
As New York Rents Soar, Public Housing Becomes Lifelong Refuge - e15ctr0n
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/04/nyregion/as-new-york-rents-soar-public-housing-becomes-lifelong-refuge.html
======
bradleyjg
NYCHA has a huge capital shortfall -- to the tune of $18B.^1 Neither the city,
the state, nor the federal government looks interested in putting in that kind
of money. As it is a significant fraction of the total number of apartments
are being held empty because of needed repairs, at some point in the not too
distant future entire buildings are going to be uninhabitable if repairs
aren't made.

There was a proposal need the end of Bloomberg administration to sell project
parking lots(!), mostly in Manhattan, to developers that would build market
rate housing. The money would then be used for capital repairs. The plan was
bitterly opposed by residents who apparently value massively subsidized
parking over non-falling-down buildings and/or believe that the money is going
to magically appear in some other way. DeBlasio has put out a modified version
of the same plan, it involves a mix of "affordable" and market rate apartments
being developed on the same parcels. That of course, will mean less money for
NYCHA, which means fewer repairs, but I guess he doesn't care.

Personally, I think it makes the most sense to sell outright a few of the most
valuable properties and use the money to make the necessary capital repairs on
the rest of the system. If enough of those empty apartments can be fixed up,
it might not even be a net loss of public housing.

1 [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/12/nyregion/new-york-
public-h...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/12/nyregion/new-york-public-
housing-faces-crisis-as-demands-and-deficits-grow.html)

~~~
pdabbadabba
> The plan was bitterly opposed by residents who apparently value massively
> subsidized parking over non-falling-down buildings and/or believe that the
> money is going to magically appear in some other way.

This isn't a very charitable evaluation. After all, these blocks have parking
lots because the residents (or a certain number of them) need some place to
park! Yes, NYC has a vast public transportation network, and many people don't
need to drive, but this transportation network is often weakest in areas of
high poverty, and the poor are also especially likely to work in highly
inconvenient locations. Presumably these residents hope that if they put up
some resistance to having their parking spaces sold to developers, then maybe
their elected officials will find a better way of coming up with the money.
It's not as though selling parking lots is the only way policymakers have ever
devised for raising money, so I'm not sure why you would describe this as
"magic."

Look at it another way: these are the people who live in the buildings. If
they would rather keep the parking lots than pay for building repairs,
shouldn't their preference -- particularly given their privileged access to
useful information like how bad the living conditions are and how badly they
need the parking -- be entitled to some weight?

All this is not to say that the sale/lease of parking space isn't a good idea
--I'm undecided, myself. I'm just puzzled by your tone, which would seem to
take for granted, with little evidence, that this is the only possible money-
raising plan, and that anyone who doesn't use it to raise the maximum possible
amount is an idiot, without taking seriously the proposal's significant
effects on residents.

~~~
bradleyjg
If there were one building with one parking lot, what you say would make some
sense. But the dynamic you are missing is that some public housing residents
have won the lottery within the lottery -- not only are they in public housing
for which they pay little in rent, but they are in public housing that sits on
some of the most expensive land in the entire nation. On top of that, they get
virtually free parking in neighborhoods where even rich people don't own cars
because it costs hundreds of dollars a month to park.

There was a mooted proposal which would have a net effect of sharing a bit of
these resident's good fortune with some of the rest of the public housing
community. Residents of those buildings would still have apartments in some of
the most desirable places on earth, but they wouldn't also get parking there.
The money freed up would be used to not only repair their buildings (although
the plan did give them first dibs) but also buildings in less desirable areas.
As I said it was fought bitterly.

This story is a parable for the entire "affordable housing" movement over the
last 70 years. It doesn't aim to put in place policies that make housing more
affordable generally, on the contrary it has been a driving policy goal of
governments since the end of World War II to do everything possible to ensure
that housing costs in general would grow faster than the rate of general
inflation in order to give money to homeowners in a way that didn't look like
welfare. Instead, the movement is designed to pick a few lucky winners and
give them housing. Although there's generally hasn't been an ownership
interest transferred to the lucky winners (but see Mitchell Lama Co-Ops) this
housing has generally been heritable -- so much so that people today can't
even get a lottery ticket because almost all the prizes have long since been
issued.

As for as calling the alternatives magic, as someone who has observed NYC,
NYS, and US politics for a couple of decades now, I feel pretty confident in
labeling the idea that any of those governments is going to come up with $18B
out of general funds for NYC public housing capital needs magical thinking. We
can't even get a fair share of transportation funds.

~~~
pdabbadabba
I understand what you're saying about the good fortune of people who live in
public housing in desirable areas. And I see what you mean about the benefits
of spreading some of that good fortune around by selling parking. Both of
these may be good reasons to support Bloomberg's plan.

But I don't see what any of this has to do with your assertions about the
rationality/wisdom of residents who oppose the plan:

> The plan was bitterly opposed by residents who apparently value massively
> subsidized parking over non-falling-down buildings and/or believe that the
> money is going to magically appear in some other way.

> DeBlasio has put out a modified version of the same plan . . . [which] will
> mean less money for NYCHA, which means fewer repairs, but I guess he doesn't
> care.

------
nugget
I have no problem with public housing but let's call it what it is: a lottery
for the working poor and lower middle class who desire to live in areas they
could not otherwise afford. A lottery with much better odds than a multi state
powerball, no doubt, but the same concept, with the winnings being distributed
as low (heavily subsidized) rent. If we think it's important to have such
disparate classes living close together even in high cost of living areas,
then great - maybe this is the best way to make that happen. Some folks just a
tad too well off for the lotteries, who otherwise could have squeezed in, will
then be priced out. Winners and losers. Reframing the discussion in these
terms will at least make it an honest debate.

~~~
gaius
Here in the UK, once you're in social housing (which we call council housing)
you're in for life - which leads to situations like the late Bob Crow earning
£150k/year (probably $250k/year equiv) and yet getting his rent paid by taxes
levied on people earning a fraction as much. This, he was fond of saying, was
in accordance with his socialist principles.

I'd like to see a system where a council house is on a fixed term, say 5 years
or 10 years, then it goes to the next person on the waiting list, and you can
rejoin the queue at the back if you so desire. That's more than enough time
for anyone to make a smooth transition to the rental or homeowner sector.

~~~
switch007
(Social housing covers local authorities and private housing associations)

I believe many new tenancies are "starter" tenancy agreements; a probation
period of 12-18 months. There are also fixed-term assured shorthold tenancies.

Tenancies started before 1989 are somewhat controlled by a council Rent
Officer. Applications must be made to increase rent. Tenancies after 1989
experience yearly rent increases, capped to CPI I think.

There are also 'affordable rents', basically a way for housing associations to
charge more for rent.

Not disagreeing with you, but social housing is quite different to the
pre-1989 era.

------
design-of-homes
Many of the housing issues that New York faces seem similar to what's
happening in London: shortage of housing supply, soaring rents, property at
ridiculously over-inflated prices. The London market is overun with buy-to-let
investors chasing after the same properties as first-time buyers (guess who's
more likely to be snapping up those properties and chasing up prices).

The article touches on the importance of neighbours. I think we underestimate
how important community is in a neighbourhood. People will always come and go
in a neighbourhood, but knowing your neighbours (even if it's simply saying
'hello') and knowing that there is a reasonable number of people settled in
your neighbourhood makes a big difference to the street or block in which you
live.

Research in the UK has shown [1] that many people who rent feel no commitment
to the area in which they rent or don't see the point of getting to know the
people they share a street with. Longer, more stable tenancies might change
this (much like they have in Germany). Or the ability to purchase their own
home (if homes were affordable in London).

Property as investment has had an incredibly damaging effect on the London
housing market. Do property investors have any interest or concern for the
neighbourhood in which they rent out their property?? If buy-to-let comes to
dominate a neighbourhood, what kind of effect does it have on that
neighbourhood? Can you ever build a community around such a neighbourhood?

[1] [http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/09/home-
ow...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/09/home-ownership-
young-people-falling)

~~~
philrapo
It's funny, but people in NYC rarely get to know their neighbors, regardless
of rent vs. own. Cultural thing I guess. Maybe it helps ignore the extremely
crowded population density.

------
evanpw
Some interesting demographic data here:
[http://www1.nyc.gov/html/nycha/downloads/pdf/CAFR_2013.pdf](http://www1.nyc.gov/html/nycha/downloads/pdf/CAFR_2013.pdf)
(page 136).

A few things that stand out:

* About 175k families in public housing, with 400k people total (so about 5% of the NYC population).

* Slightly less than half of households have at least one person working.

* Average income is $23k. If only half of households work, does that mean that the average income among working families is >$50k?

* Only 11% of families are listed as being on welfare.

* Average time in public housing > 20 years, which supports what the article was saying.

~~~
cowsandmilk
> * Average income is $23k. If only half of households work, does that mean
> that the average income among working families is >$50k?

There are ~37% of families with someone over 62, so that section may be
drawing social security (assuming that is included in gross income, which it
wouldn't for the IRS, but it would make sense to for a housing agency)

------
nosuchthing
The more I read about what's going on in NYC, SF, London, I have to think of
the visions from utopianist architects like Paolo Soleri and Buckminster
Fuller who foresaw the over population of cities and not just the economic
side effects, but the lifestyle and chaos inherited from the haphazard design
of entire cities.

[image from Paolo Soleri, on "Archology", cities as ecosystems co-designed]
[http://alastairgordonwalltowall.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/...](http://alastairgordonwalltowall.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/arcology-4.jpg)

All these megacities have lacked expansion efforts driving up costs of rent to
unaffordable levels for most normal people.

As jobs are automated out of existence, and productivity increases,
unemployment will continue to increase, the % of the population stuck in
poverty level will likely continue to increase. Sooner or later these issues
will need to be addressed with long term answers.

It seems like if anyone might actually implement newly designed large scale
planned city architecture, it will be China.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcology)

------
tosseraccount
Let's face facts.

Regulation, Zoning and Rent Control cause shortages.

Few folks want poor folk living in their neighborhood.

------
Shivetya
To be honest I think I am more offended that the housing authority can charger
higher rents to some residents all the while not maintaining the buildings.
Why aren't housing authority management dragged up before the cameras, if not
into court. Money from rents should first go to the building the rent is
derived from and only spent elsewhere if all that buildings needs are met.

Rent control, public housing, taxi medallions, street vendor permits, and
more, all are things that can be made to sound good but the number of people
harmed usually out numbers those helped in the long run.

There should not be any ownership imparted simply because you got there first.
This goes for public housing as much as it goes for the medallion system.

------
mc32
One solution which has some popularity in other places is corporate housing.
So, if you work for ssamsung, for example, then you get to rent from them.

I can see how this can be viewed as negative as only those privvy enough to
work for the corps who are willing to build would benefit and takes some of
the responsibility from the state, this frees up non corporate housing stock
for others pushing up the number of units overall.

Corp housing used to be more common in the us but seems to have waned greatly
over time. I think people saw it as the employer taking back your money in the
form or rent.

~~~
XorNot
Wow. Please go read up on what the outcome has been _literally every single
time this has been tried, many times in the USA 's recent history_.

Hint: it is one of the many reasons unions exist, and are a good thing.

EDIT: Or to go another way with this - the single worst aspect of the US
health system is how your health insurance provider is tied to your job. This
is probably one of the greatest shackles towards labor mobility in the US, but
since it tends to benefit employers they're mysteriously all for it.

Tying someone's _place of residence_ to their employer is an even more insane,
backwards step.

~~~
mc32
I understand; however, we see cities dedicating or subsidizing housing for
teachers and other personnel. Also, companies while they are in business will
carry that housing capacity thus taking that load off the city or town which
isn't building enough stock.

In addition these would be normal units, not some bunk bed operations. They'd
be no different from any other housing development in a given locale, likely
much better than public housing.

I dont think we can discount it out of hand due to history. Other countries
have varying success with these schemes. It's not that far removed from the
principle of providing free meals to employees in order to make them more
productive by having a shorter commute and one less thing to worry about.

------
SovietDissident
There is a limited supply thanks partly to public housing and rent control
(people never leave and developers basically can't touch it), and also it's
_incredibly_ expensive to develop in NYC:

 _" A 2010 study by the Association for Neighborhood and Housing Development
estimated that covering the cost of financing, building, and operating a new
apartment building in New York City, including taxes, required a minimum rent
for its units of $2,100 per month. To live comfortably with such rent, a
family would need an income of at least $86,000. Further, developers become
understandably unwilling to construct apartment buildings where they can’t be
assured of such rent premiums. The high construction costs result not only in
inflated rents in new buildings, therefore, but in an overall shortage of
housing, which drives up the price of already-constructed unregulated units.

And it’s New York’s tentacular state and local government that helps make it
so wildly expensive to build. The NYU study found a host of government
policies that drive construction prices higher. For starters, city agencies
responsible for overseeing and regulating building were often openly hostile
to new construction, the study discovered. “The Buildings Department is still
one of the major drivers of the high cost of housing in New York City, rather
than an agency dedicated to reducing expense and facilitating development,”
the report observed. Even experienced builders, the study found, now typically
employed well-paid “expediters” to move their projects through the city’s
foot-dragging approval process, adding an average cost of about $200,000 per
building.

Taxes and fees tied specifically to development—many of them rare in other
cities—are another factor in Gotham’s sky-high building costs. For example,
New York levies a transfer tax on land when a developer buys a plot, and then
a mortgage-recording tax when a builder borrows to finance his project. And
the builder faces significant sales taxes on construction materials, too. For
a hypothetical New York apartment building, going up on a plot of land bought
for, say, $5 million, real-estate, mortgage, and sales taxes would add $1.6
million to the development price tag.

New York’s local and state elected officials also write laws and codes that
curry favor with various special interests with a financial stake in
development, raising prices higher still. Litigation-friendly New York State
makes it easy to sue builders and developers, for instance, which benefits
construction-worker unions and trial lawyers, two powerful Albany lobbies, but
makes insurance on the construction of an apartment building as much as 8
percent to 10 percent of total costs—twice the national average. The Scaffold
Law may be the most striking example of this kind of legislation. Unique in
the country, it mandates that a developer or contractor is completely liable
if an employee gets injured on a job site, even if worker negligence played a
role. Even workers found to be drunk on the job have won big judgments.

Another costly government barrier to building is the city’s excessive fondness
for historic preservation. Initiated in the mid-1960s as a way of protecting
truly exceptional structures—a fallout from the unfortunate demolition of the
original Penn Station—the city’s landmarking process has morphed over time
into a way for local activists and progressive politicians to stymie
development of any new construction in neighborhoods often all but devoid of
historic value. Nowadays, notes Harvard economist and City Journal
contributing editor Edward Glaeser, nearly 16 percent of buildable land in
Manhattan resides in historic-preservation districts, and about half of it is
largely off-limits to development. (See “Preservation Follies,” Spring 2010.)
In a city desperately needing housing construction, the preservation districts
lost an average of 46 units of housing per tract during the 1990s, according
to Glaeser’s research. Not surprisingly, the cost of housing in these
districts has risen substantially faster than in other areas of the city."[0]_

[0] [http://www.city-journal.org/2014/24_3_nyc-
government.html](http://www.city-journal.org/2014/24_3_nyc-government.html)

