The problem here is the same as in all the NY housing problems, the lack of political will of the State and City politicians to work for the needs of the people rather than the real estate interests that have bought them out.It is clear that the voice of the homeless and people trying to keep their affordable homes has been heard in Albany but with a deaf ear.The only response is to starve the real estate speculators, financed by Wall Street banks,is by a city wide rent slowdown for May1. Show Albany and City Hall that renters vote and are opposed to a housing policy that causes homelessness.
NYCRENTSTRIKE.com to get info

I have heard the right segment. You are sadly living in a fantasy land where people who live in affordable housing are nice lovely outstanding vegetarian citizens who shop at the farmers market and work on their dining table as an office. I live in reality and here in reality walking through "affordable housing" late at night is a good way to get shot/robbed/raped/stabbed. Seriously- you are assuming "hard working people" are the ones to get into these buildings. That's delusional, that is just not reality.

What is meant by "Affordable?"
What Hakeem Jeferies and Christine Quinn are proposing is going to happen. There are too many condo developments in financial trouble and too many families in need of housing.

The problem is that the city's affordable housing plans are geared to the Area Median Income (AMI), which is set by the federal department of Housing and Urban Development.

The New York AMI is $70,900. However, that figure incorporates not only the five boroughs of New York City, but also the more affluent Nassau, Putnam, Rockland, Suffolk, and Westchester counties.

A family of four would have to make $60,000-$115,000 a year to qualify for "affordable" housing. There are not a lot of people in need of decent housing who are making that much money. WTF?
AMI for Brooklyn alone is $32,135 and for Manhattan $38,293.

Lets have real "affordable" housing for those who really need it.

by the way if these building aren't filled they'll become crack houses!

licnyc
assemblyman jeffries is talking about puting a few working class people into a few empty buildings that have already been build not building 'projects.' maybe we heard different segments of todays show?

I seem to be having the opposite problem...I applied for and got approved for an affordable housing opportunity through the NYC HPD to purchase and apartment. I have been waiting for 9 months to see if I will actually get in to the building. It is new and it is standing vacant. Last week I drove by and there is a sign out front that says "luxury green condos for sale." This was supposed to be a city-sponsored low cost opportunity. Now it seems to have gone private. I have not been able to find out what is going on. Who should I contact?

@hjs from 11211, have you been to the projects? Because this is the same exact nonsense from the 70's. Putting a few thousand poor people shoved into a small area and it turns into gangland. Its just common sense. Move to jersey city. Move to westchester. Put in better infrastructure. I'm sorry people have to commute but guess what, life is unfair, deal with it. Making more "affordable housing" complexes AKA projects is an extremely stupid idea.

licnyc
no one is talking about 'projets.' but we do need more middle class/working class housing near the city. the days of people sitting in cars 4 hours day to and from work are coming to an end.

Yada, yada, yada -- affordable housing. But real people end up with $2500/month studio apartments and landlords and real estate folks get richer. Every single elected/appointed official is in the back pocket of the real estate industry and the whole city is going to end up like the south Bronx except the Upper East Side along Park, Fifth and Madison Avenues.

7 - hit the nail on the head

I think this is a great idea. However, at least in the case of Williamsburg and Greenpoint, adding the number of new residents represented by the construction I see currently (wealthy or otherwise) is still going to overwhelm the existing transportation infrastructures.

I heard from one bar owner that commercial landlords get a large tax break for having a vacant store front. This essentially encourages landlords to jack up the rent very high. If they get someone who can pay it, great. If not, they get a huge tax break.

I haven't found this documented anywhere, though. Is this, in fact, true?

Great, another slick trick to insure developers get their profits. Housing unlike commercial/industrial space will always find a price. For once, let the market work for the little guy. Developer defaults to bank for 50 cents on the dollar, bank sells quick to make back its cash, housing sold for 50% of original price.

I will never be able to afford to buy a home in my neighborhood unless I win the lottery. So I would be thrilled to move into a new apartment if the rent was affordable and I could rely on some of the protections of rent stabilization that I now have in my charming but rundown brownstone building (controlled rent increases, lease renewal requirements, and protection from eviction). I would also be very interested in some kind of rent-to-own agreement.

This is ridiculous. We have been down this road, affordable housing results into projects. Everyone here who wants to live near the projects, raise their hands. Its a stupid stupid idea. It was stupid in the 70's its a stupid idea now.

I concur with the previous post, many of these new buildings are either pretty shoddy or extremely poorly planned. They are dead in the water and deserve to be and they are definitely not true “luxury”. Calling it that doesn’t make it so. The builders took a gamble and lost. This plan sounds like it will only be a waste of taxpayer dollars paying an inflated price for sake of having so called affordable housing. Paying anything more than cost for these units is unacceptable.

In Greenpoint, landlords are illegally marketing their empty units as hotel rooms on Craig's List.

Because DOB never cracked down on these places as they were being built & insisted they get C of O's there is no legal way to get these landlords to change their ways.

Many thanks to Hakeem Jeffries -- great idea!

the classic six... by twelve

great idea!
i saw this coming, during the building boom
3 - 5 years ago when my friends complained about all the new "luxury highrise condos" i had a feeling they would never sell.

Many recent developments in Brookyn, especially Bed-Stuy, have ALSO not sold because they are poorly planned, out of scale and context and (for new buildings), not energy efficient.

I'm talking windowless rooms, unventilated kitchens and bathrooms, balconies you can't stand on, mould in newly built basements, etc. Just basic poor design.

If short-sighted, quick and cheap developers cannot sell their product, that is the market telling them loud and clear that what they are building is not wanted. It's a crime that such shoddy buildings are palmed off as affordable housing, if the taxpayer is subsidizing this process in any way, we deserve higher standards and some say in what is developed.

We can't give a green light and financial incentive for developers to keep banging up low quality developments. "Affordable" housing does not have to mean nasty, thoughtlessly planned stuff that can't be sold on the open market.