Rent stabilization is destroying NYC

Some of those stabilized apartments cost $3500 a month for a 1 br - the new stabilized apts are a joke and they aren't cheap

i'm getting a 150k buyout for my rent stabilized lease.. so thats one less unit on the market!

"i'm getting a 150k buyout for my rent stabilized lease"

which building?

Please post the link. I've a heard a third and that seems high. Seventy percent?

It's probably useful to distinguish between apartments that have stabilized leases but reset to market rates between each tenant (e.g., in 80/20 buildings) and "traditionally" rent stabilized apartments.

70% is probably right, but I'd guess that it's close to 100% in lower-income parts of the city, and a reasonable mixture of stabilized, 80/20 type arrangements, and pure market units in prime neighborhoods, with traditionally stabilized units disappearing over time due to income/rent phase outs.

re: which building

i don't want to say until i get my check! but i will say that it is a hotel conversion, and about 30ppl are taking the offer (the rest are trying to hold out for more $ or are just staying put).

We get it, you don't like NY, so leave.

rent stabilization isn't destroying NYC either.

NYC and San Francisco are the only two cities that have rent stabilize apartment. Thus, it continues to be a burdened on tax payers. Rufus is correct, 70% of NYC apartments are rent stabilize. Rufusmakesnosense needs to read %u201Ctragedy of the Commons%u201D by Hardin. People benefit from, cheap rent, at the expense of hard working citizens. Take a look at Canada with its great social programs. Taxes are very high.
As the economy contracts social programs will continue to take a toll on the middle class. Some social programs perpetuate and breeds lazy indivuals. Thanks to the liberals.

The book is tragedy of the commons by Hardin

Jay30, thanks for your thoughtful comments. it's sad that liberals just don't get basic economics.

That's the funny thing about non-liberals. They only get basic economics. All they can say is "that doesn't make sense, its plain Econ 101" because after Econ 101, they knew everything and didn't see a need to continue with Econ 102, or heaven forbid, an actual business class.

Yeah, but if you stopped rent control/stabilization half of those tenants would have to sell their summer home. Bummer.

totallyanonymous: did you approach your landlord or did he/she approach you? i was wondering how, if you did, approach your landlord?

kgg - "summer home",,... good one! But it's true - I know so many people in RS apts and they have second homes. They got in these places via connections and not because of income.

Wow, these are some of the lamest arguments against rent stabilization ever. Makes me miss stevejhx.

Rent stabilization has nothing to do with the Tragedy of the Commons. There's no common. There's no ability to overconsume it. I suggest reading the essay (not book) before citing it.

Rent stabilization has nothing to do with taxes. People that live in stabilized apartments are as likely to pay taxes as anyone else. (In fact, the lack of means testing is one of the better arguments against stabilization.)

If Jay and Rufus represent the economic brilliance of conservatives, it's really no surprise that the economy has ended up in the shape that it's in under the brilliant stewardship of a conservative administration.

rufus isn't a conservative

he's a slightly angry, slightly lonely guy in his mid 20s who took a couple of economics courses at some college targeted at the second and third decile of high school students, like NYU, George Washington University or SUNY Albany.

Sounds like a lot of conservatives I know.

Right mogul. It's turned into a joke. Ok, granted there are some ancient widows it's protecting but in my experience either successful boomer couples with summer homes or slackers who are now trapped in their dingy tenement because it's too cheap to leave which has only aided and abetted their apathy as they cling to their faded Manhattan dreams or total schmucks who have been subletting for profit their place since the 90's are just some of your typical rent stabilized tenants. Not to mention the 6 and 7 figure income politicians with their subsidized pads. The height of hypocrisy. And I'm a liberal. With a smidge of libertarian I suppose.

rufusmakesnosense, it's interesting that neither you nor anyone else on this board has addressed the issue of supply and its effect on high rent. if you're reserving 20% of high-quality luxury apartments for poor people, you're reducing the supply for those who are able to pay the market rate. i'm amazed that you guys can't grasp this simple concept. do you really think it's pure coincidence that the two U.S. cities with 80/20 programs, NYC and San Francisco, have some of the highest rents in the country?

by the way, i went to an ivy undergrad, but nice try anyways.

Do Ivy grads now say "anyways"?

perhaps rufus your observation is so fucking obvious that nobody felt the need to say it

rufus: You are either an idiot or a troll. I think probably a troll, which makes me an idiot for responding.

I've addressed your ridiculous argument about 80/20 buildings in two other separate threads. Each time, after I show how your position doesn't make any sense, you simply stop responding and then you make the exact same (wrong) point on a new thread. At least SomeonewhoKnows had the brains to be able to substantiate his/her position with some useful insight and understanding of both economics and the local market.

There's a fairly good argument to be made about rent stabilization in general forcing prices up, but so far no one has made it. 80/20 buildings, where the developer opts into the program, have little to do with broader pricing trends and if anything decrease the price of market rents. It's clear you're just jealous that your job as manager at a Starbucks doesn't pay enough to afford a nice apartment.

jordyn: false choice. He's both.

rufus: "you're reducing the supply for those who are able to pay the market rate". So let's say you've reduced the supply. You can now get away with charging them a higher rent. Now let's say you're considering building a new apartment building (a tall and clean one, like they have only in Chicago) . . . are you more likely to build if you can get higher rents? Hint: yes you are. Idiot and troll.

just talked to a good friend of mine who lives in an 80/20 building in chelsea, and he wants to move out because he's pissed that poor people get to enjoy a luxury building while he has to work his butt off to pay the rent. he said it's pretty obvious who the subsidized people are, from the way they dress and behave. and by the way, this guy is a liberal from san francisco, so if he feels this way, i'm sure he's not alone.

oh rufus shut it. If your friend is angry that he isn't subsidized he shouldn't live there. These people would be kicked to the curb if they were behaving badly. They do that to full fare tenants as well if they misbehave.

cccharley, what options does he have? can you list any luxury rental buildings that are NOT 80/20?

All of Ogden Cap Properties and I think Glenwood too. I'm sure there are many more. Oh Macklowe bldgs too. Almost all the new luxury blgs on 6th avenue in Chelsea. I know the 7th avenue one is 80/20 - rockrose. Related mgmt has the 80/20s

Rent stabalization has kept the city diverse. Where do you think your kids ballet teacher lives, or the folks pouring your coffee, working as a security guard, doorman, and all those other service sector jobs that don't pay enough to live in this area? Bullcrap on it destroying the city. Go pick on the uberrich and how their selfishness destroys this city and leave the underclasses alone.

LP1, why do these people have to live in luxury buildings in manhattan? No one is saying they should be homeless, but there's plenty of decent places in bronx and queens that can cater to these people. It's just another insane liberal program that tries to redistribute wealth. It's about as insane as the government handing out gift certificates to saks fifth avenue to poor people, so they can buy clothes.

holy crap rufus, what a stupid assessment. Also, your postings are racist and classist. And classless.

WmNino, how is my comment racist? did i ever mention race in this discussion? perhaps i'm being classist, but as a supporter of capitalism, i think it's wrong for the poor to be given luxury apartments while everyone else has to pay outrageously high market price for the EXACT same apartments.

Most people who complain about rent stabilization and rent control really don't understand the program. The majority of rent stabilized apartments in NYC, especially the rent stabilized apartments in the outer boros and non-prime Manhattan are at rates equivalent to what the market rates are.

Are there abuses and sub-market rent stabilized rentals in Manhattan - yes, absolutely. But this isn't the majority of the program. And it doesn't come at the cost of the taxpayer and it doesn't come at the cost of higher rents for all the new NYU students in town either.

Not a single liberal on this board has made a convincing argument as to why it makes sense to provide LUXURY apartments in doorman buildings to poor people. NYC is the only city in the U.S. that does this, along perhaps with the other liberal bastion, San Francisco.

rufus, if you said that rent control is a bad policy, which ends up increasing rents on middle class people, I would agree with you. but to say it is "destroying nyc" is pretty absurd. I guess nyc has been getting "destoyed" for the last 50 years.

rufus wrote: "Not a single liberal on this board has made a convincing argument as to why it makes sense to provide LUXURY apartments in doorman buildings to poor people."

Of course, this is wrong just like pretty much everything else you assert. Here's what I wrote in the previous thread in which you were complaining about 80/20 buildings:

"2) I've not seen a comparison between the 80/20 program and other mechanisms of providing affordable housing. The two other principal options that I've heard of are: 1) rent stabilization (which you also don't like, obviously) and 2) government-provided housing. The latter option is likely very expensive and not very good. If it turned out that the 80/20 program cost less than providing a comparable number of public housing units, would you still think it was a bad idea? To me, it would seem obvious that it was a great idea since we would be creating much nicer housing for the same amount of money, leveraging the efficiencies and market incentives of the developers rather than relying on traditional government programs. I also like the 80/20 program more than traditional rent stabilization, because it's more honest in terms of having the government directly pay the cost, it's means tested, and it doesn't distort the market.

3) Providing cheap financing is one of the more efficient things the government can do. Especially for buildings financed with liberty bonds (which I believe were provided by the federal government), the government can borrow money for much less than the developer could on his own. The government is therefore not paying nearly as much for the subsidy that it is providing as the developer would have had to pay for the same financing, so we end up with a much "cheaper" subsidy than we'd have with the government making direct cash payments."

(Point #1 addressed a different topic.)

And I've also pointed out that the "no one else does it" argument just proves that it's interesting and perhaps innovative, not that it's bad. I think it's funny that you keep posting--you really don't have "arguments", just complaints. I'm sorry your job sucks and you can't afford a nice apartment. If you think it's so awesome to be poor, try taking a small pay cut and working for minimum wage somewhere and applying for one of these apartments.

I agree with rufus.
Why give these luxury apts to low income class? They can live in Brookly, Queens, Bronx, NJC, etc
Honestly, I don't like seeing hoodlums few blocks around my neighborhoord. Low six figure professionals are the ones spending 1-2hrs daily communiting and subsidizing these low income families through high taxes.

ba294, you hit the nail on the coffin. there is no reason to give luxury manhattan apartments to low-income people. my friends and i hate seeing hoodlums in our apartment buildings and our neighborhoods. it lowers the quality of life for all the hardworking professionals. In the nice areas of Chicago, such as gold coast, streeterville, river north, or lincoln park, i barely saw any bums or hoodlums. those areas were all clean and gentrified. It would be awesome if manhattan can reach that level, but sadly, the liberals won't let that happen.

It's good that this discussion has now boiled down to what it's really about: having failed the economic portion of the debate, Rufus and ba294 reveal that they really just don't like having "those people" around.

You guys should move to the suburbs. They are nice and white and clean and (other than maids and gardeners) there are no poor people for miles around. I think you will both be happier out there than in the diverse, dirty City.

jesus, here we go again with chicago...

for the record, I am very against rent stabilization, but I don't really have any problem with 80/20 buildings. from what I understand, those are usually used when the builder gets some sort of a benefit (like a low cost loan), or gets to build more stories than currently permitted, in exchange for having 20% of the units go to poor/middle income people at set rates. it's clearly a win/win for the builder and the people getting the benefit, or they wouldn't agree to it. so what's the problem?

Thank god NYC isn't Chicago.

The reason you have people willing to pay the ridiculous amounts is, we have diversity and culture. If Manhattan was filled with only the new yuppies moving in, then it would be a sad, sad day. Chicago is notorious for horrible segregation.

In NYC, every "cool" place the yuppies want to go wouldn't have been there without the folks you are complaining about. Yuppies didn't create Tribeca or SoHo. Yuppies didn't create the Lower East Side. Yuppies aren't the artists and the musicians. Get rid of 'em all, and you have... well, Chicago I guess.

Yuppies don't create neighborhoods, they just make them annoying.

If you want gated community, move to New Jersey.

Umm, who said rent stabilized is LUXURY? Have you all ever been in stabilized buildings? Let me tell you the majority of places under the 2k mark are not exactly high-end.

>If you want gated community, move to New Jersey.
Ha Ha Ha nyc! That's classic!

diversity is more of culturally and regional based, not income based. Why let the low income stay when there are higher bidders on the table? This is the exact reason why the welfare class stay unemployed for decades and refuse to do any community work.

LP1, manhattan place on 42nd street is Rent stabilized, along with many others in the area.

NYC wanted mix the high to low/welfare class together to reduce the crime rate back in the 80-90's.
NYC wants low income family to be able to stay in NYC. WHY? why not give 1 mil+ homes to them? This is very simple to me, if you can't afford it, leave. It's all about Supply & Demand.

Jordyn, I think 80/20 is a good idea, but not in the same building nor area. Trump can build all his UWS condos but keep the 20 in coney island or bedstuy.

i have no problem with diversity. this is about simple economics and safety, not race. some of the best renetal buildings in manhattan, including those built by related and rose, are part of the 80/20, and most professionals in manhattan would love to live in those buildings but can't afford to do so. i think that's grossly unfair and goes against the basic principles of capitalism. i agree with ba294 that the city should build subsidized housing in places like bronx or queens. there is no reason for them to live in luxury doormen buildings in nice areas of manhattan.

Rufus what is wrong with you? Rich and poor are allowed to live in Manhattan. Why should they have to move to the Bronx or Queens because you want Manhattan to be a playground for the rich.
I think you are a just a troll

cccharley,

Rufus and I are saying that this should be a free market. Poor can live in the city if they can afford it (less sqf). If they can't afford it, let the ones who can afford it live in it.

Guys, your "free market" argument is a transparent disguise for "I don't like brown people". You may not even realize this in your own head, but it's pretty obvious to most of the people reading this thread.

ba924, you've said you like the 80/20 program, but want it to only build housing in far away places. That's still market interference, it's just moving the people you don't like out to where you don't have to see them. This reveals that your talk about free markets is a canard--it's just polite code for what you're really trying to do.

I've already suggested a market-based solution to the problem: YOU should vote with your feet and move out of the City, so we don't have to see you. Then everyone will be happy.

Jordyn,
Rufus and I never had said we discriminate against color. All we are saying is people should stay where they can afford to. Build housing where it's affordable like the bronx, brooklyn, queens, etc.

And why should we move out and the low income families are getting the upper hand treatment from the city and our tax dollars?

Free market argument is what it is. No transparency or polite code. If people can't afford to shop at Saks, then they are free to look (comparable to shopping and hanging out in the city), but don't walk away with an item underneath your jacket (comparable to our tax dollars).

typo:
...when the low income families...

rufus
11 days ago
ignore this person
report abuse LP1,

thanks for your helpful comment. i'm definitely not a snob; i just care about being in a safe, clean building. and yes, my friends in these buildings have told me stories of the subsidized people coming into the lobby totally drunk, throwing up on the sofas, causing a ruckus, or even getting into fights. and i know this is politically incorrect, but all these people were racial minorities who were being subsidized by taxpayer dollars

jordyn, you're not making any sense. there are areas of manhattan, such as east harlem, chinatown, and washington heights, are are affordable for lower-income people. and there are PLENTY of places in the boroughs that are affordable as well. but a lot of these 80/20 buildings are located in prime areas of manhattan, and have excellent amenities to boot. free market capitalism dictates that only those who can afford a certain product or service, should be able to enjoy it. in this case, the government is grossly interfering with this basic concept, thereby raising rent for everyone else.

Again, the main reason Chicago rent is cheaper is because they don't have these types of programs. And at the same time, they have higher quality luxury apartments than manhattan.

> diversity is more of culturally and regional based, not income based

Yes, because its the wall street yuppies who are culturally and "regionally" diverse, whatever that is...

I'll take a neighborhood with some artists and creative types and, god forbid, a teacher or two, over a building of scmuck Wall Streeters who can only now talk about how they got fired.

nyc10022,
You are clearly here discriminating and stereotyping. If a wall streeters can afford a place in the city, then they should. Same goes with the teachers, artists, or small business owners.

a lot of people on wall street can't afford these apartments, unless they get roommates. a nice related building like 1 union square south or westminster, have almost nothing available for below $3500/month. that means you need to make AT LEAST $140K to even be able to be eligible for it. and depending on demand, that might not be good enough if there are other bidders for the same apartment, who make more than you. what makes this practice so egregious is that professionals put so much time into finding the right apartment while poor people are just given luxury apartments without paying their dues.

I am now ignoring rufus. He never bothers to respond to any substantive arguments (hint: correlation vs. causation, why 80/20 programs don't raise rents), choosing instead to recite free market proverbs despite his ignorance of economics or statistics. There's really no point in taking the time to even read the comments of such people.

ba294--I'll give you one more chance. Right now you are making an argument about non-intervention in the market. That's a reasonable argument. Earlier you wrote: "Jordyn, I think 80/20 is a good idea, but not in the same building nor area. Trump can build all his UWS condos but keep the 20 in coney island or bedstuy." That's a completely different, and contradictory argument. The whole point of the 80/20 program is to interfere in the market by getting developers to create affordable housing in exchange for cheaper financing. Either you're for the program, in which case you don't mind interference in the market; or you're against it, in which case you want an absolute free market. If you're for spending taxpayer dollars on affordable housing, but only want to do it if it's far away from you, then this is not a free market argument at all: it's just you saying you don't want to live near people like that.

Jordyn,
Trump can build 8 buildings on the west side with gov't assisted financing and in return build 2 on the area more affordable. This in return reduces tax and gov't funding towards housing. Instead, the gov't wants to mix and match the population to reduce crime rate be fair(?) to the population.

ba294: Ah. So you're okay with some amount of free market intervention, but you think that apartments in Manhattan are too expensive. You need to substantiate your assertion, though. How do you know it's cheaper to build a new building than add some units to existing construction?

Also, it seems like reducing crime is a worthy goal in and of its own right. If there's more crime, the government will have to make direct expenditures on more police and jails (and people suffer harm), so if you can cut down on crime as part of your housing policy, that seems like a worthy goal of the government. In fact, many people regard reducing crime as one of the most important goals of the government.

> nyc10022, You are clearly here discriminating and stereotyping.

We kidding with this... this was YOU...

"Why give these luxury apts to low income class? They can live in Brookly, Queens, Bronx, NJC, etc
Honestly, I don't like seeing hoodlums few blocks around my neighborhoord."

You are calling low income "hoodlums" and saying they shouldn't live in Manhattan and *I* am discriminating and stereotyping?

You need a dictionary.

Jordyn,
Mixing the population and reducing crime rate is an excellent approach (started in the 80-90's) but it did not work.

Building a 20% of the affordable housing in a affordable neighborhood is clearly cheaper than building/adding 20% in the prime nyc. Trump has built many public housing in coney island for his luxury construction in NYC, so I know this works. But public's argument is that low income should also be able to live and enjoy NYC. My argument is that if they want to live and enjoy, start paying.

This is a same logic towards medicaid and welfare families. The gov't implemented Community service approach for those on gov't assisted living, but the public (dem) argued that it's inhumane. I say wtf.

nyc10022,
I've never said they should'nt live in nyc. They can only if they can afford it just like the rest of us. I never said low income are hoodlums. There are hoodlums in my neighborhood where there is a public housing.

ba294 wrote: "Mixing the population and reducing crime rate is an excellent approach (started in the 80-90's) but it did not work."

Huh? Didn't crime drop precipitously during this period?

jordyn, crime dropped in the 90's because of rudy giulian's aggressive approach towards policing, with help from police commissioner, bratton. thank god that he was able to do this, even though the liberals were opposed to him. if the liberals had their way, this city would be a bigger version of detroit, which it actually was in the 70's and 80's.

> city would be a bigger version of detroit, which it actually was in the 70's and 80's.

You either don't know anything about Detroit, or NYC in the 70s and 80s.

jordyn,
Rufus is correct.
I am aware that the crime rates dropped and first thought it was due to the mix and match, but according to ALL the reports in the past, this mix and match made things worse.

Btw in case you forgot - Chelsea was a very affordable neighborhood- a slum actually - until the builders knocked down the cheap buildings and basically pushed the poor out. Secondly - you can never ever ever compare Chicago to NYC. It will always be cheaper because it just will never be NYC. Most Europeans don't want to buy there or live there and probably don't even want to visit there. For god sakes it's the midwest.

nyc10022, sorry typo. ....They can, if only they can afford....

> I never said low income are hoodlums

Sure you did... I quoted you right there when I said it.

CCCharley,
yes, same goes with williamsburg, parkslope, etc.
I remember when the hesidic jews were protesting in Williamsburg struggling to stay, but it was also the hesidic jewish developers forcing them out. I feel bad for those communities but no money, no place, and it's time to move again.

Detroit? You mean the same Detroit that had no rent regulations to anchor its working- and middle-class residents to the city when federal policies sucked all the money from northern cities to burbs, the south, and the west?

Do you mean to say that NYC's rent regulations helped the NYC weather the storm so that it was ripe for gentrification, while Detroit just became an abysmal bottomless pit of blight, leaving only the poorest residents in the city proper, while others panic-sold into a falling market, those causing a nonstop freefall?

You can't have it both ways. If you disagree or ignore this point, I'll post comparisons of cities that maintained their rent regs for decades after WWII, and prospered such that they're the most-desirable places to live, with RE prices to show it . . . and those northern cities that dropped their rent-regs quickly, becoming permanent dead zones, or taking much much longer to re-gentrify and get back on their feet in any meaningful way. [Hint: Chicago is on the latter list.]

just because you don't make a lot of money doesn't mean you didn't pay your dues. Fortunately there is some cheap housing in Manhattan but if you think there is a lot you are wrong. It is almost impossible to get those apts. It may appear like there are a lot in those 80/20s but you are mistaken. It's almost a joke. You get on a waiting list with application number 10000 for 2 apts

Ok, this ba guy is sounding more and more like a racist to me.

If its segregation you want, move to Chicago...

nyc10022,
please learn to read. Where in my post was I being racist. You are nothing but a ignorant hypocrite.

cccharley,
There are a lot of public and affordable housing in NYC. Stuy is one example. Stuy was and is still the largest community apt in NYC. The reason for being hard to get in is because people squat on it. They not only squat, but sublet it out abusing our tax dollars for their gain.

Public housing (Gov't assisted living) are being phased out (thank god) of NYC and being driven out to Brooklyn/Queens and Bronx. So why not get on the same wagon with affordable housing?

alanhart, you obviously have never been to Chicago. Currently, Chicago is more gentrified, cleaner, and livable, than the vast majority of manhattan. For example, there are NO housing projects anywhere near a nice part of Chicago. They're all on the far west and far south side. Please get your facts straight before you bash Chicago.

FYI, i grew up in NYC, so i'm very familiar with how bad things were in the 80's and early 90's when liberal mayors like koch and dinkins let crime go out of control. Women were getting raped in central park, and there were race riots in brooklyn, for christ's sake. So don't lecture me on my knowledge of the city.

Stuytown was not built with nor supported by tax dollars. It was always private. The apartments were rent stabilized until they weren't. If you think they're cheap, go to their website and check out the prices.

"alanhart, you obviously have never been to Chicago. Currently, Chicago is more gentrified, cleaner, and livable, than the vast majority of manhattan. For example, there are NO housing projects anywhere near a nice part of Chicago. They're all on the far west and far south side."

Yes, 3 cheers for racial segregation!

No wonder why Chicago is so boring...

BTW, the bad parts of Chicago are far worse - more crime, garbage, dirt, etc. - than ANYTHING in the 5 boroughs...

I, for one, love diversity. For instance, I think women from both Brazil AND Eastern Europe are just terrific.

BTW, folks should actually learn what they are talking about before they suggest policy changes.

"According to a wall street journal article today, 70% of the city's apartments are rent-stabilized. The liberal city government is continuing to subsidize these programs"

There are no government subsidies in rent stablization.
So, calling for an end to the subsides makes absolutely no sense.

"This is a travesty and a direct result of liberals who are obsessed with providing luxury apartments to poor people."

If you think the majoriy of RS apartments are "luxury", you are out of your mind. Hell, its a bit hypocritical, given that one of the biggest anti-RC arguments is that housing stock would be much nicer without it.

"I, for one, love diversity. For instance, I think women from both Brazil AND Eastern Europe are just terrific."

And the hottest ones are often poor, so someone needs to subsidize them.

I think rufus is just bitter because his name is rufus.

alanhart,
Stuy was rent stablized until 3 years ago where they went all luxury. There are still many rent stablized tenants living in the building.

I'm not sure why you are telling this to Alan.... he clearly knows more about the subject than you, and he pretty much already said everything you just said...

Did he say that close to 1/3 of the stuy tenants are still rent subsidized? Stuy started as a public housing, he failed to mention that as well.
Alan and Petrfitz clearly has different view on political subject along with this housing view. It boils down to another Dem vs rep way.

ba294 -- the focus should be on the erroneous "tax dollars" statement you made about Stuytown.

rufus -- nobody who grew up in NYC is named Rufus, or nicknamed that. And there's no way you grew up here, unless you mean Richmond County, which doesn't count. Is your name altogether different, but you're Rufus Wainwright's biggest fan in the whole wide world? Well, I don't care.

I went to grad school in Chicago and I'm quite familiar with the city, and I like it. It's a striver city, trying to establish a place as a world city, like Dubai and Kuala Lumpur, except that Chicago is trying to catch up with its Second City past. You went there on a little vacation, saw the small beauty-strip along the Lake and (maybe) near the Red Line, and think that's what the city is all about. You think they don't use government funds to promote development -- next time visit the South Loop, just as one example. It's cheap because people around the world don't particularly want to live there -- much the same reason that keeps Kansas so cheap. And you should try to learn about typical Chicago salaries.

Totally inexplicably, you think Chicago is a conservative or even centrist city, but Republican dogma actually requires that you whine for all eternity about those dirty Democrats who stole the election from Nixon by bribing dead people with packs of cigarettes to get them to vote Kennedy. Too bad, really -- Nixon would have made such a great President . . . he's got character and integrity!

Also, sorry to disappoint you, but I was born in Manhattan and grew up on the Upper West Side. Yes, the city suffered when Federal housing and transportation policies sucked all the money out, sending it to places like Texas, which could in turn bribe companies to move their HQs there, thus sucking more money out, thus isolating more neighborhoods when transit cuts hit. And yes, angry people who lived in segregated ghettos (housing projects or otherwise) took it out on others. And yes, the anger of segregated ghettos spreads like horticultural blight (thus the term "urban blight" from Coney Island to an area near you (they're coming to get you!!!). Thus the value of 80/20 all in the same place . . . the "luxury" is mere marketing, though. Luxury means a scale that allows your doorman to know you, your family, your friends, and all of your likes and dislikes.

alan,
When the gov't gives them a 35year tax break to build a public housing, it sure comes out of our tax$. MET then sells the property for billions of dollars after enjoying the nice tax break. I am glad that Stuy has turned around and going with the market value after some major renovation. Hopefully this will bring an unique home like community to nyc.

Unfortunately the buyers of Stuy town may go bust- they overpaid. Apparently they'd have to charge almost $10000 an apt per month or so to break even. There was a recent article about this. They are also having trouble filling the apts at market rate - too many and too expensive. They have recently allowed pets to attract more tenants.

They got eminent domain on a huge scale. I don't know about a 35-year tax break -- that wasn't common back then, so I doubt it.

Stuyvesant Town was started by Metropolitan Life Insurance as an investment vehicle for their assets, and to further their good-citizenship goals. You'll be delighted to hear that it was explicitly all-white when it opened. And then, per wikipedia:
"Lawsuits were filed on the basis that the project was public or semi-public, and thus violated anti-discrimination laws for New York City public housing. In July 1947, the New York Supreme Court determined that the development was private and that, in the absence of laws to the contrary, the company could discriminate as it saw fit. The court wrote, "It is well settled that the landlord of a private apartment or dwelling house may, without violating any provision of the Federal or State Constitutions, select tenants of its own choice because of race, color, creed or religion... Clearly, housing accommodation is not a recognized civil right" (NYT, July 29, 1947)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuyvesant_Town

partial retraction -- yes, they got a 25-year tax break. But I think it's clear there would've been no development otherwise, so the taxes would have been on derelict gas tanks, or essentially zero.

There's a tremendous amount of misinformation here about 80/20.

The '20' in those buildings are not 'hoodlums' or welfare-recipients. I know, because I was a '20' in a luxury building for close to 4 years, and currently live in an 80/20 building.

The application process to get in as a '20' is RIGOROUS. They do full-scale background checks. They check your tax returns, your W-2s, your bank statements, your credit, your debt-to-asset ratio, and your current employment. They interview you. They even come to your present domicile and check out how clean and orderly you keep your apartment (I am not kidding). Only those with solid credentials are admitted.

The *ONLY* difference between '20' residents and '80' residents is that '20' residents must fall within a certain, very narrow, and quite low, income range. But that range is not $300 - $500 a year. Each building has its own criteria, but for a SINGLE person, the minimum and maximum incomes range from about $20,000 - $40,000, depending on the building. That's obviously a lot less than what '80' people would make, but it's not so low as to make '20's dirt-poor derelicts. In fact, it's quite the contrary: all prospective '20's MUST be gainfully employed with documented incomes within the appropriate range. That means no cleaning ladies, waiters, or drug dealers - only people who actually make an income and pay taxes on that income.

As long as someone has a job, the fact that they make less money than you do doesn't make them any more or less apt to be a criminal, a hoodlum, or exhibit any other undesirable characteristic. There are people who simply don't have the capability to earn six-figures, but that doesn't mean that they don't go to work with the same integrity, work ethic, and devotion to their profession that those earning six or seven figures exhibit. There's absolutely nothing dishonorable or shameful about working an honest living, even if you don't make the big bucks.

Rufus' brandishing of '20's as 'hoodlums' is disgusting. I happen to agree, even as a one-time beneficiary, that 80/20s are a bad misappropriation of tax dollars that interferes in what should be a capitalistic free-market. But to assume that people who WORK FOR A LIVING are more inclined to lack civility than trust fund babies born with silver spoons in their mouths is wrong-headed and myopic. Have you never seen a lawyer throw up on the street from drinking too much? Or a finance guy trash someone's apartment during a party or snort so much coke his nostril sealed up? The rich are just as inclined to be social misfits as the working class. People are people, no matter what class they're in. There's good and bad everywhere.

I do draw a distinction between the working class and the non-working poor. Except for those who don't work because they absolutely cannot (due to illness, physical handicap, need to take care of someone who cannot help themselves etc.), I would agree that people who CHOOSE to live on the dole are far more likely to be social miscreants and criminals. That's why projects - overwhelmingly populated with welfare recipients as they are - are festering cesspools of crime and misbehavior. But the '20's in luxury buildings are not of that ilk. Ill-conceived and anti-American as 80/20 programs may be, it is completely wrong to assert or assume that such buildings are populated with 'normal folk' and deviants. It's just wrong.

Someonewhoknows - can you tell me what they asked you to provide before the home interview? I'm on 3 waiting lists - I really don't think I'll ever get off - but in the event that I do I'd like to be prepared. Can you have a 1099 instead of W2 or does it matter? How many years of tax returns do they ask for? Income can change yearly that's why I ask. Were you on a waiting list or did you lottery right in? Thanks.

alanhart, you may think Chicago is not "diverse" or "cosmopolitan" enough, but my friends there LOVE living in a clean fun neighborhood where they don't have to worry about getting mugged by a thug living in the projects, like what we have here, in the lower east side, chelsea, and lincoln center.

dufus - what the fuck are you doing in this city?

rufus -- I haven't even heard of anyone getting mugged in NY for years. If it's happened to you, you're even more of a loser than you seem; or you've, let's say, imagined it. I can't stress this enough: have one of your psycopharmacologists adjust your meds.

Here's a link to the Chicago Housing Authority -- you can read about their master plan for building mixed-income developments . . . in other words, they're coming to get your imaginary friends, and rich people will pay for it! http://www.thecha.org/transformplan/plan_summary.html

Also, you can see on this map that they're targeting the Near North Side with "Family" housing (if you know what I mean): http://www.thecha.org/housingdev/housing_map.html

I think there is some miscommunication here. I think we need to distinguish between NYC Public housing vs Affordable housing. Like someonewhoknows said, "20" are hard working class people who makes less than 20-25,000/year. They are positive to the community and I enjoy living with them. BUT, I believe it is still a communistic way to give those apts to low income families when there are plenty of higher bidders on the table. LIke I said, it is much cheaper to build the "20" in the bronx, brooklyn or queens.

With public housing, I see nothing but a crackheads, drug dealing, 14 y/o girl with 6 kids hanging out in front of the apt. They choose not to work, collect on welfare, bring negative vibe to the neighborhood and brings safety concerns for our children. While these public housings are being phased out of NYC, it is still prevalent in heart of NYC.

As for not even hearing about getting mugged in NY for years. My neighborhood was mugged last week. My car was broken in near Bloomingdales on UES and my friend's car was vandalized on UWS.

typo: ...my neighbor was mugged last week