Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Daily News)   Developers have forgotten to include all the affordable apartments NYC required as a condition to get a subway extension to their new development? Shut up   (nydailynews.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, Hudson Yards, Manhattan, berg administration, Lincoln Tunnel, business districts, indoor pool, Larry Silverstein, housing units  
•       •       •

3766 clicks; posted to Business » on 08 May 2013 at 10:20 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



96 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-08 08:45:24 AM  
So the cheap (relatively) apartments are shiattier... what exactly were they expecting?
 
2013-05-08 08:46:48 AM  
Force developers to rent nice apartments for an artificially low price.
 
2013-05-08 09:07:02 AM  
How about requiring developers to build true middle class apartments, 3-4 bedrooms, for families making in the $100-150k range -- way too rich for public housing, but too poor to stay in many sections of NYC (excluding the outer outer boroughs which can have a longer commute than from many suburbs). We would have loved to stay in the city once we had children, but the suburbs offered much better value (even with increased commuting costs and higher property taxes).
 
2013-05-08 09:31:21 AM  

damageddude: $100-150k range


That's not middle class.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-05-08 09:51:41 AM  
Did the agreement call for identical rich and poor people units? Did the agreement require an "affordable" quota at each stage of the project?

If so, revoke the certificate of occupancy until the project is in compliance. It not, the city negotiated a bad deal and now has to quit whining about its mistake.
 
2013-05-08 09:53:06 AM  

doglover: damageddude: $100-150k range

That's not middle class.


A family make $100 - $150K is absolutely middle class.  It ain't rich for certain.
 
2013-05-08 09:53:47 AM  

doglover: damageddude: $100-150k range

That's not middle class.


It is if you're living in Manhattan.
 
2013-05-08 09:59:58 AM  

ThatGuyGreg: doglover: damageddude: $100-150k range

That's not middle class.

It is if you're living in Manhattan.


It is everywhere in the country.  It's upper middle, but still middle.  You'll still have a mortgage, worry about paying for college, need medical insurance, fly coach, etc.  You get to take nicer vacations, live in a nicer house, and some money for emergencies.
 
2013-05-08 10:00:26 AM  

doglover: damageddude: $100-150k range

That's not middle class.


You're poor, bru. Get over it.
 
2013-05-08 10:09:07 AM  

doglover: Force developers to rent nice apartments for an artificially low price.


Problem solved, lesson learned by developers of the future about false intentions.
 
2013-05-08 10:34:35 AM  

doglover: damageddude: $100-150k range

That's not middle class.


Average household income in NYC is $75,809.

Just to clear things up with some facts. I don't know what the standard deviation is, but calling that range "upper-middle class" is not too big a stretch.
 
2013-05-08 10:42:12 AM  

doglover: damageddude: $100-150k range

That's not middle class.


Many people like to believe that you are one of three classes in America, the poverty class, the middle class, or the wealthy class.  The truth of the matter is that we have the poverty class, the working poor class, the working class, the middle class, and the wealthy class.

100-150k is middle class in the population centers of the US.  And it is upper middle class in non population centers.  If you are making less than that, you aren't middle class, you are at best working class.  Obviously there isn't some dollar amount that distinctly separates classes, but if you are making 50k in a population center, you are not middle class, even if you are single.
 
2013-05-08 10:43:30 AM  

doglover: damageddude: $100-150k range

That's not middle class.


two people making $50K a year?  Yeah it is.
 
2013-05-08 11:00:57 AM  

ZAZ: Did the agreement call for identical rich and poor people units? Did the agreement require an "affordable" quota at each stage of the project?

If so, revoke the certificate of occupancy until the project is in compliance. It not, the city negotiated a bad deal and now has to quit whining about its mistake.


the problem is the lack of affordable units, not the quality of the units.

NYC wont do shiat about this. Bloomberg is a major proponent of outsourcing government to contractors, but there is little oversight. All the city does is send a strongly worded letter threatening to not renew the involved contracts.
 
2013-05-08 11:02:32 AM  

EvilEgg: A family make $100 - $150K is absolutely middle class. It ain't rich for certain.


It's way more than many make for sure. But the fact of the matter is people who make that much and have kids and a mortgage could find them selves on the street inside a couple years if someone loses a job or gets sick. That's middle class enough for me.
 
2013-05-08 11:08:45 AM  
I didn't know they had subways. I thought that was coming in patch 4.0!
 
2013-05-08 11:11:14 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Average household income in NYC is $75,809.

Just to clear things up with some facts. I don't know what the standard deviation is, but calling that range "upper-middle class" is not too big a stretch.


In pretty much any discussion of class in America, "middle class" is most commonly defined as "55th to 85th percentile". Which probably does include that number in NYC. 85th to 95th will accept "upper middle class". This is the most common meaning of "middle class", unless you're specifically trying to enlist people in the 30th percentile to support policies which mostly benefit the top-10%.  In which case, 'middle class' is broadened a bit so you can say "see, 30th percentile... you're just like the 80th percentile guy, and he gets a slight benefit from eliminating capital gains taxes, so vote for me".

"Poor" is maybe 15th percentile and down.  15th to 55th percentile are... well... pretty largely undiscussed politically.  They don't vote, but they aren't so poor as to be high-crime-rate or dying in the street.
 
2013-05-08 11:13:27 AM  

damageddude: How about requiring developers to build true middle class apartments, 3-4 bedrooms, for families making in the $100-150k range -- way too rich for public housing, but too poor to stay in many sections of NYC (excluding the outer outer boroughs which can have a longer commute than from many suburbs). We would have loved to stay in the city once we had children, but the suburbs offered much better value (even with increased commuting costs and higher property taxes).


How 'bout just move to a city where there is actual space to build an apartment building with 3 to 4 bedroom apartments?
 
2013-05-08 11:17:45 AM  

gingerjet: How 'bout just move to a city where there is actual space to build an apartment building with 3 to 4 bedroom apartments?


But then you are not a New Yorker!
 
2013-05-08 11:30:26 AM  

ZAZ: Did the agreement call for identical rich and poor people units? Did the agreement require an "affordable" quota at each stage of the project?

If so, revoke the certificate of occupancy until the project is in compliance. It not, the city negotiated a bad deal and now has to quit whining about its mistake.


the city got a project it didn't want because bloomberg overruled them to give away the farm

ftfa: The Bloomberg administration approved the Silverstein project despite unanimous opposition from Manhattan Community Board 4, which several years ago blasted the "separate and unequal housing" that had "the look and feel [of] the maids' quarters for the rest of the project."
 
2013-05-08 11:34:13 AM  

dlp211: And it is upper middle class in non population centers. If you are making less than that, you aren't middle class, you are at best working class.


Someone post that WSJ picture with the "poor" people trying to make ends meet on $90K+... I'd do it, but I'm at work.
 
2013-05-08 11:36:40 AM  

Lawnchair: In pretty much any discussion of class in America, "middle class" is most commonly defined as "55th to 85th percentile". Which probably does include that number in NYC. 85th to 95th will accept "upper middle class". This is the most common meaning of "middle class", unless you're specifically trying to enlist people in the 30th percentile to support policies which mostly benefit the top-10%.  In which case, 'middle class' is broadened a bit so you can say "see, 30th percentile... you're just like the 80th percentile guy, and he gets a slight benefit from eliminating capital gains taxes, so vote for me".

"Poor" is maybe 15th percentile and down.  15th to 55th percentile are... well... pretty largely undiscussed politically.  They don't vote, but they aren't so poor as to be high-crime-rate or dying in the street.


Thanks for this.  Seriously.  All through the most recent elections, politicians were constantly talking about the "poor," the "middle class," and "the wealthy." and I honestly didn't know where I fit.

Especially the middle class.  All through those discussions and debates, I was trying to get a good picture of who it was they were talking about when they talked about "the middle class."  I suspect that they were talking about different ranges of people depending on which side of the isle they were on.  Obviously, they were both careful not to define who they were talking about because they didn't want to exclude anybody.

/They did pretty much define "wealthy" as people earning over $400k/yr, so there's that.
 
2013-05-08 11:37:32 AM  

ZAZ: Did the agreement call for identical rich and poor people units? Did the agreement require an "affordable" quota at each stage of the project?

If so, revoke the certificate of occupancy until the project is in compliance. It not, the city negotiated a bad deal and now has to quit whining about its mistake.


this is right...there is no negotiating with these guys, fines are not adequate and will not relieve the issue.
 
2013-05-08 11:38:54 AM  

doglover: That's not middle class.


It is in the NYC area. Try buying a 3 BR/2Ba co-op (or renting the same) on that salary in Manhattan. By time you can find a place in the 5 boroughs (assuming you have kids) you are pretty far out.
 
2013-05-08 11:45:40 AM  

Parkanzky: I suspect that they were talking about different ranges of people depending on which side of the isle they were on


Aisle. From the space left in between the two parties in congress.
 
2013-05-08 11:50:27 AM  
Not sure if the program is still active, but there used to be something called  Mitchell-Lama Housing where developers built both rental and co-operatively owned, for middle-income residents for tax abatements, low-interest mortgages, subsidized by the government and a guaranteed return on investment each year. The government would get them the land through eminent domain. As Hudson Yards is new found land (built on a platform over Amtrak/LIRR/NJT rail-yards AND the city built them a billion dollar subway extension (or whatever it cost to extend the 7) to increase the value of their new buildings, I don't think several thousand low income and middle class apartments under a new Mitchell-Lama plan is unreasonable, much less the affordable apartments they already agreed to.
 
2013-05-08 11:51:59 AM  
 
2013-05-08 11:55:44 AM  

dlp211: doglover: damageddude: $100-150k range

That's not middle class.

Many people like to believe that you are one of three classes in America, the poverty class, the middle class, or the wealthy class.  The truth of the matter is that we have the poverty class, the working poor class, the working class, the middle class, and the wealthy class.

100-150k is middle class in the population centers of the US.  And it is upper middle class in non population centers.  If you are making less than that, you aren't middle class, you are at best working class.  Obviously there isn't some dollar amount that distinctly separates classes, but if you are making 50k in a population center, you are not middle class, even if you are single.


In 2009, the highest income quintile in NYC started at $110,000, so $100-150k annual salary would give you a higher salary than at least 75% of NYC households.  You could probably argue for $100k as middle class, but $150k is definitely not, unless of course you're comparing yourself to people making $1 million/year.

It's also important to note that not all incomes are inflated in population centers.  For example, the median income in NYC is almost identical to the median income in Omaha, NE, despite the cost of living being almost double.  So while the upper and upper-middle class do just fine in NYC, the true middle class are getting hosed.
 
2013-05-08 11:58:28 AM  

damageddude: How about requiring developers to build true middle class apartments, 3-4 bedrooms, for families making in the $100-150k range -- way too rich for public housing, but too poor to stay in many sections of NYC (excluding the outer outer boroughs which can have a longer commute than from many suburbs). We would have loved to stay in the city once we had children, but the suburbs offered much better value (even with increased commuting costs and higher property taxes).


No, Bloomberg seems pretty committed to driving all but the richest out of NYC.  Even "affordable" housing like Stuy Town has been under attack in the last few years, and they've been poking at demolishing the rest of the city's public housing and using the money from the land sales to "resettle" residents elsewhere.
 
2013-05-08 12:06:16 PM  

damageddude: doglover: That's not middle class.

It is in the NYC area. Try buying a 3 BR/2Ba co-op (or renting the same) on that salary in Manhattan. By time you can find a place in the 5 boroughs (assuming you have kids) you are pretty far out.


When you have kids, you move to Jersey/Westchester/LI.  Which is where the majority of people in the New York Metro Area live.  Not New York.
 
2013-05-08 12:10:07 PM  
Doesn't surprise me.

Experience is finally teaching me that developers have no real desire to help lower class citizens.  There's no money in it; unless there is heavy backing from the government (local, state, and/or federal).

Calling it lip service is an insult to actual providers of lip service.

//Seems the general rules are "Put it where the poors are, they can't fight back." and "Make 'affordable housing' so bad no one will actually want to live there".
 
2013-05-08 12:22:38 PM  

Lawnchair: When you have kids, you move to Jersey/Westchester/LI. Which is where the majority of people in the New York Metro Area live. Not New York.


You're not really going to be able to raise kids in the greater NYC area on $150K.  Hell, houses in shiatty parts of North Jersey are $500K.  And you're going to pay NJ RE taxes on top of that.
 
2013-05-08 12:24:22 PM  
There are two classes: the capitalist class and the proletariat. In order to sow division among the proletariat, the capitalists tell us there is also the petit bourgeois. Be a good little prole, and you may get a pat on the head and the right to call yourself better than your fellows. The fact that's enough for you peasants speaks volumes about whether or not you are ready to be lifted out of the mud and allowed to participate in a truly free society.
 
2013-05-08 12:33:06 PM  

rumpelstiltskin: There are two classes: the capitalist class and the proletariat. In order to sow division among the proletariat, the capitalists tell us there is also the petit bourgeois. Be a good little prole, and you may get a pat on the head and the right to call yourself better than your fellows. The fact that's enough for you peasants speaks volumes about whether or not you are ready to be lifted out of the mud and allowed to participate in a truly free society.


Dumbest gloss on Marxist I've seen since I left school.
 
2013-05-08 12:44:50 PM  
What a farking scam this is. Government gives gifts to developers to give gifts to selected individuals.

How about we farking stop wasting taxpayer money on subsidies to developers and landlords and let them build market rent apartments. Let the market decide what kind of apartments are built and what is charged. Then use the savings to give housing subsidies directly to poor people if you absolutely need to. If you can't afford to live in the style you want in manhattan, move the fark out.
 
2013-05-08 12:45:09 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: Lawnchair: When you have kids, you move to Jersey/Westchester/LI. Which is where the majority of people in the New York Metro Area live. Not New York.

You're not really going to be able to raise kids in the greater NYC area on $150K.  Hell, houses in shiatty parts of North Jersey are $500K.  And you're going to pay NJ RE taxes on top of that.


They are?  (Kearny's the town my dad grew up in and I own part of a ~$200k house in... it's not *that* bad, really).  Now, the RE taxes, that I can't deny you.  The uncle who lives in that paid-off ~$200k house pays in RE tax alone about what I pay for mortgage, tax, and insurance altogether in Kansas City.  That said, lots and lots of people are managing to raise kids in that area on way less than $100k and not starving, either.
 
2013-05-08 12:49:33 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: Lawnchair: When you have kids, you move to Jersey/Westchester/LI. Which is where the majority of people in the New York Metro Area live. Not New York.

You're not really going to be able to raise kids in the greater NYC area on $150K.  Hell, houses in shiatty parts of North Jersey are $500K.  And you're going to pay NJ RE taxes on top of that.


All that said, NJ would probably get more of the exodus/gentrification if trans-Hudson transportation could improve past the 1930s.  Gov. LapBand had some fair complaints about the way things were going on the federally-supported plan, but he sure isn't moving things forward in any other direction, either.
 
2013-05-08 12:59:03 PM  

damageddude: How about requiring developers to build true middle class apartments, 3-4 bedrooms, for families making in the $100-150k range -- way too rich for public housing, but too poor to stay in many sections of NYC (excluding the outer outer boroughs which can have a longer commute than from many suburbs). We would have loved to stay in the city once we had children, but the suburbs offered much better value (even with increased commuting costs and higher property taxes).


Yeah, that's called Queens and the Bronx. I live in Sunnyside. Affordable, safe, decent schools, 10 min to Grand Central. But of course most "Manhattanites" (I say that term loosely since most are not actual NYers but displaced Midwesterners) wouldn't DREAM of moving to Queens.

And btw, there IS middle income housing in NYC - my husband and I applied to it through a lottery a few years ago. I believe the max for a family of 4 is up to like $175k or something.
 
2013-05-08 01:01:59 PM  

rugman11: In 2009, the highest income quintile in NYC started at $110,000, so $100-150k annual salary would give you a higher salary than at least 75% of NYC households. You could probably argue for $100k as middle class, but $150k is definitely not, unless of course you're comparing yourself to people making $1 million/year.


I would argue that that makes $100-$150k solidly middle class. What percentage of people would you call "rich"?
 
2013-05-08 01:10:45 PM  

damageddude: Not sure if the program is still active, but there used to be something called  Mitchell-Lama Housing where developers built both rental and co-operatively owned, for middle-income residents for tax abatements, low-interest mortgages, subsidized by the government and a guaranteed return on investment each year. The government would get them the land through eminent domain. As Hudson Yards is new found land (built on a platform over Amtrak/LIRR/NJT rail-yards AND the city built them a billion dollar subway extension (or whatever it cost to extend the 7) to increase the value of their new buildings, I don't think several thousand low income and middle class apartments under a new Mitchell-Lama plan is unreasonable, much less the affordable apartments they already agreed to.


no new Mitchell-Lama co-ops have been built in at least 20 years.

despite touting an ownership society, Guliani & Bloomberg have no interest in letting poor people buy a stake in revitalizing their own neighborhoods. its easier to clear out undesirable renters than owners.
 
2013-05-08 01:11:01 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: Lawnchair: When you have kids, you move to Jersey/Westchester/LI. Which is where the majority of people in the New York Metro Area live. Not New York.

You're not really going to be able to raise kids in the greater NYC area on $150K.  Hell, houses in shiatty parts of North Jersey are $500K.  And you're going to pay NJ RE taxes on top of that.


Um, no. Just about all of my friends live in quite nice bedroom communities with good schools and paid under $400k. Are they living in mansions? No. But they are the quintessential "nice" suburban areas. Yes, taxes are a biatch. But you can afford a nice middle/upper middle class existence within an hour's commute on under $150k.
 
2013-05-08 01:16:31 PM  
Bloomjew will do anything his developer buddies request. I'm shocked he hasn't tried to sell off Gracie Mansion yet so a tower can be built there.
 
2013-05-08 01:16:57 PM  

rugman11: You could probably argue for $100k as middle class, but $150k is definitely not


You don't think that a married couple, both of whom are teachers are middle class?
 
2013-05-08 01:23:16 PM  

Lawnchair: When you have kids, you move to Jersey/Westchester/LI.  Which is where the majority of people in the New York Metro Area live.  Not New York.


Queens:  2.248 million
Brooklyn:  2.565 million
Manhattan:  1.602 million
Bronx:  1.392 million
Staten Island:  470,467

yeah, nobody lives in the city.
 
2013-05-08 01:23:46 PM  

Lawnchair: Dr Dreidel: Average household income in NYC is $75,809.

Just to clear things up with some facts. I don't know what the standard deviation is, but calling that range "upper-middle class" is not too big a stretch.

In pretty much any discussion of class in America, "middle class" is most commonly defined as "55th to 85th percentile". Which probably does include that number in NYC. 85th to 95th will accept "upper middle class". This is the most common meaning of "middle class", unless you're specifically trying to enlist people in the 30th percentile to support policies which mostly benefit the top-10%.  In which case, 'middle class' is broadened a bit so you can say "see, 30th percentile... you're just like the 80th percentile guy, and he gets a slight benefit from eliminating capital gains taxes, so vote for me".

"Poor" is maybe 15th percentile and down.  15th to 55th percentile are... well... pretty largely undiscussed politically.  They don't vote, but they aren't so poor as to be high-crime-rate or dying in the street.


Is that intended to be per location?  The Mrs. and I (combined) would be right around the 94th percentile for our area, and I really wouldn't consider us upper classers.  Mortgage, student loans, car payment, real estate taxes, and 2 kids (daycare) eats into that pretty quickly.

Of course, I don't know if defining lower-upper class vs. upper-middle vs. middle really matters all THAT much - since everyone around that level is probably in a similar situation.  Still has to work, probably didn't inherit their money, but hopefully not in any real danger of immediate bankruptcy if something goes wrong.
 
2013-05-08 01:25:57 PM  

ThatGuyGreg: So the cheap (relatively) apartments are shiattier... what exactly were they expecting?


More of them.
 
2013-05-08 01:30:32 PM  

LemSkroob: yeah, nobody lives in the city.


I didn't say that.  Out of somewhere between 18 and 22 million people in the NYC metro area (wildly dependent on your definition), the majority of them don't live in NYC, and that's true unless you use a very constrained definition.
 
2013-05-08 01:34:15 PM  

damageddude: How about requiring developers to build true middle class apartments, 3-4 bedrooms, for families making in the $100-150k range -- way too rich for public housing, but too poor to stay in many sections of NYC (excluding the outer outer boroughs which can have a longer commute than from many suburbs).


Supply and demand?   If every family that wanted to live in Manhattan got to live in Manhattan there would be no space.

Having kids requires sacrifices, not getting what you used to get on the same salary is one of those sacrifices.

Manhattan sucks anyway, BK all the way.
 
2013-05-08 01:39:51 PM  
Also..

blogs.villagevoice.com
 
2013-05-08 01:40:14 PM  

The_Gallant_Gallstone: dlp211: And it is upper middle class in non population centers. If you are making less than that, you aren't middle class, you are at best working class.

Someone post that WSJ picture with the "poor" people trying to make ends meet on $90K+... I'd do it, but I'm at work.


The "poorest" family in that picture were a retired couple with no dependents pulling in $180k. The "poorest" family that included dependents was a "single mother" pulling in $260,000, about twice the income we're talking about here.

cdn.front.moveon.org
 
Displayed 50 of 96 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report