Affordable Housing: Promises vs. Reality
The Gotham Gazette published an interesting article this week examining Mayor Bloomberg’s track record in affordable housing. A keystone to the Mayor’s housing plan is inclusionary zoning—granting benefits, such as a 33 percent higher floor to area ratio, to developers who include permanent affordable housing in their plans. Critics say that the plan hasn’t delivered…
The Gotham Gazette published an interesting article this week examining Mayor Bloomberg’s track record in affordable housing. A keystone to the Mayor’s housing plan is inclusionary zoning—granting benefits, such as a 33 percent higher floor to area ratio, to developers who include permanent affordable housing in their plans. Critics say that the plan hasn’t delivered nearly as much affordable housing as promised and supporters say that the plan can work, given enough time. In Greenpoint-Williamsburg, for example, the program has created 768 affordable rentals since 2005, and the goal is 2,200 over the course of a decade. Also, in 2005, the city promised over 6,000 units from already approved projects, but since then only 2,716 have come into existence, mostly in Manhattan, and this figure includes renovations of existing affordable apartments, not just new units. Also, between 2005 and 2008, the city lost 20,000 rent-stabalized apartments to market-rate developments, which tips the mayor’s affordable housing balance into the red. Alternative solutions proposed include mandatory as opposed to optional inclusionary housing, and a new focus on preservation and regulation of existing housing, as opposed to new construction. “The priorities that Bloomberg has put on development of new construction as a solution to affordable housing has been the wrong emphasis,” Mario Mazzoni, the lead organizer at the Metropolitan Council on Housing, told the Gazette. “You cannot build yourself out of the affordable housing crisis in New York City.”
Affordable Housing Not Included [Gotham Gazette]
Affordable housing map, showing completed vs. closed inclusionary housing projects, from The Gotham Gazette
joe- truly I would be at a loss to say what would be a good or better system that what we have- not because I think this one is perfect by any stretch, but because I know of no system that can combine capitalism and compassion in a systemic way so that all of society benefits and can live good, productive lives. Tribal societies function because they are based on cooperation- the very basis of capitalism is competition and it’s not working so well. The other extreme is of course, communism and worse. Wouldn’t you think with over 5000 years of civilization, we cold have figured this all out?
The Who- I completely agree.
benson- just because someone doesn’t agree with you doesn’t mean they are claiming moral superiority over you. that’s your paranoia. Neither one of them has directed a comment at you, or insulted you- yet here you are, making everything personal again. Otherwise, it’s been a great discussion up to now.
Benson, implied in your post is the notion that those below are getting all the goodies, while the rest of us get an unfinished water tunnel. We, as a society, set aside large amounts of money to help those who never will have much more than they do now, and will never be able to pay us back. We can argue about why that is so, and whose fault it is, but as the Good Book says, “the poor have been with us always”, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future, unfortunately. There will be no balance, because the playing field will always be uneven. Grand public works or not, we are still living much better, and have more goods and services, than those who have far, far less.
If we decide to be a pure Darwinian society, where only the economically strong survive, and to hell with everyone else, we will asking for a whole heap of trouble that will cost much more than Section 8 vouchers or the dwindling numbers of rent controlled apartments. I’d still rather have my taxes go to providing for those who are struggling to provide for themselves.
orestes, I already said I can’t afford to live where I grew up. I live here to work to improve my situation, like everyone else who comes here.
I don’t know how much of this thread you missed, but no one’s suggesting that squalor is good for poor people or society. if you need help paying rent, you’ll get it, because we are “humane” (mr. who) but you don’t get to pick and choose like it’s a box of godiva chocolates!
Yes, food, housing, health care, education – basic needs. of the four, housing is the only one that can be acceptably unequal. Let’s not confuse “housing” and “lifestyle”. We work for a better lifestyle here. We don’t expect it to be given to us.
if you are suggesting that we’d be better served by a system other than constrained capitalism, I’m out.
joe- how does affordable housing push up market rates in my neighborhood? Affordable housing stabilizes neighborhoods. It keeps the middle class and working poor in their homes and neighborhood- if that’s not a social improvement I can’t think what is. People who are invested in their neighborhoods work to improve it. There are a number of community organizations in CH and Bed-Stuy that prove my point. But if they have no place to live, they leave- That has a greater negative impact on the neighborhood than cops and schools.
You know, I tried to deflect the point above with humor when I said that “everyone calls me a schmuck”, but now I see we have two more folks ready to claim their moral superiority (Who and Orestes).
Posts like these are why I frequent Brownstoner less often. It can’t just be a discussion of folks of good will who have different ideas about how best to progress. No, folks need to demonstrate their cultural and moral superiority.
Also, Orestes, just fyi: I was born in Red Hook and lived there until I was 6 (in the Red hook projects). I then lived in Gravesend for the remainder of my youth.
bxgirl: I agree with you 100% – there are some people – I call them the “out-of-touch-pioneers” who are economically situated to support a unattached, non-rooted lifestyle. I don’t admire the pioneering ideology or the money by any means necessary ideology.
Others like to be close to family/communities and established support networks because they’ve built relationships. I believe Life is about relationships – not just money.
Can you picture telling a single- 65 yr old person w/o family – whose lived in NY all his/her life – who can no longer afford to live in NY on a $60,000 pension or whatever, “just move to Arkansas”
Its cold hearted.
Joe- the intake center needs to stay in Manhattan for a number of reasons- the majority of homeless men are in Manhattan. The armory is not only not close to any services- such as a hospital if needed, its a long trek from the closest subway. Meaning homeless men in winter will be making a huge trek out here and then get sent back and out to whatever facility they are assigned. Under the Fair Share Laws, all neighborhoods are supposed to have an equitable distribution of things like social services, shelters, etc. CHN has far more than its fair share and there are stats to prove it. The community does not want yet another shelter or intake center in the neighborhood- we are saturated. Homelessness isn;t only about shelter- you’re right. The Bedford Armory shelter offers these men nothing- no services, no classes, no educational options. They get a bed and because its first come first serve, these guys have no where else to go but side outside the Armory and wait til they can go back in. It demeans them.
You’re right- I don’t care if there is an affordable addition on Northside Piers, and I do want more cops and better schools in CH. But this proves my point- it isn’t happening for neighborhoods like CHN and Bed-stuy. As the wealthier neighborhoods build up, the city gives them more and more. The residents of CHN have worked long and hard to better the neighborhood. It was longtime residents, many of whom have lived in and owned the same homes for generations, who pursued landmarking. There is a strong community that has been fighting the city on this- and I am not talking about gentrifyiers.
People want affordable housing, in decent neighborhoods- I doubt they care if they are living next to Bloomberg or in a working class neighborhood so long as it is given the same opportunities and basics as the Upper East Side- better access to public transportation for instance.
I agree with Joe that the government should not use public funds to prop up foolish developers by leasing properties at outrageous rates to use for public housing. That serves to maintain the false market. The city should tax empty properties at a high rate to force developers to sell/rent at market rates. Then we will know the true state of the NYC real estate market.