Groups Urge Opening of Vacant Condos to the Poor

plenty of empty rentals in fidi to use as well

As long as they don't become the new NYCHA projects.

It could be done right. The city should try to preserve the tax base.

sign me up...

how could this be done?

i doubt it would ever occur in manhattan, below 96th street. but cynically i could see prime developers encouraging this for other locations because it would reduce inventory. everyone knows that "prime" nyc is different. getting rid of some of the opportunities for potential bankruptcies and lower-priced opportunities for the priced out would only help them.

I doubt the subsidy would ever be enough to stave off bankruptcy, but at least a program like this could be used to help limit losses for lenders that take possession.

somehow i think the only ones who would reap any benefits are the developers. and, as always the original buyers would be hung out to dry. that is why every buyer out there should always remember: you are on the very bottom of the food chain. once they get your downpayment and your signature, no one cares what happens to you.

"It could be done right. The city should try to preserve the tax base."

What tax base?

NYCHA residents don't pay taxes.

ok, i've just about f'ng had it. of course the poor pay taxes. there are many forms of taxes. including sales. buy a toaster, pay some taxes. ride the subway, pay some taxes. pay for anything, pay for the taxes that are included in the cost of production.

matt, you are a fucktard, of the highest order.

post87, if you've read much of what i've written, you'll realize that i think that just about every possible policy decision that is possible is bad. spend some more? awful. don't spend. awful. monetary easing? awful. no monetary easing? awful.

help mortgage holders, big or small, awful. don't help them, awful. i believe in housing that doesn't just reflect the rich, in every community. and it doesn't have to do with whether that community is wealthy or not. public and urban planning rarely intend to optimize fully the economic potential of property values, or at least they didn't until recently. but this utilization of property smacks of an effort to utilize bankrupt properties in more marginal areas to reduce inventory and decrease the value in other more marginal areas so that the focus can return again on manhattan profits.

sorry, not the efforts by the groups advocating for the poor. rather those who are starting to rumble about it in the administration. i have a number of friends who have in the past and do work in the housing arena in NYC, and sometimes i rant with that information in mind.

Aboutready,

Yes, the poor pay taxes, but they also consume a greater proportion of tax dollars. As far as this thread topic is concerned, they aren't necessarily entitled to the right to move into unsold condos.

As far as your policy indecision, how are spending, monetary easing, helping mortgage holders (while doing absolutely nothing for renters) just as "awful" as not wasting taxpayer money or undermining our dollar and buying power? The Bush/Obama administrations essentially have decided to spend and "ease" their way into reinflating real estate prices (that were extremely over inflated in the first place) all while going out of their way to assist mortgage holders who over-spent and over-borrowed. Where does all of this money (via government spending, easy money policies - that also have allowed for refinancing at levels even lower than the ones that got us into this inflated price trouble in the first place) come from and who is going to pay for not only the expenditures but FED's inflated prices?

Meanwhile I am renting and can't find the same space for sale for less than DOUBLE what I pay in rent (including tax deductions). Please tell me how, as a renter - either here in NYC or anywhere else in the US - all of the government spending and monetary easing is helping me? My savings are doing NOTHING at the cost of letting deadbeats and overspenders refinance. My US dollar's buying power is being destroyed by a monetary policy that is dead bent on keeping interest rates at zero. (All of the while, Wall Street brats are making a killing borrowing at 0% and spending their bonuses on Manhattan real estate - instead of not having a job if the government didn't bail them out.) How the hell is this helping make real estate more affordable in NYC?

We have a government that is intent on maintaining artificial real estate price levels that are 2 to 3 times what the price levels were just 10 years ago here in NYC. The government has done its best to imply that real estate prices can't fall as they rise - god forbid that prices actually fall below where they came from in Miami and L.A. after rising over 400+%!!!! Our government is trying make defacto per square foot prices in Manhattan at $1000 min and hold national prices at 2003 levels. We are so gung ho on pushing price levels up but act as if price reductions are some sort of evil - though our government has no problem subsidizing purchases at the cost of taxpayers.

People have to learn the reality that if you spend and borrow too much there are consequences. I don't care if it is for housing or for consumer goods - and much the US public seemed just as willing to spend on BOTH during the real estate boom. If you take away the consequences, then you give people the impression that spending 750,000 on a studio apartment is "normal" (yes, the same studio apartment that sold for 70,000 back in 1998). I am sorry, but I just don't feel as if our government should be promoting such activity or saving those that have partaken in it.

aboutready
about 2 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse ok, i've just about f'ng had it. of course the poor pay taxes. there are many forms of taxes. including sales. buy a toaster, pay some taxes. ride the subway, pay some taxes. pay for anything, pay for the taxes that are included in the cost of production.

matt, you are a fucktard, of the highest order.

I have never heard anyone other than aboutready use the term "fucktard". Has anyone else?

I prefer more common terms. Terms that are universally know and happen to be applicable to aboutready.

Like: LIAR

memito,

best post on streeteasy. besides all of w67th's, of course.

memito, you don't get it. i don't disagree with you that much. i just don't know what the answer is. and i don't know what the consequences of just letting everything fall is, and i doubt i'd like to find out. i've been ranting about the bubble in real estate prices for over five f'ng years. during most of that time i was routinely called insane.

do i think policy has been misdirected? absofuckinglutely.

but that doesn't have anything to do with basic right to shelter.

actually, i take that last sentence back. it does seem to have something to do with it. which was my issue here.

of course the poor pay no taxes...

Arguing they do, is kind of silly. First the statement is a general one, so to nitpick on the soda tax that someone on minimum wage pays, is not what is meant by the statement. The gyst of the argument is the lower your earned income the less taxes you pay. If you are on public assistance, you pay no taxes.

It's also true that there are some very rich people that through various exemptions, or the pejorative term loopholes, they pay little tax too. A very good reason for going to a flat tax.

Gov't policy goal is clearly to turn back the clock five years, re-inflate asset prices to before the crisis and declare we learned our lesson. Despite the rhetoric, Congress is doing what it always does, Republican & Democrat, pressure regulators to ease up on the banks, give exemptions to small business on SOX, and give in to the bank and real estate interests in exchange for support during the next election.

Just posing this question, if one assumes that society should help provide housing for lower income. Is this best done by dedicated buildings for this purpose and tying the aide to the unit, or is it better by not building such housing and simply providing subsidy to the renter who must continuously re-certify his/her need. I often wonder about this. So much was written in past decades about the failure of building housing complexes for poor.

My understanding is that Forte in Fort Green might be joining this program.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Extra/warning-new-asset-price-bubbles-could-burst.aspx

Jim Rogers is right, we don't have an bubble in commodities. People don't understand the difference betwen a good year and a bubble. We're not even close when it comes to Gold. Talk to me when there are IPO'S for mining compannies on the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

When people say poor people pay no taxes they mean to say poor people pay no income taxes. Which is true. 50% of American households don't pay taxes which means more than 50% of Americans don't pay income taxes. Not only that, we give tax credits to poor people so in fact millions actually get an annual allowance (in cash) to live in the USA.

The article was "released by advocates for moderately priced housing."

Why can't people see this is a bailout for the developers? Why are we going to bail them out?
If you want affordable housing then don't give the developer any money here. It will prop prices up for millions of people. Let the market work. Housing prices are falling all over the city FOR EVERYONE so stay out of the way and let them fall!! Why buy these for a few? If the developer won't lower his price then eventually the bank will take over and the bank will sell at a lower price. Having lower priced condos available makes housing more affordable FOR EVERYONE!!!
We need to build more and more condos. This is how prices get more affordable. It's simple capitalism. It worked before Bush and Obama started bailing everyone out. They should have let the banks fail, they should let these developers fail, and they should continue to let homeowners who paid more than they could afford fail. This is how we bring down these ridiculous housing prices for everyone.

Further, I'm a landlord - falling prices in the condo market is terrible for my business. My buildings are worth much more when the condo down the street is selling for $1,000/ft instead of $500/ft. But let's get real. Turning vacant condos into low income housing is terrible social planning. It would be great for my net worth but it's terrible for the city.

2/3rds of our residents rent. And of the 1/3 that own most are making well above the median income. So why are we trying to prop up prices? To help landlords like me? It's such backwards social engineering. Vacant units bring down prices for everyone. Again, vacant units bring down prices for everyone.

Jazzman you make a great point. The people who own the buildings benefit from the policy of using city money to buy the condos.

I think any extensive government program to allow the poor to occupy unsold condos would be terrible for middle-class people who might otherwise have been able to buy those condos when the market finally hits bottom. You'd essentially be taking those units off the market, and forcing people who pay for their own housing to pay more, because of the reduced supply and reduced price competition.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be a worthy program, but I hope everyone understands that the cost of such a program is not just the tax subsidy but the increased prices for home-buyers. And though some of the benefit would go to the poor who get to live in the condos, most of the benefit would be captured by the condo developers who now have a tax-subsidized price floor.

post87, i'm in favor of policies which create low and middle-income housing, and even i think this is almost certainly a wretched idea, on many levels.

memito, great post.

post87 -"You'd essentially be taking those units off the market, and forcing people who pay for their own housing to pay more, because of the reduced supply and reduced price competition."

Exactly - if we just let prices fall the middle class would buy - then they move out of their current homes and create vacant units for lower income people.

Our government has lost its collective mind.

I truly am hopeful that this affordable housing push fails. Let the market set its own natural level. Enough socialist -- subsidized housing.

"memito, you don't get it. i don't disagree with you that much. i just don't know what the answer is. and i don't know what the consequences of just letting everything fall is, and i doubt i'd like to find out. i've been ranting about the bubble in real estate prices for over five f'ng years. during most of that time i was routinely called insane.

do i think policy has been misdirected? absofuckinglutely.

but that doesn't have anything to do with basic right to shelter."

Aboutready,

Sorry about jumping down your throat. I just read that one comment and went off a bit....

I think that affordable housing is a serious issue and should be addressed (and I don't know how), but not at the price of distorting the real estate mkt by reducing supply via affordable housing conversions.

"Enough socialist -- subsidized housing."

If that is the view of everyone here, as it appears to be, then why is there not a single mention of Section 8, which is SOCIALIST SUBSIDIZED HOUSING. Is it because you guys have no problem with subsidized housing that benefits renters, but not owners???? I smell hypocrisy.

"post87, i'm in favor of policies which create low and middle-income housing..."

Even if the low income housing is directly next door to you? Or are you one of those "not in my backyard" hypocrites?

Poor class don't pay taxes. They don't work and they only collect. They are paying those sales taxes, etc with the free $ they get from us.
Simple solution would be to move them all to east ny/far rockaway.

President -- fair point -- to be clear -- I support only fmv as a means of pricing -- for both renting and ownership.

president, you're going after the wrong person here. nimby i am not.

memito, no problem. your post was very well articulated. these are extraordinarily frustrating times we live in.

I don't agree with this idea.

Jazzman you make some very true points the market should be allowed to correct itself that is the only way for prices to fall and for people to start buying again

I'm going to weigh-in but I'm only going to get my feet wet.
Housing for the poor. Interesting idea. Can't tell you how excited I'd be if I've purchased my luxury Billburg Marionette only to be awarded a building full of welfare families in my immediate vicinity. I would like all of you to think back to the 70's and early 80's in and around the Madison Garden area. Anyone remember the numerous SROs and welfare hotels that plagued midtown? Anyone remember how relaxing it was to go to Penn Station late at night? Go ahead, tar and feather me. Shifting these properties to ‘No-income housing’ would be a mistake. What is the condition on NYCHA? Is it ready to take on new buildings with new problems? What will be the fate of these properties? Will new 3-br apartments that most hard working New Yorkers could not afford even in Billburg or LIC be awarded to the MOST needy? I'm a believer that the prizes that come from being a burden to the State and the City be unappealing. The fact that my tax dollars have to subsidize others when I have difficulty subsidizing myself is an issue. It all come back to that fine line between 'safety net and entitlement'. If we are at a point that the city needs more subsidized housing and or welfare type housing perhaps we should build some. That would be a worthy proposal for federal bailout-stimulus money. Put some folks to work, house some folks, create another generation of people reliant on the hard work of others. Having these projects Hodge podge, all over the place, just makes no sense and, makes for inefficient future building care and, security. That sound like a sound future plan that will yield little but burn up a lot which, is our plan.
This will turn to entitlement and that is the root of the problem.
STOP GIVING OUT FISH and start giving out fishing poles.

Build them out of government cheese. That way the dairy lobby scores a victory too!

I hope market prices in new condos are in a free fall...but if that is true, can I get an example of where I could actually buy a condo at a [insert adjective] price. I just don't see it yet.

falcogold1 - I agree with everything you say but " Having these projects Hodge podge, all over the place, just makes no sense and, makes for inefficient future building care and, security. " - scatter site housing is the correct way to house those who need government assistance. Concentrating poverty in large projects has proven to be a complete failure. We should get rid of the projects and sell them to developers. Then take the cash and build twice as many units at scattered housing sites around the city.

jazzman, i agree entirely with what you wrote. further, a program that is similar to an 80/20 one (but it wouldn't be the same income requirements as one in Chelsea, obviously), is more likely to succeed on so many levels. and it obviously doesn't have to be strictly 80/20, that program isn't the only model, but something similar.

the ghetto doesn't work. but the problem is logistics. getting rid of the projects and selling land to the developers won't work so well right now. on many levels. maybe during the next market upswing. and yes i realize the contradictory nature of that comment. but developers usually buy land on the upswing, and commit during the same. we have very few players who would be willing to take on such long-term projects (so to speak).

I am taken back by the "compassion" expressed by so many of you. To begin with, we already pay for the poor and homless through our tax dollars for shelters, prisons, hospital's emergency rooms etc. second, all studies show that housing the poor is cost effective, reduces burden on society and free up dollars currently spent. Thirdly, all studies show that the new congregate affordable housing (buildings that are smaller in size) do not impact negatively on property value and in the long run bring safety and security to neighborhoods (all have security as part of the design). We only live once and all deserve a chance to live. Have we lost the meaning of what society should be?

I met a banker/developer and we discussed 80/20 buildings -- the tax breaks make it completely indifferent to the developer if the 20 live there or not -- they don't. 007 -- this is not about homelessness -- this is about should we make sure the lower class can live on Park Avenue...

There is compassion -- and then there is punishing the minority to float the majority --

007, i don't deny what you say. i believe, however, that using these "luxury" developments, some of which may have already had some sales, is not the way to equitably foster decent housing for the poor. it will create tensions that you can't imagine. and the last thing the poor need is to be the target of neighborhood hatred. nothing more petty than resenting someone who got a break, particularly if they're an outsider.

and it really just is an effort to give developers a break. i have no answers, as i said before. a huge amount of cmbs is owned by gses, which means that if the property values decline we the taxpayers owe for it. it's our loss. so at the end of the day can we quit pointing simplistic fingers at each other and just admit that we're well and truly screwed and what can we do to maximize any potential gain, such that it may be, and minimize overt pain?

no we can't. because it's just not easy, and we don't do well with difficult.

manhattanfox, which buildings from the original post are in prime manhattan?

i call bullshit. this is not about whether the lower class can live on park avenue. give me a fucking break.

How long should the new toilet seat last?

The Park avenue you (fox) refer to,the one that did not allow minorities or Jews in some of the building would only benefit from an affordable housing next to them. However, no one is converting anything on Park (I do not recall any bankrupt condo on Park avenue). To the best of my knowledge the discussion is about Brooklyn or LIC where unfinished buildings are sitting empty and are owned by banks (some have been rescued by all of us). A proposal to have a non profit taking over with the help of private investment through Tax Credit helps all involved.Government can get our money from the banks, communities will look nicer, tax dollars will be redirected and used more efficiently and in general all will benefit. Finally, as you must know, there are few affordable buildings in Manhattan (next to Brompton or Lucida) and as far as I recall, they did not stop the 06/07 bubble from developing. The "lower class" system was good 100 years ago...

007, don't go off over the top here. there are options that would work. but not just releasing buildings wholesale to the program. which i would discourage, actually.

if you really want to help the lower to middle working class, look to mixed income housing. expand the program. the lending implications could be worked out between bloomberg and his billionaire buddies.

"which i would discourage, actually."

What is the weight of your discouragement?

Do you have any special knowledge or influence or credentials?

aboutready- yes I support mixed use and mixed income. It works if done and managed correctly. I just felt that there is some ignorance about the concept, the options and the economic values for the city in this difficult time.

007 - "A proposal to have a non profit taking over with the help of private investment through Tax Credit helps all involved." Sure it helps all "involved" but it hurts millions who aren't involved. If you bring in government help then that props up prices. Those involved, ie the developer, the banks, the buyers benefit (and so do the other property owners because it would mean that their home value wouldn't fall as far -just who we need to help - rich condo/coop owners) - but the millions of renters get hurt. 2/3 of our population rent the other 1/3 are mostly rich. Save the few and hurt the majority -that's terrible government policy. The people who paid the top should get crushed. Everyone else shouldn't suffer with high prices because we're trying to keep a few from the consequences of their bad decisions.

hfs, this is the last time i'll respond to you. what do you have to offer? what are you're qualifications?

actually, when i was a mere puppy of only 15 i was elected by my state to be on a five-year planning commission for my county. i was later selected (quite generously) to be the head of the energy subcommittee, but i also spent three years on the land use committee, and the reason i was so elected is that i spoke frequently at city and county meetings regarding land use issues, from the age of 10, at 13 i spoke before the state legislature on land tax issues, part of a presentation created by a marvelous science teacher.

within the county advisory committee we spent hours upon hours discussing such issues, zoning variances to promote certain land use, taxation based upon best possible use, needs of community members etc.

so, hsf, go fuck yourself. good bye.

How cute.

So at age 13 you were Miss Junior Important. Was that with Reese Witherspoon?

Welcome to the Big City little girl.

When did your daddy teach you how to plunge a stopped up toilet?

By the way, tell us which City and County you were in as a little girl that qualifies you for your opinions on New York County.

btw, hsf, how do you value yourself? just by deriding others? you seem to be so aware of value. what's yours?

because i haven't seen anything. not a thing.

hsf, peace. and i hope you find it. your choler is way too high. bye sweets.

Should I really be concerned that Miss Junior Harney County Oregon 1975 on the Land Planning Committee thinks I don't contribute anything?

well, hsf, since you've never mentioned what you've accomplished, yes. if you won't play the game. you can't win.

aboutready
45 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse hfs, this is the last time i'll respond to you. what do you have to offer? what are you're qualifications?

Are we in the grace period for the "last time"?

Liar

and since, fucktard, this entire thread had to do with public policy on the more minute scale, yes. you don't get it do you? you're a fucking flea.

prove to me that you're not. always on the attack. stupid little incursions. well, you are an asshole of magnificent proportions. prove that you're not. and the only way to prove that you're not is to prove that you're something more. so go ahead and do it, asshole. can you prove that you've done anything more than be nasty here? and even if you have, can you present it in a way that makes people want to believe you? you're well and truly fucked.

fucktard

Is that a word you made up yourself? Have you ever heard anyone other than family use that word?

actually, many use fucktard these days. i got it from barry ritholtz, the author of Bailout Nation, and the blogger at www.ritholtz.com.

Oh, very good, if Barry Ritholtz uses the word fucktard, then cool.

hsf, be well. i don't know if you post out of anger or a childish glee, i'd suspect the former.

there are things in life that are important, other things aren't. feel free to make another comment about toilet seats, because that's where your mind seems to sit. but i really don't care.

you've been given numerous opportunities to provide something, anything, other than rancor. you haven't done so, either because you're not interested in doing so or you're unable to. either speaks volumes about you.