by Chris Bodenner
A reader quotes Josh Barro:
“The only real outrage is that Extell had to build affordable units at all.” Pardon me, but fuck that. A legitimate goal for a city is to make provision for housing to its low-income residents. In the not-so distant-past, that goal was met by housing projects in the ghetto. It only took a generation or two to quickly realize that wasn’t the best way to go.
The new way is to lavish massive subsidies on developers in exchange for a certain number of the total housing units in a development to remain affordable for a period of time. It works like a mortgage, only no repayment is required. The subsidy could be direct cash in the project or more lucrative low-income housing tax credit deals.
Here Extell is being allowed to boost its square footage and have their development subsidized. The city is able to meet its goals. Extell could jog on and find another project, but they didn’t because there is more money to be made. Outrage? Excuse me again when I say fuck that.
Another:
As a New Yorker who lives in a similar “80/20” building on the Upper West Side, I strongly support John Barro’s position. I pay $5200 a month for a 1050 square foot apartment with two beds and two baths on a high floor of our building that has Hudson River views.
I know to 99% of the country, that figure is ridiculous, but in New York, it is what it is. Over the past few months, our management company has been jacking rents on both vacancies and renewals by at least 20%, meaning that if I want to stay in my apartment I have to pay $6200 or more. So my wife and I have decided to move.
Meanwhile, 12 floors below us are “low-income tenants” living in basically the same apartment without the view of the Hudson River – for less than $1,000 a month. Do you know how much more disposable income I would have if I could pay $1,000 a month? Of course, the 20% of the units that are rent-controlled/rent-stablized will not be faced with the same level of rent increases.
Look, I don’t have the answers to the affordability of Manhattan, but my wife and I work our asses off to afford the life we live. So it’s unfair, unnecessary and unreasonable for folks who can’t afford it to be afforded the right to live in the same building, in basically the same apartment, for $5,000 less per month than me.
Another New Yorker:
This “new” development does not sound all that new to me. What I am about to describe are events of 15 years ago. After ten years on the Section 8 waiting list, my mother moved from a slum on E. 103rd Street to a new building on 95th Street. This building had two wings: one of five or six stories of Section 8 housing connected to a high-rise tower of luxury condos, separated by the spa and fitness facility. Along with a separate elevator bank, there was a separate entrance for the Section 8 wing to the street, but one could use the avenue entrance door at any time. At first blush, the “separateness” seemed to be appalling.
Then a reality check. My mother’s apartment was very nice and nicely equipped, the common areas were well-maintained, there was 24-hour building security, the building staff – from management to cleaning staff – treated my mother as they treated every other resident: with respect and dignity. And when my mother died, there was no trouble gaining access to her apartment, we received a very nice condolence card from the building management, and every staff person we came into contact had something nice to say about Mom.
Bottom line: For the last few years of my mother’s life she lived in a safe, clean building, and she was treated with dignity in the place she called home. Compared to where she lived before that, this was a dream come true. The separate “entrance” was – and is – a non-issue.
Update from a reader:
I am not familiar with the details of the proposed project in Manhattan, or of the building in which your reader lives who complained about the cheap rents offered to low-income families; however, I am in the commercial real estate industry and familiar with the issues and incentives and how it plays out here in the DC suburbs.
As in Manhattan, the extremely affluent DC area has a problem trying to provide affordable workforce housing. Programs providing developers with increased density or tax relief to incentivize construction of such housing, leveraging tax revenues by having the major capital outlays be made by the developers.
I would be careful about assumptions that the subsidized apartments are essentially the same other than not having river views. A couple of years ago, a local GOP politician and a conservative think tank with dubious credentials stirred up our community with talk about how recipients of public housing were getting luxury amenities and implied that subsidized housing residents were living in $1,000,000 homes. A review of tax assessment information for one of the developments, however, showed that there were MANY differences between the market-priced housing and the subsidized town-home units. The subsidized units not only were much smaller, but had basic finishes (the market units had granite and other high-end finishes) and no garages, fireplaces or decks (all of which were present in the market-priced homes). Nobody who was living in the market-priced housing would want to trade places with the subsidized residents.
The Dish 