NYC "Poor Door"
Not sure what all the fuss is all about...
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio's administration is under fire for signing off on a building plan that allows a new luxury high-rise on Manhattan's western edge to have a separate entrance for low-income residents.About 20 percent of the units in the 33-story tower will be reserved for low- and middle-income residents. But all the affordable units will be grouped in one area, and those tenants will have to enter through a separate door.
"This developer must go back, seal the one door and make it so all residents go through the same door," City Councilwoman Helen Rosenthal said. "It's a disgrace." Rosenthal is demanding an end to what some here have dubbed the "poor door."Civil rights attorneys say a significant number of tenants in the subsidized apartments could be minorities. Lawyer Randolph McLaughlin says that makes the building's design more than disgraceful — but possibly illegal.
http://www.npr.org/2014/07/30/336322608/new-york-skyscrapers-separate-p…
That was sarcasm, right?
The building got a height bonus for this. The residents wouldn't normally be able to afford the building. I see zero issue with two separate entrances since it is effectively two separate buildings.
This is nothing more than class warfare and race baiting. How about forced low income housing in Beverly Hills since it is unfair rich people can live there and I can't.
Agreed. The developer has elected to carve out a subset of units at a more affordable price point and obviously you get what you pay for. This is so ridiculous. This is not an inequality issue. This is a common sense issue. They're not being discriminated against because of their race, religion, sexuality etc. Rather the developer is discriminating based on price point. Is the next argument that the guy paying $1 for a 12 oz. soda at Wendy's is being discriminated against because other patrons are getting an 18 oz. drink? WTF.
There is an interesting metric used for residential real estate in some markets (India comes to mind). They quote you the price per square foot of the apartment and then an adjusted price per square foot which is the apartment plus some equal distribution of the common areas (lobby, hallway, gym, lounge etc). These clowns are essentially saying that its not enough for the developer to charge $15/sqft to the low income residents, he needs to (a) charge them $8/sqft and charge the regular residents more than the $85/sq ft initially envisioned.
Not only that, but now the guy paying top dollar for a luxury apartment needs to have neighbors from a far lower socio-economic strata. The social difference between someone paying $4k for a 1 bedroom apartment in Manhattan and someone paying $800 for a 1 bedroom apartment is MASSIVE. This may be a controversial point, but I don't see any the fuckers crying out living in the ghetto or projects. You want/need to be in an environment surrounded by your socio-economic peers. If you deviate to far above or below, there will be serious issues. One of the key drivers of crime rate is how intermingled the various socio-economic neighborhoods are (think New Orleans, Washington DC, etc).
At the end of the day this is political nonsense. No one would make the claim that the low-income unit residents should get free in-building housekeeping or dry cleaning service like the luxury unit residents would. But because its an amenity that is at face value reminiscent of segregation, it causes the populace to emote a much more visceral reaction and allows morally and intellectually bankrupt politicians to clamp onto that for their own benefit.
There was also a huge deal being made about a building that put in a tiny gym but didn't allow access to the affordable rate renters. The apartments defense was that the gym access wasn't included in their lease.
The NYC liberals are at it again. The low income people who can live in this building or any other luxury building in NYC should count their blessings for winning this lottery. They pay only like 20% of the market rent while the rest of us have to bust our ass off to get a halfway decent place in the city. They need to stop bitching and realize that they are not entitled to the same amenities as those who are actually paying the market rent. The liberal sense of entitlement is absolutely ridiculous.
If I had a SB to give it would go to this comment.
My family and I are middle class but we both think it is ok to have the different entrance. It is unfair for the people paying 4000 a month to be neighbors with people paying $800 a month who will be blasting music and being loud.
You get what you pay for. I love these people who pay subsidized prices and live in Manhatten and expect all the goodies someone paying 10x what they pay get.
This is liberalism to a T. Instead of being happy low become people have a place to stay in Manhatten they bitch about amenities.
Me, personally, I'd never live in a building that allowed comingling. You get what you pay for folks, sorry if you're working at McDonald's and can't enjoy what I do. It's called motivation to educate yourself and work harder.
Wendy's = GS McDonald's = UBS
Are you kidding me dude? Wendy's is trash. The entire world knows Mickey D's is GS/MS/BX/KKR rolled into one. I don't see Wendy's sending its employees to Hamburger College and come out dripping with prestige.
esp fitting given the recent mcdonalds scandals in china...
Wow. I agree 110% with TNA on this one.
For once I agree with mbavsmsfin
Just only admit poor and middle income white people. Problem solved!
Bingo. I imagine during pre-sales phase a number of the would be buyers expressed unease about the "affordable" component of the building and the prospect of having black and hispanic people being present in the building who are not their maids or janitors. So the developer readily responded to the client's concerns and designed the building accordingly. There is definitely a strongly tinged racial undertone to all of these.
"The luxury unit residents and the low income residents have very different norms/values. They do not fit together."
Actually the income criteria used by NYC to determine eligibility for affordable housing is quite broad. so much so that a family making 100k would be eligible for a project like this. Do you really think that a household pulling in 100k/year are so different/inferior than the multi-million luxury condo owners that they would not fit together?
The problem with this view is that while the income spread might be pretty wide, in reality those vetted by the city to be involved in this program are usually picked on other arbitrary measures by those picking the people who get in.
.
X2 The amount of misinformation on this forum never ceases to amaze me. Thanks for stating facts! Families (4+ people) who are vetted for mixed income buildings can have salaries as high as ~$150K. Meaning stand up people such as NYC teachers, nurses, not for profit workers, public sector employees etc. My view is that the building should have the right to segregate the units as they see fit, however, all benefits they are receiving by calling the project “mixed income” should be taken away. The idea separate but equal in any sense is okay, should be alarming to most.
I love how the politicos in NYC are making this out to be a travesty. As if two people paid market price, but management determines who looks poor and uses a shitty entrance. The subsidized renters are not the same as the people who paid full price. Same as the people sitting in 1st class vs. Coach. I'm sure the entrance will be clean and safe. They are getting subsidized housing only, not subsidized rooftop pool and concierge service.
Just like poor people pot subsidies in Colorado. As if low income people need to get high. Only thing they should get subsidized is work boots and a library card.
If this is the modern version of separate but equal, we've come a long way.
See, they are trying to play this off as that, but in reality it is separate and unequal. If I pay to go to a fancy restaurant and am seated in the back because I'm black, that is wrong. If I go to a fancy restaurant and show them my liberal voting card and they have to subsidized my meal and they provide a limited menu and seatinf in the back then that is fine.
No one ever accused them of having common sense. Well except themselves of course.
Why does there even have to be subsidized apartments in new developments? Why doesn't the city take a slightly higher tax for several years and pay for new developments in outside areas of Manhattan that may need help? With the tax they can even develop existing low income areas...
Should I just toss it out there? The other hilarious thing is that this program is supposed to promote cultural diversity. I mean someone paying $4-6k on a 1 bedroom probably doesn't want to live next to someone's baby momma paying $600 for the same unit gettin' all ratchet or the guy who works part time with his girlfriend and likes blasting his loud techno all night. I would prefer to live in a luxury rental simply to have good neighbors that don't make noise and have responsible jobs. Lets be honest here, you don't need to have a real job and can stay up making noise at all hours of the day if you have to have a minimum income of 20-50k with a household of 2-6.
The doctor next door paying $4800 or the huge magazine editor couple in the 2 bedroom paying $6200 are probably going to have a different culture and attitude towards work and apartment living than others. I don't get it. You get to have more because of diversity? So you don't need to work hard and can still get ahead...
Liberal logic:
Let the poor live in a luxury rental. Well I make 6 figures. I can't even live in a luxury rental.
The real problem is that there is a void between people who make over 70k and under 450k in this whole housing program. I don't even get to whine about a seperate doorway because I'm not eligable for $30-60k of potential rent savings a year (AKA $60-120k of gross income before taxes). FYI I make about that after tax. It seems like the poor actually have more income than I do factoring the rent payments into the equation. This is unfair to the middle class in NYC, not the poor. People making $100-200k (a huge portion of New Yorkers) still can't afford this or become eligable. Please explain.
Liberal logic = Because I say so.
Sick and twisted liberal policies reward the poor while screwing over hard working middle-class citizens. When anyone disagrees with them, they throw out the "racist" card in lieu of actual logical arguments.
Much of this country's current problems can be traced back to the liberal social and economic policies of the Great Society during the 60's and its subsequent iterations.
All non-foreign relations current problems can be traced back to the Great Society programs or New Deal non construction programs.
Lol... You just now realized that the "middle class" is the one getting fucked the most?
Welcome to Obama's America.
.
who do these poors even think they are trying to live in manhattan? ship em to philly and get it over with
They should put the poors below the basement garage. Not like it will really matter in the case of a fire. No one is jumping out of a 4th floor or higher window anyway.
"Vote for me and I'll pretend to give a shit about you."
Really easy solution here- tell all the poors that if anyone complains about the separate door that they can go right ahead and live somewhere they can actually afford. I'm 250% sure not a single person would say a word.
"the poors"....I rest my case.
So you're in McDonalds and you order from dollar menu and you're forced to sit in a certain area vs other customers who order from more expensive part of menu and sit in another part. Same concept and it's disgraceful to think that's OK.
Let's make the subsidized renter drink from a different water fountain while you're at it.
Don't think people understand what would happen if you got rid of subsidized rent in NYC.
Actually, it's more analogous to McDonald's having two discrete ordering counters, each with the exact same menu, except one costs $1. You can order your food from the more expensive counter if you're willing and able, or you can order from the $1 counter if you've received a special ticket. The seating areas are the same, where you enjoy a nice, clean, safe area to eat your food. Just like the people who paid full price.
I'm not certain as to why anyone is surprised that this created an uproar. This is what you get when you begin pushing tax credits, subsidies and other governmental policies on developers. What do you expect? When you accept anything from the government you suddenly accept and extraordinary level of scrutiny and other crap. I'm not saying its right or wrong; just how it is. Especially in a city like New York.
What I don't get is that you have people complaining about rent being too high so they design a building that has luxury apartments, expensive ones, allowing for cheaper rent in the other unites that they build. They probably overprice the others and add in subsidies to allow for the cheaper ones (disclaimer: I'm not familiar with rent in NYC. I was baffled when my friend told me about all the hoops, brokers and prices up there) except the one catch is you have a separate entrance. Maybe they should have called it a 'private entrance' and people wouldn't be freaking out. Is this entrance in an alley surrounded by trash cans and garbage?
The inclusion of tax credits in places like NYC is less about trying to get developers to do something and more about compensating them for something they were forced to do. Everyone of those assholes on city council that is complaining about this knows damn well that the "optional" tax credits aren't even remotely optional. They are merely compensation for what amounts to partial eminent domain. Could you build a building with out any rent controlled units? Theoretically yes, in reality no. The city would never approve the building plans, issue permits, or do anything they are supposed to do in order to strong arm developers into doing what they want.
The insane part about this is the people whom are getting screwed the most here are the middle income people. The rich people don't really notice the difference between 10k a month rent and 12k a month rent. The poors that get to live here are getting away with what is really theft and squatting. The middle income folks who could afford Manhattan if 20% of all of the units weren't rent controlled thus forcing the remaining 80% to be well above actual market to compensate. Yea, those political types really care about the middle class, fuck those guys they are a shrinking voting bloc anyway. It's amazing how they believe their own bullshit.
lmao is this gotham west
Probably the first thing he's done as mayor that I approve of.
How is this any different from first class and coach boarding through separate doors on a plane?
How was your stay in the padded cell?
Finally, an insightful comment in this thread, that tries to comment on the issue at hand instead of moronically spouting off diatribes about political parties.
No worries. I'm renting an illegal sublet one floor below the richies so it's just easier for me to park the rusty Honda out front, take the rich entrance and head down one flight via the stairwell.
My drug dealing section 8 neighbor across the hall also uses this technique and gets to meet a lot of high school aged kids of richies.
Sorry guys but this is NYC. Try as you might, you can't avoid poor people. I don't know what the developer was thinking on this. The separate entrances plan isn't going to work all that well, and it's just bad PR.
Chicago is definitely more segregated than NYC, which can be both good and bad.
As someone who went to school in the south side of Chicago and now lives in Streeterville, I think I can say with extreme confidence the good severely outweighs the bad.
Hedge fund owner: You need to invest $100,000-$1,000,000 minimum in my hedge fund. Liberal: Segregation. Your fund is discrimanatory and doesn't cater to the poor.
The poor shouldn't be investing in a hedge fund, or staying in a luxury high rise. Sad to say, but true. This is an excess luxury when people simply need a place to live, not a doorman building with full glass windows, central air, a pool, etc. I don't even have half of this crap. If the middle class can't afford to invest in a hedge fund, the poor shouldn't either. Same goes for housing. Its total BS when they say they have programs for the middle class too. On average, MAX income is about 70k for a middle income housing with this program. In the rare cases, it can go up to something like 85k. Please tell me how someone with 100k can afford a $6,000 apartment now, when the poor can get it for $500 a month. This is just screwed up.
Luxuries shouldn't be shared amongst all. Sorry. That's why they're luxuries.
You don't want to go through the "Poor Door" fine make more money or chose to live in another building. I doubt the lower income people who are actually going to live in the building are complaining at all.
Asinine example. How about this. Person A makes $10/hr and works 300 hrs/ month to make 3k. Person B makes $10/hr and works 150 hrs/ month to make 1.5k. Person A worked these additional hours to be able to afford the building they desired at 1k/month. Person B didn't really care about that building until they realized that they'd be able to get in anyway. Now both people, one working 2x as hard as the other, have arrived at the exact same outcome. "But but but, teh guy paying half teh rent has to use teh separate entrance!!!". Fuck outta here. You let me pay 50% market rate on some apartment, and I'll go in that separate entrance doing the crab walk 24/7/365.
God forbid anyone feel like a loser in the society of today. This is the problem with the equality debate we are having today. The group that cries about inequality are largely those whom feel that the inequality of others is the problem.
While I think it's an exaggeration to call this separate entrance the "poor door" and liberals are getting wayy too caught up in the label more than what it actually is, most of you are missing the point. The need to have a separate door solely based on what you can afford for an apartment is totally uncalled for, and if you think otherwise you need to deflate your pretentious egos and stop your constant need to separate yourself from those not as well off as you. It's immature, childish and the exact opposite of humility.
We are not talking about additional gym/pool/concierge benefits...in THOSE cases you get what you pay for. We are talking about the act of entering the building to get to the apartment in which you live. While politically I think there is nothing wrong with this separate entrance, do upper class residents truly feel better knowing that the time spent walking to the elevator will be spent with people like themselves and not with what their stereotypical imagination believes a middle/lower-class resident is (hipsters, "ratchet baby mothers")? If so, I believe that is truly sad and you need to get off your high horse. No one is trying to take advantage of the system or trying reap similar benefits to you...your apartment quality/size and additional benefits will draw the line. This is just about the simple walk to the elevator which traditionally is built for everyone no matter if you are going to the 1st floor or the penthouse. It's more of a moral issue than a political one, so if that's what contractors/the upper-class want to be done then so be it. What you eat doesn't make me shit.
I take it you didn't look at the issue at hand. The building was designed as two separate residencies thus has two separate entrances. Was it designed this way to separate the rent control units from the market units? Yes, however the city signed off on it. Now those on the city council in an effort to drum up votes and support are making this an issue.
.
I seriously doubt they elected to add those units on their own. The city can pretty much force the hand of any developer in the highly dense areas. By simply saying this " Yes we received your plans, the are waiting for review" I once got that line from a local government for a whole year, and this was for a small renovation project for drainage. Most people have no idea how incredibly smug the people who have the ability to hold up billion dollar projects can get.
You sound incredibly naive. The difference between someone paying $4k a month for a 1 bedroom Manhattan apartment and someone paying $800 a month for a 1 bedroom low-income Manhattan apartment is world of a difference. These people do not exist in the same world for a reason. Its called social order (not hierarchy, but actual order, as in the opposite of chaos).
Why don't you go take a walk through the west side projects and then come back here and report on how unfair those stereotypes are. They are stereotypes for a reason. The luxury unit residents and the low income residents have very different norms/values. They do not fit together. I say this coming from a low income background and now living in a high income demographic. It was a substantial adjustment.
That being said, that's a rebuttal to the points you made.
The crux of this issue is that there is one fundamental reason why those residents don't get the same entrance: THEY'RE NOT PAYING FOR IT!
Very well said. What liberals don't get is that in the U.S., there is a reason why people are poor. If you are an able-bodied person who is not mentally handicapped you have the resources to make an ok living. You may never be wealthy, but you can cover your basic needs and put a roof over your head. You are not entitled to anything aside from life, freedom, right to not be harmed, and certain core civil rights. Living in a luxury manhattan apartment at an 80% discount and enjoying all its amenities does not fall into that category.
Money is used to pay for goods/services. Sounds like paying more money leads to more goods/services.
I think the story is blown out of proportion, still I am amazed at how terrible these politicians can be...can't believe any of his well-paid advisors didn't suggest not signing it...I am personally not in favor of this double doors because all units are the same, people just got cheaper price because of their income level not because they chose to access a different product or service. Also the more people try to create division in the society between rich and poor and the deeper the resentment will express itself later on, whilst I agree with the idea that you get what you pay for, I really don't think anyone got a discount because they used a different door...I find it absurd and pretty ridiculous.
They did get a different price because the door was different, if it wasn't for the developer building these units none of the people living in these units would be able to live there if the units didn't exist. Those paying more than full freight in order for those paying well below market can live in a area where they are out of place.
I would've just made the main entrance inconvenient for getting to the "affordable" units, I'd even put up a sign that says use the front entrance. They'd probably have thought themselves clever for ignoring the signage and using the back entrance. Problem solved.
Guys let's be serious here, there isn't big government screwing the rich in favor of the poor. All these analogies to fast food are logical fallacies.
There are massive benefits that the developers and home owners get to include these lower income units. 1. Cheap developer financing backed - low rate tax free bonds, 2. Massive property tax benefits (for unit owners as well) that last for 10-20 years, and 3. The ability to build more units in higher buildings thus capturing greater elusive "air rights". For getting these benefits they are required to have low income units, with defined regulations as to bedrooms, square-footage, product mix within the building etc.
The developers don't have to undertake these programs but choose to do so because it is in their economic interest. This is not a case of altruism but rather an incentivized way to juice returns. Homeowners don't need to buy in these building but choose to do so - maybe in part because of the tax breaks.
This is probably only an issue because some one asleep at the wheel approved a project that shouldn't have been approved in the first place based on the guidelines and thus everyone is no all huffy puffy. Had it never been approved no one would have been the wiser to this nonissue.
The purpose of low-income housing incentives is not tot provide "equal housing" in Manhattan. Its to provide low income housing, period.
The concept of equality should not be applied to instances where people are paying for shit. If the rent in a building was increased by 20% for a black tenant or for someone coming from a lower socio-economic background, that is outright discrimination. But in the instances where you are paying for a product/service/dwelling, the amount you pay is the discriminating factor determining the level/quality of what you receive.
The fact that they divided up a third of their building for low-income housing is the price they're paying for the tax benefit. One-third of the building is being rented at 15 cents on the dollar. I think that is adequate. You don't need to also handicap the developers ability to rent out the remaining two-thirds of the building. There's no incentive for developers to allocate a low income section in such a system. The purpose of these incentivizations was for a win-win. This is a win-win. If you're paying $750 a month for a one-bedroom in a luxury Manhattan high-rise you have no right to expect doorman and related amenities.
On the whole though, I think the developer completely fucked this up. There's no reason a third of the building should be low income. That's way to high a proportion and that's the reason they were forced to make two separate entrances. These groups of people do not belong together. It will only create problems. If you have blue collar friends from back home and work on Wall Street you know exactly what I mean. You don't hang out with your back-home pipe fitter friends and your Wall Street friends at the same time, its very awkward. They don't come from the same world. They don't understand each other and there is a lot of judgement passed around for no reason other than the fact that they each came from a very different background and had to deal with very different problems and neither can appreciate or relate to the other.
As for the developer, the more common solution would have been to have the same entrance but have a much lower proportion of low income housing -- ironically in that situation no one would be griping right now... so these people are trading political correctness for the practicalities relating to their actual agenda (more low income housing).
I just don't see the issue with people going out another entrance. They don't pay the full price, they don't enjoy all the amenities and they aren't true residents of the building.
Liberals must have this 1920s image, something akin to grapes or wrath, when they imagine poor people. In reality the vast majority are poor because of shit choices and you'd want nothing to do with then. Whenever someone gets money they moved to a better neighborhood, same here.
Yes, because being born to a single mom in the hood is indeed a shit choice. You were smart enough to choose to be born to a mailman father and school teacher mother (which is giving you a lot of credit based on the traditional Wall St peer group,but I know nothing about you).
I love the complete lack of acknowledgement that at least 50% of where you are in life today is luck, starting with having a parent or two that actually gave a shit about you -- or at the least wasn't profoundly damaging to your person.
People on Wall Street seem to think they are the everyman that has tasted and overcome the bitter realities of the world because their dentist father didn't hug them enough and anyone who isn't sitting in the same seat as them is a lazy bottom feeder.
The majority of people living in low income housing -- like the majority of people living in luxury high-rises -- do so because that's the world they were born into (or less than 1 st dev thereof). Are there rich kid fuck-ups, yes. Are there ghetto success stories, yes. Like the super rich, the vast majority of the super poor are that way because that's what they were born into.
As much as I shit on underachievers, I don't claim that everyone has a fair shot at doing exactly what I (or others) have accomplished.
Well said.
This sums up this whole fucking thread.
Buncha kids born on third base who act like they hit a triple.
Couldn't have said it better myself, SB'ed.
Well Said
Why are they not true residents? The developer agreed to sell them apartments at discounts in exchange for favorable financings and tax breaks which more than paid for the discounts.
Also I am not sure how many subsidized residents in this building pay 800 s month for a one bedroom. 1800 is probably more like it, which is still a bargain given the product they are getting but hardly free housing. And then they also have to put down the 20% down payment. I wonder how will the property values of the subsidized units be assessed going forward relative to the market rates ones.
In any case, the fact that in NYC families making up to 130k a year need housing assistance and 1800/m for one bed unit in a new highrise is only achievable only through subsidy demonstrate just how out of whack is the RE market there relative to rest if country. The bay area is in similar predicament where Stanford recently started buying up houses in Palo alto to then sell to faculty members at a heavily discounted "affordable" price... Of 700k a piece. With the same money one can pay market rate to buy a nice big house next to a country club in most other paces.
Not dissimilar to 1st/business class passengers getting a different jetway when boarding large planes, or better food, entertainment, etc. Everyone gets the same end result (A - B for the plane, a place to live for the building) just with a different level of comfort and amenities directly related to the price paid.
Solution: Ask the low income residents moving in if they mind taking a different entrance to the other residents. Anyone that says yes should be pointed to another property where they feel they won't be "discriminated against". I'm sure there are plenty of others standing behind them in line who will gladly swallow their pride and use the different entrance for the ability to live in a luxury NY high rise for way less than market rate.
Oh jesus. Did I say every poor person? Does being born to a single mom prevent people from being decent humanbeings? People do not choose the cards they are dealt, they choose how they play them. And I am sorry, but there are more than a minority of low income individuals who have done plenty to ensure that they will always remain as such. And from all the posters I have met on this site (and I have met a lot) I would say most aren't rocking a silver spoon in their mouth. One only needs to look at the abundance of non-target stories to see that many people are working hard to achieve something.
Would it be safe to assume you did not get an A+ in Stats? The myth of the one off anecdote prevails.
LOL
What about the people born into average intelligence? Or the quality of schools you attend during your formative years? Many schools across the country are dilapidated, underfunded and have poor academic quality. Not to mention other factors of adversity among the student body that holds an individual back.
Personally I was born, healthy, tall, white, top 1% in IQ, into an upper middle class family and in one of the best school districts in the country. Those are very long odds when you think about it. Where would I be without my intelligence, education or family backing? I apologize for singling anyone out, as it's easy to not articulate your thoughts in their entirety which leaves us filling in the blanks that may not be there. All I'm saying is don't underestimate how shitty of a deal many people get stuck with and don't overestimate how much sheer power of will can impact a given situation.
You live in a building with people who are ALL making a conscious decision to live there should have the ability to enter their abode through the same fucking entrance. If you can't and you're forced to do otherwise, then that's discrimination.
Does subsidized housing suck? Yes, it does when you pay market rates but it allows teachers and other civil servants who can't live in the city and contribute rather than living in the burbs and deciding not to participate in city's labor market. Many in here seemed misinformed and think that building will be taking on degenerates that will congregate near the entrances and roll dice all day.
I'm a Republican but I'm fucking practical and see this for what it is. As someone said, the approver fucked up and should have never gotten approved. There are plenty of developers taking advantage of the government incentives by offering subsidized space and people get along just fine by walking through the same entrance.
Lastly, how would you feel if you were a BO/MO analyst and had to enter the backdoor entrance to 200 West while the Securities analysts went through the front to 4th-6th floor? Get a fucking grip.
1) If they had to live in the "burbs" and didn't participate in the labor market then wages would rise until a new equilibrium was hit 2) BO and parts of MO is already in jersey
Sorry but this isn't an economics text book. More likely than increased wages would be a shittier talent pool of more desperate job seekers taking the positions and driving down the quality of the work force.
Are you fucking kidding, teachers and other civil servants? Did you know the group of fastest growing millionaires are cops? Did you know that teachers in NYC have a starting salary of around 50,000. Everyone acts like people who work in government are the worst paid people on the planet. That's a ridiculously laughable notion.
@"miscer"
Yes, higher wages for the government to pay. Shit rolls down hill... Govnerment pays higher wages and guess how they are funding that raise, raising your taxes.
You obviously don't work at 200 West BC of your idiotic 1st comment and 200 West has plenty of BO and MO.
The fact that people who have their housing subsidised should enter through a separate entrance isn't wrong per se. But the fact certain people felt that was necessary is what's more concerning about the state of our country.
So you think its necessary for the developer/management company to spend money providing luxury amenities to residents of low income housing?
A third of the building is a substantial #. One-third less doorman services, one third less, elevator traffic, one third less lobby traffic. If they have an in-building pool and screening room, do you think it unnecessary for them to limit its usage to people paying rack rate rents (or an amenities fee).
The reason this is becoming such an issue is because of the visceral reaction a separate entrance evokes. And because of the absurdity of the political and media machines. If this was an issue involving a separate parking lot in the back instead of the front of the building, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Also, how do you feel about sharing your building with Section 8 housing? (be honest)
I have nothing against there being a separate area for people paying a subsidised price, or a separate entrance in of itself.
What I wonder is how much this is a matter of convenience vs. people who would like to pay not to see poor people.
My family has lived within a block away from Section 8 housing my entire life and I've seen that the quality of the housing stock has a major impact on crime as opposed to the people themselves. It's definitely not the worst thing for developing a sense of empathy.
Why are you keep comparing the "affordable units" residents of this building to section 8/indigent paupers? Seeing that this is a condo, likely everyone living there had the means to put down the 20% down payment and has a mortgage to pay. So that pretty much implies that they would have to be solid middle class households to qualify even after they were lucky enough to win the lottery in the first place. Personally I have no problem sharing my full service high-rise building with teachers, nurses and city/transit employees. I think their presence enriches the environment and I much appreciate the opportunities to interact with folks from different walks of life. If you want to live in an environment shared only with other super-rich people, then Fairfield County CT is a much better choice.
"The reason why people like me are upset is that it violates our sense of fairness when people are able to live in a luxury apartment simply by virtue of government policy and winning a lottery."
How is this any different than when people live in a luxury apartment simply by virtue of being born into a wealthy family/heir with a trust fund? Which, judging from my interactions with my neighbors, is the predominant demographic that lives in these buildings. Plus many of these types end to be away most of the time living their units empty. At least a teacher or nurse would make most use of her apartment.
"To me, this policy is a perversion of that principle as well as being terrible for New Yorkers since it reduces the market supply of high-quality rental units, thus raising prices for everyone else." Actually it is the opposite. If not for the inclusion of affordable units in a mixed income building like this one, the city and zoning code would have never allowed them to build these many units in the first place. By agreeing to set aside certain units at below market rates, the developer was allowed to build and sell a proportionate number of additional units at market rates. That was the deal. Now one can argue that NYC zoning legislations is ridiculously burdensome and the city desperately needs more housing to deal with the supply imbalance and I would very much agree with that. But given the deep trenched NYMBISM in NYC and SF, any baby steps toward building more and taller buildings is a most welcome relief, including this one.
Sigh. It looks like my beloved Chicago has fallen prey. The city is now using TAXPAYER money to subsidize supervouchers for low-income people to live in luxury highrise buildings. This is so ridiculous. Do liberals really believe that the government owes them everything?
Liberals are slowly but surely destroying this great country.
http://abc7chicago.com/home/cha-subsidizing-citys-priciest-rents-for-lo…
For starters stop wasting so much of your life comparing yourself to others, fairness, rankings, etc. You will be a lot happier if you just focus on you. There is a minimal effect on your life at best so get over it. From reading all of your posts over time, it's kinda apparent you are the prototypical guy from those studies - happy making 50k if peers make less but unhappy at 100k if peers make more. Focus on what you can control your life, your achievements and your happiness.
Second, expand your thinking to second order effects. If you take a bunch of lower income people and move them into nicer areas their children have massive benefits. Better peers, safer neighborhoods, better schools, more opportunities, etc. These kids will likely achieve much greater success than growing up in poorer area. They will get better jobs, pay taxes, not take gov't subsides, etc.
Lastly, stop whining about fairness. Nothing is fair. Is it fair you (or at least the super majority of well educated people - maybe you came from the projects but I highly doubt that) come from a bare minimum middle class background, if not upper class, with exposure to great schools, activities, role models, stress free and safe environments. That isn't fair. That is hitting the genetic lotto. People born in the projects in broken homes are screwed at birth.
Before you have a visceral reaction to my post and immediately write a response about how I'm a typical liberal, people need to work harder, its not fair, not free market, etc. really think abstractly about the larger issues at hand and their underlying second and third order consequences. Is the system perfect, no. But at least there are attempts being made to end 100+ years of social injustices. This is a complicated deep rooted long term systemic issue we are facing that stretches back across a long time horizon. I'd really like to hear solutions that you might have rather just saying its not fair.
+1, great post
They need to expand that program.
100+ years of social I justice? I thought this was about working class people, not just about blacks. Why not talk about reparations also.
What a joke. Plenty of people choose to live in jersey City or elsewhere and commute. No reason someone needs to live in Manhatten. If people who can afford it choose to live and commute then people who can't should also. If anything subsidize their transportation since that is the big cost.
And MBAvsMFIN, remember bro, you're not allowed to talk about fair because you know the term. Only a liberal can use that word when they want to twist something and reward people who vote for the.
Hit the nail on the head.
Bingo!
People move out of NYC for the schools so this isn't about education. Well off people commute from NJ and CT, so this isn't about convience. It's bullshit.
Furthermore, fine, you want to help middle income people live I Manhattan, fine, then don't bitch because you don't get the full suite of emenities even though you don't pay the full price.
If NYC wants to truly help people they will stop tax abating, thereby incentivizing developers to sit on units regardless of market prices and work to reduce costs to build/make it easier to build.
I don't see a problem with this. They could argue that they had a separate entrance for efficiency's sake, all the low rent units are grouped in a different area of the bldg. The low rate renters should be happy they can "afford" to enter into a building like that. Hell I would jump at the chance. The comments that shit talk the cut rate renters go a little too far, people are people too. Those who argue there should only be one door are overlooking the obvious generosity. Stories like this keep me as an independent, because god knows Ive benefited from some of the government's expanded roles (cough student loans); but when I make it I would hate to live in an America where there's price discrimination in favor of the poor. They already do that to an extend with the ACA. That's not fucking right, if you want to help the 99%, just raise the minimum wage.
Here we go...
The food debate made me realize this, wouldn't this be similar to stores making those using food stamps enter and exit through a separate door? Why don't they do that? If they did this I wouldn't feel disgusted every time I enter a Walmart
Not similar, because people aren't using food stamps in 5 star, best of the best steakhouses, for example.
City fast food is the worst because you only have life long minimum wage workers working there. You go to suburbia and you find 17 year old kids saving up for college. If only they could have robots do these low wage jobs I could enjoy my cosi and not have to worry about them fucking up my order.
And back to the original topic, NYC housing policies always have been full of idiocy and corruption. That being said Extell gets the tax incentives so they have to do what the city says.
Me personally, I'd walk through a door that says "Maggot infested commies only" if it meant my rent got cut by 80%.
The thing here is the city approved it. So yea..... These people are just trying to drum up class warfare and get donations for their re-elections.
Yup. I would gladly go through a separate exit and not enjoy the amenities if I could live in a luxury Manhattan high-rise at 20% of the market price. That's a fucking bargain of a lifetime. These poor people who won the lottery really need to stop bitching and realize how lucky they are. Fucking liberals. You give them something for free, and they bitch even more.
I honestly don't think the people who are living there are bitching about it. It's everyone who feels they have to point out every plight, real or imagined, of anyone they feel is suffering.
So assuming you are paying $2500/month, the market price of your dignity would be priced at 2k/month? This makes for an interesting social experiment actually. I wonder what is the market rate in monthly rent rebate that a typical New Yorker would accept, in exchange for having to crawl through a doggie door every time he/she enters or exits the building.
If his rent got cut by 80% that would be $2,000 off the top. You're doing a 20% haircut.
Veritatis ut fugiat est fuga nihil. Voluptate libero sed quia quia qui quasi dolores provident. Expedita maiores voluptatem officia similique fuga. Odit voluptatem dolor quo nihil. Distinctio ad facere odio voluptas.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Voluptas assumenda asperiores est quo. Ea consequuntur voluptatem aut similique laboriosam. Et ut voluptatem quis et dolor quia.
Temporibus adipisci corporis repellendus odit iure et in. Est eum quam id aut in distinctio optio. Inventore quis cupiditate adipisci ut rem consectetur.
Saepe nihil nesciunt aliquam reprehenderit delectus ad non. Laudantium tempora aut quae mollitia aut officia qui vero. Praesentium similique accusamus laboriosam ut tempora facilis a. Rerum cupiditate placeat laborum corrupti et est nesciunt. Quia ut consectetur qui sit. Et explicabo qui ea id quis quis neque.
Voluptates modi cumque quisquam est. Facere quia ut sint quisquam ut et aut. Corporis et non non animi hic. Non harum recusandae at qui eos aliquid.
Illum sunt quia voluptatem id quod animi cum. Aut possimus ut possimus doloremque facere maiores modi. Sunt inventore et tempore voluptas fuga. Est praesentium adipisci voluptas.
Distinctio nobis est minima voluptatibus dolor iste. Dolorum et sed officiis aspernatur ullam. Atque est omnis recusandae voluptates explicabo est. Voluptatum quia laudantium qui earum rerum quam. Error tempora quae commodi est quidem veritatis non. Aut earum non quos reiciendis enim illo quia. Est voluptate accusamus exercitationem veniam expedita.
Officia voluptates et veniam quo rerum. Magnam explicabo commodi aut ut perferendis. Exercitationem aspernatur incidunt ex hic porro. Suscipit quod magnam dolorum atque quas. Incidunt ut quisquam doloremque commodi. Ducimus eos quod consequuntur.
Sit deserunt officiis ipsam tenetur. Modi quia cupiditate voluptas non. Qui suscipit vitae porro consequatur voluptatem eaque cupiditate voluptatem. Et omnis laborum voluptate perferendis. Omnis mollitia placeat nisi molestiae cupiditate. Labore odio praesentium et aspernatur sed. Sit fuga dicta quidem enim et et eum.
Autem velit voluptas maxime quia architecto. Ipsa beatae nesciunt eligendi id sit. Ut maxime omnis alias dolor magnam veniam eum.
In occaecati enim laborum adipisci dolorem. Omnis est omnis assumenda qui. Cupiditate alias aut quam qui aut.
Voluptatem officiis velit aut libero dolor sequi repellendus. Laudantium ut sunt qui voluptatum sit sed ea minima. Quo et eius quasi et. Ad aut ullam mollitia est enim dolores expedita assumenda.
Suscipit inventore dicta qui debitis aperiam consequatur repellendus hic. Quas assumenda non expedita enim consequatur. Et laboriosam fuga et officiis ea repudiandae.