[NYC] boom Spurs a need for Housing - WSJ

Not all immigrants need to be in NYC. There are alternatives like C0lumbia C0unty, a nice drive up the Taconic.

yeah but the flooding will keep everyone away

But Eataly will counteract the flooding.

You guys are bananas!

That's why they should start converting projects, starting with the ones in Manhattan, into housing for working people. The projects are taking up valuable real estate and are the source of a lot of crime!

>That's why they should start converting projects, starting with the ones in Manhattan, into housing for working people.

1) Some of them would be more efficient if town down and rebuilt.
2) We had places like StuyTown and PCV, but because of the cost of lawsuits and how windfalls are going to well off people like equity partners at top NYC law firms, those developments are raising rents and are becoming less affordable for working people.

se, why?

"That's why they should start converting projects, starting with the ones in Manhattan, into housing for working people. The projects are taking up valuable real estate and are the source of a lot of crime!"

Agreed.

If you're not a contributing member of society and you're fully subsidized by the government, why the hell do you NEED to be in Manhattan -- or even New York City, for that matter?

I say relocate all of them to projects in Columbia County.

What makes you think they're fully subsidized? They pay rent, and often in amounts exceeding what the operating costs SHOULD be, [NYCHA management corruption and ineptitude are not the fault of the tenants].

They mostly have jobs, as was always the intention of the low-income housing program (except during a big mistake in the 1980s when they gave homeless families priority, with very bad consequences to other NYCHA residents; they shifted back to working families in the 90s).

The 2008 numbers I was able to find indicate that 44% of households have employment income. 14% were on public assistance. About a third of the households were golden-agers, and a third disabled. They're not all living off of grampappy's trust fund.

They mostly have very deep roots in Manhattan (unlike you, who can do television journalism "consulting" in Harrisburg).

They are the victims of crime, not necessarily the source.

The real estate, in all cases, was decidedly non-valuable when the projects were built, even if in some cases the areas are now valuable (causal relationship?...certainly not the opposite, because the projects' presence hasn't deterred surrounding gentrification. Facts is facts).

>NYCHA management corruption and ineptitude are not the fault of the tenants].

Not their fault, no, but they don't have an economic stake in fixing it.

>and a third disabled.

Do you find that proportion high?

>The real estate, in all cases, was decidedly non-valuable when the projects were built,

That is a very legitimate point. But they didn't become owners, so at some point this benefit should expire, perhaps after a generation or two?

"Not their fault, no, but they don't have an economic stake in fixing it." ... less than if they owned, but more than a market-rate tenant who has the means to move to something better. Their average tenancy is 18 years, and the corruption means they live with chronically broken elevators, heat/water systems, et cetera. Maybe you mean they don't have the political power to fix it. Who does? Forensic accountants from the FB of I, maybe.

"Do you find that proportion high?" ... I think there's a lot of group overlap there with the senior population, especially given lower-income health problems like type 2 diabetes.

"But they didn't become owners, so at some point this benefit should expire, perhaps after a generation or two?"
You mean the owner of one property receives over time, through some variation of osmosis, the value of and perhaps title to an adjacent public property? Is this true of Central Park also -- do owners of the facing buildings get to divvy it up? It certainly was acquired on the cheap and didn't interfere with the rising desirability of the surrounding area.

>"Not their fault, no, but they don't have an economic stake in fixing it." ... less than if they owned, but more than a market-rate tenant who has the means to move to something better. Their average tenancy is 18 years, and the corruption means they live with chronically broken elevators, heat/water systems, et cetera. Maybe you mean they don't have the political power to fix it. Who does? Forensic accountants from the FB of I, maybe.

They do have the political power in their numbers to fix this.

>"Do you find that proportion high?" ... I think there's a lot of group overlap there with the senior population, especially given lower-income health problems like type 2 diabetes.

Not earning enough money causes diabetes?

>"But they didn't become owners, so at some point this benefit should expire, perhaps after a generation or two?"
You mean the owner of one property receives over time, through some variation of osmosis, the value of and perhaps title to an adjacent public property?

The City owns the land and buildings. This is nothing to do with private property owners.

"They do have the political power in their numbers to fix this." ... academically (strictly in terms of voting), but not manifestly so. And in real politics 2013, money talks.

"diabetes": correlation, not causation, but indisputably so. And if cheap refined carbs are the cause,
who is going to make those too high a percentage of their diets: low-income or middle- and up? So causation isn't unlikely.

"The City owns the land and buildings."
... which were acquired in most cases by throwing poor people out of their buildings, telling them that instead they could apply for "towers in the park" apartments that would be better for them, giving them light and landscaped outdoor places to play and sit.

"This is nothing to do with private property owners" So why are the infill buildings being developed privately, for private market-rent private residents? Why is the City publicly subsidizing the private well-to-do?

Money talks because it buys votes.

There have been poor people since the beginning of humanity, not diabetes.

Certain groups have a greater propensity to believe that their votes can make a difference, and therefore a greater propensity to get out and vote. I'm not claiming disenfranchisement, just the reality on the ground. The votes that are bought by the talking money are not made by certain low-income groups, who simply no-show.

There has not since the beginning of time been massive subsidies for grains that lend themselves to overmilled flours (de facto sugars) and oils, and for sugar -- cheap over-processed foods even before they're combined to make cheap over-processed foods. These squeeze out more nutritious options. Not just in housing projects, but nationwide wherever low-income people are found.

Not earning enough money does cause a variety of health issues--starting with being far less likely to have health insurance (there are a wide variety of jobs that don't offer insurance, don't pay enough for you to purchase your own but pay too much for you to qualify for Medicaid). Not having insurance means no preventative care and usually no care at all until the problem becomes an emergent issue. Thus health issues such as hypertension that can be easily helped with diet and medication, don't get addressed until the person has a stroke.

Alan is dead on about NYCHA. The projects were built for working people and most of the able bodied people younger than retirement age do indeed work. I see many applications from NYCHA tenants and the jobs they hold include administrative assistant, lab technologist, teacher's aide etc. These people are not for the most part making fries, or collecting welfare (a very difficult thing to do by the way these days). And as Alan stated, most of the residents have deep roots in Manhattan. Certainly much deeper than the 24 year olds from Nebraska who would inhabit market rate housing.

you naive guys, the government needs to feed the project guys to prevent a riot