Saturday, May 23, 2009

Affordable housing yet to materialize in Brooklyn

From the Daily News:

Four years after agreeing to let private developers build luxury condos on the Williamsburg/Greenpoint waterfront, the city has yet to deliver promised affordable housing there.

None of the 1,345 low- and middle-income apartments that were pledged by the city have been completed - and construction has begun on just one apartment building, with a mere 14 units, officials conceded.

The affordable units were part of an agreement that helped get a controversial rezoning plan passed by the City Council.

12 comments:

Missing Foundation said...

What did I say about those 'Affordable Housing' groups - just fronts for developers giving things a working class pitch so they buy into their taxes going for Tower People instead of their community.

Note these are always massive projects they plump for with 1000s of units.

Meanwhile rent stabilization is being cut back and they say nothing.

Eh ACORN?

Anonymous said...

Who cares? Government should not be trying to manipulate rental costs.

Anonymous said...

Who cares? Well, the only reason this was passed is because of the affordable housing component. If there is no affordable housing component, the zoning should revert back to what it was.

Wade Nichols said...

When the city gets rid of antiquated "rent control" laws, affordable housing will come.

See chapter 3 of Thomas Sowell's excellent book, "Basic Economics".

Miles Mullin said...

How about tax cuts? Then 1000s of units become more affordable in a pen stroke.

"Socialist" Lino said...

"Wade Nichols said...
When the city gets rid of antiquated "rent control" laws, affordable housing will come."

Written as a true ideologue/ignoramus.


'Not at all you refer to Sowell and his Fox "news" brand of econ-logic.

Anonymous said...

This "affordable housing" is the quid pro quo for destroying the older housing stock where many of the poor and working class lives.

If we are to be rendered homeless, why should we support the regime. ACT UP and ACT UP Now, before it is too late. Vote all of their asses out of office.

I don't need to be driven from the home my grandparents settled in nearly a hundred years ago so a bunch of spoiled, rich brats can move in.

We paid our dues, now rich, drop dead. You can't have ten houses, leave one for your maid, waitress, secretary, teacher, bus driver, policeman, fireman...

Wade Nichols said...

Written as a true ideologue/ignoramus.

'Not at all you refer to Sowell and his Fox "news" brand of econ-logic.
I can hardly even figure out what the hell you're saying here.

I don't watch Fox News, nor any news. 3 movies a week from Netflix, that's it.

Maybe you can explain why New York and San Francisco have the most restrictive rent control laws in the country, and also have the most homeless people in the country? Seeing how you know it all......

Lino said...

"Maybe you can explain why New York and San Francisco have the most restrictive rent control laws in the country, and also have the most homeless people in the country? Seeing how you know it all......"

Well, Rambo fan you are just digging yourself into a hole trying to equate homelessness w/rent regulation.

Luckily for you I have run dry of adjectives for the stupidity of that remark.

Homeless people cannot afford your "free market" -that is one factor that put them there to begin with.

All that the repeal of rent stabilization would have accomplished would have been to -increase- homelessness and fatten the landlord's wallets.

Really, Mr Nichols if compassion fails you, try a little logic here.

Anonymous said...

New York and San Francisco have the problems they do due to geography. New York is a city of islands, San Francisco is a city located on a narrow pennisula.

In the case of New York, many acres of land have been added through landfill, but there is still only so much space.

In both cases, rent controls were established because of the necessity of protecting the poor and vulnerable and insuring an adequate supply of moderate cost labor to perform the dirty work of the city.

As usual, you put the cart before the horse. I have previously suggested that you read histories of New York so that you can discover that the free market never prevented vicious slums in New York.

May I add a suggestion that you add some maps to the reference list?

Anonymous said...

"In both cases, rent controls were established because of the necessity of protecting the poor and vulnerable and insuring an adequate supply of moderate cost labor to perform the dirty work of the city."

Incorrect. In 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Emergency Price Control Act into law. The goal of the act was to prevent inflation in the booming, fully employed wartime economy by setting price controls nationwide. It was supposed to be temporary. We haven't had a booming, fully employed wartime economy in decades.

Anonymous said...

New York and San Francisco have the problems they do due to geography. New York is a city of islands...

Bingo!
What is Sowell's argument, that removing controls will increase the supply of housing, thus bringing down prices?
Well, considering all the moaning and groaning that goes on here about additional housing units being built, and in light of the geographical limits of NYC, I'd say Sowell's argument may have limited usefulness in places like San Fran and New York. No solution is universally applicable, Wade. You're supposedly smart enough to know that.