Re-examining the Need for 421-a Subsidies
While we weren’t down with their methods, the folks from ACORN who stormed the Beacon in Dumbo a couple of weeks ago did have a point: It’s kinda silly that development subsidies put in place to stimulate building in the depths of the seventies market funk are still being used to put up luxury condos…
While we weren’t down with their methods, the folks from ACORN who stormed the Beacon in Dumbo a couple of weeks ago did have a point: It’s kinda silly that development subsidies put in place to stimulate building in the depths of the seventies market funk are still being used to put up luxury condos in fancy neighborhoods in the biggest real estate bull market ever. Ariella Cohen digs a little deeper on the subject in this week’s Brooklyn Papers and finds that, in addition to the Beacon (which she reveals is 75% sold!), there are another 28 buildings currently in construction in the borough’s more upscale nabes that are benefiting from the same 15-year tax break. Except for the recently rezoned Williamsburg and Greenpoint waterfront, these subsidies carry no requirement to include affordable housing.
Dated Perks Subsidize Luxury Condos [Brooklyn Papers]
A city is more than its real estate. Brower Park as the right of it. And as it is, affordable housing is not being built except under duress. If NYC was simply a city of the rich it would be a ghost town- no housekeepers, no nannies, no clerks and salespeople, no waiters, no art people,no seamstresses, no repairmen… now there’s a vision of social engineering that doesn’t appeal to me at all. Economic and class fascism.
So what if there are fewer newer buildings than pre-war? I should hope so for a city over 200 years old. All that means is that the city may have finally realized that existing housing and building stock can be rehabbed, renovated, or reinterpreted to new use, IN ADDITION to building new buildings. Older buildings are important, not only aesthetically, but historically and just in quality of life and pride of place.
As to your comment on social engineering, please don’t put words in my mouth, especially such absurd and insulting comments. I repeat my initial comment, a vibrant city DOES need housing up and down the economic spectrum, that should be obvious to anyone who is a supposedly astute in economics. A shining city of the rich may appeal to you, but the fact remains that in order for it to run you need all those *other* people to keep it going, and to keep the economy going. We need to be able to live here too.
OK, the current system is flawed. But just going cold turkey and dumping it without any provisions for those who don’t have the connections, money or political power to protect what little they have is out and out wrong.
If anyone has Bloomberg, Sam Zell is on AV now.
Trying to have the state decide who lives where is exactly social engineering. I’m not sure what other definition you could have.
Allowing the people to compete in the market is the fairest thing. Will poor people be able to live on CPW? Most likely not. But, policies to force them in there have a real $$ cost. People pretend that it doesn’t exist b/c it’s spread over all of the other owners / renters.
NYC is expensive because it is regulated that way. No other US city has “expiditers”. Almost no other city has rent control laws. The zoning and building codes here specifically increase costs and limit supply. What else could be the results of these laws?
oops- logical and correct referring to Brower Park’s “developers are having no problems putting up buildings “A thriving and vibrant city needs to have housing up and down the economic spectrum”
“What kind of crazy social engineering is that?”
You can hardly call a perfectly reasonable, and correct statement like that to be in favor of social engineering. On the other hand, all the luxury housing going up is accomplishing social engineering on a huge scale. As for other US cities having more affordable housing- everything in other cities is more affordable. NYC exists on a scale that other cities don’t. It’s far too simplistic to compare them and expect NY to be like them.
“developers are having no problems putting up buildings”
Yes, they are. Think of the demand for housing that’s out there. Given the size of the city, this is not that much housing. Dig up a chart on NYC housing permits. We are still at multi-decade lows. Walk around the city and see how many buildings are new as compared to pre-war. It’s hard to argue with numbers.
“If there were no stipulations to provide any kind of affordable housing at all, there would be none.”
Then how come *all* other US cities with lower regulations have more affordable housing? It seems that NYC attempts to create “affordable housing” work in the opposite direction – just as any first year econ student would predict.
“A thriving and vibrant city needs to have housing up and down the economic spectrum”
What kind of crazy social engineering is that? Do we need more Asians? Fewer Jews? What about tall people? Sounds like you have a new venue for your charitable giving. Rent Manhattan apartments for poor folks. I don’t know if you would get a lot of other takers.
I hardly think developers will stop building if the abatements stop.They’ll just find another way to make their profits. The housing market is too hot in NYC for them to stop.
Can we stop blaming DDDB and Goldstein for everything? Or making them scapegoats for every real estate problem in Brooklyn? COuld it be they are not as anti-development as you would have us believe and you just enjoy demonizing them for personal reasons? Hmmm….?
The problem with 421a has been that throughout its history it’s been pulled or re-implemented by the local government IN RESPONSE to market forces instead of IN ANTICIPATION of them.
So now that the NY Real estate bubble’s about to pop we wanna get rid of 421a? This will lead to a shortage of affordable housing 5-6 years down the road. By then the NY market should be crappy and then, just as the worst part of the recession is about to end, 421a gets reimplemented again.