Suspicious_Error_722 t1_jawnqy8 wrote on March 4, 2023 at 5:24 PM

Reply to comment by kinovelo in NYC official says city is spending an estimated $10M a day on housing, feeding migrants by NYY657545

Those low cost living areas in the city have a waiting list of New Yorkers that need it. The shelters are full, they would have to move them out of the city to get low cost housing. It would be unfair to give a migrant the housing that was promised to our own citizens. That would just provide a huge divide between the people in the city. The cost of living in NY for housing keeps increasing, so much so that some of the “affordable housing” units being built apparently need a required salary of $75+. We have corruption all over the city when it comes to housing too. I saw a building labeled adoptable housing on the lottery that require $100,000 income in Queens. I question how someone that makes that much requires a building built by a program meant for needy NYers.

kinovelo t1_jawrlo1 wrote on March 4, 2023 at 5:51 PM

There’s a 300,000 square foot former university on 400 acres about 100 miles north in Dutchess county on the market for $16 million. There are hundreds of rooms there that could house migrants for a fraction of the cost of housing them on some of the most expensive land in the planet earth.

If they were able to work, there are also plenty of farms that could benefit from migrant labor up there.

Also, the more money you make, the more money you pay for “affordable housing.” Somebody who makes $100k would pay $2,500 in rent, whereas someone who makes $30k would pay $750. Let’s say market rate is $3k, so it’s losing $500 vs. losing $2,250.

Suspicious_Error_722 t1_jax34vc wrote on March 4, 2023 at 7:08 PM

As I said before, the housing would have to outside of the city. Considering most NYers need actual affordable housing. Someone making $100,000 can get normal housing. You don’t need to construct a building dedicated to that, it would have made sense as an actual “affordable housing” building that had units for multiple incomes like they did when the program started. Having a building that starts at $100,000 doesn’t make sense, someone with that income can afford housing.

kinovelo t1_jax56xh wrote on March 4, 2023 at 7:22 PM

Nobody would construct a building where they’d lose money because all of the tenants are low-income and only pay 25% of market rate. Getting $2,500 for a $3K apartment is likely sustainable (they’d more than break even on that); getting $750 likely is not. The developer would likely go bankrupt if all units cost that little.

Ultimately, we need to reduce market rates across the board, where profit margins for developers are lower, but the idea that people are entitled to “free stuff” just because of their income isn’t going to fix anything on a macro-level other than for a select few people that win a lottery.

Suspicious_Error_722 t1_jax7a4a wrote on March 4, 2023 at 7:37 PM

It is my understanding that the developers are benefiting from the program through a contract from the city. Not all of the apartments in these housing lotteries are the same price or are at decreased value. The apartments range from $36 - $75 or more. The point of the program is to provide affordable housing to people that need it. It has been sustainable because only a percentage are required to be affordable. However, making a building under the program that benefits from what should have been for people within the 45-80 bracket doesn’t make sense if it isn’t accessible to those people. People with those brackets aren’t considered low income and cannot benefit from any other program in the city. It is just corrupt for someone to use funds for a program meant for the sole purpose of providing housing options to people in the city that need it with rising costs of living. Especially when you consider rent is the larger bill anyone has on a monthly basis. Someone making $100,000 isn’t someone with a need. No one is saying they can’t make the building, just don’t use the affordable housing program to do it.

You won’t be able to control the market price, that’s why the affordable program exists. That was the entire purpose of it. Money is set aside for the program and why is it we can offer tax breaks to the rich or forgive banks but we can’t have a program that benefits the working class. You know the people that still pay taxes but struggle. It doesn’t make sense to me.