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.
Here's an idea I've been thinking of that would dramatically benefit low-income to working class NYers and help mitigate displacement:
Within areas that primarily working class to low income (Harlem, South Bronx, Jamaica, ENY-Brownsville, Rockaways, etc), all development sites/air rights would become part of a community land trust. If a developer wants to build any sort of building in these areas they must give a majority equity stake (like say 80%) over to the community land trust, which then gives the proceeds out to those living in the area. In essence, if developers put up luxury buildings in a poor area, the majority of the proceeds go towards those living in the community.
What are the benefits to this idea?
1) It helps to close the racial wealth gap. One of the big drivers of racial economic disparity is household equity. White households more often live in higher-valued communities (and also are more likely to own their homes period) than Black and Latino households. By harnessing the power of gentrification, we can direct real estate equity to underprivileged households, helping to close this structural inequity. This to me is the definition of inclusive growth.
2) This will help build more housing. The reality is the city's political climate is deeply scarred by fear and resentment over the issue of gentrification. This has prevented NYC from being able to make the necessary bold steps to build the amount of housing it needs to continue to grow and prosper. A city that isn't growing is stagnating and eventually will decline. For NYC to really be NYC we need to have more housing of all flavors (yes, including luxury). Building more housing helps to over prices overall, and by directing those proceeds to our existing working class and low income communities we can help mitigate displacement and sooth some of the deep seated fissures that have opened up over this matter.
3) This will aid in integration. I don't need to show the litany of studies that show how socio-economic integration builds healthier communities. NYC thrives when it continues to be that clash of cultures and backgrounds it's always been.
4) This will continue to allow NY to receive the influx of high-income individuals that have helped to boost tax coffers and economic conditions while allowing these changes to benefit rather than alienate more vulnerable populations, helping to strengthen the city's social fabric.
People really exist who believe that private developers would do something like this. That somehow profitability is not a factor and 80% of a multi-million dollar project should just be given away to people who’ve done nothing other than squat on someone else’s land most of their lives.
That’s already happening, half of the affordable housing lotteries that are on housing connect.com have buildings in those neighborhoods and it’s always said in the pdf file that 50 percent of those units go to people in that neighborhood/community board . Many of these are mixed income with caters to the very low income , moderate and high etc
Why do people keep coming up with ideas to fight gentrification but ignore the one thing that can really stop runaway housing prices, which is to provide more housing units (substantially increase supply)?
Gentrification is nothing more than the condition where the supply (in this case, housing units) is in short supply and the people that can pay more for it gets the apartments, while the people that cannot pay more for it has to move.
If you allow more housing units to be built, then the problem takes care of itself because prices would come down and everyone does not need to fight over the last crumbs. If there’s not enough bread to go around, then bake more bread. It is really that simple but most people don’t seem to get it.
it’s an interesting thought experiment. One question is how does it incentivize development? Is the idea that though it seems like it’d be less profitable for developers, it would at least incentivize neighborhoods to encourage rather than discourage development? I’m not sure that fully checks out, or if it does to any level, how strong of an effect it would have compared to other current community benefits mechanisms used in development. Two other questions about implementation are what is the agency or organization that controls that percent stake and how is it managed, and how do property taxes and other financial obligations as well as financial leveraging work in this context?
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.
