Coverage of CB9 chaos/entertainment/misery, Fall 2015.
Comments
-
I don't think blaming tenants in taking buyouts is fair. If you're low income, live in an apartment which has probably been neglected by the landlord, and have the opportunity to move somewhere else-- why would you stay?
There are so many players in the gentrification game, it's hard to solely blame any one party. Part of it is natural supply vs. demand, the other part is where the greedy landlords and developers take advantage of that to push the gentrification further and faster. -
yeah, i know a few people who took buyouts and ended up using it as a downpayment on owning a place, which is smart. you just have to A) hold out for enough money and
actually put it into ensuring a secure housing situation in your future (more secure than renting, anyway).the only way to preserve existing housing would be if there were more co-op conversions like there were in the 80's.... not that i know much about that process, but a few of the people in my co-op who own their units (this is in flatbush) took the opportunity back in the 80's to buy their apartments, and they're certainly not rich. they have nothing but excellent things to say about the changes in the neighborhood, probably because they know they're not going anywhere -
yeah, i know a few people who took buyouts and ended up using it as a downpayment on owning a place, which is smart. you just have to A) hold out for enough money and actually put it into ensuring a secure housing situation in your future (more secure than renting, anyway).the only way to preserve existing housing would be if there were more co-op conversions like there were in the 80's.... not that i know much about that process, but a few of the people in my co-op who own their units (this is in flatbush) took the opportunity back in the 80's to buy their apartments, and they're certainly not rich. they have nothing but excellent things to say about the changes in the neighborhood, probably because they know they're not going anywhere
-
@suppleknuckles
The majority of those coop conversions in the 1980s stemmed from situations in which HPD gained ownership of decrepit buildings from landlords, and then sold them to the buildings' residents because they were the highest (and occasionally ONLY) bidder.
Because the economy has changed, HPD does not end up in that role much anymore. -
NYT provided some context for the debate today: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/11/28/opinion/affordable-housing-vs-gentrification.html?ref=opinion&referer&_r=0
-
I always felt that the problem with affordable housing units in these new buildings is that they probably attracted those who are savvy young professionals, grad students or artists perhaps who are temporarily low income. They read about them, follow up, have Internet access, etc...
I was recently watching a city council meeting on tv about a Downtown Brooklyn development project and a councilwoman made a very good point I hadn't thought of. Many of the affordable units are studios and one bedrooms, so they do indeed intentionally end up attracting the types I mentioned, rather than low income families who really need it. The same individuals who are getting a one bedroom in one of these buildings could also just find a roommate like everyone else in their situation. Instead, they have the luxury of a one bedroom at the cost of a room because they fit the demographic the building wants to attract, and developers and the city get to check the box that affordable housing is made available.
Interestingly, while many of the representatives were very skeptical of the plans, only one thought of that point. I think advocating to provide more 2 bedroom units (or 3, though those are rare in NYC) for a family of 3 or more would help ease that problem and attract more diverse renters. -
As I said in a previous post, the best way to preserve the existing housing is for current tenants to stop taking buyouts.
I know of 3 pending buyout offers in my building. 2 of them are to longtime tenants already wanting to move; one to a home picked out in Long Island; the other to be near family out-of-state. Hard to blame them for taking some money when they are already planning to leave anyway.
-
one of the biggest needs for NYC are more affordable studios and one-bedrooms. I was reading an article about how something like 50 percent of the unhoused population are single adults (usually middle-aged and above) needed affordable 1-bedrooms/studios. Especially important for families that have doubled up!
-
Many of the subsidized studios are designated for the chronically homeless population, who are expensive in terms of shelter and (if we don't shelter or house them) the effects on business districts.
....we should also keep in mind that many of the tax credits and other programs merely require a % of the units to meet the regulations.
Hence, developers have an incentive to make the subsidized units be studios, because they provide the greatest bang per sq ft. -
I don't doubt at all that there are a large number of homeless individuals that need housing. I'm doubting that the developers of these luxury buildings are targeting those individuals, rather than targeting grad students who work at a coffee shop who currently make an income within the affordable housing range.
-
@Brooklyneya and @whynot -- In addition to homeless individuals, there are a ton of middle-aged professionals and working class people out there who just don't make a lot of money, would love to live on their own, and can't pay market rate. I'm thinking teachers/teachers aides, nurses/home health aides, non-profit workers, corporate secretaries, bus drivers, marketing assistants, social workers, etc. They need housing too.
-
I don't doubt at all that there are a large number of homeless individuals that need housing. I'm doubting that the developers of these luxury buildings are targeting those individuals, rather than targeting grad students who work at a coffee shop who currently make an income within the affordable housing range.
Housing developers of all varieties are interested in filling their units with those who are the "best" of those eligible.As you point out, there are people who qualify for the affordable units in 80/20 buildings that are more attractive tenants than others. The same can be said of the homeless population ....it is actually quite diverse, and regulatory agencies attempt robust supervision of the selection processes to minimize cherry picking.It supposed to be a "lottery" of all of those eligible. -
@crownheightster
This is a better conversation to have in person as there are many angles from which to address this issue, but--
From a policy perspective, if I were to consider long term economic and social effects of offering affordable housing, there seems to be a larger benefit to offering it to families who have a low income and come from a low income background. Their children will be raised under better circumstances, they will all live in safer, more secure conditions, and hopefully it will break the cycle for that family and future generations. Placing low income families in housing projects kind of perpetuates their problems, as that's all they're surrounded by, which will also means they are more likely to receive government support for generations.
For full disclosure, I am a public school guidance counselor (teachers salary), I live in my own one bedroom apt. in crown heights, and I'm doing fine. Though it would be nice, I don't feel entitled to a one bedroom in a luxury building. I would rather one my kids in my school who lives in the projects, in a rougher area, or in a rat infested apartment to get subsidized housing for their family in a better environment.
Ironically, the new guidance counselor in my school lives in a lottery won one bedroom apartment in the LES for half of what I pay. She applied to it after taking an over 100k buyout of her rent stabilized park slope apartment. Just a few months after she got it, she got this job and would not have qualified, yet gets to keep the place. She's the only staff member who buys designer bags. I'm not bashing her as a person (she's great), but pointing out the complexity of identifying who "needs" or is entitled to what kind of housing.
My larger point is-- there is a disconnect between the developers desire to check boxes and creating the social change that these programs intend (or have the potential) to. -
@Brooklyneya, I hear you. This is such an interesting conversation, and there are so many angles to address it from. What we really need is data about who is getting these affordable units in the 80/20 buildings. I would LOVE to get my hands on some kind of data that tells us what profile of person is getting the unit, and who is still there 5 years later and if/how their life circumstances have changed. That could tell us so much about how this program is working to house New Yorkers. What we know about the "good credit requirement" is pretty damning.One thing I always wonder about, too, is how the management companies that fill the affordable units determine if someone is a "community board member" and thus gets a preference for a unit. Like, are you supposed to have lived in the community board for a year? Two years? What if you get displaced b/c of rising rents after having lived in a neighborhood for 30 years? I would think that person has more of a right to get a preference notation on their application, more so than a grad student who moved to the same neighborhood a year ago.
-
The mayor now seems to realize his proposal has very little support:
-
Returning to those ped plazas:BrooklynAve said:As per streets blog: http://www.streetsblog.org/2015/11/16/this-week-sixth-ave-protected-bike-lane-empire-blvd-plazas/ Update: This meeting has been postponed until December 16. In Brooklyn, the CB 9 transportation committee will again take up a street reconstruction project that will add public space and make it safer to walk at two intersections on Empire Boulevard: at East New York Avenue, Remsen Avenue, and Utica Avenue; and at Franklin Avenue and Washington Avenue. From 2009 to 2013 there were 490 injuries at the two locations combined — an average of one injury every three days — including 29 serious injuries. The CB 9 transportation committee has supported the plan, but the full board tabled a vote when some board members and residents complained the redesign would interfere with their personal driving habits. Community board votes are supposed to be advisory, but DOT rarely moves forward with a safety project over a board’s objection. It’s crucial that CB 9 and DOT hear from people who want a safer Empire Boulevard.
DeBlasio is affirming that Community Boards are merely advisory, and he may not listen to them.
-
Great news!!!
-
It remains to be seen whether the attendees of CB9 will realize that the problem is NOT that CB9 members are not using their power.
...I doubt they will ever take the next step, which involves realizing that CB9 has very little power, even when functioning well.
-
I wonder how tonight's search committee meeting went. Regardless, I'm sure I'll find out some details from the meeting when I attend the next board meeting in about a week.
-
Here's a write up of the transportation committee:
The general board meets this week:
Date: December 22nd, 2015
Time: 7:00pm
Venue: Middle School 61
Address: 400 Empire Boulevard, Brooklyn, NY 11225
The advocates have been busy on the street: https://twitter.com/hashtag/SlowDownPLG?src=hash
-
Good article on Bloomberg.com about affordable housing and/or the lack of it focusing on Crown Heights and even quoting Alicia Boyd in it..
-
If I had written it, I would have explained how few tools the city has to keep housing affordable to the working class, and how (in light of market forces) NYC is going to continue to become a place that fewer working class people can afford.
I'm of the view that "they" need to consider their options, and that those options are decreasing over time...
-
Here's how the Dec 22nd mtg went:pheightsresident said:The meeting was primarily presentations from various groups. When DOT got up to make their presentation regarding proposed safety changes to a couple of intersections lining Empire Blvd. (apparently, they are still not going to move forward with projects unless the CB gives its input, meaning that the board(s) still have de facto veto authority), there was an uproar from AB and another community member who sits on the transportation committee. This was mainly due to the fact that the speakers/public comment list for this item was short and now closed, despite the fact that many in attendance did not know about the presentation as it wasn't on the agenda (apparently, it was a carryover from the last full board meeting).Apart from AB shouting down a few other people (including becoming fairly aggressive with this woman giving the smoke free housing presentation), there were actually moments of loud agreement between AB/MTOPP crowd and many of the orthodox community and board members on several issues, including opposition to the smoke free housing initiative (viewed by some as discriminatory and a potential avenue for landlords to evict poor tenants who, according to AB, smoke to deal with the "stress of being poor") and opposition to the safety improvements.
-
I was able to attend the beginning of the mtg, but had to leave before the DOT people spoke.
The smoke free presentation by Public Health Solutions struck me as weird. I think the advocates of smoke free housing are better off approaching individual landlords about writing it into their lease, as opposed to have the CB encourage same.
I suspect it is a way for Public Health Solutions (PHS) to demonstrate their efforts to the CBs. In Park Slope or the UWS, I imagine that the CBs would love being behind it and it good PR....
-
One of the ped/bike safety advocates that attended reported they did not vote on the islands:
"No vote. It was tabled after a community member raised a point of order. The board lost quorum in the middle of voting anyway."
https://twitter.com/DanielVonPLG/status/679668323559321600
....which just goes to show that this board is still far from functional.
-
In a large building I doubt the rule would be enforceable. I could see banning smoking in certain areas like the lobby or laundry room but in a private unit it would be tough. I can just imagine smoke sniffing landlords checking out each apartment.
-
Thanks for re-posting my comment to this thread!As to the safety issue, the chairman made it seem like there was never going to be a vote on the matter that night anyway; granted, he only stated such after the committee member raised a point of order (I'm not sure she was allowed to do that, but could be wrong). That struck me as odd as the DOT officials, based on their faces when departing the room, almost certainly were expecting a vote on the issue that night.I definitely lean against the smoke free housing issue, though I have no problem mandating that smoking not exist in units with children. While I am very much anti-smoking, I think that one should generally be allowed to smoke in one's home.
-
That concern was shared by many at the meeting, especially as the new rider would apply to present (smoking) residents.
PHS stated that rent stabilized apartments would not be affected, because the landlord can't really change the terms of their lease. It would only affect market rate units.
Despite pointing this out, AB continued to perceive this as a regulation that would disproportionately affect the poor, because they (in 2015) represent a disproportionate share of smokers.
I wanted to point out that in market rate units, the landlord does not need cause to not renew your lease. ....s/he doesn't have to go through the tedium of getting a rider added to the lease, they can just tell you verbally "Don't smoke anywhere in the building", and then simply not offer you a lease renewal if you (or your guests) disobey.
-
I thought the smoke free buildings initiative was being rolled out in NYCHA.
I think that all apartment buildings should be smoke free. Smoke gets everywhere, seeps through the walls and through the windows. I'm married to a dedicated smoker, so I don't say this lightly. -
NYCHA is considering a similar effort, but that was not the focus of the PHS pitch last night.
--> I'm with you, I would pay a premium to live in a building that prohibits smoking.
Being unable to ban it in rent stabilized buildings is unfortunate. It is already banned inside of buildings were NYC's poorest congregate: shelters, hospitals, jail, drug rehabs...
It makes me wonder whether it is banned in those places as a result of advocacy by the unionized/organized staff, rather than the residents.
(Stabilized apartments, after all, have very few staff)
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds