Brownstoner: Winning the Housing Lottery

Is it a mistake on the pics, or was it really a 20' house before with three windows that was then converted to a 16' house after, with only two windows across?

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 9:26 AM

how is this really helping the community? so this guy will inevitably sell soon for close to 2M and walk off with a fist full of cash. I guess there's always room for improvement and I hate to complain about a program that is designed to help ppl but this seems a bit ridiculous. there should be a cap on the sales price of these homes to ensure that people will still be able to get them for a reasonable price for years to come. at least more than one person can benefit from it that way. I feel like its not a good use of resources to put the time money and energy into restoring a home to sell it to one person and make that person a millionaire.

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 9:28 AM

how is this really helping the community? so this guy will inevitably sell soon for close to 2M and walk off with a fist full of cash. I guess there's always room for improvement and I hate to complain about a program that is designed to help ppl but this seems a bit ridiculous. there should be a cap on the sales price of these homes to ensure that people will still be able to get them for a reasonable price for years to come. at least more than one person can benefit from it that way. I feel like its not a good use of resources to put the time money and energy into restoring a home to sell it to one person and make that person a millionaire.

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 9:28 AM

I gotta agree with the above poster. Makes sense that there should be a cap on the amount he can sell it for when he decides to move.

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 9:32 AM

I have no beef with people getting the chance to buy affordable housing, but there is no way that is the same building in the two photos.

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 9:36 AM

does clinton hill really need this kind of 'help' anymore? seems to me there's no shortage of people who can buy (and renovate) houses on their own in the neighborhood.

Posted by: Jimmy Legs at March 24, 2008 9:38 AM

Help me out here... How was he able to take out so much tax-free?

"He made a $22,750 down payment using cash he'd saved in money-market funds. For closing costs and moving expenses, he took $22,000 in contributions he'd made to a Roth IRA, which was a tax-free withdrawal."

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 9:46 AM

There is a "cap" or better worded incentives to keep you in the neighborhood. It is a seven year plan, trust me i'm the lucky guy. the program is extremely fair, i don't plan on ever moving. believe in good karma it works.

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 9:50 AM

There is a "cap" or better worded incentives to keep you in the neighborhood. It is a seven year plan, trust me i'm the lucky guy. the program is extremely fair, i don't plan on ever moving. PACC efforts are excellent. believe in good karma it works.

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 9:52 AM

A renovated/restored/lived in house where there is an owner (ie someone with a vested interest in keeping the place decent) is better for the community than some derelict dump. Thats clear.

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 9:55 AM

Those are not the same buildings in the photos; also, if the photos are of the location I think they are, they are old as those houses are in good shape now...

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 9:58 AM

I for one dont care if you stayed or sell it. It's your perogative. Congrats!

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 10:00 AM

check with your roth ira provider but it is my understanding you always can take your contribution out without claiming it as income. you already paid tax on it (roth ira). any interest earned is income.

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 10:01 AM

you can take money out of a roth as it is after tax money you put in

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 10:02 AM

those are not the photos.

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 10:04 AM

I think that programs like this are great!

There are restrictions in the sales contracts of such properties. They include things like having affordable rental apartments, limits on the time before resale, etc.

This is a great, albeit small way, of helping middle and moderate income folks stay in NYC, so that this doesn't become a place for the very rich and the poor who provide services for them.

Mazel tov to the new owners!

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 10:09 AM

If you look under the title, "Winning the Housing Lottery", there are two addresses (282 and 288 St. James); those pictures are of the two different buildings, I'm guessing. The mistake that *was* made was labelling them 'before' and 'after', implying it was the same building.

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 10:28 AM

Hey and let's not forget the 20 year tax abatement thta comes along with these properties. Not only do we make them rich from the beginning - why make them contribute back into the system!

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 10:50 AM

how many properties are handled through lotteries such as this? this is unfortunately a drop in the bucket. there is no way to strike economic balance by giving a couple of lucky folks houses in a neighborhood like this. it's a token gesture at best. don't get me wrong, i'm way jealous. but unless they start working on a larger scale, it's kind of useless.

Posted by: Jimmy Legs at March 24, 2008 11:03 AM

I'm pretty sure you can't just turn around and sell these housing lottery homes. I believe you sign a contract requiring that you live there for a minimum of 5 years (at least that is what I remember from one that I entered). And to those who are harping on the fact that the city just handed someone 2mil in the form of a beautiful new home- Its called a Lottery, just like the State Gaming provides, except this one ensures money funneled back into the community/borough. If I won a Powerball Jackpot I'd move to Hawaii. Congrats.

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 11:04 AM

I just don't understand why they couldn't buy something themselves. The article says they had $1M budget 5 years ago. % years ago you could definitely find a house for that much.

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 11:05 AM

I'm pretty sure you can't just turn around and sell these housing lottery homes. I believe you sign a contract requiring that you live there for a minimum of 5 years (at least that is what I remember from one that I entered). And to those who are harping on the fact that the city just handed someone 2mil in the form of a beautiful new home- Its called a Lottery, just like the State Gaming provides, except this one ensures money funneled back into the community/borough. If I won a Powerball Jackpot I'd move to Hawaii. Congrats to the new owner.

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 11:06 AM

this post irks. the photos were cut & pasted from PACC's website, and the caption makes no sense. and why is the word fairness in quotes? does the term have some kind of special definition when used in connection with real estate? why would i be impressed with a program if i didn't believe it was fair (or "fair")?

Posted by: i disagree at March 24, 2008 11:10 AM

Like many of the posters before me, I offer the new owners congratulations, and hope you stay in the community for a long time.

The good thing about these lotteries is that those who win are motivated to make these houses into homes, and become part of the community. Sounds like a win-win for everyone.

I think the "fair" quotations were to forestall the inevitable whining of those who never entered the lottery, didn't win, and feel someone else got something they should have had access to. It was a lottery, as someone said above. Just like Lotto or Mega Millions. If someone wins the jackpot, wish them well, keep playing, or not, and go about your life. Your turn may come the hard way, through sweat and effort. That is the way of it for most of us.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at March 24, 2008 11:19 AM

I think Clinton Hill is not a good area for this program, because gentrification is already relatively advanced in this area. If these houses were not renovated by PACC and sold through a lottery, it would only be a matter of years before they are bought and renovated by wealthy people. So there is no need for a special program to improve the neighborhood and its housing stock, the free market is already doing a good job in Clinton Hill.

So this program is not doing much for the community:
1. neighborhood improvement in Clinton has been occuring without the help of this program.
2. While this helps a few lucky middle class people to get a house in the neighborhood, this program does not help to keep the middle class in the area, because it is really a tiny drop in the bucket.

However, this could be a great program in areas where gentrification has not occured yet, or is in the early stages. Like the not-so-nice parts of Bed-Stuy, or places like East New York and Cypress Hills. In these places, renovating a few houses and bringing new people could certainly help to trigger community improvement.

But in Clinton Hill?

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 11:29 AM

We give subsidies out all the time (everyone holla AY!) for folks to renovate abandon properties. Bully on them for giving one to the little guy and they should do more of it.

This was a fair way to keep a little economic diversity in the neighborhood. I'd love to meet anyone of the haters in person to argue that it is a bad idea to give a single parent and a firemen a shot at living within striking distance of their jobs.

"Is it too much to ask..." Jimmy Stewart

Kuroko

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 11:41 AM

Its disturbing to me, someone who makes less than 85K, that my tax dollars are going to provide subsidized housing to someone who clearly is not needy. If you can afford to buy a home for $455K, there are plenty of affordable condos and coops available and for just a bit more money, $500 to 600K, you can buy a decent home in Bushwick, Ridgewood and probably many other neighborhoods. Why should we be subsidizing the puchase of luxury housing in gentrified neighborhoods. These houses will all be renovated sooner or later when it makes economic sense.
This is a gross misuse of government funds.

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 11:50 AM

Its disturbing to me, someone who makes less than 85K, that my tax dollars are going to provide subsidized housing to someone who clearly is not needy. If you can afford to buy a home for $455K, there are plenty of affordable condos and coops available and for just a bit more money, $500 to 600K, you can buy a decent home in Bushwick, Ridgewood and probably many other neighborhoods. Why should we be subsidizing the puchase of luxury housing in gentrified neighborhoods. These houses will all be renovated sooner or later when it makes economic sense.
This is a gross misuse of government funds.

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 11:51 AM

I find the comparison to the 'Mega Millions' or other lottery jackpots silly. yes, since this person spent nothing and potentially got millions of dollars from this property there is a slight similarity. however, the lottery is completely different you actually SPEND money to play. money that is then used for schools or whatever else to actually do benefit the community. this has nothing to do with that. the people who win this lottery risk nothing to gain. not only that but money (our money) is actually SPENT to restore these homes that they give away - hardly similar if you ask me.

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 11:54 AM

I find the comparison to the 'Mega Millions' or other lottery jackpots silly. yes, since this person spent nothing and potentially got millions of dollars from this property there is a slight similarity. however, the lottery is completely different you actually SPEND money to play. money that is then used for schools or whatever else to actually do benefit the community. this has nothing to do with that. the people who win this lottery risk nothing to gain. not only that but money (our money) is actually SPENT to restore these homes that they give away - hardly similar if you ask me.

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 11:55 AM

Its disturbing to me, someone who makes less than 85K, that my tax dollars are going to provide subsidized housing to someone who clearly is not needy. If you can afford to buy a home for $455K, there are plenty of affordable condos and coops available and for just a bit more money, $500 to 600K, you can buy a decent home in Bushwick, Ridgewood and probably many other neighborhoods. Why should we be subsidizing the puchase of luxury housing in gentrified neighborhoods. These houses will all be renovated sooner or later when it makes economic sense.
This is a gross misuse of government funds.

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 12:01 PM

"This was a fair way to keep a little economic diversity in the neighborhood. I'd love to meet anyone of the haters in person to argue that it is a bad idea to give a single parent and a firemen a shot at living within striking distance of their jobs."

this guy is none of the above just like a lot of others not to mention the lottery system doesn't exclude ppl so its not just 'single parents and firemen' getting these homes. these are people who make a decent living and under usual circumstances could afford to buy a place of their own. 85K a year for a single man is clearly not needy. people at this salary range don't need a handout they don't need to be given a whole brownstone they can afford a condo just like the rest of the people in NY who don't make enough to afford a 2M dollar home.

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 12:07 PM

They should convert these houses into condos then sell those as affordable housing. Many people like hardworking single mothers would laugh at $455K being called affordable. Owning an entire brownstone is not part of the inherent rights of man. Or New Yorkers.

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 12:13 PM

"This is a gross misuse of government funds."

Exactly. The house should have been sold with the proceeds going directly to the community instead of just a select handful of people. With $500K proceeds, you can give $10K downpayment assistences to 50 people! Instead of one person hitting the lottery, 50 people could have! Or what about creating more park space?

Total misuse of funds.

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 12:21 PM

Why didnt you haters just apply? OHH I know why you were too lazy or had no faith.

Congrats to winner again and brownstoner for passing on the info!

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 12:37 PM

kuroko - the single guy, who is the owner and lives in the 3br, doesn't have a kid. and where does it say that he works near clinton hill? the fireman (who earns $110k a year, more than the cap) and his wife (the feng shui consultant, a job almost as essential to the community as a dvd technician) whose income isn't figured in) are the ones with the kid.

Posted by: i disagree at March 24, 2008 12:45 PM

"it's a token gesture at best. don't get me wrong, i'm way jealous. but unless they start working on a larger scale, it's kind of useless."

Don't worry, I didn't get you wrong. It's pretty CLEAR you're jealous. Even if ONE abandoned property is restored to proper condition through this lottery, thereby making a small improvement on the neighborhood, how exactly is that useless? Granted this is no panacea, but because of this program, there's one less crappy house in this neighborhood. I'm not sure why that would make you unhappy, but if you're like many of the posters on this site, you are a generally unhappy person.

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 1:16 PM

"it's a token gesture at best. don't get me wrong, i'm way jealous. but unless they start working on a larger scale, it's kind of useless."

Don't worry, I didn't get you wrong. It's pretty CLEAR you're jealous. Even if ONE abandoned property is restored to proper condition through this lottery, thereby making a small improvement on the neighborhood, how exactly is that useless? Granted this is no panacea, but because of this program, there's one less crappy house in this neighborhood. I'm not sure why that would make you unhappy, but if you're like many of the posters on this site, you are a generally unhappy person.

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 1:23 PM

1:16,it is possible to both note that one less run-down house is good AND still find fault with the system that put it there. it just seems especially egregious when you consider the vast stretches of dilapidated houses in areas of brooklyn that don't get glowing puff pieces written in the NYT.

i agree each house counts, but if the intention of the lottery is to maintain socio-economic diversity in clinton hill, i think it's too little, too late.

Posted by: Jimmy Legs at March 24, 2008 1:37 PM

I'm guest 12:01 and I am not jealous. I just think that there are a lot better ways to spend my money, my taxes, to improve neighborhoods. I work hard, own my home and pay a lot of money to the City, State and Feds. I don't pay taxes so people who can easily afford a decent home should get subsidized housing at my expense. Let's fix up the schools, improve parks, hire more police officers or renovate housing for the truly needy.
This is not the lottery! This is a hand-out to someone who does not need it. My taxes do not fund the prizes given out by the lottery. Presumably they are funded by the proceeds from the sale of lottery tickets - i.e. the people foolish enough to buy them.

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 1:43 PM

11:54, the article says he paid almost $45K in downpayment and closing costs, and is paying a mortgage of $3k plus monthly. That's hardly free, or "nothing". Granted, it may be much less than someone buying a market rate house, but the lucky guy won a lottery.

Why can't we just wish him and the other winners well, be glad a derelict building got renovated, was stopped from continuing to be a blight on the block, and became a tax paying property, and move on? PACC has houses in the neighborhood because they are based in the neighborhood. I have nothing to do with them, but I imagine that with the range of projects they have, selling off a couple of houses in a lottery still brings money to them, and allows them to renovate and build affordable units elsewhere, and gets their properties back on the tax rolls.

Sheesh, you can't win here. If they had turned all the houses into affordable units for that single mother, people would be complaining that low income people shouldn't be looking to live in a higher income place like Clinton Hill, why should our tax dollars subsidize them, they should live in East NY, blah, blah, blah.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at March 24, 2008 1:55 PM

"Let's fix up the schools, improve parks, hire more police officers or renovate housing for the truly needy."

Thanks for that well-thought-out and easily implemented plan. We will be sure to return to you for ideas about how exactly to fund your grand and original vision. Meanwhile, plans like this lottery, while far from perfect, are actually doing something and making a difference, as opposed to talking about it.

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 1:56 PM

Wasn't this house owned by a non-governmental non-profit community organization?

Where's the taxpayer dollars? And before you type in caps TAX ABATEMENT know that every development with an affordable component has them. Haven't they (PACC) been doing this for years?

If this should be left to market forces than I believe the market had/has spoken...they were abandon by such market.

So why all the haters? I would actually argue that because it hadn't been accomplished by the all wise and knowing "market" years ago that the sale price of $455K was "market" rate.

Kuroko

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 2:28 PM

Housing lotteries are foolish. Our government should provide affordable housing for everyone or for no one (but of course the poorest of the poor) And since they have no plans to provide housing for everyone why are they doing it for some. All or none that's the only thing that makes sense - the idea that our government will provide housing for a guy making $85K while someone making $30K has to pay their own way is ridiculous. If the government wants to help they should sell off these buildings to developers at an auction and use the funds to LOWER EVERYONE'S TAXES!!!! That's how we make the city more affordable for everyone - LOWER OUR TAXES!!!!! Wasting tax dollars on housing for a guy who makes $85K is STUPID!!!

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 2:28 PM

Wasn't this house owned by a non-governmental non-profit community organization?

Where's the taxpayer dollars? And before you type in caps TAX ABATEMENT know that every development with an affordable component has them. Haven't they (PACC) been doing this for years?

If this should be left to market forces than I believe the market had/has spoken...they were abandon by such market.

So why all the haters? I would actually argue that because it hadn't been accomplished by the all wise and knowing "market" years ago that the sale price of $455K was "market" rate.

Kuroko

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 2:29 PM

good for the winner.

hey 1.43 - i don't want my taxes wasted on welfare and medicaid - but what you gonna do.

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 2:30 PM

Although I agree with the statement that Clinton Hill does not really need this program. I smell a lot of hate going on. Be happy for the guy. I myself have been fortunate to win at one of these lotteries, you cannot however sell for at least 10yrs with out haveing to pay some of the subsudy back. Housing lotteries are far from stupid. This man won fair and square. Get over it.

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 3:02 PM

y is it that when anyone has a difference of opinion they're suddenly labeled a hater? just because you don't agree with the program that doesn't make you a hater. I think the program is stupid and the thought of a single person making 85K a year getting an entire brownstone under the guise of an affordable housing program is even worse. am I hater? hell no. I'm a person with an opinion and it just so happens that I think there is a better use of these kinds of funds or initiatives. I think affordable programs are great when they help people who are actually in need but this is not at all the case. its not a personal attack at "kuroko" because he got over - good for him nor am I jealous that I didn't win the lottery. I just think these types of programs help a small handful of people get rich and tons of others that could have been helped with nothing.

I think this point is illustrated in places like atlantic commons. the homes in atlantic commons were initially sold for 'affordable' prices and I distinctly recall a few years ago when there was a house in atlantic commons on brownstoner that started a heated discussion because they were asking for over a million dollars for the house. its insane, all I'm saying is for the effort and resources put into programs of this nature it is only right that more than one person can get help from it.

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 3:08 PM

y is it that when anyone has a difference of opinion they're suddenly labeled a hater? just because you don't agree with the program that doesn't make you a hater. I think the program is stupid and the thought of a single person making 85K a year getting an entire brownstone under the guise of an affordable housing program is even worse. am I hater? hell no. I'm a person with an opinion and it just so happens that I think there is a better use of these kinds of funds or initiatives. I think affordable programs are great when they help people who are actually in need but this is not at all the case. its not a personal attack at "kuroko" because he got over - good for him nor am I jealous that I didn't win the lottery. I just think these types of programs help a small handful of people get rich and tons of others that could have been helped with nothing.

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 3:10 PM

"I think the program is stupid and the thought of a single person making 85K a year getting an entire brownstone under the guise of an affordable housing program is even worse. am I hater?"

Yes.

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 3:21 PM

Even within so-called gentrified neighborhoods, such as Park Slope or Clinton Hill, there are houses that have fallen into severe disrepair. Some are owned by HPD or HUD. Others are owned by individuals. The community organizations take these houses, rehabilitate them, and run a lottery for them.

In neighborhoods like Park Slope and Clinton Hill, lotteries like this help maintain income diversity. This helps avoid income segregation. There is a crisis in middle income housing in this city. Lotteries like this are a small drop in the bucket, but at least they are something.

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 3:25 PM

I don't think its hate, just envy. hate is a bit strong.

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 3:31 PM

"I just think these types of programs help a small handful of people get rich and tons of others that could have been helped with nothing."

First, while he/she should do well in time, I don't think the buyer will exactly "get rich" as a result of this purchase. Secondly, like the other haters here, you eagerly share a great many objections and complaints, but offer no concrete alternatives.

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 3:33 PM

So the alternative would have been for the federal government to sell this property at market rate and put that money into the trillion dollar operating budget for the year.

At least this way a neighborhood housing development agency gets funding to apply toward other neighborhood projects.

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 3:54 PM

I did offer an alternative earlier, I think that a cap on the sales price of these homes would be a better alternative - perhaps a pre-determined % increase per year. that way the price of the home will remain 'affordable' and more than one person can benefit. the guy who won this lottery put a significant amount of his own money up for a down payment and closing costs and I think that he should be able to make money from the sale of this house. however, I don't think you should get the right to sell a house at market rate if you didn't buy it at market rate.

3:21 - I love the way you left out my answer to the question am I a hater? and just like I said before HELL NO. jerk.

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 4:08 PM

Have any of you heard of the GI Bill? The government has a long history of housing subsidies, some of which probably supplied your fathers with homes and education.

This subsidy really helps an small number of middle class folks.

Don't you want to live among people other than investment bankers and lawyers?

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 4:16 PM

My fiancee placed 7th in the same lottery and she is will soon close on a 3-family brownstone in Bed Stuy. The majority of the properties in this round of sales are on the eastern edge of Clinton Hill or the western edge of Bed Stuy. PACC's intent is not simply to benefit a few buyers, but to continue in the process of revitalizing the neighborhood by fixing up homes that were extremely dilapidated and sell them to folks who agree to live in the homes for at least 7 years, thereby introducing a measure of stability to the neighborhood while fixing blight.

While the houses have below-market selling prices, no one is going to become rich off these deals, nor will this program fix all of the neighborhood's problems. This program does benefit a neighborhood in need of improvement however. Whether the benefit justifies the cost in terms of federal housing subsidies is a matter of opinion. In my biased opinion this program is far better than most taxpayer-subsidized attempts to improve the City's housing stock, and clearly, those former crack dens and unsafe SRO's weren't going to fix themselves.

Posted by: kutterkan at March 24, 2008 4:29 PM

"I think that a cap on the sales price of these homes would be a better alternative - perhaps a pre-determined % increase per year. that way the price of the home will remain 'affordable' and more than one person can benefit."

"Affordable" to whom, 4:08? At exactly what price level would you set the cap? Also, if NO ONE else was willing to buy the place when it was a run-down (presumably available) house that was NOT part of the PACC program, why should the buyer, who was lucky enough to benefit from this progressive initiative(which managed to get the house, sold albeit to a guy who makes $85K), be limited in the amount he/she can sell for? I assume there weren't a bunch of folks lined up waiting up to buy this place prior to its inclusion in the PACC lottery, or else we wouldn't be talking about it here. The buyer clearly lucked out, but why should he/she be punished for that, and why is that considered a "bad" thing if a formerly unoccupied eyesore was finally inhabited by a committed owner? Sure, it's not a perfect plan, but what plan is? Frankly, your "alternative" doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Like the other haters on this site you're good at complaining and tossing around insults, but not so good at coming up with realistic solutions.

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 4:32 PM

of course I'm a hater! I don't agree, that makes me a hater! there are several similar programs that "realistically" work with this same theory in mind. the example that comes to mind is of the building in harlem on 116th (if I'm not mistaken) its a nice full service building that was 'affordable' when built and remains 'affordable' in context of market prices for apartments because there are income restrictions placed on people who buy in the building. if there is a % increase per year buildings will still remain as 'affordable' as a 455K house is to begin with. frankly, I guess its a matter of what you consider realisitc solutions 4:32. there's no way that it is as unrealistic as your charge that its okay for only one person to benefit because no one wanted the building when it wasn't renovated. well, obviously I'm sure he didn't want it when it was dilapitated either but that doesn't make a difference does it? even the solution of making them affordable condos for people who are in a lower income bracket is better.

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 4:45 PM

"even the solution of making them affordable condos for people who are in a lower income bracket is better."

Who exactly will pay for this "solution?" Also, if this is such a great alternative, why wasn't this proposed by YOU or by someone else earlier? No, you waited until someone actually conceived a program, put a person in a home and then you started complaining because the program didn't solve all of the problems of all of the unfortunate New Yorkers who can't afford to buy a home. Quite lame.

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 5:16 PM

Regardless of all the opinions, simply understand that PACC is a class organization that other programs should model themselves after. Acquiring these properties, getting the funding, manage the rebuilding, and be accountable for every penny is a tremendous undertaking. Applaud PACC and its employees for infusing its energy and efforts locally.

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 5:50 PM

"there's no way that it is as unrealistic as your charge that its okay for only one person to benefit because no one wanted the building when it wasn't renovated."

If it's so unrealistic, why is it that this is exactly what happened?

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 6:02 PM

Interesting that the winner came in just under the wire on the $85K "cap" but he just so happens to have a brother with wife & kid who (even by NY standards) have the type of income that should disqualify them from any subsidy.

Almost as offensive as the the Government, the Fed, & CO. bailing out the "victims" who "overextended" themselves buying properties.

Next time I hear Bloomberg babble about helping out needy New Yorkers in this post-bubble-burst era, I'd like someone to shout "Make NY rents 50% tax-deductible." (Sorry, just a rant by a "silly" tax-paying NY renter who thought it injudicious in the past 5 years to take a no-interest mortgage just to get a piece of the real estate pie).

Cheers.

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 6:11 PM

Interesting that the winner came in just under the wire on the $85K "cap" but he just so happens to have a brother with wife & kid who (even by NY standards) have the type of income that should disqualify them from any subsidy.

Almost as offensive as the the Government, the Fed, & CO. bailing out the "victims" who "overextended" themselves buying properties.

Next time I hear Bloomberg babble about helping out needy New Yorkers in this post-bubble-burst era, I'd like someone to shout "Make NY rents 50% tax-deductible." (Sorry, just a rant by a "silly" tax-paying NY renter who thought it injudicious in the past 5 years to take a no-interest mortgage just to get a piece of the real estate pie).

Cheers.

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 6:12 PM

Dude your hate is in full effect!

I really dont remeber you hating this much when Brownstoner advertise this program. Why now? Because a regular Joe won?

This life lesson should drive you more to get out there and open your eyes. Be strong and good luck!

Posted by: guest at March 24, 2008 9:30 PM

i just wrote a post and think it disappeared. darn, it was GOOD

Posted by: guest at March 27, 2008 12:10 PM

Is a single man earning $85k really middle income? A regular Joe? I thought PACC set lower income caps for their lotteries.

Posted by: guest at April 8, 2008 9:11 PM

« Monday Events The Times Cozies Up to Clinton Hill »

March 24, 2008

Winning the Housing Lottery

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment