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.
“I think that a cap on the sales price of these homes would be a better alternative – perhaps a pre-determined % increase per year. that way the price of the home will remain ‘affordable’ and more than one person can benefit.”
“Affordable” to whom, 4:08? At exactly what price level would you set the cap? Also, if NO ONE else was willing to buy the place when it was a run-down (presumably available) house that was NOT part of the PACC program, why should the buyer, who was lucky enough to benefit from this progressive initiative(which managed to get the house, sold albeit to a guy who makes $85K), be limited in the amount he/she can sell for? I assume there weren’t a bunch of folks lined up waiting up to buy this place prior to its inclusion in the PACC lottery, or else we wouldn’t be talking about it here. The buyer clearly lucked out, but why should he/she be punished for that, and why is that considered a “bad” thing if a formerly unoccupied eyesore was finally inhabited by a committed owner? Sure, it’s not a perfect plan, but what plan is? Frankly, your “alternative” doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Like the other haters on this site you’re good at complaining and tossing around insults, but not so good at coming up with realistic solutions.
My fiancee placed 7th in the same lottery and she is will soon close on a 3-family brownstone in Bed Stuy. The majority of the properties in this round of sales are on the eastern edge of Clinton Hill or the western edge of Bed Stuy. PACC’s intent is not simply to benefit a few buyers, but to continue in the process of revitalizing the neighborhood by fixing up homes that were extremely dilapidated and sell them to folks who agree to live in the homes for at least 7 years, thereby introducing a measure of stability to the neighborhood while fixing blight.
While the houses have below-market selling prices, no one is going to become rich off these deals, nor will this program fix all of the neighborhood’s problems. This program does benefit a neighborhood in need of improvement however. Whether the benefit justifies the cost in terms of federal housing subsidies is a matter of opinion. In my biased opinion this program is far better than most taxpayer-subsidized attempts to improve the City’s housing stock, and clearly, those former crack dens and unsafe SRO’s weren’t going to fix themselves.
Have any of you heard of the GI Bill? The government has a long history of housing subsidies, some of which probably supplied your fathers with homes and education.
This subsidy really helps an small number of middle class folks.
Don’t you want to live among people other than investment bankers and lawyers?
I did offer an alternative earlier, I think that a cap on the sales price of these homes would be a better alternative – perhaps a pre-determined % increase per year. that way the price of the home will remain ‘affordable’ and more than one person can benefit. the guy who won this lottery put a significant amount of his own money up for a down payment and closing costs and I think that he should be able to make money from the sale of this house. however, I don’t think you should get the right to sell a house at market rate if you didn’t buy it at market rate.
3:21 – I love the way you left out my answer to the question am I a hater? and just like I said before HELL NO. jerk.
So the alternative would have been for the federal government to sell this property at market rate and put that money into the trillion dollar operating budget for the year.
At least this way a neighborhood housing development agency gets funding to apply toward other neighborhood projects.
“I just think these types of programs help a small handful of people get rich and tons of others that could have been helped with nothing.”
First, while he/she should do well in time, I don’t think the buyer will exactly “get rich” as a result of this purchase. Secondly, like the other haters here, you eagerly share a great many objections and complaints, but offer no concrete alternatives.
I don’t think its hate, just envy. hate is a bit strong.
Even within so-called gentrified neighborhoods, such as Park Slope or Clinton Hill, there are houses that have fallen into severe disrepair. Some are owned by HPD or HUD. Others are owned by individuals. The community organizations take these houses, rehabilitate them, and run a lottery for them.
In neighborhoods like Park Slope and Clinton Hill, lotteries like this help maintain income diversity. This helps avoid income segregation. There is a crisis in middle income housing in this city. Lotteries like this are a small drop in the bucket, but at least they are something.
“I think the program is stupid and the thought of a single person making 85K a year getting an entire brownstone under the guise of an affordable housing program is even worse. am I hater?”
Yes.