Renting Out Subsidized Housing..............

Hang him.

Another way to look at it - should we treat seniors like children?:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/03/education/seeing-the-toll-schools-revisit-zero-tolerance.html?hp

While I feel for this guy, or anyone of that age with limited means, I think eviction is the only appropriate option here. One thing if you're breaking co-op board rules in a snooty white glove building, another when you're breaking co-op rules AND in breach of HPD's strict policies in a HEAVILY subsidized apartment. This is no different from a rent stabilized tenant who pays 1/10th of what his/her neighbors pay, renting out his/her apartment on weekends for cash. Would it not be fair to evict that person?

Penn South is a limited-equity co-op. When his shares are sold to the next person on the waiting list, he'll get back what he put into it, and use that to find somewhere else.

Of course, given he's 78, and at the pace these things go, it may be moot.

I have some sympathy for the guy, but he knew he was trying to get away with something, is heavily subsidized, and lowers the quality of life for everyone else in the building. He made thousands, almost more than his rent.

More importantly... imagine if everyone did this? Imagine the quality of life in these buildings with twice as many residents, and a lot more transients.

No sympathy here. The IRS should be after him as well.

We can't kick the guy out. That's cruel to make a guy at his age homeless, despite that he's been given a number of subsidies and benefits of the doubt. But we can make him feel like s**t for an extended period of time. That's the humane thing to do especially since this development is intended to serve a charitable purpose to begin with. Eventually he's allowed to stay, but it was a hellacious enough experience that he doesn't do it again because he believes he really is at the edge. Also, we put him on the list in the lobby, so everyone is on alert.

It's a very sad story but since others have already been evicted, it seems he doesn't have a chance here.

The party's over at Penn South.

For example, all those jerry-rigged enclosures of balconies and terraces. David's terrace is so big (for a studio) because it's on a setback. That seam you see in his ceiling is the edge of the 20th-floor terrace above. His enclosure has a roof and ceiling as well as walls. The leaks must be along that seam, which'd be tough to seal.

Come on NWT, say something controversial about this...

A roof? He built an entirely new structure? How come they didn't nail him for that years ago?

People in subsidized housing shouldnt have terraces and balconies. At least not until everyone else has them too.

Either he did or an earlier shareholder did. Penn South is now dealing with the repercussions of being too free-and-easy in the past. Just walk by and see how many terraces are enclosed with slummy-looking glass.

It's not just Penn South. A co-op on Sutton Place has been suing a penthouse resident for years, to raze walls and roof that shouldn't have been put up at all.

What a magnificent studio it is though.

I'm bored of "they won't have anywhere to go" arguments. He'll go to the same place the next guy who is market rate goes, unless he squandered all his earnings on an expectation of publicly subsidized living. In that case he can move to a FL trailer park.

These building were built by the ILGWU. I believe the idea was that union members could have affordable housing near the garment center where they worked. Does anybody know if the housing was subsidized by any funds other than the ILGWU monies?

There was some involvement by the city in condemning the slums that were there before. After that, various deals were cut about taxes:

"To help keep Penn South affordable to those with limited incomes, New York City gave the development 25 years of tax abatements, from 1961 to 1986. After that, the cooperative's shareholders voted for a 25-year phase-in of real-estate taxes, which was approved by the city's Board of Estimate. A further adjustment was made when the development asked the city in 1999 for tax relief when the building boom in Chelsea caused the project's assessed value to skyrocket. The city responded in 2001 by allowing the development's taxes to be calculated based on the cooperative's income, as is done with Mitchell-Lama housing. In return, the development must remain a limited-equity cooperative until 2022."

Joandark,

Actually, many of the original residents of Penn South were ILGWU retirees or workers with so much seniority that they retired soon after moving in. My grandfather was an original resident as were virtually all of his close friends. Some of them may have still be working but I think my grandfather was originally retired. My family also have a lot of friends living there who were not garment workers but whose incomes (teachers, etc) put them smack into "middle/moderate" income. Mitchell Lama was an amazing program and so needs to be replicated today, except today we would have to endure numerous NIMBY obstacles and those who retard the growth of affordable housing for the middle class because it isn't architecturally to their taste. I know a sh*t ton of kids who grew up in Penn South and none decry that the houses "aren't pretty"."

> No sympathy here. The IRS should be after him as well.

I have zero sympathy for this man. He will have to do what all other market-rate renters do: find housing that they can afford and stop screwing the taxpayers.

According to his comments in the NYTimes.com, he reported his income to the IRS.
And he says he needed the money for medical expenses.

Not sure how many people commenting on the thread live in Penn South. But if you don't, why would you be so concerned about this?

Because we are sick of government intervening into the housing market to benefit a select few at the expense of everyone else. Why should this man receive a subsidy from the city taxpayers to live in Manhattan for $500/month when everyone else has to find housing that they can afford? It's disgusting.

>Because we are sick of government intervening into the housing market to benefit a select few at the expense of everyone else.

Who is "we?"

And what is it that you otherwise expect the government to do besides advocate for certain societal interests that would otherwise be neglected by the free market?

And, if that's what you are sick of, why should the effect of all your ire be placed on this one man? He is not a villain because he wants to live in NY.

The discussion started with the question "Do you think the penalty is too harsh?"

No one is picketing this guy's door. But since people live in these towers that could never be built today yet likely are the same "old generation" who prevent development, naturally others will have ill feelings toward them.

How come we haven't heard from c0lumbiac0unty?

found him:

columbiacounty

about 4 years ago

Posts: 12632

Member since: Jan 2009

ignore this person

report abuse

1. i don't think its ok to kick an 87 year old out of his house under any circumstances. unfortunately, the status quo (absent the RS nyc situation) is that there is no workable mechanism to keep them there. and while we're at it, forget about the mortgage; how about a situation where a person has no mortgage but can't afford the property taxes even with a senior exemption?

2. how is it good for anyone if people who have been in an apartment for many years have to move to another city?

3. how do these apartments magically become well maintained? you are ignoring the time and cost of achieving a new equalibrium. what happens in the meantime?
http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/15698-quick-question-about-rent-stabilization?page=2