Nothing Fuzzy About Affordable Conversion
Lower-income earners who’ve never bought a home before will get an unusual shot at living in an historic building. According to the Brooklyn Downtown Star, an 1890’s police building at Humboldt and Herbert in Greenpoint is slated to be turned into 14 condo units subsidized by $1 million allocation from the North Brooklyn Development Corporation…
Lower-income earners who’ve never bought a home before will get an unusual shot at living in an historic building. According to the Brooklyn Downtown Star, an 1890’s police building at Humboldt and Herbert in Greenpoint is slated to be turned into 14 condo units subsidized by $1 million allocation from the North Brooklyn Development Corporation and another $300,000 from the borough itself (how does that work?). As someone who has been admiring this building for the past several years, all we can say is that this is a huge score for the lucky few who win the lottery. One drawback: Because of the subsidies, owners will not be able to benefit from any price appreciation that may occur over time.
Seminar Preludes Affordable Housing [Brooklyn Downtown Star]
I’m the posted from 2:32. blkbuttrflie, I was not advocating that these people should be allowed to sell at market but rather that even though they are buying it is really just another form or rent stabilization as someone else mentioned.
However, you bring up an interesting point in relation to the multi-family properties around fulton st where you reference people buying for $300k and selling at over $1M. My feeling is that this is a much better situation. If you look back at what comparable buildings in that neighborhood were selling for at the time these people bought, you’ll see that they didn’t get a screaming good deal. They did get help, but it wasn’t a give away, it’s not comparable to them winning the lottery. Sure, they’ve been in the brooklyn housing market for the past 5-yrs, that’s much more like winning the lottery. The assistance provided was helping them get into the game.
This can be accomplished by non-profits and gov’t programs that will do the same thing developers are doing these days. However, when you remove the developer’s profit, the units become much more affordable.
Couple that with funds to allow for favorable financing and you allow more people to get into the game. Then they can really be homeowners with all the benefits as opposed to simply allowing them to buy into something that has many of the same pitfalls of the rent regulation system.
I think you are totally off the mark, stuyblk buttrflie. First off, what’s wrong with luck? The lucky win the lottery, the lucky were born with trust funds, some kids are lucky to get a spot in a charter school and the list goes on. Why not tell them they can hold onto their money for 25 years and then force them to hand it over to someone else? A little ridiculous. Why shouldn’t people who buy into this building get the benefits of home ownership? Otherwise they get nothing out of their investment- cash in after 10-15 years to just get back what they put in? What good is that after inflation. Part of the reason the government wants to give people a chance to be homeowners is because it makes them active in their community and their finances. It gives them something of their own that will hopefully inspire them to do upkeep and be responsible.
Forcing people out of their homes simply to give them to someone else is a rotten solution. It tells people they are disposable and interchangeable, that they really have no rights to what is advertised as “their” property, and that poor or lower income families will not be treated with respectno matter how hard they try. DOn’t forget- these people are BUYING that property.It’s not a handout. Saying “the benefit of this situation for those who use their opportunity wisely is the fact that they’re paying down the mortgage, they are actually getting something out of it because when they sell they’ll get all their money back and if they haven’t finished paying off the mortgage they can pay it off and keep the rest as a downpayment for a new place along with the savings they SHOULD have.” is an epic piece of callous disregard for real life. Sounds like you advocate eminent domain for the working poor and lower middle class. Seems elitist to me.
As far as savings they SHOULD have- well I hope you never see your nice sized savings account wiped out by illness, loss of a job or divorce. Been there. Done that. Glad you weren’t my landlady. And I lived in a rent stablized apt for years. Lucked out? Why- because I paid cloe to market rate and my apartment was falling apart? No paint job for 10 years? Wires hanging out of my bathroom light fixture? You think landlords don’t make money on their buildings? Funny more of them don’t sell even the bad ones – or is it they love tax and equity benefits. Frankly the only abuse of the system I see is if they institute your ideas. This is still a free country- forcible displacement of people is a little too fascist for me.
Okay, I see your point. Enough time to get your act together, save some money, plan for the future, raise a family.
But how do you factor in ‘inflation’ and rising property value.
The downpayment that they get back and the money that they save over the years (if they’re wise and prudent) might still not be enough to buy a comparable unit within a 50 mile radius at the end of that 25 years. Plus, by then they’ll be facing retirement years.
and anyone who is getting subsidized housing in NYC and able to own with assistance is lucking out no matter where it is.
well, I think that ppl shouldn’t be allowed to stay there for the rest of their lives because thats abusing the system as far as I’m concerned. this is help not a handout like I said. in order for these programs to continue to thrive and help ppl for years and years to come there has to be some kind of system in place to ensure that many ppl will be able to benefit. hypothetically if there’s 30 apts in this building and ppl decide that they’re never going to leave because they can’t get any “equity” then only 30 ppl will benefit from this program forever. ppl are putting money into this and I think ppl should be able to benefit for years because housing is short in nyc, if we can’t recycle good affordable housing programs the only choice left is to find another building to help another 30 ppl and so on and so forth until, what? we run out of buildings for negligible numbers? or you can force ppl to leave after a reasonable amount of time and allow another 30 to come in and benefit and so on and so forth for years to come… I think its fair that way.
stuy blkbuttrflie,
I guess the ‘equity’ clause of previous affordable housing programs was put in place to lure prospective homeowners to less desirable neighborhoods. Also to provide an incentive for renters in an upside-down building to mobilize and turn the building around.
But nowadays, I guess the market is such that no-one needs incentive anymore to move to the ‘fringe’ neighborhoods. Cheaper mortgages is incentive enough. Times have really changed.
I still don’t consider people who go into a rough area, tough it out and help turn the community around as ‘lucking out’ just because the win the lottery to a cheaper mortgage.
Also, why on earth would you want to force someone to leave their home once they’ve lived there for 25 years(if they’re not renting).
I guess the real upside to all of this is that it will discourage wealthy investors who want to buy a cheap property and sit on it for 25 years from competing for those apartments.
The 68 Precinct in Sunset Park, a similar structure, has been empty since 1972 despite dreams of conversion to housing. Perhaps it is the unfortunate landmark label that has put its potential beyond the reach of even the richest of fools.
I also think that instead of allowing ppl to cash out at market rates after 15-25 years they should make them sell after 15-25 years (at the price they paid) to keep them from grandfathering.
it is true that this is just glorified rent stabilization but I’d rather them stay there for the rest of their lives than to be able to profit from a handout. with rent stabilized apts thats all you get, the benefit of a cheap place but you don’t get to sell and cash out too. the benefit of this situation for those who use their opportunity wisely is the fact that they’re paying down the mortgage, they are actually getting something out of it because when they sell they’ll get all their money back and if they haven’t finished paying off the mortgage they can pay it off and keep the rest as a downpayment for a new place along with the savings they SHOULD have. ppl in rent stabilized apartments as will as market rate apartments get NOTHING when they move out so they’re damn lucky as far as I’m concerned.