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 06-19-2015, 07:21 AM
 
789 posts, read 638,374 times
Reputation: 593

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by juppiter View Post
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.
It is essentially the same thing. The "subsidy" must come from somewhere. When you build below market rate housing that wouldn't otherwise be built by developers and make people "qualify" for apartments by checking their income level, you create perverse incentives on both ends of the equation.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-19-2015, 07:31 AM
 
2,035 posts, read 2,745,248 times
Reputation: 1525
What is the distinction between "projects" and "affordable housing"?
Are what were built in Yonkers considered "projects" or "affordable housing"?
These are genuine questions.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2015, 07:40 AM
 
789 posts, read 638,374 times
Reputation: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffpv View Post
What is the distinction between "projects" and "affordable housing"?
Are what were built in Yonkers considered "projects" or "affordable housing"?
These are genuine questions.
Essentially the same thing--taxpayer subsidizes the developer, the operating costs and the rent because the rent fails to cover market rate expenses and the units would never be built in the first place without the developer receiving said subsidies. "Projects" tends to be a sprawling series of "affordable housing" buildings and has a negative connotation because of the terrible plight families have suffered under the utopian dream. So politicians use the more palatable "affordable housing" term because who on earth could possibly be against "affordable" housing for all! *applause line*
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2015, 09:04 AM
 
2,035 posts, read 2,745,248 times
Reputation: 1525
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonaldusMagnus View Post
Essentially the same thing--taxpayer subsidizes the developer, the operating costs and the rent because the rent fails to cover market rate expenses and the units would never be built in the first place without the developer receiving said subsidies. "Projects" tends to be a sprawling series of "affordable housing" buildings and has a negative connotation because of the terrible plight families have suffered under the utopian dream. So politicians use the more palatable "affordable housing" term because who on earth could possibly be against "affordable" housing for all! *applause line*
Well, if "affordable housing" leads to what happened in Yonkers, count me out.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2015, 09:35 AM
 
789 posts, read 638,374 times
Reputation: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffpv View Post
Well, if "affordable housing" leads to what happened in Yonkers, count me out.
One "affordable" multi unit building is not going to destroy an entire town. However, think of it this way: Imagine you own a home in a generic Westchester area and across the street is some empty grasslike space. They decide to put up an"affordable" housing building with 50 units. I can certainly guarantee you that the following equation will hold true: Prior to the "affordable"building your home was worth $X. After "affordable" building built your home is worth $X MINUS $Y. I don't know what $Y is but I do know your house will be worth less. Look at it from the perspective of a homebuyer. Same house, same school district. One has single family neighbors in like houses. The other has a HUD building across the street. You don't have to be a real estate expert to figure out the answer.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2015, 09:41 AM
 
10,276 posts, read 9,368,183 times
Reputation: 10644
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonaldusMagnus View Post
It is essentially the same thing. The "subsidy" must come from somewhere. When you build below market rate housing that wouldn't otherwise be built by developers and make people "qualify" for apartments by checking their income level, you create perverse incentives on both ends of the equation.
No, they're not the same thing.

And, in any case, we have shown that subsidized housing doesn't harm communities. Manhattan is the most desirable place on the planet, and has the highest amount of subsidized housing in the U.S.

15 CPW, which is the most expensive condo building on the planet, is two blocks away from the Amsterdam Houses, a NYCHA complex. Those fancy condo buildings along the High Line in Chelsea are next to multiple highrise NYCHA complexes. There are multiple NYCHA complexes on the Upper East Side, probably the most desirable urban neighborhood anywhere. They're everywhere, yet Manhattan booms, and is safe and thriving.

So if huge housing projects with many poor don't harm Manhattan, you really think small apartment complexes for middle income workers is going to harm Westchester? Of course not.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2015, 09:45 AM
 
2,035 posts, read 2,745,248 times
Reputation: 1525
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
No, they're not the same thing.

And, in any case, we have shown that subsidized housing doesn't harm communities. Manhattan is the most desirable place on the planet, and has the highest amount of subsidized housing in the U.S.

15 CPW, which is the most expensive condo building on the planet, is two blocks away from the Amsterdam Houses, a NYCHA complex. Those fancy condo buildings along the High Line in Chelsea are next to multiple highrise NYCHA complexes. There are multiple NYCHA complexes on the Upper East Side, probably the most desirable urban neighborhood anywhere. They're everywhere, yet Manhattan booms, and is safe and thriving.

So if huge housing projects with many poor don't harm Manhattan, you really think small apartment complexes for middle income workers is going to harm Westchester? Of course not.
How are they different? I'm genuinely curious. Thanks.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2015, 10:02 AM
 
789 posts, read 638,374 times
Reputation: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
No, they're not the same thing.

And, in any case, we have shown that subsidized housing doesn't harm communities. Manhattan is the most desirable place on the planet, and has the highest amount of subsidized housing in the U.S.

15 CPW, which is the most expensive condo building on the planet, is two blocks away from the Amsterdam Houses, a NYCHA complex. Those fancy condo buildings along the High Line in Chelsea are next to multiple highrise NYCHA complexes. There are multiple NYCHA complexes on the Upper East Side, probably the most desirable urban neighborhood anywhere. They're everywhere, yet Manhattan booms, and is safe and thriving.

So if huge housing projects with many poor don't harm Manhattan, you really think small apartment complexes for middle income workers is going to harm Westchester? Of course not.
It is EXACTLY the same. The only difference is the degree to which income level is used to qualify for said apartments. Thats it. The units are subsidized. They don't get built, nor rented without the subsidy. ECO 101: Anything subsidized you get more of (Creates high demand for small number of units) while at the same time Price Ceiling creates no demand for developers (thus the need for the taxpayer to pay the developer to build and maintain a unit that cannot pay for itself and would otherwise not be built).

I guess you missed my earlier response to this. Go back and read it. False logic that "because Manhattan has high rents plus HUD housing, that it's not harmful". It IS harmful. To everyone involved, the most harm done to the people it is held up to help. It is harmful to taxpayers and the homeowners the building goes next to.

It is a poverty trap. This is easily provable by the statistics....i'll reiterate bc you didnt read them: 51% of NYCHA families are below poverty level. The apartments turn over at a rate of 3%, the avg apartment turns over ONCE every 30 years. Generations of families trapped by utopian policies.

I notice you are not refuting the simple: House worth $X prior to HUD building across street....House worth $X -$Y AFTER building there. Go ask your friendly real estate professional if they built a HUD building smack dab across the street from your house how that affects value.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2015, 10:03 AM
 
10,276 posts, read 9,368,183 times
Reputation: 10644
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonaldusMagnus View Post
This is bizarro world. Talk about an anecdote: "I've walked thru projects...they fine".
No, you asked for an anecdote, and I gave one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonaldusMagnus View Post
Go to the local precincts and speak to them about where crime is happening most.
Irrelevant. The fact that there's more crime among the poor than among the wealthy does not mean that subsidized housing is a bad thing. There's far more crime among men than among women. There's far more crime among the young then among the old. Does that mean that young men need to be banned from Westchester too?

Manhattan (and NYC) has a lower crime rate than the U.S. as a whole, BTW. Are you arguing that the poor won't commit crime if they don't have subsidized housing? Based on what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonaldusMagnus View Post
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.
No, my argument makes perfect sense, as does your analogy. If subsidized housing harms cities, then why does the most successful city in the U.S. have the most subsidized housing? If you drink 8 martinis a day and it causes no medical harm, then yes, it isn't a bad thing in medical terms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonaldusMagnus View Post
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.
That makes no sense. The middle class can't afford NYC because it's too desirable, not because it isn't desirable enough. Prices are too high. NYC was very affordable to the middle class back in the 1970's, when the city was a dump, and when there was much less subsidized housing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonaldusMagnus View Post
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.
Yet NYC builds more housing than Dallas or any other U.S. city. How can there be "very little residential development" when per the Census NYC has more residential development than any city in the U.S.? Have you been to NYC lately? Crane city. Brooklyn is crazy with development.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonaldusMagnus View Post
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.
Wrong. NYC has net inmigration. More people come to the city than leave. NYC has more population growth than any other city in the U.S. since 2000, and has positive domestic in-migration, because the city is so desirable.

It's actually Westchester County which has net outmigration, in part because there is little affordable rental housing. Young people don't want a suburban house, they want urban amenities, so Westchester loses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonaldusMagnus View Post
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.
This makes no sense. The majority of households in subsidized housing in NYC aren't under the poverty line. In fact the majority of households in NYCHA housing aren't under the poverty line. They aren't "escaping" poverty because they aren't poor to begin with. They aren't leaving the housing because it's dirt cheap; you would be stupid to leave.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonaldusMagnus View Post
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.
Actually, no, we don't. And your numbers are wrong. And obviously poverty isn't caused by affordable housing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonaldusMagnus View Post
And because no one ever leaves, no one can get in.
All wrong. NYC is building around 10,000 units of subsidized housing per year, and NYCHA forces elderly households to leave their family units, and move to a smaller unit, so that a family with children can move in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonaldusMagnus View Post
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.
All completely irrelevent politcal talking points. You think affordable housing is "socialist", fine. But has nothing to do with your opposition to subsidized housing in Westchester; as the feds are not requiring more affordable housing; they are requiring it be built in areas where there is none. If you personally think that subsidized housing is "evil" that's fine but completely irrelevent.

And it's all Fox news nonsense anyways. The biggest housing subsidy in the U.S. is the mortgage deduction/property tax deduction, which overwhelmingly benefits higher income homeowners in places like Westchester. The typical Westchester homeowner is getting far more of a federal subsidy than the typical NYC renter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonaldusMagnus View Post
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.
You forgot to mention Paris, Vienna, London, Frankfurt, Rome all cities with FAR more proportional subsidized housing than NYC, yet very successful cities. The Soviet Union was a failed state for many reasons, not because of subsidized housing specifically.

And Detroit has basically no projects or subsidized housing. Using your logical reasoning fail, no subsidized housing leads to Detroit.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2015, 10:10 AM
 
10,276 posts, read 9,368,183 times
Reputation: 10644
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffpv View Post
How are they different? I'm genuinely curious. Thanks.
NYCHA is govt. owned housing, where the eligibility is based on federal rules. It's "the projects". Usually large complexes of highrise housing. Also, the eligibility rules favor the poor.

The stuff being built in Westchester is very different. It's private housing subject to income requirements. It's generally referred to as workforce housing. The developer builds the income-restricted housing because there are certain valuable tax credits that come along with the construction.

You aren't going to get "the poors" in these complexes anyways. You will get middle income workers. "Normal" familes who have regular jobs. No, it won't be investment bankers, but this is private housing and the developers obviously are very careful who they're renting to. It won't result in any issues in someplace like Chappaqua; no one is going to be harmed if a few nurses and civil servants can live in Chappaqua.
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 12:48 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