|
|
| Re: How the LIRR and Nassau PD Conspire Against Commuters (552216) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: How the LIRR and Nassau PD Conspire Against Commuters |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Fri Jan 11 21:50:33 2008, in response to Re: How the LIRR and Nassau PD Conspire Against Commuters, posted by RonInBayside on Fri Jan 11 21:32:41 2008. Actually, New York replaces its housing stock a lot faster than many other places do. Try visiting Philadelphia or Kansas City.I don't know what the numbers are for those cities, but New York has less housing stock today than it did 50 years ago, and in the early part of this decade, the housing stock was actually shrinking. Yes, rents in New York are high - because the populsatuon is increasing and thee is huge demand. That's why New York is rezoning some areas to increase density. Rents were high in this city when the population was shrinking, so your cause and effect is invalid. It was not until the introduction of rent control after WWII that rents ceased to drop proportionally with economic downturns. Which is why a requirement that a % of housing be dependent on documented income is important. It lets developers do what they want but still serves working class families. Not perfect, and certainly bears improvement, but it works. It doesn't work at all. My mom teaches a class about this, so I've learned a thing or two about setting aside housing for "poor people." The most common program is the 80/20 program. real estate developers get to build new developments with more housing units than what zoning allows. These extra units are dedicated to economically disadvantaged people for a certain number of years, and then the developers own a development with greater density than what they have been allowed to own. Considering that New York real estate is dominated by families who are in it for the long haul, it is a great deal for them. What about the benefit for poor people? 20% of the apartment units are reserved for low-income tenants earning no more than 50% of area median income. If that apartment is in an area where the median income in $150,000, than "poor people" who make up to $75,000 qualify. And the price of these units? They're subsidized all right. It is great when you don't have to pay $2,500/ month for a studio, and you can get it for half that (give or take a few hundred.) Working class families are not benefitting from where most 80/20 developments are built. Sure there are some that do. That goes back to my original contention that real benefit to those in need will never exceed an amount measured in basis points. What happens 30 years after an 80/20 is built? Higher density buildings dot the landscape that are larger than what was considered optimal for a high quality of life, so the quality of life will probably be negatively impacted in that neighborhood by buildings that no longer provide any benefit to people from a lower economic strata. Mixed housing is not sustainable, and it like all other government involvement in housing, the working class rarely sees any benefit. |
|
|
|