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.
LOL You don't even really own you live in Mitchell lama subsidized public housing... you only own your apartment because unions fought for working class families to have apartments that they could afford that are subsidized. You out here talking like you a big baller owning a mansion. You do know there are only like 15,000 Mitchell lama apartments where is everyone else gonna go? But you good right? Everybody else can fight in the mud for theirs
Yes. To the extent that tenants do have protections in NYC, it is because people fought hard for them.
We'd have a lot more homeless if it wasn't for activists and others who came before us.
there goes the neighborhood. here go, east harlem come
Well maybe, then again maybe not.
City Council will likely put the screws to developers for more "inclusionary" affordable housing. So you'll get more of that happened at the Kent on other side of 96th Street; people getting multi-million dollar apartments for pennies.
It has everything to do with it, based on your last sentence:
"Many people in the community were against the Rezoning because they know that an influx of market rate units will gentrify the neighborhood, raise up the average neighborhood rent, and push poor and working class families out to make way for the wealthy."
Bed-Stuy didn't get re-zoned, and look at it now. So one way or another, it's gonna happen. Whether EH gets re-zoned or not, Manhattan is running out of room, so if you don't allow the 30 story skyscrapers to get built, the available inventory will prolly go even faster!
And by your last sentence, I guess only renters are allowed to comment on this thread, so I will bid this thread adieu.
Dude, do you really live in a ML development?
I agree with you here but if you do you should shut your trap because you've basically benefited from government protected housing and are now telling others to eat ****.
I agree with you here but if you do you should shut your trap because you've basically benefited from government protected housing and are now telling others to eat ****.
I agree with you here but if you do you should shut your trap because you've basically benefited from government protected housing and are now telling others to eat ****.
You're right. I should keep quiet because I bought what I could afford instead of renting.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
You're right. I should keep quiet because I bought what I could afford instead of renting.
You bought into an extremely limited government program which by it's nature is not available to majority of New Yorkers. While this is good for you personally, it isn't a solution to NY's housing issues.
Ok, some of you just need to stop the ranting and raving regarding Mitchell-Lama housing.
First and foremost it is just pure envy or anger about not being able to avail of such things that are behind most of these nasty comments I shouldn't wonder.
How can you blame someone who did exactly what the city and state wanted at the time? Were any of you even born in 1955 and or in a position during 1960's through 1970's to even get into one of these programs on the ground floor?
You bought into an extremely limited government program which by it's nature is not available to majority of New Yorkers. While this is good for you personally, it isn't a solution to NY's housing issues.
Program was "extremely limited" because it suited a certain place and time for New York.
Driving force behind ML was at the time New York City still had large tracts of land available at decent enough prices to make development into low to moderate income housing work. That does not exist today nor has it for past few decades.
Main push for ML came from the post WWII program of "urban renewal". That process which some called "negro removal" because it was usually in low income/minority neighborhoods that land was claimed by eminent domain (Lincoln Square neighborhood was cleared to build Lincoln Center and Amsterdam Houses among one famous example), which soon gave the scheme a bad name.
So much push back against "urban renewal" came that the scheme was slowly abandoned which is why you don't see any more Mitchell-Lama or similar developments. Neither NYS, NYC or federal government have the belly to claim land via eminent domain which is the only way they are going to get it cheaply. Without cheap land you cannot have "affordable housing". Well not unless you go with Plan B, which is to dragoon, cajole, offer incentives to and or downright force developers to include such in their plans.
Mitchell-Lama was not unlike the vast numbers of housing projects that went up in the post war years. Again those developments depended upon getting large tracts of land cheaply. Something that just isn't possible today, and certainly not in NYC.
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.
