Do income restricted buildings evr STOP being income restricted?

I think it depends on the building, and how it was set up, but my gut instinct is that they may adjust income limits up by CPI or something, but probably not totally remove the limit.

The whole point of this was to create a housing supply that would be separate and distinct from the true open market supply, and doing this would just give a windfall to current owners, and prevent existing lower/middle income people from living there.

As a sidenote, it would be weird to buy into a place like that.

There are several different income-restricted affordable housing programs, each with its own set of guidelines, laws, etc.: HDFC, NYC Housing Partnership, HomeWorks, etc.

The name Hillview Tower sounds very Mitchell-Lama, though.

Mitchell-Lama coops were designed from the start so that the owner-occupants could vote the buildings to normal market-rate coops after a set period of time, typically 25-30 years. They were built from the mid-1950s to mid-1970s, so they've all had that opportunity. Some have voted to do so, typically with a huge flip-tax to the first seller. Others have voted to stay in the program and keep the income restrictions in place. Co-op Village on the LES and a cluster of big buildings around 24th & 2nd are among the larger conversions. Penn South Houses, 24-28 Sts. in Chelsea, is the largest to have stayed in a Mitchell-Lama-like program.

You should do your best to gauge the prevailing culture of the particular building you're interested in, and (very delicately) ask if the building has had a vote for a conversion feasibility study. Some are afraid of change, some have a commitment to social justice and letting those who come after them afford what they've enjoyed, and others seek to upgrade their tired old buildings with big infusions of flip-tax cash . . . or they just like the windfall!

Note that there are also Mitchell-Lama RENTALS, which were built by private developers with the agreement that the income caps be kept in place for a number of years, then they can take them out of the program by paying off all the tax breaks that were received over the decades. Politicians are busy screwing these landlords out of their contractually-agreed rights, thus making it unlikely that public-private affordable housing initiatives will be undertaken in the future.

huh, why would it be weird? Also, I respectfully disagree with your 'whole point' -- I think the whole point was to fill a gap until the post-war housing shortage abated. Of course, it's actually gotten much worse, so ethical arguments against these going market-rate are valid (as are many counter-arguments). But before anyone starts in, NO these kinds of programs are not a CAUSE of the housing shortage. Look to construction costs and diminished rapid transit for that.

AlanHart - I stand corrected. That is very good insight.

I still think it would be weird to live in a place like that, especially if you are a newcomer market rate person. My feeling is that internal buidling discord comes from too economic disparity between residents. (One faction wants new couch for the lobby, another wants to skip the elevator maintenance expenses etc)

In my building, the income cap is $480000/year. And no discord, and huge turnout.
huh: our board would not let you in.
Susanbnyc: the whole point of staying in HDFC is because it keeps the maintenance is very very low, and the buildings are flush and ran beautifully.

I don't think Hillview Tower is a Mitchell-Lama building. It's not that old a building to have made the transition you describe. This building in on 145th Street...next door and across the street from many other Harlem new construction buildings that are income restricted.... The broker I spoke to abut an apartment that I was interested in seeing said that the "building USED TO HAVE income restrictions but that it doesn't anymore...." It seems strange to me that a new construction on 145th Street could change the rules of engagement so quickly...