Big Turnout For AY Housing Forum
While Marty Markowitz played cheerleader for Bruce Ratner last night at the Brooklyn Marriott, many of the 2,500 people who showed up to learn about getting in on the affordable housing portion of the Atlantic Yards project expressed concern that, well, it really wasn’t that affordable. “It’s still not too affordable,” said Edan Greenidge, 29,…
While Marty Markowitz played cheerleader for Bruce Ratner last night at the Brooklyn Marriott, many of the 2,500 people who showed up to learn about getting in on the affordable housing portion of the Atlantic Yards project expressed concern that, well, it really wasn’t that affordable. “It’s still not too affordable,” said Edan Greenidge, 29, a salesman who attended with his mother, Merlyn. “I’m still skeptical.” “I think that certain things weren’t taken into account when they came up with the income bands,” echoed Sharon Reid, a college administrator. Under the current proposal, twenty percent of the 6,860 rentals are earmarked for households that earn $21,270 to $35,450 while 30 percent are for families that make $42,540 to $113,440. City employees and people with disabilities will get preference in a housing lottery to be run by the city.
Promise of AY Draws Thousands to Meeting [NY Times]
Casting a ‘Net’ For Brooklyn Apartments [NY Post]
There is nothing wrong with a little subsidy for the middle-class, if, in fact, this income group shoulders a good portion of the burden for taxes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61178-2004Aug12.html
I know we live in a city where everything costs so much more than everywhere else, but even in NYC, $113K is a lot of money. If you are pulling in that much, you don’t need Ratner, you can afford to buy a brownstone somewhere.
B2B is absolutely correct. Where is the hue and cry over upper middle class welfare? Ever heard of a budget? Some of the people on this board have acted as if the poor should be content to live in dank, out of the way ratholes on the city’s outer borders, grateful for the pittance society grants them. They have fits when someone in the projects has a television or a car, or goes to a restaurant, as if the poor are undeserving of any luxuries at all. But this is fine, as it is sooooo hard for a family of four to live on $100K a year. Get a grip, please. This sounds like one of those whiney New York Magazine articles about the poor slobs who can’t make it on half a million a year. My heart bleeds.
42,540 gives you a take home closer to just over 2200, more or less. I’m assuming that their rent would be quite a bit lower than those who make 113,00+. But don’t those people budget? How much actual disposable income should you have? I’m sorry, 113,440 family of 4 gets no sympathy from me. I know a number of families of 4 who make that kind of money and do fine. Without subsidies. Maybe they take a few less ski vacations to Aspen. And isn’t it odd that there is no outcry about these subsidies as opposed to the many that have been posted about poor people who receive them. We treat them with contempt, assume they are freeloaders and expect them to live within their means, no matter how small- So do you mean to tell me that someone making 90,000 to 113,440 can’t live within theirs?
6k a month take home pay really is a lot of money! (I have friends at Goldman Sachs who make nearly that much.) And $2600 a month in rent is definitely not “afordable housing”.
Can they clarify the definition of “family” for the affordable lottery, or does a married couple with no kids who make 100k count as a “family” in these calculations?
If you are a family of 4, $42,540 to $113,440 is not a lot of money. Assuming a tax rate that includes Federal, State and City taxes (I am on shaky territory here, so if there is an accountant out there, help), one would have a monthly take home of approximately $6000. After rent, you are left with $3300 to cover utilites, food, transportation, entertainment and other sundries for say 2 adults and 2 school age children. Is this a realistic budget for Brooklyn?
So, I wonder, how will Acorn and the Rev. Daugherty spin their support of subsidized housing for people making 99,00 + (450 apts.) as opposed to low income people (21,000, 225 apts)? Seems to me me if you make that kind of money and you are willing to fork over 2658$ a month rent, you damn well don’t need subsidies. And tell me, will the apartments for people making 21,000 a year be as nice or as large as the ones for higher income? And will they all be squeezed into one building so that they don’t upset the richer tenants? Should be interesting- instant ghetto, just add poor people.
Good work you community groups who signed on for Ratnerville. NOT.
You mean families making $99,261 – $113,440 a year need subsidies? So they can rent an apt for $2658 a month? I guess that makes me an unsubsidised pauper, in comparison.
Not surprised that that highest category got the highest amount of apartments alloted to them. It’s the people who make $21K and well under $99K, who need the help, and the apartments.
And how are they planning on doing this? I doubt very much someone paying “market rate”, which must be sky high, is going to live in the same building as someone making $21K. So, separate buildings for differing incomes? The rich buildings over here, the poor buildings over there….Talk about ghettoization.
Ah, happy, handsome young couples strolling through Ratnerville….. I love their propaganda literature.
whoops. thanks. fixed it.