NY Sun: Subsidized Housing Sucks
Never accused of being liberal, the New York Sun has an editorial today about building residential space at ground zero that references the affordable housing variable in the Atlantic Yards equation: As the tragedy of Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn shows, once the “affordable housing” pressure groups and their allies in the Bloomberg administration get done…
Never accused of being liberal, the New York Sun has an editorial today about building residential space at ground zero that references the affordable housing variable in the Atlantic Yards equation:
As the tragedy of Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn shows, once the “affordable housing” pressure groups and their allies in the Bloomberg administration get done chewing up and spitting out a proposed residential development in this city, the result is that private developers are forced to create new subsidized units. These create all the same problems that the state has been trying, however slowly, to phase out in rent-regulation in New York, such as empty-nesters holding on to absurdly under-priced three-bedroom apartments, landlords with little incentive to improve their properties, tenants with little incentive to move into the free market for housing, even if they can afford it.
Something tells us JoshK might agree.
Apartments at Ground Zero? [New York Sun]
Hi,
my experience about the rent subsidized buildings in which I lived:
– for the last 6 years, I have been renting rooms in various subsidized apartments. I am usually required to pay the rent in cash, to leave no proof, and I am presented as a ‘family member’.
– at one time I was living in a 2 bedroom apartment, renting the small bedroom, it cost me about $900/month, with diminutive staying rights, like no visitors, little use of the kitchen and living room and every inconveniences you can think of in a roommate arrangement. My ‘rent’ covered my roommate-landlord maintenance, for an apartment that she bought for next to nothing as the purchase price was also…. subsidized. So, in this case you have one person living for in a 1000 sqft apartment designed for a family of 3-5 people in a very nice neighborhood of the city (two block from Central Park, Upper West Side, below 96th street), taking boarders, and making a profit out of it. Oh, and by the way, she kicked me out to sublet the apartment at market price…
(something that is prohibited by the building I noticed, but hey nobody really checks…)
As for being poor, she just purchased a condo 2 bedroom in Queens in an all cash transaction….
450K I think she told me. Rent subsidies sound like a good deal for some people… Too bad I am not one of them.
– currently, I live in a rent subsidized apartment. My landlady/roommate also gets it cheap (it is a large 3 bedrooms), and she takes 2 boarders including me who together cover the entire rent. As for being poor, well, I don’t know what that means, but she makes over a 100K per year.
I think rent subsidies suck: I don’t have anything against paying taxes and helping people like teachers and firefighters and policemen get a decent place to live, but I have a problem with paying taxes to help people who make more than I get places cheap and rent them back to me at near market price… Damn, I feel like I am being taxed twice!
Everybody I know down there loves the Q for midtown; you cut out all the downtown stuff and it’s fast. Ditto the B on weekdays.
Iraq hasn’t gone well and it won’t — it’s another mess in which we don’t belong. Thankfully W will be gone in three years.
And that’s exactly what I imagined Midwood must have been like — the change is amazing and not too surprising — those co-ops on Ocean Avenue are huge and the Q train is really fast into Manhattan.
That’s funny Josh — the lakes of milk, etc. — reminds me of Reagan giving cheese to welfare recipients — I actually saw a guy in Manhattan at that time, walking down the street with his cheese over his shoulder, crying, “Cheese — five bucks!”
But you’re right — I keep thinking that Nixon in many ways was more a socialist than anything, with those wage and price controls, etc. And in many ways this country was a lot more liberal than it is now — no death penalty, the legalization of abortion, etc. I think history will actually rehabilitate Richard Nixon one day. No, things weren’t great then, but at least no-one was questioning our president’s intelligence (honesty, maybe, smarts, no). And Vietnam = Iraq.
No point to this comment, just your made me smile at the memory. What was Midwood like when you lived there — it’s very up and coming now — co-ops on Ocean Avenue are going for $225K and up for a 1 BR.
No, thanks — I like where I live. And I imagine that your many studies are well out of date — the phenomenon has spread out of Manhattan to just about everywhere, especially within the last year. And actually my apartment is under market rate for the area now — I’ve been there almost a year, and this summer rented out two very similar apartments on my street for $1400 and $1600 (with a yard). I’m dreading what my landlord will want when my lease is up!
Sorry to be so late getting back to you, but David, where in the outer boroughs are these rent stabilized apartments where market rents are below that figure? Must be the WAY outer boroughs. Example: a rent stabilized apartment in a building near me (Prospect Lefferts Gardens) just rented for $925.75 for a 2 BR (I know the agent who rented it and I’ve seen the lease). It’s a nice renovated apartment on the third floor of a well-maintained walk-up building. My own apartment, three blocks away is not stabilized and I pay $1200 for a not completely comparable space (top floor of a two family house), but the square footage is only slightly more and it was renovated less recently. And that is more the market rate for a 2 BR apartment in this area.
JoshK – I am not talking about forcing rents in any direction, I am simply saying that [rent increases] should be moderated if supply or demand shocks cause rapid increases. – While I gather you are for a completly laizze-faire approach to the housing market, I dont agree that all Government intervention in pricing has been a “disaster” – There is NO question that controlling the rate of rent inflation will have ‘costs’ but you ignore the societal costs that result from displacement. Which ‘costs’ more will never be resolved by either of us.
As for presumptive lease renewalls – what is fair about a respectable, responsible tenant who pays his/her market rate rent who has lived in a apartment being effectively evicted at the whim of a landlord
Rents would be decontrolled immediatly bringing everyone to mkt rate, then price inflation could be stabilized and but with full vacancy decontrol, with lease renewall a ‘rebuttable’ presumption – with factors beyond simple payment being factors for which renewall could be denied
– I am sure you see the difference between this and our current system?
JoshK I do not disagree with what you say but, I submit:
If you eliminated RS & RC but but buffered yr over yr rent increases by limiting the rate of inflation on Market rate housing; and mandated a legal presumption that tenants who pay on-time and follow legitimate house rules are entitled to a new lease – you would wind up with a system that would bring many new apartments to market (elimating the problem you cite of unoccupied Manhattan apts) and lower rents on a macro level.
I also agree that there would be costs for even these ‘protections’ in the form of slightly higher “market” rents for apt searchers and lower potential profits for LL (especially in ‘hot’ areas) but I believe it would be the best way to preserve communities while allowing the free market to work.