« Open Thread Omissions and Lies in Atlantic Yards Study »

October 8, 2009

Affordable Housing: Promises vs. Reality

The Gotham Gazette published an interesting article this week examining Mayor Bloomberg's track record in affordable housing. A keystone to the Mayor's housing plan is inclusionary zoning—granting benefits, such as a 33 percent higher floor to area ratio, to developers who include permanent affordable housing in their plans. Critics say that the plan hasn't delivered nearly as much affordable housing as promised and supporters say that the plan can work, given enough time. In Greenpoint-Williamsburg, for example, the program has created 768 affordable rentals since 2005, and the goal is 2,200 over the course of a decade. Also, in 2005, the city promised over 6,000 units from already approved projects, but since then only 2,716 have come into existence, mostly in Manhattan, and this figure includes renovations of existing affordable apartments, not just new units. Also, between 2005 and 2008, the city lost 20,000 rent-stabalized apartments to market-rate developments, which tips the mayor's affordable housing balance into the red. Alternative solutions proposed include mandatory as opposed to optional inclusionary housing, and a new focus on preservation and regulation of existing housing, as opposed to new construction. "The priorities that Bloomberg has put on development of new construction as a solution to affordable housing has been the wrong emphasis," Mario Mazzoni, the lead organizer at the Metropolitan Council on Housing, told the Gazette. "You cannot build yourself out of the affordable housing crisis in New York City."
Affordable Housing Not Included [Gotham Gazette]
Affordable housing map, showing completed vs. closed inclusionary housing projects, from The Gotham Gazette

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/11789

Comments

"Mario Mazzoni, the lead organizer at the Metropolitan Council on Housing, told the Gazette. "You cannot build yourself out of the affordable housing crisis in New York City."

Apparently that's just what IS happening if you read the NBC New York story in Thursday Links below.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at October 8, 2009 9:36 AM

maybe the limits should be a little more defined and not so literal poverty level when it comes to income? you can't have a giant luxury rental where people are paying 4000 a month for a 2 bedroom and then set aside a couple rentals for people making 20K a year and charging them 1000 dollars a month :-/ that is exactly what so many of the affordable housing are beyond the grasp of most working people.

so there an income limit where you have to make between 18K and 26K a year, and your "affordable" rent is 1000 a month. wtf? and don't get me started on all the developments that only offer for "families" of 2,3,4,5 etc.

the whole system is a giant SHAM!

*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at October 8, 2009 9:44 AM

Come one Dave, the NBC story said that the writer HOPED that the condo glut would produce affordable housing, not that there was an actual master plan to do so.

I'm with those who say renovate what we've already got. I can think of countless streets around with boarded up buildings, or buildings on the verge of being boarded up. Take Kingston Ave between Atlantic and St Marks Ave. A concerted effort to make landlords either fix up or sell, or a program in concert with some organization like Habitat for Humanity could work wonders over there, provide needed housing, and bring back a mixed commercial and residential strip that is near transportation, and has storefronts for grocery stores and other necessary commercial entities. There are literally hundreds, probably thousands of buildings all over Brooklyn that could be rehabbed. Why tear everything down to build craptastic non architecture, when we have buildings with great bones, superior facades, and are contextural within those neighborhoods?

Posted by: Montrose Morris at October 8, 2009 9:48 AM

but montrose.. en suite bathrooms, double vanities, soaking tubs, and a giant encasement for rosie the robot would never fit in those old buildings, duhhhh.. and isnt that what everyone DESERVES. i mean how could someone possibly live without those things!?!

and yes, i totally agree with what you say.

*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at October 8, 2009 9:52 AM

metro new york city has no affordable housing crisis whatsoever. Just go on craigslist with 500/month to spend on rent, and you will find a place within commuting distance to your job in the city. That includes yonkers, where you can buy a studio for 80K, newark, where you can get public transportation.

wait, people want a handout for rent, and they want their pad to be in Flatiron? Chelsea? I can't believe this is taken seriously. Come on, look up the east river next time you go over the manhattan bridge, and just breathe in the amount of public housing that blankets that land in lower manhattan. This has gone way too far. We work our asses off to live here and pay market rate. I'm tired of politicians mainstreaming a giant welfare program to get votes.

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 8, 2009 9:53 AM

It also really gets me that during a building boom that produced literally thousands of apartment units in Williamsburg/Greenpoint, they only managed to build 768 affordable units? And their goal was ONLY 2,200 in TEN years, and they are acting like they've accomplished something?

Posted by: Montrose Morris at October 8, 2009 10:01 AM

Montrose;

Alot of the housing in this city does not have "great bones". The street you cite is in Crown Heights, which was developed for wealthy folks, and hence the housing stock tends to be of higher quality. There are vast areas of this city, however, in which the housing stock consists of structures erected in the 1920's, at which time there was a housing boom similiar to that we just went through. This housing was not built for the wealthy. It was built for the upwardly-mobile working class streaming out of the Lower East Side and other such areas. While this housing was perfectly fine for its day, it is rapidly becoming obsolete. Take a drive through areas like East Flatbush, Bensonhurst and Brownsville and you will thousands of such units. It is not advisable to restore this housing. It is obsolete by today's standards, in all aspects: structurally, mechanicals and even aesthetically.

Our governments, on all levels, are rapidly approaching their fiscal limits. The only way to make housing affordable is to increase supply, via the private sector. Moreover, like in any functioning market,supply will be added at the high end, which in turn will automatically increase supply for the other segments of the market. If a wealthy person trades in his used car for a new one, a lower-income person also benefits (through purchasing the used car).

Posted by: benson at October 8, 2009 10:02 AM

b-tch PLEASE joe the plummber... if im someone making 20K a year working in manhattan i am NOT moving to f'ing yonkers or newark. sorry but your ridiculous notion that nyc proper should only be for the uber-wealthy is but a stupid pipe dream.

*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at October 8, 2009 10:04 AM

quote:
I'm tired of politicians mainstreaming a giant welfare program to get votes.

okay, i sorta kinda agree with you on that one. that is one of the reasons cities like Detroit will never, EVER come back.

*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at October 8, 2009 10:05 AM

A vibrant, functioning, and livable city has housing for all income levels within its borders. Said city needs everyone to fill the myriad of jobs, many low paying, but necessary to the running of the city. Not to mention all of the people in the middle who make this city run. A city of the rich, where everyone else commutes in from outside is unacceptable. Deal with it, joe the bummers of the world. We need public housing, we need affordable lower middle class and middle class housing, and we need luxury housing. As great as they are to visit, I don't want to live in a Paris, surrounding by angry slums, or a Rio with its favelas, nor do I want a Johannesburgh. I'm also not interested in living in a Detroit, with the rich surrounding a decaying inner city. All of us are necessary, all of us should be able to live within the city, if we so choose. The old and ridiculous argument that the poor, or lower classes are clamoring to live on Park Ave is just that, ridiculous. But they shouldn't have to be consigned to Yonkers, and a 2 hour commute to a low paying job in order to survive. There is enough room in this city for a mix, especially in Brooklyn. Let's rehab the buildings we have, which are in neighborhoods all over this borough, and put public money where it serves the public. No one is looking for a handout, just a chance to live in decent housing, so they can go about their business and earn a living and raise their families.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at October 8, 2009 10:15 AM

nobody said uber wealthy. that's the problem -- the liberals see this as black and white. The largest single force raising market rates is the lack of market rate apartments. Rent control exacerbates the problem, and we're addicted to it now. the solution is to build market rate housing, and gradually eliminate support programs, except for people who truly can't help themselves.

if you want to make 20K a year as a bartender while you wait for your band to take off, I don't want to pay your rent.

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 8, 2009 10:25 AM

Montrose Morris t 10:15-

And THAT is why MM got the Lifetime Achievement Award!
How many times have people said on this blog, how the mix of people and culture are what makes this city so great? Well, you can kiss that goodbye if those who don't earn as much have to move further and further out. It isn't a matter of a developer not being able to build or renovate affordable housing and not make money. They can- they do so all over the world. Its a matter of wanting to make the most amount of money for the least expense. And the glut of luxury housing is the result.

What bothers me most is the underlying feeling that people who don't make a lot of money are not entitled to live in NYC proper, or in decent housing or neighborhoods. No matter the majority of them have also worked hard all their lives, and paid taxes too.

Posted by: bxgrl at October 8, 2009 10:27 AM

joe- not everone is going to make megabucks. That's reality. Many of the most necessary jobs do not pay well but try to get along without your office cleaning worker for a couple of days, then get back to us. It isn't a matter of liberals or conservatives. It's a matter of seeing everything in terms of dollars and cents at the expense of people.

Posted by: bxgrl at October 8, 2009 10:29 AM

"But they shouldn't have to be consigned to Yonkers, and a 2 hour commute to a low paying job in order to survive."

Uh, Montrose, have you seen Yonkers?? A few facts:

-For those who work in Manhattan, Yonkers is a BETTER commute than from the outer parts of Brooklyn where many of the lower income areas are located.

-Yonkers is very similiar to Brooklyn in many ways. In fact, it could be argued that Yonkers'housing stock is better than that of Brooklyn. I remember that when I was young, moving to Yonkers was a step up for many people from Brooklyn.

What Yonkers doesn't have (at the moment) is the "cachet" of Brooklyn. To Joe's point, therefore: Yonkers is a perfectly suitable alternative for those seeking lower-cost housing. If you expect the taxpayer to subsidize "cachet", well,sorry, I'm not signing up for that deal.

Posted by: benson at October 8, 2009 10:32 AM

Benson, that particular street in Crown Heights was never upper class housing. It is tenement buildings and flats above commercial space. Is it possible for you to concede that I know what I'm talking about, at least in my own neighborhood?

I am also familiar with 20's buildings, and a great majority of them could be rehabbed with no problem. Obsolete is in the eye of the beholder. I also never claimed that EVERY older building is prime for rehab, OBVIOUSLY, they would have to be looked at on a case by case basis, which is par for the course anyway. I still say that the vast majority of abandoned, or partially abandoned older buildings could be salvaged.

To continuously think that the trickle down building concept works is to deny reality. If that was correct, then all of the new condos and apartment buildings would be full. Obviously not the case, because people can't move, and a lot of these buildings are not worth moving into. You are also assuming that that miracle would cause the formerly occupied buildings to magically reduce in price to allow those below to move on up. That also has not happened, and isn't likely to.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at October 8, 2009 10:32 AM

Any homeowner that takes government money should be forced to rent one of their units as "affordable". If you take government money because you bought more house than you could afford then be prepared to give back. If the middle-class did not get cought up in the housing bubble yhere must be a reason. Maybe they are alot smarter than most yuppie geniuses who thought were so smart in buying homes with no money down. Thank you for bringing the price of homes to millions of dollars. We will enjoy shopping for them on propertyshark for pennies.

Posted by: hannible at October 8, 2009 10:39 AM

Oh, I get it. Only people who make big salaries or fit some vague social criterion established by those who make a certain salary level should be allowed to live in Brooklyn. Now they think they are subsidizing hardworking Americans who aren't rich. Good thing we live in a democracy, not a dollarcracy. MM, perhaps we should start packing for Yonkers, now. I wouldn't want benson to subsidize my Brooklyn cachet any longer.

Posted by: bxgrl at October 8, 2009 10:45 AM

Benson, I don't care if Yonkers is the shining city on a hill, that's really not the point. And yes, I've been there, btw. The point is that New York City needs, requires, all kinds of housing, and it would behoove the city to do everything possible to make that a priority. It's not a liberal or conservative point, it's a human, civilized point. There is more to housing people than simply concentrating on those who cannot afford anything. That is always the straw man in these arguments, that we are "wasting" money on housing for people who are sitting around not contributing. The fact is, that those are not the people who constitute the vast majority of those clamoring for housing. It's the middle classes. The UPS driver, the nurse, the teacher and the janitors, the cops. We have within our borders the housing stock we need. We need to utilize it, rehab it if possible, build when necessary. We don't need to move to Yonkers, or anywhere else, unless we choose to do so, not are forced to do so.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at October 8, 2009 10:47 AM

quote:
if you want to make 20K a year as a bartender while you wait for your band to take off, I don't want to pay your rent.

LOL you aren't paying their rent. usually bartenders in a band making 20K live with multiple roommates and pay their own rent without subsidies. you will however pay most of the rent for someone who has 3 kids whose fathers are missing in action. that's just the truth and sadly the vicious cycle of poverty. that being said, id rather my taxes go to pay part of her rent than to subsidize luxury condos which seems to be happening more and more.

*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at October 8, 2009 10:50 AM

Folks. NYC proper includes all of the 5 boroughs, including the poor parts. 7MM people DO live there now, with all of their vibrancy. Affordable housing is ostensibly being built to keep people in their neighborhoods, but do they restrict the lotteries to locals? No. It's a chance to get a freebie. You can move from queens to downtown brooklyn by winning a lottery. and have the city subsidize it.

NYC has vastly different mixes of people in different areas. there is fantastic vibrancy in every borough (except maybe SI) thanks to centuries of immigration. We have this beautiful salad-bowl city.

But you guys are pushing for a soup. I want the salad bowl. Why do you need ALL of NYC to be income-homogeneous? Why? Why do you need low and high income in the same BUILDING? that also kills the vibrancy.

And you frame the issue like I'm some kind of Nazi who wants to remove the underclass. Using words like "uber-" is not cool.

Affordable housing is an issue of two numbers. The number of people, and the number of housing units. It doesn't have to be any more complicated than that. They don't have to be planned, allocated, applied for, or anything else. Just built and sold, like any other product. You don't need all this soap-boxing to keep a roof over everyone's head.

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 8, 2009 10:53 AM

The problem with people like Mario Mazzoni is they ignore simple economics -

If you simply force lower rents (price controls) the result is simple - shortage.

Essentially price controls results in a situation where people in units (and with good connections to get units) do great, and everyone else does worse.

It is also important to remember that every plan that simply forces builder to build "affordable units" (with no tax break or subsidy) means that fewer units will be built and the market-rate units will be more expensive - thereby squeezing out the middle (and upper middle) who cant shoulder the added burden.

While I get the appeal of plans that seem to strike out at "evil landlords" and "the rich" but it isnt that simple and the unintended consequences of such plans are often much worse than the problem trying to be solved.

Posted by: fsrg at October 8, 2009 10:56 AM

"Oh, I get it. Only people who make big salaries or fit some vague social criterion established by those who make a certain salary level should be allowed to live in Brooklyn"

bxgirl, take a big step back. did you mean to say "brownstone brooklyn"? That's the heart of the disagreement here.

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 8, 2009 10:58 AM

MM - "The fact is, that those are not the people who constitute the vast majority of those clamoring for housing. It's the middle classes. The UPS driver, the nurse, the teacher and the janitors, the cops"

You are EXACTLY right (although there still is plenty of housing for these groups in the outer boros - and the crash is 'making' more) BUT one of the reasons for the shortage is all the "plans" to keep housing "affordable".

Lets use the proposed solution here - force builders to include "affordable" units in every new building. Ok, so what happens? - The "affordable units" are built at a loss (or break even) and are given to those most in need (or with the best hooks) and then the builder is forced to jack up the price on the remaining units to make a profit, so who gets screwed - the guy in the middle - too affluent (or un connected) to get in on the "affordable units" and too poor to afford whats left.

Posted by: fsrg at October 8, 2009 11:02 AM

and montrose morris... of all people, the one who (and I like your stuff by the way) totally gets off on brownstones more than anyone else.

if the city didn't produce an upper class in the 19th century that wanted to build brownstones for itself in its own neighborhood, we wouldn't have them! If you were alive then, would you have campaigned against them for being exclusionary? I mean, they were built to be the very "Paris" you don't want, weren't they?

But the city is and was no less vibrant, because it's a BIG CITY and there are other neighborhoods, right nearby, with every different kind of people the world had to throw at NY!!

What's wrong with a nice neighborhood? Should we move part of Compton into Beverly Hills, to return the "vibrancy" to LA?

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 8, 2009 11:04 AM

joe- NYC was famous as the Great Melting Pot-and I think its a fabulous one. The problem with your idea is that all the advantages would go to the wealthier areas- and the less wealthy would be, again, shoved further and further out. look at redlining. This was indicative of what happens when you have salad and not soup. I grew up in a mixed neighborhood, and its nothing to be afraid of. These days we seem caught up in xenophobia.

The other point is, the working poor and middle class pay their fair share of taxes and get back less for it. I've worked all my life, paid my taxes, obeyed the rules. I got nothing to show for it- I get no tax breaks, no rent assistance, no health care- I have always paid my way. I am just as entitled to live in decent housing, in a decent neighborhood, close to public transportation that won't put me 2 hours from my job as any Wall St. wiz. But NYC has been turned into financial enclaves, with the less wealthy ones getting not only the short end of the stick, but getting shoved out as they get priced out.

Posted by: bxgrl at October 8, 2009 11:08 AM

Joe;

Well said, and to look at it in a slightly different way: why do folks believe that the ideal city is one in which the ultimate criteria for vibrancy is that EVERY neighborhood be economically integrated.

To take just one example: Brighton Beach is a fairly uniform area, both economically and socially (Russian working class immigrants). I find it a treat to go down there sometimes and take a peek into another world, right in my own city. It's part of what make NYC great.

This is a big, big city. Let's keep it a big mosiac, not a drab swath of government social engineering. I think I basically just repeated Joe's points, but felt the need to say it :-)

Posted by: benson at October 8, 2009 11:13 AM

joe- i was responding to benson's comparison of Brooklyn and Yonkers. Take a deep breath... a few ommm's will help....:-)

Not all brownstones were built as luxury housing. Much- if not most of it was middle class but the quality of the construction and wealth of detail are so much better than what we get today, many people erroneously think it was all luxury housing.

Posted by: bxgrl at October 8, 2009 11:13 AM

The problem with these arguments is that they always come down to some mythical individual who lucks out and gets an apartment downtown somewhere, whether downtown is the Flatiron district or in Brooklyn Heights. This person is held up as the reason why it is SO unfair that we have housing lotteries, or affordable housing. They don't DESERVE to have something good happen to them, and they are draining public resources, and some of you are personally paying for them to live it up. Come on.

In actuality, these people are as rare as MegaMillion winners. People are not demanding to live in tony neighborhoods, or expecting to live in the same building as some hedge funder. I think too many people have an inflated idea of how wonderful they are and how envious everyone else is of them. Not. Most people just want to be able to live where they can get to work in a reasonable amount of time with their Metrocard, and raise their families in a safe neighborhood and a sturdy home. They don't care about wine bars and fancy restaurants, they are happy if they can take the family to Red Lobster once in a while. These aren't people who are looking to move into your condo after you move to the Meier building. Most people want to stay where they grew up, where their friends, family, houses of worship and favorite stores are. This should be possible, and can be, with some judicious planning and allocation of public and private funds, repurposing of housing stock, and new construction.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at October 8, 2009 11:14 AM

I am all for neighborhood diversity- don't make the mistake of thinking I'm not. But unfortunately, that mosiac idea has far too often used to ghetto-ize (is that a word?) poorer neighborhoods. This has happened over and over again. Sometimes its the very residents of a neighborhood that do it- such as some of the Hasidic neighborhoods. The more insular we get, the worse it gets.

Posted by: bxgrl at October 8, 2009 11:17 AM

"I think too many people have an inflated idea of how wonderful they are".

Not me! Everyone I meet tells me I'm a schmuck!

Posted by: benson at October 8, 2009 11:19 AM

Joe, if you look at any brownstone neighborhood, there are the rich blocks, followed by the more modest blocks, followed by even more modest blocks, followed by flats, commercial and tenement blocks. More often than not, much of it jumbled onto the same block, by design, or by constant rebuilding. While the rich have always had their enclaves, you never had to go beyond a couple of blocks to get to the homes of their employees, and their employee's employees. There is nothing wrong with that, and makes for the kind of city that functions as an organic whole. Perhaps now, in places like Park Slope, where the tenement apartments are now almost as expensive as an apartment in a mansion, things have changed, but that was not the original design.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at October 8, 2009 11:33 AM

"I think too many people have an inflated idea of how wonderful they are and how envious everyone else is of them. Not. Most people just want to be able to live where they can get to work in a reasonable amount of time with their Metrocard, and raise their families in a safe neighborhood and a sturdy home. They don't care about wine bars and fancy restaurants"

Worth repeating.

Posted by: East New York at October 8, 2009 11:39 AM

"rob" check this out... maybe some forward thinking folks can bring Detroit back as has happened in many areas over time.

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20090823/FREE/308239972#

Posted by: bren at October 8, 2009 11:40 AM

benson- LOL.

Posted by: bxgrl at October 8, 2009 11:42 AM

OK MM, I'll take your word for the original neighborhood setup as u are the historian...however...

I would summarize your post with: "Most people want to stay where they grew up": Morris, this is not a birthright. I certainly don't get a handout to buy a house in the suburb where I grew up. We are lucky that in NYC there are not many more people now than there were in the 50s. As you said, the housing stock is there. Someone may have move once or twice to afford to stay in NYC, but they can. It's a changing world and a changing city. The stores they grew up with are already gone.

These neighborhoods have all had many different faces over the years. The change is also what makes NYC great. And the change is not just rich white people replacing poor locals! There is a healthy immigration of chinese, eastern europeans, and many others flowing into the city. Check out Bensonhurst, for a nice example of a rapidly changing neighborhood in Brooklyn that has nothing to do with gentrification.

On ghettoization: This seems to be the foundation of the policies that would homogenize the city. We don't want to create slums like in Delhi or Rio.

what makes a ghetto a ghetto? the lack of transportation in and out of a poor area, the lack of sanitry facilities, health care, schools, opportunity to move out or move up...

These problems aren't solved by adding a low-rise affordable units onto Northside Piers! Our housing policies are totally misguided and obviously subject to abuse by city politicians. We have to stop falling for this!

Let the natural flow of people shape the city, as it always has, and use our taxes to deal with social problems directly.

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 8, 2009 12:00 PM

and, let's be clear that the argument against affordable housing has nothing to do with anyone's "inflated idea of how wonderful they are and how envious everyone else is of them"

It's about an inneficient use of taxes for a plan that exacerbates the problem. it's about disengenous politicians who can give away tax abatements to developers who would build anyway, and in the process claim to be helping common people. It's also about a warped sense of entitlement people seem to have about where they live and what they should have, regardless of what they contribute.

this is not about building a society for the wealthy, it's about ending some of the BS that plagues this city.

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 8, 2009 12:10 PM

"These problems aren't solved by adding a low-rise affordable units onto Northside Piers! Our housing policies are totally misguided and obviously subject to abuse by city politicians. We have to stop falling for this!

Let the natural flow of people shape the city, as it always has, and use our taxes to deal with social problems directly."

joe- those are points I agree with but they don't account for human nature. Bloomberg illustrates exactly what the problem is. He concentrates all the resources in Manhattan and richer neighborhoods. My neighborhood, Crown Heights, has become the sock drawer of Brooklyn. We are inundated and overburdened with City social services- beyond what the law even mandates under Fair Share. And now he wants to dump the intake shelter here too. There is no natural flow in this case. And money is not being spent to improve the neighborhoods that need it most. Instead we get the who pays the most taxes argument. I lived for years in Bklyn Heights- downtown Brooklyn was always busy and making money, but it wasn't as pretty as Bloomberg wanted. So now they are putting moeny into tarting it up, and a lot of that will be at the expense of all the small businesses and not-so-rich customers who made it successful.

Cities are unique organic entities- if one area is failing, it will spread out to the rest. People- especially city planners, don't seem to get this.

Posted by: bxgrl at October 8, 2009 12:18 PM

"It's about an inneficient use of taxes for a plan that exacerbates the problem. "

Joe;

You're firing on all cylinders today. How about having politicians who think progressively (in the true sense of that word) and use tax money for PUBLIC works that will enhance the competitiveness of this city, which in turn would generate wealth for all?

How about a true airport link by mass transport? How about burying some of the old elevated roads and trains that blight our neighborhoods (and which would open up more land for more housing)? How about developing Jamaica Bay into the true,top-tier natural park it could be? How about developing a separate storm-sewer sytem, as many modern cities have?

By the way, investing as such would also serve as an economic stimulus.

Posted by: benson at October 8, 2009 12:18 PM

Joe, to me, it makes no sense to not utilize the excellent housing stock that is there, and provide for those in need of homes. Why say, in Stuy Hts, for example, that because we now have million dollar homes, and a gentrifying and changing neighborhood, we should abandon rehabbing the empty apartment buildings on Malcolm X Blvd because those of lesser means cannot hope to live around the corner from millionaires? Of course you can't change the world in a minute, but programs that rehab our still crumbling inner cities could take advantage of the superior building stock that is there, and work with those eager to better themselves, and get some housing going.

I never said it was a birthright to be able to stay where you are raised, but for most working and middle class people, especially in the outer boroughs, that could still be a reality.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at October 8, 2009 12:21 PM

Benson, all of those public works are great, and I would love to see all of them in action, providing all kinds of good things for the city. But they aren't as necessary as a roof over one's head. Mass transit to the airport means nothing to someone in an apartment with the ceiling falling down, and the stove on to provide heat, and rats in the room, who can't afford to leave and thus become homeless. Feeling good about how great and impressive the city is didn't work in the City Beautiful Movement a hundred years ago, and it won't mean much now to someone who needs a home. I will be the first to say our systems are screwed up, filled with greed, mismanagement and idiocy. But covering them up with neat-o public works doesn't solve the problem.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at October 8, 2009 12:34 PM

MM I can basically agree on the re-hab point. no prob with re-hab, as long as it's as cost-effective, and if you can show that the private market is not serving the common good in this respect. I think a lot of people are re-habbing a lot of brooklyn for private monetary gain, which is good. Some public control, such as landmarking, *should* ensure that the definition of "rehab" is not abused, but I'm not sure public funds are the best answer. If it's not being done naturally in the private market, the right format is to auction the job to the developer who will accept the least amount of public money to restore and SELL the units at market price.

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 8, 2009 12:35 PM

It's not a birthright- but saying if you can't afford it, move when you've lived in a neighborhood all your life is to deny the realities of human nature.

And I can't blame only politicians. The elitist attitude of some people as they move into changing neighborhoods is part of the engine that drives the ghetto-ization of neighborhoods and class resentment. Everytime someone says the wealthy pay so much more in taxes, or they are "subsidizing" those who earn less,it totally says to middle class and working poor that the taxes they pay mean nothing, and their contribution means nothing.

As for public works- yes, a great idea so take a look at what the MTA is sinking billions into- the Upper east side addition. That money could have been better used to improve the system in many other parts of the city. Again, pointing out how its the wealthier neighborhoods that get the majority of services.

Posted by: bxgrl at October 8, 2009 12:36 PM

Montrose;

Here is the score as I see it:

Social safety net:

-Section 8 vouchers;
-Rent control;
-City-funded affordable housing;
-Privately-developed affordable housing via tax incentives (discussed in this post);
-NYCHA housing projects (which house 500,000 people);

This safety net just concerns housing. Then we could talk about food stamps, medicaid, earned-income tax credits, etc.

Large Public works in NYC in the past 40 years:

-Third water tunnel (which is still not complete).

No one here is arguing against a social safety net. When is enough, enough, however? Where is the balance in the above score card?

Posted by: benson at October 8, 2009 12:41 PM

Joe- I agree (12:35 post). The problem seems to be that the level of profit someone wants to make means things like this fall to the wayside. If squeezing every last nickel out of a project is what they want, they will never be able to keep it affordable. Look at big corporations- some time ago there was an article about growth and profits driving them. It's no longer about steady growth and running well in the long run- its about amassing all the wealth you can now, whether or not its sustainable. In the 90's a very successful company called Westminster Lace grew too fast and collapsed on itself. Look at Starbucks- how many Starbucks can we possibly need? Now they've had to close hundreds.

Posted by: bxgrl at October 8, 2009 12:42 PM

bxgirl I hear you on the sock drawer, and the "he who pays the most taxes" argument is plainly wrong (of them). The point of taxes is to re-distribute income.

I don't know where you're supposed to put the homeless shelter. that's a hard one. there's a lot more to homelessness than housing - maybe an issue for another day. but if CH is a dumping ground, why do you want tax dollars paying for an affordable addition on Northside Piers? Don't you want it paying for more cops and better schools in CH?

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 8, 2009 12:45 PM

"It's also about a warped sense of entitlement people seem to have about where they live and what they should have, regardless of what they contribute." by:joe_the_bummer
-----------------------------------------
Now, how? I wonder where the warped sense of entitlement arose? From the richer or the poorer? Who exactly do elected officials listen to? The richer or the poorer? If the poorer work too, aren't they entitled to the same benefits ideals of the "richer" or does the buying power of the rich make them more entitled idealistically?
Every time poorer people ask for anything they are accused of having a welfare mentality. Every time someone stands up for them they are accused of pandering to societal misfits.
The well off, especially those clamboring for the newer out of reach places where the poorer Absolute-ly cannot afford to , need to revisit how asinine and humanely baseless their premises are. Key word - human-e-ly(pertaining to humans).

Posted by: The Who at October 8, 2009 12:54 PM

bxgirl, just to condense my last point: you should prefer cops and schools to affordable housing in your own neighborhood. affordable housing will squeeze prices up in market rate units without social improvement. cops and schools may eventually raise market prices, but only because the neighborhood has actually improved.

give economics a chance, even in your 12:42 PM. the relvant part of that was that developers will "squeeze every nickel". developers can't sell apartments for more than the market will bear, even greedy ones. The units will only become as expensive as the supply and demand will allow. That is exactly my problem with Christine Quinn's HARP program. The condos that everyone feared would be too expensive now have no bottom, and HARP will prop the prices up by putting in bids for them! The city is so drunk on welfare politics that their plan is working directly against the ultimate goal.

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 8, 2009 1:00 PM

I'm with Montrose. First of all, with regard to the set asides- the developers derive their return up front by being able to build larger buildings. They recoup the supposed loss from affordable housing by being able to sell more units. That does not push up market rates; if anything, it adds more market rate units to the market, which should keep prices lower. The gift is to the developer, not the few tenants who win these apartments through a lottery. I agree that this is not the best method for bringing affordable housing into the market, but it's assinine to assert that it drives up the prices for others.

The argument on this issue boils down to the basic question of capitalism. Some argue that the market should rule and if working class people have to live in horrible Victorian conditions, so be it. That's what they can afford. I reject that view. There are certain necessities in life that I believe should not be subject to the vagaries of the market (remember that the end result of unfettered capitalism is that one person wins and everyone else loses- that's called tyranny). Health care is an easy example. And housing is another. I agree with Montrose that neighborhoods should accommodate people of all socio-economic levels. The UK takes this approach with their public housing. Council estates exist in all neighborhoods in London (except Mayfair, of course). And many neighborhoods functioned in that manner for generations. Look at the mansions in Bushwick right alongside the housing for the workers of the economic barons. I can't help but feel that the proponents of economically separatist urban neighborhoods came from economically separatist suburbs. Go back to where you came from and allow we urban dwellers to live in our "soup."

Posted by: orestes at October 8, 2009 1:01 PM

I agree with Joe that the government should not use public funds to prop up foolish developers by leasing properties at outrageous rates to use for public housing. That serves to maintain the false market. The city should tax empty properties at a high rate to force developers to sell/rent at market rates. Then we will know the true state of the NYC real estate market.

Posted by: orestes at October 8, 2009 1:05 PM

Joe- the intake center needs to stay in Manhattan for a number of reasons- the majority of homeless men are in Manhattan. The armory is not only not close to any services- such as a hospital if needed, its a long trek from the closest subway. Meaning homeless men in winter will be making a huge trek out here and then get sent back and out to whatever facility they are assigned. Under the Fair Share Laws, all neighborhoods are supposed to have an equitable distribution of things like social services, shelters, etc. CHN has far more than its fair share and there are stats to prove it. The community does not want yet another shelter or intake center in the neighborhood- we are saturated. Homelessness isn;t only about shelter- you're right. The Bedford Armory shelter offers these men nothing- no services, no classes, no educational options. They get a bed and because its first come first serve, these guys have no where else to go but side outside the Armory and wait til they can go back in. It demeans them.

You're right- I don't care if there is an affordable addition on Northside Piers, and I do want more cops and better schools in CH. But this proves my point- it isn't happening for neighborhoods like CHN and Bed-stuy. As the wealthier neighborhoods build up, the city gives them more and more. The residents of CHN have worked long and hard to better the neighborhood. It was longtime residents, many of whom have lived in and owned the same homes for generations, who pursued landmarking. There is a strong community that has been fighting the city on this- and I am not talking about gentrifyiers.

People want affordable housing, in decent neighborhoods- I doubt they care if they are living next to Bloomberg or in a working class neighborhood so long as it is given the same opportunities and basics as the Upper East Side- better access to public transportation for instance.

Posted by: bxgrl at October 8, 2009 1:05 PM

bxgirl: I agree with you 100% - there are some people - I call them the "out-of-touch-pioneers" who are economically situated to support a unattached, non-rooted lifestyle. I don't admire the pioneering ideology or the money by any means necessary ideology.

Others like to be close to family/communities and established support networks because they've built relationships. I believe Life is about relationships - not just money.
Can you picture telling a single- 65 yr old person w/o family - whose lived in NY all his/her life - who can no longer afford to live in NY on a $60,000 pension or whatever, "just move to Arkansas"

Its cold hearted.

Posted by: The Who at October 8, 2009 1:12 PM

You know, I tried to deflect the point above with humor when I said that "everyone calls me a schmuck", but now I see we have two more folks ready to claim their moral superiority (Who and Orestes).

Posts like these are why I frequent Brownstoner less often. It can't just be a discussion of folks of good will who have different ideas about how best to progress. No, folks need to demonstrate their cultural and moral superiority.

Also, Orestes, just fyi: I was born in Red Hook and lived there until I was 6 (in the Red hook projects). I then lived in Gravesend for the remainder of my youth.

Posted by: benson at October 8, 2009 1:12 PM

joe- how does affordable housing push up market rates in my neighborhood? Affordable housing stabilizes neighborhoods. It keeps the middle class and working poor in their homes and neighborhood- if that's not a social improvement I can't think what is. People who are invested in their neighborhoods work to improve it. There are a number of community organizations in CH and Bed-Stuy that prove my point. But if they have no place to live, they leave- That has a greater negative impact on the neighborhood than cops and schools.

Posted by: bxgrl at October 8, 2009 1:16 PM

orestes, I already said I can't afford to live where I grew up. I live here to work to improve my situation, like everyone else who comes here.

I don't know how much of this thread you missed, but no one's suggesting that squalor is good for poor people or society. if you need help paying rent, you'll get it, because we are "humane" (mr. who) but you don't get to pick and choose like it's a box of godiva chocolates!

Yes, food, housing, health care, education - basic needs. of the four, housing is the only one that can be acceptably unequal. Let's not confuse "housing" and "lifestyle". We work for a better lifestyle here. We don't expect it to be given to us.

if you are suggesting that we'd be better served by a system other than constrained capitalism, I'm out.

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 8, 2009 1:19 PM

Benson, implied in your post is the notion that those below are getting all the goodies, while the rest of us get an unfinished water tunnel. We, as a society, set aside large amounts of money to help those who never will have much more than they do now, and will never be able to pay us back. We can argue about why that is so, and whose fault it is, but as the Good Book says, "the poor have been with us always", and will continue to be for the foreseeable future, unfortunately. There will be no balance, because the playing field will always be uneven. Grand public works or not, we are still living much better, and have more goods and services, than those who have far, far less.

If we decide to be a pure Darwinian society, where only the economically strong survive, and to hell with everyone else, we will asking for a whole heap of trouble that will cost much more than Section 8 vouchers or the dwindling numbers of rent controlled apartments. I'd still rather have my taxes go to providing for those who are struggling to provide for themselves.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at October 8, 2009 1:20 PM

The Who- I completely agree.

benson- just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are claiming moral superiority over you. that's your paranoia. Neither one of them has directed a comment at you, or insulted you- yet here you are, making everything personal again. Otherwise, it's been a great discussion up to now.

Posted by: bxgrl at October 8, 2009 1:22 PM

joe- truly I would be at a loss to say what would be a good or better system that what we have- not because I think this one is perfect by any stretch, but because I know of no system that can combine capitalism and compassion in a systemic way so that all of society benefits and can live good, productive lives. Tribal societies function because they are based on cooperation- the very basis of capitalism is competition and it's not working so well. The other extreme is of course, communism and worse. Wouldn't you think with over 5000 years of civilization, we cold have figured this all out?

Posted by: bxgrl at October 8, 2009 1:27 PM

Bxgrl;

Tell it to Joe. He seemed to get the same "message", per his 1.19 PM post.

Have fun!

Posted by: benson at October 8, 2009 1:30 PM

benson- joe seems to handling the discussion quite well. Certainly better than you.

Posted by: bxgrl at October 8, 2009 1:34 PM

MM - But isnt it a balance - I mean history shows us that people are most productive and innovative when working for their self-interest (or provincial self-interests like family), so its a situation where you want to harness that effort and productivity to help the public good as yu suggest, without destroying the incentives that are most powerful.

Or to answer Bxgrls question - one of the reasons why forcing private developers to build non-govt subsidized housing will cause market rates to go higher is because virtually no one is going to renovate, build or operate a building at a loss (or break even), so the forgone profit on the "affordable component, will be passed on to the market rate housing and/or their will be less construction of both (since it is more expensive) and this shortage will also cause market rates to increase more than they otherwise would

Posted by: fsrg at October 8, 2009 1:57 PM

hey bxgirl, i need benson on my team.

let me clear up the point you questioned. while I'm against handouts for those who aren't truly disabled, the least offensive kind of affordable housing (to me) is new, large, cost-efficient, affordable-only construction, done in a place that can stand the impact, including the aesthetic impact. downtown brooklyn is not a bad place; park slope is a bad place.

here's my arg, again (1:00). property has a price. tax dollars are going to have to be spent to convert market housing (or buildable space) to affordable. This drains the supply of market rate units, and renters/buyers have to compete for them, raising their price. Then, once people are in their affordable housing, they have incentive not to move -- say, for a better job opportunity in Harlem. There is a cost to that too, both personal and societal. Instead, the city should spend the money to make the neighborhood better, free the supply to the market to keep the price down, and free people to follow their opportunities. spend the tax money on real improvements like better schools.

See what I mean? price controls never work.

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 8, 2009 2:02 PM

Benson- I do not claim any moral superiority and was directing my suburbia comment generally, not at any specific poster. I meant no personal offense. Clearly, I do not know the life story of the people who post here. However, from my experience, the people who espouse the view "tough luck, if you can't afford it, you'll have to go elsewhere (Yonkers, etc.)" tend to be people who are used to only living among their socio-economic class and this occurs most frequently in the suburbs. Having lived in the city my entire life, I am accustomed to neighborhoods being more variegated for the most part. Yes, there have always been areas which are exclussively for the wealthy, but for the most part neighborhoods tend to blend into one another with middle and working class living in neighborhoods with the wealthy (perhaps in separate pockets, but alongside). I adopt the Jacobs model of urban design and reject the notion that money should solely determine where one lives. I think vibrant, varied communities serve the most social good.

Joe- my reference to squalor was a rhetorical device. However, if people adopt the view that poor people should be shunted out of the city or to its most remote corners, this is tantamount to saying that you get what you can pay for. Some can only afford squalor; ergo squalor it is. I don't accept this view. I think it's better social policy to ensure that poor/working/middle class (in real terms) people have space in every community (hell, they collectively make up the vast majority of the population). Just as the wealthy demand better/more services, the middle classes are equally entitled to affordable housing throughout the city. If they had better political representation, they would have it.

Posted by: orestes at October 8, 2009 2:12 PM

Is it asking for too much just to have homeowners to pay taxes on their rent and not hide it like they do now? Can the city stop trying to ridicule renters by only makes renters deduct 8000 dollars a year for living expenses? Let the city show me somewhere to live for 8000 dollars a year anytime! Poor homeowners they are not going to get their 300. dollar tax rebate this year. Boh Hoo! Give that money to renters!

Posted by: hannible at October 8, 2009 2:38 PM

orestes that's not a bad argument, and I will not take offence at your request that I leave your city. I found it hypocritical. You wouldn't tell someone to go back to Russia. Or the plantation.

We are all guilty of making each others' arguments sound more extreme to fatten them up for the kill.

As an aside, I once complained about snotty people in Colorado who were mean to newcomers, and prided themselves on the number of years they had lived there. My father suggested responding with the suggestion that they step aside for a while, as they had had their turn.

I regret my use of Yonkers as an alternative for people priced out of brownstone brooklyn, because it is outside of the city, and it put a hue on my argument that I did not intend. I should have used Flatbush, which is affordable, close, and well serviced by public transportation.

Question for you: are the immigrants as worthy of the city as you, who were born here? Because there are mobs of them in the Bronx.

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 8, 2009 2:38 PM

Joe- my request that people leave the city was not meant literally. I was using shorthand to say, please leave your suburban values/attitudes about restrictive communities out there where they belong. The city thrives on a different set of values (indeed suburban values evolved in reaction to city values), values which I appreciate and embrace. Montrose has made this point eloquently. The city belongs to all people, but I would hope that they embrace the ethos of the city rather than tear it down. One of the great things about NY specifically is that there has always been an influx of new people from around the world, who bring new ideas/cultures/etc.

As far as your Yonkers example goes, I don't see how you could not have intended the "hue" you mention. You would not have made the statement if you didn't believe it. Also, I find it amusing that you read my comment as a statement that I think I should choose who can live in NYC, when you are the one espousing the view that those who cannot afford high rents should move someplace else. A bit of transference, no?

Posted by: orestes at October 8, 2009 3:03 PM

Joe- I agree, the city should make the neighborhood itself better- the reality it, it doesn't do that. In a perfect world, yes. In the real world, we're getting an intake center forced down our throats but the UES is getting a new train line.

I have my own theory on this (which may or may not be wedded to reality). The city perceives it is cheaper to put some affordable housing in a wealthier neighborhood which has infrastructure and amenities and cachet, than to put the money into poorer neighborhoods which need more to bring them up. So they are putting their support into the areas that don't need so much, with the idea that this will sustain them longer and better, while kinda sorta letting the more needy areas fall by the wayside. THe extra plus is that they can then pay lip service to affordable housing, but not do it in any meaningful way overall.

Posted by: bxgrl at October 8, 2009 3:35 PM

orestes -- honestly I just read an article about 80K studios in Yonkers a few days ago so it's been in my head. That's so cheap I considered checking it out myself. I don't think that poor people should just leave the city to make room for my suitcases full of cash. What I'm saying is that there are affordable market rate alternatives for people, without a costly public system to house them.

so let's take your position that the city is for the people, and go that way. I don't disagree. My ancestors were irish immigrants who were openly discriminated against for jobs. The city was theirs, or should have been, and it is mine and yours and everyone else's.

But we can only fit so many. which people do we pay to house? the people born here? the immigrants? the children of immigrants? what about all the other americans who would love to live here if they could afford it? (there truly are millions) So we're to keep them out while we pay extra taxes to keep you in? Doesn't NYC also belong to America? why don't all americans get a subsidized pad here?

Yes the city belongs to all people. Thats very poetic. But all people can't be here! Why you?

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 8, 2009 3:42 PM

bxgirl I absolutely agree that the city's program is lip service. I think it also was a way to sell the tax abatement program. The city could very easily plop up 10000 units if it wanted to. but to be done properly they should be put somewhere undesirable, to preserve the incentive for people to work for what they get.

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 8, 2009 3:50 PM

Orestes;

I cannot understand your viewpoint. First you say that the city should welcome newcomers, but then you seem to be saying that those from suburbia should leave their thoughts and values at the door. That's not how real life works. Each immigrant or newcomer to this city has brought their own set of values. Those values were then shaped by the city, and vice-versa. Furthermore, it is my observation in life that growth only occurs if one brings in new ideas, new people, etc.

Finally, this process has been going on for along time, to the area's benefit. It wasn't to long ago that advising someone to go to Brooklyn to escape Manhattan rents, ANY section of Brooklyn, was akin to afvising them to go to Yonkers.

NYC is not a nation-state, though some would like it to be so. It is part of a larger metropolitan area, and it must have a symbiotic relationship with it. We live in a country where social mobility is widely regarded as a good thing. To advocate for housing subsidies so that folks can be entitled to live near the place where they were born is not going to fly in this country.

Posted by: benson at October 8, 2009 3:58 PM

How's this for an idea, if there's anyone still listening: I'm not Gordon Gecko. If we're going to give out housing subsidies, instead of having a lottery, let's give them to people who do public service. Teachers, nurses, cops, EMTs, Social workers, volunteers, etc.

People can apply for them and they have to continue to serve to keep them. Perhaps it shouldn't be just about money. But value...at least make it about value. If there's a shortage, give them to people who deserve them. Now that sounds like a good incentive system.

Posted by: joe_the_bummer at October 8, 2009 3:59 PM

joe- I think its a great idea and if I am not mistaken, something that used to be done. Amalgamated Housing in the Bronx was actually created for teachers, firefighters and cops, as well as other city workers. My sister lives there- her husband is a public school teacher and it is still a great place to live. And very very affordable. I think other housing projects were similarly built but the whole idea seems to have faded away.

Posted by: bxgrl at October 8, 2009 4:20 PM

Benson- I thought it was apparent that I am expressing my personal wish that overprivileged suburban people and their values would stay out of the city because I do personally believe they have the ability to destroy the fabric of communities. Of course, that is simply a rant. I would no more try to stop those people from moving to the city than I would anyone else. And I know I am painting with a broadstroke, but that is the nature of argument. One cannot account for every exception and variation. I don't know how this relates to housing subsidies. I am not generally in favor of housing subsidies, although if it is the only tool to achieve the goal of economically diverse communities than I would embrace it. As I mentioned above, I agree with the mixed use/purpose model of Jacobs and would more readily zone areas to achieve that end than give housing subsidies.

Posted by: orestes at October 8, 2009 7:35 PM

Joe- I disagree with your basic premise. NYC will accommodate as many people as it has to. It has done so in the past and will do so in the future (one hopes). So, I do not agree with your limited space/resource argument. I don't think we need to decide who gets to live here and who doesn't. Frankly, that's not a decision any of us should make for someone else in a free society. Someone could move to NYC from Utah tomorrow and they could receive housing assistance if they qualify for it. And I don't think they should be stopped. I hope that answers your questions.

Posted by: orestes at October 8, 2009 7:39 PM

the elephant in the room could be this, for some people, it IS for me... i can afford to live where i live now, BARELY. however, i HATE living around so many wealthy people. i want to live around some people poorer than me as well. i dont WANT to be the poorest person on my block, which, i literally think i am. but then again i do NOT want to move to somewhere that im the RICHEST person on the block,do you understand what im saying? i dont want to live somewhere that everyone has 4000 dollar strollers, nor do i want to live smoewhere that everyone is on welfare and jobless. the problem is that people who think the poor and working class should just SHOO away out of the city want the city to be just one giant wealthy enclave and the poor should be stuck in other sections. F*ck that noise! i wanna giggle watching a stroller mom trip over the curb just as much as i want to see some hobo drunk fall off the curb as well. i want BOTH goddamit, and everything in between!

*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at October 8, 2009 8:11 PM

and to add to my above statement, that wont be read cuyz it's so late, so many people yammer on that the biggest thing they LOVE about living in an urban city is the 'diversity'. okay, you talk the talk, but you sure as HELL dont walk the walk. so many phonies it's not even funny.

*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at October 8, 2009 8:13 PM

« Open Thread Omissions and Lies in Atlantic Yards Study »

October 8, 2009

Affordable Housing: Promises vs. Reality

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions