« State Raises Affordable Housing Bar for 421-a Bill Atlantic Yards Demo Update »

June 20, 2007

Albee Square Deal Closes, Fewer Apartments Planned

When the deal was announced back in February, the consortium of investors purchasing the groundlease for the Gallery at Fulton Mall from Thor Equities had big plans: 475,000 square feet of retail space, 125,000 square feet of Class A office space, and 1,000 rental apartments (with 20 percent set aside for tenants of moderate income). Since the deal closed last week for a reported $120 million, it's come out that the housing component has been scaled back by about 35 percent. The 1.6-million-square-foot tower (which will be anywhere from 40 to 60 stories) will still have 650 apartments, but the switcheroo is expected to result in a loss of about 70 affordable housing units, something that has community groups pissed off. The new owners haven't announced what they're going to do with the extra square footage from the 350 axed apartments yet.
Developers Pare Housing Plan for Albee Square [NY Observer] GMAP
Expansion, Skyscraper Planned for Albee Square Mall [Brownstoner]
Albee Square [Acadia Realty]

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/1431

Comments

Time Warner Center of Brooklyn? Part of the development team (MacFarlane Partners) also developed the TWC.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 10:27 AM

It seems only fair - 70 of the 350 axed apartments is 20%. And 20% of the 1000 were affordable units. So the proportion of affordable housing v. market rate housing remains exactly the same.

Posted by: EJ at June 20, 2007 10:37 AM

Here's a link to the project description from the Arcadia website:

http://www.acadiarealty.com/Docs/Albee%20Square.pdf

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 10:47 AM

You may be correct with the percentages, EJ, but the end result is much different. Most of the current and planned development for downtown is luxury and market rate (which seems to be the same thing, mostly). A loss of even a couple hundred apartments in this group will hardly make a ripple in the pond.

However, there is nowhere near enough affordable housing being built. Developers lop off that end of the deal first, always crying poor, that they can't afford to build the units that helped the passing of the plans in the first place. The loss of even 70 units means 70 families will have less of a choice where to live. This has more of a human impact than to a higher end buyer, for whom the entire industry is overbuilding on every piece of land in sight.

People have every right to be pissed off. It's just another promise broken. I doubt if anyone is even surprised.

Posted by: Sterling Silver at June 20, 2007 11:06 AM

I pray the space is going to be used for class A office space -
BTW based on the proposal it looks like the building will be 70' taller then the Williamsburg Savings Bank - which is ok by me

Posted by: David at June 20, 2007 11:13 AM

Sterling, great comments, but I don't supposed most here will agree as the attitude mostly is 'If you don't make 100K a year you desire to live in the hinterlands'

Posted by: Anon at June 20, 2007 11:14 AM

Yep more office space would be great for downtown Brooklyn.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 11:16 AM

Good points Sterling, but I doubt most here will agree as the attitude seems to mostly be 'if you don't make at least 100K you don't deserve to live anywhere convenient to Manhattan or in nice neighborhoods.'

Posted by: Anon at June 20, 2007 11:16 AM

I just looked at the project description and I'm excited about this. Hopefully it delivers on its promise to bring stronger retail options to Brooklyn.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 11:17 AM

What is it with NYC? Are there other cities where people spend all there time whining that they can't afford prime real estate? Most people just live where they can afford. Where does this sense of entitlement come from?

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 11:20 AM

There will be plenty o' affordable housing once the Brooklyn tulip craze corrects itself.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 11:21 AM

11:20 - It's not about entitlement - it's about living somewhere for many years and then not being able to afford to live there anymore.

Posted by: Anon at June 20, 2007 11:30 AM

Is there a plan for parking? Sounds like a (or an additional, considering all the development) traffic and parking nightmare for Fort Greene and Boerum Hill.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 11:36 AM

It seems like some developer could make tons of money building a tower full of efficiently-laid-out yet small sqftage rentals, thousands of small units, rented or sold for "affordable" prices. It's what I would do if I were a developer -- talk about high volume, you'd rent/sell out in a heartbeat. Why deal with all those picky pain-in-the-ass high end buyers, having to source wenge wood, when you can just fill up a building with people who aren't so picky? The fact that this isn't a huge trend leads me to believe there's some zoning or other regulation in the way.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, I can't keep track of the byzantine housing/zoning regs.

Posted by: Jeremy at June 20, 2007 11:38 AM

You mean that some people might actually have to move? How terrible. And I thought that AIDS, war, poverty, famine, etc. were the real world problems.

But now people might not be able to live in the neighborhood of their choice! Oh, the tragedy of it all...

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 11:40 AM

11:40 AM
Yep it's idiots like you who are screwing up Brooklyn with the entitlement you think money brings you with no thought of the people who made the neighborhood you want to throw your money around in good in the first place.

Posted by: Anon at June 20, 2007 11:45 AM

11:30 - but isn't that just a fact of life - I mean lets say you grow up in Brooklyn Heights - should you be able to afford to live there right out of college? What if you don't graduate HS - should you be able to afford Brooklyn Heights then? What if you run a hedge fund and live in a beautiful Bed Stuy Mansion for 20yrs and then the hedge fund goes bad....should the government make sure that there is an apartment for you to move into? What if you grew up the daughter of a doctor in a Upper East Side Townhouse that your parents bought for 1M but now 30 yrs later you've graduated Med School and have a very lucrative practice (i.e. your doing everything 'right') but since the upper east side has appreciated so much a family size house or apartment in the same neighborhood will be 10M, which is beyond your means (even though you are rich) - what should the Gov't do in that case? - Should the doctor be banned from moving to Brooklyn b/c it will drive up prices here? -

Look I am all for stable neighborhoods, and their are some things the Govt can do w/o destroying the market (421a, vacancy decontrol etc) but at the end of the day, thinking that Government should insure you that you can live in the same neighborhood forever is ENTITLEMENT.

Posted by: David at June 20, 2007 11:48 AM

Here's my fantasy for this site. The developer also buys the adjacent Dime Savings bank, connects it underground to whatever is built on the mall site and one of the world's great museums - Oh the Met maybe - opens a Brooklyn outpost in the combined space.

Posted by: CB at June 20, 2007 11:48 AM

Its about managing a healthy urban environment. When you push all the poor and working class out of an area they work in you increase the transportation burden on the city. Build your elite enclaves in the Hamptons but downtown Brooklyn needs space for the people who work there.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 12:02 PM

But do those people work in that area? There isn't much commercial space and metro-tech is for more upscale white collar workers. Not so sure about that. Anyway the tulip comment was apt. There are enough cheap 'luxury' condos being built to cause a major oversupply and when the market crashes it will probably take years for it to adjust.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 12:13 PM

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 12:14 PM

David, who said anything about the government insuring anyone's right to live in the same neighborhood forever? The complaint appears to have been directed against a government that entitles developers to redefine an area's economic base with luxury versus affordable housing. BTW, has anyone seen the impact studies related to this 70 story tower? I can't imaging that a building of this size only a 1/2 mile from WSB and Atlantic Yards is going to be good for the already congested Flatbush Avenue Extension. And luxury housing of this type is certainly not being marketed to the subway-riding types, so it can only get worse

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 12:21 PM

Do you actually think the admins, security, maintenance etc. working at Metro Tech can afford what the prices have become within miles of downtown?
Get real - for every 'upscale white collar' person working there, there are 2-3 support and service workers. And where would all the yuppies be without someone to serve them their $6 coffee?

Posted by: Anon at June 20, 2007 12:22 PM

Sometimes I think that some of the posters at this sight are insensitive nitwits...
If it weren't for the long-time Brooklyn residents of modest means, who rented and owned, paid taxes and kept these neighborhoods going, people like yourselves wouldn't even want to live in Brooklyn... just like none of you overpaid nitwits wanted to live here back in the 70's,80's and early 90's... you all stuck up your collective noses at the mere mention of Brooklyn.

Quite frankly I don't think many of you folks have the guts to put up with the
ups and downs of living in this city long term...
you're all riding the "good time" wave like a pack of lemmings, and when the bad times hit you'll be grabbing your collective arses and running back to where ever you were spawned.

I am truly sick and tired of the elitist
attitudes posted on this site towards the longtime residents, (renters and owners alike), of Brooklyn, from what seems to be "green behind the ears" overly cocky, clueless twerps.

I am an owner too, and have been for 24years... but I treasure the diversity, on all levels,here in Brooklyn, and heaven forbid this area turns into a haven for clods like some of these posters at this site.

I might add, I love to see new development done properly, and do enjoy
the energy that newcomers to the area bring, but come on now, cool the elitist
attitudes... those attitudes are really tacky...

Posted by: bren at June 20, 2007 12:32 PM

bren - I hear you, having lived here nearly thirty years in what was an iffy neighborhood we always hoped the neighborhood would improve and in time it did. But now we see all the negatives- the loss of a sense of community, long time renters who must leave for cheaper apts, favorite old stores shutting down, and the greed and feeling that every scrap of buildable space must be used. Atlantic Yards - Manhattan has many low rise apartment buildings but everything here has to be 40 stories. Why? The real estate developers are sleazy, constantly gaming the system that is supposed to protect us. I find it very depressing.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 12:43 PM

I'm so glad so many on this board came from money, or have been so successful in life, that they can look down their collective noses on those who have worked equally hard, but not at the same income level, and resent the hell out of them.

We're not talking about an UES doctor, we're talking about teachers, city workers, secretaries, firefighters, nurses, retail store managers and transit workers. All of those jobs that aren't stock brokers, doctors, lawyers. No one is saying they have to, or even want to, live amongst the hoi polloi, why do people keep insisting that that is the main issue here? The issue is that affordable housing for the middle class is not being built in a fashion that promotes healthy neighborhoods, where a cross section of the economic strata come together in a neighborhood. This is how most towns and small cities live, this is even how the UES and UWS used to be. We aren't even talking about lower income housing here, but affordable middle class housing.

If a loose definition of ghetto is a segregated community of a certain group of people, then this city is building ghettos for the rich, isolated from the rest of us. Really nice ghettoes, to be sure, but totally separated from the life and vitality that a mixture of everyone brings. This is not just the market speaking, it is directed and planned.

We better start thinking about ALL of the people in this city, not just the rich. The city can't run without the rest of us. We have to find legal and practical ways to insist that our needs are met, or this city will not be the shining beacon of culture and civilization that so many think it is. It seems to be less so every day.

Every time a developer lops off the affordable housing part of his project, AFTER THAT AFFORDABLE COMPONENT ALLOWED HIS PROJECT TO PASS IN THE FIRST PLACE,
we, as a community, don't just lose a couple of apartments, we lose more of a grip on our place in the city we love. This cannot be allowed to happen over and over again, and then gloss it over as the whining of people who can't afford to live in a place they can't afford. It is much, much more than that.

Posted by: Sterling Silver at June 20, 2007 12:49 PM

Bren & Anon 12:43...I beat you all...I've lived in CG for 54 years, and I feel the same as you do. Over the past couple of decades, things have changed for the better in Brooklyn because we fought for change and for the life of our neighborhoods. Fortunately, we were successful. However, the change that is coming now is something else altogether. Elitist attitudes aside (which quite honestly make me seethe), the ramifications of OVERdevelopment are distressing, and there seems to be a serious failure on many levels to recognize the problems we will face in the future.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 1:06 PM

well said, Bren, Sterling, and the several "anons". the point is perfectly made by anon 12:21: The complaint appears to have been directed against a government that entitles developers to redefine an area's economic base with luxury versus affordable housing.

Redefine is the operative word- it destroys an existing neighborhood,and displaces residents. I used to live in that area, always shopped in downtown Brooklyn. It would be one thing if fulton St. were not so financially successful- but it is. It just doesn't live up to the "refined esthete " of the people who have suddenly discovered what a great place it is. So it can't be said that the galleria will "save" the area, it doesn't need saving. What they are doing to taking a successful area and building on the backs of others. Now that's a real sense of entitlement.

Posted by: bx2bklyn at June 20, 2007 1:08 PM

Regardless of income level, the central point remains: no one is entitled to live in any one area just because they were raised there.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 1:17 PM

Bren/Sterling Silver...brilliant incisive comments and spot on to the spirit of what Brooklyn is all about (any thoughts of careers in politics?).
All this overdevelopment is only going to result in some of the most overpriced slums of the future when the boom collapses...and trust me, you arrogant fools with fat pockets and heads to match, it will.

Posted by: Neighborgood at June 20, 2007 1:20 PM

Put affordable housing where it's needed the most - Brownsville, East New York, Canarsie, Flatbush and East Flatbush. Downtown Brooklyn ("the Gateway") along with the waterfront should be designated the premier residential and commercial section of the borough. It's right next door to the city's economic center and sits in the middle of the borough's most affluent communities (i.e., brownstone Brooklyn).

Housing affordability should be dictated by market forces. Get rid of rent control, rent stabilization and, while setting higher building standards for developers in Brooklyn, allow them to build as much as the they want to. Eventually an overabundance of supply will put downward pressure on property values, especially condos and make things more affordable.

Just like the poor have no inalienable right to live on 5th or Park Avenue, we do not need to accommodate them in prime real estate communities such as downtown Brooklyn. If they want to live in downtown they should earn their way like everyone else: through education, professional motivation, hard work and drive to succeed.

Albee Square is a great development for Brooklyn's future. In twenty years, the best views in New York City will be from downtown Manhattan looking out to the East River and the Brooklyn skyline.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 1:22 PM

Sterling Silver, this is not a town or small city. Your fantasy of different social strata existing in perfect harmony is just that, a fantasy. Doctors, lawyers, MBAs, etc. are not suddenly going to join hands with busboys, custodians, and barmaids and sing kumbaya (or vice versa). Like it or not, most people stick to their own and like it that way.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 1:23 PM

People certainly didn't "stick to their own" when I was growing up on the Upper East Side in the 1970s. Custodians and barmaids (and teachers and clerks) did live there. Sure, the lower-income folk lived in the crappy tenement apartments and the doctors and lawyers (and literary agents and magazine editors) got the nice prewars, but they all lived in the same neighborhoods. No reason they can't do that now.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 1:41 PM

wow, we actually managed to stay on topic for about an hour and then we veered of into a meta-discussion. a proportion is a proportion, and 20 percent affordable is just that. like david and 11:16 (the first), i am very much in favor of increasing the amount of office space at albee square. wasn't that what the downtown brooklyn plan was all about? keeping businesses from moving to jersey?

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 1:44 PM

RE: Sterling Silver 11:06
You're way off base -
1) This is a 'as of right development' and no special NYC government permits are required.

2) The amount of affordable housing is pegged to tax-exempt bond requirements set by the IRS. It does not make economic sense to include more affordable housing above the required threshold.

RE: 11:30am
1) The development is not forcing anyone out of their homes. This is being built on a retail site. Instead of dislocation, there will be a net increase in housing units if built. That means more people will have homes.

RE: 11:45
1) How is the Albee Square development damaging downtown brooklyn? This isn't a residential neighborhood.
2) You refer to people with money as having an 'entitlement'. The same arguement can be made for those who demand to live in a certain neighborhood regardles of their means. Should New York create a special system to allow the poor to occupy prime high cost real estate? Who will pay for this? Should we increase taxes and force developers to build luxury high rise building with stainless steel to accomodate the poor?

RE: 12:02
1) This development is including a lower income component to address your concern. Providing 20% affordable units to families making 42k or less is a way of ensuring poorer residents remain downtown.
2) "Build your elite enclaves in the Hamptons" - bad suggestion. Not only are you promoting income segregation but also suburban sprawl. No great city operate well by segregating the classes.
3) Additionally, this development is NOT an exclusive enclave - if that were the case there wouldn't be any affordable housing.

RE 12:21
1) It's unlikely that a significant minority of residents would drive. Where are you getting your information? Are you seriously suggesting that because they can afford the new apartment they'd rather sit in traffic for an hour versus getting to Lower MN in 15 minutes on the subway.... Probably not.

RE: 12:43
1) How is this developer acting "sleazy"? The City upzoned downtown brooklyn to facilitate new residential development helping to increase unit supply. Downtown Brooklyn was a natural corridor for growth, helping to channel pent-up market demand away from more establised neighborhoods. Describe the insidious activity occuring here.

12:49 Silver-
1) Again, the ratio of affordability has remained to same, as required by law. The overall project has been reduced in size. The Developer did not "lop-off" the affordable housing component.
2) Describe the loss of culture occuring in New York. If you're relating culture to income - that's unfortunate. FYI: The level of poverty in the city has remained fairly constant over the last five years. So, using your reasoning, we should have the same amount of culture.

RE: 1:06
1) Not everyone agrees that high-rise development downtown constitutes a problem. Many see it as both an economic and quality of life improvement.

Posted by: Fez at June 20, 2007 1:55 PM

"If they want to live in downtown they should earn their way like everyone else: through education, professional motivation, hard work and drive to succeed."

What an arrogant idiotic thing to say. We're not talking about high school dropouts here, we're talking college educated hard working people. Not everyone aspires to only make money, but take jobs that amongst other things help others, create the art and culture etc etc.
Why should they (I) be forced out of where I've lived for almost two decades because rich people can't afford Manhattan anymore and took over my neighborhood?

Posted by: Anon at June 20, 2007 1:57 PM

what people are failing to understand is that many teachers can't afford to buy in brooklyn. teachers with MAs. these are hard working educated people doing good work in the community and they can't afford to buy. how is this not a problem?

america's middle class is what separates it from the third world. to the wealthy on this board--trust me, you WANT a middle class buffer in your commnities.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 1:58 PM

"The complaint appears to have been directed against a government that entitles developers to redefine an area's economic base with luxury versus affordable housing."

How is replacing a (failing) mall with a mixed use retail-office-hotel-and apartments(20% of which will be affordable) = redefining an area's economic base with luxury vs. affordable housing - Fulton Mall has virtually NO housing now.

The problem is that so many people think that 'affordability' is something that the government creates - when in reality it is created by market forces, if in fact this is all one big bubble (and it might be), then all of you people bemoning the current trend toward luxury housing should be happy - since it is the formerly 'luxury' housing built in past bubbles that provide the affordable housing today (i.e. Brownstones in Eastern Brooklyn, Large sections of the Bronx and upper Manhattan to name a few) and surely the quickest way to pop this bubble and return this housing to affordability is to encourage as much building as possible. BTW - this is how the market works and it is funny to me how so many people fail to see how their desire for (and success at obtaining) restrictions on supply under the banner of affordability - help to make this one of the least affordable cities.

Posted by: David at June 20, 2007 1:59 PM

Sterling Silver

I agree that there are pockets where developers create those 100k silos and the overall vitality of the borough specifically and the city generally. However, I've lived in Brooklyn for 15 years before moving to Queens and then back to Brooklyn.

While I was here for the first 15 years we lived where it was affordable, Flatbush. When I graduated college i lived where my salary could afford me Queens and when my earnings power climbed i was able to live in the nicer neighborhoods (P. Slope and B. Heights). I guess the point I'm making is the culture of entitlement is so pervasive that the people who are getting displaced by the people making 100k should focus on the things that allow you to earn 100k... education and focusing on social and economic mobility.

Everyone complains that teachers, firemen and policemen can't afford to live in the areas where they work, but i counter that they're the ones choosing the career path that doesn't pay. If new teachers became scare and budding police/firemen decided the money wasn't there it would force the City/State to make adjustments. But the changes right now (i.e. luxury condos) are a sign of the times and progress necessarily leads to displacement.

People aren't moving to Brooklyn because of the abundance of great schools, or the low occurrence of fires. Low crime has driven some of it, but low interest rates and the deserve to be a home owner were the fuel for the fire.

Hopefully the new more affluent residents and the subsequent kids will help populate the schools and raise overall standards of learning - there are benefits to gentrification.

Posted by: blackberry at June 20, 2007 2:01 PM

Bren/Sterling Silver and Neighborhood, thanks again for so eloquently stating the reality and what's going on here. People wonder why crime is going up. Yeah it's concentrated in some neighborhoods but sooner or later it's gonna touch everyone. Those kids realize that they don't give a fuck about them, they're not gonna give a fuck about you and all hell will break lose.

Another thing, NYC is one of the few large cities in the world where rich people can so freely walk around most areas in the city, without worrying about getting kidnapped and having to travel in armored vehicles with security and stuff. We got crime, but nothing like other big cities. After working in Mexico City, it really hit me how good we have it here. It's such a thin line to maintain that balance. These folks need to wake up.

Posted by: noname at June 20, 2007 2:02 PM

Bravo, Fez - well said.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 2:07 PM

1:57 I don't understand - isn't that "rich" person who "can't afford Manhattan" any longer who then moves to Downtown Brooklyn in EXACTLY the same boat as you who cant afford downtown Brooklyn anymore and then is the (relatively)"rich" person who moves to Windsor Terrace?

Posted by: David at June 20, 2007 2:09 PM

This board is full of lazy, unmotivated, liberal, whiners who are chronically and habitually looking for handouts. I'm on vacation and I can't for the life of me figure out why some of you are not getting fired by your employers. You blog all day when you should be doing something more productive like driving revenues for your company. You think successful lawyers, doctors, bankers, traders and such have time to blog all day long? Hell no! Why so much hatred and jealously towards the successful white collar professionals? We are the engine of growth in this city. We are the ones who are taking Brooklyn to the next level, not you NIMBY, crunchy granola, self-entitled, tight wad, cry babies.

"I've been a homeowner for 25 years. I've been a homeowner for 54 years." STFU! So what? Now you want a Scoobie Snack because your butt was old enough and lucky enough to purchase a brownstone in Boerum Hill or Carroll Gardens for $25K back in the 1960's?!? Well my friend, some of us paid $2M-$5M to buy townhouses in Brooklyn and there is no way in the world we are going to allow the equity rich but cash poor knuckleheads such as yourself dictate the course of future development in this borough - thank God that money and power still rules the day. You idiots have nothing to lose but WE DO!

We are all very fortunate that the city's urban planning is not being run by the pathetic flower children of the sixties but rather savvy business men like our fine Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Here is a man of vision! If left to your own devices you whiners and handout addicts would destroy the "new Brooklyn".

If developers and businessmen get filthy rich from the vast opportunities created by Brooklyn becoming the "New Manhattan" so what?!? These are going to be the same individuals who are going to turn around and make substantial donations to arts, cultural and educational institutions in our borough! When BAM needs to build a new building, the Brooklyn Museum is looking to expand, or a private school is looking for additional funding, who's going to support this? THE RICH, THAT'S WHO!!

For all the equity rich but cash poor residents of Brooklyn who so deeply love the borough, how come no one is selling any of their properties to make substantial donations to our borough arts, cultural and educational institutions who desperately need additional funding? You guys are so full of shit!

That's it for me. I'll get back to reading the Wall Street Journal and you guys can get back to the Village Voice.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 2:12 PM

"NYC is one of the few large cities in the world where rich people can so freely walk around most areas in the city, without worrying about getting kidnapped and having to travel in armored vehicles with security and stuff."

Umm, ever been to Asia, Europe, or hell, Chicago?

Tokyo, Seoul, London, Paris, Toronto--I could go on and on.

There was a lot of ridiculous things that were written here, but to say that NYC is unique because people of means can freely walk around the city without a tank or armored security detail has got to be one of the most absurd posts ever.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 2:13 PM

"I guess the point I'm making is the culture of entitlement is so pervasive that the people who are getting displaced by the people making 100k should focus on the things that allow you to earn 100k... education and focusing on social and economic mobility."

See that's the problem with that mentality blackberry. Not all jobs will pay $100k and SHOULD pay $100k. and just because someone doesn't make a $100k doesn't mean that should be pushed to the far edges or outside NYC and spend 4 hours commuting in for jobs THE CITY needs to SURVIVE. And that is what's happening now.

Starting salary for cops are $25K and doesn't get much higher. Many can't afford housing on that salary and the city is struggling to hold on to the good ones. SHOULD cops make $100k a year? Are YOU willing to pay taxes to support that salary? What about teachers? Do you want to pay teachers $100k and are willing to pay taxes to support that salary? And if you don't, does that mean they deserve to live way out and spend hours commuting? Is that good for your kids and schools?

What about Nurse aides, LPNs, Social workers, day care workers, transit, construction workers, admins, tech guys, cooks, waitresses? Jobs that are integral part of city life. Jobs that you need qualified skilled people to stay in for years to be experienced and expert, but not necessarily making $100k.

We really need to think long and hard about that philosophy and where we are going with this.

Posted by: noname at June 20, 2007 2:19 PM

anon 1:57 You wouldn't be forced out if you had bought.

Also, for the record I know plenty of teachers that own in Brooklyn, many that even bought recently. No not in Park Slope maybe or the top floor of the ORO.

Brooklyn is a big place people. Most people cannot afford their first choice.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 2:27 PM

1:23 and others,

Do I get to stay in my neighborhood if I work for free and get my very own slave quarters?

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 2:31 PM

"and just because someone doesn't make a $100k doesn't mean that should be pushed to the far edges or outside NYC and spend 4 hours commuting in for jobs THE CITY needs to SURVIVE."

Talk about extremes and outright misinformation!!! Philadelphia is 1.5 hours away from New York City and Washington, DC is 4 hours. Get a clue.

If teachers, firemen, policemen and other low wage earners want affordable housing, they can move to Brownsville, East New York, Canarsie, Flatbush and East Flatbush, to just name a few places where housing is very affordable (e.g., single family homes can be bought for $300k and 3 bedroom apartments can be rented for under $1,000 per month). Are you saying that they are too good to live in such communities? Instead of depending on logic to support your arguments some of you would rather resort to outright lies and misdirection to make a point.

Let's make it clear, the low to middle class have plenty of places to live in NYC as there are a slew of affordability communities outside of prime Manhattan and the Brooklyn brownstone belt. If you want to live in a prime area, then step up your game and buy into it like everyone else. Otherwise, move into a fringe neighborhood, roll up your shirt sleeve and invest some good old fashioned blood, sweat and tears into improving a community.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 2:40 PM

21st Century statement: If teachers, firemen, policemen and other low wage earners want affordable housing, they can move to Brownsville, East New York, Canarsie, Flatbush and East Flatbush

20th Century version: If you black people want to work and not being harrassed move up North to places like Harlem and Brooklyn and you can create your own ghettos there.

Posted by: supergirl at June 20, 2007 2:49 PM

21st Century statement: If teachers, firemen, policemen and other low wage earners want affordable housing, they can move to Brownsville, East New York, Canarsie, Flatbush and East Flatbush

20th Century version: If you black people want to work and not being harrassed move up North to places like Harlem and Brooklyn and you can create your own ghettos there.

Posted by: supergirl at June 20, 2007 2:49 PM

"and just because someone doesn't make a $100k doesn't mean that should be pushed to the far edges or outside NYC and spend 4 hours commuting in for jobs THE CITY needs to SURVIVE."

Translation: "waaaa I like that neighborhood. I want to live near all the cool bars and restaurants or my life is over. Who cares if I can afford it. I deserve it and I am entitled to it. waaaaa"

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 2:59 PM

"...they can move to Brownsville, East New York, Canarsie, Flatbush and East Flatbush, to just name a few places where housing is very affordable (e.g., single family homes can be bought for $300k and 3 bedroom apartments can be rented for under $1,000 per month)."

When was the last time you saw a house for $300k that didn't need an additonal $100k in renovations, even those areas? And those areas are starting to become gentrified too. You need to get a clue.

So after Brownsville, East New York, Canarsie, Flatbush and East Flatbush gets gentrified, where else pray tell can middle class folks move to? Oh, Philadelphia! D.C.! And just commute to NYC every day.

That's beyond stupid. It's downright scary people think this way.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 3:01 PM

no name -

I'm not saying that cops or teachers should make $100k, I'm saying that cops and teachers, two equally able groups chose those career paths. No one said join the police force and make 25k or else. Additionally, I'm not in favor of raising taxes to pay 100k salaries but if you avoid a critical function en masse, you force the city/state to confront more structural issues and find alternate ways to pay.

If you can't live in a prime area - move to where you can afford to live. I couldn't afford to live in a prime area out of school.... i did my time and climbed the economic scale and then found a place.... others should think about doing that. I live in a rental where 20% went to affordable housing but when my lease renewal arrives and I'm paying 20% more, guess who I'm subsiding..... thought uncle sam taxed me before i get my paycheck, not my landlord.

I'm moving into a condo building where the developer refused to provide affordable condos because it didn't make economic sense. At least some developers won't roll over.

Posted by: blackberry at June 20, 2007 3:02 PM

I am seriously befuddled - I get opposing tax incentives for building luxury housing (although there are arguments that could be made in favor), I get policies designed to prevent fast market forces from quickly displacing who neighborhoods; but I really don't get what you people want to be done so that the most desirable neighborhoods remain 'affordable'.
So please I get that many of you think it unfair that you cant live where you desire but please provide me a concrete solution/policy that will result in what you are advocating

Posted by: David at June 20, 2007 3:04 PM

Translation: "waaaa I like that neighborhood. I want to live near all the cool bars and restaurants or my life is over. Who cares if I can afford it. I deserve it and I am entitled to it. waaaaa"

Real Translation: I (2:59) want to live near all the cool bars and restaurants or my life is over. Who cares if I can afford it. I deserve it and I am entitled to it.

Posted by: supergirl at June 20, 2007 3:10 PM

To the person who claimed that teachers cannot afford to buy in Brooklyn:

That's such a crock! I know a teacher who owns a BUILDING with a rental unit in East New York. She and her mother bought it after saving for three years. There are studio and one-bedroom co-ops in East Flatbush, Midwood, and Crown Heights that are within the range of a teacher's salary. As another poster said, they may not be able to afford Park Slope or Carroll Gardens, but there are plenty of other areas in Brooklyn where they can own a home.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 3:28 PM

BTW if you are all going to debate this; you should at least be clear on some facts - 1st NYPD starting salary is 25K but it goes up to 32K in 6mo and will increase to 60K in 5yrs - that btw is BEFORE overtime, night differential and other perks - it also ignores that cops get 4 weeks vacation (and after 5yrs they get 27days), unlimited sick days, free health care and get to retire at 1/2 pay (inc overtime) after just 20 yrs.
Teachers make median 60K a year can easily make 90K+ if they continue to get credits and they work on average 200 days a year.
As for affordable housing, there are still plenty of nice family sized apartments in this city (Bronx for example) that rent for less then 1700 a mo and homes that can be bought for under 300k.

Posted by: David at June 20, 2007 3:31 PM

So after Brownsville, East New York, Canarsie, Flatbush and East Flatbush gets gentrified, where else pray tell can middle class folks move to?

3:01: You don't. Economic forces say that this is the perfect time to return to slavery. Do you like attics or basements?

Posted by: supergirl at June 20, 2007 3:31 PM

Fez, high rise development may bring about economic and quality of life improvements, but don't forget that it still does constitute a problem. Where's the infrastructure to support the development? Unless I'm missing something, I don't see the city, state, transit authority, or developers, doing much of anything to accommodate all the new people who will either work or live in these towers. That's a significant issue in areas where no high rise development existed previously. Witness the petitions being circulated to increase service on the F train in Brooklyn...small potatoes compared to high rise development downtown...but a case in point that at least that portion of the transit system as it exists today cannot handle the volume of new people moving in to those neighborhoods served by the F train. The TA says it would be at least the year 2012 before service could be increased in the form of F express service because of system reconstruction. 2012? By then we'll need platform pushers to cram all the riders onto the trains as they do in Japan. In all the discussions on this website, which all too often descend into bitter arguments about race and economics, I have seen little or nothing discussed about support services and infrastructure improvements needed for all the new development that is coming to Brooklyn.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 3:43 PM

NYPD starting salary is 25K but it goes up to 32K in 6mo

Yeah, and we all know you can rent with no problems for 32K :thumbs up:

32K is well below the starting pay of places like Suffolk at 58K, and 100K after five years. NYPD officers only dream of retiring at 100K. And the city scratches its head at why they can't get enough enrollees.

Posted by: supergirl at June 20, 2007 3:43 PM

I am not saying 32K is a lot or enough, I am just saying don't mis-inform people by trying to make it seem like cops earn 25k forever.
Additionally 32K is what I made on my 1st job (AFTER graduate school) and more then alot of people make after 6mo on the work force - finally there are plenty of nice (1br) apartments that rent for $1000 a month in this city - which is something a cop could afford after 6mo on the job.

Posted by: David at June 20, 2007 3:50 PM

"Only the dead know Brooklyn...." so I guess I'll just lie here and spin in my grave cuz people like befuddled David are killing me.

Posted by: Neighborgood at June 20, 2007 3:51 PM

Well, which ever prophet or philospher who said it was right - the next civil war in this country will be a class war. Some of the comments here are damn scary.

First of all, I did not read one comment by anyone who argued for mixed income housing or neighborhoods say that people deserve to, or wanted to live where they could not afford to. This is always the first line of defense by those personified by the "waah, I want to live near cool bars" crowd. I doubt your average school teacher and fireman is overly concerned about his or her social life. They are usually too busy trying to make ends meet and spend some time with their families to worry about the proxcimity of cool bars.

What frightens me more is this in your face, aristocratic, entitled mindset that is more 18th century European caste system at its worst, rather than an enlightened 21st Century, post 9/11, we're all in it together, New York City. What do we have here, a combination of apartheid like economic segregation married to Blade Runner?

1)The best of the waterfront and downtown areas should be the exclusive enclaves of the rich.

2)Everyone else should be relocated to Brownsville, East New York, Flatbush and points east. (No mention in this economic cleansing of where those already in those places should go, but they are the truly poor, so maybe we should just ship them to camps, or shanty towns like Soweto, out of sight, out of mind)

3)Everyone who is not a high wage earner, is obviously inferior in some way, as they haven't got the get up and go or natural selection to become one of the elite. Ergo - get out, you are only fit to serve us, but don't even think of living near us.

4)Teachers, artists and musicians (unless rich), first responders, nurses, and on and on, are not worthy of the benefits of our shining new cities. You have chosen inferior professions, and are what you do. When you aren't actually serving the elite - begone.

My favorite! The rich, in the midst of all of this largesse and privilege, will then look down from their lofty, successful thrones, and gaze upon the lower masses and have pity. They will generously fund schools and arts centers and theatres. Because that is what they are so used to doing - sharing the wealth.

I hope you remember the horrors of the French Revolution, because that will be a mild diversion if this city of the "deserving rich" actually comes to pass. And that ain't holding hands and singing Kumbaya, my friends.

Posted by: Sterling Silver at June 20, 2007 3:56 PM

Thank you David. Finally someone with perspective on police, fire, and teacher salaries. Certainly they work hard but by no means are they starving and those pensions sure are nice.

And like you I also started in the private sector for less.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 3:59 PM

RE: Anon 3:43
I agree with you that public infrastructure is not keeping pace with the increasing population. But restricting growth is not the most socially benefical or economic viable way of handling this problem.

For instance, restricting growth will only push housing costs higher punishing the poor and middle wage earners in the short-term. In the long-term it will stagnate both job growth and tax receipts. Also, an environmental and energy arguement can be made for allowing for greater urban growth (ie. less sprawl and lower energy usage per capita).

The population influx is being propelled by demand in several sectors - unless we make New York a less desirable location, people aren't going to stop immigrating (domestic and international).

Posted by: Fez at June 20, 2007 3:59 PM

"...I am just saying don't mis-inform people by trying to make it seem like cops earn 25k forever."

I said starting salary, and it does go up, but even when it does, it's not that great for supporting a family. And cops and teachers are just TWO examples of the many many many jobs out there, middle and working class, that are a necessity for a city to run.

Posted by: noname at June 20, 2007 4:00 PM

Sterling and Neighborgood - clearly there has been alot of hyperbole on this thread (including your blade runner analogy) - but I don't beleive I have been hyperbolic - so please answer my question - what laws/regulations/zoning do you envision that could keep the most desirable parts of NYC 'affordable' without having horrible unintended consequences.

Posted by: David at June 20, 2007 4:00 PM

Supergirl is back with her Super Stupidity....

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 4:07 PM

noname - again I am not saying that cops/teachers/fire shouldnt get paid more - nor am I saying 120k a year is 'rich' - but I must ask are you saying that a family of 2 cops with 2 kids couldnt find a place to live for 120k a yr - which they would easily earn - w/o any overtime at all after 5yrs on the job. If you figure 1/3 for housing (standard) that works out to be over 3,000mo for housing.
Again I am not saying you are on easy street - but put the issue in some real perspective.

Posted by: David at June 20, 2007 4:09 PM

remember the 25K that always quoted for entry cops - is for the time they are in 'cop school' training. Not once they are 'grads'.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 4:14 PM

To the person who worries about what happens when Brownsville and ENY are gentrified:

Trust me, those neighborhoods will NEVER be gentrified. There will always be affordable places to live.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 4:15 PM

"I doubt your average school teacher and fireman is overly concerned about his or her social life. They are usually too busy trying to make ends meet and spend some time with their families to worry about the proximity of cool bars."

What are teachers, policemen and firemen not single? Are they exceptions to the rule or are they trying to get laid like everyone else in the this city?

Sterling Silver, considering the fact that the marriage rate in NYC is so abysmally low, I think that you should revisit your argument. Again, you are make outrageous extremes to support your argument.....

Posted by: Platnum Plus at June 20, 2007 4:25 PM

Platnum, if that's all you got out of what I said, you not only missed the boat, it ran over you on the way out of the harbor. I said they had families, so I think their sex lives may be ok, like it really matters in this overall discussion.

So 4:15, after countless threads with people wailing that most of brownstone Bklyn east of Flatbush is unsafe, crime ridden and not worthy, now you say that even furthur out and in more economically distressed East New York, it's fine for working stiffs to live there, because it's cheap. Will never be gentrified, but cheap. Yeah. Thanks.

I'm sure all of the cops working 18 hours a day with overtime or second jobs, so they can afford to commute in from some surburban working class town will thank all of you who think that that is acceptable and perfectly ok. I hope some exhausted police officer, firefighter or EMS worker never has to cross your path professionally.

David, I never claimed to have all of the answers. I am not a city planner, developer or tax lawyer. I'm just someone who loves Brooklyn and would like it to be a place that anyone who wants to live here can enjoy. I do think that developers and the powers that be give very little thought beyond making piles of money for themselves, and like many on this board, don't give any thought to what kind of city they are building. That is wrong, and I will continue to scream like a banshee, if that's what it takes to be heard. I don't think the world of Blade Runner is that much of a stretch. We just don't have as much rain.

Posted by: Sterling Silver at June 20, 2007 4:42 PM

"To the person who worries about what happens when Brownsville and ENY are gentrified:

Trust me, those neighborhoods will NEVER be gentrified. There will always be affordable places to live."

I agree. Why? Because those neighborhoods lack the architectural merit of those nabes that make up Brooklyn's brownstone belt. At best, they will be low end middle class neighborhoods and a stepping stone for those families with the ambition to aim higher.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 4:45 PM

best thread in a long time

Posted by: Brownstoner at June 20, 2007 4:49 PM

Yeesh, if you think Blade Runner is actually possible, you are too far gone for me.

Again, what's wrong with living in the 75% of Brooklyn that lies beyond the gentrified center?

Sterling, I think it's precisely because you are screaming like a banshee that so very few are listening to what you have to say. Shrill behavior is hardly the most effective way to persuade another.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 4:49 PM

32K is enough to rent a $1000/mo apt. IF you live on PB&J and live in the dark (I'm assuming uts. are not included).

I hope you mean with a couple of long-term buddies.

Posted by: supergirl at June 20, 2007 4:49 PM

Sterling writes: "I'm just someone who loves Brooklyn and would like it to be a place that anyone who wants to live here can enjoy."

Kumbaya! Kumbaya!

Sorry SS but if you can't afford to live in Park Slope but seek to enjoy the great nabe that it is, nothing prevents you from visiting. Spend the afternoon in Prospect Park and have dinner with you family at a local eatery. Where does it state that you have to own, rent or live in an area to enjoy it? I don't live in Manhattan but I go and socialize wherever I choose or please. No one is prevented the luxury from doing likewise in Brooklyn. Can't afford to live where you want to? So what? Move someplace else that is affordable and visit your favorite nabe until your heart's content.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 4:55 PM

4:07: Nice ad hom attack. And typical.

Posted by: supergirl at June 20, 2007 4:55 PM

I disagree, supergirl. With proper budgeting, 32K is a liveable salary. I once rented a $600/month apt. while earning 23K/year. I paid all of my bills, paid off my student loans, and still had a couple of grand in my savings account (and no, I didn't get one penny from anyone else, including parents). It's when people waste money on cars, clothes, fancy electronic gadgets, every meal eaten out, etc. that they wrack up debt and ruin their credit.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 4:56 PM

That's the point, I hardly think I am screaming like a banshee, I think I have made perfect sense. It's people who take snippits out of what I'm saying, like the Blade Runner analogy, or the sex lives of teachers, and make more out of that than the salient points regarding what kind of society we are turning into, who have the greatest problem with me. Banshees get attention. Works for me, if obvious reason doesn't. Perhaps you'd like to make a further big deal out of that, instead of addressing the real issues here? Is money the only qualifier of value here in 2007 New York?

Posted by: Sterling Silver at June 20, 2007 4:57 PM

Supergirl - I graduated in the early 90's;
The standard criteria people use for housing is 1/3 of your gross income. You are correct 1K a month on 32K a year is tight BUT a cop earns that BEFORE overtime, night differential etc... - and the cop will be up to 36k in a matter of months anyway (of which 1K a mo is 1/3). And this is for a rookie cop - probably a 25yr old kid. Most of us had choose to have a roomate at 25yrs old too.
I really don't think this city is doomed if a rookie cop can't afford a 3br apartment in Cobble Hill.
That being said I would really like to know what you think the solution is to maintaining 'affordable' housing in the most desirable sections of Brooklyn.

Posted by: David at June 20, 2007 5:00 PM

Some of the ideas posted here are so morally and ethically appalling I find it heard to believe anyone would want to express their opinion. But black berry is so idiotic and so out of touch with the simplest social intelligence that when he writes :Everyone complains that teachers, firemen and policemen can't afford to live in the areas where they work, but i counter that they're the ones choosing the career path that doesn't pay. If new teachers became scare and budding police/firemen decided the money wasn't there it would force the City/State to make adjustments. But the changes right now (i.e. luxury condos) are a sign of the times and progress necessarily leads to displacement." I have to stop and remember that some people are so self-centered and so completely without vision that you have to feel sorry for them. And tell. blackberry, when you are dying in a fire, or getting mugged or your kids can't add 2 and 2, exactly who do you think you will need? If it weren't for the people who choose to do these jobs, this country would not be worth living in. I would call you an idiot but you are so far beyond that I think we need to invent a new language just to describe you.

You obviously have no clue about why people are moving to Brooklyn- if it were just low interest rates we'd be an empty borough, except for those of us who love it enough to stay through good times and bad. As for someone deserving to be a homeowner- there's that "I'm entitled, I have money" thing again. As for your final remark about gentrification "will "help populate the schools and raise overall standards of learning"- as if. If they haven't cared enough to do it up to now, what makes you think they'll do it then? Let me also point out that a productive society is not founded on haves and have nots- the Russian Revolution was.

As for the salaries of cops and firefighters, well David, I highly doubt you and the rest of the "if we can buy it we can kick 'em out crowd" would ever put their lives on the line for someone else. think these guys get paid enough to do that? So comparing your dip ass little financial or realestate or cushy desk post college job salary level with a cop or a firefighter is like comparing a squeak (you) and a roar. And anonymous at 3:59- no- but they sure do die or get wounded a hell of a lot more than a guy like you hiding behind your desk. Oh yeah the pensions are nice- if they live long enought to get them- and they earned every red cent of it.

Just goes to show what we've become- ungrateful, uncompassionate, short-sighted- and this is the legacy we pass on to our kids. There's no reasoning with the likes of you, no compromising, no cooperating- all the things that make society work. Sterling is too right. Hyperbole not.

Posted by: resident of at June 20, 2007 5:07 PM

Sterling (aka Banshee Screamer), can't someone enjoy a neighborhood without actually living there? I'm not sure about you but I travel all over the world but don't own a home outside of Brooklyn. I can't afford to purchase a home in the Bahamas but I've certainly been there a few times and had a heck of a time. Same could be said about the Upper East Side or the Hamptons. I don't get the sense of entitlement of some that insist that all people should be afforded the right to live in an affluent and exclusive area whether or not they can afford to actually live there. This makes absolutely no sense to me.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 5:09 PM

4:56:

Good for you. Yes, I had that apartment (with roomate) and salary too, and still couldn't afford "cars, clothes, fancy electronic gadgets, every meal eating out." 30% of salary going to rent not including uts. is a pain in the butt.

In fact my financial aid loaner felt I made so little, I was able to defer for years...

It's obvious that the rich & poor live on two different Earths and it will probably always be this way.

I recommend people see "Children of Men".

Posted by: supergirl at June 20, 2007 5:09 PM

I find it so odd that anyone calls sterling silver a banshee screamer.

that said, it's amazing to see the ideas that come crawling out of the woodwork- I never realized we were in such a scary place - one group feeling entitled to everything because they have money and the rest of us laving to worry if we will be forced out of our homes and apartments just because some guy with money wised up and noticed what we've known all along. I agree with redient of- some legacy.

Posted by: bx2bklyn at June 20, 2007 5:15 PM

Supergirl! Get off this board and start hitting the books if you feel that given your present earning potential that your options in Brooklyn are dwindling! DON'T COMPLAIN - COMPETE!

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 5:17 PM

Seriously. Enough of the whining.

"30% of salary going to rent not including uts. is a pain in the butt."

Many NYCers pay more.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 5:22 PM

This message board is interesting in that you've got the "haves" arguing with other "haves" who pretend to be have-nots. I think its safe to say we all want racial, social and economic harmony as do I, however, I don't hear people crowing about why the converted Palace Hotel, the endless Trump building and all the other high end enclaves of Manhattan aren't offering affordable housing to those who earn less than 42k.

It seems like living in Brooklyn or any other outer borough automatically means that we have to keep the tired, sick and weary, instead of trying to advance our collective lot in life. Yes its unfortunate that people are getting displaced from communities they might have lived in for years, but if the community means that much to you, then you should have bought and reaped the benefits when neighborhoods started changing to meet the new new brooklynites.

Cops, teachers, nurses, etc... work in Manhattan and commute from somewhere else... that's the breaks. When I made 25k I had an awful commute, when I made 40k i had a bad commute, when i made 60k i had decent commute, now... well I have a great commute.

Posted by: grad school at June 20, 2007 5:24 PM

Supergirl! Get off this board and start hitting the books if you feel that given your present earning potential that your options in Brooklyn are dwindling! DON'T COMPLAIN - COMPETE!
=============================
I've already hit the books. Thank you for you concern :)

Posted by: supergirl at June 20, 2007 5:25 PM

"30% of salary going to rent not including uts. is a pain in the butt."

Many NYCers pay more.
============================
And therein lies the problem.

Posted by: supergirl at June 20, 2007 5:27 PM

grad school you've hit the nail on the head.

"This message board is interesting in that you've got the "haves" arguing with other "haves" who pretend to be have-nots."

Its a bunch of people priced out of Manhattan arguing with a bunch of people who are priced out of 25% of Brooklyn.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 5:28 PM

I think its safe to say we all want racial, social and economic harmony as do I
============================
Are you serious? Have you read the posts in this thread? /:

Unless, all the anons happen to be 1 elitist troll, which only Brownstoner would know.

Posted by: supergirl at June 20, 2007 5:32 PM

Brownstoner is right - this is a great thread. But David asks the right question - what is the solution???

We can't really limit market forces - and will face the consequences in the shortage of the lower-paid workers (teachers, cops, etc.). When? Who knows, but many cities (including NYC) are now giving incentives to those workers to stay - rent stipends, etc.

And do leave the nurses out of the debate - they usually make around $100k...

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 5:34 PM

Grad school- that's the breaks? Cops, firefighters, teachers and nurses contribute far more to society than you could ever hope to. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but money doesn't buy you everything. People like you just think it does.

Posted by: bx2bklyn at June 20, 2007 5:34 PM

Resident @ 5:07 you seriously need to work on your reading comprehension, since I never implied anything like you said - and since you don't know me you assumptions about what I do or have done is silly (and wrong).
But I will ask you the same thing I have asked at least 2x before on this thread (with no one coming up with an answer) - It is very easy to complain and criticize - BUT please offer some suggestions/laws/zoning/rules/taxes that could insure affordability in the most desired parts of Brooklyn, while at the same time not cause unintended consequences that defeat your original purpose. I am not elitist, it would be nice if everyone could have what they want , but I have no idea how you could possibly achieve what you are demanding.

Posted by: David at June 20, 2007 5:44 PM

This is still city-owned land?

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 5:53 PM

Actually David, you pretty much blow off the jobs of cops, firefighters,etc. by comparing private sector jobs with public/service jobs which benefit and are necessary to all of us. The point being that the people who perform those jobs place themselves in harms' way to protect us and your precious property. These are the ones you call when you need help (when was the last time you called your real estate agent to get you out of a burning building?). You expect them to be there, and you (and of course I don't mean just you)expect them to do their job no matter what the cost to them. So why should they put themselves at risk for the rest of us and the best we can say is, well tough? It doesn't matter that they choose to do the job- where would we be without them? All the pretty marble and wood and glass still looks like crap after a fire. Money won't save it.

I have a really hard time understanding those who act like cops and firefighters are just doing a job- and they are. But a job most of the rest of us don't have the guts to do but need. I might also point out that with the highest overall mortality rates in the history of firefighting in this country, NYC firefighters -and cops- earn some of the lowest pay. Most of them need that overtime, and while I am not sure what the percentage is, it's a fact that many many of them have second jobs to make ends meet. So on top of not getting paid at the same levels as others in the same jobs around the country, they have to deal with the ingratitude of the public. You think we would have learned something in 2001, but no.

Posted by: resident of at June 20, 2007 6:13 PM

I don't feel sorry for cops. While the rest of the world accumulates five- and six-figure debts to get an education, cops are paid to go to school. Once they get out, they enjoy excellent benefits, have plenty of opportunities for overtime, promotions, and raises, and get to retire with pension and lifetime health coverage after only 20 years of service. Yes, they risk getting hurt or killed, but so do cab drivers, bodega clerks, and construction workers. Last but not least, when they or their family members run red lights, park illegally, or drive drunk, all they have to do is flash a badge or business card and they are free to go.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 6:39 PM

If people are upset that evil gentrifiers are wising up to "what we've known all along" (to paraphrase an earlier poster), i.e. that brownstone brooklyn is a great area and good location, then they should have bought in the past when it was affordable on a blue collar salary, in which case they would now have a choice as to whether they were being "displaced".

We are talking about renters here, not owners. People with means cannot simply buy property from homeowners (Ratner excluded for this conversation!). Homeowners have to decide to sell. Go and pressure all of the "sellouts" not to make any money or to reinvest it in the community.

And enough with the holier than thou speach about firefighters and police being the most valuable segment of our society. They chose that job and the public does expect them to do it because they pay for the services with their taxes. I think they should be paid more (should be the highest paid in the country frankly).

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 6:41 PM

I don't always agree with David but his question is a very good one: what law would you make or change? Market forces cause developers to be driven by profit. The law tries to limit the market impact through zoning or to direct market forces toward socially beneficial behaviour through tax breaks and subsidies. What else can be done beside complaining? Make a proposal and we'll debate it. I've been thinking hard and can't come up with anything.

To paraphrase, it seems the current system is the worst, except for all the others.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 6:50 PM

There is no pure "free market" in our country. The government intervenes in commerce all of the time. The government makes decisions about housing everyday such as the greatest entitlement of all--mortgage interest deductions. This is a giveaway that has NOTHING to do with free market economics. Yet, because you benefit, there is no complaint.

There was a time when the NYS gov't decided that middle class housing mattered. The Mitchell-Lama program was an example of that. The GI Bill was another non-free market example of the gov't setting priorities. In this case, about education. But I guess you guys would find the GI Bill to be a handout for losers not smart enough to get out of low-paying soldier work.

Heartless. Shortsighted. Cruel.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 6:59 PM

Heartless. Shortsighted. Cruel.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 6:59 PM

Heartless. Shortsighted. Cruel.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 6:59 PM

To Sterling Silver and all the folks who have spoken out today, and who have made living in Brooklyn such a
pleasure all these many years, through good times, bad times, and the horror of 9.11... thank you, thank you... love you guys!

There's still a strong heartbeat here in
Brooklyn afterall.

We all have to continue to work together in our various communities, as we always have, to insure that ALL folks have opportunities in this borough
to live, work, and prosper.

David, you ask very valid questions, and we ALL need to come up with some solid answers... thank you too for sharing your perspective.

Posted by: bren at June 20, 2007 7:17 PM

These comments have taught me what currently underlies so much of New York's "special" energy: anger.

Posted by: Urban Designer at June 20, 2007 7:50 PM

What's so "Heartless, Shortsighted and Cruel" about placing gov't assisted housing for low to middle income families in low to middle income neighborhoods that represent over 50% of the boroughs population and not in affluent communities such as downtown Brooklyn? Is there an equal desired public policy mandate to create such affordable housing in SoHo, Tribeca or the Upper East Side? Certainly not. So why should downtown Brooklyn be any different? According to some of you, downtown Brooklyn will always be considered a colossal "Kumbaya failure" unless we throw up some Section 8 housing along 7th Avenue or Montague Street.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 20, 2007 8:54 PM

well spoken Anonymous 6:59pm... and so very true!

Posted by: bren at June 20, 2007 8:57 PM

Anon 8:54- Brooklyn Heights on the other side of Court St. was affluent. Low and middle income families not only lived there, but they were the residents in the surrounding areas- Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens, and especially downtown Brooklyn. No one "stuck" them there- they were there for years.

As far as whether or not renters did ir did not buy- since when di being a renter become a term of derision? Since when does renting make anyone a second class citizen? I think many of you forget that rentals were the norm for everyone in this City and was no reflection on how much you made or how hard you worked. Life happens- not everyone gets the same chances or has the same abilities or resources. It's truly disheartening to see the sheer selfishness of some of the posters here.

As for the poster who thinks cops and firefighters chose the job so it's OK for them to die in the line of duty, or that it's such a cushy job- I'll warrant you don't know a single cop or firefighter, or their families. It's a waste of time trying to educate anyone about social responsibility who's idea of it is all you poor people and renters, get out of my way. It's not a concept they get.

"They chose that job and the public does expect them to do it because they pay for the services with their taxes." I hadn't realized you could buy a man's life, or treat him like chattel. I have far more respect for what they do than I do for a stockbroker. I'm damn grateful that any of them take jobs like that because obviously respect for them and the fact that they put their lives on the line for the public is nothing you are capable of appreciating. That's what happens when your moral and ethical growth has been stunted by greed.

Some of the posts on this thread sound positively fascist. You're basically talking economic apartheid- as a friend of mine calls it-. No society, capitalist or otherwise- can exist that way, and those of you who forget the past will be condemning all of us to repeat it.

Posted by: resident of at June 21, 2007 3:00 AM

IF you all went back to NYC or elsewhere we would all be happier. But since you are here DONEDEAL SHO NUFF LET ER RIP FIGHT THE SOURS IM SO BORED WITH THE USA

Posted by: stoner squad at June 21, 2007 8:41 AM

There are two clear groups represented here: a group in support of mixed communities and the other for market driven homogeneity. I get the feeling that this second group would like to transform the city into bland little suburban neighborhoods.

Posted by: Scott at June 21, 2007 9:16 AM

Yes, if people cannot live in the brownstone belt, they will have no quality of life. Just as those who don't attend Harvard or Yale cannot possibly be successful in their careers.

Gotcha.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 21, 2007 9:20 AM

Yes Scott, it does sound like that...
this "second group" would like Brooklyn
to become a borough of nothing but clones of themselves ... they would like to drive the rest of us into the sea... oops that's right, can't go there either, big development on the horizon for Coney Island...

Posted by: bren at June 21, 2007 9:31 AM

Actually Bren and Scott you take the easy way out by trying to turn this into a black and white issue - many of us would like to see successful mixed communities, the issue is how do you obtain that without creating all sort of other problems.
I have said that I favor rent controls on occupied apartments (vacancy decontrol); and 421-a changes that require some affordable housing in exchange for tax breaks. I also support other incentive programs like Mitchell-Lama that make building affordable units attractive to developers. (However I am dismayed by legislative attempts to change the rules now that some of these buildings are eligible to leave Mitchell-Lama - since I think that will discourage developers from entering such programs in the future)
Anyway beyond these things (and btw there is legitimate arguments against all my positions), I am not exactly clear what else you can do to create "mixed-neighborhoods", when clearly there are certain areas that are more desired and therefore more expensive then others. Do you propose some sort of forced economic integration, or new tax plan?
Instead of simply trying to make the debate about "good and evil" (and then picking the side of "good" for yourself). Try actually engaging with the real issue - what to do.

Posted by: David at June 21, 2007 10:25 AM

then there's my particular favorite- if you rent, you have no right to say anything when you get forced out because we have no stake or investment in our neighborhood. Considering this was a city of renters for generations, it seems to me that renters have done more than their fair share- for good or bad- in creating NYC neighborhoods. And considering that Bklyn Hgts, and those neighborhoods had a majority of rentals, no one can say renters are a detriment, do not care or have no investment in their neighborhoods.

agreed Bren- its the disneyfication of NYC. We may not go Blade runner, as SS said on a thread (here perhaps?) but I can concieve of NYC becoming a theme park much like the way the South St. Seaport was sanitized in the 80's to become a tourist version of the seaport, not the authentic seaport. I remember that seaport.

Posted by: bx2bklyn at June 21, 2007 10:41 AM

So many of you miss the point.
Salaries have risen app. 25-50% in the past ten years. Real Estate has risen up to 200%. The inequality of this is driving people out of neighborhoods they’ve lived in for years. It’s not like people are crying because they can’t move to CG, Park Slope etc – it’s that they’re crying because long term residents are getting forced out into areas that are either not as safe or much further away.

Posted by: Anon at June 21, 2007 10:47 AM

"To paraphrase, it seems the current system is the worst, except for all the others"

Anon @ 6:50, if you're going to quote Churchill, at least give him credit or is that how you got through grad school. At least you read the Economist.

Downtown Brooklyn is a natural expansion of Brooklyn Heights. Maybe not the Columbia Heights street expansion but certainly the same type of white color (wearing pink today however) professionals.

Let the market dictate what kind of building to create, if its going tobe condos then no mixed income discounts. If a rental is going up, then yes, build in below market apartments so the less fortunate can get in. Isn't that more equitable?

Perhaps we should turn the prison into the new chic housing projects.

Posted by: grad school at June 21, 2007 10:59 AM

If downtown brooklyn is the natural expansion of Brooklyn Hgts, they took a hell of a long time to realize it. Having lived in that area for years I think its interesting that for all the vaunted bring in the higher income people and they will support their neighborhood arguments, Court St, never got the kind of traction that the avenues in Park Slope or Smith St. seem to have. It's only now, after years, that Court St. is coming up- and it still has a ways to go. It cuts through a number of majorly "upscale" neighborhoods and it was ignored for years. The Cobble Hill side began to change about 10-12 years ago- but the Brooklyn Heights end? So if Downtown is such a natural expansion, I would have expected to see Court St. already lined with upscale shops and businesses. All that tells me is that people in those neighborhoods don't really support the local businesses- hence all the chain stores coming in. So why would anyone think they will flock in droves to Fulton St. no matter how much its developed? There is no crying need for Fulton st. from Brooklyn heights. They can't even get as far as Court St.

Posted by: bx2bklyn at June 21, 2007 11:13 AM

Bx2Bklyn - Your analysis is off - its not that wealthier Brooklyn Heights residents wont support the local economy its just that like in many downtown areas, Brooklyn Heights retail is impacted more by 'commuters' then by locals. This is why the vast majority of the business on Montague Street aren't really high end b/c the lunch/work crowd is so large, that Landlords can get rents that are more sustainable by high volume retailers. The more 'neighborhood' areas of Cobble Hill/ Park Slope/Boreum Hill, which do not get the commuters have the more of the 'upscale' restaurants and boutiques that you mention.
However, the issue on this thread hasn't been retail development but housing and I still havent heard any suggestions by you on how to deal with the gap between middle-class wages and housing prices in and around Brownstone Brooklyn?

Posted by: David at June 21, 2007 11:26 AM

Court St was slow to develop because it caters to the people who work there. Now that Two Trees has planted the seeds of residential development with the Court House Apartments and the renovation of 110 Livingston, others are starting to pile on the bandwagon. Progress isn't as linear as we would like, but when you build it, they will come, and they have been.

I'd love to see lots of changes on Court St....

Another restaurant to compliment Queen;
A Pottery Barn on the strip (court house would help);
Closing down the check cashing place and replace with a wine bar;
Close the Chase ATM only location;
Replacing the savings bank with a Bank of America or some kind of retail outlet;
Closing one of the Hardware stores;
Capital improvement of spirit wines;
enforcement of the age restrictions at the movie theatre (tired of watching gory R rated movies with infants to young teenagers).

Sorry, does the above sound like gentrification?

To get back on topic though.. why don't we leave the jail closed and renovate it into affordable housing.

Posted by: grad school at June 21, 2007 11:40 AM

Once and for all no one is deriding renters.

When you buy you risk your capital.

When you rent you risk the fact that you may have to move if rents increase too much.

Will the same people that are clamoring for subsidies for renters provide insurance for owners in the case that they're property values decrease?

Oh nevermind about the owners. If you own you must be an evil gazillionaire.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 21, 2007 11:52 AM

those are good points David but that only supports my contention as to downtown brooklyn- Fulton St. is already a financially successful shopping district. Since I don't see that the locals who live in the new developments there will behave any differently than they do now in the Heights,why are people so dead set on destroying businesses and housing that already exist and serve their purpose? If businesses in that area depend on "commuters", as you say, then why not improve what's already there, and support them, instead of ripping out whole sections and putting in high end condos and mall stores? Why not give existing merchants and businesses the means to improve their businesses, and then put money into restoring facades, fixing awnings- anything to make it more attractive? Why punish people and businesses who have put in the time and money over the years to keep the Fulton St. area going?

You may think that its all about money- well then, as you yourself pointed out, the money is made on volume, and the businesses already there do volume.

I'm not sure your analysis is so on target either- seems to me it should be a win-win situation in the Hgts but don't forget, it wasn't high volume retailers on most of Court St. It was local businesses. I saw a lot of them come and go. Same on Montague. You can't tell me on the weekends or in the evenings the locals can't support local businesses the same as in Park Slope, or Cobble/Carroll Gardens? Montague should be as trendy and exciting as Smith St. (if you like that sort of thing).

Insofar as solutions? I wish I knew- how about you? I know that if i say offer tax breaks and abatements, people will scream subsidies, but those same people will jump on those same breaks and subsidies like white on rice. Sometimes I think it isn't what we do, it's how we think about it that will make the difference. Because paying taxes, tax breaks, abatements, etc. all come out of everyone's pockets and we like to think this money is for the greater good of everyone. well, at least I like to think so. So the question is will home and property owners who seem to think they are carrying everyone else on their backs, ever understand that the rest of us carry the same burden, we just pay out of a differnet basket.

Posted by: bx2bklyn at June 21, 2007 12:02 PM

"Sorry, does the above sound like gentrification?"

No- like fascism

Posted by: Anonymous at June 21, 2007 12:05 PM

Some things are more important than mere money. Stable, vibrant neighborhoods being one of them. Let's think long term here for a moment.

David, I agree with your statement: "I have said that I favor rent controls on occupied apartments (vacancy decontrol); and 421-a changes that require some affordable housing in exchange for tax breaks. I also support other incentive programs like Mitchell-Lama that make building affordable units attractive to developers. (However I am dismayed by legislative attempts to change the rules now that some of these buildings are eligible to leave Mitchell-Lama - since I think that will discourage developers from entering such programs in the future)" I hope these programs can be expanded and sustained.

Stable, mixed income neighborhoods are not just a "kumbaya moment". They are vital to the growth and stability of cities. I didn't make this up with my liberal friends, either. There are plenty of studies, papers and books on the topic, and it just makes common sense.

It's not about poor people wanting apts in Park Slope, or being too lazy to travel to another neighborhood to enjoy its amenities, that's stupid nonsense spouted off by people who cannot understand the written word, as no one advocating mixed neighborhoods ever said any of those things.

An economically diverse neighborhood provides a variety of goods and services in its commercial sector. Not just upscale restaurants and shops, but a variety of choices, allowing a greater expansion of merchants and services. That's more people working in the community, and having a stake in its future. Kids have the opportunity to know other kids outside of their sphere, as do their parents. Public schools could be more equitable so that all kids benefit, and there are more than one or two good schools in exclusive areas that get all of the attention an all of the good students. All sorts of workers can be closer to their jobs, which makes them more effective and productive, and cuts down on commuting costs, both personally and for the city as a whole.

This works in other parts of the country, and in other neighborhoods of this city, although less so all the time, as the middle class loses out in neighborhood after neighborhood. If it takes a little gov't intervention, in terms of set asides, guidelines, tax breaks, whatever, - then that is for the greater good, and should be done. We, as taxpayers pay for lots of programs that are less worthy of our support, including plenty of corporate welfare that only benefits top executives and shareholders.

This only the rich deserve the rewards attitude, is shortsighted, selfish, and will not create a shining new Brooklyn, only a gated community on the East River, not a place most of us would choose to live, or could even afford to visit.
I don't think that is progress.

Posted by: Sterling Silver at June 21, 2007 12:15 PM

I believe I offered some solutions - which I'll admit will not truly create mixed income neighborhoods, but do offer some balance. I think the problem that you have is that if you offer too much subsidy to one group of people (lower or middle class) so that they can afford to live in desirable neighborhoods like Brooklyn Heights, you 1.inflate the cost of the remaining non-subsidized housing (since you have used up some supply without easing the demand of the higher income people) and 2. Force the higher income people to look elsewhere which often means gentrifying other areas which starts the problem over again - as far as I'm concerned these issues can only be balanced - not "solved" and inevitably you have an imperfect situation - which is why I think all this anti-Bloomberg; anti-development hyperbole is silly. I think NYC is trying to re-balance things w/o killing off the 'goose'.
As for Fulton Mall, I agree with you - in part - certainly I'd be oppossed to any eminent domain use on economic grounds and certainly support the private landlords in the area being the ones who dictate who they rent to (although I'd appreciate if they were forced to upgrade the signage - which given the rents isnt so onerous) - but this project is to replace Albee Sq Mall which is FAR from successful and besides based on the big box configurations of the retail - doesn't seem like they will be catering to the William Sonoma crowd. So this project would be an example where you are replacing a failed retail development, with a (hopefully) a better retail development, and then adding offices (i.e. jobs) and housing including 20% affordable - in a place where there was zero housing before. So what is the problem?

Posted by: David at June 21, 2007 12:17 PM

i'd love to see some or all of the following stores in this area, or other new comm developments

pottery barn
crate and barrel
bed bath & beyond
pier 1
restoration hardware
j crew
banana republic
anthropologie
kenneth cole

i think each would be wildly successful

Posted by: mic at June 21, 2007 12:19 PM

anon- if you think no one has been deriding renters you haven't been reading this and other threads. I cna't count the number of posts with comments like: if your family rents after 4 generations you have issues", or obviously you don't work hard enough if you haven't bought your own house.
And wouldn't it be great if the situation was so cut and dry as you make it? Unfortunatley the fact that you are risking your capital when you buy really has nothing to do with everyone else who lives in the neighborhood. Everyone eho lives in a neighborhood invests in it- taxes, mortgages, rents, local shopping- my rent supports your ability to pay your motrtgage (generically speaking of course). My taxes go to city services too. If my rent is "subsidized" what are your tax breaks and abatements? I don't own a car or have kids so my taxes subsidize your roads and your kid's schools. I don't want an arena and humongous piles of luxury condos in AY- a want a better designed development there- but my taxes are still, over my objections, subsidizing it through the state nad city breaks Ratner is getting.Your ability to buy a house is simply that- you can buy a house. Congratulations. That and 2 bucks will get you a subway ride. Nowhere is there a social responsibility scale that says that makes you a better, more responsible, more hardworking, more contributory member of society.

Posted by: bx2bklyn at June 21, 2007 12:21 PM

Fascism - as defined by answers.com is - A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism

If we can all agree on the definition, then my suggestions are on point. Have you been to the theatre recently? Is it wrong to want another restaurant on the Court St strip above Atlantic ave? Is it wrong to want to close the check cashing place? I didn't suggest getting rid of the McDonalds, Poppy's or the low-brow retail stores between Livingston and Joralemon.

A crime upon Logic has been committed by Anon 12:05?

Posted by: grad school at June 21, 2007 12:23 PM

Grad school, I think there must be a professor somewhere calling you - go back to school.

What you want, is what YOU want, not the will of the marketplace. The check cashing place serves a vital need to those who use it. Got a problem with that? What's the difference between a Chase ATM place and another Bank of America branch? I would bet that Chase will be gone soon anyway, as the new branch is opening up down the street, so sorry they offended you by having two places at once. Bruno's Hardware has been there since before you were born, and has been one of the most successful and stabilizing businesses on the street. If it's less than upscale appearance offends you, then you know nothing about Brooklyn's Mom and Pop entrepeneureal spirit. There is more to a neighborhood than shiny storefronts and wine bars. If you don't like the patrons of the movie theatre, don't go. A Pottery Barn would be nice - write corporate headquarters and suggest it.

Why should the jail be renovated for affordable housing, as opposed to any other building? Oh, it's not an attractive landmark, or in a desireable location, so it's just fine to donate that one. Just as it's just perfectly fine for the non rich to live in all other less than desireable locations.

Posted by: Sterling Silver at June 21, 2007 12:33 PM

That's a lot of assumptions bx2bklyn. I don't own a car or have children either. And for that matter on top of investing in property in my neighborhood I probably pay more taxes then you. And I did not say that I support AY.

So I guess you just feel entitled because.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 21, 2007 12:35 PM

I think the complaint about this specific site is the 20% affordable housing limit. The city rezoned the land to allow for a huge development: now the developer is scaling that back and people should rightfully be concerned that the best use of the land is still going to happen.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 21, 2007 12:36 PM

David was absolutely right. Many of you write a lot of feel-good-isms but don't offer up any real solutions.

What's YOUR plan, Sterling Silver?

Posted by: Anonymous at June 21, 2007 12:37 PM

David, neighborhoods evolve, I understand that. A place like Park Slope has now evolved in the last 50 years from a working class neighborhood into a wealthy enclave. Do I advocate that people be moved out of their lux apts for the poor? Of course not. I do advocate that those of lesser incomes who are there should not be illegally forced out, and I do advocate that new luxury construction be required to include a percentage of middle income units. Subsidies can be in the form of low interest or no interest long term loans for downpayments, or some other kind of helping hand that is repayed over time. If someone doesn't qualify given that chance, then someone else will. I know this isn't a fair world, and not everyone can get all the goodies.

Some of the people on this board cry that it's not fair that someone win a housing lottery, or get a low interest loan that they didn't get, although they don't need one. Ok, it's not fair. But it's also not fair that a kid in public school in Bed Stuy didn't get the same education as the kid in PS 231, and it's not fair that one person could afford Harvard while another could only afford SUNY, yet the recipient of the breaks is going to cry foul when someone else catches a long overdue chance at a better life. No, they whine that being a cop isn't so hard or so dangerous, because one or two cops have fixed a parking ticket, and they can retire after 20 years. That's like saying being a soldier in Iraq isn't so hard or dangerous because they get free meals and get to see the world.

If this is the new Brooklyn, maybe it's not a place most of us would want to be a part of. Maybe we're fighting for something that is not worth having. Only time will tell if we can learn to treat people with mutual respect and dignity, especially in terms of who they are, what they do, and how they live.

Posted by: Sterling Silver at June 21, 2007 12:56 PM

What's your plan, Anon 12:37?

My views on the subject have been quite plain. I'm not hiding behind an anon time date, with nothing to back me up. You have a problem with my views, let's debate, not just throw down.

Posted by: Sterling Silver at June 21, 2007 1:02 PM

im a newer resident f brownstone brooklyn, a trasnplant from manhattan

i am surprised and dissapointed at the retail options of bk, and find myself going to manhattan or even the malls of long island for the "slightly" more "upscale" stores...i'm talking GAP, not Prada folks

so i welcome an upgrade of bk retail

Posted by: newbie at June 21, 2007 1:09 PM

anon- I think the assumptions are all on your part. since we are not quoting incomes, the fact that you own a house doesn't exactly translate into you pay more taxes. As for entitlement? Stating facts about how everyone contributes in some form or another to communities, means I feel entitled? I guess that means you feel entitled to do whatever you please because you think you can buy it? You feel entitled to pat yourself on the back because you are a "homeowner"- big whoop. If this City ran on just home and property owners, we'd be in even worse shape because you would have no one to do your garden, server your food, clean your offices, wipe your butt in the hospital, etc etc etc. You think you form the most valuable strata of society by virtue of money. Would that it really translated into a good community on the ground. But this let them eat cake attitude of yours is so foolish. You undermine the very thing you want- a strong vibrant community that benefits you. I'd like that too- but I want one that benefits everyone.

Posted by: bx2bklyn at June 21, 2007 1:13 PM

So Sterling Silver you must be in favor of this (Albee Sq) project b/c it contains 20% affordable component - BTW I do. It also has offices and retail which helpd the overall tax rate.

Essentially what you favor is the current 421-a proposal (about to be passed) and some of Bloomberg's other affordable housing plans. And you aknowledge that life isnt 100% fair - which I think everyone could agree on. What I cant figure out then is why you are bemoning the 'new brooklyn'. It sounds like on a policy level the city is in agreement with you in terms of how to rebalance the 'fairness' as best it can.

Posted by: David at June 21, 2007 1:24 PM

None of the above bx2bklyn. I just don't want to pay for your housing. That's all.

The real problem is that the posters complaining on this thread are not truly needy. Many of the people that as you say take care of "your garden, server your food, clean your offices, wipe your butt in the hospital" don't live in the precious areas of brownstone Brooklyn. They live a little further out in neighborhoods that you and the others on this board would turn their noses up at and wouldn't consider living in despite your desire for a mixed and "strong vibrant community."

Posted by: Anonymous at June 21, 2007 1:25 PM

David, I agree that the issue is very complex, and I would like to propose another option to help middle-class families stay in expensive neighborhoods. There has been a lot of talk about affordable housing, which I support completely. I also think that tax codes should be restructured. Renters should receive tax relief on their rent payments just as home owners do on their mortgage. To offset decreased revenue, Manhattan pre-WWII Co-op owners should pay taxes based on property value and not rental value.

Posted by: Scott at June 21, 2007 1:26 PM

Anon 1:25, I lived in Midwood for two years and in Spanish Harlem for a year. I thought they were great places. Since I was a newcomer, I didn't expect to live in any neighborhood. I do, however, think that long time residents should have a voice in the development of their neighborhood.

Posted by: Scott at June 21, 2007 1:37 PM

sterling silver -

you're reading me all wrong.

There are 2 hardware stores between Livingston and Schermerhorn. The stores were split because the brothers couldn't get along. Is there really a need for both. My suggestion was to close one, not destruction, rationalization.

The ATM only Chase doesn't make a lot of sense considering the branch has been open for over a month now, so why have a stand alone ATM diagonal across the street?

The check cashing place may serve some need to some people, but who? I tend to doubt that the people who live there don't use it. In fact, there are more than enough banks around with various fee schemes to accommodate workers from every economic category.

My suggestion for the jail was designed to solve a few problems. I don' know how many of us want it to re-open least of all expand. If its converted into affordable housing then it solves the problem of the jail, as well as use a public building to create affordable housing in a burgeoning neighborhood. Is that a bad thing?

I'm not a patron to the theatre unless its early on the weekend before it becomes unruly or watch movies that the "masses" aren't interested in. Unless you're blind or don't frequent the theatre, its quite evident that young kids are watching movies that are designed for adults. Either their being allowed in alone or accompanied by (young) parents who don't see an issue with that. Is it unusual or unfair to ask that I pay $10.50 to be able to watch a movie in peace. How about when I come home late and see teenagers running around the streets, should i not be concerned because i see them streaming out of the theatre? Why do you think there's a constant police presence parked where mobile blood bank calls home.

Is it also unjustified to see stores that carry items that i won't have to go into Manhattan for?

Posted by: grad school at June 21, 2007 1:42 PM

I agree with you Scott. I've lived in Harlem and have family in Midwood. They are great places. And I do think that everyone should have a voice. We all get to vote don't we? Where we probably disagree is that I don't think that the fact that you have rented somewhere for a very long time gives you a special say or privilege above others.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 21, 2007 1:43 PM

And you most assuredly do not pay in any way shape or form for my housing. So why should I be expected to subsidize your homeowner tax breaks?

And i think you might be surprised at the varied income levels and backgrounds of posters on this board. Nor are you qualified to tell me where I will or will not live since I have lived in neighborhoods that are only now becoming gentrified. Maybe you wouldn't want to live in them but there are plenty of us out here who can live in places without a Starbucks or a fancy cafe (although I would never turn my nose up at a good bagel/muffin place!). I lived in Boerum Hill when the downtwon theater let you put your feet up on the seats in front so the rats could pass by under your seat and the now-fancy building on my corner was boarded up with watchdogs 24/7 to keep out the drug dealers. So please- don't embarrass yourself any further by assuming anything about anyone.

Posted by: bx2bklyn at June 21, 2007 1:50 PM

Hint bx2bklyn: I do live in one of those hoods without a starbucks. Have a great day!

Posted by: Anonymous at June 21, 2007 1:57 PM

David, from my very superficial knowledge of the plan, yeah. In my first comment on this issue, seems like light years ago, my disappointment was in that that the number of units went down, although the percentage stayed the same. I still think that's wrong as an advocate for affordable housing, as affordable units are more needed than market rate units, and I would have preferred for them to take the numbers completely out of the market rate units. No one, except the accountants and the delveloper, will miss these market rate units with the glut of buildings going up. In terms of the socially responsible thing to do, that would have been the way to go. However......I guess that fight will have to be fought in the next project.

My problem with the New Brooklyn, is not so much with the revitalization of downtown, or all of the other stuff going on all over,(individual issues pertaining to some of the projects aside, for now). It's with some of the people who are making up the New Brooklyn. I find this attitude that the rich are the only ones who matter, or that one's station in life, due to perhaps hard work, but also the intangible combination of background, education, age, interests and inclinations, race, and choice of occupation, entitles someone to think that they are better than those who didn't have those same breaks, to be morally repugnant. I find that people who have no empathy for others or who don't want to extend a helping hand to those who have been here longer and have made these neighborhoods the stable places they wanted to move to, to be quite scary. Although we may disagree, I have never thought you to be in that camp.

I have to make the donuts, ie work, so this is it for me for a while. I think we've exhausted the topic. Nice debating with you.

Posted by: Sterling Silver at June 21, 2007 2:03 PM

Scott - I think that tax breaks for rental payments is the wrong way to go - b/c it will simply result in market rents going up (albeit tempered somewhat in Rent Stabilized apartments) - just in the way that the mortgage deduction has in the long run increased the sale price of homes.

A tax deduction amounts to an across the board price reduction - generally around 30% and at first people benefit; however over time price increases offset the tax benefit - this is exactly why a tax abatement for a new condo owner is often considered a subsidy for the condo developer (he can charge more then he would have for the tax abated unit).

Let me explain a little further - talking about a market rate rental for a moment - if you have a 1Br apartment renting for $1000 a month and lets say thats within the price range of 80% of the population based on income. If you allowed the rent to be deducted lets say that the effective rent would then be approximately $750 a month (depending on your tax rate) - well at $750 a month the % of people who could afford it might rise to 90% of the population and so you'd have more people chasing this $1000 apartment and the Landlord overtime would raise the rent - and then of course everyone would yell and scream that the tax deduction for rents is a subsidy for Landlords.

If anything we should try to figure out how to eliminate the tax deduction for mortgage interest without totally destroying the economy and everyone who bought with the Government's promise that interest could be deducted.

Posted by: David at June 21, 2007 2:13 PM

Ok, grad school, let's see:

If both factions of Bruno's are doing ok, who should say one has to go? Let the market dictate. Both paid for their spaces, both are viable businesses, both have a right to be there. If one goes under than the market has spoken.

The check cashing place obviously does its business during the day when their clients who work in the area need them. Not everyone has a bank account, for many reasons, both good and bad. While you or I may think that a business that takes a hefty percentage of your check is more expensive than an average bank account, many prefer to use its services to cash their checks, send money around the world, and pay their bills. It's a regulated, legal business, and again, if they have a customer base, they deserve to stay, as far as I'm concerned.

Maybe Chase still has the lease on the space, maybe they can afford to hold on to it until infinity. Why does this bother you so much?

Everyone has to go into Manhattan to get something they can't get here. You probably came to Bklyn because you can't afford to stay there. Nothing wrong with that, but don't expect the world to revolve around your needs. If your wish list revolves around the stores listed by 12:19 above, then you could move to any suburb or place with a decent strip mall.What would be so special about that?

Try to enjoy your life in Brooklyn. Good luck.

As far as the movie theatre goes, that one is much more complicated and gets into race and class and stuff I just don't have the energy for. Suffice it to say, how are they supposed to get home if they don't go into the streets? Sounds like a fear of minority youth. I go to that theatre quite often, and have never seen kids doing anything other than being out there, walking to the bus or subway or getting into cars. They do have that right, ya know.

Posted by: Sterling Silver at June 21, 2007 2:24 PM

Sterling Silver - except it is the balance of affordable to market rate apartments that often determines the viability of the project like this.

It is easy to say cut the market rate apartments b/c these guys are going to get an overall return of 30% (for example). But think about it as the guy/corporation/REIT betting hundreds of millions on a project where you don't realize ANY return until years down the line, and market forces can change in the middle potentially resulting in a huge loss. Of course the returns have to be obscenely high, otherwise investors would find a nice portfolio of dividend paying stocks and muni bonds and simply collect a 'nice' profit.

Therefore, anything that impacts the potential return of the overall project can forestall the whole thing. I have no idea of the dollars and cents of this deal except that the developers have already spent 120 MILLION on the ground lease. (@ 5% thats approximately $500,000 a MONTH lost in opportunity cost until this thing gets built). And I doubt anyone posting here really knows any specifics so simply saying they "should have" eliminated only market rate housing is easy until you consider that by doing so they MAY have ended up killing the deal and all the affordable units along with it.

Posted by: David at June 21, 2007 2:27 PM

hey sterling..

whats wrong with the desire for the shops by 12:19? so brooklyn is supposed to remain ghetto? "if u dont like it move to hicksville"? glad to see ur finally showing ur true colors

Posted by: silversucks at June 21, 2007 2:37 PM

Sterling Silver -

I've lived in Brooklyn for quite some time, so while I work in Manhattan, I made an active decision to never live there.

On Bruno, perhaps they are both viable, one less so than the other considering breadth of offering, size etc. Not trying to drive a business out, just thinking of the rational use of space. By that as it may, i'll concede the point to you.

The check place serves a purpose, yes, however, there are plenty of business that serve the purpose (banks) and if you want to live on the fringe, then the corner of Flatbush and Atlantic (also downtown) is well stocked with check cashing places. While we're on the topic, check cashing places, charge more on average to convert a paper check into cash, when a bank does it for free (assuming free checking account banks). In a changing neighborhood, fringe business should be the first to go.

Chase bothers me for the same reason it bothers most people... no more banks in such a small area, we and I'm sure you (apologies for being presumptions here) would like a non-financial option.
I agree that everyone has to come somewhere for things they can't get in their neighborhood. However, when you have luxury rentals/condos doesn't it make sense to bring some of that stuff into the neighborhood? Whether its a large chain (pottery barn) or a new mom & pop shop... having things closer means we keep spending those dollars in our neighborhood. Successful stores breeds more successful stores.

My greatest exception is with your Theatre comment. I agree that you have to be in the streets to get home, there's a difference between being in the streets to get home and being in the streets to be in the streets (I'm referring to the latter).

And yes you're right on, it is a fear of minority youth - once upon a time i used to be one and I feared the the same minority youth I do now and for good reason.

As for the race/class issue... we'll save that for another blog on another day

On a final note, before we start using terms, we should agree to common definitions. Rich = multi millionaire. I think a good number of us arguing for gentrification are WELL below that, myself included.

Posted by: grad school at June 21, 2007 2:59 PM

Grad school- it may surprise you to know that your prioriites and control issues really don't determine theneighborhood. For someone who is arguing for free market determination, your idea that that check cashing place on the corner of Court and Schermerhorn should go because it "doesn't serve the people in the neighborhood" and it is a fringe business is not very free. first of all you suffer from the kind of attitude that John Mitchell (a man I hated) one slapped on a group of people- effete, impudent snobbery. Anyone who refers to people as the "masses", as opposed to themselves who are so special- has a snob problem.

Brunos was in the neighborhood for years- both stores offer very different thingg- one is strictly hardware, the other is home goods. since they both are useful to the neighborhood what is your problem?

Posted by: resident of at June 21, 2007 3:53 PM

Re: Renters' Relief
David, I don't agree with you with respect to rental demand or housing prices. Didn't low interest rates and lax loaning policies have a lot to do with increasing the demand for homes/condos?

As for renters' tax relief, I think it could be done in a way that wouldn't drive up rental prices. You said that tax relief would reduce $1000 rent to approx. $750. That might make an apartment more attractive to a person who couldn't normally afford $1000. While that may be true, it doesn't mean the landlord would rent to that person.

If this relief was in the form of an annual refund, a landlord would not factor such a refund into a renter's salary. It's been my experience that landlords expect an applicant to make 40 times the amount of one month's rent. While someone who made $30,000 might be able to afford your proposed $1000 apartment, the landlord would only accept those who made over $40,000.

In addition to the approval requirements, there would still be the various costs associated with signing a new lease: security, possible broker's fee, first month's rent, maybe last month's rent. A person, expecting to get back a portion of his rent in a refund, could not bank on that refund to front the costs of moving into a new place.

I also think that such a tax break should be on a sliding scale. Low-income renters might subtract rent from their taxable income while high-income renters might only subtract a fraction of their rent from their taxable income. This would effectively keep the average refund to a reasonable amount.

Posted by: Scott at June 21, 2007 4:19 PM

Of course low interest rates and lax loaning prices drive up housing costs, but so does the fact that you can write off the interest you borrow.

As for renter tax deduction, I am not saying its a 1 for 1 exchange (i.e. that LL will raise the rent exactly to match the refund), just that overtime the refund will be eaten away by higher rents.

All the points you made are valid, except that ultimately even you admit that by giving a tax break for renting you are effectively lowering the rent (by how much depends on many, many things as you note). Once you lower the effective rent you will necessarily increase demand and w/o increased supply - prices (rent) will go up.

Think about it this way - why are 421-a tax exemptions considered a boon for developers when it is the Condo unit owner who actually gets the lower tax rate.

Posted by: David at June 21, 2007 5:33 PM

Hey, silversucks, I really prefer the name "Silversocks", it's much classier. But if you want to be silversucks, that's up to you. Go figure.

In answer to your polite little question, at no time did I ever mention Hicksville, you are hallucinating. Perhaps that is from inhaling a toxic metal. I have no problem with any of those stores per se. To line them up on Court Street is to create a very uninteresting strip mall, but if the corporations that own those places went about legally obtaining leases from the landlords, then more power to them. That is the marketplace talking. Remaining "Ghetto", whatever that means, is in the eye of the beholder. You must be referring to the presence of minority peoples, in which case that says much more about you than it says about me.

Grad school, I think perhaps our cross purposes in terminology got us to butt heads. I'm waving the white flag here. No mas! Peace!

Posted by: Sterling Silver at June 21, 2007 7:09 PM

"That is the marketplace talking."

As is the fact that not everyone can live in a desirable area.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 21, 2007 8:43 PM

"That is the marketplace talking."

As is the fact that not everyone can live in a desirable area.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 21, 2007 8:43 PM

ah... said with the chutzpah of one who intends to make sure that only a special few get to do that.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 21, 2007 11:42 PM

As it should be.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 22, 2007 5:51 PM

Want affordable housing for all in the most desirable communities? GO MOVE TO A WELFARE STATE!

Posted by: Anonymous at June 23, 2007 8:30 AM

« State Raises Affordable Housing Bar for 421-a Bill Atlantic Yards Demo Update »

June 20, 2007

Albee Square Deal Closes, Fewer Apartments Planned

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions