Winning the Housing Lottery
The lucky winner of one of the city’s middle-income housing subsidy lotteries gets a write-up in Daily News today. The details are pretty envy-inducing: A guy who makes $85,000 a year as a technician at a high-definition video editing company entered a raffle sponsored by the Pratt Area Community Council (after reading about it on…

The lucky winner of one of the city’s middle-income housing subsidy lotteries gets a write-up in Daily News today. The details are pretty envy-inducing: A guy who makes $85,000 a year as a technician at a high-definition video editing company entered a raffle sponsored by the Pratt Area Community Council (after reading about it on this website!) and won the right to purchase a Clinton Hill rowhouse for $455,000. The monthly mortgage payments total $3,048. He’s now living there with his brother, who’s renting out the lower floors. However one feels about the “fairness” of these lottery systems, it’s hard not to be impressed by what PACC’s doing with these projects (like the earlier PACC restoration of 282 St. James Place pictured above); in addition to the obvious boon winning is to the lucky buyer, the restoration of these run-down houses has a very positive impact on the neighborhood. Are any readers among the other eight lottery winners for this batch of houses?
Brothers Find Sharing House is a Home Run [NY Daily News]
Steal This House! PACC Home Raffle Open Now [Brownstoner]
Lottery Lunacy? Allocating Middle-Income Subsidies [Brownstoner]
Photos from PACC.
Is a single man earning $85k really middle income? A regular Joe? I thought PACC set lower income caps for their lotteries.
i just wrote a post and think it disappeared. darn, it was GOOD
Dude your hate is in full effect!
I really dont remeber you hating this much when Brownstoner advertise this program. Why now? Because a regular Joe won?
This life lesson should drive you more to get out there and open your eyes. Be strong and good luck!
Interesting that the winner came in just under the wire on the $85K “cap” but he just so happens to have a brother with wife & kid who (even by NY standards) have the type of income that should disqualify them from any subsidy.
Almost as offensive as the the Government, the Fed, & CO. bailing out the “victims” who “overextended” themselves buying properties.
Next time I hear Bloomberg babble about helping out needy New Yorkers in this post-bubble-burst era, I’d like someone to shout “Make NY rents 50% tax-deductible.” (Sorry, just a rant by a “silly” tax-paying NY renter who thought it injudicious in the past 5 years to take a no-interest mortgage just to get a piece of the real estate pie).
Cheers.
Interesting that the winner came in just under the wire on the $85K “cap” but he just so happens to have a brother with wife & kid who (even by NY standards) have the type of income that should disqualify them from any subsidy.
Almost as offensive as the the Government, the Fed, & CO. bailing out the “victims” who “overextended” themselves buying properties.
Next time I hear Bloomberg babble about helping out needy New Yorkers in this post-bubble-burst era, I’d like someone to shout “Make NY rents 50% tax-deductible.” (Sorry, just a rant by a “silly” tax-paying NY renter who thought it injudicious in the past 5 years to take a no-interest mortgage just to get a piece of the real estate pie).
Cheers.
“there’s no way that it is as unrealistic as your charge that its okay for only one person to benefit because no one wanted the building when it wasn’t renovated.”
If it’s so unrealistic, why is it that this is exactly what happened?
Regardless of all the opinions, simply understand that PACC is a class organization that other programs should model themselves after. Acquiring these properties, getting the funding, manage the rebuilding, and be accountable for every penny is a tremendous undertaking. Applaud PACC and its employees for infusing its energy and efforts locally.
“even the solution of making them affordable condos for people who are in a lower income bracket is better.”
Who exactly will pay for this “solution?” Also, if this is such a great alternative, why wasn’t this proposed by YOU or by someone else earlier? No, you waited until someone actually conceived a program, put a person in a home and then you started complaining because the program didn’t solve all of the problems of all of the unfortunate New Yorkers who can’t afford to buy a home. Quite lame.
of course I’m a hater! I don’t agree, that makes me a hater! there are several similar programs that “realistically” work with this same theory in mind. the example that comes to mind is of the building in harlem on 116th (if I’m not mistaken) its a nice full service building that was ‘affordable’ when built and remains ‘affordable’ in context of market prices for apartments because there are income restrictions placed on people who buy in the building. if there is a % increase per year buildings will still remain as ‘affordable’ as a 455K house is to begin with. frankly, I guess its a matter of what you consider realisitc solutions 4:32. there’s no way that it is as unrealistic as your charge that its okay for only one person to benefit because no one wanted the building when it wasn’t renovated. well, obviously I’m sure he didn’t want it when it was dilapitated either but that doesn’t make a difference does it? even the solution of making them affordable condos for people who are in a lower income bracket is better.