NYC Middle Income =

Middle Class is not $200K.

Not even in NYC, where the median HHI is $58K, and $200K is made by only the top 5% of all households.

Last time I checked, the top 5% isn't the "middle" of anything.

> But there are also 45 two-bedrooms that go for $3,421 a month, for households, no matter the size, ranging in income from $119,143 to $190,080. In the world of New York City affordable housing, this is what passes for middle-income.

$100k-$190k in NYC for a couple with kids (typical demographic for a 2-bedroom) is middle class imho.

i'd NEVER think of people in this income range as rich guys who have no trouble whatsoever solving the housing issue. in fact, i wouldn't be surprised in this is the demographic Manhattan needs to secure, those who fall in the income hole and need to leave while NYC needs them as employees. Manhattan has a ton in Section 8 in the northern part and a ton of very wealthy people who solved housing several generations ago, $100k-$190k is in between.

> Among them: The Acacia, on the gentrifying fringe of Bed-Stuy, aims at incomes from $66,686 to $194,415. Or there’s Washington Mews at 89 Murray Street in Tribeca, which is open to those earning up to $150,325. If the New York City mayoral candidates get their way, there will be a lot more like them.

those mixed income (a ton of the new developments that were built during the last decade) include this middle-income range. as younger people earning within this range say "No thank you!" to buying overpriced apartments, they will need stable long-term affordable rentals if the city wants them not to move to areas of the country where the math works better for them.

"Manhattan has a ton in Section 8 in the northern part and a ton of very wealthy people who solved housing several generations ago, $100k-$190k is in between."

I thought you needed to be genuinely poor to get Section 8. If $100k is the lower border of "in between", where does the average $58k-earning household fit in?

> I thought you needed to be genuinely poor to get Section 8. If $100k is the lower border of "in between", where does the average $58k-earning household fit in?

that's the point, those middle income households aren't served by Section 8 while they need long term affordable housing solutions as well.

The more units you carve off and force to be rented at lower incomes the less the economics favor such projects, which means the units may never get built, that some people pay more than they would have, and that we wind up jeopardizing job creation. In the article Weiner is no longer happy with 80/20 an is proposing only 60% of units go market rate. Got to hand it to Wiener he's all over the place with proposals which gets him media attention and keeps the media from focusing on his questionable past. His Rabbi , Chuck Schumer would be proud.

"His Rabbi , Chuck Schumer"

... more anti-Semitic ranting from huntersburg/Riversider/Father Coughlin/greensdale

That's an inappropriate accusation as well as rather illegitimate association. But then I googled "Alan Hart" and now I understand.

"googled"? What are you, two years old?

Mama dada google bankie wawa google.

Anti-Semite. Just as I said.

>What are you, two years old?

No, Aboutready says I'm 12.

The city is inviting "middle income" families into housing that is unaffordable. Even at the top of the allowed income range, 190k, you probably make 160k and the rest is bonus. Therefore your monthly take home is generously $7,800, and with rent of $3,421 a month you are paying 44% to rent.

@pier45

These programs only allow up to 30% of a tenant's income to be spent on the rent.

All of the old/poor/middle-income housing schemes I've heard of take 30% of gross HHI as the limit beyond which a family is considered unduly rent-burdened, so 44% of net is no big deal.

So the stated rent is 3,421 but they lower it to 30% of the salary you show?

Or raise it. I don't know the mechanics of it, but it's always been 30% of gross that's mentioned.