You may think Crown Heights is expensive, others see it as affordable

cool the kid

eastbloc said:

Why would poor people want to live in a neighborhood where the cost of living is going up?

Because anywhere else comparable in price to what they can afford will have a significant drop off in quality of life. ENY is further out and more dangerous than CH.

How might we "plan" around this? Price controls? Subsidies? To what end? Is there something inherently wrong with people having to adjust where they live according to socioeconomic realities that warrants such meddling?

Well for starters the mayor can stop pushing policies to turn NYC into a "luxury product". People can stop looking at these neighborhoods as "opportunities" and place some type of value on the people and businesses that are already there, as well as the long term interests of everyone in the city, rather than just the people who can afford $500K condos and million dollar brownstones.

Can the current demographic trends be legitimately framed as a reversal of the 'white flight' that was a response to the urban decay and turmoil wrought by the tumult of the late 60's? Is this 'white flight' phenomenon and the measure of homogenization it heralded seen as a negative by those who decry the current trends? By all accounts I've heard from long-time residents current and past, this was a more diverse and more integrated neighborhood before then.

The current diversity is temporary. If long term diversity, in color, socioeconomic standing, etc was the goal, current trends and sentiments definitely don't reflect that. Its a rouse.

I am not saying the changes are all bad or that the neighborhoods should not change at all. But there is an undercurrent of "Manifest Destiny" that I don't know that I'm comfortable with. Obviously at the end of the day money talks and people getting pushed out don't have any. But I'm still not comfortable with this whole thing. I feel like it could be handled more equitably for everybody.

whynot_31

CTK-

There seems to be a premise that allowing neighborhoods to rapidly change in response to demand (aka increasing money/power) serves the city.

I state this because the prior attempts to slow such changes (rent control and rent stabilization) are being allowed to expire and/or are poorly enforced.

Needless to say, this rapid change benefits people who seek greater tax revenue, increased real estate prices, and more spending on things like goods and services. The rapid change also benefits people who seek less spending on things like social services, education, police, etc.

Needless to say, the city hasn't formed consensus, but a decision seems to have been made....

Needless to say, NYC seems to be in a period where the gentrifications pressures are strong, as are fears of having an eroding tax base. As proponents of gentrification like to point out "Affordable housing has expenses beyond the housing, the cheapest thing to do is let the market work".

Note: My views are not as strong as those I quote above.

Related reading. Look at what is happening in Rockland, in response to similar pressures: http://www.lohud.com/article/20130414/NEWS03/304140076?source=nletter-top5

eastbloc

Cool The Kid said:

Because anywhere else comparable in price to what they can afford will have a significant drop off in quality of life. ENY is further out and more dangerous than CH.

You're missing the point. ENY is more dangerous because it is poor. When Crown Heights was poorer, it was also dangerous. Obviously, not all poor people are criminals. But demographically, a big part of the reason it is safer now is because there are fewer poor people around.

It's not because the 77th somehow became more competent at rooting out crime. People who are gainfully employed are less likely to go around robbing others. When ENY gets gentrified, there'll be less crime there, too. I'm not holding my breath.

Well for starters the mayor can stop pushing policies to turn NYC into a "luxury product". People can stop looking at these neighborhoods as "opportunities" and place some type of value on the people and businesses that are already there, as well as the long term interests of everyone in the city, rather than just the people who can afford $500K condos and million dollar brownstones.

Which of the mayor's policies do you believe are behind the change in Crown Heights?

The current diversity is temporary. If long term diversity, in color, socioeconomic standing, etc was the goal, current trends and sentiments definitely don't reflect that. Its a rouse.

I'm not sure how a government policy or city plan can influence socioeconomic diversity in a way that doesn't create more problems than it solves. How would you propose we go about it? Rent controls? Public housing? Racial quotas? Expropriation of the propertied classes?

I am not saying the changes are all bad or that the neighborhoods should not change at all. But there is an undercurrent of "Manifest Destiny" that I don't know that I'm comfortable with. Obviously at the end of the day money talks and people getting pushed out don't have any. But I'm still not comfortable with this whole thing. I feel like it could be handled more equitably for everybody.

I think that undercurrent of "Manifest Destiny" part is probably in your head.

I'm really not sure what it is that wasn't equitable, and for whom. You seem to be talking in broad generalities about some group versus some other group, as if this was like the Indians selling Manhattan for a bucket of beads to a bunch of Dutch traders.

There are thousands of parties involved. Tenants, landlords, buyers, sellers, all individuals with their own stories and situations. All neighborhoods are governed by economic trends which have countless factors. The demographics of this neighborhood have changed fundamentally numerous times already. It's a normal part of life in a free society.

Who is to say which is the "correct" community, people, and businesses for a particular place? And what would be the social interest in attempting to influence this one way or another, besides ensuring equal protections under the law?

homeowner

I'm not sure how a government policy or city plan can influence socioeconomic diversity in a way that doesn't create more problems than it solves. How would you propose we go about it? Rent controls? Public housing? Racial quotas? Expropriation of the propertied classes?

One simple way is to create housing for public sector employees. Affordable rentals for teachers, doctors, administrative city, state and federal government workers, etc. Creating that type of housing in various neighborhoods throughout the city would allow "islands of working class people" in a city which is quickly becoming home only to the wealthy and those that are supporting themselves with black market income.

The city of Albany used to provide any police officer (city or state) with housing in their public housing projects for $1 per month. If the mayor wanted to, he could do a lot. But, there are people who would claim that it's unfair to provide apartments for reasonable rents to people that are making less than $100,000 per year.

whynot_31

Homeowner wrote: Affordable rentals for teachers, doctors, administrative city, state and federal government workers, etc. Creating that type of housing in various neighborhoods throughout the city would allow "islands of working class people" in a city which is quickly becoming home only to the wealthy and those that are supporting themselves with black market income.

I think it will have to get much worse before such policies are enacted.

At present, government has a plethora of qualified applicants for any middle class position it posts. As long as that is the case, folks in power will see no need to create housing for this subset. Only when (and if) gov workers can't be hired will housing be created to keep such folks in the city.

I'm not a big enough optimist to think folks will do it to "merely" to benefit a neighborhood they hear is unpleasant on the news....

Until gov workers are in short supply, they will continue to be seen as a group of people which is willing to live in less than desirable neighborhoods, and be among the first waves of change:

The wave in which households headed by single mothers earning less than $30k a year and a lousy credit rating, are displaced by households headed by single mothers earning over $35k a year, with a credit rating.

When I last checked, this was happening as far out as Junius Street on the 3 train...

http://www.mta.info/nyct/service/threelin.htm

Hell, even NYCHA has a 7 year waiting list. Compared to what it once was, it is being gentrified.

whynot_31

Article re: affordable housing as a topic in the Mayoral race in today's WSJ:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324485004578425221691661176.html?mod=WSJ_NY_LEFTTopStories

homeowner

There are ways to make this type of housing work. Look at this project from San Fransisco

125 Mason Street, GLIDE Housing

Affordable housing at a cost of $32 million

whynot_31

Yes, the field refers to that type of housing as "workforce housing", in part because the name does not have as much stigma assigned to as affordbale housing, and in part because the housing is genuinely affordable (the meaning of "affordable" is no longer clear...).

Unlike pure Workforce or pure Affordable Housing, a lot of the new housing created for low and income folks is actually "mixed".

It is mixed in that some units are designated for the formerly homeless or persons with diabilities AND low income, while the rest are for folks who are merely low income. This is contrast to the "workforce" housing that you are designed, and is built because the subsidies for the special need populations help with capital costs.

http://shnny.org/funding/funding-guide/

Another way to mix the housing is to create it thru 80/20 programs.

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=80/20+housing+nyc&oq=80/20&gs_l=hp.1.2.0l4.0.0.1.313.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0...0.0...1c..9.psy-ab.RHWRgxe3EWY&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45175338,d.dmg&fp=b23d133df4d31f46&biw=1536&bih=706

Note: When successful, the housing is genuinely for the low income. This is in contrast to housing that claims to be affordable, but is actually beyond the means of large portions of the population.

vaportrail

In the industry, workforce housing typically refers income limits of 80% of AMI, 'low-income' is usually 50-60% of area median income (AMI) and 'very low-income' is 30% or limit. At the 60% limit, there are federal tax credits available. the 30% group is typically provided for and administered by Public Housing Authorities.

whynot_31

The 30% group is often people on public assistance or SSI/SSD.

cool the kid

eastbloc said:

You're missing the point. ENY is more dangerous because it is poor. When Crown Heights was poorer, it was also dangerous. Obviously, not all poor people are criminals. But demographically, a big part of the reason it is safer now is because there are fewer poor people around.

It's not because the 77th somehow became more competent at rooting out crime. People who are gainfully employed are less likely to go around robbing others. When ENY gets gentrified, there'll be less crime there, too. I'm not holding my breath.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I don't doubt or deny the link between poverty and crime (ask MHA). But you asked why people would want to stay in Crown Heights. The answer is because it is, and for decades always has been a better place to live than Brownsville/ENY. People don't move out of neighborhoods where rent is rising until it becomes affordable for them... but rising rents doesn't have to mean wholesale gentrification.

Which of the mayor's policies do you believe are behind the change in Crown Heights?

Where do we start? The Downtown Brooklyn plan? Stop and frisk? Bloomberg's 100+ rezonings? Bloomberg's own assertion that NYC is a "luxury product"? The push for the conversion of NYCHA facilities into private (and often luxury) residences (already started with the PJs down by Pike St in lower Manhattan)? The gutting of NYC's middle class during dude's triple tenure?

I get that NYC is a unique city, but there is no reason a family of 4 with an income of ~$50K should be living essentially in poverty here, with no path to owning property or building wealth. Thats a normal American family

I'm not sure how a government policy or city plan can influence socioeconomic diversity in a way that doesn't create more problems than it solves. How would you propose we go about it? Rent controls? Public housing? Racial quotas? Expropriation of the propertied classes?

Lets not get into this game of class warfare. That is not what I am about. The issue I am seeing is that the middle class in NYC is being gutted and gentrification is happening too quickly. You want some ideas... for starters, how about putting a cap on the number of permits that can be filed for "luxury" apartments? Seems like every new development to go up in the last decade was luxury- problematic in a place like CH, considering how rising rents are already pushing out the non-rich. If there are 8 million people in the city why only enable construction to cater to 1% of them?

I dont have a ton of ideas on how to fix the problem... the first stem to solving a problem is identifying it. Thats the phase I am in now with this.

I think that undercurrent of "Manifest Destiny" part is probably in your head.

I'm really not sure what it is that wasn't equitable, and for whom. You seem to be talking in broad generalities about some group versus some other group, as if this was like the Indians selling Manhattan for a bucket of beads to a bunch of Dutch traders.

There are thousands of parties involved. Tenants, landlords, buyers, sellers, all individuals with their own stories and situations. All neighborhoods are governed by economic trends which have countless factors. The demographics of this neighborhood have changed fundamentally numerous times already. It's a normal part of life in a free society.

Who is to say which is the "correct" community, people, and businesses for a particular place? And what would be the social interest in attempting to influence this one way or another, besides ensuring equal protections under the law?

Im not going for that bait either. I never said there was a "correct" anything for the neighborhood. I am just saying there has to be a balance. No thriving city has nothing but rich people. A "luxury city" is not sustainable, at least not on the scale of NYC. The people who pick up garbage, teach, operate the subways, drive cabs etc. need somewhere to live and are being pushed out. If the free market were to run unencumbered NYC would get to a point where the only people left would be the folks who can afford $3K/month rent and $1M condos. So I just think some kind of concerted effort has to be made to represent everyone's interests and plan for more than beefing up the tax base.

whynot_31

CTK-

I agree with what you wrote.

On the ground, however, this is a culmination of individual actions by individual people. For example, this post accurately describes the increase in sales price that a property owner receives when he is able to vacate his rent stabilized building (building is 8 units), and deliver it vacant to new buyer who can un-stabilize the building by putting in improvements.

http://bktothefullest.blogspot.com/2013/04/in-contract-in-west-bed-stuy-472-474.html#comment-form

You can blame Bloomberg if you want.

whynot_31

In case you are wondering just how far east in CH this is going, I give you this ad for a two family with new mechanicals for $589k.

http://www.corcoran.com/nyc/Listings/Display/2600778

It is at Schenectady and Park. The location blows my mind.

However, someone is going to buy this. ...perhaps just to live in, not to flip. Every other house in the area is worth a similar amount to a potential buyer. And, at these prices, the present owners will likely list those homes....