Steal This House! PACC Home Raffle Open Now

That's great that they're fixing up buildings but they could be a lot more effective at providing affordable housing if they sold properties at market rates and then used the proceeds for housing vouchers for the poor.

And someone making $150K does not need a hand out from a not-for-profit.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 9:57 AM

I don't think housing vouchers do much but put a band-aid on someone's financial problems. I see vouchers as hand-outs whereas home ownership is a hand-up.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 10:03 AM

No one ever gave me anything and I'm doing fine. If you can't afford the city, move to PA.

I wouldn't even give my own kids a house despite the high prices. Make'em work for it and let'em move somewhere cheaper!

Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 10:15 AM

Why is a non-profit subsidizing housing for people making over $100K per year. They should cut these houses up and make them into smaller units (rental or condo) that working class people can afford.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 10:22 AM

Only in new york.

A lottery for rich people.

Who can justify living in one of those entire single families? if they have 150k in income (the cut-off) and are shivering in the cold, then they need to consider moving to jersey or along the LIRR.

If one of us (rich blog readers) win, can we rent it out? can we resell and spend the profit at urban outfitters?

Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 10:32 AM

My question is how can a family, even one making 160K, afford a 600K home, especially with only 5% down?? This seems like a ridiculous proposition, especially if property taxes increase. There are numerous expenses (maintenance, insurance, closing costs) that accompany owning a home and these income restrictions seem silly considering that in reality a 320K salary is really what it takes to finance a 600K home and its upkeep. Why not sell the homes at market rate and use the proceeds to fund multifamily building rehab like FAC?

Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 10:41 AM

I agree with 10:41--a $600,000 gut renovation seems way out of reach for a $160K or less salary. Or maybe I am just conservative fiscally. But the very idea of someone at that salary spending that much helps me understand who is buying all these expensive properties--people who in my view must be way overextended!

Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 10:48 AM

If I have a million in the bank but my income is 100k, do I qualify?

Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 10:52 AM

10:28 People who serve coffee for a living can't afford to buy a 600,000 house.

You sound like a moron. I'd like to live in Beverly Hills where is my kick start? People make choices about where to live based on their budget. Its a fact of life.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 11:00 AM

I fall below the income requirements, but what would happen if someone moved in with me? (married or not)

The only affordable single-family is nowhere near a subway.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 11:02 AM

50% of 9 houses go to local residents. The idea makes sense of apartments, but not for a small number of houses.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 11:07 AM

my partner and i jointly still make less than the PACCs guidelines (except the monroe house). we bought a place for a little less than the waverly house, with a 10% downpayment from money we had been saving for the past several years. so it is possible for people in that income bracket to buy a house like this. however, the place we bought has rental income, which makes a big difference.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 11:10 AM

The math makes no sense. The Waverly house is only a single family, but goes for $600K and has an income requirement of below $161K. How can you afford the house?

Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 11:18 AM

I don't doubt that it's possible to buy a 600K home on 160K - income, but, and call me fiscally conservative as well, I don't think it's wise, unless you do happen to have a million in the bank and are betting that the recent levels of appreciation continue (which is unlikely). Also, size of household is a big factor...a household of 2 has a lot more disposable income. Rental income can halve a mortgage payment, so I would say it makes a HUGE difference and also helps when obtaining a mortgage in the first place.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 11:21 AM

I belive PACC does the renovation and the house is delivered in move-in condition. See the link to the announcement.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 11:29 AM

"Rental income can halve a mortgage payment, so I would say it makes a HUGE difference and also helps when obtaining a mortgage in the first place."

It is a single family. No rental income possible.

"A buyer will put 2 income free years at least of their life getting it into livable condition. How much would it cost?"

The houses are already renovated.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 11:30 AM

SCAM like all affordable housing programs. Fleecing the taxpayers of their dollars so politicians can line their pockets. Most of the comments on this thread are ill informed to say the least.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 11:33 AM

Anon 11:33--SCAM like all affordable housing programs. Fleecing the taxpayers of their dollars so politicians can line their pockets. Most of the comments on this thread are ill informed to say the least.

and your facts supporting these contentions are where?

Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 12:49 PM

I make 1/2 the salary cap, so I could qualify to buy the building.
One catch, I make 1/2 the salary cap, so I don't even have a deposit for $600,000
plus the ready cash to do a gut reno, and probably still pay rent for a place to live
during the gut reno (don't think you could even camp out in that building).

Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 1:07 PM

chickenmadness,

To qualify your total gross income must be 160 or less. Someone making 160 gross is actually taking home much less.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 1:10 PM

i'd like to see the average inccomes for home buyers in brooklyn. obviously lots of people have tons of money to spend on fancy houses, but for most it's totally out of the question. the PACC here seems to be targeting people in between these ranges. it's a good thought, but how many houses do they offer a year? this crop is a real drop-in-the-bucket situation. i fall within the guidelines and i didn't need any help to buy a house in this range. but damn i sure would have liked some! i wonder what this house will appraise for.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 1:23 PM

pay attention people! or go to the PACC link - this has been renovated.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 1:33 PM

Yeah, guys, it might help to actually read the announcement before you get up in arms.

From what I can tell, they are selling them below market price, but they still want to make sure that the people buying are qualified buyers. That's why Waverly income cutoff is 160k- they want to be sure that applicants can handle the mortgage.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 1:50 PM

There is something funky going on with the posts that are displayed.
I see comments appearing before I posted (that were not there when I posted).

I'm sure others are having the same issue, and that's why stuff that has already
been posted (like that the house is/will be renovated) was not visible when we made posts.
*confused*

Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 2:16 PM

What are you talking about 2:16pm? All the info you need is in the story itself.

"latest batch of homes ... that it has fixed up."

"all new construction on the interior"

Sounds like someone needs reading comprehension classes.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 2:58 PM

That Waverly house looks like a good deal, I agree, but isn't it going to be in the "shadow of Atlantic Yards", and dealing with construction for the next 1,309 years? Or at least close enough that it's a concern?

Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 2:58 PM

"1:10 - The formulas i used are supposed to be based on gross income, not net.

Believe it or not, The numbers in this program for affordability work. Granted, you can't live the high life - but when you buy a home for the first time you have to cut back on the luxuries."

LUXURIES? You mean like buying food and going out at night? Assuming a buyer actually makes the max of 160K gross, the after-tax income is roughly $8,666 a mo. Also assuming the minimum downpayment of 5%, the mortgage, plus taxes (not even taking into account insurance and paying for repair/maintenance) comes to roughly 4K a mo. In this scenario, housing costs are roughly 50% of take-home income...any economist would tell you that being HOUSE POOR is foolish. Please demonstrate, 1:28, how these numbers actually work using the assumptions given...?

Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 3:18 PM

Anyone that thinks they should spend 50% of their take home on housing is a fool.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 3:54 PM

If people were doing "just fine," there wouldn't be such an enormous, overwhelming demand for middle-class housing. Just look at today's NYT:

GARDEN CITY, Jan. 24 — In 2000, 60 percent of the homes sold on Long Island could be classified as “affordable” for families earning up to $100,000 a year, under the old rule of thumb that buyers should spend no more than 2.5 times their income on places to live.

Last year, according to a new report, just 2 percent of the houses sold on Long Island were in that range for families with such earnings, which make up more than 60 percent of Long Island households.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 4:12 PM

I suspect many people who spend that much on housing don't save enough for retirement or otherwise.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 4:16 PM

Great program wish I can buy it.

I would never move to LI there's too much cancer from homes built on toxic waste lands. That's why the homes are so affordable. The comute sucks big time.

Besides all the old timers that ran to LI in the 60's are sending thier grandkids back to reclaim brownstone brooklyn ;-)

Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 4:32 PM

I think that if you make just below the maximum and can afford to put down closer to 10 or even a bit more than 10% down, then the house DEFINITELY becomes affordable. I just selfishly wish the house were reserved for people who already have families, instead of a single person earning $160K without dependents. In such a case, I think that person probably doesn't need the help as much as a family with a combined income that's less than $160K. Just my two cents.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 5:34 PM

You know if Brownstoner didn't post a photo of a boarded up building and say
435 Waverly Avenue (shown here in its realier condition). Then people would not
be so confused. Reading it again, it's a typo for earlier, but a quick read
and it say real, and combined with the photo, it look like all you get is a boarded up shell.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 6:23 PM

All those descendents of bigoted grandparents who ran from NYC because a few black and brown people moved in "their" neighborhood are reclaiming their rights!!

Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 6:56 PM

"Also assuming the minimum downpayment of 5%, the mortgage, plus taxes (not even taking into account insurance and paying for repair/maintenance) comes to roughly 4K a mo."

what about the mortgage interest tax deduction? after tax, the mortage and prop taxes are much less than $4K.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 7:50 PM

Yeah, and what about utilities (heating bills of $500 per mo are not uncommon), car payments/insurance, students loans, credit card payments, tuition, groceries, entertainment, travel, dependents, etc. I suspect the majority of posters are single and have never owned a home if they assume the amount left over after the house payment/taxes is just mad money.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 26, 2007 10:37 PM

Who earns $160K (single or combined) and doesn't have own yet? With that much income, buying is easy.

For us the earn much much less (but are still considered upper middle class), things are harder.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 27, 2007 12:57 AM

3:54, the well-known statistic for NYC dwellers has always been that they spend 50% of their income on average on housing. It's the highest in the USA. Nothing new. BUT, home buyers can also make more money on buying and selling here, than anywhere else in the country. Except CA maybe, when it's not in a slump. Some people buy and sell every two years and use the income that's not taxable to live on. I think if we were people living somewhere where we only spent 20% of our income on housing, we'd be complaining about not making as much money on our real estate. I have a family friend in Iowa who has had her house (a nice one) on the market for a year and can't sell it. Speaking of profits, the big question for me about these houses is what happens when an owner wants to sell? Does the property always have to be sold below-market, to incomes under $160K? See, if that's how it is, then spending 50% of one's income on it isn't such a great deal.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 27, 2007 7:54 AM

Can you rent out all or a portion of the two or three family houses? Or do they require that you live there? I looked on the PACC web site and can't find that info..

Posted by: Anonymous at January 28, 2007 12:19 PM

Is it me, or are folks overlooking the fact that 160K is the *MAXIMUM* income requirement? In this day and age and city, that kind of salary does not label you as *RICH*.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 28, 2007 5:56 PM

"low, low price"? huge score? It's as if 2 different languages are being spoken in Brooklyn. Most of the people I know in & around Brooklyn would be flabbergasted that they were hawking a shell for $600k. With reno and holding costs, this is clearly a $1 million+ project. Man, the working class is screwed out of Brooklyn, huh?

Posted by: Anonymous at January 29, 2007 3:21 PM

So, how many applied? I put my name down for two houses on Classon and one on Monroe.

PACC had no idea about the number of bedrooms in any house.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 8, 2007 11:01 AM

I'm an appraiser and have appraised one of these PACC rehabs recently for an owner to refinance. They do a decent job with the renovations and these property's lots alone are worth what they are selling them for. I certainly entered the lottery. You must live in the property for at least seven years. If you decide to sell before the seven years, you have to give PACC/HUD a hefty portion of the sales price. There is basically a 'subsidy' that the city is giving the moderate income home-buyers to get these properties at these prices. This is not for investors and such. With the arena getting ready to rise downtown, these property's values are going to sky-rocket SOON.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 12, 2007 6:10 PM