« Thursday Linkage FSBO Gives Up, Hands Keys Over to Broker »

September 14, 2006

"Affordable" Condos Where Brownstone Stood

lot
When we reported last Spring on the Pratt Area Community Council's move to tear down a derelict but salvageable brownstone at 483 Washington Avenue in order to build new affordable housing, we made no secret of our dismay at the decision. The three posts on the topic generated a lots of discussion and even a lengthy response from PACC's director which we posted on the site. Although we recognize that PACC has been a very positive force in the community for a long time, we still strongly disagree with its decision to destroy a piece of Clinton Hill's heritage. And what for? We have just learned that the new building, to be called The Dewitt Condominium, will have eight apartments. The one- and two-bedroom condos will be priced from $212,000 to $284,000 (and, from the looks of the building site, won't be ready for some time). The email we saw had language straight out of a Corcoran listing: "These newly- constructed apartments have state-of-the-art amenities - bamboo floors, on-site laundry and modern kitchens." First time homebuyers who make no more than $66,469 and $79,763 (depending on family size) are elegible to apply through October 27th. Applications can be picked up at a PACC office or by mailing a SASE to PACC, Attn: The DeWitt Condominium, 201 Dekalb Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11205. Winners will be picked by lottery.

The profile of this development raises an interesting question: We see why a family making this level of income could use a helping hand, but does a single person making $65,000 a year really need or deserve a hand-out like this? Heck, we have some younger siblings recently out of college who would certainly qualify and we have a hunch they weren't who PACC had in mind when they set this up. It would also be interesting to know how these lotteries work. Are they really random or is there a lot of subjective screening that goes on to winnow it down to a small pool from which the lucky few are "randomly" chosen? Another question: Does PACC receive government grants or does it raise its money privately? Ultimately, to whom is it responsible?
What's Really Happening at 483 Washington [Brownstoner] GMAP
What a Difference a Week Makes on Washington [Brownstoner]
PACC Director Gives Her Side of the Story [Brownstoner]




Posted by Brownstoner at 8:58 AM | Comments (53)
Categories: Development

Comments

Those are legitimate questions, but why don't you also pose them to PACC's head Deb Howard?

Posted by: Anonymous at September 14, 2006 9:39 AM

those lotteries are completely fixed

the city ones as well

Posted by: Anonymous at September 14, 2006 9:54 AM

Maybe PACC could have found a better way to build condos than tearing down that brownstone--I don't know. And they should tighten their income requirements if they actually allow singles making $65K to get aid. But this hardly sounds like a worthless project (which is what "And what for?" implies, unless I'm reading your tone wrong). For starters, the price range, in the current market, is not "affordable" (scare quotes)--it's affordable. At least relative to the market. Surely you don't believe that, say, a family of four making $70K can easily buy a home in today's market. As for the "language straight out of a Corcoran listing," what's so sinister about that? People getting assistance with housing shouldn't have amenities? Should the apartments come with complimentary hairshirts?

As for the lotteries, I agree that, when the city is involved, there are better, fairer ways for the government to help needy people than lotteries from which only a few benefit. But this is a private group--right?--without the resources of the city, so I can hardly blaming them for trying to help in a small but concentrated way.

Posted by: linusvanpelt at September 14, 2006 9:58 AM

All of the housing groups in Brooklyn, PACC, Fifth Avenue Cte, Bed-Stuy Restoration, are heavily subsidize by the goverment. While well-meaning, I think for the most part these affordable home ownership programs are a sham. I know of one project where there was no “owner occupied” clause and the “lottery winners” never assumed residency. They just rented out the unit at market rate! I know of another family just selected for a unit in Downtown Brooklyn and they plan on moving up state and using the apartment as their pied-a-terre. They were told that was fine as long as they use the unit at least 30 days out of the year. As a taxpayer, I say cut out the middle man and give low income people subsidies earmarked especially for mortgages. Let them buy housing wherever they get the most bang for their buck.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 14, 2006 9:58 AM

thank you anon 9:54, especially for the citations of reports by the attorney general, comptroller, Independent Budget Office and Department of Investigation that prove your case.

oh, and this comment is from someone who failed to get an apartment in an earlier PACC lottery.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 14, 2006 10:00 AM

I'm curious to know more about the "fixing" of the lotteries. The posts I've seen advertised on HPD's site always state the categories of people who get preferential treatment in the lottery system, but I recognize that they may not always follow their stated guidelines. Anyone have any experience in these lotteries? Anybody ever won anything from one of them?

Posted by: NYCer at September 14, 2006 10:00 AM

BTW, if PACC is heavily govt subsidized, then I agree with 9:58 anon -- the government should be spreading its housing / low income assistance more broadly and fairly.

Posted by: linusvanpelt at September 14, 2006 10:01 AM

Linus,
We said that we see that a family of 4 making $70K could use help. A 25-year-old college grad making $40K can get a roommate as far as we're concerned.

Posted by: brownstoner at September 14, 2006 10:09 AM

Family of four making 70k should have had fewer kids.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 14, 2006 10:20 AM

Brownstoner, the whole affordable housing debate is politically charged. You're opening up a can of worms.

Your phrasing regading "does a single person earning 65k need this kind of help" as a somewhat rhetorical question belies an ignorance of the affordable housing industry. You may as well question if the sun will rise tomorrow. Believe me, this is a fight you do not want to fight.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 14, 2006 10:36 AM

for any of these lotteries, you have to meet various qualifications--income, family size--and then, no joke, all eligible entries are placed into a large clear plastic bag, and the winners are drawn out. this is done publicly.

the city subsizes a range of developments, from those for the very poor to those earning almost middle-income salaries. subsidies are much higher for the lower-income developments. but, as you can imagine, you can put $100k into one unit, or $10k into ten different units, and this balancing is really tricky.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 14, 2006 10:38 AM

This isn't a fight, it's a discussion. No reason that topics like these should be considered untouchable, even if most politicians are afraid to go there.

Posted by: brownstoner at September 14, 2006 10:44 AM

a friend of mine won a PACC local housing lottery to get his apartment several years ago. it required much more of the applicants than just getting your name in. you had to be a neighborhood resident for a certain period of time. there were numerous meetings that you had to attend. you also really do have to be able to qualify financially -- if a recent college grad couldn't pay the mortgage they wouldn't qualify. i think he was originally 80th on the list but ended up getting the first choice of apartments because of people dropping out.

Posted by: benno at September 14, 2006 10:45 AM

what about a single school teacher making only 45K a year or a rookie cop or a social worker. There are many sigles or young families that could use assistance buying their first home. I think there putting their money to good use..
not every brownstone is worth saving!

Posted by: knock knock at September 14, 2006 10:59 AM

That's why we are probing on the process and balance of subjectivity and randomness. Does it matter if that teacher is 25 or 45? If he/she has a $20K in the bank or $200K? If he or she is black or white?

Posted by: brownstoner at September 14, 2006 11:05 AM

what is the point of this discussion? The affordable housing industry is subsidized by the government and targets different demographics depending on the project. You may agree with it or disagree with it. There is nothing you can do to stop it except not voting for politicians who support so called affordable housing.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 14, 2006 11:15 AM

from what I understand the distribution of those lottery properties are decided before the homes are even built

I participated in one and was told that "all the more desirable locations had been given to the most highly qualified candidates in the first round"

How the heck does that happen in BLIND lottery...once you pass the eligibility requirements everyone should be on the same playing field..but there I go smoking that crack pipe again

Posted by: Anonymous at September 14, 2006 11:21 AM

PACC's rationale for tearing down the building was to maximize the amount of affordable housing that could be built on the site. Gaining more transparency on who will end up getting these apartments can help people, ourself included, determine whether they think it was, on balance, worth destroying a piece of the neighborhood's architectural heritage to be able to offer 8 apartments instead of, say, 4 or 5 if they'd rehabbed it instead. The whole thing's very subjective obviously.

Posted by: brownstoner at September 14, 2006 11:24 AM

BTW, Anon 11:15, we can do something other than not vote for politicians. We can provide a forum for discussion which can lead to many things, including getting politicians' attention. This isn't anti-affordable housing; it's pro transparency and accountability. This project may be justifiable but how else to know if there's not disclosure and discussion?

Posted by: brownstoner at September 14, 2006 11:29 AM

I agree Brownstoner. Disclosure and discussion is good. And I think knowing what variables apply to those who are eligible for the lottery would help. I agree that a 20 something single college grad making 45k should not qualify for any of these apartments. I also think an owner occupied clause (at least for a period of time, say 5 years) should be a requirement, otherwise it frustrates the purpose of trying to keep a diverse economic residency in the neighborhood throught the construction of such subsidized units if those who win the lottery and buy the apartments simply rent them out at market rate.

Posted by: lp at September 14, 2006 11:39 AM

Cops that choose to live in NYC get big breaks from the city to help them. Unfortunately most live outside the city in the suburbs altering their perceptions of city folks. Some even live in New Jersey (big no no) and rent studio apartments in the city using it as a primary address so they don't violate the law (often these rented city properties are sublet, why live in the dirty city with all those misfits when you can be in New Jersey!)

Posted by: Anonymous at September 14, 2006 11:40 AM

I've looked into lotteries for some time and can't make sense of the selection process. I agree on having transparency for the selection of winners. I would like to know that individuals who really could use it end up in the homes. It should consider a person’s entire asset base not just their salary and family size.

BStoner, I'm a brownstone fan, but if more unit can built on the site and its derelict then why not tear it down. Just PLEASE don't put up one of those brick bland homes.


BStoner, I'm a brownstone fan, but if more unit can built on the site and its derelic then why not tear it down. Just PLEASE don't put up one of those brick bland homes.

Posted by: QBorBK at September 14, 2006 11:59 AM

oops!! one too many ctr-v's.

Posted by: QBorBK at September 14, 2006 12:00 PM

Seems like plenty of misinformation and heresay today.
There is no city residency requirement for policemen. Period.
'Heavily subsidized' by gov't - okay so back it up with some info. Perhaps truth is some of their projects are subsidized but not same thing as the org is 'heavily subsidized'.
And 'I heard about some family moving upstate and told only have to occupy for a month a year'. Reeks of rumor and little in fact.
I also wonder how fairly these lotteries are done - but rather than repeat unsubstantiated cynical comments as truth, I'd like to have some facts. Been plenty of rumor combined with speculation and pure off-the-cuff opinions on items on this blog that end up being way off the truth.
These condos may have strict resale (price limits) and occupancy and lenght of time requirements - I don't know and unless someone wants to call PACC and get the answer the whole discussion is pretty mute.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 14, 2006 12:03 PM

oops , moot.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 14, 2006 12:03 PM

and hearsay, not heresay

Posted by: Anonymous at September 14, 2006 12:18 PM

I seems that many of the comments boil down to, 'Run the lottery the way I would run the lottery.' I'd guess there are some good public-policy suggestions hidden behind the skim-coat that this discussion is. Thank you, Anon 12:03, because I am even more sure that there is even more ill-informed general distrust.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 14, 2006 12:55 PM

brownstoner, sorry, you are mistaken. Discussion will not change affordable housing guidelines. affordable housing is funded by tax incentives, which are multi faceted, including government tax credits legislated by federal mandate. Who passed this legislation? Politicians, that's who. It all goes back to the tax legislation. You are treating this as if it is a single decision about a single project. It is not. the project is a symptom of the way the legislation is written. By politicians. Trying to change a project based on the merits is a non starter. The project conforms to the tax incentives. Simple as that.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 14, 2006 1:20 PM

you're talking about the low income housing tax credit. it is by no means the only funding source for affordable housing.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 14, 2006 2:44 PM

and the low income tax credit program does not mandate how to run a lottery.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 14, 2006 2:54 PM

p.s. and the LIHTC does not mandate how to run lotteries.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 14, 2006 2:58 PM


Why we call these affordable apartments, it should be called subsidized apartments; they are partially paid from my and your packets (taxes) to benefit less fortunate (hopefully).
Affordable apartments are market price apartments; someone can afford them if they sell right?
Not affordable apartments sit on the market forever because nobody can afford them.
The name is very misleading or maybe my english skills are not up to date.

Posted by: malymis at September 14, 2006 3:13 PM

no i'm not talking about the low income tax credit. obviously you know nothing about the affordable housing industry.

as to whether these are affordable or not is irrelevant. it's called affordable housing.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 14, 2006 4:05 PM

Anon 12:03- It seems there IS a residency requirement for NYC Police (according to the NYPD website anyway) http://www.nypd2.org/html/recruit/faqs.html#US_citizen

You do not have to be a NYC resident to take the Police Officer Exam, but on the day of appointment you must reside in New York City or one of the surrounding counties of NYC which are: Westchester, Rockland, Orange, Putnam, Nassau, or Suffolk counties.

Maybe folks don't adhere to it, but that doesn't mean that it's not out there.

Posted by: Anonymuse at September 14, 2006 4:18 PM

Brownstoner--

You have every right to your opinion and I am sure you're just trying to stir the pot, but your post comes off as uniformed, overprivileged and snide. If you have an issue with the process, why not call PACC and discuss before you start spouting off. Deb Howard was more than happy to respond last time.

Personally, I would rather see 8 deserving families or singles stay in the neighborhood vs. saving 1 derelict brownstone. I lived across the street from that building for almost 6 years and it was an eyesore and nusiance the entire time. I'd much rather see PACC build something on the site rather than have some scummy developer tear it down and throw up another Fedders monstrosity or "luxury" condos.

Posted by: clinton hillbilly at September 14, 2006 4:41 PM

anon at 4:05:

ouch!


i know about a variety of sources for affordable housing development that are not tax incentives, like community development block grants, HOME funding, and city capital dollars, which get passed on to developers by city agencies. and they all have different rules about who is eligible for them, and what portion of the area median income households are supposed to make.

what i was trying to say was that lots of money for affordable housing is federal, and the result of legislation, but the details (down to how the lotteries are run) are not part of the legislation.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 14, 2006 5:10 PM


I don’t know anything about subsidized apartments. In one form or the other someone gets the discount and someone else is going to pay for it and it is not a government (they just moving our money around). Please prove me if I am wrong.
I am not saying that assisted living is necessary bad thing but calling this affordable housing is not accurate.

Posted by: malymis at September 14, 2006 5:35 PM

Clinton Hillbilly,
That was part of our point. There are plenty of people who are relatively privileged (who's to say what "over" privileged is), or certainly aren't "under"priviliged, who could duck under these income requirements. What makes someone "deserving", as you say?

Posted by: brownstoner at September 14, 2006 5:58 PM

All of the programs you describe are driven by SYNDICATED TAX CREDITS. If you don't understand how funding for affordable housing financing works, do not post.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 14, 2006 7:21 PM


Any one who feels like it can post -- this is a free blog afterall!

Of course the lottery system for selling subsidized housing is unfair. Why should some people work two jobs while others can work one and qualify for a tax payer subsidized apartment?

It's complete BS if you ask me. Want cheap? Move to Newark, Down South, or Buffalo!

Posted by: Anonymous at September 14, 2006 8:39 PM

Alaska!

Posted by: Anonymous at September 14, 2006 10:07 PM

Alaska is not cheap!

Posted by: anon at September 14, 2006 10:41 PM

obviously anyone CAN post

the question is whether posting BLATANTLY INCORRECT information is the best use or your time or the other readers' time

Posted by: Anonymous at September 15, 2006 6:09 AM

if you want to send me a link about how syndicated tax credits drive the affordable housing industry, i'd be happy to learn about it.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 15, 2006 10:27 AM

Federal low income housing tax credits have nothing to do with this PACC project...they're strictly for families earning less than $30-odd a year. And I'm pretty sure they have to be used for rentals.

I think it's great that PACC and other Bklyn housing orgs are going beyond the tax credit program's limitations and finding creative ways to do ownership for moderate-income families.

Posted by: midwooder at September 15, 2006 10:43 AM

I am sure that PACC gave a lot of thought to their guidelines. So whoever they consider eligible is fine by me. They are a well-established, well-respected community-based nonprofit run by thoughtful intelligent people.

I know many people who purchase homes (myself included) get financial help from family members and developers certainly get government subsidies, so why not individuals who don't have these resources.

I don't begrudge people who qualify for a program applying for it and hopefully getting the chance to purchase an apartment they can afford. I don't want to live in a neighborhood entirely made up of "brownstoners."

Posted by: clinton hillbilly at September 15, 2006 12:35 PM

You've got to be kidding. The entire affordable housing industry is built around syndicated tax credits. You can't "send a link" on it. That's like saying send me a link on how automobiles run on gas.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 15, 2006 1:41 PM

Does PACC have a website? If so, it probably explains something about the financing of their projects. Usually, it seems to me, these types of organizations get sporadic bits of money from 1)politicians who happen to want to be associated with them, 2)much more than that from foundations, and 3)some from running their housing projects, though someone who works in this field told me they never make any money from these developments.


But I wouldn't call them "subsidized" by the government; in fact, it's the other way around: private foundations are subsidizing what government ought to be doing because the market cannot and/or will not, which is to provide what, in the annoying, confusing and imprecise jargon of housing advocates, is called "affordable housing." If this is "subsidy," then so are the 421a tax abatements that even luxury developers get outside of Manhattan.


Also, I think generally the contributions of government and foundation money are used very efficiently by the addition of regular old private financing that can be leveraged on top of the gov/found. commitments.

Posted by: Maud at November 6, 2006 2:37 AM

This lottery was fixed! I applied very early, the date stamped on the envelope was 9/29/06. My application was sent back to me "marked return to sender unclaimed"!
I sent it with more than enough time for them to pick it up from the PO Box. Afraid I made a mistake and sent it to the wrong address I double checked the application to be sure and everything was correct.
FIXED, FIXED, FIXED! I'm upset I wasted my time and postage.

Posted by: Upset in East Flatbush at November 19, 2006 3:41 PM

My friend had the same experience -- early application, returned to sender unclaimed. Our tax dollars are supporting this organization. Is there some governing body that is supposed to ensure that the lottery is run on the level?

Posted by: Perturbed in Park Slope at November 27, 2006 2:07 PM

I can't say I have a clue about what affordable housing is or what the level of income should be before you can qualify, but I can say, if I get picked in the lottery, this will be the ONLY apartment I can afford to buy anywhere within 40 minutes of Manhattan by subway.

I'm a little past 35 and have been living in a three bedroom apartment for the past 9+ years with two roommates so I could save for a downpayment on an apartment. I have enough for a downpayment now, but when I do the math on common charges and mortgage costs it is just not possible for me to afford something close to Manhattan. I live well within my means, saving about 30% of my GROSS income and even this does not seem enough when you start looking at having to spend upwards of $2500 on monthly costs.

I, for one, hope PACC can do this same thing over and over again, even if I do get picked in this lottery. I know too many people who have been forced to leave an area they love simply because it has become economically infeasible for them.

Posted by: Chris at November 29, 2006 5:21 PM

This article from the NYT (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A03E4DF1131F937A15751C1A9609C8B63&n=Top%2FReference%2FTimes%20Topics%2FPeople%2FC%2FChamberlain%2C%20Lisa) reports that the demolished brownstone at 483 Washington was "beyond repair". It also says the new building will have 16 apartments -- 8 sold at market rate to subsidize the other 8 -- and that the city refused to subsidize it.

Don't know if anyone is still reading this thread, but it's some interesting information.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 2, 2007 2:05 PM

This may be a bit late but as far as the govt aid being fair, if Bruce Ratner can get some financial help . . .

Posted by: blueeyeguy at October 15, 2007 6:17 AM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions