NEW YORK | City to mix luxury housing with low income projects

[lio45]

Originally Posted by C.

I would also like to see more use of housing vouchers so people can find their own housing rather than being segregated to a particular building or part of the city.

Ever since seeing the yearly numbers for my hometown's public housing authority municipal corp during a sort of joint project with them many years ago, I've had the firm conviction for years that public housing should be abolished and replaced by a system of vouchers. It would be a win for everyone (except for the people employed by municipal housing authorities).

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Outsiders have no way of telling which units are "affordable" and which aren't.

Maybe generally true but recall the infamous "poor door":

‘Poor door’ tenants of luxury tower reveal the financial apartheid within
By Melkorka Licea January 17, 2016 | 1:48am

The controversial “poor door” at a luxury Lincoln Square tower is finally open — and creating New York-style financial apartheid.

Tenants who were chosen to live in one of the 55 low-income units in Extell’s ritzy 33-story building recently started trickling in through the poor door — and many are disturbed by the glaring disparities.

“The thing I don’t like most is we don’t have the same amenities,” said Christina Figueras, 27, a single mother of two.

Though Figueras “feels lucky” to have landed her two-bedroom $1,082-per-month pad after moving from an upper Manhattan housing project, she said cash-poor tenants have no dishwashers, doormen or light fixtures in bedrooms and living rooms.

Renters on the “poor” side — units of which start at $833 for a studio without river views — have access only to a bike-storage closet, an unfinished laundry room and a common space that faces a courtyard they’re not allowed to enter.

Their well-heeled neighbors — in 219 river-view condos starting at $1.3 million — have use of two gyms, a pool, a movie theater, a bowling alley, 24/7 doormen and a lavish lobby with a hand-blown glass chandelier.

They can also traipse around the courtyard, which opens only to the “rich” side of the building.

The rich and poor not only have separate entrances, on Riverside Boulevard and West 62nd Street, respectively, they have different addresses. The rich officially live at 50 Riverside Blvd., the poor at 40 Riverside Blvd. . . . .

https://nypost.com/2016/01/17/poor-d...ial-apartheid/

The fear of duplicating something like this and being called out for it now permeates every development with on-site "affordable" units even in SF.

Public housing, at least in NYC, is not mostly for the poor, and definitely not for the unemployed. We have people at my workplace living in NYCHA housing, and they have relatively high household incomes. NYCHA houses nearly 10% of the city's population, and you'll have households making nothing and those in the top 20% of household income. The units are spacious and rent stabilized, and you have them for life.

If true, I think that's terrible. Housing getting any form of public subsidy should be only for those actually needing it.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by lio45

Ever since seeing the yearly numbers for my hometown's public housing authority municipal corp during a sort of joint project with them many years ago, I've had the firm conviction for years that public housing should be abolished and replaced by a system of vouchers. It would be a win for everyone (except for the people employed by municipal housing authorities).

Doesn't Canada have something equivalent to "Section 8"?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Doesn't Canada have something equivalent to "Section 8"?

Yes, but that's pretty rare. Never understood why it wasn't more widespread. I think our various levels of govt are old-school and stick with building really expensive, really limited social housing because that's just what they know.

I used to have a tenant in downtown Sherbrooke who was on one of these vouchers from the Sherbrooke Housing Authority but I ended up having to expel her because she was a disaster and was emptying the entire 4-story building with her behavior.

And for the past two years, our upstairs tenants in our Lévis duplex has also been a single mom with several kids who qualified for such a voucher. Her rent is paid ~20% by her, ~80% by the Lévis Housing Authority. And (coincidence) I'm again toying with the idea of evicting her 'cause she's frankly a mess (even though the reliable rent part is kinda nice).

But those are rare situations. Most people are just housed in social housing owned by the cities (and managed by those Municipal Housing Authorities).



... if I wanted to get involved in politics someday, I think the one main useful thing I could do would be to try to push for the sale of all current social housing to private interests and the institution of a system of vouchers for all the qualifying low-income tenants.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by lio45

... if I wanted to get involved in politics someday, I think the one main useful thing I could do would be to try to push for the sale of all current social housing to private interests and the institution of a system of vouchers for all the qualifying low-income tenants.

Besides the individual vouchers under Section 8, there's also a thing called

project based Section 8 (aka "HUD Housing"). (This) is multifamily complexes that are privately owned and subsidized by the federal government. HUD housing is available to people with incomes at or below 30% or 50% of the area median income, and some buildings are reserved specifically for elderly or disabled renters or people who are currently without a permanent address who are seeking housing. Generally, private owners hire companies to manage the properties . . . .

http://tenantsunion.org/en/rights/se...sing-section-8

I believe that because it is built with subsidies this housing must remain in the program for a defined period--my recollection is 20 years--but after that it reverts to the private owner to do with as he/she sees fit.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Maybe generally true but recall the infamous "poor door":

Holy fuck that article is annoying. Oh, you pay $1,000 in rent but don't have in unit laundry, a doorman, a gym or a pool? Welcome to reality people, neither do most people paying that amount (even in vastly cheaper metros). I'm pretty sure these apartments are better than any I've ever lived in and yet people like me are the ones subsidizing these units for these entitled assholes. Kick them out and they can come live here in NJ and commute in.

[C.]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Holy fuck that article is annoying. Oh, you pay $1,000 in rent but don't have in unit laundry, a doorman, a gym or a pool? Welcome to reality people, neither do most people paying that amount (even in vastly cheaper metros). I'm pretty sure these apartments are better than any I've ever lived in and yet people like me are the ones subsidizing these units for these entitled assholes. Kick them out and they can come live here in NJ and commute in.

This is NYC stupidity. At least it's been a valuable lesson for the rest of the country on what not to do. I'm a huge proponent of mixed-income housing but it doesn't work if we're talking about ultra luxury ($10,000,000 condos) with crazy amenities.

Me personally, forget all the amenities. I would be super happy to live in a 400 sqft box paying that price at that location. But it doesnt make sense to spend $4,000 per sqft to provide an affordable 1 bedroom apartment unit to 1 person. It's better to take that money and build many more affordable and workforce units to provide a benefit to a greater number of people.

NYC just needs to reform its whole property tax system while they're at it to encourage the creation of more housing for all people. Right now those ultra lux units pay a fraction of their value in property taxes because of the tax loophole provided to them for funding affordable housing.

The city has been in a declared housing emergency since WW2. I wish with that declaration would be a suspension of zoning rules relating to density in order to immediately facilitate the construction of housing. Watch how quick NYC fixes it's housing problem instead of being in this self-perpetuating crisis due to bad policy.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by C.

Right now those ultra lux units pay a fraction of their value in property taxes because of the tax loophole provided to them for funding affordable housing.

I don't know what this means. NYC property taxes are low compared to NYC commercial property taxes (by far the highest in the U.S.), but they are very substantial because the valuations are so high, and the rates aren't particularly low compared to the rest of the country.

And there is no "tax loophole for funding affordable housing". One has nothing to do with the other. My unit doesn't pay lower taxes because the developer was forced to fund inclusionary housing.

There used to be a property tax break for owners in less desirable neighborhoods, but that's gone.

[C.]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't know what this means. NYC property taxes are low compared to NYC commercial property taxes (by far the highest in the U.S.), but they are very substantial because the valuations are so high, and the rates aren't particularly low compared to the rest of the country.

And there is no "tax loophole for funding affordable housing". One has nothing to do with the other. My unit doesn't pay lower taxes because the developer was forced to fund inclusionary housing.

There used to be a property tax break for owners in less desirable neighborhoods, but that's gone.

Crawford, the tax loophole I'm referencing is 421a

The advantages of 421 A were obvious: Developers had a reprieve from paying real estate taxes and could take advantage of additional exemption periods, ranging from 15 to 25 years. The taxes were assessed at the same rate as the land’s existing use, rather than on its ultimate intended use. For example, if a $50,000,000 project was built on land that housed a parking lot, the developer’s annual taxes were based on that land’s existing usage value, which for illustrative purposes, was $30,000. The tax was in sharp contrast to the usual tax of 30% of top-line revenue, or $2,000,000, let’s say, which could be the norm for a 20-story residential apartment building. Additionally, in some circumstances, the tax abatements could even be extended beyond 25 years. It should also be noted that developers received the benefit of Federal low-income housing tax credits for a period of ten years from the date the property was place in service.

https://mazarsledger.com/is-the-new-...using-problem/

[mhays]

Yeah, what exactly is wrong with "poor doors"?

[Pedestrian]

$1,973 LEDs and the Green New Deal
By The Editorial Board
Feb. 15, 2019 6:46 p.m. ET

The Green New Deal that Democrats unveiled last week has a grand ambition to eliminate fossil fuels in 10 years, retrofit every building in America, and guarantee high-paying jobs in the bargain. If you want to see how that works in the real world, consider the public housing projects near Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s New York office.


The New York City Housing Authority (Nycha) has a more modest goal of a 30% reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2027. As part of its plan, Nycha is switching to LED lighting, which lasts longer than incandescent bulbs and consumes less energy. Sounds smart, until you see how many union workers it takes to screw in a light bulb.

One recent project focused on 23 housing developments, and changing the light bulbs and fixtures there cost $33.2 million. Supplies account for a fraction of that cost. Under Nycha’s Project Labor Agreement, electricians make $81 in base pay and $54 in fringe per hour, and overtime is usually time and a half. Add administrative and contracting expenses. All in, Nycha paid an average of $1,973 per apartment to install LEDs.

A Consolidated Edison grant covered $8.25 million, but Nycha took out a loan to cover the rest. The housing authority has three similar projects in construction at other developments, and the total cost for all four is $271.8 million . . . .

https://www.wsj.com/articles/1-973-l...al-11550274408

[jtown,man]

Large developments should just pay a fee that goes to a pot where it is then added into tax revenue which is then sent out as vouchers for poorer people.

Poor people shouldn't be consolidated into one area. Its dehumanizing and physically and mentally separates the haves and have-nots.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by mhays

Yeah, what exactly is wrong with "poor doors"?

I'm not sure, but then again I'm not a progressive (or at least not a *real* one...) The point is not to give low-income people access to millionaires' apartments, but apparently that's part of the "eat the rich" philosophy.

I can understand why anything that causes a stigma is bad, but the whole point about inclusionary zoning is location... low-income tenants will be living in very basic apartments no matter where they are, but they come out ahead by living in a basic apartment in a good neighborhood with access to jobs and neighborhood amenities. Not to mention that a new construction apartment will be more durable, more code-complaint and have fewer maintenance issues than an aging apartment in the private sector.

Nor is it clear that the "poor door" actually caused any stigma before the tenants decided to complain to any and everyone who would listen. It certainly had a stigma after that...

We did a mixed-income townhouse development in Chicago where the affordable and public housing units were built with a lower level of finish than the market rate, and they were built as apartments instead of for-sale townhouses. (Ultimately they were condos; some were sold to our public housing authority while the "affordable" ones were sold to a community land trust). We did our best to blend the design seamlessly into the larger development. Thankfully the townhouses all had individual doors, so a few more doors for the affordables didn't ruffle any feathers. But that portion had to be built prevailing wage, so we had to build them with separate contractors in a later phase while seamlessly integrating the design. I can see why the "poor door" approach might be appealing for all these reasons, to stick affordable tenants in a mid-rise annex to a tower or something. If the larger tower didn't exist and it was just an affordable midrise, there would be no issue.

We also had an issue where a developer agreed to a partnership with CHA called "Opportunity Areas" where certain low-income tenants received "supervouchers" to move into luxury buildings, amenities included. One low-income tenant got pissed off with a market-rate tenant in the building's gym, for unclear reasons. The low-income tenant left and returned with a gun, shooting the market-rate tenant dead. That pretty much soured most developers in town on a true mixed-income approach...

[maru2501]

https://thebaffler.com/outbursts/nee...age-done-timms




WHAT KINDS OF PEOPLE did I expect to find here, in the public garden at the foot of 432 Park Avenue, New York’s tallest residential building? In the days before I arrived in Manhattan to chart a course across the city, I’d studied the plans and websites of the “supertalls,” the new crop of skeletal residential towers rising one thousand feet and more above midtown. The architects’ renderings of these new superstructures were charged with all the clichés of the genre: the plate-glass exteriors knifing skyward, the unobstructed views of the miniature city below, the lobbies at once massive and discreet. The humans were harder to grasp. Artists’ impressions showed the supertalls’ residents-to-be in a variety of unnatural poses: a couple in formal wear touching each other next to a baby grand, a woman alone on a balcony with a dining table set for eight. But it was the passers-by sketched at the periphery who interested me most. Would the people here be like they were there, smudged and passive with the bready limbs of a disaster movie’s sacrificial-crowd-in-waiting?