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.
As the de Blasio administration contemplates reforming citywide rules that govern co-ops intended for people of modest incomes, the City Council is preparing to allow transferred ownership of 95 co-ops and rental buildings Wednesday.
The process, the tenth transfer since the program began in 1997, has been subject to heightened controversy as a coalition that organized to block Mayor Bill de Blasio's broader reform plans is raising concerns anew. Coalition members say this round of transfers is the latest example of the administration taking away equity from struggling residents and enriching developers. The coalition has also gotten the attention of members of the Council, who worked with the city to set up payment plans for certain buildings to maintain current ownership.
These are privately owned buildings, correct? Just let them, the co-op or the landlord, file for bankruptcy/be foreclosed on like anyone else.
Since when are 38-unit apartment buildings are too big to fail? This is a joke.
You can give NYCHA to the rich, if that's what you're proposing (according to the thread title you chose) but the rest of your thread is not about NYCHA. So this thread makes no sense.
If you want to talk about HDFC buildings that can't manage themselves properly and fall onto the brink of despair and need to be rescued, well, that's something else.
Give NYCHA to current residents as a co-op, put a large flip tax on it.
Problem solved! Maybe.
I said that 10 years ago
nobody listened
You know what, it actually makes me wonder why NYCHA has only ever had 1 co-op, soon to be zero.
Mitchell-Lama's portfolio has both co-op and rental units, why not NYCHA
I've spoken about this topic in the past, but there are a few Mitchell-Lamas that were originally slated to be NYCHA, but got converted to Mitchell-Lama co-ops before it became official:
Franklin Plaza (Manhattan)
Cedar Manor (Queens)
Luna Park (Brooklyn)
Those are the ones I know of off the top of my head.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
My theory is the politicians would lose a large chunk of their voter base if NYCHA simply gave the deeds to the tenants and let them sell at a profit. The poverty industrial complex (including the criminal justice system mind you) employs alot of people as well as the fact that the welfare poor is one of the few voting blocks that actually have more than single digit turnout in city elections.
Even if they turn nycha to co ops, how does that solve the maintenance problems in the building? Let alone the systematics of the current tenants if they even want to or are able to be owners of their apartments.
They will just scream gentrification and blame the city for trying to kick them out
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.
