Affordable Housing Policy

Wow, that's a game-changer.

Ali, Doesn't seem like it is applies to Rent Regulated units. Guessing just to new lotteries.

Interesting - and sensible. It doesn't mention HDFC coops - or is that the same thing as HCD?

It effectively now excludes most seniors and encourages first time buyers.

Entire value of any real property counts towards asset limit, not just equity value. And besides asset limit, there is a limit on past or present real estate ownership.

Applicants to Rental Units
No member of the applicant ‘s household may own residential property, including shares in a co-op, in or within one hundred (100) miles of New York City limits.

Applicants to Homeownership Units
No member of the applicant’s household may own, or have previously purchased, any interest in
residential real property.

I am not sure, MTH, that is a good question. There are few different "affordable housing" programs, and rules seem to vary.

In my limited experience HPDs monitoring of this type of information has been close to non-existent

>> No member of the applicant’s household may own, or have previously purchased, any interest in
residential real property.

I find this one bizarre. Suppose you purchased RE in Botswana once before emigrating to the US. Now you’re barred? Or had owned a home you could no longer afford, filed for bankruptcy, etc.

>> In my limited experience HPDs monitoring of this type of information has been close to non-existent

How is income monitored, through tax filings?

I am curious who made this change to the policy and why? Was there any debate behind this policy change?

>>How is income monitored, through tax filings?

I am not sure it needs to be monitored. Eligibility is checked once after you applied, and only when/if you've been selected through a lottery. I assume they just check the tax filings at that point. Curious how/if they are actually able to verify assets, or if this is going to be an honor system. Once you bought or rented an apartment, there are no ongoing eligibility requirements.

This is a very interesting NYC Counsil session on the shitshow that is the housing lottery
https://citizenportal.ai/Search/View?dp=1&key=3150554-93648e97e1b7f5d37322e2588eeffd5a&start=1041&end=2881

Tracking tangible assets is difficult and probably expensive. And even intangible assets - how to track bitcoin for example? The idea behind it is good, but if a law isn't enforceable, is it a good law?

>>I find this one bizarre. Suppose you purchased RE in Botswana once before emigrating to the US. Now you’re barred? Or had owned a home you could no longer afford, filed for bankruptcy, etc.

I find the whole situation bizarre.

They only check income once, your income could subsequently go up, but you have the option of staying in the apartment indefinitely.

The lottery is extremely time consuming, the website is not good, and people as well as caseworkers spend lots of time filling out unsuccessful applications. All of which is a giant waste of precious resources. The lottery is also very ineffective. Sometimes they cannot find applicants fitting oddly specific criteria and apartments sit empty for 18 months at a time. These are facts from the testimonies at the session I linked above.

The asset limit means excluding a lot of seniors that worked in the US and favoring young people for a change, or immigrants that did not work in the US long enough to accumulate assets (sometimes these people have unreported foreign assets that local govt cannot verify).

How would you distribute these apartments? Would you use a waitlist instead, or some other system? How would you define eligibility? Would you have an asset limit?

Mayoral candidates weigh in on housing (gift article):
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/01/nyregion/nyc-mayor-housing-plans.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Lk8.63OB.QC70TP_Q98wN&smid=url-share

I love it when politicians running to get elected tell the eager public their amazing ideas on how to fix all the many problems this city has and very little mention on how they are going to pay for any of it. Most likely they will increase taxes on the “rich”. And many of the “rich” will leave. Maybe they will propose an exit tax on New Yorkers who leave the state for Florida and Texas. I believe some California legislators are proposing a similar exit tax to try to “catch” fleeing Californians. Because there is really only so much you can tax people before they get fed up and leave and then you simply run out of people to tax. But I’m sure it will all work out in the end….New Yorkers will get exactly what they deserve since they seem totally incapable of electing competent leaders. I mean, Cuomo is in the lead, what does that tell you about this city???

Turbo, The politicians count on NYC net-work effect, eco-system and establishe existing industries which keeps on creating high paying jobs. That is why working rich can't leave as easily as there are not that many other places with industries with average employee pay of $200k+ barring may be silicon valley. Another factor is that a small percentage of people pay disproportionate $ amount of taxes in NYC (income and real estate taxes combined). So politicans focus on redistribution and collecting more from high income earners and real estate owners (a small percentage of population) - this gets them elected.

@911 The instinctive Democratic or progressive response to problems tends to favor additive over subtractive reform. They should consider where lifting regulations could help, not just where to invest. Ezra Klein makes a compelling case for an "abundance agenda"—one that's as much about cutting red tape as it is about funding big ideas.

BTW, almost all large cities in USA are blue or much less red than the rest of the state. So if you want to live in a large city (income disparity is larger in all large cities), it is going to be blue and have similar issues as NYC to a different degree.

A while ago someone on this board (I forget who) rightly observed that, to politicians, renters are a constituency while owners are a tax base.

“BTW, almost all large cities in USA are blue or much less red than the rest of the state. So if you want to live in a large city (income disparity is larger in all large cities), it is going to be blue and have similar issues as NYC to a different degree.”

Yes that is certainly true, NYC is no better or worse than any of the latter cities I live/lived in and have owned real estate. I guess that is why I am looking to move in the next couple of years to a smaller city that is a close distance to a much larger city so I can get the “big city” experience and not have to pay for it. For example, my partner convinced me to buy a condo in Manhatten since, as she said, you only live once! But in retrospect, I could have bought an equally nice condo for 50% less in Jersey City and I think I would have been equally happy. PS, l love New Jersey and would consider it for my full time home if not for my aversion to cold weather. Now I’m thinking places like Santa Monica, Venice (if money no object) or Long Beach/San Pedro in SoCal given their proximity to LA. I just feel that smaller cities and towns are better managed than the much larger cities.

I love Long Beach but it is a major hike to LA proper. When I lived there Long Beach was special occasion because of the distance. Maybe it's different now with trains/Uber but it would still be a time investment.

“I love Long Beach but it is a major hike to LA proper. When I lived there Long Beach was special occasion because of the distance. Maybe it's different now with trains/Uber but it would still be a time investment.”

You can take the LA metro (subway) from downtown Long Beach to downtown LA, it takes about one hour. Not quick, but at least you don’t have to drive. What I really like about Long Beach is you can live very near the Pacific Ocean and like much more expensive coastal cities (Santa Monica, Venice, redondo beach, etc…) it has a lovely boardwalk for biking, walking and running along the ocean. And there are nice homes and communities and downtown Long Beach, while being a far, far cry from LA or NYC, has plenty to do and quite a few options in terms of restaurants and food. I can only speculate on why it’s so much more affordable than other coastal cities, I suspect the public schools are not great and there maybe more crime than other cities (or worse crime statistics). But I watch the real estate closely, and you can buy a 2 bed/1-2 bath home in Long Beach not that far from the ocean for under $800k. That’s a typical price for a proper one bedroom condo in NYC. 10 years ago the choice for me would be obvious, but now, I want the house and the space and the proximity to the beach plus 12 months of great weather. Going from NYC to LA county I’m sure won’t change my tax burden though!

>>>Now I’m thinking places like Santa Monica, Venice (if money no object) or Long Beach/San Pedro in SoCal given their proximity to LA. I just feel that smaller cities and towns are better managed than the much larger cities.

I was in LA last week and spent half my time in traffic. It was horrendous, in the middle of the day, not even any peak hour.

NY is allegedly worse traffic-wise as measured by miles per minute, but that is the wrong metric. Most things I one needs to access daily in NYC are fewer miles apart, since this is a less sprawling city.

>>>A while ago someone on this board (I forget who) rightly observed that, to politicians, renters are a constituency while owners are a tax base.

300 mercer mentions this in every thread on the topic (including this one) :-)

It is true.

Is there a way out of this conundrum?

That certainly is a better way to express my thinking. Applies to most owners except 1-3 family homes outside Manhattan.

I will add high-income earners being treated as a tax base rather than being thought of as both contituents and tax base by the local politicans.

Turbo,

Of course they are as their income and housing price variations are much less than large cities.

>> I just feel that smaller cities and towns are better managed than the much larger cities.

“I was in LA last week and spent half my time in traffic. It was horrendous, in the middle of the day, not even any peak hour.”

I agree…but in my specific case, I am essentially retired and would only need a car for driving to running races/competitions on weekends and the occasional weekend road trip. I would not anticipate using a car on weekdays. That is why Long Beach and Santa Monica are appealing…I can get to downtown LA using public transportation in about an hour. In my humble opinion, public transportation in LA is better than most people think…if you stick with the subway. The problem as you say is LA is huge unlike compact NYC. So many destinations if you don’t have a car require using the bus and that is much less efficient and pleasant than the subway. But owning a condo in downtown LA, it is extremely walkable and we don’t need a car. If we ever moved farther out like the places I mentioned, we would definitely get a car

My dad lived in Belmont Shore for a while. I can see the appeal, esp if you like the outdoors and are averse to high density housing/commercial districts. They have a great coastal bike path. It feels kind of soulless. But to each his own!

@Krolik: thank you for that attribution!

One step that might reduce the cost of housing: there's a good (paywalled so I can't share) editorial in the WSJ today ('A Better Way to Make NY Affordable'). Rep Rick Langworthy has introduced a bill that subjects any project that receives federal money subject to 'comparative negligence standards' instead of NY States' Scaffold Law (Law 240) which holds owners and contractors solely liable for gravity-related injuries (falling/being hit by a falling object). The Scaffold Law was enacted in 1885. No other state has anything like it. NYS unions and trial lawyers love it. 'Between 1990 and 2012 the number of personal injury cases initiated under the law rose more than fivefold, despite the frequency of injuries decreasing nationwide.' 'New York insurance costs constitute 12.5% of construction expenses compared to 2.5% in neighboring CT, NJ, PA' The editorial suggests extending the comparative negligence standard to non-federally funded construction projects in Albany.

Presto -

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/a-better-way-to-make-new-york-affordable-5f063f01

Trying this again -

https://archive.ph/4rzDc

Well done - thanks

While I'm in favor of the proposal I don't see how it makes New York affordable

If the cost of construction comes down, wouldn't that have an effect on new home prices?

Maybe but people charge as much as they possibly can.

sure, but when there is more supply, they can't charge more, and if fact we saw during COVID how quickly rents can come down when vacant apartments outnumber tenants