Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People who have annual income of 68,000 ("Before Tax"), will have to pay 2,000 each month for a 1 bedroom apartment. It is not even located at downtown. Is this reasonable? There is no way people can save money to buy an apartment in the furture. They acturally got nothing left after essential speding. They will either stay in that apartment forever or find a cheap place. To be honsest, I dont' understand why so people still apply this so called affordable housing unless they are doing some jobs can easily tax fraud and/or tax evasion.
The affordable housing program has always been a bait and switch. Only a small percentage of apartments are "affordable" in the way most people would define the term. The reason is because it's simply too expensive to build 800-1000/mo 1bdrm apartments like you have down south or even in Philly.
In order for there to be truly low-income or working class housing, it has to be coupled with large amounts of expensive housing so the rich can subsidize the poor. You can't tell people this because then resentment kicks in and people don't want rich people in their neighborhood.
The affordable housing program has always been a bait and switch. Only a small percentage of apartments are "affordable" in the way most people would define the term. The reason is because it's simply too expensive to build 800-1000/mo 1bdrm apartments like you have down south or even in Philly.
In order for there to be truly low-income or working class housing, it has to be coupled with large amounts of expensive housing so the rich can subsidize the poor. You can't tell people this because then resentment kicks in and people don't want rich people in their neighborhood.
To flip it around wealthy persons living in low density housing areas don't what the large developments that would be needed for "low income" housing either.
People who have annual income of 68,000 ("Before Tax"), will have to pay 2,000 each month for a 1 bedroom apartment. It is not even located at downtown. Is this reasonable? There is no way people can save money to buy an apartment in the furture. They acturally got nothing left after essential speding. They will either stay in that apartment forever or find a cheap place. To be honsest, I dont' understand why so people still apply this so called affordable housing unless they are doing some jobs can easily tax fraud and/or tax evasion.
Affordable Housing have always been a joke. The reason being is that the limits are set on the applicant gross income. After the government takes almost half a persons income in taxes, rent and utilities will take half of what was eft over then almost nothing is left for the applicant to build a savings or pursue endeavors that require funds other than going into debt to do so.
The real scam is when those folks who live with their parents with a low paying job apply for these bottom tier AMI and win. They move back in with their parents and end up subletting the apartment at market rate making 3x the amount they pay.
To flip it around wealthy persons living in low density housing areas don't what the large developments that would be needed for "low income" housing either.
By and large, the city political class hasn't shown an interest in busting up the low density areas of SI, Queens and Brooklyn. Part of this may be fear of stoking a re-emergence of the Giuliani coalition. The other is the visceral hatred many left leaning groups have against developers/real estate interests means ironically giving them more areas to build on is ideologically unacceptable.
A perfect example of how the whole conversation around affordable housing has nosedived is the debate over Sunnyside Yards. Right now the proposal is for 12,000 units of housing half of which will be for low to very low income and the other for a more working class to middle class Mitchell-Lama type program. Plus, around 10 or so new schools, parks, libraries and space for small businesses.
Sounds like every community advocates dream right?
To hear others tell it, it might as well be Hudson Yards. There's screaming about "displacement" and "gentrification" even accounting for the complete absence of market rate housing (which not only makes the project a huge sunk cost, but increases socio-economic segregation).
It's always been a problem. Even for the 165%s! I used to get called for project after project that I turned down because it was too expensive. Eventually found one project which was just within reach. The political will to base the rent ceiling on the 40x rule just isn't there.
It's worth keeping in mind that the apartments are rent-stabilized and there are no income caps once you're in--so for some people, a bit of stretch in years 1 and 2 might be more okay in years 6 and 7, if their incomes are increasing faster than the rent. But there are some people who are just never going to be making more money. The housing lotteries don't have a ton to offer them.
It's always been a problem. Even for the 165%s! I used to get called for project after project that I turned down because it was too expensive. Eventually found one project which was just within reach. The political will to base the rent ceiling on the 40x rule just isn't there.
It's worth keeping in mind that the apartments are rent-stabilized and there are no income caps once you're in--so for some people, a bit of stretch in years 1 and 2 might be more okay in years 6 and 7, if their incomes are increasing faster than the rent. But there are some people who are just never going to be making more money. The housing lotteries don't have a ton to offer them.
Within a decade more or less many "affordable" housing lottery winners will be in exact same spot as a good number of current rent regulated tenants; paying a large portion of monthly income towards rent.
As with current RS tenants in same situation they cannot move because finding similar apartment with lower rent will be impossible. Well that is unless they manage to win another lottery apartment with cheaper rent.
Thanks to RS laws basically such tenants cannot be touched; so they pay rent on 10th, 15th, 24th, even on 30th because they can, and it doesn't affect their tenancy or renewal lease.
Thing to remember about RS is that rent only goes one way; up. So yes, as stated income must rise each year in excess of increases in order to make the thing work. Loss of job or any other income decrease can spell trouble (eviction for non payment), so there isn't a long period of time to sort things out.
Have frequently stated those (mainly white) people you see in UES/Yorkville, UWS, Chelsea and other areas of city going through shop garbage bags for food usually aren't homeless. But live in those areas other parts of city. They just are rent poor with many often living in RS or RC apartments.
I'll say something else people don't want to hear; BdeB and is very liberal pro tenant RGB will be gone after next year. That likely will spell end of eight years of RS increases being zero or held way below what they ought to have been based on data.
People moan about increases of 1%-2% which is really nothing. Historically things usually are between 2%-3% for one year with twice (more or less) for two year renewals.
Once rent hits $1k per month each 1% increase means an extra $10/month or $120/year. That really isn't a lot of money. But when increases go back to normal ranges some people better watch out.
It's always been a problem. Even for the 165%s! I used to get called for project after project that I turned down because it was too expensive. Eventually found one project which was just within reach. The political will to base the rent ceiling on the 40x rule just isn't there.
It's worth keeping in mind that the apartments are rent-stabilized and there are no income caps once you're in--so for some people, a bit of stretch in years 1 and 2 might be more okay in years 6 and 7, if their incomes are increasing faster than the rent. But there are some people who are just never going to be making more money. The housing lotteries don't have a ton to offer them.
Yep - Even though I've been asked to submit paperwork for about a dozen projects, there were only two that had rent at a level that was affordable to me and that I pursued. Alas, someone was ahead of me on one so that was a no go, and the other is where I live now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
