You want more affordable housing. A few suggestions: i) phase out Rent Control/Stabilization; ii) streamline an abusive city/state regulatory system; and iii) cut taxes in the city/state to encourage businesses and job growth. Let's face it, our Mayor is an idiot. Having never had a real job in his life, his only solution is more government interference. Maybe the time for Public Housing in Manhattan has passed. Sell the Real Estate and use the proceeds to create better housing in less dense and expensive areas. Stop trying to solve a problem that will solve itself without continued government intervention.
14
Affordable housing will never be a reality unless there is affordable construction. How can anyone make cheap units if they are costly to build? De Blasio should focus more on figuring out ways to help builders cut costs - for example not making them liable for worker caused on the job injuries, loosening zoning laws, reducing the number of buildings in NYC classified as historical which are impossibly costly to modify, etc.
Rent control is one of the worst policies imaginable because when you push down the rent in specific units in a building, the landlord has to jack up rents everywhere else to compensate, making the median unit much more expensive. As with most other things, price clears the housing market and the only way to keep prices from being astronomical is to let people build as many units as they want at the lowest cost.
Rent control is one of the worst policies imaginable because when you push down the rent in specific units in a building, the landlord has to jack up rents everywhere else to compensate, making the median unit much more expensive. As with most other things, price clears the housing market and the only way to keep prices from being astronomical is to let people build as many units as they want at the lowest cost.
7
Liberalize the air rights system, allow more units to be built, regardless of their affordability, and supply will come to the city. The air rights regime, was mistakenly thought to help keep affordable housing in the city, but needless to say was tremendously misguided and put NY on its current trajectory towards an extremely supply constrained market. It also hurts the environment as higher buildings are more eco friendly.
Political regulations are easier to put in though than remove, especially when people have spent so much buying and selling these fictitious property rights.
Political regulations are easier to put in though than remove, especially when people have spent so much buying and selling these fictitious property rights.
1
I’m so tired of the NYT’s constant propaganda for DeBlasio.
As a New Yorker living in the same neighborhood for twenty years all I can say as that we’ve seen enormous value destruction in a very short period of time – since DeBlasio took office.
The streets are filthy! The pavement and roads falling apart, gun crime is up and crime in the most visited parts of the city is also up. We feel less safe. Quality of life is declining here.
I feel like I’m living in a city that is self-destructing. It is very sad…
There is a lot of political talk but very little strong management or leadership.
BTW - This is the 12th time I try to post this comment. We are not allowed to criticize the NYT or DeBlasio here?
As a New Yorker living in the same neighborhood for twenty years all I can say as that we’ve seen enormous value destruction in a very short period of time – since DeBlasio took office.
The streets are filthy! The pavement and roads falling apart, gun crime is up and crime in the most visited parts of the city is also up. We feel less safe. Quality of life is declining here.
I feel like I’m living in a city that is self-destructing. It is very sad…
There is a lot of political talk but very little strong management or leadership.
BTW - This is the 12th time I try to post this comment. We are not allowed to criticize the NYT or DeBlasio here?
24
So to date $30,900 per housing unit has been funded by the City not to mention the amount of other funding provided by federal sources (taxpayers), soft sources (provided by non profits) or private capital. What are we getting in return on that investment? How many of those 20,000 units will actually help working people remain here to actually "work" and raise strong, stable families whose offspring will take advantage of the education and cultural experiences and grow the city into a more vibrant place to be and ultimately become taxpayers themselves?
It is more likely it will be used to house the elderly, the disabled, the non working among us who will suck up even more of the city's resources without returning anything to the local economy. There are simply more affordable places to house these types of tenants in the US and one of the world's most expensive cities does not need to be "home". The cost of everything here is more....feeding and educating and transporting these same people so where do the hand outs end?
Does it make sense for the city to do this? It would seem unlikely the anwer is yes. Wouldn't that money go much further if we used it to make the city more accessible to ALL? Transportation to more affordable places to call home?
It is more likely it will be used to house the elderly, the disabled, the non working among us who will suck up even more of the city's resources without returning anything to the local economy. There are simply more affordable places to house these types of tenants in the US and one of the world's most expensive cities does not need to be "home". The cost of everything here is more....feeding and educating and transporting these same people so where do the hand outs end?
Does it make sense for the city to do this? It would seem unlikely the anwer is yes. Wouldn't that money go much further if we used it to make the city more accessible to ALL? Transportation to more affordable places to call home?
6
The Editorial headline got me thinking. The focus is on the "low-income" and the rich and the rest, who constitute the majority income-bracket in New York City, is trivialized as "in between". The middle class pays for those who want to make a beeline for "sleek" apartments in Long Island City, a place that those of us who are on the middle class end of the economic spectrum, can't afford anymore. Yet it is on the paychecks of the middle class--the taxes we pay without our hearts consent---the welfare recipients, variously euphemized as the "low income " and the subsidized, that the low-income are able to find place in "sleek" structures.
This is outrageous.
"In between" is a disrespectful class bracket to confer on the city's hard working professionals whose not-so-low-income bars them from the fruits of state welfare as well as the fruits of ultra privilege that the rich enjoy.
This is outrageous.
"In between" is a disrespectful class bracket to confer on the city's hard working professionals whose not-so-low-income bars them from the fruits of state welfare as well as the fruits of ultra privilege that the rich enjoy.
20
I've been trying to respond to QED and MKM but the Times has failed to print
my refutes. QED- I had a co-op for over 25 yrs - career ended, had to sell.
You have some nerve castigating me for not having a co-op when you know
nothing of my situation. as to MKM - I live on the East side, surrounded with
highrise bldgs. dedicated to the Russian Oligarchs and Chinese Billionaires and
their ilk. These bdgs. are all over the city - one just down the street from me on
1st Ave - a condo - advertises studios for 1 mill. 5. Get real.
my refutes. QED- I had a co-op for over 25 yrs - career ended, had to sell.
You have some nerve castigating me for not having a co-op when you know
nothing of my situation. as to MKM - I live on the East side, surrounded with
highrise bldgs. dedicated to the Russian Oligarchs and Chinese Billionaires and
their ilk. These bdgs. are all over the city - one just down the street from me on
1st Ave - a condo - advertises studios for 1 mill. 5. Get real.
9
I feel for you. I have someone who follows me around on this paper and makes inappropriate comments. I've complained to the Times about it and they don't do anything. This person has gone way over the bounds of decency but the Times lets him/her continue.
3
The prosperity of the business owner few percent nobility in the Sanctuary City Plantations of the north is built on the use of mostly illiterate immigrants as the functional equivalent of slaves. So what we can expect is a lot of deceptive "we feel your pain" political theatre, like current wage rises promised to be phased in over such a long period that inflation eats up their value, and some "emergency" also ends up stopping many of the rises after the next election is over. And of course a continual campaign of both parties to flood our labor markets with ever more desperate 10's of millions of immigrants. Minimum wages after all mean nothing when business hire millions off the books or demand kickbacks of a high percentage of weekly minimum wages paid. Nothing is going to change, things will get ever worse for common people, for building an ever larger under class in liberal democracies is the "global labor market" Cosmopolitan plan of our elites. They globe trotting Cosmopolitans think that because even poor people in the USA and Europe live better than most in authoritarian, endemically corrupt 3/4's rest of the world things need to be equalized for the majorities everywhere, the 90-95% in all nations should be equally worse off. But that this is morally OK as long as there is some remote meritorious chance of an especially criminal and deceptive person from the under class being able to lie and thieve his/her way up into the over class, new age nobility.
4
When it comes to intractable urban problems, I predict that affordable housing will eventually trump (no pun intended) all the others. As long as luxury condos in NYC or London are seen as safe investments by international billionaires, the problem is sure to get worse. The only solution I can see would be a highly progressive residential property tax schedule.
7
Luxury condos in NYC or London are seen as safe investments by international billionaires to launder their ill gotten gains, so not only do this city allow rich foreigners to own property, they invite international criminals into the country.
Despicable and dangerous.
Despicable and dangerous.
10
How about just getting the assessments to market value, and taxing all properties on the same basis, instead of favoring some over others?
Better yet, simplify and make it more just: reduce or eliminate the taxes on buildings and simply value the land. Tax that value at something approaching its annual rental value. Underused sites would be put to something approaching their highest and best use rather quickly, meeting all sorts of human needs.
This is an old, wise, just idea, familiar to all New Yorkers 125 years ago. Not popular with the main political parties which then, as now, existed to serve vested interests, and most particularly the landlords of the day. But it was then and is now in the interests of ordinary New Yorkers and indeed, the vast majority of humans on earth.
Those who currently get to treat the land rent as their private treasure stand in the way of creating a city, a society, that works for all people.
Look into land value taxation. Even Milton Friedman praised it (with faint damns), calling it the "least bad" tax. Bill Vickrey and Lowell Harriss both thought highly of it, as do many other "quotable notables" (search on that one!)
Better yet, simplify and make it more just: reduce or eliminate the taxes on buildings and simply value the land. Tax that value at something approaching its annual rental value. Underused sites would be put to something approaching their highest and best use rather quickly, meeting all sorts of human needs.
This is an old, wise, just idea, familiar to all New Yorkers 125 years ago. Not popular with the main political parties which then, as now, existed to serve vested interests, and most particularly the landlords of the day. But it was then and is now in the interests of ordinary New Yorkers and indeed, the vast majority of humans on earth.
Those who currently get to treat the land rent as their private treasure stand in the way of creating a city, a society, that works for all people.
Look into land value taxation. Even Milton Friedman praised it (with faint damns), calling it the "least bad" tax. Bill Vickrey and Lowell Harriss both thought highly of it, as do many other "quotable notables" (search on that one!)
1
The City owns the block between the FDR Drive and First Avenue and 25th to 26th Street, currently the home of the Brookdale School of Nursing which is moving to a new site uptown. The City is planning to build a half a million square foot Sanitation Garage on the site ... the sale of the entire site equals between 800m and a billion dollars - how many units of Affordable Housing could be built?
How serious is the City when a Sanitation Garage trumps affordable housing?
How serious is the City when a Sanitation Garage trumps affordable housing?
5
Maybe, you could combine the two! Nah.
1
Of what I know about 421-a, it needs to have some adjustments made, as in and of itself, it often does little to help create 'affordable housing' and naturally it has loopholes skewed in favor of the developers.
These developers get huge tax write-offs...I believe for a period of 20 years or something, for creating buildings with 'rent stabilized' apartments. But what is little known or understood by many people is that....once individual rental unit increases hit the $2500/month mark (and often the rents start out conveniently just below that mark...i.e., $2400/month, and are therefore still considered rent-stabilitized)...that once the rent goes up to $2500/month...something like after two more years, that unit's rent becomes DE-stabilized, or else it becomes DE-stabilized once the tenant paying $2500/month or more, moves out. When the next tenant comes in, that unit is no longer stabilized.
And of course, developers know this convoluted fact only too well, hence the fact that most of their rental units will start out just below the $2500/month threshold.
These developers get huge tax write-offs...I believe for a period of 20 years or something, for creating buildings with 'rent stabilized' apartments. But what is little known or understood by many people is that....once individual rental unit increases hit the $2500/month mark (and often the rents start out conveniently just below that mark...i.e., $2400/month, and are therefore still considered rent-stabilitized)...that once the rent goes up to $2500/month...something like after two more years, that unit's rent becomes DE-stabilized, or else it becomes DE-stabilized once the tenant paying $2500/month or more, moves out. When the next tenant comes in, that unit is no longer stabilized.
And of course, developers know this convoluted fact only too well, hence the fact that most of their rental units will start out just below the $2500/month threshold.
3
A large part of the problem with the housing market is that all private development is aimed at the luxury market.
Years ago there was a massive flight from the cities in this country to the suburbs. Now the cities are the place to be so all those with money (or their children) who left the city have returned. Not a bad thing and completely foreseeable.
The problem is the city has been promoted as a place for the wealthy of the world and allowed luxury development to go unchecked. We now have luxury buildings with vacant apartments sitting as investments for the wealthy who contribute nothing or near nothing as their income tax is captured ls where as they live and spend money else where. The only ones who benefit form this are the developers.
The answer to this is to to implement a luxury tax on luxury apartments not being used as a primary residence. This would encourage developers to build housing where the greatest demand actually exists - middle class housing.
The incentives to build "affordable housing" encourage the construction of means tested housing that income limits that exclude the middle class.
The current structure will lead only to a city of the super rich and super poor with no middle class.
Years ago there was a massive flight from the cities in this country to the suburbs. Now the cities are the place to be so all those with money (or their children) who left the city have returned. Not a bad thing and completely foreseeable.
The problem is the city has been promoted as a place for the wealthy of the world and allowed luxury development to go unchecked. We now have luxury buildings with vacant apartments sitting as investments for the wealthy who contribute nothing or near nothing as their income tax is captured ls where as they live and spend money else where. The only ones who benefit form this are the developers.
The answer to this is to to implement a luxury tax on luxury apartments not being used as a primary residence. This would encourage developers to build housing where the greatest demand actually exists - middle class housing.
The incentives to build "affordable housing" encourage the construction of means tested housing that income limits that exclude the middle class.
The current structure will lead only to a city of the super rich and super poor with no middle class.
14
The greatest forces against affordable housing is the reduction of crime in the City attraction of a worldwide audience for housing in a City made of 5 boroughs four of which of islands. The other great force is rent control and stabilization. Since end of WWII there has been a declared housing emergency. Since that time there has not been enough housing that people can afford because people do not move. DeBlasio should think about what land the City owns and could use for housing. He should also look at other land uses and determine if the City is going to have non-housing uses on that land. He also should get NYCHA units physically improved and a whole lot safer.
1
Since end of WWII there has been rent control and rent stabilization which have kept one million apartments permanently off the market and in the same family, who can make up to $250,000 a year and still be subsidized by their fellow market rate tenants.
If NYC wants to subsidize people to live here, subsidize the person, not the apartment, but I think we can all agree that $250,000 a year in not exactly poor, even in this city.
If NYC wants to subsidize people to live here, subsidize the person, not the apartment, but I think we can all agree that $250,000 a year in not exactly poor, even in this city.
10
The real problem with the lack of affordable housing is that this is a problem that has gone unattended for too long. The dye was cast when certain self-interest groups discovered just how lucrative dealing in real estate is, and can be, an traded in their humanity for the promise of a high-yielding capital venture.
The eviction of hard-working citizens became 'du jour', and just a part of the next inevitable rent increase, whether it was affordable or not. The race was on to build ever more 'Luxury' dwellings , instead of decent housing that doesn't require one's entire paycheck. And the population of the homeless, or soon-to-be homeless grew.
In the meantime, Politicians remained at the beck and call of Real Estate Developers and Landlords, who made it too easy for them to forget the voting constituencies that put them in office in the first place. And the Middle-Class, which continued to lose ground to the all encompassing greed that has swallowed this city whole, formed a whole new under-class.
As a result, now there is only the "Rich" and the "Poor". The "In Between" have long since been run out of town.
The eviction of hard-working citizens became 'du jour', and just a part of the next inevitable rent increase, whether it was affordable or not. The race was on to build ever more 'Luxury' dwellings , instead of decent housing that doesn't require one's entire paycheck. And the population of the homeless, or soon-to-be homeless grew.
In the meantime, Politicians remained at the beck and call of Real Estate Developers and Landlords, who made it too easy for them to forget the voting constituencies that put them in office in the first place. And the Middle-Class, which continued to lose ground to the all encompassing greed that has swallowed this city whole, formed a whole new under-class.
As a result, now there is only the "Rich" and the "Poor". The "In Between" have long since been run out of town.
12
N. Smith your comment is totally applicable to San Francisco, as well.
3
I agree 100% with Reasonable Person. What happened to all the talk in this country about the "Middle Class."? I'd like to hear de Blasio's thoughts on that.
9
Building the 200,000 units, if the city ever gets there, is just a Band-Aid approach in a city approaching 8 million residents. Ideally the solution would come out of the private economy, but this could be prodded by city policies and tax structure.
First, there probably should be some kind of luxury tax on high end properties, this should bring in some revenue and discourage some developers from just building for the high end market.
The revenue from the tax on the high-end properties can go into a development fund that private builders can use as capital, access to the fund would be contingent on the developers building some percentage of affordable housing.
First, there probably should be some kind of luxury tax on high end properties, this should bring in some revenue and discourage some developers from just building for the high end market.
The revenue from the tax on the high-end properties can go into a development fund that private builders can use as capital, access to the fund would be contingent on the developers building some percentage of affordable housing.
1
The only solution is to force developers to add affordable units to every development. It is the ONLY solution. They know it. It's done in other cities routinely.
2
We need more opportunity for better paying jobs in this city, less for taxpayer-funded and endlessly budget-draining affordable housing sponsored by the city government.
We also need better understanding of the infrastructure, public transit and traffic needs in the boroughs other than Manhattan and western Brooklyn and Queens.
The Mayor makes living in the outer boroughs. with less frequent and accessible public transportation, more expensive by his lack of attention to this issue and with his terrible traffic policies (25 mph for the whole city, and by maintaining and increasing the underused bikes lanes - take them out!).
So while the Mayor talks big, being able to get around from these neighborhoods to jobs is now more difficult and expensive for the residents. Should the taxpayers now be on the hook for subsidizing only a few lucky residents in these new "affordable" projects?
No - work with the market and not against it. Maybe gradually increase the ability of less dense neighborhoods to rent their basements and increase available housing stock by relaxing regulations on these types of rentals. Many people need a cheap starter place. These alternatives would provide a number of them. Incentivize the existing owners of 1-4 family houses and have better transit and traffic policy for farther out neighborhoods. That's the real answer.
We also need better understanding of the infrastructure, public transit and traffic needs in the boroughs other than Manhattan and western Brooklyn and Queens.
The Mayor makes living in the outer boroughs. with less frequent and accessible public transportation, more expensive by his lack of attention to this issue and with his terrible traffic policies (25 mph for the whole city, and by maintaining and increasing the underused bikes lanes - take them out!).
So while the Mayor talks big, being able to get around from these neighborhoods to jobs is now more difficult and expensive for the residents. Should the taxpayers now be on the hook for subsidizing only a few lucky residents in these new "affordable" projects?
No - work with the market and not against it. Maybe gradually increase the ability of less dense neighborhoods to rent their basements and increase available housing stock by relaxing regulations on these types of rentals. Many people need a cheap starter place. These alternatives would provide a number of them. Incentivize the existing owners of 1-4 family houses and have better transit and traffic policy for farther out neighborhoods. That's the real answer.
2
What do bike lanes and paths have to do with anything?
I'm assuming you are not a bike rider.... but ask a tourist visiting the city, and many other residents of the city what they think about the bike corridors and the Citibike rental program, and I think you'll find that what you deem unimportant helps to make the city a better environment in which to live, with those who cycle improving their health and waist lines.
I'm assuming you are not a bike rider.... but ask a tourist visiting the city, and many other residents of the city what they think about the bike corridors and the Citibike rental program, and I think you'll find that what you deem unimportant helps to make the city a better environment in which to live, with those who cycle improving their health and waist lines.
I don't understand why progressives don't understand that government interference into the housing market makes things worse not better. Look at cities with low levels of housing rules and regulations. They are generally more affordable then cities where this is this intense desire to dictate housing.
Price controls have never worked in the history of man yet somehow they'll work in the housing market in NYC. The irony is before rent laws Manhattan housed all income groups. Today 70 some years after rent laws have been introduced only the poor, rich and the lucky few can afford to live in Manhattan. The middle class can forget about it.
Price controls have never worked in the history of man yet somehow they'll work in the housing market in NYC. The irony is before rent laws Manhattan housed all income groups. Today 70 some years after rent laws have been introduced only the poor, rich and the lucky few can afford to live in Manhattan. The middle class can forget about it.
10
Rent controls distort the market and cause housing supply to be limited. This has been documented by many studies. If NYC ended rent control then there would be a lot more affordable housing. Sounds paradoxical but rent controls cause many unintended consequences. Research it. Learn the fact. Bill de Blasio is going to be a disaster for NYC.
13
People don't have to worry about us suburbanites who moved here staying much longer. Judging by the direction this city is going in (constantly electing idiots, re-electing crooks, not investing in the transit system, not addressing the massive homeless population, a horrible public education system, etc..) i will not be staying any longer than I have to.
I'll send a post card.
I'll send a post card.
7
It constantly shocks me at how ignorant Mayor DiBlasio and the Times editorial board are regarding the basic economics of the housing market. Housing prices are subject to the same laws of supply and demand as other commodities. Do you want have 200,000 more affordable units in NYC? It simple, just build 200,000 luxury units. It won't cost the city a penny. Housing is fungible. If 200,000 rich New Yorkers move into the luxury units then they free up 200,000 less expensive units for the less rich, and so on. The greater the supply of housing, the lower prices will be. Of course, the Mayor couldn't point to those units and take credit for them, which wouldn't make good politics. Its the same with rent control. This decreases the supply of apartments by disincentivizing landlords from improving and building new units, and disincentivizing tenants from moving since they can't get a better deal by moving out. A normal family will often downsize their home if their kids grow up, not so a rent regulated tenant. Of course, raising the wages of those who build housing is obviously going to increase the costs of the newly built housing. In short, if Mr. Diblasio would just let market forces do their work, he would have way more the 200,000 affordable units way faster than 10 years from now, at a much lower cost to the taxpayers.
27
Nope. Just look at what is going on on 57th street. Build extreme luxury units and wealthy people from elsewhere will buy them as yet one more home and not pay resident taxes, taking the space away from housing for New Yorkers and driving everyone's costs ( and taxes ) up.
7
Chip,
You make some interesting points about the superiority of market forces in providing greater availability of housing. Too bad we can't go back and experiment to see what the distribution of housing would be without rent control and stabilization laws.
At least, learn to spell the mayor's last name correctly: De Blasio ...
You make some interesting points about the superiority of market forces in providing greater availability of housing. Too bad we can't go back and experiment to see what the distribution of housing would be without rent control and stabilization laws.
At least, learn to spell the mayor's last name correctly: De Blasio ...
@chip: de Blasio is a socialist, so he'd never let the market sort itself out, even though as any economist will tell you, it would solve the problem.
5
Unfortunately what we have in America is cities, towns, counties, and states, the whole country, for the rich with the rest of us looking in. The middle gets nothing, the poor get barely enough, and the rich, our politicians, and the corporations all pick our pockets to get money in theirs. I don't mind paying taxes for government services. I'm tired of seeing, reading about, and hearing about how corporations can't afford to pay their taxes when they pay their CEOs outrageously high sums of money, give them retirement packages that could shame King Midas, and then fire employees in the name of what because it's not efficiency, it's just a shifting of the work load.
8
I would like to recommend that the Mayor and the Times Editorial Board read Kids from the Bronx by Arlene Alda as if it were a history time line of a New York borough. There is a great deal to be learned from the sociological changes portrayed through the stories told.
Affordable housing is merely one piece of the puzzle to a stable, employed and educated population. In the context of these true life stories, it may be the least important.
Affordable housing is merely one piece of the puzzle to a stable, employed and educated population. In the context of these true life stories, it may be the least important.
2
And the middle class, yet again, gets nothing but the bill.
20
Rent subsidies are the great source of inequity in our society. Obtaining a rent controlled apartment is better than winning the lottery, because lottery money is finite but rent control continues.
Right now, there are people living in multi-bedroom apartments in desirable addresses for decades, and they are taking up space that should be used for young families.
I admit I don't know enough about all the issues, but my suggestion would be to release people from multi-bedroom apartments if they are occupied by only one or two people, give up rent control in some luxury buildings in exchange for payments from those buildings to fund multiple apartments in less expensive locations, and increase taxes on apartments that are not the primary residence (i.e. "pieds–à–terre"). That would correct the market and break the strangle-hold of people who hoard expensive apartments at the expense of everyone else.
Right now, there are people living in multi-bedroom apartments in desirable addresses for decades, and they are taking up space that should be used for young families.
I admit I don't know enough about all the issues, but my suggestion would be to release people from multi-bedroom apartments if they are occupied by only one or two people, give up rent control in some luxury buildings in exchange for payments from those buildings to fund multiple apartments in less expensive locations, and increase taxes on apartments that are not the primary residence (i.e. "pieds–à–terre"). That would correct the market and break the strangle-hold of people who hoard expensive apartments at the expense of everyone else.
7
Visit Stuyvesant Town on any Friday and watch the rent stabilized tenants in their 1000 square foot apartments, many of whom have been there for decades upon decades, depart in their brand new cars for their vacation homes, while the younger and poorer tenants triple up in the same apartments for three times the rent.
If anyone thinks the rent stabilized tenants have an ounce of gratitude for what is just luck, wait til you see the comments from those tenants, who insist their very presence contributed greatly to the neighborhood.
If anyone thinks the rent stabilized tenants have an ounce of gratitude for what is just luck, wait til you see the comments from those tenants, who insist their very presence contributed greatly to the neighborhood.
1
One Jackson Square is a new modern glass building in West Village. It sold out yet now at night I only see 1-2 lights on out of the 40 units. The unit owners are all wealthy foreigners who are never here.
I have an MBA from a top ten school and work in technology. Yet, I can't afford to buy a home in the reasonable vicinity of New York.
I went to a friend's apartment out in Park Slope. It was a nice one bedroom and I was surprised to hear she owned it as she was a school teacher. I assumed her parents helped her. Then she told me she won a lottery for affordable housing.
And that pretty much sums up housing in New York: Manhattan is turning into a ghost town owned by foreign wealthy Russians and Chinese. Some rich New Yorkers may afford a place in the outskirts of Brooklyn but any average person has to win a lottery essentially. People in the middle have to look for options hours away in New Jersey or Long Island.
I hope De Blasio makes some impact. I can't even count the number of New Yorkers I've met who are fleeing to Austin, Nashville, and other more affordable cities that are experiencing a renaissance right now. While bigger numbers show an influx, I see New York losing it's most talented people because of housing.
I have an MBA from a top ten school and work in technology. Yet, I can't afford to buy a home in the reasonable vicinity of New York.
I went to a friend's apartment out in Park Slope. It was a nice one bedroom and I was surprised to hear she owned it as she was a school teacher. I assumed her parents helped her. Then she told me she won a lottery for affordable housing.
And that pretty much sums up housing in New York: Manhattan is turning into a ghost town owned by foreign wealthy Russians and Chinese. Some rich New Yorkers may afford a place in the outskirts of Brooklyn but any average person has to win a lottery essentially. People in the middle have to look for options hours away in New Jersey or Long Island.
I hope De Blasio makes some impact. I can't even count the number of New Yorkers I've met who are fleeing to Austin, Nashville, and other more affordable cities that are experiencing a renaissance right now. While bigger numbers show an influx, I see New York losing it's most talented people because of housing.
12
I grew up in a Mitchell-Lama apartment complex, government subsidized co-ops for working class families. Whatever became of those?
5
It seems pretty basic to me. he only way to stop the crazy market is to actually stop it. Put a halt to all construction that is not purely renovative. No tearing down buildings to make "newer" buildings. Or, require by law that if you build a building, you must live in it. Or, if you are a real estate broker, you cannot sell an apartment unless you live in that building. Builders must become owners must become investors. Build-and-sell is no longer an option. It is like climate-denialism in a way. The climate changes, and no one tries to stop it. It is properly called a housing "climate" and not a housing "market". Markets operate under the idea that goods and services are bought and sold in a kind of round-robin circular fashion. When you buy a house, it doesn't wear out and you don't need a new one in a year or two. It's not a market. Just because these things cost money does not mean they are a market. "Markets" are supposed to be fluid, but the nature of this money flow is more like a lava flow. As soon as it gets away from the main source it hardens and cools off. Housing is not a "market". You can't make a futures market in CBOT or CME covering puts and calls on houses on Maple Street, or apartments on Bleecker. Since the term "housing market" is a fallacy, it should not be allowed to act like a market. Housing is "Utility", and should be treated legally as such.
12
Your suggestion is to stop all new supply, while demand continues to build. As one can see in San Francisco, they will only lead to exploding rents and sale prices. Your inevitable next proposal (right out of the Populist Handbook) would then be to use government meddling to control prices. In which case, you would get a distorted market with significant under the table dealing. Politicians always believe that economics are static and people are sheep; that is why most programs created to solve a specific issue create another one. This might sound ridiculous to you, but the true solution is to completely phase out rent control and let me market float.
New York City is affordable as long as you are a Russian oligarch, a hedge fund manager or Taylor Swift. The rest of us worker bees should just push for better mass transit.
12
I disagree with this author. What has Mayor DeBlasio done to remedy the "tale of two cities"? Nothing, as far as I can see. What has he done to encourage the ability of middle-class to buy in Manhattan where the "two cities" are most visible? I would argue, nothing. Why hasn't the Mayor and the City Council passed a law requiring purchasers in Manhattan to be using the residence as their primary residence? Residents are the ones who will support NYC's economy--not investors who buy and then leave vacant apartments sitting in Manhattan. If DeBlasio is truly committed to keeping a middle-class in Manhattan, he needs to take action rather than provide "lip service." Providing rentals to lowest income in the outer boroughs while helpful does little to address the "tale of two cities" and astronomical cost of buying a decent sized apartment in Manhattan. To keep a middle-class, there needs to be an ability to have permanency, by being able to buy.
20
One action that DeBlasio could take to keep (maintain, even grow) the middle class in Manhattan would be to address the gross real estate tax burden discrepancies. Basically, the more expensive an apartment it is, the LESS real estate tax it pays. Take a look at the listing - if you have $10M+ for a brownstone in any borough, you can pay maybe $40k a year in taxes; have "only" $1M for 1 bedroom or tiny two bedroom coop somewhere in Manhattan? you'll pay $15k to $20k in RE taxes. Etc.
The always-increasing real estate taxes under Mayer DeBlasio (as well as his predecessor Bloomberg) are a "hidden tax" that make NYC Manhattan increasingly unaffordable for the middle class. Either those who want to come in, or those who purchased a coop (which is 90% of Manhattan's housing stock) years or decades ago and are increasingly forced to sell and leave due to the RE tax burden.
The always-increasing real estate taxes under Mayer DeBlasio (as well as his predecessor Bloomberg) are a "hidden tax" that make NYC Manhattan increasingly unaffordable for the middle class. Either those who want to come in, or those who purchased a coop (which is 90% of Manhattan's housing stock) years or decades ago and are increasingly forced to sell and leave due to the RE tax burden.
1
Your mayor is limited by a corrupt and elitist governor to start with. Get rid of Cuomo. De Blasio is only as effective as the government, big money and big interests allow him to be but he's in there fighting. Support him if you want change.
As for limited ownership to primary residences, is that legal? And the idea of "private property" vs. the limits of American government is fundamental to our sense of "rights" Constitutionally. Is rent control really legal? Is a man's home his castle - his property to do with as he pleases within environmental and health regulations?
Instead of preventing owners from maximize profits on their own property, tax their takings and tax the richest so that instead of having so much to spend on luxury, their money gets recirculated for the common good.
As for limited ownership to primary residences, is that legal? And the idea of "private property" vs. the limits of American government is fundamental to our sense of "rights" Constitutionally. Is rent control really legal? Is a man's home his castle - his property to do with as he pleases within environmental and health regulations?
Instead of preventing owners from maximize profits on their own property, tax their takings and tax the richest so that instead of having so much to spend on luxury, their money gets recirculated for the common good.
"But that progress has to be measured against the steady erosion of existing affordable apartments as gentrification spreads, accelerated by rezoning and a building frenzy at the high end of the market."
Do you know that this is happening? Or is this just one of those things you say because you know, just know, that it's a major problem?
Secondly, 200,000 new units built/preserved, as an aspirational goal, virtually guarantees price acceleration in the next decade. We have had at least two decades where the increase in people dwarfed that of housing units. Unsurprisingly, prices went up. Since 200,000 over 10 years is similarly inadequate to the task, get ready for higher rents.
The problem is that, between the NIMBYs, preservationistas, gentrification hawks, and neighborhood politicians the city isn't being allowed to change and densify sufficiently to keep prices under control. It's truly amazing that, in a city with so much intellectual capital, City Hall actually harbors the belief that dumping billions more into the NYCHA (in which fewer than 5% of New Yorkers live), scorning development, and passing more tenant protection laws can somehow allow the city to avoid this very simple economic reality.
Do you know that this is happening? Or is this just one of those things you say because you know, just know, that it's a major problem?
Secondly, 200,000 new units built/preserved, as an aspirational goal, virtually guarantees price acceleration in the next decade. We have had at least two decades where the increase in people dwarfed that of housing units. Unsurprisingly, prices went up. Since 200,000 over 10 years is similarly inadequate to the task, get ready for higher rents.
The problem is that, between the NIMBYs, preservationistas, gentrification hawks, and neighborhood politicians the city isn't being allowed to change and densify sufficiently to keep prices under control. It's truly amazing that, in a city with so much intellectual capital, City Hall actually harbors the belief that dumping billions more into the NYCHA (in which fewer than 5% of New Yorkers live), scorning development, and passing more tenant protection laws can somehow allow the city to avoid this very simple economic reality.
4
Not too long ago I found an end of war WWII letter from my grandfather, the late Jack Siegel of Brooklyn to his new son-in-law who was then serving the Pacific. The letter was rather bland but there was mention of the housing shortage, short age of consumer goods and the labor strikes. As the service men and women were coming home, they found jobs and housing wanting. The transition from wartime economy to peace time was slowly taking place. One of the developments that took place was the great move to the suburbs and the start of communities like Levittown. Compact, affordable homes, with only the barest of amenities sprang up like weeds. And flourished. For about $5,000 with a 3% mortgage a young couple could have a home.
But its what was in place that allowed it to happen. The economy was growing. Jobs were coming on line. Wages were rising. And, the transportation system was also being expanded and working well.
We do not need more public housing. We need less. In fact I suggest that public housing be the last resort for the most desperate.
What we do need is jobs. Real jobs. Not service sector jobs like fast food that offer no future. We need to see real wages rise. And we need good, affordable non-public housing with low mortgage rates. We also need our transportation infrastructure to be restored and expanded.
Building public housing is a mis-guided, wrong direction for everyone."A City for the Poor, Rich and In Between" needs jobs and an expanding economy.
But its what was in place that allowed it to happen. The economy was growing. Jobs were coming on line. Wages were rising. And, the transportation system was also being expanded and working well.
We do not need more public housing. We need less. In fact I suggest that public housing be the last resort for the most desperate.
What we do need is jobs. Real jobs. Not service sector jobs like fast food that offer no future. We need to see real wages rise. And we need good, affordable non-public housing with low mortgage rates. We also need our transportation infrastructure to be restored and expanded.
Building public housing is a mis-guided, wrong direction for everyone."A City for the Poor, Rich and In Between" needs jobs and an expanding economy.
28
Rent control drives rents up.
Zoning laws drives prices up.
Union labor drives prices up.
We've done these things over and over, and thrown more and more tax-generated money at this "problem" and it's still a problem. Perhaps then, as Reagan declared, government (i.e., Mr. DeBlasio and the power-hungry politicians in state government) is the problem, not the solution.
Zoning laws drives prices up.
Union labor drives prices up.
We've done these things over and over, and thrown more and more tax-generated money at this "problem" and it's still a problem. Perhaps then, as Reagan declared, government (i.e., Mr. DeBlasio and the power-hungry politicians in state government) is the problem, not the solution.
9
I propose a constitutional amendment:
All cities and all zones, must have affordable housing built into them henceforth, the amount of affordable housing being in proportion to the percentage of the population that is composed of poor people.
Of the people for the people by the people must be just that.
The attempt by Republican mayors of NYC, Bloomberg and Giuliani, to un-poor NYC by putting housing out of their reach must come to an end, just as the mass incarceration of blacks must come to an end. NOW!
We shall overcome, or so they say, I'll believe it when I see it.
All cities and all zones, must have affordable housing built into them henceforth, the amount of affordable housing being in proportion to the percentage of the population that is composed of poor people.
Of the people for the people by the people must be just that.
The attempt by Republican mayors of NYC, Bloomberg and Giuliani, to un-poor NYC by putting housing out of their reach must come to an end, just as the mass incarceration of blacks must come to an end. NOW!
We shall overcome, or so they say, I'll believe it when I see it.
2
I'm from Santa Barbara, Ca. one of the most expensive small cities in the country. Years ago, a law was passed that all developers had to build X amount of low cost housing in their development if they wanted to build. The housing could not be sold at market value until 15-20 years had passed. In other words someone could not purchase it and turn around and make a profit on it until this passage of time had elapsed. SB also has a very good public housing policy. They are not huge complexes. They are run very strictly. Now I know that large cities do have very different problems, but its a model worth looking at. By the way, these public housing complexes are not located in the worst part of town.
5
They should, in my view, be constructed as close to the highest rent/property values as possible.
1
Re: "A City for the Poor, Rich and In Between" I hope the cynics do not win out over the Mayor's ambitious housing program. In our Spring '15 City College random survey of the DUMBO and adjacent Fort Greene area, even for those living in census tracts with median household income over $200k, more people placed affordable housing as their #1 priority; so did their next door neighbors living in NYCHA subsidized housing where median income was under $20k. Affordable housing is in EVERY New Yorker's self-interest.
1
What your survey failed to appreciate is that when people say they want "affordable" housing, that's for THEM ($100,000 to $300,000 a year income), not someone making $20,000 a year.
That is their #1 priority.
That is their #1 priority.
2
I notice there is scarcely a mention of the City for the "In Between," and with good reason: there isn't any. The barbel approach to housing that has been taken in recent years of subsidized low income housing combined with luxury housing has left those neither rich nor poor with few options in the City. For those who are not subsidy-eligible, NYC has little to offer, save for the very rich capable of affording anything.
The City is transforming into a place of tourism, occasional residence for the global rich, and subsidized housing for those providing the necessary services.
The City is transforming into a place of tourism, occasional residence for the global rich, and subsidized housing for those providing the necessary services.
11
I am grateful that there is at least an attempt to make affordable housing more affordable, as the real estate market in the city goes beserk.
The real change needs to happen in Albany, because Albany should not control rents or housing in the city. That is absurd. The rent rules should be controlled within the city by the residents who vote for the city's leadership.
The real change needs to happen in Albany, because Albany should not control rents or housing in the city. That is absurd. The rent rules should be controlled within the city by the residents who vote for the city's leadership.
1
the 1970's proved that the liberal folks who governed the city didn't do such a great job ("other people's money") - hence the bankruptcy crisis and subsequent controls put on the city.....it's working why break it again?
I doubt many people seeking new and presently available affordable housing in N.Y.C. will be impressed by the optimism of this editorial. This city remains a city of great affluence and another city for the poor struggling just to make it from day to day. The Mayor has involved himself with travel, horses, Uber, and unsuccessful conflict with Albany. Frankly, this mayor has been a great disappointment. I hope he regains his footing and justifies the promise embodied in his overwhelming election.
3
It is useful to realize that most major American cities that people want to live in are having the same problem. If it makes New Yorkers feel slightly better off, think of San Francisco. A much smaller city, but actually the second densest per capita per square mile afte Manhattan. Basically, decades ago, the working class mostly just left the city for the suburbs and beyond. There was no provision for keeping firemen in the city limits, so they and others who work in San Francisco have not lived there in years. Instead you have a small city increasingly stacked with dot.com millionaries, who THEMSELVES commute 60 miles to work OUTSIDE the city but have taken up the former poor areas and decorated them to their own level of gentrified taste. It can always be worse.
3
Many people want to live in the city - hence the intense demands for all goods and ever higher prices...ya want cheaper - move......
A far better plan may be to start taxing the extreme wealth of the upper 5% so that they can no longer drive up the prices of real estate with their excessive deep pockets.
8
Between Federal, state (NY is one of the highest) and local taxes - NYers pay some of the highest taxes in the nation
Affordable housing in NYC is nothing more than akin to winning the lottery. People feel they are owed or have a right to affordable housing in NYC. In any other area in the U.S. people are expected to live within their means, and if you can't afford a desirable area, you move out.
If you keep providing more and more affordable housing, more and more people seeking that lottery win will show up to NYC. It is a problem without an ending - except for continued political grandstanding.
Instead, use the resources to fix infrastructure for current residents.
Lastely, folks already in affordable housing should be required to help in the maintenance of the property instead of just waiting for the city to come by and fix it. You want to be treated like a homeowner - act like one.
If you keep providing more and more affordable housing, more and more people seeking that lottery win will show up to NYC. It is a problem without an ending - except for continued political grandstanding.
Instead, use the resources to fix infrastructure for current residents.
Lastely, folks already in affordable housing should be required to help in the maintenance of the property instead of just waiting for the city to come by and fix it. You want to be treated like a homeowner - act like one.
33
The lottery winners should have these units for no more than four years. That would give them time to get an education and/or save money. After five years somebody else gets a turn. A lifetime below-market rent to a lottery winner is outrageous.
5
The problem with "moving out" is that New York City needs working people: mailmen, cashiers, retail clerks, waitstaff, bartenders, sanitation workers, teachers, teachers aids, nannies, doormen, health care workers, delivery men, bus drivers. transit workers .... just look around you.
Where are the working people supposed to live? Do you think the boroughs are "affordable"?
Where are the working people supposed to live? Do you think the boroughs are "affordable"?
1
A Mayor cannot "create affordable housing." The market does.
Unless of course the he despises the police, goes soft on crime, allows drug dealers to over-run the neighborhood McDonald's (read your own NYT article on this) and allows homeless people to urinate and defecate in the streets. I suppose then, yeah, the Mayor can create affordable housing. But then, who wants to live there?
Unless of course the he despises the police, goes soft on crime, allows drug dealers to over-run the neighborhood McDonald's (read your own NYT article on this) and allows homeless people to urinate and defecate in the streets. I suppose then, yeah, the Mayor can create affordable housing. But then, who wants to live there?
14
What about the "In Between"? Nothing you mention in this piece does anything to help the middle and upper middle class who are getting squeezed just as much as anyone else (probably more so as they don't enjoy any tax breaks or subsidies). The current policies create a city where only the very rich who buy multi-million dollar apartments, the subsidized poor trapped in NYCHA housing, and rent regulated tenants, can live. If you are not in one of those groups, tough luck!
39
I live in a small town in Iowa City, Iowa, a small town in Iowa. Cost of living is high, wages are low, good jobs are scarce, but the quality of living is exceptional. It is a beautiful place to live-if you can afford to. The issue of affordable housing has been, and i fear will continue to be on the forefront of our citizens concerns. The question is, should everyone that wants to live here, be given to opportunity to live here? Whose job is it to make sure that everyone is provided "affordable" housing? At what cost does affordable housing come, to the services provided and the quality of life that everyone has become used to? There are places all over the US that experience this same dilemma: Key West, Florida, Sanibel Island, Florida, Provincetown, Massachusetts, La Jolla, California. Most of the workers in these places drive or bus in to work each day, the cost of housing is prohibitive to the point that they can not afford to live in the city they love and spend all day working. But the main question that remains is, is it fair to assume that a person should be able to live anywhere they want, and that they should be able to afford to live there? I am not sure that is realistic. Someone once commented to me "Id love a beach house in Malibu on the ocean too, but that doesn't mean I think the city of Malibu should be required to provide one for me."
16
Iowa City is hardly representative of small town Iowa, considering it is the home of the University Iowa and it's humungous hospital system.
1
Do you think New York City can manage without workers? Just hedge fund operators, bankers, doctors and lawyers? Think so?
1
I totally get your point and on one hand I totally agree. And it doesn't seem 'fair', that some people who may not work as hard as I do, or the long hours that I do, gets to live in a place just as nice (or nicer!) as what I am paying for myself.
However, to me that is one of the great things about NYC...this desire to try and ensure that ALL types of people can live in all parts of this city. It's not just about ethnic diversity, but socioeconomic as well. We all have something to learn from each other, and it makes for a richer living experience.
However, to me that is one of the great things about NYC...this desire to try and ensure that ALL types of people can live in all parts of this city. It's not just about ethnic diversity, but socioeconomic as well. We all have something to learn from each other, and it makes for a richer living experience.
1
De Blasio's two prong plan is to continue on his current course of keeping the police from doing their jobs, crime goes up more than it already has, people flee the city. Prong two is the city buying land cheap to house the criminals. Thus a self sustaining feedback loop is created. Liberalism works!
9
Despite some high profile cases, the city is on track to have the lowest crime rate ever and is nowhere in the list of top crime-ridden cities.
What gives you the right, in Melbourne Florida, to criticize NYC?
What gives you the right, in Melbourne Florida, to criticize NYC?
@john m---I will have to research it but I believe it to be somewhere in the founding fathers documents...
Why are the poor (like families with incomes below $45,000 a year) more deserving of subsidies than the middle class (like families with incomes between $45,000 and $60,000)? Certainly it is struggle for both to live in NYC. This whole issue seems misguided.
Likewise rent control allows incomes up to $200,000. The system is irrational and arbitrary.
Likewise rent control allows incomes up to $200,000. The system is irrational and arbitrary.
17
I think rent control allows incomes up to $250,000 now. And, of course, your children can 'inherit' your rental apartment, keeping one subsidized apartment in the same family for a good 80 years.
Insane.
Insane.
To continue the archaic rent regulations which creates a few winners but many losers is immoral. People should be able to live where they can afford to live. If they work in the city and cannot afford the prices there is something called Mass Transit. Millions take it every day so why can't low-income families take it rather than be subsidized at below market rents by the market rate renters.
And to those who say, what about the character of the neighborhoods, I know very few people who visit NYC to see pompous, entitled rent-regulated tenants yelling about how the visitors are making too much noise and congestion as they get into their BMWs to go to their vacation homes paid for by rent regulations.
And to those who say, what about the character of the neighborhoods, I know very few people who visit NYC to see pompous, entitled rent-regulated tenants yelling about how the visitors are making too much noise and congestion as they get into their BMWs to go to their vacation homes paid for by rent regulations.
14
$300,000,000 to replace 66 roofs? That's $4,545,454 per roof! No wonder there is no money to solve all the problems.
12
I guess you haven't had to pay to replace any roofs in the recent past.
By what measure is NYC more "a city for the poor, rich and in-between" today than it was when Bill de Blasio took office? Because a promise is made to build 20,000 units to house 50,000 when approx. 3.8 million people in the city barely make ends meet? That's the number (45.6% of NYC's population) that's claimed to be in such straits for low wages, rising rents and a lack of benefits by a report developed by the Center for Economic Opportunity (http://www.nyc.gov/html/ceo/downloads/pdf/ceo_poverty_measure_2005_2012.....
The truth is that if Mayor de Blasio were to perform at this level, this "aggressive pace", for each year of his mayoralty (even if it extends to eight years) ... you wouldn't even notice the difference.
And since when is housing the only measure of the state of "two cities"?
If all Mr. de Blasio is going to do is argue with Albany over housing and taxes, with VERY mixed results while he makes enemies by the boatload (notably the governor), then the situation faced by New York's neediest at the end of his tenure won't be any different from what it was at the beginning. His problem is that he's focused on evening scales by frontal assaults, brute government force. Clearly, that isn't working; and can't.
He needs to focus more on making NYC's public education more effective, because poverty is a generational challenge. The city can't simply erase poverty for almost 4 million people: it needs to teach them how to mainstream THEMSELVES.
The truth is that if Mayor de Blasio were to perform at this level, this "aggressive pace", for each year of his mayoralty (even if it extends to eight years) ... you wouldn't even notice the difference.
And since when is housing the only measure of the state of "two cities"?
If all Mr. de Blasio is going to do is argue with Albany over housing and taxes, with VERY mixed results while he makes enemies by the boatload (notably the governor), then the situation faced by New York's neediest at the end of his tenure won't be any different from what it was at the beginning. His problem is that he's focused on evening scales by frontal assaults, brute government force. Clearly, that isn't working; and can't.
He needs to focus more on making NYC's public education more effective, because poverty is a generational challenge. The city can't simply erase poverty for almost 4 million people: it needs to teach them how to mainstream THEMSELVES.
12
Your argument is DBlas has been too blunt. That may be. I think his mayoralty thus far has been about raising the right issues, push them hard and allow average NYers to see just how much Albany uses the city as a piggy bank and kickback program for developers and international investors. The recent scrap he got into with Cuomo (who is supposedly a democrat) only highlights for everyone how the governor and Albany could give a rat's butt about the needs of the city. "But I represent the whole state" BLAH, BLAH. If they're not mining every penny out of this city for themselves and their cronies they're not interesting, aggressive, petulantly so.
The problem is that there is only so much the city can do when Albany gives it the cold shoulder on a constant basis. de Blasio and Cuomo can agree on some issues- minimum wage and a state-level Dream Act among them- but the governor is not interested in conceding an inch to the mayor for reasons that I can't quite explain. The fact that de Blasio is kind of a bumbler who picks his battles horribly and has a reckless strategy when he does pick them (look at the Uber kerfuffle for the most recent and best example) doesn't apply to relations with state government, because they won't hear a word from a self-styled progressive.
7
What a paradox, finding affordable housing for the poor in New York City, on whom the city depends to keep it "humming". Take the humble workers out of this equation, by the services they provide, and the city falls apart. For now, and for the foreseeable future, the poor will have to live in the periphery and depend on public transportation to get to work, and back 'home', however long it takes. It goes to tell you that a chain (the Apple) is only as strong as its weakest link!
6
I'm solidly in the top 5% and lived in NYC for 10 years - but when I wanted to buy/rent a two-bedroom in a desirable area, I decided not to spend the majority of earnings on housing - so I moved out of the city into the suburbs (the periphery). I spend 2+ hours a day on a train - which are packed each morning with folks like me.
Why, just because someone makes way less than I do, should they be given the chance to win the lottery by having a two bedroom in a desirable area under affordable housing? I'm sure we both work hard, pay our taxes, etc., but why should they be given opportunity not afforded to those of us that have to pay market rates?
Why, just because someone makes way less than I do, should they be given the chance to win the lottery by having a two bedroom in a desirable area under affordable housing? I'm sure we both work hard, pay our taxes, etc., but why should they be given opportunity not afforded to those of us that have to pay market rates?
50
'... For now, and for the foreseeable future, the poor will have to live in the periphery and depend on public transportation to get to work, and back 'home', however long it takes...'
As does most of middle class workers every weekday.
The poor are subsidized to live in one of the most expensive cities in the world. Insane.
As does most of middle class workers every weekday.
The poor are subsidized to live in one of the most expensive cities in the world. Insane.
1
You got a point, but who said life is fair?; it goes both ways; stay healthy and be jolly, and count your blessings, and live in the present, we can't ask for more. Lets celebrate the luck or serendipity of those able to rise from poverty unexpectedly.
"A City for the Poor, Rich and In Between"
Like it could actually happen. In a culture where anything of any value at all is mercilessly squeezed for the last sou, and objects of desire or dire necessity - like cancer medication or a decent NYC apartment - are increasingly priced for the one-tenth of the One Percent.
Why would De Blasio waste anyone's time on such a quixotic fantasy? Why would NYT bother editorializing about it?
Like it could actually happen. In a culture where anything of any value at all is mercilessly squeezed for the last sou, and objects of desire or dire necessity - like cancer medication or a decent NYC apartment - are increasingly priced for the one-tenth of the One Percent.
Why would De Blasio waste anyone's time on such a quixotic fantasy? Why would NYT bother editorializing about it?
4
If you aren't rich, why would you want to live in NYC?
Many middle class people live n the NY area because salaries are high and they can make and save a lot of money. The job that pays $65K in the Midwest pays $125K in NYC. If you can figure out how to have reasonable living costs, you can save more. Once you stop working, of course, you can leave the area immediately and live like a king in Florida.
But why would poor people want to live here? The minimum wage is the minimum wage, and the money would go much further in Ohio or Texas. You are also much more likely to advance into middle income jobs in those places.
Many middle class people live n the NY area because salaries are high and they can make and save a lot of money. The job that pays $65K in the Midwest pays $125K in NYC. If you can figure out how to have reasonable living costs, you can save more. Once you stop working, of course, you can leave the area immediately and live like a king in Florida.
But why would poor people want to live here? The minimum wage is the minimum wage, and the money would go much further in Ohio or Texas. You are also much more likely to advance into middle income jobs in those places.
23
$100K salary in New York is equal to a roughly $45K salary in Houston, Texas. You're not saving much money per year with that kind of salary in New York.
7
Great idea Jonathan. I do like your idea of getting all those poor people to leave NY, and keeping it safe and clean for people like us. The only problem is if they all leave who will clean your house? Who will take care of your aging parents?
Who will clean your streets and drive your taxi?
Who will clean your streets and drive your taxi?
3
'...But why would poor people want to live here?...'
Because we pay them too, via subsidies.
We also pay for free parking for many low income residents, even though few people in this city have a car. You do not need one here, it is a luxury for only the rich and the subsidized poor.
Because we pay them too, via subsidies.
We also pay for free parking for many low income residents, even though few people in this city have a car. You do not need one here, it is a luxury for only the rich and the subsidized poor.
3
The demand for affordable housing is infinite and the supply is limited. Rent control helps the "haves" and has created its own universe of housing court, buyouts and harassment claims. Is it reasonable to expect that anyone who wants to live in Manhattan will be able to find affordable housing?
18
Actually, the demand is not infinite, and the limitations on supply are mostly artificial. Other than that, I agree with you that the "universe" you refer to is a legal farce.
Just out of curiosity, will these token peasants be require to wear festive native costumes and preform folk songs and dances for the adoring public?
After all, what other, possibly more pressing, problems does the city have that might be addressed in place of this little exercise in social engineering?
There are times when the Republican party seems almost sane.
After all, what other, possibly more pressing, problems does the city have that might be addressed in place of this little exercise in social engineering?
There are times when the Republican party seems almost sane.
18
Under de Blasio crime is going up and the quality of life in the city is rapidly deteriorating. My midtown neighborhood is overrun with homeless drug addicts. The smell of urine in the morning is unbearable. If things don't change, there will be plenty of affordable apartments as people with other options flee the city. Maybe that had been the Mayor's plan all along.
64
My fingers are crossed.
We can only hope! I'll take more urine perfumery if it meant more of these affluent families and their SUVs would return to westchester and the midwest.
Yes Dan, it's incredible how nobody urinated during the Bloomberg administration. Unfortunately, the man's powers over people's bladders was somewhat offset by his fecklessness when it came to his rich buddies.
1
Property taxes on existing middle income rental buildings have shot up in recent years. How do rents stay 'controlled' when landlords are paying more in taxes? (And that's before fuel prices inevitably so back up.) They defer maintenance.
So the tax credits given to developers for new units will come out of tax increases levied on existing buildings incentivizing deterioration.
Taking from one hand to give to the other may only enrich those brokering the deals in between.
So the tax credits given to developers for new units will come out of tax increases levied on existing buildings incentivizing deterioration.
Taking from one hand to give to the other may only enrich those brokering the deals in between.
17
'...How do rents stay 'controlled' when landlords are paying more in taxes?...'
They pass the costs on to the market rate tenants.
They pass the costs on to the market rate tenants.
1
I work in a very wealthy hamlet in Westchester county where gated communities are the norm and where gated estates abound. These isolated forms of living are designed to keep the rich safe and keep the poor at bay.
I was born in Manhattan, as were my parents and theirs parents. Generations of my family called it home. I lived there as a young woman. At this point in my life, moving back would not be an option, despite my heritage, I could no longer afford it. Manhattan is becoming the ultimate gated community with the bridges and tunnels its very unwelcoming gates. It wouldn't shock me if those crossing into this pricey island will need a code to punch into the entrance to these "gates" rather than a toll. It all makes me sad.
I was born in Manhattan, as were my parents and theirs parents. Generations of my family called it home. I lived there as a young woman. At this point in my life, moving back would not be an option, despite my heritage, I could no longer afford it. Manhattan is becoming the ultimate gated community with the bridges and tunnels its very unwelcoming gates. It wouldn't shock me if those crossing into this pricey island will need a code to punch into the entrance to these "gates" rather than a toll. It all makes me sad.
58
Guess who else is driven out of their neighborhood 'heritage'? Property owners, in cities like Stamford, who have seen their taxes skyrocket to pay for more development by rich builders and more social services for illegal immigrants. The more government taxes go to fund building and support low income (legal or illegal), the more the middle is driven out. And no one cares because its not politically convenient or profitable.
9
So you have a right to live in Manhattan simply because you were born there?
Aren't doorman buildings another word for gated communities?
1
Mr. de Blasio’s grand project, which last week he called “the most ambitious affordable housing plan in the history of this country.”
Sounds like someone has started to pull together his talking points for a future run at the presidency.
God help us all.
Sounds like someone has started to pull together his talking points for a future run at the presidency.
God help us all.
18
The man has a terrible case of delusions of grandeur. He describes his accomplishments as "historic" and "transcendent." He travels around the country and the world thinking he can solve global warming and income inequality. Meanwhile, the quality of life in New York City is rapidly deteriorating.
Couple that with his inability to get to meetings on time, and we have some sort of documented malady. Any psychologists out there?
Couple that with his inability to get to meetings on time, and we have some sort of documented malady. Any psychologists out there?
14
This article and the recent Supreme Court case regarding HUD's use of aggressive federal intrusion into local housing policy raise some interesting questions. Does society and government as its proxy have a role to impose lower-income housing in any part of the country it chooses ?
To put it another way, do people have a right to live where they choose even if in so doing, the result is high priced housing which only a few can afford ? Of course, such choice brings to mind less innocent times when people (both in government and outside) used housing as a means to exclude people of a different color. But is this a different matter ? Anyone can live in Beverly Hills or Greenwich as long as they can afford to do so. There is an argument that the reason that we go to school and work long hours is in part so that we can afford a nice home in a nice town. Should this choice be diluted by government's insistence that we subsidize those who cannot afford such housing to enjoy the benefits as well ? Why stop at housing ? Should such beneficence also apply to food, travel, and just about anything money can buy ? At what point do we step into socialism where the fruits of our labor are rotted by the inability to purchase distinctive goods or the taxes used to subsidize others purchase of these same goods ? And if the rewards are so tainted, then why pursue the education and hard work when such goods are instead available to all.
To put it another way, do people have a right to live where they choose even if in so doing, the result is high priced housing which only a few can afford ? Of course, such choice brings to mind less innocent times when people (both in government and outside) used housing as a means to exclude people of a different color. But is this a different matter ? Anyone can live in Beverly Hills or Greenwich as long as they can afford to do so. There is an argument that the reason that we go to school and work long hours is in part so that we can afford a nice home in a nice town. Should this choice be diluted by government's insistence that we subsidize those who cannot afford such housing to enjoy the benefits as well ? Why stop at housing ? Should such beneficence also apply to food, travel, and just about anything money can buy ? At what point do we step into socialism where the fruits of our labor are rotted by the inability to purchase distinctive goods or the taxes used to subsidize others purchase of these same goods ? And if the rewards are so tainted, then why pursue the education and hard work when such goods are instead available to all.
20
The city has amenities and public goods (libraries, museums, shelters, parks) that all should be able to use - they are funded by tax dollars. Yet, if only the wealthy can afford to live in the city, how do the middle and low income (the vast majority of people) get to enjoys these amenities? As tourists? The problem isn't the ideology you espouse, it's the wide gap between rich and poor that forces a huge number of people out of the market for housing (medicine, schools, education, etc.) An extreme example of this sort of housing crisis can be seen in cities like Mumbai, where large numbers of poor live in squalid conditions and a few ultra-rich live in skyrocketing towers, gazing down at the horde. It's like something from a dystopian sci-fi story, isn't it? Is this the way New York (and London, etc.) should go? Or should everyone simply be pushed to a distant periphery, where an incredibly long commute adds yet another burden to workers?
1
While you pause for breath, please consider why any municipal government should be able to act as a gated community? This belief in "home rule" is a major reason for most of New Jersey's structural fiscal, transportation and economic problems. I know: I lived in NJ for 40 years.
You must not visit here very often. OF COURSE there must be redistribution of wealth, along Marxist socialist lines -- to each according to their need, from each according to their ability.
Did you not see the lead article this morning, about they have "decided" that all burger flippers (*but not all health aides or retail shop clerks) now "deserve" $15 an hour?
Did you not see the lead article this morning, about they have "decided" that all burger flippers (*but not all health aides or retail shop clerks) now "deserve" $15 an hour?
The solution to the housing crisis is actually quite simple.
The City should get out of the housing business alltogether and give up. Anyone living in NYC housing should just be given their homes. They have all the rights of an owner anyway, but they can never move. Let those who want to just own their space...you want to remain on subsidies thats fine too.
However, anyone living in public housing should not be allowed to own a car. If I have to subsidize your rent because you are so poor you cant afford to pay your own way that is cool. But I see no reason I need to subsidize your parking space either.
The City should get out of the housing business alltogether and give up. Anyone living in NYC housing should just be given their homes. They have all the rights of an owner anyway, but they can never move. Let those who want to just own their space...you want to remain on subsidies thats fine too.
However, anyone living in public housing should not be allowed to own a car. If I have to subsidize your rent because you are so poor you cant afford to pay your own way that is cool. But I see no reason I need to subsidize your parking space either.
23
New York is lucky to have such an advocate and I hope you will continue to support him. In Chicago, we have Rahm Emmanuel, who never met a millionaire he didn't worship, and never saw a public space he couldn't tack a fee onto.
18
The governor is a Democrat in name only and he will activity hinder all programs for low income housing, We cannot have another election for governor between a conservative and an ultra conservative. Failure to assist in affordable housing must become a political issue and the mayor should make it so.
This city has some excellent housing stock in apartment buildings built between the world wars, some needing elevators. These buildings were built to last 200 years if maintained and should be acquired and renovated and along with real renovation of Housing Authority buildings would be a good start. Every building should have a qualified maintenance staff on site 24/7. July 23, 2015
This city has some excellent housing stock in apartment buildings built between the world wars, some needing elevators. These buildings were built to last 200 years if maintained and should be acquired and renovated and along with real renovation of Housing Authority buildings would be a good start. Every building should have a qualified maintenance staff on site 24/7. July 23, 2015
14
The congratulations to Mayor DeBlasio are not deserved. Almost all of the new production of affordable housing in the past year and half results from laws and policies adopted during the Bloomberg administration. There is a sense that the DeBlasio's administration's heavy-hands will actually cause LESS affordable housing to be built in the future. The creation of the majority of affordable housing is inextricably tied to the creation of market rate housing. This is the simple fact: Private developers can't and won't build affordable housing if they can't earn a decent profit on market rate housing and/or if the rents on affordable housing will create an economic albatross. Also, developers can't build affordable housing with construction union wages. This is beyond dispute.
24
The problem with constructing "affordable" housing or "affordable" anything else, for that matter, is that there can never be enough and there will never be enough. If you construct 100,000 units, admittedly a tall order, there will be calls for 100,000 more.
As soon as you present something that should be available as a matter of "right," more and more will claim it and there will be more clamoring among certain segments of the population to expand the access to this manufactured right.
If you build more "affordable" housing, more people will appear who need it. The "need" can never really be satisfied.
As soon as you present something that should be available as a matter of "right," more and more will claim it and there will be more clamoring among certain segments of the population to expand the access to this manufactured right.
If you build more "affordable" housing, more people will appear who need it. The "need" can never really be satisfied.
25
Maybe next Mr. de Blasio and his administration can tackle the scourge of empty storefronts that landlords let sit for months and even years while they wait for the next chain store willing and able to pay the jacked up rents they demand. Any independent store is hounded out while banks and drug stores proliferate. Neighborhoods suffer while their empty storefronts become eyesores.
41
Why do you think small business has left? Rent increases. Why does rent increase? Landlords can always charge more but does an empty store bring any benefit to them? When costs go up, rents go up. Sadly only chains can now afford the high cost of doing business in NYC
3
Call me a skeptic, but the old "follow the money" saying seems to apply here. I remember that the Mayor was arrested to protest the closing of Long Island College Hospital in Brooklyn Heights. Now there are plans to build three giant condos 20, 30 and 40 stories. After becoming Mayor, not a peep from him about the closing of the hospital.
Bruce Ratner and his real estate buddies contributed heavily to the Mayor's campaign. They even gave him a grand birthday party, one hand washes the other, as it were. It seems that both the Mayor and the builders both get what they want to the detriment of the average citizen. High density housing is not wanted by most New Yorkers and I fear that Landmarks protections will also begin to erode.
Reminds me of the Yellow Taxi industry their campaign contributions and the Uber fight. It's not about traffic congestion. I fear that this Mayor is one easily bought fellow.
Bruce Ratner and his real estate buddies contributed heavily to the Mayor's campaign. They even gave him a grand birthday party, one hand washes the other, as it were. It seems that both the Mayor and the builders both get what they want to the detriment of the average citizen. High density housing is not wanted by most New Yorkers and I fear that Landmarks protections will also begin to erode.
Reminds me of the Yellow Taxi industry their campaign contributions and the Uber fight. It's not about traffic congestion. I fear that this Mayor is one easily bought fellow.
15
One of three things will have to happen:
1. You chase some people off, lowering demand for housing and thus prices.
2. We build more units to sate demand for housing, possibly overhauling neighborhoods some consider precious, lowering prices.
3. Status quo: relatively tepid pace of building, high prices.
I would argue that Option 1 is a backwards and parochial approach that does not comport with how a global city in the 21st century should behave.
Option 3, as we all know, is the most likely outcome, leaving everyone somewhat unsatisfied, but less unsatisfied than they would be with one of the other options.
1. You chase some people off, lowering demand for housing and thus prices.
2. We build more units to sate demand for housing, possibly overhauling neighborhoods some consider precious, lowering prices.
3. Status quo: relatively tepid pace of building, high prices.
I would argue that Option 1 is a backwards and parochial approach that does not comport with how a global city in the 21st century should behave.
Option 3, as we all know, is the most likely outcome, leaving everyone somewhat unsatisfied, but less unsatisfied than they would be with one of the other options.
The mayor can only be as good as the citizens in the city, and unfortunately, the residents in NYC now are not real NYers. The people who come here now don't even come here to be NYers. They come with their suburban values and inflict them on the rest of us. They have no interest in maintaining the important history of NYC - they don't know anything about our history. These people see no problem with closing a mom-and-pop business to open another Starbucks, Ralph Lauren, luxury baby clothes store or luxury condo building.
And then there are the rich students whose parents buy them apartments in the East Village and Crown Heights with cash. None of these people plan to stay (except, sadly the suburbanites who think they are too cool for the suburbs - they aren't). Everyone comes here to "do their time" (part of the global job network is having a stint in NYC on your resume) or they come to increase their already substantial wealth by investing in our corrupt housing market. That NYC looks like a dirty Dubai on the Hudson is of little importance to any of these transplants. It's all about money and status. I fear de Blasio will be hindered at every corner by these selfish, shallow people.
And then there are the rich students whose parents buy them apartments in the East Village and Crown Heights with cash. None of these people plan to stay (except, sadly the suburbanites who think they are too cool for the suburbs - they aren't). Everyone comes here to "do their time" (part of the global job network is having a stint in NYC on your resume) or they come to increase their already substantial wealth by investing in our corrupt housing market. That NYC looks like a dirty Dubai on the Hudson is of little importance to any of these transplants. It's all about money and status. I fear de Blasio will be hindered at every corner by these selfish, shallow people.
27
Interesting editorial.
I'm not against the policy but I can find no one that thinks the Mayor is competent.
Is this wrong and why? The Tones could do much if it rebuts this belief head on. Unless it is true.
I'm not against the policy but I can find no one that thinks the Mayor is competent.
Is this wrong and why? The Tones could do much if it rebuts this belief head on. Unless it is true.
7
Blasio is a first class nincompoop. Instead of serving his office, he is thinking of bigger things for himself and his family. He is a mistake, and a one term Mayor. Perhaps he should stand aside and resign.
26
Where is the space for the "in between"?
17
We struggle by in market rate units that are artificially overpriced because developers only build condos for the super rich and the government only builds affordable housing for the super poor, so the supply of market rate units remains pretty much static while demand for those units continues to increase.
Not blaming either side. Just stating the facts.
Not blaming either side. Just stating the facts.
29
The suburbs, with a two hour commute, but we cannot ask the poor to do the same, as that would be 'inhumane'.
1
One of the reasons New York City was honored with an exceptional twenty-year stretch of good government is because the mayors of that period, Giuliani and Bloomberg, knew better than to waste their time and taxpayers' money on quixotic attempts at social engineering. They knew that the economic effects of the transition to a post-industrial economy, with all that goes along with the loss of well-paid manufacturing jobs, were not going to be easily resolved at a local level. Helping the less fortunate is a function of government, not its raison d'etre. For every Rudy Giuliani and Mike Bloomberg who gets into office and does the job right, there are hundreds like John Lindsay, Abe Beame and David Dinkins waiting to make a hash of it with their smiling good intentions. Running the city means getting into the office every morning and doing everything you can to keep it moving and prospering, not implementing social dreams formed during your college days.
49
And you define "good government" by what? How many sponsorships can be sold to the highest corporate bidders on a pedestrian-only 1/4 acre of formerly traffic-alleviating public roadway, or how many decades-old small businesses on the UW and UE sides had to shutter because of quintupled rents delivered without warning, or how many tourists you can squeeze into the umpteenth Shake Shack?
CEOs and Trickle Down acolytes are not governors: they are businessmen. They are bosses in the truest sense of the word, with only one thing in mind: shareholder value maximization.
From a civic, humanistic perspective, our former "bosses", Giuliani and Bloomberg are possibly the most detrimental things to happen to the uniqueness, affordability, and creative aspects of this city in its history.
CEOs and Trickle Down acolytes are not governors: they are businessmen. They are bosses in the truest sense of the word, with only one thing in mind: shareholder value maximization.
From a civic, humanistic perspective, our former "bosses", Giuliani and Bloomberg are possibly the most detrimental things to happen to the uniqueness, affordability, and creative aspects of this city in its history.
One of the challenges not yet addressed is that the Mayor's housing plan rests on rezoning many industrial areas which, while they may appear underutilized, are often home to many decent middle class jobs. No housing is affordable without a job. A recent study by the Pratt Center examined what happens when a person loses a manufacturing job which pay on average more than $50,000 and finds a job in retailing which pays $20,000 less, making housing less affordable and increasing the need for the city to subsidize the housing.
8
A City for the Poor, Rich and In Between
There is no "in between" anymore. Turns out when you restrict housing supply you increase demand and prices rise.
There is no "in between" anymore. Turns out when you restrict housing supply you increase demand and prices rise.
16
Yup. Nowhere is the "in between" mentioned anywhere in this article other than the title.
1
This piece is written with the notion that people will even want to live here under the growing divide, but that's only part of it. I have rich friends who have started to complain what I've been complaining about for a decade...Tourism is driving up commercial real estate to the extent that all the wonderful shops that charge a fortune for their wonderful items or restaurants that were fun and convenient to go to in let's say, the West Village, are now shuttering because they ca't afford the rent. Greedy landlords with a tiny space on Hudson Street are thirsty for a Corporate retail Satellite shop, and would rather the space sit empty with a big For Lease sign on it, as residents of the neighborhood who spent millions to live there have to trek to find a place to eat, shop, or have a drink. Never mind their "help" they themselves are being priced out, and their worth a few million dollars. This is progress? All this while the unregulated Tourism industry takes over the city, leaving most of us with a dismal quality of life. Working class? Poor? Forget it, there's nothing here they can afford even if they are given free rent. The city left its residents in the dust in favor of tourists who take over our neighborhoods. The benefit of a few at the cost of many. They are an invasive species that destroy everything. Regulating tourism and street vendors will help keep commercial real estate at fair market prices. It trickles down from there.
71
@MCS
"Greedy landlords with a tiny space on Hudson Street are thirsty for a Corporate retail Satellite shop, and would rather the space sit empty with a big For Lease sign on it, as residents of the neighborhood who spent millions to live there have to trek to find a place to eat, shop, or have a drink."
That is so true. There are owners who are creating blight with unrented spaces because they would rather hold out for a high rent or write-off the vacant space as a tax deduction, instead of renting the spaces to local businesses that would spur the economy, create jobs, and provide services for the rest of the neighborhood.
There are several things to blame, but part is the tax incentive to own an unleased space. Can't we address that problem, too?
http://www.nationofchange.org/taxing-nothing-make-owners-vacant-property...
"Greedy landlords with a tiny space on Hudson Street are thirsty for a Corporate retail Satellite shop, and would rather the space sit empty with a big For Lease sign on it, as residents of the neighborhood who spent millions to live there have to trek to find a place to eat, shop, or have a drink."
That is so true. There are owners who are creating blight with unrented spaces because they would rather hold out for a high rent or write-off the vacant space as a tax deduction, instead of renting the spaces to local businesses that would spur the economy, create jobs, and provide services for the rest of the neighborhood.
There are several things to blame, but part is the tax incentive to own an unleased space. Can't we address that problem, too?
http://www.nationofchange.org/taxing-nothing-make-owners-vacant-property...
One million apartments are rent controlled or stabilized, plus another 250,000 are for low income, so there are plenty of rent subsidies for the working class and poor.
It is the middle class who gets nothing but a long commute and the pleasure of paying for other people to live in the most expensive city in the world.
It is the middle class who gets nothing but a long commute and the pleasure of paying for other people to live in the most expensive city in the world.
I can say, with 100% objectivity, that I have the most wonderful little shop in Manhattan --to be fair, probably in the entire world. Also, the quirkiest. Art, antiques, collectibles, coins, postcards: the entire human history of un-useful objects. My wonderful things do not cost a fortune, unless you get paid in depreciated Euros. My rent IS a fortune, but I get by, in significant part because of TOURISTS, from around the world and around the USA. They are smart, interesting NICE people who partake of and add to the New York Experience. I find MCS's comments mystifying. I don't have a clue, what could or should be done to "regulate" tourists, but I am sure that NYC is not some residents-only castle needing to repel the invading hordes.
--Paul J. Bosco
Midtown South shopkeeper
--Paul J. Bosco
Midtown South shopkeeper
1
Its simple...since Albany has determined they know how to run businesses and help the poor why not continue on....
1. Mandate that none of these 'evil' landlords can charge more than $200 a months for rent anywhere in NYC!- affordable housing - Solved!
2. Mandate that food prices be cut by 65% - hunger - Solved!
3. Change Gas prices in NY back to 1$ a gallon - that will help!
4. Make the subway and busses free for anyone making less than $75,000 a year - transportation costs solved!
5. Clothing items are made by little fingers around the world - no item of clothing should cost more than $10. - bravo!
Well done New York you have solved Poverty! all it took were orders from up above!
1. Mandate that none of these 'evil' landlords can charge more than $200 a months for rent anywhere in NYC!- affordable housing - Solved!
2. Mandate that food prices be cut by 65% - hunger - Solved!
3. Change Gas prices in NY back to 1$ a gallon - that will help!
4. Make the subway and busses free for anyone making less than $75,000 a year - transportation costs solved!
5. Clothing items are made by little fingers around the world - no item of clothing should cost more than $10. - bravo!
Well done New York you have solved Poverty! all it took were orders from up above!
11
Get rid of all of the poor. Yuk! No one likes to think about them never mind , gasp, live near them. I'm sure Richard Rich III would be happy to spend his summers off from Yale sweeping up and doing dishes at Nobu. Or maybe John Quincy IV has an avid interest in horticulture and can cut lawns while home from Harvard.
However, since Stanford will freeze over before any of that happens, don't add a two hour commute each way for the working poor to get to a job that is back breaking enough as it is.
However, since Stanford will freeze over before any of that happens, don't add a two hour commute each way for the working poor to get to a job that is back breaking enough as it is.
3
You mean, that two hour commute each way that most of the middle class endures every week day?
1
With 93,000 people entering a lottery for a handful of low-income units in Long Island City, we know that the problem of lack of affordable housing will never be resolved with this mayor, who actually believes we can build ourselves out of the problem.
The only resolution is to greatly limit the number of new low-income immigrants (both legal and illegal) entering the United States, hundreds of thousand of whom migrate to the New York City area every year. Just five years of tightening would have a remarkable effect on the vacancy rate.
But of course nobody wants to talk about this. Democrats love immigration (more Democratic votes), and Republicans (other than loudmouth Trump, who is counterproductive with his approach) are afraid to be called racists.
With respect to his proposal to build thousands and thousands of units of affordable housing units in mixed-income buildings in East New York, the plan will backfire because it will cause rents to skyrocket in the surrounding two-family and multi-family homes in the immediate neighborhood. The result? A net loss of affordable housing.
The only resolution is to greatly limit the number of new low-income immigrants (both legal and illegal) entering the United States, hundreds of thousand of whom migrate to the New York City area every year. Just five years of tightening would have a remarkable effect on the vacancy rate.
But of course nobody wants to talk about this. Democrats love immigration (more Democratic votes), and Republicans (other than loudmouth Trump, who is counterproductive with his approach) are afraid to be called racists.
With respect to his proposal to build thousands and thousands of units of affordable housing units in mixed-income buildings in East New York, the plan will backfire because it will cause rents to skyrocket in the surrounding two-family and multi-family homes in the immediate neighborhood. The result? A net loss of affordable housing.
41
This comment, which I am sorry to say is basically racist even if the writer does not realize it, presents no figures, no data, no references to back up its bald assertions. It does not mention the economic benefits of immigrants. There are many places to see this data. Here is one:
http://clas.berkeley.edu/research/immigration-economic-benefits-immigration
http://clas.berkeley.edu/research/immigration-economic-benefits-immigration
4
Not racist at all. You may be the racist because you think low-income immigrants only come from Latin America. They come from everywhere. So tired of the racist card being pulled from the bottom of the deck.
Of course there are benefits that come with immigration. My four grandparents were immigrants. But those benefits are more than offset when the immigrants flood into an area that has an intractable housing shortage, causing rents and homelessness to skyrocket.
Of course there are benefits that come with immigration. My four grandparents were immigrants. But those benefits are more than offset when the immigrants flood into an area that has an intractable housing shortage, causing rents and homelessness to skyrocket.
2
Why is it racist? He didn't mention race, he mentioned social class. That can be any race.
4
I used to be a public school teacher in NYC. Growing up in the nearby suburbs upstate, I was eventually priced out of my own hometown (unless I wanted to keep living with my parents, that is). I moved into various surrounding boroughs. Quality of life was terrible. Incessant car alarms, being accosted regularly for drugs and prostitution, among myriad other nightmares. I eventually gave up and moved to Phoenix, AZ. I only make a few thousand dollars less here than I would in NY. Now I have a three bedroom house next to a gorgeous mountain. Honestly I don't know how any middle class types do it in NYC.
96
You are smart and sane, and you will reap untold benefits over your lifetime, including your beautiful home and scenery, and a great job.
Unfortunately a lot of people are mentally "Slaves of New York" -- it's about status and bragging rights.
Unfortunately a lot of people are mentally "Slaves of New York" -- it's about status and bragging rights.
1
There is no middle class in NYC. To live a middle class lifestyle in the city, I'd have to be a millionaire. I'm moving when my 2 year lease is up. Kudos to you and your house near a mountain! Sounds lovely.
1
Putting aside the racist policy of building low income housing in minority neighborhoods (Supreme Court 2015), the big numbers thrown around in this editorial are a non-sense. 20,000 units, housing for 50,000 and $618,000,000 in direct funding. $618Million is almost entirely tax abatement which is not direct funding, its future expense discounts for the building owners. In a city with as $72Billion budget this is less than what is spent on office supplies per year and displays a total lack of leadership that the mayor can't ring real money out of $72Billion.
20,000 units and 50,000 people, 11,500 units are already occupied. The 8,500 in new units is housing for 18,500 people. We have 75,000 homeless! let alone the housing for tens of thousands of people lost to gentrification annually and the 100's of thousand already doubled up other wise just getting by.
In a city where real estate is discussed in $billions and people in millions, these are ridiculously small numbers for the Mayor's signature program and the NYT should be ashamed for giving him this fig leaf editorial.
20,000 units and 50,000 people, 11,500 units are already occupied. The 8,500 in new units is housing for 18,500 people. We have 75,000 homeless! let alone the housing for tens of thousands of people lost to gentrification annually and the 100's of thousand already doubled up other wise just getting by.
In a city where real estate is discussed in $billions and people in millions, these are ridiculously small numbers for the Mayor's signature program and the NYT should be ashamed for giving him this fig leaf editorial.
27
I'm not sure how building low-income housing in minority neighborhoods is racist. Low-income housing should be built where land values are the lowest and existing blight can be removed. Should the government be purchasing small parcels of land for millions of dollars in Scarsdale to build a few low-income units? And by the way, any minority family can move into Scarsdale if they can afford it.
3
That recent Supreme Court ruling will do more to stop the construction of government sponsored housing than anything else. Low-income projects always end up as haven for lowlifes and criminals. No middle-class community of homeowners in or outside of NYC will stand for it. The blowback will be huge, especially in the vote-rich suburbs.
2
Joseph - "Low-income housing should be built where land values are the lowest and existing blight can be removed. "
This is exactly the argument that the Supreme Court shot down last month based on disparate impact. This leads to the ghetto-ization of minorities and makes people in Westchester sound reasonable when they exclude poor minorities from their town.
This is exactly the argument that the Supreme Court shot down last month based on disparate impact. This leads to the ghetto-ization of minorities and makes people in Westchester sound reasonable when they exclude poor minorities from their town.
1
When I lived in the Bay Area I was shocked at how many people commuted two or more hours just to get to San Francisco. One taxi driver came all the way from Sacramento, every day. When there is no space to house people, they will have to go further and further away. I wonder what the economic costs are of people exhausted by four hours of commute every day? Could one quantify the lost time's effect on child-rearing? The rich may rightly claim that if one cannot afford the rent, one does not have the right to live there, but they of all people should understand that every action has a benefit, and a cost.
17
If that's truly how the "rich" see it, I'm curious how that logic plays out when it applies to food and water.
1
Give me a break...
I do not see progress and moving in the right direction.
Instead, I see a narcissistic ideologue who is more interested in giving speeches to other states that fixing the garbage problem.
Grafitti is worse, more aggressive homeless, increased shootings and higher rents.
How are things better?
I do not see progress and moving in the right direction.
Instead, I see a narcissistic ideologue who is more interested in giving speeches to other states that fixing the garbage problem.
Grafitti is worse, more aggressive homeless, increased shootings and higher rents.
How are things better?
86
You may not consider that much is improved in this area in the short time that Bill De Blasio has been Mayor, but after 30 or more years of turning a blind and ineffective eye toward affordable housing, at least De Blasio is trying to effect meaningful change for the average New Yorker. And that means something.
It's just not realistic to expect him to turn around in such a short time the wealth-based housing situation in the city that has been driving out middle and lower-income New Yorkers. He's not a miracle-worker and he's up against extremely rich and powerful interests who are eager to see him fail.
But he's trying, and thus far he has had victories, he's made progress against all odds. Don't knock him for the little he's been able to achieve. Rather, get behind him and help him move New York forward for all New Yorkers, rich or poor.
It's just not realistic to expect him to turn around in such a short time the wealth-based housing situation in the city that has been driving out middle and lower-income New Yorkers. He's not a miracle-worker and he's up against extremely rich and powerful interests who are eager to see him fail.
But he's trying, and thus far he has had victories, he's made progress against all odds. Don't knock him for the little he's been able to achieve. Rather, get behind him and help him move New York forward for all New Yorkers, rich or poor.
56
Don't clutch those pearls too hard, you might break them.
1
How are things better?
1) 20,000 apartments started or preserved in a year;
2) Hurricane Sandy repairs;
3) Pre-K;
4) No tax increases;
5) Young black & Hispanic boys & men can walk around less harassed
6) Faster, fairer settlements with victims of government mistreatment;
7) Rent freeze.
8) Crackdowns on the worst landlords;
9) movement on Minimum Wage and working conditions.
10-500) Your turn to add to this list.
1) 20,000 apartments started or preserved in a year;
2) Hurricane Sandy repairs;
3) Pre-K;
4) No tax increases;
5) Young black & Hispanic boys & men can walk around less harassed
6) Faster, fairer settlements with victims of government mistreatment;
7) Rent freeze.
8) Crackdowns on the worst landlords;
9) movement on Minimum Wage and working conditions.
10-500) Your turn to add to this list.
2
We will never reach this dream until all housing is owned by the Federal Government. Then the government could provide adequate housing equally to each person on an equal basis. A rich man would then have the same housing as the poor man. Only then will we be a happy nation.
6
Ah, yes, a commun(ist) paradise.
2
I don't want to live under a communist regime, thank you. I don't want my private property that I and my family worked hard for be seized by the government in the name of "equality".
2
Am I sensing a bit of sarcasm here? Somehow, I think the people who clicked "recommend" are taking this poster seriously.
3
As an elderly person, financially challenged at my age with dwindling money
to live on, and currently looking for a rental apartment , I can attest to the
fact that this is a city for the poor and the rich. There is nothing in between
for a "middling" person. I have been rejected recently from a senior
residence building for having too much income - I was just not poor enough!
The housing offered was awful - I could smell detergent in the hall - no doorman
and sleazy to say the least. Rents in this city - decent ones - are out of sight and
I partly blame Mayor Bloomberg who fostered these skyscrapers to the moon
where Russian oligarchs and Chinese billionaires could either live in or invest.
that spurred rental increases in this city - money was king and there was
no moderation in sight. I'm screwed!
to live on, and currently looking for a rental apartment , I can attest to the
fact that this is a city for the poor and the rich. There is nothing in between
for a "middling" person. I have been rejected recently from a senior
residence building for having too much income - I was just not poor enough!
The housing offered was awful - I could smell detergent in the hall - no doorman
and sleazy to say the least. Rents in this city - decent ones - are out of sight and
I partly blame Mayor Bloomberg who fostered these skyscrapers to the moon
where Russian oligarchs and Chinese billionaires could either live in or invest.
that spurred rental increases in this city - money was king and there was
no moderation in sight. I'm screwed!
50
The billionaire building are very few and their footprints were mostly commercial properties and located in wildly expensive neighborhoods. It is a non-sense that these buildings had anything to do with affordable housing.
1
You screwed yourself long ago when you did not buy an apartment. If you have lived in the City as long as your post suggests you have, you had ample opportunity to do so.
2
The city subsidies both the rich and the poor, nothing for the middle class.
FYI: More than one million apartments are subsidized and permanently off the market.
FYI: More than one million apartments are subsidized and permanently off the market.
Unfortunately, the mess in the Housing Authority is a reflection of the track record of city and state in managing such initiatives. There's little reaon to think the future will be better than the past. In addition, at a cost of over $12,300 per individual housed, including children, the cost of the kind of incentives for owners laid out for this project really can't be scaled up to fully meet the need.
7
DeBlasio has yet to settle a number of NYC contracts, many city workers are now 5+ years without a contract. This during a time when expenses have sky rocketed.
This is the middle class that he should be supporting, the middle class that lives in NYC, pays taxes, and makes the city work. He needs to make a commitment to "average" New Yorkers first and foremost.
This is the middle class that he should be supporting, the middle class that lives in NYC, pays taxes, and makes the city work. He needs to make a commitment to "average" New Yorkers first and foremost.
34
Public workers should not be unionized, because there is no incentive for the politicians to get a good deal for the taxpayer. Even FDR realized this. It was JFK who started the public Union patronage train, and it ought to be stopped now. Maybe we should take a page from Walker's playbook and put an end to public sector unions in NYC.
5
the city needs an industrial policy as well as a housing policy. Dedicating all sites and land to housing doesn't recognize the equally urgent need for good jobs. Industrial land has been and is continuing to be squeezed by both legal and illegal residential encroachment. Even the housing advocacy community now recognizes the need to to strike some balance and is urging the mayor to develop a robust industrial land policy.
10
I hat to break this to you but manufacturing left NYC in the 1960s for NJ and the cheaper and business-friendly southern states. Labor costs too high in NYC for real manufacturing ever to return. And I mean real manufacturing like the huge Toyota, Hyundai and Kia plants in the south.
1
And will Cuomo cooperate?
His feuding with de B. abate?
What Andrew will sow
Is still touch and go,
In his hands will lie Housing's fate!
His feuding with de B. abate?
What Andrew will sow
Is still touch and go,
In his hands will lie Housing's fate!
16
This is not just fairness. It is also pure selfish interests of the well to do.
Unless you provide mail's quarters, your maid won't be close to hand. But if you don't have homes within a maid's reach in the whole of a large city, you won't have a maid at all. Everyone you want in your city needs to live somewhere.
Now if you have a small bedroom community, you can have another one next door for lower incomes. If you have a huge city, where just getting into it is a project, you just can't do that. It cripples the function of your nice rich city.
If it gets expensive enough, the doctors won't have nurses, the lawyers won't have secretaries, the restaurants won't have cooks or waiters. You can price yourself right out of a city you can live in.
For awhile maybe that burden can be shifted onto those who must travel for long travel time every day just to get to work. That isn't just wrong, it won't work long term. The ones you want to hire will find better work, more convenient.
Unless you provide mail's quarters, your maid won't be close to hand. But if you don't have homes within a maid's reach in the whole of a large city, you won't have a maid at all. Everyone you want in your city needs to live somewhere.
Now if you have a small bedroom community, you can have another one next door for lower incomes. If you have a huge city, where just getting into it is a project, you just can't do that. It cripples the function of your nice rich city.
If it gets expensive enough, the doctors won't have nurses, the lawyers won't have secretaries, the restaurants won't have cooks or waiters. You can price yourself right out of a city you can live in.
For awhile maybe that burden can be shifted onto those who must travel for long travel time every day just to get to work. That isn't just wrong, it won't work long term. The ones you want to hire will find better work, more convenient.
54
The city still works it's just that you have Americans move out and a much higher proportion of immigrant workers who are willing to live in crowded spaces move in. A large studio for $2,500/ month seems like a lot unless you are splitting it among 5 immigrant nurses. Then it's pretty cheap and they may be used to such conditions in their home countries. The whole "own bedroom for all" is a relatively recent phenomenon. People who want the normal American lifestyle will continue moving out.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-22/these-are-the-top-20-c...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-22/these-are-the-top-20-c...
12
What's a long commute to you? Mine, to Manhattan, has been a good hour and twenty minutes one way door to door, depending on the trains, for over 35 years.
I live where I can afford to live. New York City is large, and there still are many affordable neighborhoods. And as to that: A little birth control would go a long way to cutting down the need for subsidized housing. Of course, that was also true over thirty and forty years ago also when entire neighborhoods of tidy middle-class apartment buildings became Section-8 housing.
We all understand that America has lost manufacturing and other jobs for people with no inclination towards or ability for more cerebral work. But most middle-class families do limit the number of children they have to the number they can afford to pay attention to. Is it entirely fair that they must subsidize those who do not practice family planning?
I live where I can afford to live. New York City is large, and there still are many affordable neighborhoods. And as to that: A little birth control would go a long way to cutting down the need for subsidized housing. Of course, that was also true over thirty and forty years ago also when entire neighborhoods of tidy middle-class apartment buildings became Section-8 housing.
We all understand that America has lost manufacturing and other jobs for people with no inclination towards or ability for more cerebral work. But most middle-class families do limit the number of children they have to the number they can afford to pay attention to. Is it entirely fair that they must subsidize those who do not practice family planning?
60
God bless New York transportation. New York has the best subway, bus, rail, and ferry system anywhere.
Although it is convenient to live in Manhattan, not everyone wants to.
Although it is convenient to live in Manhattan, not everyone wants to.
6
There sure hasn't been a tidal wave of job creation over the last decade, and it seems like much of this is coming from non-resident owners. NYC should be pursuing policies that discourage people from using the city as a "playground." Property taxes for non-resident owners should be greatly increased to discourage the use of NYC real estate as some sort of safety deposit box as well as to make up for the loss in income taxes that results when these people aren't counted as NYC residents.