Printed from StreetEasy.com at 02:13 AM, Dec 18 2014
Talk » Rentals » Discussing 'Question about 80/20 rental buildings'

Question about 80/20 rental buildings
SAVE    RSS

    < prev       146 comments  -   page of 2        next >    last >>

There's been a lot of negative comments on this board, regarding the 80/20 program. Are there any positives to this program? Also, for those of you who live in 80/20 rental buildings, what have your experience been like?

Living in the same building as poor people is awesome!

jgr, are you being serious or sarcastic? My impression was that people who pay market rate are furious about having to live in the same building with those who are getting subsidized.

Well, wouldn't you be? You work hard to live in a safe building with other hard-working people. Meanwhile, other people who aren't as lucky and/or hard-working get the exact same thing for less.

"Meanwhile, other people who aren't as lucky ... get the exact same thing for less."

lol

30 years ago I went to an elementary school that was part of a federal mandate for bussing from several different areas based on race and economics. I consider myself a better person for having diversity in my life early on. In fact, not until about 5 years ago did I learn that the school was part of this program (most in the district were not) - my parents never expressed concern, my friends parents never did either. It worked. It works.

mdasch, you are right. I would be angry too since these newer luxury buildings are pretty nice and have a lot of amenities. I would like to hear from people who actually live in one of these buildings.

Did that sound serious? :)

I've made posts before also about the rediculousness of RC,RS,80/20,Government Housing,Section 8. As with almost all Government programs it penalizes those who did work hard in life and rewards those who accomplished nothing. Evidently living in Manhattan is a right.

We live in an "80/20" building paying top market for our apartment. We are most likely going to move out once our lease is up. The apartment prices have fallen in our building since we rented our apartment this past June. Now, not only are we paying substantially more than our subsidized neighbors but also new tennants as well.

Wow. So I guess no one can defend these programs. It does seem absurd and immoral that people with shitty jobs can live in the same building as successful professionals who make six-figures.

EAO, if you don't mind me asking, what neighborhood is your building in? Did you have any problems with the subsidized people? I've heard that most of them live in the smaller units on the lower floors since it makes no sense to give out the bigger units and penthouses to those being subsidized.

I lived in one. I had no problems.

steejhx, was it a highrise doorman building? Did the subsidized people "stick" out, relative to everyone else?

I live in a relatively new ( late 90's ) building a block from the Time Warner Center. The location is great. I have lived in many buildings in NYC ( owned my last 2 and recently sold this past summer). The people that work in the building are pleasant, but not very helpful ( i.e. the doormen hold open the doors but don't help you with your bundles ). You definitely get a sense that there are a broad range of people living in the building ( 750 units in total ). We have everything from the usual professionals to people that appear to be on public assistance. Nobody bothers you. People are polite, definitely not friendly. In the end, we don't think the building ( apart from location ) is any "great shakes" and we really do not like the feeling of getting ripped off.

EAO, I would be pissed if I were a hardworking professional and I had to live in the same building as lazy bums on welfare. But I guess that's NYC liberalism at work.

More important to me that the building is family friendly. Certainly it should go out of its way to support anything but families and hard working single people before they are married.

No, AcesCracked, it's NYC social justice at work. Would you prefer that low-income residents live on the sidewalks outside the market rate buildings? Your description of ow-income residents of 80/20 buildings as "lazy bums" betrays a profound and profoundly ignorant prejudice, since most of these folks are in fact members of the class that more intelligent people call the "working poor". If you have a beef, you should take it to the developers, who take advantage of the incentives the city offers to create decent housing for New Yorkers in their development projects, and then refuse to pass along the benefits of the city policy to market rate renters/buyers.

cherrywood, with all due respect, living in a luxury rental in manhattan is not a God given right nor is it "social justice." There's plenty of places in the outer boroughs where these people could live.

So please save your liberal sanctimony for someone else.

"was it a highrise doorman building?"

It was the Westminster.

"Did the subsidized people "stick" out, relative to everyone else?"

What do you mean? I don't understand the question. I understand that if you prick them, they bleed.

Does that answer you?

I know of one rental building that's 80/20 in Battery Park City....southern BPC, relatively new building. The apts are usually given out in a lottery system. I knew of two people who got them yrs ago (in BPC not in this particular building)...they were not born in the USA but had visas to live/work here. I thought that was wrong.

"hard working single people before they are married"

Does that include if they are married in Massachusetts or Connecticut?

AcesCracked is most definitely Rufus.

and I say that because in this very short thread I've seen the words '80/20', 'luxury' and constant references to NYC 'liberalism'. Only Rufus could manage all that in such short a time.

stevejhx, what I mean was, did they blend in with everyone else, or did they look like poor people who dress badly?

prada, it is disgusting that those people got those apartments.

cherrywood, what you have on streeteasy is people angry at anyone who are different from themselves. They hate unions, hate teachers, hate city and state employees and their pensions, then hate those people because they live anywhere near them, and then even hate them when they live in Stuyvesant Town which is a development they hate but even the people they hate can't live somewhere that they themselves don't want to live. And then they hate the owners of Stuyvesant Town, and the developers who build any buildings or own any rental buildings because they support the 80/20 rule or they simply charge higher prices than all the streeteasy people can afford to pay. They hate the brokers who rent or sell those apartments and they hate the people on Wall Street, in the advertising industry or who work with technology for a living. Oh, they are also still angry about Reagan in the 1980s, Giuliani, Bloomberg, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and maybe one for good reason especially Elliott Spitzer. They also hate Brooklyn and the outer boroughs, and California and Illinois and Gov. Schwarzeneger and Blogoivich.

Sizzlack, I am not rufus. What other words should I use to describe this program, the? It's certainly not 90/10 or 70/30.

Oh, and the latest is that it looks like they hate people who don't dress well enough or if they are from Massachusetts or Connecticut.

Whatever you say Rufus.

AcesCracked
about 1 hour ago
ignore this person
report abuse
Wow. So I guess no one can defend these programs. It does seem absurd and immoral that people with shitty jobs can live in the same building as successful professionals who make six-figures.

What qualifies as shitty? Being a fireman or policeman? Or a teacher? I certainly have more respect for those people than pretentious aholes like yourself.

Wainley, your drivel makes no sense. I think people hate this program because it is fundamentally unfair. It's no different than giving out slots in elite universities to those who don't deserve it, simply out of sympathy.

Sizzlack, I have a lot of respect for teachers, firemen, policemen. But that doesn't mean they have a right to live in these buildings when everyone else is paying $3500/month for a 1-bedroom. What's next? Should the city give out free maybachs and gift certificates to saks fifth avenue?

Of course not. Nor am I an advocate of the 80/20 program. I'm just amazed at the amount of hatred you have for the less well off.

It's not hatred. I just think it's an extremely unfair program that penalizes hard work and success. Moreover, the program makes no sense from an economic standpoint.

AcesCracked
14 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse
stevejhx, what I mean was, did they blend in with everyone else, or did they look like poor people who dress badly?

That's not hatred? So if they dressed well you'd be ok with them? You ever think that maybe if you are poor you have other things on your mind like how you will feed your family and not how well dressed you are as to not offend you?

rufus
about 3 months ago
ignore this person
report abuse LP1, why do these people have to live in luxury buildings in manhattan? No one is saying they should be homeless, but there's plenty of decent places in bronx and queens that can cater to these people. It's just another insane liberal program that tries to redistribute wealth. It's about as insane as the government handing out gift certificates to saks fifth avenue to poor people, so they can buy clothes.

See the above quote by rufus referencing gift certificates to Saks Fifth Avenue ...

HAH! I told you he was Rufus.

now can we get a denial from nyc10022 that he's not EddieWilson?

The real question is, what thread will Rufus start now to take peoples attention away from this one?

Nice find btw.

Although I personally think the 80/20 is a really bad program, the subsidized people are mostly well-behaved and mind their own business. They go through a pretty rigorous screening process, so it's not like they're criminals.

Moreover, if elitism is your concern, most of the subsidized units are the ones on the lower floors. So if you live on the upper ones, you can still take pleasure in being "above" these people, if that's what gets you going.

"it's NYC social justice at work. Would you prefer that low-income residents live on the sidewalks outside the market rate buildings?"

That's just a crock. There are plenty of affordable housing options if you go far enough out. Sorry, but living in Manhattan isn't a right just because you want to live there. I want to live on CPW, but I don't squat outside the Dakota.

If the police force had any balls like they did in Rudy's day they would arrest anyone who is living on the streets.

"did they look like poor people who dress badly?"

Don't know. I don't work for Vogue.

Hmm, something on which you are not an expert. Interesting.

Oh jeez, is mitch 2 back?

I can only speak intelligently about the one person I know that is applying for the 80/20 lottery. She is a hard working individual that had to drop out of college due to the high expense of living here. Even with financial aid and whatever assistance her family as able to offer, she wasn't able to continue her formal education. She received the initial approval for an 80/20, and she started to dream about being able to go back to college so that ultimately she wouldn't need to live paycheck to paycheck.

I have no idea if she is representative of other receipents of the 80/20 program, or whether some other posters are correct about the lazy bums on welfare aspect- as I said, I can only speak for the 1 person I know.

"If the police force had any balls like they did in Rudy's day they would arrest anyone who is living on the streets."

Rudy never did that - it's illegal.

I didn't live here at the time so I'll defer if you disagree, but from what I understand Rudy did have the police harass the homeless quite a bit - kicking them out of the more touristy areas.

The developers had a choice under this program. To take advantage of the tax incentives it offered they could either build low-income housing in the so-called outer boroughs or allocate space in the "luxury" properties those tax incentives made it much cheaper for them to build. Aces Cracked, the low-income New Yorkers who live in the 80/20 buildings whose construction was paid for through what amounted to taxpayer subsidies (that's what the 421a policy amounts to) may not have a "right" to live in luxury high rises, but that misses the point. The question is whether developers who took tax breaks to build those luxury hi-rises and charge market rates for doing so don't also have a duty to abide by the terms of the contracts they freely entered and the choices they freely made.

Anyone have any specific information about income formulas for the 80/20 program? Did each developer get a unique set of parameters? A friend has applied for two different buildings with different management companies. For the first his income was too high; for the second, too low.

I have a friend who lived in an 80/20 rental and she is moving out because she got selected for another even newer one!!! She is no criminal - just a poorly paid fashion assistant. Honestly, its a little annoying that i make 4xs as much as her and she lives in a nicer place but whatevs. I could always sell less apartments and be broke enough to qualify if I really want. I should say she lives in a "middle income" building. This means residents earn about $90K - $125K (can be combined income for a couple or roomies such as in her case) and pay about $2500 a month for a 2 bed that would normally go for double. Low income buildings are where you get some shady people. These 2 beds are like $850 per month (in new bldgs!) and you can only make like $40K at most....

cherrywood, what part of these contracts are the developers not abiding by?

AgenRachel, most of these new buildings do allocate 20% to lower income people, those who make less than $40K. So yes, there's going to be a lot of shady people. Paying $850 for a 2-bedroom that normally costs $5K is verging on communism.

agree John. its total BS. my fashion assistant friend CAN get a higher paying job in another field but doesn't want to. even worse, I have friends who work hard and make much more than $40K who have had to move Astoria, etc.. You know what they say - if u can't beat em'... but somehow I can't bring myself to purposely earn less. also, let it be said that I have no doubt that in the case of the lower income housing, at least one spouse probably doesn't work... no way 2 full time incomes are under $40K but I guess these guys just DESERVE to live in Manhattan even if they don't want to work for it.

My 10th grade math teacher told me and my class that life wasn't fair. Good thing I understood it then, otherwise 20 years later I'd be bitter and complaining all the time about people who had more this or that than me. No way to go through life.

AgentRachel, this program really kills the incentives for people to work harder and to improve their lives. Why work when the government will give you nice manhattan apartments at a major discount?

MrAckerman - would u like to answer John's question?

I don't know enough about the 80/20 programs to have a strong view either way, but I would imagine that those who favor the programs might note that the social value of a job isn't directly correlated with how much it pays. To answer Mr. Anthony's question, then, someone who supported the program might argue that the ideal participant would be someone in a highly socially useful job (e.g., teaching, police officer - as Sizzlack points out above). A supporter of the program might then argue that the program doesn't "kill incentives for [these] people to work harder and to improve their lives" - they already work hard and do meaningful work. Instead, the program would free them to continue pursuing their very socially useful work (and, in some cases, allow them to do so without having to leave communities where they might already live, but where market rents have otherwise gotten too expensive).

Personally, I don't like it. I already pay taxes at a significantly higher marginal tax rate than those who make less, and, on top of that, they pay below market rates to live in buildings that I can't afford. Moreover, those who CAN afford to live in those buildings are paying more for their apartments than what they would have had to pay if there were no 80-20 program. Frankly, having a progressive tax system AND 80-20 program is doubly screwing over anyone who makes more.

Yes AgentRachel, I'll answer the question with a direct lift off of something you said, "You know what they say - if u can't beat em'... but somehow I can't bring myself to purposely earn less."

Despite your angry attitude, you do have some pride. And I suspect that is the case with most people, they have pride, they want to achieve, they are human. Don't you agree?

john doe - in regards to middle income housing I agree that some of these places could go to teachers, police, etc... however, the low income thing is just plain WRONG. MrAckerman, no, not everyone wants to achieve. i have met people that will go to great lengths to live off the state... Have u really not met any of these people??

Life isn't fair. That is what I said initially. Life isn't fair. Let me give you a hug.

true. some people live off their boyfriends, some people live off the state, yadayadayada...

Slope, you touched upon the heart of the issue. We pay the highest tax rate in the country, in order to subsidize others. Most working professionals cannot afford to live in these buildings, and yet people making less than $40K/year are given really nice apartments. If the city had courage, they would get rid of this abhorrent program, but I doubt that will happen.

AgentRachel, it sounds like you must be in your early 20s. Hopefully this phase will pass for you.

wish i was in my early 20s...

I wish you were in your early 20s too. This sense of unfairness is usually gone by 25.

I think people are confusing the 80/20 program versus middle income and low income housing here. They are distinct entities with different requirements by the city, in fact different low income housing communities have different rules for qualifying. Then there is also the difference between low income housing for rent and for purchase. While I do agree with Agent Rachel that there will always be people who take advantage of the system, I cannot help but think things would be much worse for all involved would there be no system in place whatsoever. The bottom line is there are people who simply need this kind of housing to be able to save money and provide a better future for their family. Not everyone starts life with the same advantages plain and simple.

nycbroker - my point is that nobody NEEDS to live in manhattan. its a privilege. if you can't afford it, you can move to cheaper areas like astoria for example. i literally make 4xs more than my friend who lives in middle-income housing and her place is nicer!

Agent Rachel: I never thought I'd agree with you, but (at least here) I do. No one "needs" to live in Manhattan. There are perfectly good, safe, communities in the outer boroughs. The 80-20 program is a pure and simple redistribution ON TOP OF the redistribution inherent in the progressive tax system. Seriously, it's inconceivable that you can heap something like this on after you already have a progressive tax system in place.

also, in terms of lower income housing, you are correct that the requirements are different. i think this pretty much says it all - check out this link for a brand spankin new rental in an awesome area:

http://www.avaloncommunities.com/avaloncore/nfloor.asp?comm=178

2 beds start at over $5K per month but 20% of the bldg pays roughly $1000 per month for these 2 bedrooms.

I don't see how anyone can actually defend the 80/20 program. It's socialism, pure and simple.

And before anyone accuses me or AgentRachel of hating poor people, we are merely saying that living in a nice rental in Manhattan is NOT a right. It's a privilege that needs to be earned. And the city is merely punishing those who work hard and have good jobs.

nycbrokerdax, how exactly is the city benefiting from this? The 80/20 program only drives up the rent for the good apartments and further redistributes wealth. There are PLENTY of places in NYC where these people could live.

Agent Rachel, can you give me an example of any major city in the US that does not have a form of middle or low income housing? It is simply not feasible. It sounds like you are upset that your friend has this sweet housing deal, which I understand is annoying, but it is unrealistic to simply say if you cant afford it, move! Most people in middle and low income housing are not in the same situation as your friend and are there for the access to school systems that are superior, and things like access to childcare etc...
As a broker you know that some neighborhoods have advantages over others, are you saying that people who cannot afford the same as you do not deserve the opportunity or access to improve their fiscal standing?

the truth is, this doesn't technically drive up the rent, thats not my issue with this program. the government subsidizes bldg costs for those who develop these 80/20 rentals, so its the gov. that "pays" for it. i am actually in favor of the middle income housing to the extent that it covers teachers, police and others with respectable jobs. the low income housing is what really gets me. I only have one friend that meets the income guidelines to qualify and she works very few hours and lives off her parents. guess you can't really define that type of income so if she is selected in the lottery she will not only have a prada wardrobe provided my mom and dad, but she will also live in a sic place for about $700 per month.

John Anthony.. i should clarify.. i do not think the 80/20 program is so great, and I certainly think that the process to acquire one is flawed, but I also do not believe it would be beneficial to have NO low income housing or middle income hosing whatsoever.

Well Agent Rachel I do agree with you that the selection process is flawed so we do have common ground there

nycbrokerdax, the 80/20 program is separate from low income housing in general. The only cities in the U.S. with this program are NYC and San Francisco, which are also the two most liberal cities.

I have no problem with the city providing housing for poor people. I do have a problem with the city giving out units in new luxury buildings with great amenities, at the EXPENSE of other taxpayers.

Have you seen the prices at some of these buildings? A 1-bedroom could cost $4K/month, depending on the building. That means you would need to make AT LEAST $160K/year to even be able to live there. Meanwhile, people who make less than $40K are paying only $700/month! If that's not a disgusting socialistic policy, I don't know what is.

"NYC and San Francisco, which are also the two most liberal cities."

The two "most". San Fran sure, but to call NYC more liberal than Boston or Seattle or DC is silly.

It's remarkable to me that the critics of the 80/20 program focus on the "unfair" advantage it gives lower-income New Yorkers who want to live in Manhattan. I take it that at least some of you would have no or objection (or at least fewer objections) to the program if it consigned the working poor to the outer boroughs. You seem to forget that the benefits of these programs-- viewed in their totality-- are not limited to the working poor, and yet I haven't heard one objection tot he fact that "market rate" purchasers who buy in new developments are able to take advantage of 421a programs, which reduce-- at the expense of taxpayers-- what they would otherwise have to pay in real estate taxes. Why isn't this "socialism" for the wealthy purchasers of new market-rate properties. Finally, it's worth reminding you that if poor New Yorkers have are not entitled to live in Manhattan, neither are you. I make someone a hefty 6 figure salary, and was fortunate enough to cash out of the Manhattan real estate market when I sold my "prime" Manhattan condo for 1.25 million dollars more than I paid for it. I'm not arrogant enough to think that my class position somehow entitles me to live in a Manhattan empty of those who are worse off than I. I think it's said that some of you posting on this board evidently do.

nycbroker, there is ALSO public housing for people who are really in need. however, this isn't in a gorgeous new bldg in an awesome neighborhood. i understand the issues with good schools. guess what - there are spectacular public schools in long island and you can rent a 2/2 in these districts for pretty cheap (relative to manhattan). i sell apartments in 15 central park west and while i would love to buy one, i can't afford it and i don't expect to be given one just so we're all on equal playing ground.

That would be "sad" instead of "said".

Yes John Anthony, I do agree with you about the rent discrepancies in the rental buildings for 80/20 program, many times it makes more sense in new development condo buildings because the tax abatement is passed on to the buyers, but I also think this rent discrepancy is a product of an inflated market. When the rental market was hot, up until about 1 year ago lets say, I do not think it would have made a huge difference in the rent prices if this program did not exist, I think it was hard to find an empty apartment in the city and that drove up the prices. I guess I do not see how it is the taxpayers covering these costs, do you mean because you think their rent is now higher, or somehow they are paying in the development process of the buildings... can you clarify?

AgentRachel, great point. I would love to live in 15 central park west, especially after going to a house party there a few weeks ago. But I don't expect the government to give it to me out of sympathy.

LUV that bldg!

Yes; it's my favorite condo in the city, and I have been inside most of the top ones.

It was my ex-girlfriend's party. Her parents bought her a 2-bedroom. I haven't been that jealous in a really long time.

There are many areas in Manhattan that were inhabited by specific groups of people before getting gentrified and trendy. Soho, Tribeca, the East Village, are now home for a minuscule percentage of the artists that enjoyed the cheap rents and also endured the hardships of living there for decades. Black nurses and teachers in Harlem have been ejected by the new RE values. The Lower East Side was once called Loisaida and a vast majority of it's residents were latinos. They are mostly gone.
These programs allow people to stay in their neighborhoods. At least some of them. They might help keep some kind of a more sane and human transition, retain some memory.
Money isn't everything. Well... it shouldn't, anyway.

Well said, mimi.

I think there is a difference between the government buying you an apartment at 15 CPW, and the government offering subsidized rental housing. The two are not comparable. I guess I do not see it as a big impact on my own financial position and like to think that some deserving people are getting a helping hand even if some others may somehow inadvertently benefit from it. But John Anthony, that was a real question I had about whether there is something I am missing, can you clarify how the taxpayer is making up the difference in the 80/20 program?

The requirements to be accepted into a subsidised apartment in an 80/20 building are more stringent than for a market rate unit. Besides having to document your income, have good credit there is also an inspection of your current home. Most of the cheating that goes on is by young "professional" types that mail in as many cards for applications and a chance at the lottery. Then they create false documents to show an income that qualifies. I have lived in two building with these type of programs and there were no shady types holding people up in the lobby or anyone that looked "homeless" and most of these tenants are hard working but may not make as much money as some of you on this board but they choose to take advantage of a program that is available....just like some of you take tax deductions because they are availble not because you need to. Those apartments are made available by the developer and they are not required to do so, they choose to in exchange for certain tax benefits. Many subsidies are available for corporations, seniors and other tax payers alike through various deductions, right offs, subsidies. How much does big pharma, big agro etc receive each year-those of you familiar with our governments various subsidy programs and all the pork barrel programs out there know what I'm speaking of. The bottom line is we can not tell our government where and how to spend our tax dollars, when was the last time you protested or sent a letter to your congressperson to complain? If we could I can think of many programs besides the 80/20 program that I would not want my share of taxes to go to. If you are opposed to government subsidy fine I understand that but hold the line and get out there and oppose all subsidy. The only presidential candidate that espoused these views was Dr. Ron Paul, the so called Republican candidates are a watered down Fox product. Otherwise you come off sounding like an elitist ass that listens to too much Rush Limbaugh. And if you are philosophically opposed to such programs just ask the management company and rent somewhere else.

Dude. You must be new to the internet. We use line breaks separate our ideas.

lol, burkhards is the broker on crystal meth. go look at his photo

Sorry...just got home and only meant to check my e-mail.

Who is the burkhardtgroup? is that you Keith?

there is no inspection of your current residence

I am not sure, does anyone know do they still do home inspections on current residences for the 80/20 units, I know they used to but now not so sure they do anymore.

nycbrokerdax, they no longer do home inspections. The requirements for the 80/20 program is not that stringent. theburkhardtgroup is completely wrong in this regard.

Ignored comment. Unhide

http://www.nyc.gov/html/hpd/html/apartment/faqs-for-apt-seekers.shtml#Howlongdoestheinterviewprocesstake

I stand corrected they no longer do require a home inspection, although they do conduct an interview, verify income/employment and run credit. The developers understand it is in there best interest to screen the 20%'s thoroughly for obvious reasons.

Oh jeez rufus, you think that just because people work in a grocery store that when they go home they hang out in the lobby of their building and puke?

Oh, hey, how's AcesCracked?

Ignored comment. Unhide

Burkhardt - Thanks for the link.

it's obvious, to protect their investment and keep the 80% that are paying "market" happy and ultimately providing the greatest income stream to the owner.

Ignored comment. Unhide
    < prev       146 comments  -   page of 2        next >    last >>

Categories:

Rentals (2,734)
Market (1,457)
Neighborhoods (575)
Boards (267)
Renovation (1,749)
Anything (2,340)
Sales (22,874)
Developments (578)
Financing (475)
Schools (100)
Brokers (347)
Services (477)