINANCE IT YOURSELF. Seems pretty fair to me.
That is all very well except that New York City created this housing mess and keeps digging itself in deeper by piling more regulation onto what already exists. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different outcome.
Nearly 60% of all rental housing in NYC falls under some sort of subsidy from rent control laws to various other schemes to promote "affordability". Yet somehow, (surprise, surprise) it isn't enough so the City doubles up and puts screws to developers to force the creation of yet more regulated housing.
New York City suffers from the highest construction, land pricing and other costs due to regulation of any urban area in the United States. That is why no one builds low income or affordable housing, it just does not pay. The prospect of having such housing now forever remain under RS laws puts a cap on any future upside potential. No wonder Related recently sold and or is in process of converting two "80/20" properties out of rentals and into condos.
Let us call this housing scheme what it is; a vast liberal/progressive/Democratic social experiment to force those that have to "share" with those that do not. This is more much more than about housing but takes a page from former HUD secretary Donovan's book along with NAACP and others to do what thus far has proven elusive by civil rights laws. That is the forced economic integration to counter the natural outcome from the first round of Civil Rights laws; persons tending to move/live where others are like themselves.
As that Brewer woman put it the hope is that the classes will mix, attend each others BBQ's parties and such. There is also the push to break the cycle of where persons live determining the sort and type of services they receive/are exposed to and so forth.
The large fly in this ointment is that those whom must fund (subsidize) this scheme know very well what is going on. All these mandatory inclusion nonsense rests squarely upon the shoulders of enough households of means willing to live in places where a third or more are benefitting from a direct transfer of (their) wealth.
One always finds it odd that liberals/Progressives are always going on about how evil government subsidies are to the wealthy, but when it benefits their causes one hears nothing but crickets chirping. Each low or affordable income household in these buildings receives a subsidy worth tens of thousands per year; the difference between market rate rent and their own.
Also, I'm not sure if these high rollers who can pay huge rents want to live in a building where 50% are heavily subsidized. Not because they hate or fear these people, but because of total resentment. They're paying $5,000, while the downstairs neighbor is paying $800. And DeBlasio will ban the so-called "poor door," and insist that the subsidized tenants have the same access to all building amenities as the market-rate tenants.
The rent differences are not nearly that large in the buildings I know about. Perhaps you know of an actual example, or someone does.
It's not resentment with the lower-income people. In a building where some are paying $2,000 - $2,500, you will have people paying $900 - $1,000, some of this potentially funded. I have heard lots of complaining about not wanting to live with people who have a low-income lifestyle. Which is fair.
People who can pay $5,000 in rent are not being forced to live with low-income people. Middle class people are being forced to live with low-income people. But they need to qualify, which is why there has been trouble filling some of the spots.
If the developer is having his hand out for tax abatements, special city backed/subsidized financing, special zoning exemptions/changes, etc, then the city has the absolute right to A: Deny all of these requests and let this building be "free market" ...everyone would like that right? or B: Provide the developer with HELP, and request as part of that HELP, the developer meet certain city-backed requirements/initiatives, like the affordable housing component. Don't like the city dictating what you can/cannot build? PUT YOUR HAND BACK IN YOUR POCKET AND BUILD/FINANCE IT YOURSELF. Seems pretty fair to me.
All true except that zoning changes are quite common and necessary as demographics shift - hardly looking for a handout. Even common sense zoning changes will now come with strings of extortion to privately subsidize tenants
Supposedly, the administration is aiming for a 50-30-20 ratio of 50% market-rate, 30% middle income, and 20% low-income. For developers to swallow this pill, the zoning increases will have to be substantial. It's already ridiculously expensive and difficult to just build 100% market-rate apartments in this city, creating additional requirements may result in even fewer units created if they aren't careful.
Lets see - same building, same apts for the 3 incomes? Doesn't seem reasonable. If you work hard and have to pay full rent, why should a person barely making it for a cheap city get the same apt? I can see a building in this as 75/15/10.
Lets see - same building, same apts for the 3 incomes? Doesn't seem reasonable. If you work hard and have to pay full rent, why should a person barely making it for a cheap city get the same apt? I can see a building in this as 75/15/10.
They dont get the same exact apartment....the subsidized apartments are smaller with generic finishes. All they get is the same address and cheaper rent.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
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.
