Why rent control laws need to change

"Those super pricey apartments trade at random prices like art and collectibles. "
This is delusional. Random prices? So one day a 4 BR penthouse will sell for $20,000 and the next a basement studio for $50,000,000?

If they introduced any pied-a-terre tax, I would sell my condo and leave NYC forever, plan and simple. I plan on getting out in 4-5 years anyway, but this would definitely accelerate my time frame and it would just be the final straw on how incompetently this city is with its finances. It seems the solution to every problem is to just raise and/or introduce more taxes and fees. I walk my dog every day and I see literally hundreds of cars illegally parked with zero ticketing and enforcement. Not just parking in a no loading zone, parking in front of a fire hydrant or blocking an active driveway. I see countless “traffic cops” directing traffic at intersections where the traffic lights are fully functional. What is the cost of their collective salaries and benefits? Mayor Adam’s is less woke than other big city mayors but he certainly has a bunch of legal issues. Illegal immigrants staying in hotels at taxpayers expense and repeatedly committing crimes against New Yorkers. But hey, arent we all proud to be an “Sanctuary City”? And oh yeah, good job prosecuting Donald Trump. How much did that cost NYC taxpayers? He might still get elected so that was a colossal waste of money. Someone mentioned in a previous post that politicians like passing new laws but aren’t very good at enforcing existing ones. That especially applies here. Trust me, just keep introducing and raising more taxes and fees, people who have money and are mobile will continue to flee. Then all of you sticking around will have to foot the bill….

>>This is delusional. Random prices? So one day a 4 BR penthouse will sell for $20,000 and the next a basement studio for $50,000,000?

@30 Don't think you read what I wrote carefully.
I specifically referenced expensive / luxury apartments. Their prices seem to fluctuate a lot and there are many examples of them trading 20-25% from previous sale prices. A lot of "fashion risk" with these as they are not necessarily priced on any fundamentals or utility.

In contrast, prices of basement studios and middle / upper middle class coops seem much more resilient.

You shouldn't use words like "random" if you don't know what they mean.

Krolik, something isn’t adding up with what you’ve been told. Your friend is not domiciled in NY, and spending 3 days in NY half the weeks and 4 in others would not add up up to 184 days required to be considered a statutory resident assuming a few weeks vacations.

What’s the other state? Depending on the state, it might be a “don’t care” because it’d be taxed one way or another.

I'll note that as usual when I propose outside the box solutions which don't simply perpetuate the ability of the 1% to make outsized profits essentially the same ways they always have (which is largely by capitalizing on their privilege) there is a round of garbage speculation rather than actual counter arguments, and then rather than having a discussion about the actual subject those who posted the junk answers then use those as a springboard and just go further and further off topic to avoid dealing with the actual issues.

I know at least a couple wealthy or at least comfortably well off former New Yorkers for whom it just didn't add up any more in terms of taxes vs quality of life. They still go back but they're in and out. In both cases, I'd say preserving a high degree of discretionary spending is extremely important to them. They're not content to live like middle class citizens on a budget to which they have to pay close attention and adhere. It's a personal decision - somewhere between eating cat food and living the high life is a happy medium. It's for each person to decide where that lies.

30yrs>> there is a round of garbage speculation rather than actual counter arguments, and then rather than having a discussion about the actual subject

Here’s the problem, 30yrs. After you proposed your idea 3 weeks ago, I went and looked up the Archer Green example to see if it’d work. It’s a site with zero-ish land costs in Queens developed with govt support that came out to $21k rent for $400k cost per apartment. I noted that the resulting 5.25% gross rental yield would is not very economically viable, but that perhaps I had missed something and you could explain it.

Rather than provide a substantive response with some degree of analysis, you wrote this:

>> It's simple. In NYC land costs are always a very significant portion of development costs. Under my scheme land would trade at the price to build small free market buildings. So if someone elected to build affordable per unit land costs would decrease by, say, 80%. You'd be amazed what deals can pencil with an 80% reduction in land costs.

Which left me scratching my head. The land costs were de minimus for the $600 ppsf development, no? Surely lower than free market in Manhattan, where air rights alone go for $600 ppsf. And what of the economics of Archer Green, that had been govt subsidized and only came out to a 3% cap rate? What of actual numbers?

Honestly, it didn’t seem like you were interested in an actual discussion about the viability of your idea, which I was interested in having. If you’d like to have a discussion about a topic, you should try to genuinely participate in it.

I know you have since said Archer Green included a lot of amenities, which is true. Apparently, people in affordable housing in Queens would like parking space and facilities for exercise. But it’s your idea. Can you explain what your affordable housing development in Manhattan would look like, and how the numbers would work? Land costs, development costs, affordable rents, cap rates, etc.

I am wondering if the employer of Krolik's friend might have made the determination for the employee. My brother had relocated outside of his longtime state of residence during COVID, and when he was called back to the office, he asked whether he could make his new state his residence or record with his employer, they pointed to his employment contract, which dictated his place of employment as his historic residence. They said they didn't care where he lived as long as he showed up in the office three days a week, but that as far as they were concerned, his W-2 would have the state dictated by his contract as his official residence. If I recall, I don't think his employer was trying to be difficult, but think it had to do with the employer's not being licensed to do business in the state where my brother wanted to officially make his permanent residence.

Regarding this: "Apparently, people in affordable housing in Queens would like parking space and facilities for exercise."

My response: Parking space and facilities for exercise are precisely the luxury amenities I am talking about that do not belong in affordable housing. My building has neither, nor do the bulk of the old-line coops, which are not even close to affordable for anyone who actually works for a living.

@911turbo - But how do you really feel? :)

@MCR - you are correct, your employer needs to play ball. Some smaller employers don't want to deal with tax authorities in 50 states if they are located in NYC and expect everyone to live in NY/NJ/CT.

Plus this friend would be paying NYC payroll taxes at any rate since his job is right in town. Something does not add up here. Like the other said, he could get around this by having an apt in NJ.

@911turbo - But how do you really feel? :)

Sorry for the off topic rant but that’s pretty much how I feel. I understand that NYC is not unique in being a huge clusterfu%k in terms of how taxpayers money is spend and how the city is run. I own homes in Los Angeles, Toronto, and San Francisco and none of them is any better. They are all perpetually running out of money and grossly mismanaged by incompetent politicians. The only reason I stay is that my partner loves Manhattan and I promised her I’d stay for at least 5 years. Maybe I’m just old…I’m at the age where I’m not interested in club hopping, going to the latest restaurants, staying out all night and partying. Hate to say it, but I’m not interested in visiting museums and art galleries. Almost all my hobbies and passions do not require living in a very large city. I’ve come to the realization that I do want to be able to easily access a big city a couple times a week and I don’t want to live in the burbs. I predict my next home will be in a city like Oakland, Jersey City, Long Beach, Santa Monica..etc..basically a medium sized city, definitely does not feel like suburbia, I can walk for most of my daily errands, very close proximity to a major city via public transportation, and less expensive than the big city they are close to (well except Santa Monica). In all these smaller cities with the exception of Santa Monica, one can buy a real HOUSE not a condo for same price as a condo in Manhattan. But for now…I’m a grouchy middle age man living in New York City complaining to anyone who will listen!

This is a pretty interesting series on Little Italy that a friend of a friend created. It sort of touches on some of the topics covered in the above thread. Also a nice watch for those who are interested in the history of New York, and why some of us 'Old-Timers' can be a bit sentimental about what once was. What it meant to live in the neighborhood! I think it has a total of 15 parts, this is one...

https://youtu.be/Zrtvvv9Tmr8?si=GJwu-5iSD2saZolR

inonada,
I didn't feel like having an argument with you over bad/missing information where I didn't (and still don't) have the actual answers. I hope you realize the that cap rate absolutely is not what you stated. I don't know what it actually is. How's that answer

But in addition the entire approach is wrong. No one has built anything close to what would get built under my proposal. So using numbers from existing buildings which are not at all comparable is a fool's errand.

911, it is one of our functions that we are here to listen.

Nada, What do you think the cost would be for a building starting finishing in an agressive 2 year time frame (early 2027) vs building finished in 2021? And what do subsidies from Govt mean in financial terms? 20% add on for each?

>>> " It’s a site with zero-ish land costs in Queens developed with govt support that came out to $21k rent for $400k cost per apartment."

30yrs, I don’t really see how the numbers behind your idea would pencil out to meet your objectives. It might fully be because of my lack of understanding, but it sounds like you don’t either. Which is fine, but if it’s your idea then perhaps the discussion would be more fruitful if you explained how the numbers would work out.

>> Parking space and facilities for exercise are precisely the luxury amenities I am talking about that do not belong in affordable housing. My building has neither, nor do the bulk of the old-line coops, which are not even close to affordable for anyone who actually works for a living.

This is Jamaica, Queens. Even if most of the ~400 apts are occupied by subway commuters, do you really expect you can drop a 23-story building there without ~100 parking spaces? What would you like people to do, park across the street atop the Home Depot in their rooftop parking lot?

I also question the sense in holding housing standards to whatever they were 100 years ago. GDP per capita has grown 10x since then. What used to be luxury the (600 sq ft for 2 people) is pretty basic now. And what used to be affordable (600 sq ft for a family of 12 to live & work) is now considered deplorable.

If we’re building for the next 100 years, when GDP per capita will be ~10x higher, we shouldn’t aim standards backwards to an era it was ~10x lower.

>> Nada, What do you think the cost would be for a building starting finishing in an agressive 2 year time frame (early 2027) vs building finished in 2021? And what do subsidies from Govt mean in financial terms? 20% add on for each?

I don’t know. I was just providing that as a starting point, to be adjusted and sketched out by the person who had the vision for it.

@nada - you are showing your quant background bias without compensating education in the humanities when you opine on affordable housing. The gap is too large to bridge in this forum, or frankly any other that I would make time for at this stage in my life. It is exhausting to repeat myself, but I will do it anyway because I like you: Roll up your sleeves and put your time where your mouth is if you really care about any of this. Only after you have done that can we have a real conversation.

@911turbo - Ha! Thank you for sharing, and I second what Ali (@FrontPorch) said.

@Ali - Amen.

@keith - I believe I shared this with the forum a few years ago, and in particular in a conversation where you were heavily involved: My grandfather, an Italiian immigrant at the turn of the last century, wrote a vivid description of what life was like for Italians in NYC at that time. It broke my heart to tell him not long before he died that Chinatown had swallowed Little Italy. I loved his response: "The destiny of America is for the population to be all one skin color that is united in ideology rather than tribalism." I did not appreciate his vision at the time he articulated it (2002), but I certainly do now and lament how far we are from it.

@mcr those old Italians were a wise bunch, both my grandmothers came here from Naples as kids. Pretty interesting book, the touches on some of this, although now we're getting way off track! Sapiens be Yuval Noah Harari

MCR>> Roll up your sleeves and put your time where your mouth is if you really care about any of this. Only after you have done that can we have a real conversation.

For fuck’s sake, MCR. You’re the jerk entering the room and declaring “Nope, those of you doing this for a living are doing it all wrong”. Apparently, this non-profit whose sole purpose is affordable housing policy in NYC thought a fitness center and parking was a good idea:

https://thenyhc.org/projects/archer-green-2/

As did the NYC HPD and HDC, who provided public funds. Apparently you know better than those people who’ve devoted their careers to affordable housing policy, what to support, and how to spend the limited funds they are allocated for the purpose.

Next time you fly into JFK, I recommend you stop by at Archer Green. Find one of the residents, explain to them how the ~10% of their rent effectively allocated to having a gym, a washer/dryer, etc. is unnecessary for affordable housing because you make do without it in one of your many homes. Then, go to the local laundromat and sit around for a couple of hours as you wash your clothes. Use that period to put your time where your mouth is, explaining how a washer/dryer is frivolous luxury for a working person paying ~$2K/mo to live in affordable housing who cannot afford to send out their laundry. Pen the letter to the NYC HPD, the NYC HDC, and the NYHC. CC the resident & me on the letter, so you won’t have to spend time explaining it slow to the dullards who didn’t take a public policy class in college.

@inonada - Ha! I knew I would get a spirited retort. My comment stands.

@keith - Thanks for the book rec. I will check it out.

Manhattan Plaza, built 1977, 1689 units, around 3000 tenants, all affordable (Section 8) housing, is equipped with tennis courts, outdoor playground, health club, and swimming pool. Clearly the developer (Oberlin; Phi Beta Kappa, Columbia: 1955; JD Yale: 1958) thought these were appropriate for low-income residents. Maybe it's all about the right education.

I've been in the building and a few of the apartments. They're just fine. Owned since 2004 by Related Co., who clearly have figured out some way to make the ongoing finances work - and they've managed to do this in a variety of cities across the US.

@Aaron2 - And yet there appears to be a shortage of affordable housing in NY. Please go on.

@Aaron2 - Thanks for that reference! Had to look it up and what a wonderful story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Plaza
I knew there was housing that targeting artists on the West Side I just never knew here. 'If these walls could talk' material.

@911turbo - Exending your off-topic but entertaining rant:

On the face of it, this is laughable:

https://econ.st/4esJeTD

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2024/10/24/the-best-and-worst-places-to-live-in-the-americas

So...OK, go live in Indianapolis. Or Atlanta (both ranked more livable than NYC). That's what happens when you make qualitative determinations based on datapoints. But I'm willing to bet the biggest drag on NY's ranking is cost of living. And that has a lot to do with taxes.

@inonada
To MCR's defense, she is not the only one asking this question. So did the NYT. And if various non-profits and city departments signed off on these types of development, it might have been because what other choice do they have given zoning laws?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/10/21/upshot/parking-mandates.html

@inonada
And if the land used for that affordable development had near-zero value, why not do street-level parking?

>>>You shouldn't use words like "random" if you don't know what they mean.

You should read entire sentences, rather than taking parts of sentences out of context. :)

MCR>> Ha! I knew I would get a spirited retort.

It’s all in good fun, MCR. You’re just pressing my buttons and watching me dance like a monkey…

MCR>> Ha! I knew I would get a spirited retort.

It’s all in good fun, MCR. You’re just pressing my buttons and watching me dance like a monkey…

Krolik>> And if the land used for that affordable development had near-zero value, why not do street-level parking?

The peanut gallery here seems to love questioning all things without thinking through possible answers…. So sure, let’s use inonada’s amazing brain to sort through the great mysteries of the world.

- I read that article too, and the right number of parking spaces is a valid question to ask. Was 130 the right number for this project? No clue, really, but I suspect is it closer to the right answer than MCR’s “zero”. A quick Internet search reveals Jamaica residents have an average of 1 car each. OTOH, this lot is close to a subway station. 130 spaces for 387 apartments seems like a reasonable decision to me. Curmudgeons may feel differently.

- A quick Internet search also reveals that land costs in Jamaica runs around $100 per sq ft. Look on one of them newfangled online maps, and you can see it’s a 40K sq ft lot for Archer Green. My handy calculator gives the value of the lot at around $4M… on a $150M project. So pretty de mininus.

- In Manhattan, the air rights on 400-500K sq ft currently runs in the neighborhood of $100M+. That’s in the current market under current zoning, and it’d be something else under 30yrs’ idea. He’s not willing to proffer any numbers on his proposal, but the gap between $100M+ and $4M is awfully large to close. This gap is the key question, along with higher building costs in Manhattan.

- Oh, by the way, the lot used by Archer Green used to be an underutilized NYPD parking garage. I doubt anyone wrote a check to NYC as part of the $150M project since NYC was footing a chunk of the bill.

- Using that handy Internets again, one can figure out that it takes another 40K sq ft lot to have 130 parking spaces. Why not do that instead of building parking? I used my great powers of deduction to determine two reasons. First, the project ended up at $300 per gross square foot. I imagine this means $100 ppsf for garage space. So roughly the same price. Second, and more importantly, those online maps do not show any empty 40K sq ft lots nearby.

I suppose they could have gone the Krolik route of doing the project at half size, using 20K sq ft of land for half as many apartments and 20k for street parking, ending up at half the cost for half the apartments. But for some reason, those affordable housing crazies seem to have sought to use the land to build as many homes as possible. Weird…

“ So...OK, go live in Indianapolis. Or Atlanta (both ranked more livable than NYC). That's what happens when you make qualitative determinations based on datapoints. But I'm willing to bet the biggest drag on NY's ranking is cost of living. And that has a lot to do with taxes.”

These “liveability” charts or “best cities to live in” articles that seem to pop up every week are a joke. If we are to believe them, we should all be living in Europe. My major gripe is not paying taxes, even high taxes. I understand in a civilized society, those that make more money pay more. My major gripe is how those taxes are spent and I challenge any resident to honestly tell me that NYC is doing a great job managing those purse strings. Los Angeles and San Francisco are also great examples. Literally BILLIONS of dollars on combatting the homeless crisis and absolutely nothing has improved over the last 5 years except many employees of non-profits and government agencies that claim to help the homeless have become very wealthy….

>>>Second, and more importantly, those online maps do not show any empty 40K sq ft lots nearby.

And that's the issue. There are almost no empty lots. There are lots with something else on it, that needs to be replaced in order to build a taller newer structure. Which means the cost of land is not just the cost of land, but the cost of land WITH the current structure on it (that is not the best highest use of a lot, but a use nevertheless), plus the cost of demolition (and I think 300mercer made this point earlier in the thread already).

I’m not sure what point you’re making anymore, Krolik. I said Archer Green was built for $150M with essentially zero for the cost of the land… because the land in this case was not part of the $150M budget since it was “free”. My point was that it cost $150M excluding land. And the cost in Manhatttan would be that much, plus the cost of much more expensive land, plus more expensive construction costs.

BTW, if look around the neighborhood on Google Maps, I think you’ll see plenty of lots where the existing building value is de minimus relative to the $150M spent. Please do some research with actual numbers and get back to us. Then we can tack that onto “cost to develop in Queens” before we immediately subtract it out to get to a $150M build cost… because the land here was “free” and probably not included in the purported $150m project spend.

So with the numbers you've calculated, the cost to build was $600 per square foot of livable space, of which $100 per square foot can be allocated to the garage space, or 18% of the total, did I get this right?

All I am saying is that garage space contributed a non-trivial portion of the construction costs, and when you are working with super low cap rates AFTER subsidies, and trying to build affordable housing, it is prudent to think what you might want to go without.

I agree some parking spots are a must to accommodate people with mobility issues (which can be anyone at some point if getting sick/pregnant/old/young etc), and this is even more true in Jamaica, but fewer parking spots could be a good idea if the apartment complex is close to public transport and literally next to an ALDI grocery store.

Or how about instead of High End Finishes and High End Appliances, they could go with cheaper materials and appliances? These finishes aren't going to last 100 years anyway, so it's not like you are screwing it up for the 22nd century inhabitants by going lower end. The rest of America does it, why is it beneath New Yorkers to have butchers block counter top or laminate flooring?

And the common spaces in this complex do seem really, really extra. The apartment complex is 4 minutes (1.5 blocks) from a public library. Does it really need a business center and a media center? A business center is a service that a library already provides. The complex is 13 minutes away from the nearest park, so the outdoor spaces and a playground are nice to have, but with those amenities inside, there is even less need for a car. The more spaces you have, the more you have to maintain, it might be better not to have it at all in some cases.

Yes, some govt and some nonprofit approved it because it sounds really nice and fits the zoning regulation. But we know they are at least somewhat incompetent given the affordability crisis we are in and the number of applicants for one of the spots in these luxury complexes.

Instead of giving one in a hundred of "affordable" housing applicants high end finishes and extra amenities and parking spots, I personally would rather see two or three out of a hundred applicants accommodated.

@inonada So what is your point? is it that you don't see a way to construct "affordable" housing in Manhattan because of sky high construction costs in New York? Would the next line of inquiry then be to look at what makes New York construction costs so high?

Can someone explain the rationale for giving away luxury product with floor to ceiling windows, amenities and doorman for under $850 for a one bedroom? via lottery

https://housingconnect.nyc.gov/PublicWeb/details/4993

I don't know about parking need if the subway is close by unless it just comes as a result of having to dig the basement anyway for foundation. However, community space is also used to provide services to the residents (using sample of one public housing on 3rd ave, Warren in Boerum Hill BK where I have been to community center a few times) - such as some kids educational/play classes, older grown up services etc, secure place with a few computes for people who was to escape some what rough crowd hanging out in the lobby/corridoors/right outside the building. Every thing was pretty bare bones except a security person and an employee which I understand is needed. Lobby obviously has security. A police car was parked outside the complex most times. That is where the money is really spent.

There are free children's classes (and adult classes) in all public libraries, and for the queens complex in question, there is a library 4(!!!) minutes away. No doubt if there are open spaces people will use them. Simultaneously, while less lucky people are living in overcrowded conditions because instead of more apartments, developer built parking and amenities.

And here is another one NYT story about parking rules:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/25/upshot/parking-mandates-new-york.html

@krolik: Here’s your rationale:
1) The building was built under the 421a program, which gave the developer tax breaks in exchange for making some rental units available at lower cost. The developer was too poor to afford the building he wanted, so took a handout.
2) Curtain wall construction, a current favorite residential design, is generally cheaper than brick/mortar/windows. The architect chose to create a full curtain wall building, rather than providing little portholes for the 421a units, perhaps being aware of the whole ‘poor door’ controversy during the heyday of the 421 program.
3) A “24-hour attended lobby” is not necessarily a ‘doorman’, and a number of the ‘amenities’ appear to incur extra charges. Why do you think there shouldn’t be a lobby attendant in a 421a or Section 8 building?
4) A lottery is a typical way to allocate scarce resources. The literature on this is extensive (much relating to healthcare) and it’s a grab bag of whether it’s “fair” or not. In contrast, Manhattan Plaza, mentioned above, uses a waiting list -- some people die while waiting for an apartment. Perhaps you think there should be another differentiating factor such as race or IQ to bump more desirable people to the head of the line? (you can call it a ‘weighted lottery’, to hide its discriminatory nature).

This article notes 88,000 applications for 55 available units at 40 Riverside Blvd / 1 Riverside Park, which features a poor door:
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-poor-door-and-the-glossy-reconfiguration-of-city-life

Krolik>> So with the numbers you've calculated, the cost to build was $600 per square foot of livable space, of which $100 per square foot can be allocated to the garage space, or 18% of the total, did I get this right?

No, you did not get this right. The development cost $150m to build, and I estimated $4M went to parking spaces for residents. Only 130 spaces for 387 apartments.

>> Instead of giving one in a hundred of "affordable" housing applicants high end finishes and extra amenities and parking spots, I personally would rather see two or three out of a hundred applicants accommodated.

If you actually bothered penciling it out, I doubt you’d end up at double or triple the number of apartments. You’d be talking about $200 ppsf or $300 ppsf, which is below 30yrs’ estimate at $400 ppsf.

>> So what is your point? is it that you don't see a way to construct "affordable" housing in Manhattan because of sky high construction costs in New York?

I was just trying to understand how 30yrs’ idea would work in terms of incentivizing developers to build affordable housing in Manhattan.

Krolik,

While I can't say about Archer Green, many of the residents of NYC public housing need additional help. It is pretty bleak in public housing with crime, drugs, etc. But below is a good question and you can add it to mismanagement of large cities point by Turbo.

Putting up people in hotels in Manhattan is far higher wasteful expense in my mind vs building some affordable housing in areas with near zero land cost with additional FAR allowance by the city. Construction cost is also lower to less density. Of course you proably need to offer commercial space at very low/free rent to a supermarker like Aldi.

Then there is a highly debatable question of just Section 8 vouchers using the cost of cheapest areas in NYC with subway link vs Public housing with well-known management issues. However, many people want to have affordable housing in more expensive areas as well. There is no agreement on these questions.

>>> There are free children's classes (and adult classes) in all public libraries, and for the queens complex in question, there is a library 4(!!!) minutes away. No doubt if there are open spaces people will use them. Simultaneously, while less lucky people are living in overcrowded conditions because instead of more apartments, developer built parking and amenities.

Of course there should be amenities. WTF housing shouldn't look like the Soviet Union. And parks and open spaces.

>>>Of course there should be amenities.

Always easy to say on the rental side when you are shielded from the costs. But then we also have very lengthy discussions on this board about coop and condo buildings overloaded with amenities having maintenance that is unaffordable even to upper middle class.

Also, in a city like NY, should amenities, especially those built with public funds, be within a building complex for residents only (and that residents of nearby townhomes cannot use), or should they be shared, like the library and the public park?

For example, my building does not have a yoga studio, but there is a yoga studio across the road, and I think its amazing I can go there when I want to without shouldering the maintenance cost if I don't. The "affordable" building we are discussing is similarly located near a ton of local businesses of all kinds.

>>>Putting up people in hotels in Manhattan is far higher wasteful expense in my mind vs building some affordable housing in areas with near zero land cost...

Not sure if this came across differently, but I am all for building as much as possible of "affordable" housing everywhere where it makes sense (although it does not make sense in prime Manhattan, based on every kind of math). I am only debating squeezing in more apartments, given the housing crisis, vs. more amenities/parking etc. And the level of finishes that the taxpayer should subsidize.

And agree, nothing is more wasteful than hoteling migrants in prime Manhattan for years...

Krolik,

There is so much waste, ineffciency and corruption in NYC, that one has to start with low hanging fruit and unnecessary burdensome regulations. So on affordable housing, as long as they are in lowest cost area, I am fine with some amenities. Most large cities have more generous welfare programs and public transportation vs suburbs and as a result they attract people needing social services.

Examples of difficult cost cutting -

I am sure every one has heard about overtime being factored into pensions for certain type of employees but no one can do anything.

If someone is retired or is not expected to work in the near future, should they get public housing or Section 8 vouchers for NYC rent? Essentially "neighborhood of their choice" in below?

https://www.nyc.gov/site/hpd/services-and-information/section-8-voucher-types.page#:~:text=Section%208%2C%20also%20known%20as,a%20neighborhood%20of%20their%20choice.

"Section 8, also known as the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program, provides federal funding for subsidies for that help eligible low-income families to rent decent, safe, and affordable housing in a neighborhood of their choice."

So Archer Green digs might not be as luxurious as one might assume from the description. Here are some recent reviews. Sounds like all that amenities are too expensive to clean and maintain.. so they don't.

DO NOT MOVE IN THIS BUILDING!!!!! I was contacted to view an apartment when I arrived it was gang members exiting the building. Then when we got upstairs in the unit it was so small & the apartment was dark and depressing. We went on to view the other amenities & the hallways was dirty, the people that was in the building was giving ghetto & wild. We went to see the gym & people was lounging inside like if it was a chill spot. The outdoor area had food and garbage on the fake grass, empty mc Donald packages and bag on the ground. The Loung was sooooo stink. They did not empty the garbage inside and it probably had food in it … omg yall don’t move here you’ll definitely regret it. It’s lowkey the projects … they have beautiful apartments in other buildings please don’t SETTLE; you deserve something beautiful and aesthetically pleasing … this ain’t it.

This is an updated review as of 8/24. Only thing that's changed is the live-in super I previously mentioned, Ernesto, has gotten fired for fighting one of the janitors. The janitor, James, also got fired...despite this being the ONLY janitor that was on top of his job and made sure the building was clean EVERY MORNING! We have a new super who's practically a ghost and doesn't live here, so it's hard for certain stuff to be enforced. This in turn has made the building WORSE than what it already was. During a building meeting held on 8/23, tenants complained about many things: TRESPASSERS, kids of the tenants tearing up the building, amenities are all closed, grills don't work, ROACHES, broken windows, maintenance do not do regular cleanings...tenants literally have to beg or will take the initiative to clean their own hallways, CURRENT MAINTENANCE WORKERS GOING THROUGH PEOPLE'S STUFF WHEN THEY'RE NOT HOME, AND SO MUCH MORE‼️‼️ Tenants constantly questioned what will be the resolution for any of this...yet Crystal and the new property manager (clueless) had no answers. I've gotten harassed and accused of being a tresspasser by Crystal despite me LIVING HERE FOR 3 YEARS! Yet there's nothing being done about the actual hoodboogers and their kids wreaking havoc on the building!! ? Since then i've gotten a bad taste in my mouth from her. We'll see what happens in a few months...building is a joke

Krolik, Seriously, you didn't know common issues with public housing in NYC? There are some percentage of people who will mess up everything and there are commonly people "visiting" family perpetually, or paying zero or close to zero. Not sure anyone has found any solution to that. Screws people who are working full-time but need subsidy but are still paying say 50% or more of the cost.

I should have known better than to poke the tiger! With that said, I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing more with @krolik and @300mercer on the "what amenities make sense is gov't funded affordable housing in NYC." There have been white papers on this that go significantly more in depth than what has been cited so far, and I regret opening the door to my participation in the discussion. I ALMOST got sucked in.
With that said, I am going to put a plug in for Columbus, Ohio as being the most liveable city I have experienced (my points of comparison are Paris, London, San Francisco, Washington, DC, Taipei and New York.) Parks, libraries and schools off the hook. The libraries in particular serve as location where various nonprofits provide services to low income residents. All the conference rooms are fully utilized from opening to closing; indeed, that is where I teach English to immigrants. There are also many community centers that are as nice as high end health clubs in Manhattan where nonprofits also provide services such as youth counseling and elder care counseling.

>>>The building was built under the 421a program, which gave the developer tax breaks in exchange for making some rental units available at lower cost.

Of course I get what the developer rationale is for offering the units: they have to in exchange for tax break money. But what is the city's rationale for offering apartments on Madison Ave at such a low cost to a few lucky lottery winners at taxpayer expense? (btw are we talking about the same building? anyway, the 421a program point stands regardless).

>>>A lottery is a typical way to allocate scarce resources. The literature on this is extensive (much relating to healthcare) and it’s a grab bag of whether it’s “fair” or not. In contrast, Manhattan Plaza, mentioned above, uses a waiting list -- some people die while waiting for an apartment. Perhaps you think there should be another differentiating factor such as race or IQ to bump more desirable people to the head of the line?

Lottery works for something like allocating students between NYC middle schools. In the end each student is still guaranteed a free spot at one of their top 12 DOE schools, and the only question is, which one.

I think constructing few hundred luxury units a year and allocating via lottery is not the right way to address the essential need for housing of a good portion of the population in NYC.

Lottery could work to help decide between a small number of candidates who gets the apartment first. But when you have 88,000 applicants for just a few apartments in luxury buildings, this does not look like a serious solution. It looks like a band aid, or a feel-good story politicians can tell themselves to sleep well at night.

I'd like the city to first think about the size of the population that needs help, the reasons they need help, and the available resources, and work from there.

1) Obviously if market rate housing was cheaper/more available, fewer people would need help. So it is paramount to make changes to the zoning laws and whatever else that is inflating construction costs in NYC.

2) If the remaining population that needs help is 1,000,000 and there are only enough resources to help 10,000, govt needs to prioritize who needs help the most, how to increase resources and/or use resources better. A single tenant in a studio making under 40k is not likely to own a car and therefore does not need a parking spot. Eliminate 2-3 parking spots and you got yourself another studio....

Here is an idea, take the existing rent-controlled and rent-stabilized apartments, and introduce an asset and an income test. If existing tenants don't pass the test, the rent goes up to market rate, with the city keeping anything above the current regulated rents and directing these money towards more public housing (so no change for landlords, other than more hassle). I imagine a good number of stabilized apartments would suddenly free up and become available for lower income folks.

>>> I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing more with @krolik and @300mercer

@MCR
I am defending the idea that YOU brought up :-)
so that makes sense

>>>WTF housing shouldn't look like the Soviet Union.

@Rinette You know what is worse than Soviet Union housing? NO housing.

Have you seen a homeless person in Moscow?

@krolik - re defending the idea that I brought up, you are doing an excellent job. Thank you!

>> If existing tenants don't pass the test, the rent goes up to market rate, with the city keeping anything above the current regulated rents and directing these money towards more public housing (so no change for landlords, other than more hassle).

That’s a novel idea, but I am guessing it would be considered well past the line of a “taking” per the Fifth Amendment and ruled unconstitutional.

">> If existing tenants don't pass the test, the rent goes up to market rate, ..."

Been there, done that (but not the 'taking' part), repealed in 2019:

" The high-rent vacancy decontrol provision, ending rent regulation for an apartment when the
rent for that apartment crossed a set threshold and the unit became vacant, has been repealed."

"The high-income vacancy decontrol provision, ending rent regulation for an apartment when a tenant’s income is $200,000 or higher in the preceding two calendar years and rent for that apartment crossed a set threshold, has been repealed."

hcr.ny.gov

@Aaron2 - What was their reasoning? The high income decontrol provision strikes me as especially egregious. If you're making $200K you should be able to find something reasonable in a safe neighborhood.

@MTH - Politics.

@MTH: I don't know the specifics, but mcr's take sounds about right.

For those truly interested in the afforable housing and 'City of Yes' proposals to increase such housing, Community Board 8's Zoning, Development, and Housing Committee meeting on Tues, 26 Nov will include a presentation on "Creating and Preserving Housing and Affordable Housing: Presentation by George Janes in advance of City Council vote on COYHO". The meeting is via Zoom, and you don't have to show your face, but advance signup is required (here: https://forms.gle/NtiuPQKVYg3VuWXt9).

Related material, from a CB3 presentation:
https://www.nyc.gov/assets/manhattancb3/downloads/calendar/2024/COYHO-CB-3-Final.pdf

>>>That’s a novel idea, but I am guessing it would be considered well past the line of a “taking” per the Fifth Amendment and ruled unconstitutional.

Great point.

Guessing they stopped allowing de-regulation because they want to say there are X million of regulated apartments in the city and prevent that number from going down.

I'd be okay with anyone high income OR high assets living in a stabilized/controlled apartment to be just kicked out to free up space for the needy (unless they have kids/school considerations or disabilities).

@Aaron2 - I wish I were truly interested in this subject, but as I noted at the outset of the thread, it is the least of my public policy concerns at this precise moment in time. Given what is at stake on the national front with descent into civil war on the imminent horizon, I view focusing on this issue as akin to fretting about the pillows on the deck chairs of the Titanic.

@mcr: Fair enough. I just want people to know how many pillow options there are. For those of you on this particular cruise, please take the pillows with you as you get into the lifeboats. There are plenty for everybody.

@Aaron2 - I like it. Reminds me of the opening of Tom Friedman's "From Beirut to Jerusalem," which is something along the lines (I am too lazy to look it up) "Should we eat now or wait for the ceasefire?"

Obviously anyone making over $1 million a year doesn't need any more money. I propose we means test tax deductions. For anyone making over $1 million we remove the deductions for mortgage interest and State and Local Taxes.

Isn’t the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 already effectively a step ahead of you on that one?

@30 That's an interesting proposal but also a political third rail. This is old but relevant:

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/07/19/157047211/six-policies-economists-love-and-politicians-hate

Unfortunately, people have made life plans around our tax policies. You can't just change the rules in the middle of the game.

@inonada The only reason they got away with even a reduction in the deduction is down to the electoral map. Red states hate snooty educated folks in blue states.

"nfortunately, people have made life plans around our tax policies. You can't just change the rules in the middle of the game"
You You mean like people with rent stabilized apartments?

CIM Group bought this property in 2019. So they were well aware of the changes from HSTPA 2019. Yet they still lost a pile of money. My position is that landlords had been paying to much and the downturn is a market correction due to the realization of that. I think this an indicator that is the correct explanation and not that rent stabilization is destroying the market.

https://CIM purchased the property in 2019 so no it was well aware of the changes from HSTPA 2019. Yet they still lost a pile of money here. I contend that it’s not Rent Stabilization destroying the market, but rather the realization that buyers had been overpaying for these properties for some time.

I think this transaction is evidence of a market correction based on a new paradigm rather than RS ruining the market.

https://therealdeal.com/new-york/2024/11/05/cim-group-unloads-165-east-66th-street-at-major-discount/

MTH,
Addendum:
Another case of rich people pointing at not rich people and complaining about the latter group's "entitlements."

@30 The complaint about wealth and rent control is a valid one. If someone started out poor and earned or came into a pile, they shouldn't be allowed to continue living in a rent stabilized or controlled apt. But it sounds like there are legal barriers to instituting means testing.

The public spaces in Archer Green are pretty modest - bordering on grim. To deny residents of buildings that big some common spaces would be churlish.

Prior to -2019 a landlord was able to destabilize an apartment if the tenant's income exceeded. $200,000. I don't remember all the details, but I believe that was scrapped with the rental laws overhaul.

MTH,
So instead people here want to deny them housing altogether. Sounds like an equitable solution.

Keith,
I believe the means testing began in 1993 at $250,000 and was lowered to ?$175,000? in 1997. But it's more complicated than it sounds.

That sounds right.

Back in the day, the means testing required two years in a row so people who wanted to cheat would just "bunch" their income into every other year (a la "sure, I made $800K two years ago, but last year I only made $75K") so they could maintain their rent-stabilized properties in the city, and then they'd buy summer places in the Hamptons.

>>> ...people have made life plans around our tax policies. You can't just change the rules in the middle of the game
>>> You mean like people with rent stabilized apartments?

yes you can, and lawmakers often do. Its always middle of the game for someone.

>>>Given what is at stake on the national front with descent into civil war on the imminent horizon, I view focusing on this issue as akin to fretting about the pillows on the deck chairs of the Titanic.

Here is how I feel about the election: there were no choices. Like, literally. Fine, there were two choices for president and three options for senator. But for state/ local stuff, my entire ballot was uncontested!!!!! What was the point of me showing up?

To add insult to injury, my Albany rep is the sponsor of that idiotic 2019 rent control bill that removed means testing from regulated housing....

@krolik - Well, if the newly elected is to be believed, you won't ever have to show up again! I have always been fascinated by the number of Russians I have spoken to over the years who love Putin. The common reasoning was that life was really scary with unfettered capitalism and free choice everywhere; they did not care if Putin became a billionaire at the expense of the people, and they didn't care what games the oligarchs played amongst themselves. What mattered to them was a guaranteed baseline of subsistence and order. My former crew who went from Never Trumpers to Forever Trumpers are undoubtedly excited to assume their place as oligarchs. Nevertheless, I still have great faith in "we the people."

If you have ever said "all third party votes are wasted" you are part of the problem.

In brighter news, a chance NYC politics is about to get a lot funnier again -

https://www.cityandstateny.com/politics/2024/11/anthony-weiner-mulls-city-council-run-lower-manhattan/400964/

The return of Carlos Danger -

Hey, why not? It is officially a free-for-all. Anything goes! Really, anything!

"
Response by MTH
6 days ago
Posts: 362
Member since: Apr 2012
@30 The complaint about wealth and rent control is a valid one. If someone started out poor and earned or came into a pile, they shouldn't be allowed to continue living in a rent stabilized or controlled apt. But it sounds like there are legal barriers to instituting means testing.'

If someone buys an apartment for $50,000 and later sells it for $10 million that's a ridiculous windfall profit and they should be taxed at 90%.

@krolik,
Originally 421a was enacted because the City was selling vacant lots for $1 and still couldn't get anyone to build on them. Now all it does is increase the price of land.

I've been letting this one marinate just to see if anyone had a lightbulb moment but of course never happens here. So my premise essentially is that lowering land costs will allow developers to build affordable housing. And the proof offered as to why I'm wrong is a building with low land costs, and an existing program for low cost HPD financing for low cost plus public benefits housing.

And, of course, as usual, that proof comes along with total misstatements of facts regarding construction costs

@30 'If someone buys an apartment for $50,000 and later sells it for $10 million that's a ridiculous windfall profit and they should be taxed at 90%.' -

rare, but sure, why not? At a certain multiple of the purchase price.

As for rent-control/rent stabilization, it doesn't need to be eliminated, just reformed by introducing means testing. Yes, that's changing the rules in the middle of the game but only to align the spirit of the law with the letter. The cutoff should rise with the number of dependents.

@30yrs - I never know how much anyone is internalizing on here (particularly given that I only internalize a fraction of what others post), but while I have no love for RFK, Jr., I do appreciate the power of third party candidates - hence my reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_the_People_Party_(United_States)

In Pennell v. City of San Jose the Supreme Court ruled that Rent Stabilization per se isn't illegal, but means testing might be

@30: I'm with you on the point about land costs being a significant barrier to affordable housing construction. At the same time, I wonder how effective the city has been in assessing what land they own that could be used -- there are a couple of examples, but at the same time the $39m refurbishment of the Far Rockaways library in Queens could have been something much more useful -- a modest rebuild of the library space + 6-8 stories of affordable residences above (and perhaps produced something with a useful streetscape, rather than a decorated wall). (https://www.snohetta.com/projects/far-rockaway-writers-library).

might is doing a lot of work there. There are all kinds of laws and regulatory schemes that take income into account.

First in a series on affordability in NYC. Worth noting everything is expensive in NY, starting with housing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/12/nyregion/housing-crunch-affordable-housing.html?unlocked_article_code=1.ZU4.CnMF.bNVIYZbv2YXL&smid=url-share

Point out all the one's which take income into account which are not voluntary on the landlord's part