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.
Our society has decided its not worth subsidizing a Nursing Home for low income people (which used to be here) but it is worth $1,000,000 from the state and a tax break from the city, so the city gains the wonderful benefit of - wait for it - apartments that cost $4,000 a month, no utilities included.
So these apts cost $47,400 a year. If we go by the 25% rule, they're for people who make at least $189k a year. Too bad the tax breaks will probably hurt those who need city services the most, and those rich folk will have to pass by more and more homeless people.
I don't know the answer but these housing costs are not sustainable.
Our society has decided its not worth subsidizing a Nursing Home for low income people (which used to be here) but it is worth $1,000,000 from the state and a tax break from the city, so the city gains the wonderful benefit of - wait for it - apartments that cost $4,000 a month, no utilities included.
So these apts cost $47,400 a year. If we go by the 25% rule, they're for people who make at least $189k a year. Too bad the tax breaks will probably hurt those who need city services the most, and those rich folk will have to pass by more and more homeless people.
I don't know the answer but these housing costs are not sustainable.
If this is unsustainable, it will not sustain. The benefit to the city is a renovated building. I'm unaware of the particular details of this subsidy, but future long term property tax revenues usually outpace the subsidy. While others may disagree, an urban neighborhood does benefit from residents with a mixture of incomes. This thriving, diverse neighborhood has more than its share of low income residents with & without housing subsidies.
As for subsidies for low income nursing home developers, I think those subsidies go directly to Medicare/Medicaid recipients. The nursing home developers indirectly benefit - when they can provide a decent, safe environment for their residents. Should those direct subsidies be increased? Evidence is they should.
Our society has decided its not worth subsidizing a Nursing Home for low income people (which used to be here) but it is worth $1,000,000 from the state and a tax break from the city, so the city gains the wonderful benefit of - wait for it - apartments that cost $4,000 a month, no utilities included.
So these apts cost $47,400 a year. If we go by the 25% rule, they're for people who make at least $189k a year. Too bad the tax breaks will probably hurt those who need city services the most, and those rich folk will have to pass by more and more homeless people.
I don't know the answer but these housing costs are not sustainable.
If people are willing to pay, they are willing to pay. But I also don't see why they should be receiving taxpayer subsidies.
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.
