« Tuesday Linkage Bedford Bums: Numbers 813-815 »

July 25, 2006

Commentator Balks at Mayor's Housing Plan

Arguing that Bloomberg's affordable housing plan will in effect increase housing costs for middle-income New Yorkers, Nicole Gelinas, of the Manhattan Institute, outlines the theory that regulating prices acuses supply to become restricted. The result? Housing becomes more valuable and prices rise for living space still on the free market. She also makes the generalized argument that rent stabilization leads to the deteriorization of housing conditions by depriving landlords of revenue needed for upkeep, forcing them to cut corners. Granted, some single mothers may not be able to afford their apartments without government regulations, she says, but that's "a problem of the dysfunctional underclass."
Bloomberg's Housing Horror [NY Post]

Comments

First of all, let me state that I don't know all that much about how all of this works, I have never been a rent controlled or stabilized renter, and am a market rate landlord, with only 2 tenants in my brownstone. So I am not going to make a lot of comments about something I really don't know about, but my initial impression is that Ms Galinas' data has been interpreted in the narrowest way possible to get the results she wants to see.

Well, consider the source - the Manhattan Institute, a right wing think tank. Her interpretation of the data puts all of the onus on the tenants, and on a bleeding heart system, none anywhere else. It's the tenants' fault that landlords let buildings go to hell. True on occasion, but everything is true on occasion. Oh, the rightious anger of the Harlem tenant who feels they are subsidizing the little old lady down the hall.

Please, it's much more complicated than that, and while I think the system needs a major overhaul, I think the premise in helping those who need help to pay housing costs in one of the most expensive cities in the world, is an altruistic and noble cause. Does it work all of the time, of course not. Do people abuse it, yes, they do. Should it be fixed - by all means, and quickly.

And to say that single motherhood is a problem of the "disfunctional underclass" is just plain ignorant and absurdly stupid, as well as the usual far right wing strategy of blaming the victim. Single mothers come in all income groups, first of all, not just the "disfunctional underclass" variety. Secondly, to hold them up as the poster children of rent control is both disingenuous and a cheap shot.

Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at July 25, 2006 11:42 AM

If the rent-stabilization is so punitive why are there - as she claims 29,000 new stabilized units ?(any new unit added is voluntary - city is not forcing anyone - just enticing with incentives- to become part of system).
And what economic theorist says if landlord received more rent he would spend on improving building rather than increasing his profit margin?
Already there is program that if landlord improves building will get higher rents - but of course that is ignored by right-wing think-tank propagandists.

Posted by: Petebklyn at July 25, 2006 12:05 PM

"I think the premise in helping those who need help to pay housing costs in one of the most expensive cities in the world, is an altruistic and noble cause."

Excellent point, CrownHeightsProud. How about putting your money where your mouth is by renting the unit in your brownstone to a poor, single mother for $300 a month? Actions speak louder than words!

Posted by: CrownHeightsProwd at July 25, 2006 12:18 PM

Ah, an Ann Coulter wannabe without the benefit of plastic surgery and peroxide. I have been a rent stabilized tenant and without it I would probably be living in Podunk right now. Yes there are people who abuse the system, but as far as rent control, Ms. Gelina seems to forget that the biggest complaints are about all those rich people who live in huge 10 room apartments and have no kids. Moving them out (by now most of them are quite elderly) would not be for the sake of opening up more affordable apartments, but rather more luxury housing- so the rich and the landlords have the most benefit. Ms. Gelinas suffers from the "money can buy you anything syndrome." Alas- it doesn't buy you a life or brains.

The other side of the coin is that the City pays through the nose for much of its subsidized housing because there are landlords who also abuse the system. And break the law by not keeping buildings up to code and safe. It's a vicious cycle, but there is no excuse- none- for allowing a building to fall down around its tenants and then complain they don't pay you enough rent. I doubt Ms. Gelinas has ever set foot in a tenement building and seen first hand the terrible conditions poor people are often forced to live in. No- I think she doesn't have time between the Institute and the spa. To actually blame tenants for a landlord's irresponsibility is outrageous. If a landlord is not making money he should get out of the business. If he will not assume the responsibility of being a landlord, he has no right being one. The rent stabilized building I lived in for many years was always well-maintained and the landlady insisted it be so. Because that's the way she does business. And she holds quite a few properties- all of them kept up. Trust me- she is not starving.

And speaking of dysfunctional, what else can you call the kind of ultra right-wing conservative thinking Gelinas and the Manhattan Institute indulge in? I think we can all agree the system is flawed and that there is enough blame for both sides. But let developers have free rein? That's a mistake that will create only luxury housing and enormous hi-rises while taking subsidies for and breaking their promises to build affordable housing. It's already happening. Gelinas makes the mistake of thinking the City will survive and prosper with just the rich. Which tells me she neither understands the mechanisms by which Cities exist, nor the importance of the interrelationships between all sectors.

I think the ultra right would love to make NYC into the world's largest gated community, where they don't have to sully their delicate sensibilites by seeing the poor and unfortunate, industry or real life.

Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at July 25, 2006 12:19 PM

Ah, CrownHeightsProwd, if that's all you got, put your pea shooter away, and go home. The adults are talking here.

Bx2B, good point about the rent stablized tenants in large lux buildings. You are right, giving them the boot may help their landlord, and the person lusting after their apartment, but does absolutely nothing about solving the problems of affordable housing in New York. It just makes good press and anecdotal fodder for right wing commentators.

Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at July 25, 2006 12:34 PM

I must say I'm quite surprised to read so many thoughtful posts about the city's rent protection laws. Usually it's just rants about how unfair the system is and the specious argument that abolishing rent protection would somehow make NYC apartment prices go down.

In a building I lived in, there were 33 rent-controlled tenants (this was under the loft law, and rents were frozen until owner obtained residential CofO). There were also two commercial tenants in this building. The landlord made so much money on this building that he earned the entire purchase price back in less than two years. And, after the tenants waited for 12 years for repairs, we stopped paying our rent completely. And guess what? The landlord still made money every year, because of those two commercial tenants.

If rent-stabilized landlords are hurting so much, they should produce just one--just one!--landlord willing to open his/her books and prove it.

Posted by: TenantAdvo at July 25, 2006 1:14 PM

Is it me, or does it appear that the posts attributed to CHP are not really from her?

Posted by: crouchback at July 25, 2006 1:31 PM

There's crownheightsproUd and crownheightsproWd.

As far as the article goes, it's unclear who Gelinas wants you to feel sorry for.

The landlords? Well, if you're supposed to feel sorry for them, then they shouldn't take the freebies and the discounts they receive when they OPT INTO the program.

The tenants? I suppose you could argue that it creates a little bit of a luck system, but the idea that there does exist affordable housing doesn't seem to be an overall negative from tenant's perspective. Also, her whole the landlord will run the place into the ground argument doesn't work in the case of mixed-income housing. Unless she thinks that some floors or some wings will be designated subsidized and other floors or wings will be open market and the landlord will just let the subdizied floors/wings go to pot. Except that doesn't make any sense.

Right-wing idealogues? Ah. Now we have a constituency. They hate anything that "interferes" with the market, even if it's completely optional (which they'll argue for in lieu of mandatory regs) and the facts of the matter be damned.

Terrible piece. Trying to cram ideology into a fact pattern that doesn't support it.

Posted by: Mateo at July 25, 2006 1:59 PM

I'm not surprised by your response, CH Proud. As expected, you talk a good game on these boards, but when it comes to sacrificing your own profit margin, you conveniently dodge the issue.

Typical, and it shows where your heart truly lies.

Posted by: CrownHeightsProwd at July 25, 2006 2:49 PM

You're right, Mateo- the misspelled Crownheightsprowd is not the real CHP- just a cheap wannabe.

Nicole Gelinas always writes like a second tier Ann Coulter. Neither is good anyway- just very good at poorly thought out, ideological verbiage. And when that doesn't work- go for the insults. What many people forget is that many of the laws and regulations were written in response to abuses and needs. It's piecemeal of course, and an administrative nightmare, but for the most part laws were enacted in response to things. So while Gelinas may think the free market will improve things, past experience has taught us over and over that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Give developers and landlords a completely free market and rents will skyrocket while a glut of expensive living spaces will sit empty because there won't be enough people who can afford to rent or buy them. But that's the quality of the thinking at the Post and the Manhattan Institute. Anyone who can blithely write off poor and lower income people as the "dysfunctional underclass" needs a serious reality check. And an education.

Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at July 25, 2006 3:13 PM

Didn't we just have this discussion?

http://brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2006/07/bushwicker_make.html

Posted by: Arsenic and Old Lace at July 25, 2006 7:03 PM

We have had this discussion Arsenic, but it's an onging discussion. Until rent stabilization is phased out by "high" rent decontrol (say, 10-15 years from now), we won't get to see supply and demand in full effect in the five boroughs.

Until then, we have to keep building mixed-income housing that has a twilight clause built in so that we will be able to see the grand experiment in fulll effect eventually.

Posted by: Shahn Andersen at July 25, 2006 8:34 PM

Obviously if someone chooses a monicker which clearly apes and is meant to confuse the reader (i.e. CHPwd vs CHPud), there is no point in taking them seriously.

I guess I want to live in a society in which we take responsibility to create minimum standards for health and safety. Some of that we do through safety regulations and building codes. Thus the "New Tenement Law" in the 19th century which demanded that all bedrooms have natural light and air. I guess we could create massive new public housing to fill the demand from low-income people. Certainly when the projects opened during the last century the poor were quite happy to leave the privately owned buildings (often in awful conditions). The experience since then has shown that even well-run public housing (and if you compare NYCHA with Philadelphia, New Haven, Boston or Chicago you will realize it is relatively well run and in good condition) creates unintended social consequences by isolated the lowest earners and the non-working. So we try something new by creating incentives and requirements for private developers to build mix-use housing. Sure it is social engineering, but so is paving the roads, requiring children to be vaccinated, etc. It distorts the market, but so what? The failure to attribute real costs (environmental wear and tear, increased asthma rates, increased burdens on existing city systems) to new development unjustly enriches private actors at the cost of the rest of us. Every decision, and each of us is ultimately compromised.

Posted by: Putnam-denizen at July 26, 2006 9:02 AM

Putnam-denizen,I'm with you 100%. It's very clear that every aspect of urban living has an impact on every other aspect, no matter how distant. Gelinas I'm sure knows that but admitting it will not serve her purposes. I always thought the mark of a successful society is how well all of its people are doing- not whether or not one particular group is doing better than the rest. And there is good reason- when one group prospers at the expense of the others, the social fabric is weakened, then torn. I don't know if that makes me a "leftie" (I am anyway), or a "commie" but I do know it makes me a realist and history will back me up.

Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at July 26, 2006 10:28 AM

Putnam-Denizen, you are correct. Thank you for bringing up the very valid point that everything is connected. What we balk at correcting today in the name of fiscal responsibility, or just plain mean spirited cheapness, daisy chains down the line to something we as a society will pay even more for down the line, ie: not getting rid of lead paint in city owned buildings leading to increased costs of remedial and special education, to uneducated and dysfunctional adults to increased law inforcement and prison costs. The cost to delead an apartment - thousands. The cost of the rest - millions. Even if policymakers don't give even a piece of a damn about the people they are helping, simple economics should convince them that doing the right thing in the first place is better.

I won't hold my breath.

Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at July 26, 2006 11:19 AM

What is interesting about this board is how people make use the moniker (or lack therof) as an excuse for evading difficult questions. In the past, those opposed to the Atlantic Yards would forever be criticizing those who posted anonymously - now my statements are being dismissed solely on my selection of a screen name. And if I persist with this question, I will surely be dismissed as a troll.

CrownHeightsProud sneers at the person angered at "subsidizing the little old lady down the hall", but is clearly not willing to do the same herself.

So, in conclusion, I think it's only fair that those who apply rules to others should be willing to live by those rules themselves. Anything else is hypocrisy.

Posted by: CrownHeightsProwd at July 26, 2006 11:47 AM

CHwP,

1) Of course you're going to catch flack for your moniker. You're either doing it to create the appearance that you're CHuP or as some sort of snide mockery of her. Why you expect any sort of positive reaction for doing so is beyond me.

2) Other tenants are not, "subsidizing the little old lady down the hall" ... the city is by providing tax breaks, free land, and perhaps zoning exceptions. If the developer does not wish to construct mixed-income housing, then so be it. But if they do, it's ultimately on the city's dime.

3) Simply because you believe in something at a social level does not imply that you must personally enact it if society chooses not to do so.

Examples: If you think that there is a lack of housing in New York, why are you not moving to Connecticut? It would lessen the housing demand in New York, no? Or is that hypocriscy? Or if you're againt social engineering, then you should not take out any deductions when doing your taxes, right? Or if you support the mission in Iraq, then why not enlist?

I could go on but the point, I believe, is fairly clear. And no, I don't believe that my examples are fair. But that is symptomatic of the underlying tenet that you must make every one of your individual actions harmonious with your beliefs on social policy. It is simply not feasible or fair to demand.

Now, what are the, "difficult questions" that you have been presented from pursuing or people have avoided answering?

Posted by: Mateo at July 26, 2006 12:21 PM

Also, Putnam-denizen, very well put.

One of the most personally influential classes I had in college was taught by William Julius Wilson, an amazing (and highly, highly regarded) scholar in the field of urban sociology and planning, and the number one problem he saw for urban living was that of the ghetto. And more precisely, that of middle-class black flight after the desegration of the 1960's. It removed the underlying strength of the urban community: taking away capital, investment, and role models. The culmination of this problem is, of course, housing projects. And a very appealing solution is mixed-income housing to diffuse our income classes amongst each other. So that kids grow up in stable communities and the, "culture of poverty" eventually ends.

Posted by: Mateo at July 26, 2006 12:36 PM

CHpWd- you can expect people on this board to not take you seriously when you very obviously pick a board name meant to harrass one person, and then consistently attack that person without reason. When will you figure it out that CHP earned her respected status with her knowledge and well thought out posts and those of us who have read them these many months know where she stands. You should wise up- we all understand what you're trying to do here. At least you can't use someone else's screen name anymore- you did enough damage with that.

Mateo- thank you for that information regarding Wilson. I honestly never realized that about how desegregation caused the Black middle class to leave their urban communities and the effect it had. I grew up in a mixed neighborhood and I live in one now that is rapidly becoming more mixed- I wouldn't want to live any other way. These neighborhood are full of life and sound, the neighbors are friendly, it's classic NY. I've always thought such neighborhoods were vital to the health of the city, but until you posted about Wilson I couldn't point to the factual reason why.

Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at July 26, 2006 4:51 PM

My dear Prowd,

I'm not ducking you, or anyone else. I do have to wonder why someone who insists on being taken seriously, would choose a moniker someone else already has, and then change one letter. With all of the problems we had with annoying trolls, one could only think that the troll has decided to register and continue the harassment, and frankly, from your posts, I see little to change my mind about your true motives here. Somehow, I don't see you renting to the single mother for $300 a month either. I can't afford to, frankly, but
doesn't mean I don't do plenty of other things to try to make things better for all kinds of people. But you don't know that about me, do you? In fact, you don't know anything at all about me, so before you start throwing stones, look to your own affairs. If all you can do is sling accusations at anonymous people on a blog, you aren't a part of the solution, my friend.

Mateo, thanks for the vote of confidence, as well as a well thought out response to Prowd's diatribe. Your report on Wilson's theories was also very interesting, and makes perfect sense. An interesting conundrum, indeed, and just another reason why being black in America is a many layered, complex combination of things. Much to think about there.

Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at July 26, 2006 5:35 PM

Attack that person withour reason? Why is pointing out a glaring inconsistency between belief and behavior an attack or harassment?

Thanks for admitting that your decision boils down to money, CH Proud. No, I wouldn't rent an apt. for $300 a month, because I openly admit that I like to maxmize profits. You, on the other hand, say one thing and do another. Just as you don't appreciate people making assumptions about you (which I never did - I just stated a fact based on information that you volunteered), I'm sure that developers and owners of rent-stabilized buildings don't appreciate people doing the same to them.

Posted by: CrownHeightsProwd at July 28, 2006 1:27 PM

« Tuesday Linkage Bedford Bums: Numbers 813-815 »

July 25, 2006

Commentator Balks at Mayor's Housing Plan

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions