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.
The anti-affordable housing meeting is being held this weekend at the Waldorf Historia, hostd by Donald Trump! Land lords slum lords invited for the black tie only event. Get there early to try the excellent Beluga Caviar!
I think we should learn from our recent economic crisis, that some measure of government regulation, intervention is necessary and is a good thing. I truly believe if left to set market, landlords would price out a lot of people with little regard.
It is spoken like a reasonable and rationale person. What is wrong with living where you can afford exactly? I do it.
You make sense, but at the rate things are going eventually people of your financial status will not be able to live within the 5 boros. You are safer than others cause you were fortunate enough to buy.
Without the working class the infrastructure of the city of New York will collapse. The Working and Middle Class are a fundemental component of our city.
The respect, recognition and protection is deserved to the people that help this great city go round.
I think we should learn from our recent economic crisis, that some measure of government regulation, intervention is necessary and is a good thing. I truly believe if left to set market, landlords would price out a lot of people with little regard.
However I do agree with your point SobroGuy.
But learning from the crisis goes both ways NooYowkur, did we not also learn that providing people with things they cannot afford also put us in the currrent economic situation?
There has to be some balance b/t regulation and free market, and obviously our elected officials are not smart enough, or to greedy, to figure out what that balance is, hence the economic crisis
Yes I agree some protections are important, but NYC already has TOO MUCH which in fact is not helping, but hurting NYers and exacerbating a number of problems, not just housing. I live where I can afford...and that means I live in Mott Haven! Do I complain? Nope...do I expect the goverment to provide me with a better lifestyle...nope...I earn whatever I get and don't "deserve" anything else. Why is living where you can afford a bad thing exactly? If you believe NYC is gonna be too expensive for the working/middle class anytime soon you do not understand the city. In 2008 (and now 2009) we are discussing 1 bedrooms in NYC of $1,000, 2 bedrooms at $1,250..and that is supposed to be out of reach for regular folks? Let's be real.
Why should my tax dollars help pay for someone to live in a place I myself could never afford??
I know its a touchy subject, b/c I dont want people to be homeless, and I dont know want the answer is but I think its a valid point.
I agree, Rudbeckia. Guy does have a good point, as he is a private party. If the city wants more affordable housing with tax dollars, let's expand Mitchell-Lama or even build new Mitchell-Lama buildings in public-private partnerships as have been done with other new housing opportunities in parts of the city.
I have no problem with tax dollars being used to support those in need, not those living an unrealistic lifestyle. Someone who can only pay a few hundred dollars to the current maximum of $2k, is the person who needs the assistance to live in the city in a decent neighborhood. Hardworking individuals who are in lower/moderate brackets are those for whom protections are needed, since we need their labor to make the city function, and they add to the tax revenue with their consumption and income taxes. Plus, people who work are less likely to allow a neighborhood to degrade, especially with an ownership interest.
Why not expand the co-op program, like Mitchell-Lama, giving an ownership interest, and even allowing downpayments to be spread out to make it more afforable for people? I'd be willing to take the risk as a taxpayer to give someone a decent place to call their own, since the majority would pay on time, especially if it was set up through payroll deduction or additional rent for a period of time, and judiciously enforced. Sometimes if one takes a calculated risk, those to whom goodwill has been extended will not let you down. Let them move in with a regular security deposit, perhaps a little bit more earnest money, and spread out the remainder of the downpayment a little, since it can be difficult for someone to save the required amount, even if their income could support it.
There are creative ways to make affordable housing a reality, without impinging on property owner's rights, and without expanding the welfare state. Using appropriate income guidelines as M-L and similar programs already do, this could acutally help to spur development of affordable housing stock. Co-operators do not have the short-timer's mentality, and tend to put down roots in a community, and can really help to stabilize them. And, even as several have had votes in recent years to leave the rolls of affordable houisng, they have remained true to their original precepts of providing decent, safe, affordable housing.
To me, this is a "no-brainer," as there is an affordable housing need, some under-utilized areas of the city that could use an influx of new, working people to help shore up neglected communities. This is already happening in smaller pockets, but it's not to the level of affordability or the scale that I propose. This would balance the needs of the affordable housing community by providing a dignified housing alternative to low/moderate income workers that is safe, clean, and self-managed.
And, I'd even let private developers who are required to have lottery units and the like be able to transfer such interest to new communities/rehabs that are managed as affordable housing stock, not to create another new round of projects and problems, but to expand co-ops with stellar reputations (M-L, some that were started by the unions, etc.) as a real way to meet the needs of the city and its people.
The reason that I favor the co-op alternative is that some rentals do leave the M-L program after the tax abatements expire, thus reducing the availability of affordable housing. Whereas, with the co-op structure, most do not leave, as the members vote to retain the affordable housing option in the midst of a very expensive city.
Mitchell and Lama is great, but Bloomberg failed to sign a bill extending funding for the program, thus putting the entire program in jeopardy. in addition to that, the promised affordable housing on Brooklyn's waterfront has fallen through- yet another failed promise of mayor Bloomberg.
I agree...but there are also ALOT of affordable housing buildings going up...but here is the kicker... MANY ARE 1/2 EMPTY!!!! Why? Because the requirements are so strict many people can't qualify! They typically must reside within the community district, and then must meet very strict income/#in household ratios in order to qualify. The net effect is affordable housing units staying vacant for years because not enough people are qualifying. In Mott Haven there is a new building across the street from me that opened in Spring 2007 which is more than 1/3 empty because the residents do not qualify, even at the horrendously low income requirements..it is crazy. And they refuse to open it up to other adjacent districts even....
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.
