Nothing Fuzzy About Affordable Conversion

forgot to put my name on the anon 3:51 post :-)

Posted by: stuy blkbuttrflie. at March 29, 2006 3:55 PM

it is true that this is just glorified rent stabilization but I'd rather them stay there for the rest of their lives than to be able to profit from a handout. with rent stabilized apts thats all you get, the benefit of a cheap place but you don't get to sell and cash out too. the benefit of this situation for those who use their opportunity wisely is the fact that they're paying down the mortgage, they are actually getting something out of it because when they sell they'll get all their money back and if they haven't finished paying off the mortgage they can pay it off and keep the rest as a downpayment for a new place along with the savings they SHOULD have. ppl in rent stabilized apartments as will as market rate apartments get NOTHING when they move out so they're damn lucky as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by: stuy blkbuttrflie. at March 29, 2006 4:42 PM

I also think that instead of allowing ppl to cash out at market rates after 15-25 years they should make them sell after 15-25 years (at the price they paid) to keep them from grandfathering.

Posted by: stuy blkbuttrflie. at March 29, 2006 4:45 PM

well, I think that ppl shouldn't be allowed to stay there for the rest of their lives because thats abusing the system as far as I'm concerned. this is help not a handout like I said. in order for these programs to continue to thrive and help ppl for years and years to come there has to be some kind of system in place to ensure that many ppl will be able to benefit. hypothetically if there's 30 apts in this building and ppl decide that they're never going to leave because they can't get any "equity" then only 30 ppl will benefit from this program forever. ppl are putting money into this and I think ppl should be able to benefit for years because housing is short in nyc, if we can't recycle good affordable housing programs the only choice left is to find another building to help another 30 ppl and so on and so forth until, what? we run out of buildings for negligible numbers? or you can force ppl to leave after a reasonable amount of time and allow another 30 to come in and benefit and so on and so forth for years to come... I think its fair that way.

Posted by: stuy blkbuttrflie. at March 29, 2006 5:38 PM

and anyone who is getting subsidized housing in NYC and able to own with assistance is lucking out no matter where it is.

Posted by: stuy blkbuttrflie. at March 29, 2006 5:40 PM

Bx2Bklyn -- you unnecessarily turned a mole into a mountain and thats okay because some ppl just don't know how to identify someone who just has a difference of opinion and someone who is an "elitist." I'm no landlord or anything like that I'm a renter myself, a renter of a market rate apartment and I haven't a problem with anyone being ASSISTED by a program like this. the point I was trying to make was that with this kind of situation ppl are given a handout they are not assisted if they're able to buy a property dirt cheap and flip it for millions and I think its unfair. to address the question about the lottery, there's nothing wrong with winning the lottery but you forget to factor in that ppl just don't randomly win the lottery, aside from the fact that all else equal most ppl who win the lottery have spent a significant amount of money over the years playing the lottery and they happen to luck up, even if we dismiss that idea and say for the sake of arguement that someone played the lottery once and hit it big they still paid to win the lottery and ran the risk of losing something if only the dollar they paid for the ticket. while that may seem significant to some that small detail makes it much different to me as these ppl are losing or risking NOTHING even if they are kicked out of their place after a certain amount of time and are forced to sell.

As for inflation, you make a compelling point my oversimplified suggestion doesn't account for inflation but so what? ppl who rent apartments don't get inflationary adjustments nor do the get to cash in and get the money back they paid its just the way it is and if that attitude "is an epic piece of callous disregard for real life. Sounds like you advocate eminent domain for the working poor and lower middle class. Seems elitist to me." or I'm suggesting that people "are disposable and interchangeable" the so be it. I'll bear that cross.

I don't have a problem with luck but LUCK got you to own a piece of property that someone else is paying half the cost for. I'm not suggesting that ppl should just squat in affordable housing because I don't think that ppl in lower income families shouldn't be helped but I guess you missed that as you were reading what I wrote and creating a completely different arguement in your head. the reason I made the suggestion I made was because I fully support people being helped, hundreds of thousands not just 20 ppl who won a lottery, the real estate business is give and take its not going to be perfect but if someone else is paying a significant part of the cost for your home allowing you to save money and then you essentially get a refund of the money you put into the apartment that seems like a damn good deal for me.

more so, I should thank you for hoping I never see my account go to zilt when life happens but the truth is it is what it is. you just can't give people everything because its self defeating. its my personal opinion that ppl should not be rescued and you're free to disagree but thats my opinion. yea, a person with low income could have a family memeber fall ill and lose all their savings then again so can a person without low income, in fact considering the benefits of this housing program a person can do much worse. over 15-25 years if you can't make it happen for yourself then move aside and make room for someone who can.

oh yea, and return on their investment? they're not getting "return on their investment" in the true sense but they money they're saving is return enough for me and if someone has to sacrafice their 700k profit so another family can be helped then so be it I'll be an elitist all day.

Posted by: stuy blkbuttrflie at March 29, 2006 9:10 PM

I'm not saying that I don't think that people should be able to cash in on equity. I'm simply saying that people cashing on on their equity means that no one else is helped past that point. Once someone cashes in on the property and sells it at market rate, walks off with their 700k then thats the end of that affordable housing program and all the money that as put into that program is basically wasted on 20 people to get rich. I don't think that should be the point of affordable housing programs. I would love to see people from lower incomes be able to cash in and do well for themselves but the truth is there are millions of people in new york and a significant amount of them can be considered lower income if we're pouring millions of dollars into programs to help 20 people get rich at a time, no real change is ever going to happen. maybe my suggestion was extreme but I totally back it because thats obviously the only way something like this will work. we all know at least one person living in a rent stabilized apartment who can afford to pay market rent. does that mean that they should have to pay more because they can afford it? no, not necessarily but it does point to the fact that people are abusing a system that should be used to help people who need help. if someone is going to subsidize something that is a handout. you're essentially giving them the money they're cashing out on because they didn't even pay market rate for the place and what they paid was partially paid for by someone else now they get to cash in and float off to Miami while there's thousands of other lower income families that need help? its unfair to me and I don't support it.

CHP- I totally agree that life is too short. I'm all about getting what you want and making it happen for yourself and thats what I feel these people should do. should they begrudge us because they were giving 25 years in subsidized housing and they weren't able to do anything with it? nope, they should make it happen for themselves and make it work. like you said life is too short, its a tough world out there and there's too many poor people in these streets to help a few at a time. time is money and everyday you're sitting in an apartment someone is paying half the cost for just so can stay there forever, is a day that someone else who would take advantage of the same opportunity to get on their feet and move on so someone else be helped. I'll stand alone and wave the flag for everyone in this city who just can't make it on their own and need programs like this to continue forever not to just go away when someone decides to cash out, sorry.

I agree that this program is flawed, its also fair in that it doesn't allow people to get more than they paid. you people are missing the point, they're not just handing these people a better life, that's not their job. they're indirectly giving them an opportunity to create a better life for themselves and I think its great the only flaw I see is that people have no incentive to move and they probably won't. if people are really about all those things you people are shouting from the rooftop about homeownership then they've got one foot in the door, they should make the best of it. I think its great that these people can't get more than they paid and they can't sell it to yuppies turning out the neighborhood but other people who need help. I'm all about this program.

and as an african american woman raised in low income housing I won't even dignify the "racist and elitist" comments with a response because I've found that no one can ever disagree here or they're suddenly racists... give me a break.

Posted by: stuy blkbuttrflie at March 30, 2006 6:40 AM

CHP - I think we'll have to agree to disagree about this. I just don't buy it. I don't think that people will sit on their butts and do nothing per se, I just think that they won't have an incentive to leave if they're not getting "equity" or they're not able to cash out big because thats usually the only reason people sell anyway. the nature of ambition is to want more, if you're sitting in subsidized housing where someone is paying half the cost of your home and you can't cash in on it then why would someone leave? I understand that rationale but its just not benefitial to others who need help. I don't have a perfect solution for affordable housing I just know that there's a lot of people in need, too many in fact to help 20 FOREVER.

yea, its easy to suggest that people should be able to own with little or no down payment, and that will help the situation. however, statistics show that people who little or no money down are more likely to default. it is suggested its because people who don't put an initial investment into the property "have nothing to lose". while I'm not exactly sure that is the case, it is similar to what I'm saying about these people essentially getting something for nothing and that should be enough. people who are lucky enough to be chosen for this program don't risk anything but get more than comparable people in their situation. nothing will prevent someone who got little or no down payment on their homes from losing everything from a family sickness within 25 years and being forced to sell. I suppose you're suggesting that they'll be better off because now they can sell the property for millions right? well, thats certainly possible in a best case scenario but what about those who aren't as lucky and are foreclosed? they're just as much out on the street as the people unfortunate enough to be in my proposed program who for whatever reason were not able to take advantage of their opportunity within the 25 alotted years. shit happens, there's no perfect solution and that being said I say help as many people with imperfection as possible. like you said, only a few will be helped at a time but there's a difference between 20 people being helped "at a time" and 20 people being helped "forever".

Posted by: stuy blkbuttrflie. at March 30, 2006 10:21 AM

maybe you're right anon 10:14, maybe its a matter of sematics and the debate is really about whether this should really be considered "home ownership". if thats the real problem then maybe it shouldn't be called "home ownership" and people will realize exactly what it is and not expect more from it than was meant to be given.

Posted by: stuy blkbuttrflie. at March 30, 2006 10:28 AM

okay, so after you've inevitably run out of buildings, because there's just not enough space here to help everyone, then what? what happens to those who weren't "lucky"? do they not deserve help? better yet, regardless of whether they deserve it or not basically you're suggesting that if they weren't "lucky" then too bad for them. maybe I'm interpreting what you're saying incorrectly. if so, I stand corrected, please clarify what they should do? if not, what's the difference between it being too bad for the people who were locked out all of the good housing programs because there just isn't enough space and money for everyone and too bad for those who got it for a specified amout of time, didn't make it happen for themselves, and are now back at square one?

Posted by: stuy blkbuttrflie. at March 30, 2006 10:56 AM

"Those who are foreclosed will leave and that condo will open up for another." but when I suggest that people will leave after 25 years and that property will open up for another, that's elitist.

I don't really follow what you're challenging here. no one is saying that the financial situation in a neighborhood will stay the same forever but there will always be poor people so I'm sure there'll always be someone to qualify for these apartments even after the yuppies have come and gone.

Posted by: stuy blkbuttrflie. at March 30, 2006 11:10 AM

there is not enough land, property or money in NYC for this overhaul of corporations coming together to rehab buildings and all that. that sounds real neat, but its unrealistic where are you getting this stuff from? you're saying that my "revolving door" suggestion is worse than you taking over buildings with what I presume is a money fountain and putting all the poor people in nice homes where they'll build equity and live happily ever after. honestly, I'd like to see that happen, I'd love nothing more than for poor people to get a break like that but even if you were given the benefit of the doubt and I'd assume that someone would be willing to do all of this... where is the land coming from? there's barely enough room for the people we have here now. I'm sure land and property will appear from no where to allow the poor to own condos. sign me up!

Posted by: stuy blkbuttrflie. at March 30, 2006 11:15 AM

maybe it is, but they don't have to choose to participate. they COULD choose to live somewhere where they gets nothing when they leave, they could chose to live somewhere where they'll pay the entire cost of the apartment. they could chose to live somewhere where people piss in the stairwells and elevators because they have no stock in the building. maybe they'll be better off if they do. you're basically saying give the poor all or give them nothing. you also suggested earlier that I would never live somewhere like that which is a total lie I'd be the first person in line if I had the opportunity to get into a program like this even if I could only stay there for 25 years beecause they wouldn't have to give me more than 10 I wouldn't stay there that long anyway I'd try my damnest to get something better and understand that if I can't then I just can't. I know what its like to be dirt poor and thats why I'm so passionate about it because I truly believe that a program like this is not the total solution, but its helpful and because people generally want to do better for themselves they will be open to help at least until your beautiful affordable housing condos come into existence and they can all move out and sell at market rate and move on and move up.

Posted by: stuy blkbuttrflie. at March 30, 2006 11:28 AM

its just a matter of what you consider real help. I know what corporations do for communities, I work for a VERY large financial corporation but I also understand what they won't do and I know that corps will only do so much not because they necessarily care but because they need good PR. EVERY large company has some kind of philanthropy program or something similar because there's an indirect way to make money from it and thats just the way it is I doubt they really give a damn about the poor. that being said, there's only so much a company will do to but you claim to know otherwise so for the sake of people who need help lets hope that'll happen. you're making suggestions that I don't see happening in the near future. I just consider my suggestion a bit more realistic but to each its own.

Posted by: stuy blkbuttrflie. at March 30, 2006 11:46 AM

I'm still reading too and thats a pretty decent compromise Amy.

Posted by: stuy blkbuttrflie. at April 1, 2006 6:33 PM