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.
Its disturbing to me, someone who makes less than 85K, that my tax dollars are going to provide subsidized housing to someone who clearly is not needy. If you can afford to buy a home for $455K, there are plenty of affordable condos and coops available and for just a bit more money, $500 to 600K, you can buy a decent home in Bushwick, Ridgewood and probably many other neighborhoods. Why should we be subsidizing the puchase of luxury housing in gentrified neighborhoods. These houses will all be renovated sooner or later when it makes economic sense.
This is a gross misuse of government funds.
I find the comparison to the ‘Mega Millions’ or other lottery jackpots silly. yes, since this person spent nothing and potentially got millions of dollars from this property there is a slight similarity. however, the lottery is completely different you actually SPEND money to play. money that is then used for schools or whatever else to actually do benefit the community. this has nothing to do with that. the people who win this lottery risk nothing to gain. not only that but money (our money) is actually SPENT to restore these homes that they give away – hardly similar if you ask me.
I find the comparison to the ‘Mega Millions’ or other lottery jackpots silly. yes, since this person spent nothing and potentially got millions of dollars from this property there is a slight similarity. however, the lottery is completely different you actually SPEND money to play. money that is then used for schools or whatever else to actually do benefit the community. this has nothing to do with that. the people who win this lottery risk nothing to gain. not only that but money (our money) is actually SPENT to restore these homes that they give away – hardly similar if you ask me.
Its disturbing to me, someone who makes less than 85K, that my tax dollars are going to provide subsidized housing to someone who clearly is not needy. If you can afford to buy a home for $455K, there are plenty of affordable condos and coops available and for just a bit more money, $500 to 600K, you can buy a decent home in Bushwick, Ridgewood and probably many other neighborhoods. Why should we be subsidizing the puchase of luxury housing in gentrified neighborhoods. These houses will all be renovated sooner or later when it makes economic sense.
This is a gross misuse of government funds.
Its disturbing to me, someone who makes less than 85K, that my tax dollars are going to provide subsidized housing to someone who clearly is not needy. If you can afford to buy a home for $455K, there are plenty of affordable condos and coops available and for just a bit more money, $500 to 600K, you can buy a decent home in Bushwick, Ridgewood and probably many other neighborhoods. Why should we be subsidizing the puchase of luxury housing in gentrified neighborhoods. These houses will all be renovated sooner or later when it makes economic sense.
This is a gross misuse of government funds.
We give subsidies out all the time (everyone holla AY!) for folks to renovate abandon properties. Bully on them for giving one to the little guy and they should do more of it.
This was a fair way to keep a little economic diversity in the neighborhood. I’d love to meet anyone of the haters in person to argue that it is a bad idea to give a single parent and a firemen a shot at living within striking distance of their jobs.
“Is it too much to ask…” Jimmy Stewart
Kuroko
I think Clinton Hill is not a good area for this program, because gentrification is already relatively advanced in this area. If these houses were not renovated by PACC and sold through a lottery, it would only be a matter of years before they are bought and renovated by wealthy people. So there is no need for a special program to improve the neighborhood and its housing stock, the free market is already doing a good job in Clinton Hill.
So this program is not doing much for the community:
1. neighborhood improvement in Clinton has been occuring without the help of this program.
2. While this helps a few lucky middle class people to get a house in the neighborhood, this program does not help to keep the middle class in the area, because it is really a tiny drop in the bucket.
However, this could be a great program in areas where gentrification has not occured yet, or is in the early stages. Like the not-so-nice parts of Bed-Stuy, or places like East New York and Cypress Hills. In these places, renovating a few houses and bringing new people could certainly help to trigger community improvement.
But in Clinton Hill?
Like many of the posters before me, I offer the new owners congratulations, and hope you stay in the community for a long time.
The good thing about these lotteries is that those who win are motivated to make these houses into homes, and become part of the community. Sounds like a win-win for everyone.
I think the “fair” quotations were to forestall the inevitable whining of those who never entered the lottery, didn’t win, and feel someone else got something they should have had access to. It was a lottery, as someone said above. Just like Lotto or Mega Millions. If someone wins the jackpot, wish them well, keep playing, or not, and go about your life. Your turn may come the hard way, through sweat and effort. That is the way of it for most of us.
this post irks. the photos were cut & pasted from PACC’s website, and the caption makes no sense. and why is the word fairness in quotes? does the term have some kind of special definition when used in connection with real estate? why would i be impressed with a program if i didn’t believe it was fair (or “fair”)?