
New York bans 'poor doors' in win for low income tenants - edward
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/29/new-york-poor-door-low-income-tenants-rent
======
bko
I don't think too many people were offended by having to use the 'poor door'
considering there were 88,000 application for 55 rental units. [0]

I'm afraid when you do away with market forces, you allow for old biases and
prejudices, truly the worst of humanity. An idea of a 'poor door' is truly
distasteful and inappropriate.

As Milton Friedman argued in Capitalism and Freedom:

> It is a striking historical fact that the development of capitalism has been
> accompanied by a major reduction in the extent to which particular
> religious, racial, or social groups have operated under special handicaps in
> respect of their economic activities; have, as the saying goes, been
> discriminated against. We have already seen how a free market separates
> economic efficiency from irrelevant characteristics. As noted in chapter i,
> the purchaser of bread does not know whether it was made from wheat grown by
> a white man or a Negro, by a Christian or a Jew. In consequence, the
> producer of wheat is in a position to use resources as effectively as he
> can, regardless of what the attitudes of the community may be toward the
> color, the religion, or other characteristics of the people he hires.

[0] [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/21/nyregion/poor-door-
buildin...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/21/nyregion/poor-door-building-
draws-88000-applicants-for-55-rental-units.html)

------
ics
The article doesn't link to it but here is the relevant info from Housing and
Preservation: [http://www1.nyc.gov/site/hpd/developers/tax-
incentives-421a....](http://www1.nyc.gov/site/hpd/developers/tax-
incentives-421a.page)

For a bit of NYC history, back in the '60s POPS (Privately Owned Public Space)
came into being as part of the new zoning laws. They gave higher density
allowance to commercial properties which provided public space, leading to
many of the plazas one may be familiar with today in the city. Of course,
architects, sociologists, and others have observed that many facilities
provided under the program failed to attain what I'll just call an _inviting
atmosphere_ ; that is, whether deliberately or not, many so-called public
plazas and parks were designed out of the normal flow of things so that many
simply didn't know that they existed. Part of the requirement is to have a
clear sign indicating that the space is public, though many are obscured,
unmaintained by plants, grime, or columns.

These kinds of initiatives (tax breaks for social benefit) have supporters
from all areas and so as time goes on it's interesting to see them put to the
test and be continuously improved– or at least worked on.

~~~
bradleyjg
> These kinds of initiatives (tax breaks for social benefit) have supporters
> from all areas

In general they are bad ideas. The city ends up forgoing more in tax revenue
than the public benefits from the in-kind concession. And even if the benefits
were equal, you should still prefer the cash because it is more optionality.

Let the buildings pay their full property taxes and then if the city wants
public spaces it can take some of that tax money and build parks. The same
thing with affordable housing, if it is really so crucial that there be low
income people living in multi-million dollar apartments in the west 60s, let
the city take some of the full tax revenue it gets from the billionaires
living there and rent or buy apartments for low income families.

Cash is king.

------
msie
I don't see the big deal with using a poor door if I get a massive break on
the rent I pay. I guess there's a slippery slope argument here. There are low-
rent apartments where I live and some of the low-renters are making trouble
for the rest of the tenants. I can see how people want to avoid an entrance
frequented by the trouble-makers. What is the solution then? Evict the
trouble-makers? Where will they go? If you filter out the troublemaking low-
renters then having one entrance is fine. But that could be violating some law
out there or there is a lengthy process of eviction.

~~~
ics
There is definitely an issue in conflating low-income tenants with
"troublemakers". However, the real justification for this break in particular
is that there is a very real belief that by putting low-income renters in
better housing and better environments that they will be more inclined to
maintain or improve upon the status quo. The problem with the so-called "poor
doors" is that they are ignored and create a bad environment (which is bad for
_everyone_ ) which breeds contempt. I live right next to NYCHA housing and get
to see first hand how much of a difference the environment makes on a person;
kids growing up in really crappy places must have amazing fortitude and
support in order to not get stuck in the status quo which is not giving a shit
about anyone else, things always falling apart, etc. Granted the issue is more
complex than this, but it's much easier to antagonize low income people than
to come up with possible solutions.

~~~
msie
Thanks for that explanation!

------
afarrell
Can they still build two separate buildings next to each other, one of luxury
apartments and one non-luxury apartments?

~~~
GigabyteCoin
Exactly, I don't see the point of this bill. They'll just call it something
else.

~~~
MichaelGG
Presumably then the luxury building wouldn't get the subsidy or whatever
incentive is involved here.

------
theVirginian
I have a feeling many of these buildings will just give up on the tax break
and stop offering units to low income tenants.

~~~
jsprogrammer
Wouldn't want to mix the rich with the poor.

~~~
Grue3
How can you even mix rich and the poor in the same building? Assuming both
rich and poor have to pay the same rent, it would be either too much for the
poor, or "too cheap" for the rich (meaning, they will move to a more upscale
property). The "segregation" just happens naturally.

~~~
sp332
_receive a tax break for offering some units to low-income tenants_

Literally the second sentence of the article. On top of that, units in the
same building often cost vastly different amounts of money depending on the
height, the view, etc.

~~~
Grue3
I was talking in general, not New York specifically. Of course if a third
party (the government in this case) basically pays the difference, anything
can happen. But it seems like it's because you can't just build new housing in
New York City, so existing houses have to accomodate the poor, which is a
pretty unique situation.

