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.
"giving the property to the tenants and then having them pay full taxes" sounds most to me like making them condominiums. A giveaway of trillions of dollars in real estate sounds like an extreme way to avoid keeping the projects going as is. Net effect: none of these tenants could afford the "full taxes" based on the income they report today, and thus nearly all would have to sell, a windfall to them.
Problems: they could not afford to move anywhere else and there aren't enough rich people to fill the 182,000 apartments that would flood the market. Certainly house prices in the City would immediately plummet.
P.S. I am still awaiting that link on privatizing the Amsterdam Houses as mentioned in the OP.
Listen, am so glad you think so; but if you think NYC, especially under current mayor and city council is going to throw hundreds of "poor" or whatever out of the projects for whatever noble reason you're living in a dream world. It JUST WILL NOT HAPPEN. Period, end of discussion.
It took NYCHA/NYC years go move all the residents out of Markham Houses and they were scattered all over SI/NYC to other projects. Often bringing the same nonsense from that hood with them and bringing places down.
I'll say it again; for better or worse NYCHA has become the housing of last resort for a large part of a certain NYC demographic. There simply is no place else for these people to go; no market rate landlord would touch them with a barge pole. More to the point these people like where they are and how the system works for themselves and family. Yes, housing might be cheaper elsewhere, but no place else offers the range of bennies and protections of NYS/NYC; so here they stay.
The current mayor and city council are just that, they are not going to be in office in NYC forever!
But change may happen as early as next year. The House budget slaughters funding for government programs, and the Senate is likely to ultimately approve something similar that will be signed by Trump. Those generous benefits in NYC derive a huge part of their funding from the feds, and NYCHA could not exist without federal funding. Except some sort of privatization to speed up if NYCHA budget is cut. Of course in 2018 there's a chance the Democrats could come back, but it doesn't mean that from Washington that they will want to maintain the current status quo with NYCHA.
All tenements should be turned into NYCHA, the. We could have some affordable rent for once
I recall when the NYCHA apartments in East Harlem had no heat in the winter, and there are multiple other health hazards in NYCHA. I guess you like poor people to live in housing that is hazardous to their health, and I guess you'd like to multiply poverty and marginalization.
By what legal mechanism could the city seize all privately owned apartments in the city? No courts would allow this.
In fact this would kill off the property tax money coming into the city, so you'd be collapsing the city government for all public services as there would not be enough money.
NYCHA is in a terrible situation. Too many leaks and repairs, and now with this lead thing going on.......man this is a crazy time, everything that's going on.....
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
"giving the property to the tenants and then having them pay full taxes" sounds most to me like making them condominiums. A giveaway of trillions of dollars in real estate sounds like an extreme way to avoid keeping the projects going as is. Net effect: none of these tenants could afford the "full taxes" based on the income they report today, and thus nearly all would have to sell, a windfall to them.
Problems: they could not afford to move anywhere else and there aren't enough rich people to fill the 182,000 apartments that would flood the market. Certainly house prices in the City would immediately plummet.
P.S. I am still awaiting that link on privatizing the Amsterdam Houses as mentioned in the OP.
Of course they could afford to move elsewhere if they sold their apartments. Who says they have to stay in the city? The US is a big country. They don't even have to go that far if they want to stay in the Northeast.
If the Chelsea projects were turned into co-ops, tenants who didn't want to stay or who could not afford the taxes could get as much a million or more for those apartments market rate due to the location. That's more than enough to move elsewhere in the city or in the country if they want to.
Of course they could afford to move elsewhere if they sold their apartments. Who says they have to stay in the city? The US is a big country. They don't even have to go that far if they want to stay in the Northeast.
If the Chelsea projects were turned into co-ops, tenants who didn't want to stay or who could not afford the taxes could get as much a million or more for those apartments market rate due to the location. That's more than enough to move elsewhere in the city or in the country if they want to.
For someone with a so called Ivy League education and so forth, once again your knowledge of how things actually roll in NYC is astounding.
There are only two ways rental buildings go condo or co-op; eviction or non-eviction.
Given we're speaking about public housing any sort of scheme such as the one you are proposing would be non-eviction. Simply put tenants would remain in their apartments as renters covered under the terms of their original lease. Who purchases their apartment in such a situation (sponsor or investor) is another matter.
How much money a tenant is offered to vacate a rental apartment under any buyout plan (eviction or even non-eviction) is highly variable. For the record this isn't same go-go co-op conversion market of the 1980's or 1990's where developers were throwing money at tenants to get them to move.
Today's offers of either inside price (tenants choosing to purchase their unit at a discount), and or to vacate are usually far less generous than in the past. It does vary by circumstances but those two gay men holding up Hudson Yards project and the elderly men from Mayflower hotel (all got tens of millions) are outliers. The real sums are usually not much more than the apartment is worth and or selling price.
None of this even touches a fact you continuously gloss over; bad as these NYCHA housing projects are where are those displaced going to go and why would they want to leave?
Those living in the Chelsea NYCHA housing you mentioned are paying dirt cheap rents to live in one of the hottest areas of Manhattan. Even if you gave them one million they *STILL* couldn't afford to purchase anything else in that area, and paying market rate rents would eat that money up in a few years.
A good number of NYCHA residents all over this city are NYC/NYS civil servants (often a low level tiers), and or other employment that doesn't pay anywhere near enough for them to afford market rate housing. The rest are increasingly made up of the homeless (formerly), abused spouses, those on various vouchers for a wide and bewildering array of causes (low income, disability, child with disability, seniors on fixed income, etc....). These people either can or will not move out of NYC/NYS because it would mess with their checks. That and few other areas of this country provide the vast and extensive *welfare* state coverage that New York does; and this includes the "right to housing".
As usual you are going on about a matter that you know *NOTHING* about; just pulling more stuff out of your rear and going on about some sort of utopia New York that bears little to no resemblance to what the rest of us live in.
Unlike you, myself and others *KNOW* all about NYCHA and often from first hand/recent experience. Not just from books and whatever other sources you seem to pull information.
Furthermore a good number of NYCHA estates are functionally past their prime. They have been ridden hard and put up wet and it shows. This is reflected in the maintenance and other issues that plague these complexes. The structural bones may be fine, but everything else needs work.
For someone with a so called Ivy League education and so forth, once again your knowledge of how things actually roll in NYC is astounding.
There are only two ways rental buildings go condo or co-op; eviction or non-eviction.
Given we're speaking about public housing any sort of scheme such as the one you are proposing would be non-eviction. Simply put tenants would remain in their apartments as renters covered under the terms of their original lease. Who purchases their apartment in such a situation (sponsor or investor) is another matter.
How much money a tenant is offered to vacate a rental apartment under any buyout plan (eviction or even non-eviction) is highly variable. For the record this isn't same go-go co-op conversion market of the 1980's or 1990's where developers were throwing money at tenants to get them to move.
Today's offers of either inside price (tenants choosing to purchase their unit at a discount), and or to vacate are usually far less generous than in the past. It does vary by circumstances but those two gay men holding up Hudson Yards project and the elderly men from Mayflower hotel (all got tens of millions) are outliers. The real sums are usually not much more than the apartment is worth and or selling price.
None of this even touches a fact you continuously gloss over; bad as these NYCHA housing projects are where are those displaced going to go and why would they want to leave?
Those living in the Chelsea NYCHA housing you mentioned are paying dirt cheap rents to live in one of the hottest areas of Manhattan. Even if you gave them one million they *STILL* couldn't afford to purchase anything else in that area, and paying market rate rents would eat that money up in a few years.
A good number of NYCHA residents all over this city are NYC/NYS civil servants (often a low level tiers), and or other employment that doesn't pay anywhere near enough for them to afford market rate housing. The rest are increasingly made up of the homeless (formerly), abused spouses, those on various vouchers for a wide and bewildering array of causes (low income, disability, child with disability, seniors on fixed income, etc....). These people either can or will not move out of NYC/NYS because it would mess with their checks. That and few other areas of this country provide the vast and extensive *welfare* state coverage that New York does; and this includes the "right to housing".
As usual you are going on about a matter that you know *NOTHING* about; just pulling more stuff out of your rear and going on about some sort of utopia New York that bears little to no resemblance to what the rest of us live in.
Unlike you, myself and others *KNOW* all about NYCHA and often from first hand/recent experience. Not just from books and whatever other sources you seem to pull information.
Furthermore a good number of NYCHA estates are functionally past their prime. They have been ridden hard and put up wet and it shows. This is reflected in the maintenance and other issues that plague these complexes. The structural bones may be fine, but everything else needs work.
No wonder you see ladies going through the garbage all the time. First hand experience from NYCHA, eh? You just love telling on your lifestyle!
That and your insistence that you can't leave NYCHA because of your disability checks or whatever programs you're on.
And yes Bugsy, my suggestion to privatize NYCHA must have you rattled then as you fear the lost of your welfare status.
Which is proof that it needs to be privatized and the tenants need to be given ownership and if they want they could sell it. Honestly, when tenants on welfare programs are given money in neighborhoods like Harlem or Bedstuy, they often sell out at outrageously low prices. To a person who hasn't seen a paycheck in a long time, even 30k is a lot of money. Not enough to live off any time in a free market, but certainly enough cash to move elsewhere.
Lastly a lot of people in NYCHA do work. It's a myth that people in NYCHA or on Section 8 mostly aren't working. Mostly they work retail or other low income jobs, or they work off the books.
Of course, it gives you greatly pleasure to be the expert of NYC's underclass. However, I'm all about destroying the systems that create that underclass. I don't care how much you claim to know about the bums, or how much you literally like the bums.
De Blasio himself will be much more likely to purse more privatization schemes as Trump and the Republicans gut funding to HUD. I get that this is scary for people on these programs, but it serves them right for making careers of freeloading/mooching of the system.
Just who is going to foot the bill for financing all this money you want to be given to "them"?
NYCHA residents pay rent based upon income. It is fairly certain many cannot afford anywhere near market rate rents, so how are they going to qualify for anything but the most heavily subsidized mortgage?
Mitchell Lama co-ops pay far less than market rate rents for 3 reasons:
1. Government lends the cooperative money at 1% to buy the building
2. Taxes are at a rate near zero.
3. There are no LANDLORDS to enrich with annual profits.
We bought in at $11 to $12 Grand and pay $735 monthly maintenance including electricity, heat, hot water, AC surcharge, doormen, handymen and porters. All the 1 bedrooms pay the same, except for those who must pay a surcharge if they make over $100 G's or those very few who qualify for SCRIE exemptions from past maintenance increases. (At low rent/maintenance like this it is almost impossible to qualify for SCRIE because even an SSI payment is too much income.)
This scheme should be reasonable for conversions of NYCHA properties, if anything is.
I recall when the NYCHA apartments in East Harlem had no heat in the winter, and there are multiple other health hazards in NYCHA. I guess you like poor people to live in housing that is hazardous to their health, and I guess you'd like to multiply poverty and marginalization.
By what legal mechanism could the city seize all privately owned apartments in the city? No courts would allow this.
In fact this would kill off the property tax money coming into the city, so you'd be collapsing the city government for all public services as there would not be enough money.
He’s a wanna-be violent socialist who would be at the very back of the line should a crowd of them ever attempt any of his ideas.
Make no mistake about it: should enough mindless drones find their druthers, the underclass WILL attempt a violent overthrow of civil society due to their inability to succeed on their own. Don’t worry about them per se, we’ll smash them quickly and easily, just know that they exist and are waiting.
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.
