U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > Westchester County
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-18-2015, 07:37 AM
 
10,276 posts, read 9,359,161 times
Reputation: 10644

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by matlabmaster99 View Post
I don't think that building low income housing in a rural area far from shopping, transportation, and jobs is helping anyone.
No one is doing this. They are trying to build affordable housing in communities that have traditionally blocked affordable housing. The affordable housing is almost always situated on transit lines, and accessible to shopping, transportation and jobs.

Chappaqua is a perfect example. They have a proposal for a small, modest apartment community next to the train station, but the city is suing and all kinds of wealthy NIMBYs are fighting the proposal. You even have the fire department claiming that an apartment building would make it impossible to fight fires.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matlabmaster99 View Post
The federal government needs to stay out of our neighborhoods and let local governments do their job.
That's exactly the problem. Local govts aren't doing their job. You can't block rental housing because you don't like it. Should have followed the rules to begin with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matlabmaster99 View Post
Obama is trying to socially engineer westchester. He doesn't understand the concept of a rural area because he has never lived in one.
Westchester isn't a "rural area". It's a fairly urban county next to probably the biggest and most important city in the Western world. You can't ban apartment buildings from 90% of the county's land.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matlabmaster99 View Post
Obviously the federal government should not be imposing on local zoning laws. this is just the liberals and the federal government and Obama trying to overpower local governments.
No, the federal government has the OBLIGATION to override localities when those localities are breaking federal laws. Simple as that.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-18-2015, 03:49 PM
 
789 posts, read 637,872 times
Reputation: 593
We have the greatest experiment of "affordable" housing in the most expensive real estate market in the US already, so maybe lets take a clue from that and see how it worked out: NYC. I invite anyone here to an affordable housing development in Manhattan and report back on the results. Or I could save you some time. You will find: drugs, drug dealers, broken families, gang activity, HS dropouts and rampant crime. You have zero incentive to move up in job bc you then lose your subsidized housing....they are a shining example of racial and economic segregation smack in the middle of enormous wealth. You basically doom a family to the death sentence by setting them up in one of these government utopian paradises.

Oh but wait, should we judge it on it's good intentions? Or the results.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2015, 04:50 PM
 
10,276 posts, read 9,359,161 times
Reputation: 10644
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonaldusMagnus View Post
We have the greatest experiment of "affordable" housing in the most expensive real estate market in the US already, so maybe lets take a clue from that and see how it worked out: NYC. I invite anyone here to an affordable housing development in Manhattan and report back on the results.
NYC is generally regarded as having the best subsidized housing in the U.S. It's considered the national model. Every other city basically gave up and demolished all its housing projects.

If you're using NYC as an example why a city shouldn't build affordable housing, then you're making a pretty weak argument. Every neighborhood in NYC has affordable housing, even the richest ones.

There are housing projects in the wealthiest Manhattan neighborhoods, and Manhattan is like 10 times more desirable than Westchester, so it doesn't seem to hurt the city. Manhattan is the wealth center of the planet, yet it also has more housing project units than anywhere else in the U.S.

So if subsidized housing is so bad, why is Manhattan (and much of Brooklyn) so much more expensive and desirable than Westchester? Why does a 2 bedroom cost the same as a mansion in Scarsdale or Rye? If your argument made sense, then Rye would be more expensive than Tribeca or the Upper West Side, but it isn't. It's dirt cheap compared to Manhattan.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2015, 06:50 PM
 
789 posts, read 637,872 times
Reputation: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
NYC is generally regarded as having the best subsidized housing in the U.S. It's considered the national model. Every other city basically gave up and demolished all its housing projects.

If you're using NYC as an example why a city shouldn't build affordable housing, then you're making a pretty weak argument. Every neighborhood in NYC has affordable housing, even the richest ones.

There are housing projects in the wealthiest Manhattan neighborhoods, and Manhattan is like 10 times more desirable than Westchester, so it doesn't seem to hurt the city. Manhattan is the wealth center of the planet, yet it also has more housing project units than anywhere else in the U.S.

So if subsidized housing is so bad, why is Manhattan (and much of Brooklyn) so much more expensive and desirable than Westchester? Why does a 2 bedroom cost the same as a mansion in Scarsdale or Rye? If your argument made sense, then Rye would be more expensive than Tribeca or the Upper West Side, but it isn't. It's dirt cheap compared to Manhattan.
The housing projects in NYC are on the lower east side, the upper east side at 102nd Street. It is fair to say no one would CHOOSE to live in these areas if one had the means not to. The projects directly correlate to where the most crime, drugs, prostitution and generally places one wouldn't want to take their kid for a stroll. Take a walk thru there some evening and let us know how the "national model" is doing.

It "doesn't seem to hurt the city"?, of course it does. It makes the desireable parts of the city smaller, lowering said supply, driving prices further up for "desirable" (non project) areas.

As to why Manhattan is more expensive than Westchester? Do I really need to make that argument? Something called supply and demand. The demand for the limited supply of housing units is so high that it drives the cost up. So a 2 bedroom 5 minutes from the office is VERY desirable. Add to that the fact that your in the biggest city in the world where tons of jobs are located. Any city center (desirable parts) is more expensive on a square foot basis than it's suburbs.

The fact of the matter is that the cost per beneficiery of subsidized housing is so great, it can only be given to a relatively small number of people. The asset provided to the beneficiary, despite its immense cost cannot be used by the beneficiaries to help extricate themselves from poverty, because it is completely illiquid, and cannot be sold, sublet, mortgaged, etc. (you would literally be better off handing the beneficiary a check instead of dooming them to live in one of these projects). Rents inevitably fail to cover operating expenses, making the projects dependent on subsidies that must ever increase. It's only a question of time until the units fall into disrepair. The taxpayer expense increases with every passing year. No money is available for capital improvements -- even if the project is located in a fancy area where market values would immediately support private renovation at no taxpayer expense. The only way the residents can take advantage of their "good fortune" is to remain in the subsidized unit for life and not increase their visible income too much. The projects become permanent concentrations of poverty and racial segregation.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2015, 07:48 PM
 
10,276 posts, read 9,359,161 times
Reputation: 10644
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonaldusMagnus View Post
The housing projects in NYC are on the lower east side, the upper east side at 102nd Street. It is fair to say no one would CHOOSE to live in these areas if one had the means not to. The projects directly correlate to where the most crime, drugs, prostitution and generally places one wouldn't want to take their kid for a stroll. Take a walk thru there some evening and let us know how the "national model" is doing.
Not true. Housing projects are all over NYC. They're on the Upper East Side, Upper West Side, in Tribeca, in the Village, in Chelsea, in Midtown, everywhere. There's no place in Manhattan that doesn't have projects nearby.

And I've walked through projects in NYC frequently. They're fine. Used to live directly across the street, with no problems.

Heck, there's a project right next to Lincoln Center, just two blocks from the most expensive condo tower on earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonaldusMagnus View Post
It "doesn't seem to hurt the city"?, of course it does. It makes the desireable parts of the city smaller, lowering said supply, driving prices further up for "desirable" (non project) areas.
That makes no sense. The largest number of housing project units in NYC are in Manhattan, which is the most expensive and desirable borough. There are $20 million condo units selling right across the street from public housing.

How can you seriously argue that the wealthiest and most desirable major city on the planet is harmed by affordable housing? It seems to be booming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonaldusMagnus View Post
As to why Manhattan is more expensive than Westchester? Do I really need to make that argument? Something called supply and demand.
Exactly. Tons of affordable housing doesn't harm demand in Manhattan; a tiny amount in Westchester won't harm demand either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RonaldusMagnus View Post
The fact of the matter is that the cost per beneficiery of subsidized housing is so great, it can only be given to a relatively small number of people.
That has nothing to do with the federal court order. The feds aren't ordering Westchester to build more subsidized housing; they're ordering it to be built in areas where there is currently no such housing.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2015, 08:10 PM
 
Location: Westchester County, NY -> Pinellas County, FL -> Dutchess County, NY -> Denver?
348 posts, read 488,928 times
Reputation: 349
They should build some projects in Chappaqua. I bet Clintons will love it.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2015, 08:47 PM
 
789 posts, read 637,872 times
Reputation: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
Not true. Housing projects are all over NYC. They're on the Upper East Side, Upper West Side, in Tribeca, in the Village, in Chelsea, in Midtown, everywhere. There's no place in Manhattan that doesn't have projects nearby.

And I've walked through projects in NYC frequently. They're fine. Used to live directly across the street, with no problems.

Heck, there's a project right next to Lincoln Center, just two blocks from the most expensive condo tower on earth.

That makes no sense. The largest number of housing project units in NYC are in Manhattan, which is the most expensive and desirable borough. There are $20 million condo units selling right across the street from public housing.

How can you seriously argue that the wealthiest and most desirable major city on the planet is harmed by affordable housing? It seems to be booming.

Exactly. Tons of affordable housing doesn't harm demand in Manhattan; a tiny amount in Westchester won't harm demand either.
This is bizarro world. Talk about an anecdote: "I've walked thru projects...they fine". Go to the local precincts and speak to them about where crime is happening most. Your argument is illogical: There is subsidized housing in NY and NY has the most wealth, therefore subsidized housing = wealth or at the very least doestn hurt. Illogical as saying I drink 8 martinis a day and I function fine...therefore martinis make me function fine or since I haven't dropped dead yet they arent hurting. What is happening in NYC is the 170,000 subsidized housing units create MORE haves v have nots then less and drive the middle out. NYC has a very poor record of new construction vs other truly booming cities such as Dallas. The arcane rent laws combined with the "HUD" rules basically causes very little residential development. As a matter of fact New York City (and boroughs) has a net OUT migration of citizens born here. Booming is hardly the word. Demand for trophy apartments by the uber rich is not the yardstick.

Fact: The turnover rate for NYC low income housing is 3%--compare that with normal turnover rate for rentals of 35%. The average person/family remains in the unit for 30 years vs 3 yrs for a market rate rental. It creates a circle of poverty that is nearly impossible to escape from. The perverse incentive begets the next fact: The poverty rate in NYC low income projects in the richest city on earth with access to transportation and jobs is 51% (these numbers come directly from HUD). Let that number marinate. 51%. We all know what poverty breeds. And because no one ever leaves, no one can get in. Don't even get me started on the cost of the subsidies to "incentivize" construction of these non-profitable apartments. The operating costs that outstrip the income by perverse amounts: according to HUD rent collections only cover 1/3 of operating costs. Guess who pays the other 2/3. In the HUD report capex PER APT is estimated at $100k ($16.9 Billion for 170k apartments). This is known as a Socialist death trap. All the while dooming the residents of said apartments to a circle of poverty.

Does anyone remember the old Soviet Union, where 70 years of socialized efforts to build nearly "free" housing ended with 25 year waiting lists for tiny apartments? It's the same thing. Meanwhile, the accounting hides the extent of the huge subsidies to a small number of people -- nobody accounts for the lost property taxes, or the opportunity cost of subsidized financing, or the deferred maintenance that will have to be made up some day. And finally, the residents come under powerful incentives to minimize their income, or at least to minimize any income that the overseers can observe, because if you have substantial reported income they'll increase your rent or even throw you out. If you are a rational actor, probably your best option is to become a drug dealer; second best option is to put together a package of non-cash government handouts (food stamps, Medicaid, school lunches, etc.) In short, there is no more destructive public policy than public housing.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2015, 04:16 AM
 
7,296 posts, read 11,169,150 times
Reputation: 3254
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonaldusMagnus View Post
This is bizarro world. Talk about an anecdote: "I've walked thru projects...they fine". Go to the local precincts and speak to them about where crime is happening most. Your argument is illogical: There is subsidized housing in NY and NY has the most wealth, therefore subsidized housing = wealth or at the very least doestn hurt. Illogical as saying I drink 8 martinis a day and I function fine...therefore martinis make me function fine or since I haven't dropped dead yet they arent hurting. What is happening in NYC is the 170,000 subsidized housing units create MORE haves v have nots then less and drive the middle out. NYC has a very poor record of new construction vs other truly booming cities such as Dallas. The arcane rent laws combined with the "HUD" rules basically causes very little residential development. As a matter of fact New York City (and boroughs) has a net OUT migration of citizens born here. Booming is hardly the word. Demand for trophy apartments by the uber rich is not the yardstick.

Fact: The turnover rate for NYC low income housing is 3%--compare that with normal turnover rate for rentals of 35%. The average person/family remains in the unit for 30 years vs 3 yrs for a market rate rental. It creates a circle of poverty that is nearly impossible to escape from. The perverse incentive begets the next fact: The poverty rate in NYC low income projects in the richest city on earth with access to transportation and jobs is 51% (these numbers come directly from HUD). Let that number marinate. 51%. We all know what poverty breeds. And because no one ever leaves, no one can get in. Don't even get me started on the cost of the subsidies to "incentivize" construction of these non-profitable apartments. The operating costs that outstrip the income by perverse amounts: according to HUD rent collections only cover 1/3 of operating costs. Guess who pays the other 2/3. In the HUD report capex PER APT is estimated at $100k ($16.9 Billion for 170k apartments). This is known as a Socialist death trap. All the while dooming the residents of said apartments to a circle of poverty.
Maybe what NOLA is saying is that having such housing does not really hurt demand and QOL in NYC? No dispute about what goes on in the projects but not sure that is likely something the typical affluent UES/Yorkville resident encounters in his/her daily life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RonaldusMagnus View Post
If you are a rational actor, probably your best option is to become a drug dealer; second best option is to put together a package of non-cash government handouts (food stamps, Medicaid, school lunches, etc.) In short, there is no more destructive public policy than public housing.
Wouldn't these people not be paying into social security? If that's the case, what SS benefits can they get when they are too old to work?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2015, 06:44 AM
 
5,720 posts, read 6,133,211 times
Reputation: 3624
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonaldusMagnus View Post
We have the greatest experiment of "affordable" housing in the most expensive real estate market in the US already, so maybe lets take a clue from that and see how it worked out: NYC. I invite anyone here to an affordable housing development in Manhattan and report back on the results. Or I could save you some time. You will find: drugs, drug dealers, broken families, gang activity, HS dropouts and rampant crime. You have zero incentive to move up in job bc you then lose your subsidized housing....they are a shining example of racial and economic segregation smack in the middle of enormous wealth. You basically doom a family to the death sentence by setting them up in one of these government utopian paradises.

Oh but wait, should we judge it on it's good intentions? Or the results.
You're not talking about affordable housing. You are talking about "projects," which is not what is being built in Westchester or proposed for Westchester.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2015, 07:21 AM
 
1,998 posts, read 1,723,664 times
Reputation: 1233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forest_Hills_Daddy View Post
Maybe what NOLA is saying is that having such housing does not really hurt demand and QOL in NYC? No dispute about what goes on in the projects but not sure that is likely something the typical affluent UES/Yorkville resident encounters in his/her daily life.
Apples to Orange comparison. The suburbs sells you a community of single family house with high property taxes for good public school. NYC sells you urban dense environment with low property tax and bad public schools. The 750 affordable housing are being built in Westchester, what is causing friction is the way it being built and the zoning laws being as locals and HUD have different interest when it comes to creating affordable housing (locals don't want apartment buildings and multi-family units in the area while HUD sees this as the only way it will be possible to put affordable housing in the area).
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > Westchester County
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:27 PM.

© 2005-2022, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top