The sentence that really grabbed me was 'About a third of the agency’s operating budget comes from rent.' On its face, that seems absurdly low. I'd like to know more about who is subsidizing the city's public housing and about the cost structure of the public housing authority.
4
An aspect of this issue not mentioned is how fir decades NYCHA wasted project staff time preparing paperwork to terminate high income tenancies but ultimately never taking action. For decades, procedures required project staff to call in such tenants for termination interviews, but when the cases were forwarded to central office fot final action, no one was ever firced to move. It was a buresucratic charade.
A charade that all of us are forced to pay for, yet again.
1
"It was a buresucratic charade"
But it allowed the parasitic, politically connected bureaucrats to justify their useless, parasitic existence.
But it allowed the parasitic, politically connected bureaucrats to justify their useless, parasitic existence.
2
Guess what, folks? Give people stuff (an apartment, citizenship) and they'll vote for you.
7
Public housing was originally envisioned as a harbor for the middle class. As a taxpayer, I am more interested in keeping working people in the city than turning the projects into homeless shelters. Someone needs to look out for the middle class not just for the destitute.
16
Time for Jimmy McMillan to make a comeback - "The rent is too damned high."
3
I spent my childhood in Pomonok public housing in Flushing, across from Queens College. That was 55-60 years ago. It was a nice, safe, secure place to grow up: buildings were kept clean, there were playgrounds, we could walk to a new public school (PS 201), play outdoors, the rolling hills and lawns were regularly mowed, the fences repaired, the whole neighborhood well-maintained; back then, there was little if any fear of crime or vandalism; we were all working class, low-to-middle income families of several ethnic strains. In short, not the dangerous, filthy, poverty-stricken world that exists now in many if not most projects.
I just visited NYC a few weeks ago from my home in FL, and since I had rented a car, went back to Pomonok for some nostalgia (not having done so for 10 years). I was truly stunned by what I saw there. Granted, it's 50+ years since my childhood and 10 years since I last saw it, but the place is now little more than a giant slum. The hills and lawns are overgrown, totally untended, the local streets full of potholes, fences in disrepair, broken, garbage everywhere strewn about out in the open: by any measure, appalling and disgusting, not fit for civilized human habitation.
Queens College is still there, and inside its high fences, looks pretty good, but Pomonok is a mess, a testament to decades of systemic mismanagement and neglect! Sad beyond words. Whomever runs NYcha, they neither have the money nor the will to make it habitable.
I just visited NYC a few weeks ago from my home in FL, and since I had rented a car, went back to Pomonok for some nostalgia (not having done so for 10 years). I was truly stunned by what I saw there. Granted, it's 50+ years since my childhood and 10 years since I last saw it, but the place is now little more than a giant slum. The hills and lawns are overgrown, totally untended, the local streets full of potholes, fences in disrepair, broken, garbage everywhere strewn about out in the open: by any measure, appalling and disgusting, not fit for civilized human habitation.
Queens College is still there, and inside its high fences, looks pretty good, but Pomonok is a mess, a testament to decades of systemic mismanagement and neglect! Sad beyond words. Whomever runs NYcha, they neither have the money nor the will to make it habitable.
9
Another great example of the safety net that exists, not for the poor, but for those who can game the system.
6
These people need to go! They took advantage of the system for way too long.
All they are doing is getting over. Let homeless people have a turn.
All they are doing is getting over. Let homeless people have a turn.
2
My family lived in the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens for several generations and many years. Despite WWI, the Great Depression, WWII and all the social and economic changes of the city not one of us ever lived in public housing. Even in desperate times. While some assert that pubic housing affords opportunity for lower income people to have decent housing while waiting for their incomes to rise the reality is that is not the case. There is no incentive for people in subsidized public housing to further their careers, education, or opportunities to live and work elsewhere. In fact it is great dis-incentive.
My parents began their marriage in a 2nd floor, 2 room walk-up in the South Bronx. They found it by luck in 1942 and we lived there until 1955. It was pathetic by today's standards. No air conditioning. An old, beat up sink off the so-called living room (A space for a couch two steps from the kitchen table!) and one bath and one closet. Four of us slept in one bed-room. In 1953 we moved to Townsend Ave at 175th street, Mt. Eden. That had a separate kitchen, a room by itself. In 1955 we moved to Glens Falls NY to a small rented home with 3 tiny bedrooms. It was paradise! I got my own room! Subsidized housing? My parents would never have accepted that. My parents and thousands of other returning vets of WWII fought their way up the economic ladder. I can't remember my parents ever suggesting that we move to public housing. Public housing should only be for the most needy.
My parents began their marriage in a 2nd floor, 2 room walk-up in the South Bronx. They found it by luck in 1942 and we lived there until 1955. It was pathetic by today's standards. No air conditioning. An old, beat up sink off the so-called living room (A space for a couch two steps from the kitchen table!) and one bath and one closet. Four of us slept in one bed-room. In 1953 we moved to Townsend Ave at 175th street, Mt. Eden. That had a separate kitchen, a room by itself. In 1955 we moved to Glens Falls NY to a small rented home with 3 tiny bedrooms. It was paradise! I got my own room! Subsidized housing? My parents would never have accepted that. My parents and thousands of other returning vets of WWII fought their way up the economic ladder. I can't remember my parents ever suggesting that we move to public housing. Public housing should only be for the most needy.
10
"While some assert that pubic housing affords opportunity for lower income people to have decent housing while waiting for their incomes to rise the reality is that is not the case. There is no incentive for people in subsidized public housing to further their careers, education, or opportunities to live and work elsewhere. In fact it is great dis-incentive."
That is absolute nonsense. I lived in a project from the age of 5 to 18. No one I grew up with lives in the projects. They have college degrees -- some from Ivy League and highly selective schools -- and jobs (btw, a B.A. does not guarantee a comfortable manner of life). A major reason they moved is that there was affordable private housing available for them to rent or buy. That's not true today.
As I've said before, public housing is not something you'd ever choose if you had viable options. Even if you are tidy, law-abiding, and responsible, your neighbors may not be and there's nothing you can do. Many buildings are terribly maintained: read the newspaper for stories of elevators that remain broken for months on end.
I am tired of the self-righteous ignorance and racism that runs through this comment section. Stop presuming to lecture your "inferiors".
That is absolute nonsense. I lived in a project from the age of 5 to 18. No one I grew up with lives in the projects. They have college degrees -- some from Ivy League and highly selective schools -- and jobs (btw, a B.A. does not guarantee a comfortable manner of life). A major reason they moved is that there was affordable private housing available for them to rent or buy. That's not true today.
As I've said before, public housing is not something you'd ever choose if you had viable options. Even if you are tidy, law-abiding, and responsible, your neighbors may not be and there's nothing you can do. Many buildings are terribly maintained: read the newspaper for stories of elevators that remain broken for months on end.
I am tired of the self-righteous ignorance and racism that runs through this comment section. Stop presuming to lecture your "inferiors".
13
Incidentally, my father was a social worker with a master's degree; in other words, a member of the white collar working class. But we were only a few steps above his welfare clients. We moved to a new development to escape a dangerous slum in Brooklyn with terrible public schools. We had no extras: no fancy clothes, no music and dance lessons, no real vacations. We did have books, movies, and the cultural offerings of the City. Broadway shows, opera, and the ballet were much less expensive in the 1960s and early 1970s. Then my father left.
A good number of firemen and policemen (there were no women back then) and low-level government employees also lived in my public housing development at the start, before administrative failures caused it to go to pot. There were whites of various ethnicities, blacks, Puerto Ricans and Cubans, and a few Asians.
Although there were people on welfare, all the people I knew would have been ashamed to have been on the dole: We were as well-versed in the stereotypes of welfare recipients as anybody else.
Looking back, I realize that even the worst-off folks in my neighborhood deserved more compassion than I was able to muster as a child.
A good number of firemen and policemen (there were no women back then) and low-level government employees also lived in my public housing development at the start, before administrative failures caused it to go to pot. There were whites of various ethnicities, blacks, Puerto Ricans and Cubans, and a few Asians.
Although there were people on welfare, all the people I knew would have been ashamed to have been on the dole: We were as well-versed in the stereotypes of welfare recipients as anybody else.
Looking back, I realize that even the worst-off folks in my neighborhood deserved more compassion than I was able to muster as a child.
3
New York City provides public housing for GENERATIONS of the same family (not just one Lifelong Refuge).
7
Many,many years ago,I once asked a friend why he kept pictures of manhattan properties his tiny office walls. He told me something that helped me understand how he managed to become hugely successful in real estate ,IN MANHATTAN THERE IS ONLY SO MUCH LAND. He bought in an area that was abandoned by hundreds of small manufacturers and where the owners couldn't replace the tenants and let the buildings go fallow which he then bought and maintained them till there was a need for them in the residential market. In time this area went from artists to hold up artists This same thing is happening all over Manhattan at an alarmingly rapid pace and though doing well for realtors and shockingly,foreign investors it does nothing for those seeking to get out of NYCHA. I agree that RENT CONTROL,a program to help those through WWII should have ended right after the end of the Korean War. Rent Stabilization on the other hand is the major blockade to unbridled landlord greed. Those areas that you can move into the city that are affordable ( no more than 25-30% of what you make )) are long gone. So where do people go from this point?
The City and in particular,Manhattan, is becoming a haven for foreign investors,co-ops,Condos,The Plaza Hotel, The Waldorf Hotel and the list goes on.....some pay taxes, most dont ( a little offshore three card monte)) and some who want to build for their own, get taX breaks. GREED FOR A DOLLAR,DEVOID OF ANY CARING WHERE IT'S FROM IS THE RUIN OF NYC
The City and in particular,Manhattan, is becoming a haven for foreign investors,co-ops,Condos,The Plaza Hotel, The Waldorf Hotel and the list goes on.....some pay taxes, most dont ( a little offshore three card monte)) and some who want to build for their own, get taX breaks. GREED FOR A DOLLAR,DEVOID OF ANY CARING WHERE IT'S FROM IS THE RUIN OF NYC
5
This article misleadingly uses the phrase "higher-earning families" throughout! (a phrase of course seized upon by several posters)
True, families earning $50,000 are "higher-earning" than those making $25,000, but in no shape or form can a family earning $40,000-$60,000 a year in NYC be labeled "higher-earning" in the context of NYC, the costs of living, and what genuinely "higher-earning" people make (i.e. $100,000+ for right-out of b-school types and literally $millions for many).
It may be hard to understand the utter insanity of NYC housing prices in most of the rest of the nation, but the Times should really not be stoking the fires of resentment with such misleading headlines!
Surely, the Times editors know better! How about a little less click-baiting provocation and a little more real journalism?
True, families earning $50,000 are "higher-earning" than those making $25,000, but in no shape or form can a family earning $40,000-$60,000 a year in NYC be labeled "higher-earning" in the context of NYC, the costs of living, and what genuinely "higher-earning" people make (i.e. $100,000+ for right-out of b-school types and literally $millions for many).
It may be hard to understand the utter insanity of NYC housing prices in most of the rest of the nation, but the Times should really not be stoking the fires of resentment with such misleading headlines!
Surely, the Times editors know better! How about a little less click-baiting provocation and a little more real journalism?
14
FOUR bedrooms?!?!
Which New York have I been living in?
Which New York have I been living in?
7
I'm assuming that given the choice of a 4 bedroom in public housing, you still wouldn't take it. This isn't Versailles.
4
My family's apartment in the projects had three bedrooms. There were four kids. They rooms were tiny and housing authority construction is cheap and mean.
2
Middle Class welfare! Sounds good. Hey Mayor, where do I sign up?
4
Since when is making $60,000 for a family of 4 middle class in NYC?
8
This article reeks of bias and insensitivity. A high earner in New York City is not "a family that makes $60k combined a year." The social, economical and cultural impact of rent stabilization, rent control and aid assistance for public housing so positively outweighs the dog-eat-dog world of the city's real estate. What is really missing in the article is a long recognized reality that "regular" people usually can't afford the downpayment required to purchase their own home or the expenses needed to move. Esther Swan was able to give her son a good life because she wasn't spending ALL her money on housing.
The public good that affordable housing gives all communities is one of the good "taxes" we pay. In my building a single mother lives next to a doctor, who lives next to an artist, who raised a lawyer, who married a teacher. We are multi-generational, racially diverse and emotionally and historically attached to our neighborhoods. And we pay our share, it isn't using the system for "extra income."
How empty NY would be without that diversity. You can see it happening all around us. Vote tenants, no matter what: get out and vote.
The public good that affordable housing gives all communities is one of the good "taxes" we pay. In my building a single mother lives next to a doctor, who lives next to an artist, who raised a lawyer, who married a teacher. We are multi-generational, racially diverse and emotionally and historically attached to our neighborhoods. And we pay our share, it isn't using the system for "extra income."
How empty NY would be without that diversity. You can see it happening all around us. Vote tenants, no matter what: get out and vote.
10
60K a year may not make them a high earner but they shouldn't be on the dole.
6
It makes me angry that our government, city/state/Federal, continues to subsidize citizens that are able bodies for the long term. Subsidies were supposed to assist people through short term downfalls. The editorial board and progressives that believe that most of the country should be on subsidies are wrong, and do more harm than good.
What ever happened to welfare reform? Why do we pay little girls to have babies as if that is an acceptable career in life? And how is it that people cannot see that if everyone gets subsidies that soon no one will?
We saw it with the poor guy that made a bad decision to pay all employees at least $70k a year, regardless of their skills. Good people left, others will stay as long as possible and be angry when they go back to the real world and cannot get a salary close to that which they became accustomed.
Then we have the minimum wage nonsense - those that got raises as a result still want their food stamps, housing subsidies, and are now negotiating fewer hours.
Gay marriage is legal in many states, but gays that choose not to marry in those states still want partner rights and benefits - they want it all!
I say to those in NYC that are staying in subsidized housing - how is it you believe you have the right to subsidies from tax payers so that you can keep more of your earned income while others have no where to live and actually have no choice to pay higher rents? Oh, progressives only like progressive ideas if they aren't affec
What ever happened to welfare reform? Why do we pay little girls to have babies as if that is an acceptable career in life? And how is it that people cannot see that if everyone gets subsidies that soon no one will?
We saw it with the poor guy that made a bad decision to pay all employees at least $70k a year, regardless of their skills. Good people left, others will stay as long as possible and be angry when they go back to the real world and cannot get a salary close to that which they became accustomed.
Then we have the minimum wage nonsense - those that got raises as a result still want their food stamps, housing subsidies, and are now negotiating fewer hours.
Gay marriage is legal in many states, but gays that choose not to marry in those states still want partner rights and benefits - they want it all!
I say to those in NYC that are staying in subsidized housing - how is it you believe you have the right to subsidies from tax payers so that you can keep more of your earned income while others have no where to live and actually have no choice to pay higher rents? Oh, progressives only like progressive ideas if they aren't affec
10
Not everyone can live wherever they want. The tri-state area is full of people who have long commutes to their jobs. If Manhattan becomes all upper-income so be it. All attempts to manipulate the market lead to tax-payer subsidized gross inequities.
Anecdotally, I know many, many people living in subsidized or rent-controlled apartments who make a lot of money and have other, expensive, weekend-homes in the Hamptons, Connecticut, etc. I knew a wealthy woman who bragged that her garage cost more than her 2 bedroom apartment on the Upper West Side. Meanwhile, young newcomers to the city are living like rats and paying through the nose.
Anecdotally, I know many, many people living in subsidized or rent-controlled apartments who make a lot of money and have other, expensive, weekend-homes in the Hamptons, Connecticut, etc. I knew a wealthy woman who bragged that her garage cost more than her 2 bedroom apartment on the Upper West Side. Meanwhile, young newcomers to the city are living like rats and paying through the nose.
13
Get the basics straight: Rent-regulated housing is not public housing.
4
I know but they're both part of the same problem. People who are over 65 should be protected by rent control and rent stabilization. Everyone else should be subject to the same market forces as the rest of us.
4
After reading the comments I find it extremely sad that people think that we are using the system. Do any of you realized what brought us to live in public housing in the first place. After raising 8 Kids 7 of which were not mine biologically (FYI we saved the tax paying citizens tons of dollars by taking them in and not letting them go into the system) and not receiving any PUBLIC ASSISTANCE whatsoever just on two incomes which totaled less than $60,000 a year. So now just recently they are of age except for my daughter who is a teenager that I would like to finish out high school in the city we live in we are monsters. Unbelievable! Affordable housing in NYC is a joke. If you want to stay in a neighborhood where you grew up but would also like to be able to eat and not live paycheck to paycheck what do you do. So because we are not rich we should just be priced out of the neighborhoods we love and have grew up and lived in forever because the Trumps of the world want it. Affordable housing needs to be exactly that affordable. One other thing my niece who lives with me applied for affordable housing and qualified in every aspect and was denied because that year she would make $24,070 and the limit was $24,000 which is $70 more for the entire year she was denied. Maybe people need to take a closer look at affordable housing!!
11
With all due respect, there are a lot of things I "want" to do...(And, you "want" to stay in a neighborhood because, you say, you've lived there, sounds like most of your life BUT...you can't afford to-even after probably 20 years or more) BUT I CANNOT do because of financial constraints. When you are paying your own bills in full, you have that right. When you are not, you lose that right, sorry. You have lived off the taxpayers for many many years, and there are 240,000 other people who now need some assistance and you just sit there like a squatter because you "want to". Be grateful for the time you've been given there, and MOVE ON!! Give someone else a turn. IF that means moving to another city or state, so be it. People move ALL the time for many reasons, such as divorces, jobs, whatever...it's part of life. What you "like" for your daughter, or what you "want" or prefer, is not relevant if you are relying on us to pay for it. If you have been there for several decades, you've taken enough from the taxpayers. Time to support yourself wherever that may be...Such as Cleveland, like one of the commenters mentioned costs her $1300/month. You would be able to save $500 month. SMH!
15
Dear Mr. California,
Educate yourself on on the Public Housing system in NY. I have been told since I pay the top rent NYCHA gets no subsidies for my apartment!!!! Who just gets up and moves to Cleveland so they can pay $500 less a month yeah that sounds realistic. I am sure my salary would not be the same in Cleveland. This is the problem understand before you comment. So Mr. California you don't pay anything for me.
Educate yourself on on the Public Housing system in NY. I have been told since I pay the top rent NYCHA gets no subsidies for my apartment!!!! Who just gets up and moves to Cleveland so they can pay $500 less a month yeah that sounds realistic. I am sure my salary would not be the same in Cleveland. This is the problem understand before you comment. So Mr. California you don't pay anything for me.
3
So how many rooms do you have Dawn and how much a month are you paying?
1
Public housing should review income annually. If you no longer qualify due to increased income move out and make room for someone less fortunate.
11
You can try to impose a cap on the years, say 20 years from the date of first lease? You can go after the extra dollars and simply raise the rent according to any and all income? You can also just leave established people where they are since to simply place the poorest in these places repeats cycles of crime. Who knows...They are now a major problem for cities and tax payers all over the nation. Good luck.
4
Maybe HUD and NYCHA need to address the fact that literally thousands of apartments are vacant due to lack of maintenance. Fix those up, get people off the streets and then get your knickers in a twist about those who make decent money and can afford to contribute to the economy since most of their paycheck isn't going into the pockets of developers and landlords who don't spend money or, in many cases, pay their fair share of taxes.
9
The problem is affordable housing for the middle class AND the the poorer among us. Manhattan (and the soon to be outer borough) have seen rents escalate at a much higher rate than salary increases. It's nice to write about this, but what is being done about this? Affordable middle class apartments are being torn down to be replaced by shiny new buildings that even someone making $150K a year would have difficulty affording for "absentee" owners and renters from outside the city. Why would anyone leave NYCHA housing for a $3000 per month, 400 square foot studio?
27
"The HUD inspector general recommended that higher-earning residents should be nudged out to make room for needier families, but HUD and Nycha do not agree. Nycha says that high-income residents are positive examples for their communities and that their departure would put the agency in an even deeper financial hole."
NYCHA has been a dumping ground for years for high-paying sinecures to politicians' cronies (check how much its senior management makes in salary and benefits, including pensions) and run by bureaucrats with lifelong job security and no real-world professional expertise. The intent behind public housing was to provide temporary living until tenants could through education and work establish themselves as self-sustaining, productive citizens. Thanks to rampant handouts to cronies, not their ability to manage an enterprise, NYCHA apartments are now the permanent home for many, and quite a few of whom lack both the desire and willingness to stand on their own two feet and make room for people on the wait list.
What was once a great idea --a short-term a leg up -- has now become permanent fixture, perpetuating the vicious cycle of dependence on government handouts. NYCHA too is unwilling to cut that dependence cord because it also must pander to its political constituency. New Yorkers who don't have the same generational advantage of "inheriting" apartments must continue to subsidize public housing, while they themselves struggle with high current market-rate rents.
NYCHA has been a dumping ground for years for high-paying sinecures to politicians' cronies (check how much its senior management makes in salary and benefits, including pensions) and run by bureaucrats with lifelong job security and no real-world professional expertise. The intent behind public housing was to provide temporary living until tenants could through education and work establish themselves as self-sustaining, productive citizens. Thanks to rampant handouts to cronies, not their ability to manage an enterprise, NYCHA apartments are now the permanent home for many, and quite a few of whom lack both the desire and willingness to stand on their own two feet and make room for people on the wait list.
What was once a great idea --a short-term a leg up -- has now become permanent fixture, perpetuating the vicious cycle of dependence on government handouts. NYCHA too is unwilling to cut that dependence cord because it also must pander to its political constituency. New Yorkers who don't have the same generational advantage of "inheriting" apartments must continue to subsidize public housing, while they themselves struggle with high current market-rate rents.
9
i'm sorry man but folks who make big salaries should not be living in NYCH!the people who live on fixed income such as SSI,SSDIor shelter folks should get first dibs on those apartments.NYC is throwing up low income affordable housing for working class folks all over the city while these people get to hold on to these apartments is not fair!!
4
Vienna has figured out how to offer high-quality apartments with low-cost rent and renters' rights that would be unheard of here in the States.
It's a model worth examining:
http://www.governing.com/topics/economic-dev/gov-affordable-luxurious-ho...
It's a model worth examining:
http://www.governing.com/topics/economic-dev/gov-affordable-luxurious-ho...
2
Rents in NYC are far too high. I've commented on this before , but as an
83yr old, living in an open market apt. now for 10 yrs., since I sold my co-op
for financial reasons , I can confirm being financially challenged by my high
rent, which increases each yr. I well may outlive my money and live in fear
at this point as there is no where to go, i have a very
ill sister - I can't leave her or leave the city where she lives too.I've registered
with NY gov and called 311 - was sent pamphlet showing apts. -mostly out of
the city. There are lotteries you can apply for - waste of time. The middle class
has been ignored - you have to be very poor or very rich to live here.
83yr old, living in an open market apt. now for 10 yrs., since I sold my co-op
for financial reasons , I can confirm being financially challenged by my high
rent, which increases each yr. I well may outlive my money and live in fear
at this point as there is no where to go, i have a very
ill sister - I can't leave her or leave the city where she lives too.I've registered
with NY gov and called 311 - was sent pamphlet showing apts. -mostly out of
the city. There are lotteries you can apply for - waste of time. The middle class
has been ignored - you have to be very poor or very rich to live here.
12
Yes, the myth of the lifelong social service taking hustler, regardless if they truly need the help or not, is , in fact, a very real person. And there are millions of them.
7
The other side of the story was left out of the article.
Landlords are eager to partner with HUD and NYCHA as they will get the subsidies from them. Lanlords still charge the market price, whatever that is for the area and size, the poor tenant pays the 30% of that maket price and HUD and NYCHA pay the 70% - of taxpayers money.
The lanlords then let the building rot, with leaking pipes, lack of maintenance, etc. Tenants are afraid of complaining, or they will be harrassed and evicted. Landlords then keep laughing all the way to the bank.
Landlords are eager to partner with HUD and NYCHA as they will get the subsidies from them. Lanlords still charge the market price, whatever that is for the area and size, the poor tenant pays the 30% of that maket price and HUD and NYCHA pay the 70% - of taxpayers money.
The lanlords then let the building rot, with leaking pipes, lack of maintenance, etc. Tenants are afraid of complaining, or they will be harrassed and evicted. Landlords then keep laughing all the way to the bank.
17
This is the futuristic reality for Hollywood to ponder: the "poor" live for pretty much free in great apartments in great neighborhoods of great cities while the working stiffs are obligated to provide for the "poor" everything, including parking, health care, unlimited number of children, and so on.
18
And yet you keep voting for democrats.
8
M.:
Public housing is the vortex of many democratic policies.
Public housing is the vortex of many democratic policies.
5
There is a way to make more middle-class housing available: make all those who illegally (yes) live in rent-controlled and rent-stabilized apartment pay market rent. Level the field for everyone. Right now, in a perverse "justice", our building has rent-control tenants who own a summer house in Maine and another in Spain. They pay $130/mo for 2-bedroom apartment, and they cannot be dislodged.
Getting a freebie on your fellow Americans' expense should not be a badge of honor. Generational gaming of the system should not be possible.
Getting a freebie on your fellow Americans' expense should not be a badge of honor. Generational gaming of the system should not be possible.
30
Privatize the projects. The rents will be paid, the operating cost will be met. Get the government out of business of accomodating people who game the system for generations. Please note that the middle class also paying for the privilege of providing the generational freeloaders with free parking, free repairs, and more.
15
Gov. Cuomo has been trying to kill any which way the Mayor tries to find affordable housing.
Cuomo is favoring the billionaires and hedgefund managers, even in the housing market.
We certainly will never vote for such a turncoat even if he runs under the progressive umbrella to fool you
Cuomo is favoring the billionaires and hedgefund managers, even in the housing market.
We certainly will never vote for such a turncoat even if he runs under the progressive umbrella to fool you
1
The sense of entitlement is shocking. Why is it not called a fraud? I never even saw anyone who has four bedroom apartment but I and all of us middle class losers are paying for Mr. Acevedo's pleasures who somehow is allowed to steal our money. Yes, Mr. Acevedo and people like him are allowed to fleece us. Some animals really are more equal than others.
21
This article points out New York's greatest problem - its dysfunctional housing market. Zoning restrictions and excessive regulation means that developers lack incentives to construct new housing sufficient to meet demand. Since the supply of housing in New York is relatively fixed, housing costs soar during periods when the city attracts new residents. The decisions noted in this article by public housing residents earning reasonable salaries are entirely rational.
Many of the solutions offered to solve this problem, such as additional regulations of existing public housing tenants, construction of more public housing, increased regulation of market rental housing and increased minimum wage do nothing to solve the underlying problem of excess demand. The only effective solution to excess demand is an increase in supply.
People in New York should be asking themselves how a city like Tokyo can supply five units of new housing to the market for every new unit New York can supply and why the new units supplied to the market in Tokyo meet the broad demands of the entire housing market rather than the narrow demands of the rich. The answer is that, within a socialist society, Tokyo allows its housing market to function in a rational way. The problem isn't socialism, it's New York's dysfunctional brand of socialism in its housing market that's the problem here.
Many of the solutions offered to solve this problem, such as additional regulations of existing public housing tenants, construction of more public housing, increased regulation of market rental housing and increased minimum wage do nothing to solve the underlying problem of excess demand. The only effective solution to excess demand is an increase in supply.
People in New York should be asking themselves how a city like Tokyo can supply five units of new housing to the market for every new unit New York can supply and why the new units supplied to the market in Tokyo meet the broad demands of the entire housing market rather than the narrow demands of the rich. The answer is that, within a socialist society, Tokyo allows its housing market to function in a rational way. The problem isn't socialism, it's New York's dysfunctional brand of socialism in its housing market that's the problem here.
11
Twenty six percent of the people living in public housing do not pay their rent, according to NYCHA in a recent NYT article. However, there is a relative handful of folks that not only pay their rent, but pay a much higher rent than the average. But these are the ones that need to be evicted because they have managed to secure for themselves a lower middle class income level. Whose crazy idea is this again?
16
NYCHA is a joke. An expensive one, too.
7
Once, while working as a journalist in Los Angeles, a homeless man told me he was never more happier than when he was thrust into the streets because of misfortune. He told me that rent and bills were "not life." He was stinky and he had peace of mind. Not at first. He said he grew into his freedom.
6
I think back with sadness for my classmates and their families who were displaced from their homes to build the Fulton and Chelsea Projects in the 1960s. Mostly families that were white, catholic and lower blue collar were forced out. Some of them eventually won apartments in the projects but very shortly found themselves evicted again because the family worked and exceeded the income caps.
I look at these people living in the projects with disgust, generations are living on the taxpayers largesse. Projects should be transitional housing, three year tenancy max in order to get our life under control and save up and move on.
Only the original tenants on the lease should be able to reside there, no one else, a couple must relinquish a large apartment when their immediate family has moved on. A life tenancy in a four bedroom apartment that you don't pay for is preposterous.
I don't understand why taxpayers and the private sector are forced to subsidize housing for anyone. There are thousands of vacant houses in New York stat, welfare recipients should be moved out to make room for those in NYC that can pay their way.
People who work and actually pay market rent don't have the luxury of large three and four bedroom apartments, many people I know have a one bedroom with two kids and make do.
I look at these people living in the projects with disgust, generations are living on the taxpayers largesse. Projects should be transitional housing, three year tenancy max in order to get our life under control and save up and move on.
Only the original tenants on the lease should be able to reside there, no one else, a couple must relinquish a large apartment when their immediate family has moved on. A life tenancy in a four bedroom apartment that you don't pay for is preposterous.
I don't understand why taxpayers and the private sector are forced to subsidize housing for anyone. There are thousands of vacant houses in New York stat, welfare recipients should be moved out to make room for those in NYC that can pay their way.
People who work and actually pay market rent don't have the luxury of large three and four bedroom apartments, many people I know have a one bedroom with two kids and make do.
29
This is an eye-opening story. In my city of Los Angeles, I have never heard of anyone who is anywhere near middle class living in this city's grim housing projects. It is inconceivable that anyone with a decent job would want to live in "public housing." Another reason that New York is in a class by itself, for better or for worse.
12
This is the result of 'the market' controlling everything, while regular people have trouble finding and keeping jobs with decent wages and benefits. Housing, health care, college tuition - all now priced almost out of reach. Rich foreigners buy up real estate in NYC, San Francisco and London to keep apartments they use a few times a year.
This is heading for disaster.
This is heading for disaster.
12
@fast&furious , the new world
Yes. Agree on all points, except for one small correction: This is not "heading for disaster." This is ALREADY a disaster.
Yes. Agree on all points, except for one small correction: This is not "heading for disaster." This is ALREADY a disaster.
7
The people who live in these public houses are mostly real New Yorkers (born here, raised here and educated here,) not some trust fund baby from Kansas whose parents pay everything, not a hedge fund manager or some tech startup person who moves here from a place not even on a map. If Those living in public housing, work, pay taxes and remain solid "real New Yorkers," leave them alone.Rents go up because people with bottomless bank accounts are willing to pay anything to live here. Housing has become unaffordable because of people with money moving into NYC, not by the people who have always been here.
18
@Nerddowell, Long Island City, NY
You hit the nail on the head! --- And I know, you know what you're talking about....To start with, just look at the ongoing transformation/gentrification of L.I.C / Astoria. It's the next DUMBO.
You hit the nail on the head! --- And I know, you know what you're talking about....To start with, just look at the ongoing transformation/gentrification of L.I.C / Astoria. It's the next DUMBO.
3
real new yorker here.. and that nerddo is the worst excuse and completely false., a myth and a falicy.
those young people - who mostly are not rich- come here and invigorate NYC - as they have for generations. they work and pay taxes AND barely use any public programs - beyond the subway. and those so called real new yorker who milk the system for generations and live in prime locations subsidized by others do not benefit the city or contribute.
sorry but intergenerational dependency is not something to cheer about , unless its a Bronx cheer.
those young people - who mostly are not rich- come here and invigorate NYC - as they have for generations. they work and pay taxes AND barely use any public programs - beyond the subway. and those so called real new yorker who milk the system for generations and live in prime locations subsidized by others do not benefit the city or contribute.
sorry but intergenerational dependency is not something to cheer about , unless its a Bronx cheer.
2
yes, its called a revitalization.
if you don't like it, check out Camden or Newark to see a city without a tax base .
if you don't like it, check out Camden or Newark to see a city without a tax base .
3
Like any third world country we can handle this by doubling and tripling up. A new specialty for the mortgage industry: the three family, thirty year, no down payment mortgage....
2
This is MRS. Blue State-- don't give the mortgage bankers any bright ideas, please! That three-family, thirty-year, no-down payment mortgage could become a reality, and one that's passed down from one generation to the next. The generational mortgage is being done in Japan as I write. The mortgage bankers just don't need any more "creativity" on how to steal customers' hard-earned dollars!
4
I'm deeply disturbed by some of these comments. The cost of living is going up in NYC, the middle class are being forced out of the city in the name of the almighty dollar and yet somehow the people who are basically being forced to remain in public housing if they want to remain in the city due to these escalating costs are being demonized. There's an appalling lack of empathy being displayed here.
14
This is MRS. The demonization comes from multi-generational occupancy of public housing units, which makes those on waiting lists largely totally ineligible to ever get a unit. If a tenant and progeny occupy a unit for, in some cases, 50 years or more, it is time to examine the position of the tenant and re-evaluate the ability to pay market rate. I had a similar circumstance in the late 1970s with the FHA 235 home purchasing program allowing low income people to purchase brand new houses with no money down and highly subsidized house payments. Home buyers and all members of their families aged 21 and older had to contribute their income for consideration. Some of those folks only paid $35 per month toward their house payment. Taxpayers paid the rest. The only one who hit the jackpot was the one with credit life insurance who suddenly died of a massive heart attack and the credit life policy paid off the house. There was no evidence of heart disease in this person at the time he purchased the credit life policy. When the portfolio of those FHA 235s was re-examined, many had their subsidies cut substantially, one of whom was only to receive $7.50 per month subsidy after the re-evaluation. She was extremely angry, to say the least, yet as a registered nurse in northern Louisiana, she made a good buck and could have done without that $7.50 she was getting. (Her subsidy dropped from $240 per month.)
My folks bought a Section 8 building a long time ago. The tenants were only responsible for 50 bucks a month and the government handled the rest. The tenants never paid that 50 bucks and they lived like pigs. We were glad to get out of the Section 8 game as soon as we could.
14
This is MRS. Tenants who don't pay their rent and trash the units can be evicted, if not by the courts but by the term of the lease. If they trash the units, as a Section 8 landlord, you can make that information known to another prospective landlord, and you should have been reporting that to the Section 8 authorities. Section 8 tenants who destroy their units become ineligible for further Section 8 assistance in non-public housing. You do have the right to inspect the rental unit with proper notification. Engage the health department's assistance if you have a tenant that won't cooperate cleaning up. Get creative about how you deal with a non-cooperative tenant. You'll always have another tenant waiting for the unit. Unfortunately, the poor will always be among us.
2
No mention is made of the wealthy retirees. We have friends who enjoy a 6 figure retirement while maintaining three domiciles; a NY rent controlled 3 bedroom apartment that they have had since the 60's, a nice house in Cape Cod an the requisite condo in Florida. The NY apartment is handy when they or their children come into the city to go to the theater or their doctor.
I fail to understand that a residence within walking distance to work is considered a right especially in the most expensive city in the US no do I think a cheap apartment in the city should be a retirement benefit. I fear that there a so many NYC politicians or their families in rent controlled apartments that the matter will never be settled fairly.
I fail to understand that a residence within walking distance to work is considered a right especially in the most expensive city in the US no do I think a cheap apartment in the city should be a retirement benefit. I fear that there a so many NYC politicians or their families in rent controlled apartments that the matter will never be settled fairly.
18
Nice rant, but this article is about NYCHA, not rent regulations. People from out of state should stick to stuff they actually know something about, like farm subsidies and oil company depletion allowances.
5
The housing crisis in New York area is entering a new phase, in my opinion.
The tremendous surge of people coming to live in the New York area entering the area -- in addition to people who live in other areas of the US or outside the US who want to rent or buy property there -- is simply overwhelming. At the same time, we see that most people's jobs are precarious and their wages are not even keeping up with inflation in general. They certainly cannot keep up with housing inflation for the majority of people in the New York area who do not have rent control. There are no mechanisms in place to control the high rate of out of town purchasers, the influx of people, the far greater demand for housing than its availability.
The situation in 2015 has become unprecedented and yet it's only the beginning. How will things be in 2025, 2035, 2050?
Massive doubling up and carving up of rooms will almost certainly occur. We could easily see modern day equivalents of boardinghouses and millions of people living in renovated basements and attics. Poverty in New York City is growing and spreading. I think most people in 2050 will be living in smaller spaces with less privacy. Instead of hoping to improve their standard of living, they will be working harder just to keep whatever they have. What a shame.
The tremendous surge of people coming to live in the New York area entering the area -- in addition to people who live in other areas of the US or outside the US who want to rent or buy property there -- is simply overwhelming. At the same time, we see that most people's jobs are precarious and their wages are not even keeping up with inflation in general. They certainly cannot keep up with housing inflation for the majority of people in the New York area who do not have rent control. There are no mechanisms in place to control the high rate of out of town purchasers, the influx of people, the far greater demand for housing than its availability.
The situation in 2015 has become unprecedented and yet it's only the beginning. How will things be in 2025, 2035, 2050?
Massive doubling up and carving up of rooms will almost certainly occur. We could easily see modern day equivalents of boardinghouses and millions of people living in renovated basements and attics. Poverty in New York City is growing and spreading. I think most people in 2050 will be living in smaller spaces with less privacy. Instead of hoping to improve their standard of living, they will be working harder just to keep whatever they have. What a shame.
12
Yep, and what you describe is exactly what people get when they vote for republicans.
Jill Duncan
Denver, CO
Jill Duncan
Denver, CO
2
If your income goes down, your rent goes down in public housing.
That's a very important benefit these days.
That's a very important benefit these days.
9
Where I live - expensive but not NYC - waiting time for public housing is 10+ years and the signup list has been closed for years. If you're in crisis and desperately need affordable housing, too bad, even if you're on the wait list.
A friend in his early 50s lost his job after health crises including a leg amputation from diabetes and a disabling cancer. He's a veteran. He's been in a homeless shelter for a year. He badly needs public housing but there's nothing available - probably forever. Anyone in my area who's middle class and living in public housing instead of him is a scourge.
I wouldn't hesitate to move these people out. The consequences of this are homelessness or great suffering for those most in need.
I used to live in NYC. I left because became it became unaffordable. It's a shame NYC has become unaffordable for anyone who isn't wealthy. Everyone understands there's an injustice there. But this is not an acceptable fix for that.
We all get it that it's disgusting that greed and 'the market' have made living in Manhattan, Brooklyn and San Francisco unaffordable, sometimes even for upper middle class people. I've lived in all those places. Who isn't pained that these cities are now unaffordable?
But this is not a 'fix' for that. It's an attempt to justify using a very limited benefit meant for the poor for personal convenience.
The entitled taking from the poorest of the poor is an injustice no matter how you explain in.
A friend in his early 50s lost his job after health crises including a leg amputation from diabetes and a disabling cancer. He's a veteran. He's been in a homeless shelter for a year. He badly needs public housing but there's nothing available - probably forever. Anyone in my area who's middle class and living in public housing instead of him is a scourge.
I wouldn't hesitate to move these people out. The consequences of this are homelessness or great suffering for those most in need.
I used to live in NYC. I left because became it became unaffordable. It's a shame NYC has become unaffordable for anyone who isn't wealthy. Everyone understands there's an injustice there. But this is not an acceptable fix for that.
We all get it that it's disgusting that greed and 'the market' have made living in Manhattan, Brooklyn and San Francisco unaffordable, sometimes even for upper middle class people. I've lived in all those places. Who isn't pained that these cities are now unaffordable?
But this is not a 'fix' for that. It's an attempt to justify using a very limited benefit meant for the poor for personal convenience.
The entitled taking from the poorest of the poor is an injustice no matter how you explain in.
19
Don't make them move. Instead, give them the option to *buy* their apartments, as condos. Use the funds thus released to build or rehab other housing units, perhaps in other parts of the city where land is relatively less expensive. The long-time, relatively successful residents get to stay in place, while the total stock of below-market housing to the very needy is preserved or expanded.
12
Yep! It's time for the housing market to collapse under the strain of lowered incomes, part-time jobs with no benefits, etc. Who's buying real houses/condos nowadays? My guess is that the uber-rich are acquiring everything in order to rent to and exploit the 99% who are shut out of the markets.
14
Well-stated, and I completely agree!!!!
Jill Duncan
Denver, CO
Jill Duncan
Denver, CO
1
I don't find this pattern of behavior surprising. Those who earn just enough to leave face having to lower their living standards and rent far from the city. This new situation may be precarious. If a renter losses their job and can no longer afford market rate rents, where do they go? I feel for them. Staying put provides some sort of security.
9
Someone makes a little bit of money and - - unless they are super rich - -they become the "greedy" ones - - because maybe they have break in housing. We ALL need breaks -- any break we can get. I don't begrudge people. It used to be that middle class people could live in New York. Now the middle class seems to be despised: "Let them go South."
8
Rather than displace these people, what would it take to house the 270,000 families in various rent-to-own type complexes, such as in condos and coops in moderately nice neighborhoods? That could be the solution if we crunch the numbers and limit it to families of school-age kids, the sick and disabled, down-sized. I would posit a different solution with those with substance abuse problems and intractable mental illness that causes behavior problems like destruction of property, violent ideation, etc. What about making part of the NYCHA a coop if they have a high concentration of high-wage earners, that it, more than the median for their area (be it zip code or Census area). We have to come up with workable solutions because the present isn't really working.
But we should end the heritability of rental apartments in public housing, rent controlled and rent stabilized units. They are not owner-occupied units and we should stop treating them as such. This contributes to the housing scarcity. And we need to have less foreign buyers of real estate in NYC using it as a pied-a-terre or an virtual bank because of currency problems in their own countries. Foreign buyers should at least be paying a school tax - which brings me to another issue -no foreign buyer tax abatements. Period...
But we should end the heritability of rental apartments in public housing, rent controlled and rent stabilized units. They are not owner-occupied units and we should stop treating them as such. This contributes to the housing scarcity. And we need to have less foreign buyers of real estate in NYC using it as a pied-a-terre or an virtual bank because of currency problems in their own countries. Foreign buyers should at least be paying a school tax - which brings me to another issue -no foreign buyer tax abatements. Period...
11
I was in NY last week, and, out of curiosity, looked up the price of an apartment I went past at about 38th, not far from the tunnel on the way to Laguardia. The price was $2,800 for a studio and $8,600 for a three bedroom. I suspect this is before many add ons. All I can say is that where I live, the Twin Cities, you could get a 4,000 square foot house in a good area for less than the studio. You could get even more in Texas, for example. At some point, one has to consider a move. Life is much easier here, and you can afford to live.
9
Robert:
"At some point, one has to consider a move."
****
The idea that anyone is entitled to live in a high cost city deserves to be seriously questioned. Rational people move where they can afford to live.
"At some point, one has to consider a move."
****
The idea that anyone is entitled to live in a high cost city deserves to be seriously questioned. Rational people move where they can afford to live.
3
maybe you should ask yourself who would want to live in Minnesota or Texas. who would want to give up the vibrant, diverse culture of the city for the isolation of rural and suburban Minnesota. From my experience, being the fly in the bowl of milk is as much of a negative as high rent.
1
Not so easy to move far away if one's job is here.
ANd just why can't the wealthiest country on earth build more affordable housing with exercise rooms and swimming pools and function rooms?? Oh, the private sector couldn't have 20 year long tax breaks for providing a few units of housing for the poorer!!! BTW various projects require larger rather than smaller incomes -- I am thinking about some of the Mitchell Lamas..
I truly wonder where our heads are (at!!). More and more people are either going to be unemployed or if they don't have a tax-payer supported or government type job will have less and less $$ .. This does not matter at all so long as people can afford the goods and services (housing, transit, medical) -- they need.. and meantime.. how about pushing some sort of birth control everywhere?!!
I truly wonder where our heads are (at!!). More and more people are either going to be unemployed or if they don't have a tax-payer supported or government type job will have less and less $$ .. This does not matter at all so long as people can afford the goods and services (housing, transit, medical) -- they need.. and meantime.. how about pushing some sort of birth control everywhere?!!
1
I have heard that some residents of public housing 'sublet' their apartments and make a profit. Is there any truth to this Urban Legend?
3
probably not since the authorities check on things
of course
2
Not sure about sublets, but there is a large population in these housing developments living "off lease." A few years ago the number of residents was officially around 400,000 but ballooned to 600,000 when you factored in everyone actually living there.
2
Should not be allowed if you can afford elsewhere it is a necessary safety net for many. What about the professionals making well over/into six figures who stay in rent-controlled apartments for over 40 years?
5
This is MRS. If you live in a rent-controlled apartment, you are on the private market, just that the government set a cap on that building years ago. In Ohio, you can create a quasi-rent-controlled apartment by virtue of having the same landlord and staying in the same unit for a very long time. The key in Ohio is having the same landlord. If the building is sold, your rent goes according to the whim of the new landlord and if you don't like it, you can move. A new landlord also does not have to accept a tenant occupying a unit, but is considered foolish not to keep a good paying tenant that does not trash a unit.
1
NYCHA should cap earning limits to , say $150,000 for a family of four to stay in NYCHA or HUD subsidized housing. Anyone at, or approaching that earning limit should be given a reasonable timeline (like 12 months) to move out.
Just to raise the rent a bit should be of no option. People could still remain but rents should be raised to comparable market price. Like the guy in the article who can afford to move but paying $1800 for a 4 bedrooms in Chelsea discourages him.
It is called abuse and NYCHA should do more audits for high earners.
Just to raise the rent a bit should be of no option. People could still remain but rents should be raised to comparable market price. Like the guy in the article who can afford to move but paying $1800 for a 4 bedrooms in Chelsea discourages him.
It is called abuse and NYCHA should do more audits for high earners.
6
Just consider that living in the city relieves a person from being forced to tolerate Chris Christie's delays in Fort Lee.
7
These people should be evicted, period. Once you earn over a certain amount, you have no business occupying a "low-income" apartment. Call this what it is: graft and corruption!
6
Why even bother to publish an article like this? Your elitist paper oftentimes publishes articles about people who buy or rent properties can't even afford. A bunch of you who responded simply get the point. These families work and have decent jobs: however, they can't afford to pay market rent. I never see a comments section attached to the real estate section on a Sunday but of course, this article would. I can pretty much guarantee that if the City evicted all of the folks in the projects, you bashers of the poor and the working class would be the first to move in.
Yes. The projects weren't supposed to be generational. Why not allow families who work or anyone who lives there for that matter buy their apartments. That's what they did in London. Why should living in a nice neighborhood be relegated to a chosen few? And to the person who suggested that folks should just move down South, jobs are not that easy to come by. Jeez. I'd to see what would happen to the elites if the shoe were on the other foot. Immediate reform and change. Typical.
Yes. The projects weren't supposed to be generational. Why not allow families who work or anyone who lives there for that matter buy their apartments. That's what they did in London. Why should living in a nice neighborhood be relegated to a chosen few? And to the person who suggested that folks should just move down South, jobs are not that easy to come by. Jeez. I'd to see what would happen to the elites if the shoe were on the other foot. Immediate reform and change. Typical.
16
Not so fast. The UK sold off a lot of public housing, (thanks Maggie--not) and the tenants got the short end of the stick. This is only anecdotal evidence, but the former public housing, well-located near the UK uni from which our son graduated got bought up by investors, improved not much at all, was rented to students, with a hands-off approach, delegating everything to a local property management company. Doubt any of the owners ever visited the properties in their portfolio. Wonder what happened to the original council house tenants who did not benefit from this sell-off of public housing in the UK.
I would not like to see that happen in the US.
I would not like to see that happen in the US.
1
This is MRS. Living in a nice neighborhood becomes "relegated to a few" because poverty seems to be synonymous with filth and squalor; and many in public housing have made this synonymous behavior very evident. Poverty does not have to equal filth and squalor, lack of pride and caring in one's self and abode. The whole generation behind me was very poor because of the Depression. Very few people had comforts during that time period. Yet, those people, my parents' generation, rose above that because of personal pride. They kept themselves clean and neat, and kept their homes clean and neat. They lived in what would now be extremely substandard housing, yet they kept it clean and net. It's about personal values and those personal values make for a nice neighborhood, whatever the income level.
The hallways smell of urine and are strew with food scraps? And whose fault is that? It wouldn't be the actual inhabitants of the apartments, would it? And maintenance is supposed to clean this? At whose expense?
Reading stories about housing in NYC is infuriating. My building is old and there are constant leaks; I'm sure we have mold going on too. And it's a coop in a nice neighborhood. You say many in public housing are staying put for the cheap rents. So, if the buildings are impeccably maintained are you suggesting more people will be willing to move out?
Reading stories about housing in NYC is infuriating. My building is old and there are constant leaks; I'm sure we have mold going on too. And it's a coop in a nice neighborhood. You say many in public housing are staying put for the cheap rents. So, if the buildings are impeccably maintained are you suggesting more people will be willing to move out?
11
To be completely honest, we all as Americans benefit in some way shape or form from our Government's subsidies-(as we REASONABLY should because everyone pays some form of taxes to live in this great country), but when that received benefit is taken for granted by the greedy & selfish amongst us, then changes must be made to balance things out so that the whole community will reap the rewards as apposed to just a few individuals who have learned to game the system. Basic affordable housing is a necessity that all deserve, but PREFERENTIAL housing, ANYWHERE that offers amenities in design, structure & location beyond the basics should be priced at levels that are as high as what one is willing to pay, with no aid from the government period, as this class of renters fall into the WANT class & not the NEEDS category that the affordable housing concept was built upon.
5
Pricing at current rental expectations would mean a 300% hike. It's tragic what NYC has become.
1
This is MRS. Housing should be designed with access to those who need that access due to disability. That is not an amenity that should cost above and beyond what one can pay. Persons in wheelchairs or who use crutches and braces, like my son with cerebral palsy, should be able to get affordable housing with access. My hope is that your concept of preferential housing offering amenities in design, structure and location was meant to construe luxury housing aimed at able-bodied persons.
Affordable housing advocates like to use 30% of income as a ceiling above which people should not be asked to pay.
Why not make 30% a floor as well in public housing, in Mitchell Lama developments, and other subsidized housing?
Requiring someone making $75,000/year to pay $2,000/month in rent will cause that person to consider where that $2,000 is best spent.
Why not make 30% a floor as well in public housing, in Mitchell Lama developments, and other subsidized housing?
Requiring someone making $75,000/year to pay $2,000/month in rent will cause that person to consider where that $2,000 is best spent.
8
I'll bet you think a family can get a two bedroom apartment for $2,000. Even in the Bronx, it would take some searching to find a 2 bedroom in a safe neighborhood for $2000 a month.
1
Oh, is eviction a hard choice?
Public housing is a euphemism.
It is not public, in the ordinary way of using the word, because it is not available to the public at large.
"Affordable" housing is another euphemism.
It is all gov subsidized housing, paid for by those who work.
Think for yourself?
Public housing is a euphemism.
It is not public, in the ordinary way of using the word, because it is not available to the public at large.
"Affordable" housing is another euphemism.
It is all gov subsidized housing, paid for by those who work.
Think for yourself?
5
Only a quarter of a million families waiting for public, low income housing?
This is one good reason why we must slow down the immigration train for a little while. Where or how do we provide housing to newly arrived immigrants, legal and illegal? NYT is all about promoting endless immigration and then they write about the shortage of affordable housing. Can't have it both ways.
This is one good reason why we must slow down the immigration train for a little while. Where or how do we provide housing to newly arrived immigrants, legal and illegal? NYT is all about promoting endless immigration and then they write about the shortage of affordable housing. Can't have it both ways.
12
Once on the dole, always on the dole mentality. Just as long as I get my RIGHTS I don't care about who is paying or who else really needs a home.
I'm sorry, but these slugs need to move.
I'm sorry, but these slugs need to move.
18
Slugs? They'd have to leave the city as there are few affordable places to live.
2
The Fulton Houses were built in the early 1960s as part of urban renewal. Who remembers 1960S white flight from the city? The middle class up and left for the suburbs in droves. Who and what was left? Chelsea then had merchant seaman boarding houses, gritty manufacturing and warehouses on its western perimeter, working class bars, many parking lots and gas stations. The restaurants were mostly luncheonettes. The neighborhood was run down. There were some pockets of middle class brownstone home owners living on the blocks surrounding the Seminary that were landmarked in the 1970s. London Terrace was an affordable middle class rental housing option, as well as some apartment buildings. Still, the schools were dismal. Parks were almost nonexistent, and those few were full of glass, needles, and junkies. Chelsea changed slowly even after Chelsea Piers. With the High Line, times changed much more quickly, and it seems the worse for the Fulton residents who are now in the eye of the maelstrom of the Chelsea real estate boom. It is not fair. These long time residents who sent their kids to the public school, and shopped in the local stores, and anchored a part of Chelsea. Yes, on paper, it sounds great--a four bedroom apartment for $500 a month. However, if readers of this esteemed newspaper walked the Fulton hallways or had to take its elevators, the tone of many of these letter would be very different. It is hardly paradise. It is tough city living.
20
okay then how about tearing them down. restore the street grid, put in a mix of commercial uses , eliminate the outdoor parking, mix in high, mid and low rises buildings with increased density, and have a mix of income levels from market rate to lower income - for sale units.
impossible? see every other city in america that has demolished the failed high-rise dysfunctional projects.
impossible? see every other city in america that has demolished the failed high-rise dysfunctional projects.
3
This also raises the issue of those high income earners who hold on to rent-controlled leases and pass them on to their children. If everyone in NYC paid their fair share (let's not forget the billionaires who contribute next to nothing to the city coffers with with their multimillion dollar pied a terres), perhaps housing prices wouldn't be so high. Come on de Blasio - it's time to do something so the rest of us can get a fair shake in this city.
8
De Blasio did right for himself by packing up and moving into a free and very affordable mansion with 'servants' and raised the height of the fence around it.
I do not put much stock in the numbers he claims regarding affordable units created or saved. What I do find astounding is the announcement $600 million dollars earmarked for homeless services in the city budget.
Voila!! All of the sudden the streets are overrun with homeless people who seemingly popped out of thin air.
Additionally, housing and providing for 60,000 homeless families is a huge burden. Where is a fiscally responsible solution for housing so many people that taxpayers can get behind?
Does anyone recall the story of Dasani?
http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/invisible-child/#/?chapt=1
When the facts of the finances involved in this story came to light in other news outlets the city indicated that well over $1 million dollars had been spent on this family's upkeep because her train wreck parents are unemployable.
I do not put much stock in the numbers he claims regarding affordable units created or saved. What I do find astounding is the announcement $600 million dollars earmarked for homeless services in the city budget.
Voila!! All of the sudden the streets are overrun with homeless people who seemingly popped out of thin air.
Additionally, housing and providing for 60,000 homeless families is a huge burden. Where is a fiscally responsible solution for housing so many people that taxpayers can get behind?
Does anyone recall the story of Dasani?
http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/invisible-child/#/?chapt=1
When the facts of the finances involved in this story came to light in other news outlets the city indicated that well over $1 million dollars had been spent on this family's upkeep because her train wreck parents are unemployable.
5
If the point of public housing was to provide a boost to lower wage earners. It was based on the principle of class mobility. Government economic policies have created a crisis in both housing and class mobility. Who are the ones caught in this pinch? The wealthy? Surely not. When class mobility is restored to the American Dream, then NYCHA has a right to go after the ones who stay too long in public housing. That can happen when governmental economic policies stop enabling the wealthy at the expense of the rest of us!
10
Why not have NYC pay to move people outside of the NY metropolitan area, to fairly affordable parts of the US? Would it be cheaper than paying the direct and indirect costs of having them in the city? Could NYC give them a basic monthly stipend for living outside NYC?
8
I agree with your idea but I would go further. NYCHA has about $18 BILLION in needed repairs to its properties. This sum, of course, is not viable. Many of these developments were built in the 30's, 40's and 50's. They are in various states of disrepair.
HUD and NYCHA do not have nearly enough money to fix all the problems.
I would suggest that NYCHA stop renting apartments when they become vacant. Then select one, or more, developments which would be completely emptied of residents. This should be done with the developments that are located on the most valuable property. Let's take the development in Chelsea, for example. When units become available in other developments, move the residents from Chelsea to the other developments. When the development in Chelsea is empty, sell the land to the highest bidder. NYCHA can use the money to repair the other developments.
The developer can then tear down the old public housing and build market rate apartments. This would increase the income to the city.
HUD and NYCHA do not have nearly enough money to fix all the problems.
I would suggest that NYCHA stop renting apartments when they become vacant. Then select one, or more, developments which would be completely emptied of residents. This should be done with the developments that are located on the most valuable property. Let's take the development in Chelsea, for example. When units become available in other developments, move the residents from Chelsea to the other developments. When the development in Chelsea is empty, sell the land to the highest bidder. NYCHA can use the money to repair the other developments.
The developer can then tear down the old public housing and build market rate apartments. This would increase the income to the city.
2
Sure NYC Taxpayers are floating with money how about move out if you can not afford it and take care of yourself on top of it.
1
I agree with your idea but I would go further. NYCHA has about $18 BILLION in needed repairs to its properties. This sum, of course, is not viable. Many of these developments were built in the 30's, 40's and 50's. They are in various states of disrepair.
HUD and NYCHA do not have nearly enough money to fix all the problems.
I would suggest that NYCHA stop renting apartments when they become vacant. Then select one, or more, developments which would be completely emptied of residents. This should be done with the developments that are located on the most valuable property. Let's take the development in Chelsea, for example. When units become available in other developments, move the residents from Chelsea to the other developments. When the development in Chelsea is empty, sell the land to the highest bidder. NYCHA can use the money to repair the other developments.
The developer can then tear down the old public housing and build market rate apartments. This would increase the income to the city.
HUD and NYCHA do not have nearly enough money to fix all the problems.
I would suggest that NYCHA stop renting apartments when they become vacant. Then select one, or more, developments which would be completely emptied of residents. This should be done with the developments that are located on the most valuable property. Let's take the development in Chelsea, for example. When units become available in other developments, move the residents from Chelsea to the other developments. When the development in Chelsea is empty, sell the land to the highest bidder. NYCHA can use the money to repair the other developments.
The developer can then tear down the old public housing and build market rate apartments. This would increase the income to the city.
1
Public housing was originally destined for working people who were the backbone of urban economies. Instead, the mortgage interest deduction lured them to newly built suburbs, and banks and real-estate sales industry colluded in inciting "white flight." This gutted the cities' tax bases and relegated public housing to the poor, with results we well know.
I don't blame anyone with a modestly adequate earned income for staying in affordable housing rather than going for the debt-commute nightmare of home ownership. After all, they are customers for their neighborhood businesses, and strong elements of the city's social fabric.
I don't blame anyone with a modestly adequate earned income for staying in affordable housing rather than going for the debt-commute nightmare of home ownership. After all, they are customers for their neighborhood businesses, and strong elements of the city's social fabric.
12
If you think the mortgage interest deduction is such a great deal, give me $100 now and I will send you $25 on April 15 - unless, of course, you are subject to the Alternate Minimum Tax or the Pease Phaseout.
I don't. Thanks. Giveaway to the banks and building industry.
2
You are so right--too many people have forgotten the origins and intents of housing projects!
4
It never ends. We get an article pertaining to less than 5 percent of all low income housing residents doing better finaincially than expected and the call goes out immediately for the total dismantling of low income housing. On the other hand these same people are perfectly happy with all the abuses of the system that the truly wealthy perpetrate. New Yorkers ..Small minds, hardened hearts and unchecked egoes
15
@Ledoc254 Montclair, NJ
Not to quibble, but New Yorkers don't have a lock on "Small minds, hardened hearts and unchecked egos.".... As a matter of fact, I can think of at least ONE person in New Jersey (who is currently running for U.S. President) that might also fit the bill....
Not to quibble, but New Yorkers don't have a lock on "Small minds, hardened hearts and unchecked egos.".... As a matter of fact, I can think of at least ONE person in New Jersey (who is currently running for U.S. President) that might also fit the bill....
3
And with good reason. I grew up one town over from you. Upon moving to the city, my innocent and uninformed politically correct value system went through a complete reality check.
I've lived near projects in the city. I all over the city for work. A lot, but not all of of NYCHA residents are typically atrocious; their children gravitate towards crime and gangs. According to the city stats, 25% of the crime is generated from the projects or can be traced to residents from certain precincts near projects and area codes that contain projects.
Good law abiding taxpayers are tired of subsidizing some folks from those areas who's progeny have no qualms about sticking a gun in your face so they can feel like a big shot.
There are a significant amount of people in the city who are sick of poverty problems and welcome gentrification, for the simple reason that it's the only cure for ghettofication and the whole ugly idiotic mindset of ghetto culture that runs riot in some of these outer borough war zones.
Sorry I had to say it, but there is no 'nice way' to say it.
Want to come with me to Brownsville on a Friday night?
I've lived near projects in the city. I all over the city for work. A lot, but not all of of NYCHA residents are typically atrocious; their children gravitate towards crime and gangs. According to the city stats, 25% of the crime is generated from the projects or can be traced to residents from certain precincts near projects and area codes that contain projects.
Good law abiding taxpayers are tired of subsidizing some folks from those areas who's progeny have no qualms about sticking a gun in your face so they can feel like a big shot.
There are a significant amount of people in the city who are sick of poverty problems and welcome gentrification, for the simple reason that it's the only cure for ghettofication and the whole ugly idiotic mindset of ghetto culture that runs riot in some of these outer borough war zones.
Sorry I had to say it, but there is no 'nice way' to say it.
Want to come with me to Brownsville on a Friday night?
>>(typo corrected, same reply thread)<<
And with good reason. I grew up one town over from you. Upon moving to the city, my innocent and uninformed politically correct value system went through a complete reality check.
I've lived near projects in the city. I travel all over the city for work. A lot, but not all of of NYCHA residents are typically atrocious; their children gravitate towards crime and gangs. According to the city stats, 25% of the crime is generated from the projects or can be traced to residents from certain precincts near projects and area codes that contain projects.
Good law abiding taxpayers are tired of subsidizing some folks from those areas who's progeny have no qualms about sticking a gun in your face so they can feel like a big shot.
There are a significant amount of people in the city who are sick of poverty problems and welcome gentrification, for the simple reason that it's the only cure for ghettofication and the whole ugly idiotic mindset of ghetto culture that runs riot in some of these outer borough war zones.
Sorry I had to say it, but there is no 'nice way' to say it.
Want to come with me to Brownsville on a Friday night?
And with good reason. I grew up one town over from you. Upon moving to the city, my innocent and uninformed politically correct value system went through a complete reality check.
I've lived near projects in the city. I travel all over the city for work. A lot, but not all of of NYCHA residents are typically atrocious; their children gravitate towards crime and gangs. According to the city stats, 25% of the crime is generated from the projects or can be traced to residents from certain precincts near projects and area codes that contain projects.
Good law abiding taxpayers are tired of subsidizing some folks from those areas who's progeny have no qualms about sticking a gun in your face so they can feel like a big shot.
There are a significant amount of people in the city who are sick of poverty problems and welcome gentrification, for the simple reason that it's the only cure for ghettofication and the whole ugly idiotic mindset of ghetto culture that runs riot in some of these outer borough war zones.
Sorry I had to say it, but there is no 'nice way' to say it.
Want to come with me to Brownsville on a Friday night?
5
The more one earns, the closer they are to the door in modern business. The 'Bean Counters' all know how to 'enhance profits', just dismiss every salary you can, and the higher the salary, the more you want to replace them with another low paid drone. I gave up working for large corporations, like Walmart, or A & P, or Georgia-Pacific because that is a truism that applies to all of them. Keep your Cheap affordable roof over your head, because as the 30,000 ex-Employees of The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company (includes Waldbaum's, and Pathmark) the pink slip happens !
Make yourself a valuable cog in a smaller machine, it makes you too costly to dismiss, but at the big corporations, they will find a pulse for 1/2 your salary to sit in your seat. Count on it !
Make yourself a valuable cog in a smaller machine, it makes you too costly to dismiss, but at the big corporations, they will find a pulse for 1/2 your salary to sit in your seat. Count on it !
6
Yes, a family earning $60,000 can find housing in NY, but then they will easily spend 50-60 percent of that income towards rent, except perhaps on Staten Island. Even there, they'd also need a car. You know what? NYCHA will likely put a family with income into these units should they ever be vacated, and not the homeless without income. People don't realize that the 270,000 wait list are mostly your basic struggling NYC family trying to get more space and to pay less rent. Very few homeless, who would not meet HUD/NYCHA's eligibility requirements--except through special dispensation from the B de B administration.
5
People say go to New Jersey but I hear the taxes will kill you so where are you suppose to go..I think this a problem in all 50 states...housing may be cheap but then the catch is you can't find a good job...here in AZ the A/C bill will kill you but you have no choice since the temps are well over 100 & in the East it the heating bills......affordable housing has become a problem for everyone....
13
People are living in public housing because industry is not paying enough in wages. Industry has outsourced it's jobs overseas, takes advantage of a glutted American labor market to keep the wages of those it does employ here low, and does not repatriate its profits, avoiding American taxes. Any wonder the Federal Treasury is empty and wages are what they are? Wake up.
11
I feel for these folks who are staying in public housing while making what would be a decent living anywhere but NYC. The answer, however, is not to allow those who exceed the income threshold to stay. Rather, the solution is to create a wider spectrum of "affordable" housing so that the middle class family is not taking a much-needed advantage from a truly needy family AND the middle class family has a place to prosper. No one is sitting high on the hog except for a select few (in the range of, say, ~1%). In a city where professionals earning six-figure incomes are living paycheck-to-paycheck in the outer boroughs (after accounting for all-too-common student loan debt and egregiously rents), something has to give. People should be able to live in the City in which they work. The fantasy that getting rid of NYCHA, Mitchel-Lama, and rent stabilized units will magically induce landlords to charge less is subset of "trickle down" economic theory. Let's get real and address the explosion rents.
12
People should NOT get to live in the city in which they work. It doesn't happen elsewhere (average car commute is over 30 miles), and there is no right for it to happen here.
I think you're confusing choosing to live elsewhere (those who commute from Westchester or Long Island) with being unable to afford living within a reasonable proximity of one's job. An employer has a strong incentive to pay an employee enough to live within a reasonable commute. The employer cannot do so if rents are excessively high relative to income.
This is the conservative trap that many employees face: your rhetoric suggests that if a person can't afford to live in the city in which s/he works, s/he should live elsewhere. Those same people chastise employees who can't get to work in a reasonable amount of time, because "no one told you to live so far away." Which overlord takes precedence in this situation: landlord or employer? That's the choice many are facing.
This is the conservative trap that many employees face: your rhetoric suggests that if a person can't afford to live in the city in which s/he works, s/he should live elsewhere. Those same people chastise employees who can't get to work in a reasonable amount of time, because "no one told you to live so far away." Which overlord takes precedence in this situation: landlord or employer? That's the choice many are facing.
6
Absolutely pathetic. And these same bankers et al. decry any new taxes that could so much as dent their obscene wealth.
Eviction would not be unreasonable.
Eviction would not be unreasonable.
2
I used to live in Chicago. I'm not knowledgeable about public housing, but I have the impression that rules Chicago adopted, that were designed to help our neediest neighbors, ended up backfiring.
While it's true in a sense that single mothers are in one sense needier than married couples, or people without jobs are needier than people with jobs that don't pay well, if you set up your housing so those are the only folks who can get apartments, you end up with communities in which all of the families have single parents, and in which no one has a job.
In Chicago they built really large complexes with multiple towers, with tens of thousands of residents. They walled people off from other neighborhoods with expressways. And then they kicked out the most successful and stable people in the community because they weren't the neediest.
I live right across the street from a NYCHA building. I don't know exactly what the difference is between NYC and Chicago, but there is a difference, and it's huge. The NYCHA folks are neighbors, there are guys who sit outside playing dominoes (and I kind of wish I could join in), etc.
So whatever they're doing now works pretty well. I just hope they don't break it.
While it's true in a sense that single mothers are in one sense needier than married couples, or people without jobs are needier than people with jobs that don't pay well, if you set up your housing so those are the only folks who can get apartments, you end up with communities in which all of the families have single parents, and in which no one has a job.
In Chicago they built really large complexes with multiple towers, with tens of thousands of residents. They walled people off from other neighborhoods with expressways. And then they kicked out the most successful and stable people in the community because they weren't the neediest.
I live right across the street from a NYCHA building. I don't know exactly what the difference is between NYC and Chicago, but there is a difference, and it's huge. The NYCHA folks are neighbors, there are guys who sit outside playing dominoes (and I kind of wish I could join in), etc.
So whatever they're doing now works pretty well. I just hope they don't break it.
4
I find it strange that people criticize public housing tenants who have lived there long-term because "public subsidies are supposed to be short-term". Do you think that poverty is temporary? Poverty is a vicious cycle that grips families permanently--you can't demonize poor people for not being able to find high-paying jobs if none are available or they need a Bachelor's degree (which they could not afford or didn't have to time to acquire between work and taking care of a family). I have a law degree and it took me YEARS to find my first full-time, permanent legal job--it's even harder for people with children who do not have their Bachelor's degree. Stop demonizing poor people by constructing poverty as a personal failure (i.e., "oh well, my granddaddy came here from Country X decades ago and within two seconds was able to start a company"--good for you...doesn't work that way for most people).
21
A family earning $60,000 a year is in a better position to find an apartment than a family earning $20,000 a year, but let's face it - $60,000 a year is not "high earning" for a family. Middle income families and individuals have few, if any, choices. They earn "too much" to receive needed assistance, but not enough to live without assistance. It's a very tough spot to be in, and an increasing number of people find themselves there.
17
"should be doing more to persuade higher-earning residents to leave"
With 270,000 waiting for apartments why not just evict them when their incomes reach a certain amount? They are not who these subsidized units are for. They've hard their help and now make it available to others who really need it.
With 270,000 waiting for apartments why not just evict them when their incomes reach a certain amount? They are not who these subsidized units are for. They've hard their help and now make it available to others who really need it.
2
We have an affordable housing crisis in New York. This is one symptom of this. I do not resent paying for Mr. Torres to live with his mother while he attended school, but now, as a college graduate, I think it's time for him to get a job and move out--even if it means leaving NYC. No one owes you a dwelling here.
Public housing was never meant to be a way of life, and should not be used as such.
Public housing was never meant to be a way of life, and should not be used as such.
7
It's easy to kneejerk and blame the higher earning tenant for staying, but that obscures the real picture: the savagely expensive NYC real estate market, that leaves only the wealthiest able to afford a viable living situation. No one who has grown up in the city should be forced to leave against their will. If they worked hard and now have a solid income, so be it. They earned their right to stay, if they please. They do keep the housing developments full of role models for the young.
Like rent stabilization and even AirBnB, this is another situation that is created by an unaffordable and skyrocketing real estate market that will turn our city into one for only the wealthy and poorest. NOT good. We need to address the root of the problem: Greedy developers and landlords.
Like rent stabilization and even AirBnB, this is another situation that is created by an unaffordable and skyrocketing real estate market that will turn our city into one for only the wealthy and poorest. NOT good. We need to address the root of the problem: Greedy developers and landlords.
10
Perhaps if the 1.5 million subsidized or stabilized apartments were not off the market and in one family for eternity, things would be different.
There is no difference between 'greedy developers and landlords' and greedy tenants. None at all. Both want something for nothing.
There is no difference between 'greedy developers and landlords' and greedy tenants. None at all. Both want something for nothing.
2
"No one who has grown up in the city should be forced to leave against their will." Living in New York City is not a birthright. If someone cannot afford to live in the city, they should more to someplace that they can afford. They should not expect hard working taxpayers to pay for the privilege of living somewhere they cannot afford. It's the same as if you grew up in Beverly Hills but do not have the means to live their as an adult. Should taxpayers pay for you to live in Beverly Hills, where you grew up?
Without developers, the cost of living in the city would be even higher since there would be fewer apartments. They are of great service.
Landlords are unfairly maligned. They take their money and invest in housing. They do this to get a reasonable return on their investment. It's no different than you wanting a good return on your own money that is invested. They too are of great service to the city.
Without developers, the cost of living in the city would be even higher since there would be fewer apartments. They are of great service.
Landlords are unfairly maligned. They take their money and invest in housing. They do this to get a reasonable return on their investment. It's no different than you wanting a good return on your own money that is invested. They too are of great service to the city.
@bocheball, NYC
BINGO!!!.....And don't forget the city and state politicians who are groomed to act in the landlord's and developer's best interests, along with the Rent Guidelines Board...
BINGO!!!.....And don't forget the city and state politicians who are groomed to act in the landlord's and developer's best interests, along with the Rent Guidelines Board...
1
270,000 families on a waiting list. Is that a joke?
4
No. It is not a joke. If anything, the number is probably higher than that.
4
No. Because no one ever moves out, once they get their subsidy.
Instead, their entire family moves in with them and no one bothers to work very hard, if at all.
Instead, their entire family moves in with them and no one bothers to work very hard, if at all.
2
The NYT needs to look into the roommate scam in Public housing. Tens of thousands of NYCHA residences have roommates who's income does not count toward the limit or the rental rate. Additionally, the resident is allowed to charge the roommate up to 50% of the rent and not include that income in the income mix toward eligibility or the setting of rent. This is facilitated by two things; one, the roommate is just an unmarried spouse. two, when kids do move out the parent keeps the two or three bedroom apartment having the space to rent.
Another topic to review is the 270,000 people on the wait list. truth is adding your name to the wait list is a right of passage in the NYCHA community. You are allowed to skip a call so many times and can set your preferences for complex, building, so on never leaving the wait list.
Another topic to review is the 270,000 people on the wait list. truth is adding your name to the wait list is a right of passage in the NYCHA community. You are allowed to skip a call so many times and can set your preferences for complex, building, so on never leaving the wait list.
9
Why isn't housing subsidy taxed.
There is no major disparity in income if someone earing $25,000 gets to live in an apartment that would cost them an extra $24,000 /year in post tax dollars it is the same as if they were earning nearly $70,000; add to that food stamps, Medicaid, etc they have the exact same lifestyle as someone who earns a fully taxed $100,000 per year!!!!!! THey are the 1%, just all via a transfer from the pubic coiffures.
There is no major disparity in income if someone earing $25,000 gets to live in an apartment that would cost them an extra $24,000 /year in post tax dollars it is the same as if they were earning nearly $70,000; add to that food stamps, Medicaid, etc they have the exact same lifestyle as someone who earns a fully taxed $100,000 per year!!!!!! THey are the 1%, just all via a transfer from the pubic coiffures.
10
Thank you. The people truly suffering in this city are middle class who know they can't afford to live here but work here. They have a really awful quality of life for those same jobs that are elsewhere...and a super high cost of living. They don't get help - just asked to continue to pay more and more for others.
8
We have the same problem in Paris, where people fortunate to have public housing tend to stay there forever, paying a higher rent, if their income increases, because the private sector is so expensive. Recently the administration started a policy of evicting tenants whose income exceeds the maximum allowed for two years in a row. The problem is that people are only one job loss away from a vastly lower income, and then what happens if they are in private housing they can no longer afford? Or they retire a few years later and their income is cut in half? I have a friend who is in this situation not far from retirement and finally above the maximum in her highest earning years - but not for much longer.
12
It sounds like a new entitlement has been created - low cost living in NYC. When people don't want to leave public housing it means more public housing has to be built or people need to be shown the door. I read a few months ago about parking rates of $300 per year. That's cheap by Des Moines standards! Wake up NY - you subsidize something and you get more of it.
6
The underlying fallacy is the idea that government can create equitable housing arrangements or any sort of false economic environment that will be perceived as fair or int he longer term, workable.
It is not possible and it is the fatal conceit of the elites.
It is not possible and it is the fatal conceit of the elites.
2
So what's the free market solution? Please show your work. The market doesn't magically induce landlords to lower rents when millionaires from Des Moines demand lavish apartments for their babies matriculating at NYU (who drive up the rents for permanent residents) or when billionaires from Dubai want a pied a terre while vacationing here (with the apartment left empty 11 months of the year). When vacancy rates hover at 1% and there are people willing to pay thousands more than the local market will bear, how does the free market respond? This is not a rhetorical question.
2
The 2 places with the most regulation in the housing markets are san fran and NYC. They also are the most expensive places to live. I dont think the liberal policies are working as intended.
8
The situation here isn't anything new nor unusual. I live in the mid-South and almost all housing development in my metro area has been for housing for the above 50% median income, accentuated in a upward curve toward high income. We call it freedom but what is it really?
3
Well, at least the median income in George is not $358,000! That's about what you need to pay market rents in New York.
2
Having working families in NYCHA buildings helps stabilize the building/ community - it is actually a positive thing. (And the working families do not have high incomes)
Without these working households, NYCHA "projects" would be made up almost entirely of public assistance recipients.
Without these working households, NYCHA "projects" would be made up almost entirely of public assistance recipients.
3
That is what they mostly are...
NYCHA's judments about how to manage the socio-economic challenges of public housing should not be interfered with by the Feds. NYC's public housing has provided desirable living accommodations for a long period of time, generations. In many other places public housing has been literally torn down because it seemed to offer too toxic an environment. Changes might be desirable at the margins; for example, rents should be better scaled to match tenants' capacity to pay. But the community cohesion created by long term tenants who prove by example that "public housing" includes people who are successful by the external world's standards has value as well.
5
We are talking about NYCHA. Possibly the only agency more inept than the Fed itself. Community cohesion? I am not sure what city you live in but itc not NYC. Public housing should be torn down....those who are choosing to stay depsite being over income have decided that depsite these conditions they are close to work and amenities they view as desirable and by having taxpayers subsidize them can afford to do a whole lot more with their income. That is certainly not something we should applaud....paying one's way used to be something people took pride in. But greed is rampant in this city - whether it be the mega rich or the modestly well off.
2
There is something seriously wrong with the entire housing situation in New York City. There's enough shame to go around.
The reason that there is such a demand for Public Housing is because there aren't enough "affordable" alternatives. But then, how could there be? When practically everything that that is being erected is geared toward the "Luxury" class? Given this fact, it's hardly surprising that people are staying where they are, it's much better than landing out on the street. And should they pay more, if they surpass the income median? Absolutely. But in the meantime, greater care should be taken to keep what's left of the working middle-class
that is slowly sliding off the scale into homelessness.
The reason that there is such a demand for Public Housing is because there aren't enough "affordable" alternatives. But then, how could there be? When practically everything that that is being erected is geared toward the "Luxury" class? Given this fact, it's hardly surprising that people are staying where they are, it's much better than landing out on the street. And should they pay more, if they surpass the income median? Absolutely. But in the meantime, greater care should be taken to keep what's left of the working middle-class
that is slowly sliding off the scale into homelessness.
17
The most interesting aspect of this article, despite the conundrum of the cost of living in this great City, and the challenges that presents for all of us------is the COMMENT section! The NYC trashing, pro-market force, end all subsidies crowd seem to be mostly from other places. But alas, they are reading the New York Times. That little green monster is hard at work .
16
A lot of the comments that indicate that the city should provide or do more for people are way off the mark; this is not a socialist country or economy. Try doing for yourselves or live within your means like the the stable middle class does.
That means: do not give birth to children you cannot afford.
The city or the country cannot afford to house everyone who isn't earning enough. Do for yourselves and stop asking others to bankroll it, or crying to seemingly benevolent politicians who feign concern; they really don't care; all they want is your attention and your vote. What did it get you? Empty promises.
The 'free money' train ride is very much over. I'd say get up to date and get used to it, not because I'm mean, but because there are not many other choices.
The dependency issues in public housing are generational; what is with the 27 year old still living at home with his mother in the project?? He is working but will not get out of the nest like most 20 somethings do by getting together with roommates and live on their own. But she is on the free money ride so he remains at home assisting her in abusing a benefit.
And here's the ugly sticking point: like many social programs, the benefit is a reward for being poor and the long term psychological effect is a lack of motivation to grow up, get educated and move onto full adulthood.
That means: do not give birth to children you cannot afford.
The city or the country cannot afford to house everyone who isn't earning enough. Do for yourselves and stop asking others to bankroll it, or crying to seemingly benevolent politicians who feign concern; they really don't care; all they want is your attention and your vote. What did it get you? Empty promises.
The 'free money' train ride is very much over. I'd say get up to date and get used to it, not because I'm mean, but because there are not many other choices.
The dependency issues in public housing are generational; what is with the 27 year old still living at home with his mother in the project?? He is working but will not get out of the nest like most 20 somethings do by getting together with roommates and live on their own. But she is on the free money ride so he remains at home assisting her in abusing a benefit.
And here's the ugly sticking point: like many social programs, the benefit is a reward for being poor and the long term psychological effect is a lack of motivation to grow up, get educated and move onto full adulthood.
14
And yet the person's interviewed for this article are college educated and employed. Where is this lack of motivation?
3
Pontification: "Try doing for yourselves or live within your means like the the stable middle class does."
And what if someone doesn't share your moralistic world view of wage peonage? What are you going to do with them? Because they won't be able to go anywhere else and are going to ruin your upright citizens fantasyland real quick.
And what if someone doesn't share your moralistic world view of wage peonage? What are you going to do with them? Because they won't be able to go anywhere else and are going to ruin your upright citizens fantasyland real quick.
3
@gd100, nyc
Quick question. Have you noticed that the 'Middle-class" has all but gone extinct? And this has nothing to do with being a "socialist" economy or state, as much as has to do with the rampant greed that favors extremely high income earners, at the expense of everyone else.
The housing problem New York faces today didn't appear overnight. It has been years in the making.
Granted there are people who abuse the system, but there are plenty more hard-working people who are not part of the "free money train ride".
Another thing: Some of the generalizations in your comments are disturbing.
Quick question. Have you noticed that the 'Middle-class" has all but gone extinct? And this has nothing to do with being a "socialist" economy or state, as much as has to do with the rampant greed that favors extremely high income earners, at the expense of everyone else.
The housing problem New York faces today didn't appear overnight. It has been years in the making.
Granted there are people who abuse the system, but there are plenty more hard-working people who are not part of the "free money train ride".
Another thing: Some of the generalizations in your comments are disturbing.
4
What happened to the ruling of the NY Judge that rent subsidies were not assets that could be sold, but a form of welfare and thus subject to certain qualifications?
6
You are incorrect in your understanding of that ruling, which had to do with a rent stabilized lease holder:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/21/nyregion/rent-stabilized-lease-cant-be...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/21/nyregion/rent-stabilized-lease-cant-be...
1
When this paper highlights each week the most expensive apartment sold in the city, I think the last one was 50 million dollars, I cannot get upset that some people are making too much for public housing.
15
Abuse of public subsidies is a time-honored public tradition
5
It should'nt be too hard to evict these tenants. The criteria for eligibility should be codified (if not already! ). This should be easy with help from the IRS, their work places and their education. It should be strictly enforced. No exceptions, zero tolerance for offenders. Low income housing is for low income people, temporary, a transitional stop. It is not a permanent abode for people who have made it into better lives. They are only snatching from the needy. So they should be summarily evicted.
5
this is the problem with subsidized anything.
why would someone who is getting something for free ever go out of his way to have this welfare removed?
So you have people at the upper end, who really don't need this welfare, hanging on to too long to the detriment at people at the lower end who really need it.
This is the Democratic Party platform cliff notes right here. They'll play off the resentment of the people at the upper end who should be kicked off and those at the lower end who should be getting the benefits.
Vote Democrat. Subsidies for all, forever.
why would someone who is getting something for free ever go out of his way to have this welfare removed?
So you have people at the upper end, who really don't need this welfare, hanging on to too long to the detriment at people at the lower end who really need it.
This is the Democratic Party platform cliff notes right here. They'll play off the resentment of the people at the upper end who should be kicked off and those at the lower end who should be getting the benefits.
Vote Democrat. Subsidies for all, forever.
8
Reality meets liberal fantasy. Reality wins! Imagine that.
6
@cjhsa, Michigan
The sheer superficiality of your comment shows that you do not take this matter seriously.....But then again, how could you, since you are sitting somewhere in Michigan (which granted, given Detroit, has enough problems of its own).
No offense, but maybe do a little more research before resorting to knee-jerk political aphorisms. Or better yet, come to New York and see for yourself.
The sheer superficiality of your comment shows that you do not take this matter seriously.....But then again, how could you, since you are sitting somewhere in Michigan (which granted, given Detroit, has enough problems of its own).
No offense, but maybe do a little more research before resorting to knee-jerk political aphorisms. Or better yet, come to New York and see for yourself.
1
Former mayor Ed Koch kept a rent controlled apartment the whole time he was mayor and moved back into it when he was out of office. No one was on his back about it. Just sayin'
17
That is because our cowardly politicians have moved the maximum family income upwards (now over $250,000), so that Mayors. US Senators, and rich movie stars (Faye Dunaway) could keep their subsidies.
1
Actually they were on his back. That's why we know about it.
1
He bought a condo at 2 Fifth when out of office.
How about Charles Rangel who maintains 4 rent stabilized units to this day.
it is wrong. period.
How about Charles Rangel who maintains 4 rent stabilized units to this day.
it is wrong. period.
2
The most telling piece of information in this article was that over half of the people who exceed the income threshold for entry do so by $10,000 or less. I'm all for prodding people to move on when they can afford it, but it should be done rationally. Many people have fluctuating incomes; you shouldn't kick someone out because he has one good year and crosses the threshold.
So, maybe average the last 3 to 5 years? Make sure the gains have stuck. And keep raising rents as income rises; based on the photo, it looks like it tops out at an income below $100k. Lastly, a family of four working-age adults who crosses the threshold is in a wholly different position than a single breadwinner who has risen into the middle class. I don't know how you account for that, but there needs to be a way.
So, maybe average the last 3 to 5 years? Make sure the gains have stuck. And keep raising rents as income rises; based on the photo, it looks like it tops out at an income below $100k. Lastly, a family of four working-age adults who crosses the threshold is in a wholly different position than a single breadwinner who has risen into the middle class. I don't know how you account for that, but there needs to be a way.
13
This is what is being reported - as we know many of these people have other income coming in that is not even being counted. And let's not forget that unlike you or I - paying for housing with after tax dollars those in these units are getting these subsidies without the value of the free rent factored in to their taxable income.
1
Change the law. The threshold to get in should be the threshold to move out. As to people like Swan, she has the same attitude of the super majority of conservatives I know personally, namely, "I got mine, now I want to pull the ladder up behind me so others won't succeed and compete with me."
9
Time to end all subsidies and let the market provide for those who can pay. No tax payer should have to subsidize someone who may even have a higher income so that they can live above their means and pursue their "dream." With the public transportation infrastructure, there will be plenty of potential housing further from expensive urban cores that can serve people with less income. Might even help with the diversity goal, for those who prioritize that.
13
Your proposal to banish those who "live above their means" to the exurbs would result in the polar opposite of achieving a "diversity goal"... it would create a gated city.
Clearly the cost to rent/live in Malvern, PA must be somewhat lower than NYC where nearly all us (save candidate Trump) live above our means.
Our "expensive urban core" has the most diverse county in the US: Queens County... where ~176 languages are spoken. I'll take our successful and highly functional urban vision over yours.
Clearly the cost to rent/live in Malvern, PA must be somewhat lower than NYC where nearly all us (save candidate Trump) live above our means.
Our "expensive urban core" has the most diverse county in the US: Queens County... where ~176 languages are spoken. I'll take our successful and highly functional urban vision over yours.
9
This is not the fault of the residents, it's a problem with the cost of apartments in New York City. All affordable housing has been wiped from the face of the earth. New York has become a relative theme park for the wealthy. Rather than go after these residents, try imposing much higher taxes on high end real estate. If you can afford millions on an apartment, you can certainly afford taxes. These should be paid whether or not the purchaser spends any time in the apartment. It is linked to the purchase price. And stop giving tax breaks to developers to build yet more luxury housing. What has happened to Manhattan and Brooklyn is terrible. It is unaffordable to young people unless they room with multiple roommates. It really shouldn't be this way, and doesn't have to be, either.
27
Agree completely with the fact that million dollar condos and developments should be taxed accordingly. Instead the city raises taxes on small commercial storefronts in relatively modest buildings. To drive any small landlord out completely so their buildings can be scooped up for redevelopment by the uber wealthy. If that doesn't do it the City will come along and fine them for some small infraction and if they can't find any they will force these landlords to keep the ground floor vacant and rent the apartments to nycha voucher holders who will do more damage than the rent covers.
3
Really, unless housing becomes more affordable, the exodus from public housing simply will not happen! As it is, the people who live in public housing deserve and pay for safety, security, cleanliness and maintenance!
21
Whether or not they 'deserve' it, they most certainly do not pay for it.
That burden falls to middle class taxpayers, who also endure long commutes, which we could never ask of anyone who is subsidized, right?
That burden falls to middle class taxpayers, who also endure long commutes, which we could never ask of anyone who is subsidized, right?
1
I find the apathy from some of these comments to be pretty appalling. Some day this could be you who would need to live there when you can't afford to live anywhere else. The housing projects were made so that those on low incomes can still live in a major city especially when the government was shown by famous photographers such as Jacob Riis on showing how the other half lived. BTW, those that live in the projects aren't exactly living there for free, they are still paying some rent, it's just subsidized by the government. If they could afford to live somewhere better and pay much more to live in that said area, they would have already done that. I really hope that de Blasio manages to get more public housing built, which I find to be the real affordable housing, not the claim that private developers tend to make when the working class barely qualifies and they even get treated less. Some keep forgetting that such property doesn't count as public housing and that includes places with rent control or stabilization and housing that is either part of Mitchell-Lama or Section 8, plus the rents for those places aren't even subsidized at all. In the case for Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village, the owner has to choose between raising the rents or tax breaks, but not both as the deal claims. What really annoys me is the claim for prime real estate space, which I find to be used pretty loosely here as if that can be considered to almost anything not to have them there.
14
No - I think you have it wrong. Sure there are good people who live in public housing. There are also MANY who have no aspiration to leave and don't want to take care of their surroundings either. I went to school with plenty so I know the diff
8
First of all, the profiling of those living there is getting old. Just because there are a number of criminals or other low lives living in public housing, doesn't mean they all are. Please stop blaming a whole group just for a few individuals. BTW, some of them may not be working due to certain disabilities, so they need SSI to get around, so try understanding that. I know many that live in public housing that do have jobs, though most of them are probably low paying or minimum wage. Keep in mind that the reason why NYC still has so many housing projects still standing unlike other cities that take them down is because there is still a demand for affordable housing, and I feel that more of this should built, not less. In reality, not everyone can afford pay market rate when it comes to rent or even a place to live in NYC compared to those who are commenting that can, which won't be surprising to me.
3
'...BTW, those that live in the projects aren't exactly living there for free, they are still paying some rent, it's just subsidized by the government...plus the rents for those places aren't even subsidized at all'
The 'government' is the taxpayers, in other words, the middle class who gets no subsidies.
Who do people think pays for those subsidies? They just magically arrive somehow?
The 'government' is the taxpayers, in other words, the middle class who gets no subsidies.
Who do people think pays for those subsidies? They just magically arrive somehow?
2
The cost of housing is unreal.
Elected officials have not sufficiently taken into account broadening global investment in housing which has driven up the price of housing to an inflated level beyond the grasp of most wage earners. This is especially so in big famous cities like NYC or San Francisco.
Worldwide wealth has flowed past US Securities, REIT's and into urban homes.
As well, the flow of drug money in part from the over six trillion dollars worth of heroin produced in Afghanistan since US troops arrived there after 9/11, and a skyrocketing flow of drugs from Colombia and Mexico, has radically increased the flow of cash chasing residential properties in the US.
For all these reasons, the price of housing, especially urban housing has risen beyond the reach of most workers, who as well have experienced stagnant wages over the past few decades.
It is no surprise that people try to hang onto reasonably priced public housing.
Elected officials need to reassess housing prices in this context, and do more to ensure the supply of affordable housing for real people.
Elected officials have not sufficiently taken into account broadening global investment in housing which has driven up the price of housing to an inflated level beyond the grasp of most wage earners. This is especially so in big famous cities like NYC or San Francisco.
Worldwide wealth has flowed past US Securities, REIT's and into urban homes.
As well, the flow of drug money in part from the over six trillion dollars worth of heroin produced in Afghanistan since US troops arrived there after 9/11, and a skyrocketing flow of drugs from Colombia and Mexico, has radically increased the flow of cash chasing residential properties in the US.
For all these reasons, the price of housing, especially urban housing has risen beyond the reach of most workers, who as well have experienced stagnant wages over the past few decades.
It is no surprise that people try to hang onto reasonably priced public housing.
Elected officials need to reassess housing prices in this context, and do more to ensure the supply of affordable housing for real people.
62
Why do people insist in staing in a place they can't afford? 51 other states and people choose to stay in one of the world's most expensive place to live, when they don't have the money. Makes no sense to me why people do this. I lived in this citysince the age of 8 until the city got expensive and I made the move down south at 26 years of age. No family, no friends, not a single person that could lend a hand. I got a job at a hotel room and it was perfect. 1,200 Sq ft apartment in a safe neighborhood and affordable $875 a month. Now that work is better and in can afford a better life, I moved back to NY city. But want to know the truth? I don't like living here anymore. I rather live down south and enjoy life more. This city is amazing but it is NOT the city that i grew to love. So my advice is move if you can't afford this city, because I can and I am 2 years away from moving away from this ant farm people love to hate.
16
It is a bit absurd to demand cheap housing in a place like NYC. It's also absurd to think that tens of thousands of people on a waiting list are going to be accommodated.
6
51 other states? Oh, I get it confusion and denial counted?
5
Sounds to me, and am sure am not too far from the truth, that in NYC, even professionals with a decent paycheck, need public housing as they cannot afford the soaring rents.
23
I think a lot of these people should be moved out or made to pay a lot more. They're staying because they prefer living some of the wealthiest zip codes in the city, and for luxuries like private education for their kids.
There are 60,000 people living in shelters in New York who need this housing. They're stuck because of people who are taking more than their fair share.
Once you're in, there are no income limits. The same goes for Mitchell-Lama. Even when you're no longer needy, you can keep the apartment for life with only a tiny surchage for exceeding the income limits, and even pass it down to the next generation. That loophole needs to be closed as soon as possible.
There are 60,000 people living in shelters in New York who need this housing. They're stuck because of people who are taking more than their fair share.
Once you're in, there are no income limits. The same goes for Mitchell-Lama. Even when you're no longer needy, you can keep the apartment for life with only a tiny surchage for exceeding the income limits, and even pass it down to the next generation. That loophole needs to be closed as soon as possible.
9
Hopefully, not before I get in one of the Mitchell-Lama...and a question for all those advocating kicking us out...then who's going to do the dishes? And work the fast food counters, and hell, do civil service work? Because its not the wealthy who's doing it.
1
To my way of thinking, high-earning residents of public housing just don't get it. They're not much different from an adult child who still lives at home, even though they have a good job and can make their own way. Having grown up in Manhattan but never lived in public housing, if there are 270,000 people on a waiting list or whatever it is, then it's time to kick out the ones who have passed the income threshold. As for affordable housing, plenty of recent college graduates and even other adults are in the same boat, but aren't getting a boost from taxpayer funds. I say weed them out and make way for the neediest on the list. NEXT!!!
105
The entire rental system in New York is corrupt to the core. This is what happens when you enact rent control laws and keep them on the books long after the World War II emergency is over. New Yorkers look enviously upon people in 4+ room apartments charging a pittance of rent, thanks to these laws. The system can only be straightened out by repealing the whole lot of these laws prospectively (meaning existing tenants are unaffected). The Soviet Union also thought it could manufacture prosperity by extreme regulation. Wonder whatever happened to that country?
12
@Rodger: What is the vacancy rate for rental housing in NYC? Google it, b/c you have no idea how tight housing is, given your comment about "World War II emergency is over."
2
Just like we are NOT obligated to accept all the illegal aliens who invade out borders, we aren't obligated to provide a reasonable rent for all who want to live in the city.
Since we do provide for this, however, maybe instead of allowing someone a lifetime and beyond of a right to live in subsidized housing, how about instituting a time limit? You get 7-10 years of subsidized housing to get yourself together and find an appropriate income to support yourself and your dependents. After that it's up to you to enter the real world of renting in NYC.
The middle class has to deal with these issues every day, and finds the taxes, lack of public transportation and costs are squeezing them out of the city. There is no real reason that these people, who pay the bills, along with small business, should be burdened by supporting freeloaders who won the housing lottery.
It's time to move on in our thinking. Pun intended.
Since we do provide for this, however, maybe instead of allowing someone a lifetime and beyond of a right to live in subsidized housing, how about instituting a time limit? You get 7-10 years of subsidized housing to get yourself together and find an appropriate income to support yourself and your dependents. After that it's up to you to enter the real world of renting in NYC.
The middle class has to deal with these issues every day, and finds the taxes, lack of public transportation and costs are squeezing them out of the city. There is no real reason that these people, who pay the bills, along with small business, should be burdened by supporting freeloaders who won the housing lottery.
It's time to move on in our thinking. Pun intended.
14
NYC should end all public housing. They are crime-infested warrens. Also, why should someone have to pay 5x more for rent just because they studied hard and earn more? Should that person also have to pay more for a subway ticket?
Further, why should some low-income people be entitled to low-cost housing in Manhattan just because they win a lotto? After all, the vast majority of low-income people have to make do by living in Queens. That's unfair.
Further, why should some low-income people be entitled to low-cost housing in Manhattan just because they win a lotto? After all, the vast majority of low-income people have to make do by living in Queens. That's unfair.
15
Replace public housing and rent controls with rent subsidy vouchers. Vouchers would be based on income. Of course, this would be incredibly expensive at first, but not as expensive as having tax payers build, own and maintain public housing.
4
Interesting. I seem to recall there being a problem with affordable housing being put in predominantly poor neighborhoods. There were a ton of studies presented about how families that are placed in more affluent neighborhoods tend to have an easier time. But makes an affluent neighborhood affluent? Affluent people, of course. While $60k may not be rich, at least it can be built upon. What happens when those managing to build some wealth are removed? Well, all of a sudden we are faced with affordable housing in a poor neighborhood because you've killed everyone entering a higher income bracket out. And here's the kicker, when the calls come to transplant the poorer residents to more affluent buildings, this whole problem is just going to repeat itself. All this leads me to believe that rather than try to actually provide greater opportunities for education so that children are not destined to one day trying to compete for the absolute minimum hourly wage allowed by law, society is playing Three Card Monty with its poorest members. We shuffle them quickly from neighborhood to neighborhood as if merely transplanting them will solve their underlying problems. Since no thought was given to the economic realities of such a strategy, it naturally collapses under any pressure and it's time to find a new spot to hide them.
4
There is a pattern with jurisdictions that have the most 'progressive' rent control regimes: They are the places where rents are irrationally soaring the most, housing is in strangely short supply, and ostentatious addresses for the rich are at their most odious and offensive. What an odd coincidence.
5
Amazing isn't it. That's what happens when you try to regulate what should be left to free market. But of course, some never learn; NYC is doomed to always have scarce affordable housing since they will never dream of getting rid of its outrageous and archaic rent regulations.
7
Yes, places where a lot of rich people want to live make landlords very greedy. Even laws limiting what rent can be charged inure to the benefit of greedy landlords, because there is always someone willing to pay more. It's one of the drawbacks of living somewhere desirable. People from less desirable areas have a hard time understanding this. That doesn't mean greed should be answered with a shrug, it means that sensible limits should be placed on what landlords can charge. 300 square feet is not worth $1500/month even in paradise, much less Bed Stuy. We need realistic, fair limits. OR, conservatives could propose a free market solution which does not involve magical thinking like "landlords will voluntarily reduce rents if rent stabilization laws are repealed." We're listening.
2
What we need is government to stay out of private housing altogether. 70 plus years of rent regulation has done nothing to improve the affordability of housing in NYC except for those lucky few who have managed to hold on to or inherit regulated apartments. Perhaps is time to try something new???
1
wow this is a depressing article, families that want to live on the government dole, even though they are capable of taking care of themselves. talk about pride.
Speaking of which and this article addressed it, whats with the filthy condition of these facilities?? The grounds of these buildings are typically strewn with trash. Even in Fulton in the middle of very upscale Chelsea, people stink up the lobby and discard food in the stairways. Why?
Speaking of which and this article addressed it, whats with the filthy condition of these facilities?? The grounds of these buildings are typically strewn with trash. Even in Fulton in the middle of very upscale Chelsea, people stink up the lobby and discard food in the stairways. Why?
12
Because they can. No accountability when you are on the dole.
3
Like all public government programs, you can count on about 20% of people in those units to be currently ineligible. Hey, the Earned Income Tax credit has about $20 Billion in fraud. How many affordable housing units would that pay for? If it is run by the government, you can count on big waste, fraud and abuse. Its just the way things are.
12
Why should anyone feel badly about keeping a subsidized apartment longer than they should. After all if Charlie Rangel can have several rent controlled units what's the harm?
11
This is not how it's supposed to work. Well-to-do people should not be taking away the benefits that belong to poorer people. Evict those folks--yesterday.
12
Isn't this the mixed income housing that public housing projects in other cities have been torn down and redeveloped to achieve? Why you would seek to destroy the fabric of the community in these places is beyond me.
14
What community?
The community where out of seven adults, the household income is less than $70,000?
That community?
The community where out of seven adults, the household income is less than $70,000?
That community?
Because the 'fabric of the community in these places' is rotten to the core.
Typical result of most government regulation - distortions upon distortions upon distortions resulting in byzantine rules, unintended negative consequences and increased cronyism ultimately defeating the supposed benefits the government was trying to achieve in the first place.
6
Public Housing doesn't work any more. And for many, NYC just doesn't work any more. We need an updated version of Mitchell-Lama.
4
All rent subsidy's tenants, be they in rent stabilized, rent controlled, or public housing apartments, should be subject to income limits. It's unfair to have higher income tenants taking under-market valued apartments away from those who truly need them.
86
@LPM: I presume you also agree that if these people have to move out, then if at some future time they lose their jobs, become disabled, are retired on a fixed low income, etc. then they'd be given preference to move back IN.
3
They are. A rent stabilized/controlled household cannot make more than $250,000 a year.
A total scam in which the younger and poorer tenants pay market rate to subsidize the older richer tenants whose children can someday 'inherit' the apartment, as if they owned it. Which, from their attitude, they believe they do.
A total scam in which the younger and poorer tenants pay market rate to subsidize the older richer tenants whose children can someday 'inherit' the apartment, as if they owned it. Which, from their attitude, they believe they do.
5
they already exist. If you have a rent stabilized apt that hits 2G per month. and make over 250g two years in a row, it goes off stabilization.
1
I met a woman in her 50s who just returned to Dallas to "take care of/live with" her aging parents. She had an interesting job in NYC living near Chelsea. She told me she just divorced her visually impaired husband, after years of an unhappy marriage because they lost their rent-controlled apartment. Without the rent control, no way was she going to stay married to him. Hmmm. Interesting.
11
What New York City needs is definitely not more subsidized rental units going to privileged classes of people. What it needs is more market rate rental units. To that end rent control and rent stabilization should be phased out. Also the Mitchell-Lama Act actually led to the creation of 105,000 units of housing, no reason we can't tale the same approach in the 21st Century.
15
I find it an utter disgrace that people use public subsidies like extra income. The intention was to temporarily help people in need, not allow them to afford extras like private school. What a shame!
168
Yea it was supposed to be temporary - but now you have ppl who live in them for generations as their "right". No betterment in many cases.
10
A subsidy is, in fact, extra income. And a parish school is not a "private school," in the sense you may think. This comment implies that the resident stayed in public housing so she could send her child to some tony school on the UES. Rather, she chose a church school instead of the local public school; you do not know what else she sacrificed to do this.
But the goal of such decisions is always the same: to give the child a leg up so he or she can live better than his or her parents. That is exactly how you prevent public housing from being a generational thing. I can't think of a better use of a government subsidy than to make sure the next generation doesn't need it.
But the goal of such decisions is always the same: to give the child a leg up so he or she can live better than his or her parents. That is exactly how you prevent public housing from being a generational thing. I can't think of a better use of a government subsidy than to make sure the next generation doesn't need it.
3
When people talk of private schools, think Catholic Schools, not Wharton. Big difference.
Construction of affordable housing has stood still for decades. You can't find a reasonable rent in NYC for less than $1,500 for a 2 bedroom in a good neighborhood. That's $18,000 a year and we are not even talking about utilities, phone, food, etc, etc.
Construction of affordable housing has stood still for decades. You can't find a reasonable rent in NYC for less than $1,500 for a 2 bedroom in a good neighborhood. That's $18,000 a year and we are not even talking about utilities, phone, food, etc, etc.
1
Moving to NYC is quite a shock for outsiders like me. I can understand why these people would want to stay in the housing, for security purposes plus they know the area.
If they moved out to pay anything around $2k for a studio rental, it would be in a less than satisfactory area and they would have to prove to the greedy brokers and landlords that they make 40x the rent! What?! So in NYC, you have to make $80,000 or more or know someone who makes that kind of money to get just a studio! A studio!
It is a city for millionaires from Wall Street. Economic mobility is almost impossible. Not to mention the racial segregation in the different neighborhoods is so apparent. This is not a coincidence.
These people may have an increased income, but they still can't afford the city. It is a pity.
If they moved out to pay anything around $2k for a studio rental, it would be in a less than satisfactory area and they would have to prove to the greedy brokers and landlords that they make 40x the rent! What?! So in NYC, you have to make $80,000 or more or know someone who makes that kind of money to get just a studio! A studio!
It is a city for millionaires from Wall Street. Economic mobility is almost impossible. Not to mention the racial segregation in the different neighborhoods is so apparent. This is not a coincidence.
These people may have an increased income, but they still can't afford the city. It is a pity.
38
No you mean Manhattan. I can find plenty of non Manhattan studios for less than 2k
9
Yes, and...? So, anyone who cannot make $80k+ should just find housing outside of Manhattan? Only wealthy singles should live in Manhattan?
You prove my point, which is that these people have families and cannot even afford the market value of a studio (smaller than their 2,3, or 4 bed apt) even though their incomes have risen.
You prove my point, which is that these people have families and cannot even afford the market value of a studio (smaller than their 2,3, or 4 bed apt) even though their incomes have risen.
5
Yes, there are plenty of greedy brokers and landlords in New York City. Manhattan is also home to Wall Street, the Fashion industry, and many movie stars. I know an old man, a millionaire, who lives in a one bedroom apartment on the UES for less than $500 a month. He lives there illegally so the rent has to be paid by money order only. There is no monitoring and no mean-testing. I suppose the same fraud goes on anywhere there are any kind of subsidies and we all pay for it. Live where you can afford to live. There is nothing wrong with that.
2
Why not establish a system where people in public housing whose income exceeds the limits are provided opportunities for rent controlled housing arrangements which they can afford in the same or close by neighborhoods?
2
This has been a problem with rent stabilized and rent controlled apartments too. Not only do tenants not LEAVE, when the apartment passes onto a relative.
19
The Projects were meant to provide a stopgap between unemployment and homelessness, a safe landing pad to get an education, a job, and move out on your own. They were never meant to be what they now are: properties that allow one to buy cars (many projects have gated parking lots), work or not, live free of responsibilities, should one choose to do so. These units can be passed on from one generation to the next. In New York City, many living in the nicer projects are finding themselves to the manor born.
44
There are many places in NYC where you need a car, especially if you want to benefit from the lower prices of the better supermarkets and warehouse stores like Costco. I grew up in a housing project on S.I. many decades ago. It was just my mother and we kids; there was no car. The local supermarkets didn't respect the residents. Going to a nice supermarket with the freshest produce and the best prices required a trip on three buses. We couldn't afford a taxi. Imagine a woman and three children dragging huge paper bags on three buses.
I envied our neighbors who had cars.
I envied our neighbors who had cars.
5
And how many are illegal immigrants? We do not have enough housing, spots in schools or jobs. It is time to demand that our laws be enforced.
12
Very very few illegal immigrants. You realize that welfare and public housing are dominated by "home grown" Americans right? Most immigrants have little concept of welfare which is why they are the majority of new business owners. As for illegals - they don't have documentation to get most benefits.
10
'...As for illegals - they don't have documentation to get most benefits...'
Their US born children qualify for 18 years of taxpayer provided benefits, as it well known throughout the immigrant community.
Their US born children qualify for 18 years of taxpayer provided benefits, as it well known throughout the immigrant community.
1
NM - that's a small amount... many don't want to take that risk to get caught if they are illegal. learn the difference between legal and illegal.
This does not even include the outrage of giving the former homeless and permanently unemployed near free luxury one bedroom apartments, while their hard-working middle class neighbors live in tiny market rate studios.
NYC will always have the rich, as they can afford to live wherever they want, but do we really have to pay people to live in Manhattan?
And do we really want the middle class to live in far worse conditions than the people they subsidize?
NYC will always have the rich, as they can afford to live wherever they want, but do we really have to pay people to live in Manhattan?
And do we really want the middle class to live in far worse conditions than the people they subsidize?
46
They already do (live in far worse conditions, for far more money, than the people they subsidize).
1
Thank you NM.
You are pointing out the ridiculousness of so called "affordable housing" , the Mayor's favorite. Basically by forcing developers to give 20% (1 in 5) or now 30% or more subsidized in the same market rate buildings to the lucky few at the cost of everyone else - the neighbor who pays more and all city residents pay by the building having a tax reduction (the rest of us make that up with higher taxes).
Its an insane system - I read that each UWS Trump Place subsidized unit - yup the infamous "poor door" building costs over $1 MM.
That is not way to solve the problem - that is just another version of LOTTO, that we pay for, and discourages personal advancement for society.
The city government officials love that everyone blames the real estate developers and not the City itself that has created this situation of ultra high cost, delays, etc.
Like in every other town , the developers would build lots more if you let them do it - at their own financial risk - it costs half to build in Chicago per square foot then NYC.
You are pointing out the ridiculousness of so called "affordable housing" , the Mayor's favorite. Basically by forcing developers to give 20% (1 in 5) or now 30% or more subsidized in the same market rate buildings to the lucky few at the cost of everyone else - the neighbor who pays more and all city residents pay by the building having a tax reduction (the rest of us make that up with higher taxes).
Its an insane system - I read that each UWS Trump Place subsidized unit - yup the infamous "poor door" building costs over $1 MM.
That is not way to solve the problem - that is just another version of LOTTO, that we pay for, and discourages personal advancement for society.
The city government officials love that everyone blames the real estate developers and not the City itself that has created this situation of ultra high cost, delays, etc.
Like in every other town , the developers would build lots more if you let them do it - at their own financial risk - it costs half to build in Chicago per square foot then NYC.
3
My husband and kids and I just got back from a trip to NYC two weeks ago. We loved it - such a fun, beautiful city! But we were astounded at the high prices of everything!
I'm happy to stay in Cleveland where $1300 a month in rent pays for our 3 bedroom, 1700 square foot house in a nice suburb with one of the best school districts in the state.
I can't conceive of paying that much money for a small apartment in a run down public housing project. Amazing that NYC ers just those insane housing costs for granted.
I'm happy to stay in Cleveland where $1300 a month in rent pays for our 3 bedroom, 1700 square foot house in a nice suburb with one of the best school districts in the state.
I can't conceive of paying that much money for a small apartment in a run down public housing project. Amazing that NYC ers just those insane housing costs for granted.
54
No disrespect to Cleveland - but it is simple economics as well as demand. NYC was "affordable" when it was falling apart. Someone who wants a job working high up in publishing or fashion or even somewhere like the NBA can't do so in Cleveland. They will leave Cleveland with that hope and aspiration and know they have to compete to get it. That includes paying higher cost for real estate.
4
I can't conceive of living in Cleveland.
To each their own.
To each their own.
3
The global economy has moved massive amounts of money into the NYC real estate market. Our slow growth economy has created more renters.
When people cannot afford to live in NYC, they find housing elsewhere, like in the outer boroughs. Given the outrageous cost of living here, it makes sense to question the feasibility of providing housing-on-demand in NYC.
When people cannot afford to live in NYC, they find housing elsewhere, like in the outer boroughs. Given the outrageous cost of living here, it makes sense to question the feasibility of providing housing-on-demand in NYC.
9
'...a third-generation resident at Fulton Houses...'
That about says it all. If you want to make sure people will have no ambition to better their lives, give them something for 'free' for life.
Add to this the one million rent stabilized and controlled apartments which have a maximum family income of $250,000....those poor people!
That about says it all. If you want to make sure people will have no ambition to better their lives, give them something for 'free' for life.
Add to this the one million rent stabilized and controlled apartments which have a maximum family income of $250,000....those poor people!
52
How do you know they're not 'bettering themselves'? If your rent is low, you can save and invest enormous amounts of money from your salary.
In any case, a rent of over $1000 a month, while cheap for NYC, is hardly free.
In any case, a rent of over $1000 a month, while cheap for NYC, is hardly free.
17
Excuse me, what do you know of these people's lives and how much they need "bettering?" There is no mention of their not having jobs or otherwise contributing to the community. All you really know about them is that they thought they couldn't afford to live in a market-rate apartment. If people who can't afford to live in market-rate apartments in NYC are by definition not living worthy lives, most of the U.S. is a bunch of lazy slackers.
And..."free?" They pay rent!
And..."free?" They pay rent!
6
My grandmother had a beautiful 4 bedroom apt in the So. Bronx where she raised a very large family. As she cleaned houses in Westchester; she was lucky enough to be able to eventually move there. But she always lamented losing her spot in the Bronx because we had a community. We knew everyone and vice versa.
Though folks swear up, down and sideways who weren't form the area that it was dangerous in the 70's I remember roaming freely; playing with other kids with never a concern for my health or well being. Everyone knew my family. So I understand why folks wouldn't want to leave. Sometimes its not about getting a financial break. It's about being comfortable where you are and who your around.
I started out as a 3rd generation Forest Projects kid and I'm not ashamed of it. My grandmother, my mother, my aunts who all scrubbed floors and my uncles who served in Vietnam - we weren't getting anything for "free".
All my cousins went on to successful careers. I was first to graduate college. We all left the Bronx but I was very lucky to experience NY at that time in that place. A sense of community is I think the biggest thing missing in NYC area these days. And I do not knock folks who do not want to leave.
However, those who are making well more than enough to leave and don't are not helping those who need that space. IMHO they are about the money.
Though folks swear up, down and sideways who weren't form the area that it was dangerous in the 70's I remember roaming freely; playing with other kids with never a concern for my health or well being. Everyone knew my family. So I understand why folks wouldn't want to leave. Sometimes its not about getting a financial break. It's about being comfortable where you are and who your around.
I started out as a 3rd generation Forest Projects kid and I'm not ashamed of it. My grandmother, my mother, my aunts who all scrubbed floors and my uncles who served in Vietnam - we weren't getting anything for "free".
All my cousins went on to successful careers. I was first to graduate college. We all left the Bronx but I was very lucky to experience NY at that time in that place. A sense of community is I think the biggest thing missing in NYC area these days. And I do not knock folks who do not want to leave.
However, those who are making well more than enough to leave and don't are not helping those who need that space. IMHO they are about the money.
55
Sticking them with New York-size rents, yes. Throwing them out on the street - this is a very, very new notion for "progressive government" and indicates the motivation is not economic justice but good ol' class war.
Mr. Markee: if you could succeed in your main agenda of taxing the rich, you could pay to address the housing problem. However, since you do not have the political power to do this, you would like to revenge yourself on the lower middle class - a family of four making $60,000.
Mr. Markee: if you could succeed in your main agenda of taxing the rich, you could pay to address the housing problem. However, since you do not have the political power to do this, you would like to revenge yourself on the lower middle class - a family of four making $60,000.
9
Whew. I had no idea that NYCHA housing was a lifetime benefit regardless of your income. Nice deal if you can get it, especially in a "hot" neighborhood like Chelsea. Guess what. My ceilings in my rental apartment leak too, but I pay market rent out in Queens. NYCHA blgs. are not unique in having poor living conditions.
33
@Battet Fanatic: Most of these people were living there LONG before Chelsea became a "hot" neighborhood.
12
If you've ever lived in a NYCHA building, they really are not enviable. They look like projects and are constructed from the cheapest products imaginable. The apartment I grew up in didn't have mutes for the wall light sockets and the bathroom sinks had two faucets, one for hot, the other for cold, instead of a mixing device. The elevators were constantly broken. The staircases were scary and often used as latrines.
The building was nicer when we first moved in, but things rapidly went downhill.
The building was nicer when we first moved in, but things rapidly went downhill.
3
That's the reason I live out here in the burbs.
I could make more in the city, but who wants to be forced into a closet as your living space. Even out here, 70K is scraping by for a family with a mortgage, but at least they probably have a mortgage, not an apartment. The city , well, everywhere, needs "realistic" housing. Developers build 5 bedroom houses for couples out here, when more smaller homes are needed.
I could make more in the city, but who wants to be forced into a closet as your living space. Even out here, 70K is scraping by for a family with a mortgage, but at least they probably have a mortgage, not an apartment. The city , well, everywhere, needs "realistic" housing. Developers build 5 bedroom houses for couples out here, when more smaller homes are needed.
7
Something has gone horribly wrong when full-time workers can't afford to live in the communities where they work, or extended families that include multiple workers have to pile into one apartment because rents are out of sight. The fact that the ongoing conversation about "affordable housing" even exists is proof that too many workers just aren't paid enough. Part of the solution is to raise the minimum wage, taking into account the local cost of living, so that every full-time worker can live in a decent place and enjoy real benefits of their labor. Another part of the solution is a program to provide life-long education and job training as workers adapt to the continually changing job market.
88
This does not really apply to New York City.
This is the place where 4 first-year analysts at Goldman Sachs, each making $95K a year, will share a two-bedroom tenement walkup for $6000 a month.
This is the place where 4 first-year analysts at Goldman Sachs, each making $95K a year, will share a two-bedroom tenement walkup for $6000 a month.
3
wow. Can you take me to this magical fantasy land you live in? where you wave a magic want, increase the minimum wage and everyone lives happily ever after.
2
Nothing went wrong. Manhattan is an island. There is only so many places to live and many more people want to be there...its called supply and demand. For all those other people living in the outer boros or beyond like Long Island, New Jersey, Connecticut...making the decision that the city and its high costs outweigh what they can get elsewhere they simply move. But here our government encourages them to stay and so some see fit that the concept of housing should forever and always be the part of their fellow taxpayers to provide.
3
i suspect there are some very well situated residents holding on to these apartments. ever noticed all the late model suvs parked on the streets surrounding these 'low income' residences?
9
Not on the streets, in their near free parking spaces.
12
Dear Linda,
Yeah, the cars aren't necessarily linked to the housing. In all likelihood, most public housing residents don't own cars at all, they're a huge expense in NYC. But the Fulton Houses in Chelsea are a two block walk, at most, from buildings where apartments rent for, eg: $2,500 for a one-bedroom. So the car owners park their late model expensive cars in the spots by public housing that nobody's using, as parking is also at a premium in NYC.
Yeah, the cars aren't necessarily linked to the housing. In all likelihood, most public housing residents don't own cars at all, they're a huge expense in NYC. But the Fulton Houses in Chelsea are a two block walk, at most, from buildings where apartments rent for, eg: $2,500 for a one-bedroom. So the car owners park their late model expensive cars in the spots by public housing that nobody's using, as parking is also at a premium in NYC.
1
@Dan - I believe we are talking about the cars parked in the secured parking lots of the 'low-income' housing, which are reserved for tenants of the buildings.
4
The obvious problem here is the lack of middle-priced housing. The people who stay in low-income housing despite rising incomes would move, if they could. But they can't afford anything that's on the market.
Housing cannot be treated like a commodity, because for a society to function well, all people must have at least basic housing. Housing is more like a public utility. But the private real-estate market only is interested in profiting from providing housing to the rich -- e.g., the high-rise luxury buildings that are going up all over NYC.
So, we cannot rely on the private market to take care of NYC's housing shortage. We must rely on government. The challenge for Gov. Cuomo and Mayor De Blasio is to plan and fund major building projects to house low- and middle-income people. If they don't, homelessness will keep climbing and the social fabric of our city with begin to tear.
Housing cannot be treated like a commodity, because for a society to function well, all people must have at least basic housing. Housing is more like a public utility. But the private real-estate market only is interested in profiting from providing housing to the rich -- e.g., the high-rise luxury buildings that are going up all over NYC.
So, we cannot rely on the private market to take care of NYC's housing shortage. We must rely on government. The challenge for Gov. Cuomo and Mayor De Blasio is to plan and fund major building projects to house low- and middle-income people. If they don't, homelessness will keep climbing and the social fabric of our city with begin to tear.
29
There is a profound lack of attention concerning much-needed affordable housing for individuals whose income falls in the "middle-income" range. I meet this range, and as rent has increased each year, I experience difficulty making ends meet b/c the bulk of my income goes to keeping myself housed. Indeed, I agree that addressing the housing needs of middle-income AND low-income members in the community are critical.
99
Well, Mr. David, we had beautiful prewar apartments in Flatbush, but when well- intentioned Section-8 housing was instituted and low-income families moved in, the attendant mess, noise, and violence sent the middle-class scurrying. Brooklyn's middle-class apartment buildings in far too many neighborhoods became slums pretty fast.
And they stayed slums in large part because the use of birth control just didn't 't seem part of the equation.
And they stayed slums in large part because the use of birth control just didn't 't seem part of the equation.
13
Prior to those "Section 8" people moving in most of Brooklyn was working class, ethnic, whites. You know the same "type" of people who lived in tenement housing in Manhattan. And if I recall history correctly the city demolished scores of them in both boroughs because of outbreaks of disease, filth and crime. Oh it's different right? Having slum lords who do not fix their properties then take checks from the state to put only the most desperate of people in their buildings? Yeah its all on the tenants, please note my sarcasm.
Those "low income families" created a community for many years, though often neglected for services by the city and state. That drove more people out of Brooklyn than anything else. Until white people magically "discovered" Brooklyn again for its cheap rents. Now streets are cleaned. Parks are maintained. More police patrols and less crime. And those "low income people" are being pushed out.
Your logic is so biased against non whites its gobsmackingly astounding. Notice how many of the people profiles in this article have Hispanic surnames. Folks are dying to get them out to make more money off of dumb, newly transplanted white kids dying to live like their in an episode of Friends or Girls. And they will pay any price to do it. If your making $100K and struggling to pay your rent in NYC you should think about going outside of Brooklyn or Manhattan. Neither borough is worth all that and Jersey is way cheaper and the commute is easy from many places.
Those "low income families" created a community for many years, though often neglected for services by the city and state. That drove more people out of Brooklyn than anything else. Until white people magically "discovered" Brooklyn again for its cheap rents. Now streets are cleaned. Parks are maintained. More police patrols and less crime. And those "low income people" are being pushed out.
Your logic is so biased against non whites its gobsmackingly astounding. Notice how many of the people profiles in this article have Hispanic surnames. Folks are dying to get them out to make more money off of dumb, newly transplanted white kids dying to live like their in an episode of Friends or Girls. And they will pay any price to do it. If your making $100K and struggling to pay your rent in NYC you should think about going outside of Brooklyn or Manhattan. Neither borough is worth all that and Jersey is way cheaper and the commute is easy from many places.
7
The situation in Mitchell-Lama housing is very similar. People came in decades ago when they were making small salaries, but now they are quite well-off, but have no interest in leaving. What started as a useful public service has turned into a boondoggle for the original tenants and their heirs.
35
There is a lack of housing for the middle class. If the idea of Mitchell-Lama housing was to move people along once they "made it" why were there no stipulations for maximum income with required move outs if owners or renters became too successful? There certainly are plenty of other regulations and stipulations. Creators of these programs must have seen this as an outcome. There is usally an overage fine for those who are "over income." That was the system as designed - the more successful stay and pay a bit more for their apartments.
4
That's not comparable because the landlords received huge tax breaks and often were locked into the program only for 20 years.
1
It's absolutely horrible that we have people committed communities, giving an example of success to those who have precious few positive examples. Screw anyone who's not so poor that they're stuck on government assistance.
2
Sometimes it is worth considering the original intention for a program. Public housing was NOT imagined as ONLY for the poorest of the poor; there was and is value to economic integration and role modeling. In the 1930s and 1940s we experienced (as there is now) a shortage of decent affordable rental housing in New York and elsewhere for the working class, not just for the homeless and recipients of government benefits. I would hate to see the moderate income families who've succeeded in public housing pushed out and, if they are, how is the higher rent they are paying going to be replaced? Surely no one believes Congress will give HUD more money to cover it.
69
Finally - somebody who knows what he's talking about. I imagine lots of the comments here are from people who consider themselves socially progressive - yet they are so quick to have an opinion based upon their own assumptions.
The time has come to end this abuse. Rentals such as these units and the 1,000,000 or so units under rent control/stabilization need to end. Instead of subsidizing countless people who sometimes pay rent less than a Metro North commuter pass yet can afford to vacation in the Hamptons we need to let the free market work.
And to all those whiners who say, where will teachers, blue-collar workers live, there is a thing called Mass Transit. If Wall Streeters can commute from Princeton NJ surely teachers and lower-income people can commute from the outer boroughs.
Once rent regulations have been scrapped the City will become a place where people who can afford it will live while the takers of society who need to be subsidized will be living elsewhere.
And to all those whiners who say, where will teachers, blue-collar workers live, there is a thing called Mass Transit. If Wall Streeters can commute from Princeton NJ surely teachers and lower-income people can commute from the outer boroughs.
Once rent regulations have been scrapped the City will become a place where people who can afford it will live while the takers of society who need to be subsidized will be living elsewhere.
50
Everyone is a "moocher", huh?
Vacationing in the Hamptons, taking, taking from your valuable tax dollars.
Such self-importance that accompanies such bloated self-righteousness.
I sincerely doubt their monumental contributions to the tax burden would buy a monthly box of paper clips for the office.
No worries, though. There's a Trump in the mind of every right-winger. A few ducats swells like an orchestra leaning on the strings, and emboldens them to line up the nation, and point their finger and with self-congratulatory zeal, begin to condemn and vilify.
...I've been listening to this chorus since Reagan, and it's been its worst since 2008. Good grief, where do they get this high opinion of themselves? Listening to am radio and Fox? They tell them how perfect they are, and how bad the poor are, and they buy that.
Why no concern about bankers getting billions for bailouts?
Companies like Exxon, making the biggest profits in the history of the world, and yet paying no taxes.
Tax credits and breaks for billionaires.
I never hear them going over their 'deficit sheet' when it comes to them. I wonder why?
Vacationing in the Hamptons, taking, taking from your valuable tax dollars.
Such self-importance that accompanies such bloated self-righteousness.
I sincerely doubt their monumental contributions to the tax burden would buy a monthly box of paper clips for the office.
No worries, though. There's a Trump in the mind of every right-winger. A few ducats swells like an orchestra leaning on the strings, and emboldens them to line up the nation, and point their finger and with self-congratulatory zeal, begin to condemn and vilify.
...I've been listening to this chorus since Reagan, and it's been its worst since 2008. Good grief, where do they get this high opinion of themselves? Listening to am radio and Fox? They tell them how perfect they are, and how bad the poor are, and they buy that.
Why no concern about bankers getting billions for bailouts?
Companies like Exxon, making the biggest profits in the history of the world, and yet paying no taxes.
Tax credits and breaks for billionaires.
I never hear them going over their 'deficit sheet' when it comes to them. I wonder why?
19
@John Smith: It's time to retire that tired old trope that claims that many people living in these circumstances are vacationing in the Hamptons - it's absurd and it's simply NOT TRUE. A great many people who live in these apartments are older/retired and are lucky to get by each month.
As to your statement: "Once rent regulations have been scrapped the City will become a place where people who can afford it will live while the takers of society who need to be subsidized will be living elsewhere." YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF for characterizing hard-working New Yorkers as "takers" - I presume you are referring to those teachers and blue collar workers you cited in your comment. I wonder if you are Michael Bloomberg posting under an alias, because one of his representatives said to a Community Board meeting a few years ago "New York City is for the young and the rich; get used to it." Guess what: NYC is for everyone, and if you have a problem with it, maybe YOU are in the wrong city.
As to your statement: "Once rent regulations have been scrapped the City will become a place where people who can afford it will live while the takers of society who need to be subsidized will be living elsewhere." YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF for characterizing hard-working New Yorkers as "takers" - I presume you are referring to those teachers and blue collar workers you cited in your comment. I wonder if you are Michael Bloomberg posting under an alias, because one of his representatives said to a Community Board meeting a few years ago "New York City is for the young and the rich; get used to it." Guess what: NYC is for everyone, and if you have a problem with it, maybe YOU are in the wrong city.
9
Not a very progressive response, dude! But yah, I can see your point about the "takers of society".....and NYC certainly seems to have more than thier fair share. But hey...it's City Living at it's finest!
2
Its a really easy formula but all that needs to be done is placing a combined earnings's cap for all NYCHA apts. of $50k per year which the cap would increase by $10k for every child that resides in the apartment.
The tenant should have to reapply for their apt. every four years (obviously the existing tenant should have preference) and in the application process provide proof of annual salary as well as legal residents of the apartment.
If you make too much money, you need to leave. Crazy idea.
The tenant should have to reapply for their apt. every four years (obviously the existing tenant should have preference) and in the application process provide proof of annual salary as well as legal residents of the apartment.
If you make too much money, you need to leave. Crazy idea.
12
A time limit of 8 or 10 years of residency would also be a great place to start, except for poor seniors, who would be required to move into smaller apartments.
7
While you provide a potential solution to this problem, it would be higher unadvisable to provide additional monies for additional children. Public housing residents already have a significantly higher birthrate; this suggestion would simply add to the legions of welfare babies already in the mix. Maybe the incentive should be the inverse of what you suggest - for each additional child outside the country average, delete $10K from the earnings cap!
5
The inspector general is too much a bean-counter and lacks enough common sense to focus on the big picture. The real issue is the paucity of affordable housing, not the 5 percent of families who make more money than average for public housing. With 270,000 families on the waiting list, kicking out those 10,000 higher-earning families will do very little to reduce demand. It's revealing that both Nycha and the inspector general's own employer, HUD, oppose the IG's recommendation.
Homelessness is not the fault of these comparatively few families - rather, it's the fault of our society's favoritism toward the wealthy and developers who cater to the wealthy. If Donald Trump were forced to build twice as many affordable housing units as unaffordable ones, that waiting list might long ago have shortened.
The DiBlasio administration took power promising to change the "80-20" ratio of market-rate to affordable housing to "50-30-20" - 50% market-rate, 30% moderate income, and 20% low income - and to create 200,000 units of affordable housing over the next decade. Well, with Nycha's huge waiting list NOW, a 50-50 split between affordable and market-rate still won't keep pace with the need.
That's because people who can afford NYC rents are a small minority of the city's population. 60% of the city's rental units are either rent-controlled, public or subsidized - and still 270,000 families are on Nycha's waiting list? Kicking out the few higher earners is an exercise in myopia.
Homelessness is not the fault of these comparatively few families - rather, it's the fault of our society's favoritism toward the wealthy and developers who cater to the wealthy. If Donald Trump were forced to build twice as many affordable housing units as unaffordable ones, that waiting list might long ago have shortened.
The DiBlasio administration took power promising to change the "80-20" ratio of market-rate to affordable housing to "50-30-20" - 50% market-rate, 30% moderate income, and 20% low income - and to create 200,000 units of affordable housing over the next decade. Well, with Nycha's huge waiting list NOW, a 50-50 split between affordable and market-rate still won't keep pace with the need.
That's because people who can afford NYC rents are a small minority of the city's population. 60% of the city's rental units are either rent-controlled, public or subsidized - and still 270,000 families are on Nycha's waiting list? Kicking out the few higher earners is an exercise in myopia.
27
@William LeGro: THANK YOU - and your comment SHOULD BE a TIMES PICK, because you have hit the nail squarely on the head.
3
60% of the rental units are somehow subsidized or controlled and you think its lack of affordable housing that is the issue.
The issue is we have a subset of people here who despite controlling the market feel entitiled to free or greatly reduced rents so much so that even when they die their heirs inherit the apartments. Great for them but not so those on the waiting list not to mention all us regular people schlepping in and out of the city to work (and pay taxes for that right) and living in good old suburbia. The reason the rents are sky rocketing is b/c the supply of actual market rate housing is so small relative to demand.
The issue is we have a subset of people here who despite controlling the market feel entitiled to free or greatly reduced rents so much so that even when they die their heirs inherit the apartments. Great for them but not so those on the waiting list not to mention all us regular people schlepping in and out of the city to work (and pay taxes for that right) and living in good old suburbia. The reason the rents are sky rocketing is b/c the supply of actual market rate housing is so small relative to demand.
7
and tell me, who should pay for all this? I am being serious.
20/80. 30/70, 50/50
you are demanding the second half to subsidize the first?
How about up zoning, giving city land to developers - or build it themselves since developer hatred is palpable. stream line the approval process , eliminate government and union corruption and featherbedding
I never hear real answers and solutions from the left , just demands.
20/80. 30/70, 50/50
you are demanding the second half to subsidize the first?
How about up zoning, giving city land to developers - or build it themselves since developer hatred is palpable. stream line the approval process , eliminate government and union corruption and featherbedding
I never hear real answers and solutions from the left , just demands.
An addition to my earlier comment: We should also create reasonable-wage jobs for government-sponsored housing to be taken care of by government workers, not private high-priced construction companies. What is wrong with us? Why don't we help each other?
12
"Why don't we help each other?" Because rich people are in charge and they don't give a flying fig about the rest of us.
But I think the rest of us mostly do try to help each other.
But I think the rest of us mostly do try to help each other.
5
"Her low rent allowed her to pay for...a parish school for her son.."
Wait. What? Huh? If this woman can afford to send her kids to a private school because of a rent subsidy, is she truly needy?
I'm not sure if my Illinois resident tax-money goes to subsidize this woman, but if it does, I'm not happy. I'm already very unhappy with what I see as unconstitutional subsidization of private religious education via charter schools and other furtive machinations towards a de facto voucher system. So finding out that this woman gets to send her kid to a private school with my public-education-funded-working-dollars doesn't make me happy.
If you are affluent enough to send your kid to a private school, then you shouldn't be getting any housing subsidies!
I know, I know. People say public schools are bad. Well, why is that? I say it's because middle class people like this woman are opting not to send her kids to public schools! It's the "my child is too good to go to public schools" syndrome. Well, fine. It's a free country. But why should I subsidize that?
PS: I'm wondering, are all of these "positive examples for their communities" white people? I wonder if a black family would be treated in the same way.
Wait. What? Huh? If this woman can afford to send her kids to a private school because of a rent subsidy, is she truly needy?
I'm not sure if my Illinois resident tax-money goes to subsidize this woman, but if it does, I'm not happy. I'm already very unhappy with what I see as unconstitutional subsidization of private religious education via charter schools and other furtive machinations towards a de facto voucher system. So finding out that this woman gets to send her kid to a private school with my public-education-funded-working-dollars doesn't make me happy.
If you are affluent enough to send your kid to a private school, then you shouldn't be getting any housing subsidies!
I know, I know. People say public schools are bad. Well, why is that? I say it's because middle class people like this woman are opting not to send her kids to public schools! It's the "my child is too good to go to public schools" syndrome. Well, fine. It's a free country. But why should I subsidize that?
PS: I'm wondering, are all of these "positive examples for their communities" white people? I wonder if a black family would be treated in the same way.
32
Don't worry - you don't subsidize this woman. New York City residents pay the federal government more than we get back. In fact, we may be subsidizing people from your area.
18
JB -- Actually, according to the Tax Foundation, the state of New York is ranked higher (42) on the federal taxes paid vs. federal spending received by states than Illinois, which is ranked lower at 45. http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-taxes-paid-vs-federal-spending-...
However, the last time they did that study was 2005 so it might have changed.
But I highly suspect that, considering the vast number of accountants and lawyers in New York, the tax rates paid into the federal government by New Yorkers has probably fallen, not risen.
However, the last time they did that study was 2005 so it might have changed.
But I highly suspect that, considering the vast number of accountants and lawyers in New York, the tax rates paid into the federal government by New Yorkers has probably fallen, not risen.
4
What difference does it make how she spends her additional income? Would it make a difference if she were using it to pay for music lessons for her gifted child? A local Catholic school is not Dalton. But it may offer a better education than the local public school.
All on-the-ball parents, including low-income parents, seek the best education opportunities for their kids. Even if they believe in public education, they're not necessarily going to sacrifice their kids to that idea.
All on-the-ball parents, including low-income parents, seek the best education opportunities for their kids. Even if they believe in public education, they're not necessarily going to sacrifice their kids to that idea.
6
I understand NYCHA's desire to keep higher earning residents in these housing projects for the purposes of being role models to the community and contributing additional rent payments. However, the higher rents shouldn't be subsidized to such a degree as they are. If the rules were changed so that families whose earnings exceed the threshold by more than, say, 20% or 30% (which is high enough to protect the 53% who only out earn the threshold by about $10,000), were required to pay market rent, that would help NYCHA's bottom line a lot more. Either those families would stay and pay market rent (which would probably still be cheaper than market rent nearby and save the families on moving costs and new lease fees) or they would move out and create an opening for a needy family on the wait list.
13
What would the 'market rent' be? There are really no comparables in private housing market. A four-bedroom apartment on the 78th floor, with marble bathrooms and gold=plated fixtures is a very different thing from a four-bedroom in a public housing project.
I would guess that a four-bedroom in a dilapidated public-housing project might be worth around $4000-5000 a month, but there is no way of proving that.
I would guess that a four-bedroom in a dilapidated public-housing project might be worth around $4000-5000 a month, but there is no way of proving that.
6
All of this is the result of a greatly distorted housing market in New York City - the chief causes of which are (I) over regulation (including the "scaffold laws") and (ii) rent control.
Unless the powers that be face these issues head on, the City will continue to fall behind on being able to house its citizens unless the government wants to invest massively in building dwelling units itself and that does not seem feasible in the least.
Unless the powers that be face these issues head on, the City will continue to fall behind on being able to house its citizens unless the government wants to invest massively in building dwelling units itself and that does not seem feasible in the least.
17
Not sure if we are both writing about the same, "scaffold laws," but they came about partly because a student at Barnard College was killed by a piece of masonry falling from a building in Morningside Heights. I was in graduate school at Columbia at the time, and had walked past that building earlier on the same morning.
Needless to say, I am all for the "scaffold laws," which have probably saved many lives over the years since they were enacted. Prior to this, there was no mandated inspection of building facades. I consider this an excellent, and much needed law.
Needless to say, I am all for the "scaffold laws," which have probably saved many lives over the years since they were enacted. Prior to this, there was no mandated inspection of building facades. I consider this an excellent, and much needed law.
1
OUR government needs to restore the FHA 236 program. My mother purchased a townhouse in a cooperative housing development near Seattle in the early 70s when she was a single mother raising three small children. She paid for the $1200 buy-in by working for the management office and owned a part of the entire development. People had to have a job to qualify to live there and the government subsidized the payment based on income. As her income went up so did her payment. When she decided to buy a home and move she sold her "membership" at a reasonable amount to give another person a leg up. Those are the kinds of programs that will make America a sustainable, fair, just place to live. A hand-up, not a hand-out. We should also pay for basic living places for the homeless, for a limited time, to get them off the streets and help them move to a sustainable life if they are able. If they are drug/alcohol addicted or mentally ill we should take care of them in another way. One size does not fit all in America but we can and must help everyone have an opportunity to live well.
19
So, if you decided to used drugs, and alcohol, we, the normal people of society should take care of you? That's more or less, Communism, let people do as they wish, and the governent will take care of them. There are many "mentally ill" people working at our local food stores, earning a good living without the goverments help. One size doesn't fit all, but at least find the size that does fit.
2
I lived in the Jacob Reiss houses over 50 years ago. Even then residents longed to move to nicer ,safer neighborhoods escaping urine smells ,broken elevators and criminal activity. We moved to park slope/ bay ridge when we could for reasons including the personal safety of my sisters. Most families would move if affordable housing outside the projects was available. It is a no brainer. Punishing them for climbing the economic ladder is not a good incentive and discourages them trying to become upwardly mobile. Anyone earning 500m should move to styvesant town unless they love the urinated halls and other aspects of near poverty in a city that has neglected the projects.
43
And who made the projects that way? They did not start out that way. Was it just an accident they are crime-ridden and urine-filled? Is it racism or classicm or some other 'ism' that somehow made people who were lucky enough to receive housing subsidies trash their own environment?
Does anyone really believe that if those huge housing projects were middle class, the stairwells would be used as toilets?
The only people who think it is not the fault of the residents of these projects are those who have never lived around poor people.
It is those of us who have escaped, using the tried and true methods of getting an education and working hard for years, that know the truth, which is that the best and brightest leave, generation after generation, leaving behind the old, the sick, and the dregs of society, who prey on them.
It is always the worst of Conservatives (no funding!) and Liberals (everyone's a victim!) who create a perfect storm.
Does anyone really believe that if those huge housing projects were middle class, the stairwells would be used as toilets?
The only people who think it is not the fault of the residents of these projects are those who have never lived around poor people.
It is those of us who have escaped, using the tried and true methods of getting an education and working hard for years, that know the truth, which is that the best and brightest leave, generation after generation, leaving behind the old, the sick, and the dregs of society, who prey on them.
It is always the worst of Conservatives (no funding!) and Liberals (everyone's a victim!) who create a perfect storm.
11
The public housing is essentially subsidizing the low wages with taxpayers money. That keeps marginal (and yet essential) businesses viable in expensive cities like NYC or SF and therefore keeping the cost down for everybody including the rich. So, it makes sense to tax the rich more progressively to finance more public housing as the housing cost goes up.
26
Wrong. If they really are essential businesses, some will always be viable and around to provide the services.
5
If there ever was an argument for doing away with public housing, rent stabilization and the like this article is it. Of course many that will end up commentating on here will fail to see that.
They will instead bemoan that rents are rising and these poor people have no where else to go. They will not be able to connect the dots that by having people live in units for 3 generations is a big contributor to rents rising.
Oh well have fun in Caracas North.
They will instead bemoan that rents are rising and these poor people have no where else to go. They will not be able to connect the dots that by having people live in units for 3 generations is a big contributor to rents rising.
Oh well have fun in Caracas North.
25
I think I speak for all New Yorkers when I state that I am quite happy that you do not live in our great city. Enjoy Maryland and Baltimore and of course, exemplifying all of the wonderful things about our country.
24
You speak for yourself and please get over this NYC is the greatest blah, blah schtick. I lived there for 7 years, met some great people but it's not the only place to live in this country. Folks get on quite well outside of NYC.
I'm pointing out the folly of the insane housing market there as a result of economic illiterate ideologues and poor leadership.
I'm pointing out the folly of the insane housing market there as a result of economic illiterate ideologues and poor leadership.
7
I was born in NY and we were almost taxed out of existence beore moving west. You can have your over crowed streets, taxis, and pollution. Some people like living like NY'ers, rats in a cage.
3
The tenant who has the huge taxpayer subsidized apartment says it all for me. Dilapidated projects should be demolished and the land sold to private developers. Use a portion of the profit to build new, lower height affordable housing in the Bronx, preferably in less than desirable neighborhoods so residents have little incentive to get stuck on some of the priciest real estate in the country. It's about time the city government starts using some economic common sense in managing poverty problems. Throwing money at poverty does not work. In the 50+ years since the war on poverty began, the problem is worse than at the outset. And the general mindset in areas of extreme poverty is phenomenally worse because of the 'free money' mentality that is pervasive.
38
Citizens of the Bronx are tired of the mentality of transplanting of low income residents to the borough due to gentrification. Find other solutions, as well as humility to live alongside people who are less fortunate than yourselves. There is a disproportionate amount of homeless shelters and transitional housing in the Bronx as private developers get $3,000 per month to house homeless families rather than building affordable housing to provide stability for that population.
18
@bfrllc: Bravo for what you said!
2
Of course, the Bronx was also a place once where the middle class could thrive. My cousin's family lived on the Grand Concourse, and as a child I was in awe of their sunken living room. The father was a bartender.
They had to flee when Section-8 came to their area and the neighborhood became too noisy and dangerous to be tolerable. That's when many sections of the Bronx were abandoned.
They had to flee when Section-8 came to their area and the neighborhood became too noisy and dangerous to be tolerable. That's when many sections of the Bronx were abandoned.
5
A three or four bedroom apartment in the 40's and 50's was not atypical of the hosuing stock of NYC. It has been the younger generations after who are willing tpo pay a thousand or 2 thousand a room for a studio who have made the 4 bedroom apartment either a luxury or a leftover of an era in publkic housing when allowing low income people to live on equal terms with the middle class was not considered a crime. a four bedroom in a public housing building is considerably smaller and less luxe than a million dollar-4 in on York Avenue, in one of the new dragons teeth down there.
Or have New Yorkers become so greedy and judgmental that they DO think low income people ought not to be allowed 4 bedrooms apartments, red meat or ice cream, with food stamps?
Or have New Yorkers become so greedy and judgmental that they DO think low income people ought not to be allowed 4 bedrooms apartments, red meat or ice cream, with food stamps?
15
Takers of society should be stripped of their handouts and subsidies. When you reward low-income individuals with the trappings of luxury (4 Bedroom apartments for example) what incentives are you given them to stop feeding at the Government trough? Answer: None at all.
19
I grew up in a 4 bedroom house as a poor kid.
But it was barely over 1000 square feet. And there 2 adults and 6 children there. 7 at one point when I had a foster sister.
4 bedrooms hardly always equates to luxury.
But it was barely over 1000 square feet. And there 2 adults and 6 children there. 7 at one point when I had a foster sister.
4 bedrooms hardly always equates to luxury.
4
@Blossom: in Cleveland -- no, it's not luxury.
In Manhattan or Brooklyn, it is INSANE luxury for the 0.1%....we are talking MILLIONS of dollars to have a 4 bedroom apartment. Heck, even a 3 bedroom would be rare. I understand even 2 bedrooms are now hard to find.
That is the difference. For what you spend to live in Dickensian penury in Manhattan, would pay for not merely a 4 bedroom house, in another city/state, but likely a high end McMansion with every bell and whistle, plus your utilities, plus maid service, plus your car payment (AND insurance), plus tuition or day care for your kids, PLUS retirement savings.
In Manhattan or Brooklyn, it is INSANE luxury for the 0.1%....we are talking MILLIONS of dollars to have a 4 bedroom apartment. Heck, even a 3 bedroom would be rare. I understand even 2 bedrooms are now hard to find.
That is the difference. For what you spend to live in Dickensian penury in Manhattan, would pay for not merely a 4 bedroom house, in another city/state, but likely a high end McMansion with every bell and whistle, plus your utilities, plus maid service, plus your car payment (AND insurance), plus tuition or day care for your kids, PLUS retirement savings.
1
The same problem exists in the suburbs. Housing, a basic need, has become unaffordable in many places. Developers put in luxury housing, McMansions, but nothing that the middle or working class can afford. We wind up living too far away from our places of work for a comfortable commute. This contributes to traffic and pollution. It also makes for longer days, less leisure, and more exhaustion. Then, if we're renters we have to worry about the landlord, the one month's security, the payment to the real estate agent, the first and last month's rent, and finally, if we ever get around to it, moving.
Somehow America has become a country where if you are not born into the right class, the very rich, you can count on having nothing decent: housing, food, education, medical care, legal advice have all started to become extras. When this country voted in Ronald Reagan and his crew of clowns, we voted against a prosperous middle class. We're paying the price now and will continue unless we decide that there is something more important than thinking we're going to be rich someday.
Somehow America has become a country where if you are not born into the right class, the very rich, you can count on having nothing decent: housing, food, education, medical care, legal advice have all started to become extras. When this country voted in Ronald Reagan and his crew of clowns, we voted against a prosperous middle class. We're paying the price now and will continue unless we decide that there is something more important than thinking we're going to be rich someday.
198
Rather than moaning about what you don't have blaming others or the "system," perhaps you should go out there any make what you think you so richly deserve. A lot of us worked hard and have, and don't have any sympathy for those who sit around complaining.
24
Ronald Reagan? When was that? We had Clinton, Bush and Obama after him;
I hope you will not start blaming George Washington :)
I hope you will not start blaming George Washington :)
8
Rather than telling me I'm moaning without knowing my history why don't you develop some empathy? I've worked hard for over 30 years. However, as a single female I don't have a second income to help me when I lose a job. I don't have a rich uncle offering to pay for a decent place to live. However, I pay my taxes, make barely enough to live on, and consider myself lucky that I have no medical conditions that need treatment. I think that as a worker I deserve a decent place to live. If I should ever read of your suffering I'll advise you to do the same: shut up and work harder.
51
Everyone wants to live off the public dole. Earn less than $69,000? Hey, you qualify for public housing. But if you start earning more you won't be kicked out. The "public" will continue subsidizing your rent. What a great deal for everyone but the taxpayers.
107
Try supporting a family on $69000/yr in NYC. A 2 or 3 bedrooms apartment can easily amount to more than 50% of income for a family making $70K/yr.
25
Why is such a family living in NYC? Takers of society need to go cold turkey from Government handouts and live where they can afford to live.
9
'...Michael Acevedo, 26, a third-generation resident at Fulton Houses who lives in his parents’ four-bedroom apartment with his sister, three cousins and the baby of one of the cousins...
Four bedrooms and eight people, only one a child.
If all of them even worked at minimum wage jobs, the family would bring more than $100,000 a year.
But why work when everything is 'free'?
Four bedrooms and eight people, only one a child.
If all of them even worked at minimum wage jobs, the family would bring more than $100,000 a year.
But why work when everything is 'free'?
10
Whoa! A four-bedroom apartment! Maybe there shouldn't be any of those in low-income city housing. Even a three-bedroom tempts people to have more children than they can afford.
Most people limit the number of children they bring into the world to the number they can rear responsibly -- and independently. I can't think of anyone I know who has a four-bedroom apartment. And even people who own their own homes do serious planning so that they can take their kids to the dentist and send them off to college; even state colleges cost something.
Four-bedroom apartments subsidized by middle-class people, many of who are young couples whose dream is to have a two-bedroom so that they can have a baby or two. Wow.
For that matter, not too many four-bedroom apartments even in the affordable, safe, bustling Brooklyn neighborhoods I know.
Most people limit the number of children they bring into the world to the number they can rear responsibly -- and independently. I can't think of anyone I know who has a four-bedroom apartment. And even people who own their own homes do serious planning so that they can take their kids to the dentist and send them off to college; even state colleges cost something.
Four-bedroom apartments subsidized by middle-class people, many of who are young couples whose dream is to have a two-bedroom so that they can have a baby or two. Wow.
For that matter, not too many four-bedroom apartments even in the affordable, safe, bustling Brooklyn neighborhoods I know.
148
I meant, of courrse, "many of whom are young couples . . . ."
3
Any critique of inefficient and misplaced subsidies for public housing need to acknowledge the much larger taxpayer subsidies that homeowners receive - on the backs of renters! - through the mortgage interest tax deduction. Readers are making good points and asking appropriately tough questions about who should benefit - and for how long - from public housing. But let's not veer off into Fox News territory by constructing a fantasy narrative about more affluent people being victims of federal tax policy.
73
Apparently many NYC residents are not aware that the Catholic Church and religious extremists pretty much ran NY and it's "birth control" laws before 1965. There were no sections of the drugstore selling prophylactics of any kind , in view.
No "pill" no IUDs, no legal abortion. A family's size was, as the local priest might say, in God's hands. In such a city a four bedroom apartment might be an absolute necessity.
People need to remember their, or our, history.
No "pill" no IUDs, no legal abortion. A family's size was, as the local priest might say, in God's hands. In such a city a four bedroom apartment might be an absolute necessity.
People need to remember their, or our, history.
17
I've never understood why so many people want to continue to live in New York. There's a whole, great big country out there to the West, full of opportunity and it's just ignored. So many cities and towns offer roomy homes with yards where kids can play and great schools nearby for a reasonable rent. If you're a two-earner family, it's still possible to buy a house in some lovely parts of the country. Why are so many content to live in cramped, smelly, dim apartments, crammed in with thousands of others, in a noisy, dirty, overcrowded city?
56
We live here because our jobs are here, our families are here, we didn't get any job offers outside of the NY area, etc. Furthermore, many people outside the New York area labor under the mistaken idea that New Yorkers expect outsize salaries and are too expensive to hire because of that. Of course, I've got an obnoxious follower, Concerned Citizen, who refuses to understand that if there isn't a job offer in hand one cannot pick up and move. That wasn't possible 30 years ago and is not a good idea now, especially if you don't have anyone to help you out.
When we had elected officials state and local office who were middle class, and when the rich actually paid real taxes things were better. Now that our country believes in greed and more greed things are harder for all but the very rich no matter where we live.
When we had elected officials state and local office who were middle class, and when the rich actually paid real taxes things were better. Now that our country believes in greed and more greed things are harder for all but the very rich no matter where we live.
25
Maybe consider that NYC is actually the most bustling metropolis in the country (if not the world). Center of Theater, Finance, Media, and all sorts of commerce. Since it's central to these disciplines and areas, there is a tremendous amount of growth and job opportunity. Why else to people flock here to live, work, and also visit.
(also on a lighter note, if people didn't live and work in NY, there would be NY TImes or it wouldn't have the reputation that it has to get people from all over the world following/reading it :) )
(also on a lighter note, if people didn't live and work in NY, there would be NY TImes or it wouldn't have the reputation that it has to get people from all over the world following/reading it :) )
11
It's still possible. My husband and I were from PA. We decided to "pick up and move" to CA in the mid-70s. No jobs. No home. We rented an apartment, found jobs, bought a home in San Diego, made friends and lived there 7 years. Then, we picked up and moved to Seattle in the 80s, same thing-no jobs, no home. But, we both were hard workers, had initiative and again, we got jobs and bought a house. We eventually divorced in the 90s, and I picked up and moved again, to a small town in Northern WA state, got a job, bought a condo and continue to live my modest, middle-income life. If you're willing to work hard, understand that not everyone can or should earn $100,000 a year and have an open mind, you can live a better life. I now look out my windows at grass, trees and sun. Deer come up to my deck at take apple slices I offer. I wouldn't go back to a city for any amount of money. Life is too short not to take a chance on having a better life.
5
The point of public housing is to have people of all economic backgrounds in the city, adding to the vibrancy of the place, allowing lower income people to not have to commute for hours from surrounding areas. So staying in public housing when your income rises above the allowed level is simply denying another the same opportunity, and goes against the spirit of the program. It is right to move these people on. Those who stay forever in these buildings are operating in self interest, not in the interest of the community, no matter what they are using their extra dollars to buy for themselves.
135
Dear LuckyDog,
The problem with that is, when people have barely gotten above the level of income in public housing, if they're evicted, there are no apartments or houses in the price range just above public housing's in the entire city. So when people are being forced out of the inadequate, broken-down, public housing, which we've barely added to in fifty years, they should be evicted to Wyoming where they'll be able to pay rent, because nowhere else in NYC will be available to them.
I guess if we want to get really draconian and anti-impoverished about it we could just jail or execute them once they're making a little more income, but it seems to me there must be a better way. Maybe Trump doesn't need 99% of the holdings he now has.
The problem with that is, when people have barely gotten above the level of income in public housing, if they're evicted, there are no apartments or houses in the price range just above public housing's in the entire city. So when people are being forced out of the inadequate, broken-down, public housing, which we've barely added to in fifty years, they should be evicted to Wyoming where they'll be able to pay rent, because nowhere else in NYC will be available to them.
I guess if we want to get really draconian and anti-impoverished about it we could just jail or execute them once they're making a little more income, but it seems to me there must be a better way. Maybe Trump doesn't need 99% of the holdings he now has.
14
If you're talking about an income of $500,000 -- the outlier amount used in the article -- I might agree with you. But newsflash: $60-80,000 for a family of four is not a lot of money in New York City.
We like to talk about the need for people to save and create wealth and then speak about putting them in a situation in which vast proportions of their income are going to be spent on housing and/or transportation. The value of having role models in a project who can afford something like a middle class lifestyle is important as well.
I grew up in a housing project several decades ago. People didn't stay if there were genuinely better alternatives and they had the income. They obviously don't now and are showing a commendable financial restraint.
We like to talk about the need for people to save and create wealth and then speak about putting them in a situation in which vast proportions of their income are going to be spent on housing and/or transportation. The value of having role models in a project who can afford something like a middle class lifestyle is important as well.
I grew up in a housing project several decades ago. People didn't stay if there were genuinely better alternatives and they had the income. They obviously don't now and are showing a commendable financial restraint.
10
f the point of public housing was to provide a boost to lower wage earners, it was based on the principle of class mobility. Government economic policies have created a crisis in both housing and class mobility. Who are the ones caught in this pinch? The wealthy? Surely not. When class mobility is restored to the American Dream, then NYCHA has a right to go after the ones who stay too long in public housing. That can happen when governmental economic policies stop enabling the wealthy at the expense of the rest of us!
2
Rather than kick the not-completely-impoverished people out the door, wouldn't it make a lot more sense to build more public housing? I know in Bloomberg's decades of rule this was impossible, as real estate moguls held sway, and public housing is not profitable, and money was the only thing that mattered. But now we have a mayor who actually cares about the impoverished, an incredible rarity in America, and it strikes me that he could maybe do something about this.
It's still true that every month or so I see a new 40 - 80 story high rise luxury condo building going up in midtown, blocking out the sky so that Eurotrash can have a pied-a-terre for a measly four million bucks or so. Seems by legislation we could force these incredibly rich and greedy real estate folks to make some of those units, like at least the ones below the 20th floor with no view to speak of, public housing. They could do that separate entrance thing, for the commoners, that the wealthy have gone with lately.
Anyway I think better than kicking people out of public housing, we need more public and more affordable housing, and far less luxury condos for the worthless, parasitic rich.
It's still true that every month or so I see a new 40 - 80 story high rise luxury condo building going up in midtown, blocking out the sky so that Eurotrash can have a pied-a-terre for a measly four million bucks or so. Seems by legislation we could force these incredibly rich and greedy real estate folks to make some of those units, like at least the ones below the 20th floor with no view to speak of, public housing. They could do that separate entrance thing, for the commoners, that the wealthy have gone with lately.
Anyway I think better than kicking people out of public housing, we need more public and more affordable housing, and far less luxury condos for the worthless, parasitic rich.
166
your so right when you said Lets be serious those high rises that are going up are not being even sold to new yorkers or for even that matter to Americans they are being bought by foreign investors who don't even live in those building.
As for the tenants that pay more rent they use to be able to go out and find better places to live with they amount there paying now one guy said he pays 1800 a month but if you look at pre gentrified nyc someone would pay 1000 a month for rents and the remaining 800 would go to utilities and food now that is long gone. But some of the folks that do stay in nyc housing also do so for that same reason that they do not have to pay utilities what so ever I know of people who ran their AC's for 24 hrs straight for 5 days during last weeks heat wave and had no worries because they didn't pay an electric bill. Imagine if any regular tenant had that luxury. Imagine if your landlord pays your utilities and all you paid was rent in a great neighborhood would you leave I highly doubt it. I agree with you on building more projects but where in this shrinking city would we put them lets be serious again for one moment if you look at crime rates and other factors areas with NYCHA buildings typically have higher crime rates then other areas in the city right now I would only say a few like fulton and others in nice neighborhoods don't because tenants don't wont to be relocated to some where like the tilden or pink houses and I believe my sources.
As for the tenants that pay more rent they use to be able to go out and find better places to live with they amount there paying now one guy said he pays 1800 a month but if you look at pre gentrified nyc someone would pay 1000 a month for rents and the remaining 800 would go to utilities and food now that is long gone. But some of the folks that do stay in nyc housing also do so for that same reason that they do not have to pay utilities what so ever I know of people who ran their AC's for 24 hrs straight for 5 days during last weeks heat wave and had no worries because they didn't pay an electric bill. Imagine if any regular tenant had that luxury. Imagine if your landlord pays your utilities and all you paid was rent in a great neighborhood would you leave I highly doubt it. I agree with you on building more projects but where in this shrinking city would we put them lets be serious again for one moment if you look at crime rates and other factors areas with NYCHA buildings typically have higher crime rates then other areas in the city right now I would only say a few like fulton and others in nice neighborhoods don't because tenants don't wont to be relocated to some where like the tilden or pink houses and I believe my sources.
3
In my opinion, there is sufficient low income housing. The city needs to entice developers to build middle income housing for those families and individuals earning between 50k and 90k per year. That is where the true housing shortage exists.
15
We do not need any more rich people in NYC, nor do we need any more poor.
It is insane to move poor people into luxury buildings, for which they will not only have no gratitude, but will complain if they do not have access to the perks they did not pay for, when the middle class is forced to commute many hours each day.
It is insane to move poor people into luxury buildings, for which they will not only have no gratitude, but will complain if they do not have access to the perks they did not pay for, when the middle class is forced to commute many hours each day.
7
This will be the downfall of America - when people can live better on government subsidies than on their own. Welcome to the permanent welfare state.
123
I echo that, if you are better off on public assistance than at low level job, why would you ever look for a job?
There is only a matter of time when majority of population get the message... then future looks bleak like Greece or Puerto Rico...
Who will give US bailout??
There is only a matter of time when majority of population get the message... then future looks bleak like Greece or Puerto Rico...
Who will give US bailout??
7
Is NYC housing available only to citizens or to anyone who wanders in?
1
Janet: as it is a sanctuary city, I am sure it is illegal to ask applicants or older residents if they are in the US legally.
2