"Affordable" Condos Where Brownstone Stood
When we reported last Spring on the Pratt Area Community Council’s move to tear down a derelict but salvageable brownstone at 483 Washington Avenue in order to build new affordable housing, we made no secret of our dismay at the decision. The three posts on the topic generated a lots of discussion and even a…
When we reported last Spring on the Pratt Area Community Council’s move to tear down a derelict but salvageable brownstone at 483 Washington Avenue in order to build new affordable housing, we made no secret of our dismay at the decision. The three posts on the topic generated a lots of discussion and even a lengthy response from PACC’s director which we posted on the site. Although we recognize that PACC has been a very positive force in the community for a long time, we still strongly disagree with its decision to destroy a piece of Clinton Hill’s heritage. And what for? We have just learned that the new building, to be called The Dewitt Condominium, will have eight apartments. The one- and two-bedroom condos will be priced from $212,000 to $284,000 (and, from the looks of the building site, won’t be ready for some time). The email we saw had language straight out of a Corcoran listing: “These newly- constructed apartments have state-of-the-art amenities – bamboo floors, on-site laundry and modern kitchens.” First time homebuyers who make no more than $66,469 and $79,763 (depending on family size) are elegible to apply through October 27th. Applications can be picked up at a PACC office or by mailing a SASE to PACC, Attn: The DeWitt Condominium, 201 Dekalb Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11205. Winners will be picked by lottery.
The profile of this development raises an interesting question: We see why a family making this level of income could use a helping hand, but does a single person making $65,000 a year really need or deserve a hand-out like this? Heck, we have some younger siblings recently out of college who would certainly qualify and we have a hunch they weren’t who PACC had in mind when they set this up. It would also be interesting to know how these lotteries work. Are they really random or is there a lot of subjective screening that goes on to winnow it down to a small pool from which the lucky few are “randomly” chosen? Another question: Does PACC receive government grants or does it raise its money privately? Ultimately, to whom is it responsible?
What’s Really Happening at 483 Washington [Brownstoner] GMAP
What a Difference a Week Makes on Washington [Brownstoner]
PACC Director Gives Her Side of the Story [Brownstoner]
and hearsay, not heresay
oops , moot.
Seems like plenty of misinformation and heresay today.
There is no city residency requirement for policemen. Period.
‘Heavily subsidized’ by gov’t – okay so back it up with some info. Perhaps truth is some of their projects are subsidized but not same thing as the org is ‘heavily subsidized’.
And ‘I heard about some family moving upstate and told only have to occupy for a month a year’. Reeks of rumor and little in fact.
I also wonder how fairly these lotteries are done – but rather than repeat unsubstantiated cynical comments as truth, I’d like to have some facts. Been plenty of rumor combined with speculation and pure off-the-cuff opinions on items on this blog that end up being way off the truth.
These condos may have strict resale (price limits) and occupancy and lenght of time requirements – I don’t know and unless someone wants to call PACC and get the answer the whole discussion is pretty mute.
oops!! one too many ctr-v’s.
I’ve looked into lotteries for some time and can’t make sense of the selection process. I agree on having transparency for the selection of winners. I would like to know that individuals who really could use it end up in the homes. It should consider a person’s entire asset base not just their salary and family size.
BStoner, I’m a brownstone fan, but if more unit can built on the site and its derelict then why not tear it down. Just PLEASE don’t put up one of those brick bland homes.
BStoner, I’m a brownstone fan, but if more unit can built on the site and its derelic then why not tear it down. Just PLEASE don’t put up one of those brick bland homes.
Cops that choose to live in NYC get big breaks from the city to help them. Unfortunately most live outside the city in the suburbs altering their perceptions of city folks. Some even live in New Jersey (big no no) and rent studio apartments in the city using it as a primary address so they don’t violate the law (often these rented city properties are sublet, why live in the dirty city with all those misfits when you can be in New Jersey!)
I agree Brownstoner. Disclosure and discussion is good. And I think knowing what variables apply to those who are eligible for the lottery would help. I agree that a 20 something single college grad making 45k should not qualify for any of these apartments. I also think an owner occupied clause (at least for a period of time, say 5 years) should be a requirement, otherwise it frustrates the purpose of trying to keep a diverse economic residency in the neighborhood throught the construction of such subsidized units if those who win the lottery and buy the apartments simply rent them out at market rate.
BTW, Anon 11:15, we can do something other than not vote for politicians. We can provide a forum for discussion which can lead to many things, including getting politicians’ attention. This isn’t anti-affordable housing; it’s pro transparency and accountability. This project may be justifiable but how else to know if there’s not disclosure and discussion?
PACC’s rationale for tearing down the building was to maximize the amount of affordable housing that could be built on the site. Gaining more transparency on who will end up getting these apartments can help people, ourself included, determine whether they think it was, on balance, worth destroying a piece of the neighborhood’s architectural heritage to be able to offer 8 apartments instead of, say, 4 or 5 if they’d rehabbed it instead. The whole thing’s very subjective obviously.