Condo developers build separate entrances for lower income residents

[yung16]

but the entrance is part of the amenities.....

..........

 

[jordanxi45]

In 10-30 Years there will be no middle-class in America anymore.

It will be just rich and poor.

Capitalism has shown its already failed.

We're what? $18+ TRILLION in debt?

It's just a matter of time until that paper in your pocket is worth as much as the paper you write on.

smfh. I love this country and I don't think the people in charge even know how to fix this mess, or can you even fix it?..

 

[pdino]

From the NYC.gov Website, http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/zone/zh_inclu_housing.shtml

"The Inclusionary Housing Program (IHP) promotes economic integration in areas of the City undergoing substantial new residential development by offering an optional floor area bonus in exchange for the creation or preservation of affordable housing, on-site or off-site, principally for low-income households. IHP regulations are contained in PDF Document Section 23-90. Maps of designated areas are in PDF Document Appendix F of the Zoning Resolution.

The Inclusionary Housing Program requires a percentage of the dwelling units within a building to be set aside, or new or rehabilitated affordable units be provided off-site within the same community district or within one-half mile of the bonused development. All affordable residential units created through the Inclusionary Housing Program must remain permanently affordable. Affordable apartments may be rental units or, under modifications made to the program in 2009, available in an ownership plan."

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusionary_zoning

"Inclusionary zoning, also known as inclusionary housing, is an American term which refers to municipal and county planning ordinances that require a given share of new construction to be affordable by people with low to moderate incomes. The term inclusionary zoning indicates that these ordinances seek to counter exclusionary zoning practices, which aim to exclude low-cost housing from a municipality through the zoning code. In practice, these policies involve placing deed restrictions on 10%-30% of new houses or apartments in order to make the cost of the housing affordable to lower-income households. The mix of "affordable housing" and "market-rate" housing in the same neighborhood is seen as beneficial by political activists. Inclusionary zoning is a tool for local municipalities in the United States to allegedly help provide a wider range of housing options than a free market provides on its own. Many economists consider the program as a price control on a percentage of units, which negatively impacts the supply of housing.[1]"

The idea, supported by the gov't, has intent to end segregation of the socioeconomic classes, ironically, segregation is being claimed as it proceeds.

 

[yung16]

In 10-30 Years there will be no middle-class in America anymore.

It will be just rich and poor.

Capitalism has shown its already failed.

We're what? $18+ TRILLION in debt?

It's just a matter of time until that paper in your pocket is worth as much as the paper you write on.

smfh. I love this country and I don't think the people in charge even know how to fix this mess, or can you even fix it?..

word to everything you said except there is no middle class anymore. Its the elite and the rest of us.

 

[Chopper]

word to everything you said except there is no middle class anymore. Its the elite and the rest of us.

STAHP. Weren't you just talking about how saving money is of no concern for you, you can't wait to get one of your renters out of their lease, and you're pushing a Benz? 

Yet you're with "the rest of us"? There's absolutely still a middle class today. 

 

[trynafeelmink]

i can understand where you are coming from.  I do not believe in corporate or social welfare, in most scenarios.  I also think there are MAJOR issues with government and business in America being intertwined, and i can see your point that this is one of them; however, i get a lot more upset about the big ones like cable companies/net neutrality, financial institutions, etc.  But, then i think of the alternative of this situation, the developer does not get the tax incentives to do this so then the building is all expensive condos, where no lower income folks can rent.  Which situation would be worse, in your opinion?  The lower income folks not even having a shot at living on the UWS or what is happening now? 

In my truthful opinion it may actually be in the best overall interest for them to not even have this housing in an area like this if they are gonna go through all these lengths to segregate the two different classes.

I See your point, however the only reason they even agreed to these lower income apartments is so they can rack up more money and be allowed to use more space in the city and slowly start building more and more "Luxury" buildings that COMPLETELY price out the middle class. So what happens when they fill up the UWS they then start to move more and more uptown where their are still impoverished communities, and because they racked up all these tax breaks allowing them to save more & more money and use and acquire more and more land.

They are going to be building luxury condos in areas where 70-80% of the people are barely above the poverty line. This is where the huge problem comes in these developers are gaining the power to completely price out everyone who isn't rich out of NYC as a whole, it's happened in BK, it's happened in Queens, it's in the Early stages of the Bronx.

 

[pdino]

In my truthful opinion it may actually be in the best overall interest for them to not even have this housing in an area like this if they are gonna go through all these lengths to segregate the two different classes.

I See your point, however the only reason they even agreed to these lower income apartments is so they can rack up more money and be allowed to use more space in the city and slowly start building more and more "Luxury" buildings that COMPLETELY price out the middle class. So what happens when they fill up the UWS they then start to move more and more uptown where their are still impoverished communities, and because they racked up all these tax breaks allowing them to save more & more money and use and acquire more and more land.

They are going to be building luxury condos in areas where 70-80% of the people are barely above the poverty line. This is where the huge problem comes in these developers are gaining the power to completely price out everyone who isn't rich out of NYC as a whole, it's happened in BK, it's happened in Queens, it's in the Early stages of the Bronx.

^ 100 residents paying 10k/month = 1 million/ month

VS

50 residents paying 10k + (low income) 50 residents paying 1k = 550,000$/month

The tax breaks are made to allow the building owner to financially afford to house both low income and high income residents, not allow them to build an empire and take over NY. 

If there is no incentive, the building owner will not provide affordable housing for the low income out of the goodness of their hearts, because they will lose money.

 

[yung16]

STAHP. Weren't you just talking about how saving money is of no concern for you, you can't wait to get one of your renters out of their lease, and you're pushing a Benz? 

Yet you're with "the rest of us"? There's absolutely still a middle class today. 

Yes that renter who makes over 100k a year is trouble to the neighbors he's always drunk cursing out his wife and always threatens to beat her. He needs to go. What's wrong with that? I'm confused about that part. Also, yes I drive a Mercedes again that does not put me in a better class than anyone. I am still considered the rest of them. And I didn't mean saving money is not a concern of mines but if I had a choice to save some money and walk through the poor door I wouldn't do it. So again there is no middle class. My wife and I make well over 6 figured combined income and still don't afford any of the luxuries the elite have. There is a girl right now in a Tribeca loft her daddy pays for snorting coke that would be offended if you were to offer her my life.

 

[plansb]

Yes that renter who makes over 100k a year is trouble to the neighbors he's always drunk cursing out his wife and always threatens to beat her. He needs to go. What's wrong with that? I'm confused about that part. Also, yes I drive a Mercedes again that does not put me in a better class than anyone. I am still considered the rest of them. And I didn't mean saving money is not a concern of mines but if I had a choice to save some money and walk through the poor door I wouldn't do it. So again there is no middle class. My wife and I make well over 6 figured combined income and still don't afford any of the luxuries the elite have. There is a girl right now in a Tribeca loft her daddy pays for snorting coke that would be offended if you were to offer her my life.

I have news for you: if you have a "well over six figure" household income, you are middle class. Thats what the middle class is...

 

[yung16]

I have news for you: if you have a "well over six figure" household income, you are middle class. Thats what the middle class is...

But yet I'm still looked at as low income to those who make more than me. So what's high class?

 

[plansb]

This thread has derailed though. The bottom line is that this situation isn't really a big deal at all, and it's more than likely a good thing, not a bad thing like these "class war" hawks want to believe.

 

[heliumclinton]

This thread has derailed though. The bottom line is that this situation isn't really a big deal at all, and it's more than likely a good thing, not a bad thing like these "class war" hawks want to believe.

Word so these rich people didn't use poor people to find a way to get approved for more space in their building while being able to keep the two separate? Class war hawk, right.

 

[plansb]

Word so these rich people didn't use poor people to find a way to get approved for more space in their building while being able to keep the two separate? Class war hawk, right.

read pdino 's post above.

 

[plansb]

But yet I'm still looked at as low income to those who make more than me. So what's high class?

a simple Google search can provide you with this article: http://money.usnews.com/money/perso...ou-fall-in-the-american-economic-class-system, the answer to your question is in thete. It's a little old but it's most likely not too far off from today's numbers.

 

[heliumclinton]

Word so these rich people didn't use poor people to find a way to get approved for more space in their building while being able to keep the two separate? Class war hawk, right.

read pdino 's post above.

This post?

"Extell's proposalwas approved under the cities inclusionary housing program, which allows developers to use more square footage than they'd ordinarily be allowed to -- provided they set aside some units in their building for affordable housing. For doing so, developers also receive millions in tax breaks.


What the ordinance means is that developers CAN build larger properties if they include affordable housing as part of the project. Seems perfectly reasonable to me since many who live in New York work for little more than minimum wage and developers NEED an incentive to build ANY housing that is affordable since the profit margins on such properties are MUCH lower.

Talking about developers need incentive like the city came to developer and ask them to build these apartments for low income tenants. No the developers needed a loophole so they get everything they want while using low income people to do it

 

[plansb]

This post?
Talking about developers need incentive like the city came to developer and ask them to build these apartments for low income tenants. No the developers needed a loophole so they get everything they want while using low income people to do it

no. Not that one. This one:

 


^ 100 residents paying 10k/month = 1 million/ month
VS
50 residents paying 10k + (low income) 50 residents paying 1k = 550,000$/month

The tax breaks are made to allow the building owner to financially afford to house both low income and high income residents, not allow them to build an empire and take over NY. 

If there is no incentive, the building owner will not provide affordable housing for the low income out of the goodness of their hearts, because they will lose money.

 

[trynafeelmink]

no. Not that one. This one:

One i didn't really fact check where he got that information from but just under the idea that luxury Building owners developers are into the business of making profit... &adding the fact that the city gives them extra space in a trade for a portion of lower income housing.

Why would you think that their numbers would be the same without that extra square footage... i'm not sure how much extra is given but without that extra they wouldn't be able to house 100 tenants and im sure that also effects the amount of amenities that can be built and also the size of the apartments by a vast portion.

So if they didn't take the deal and decided to not build affordable income inside, they're is a big chance that the building can't be completed in it's totality.... less amenities, less parking space, smaller number of apartments, smaller size of apartments.... i mean less square footage, less space to build correct?

So if the building has to take a hit on parking areas, gyms, courts, total size of the apartments then that luxury building would take quite the hit in their luxuries correct? mening that they would take a significant hit in profits and tenants..........

also from the article a few pages back it clearly states

"Luxury builders get credits to use up more square footage than they normally could by promising to build affordable units as well. Those developers can then sell the credits to cover the costs of building the low-income housing."

So essentially developers get these credits to build larger luxury Condos to their liking & use the remaining space to build the "affordable housing" units all while not even having to cover construction cost.

So to sum this up developers
1) Pay their own money to build a luxury condo
2) the city gives them credits to expand the territory
3) they use those credits as a mean to gain more square footage for the overall luxury apartments and use the rest to fully complete the "affordable housing"

So i ask where is their loss on this.
3) They expand the territory either way

 

[pdino]

"Luxury builders get credits to use up more square footage than they normally could by promising to build affordable units as well. Those developers can then sell the credits to cover the costs of building the low-income housing."

So essentially developers get these credits to build larger luxury Condos to their liking & use the remaining space to build the "affordable housing" units all while not even having to cover construction cost.

So to sum this up developers
1) Pay their own money to build a luxury condo
2) the city gives them credits to expand the territory
3) they use those credits as a mean to gain more square footage for the overall luxury apartments and use the rest to fully complete the "affordable housing"

So i ask where is their loss on this.
3) They expand the territory either way

"In areas where the Inclusionary Housing Program is applicable, a zoning bonus allows increased floor area for multiple dwelling developments in return for the new construction, substantial rehabilitation, or preservation of permanently affordable housing.  The Program is designed to preserve and promote affordable housing within neighborhoods where zoning has been modified to encourage new development."

The idea is that the rich are hogging the rich/developing areas, becoming richer. This is trying to prevent that, while making it permanently affordable for the low income, thus de-segregating the socioeconomic classes.

Here are the ratios:

R10
2.0 square feet of bonus for 1 square foot of privately-financed preservation affordable housing. (for every 1 square foot you PRIVATELY finance in to affordable housing, you get 2 feet for your whatever apartments you want)
3.5 square feet of bonus for 1 square foot of privately-financed substantial rehabilitation or new construction affordable housing. (For every 1 foot you PRIVATELY FINANCE TO SUBSTANTIALLY REHABILITATE, or NEWLY CONSTRUCT affordable housing, you get 3.5 square feet of bonus for whatever apartments you desire)
1.25 square feet of bonus for 1 square foot of publically-financed preservation, substantial rehabilitation or new construction affordable housing.

"The Inclusionary Housing homeownership option fosters the creation of permanently affordable homeownership in neighborhoods across the city where the Inclusionary Housing Program applies through new construction, substantial rehabilitation and/or preservation.  The components of the affordable homeownership option include the following:

Restricted sales price of the units will be allowed to increase annually by an established appreciation rate; however 
Each unit will be capped at a maximum price to preserve affordability over time."

Govt Program to building owners: "You build/rehabilitate these buildings  out of YOUR POCKET for our low-income tenants, we will give you a space bonus to build for whichever residents you want"

Is your issue with the gov't program or the building owner?

 

[pdino]

 

[heliumclinton]

Is your issue with the gov't program or the building owner?

The developers needed a loophole so they get everything they want while using low income people to do it

 

[thunderchunk69]

These articles are only telling half the story and play on how knee-jerk some of you libtards are

The luxury building is a condo, the affordable building is a rental, these never share entrances, luxury or not. 

Part of the deal with affordable housing does not include providing residents with million dollar river views, doorman and concierge. Perhaps if you want those amenities, pay for it like everyone else has to.

basically this.
except the Libtard tone, lol

I hate how the internet is full of people pretending to be upset over knee-jerk headlines.

this happens everywhere... they build planned communities MONTHLY where the bigger houses are in gated communities, on different blocks from the rest of the homes.

You might not like it, but we live in a Capitalist economy. This comes with it.

 

[ravagebx]

[h1]NYC LAWMAKERS VOW TO BAN 'POOR DOORS' IN LUXURY BUILDINGS[/h1]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/30/nyc-poor-door-ban-luxury_n_5633847.html
[h1]  [/h1]

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

[h1]NYC Lawmakers Vow To Ban 'Poor Doors' In Luxury Buildings[/h1]
The Huffington Post  | By Inae Oh

• Email
•  
•  

Posted: 07/30/2014 12:33 pm EDT Updated: 56 minutes ago
Print Article

• 
  javscript:void(0)
• Share428
• 
  Tweet49
• 0
• 
  Email15
• 
  Comment35

• 
•  
•  
•  

New York City officials are vowing to reverse a law  allowing luxury developers to install two separate entrances in new residential towers -- one for residents paying at market rate and another for low-income residents who qualify for affordable housing.

Such buildings include affordable housing units so that developers can receive tax credits.

“The two-door system, or creating a poor-door system as some media have coined it, is an affront to New Yorkers' belief in fairness and diversity,” Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer said at a recent press conference.  “Creating a two-tier system in a development that is receiving tax benefits is offensive.”

The outrage stems from news last week that the city approved a controversial dual entrance at 40 Riverside Boulevard,  where developers have already begun constructing a luxury condo in which low-income residents will be segregated from wealthier residents. Those who will live in the lower-income part of the building will be prohibited from using amenities including a gym and swimming pool.

Extell, the developer behind the Riverside Boulevard project, has since defended the housing design.

"Would you rather not have the affordable housing? Ask any one of the thousands of people who are applying for that, and they don't give a damn," Extell president Gary Barnett told NPR.  "They want to have a beautiful apartment, in a beautiful neighborhood, and you know, at a super price."

The poor door practice, which is technically permitted due to zoning codes created to spur more affordable housing units under former Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I), is common throughout buildings across the city.

Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) was quick to put blame on his predecessor for the loophole, even though he voted for the measure in 2009 when he was a city council member.

Lawmakers including Councilman Mark Levine  are now drafting legislation to close the loophole in the city's Inclusionary Housing Zoning system.

"It's outrageous that we give huge tax credits to developers for including affordable apartments in their buildings only to allow them to turn around and segregate entrances or block access to amenities for low-income tenants," Levine said. "I am profoundly disappointed that the developer of 40 Riverside has exploited this loophole in creating a ‘poor door’ in its building. We must do everything we can to end this discriminatory practice immediately.”

Cvil rights groups are also working to end the practice, which they say inherently discriminates against minorities who make up a large portion of residents qualifying for affordable housing.

A New York University study cited in the Times noted in 2011, 73.4 percent of market-rate  residents were white. Seventy-seven percent of owners were also white.

A petition demanding change was also launched.

“Our goal is to continue to fight, to do what we need to do and make it right,” Elzora Cleveland, who started the petition, explained. “It’s just not right, it’s not right.”

"“Creating a two-tier system in a development that is receiving tax benefits is offensive.”