The Repurposing of the Armory at Bedford and UNION

mugofmead111 said:

Marco555 said:

Thinking logically and big picture probabaly doesn't make sense... the people who organize and vote in blocks want it to be all affordable and they have the most to gain if it goes that way. The others, like many of us on the forum it seems, aren't invested enough to organize loudly and proudly. We don't have the same incentive (like highly subsidized housing for life) to care enough to make a real impact in politicians lives. So politicians follow the real and promised votes. Even when they don't get what they want, they still get the votes. And that matters most to them.

What do you mean "highly subsidized housing"? Are you referring to rent-stabilization? I remember one of the officers from the community affairs division of the 71st Precinct had made a comment about that during a contentious Community Board 9 meeting; he got booed. Not everyone in "affordable housing" is receiving subsidies toward rent.

Thankfully, I'm not a politician I'm referring to proposal that all potential housing in the Armory should be below market rate. I don't know if that would technically be "Affordable" or "rent stabilized," and I'm not sure it matters for this conversation. Additionally, "Affordable housing" residents do receive housing subsidies that allow it to be "affordable." These might not be handed to them directly in the form of a voucher, but another entity (or entities) is paying part of their share.

Based on what I hear it seems the only thing that everyone would agree on is the Trader Joe's Apartment and Basketball Complex. Regular NYC apartments at Trader Joe's prices. Subsidized by their free lease on the property for their grocery store. I can picture the youth league's jerseys now...

Crazy articles. Anyway, @whynot_31, how does BFC get paid regardless of outcome?

Marco555 said:

mugofmead111 said:

Marco555 said:

Thinking logically and big picture probabaly doesn't make sense... the people who organize and vote in blocks want it to be all affordable and they have the most to gain if it goes that way. The others, like many of us on the forum it seems, aren't invested enough to organize loudly and proudly. We don't have the same incentive (like highly subsidized housing for life) to care enough to make a real impact in politicians lives. So politicians follow the real and promised votes. Even when they don't get what they want, they still get the votes. And that matters most to them.

What do you mean "highly subsidized housing"? Are you referring to rent-stabilization? I remember one of the officers from the community affairs division of the 71st Precinct had made a comment about that during a contentious Community Board 9 meeting; he got booed. Not everyone in "affordable housing" is receiving subsidies toward rent.

Thankfully, I'm not a politician I'm referring to proposal that all potential housing in the Armory should be below market rate. I don't know if that would technically be "Affordable" or "rent stabilized," and I'm not sure it matters for this conversation. Additionally, "Affordable housing" residents do receive housing subsidies that allow it to be "affordable." These might not be handed to them directly in the form of a voucher, but another entity (or entities) is paying part of their share.

Housing that is "rent-stabilized" would (theoretically) provide protections to tenants from rent-gouging, which would be a concern for those who are looking for "affordable housing". The term "affordable housing" seems too amorphous. re:

Rent stabilization generally covers buildings built after 1947 and before 1974, and apartments removed from rent control. It also covers buildings that receive J-51 and 421-a tax benefits. http://www.nyshcr.org/Rent/FactSheets/orafac1.pdf

It's easier to see how someone who is in a stabilized unit covered by J-51 and 421-a tax benefits may be benefitting from subsidizes, but what about a tenant who is in stabilized unit in a building built between 1947 and 1974? @whynot_31, I invite you to jump in.

mugofmead111 said:

It's easier to see how someone who is in a stabilized unit covered by J-51 and 421-a tax benefits may be benefitting from subsidizes, but what about a tenant who is in stabilized unit in a building built between 1947 and 1974?

I'm not sure I see how the building's age impacts the issue? So-called price gouging happens because the land or apartment becomes more valuable and the landlord realizes the market is willing to pay more money than whatever the rent-stabilized tenant is giving. Therefore, the rent stabilization for a building of any age is an artificial limit placed on the building or apartment which means (1) the rent-stabilized tenant is paying below market rate, or less than the building or apartment is worth (2) therefore their housing is subsidized in some way because they are not paying its true value. tax benefits for the building owner (as you cite above) are a common approach. Too many of these, however, and this area loses out on tax revenue that it needs or wants for other services or projects. If or when the area goes to the city, state or federal government for help, they receive money that must come from other entities or people... (3) These limits on housing distort the market in some way. In NYC and San Francisco, for example, it makes the housing that is available (only a fraction of actual housing) at market rate absurdly high.

@CH9 http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/603/290/570/

Not that the folks who are heading to CB9 tonight to "scream and yell" are reading this, but all the facts in this flier that relate to the armory are 100% untrue and (as much as I hate to use the term) fake news. Apologies for the huge paragraph -- no clue how to format on here. 1. Nobody is building luxury condos here. 2. There will be over 150 units of affordable housing. At last count per the Bedford Courts websites FAQ: 18 reserved for people making $31,068 for a family of 3 (i.e., 2 working age people) 49 reserved for people making $38,835 for a family of 3 99 reserved for people making $85,437 for a family of 3 While AMI is arguably a poor metric for determining what is actually affordable for a narrower area, the median income that people quote for Crown Heights is made artificially low by including people with 0 income who aren't in the workforce (i.e., not included in unemployment statistics) and retired people living on pensions or retirement income. The median income of people in the workforce is significantly higher than the $40k or so number that gets quoted (albeit significantly lower than citywide AMI). 3. Nobody is selling the armory to anyone under this plan. The project is structured as a long term lease that tie renewals of the lease to continued affordable rent for the residential units as well as the dramatically below market space for local organizations. 4. Cumbo is opposed to the project as it is currently constituted. 5. No clue whether the principals of BFC are Trumpkins and yeah we all hate him and people who support him but that surely shouldn't matter to whether this project is good or bad for the neighborhood. If it does I would hope DSA, the Black Institute and CHTU are all boycotting Coca-Cola, UPS, Wal-Mart, and Coors to name a few. I'm not at all affiliated with BFC, the City or the armory but am a local resident who is getting increasingly annoyed by the piles of misinformation that the opposition continues to put forth.

mcpoet said:

Let's be real. This project has been turned into a referendum on gentrification. How else do you explain a rallying cry of not improve, but rather, kill the deal? It also means that no matter how much you sweeten the deal or improve it they'll still be opposed because they've backed themselves into a position where anything other than a magical fantasy land where everyone gets spacious, affordable apartments in a well maintained building, with a rec center, and a lifetime supply of magical pixie dust will be insufficient. My money's on the armory sitting there collecting dust for the next couple decades. You can't reason with the unreasonable.

While finding a "spacious" unit may be a pipe dream, having a "well-maintained building" (at least within the confines of the law) is a reasonable expectation.

The issue of gentrification will remain a pink elephant in the room with just about any residential development in the area, whether or not one acknowledges it, and that's not unreasonable either.

whynot_31 said:

For those unfamiliar with just how much a union tradesman makes:

Thanks for the transparency.

Trading off market rent units for the usage of union labor seems fine to me.