craigslistdiva wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:

In any case, since we are not talking a mother with 8 children on welfare and are talking about middle class americans, why again do I not have the right to enjoy amenities at a reduced price that I cannot afford? Give me a discount on Kim Kardashian's helicopter or private jet so I can afford it. That will better my life too...

Vindication15 that's very naive.

For the same reason as it is unfair to sell a Mercedes Benz to someone for the price of a Corolla because they cannot afford it. Life doesn't work on handouts. There is a price set for certain goods/services and if I can afford it, I will. If I cannot, I will buy what I can afford. Luxury goods/services are not a basic necessity.

I am one of the "middle class" people. I have a job and I work very hard. I don't expect someone to give me something because I don't make enough money. I don't make enough money because of the choices I made for my career. If I had chosen to become an investment banker and made $4 million a year I would have the money to rent the Kardashian's private jet. Since I did not make those choices, I will live within my means. And I don't expect anyone to give me any handouts or discounts.

vindication15 wrote:

In any case, since we are not talking a mother with 8 children on welfare and are talking about middle class americans, why again do I not have the right to enjoy amenities at a reduced price that I cannot afford? Give me a discount on Kim Kardashian's helicopter or private jet so I can afford it. That will better my life too...

nafco wrote:
Maybe I missed something but why are people so sure that the lower income tenants will have access to a swimming pool and high end stainless steel appliances? Im pretty sure I read that those amenities come at an extra cost to the low income tenants and Im sure the developers are not 'fully loading' these apts with high ends appliances either.

The fact is, they tried project housing in the 50s and believe it or not, it didnt work out well. Grouping lower income people together and quarantining them into a several block area has been a disaster, whereas setting aside a few units here and there has proven to be a much more successful and less demoralizing alternative.

nafco wrote:
Maybe I missed something but why are people so sure that the lower income tenants will have access to a swimming pool and high end stainless steel appliances? Im pretty sure I read that those amenities come at an extra cost to the low income tenants and Im sure the developers are not 'fully loading' these apts with high ends appliances either.

The fact is, they tried project housing in the 50s and believe it or not, it didnt work out well. Grouping lower income people together and quarantining them into a several block area has been a disaster, whereas setting aside a few units here and there has proven to be a much more successful and less demoralizing alternative.

nafco wrote:

The fact is, they tried project housing in the 50s and believe it or not, it didnt work out well. Grouping lower income people together and quarantining them into a several block area has been a disaster, whereas setting aside a few units here and there has proven to be a much more successful and less demoralizing alternative.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:

Nah, I think if you're going to provide subsidized housing with a finite amount of money you want to benefit as many as possible, that's all. Doing less with more isn't a good idea in my book. Feel free to disagree.

I haven't seen anyone really respond to this comment. Isn't it something people of all political affiliations can agree on? Affordable housing should be maximized to benefit as many as you can. Not benefit a select few with luxury affordable housing.

JCishome wrote:
Living anywhere near Kanye West sounds like one of my worst nightmares. But your concept of "fair" is very skewed. There's a simple solution if you don't want to live in an 80/20 building...don't live in it. Live somewhere else. Plenty of people who have no issue with paying a market-competitive rent for THEIR unit without worrying what someone else pays will take your place. See? What could be more fair?

Monroe wrote:

Nah, I think if you're going to provide subsidized housing with a finite amount of money you want to benefit as many as possible, that's all. Doing less with more isn't a good idea in my book. Feel free to disagree.

JCishome wrote:
I think people may be conflating the idea of what "affordable housing" really is under the COAH guidelines in NJ. We're not talking about trucking in some welfare mom with 8 kids and setting them loose in your "luxury" building. People who qualify for these kinds of units have moderate incomes (maybe about $75,000 for a family of 4). That's a teacher, a cop, a bus driver...and while these people may not be "entitled" to such grand luxuries as a stainless-steel refrigerator, I hardly think it will kill anyone if they have it. I promise they won't be pestering the concierge to get them a seat on the Hamptons Jitney.

By the way, before anybody has a freakfest, I'm not insulting the welfare moms, although I may question their choices. I'm just saying that's a different social issue than this kind of project addresses.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
Those less fortunate should have housing available to them on a temporary basis to get them off their feet. Temporary could even mean a couple of years. This shouldn't be permanent housing.

More importantly, this housing shouldn't be in a luxury apartment as that is unfair to those who pay market rates. Also, affordable housing in a luxury building makes absolutely no sense. You are basically saying it is a right to have stainless steel appliances, granite countertops, and a concierge. It's extremely unfair to those who pay market rate.

So, you think you are paying "market rate" but if you are living in a building that includes affordable housing units, you are actually paying a lower price than you would have to pay otherwise.


Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
Way to broaden the argument. I'm for 80/20 neighborhoods - just not the same building. Call it luxury, don't call it luxury - I don't care. The fact remains - there are tenants in these buildings that get amenities such as a pool, indoor gym, concierge, roof deck, granite countertops, stainless steel appliances at an unfair price - not market rate.

It's unfair for me to have to pay for these amenities at market value. These amenities ARE NOT essential for affordable housing. I would like to hear your argument that it is...

There is no such thing as 80/20 neighborhoods! The 80/20 concept applies to specific developments and buildings. As of late, they have relaxed the rules to allow for developers to transfer the perks derived from affordable housing agreements to other buildings/development within a half mile of the one for which the agreement was struck. In any case, the point to the 80/20 concept is to encourage folks who are otherwise marginalized, or unable to afford living in these places, to improve their lot by "rubbing shoulders" with others who are at a better station in life.

As for your "unfair price" argument, I see your point, but you are wrong. Everyone is getting a discounted price. The people in affordable housing are getting a bigger discount, yes. But, so are you. Just because you don't realize that, it doesn't nullify that fact. And, no one is saying poorer folks are entitled to living in luxury. My limited interaction with people in "affordable housing" units in luxury/nice buildings tells me that they are incredibly grateful and mindful of the "perk"/benefit they are enjoying. For those who have kids, I can imagine that the privilege is life altering, as they can count on their kids seeing (with their own eyes) the possibilities of a life of privilege.

Believe me... I am no bleeding heart liberal (some people who know me well would be aghast to read what I am writing here!) but I do think affordable housing is a net benefit for our society.

CdeCoincy wrote:
Quote:

JCishome wrote:
I think people may be conflating the idea of what "affordable housing" really is under the COAH guidelines in NJ. We're not talking about trucking in some welfare mom with 8 kids and setting them loose in your "luxury" building. People who qualify for these kinds of units have moderate incomes (maybe about $75,000 for a family of 4). That's a teacher, a cop, a bus driver...

By the way, before anybody has a freakfest, I'm not insulting the welfare moms, although I may question their choices. I'm just saying that's a different social issue than this kind of project addresses.

well said, and given Saint Peter's involvement I'd guess a lot of those apartments will go to staff and faculty.

moobycow wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

moobycow wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
If you're going to extort X amount of living units from building developers for a lucky few low income families, why not extort the same amount of money to build MORE units for low income families in a building that doesn't have marble floors, high end appliances, top quality finishes, etc?

Wouldn't that serve the low income families better by making more units available, or is this another vanity program by the lawmakers for show and tell?

Where? How complex would a program have to be to figure out a suitable location, purchase the land and manage the construction of new units somewhere else? Who manages that property? What neighborhood would want those additional units and not fight them?

Sometimes simpler is better.

Of course, the white liberal elite social engineers don't want simple-they're freaking out over simple lobbies, simple flooring, simple appliances, simple wall coverings, simple views for the few chosen to live in a luxury building supported by market price tenants.

Way to change the argument. One might be tempted to think that you just want to bitch about liberals.

Monroe wrote:
Quote:

moobycow wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
If you're going to extort X amount of living units from building developers for a lucky few low income families, why not extort the same amount of money to build MORE units for low income families in a building that doesn't have marble floors, high end appliances, top quality finishes, etc?

Wouldn't that serve the low income families better by making more units available, or is this another vanity program by the lawmakers for show and tell?

Where? How complex would a program have to be to figure out a suitable location, purchase the land and manage the construction of new units somewhere else? Who manages that property? What neighborhood would want those additional units and not fight them?

Sometimes simpler is better.

Of course, the white liberal elite social engineers don't want simple-they're freaking out over simple lobbies, simple flooring, simple appliances, simple wall coverings, simple views for the few chosen to live in a luxury building supported by market price tenants.

moobycow wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
If you're going to extort X amount of living units from building developers for a lucky few low income families, why not extort the same amount of money to build MORE units for low income families in a building that doesn't have marble floors, high end appliances, top quality finishes, etc?

Wouldn't that serve the low income families better by making more units available, or is this another vanity program by the lawmakers for show and tell?

Where? How complex would a program have to be to figure out a suitable location, purchase the land and manage the construction of new units somewhere else? Who manages that property? What neighborhood would want those additional units and not fight them?

Sometimes simpler is better.

JCishome wrote:
I think people may be conflating the idea of what "affordable housing" really is under the COAH guidelines in NJ. We're not talking about trucking in some welfare mom with 8 kids and setting them loose in your "luxury" building. People who qualify for these kinds of units have moderate incomes (maybe about $75,000 for a family of 4). That's a teacher, a cop, a bus driver...

By the way, before anybody has a freakfest, I'm not insulting the welfare moms, although I may question their choices. I'm just saying that's a different social issue than this kind of project addresses.

Monroe wrote:
If you're going to extort X amount of living units from building developers for a lucky few low income families, why not extort the same amount of money to build MORE units for low income families in a building that doesn't have marble floors, high end appliances, top quality finishes, etc?

Wouldn't that serve the low income families better by making more units available, or is this another vanity program by the lawmakers for show and tell?

bodhipooh wrote:
In any case, the point to the 80/20 concept is to encourage folks who are otherwise marginalized, or unable to afford living in these places, to improve their lot by "rubbing shoulders" with others who are at a better station in life.

vindication15 wrote:
Those less fortunate should have housing available to them on a temporary basis to get them off their feet. Temporary could even mean a couple of years. This shouldn't be permanent housing.

More importantly, this housing shouldn't be in a luxury apartment as that is unfair to those who pay market rates. Also, affordable housing in a luxury building makes absolutely no sense. You are basically saying it is a right to have stainless steel appliances, granite countertops, and a concierge. It's extremely unfair to those who pay market rate.

vindication15 wrote:
Way to broaden the argument. I'm for 80/20 neighborhoods - just not the same building. Call it luxury, don't call it luxury - I don't care. The fact remains - there are tenants in these buildings that get amenities such as a pool, indoor gym, concierge, roof deck, granite countertops, stainless steel appliances at an unfair price - not market rate.

It's unfair for me to have to pay for these amenities at market value. These amenities ARE NOT essential for affordable housing. I would like to hear your argument that it is...

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
- Segregating the students from non-student residential can make a lot of sense. Student housing may want common spaces that residents don't need; they will keep different hours; they may want different amenities, or the school might be responsible for maintaining certain amenities like a gym.

Agreed. As it should be, as college housing is usually subject to rules, regulations and restrictions not applicable to regular folks.

Quote:

Dolomiti wrote:
- For residential only, subsidized or middle-class residents may be willing to cut out certain luxuries in exchange for lower rents, such as doormen, elaborate lobbies, a gym, etc.

I am not sure I agree with this sentiment. The whole point to affordable housing, in the way it is envisioned, promoted and implemented, is to assure that "disadvantaged" people get to mingle with more affluent residents, under the idea that this can generate an overall positive influence on everyone. If you just stick poorer residents in a building, but keep them essentially segregated, you have not at all accomplished what you set out to do at first. I have visited many 80/20 luxury developments in Brooklyn and other parts of NYC. I think the idea is actually good and has changed my mind about affordable housing. I see families who wouldn't have otherwise been able to afford to live in a nicer neighborhood and building get to be a part of a more positive environment. I am sure that must have a good effect and influence on their kids, to be a part of a safer and healthier environment. Excluding them from the perks of such living, by outright segregation, or incentivized segregation (by allowing them to pay even less if they "choose" not to avail themselves of certain amenities) is contrary to the ideal, and probably detrimental in the long run.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

jmiz wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
It was a mess!

The buyers / renters have been forewarned of the arrangement, though. The building will be ON St Peter's property.


edit: I'd be more concerned about the affordable housing mixed in with luxury. See: battle of the entrances in NYC on mixed buildings.

I first heard of these separate doors a month or two ago while listening to NPR. It was very surprising, and disappointing. It immediately reminded me of the old "separate, but equal" policies. Color me naive, but I will say that it really surprised that such a thing existed in modern NYC. Even more interested is that in the same NPR segment, some of the people relegated to using those doors, were perfectly fine with it. They felt it was a small (or, insignificant?) price to pay for the ability/access to apartments they would never have been able to afford otherwise. I don't know... the easy thing to say is "if they don't mind, why fuss?" but I think the principles involved are much bigger and I think it is a pretty shameful setup. I then started to read more about the subject and learned that, in some buildings, beneficiaries of affordable housing are also denied access to some of the common amenities of luxury buildings (exercise room is not available to them free of charge, etc.)

But, to my knowledge, none of this is actually going on here in JC.

Dolomiti wrote:
- Segregating the students from non-student residential can make a lot of sense. Student housing may want common spaces that residents don't need; they will keep different hours; they may want different amenities, or the school might be responsible for maintaining certain amenities like a gym.

Dolomiti wrote:
- For residential only, subsidized or middle-class residents may be willing to cut out certain luxuries in exchange for lower rents, such as doormen, elaborate lobbies, a gym, etc.