ladyjay114, what's going on in Brooklyn is gentrification. It's also happening in Harlem, the Lower East Side and Queens. The public housing is not being built next to those multi-million dollar condos. The condos are being built in convenient neighborhoods where there is opportunity for improvement. The same gentrification is going on in all major cities. Look at Washington D.C. What used to be some of the city's toughest neighborhoods are now home to upwardly mobile young people. Years ago, Capital Hill was dangerous to live near. What happened to the former residents who couldn't keep up with the cost of gentrification? They moved to Prince George's County, Maryland. Money talks. Unfortunately everybody else has to move.

I'm a partner in a real estate equity firm that owns rental units in NYC, NJ and LI. We do have a few buildings in the City where we accept low income rental subsidies. The point everyone misses is that property values have become fragile in the suburbs because supply is high and the demand is low. The New York City property values are stable because supply is low and the demand is always high. The only time when income becomes a deciding factor is when property values are fragile. Unfortunately for many suburban single family home owners, property values are on the brink. So I understand how they've become wary of poorer residents - its sad but true. At the same time, these owners should've been aware of the changing housing market. The demand for properties has been shifting from suburban to urban for some time now.

@Sarah:

What's going on in the rest of the country and the suburbs is the reason why people are willing to "risk" living next to low income people in NYC. Most of these new renters and buyers in the City are from every place except New York. They are coming here because we have the jobs. The rest of the country just doesn't.

Also the suburbs are facing declines in good schools and safe environment because of the loss of jobs and tax revenues. HBO has a documentary called "Hard Times: Lost on Long Island" about suburbanites who have lost jobs and are now facing poverty. The largest growth in poverty nationally is actually happening in suburban areas - people lost jobs and have mortgages they can't pay. Also, the cost of living in the suburbs for many families now outpace that of living in the city. Commuting time, transportation expenses, property taxes and home maintenance costs - particularly in the current economic climate - have made the suburbs unattractive.

Interesting read of all the comments here.

I think everyone got away from what the Federal lawsuit was about. Basically, Westchester County took federal money to make affordable housing and didn't, but told the Feds that they did. That's a violation of the law and now the county has to either build the housing or pay the money back (with penalties).

As for affordable housing - it only works where it will be economically feasible. Unfortunately Westchester County is just not one of those places. The land costs too much and the taxes and cost of living is too high, even for the low six figure earning family. Many residents have left the county because its become so expensive. So for the government to try to get affordable housing there is really futile.

By the way, "affordable" doesn't mean low income. My husband and I applied for (but didn't get) a space in an "affordable" apartment building in Chelsea a couple of years ago. The minimum income requirement was $75,000. That's far from low-income.

As for low-income citizens affected home values, it depends on the location. "LadyJay114" is correct - there are many places where Section 8 and housing projects don't dampen home values at all. I actually live in South Park Slope and know where the area that Gowanus projects is located. My husband and I tried moving into that neighborhood but its too expensive, even with the projects. Its the same situation in Red Hook - the neighborhood has the largest housing project in North America but it hasn't stopped the yuppies, hipsters and artists from setting up shop over there.

But then there are some places where people don't feel that making the investment is worth it. That's what "Kendra" maybe going through with her potential renters or buyers. Her problem could be being next to a low income area, but the lack of interest could also be the location, the type of housing being offered and/or the asking price.

Hi Brian,

Regarding your Fair Housing segment, I was dismayed at a comment that one of your callers made. He complained that low-income folk were ruining his Bronx neighborhood. I grew up in the south Bronx, low income but never LOW CLASS. It's misguided and terribly unfair to paint the poor with one brush.

@ladyjay114
the rest of the country and the suburbs are not NYC. People move to the suburbs for a reason. For the same reason, prices have fallen everywhere in the country except NYC, it obviously needs to be looked at differently. People move to suburbs for schools, safe environment for their kids, low crime, open space, etc. There are many suburbs to choose from. That is not the case with NYC. You go into NYC knowing what is around you and your choices are far more limited. You may not want to pay high property taxes for poor schools, NYC is different there too. There is limited space and it is fully developed. Your comparisons make no sense. Apples and oranges as they say.

And when Secretary of State Clinton and President Clinton purchased their home in Westchester County, they didn't buy in the estate area of Yonkers or even one of the large, lovely homes in the economically and racially diverse city of New Rochelle, they chose Chappaqua.

"If one can not put themselves in the shoes of a potential home-buyer (making one of the largest investments of their lives, probably looking for good schools and a safe neighborhood for there children and see how preposterous that is.."

The Gowanus Housing project in Brooklyn sits in the middle of Boerum Hill in Brooklyn. Homes across the street are selling for over $2 Million. When they were together, actors Heath Ledger and Michelle Williams bought a house two blocks from the housing development for $3.5 Million. The schools in that area have waiting lists for pre-schools.

Farragut, Ingersoll and Walt Whitman Houses in Brooklyn also haven't curbed the housing values of the number of condominiums and luxury rental buildings that are directly across the street (the Oro and Toren condos, and the Avalon luxury rental building).

The Amsterdam Houses lie on W. 64 and Amsterdam Avenue in the heart of the Upper West Side. Across West End Avenue lie the Rushmore condo. Good luck getting an apartment in that building for less than $3 Million.

I can go on and on.

Deputy secretary Jones had a comment about people being able to live "where they are making a contribution". What exactly does that mean? Does it have to do with where people work, where they have friends, where they attend worship services?

And re: home values, it's absurd to think that location doesn't affect home values. Look at the prices of homes in Bronxville vs. those in the next-door estate area of Yonkers. You would pay double for the same size house and property in the same condition. And your taxes would be triple. It's all about the schools.

Providing reasonably priced housing is a good and noble thing but the way this is being handled is wasting millions of dollars trying to put affordable apartment buildings in Chappaqua and Scarsdale.

ladyjay114, I cannot argue with someone who believes that is a fact. Its like convincing someone that the tooth fairy is not real. I live near a relatively recent development, and I can tell you it most certainly does. One of the first questions buyers ask when they come to look at my place, is if that building over there is low income, then we never hear from them again. I think one of the other commenters sums it up better than I can.

@Kendra - Low income housing doesn't affect home values. Its a fact. Its the economy that affects home values. Home values will decrease where there isn't accompanying employment that will fill those homes.

New York City is a perfect example of how low income housing hasn't affected home values. There are dozens of housing projects that are surrounded by million dollar homes.

@Truth & Beauty
that's wonderful. that doesn't mean the government needs to use tax dollars wastefully to place subsidized housing in arguably one the most expensive suburb in the US. I'm sure more homes could have been built elsewhere far more efficiently without bringing new problems to an already established neighborhood.

I can't believe I heard this guest actually say that there is no evidence that low income housing impacts property values. If one can not put themselves in the shoes of a potential home-buyer (making one of the largest investments of their lives, probably looking for good schools and a safe neighborhood for there children and see how preposterous that is), one only has to look at MLS data to show that is not he case. When an official speaks like that, they lose all credibility immediately. How can one take them seriously.

Sarah from Manhattan:

Check out the Torah and Walden, by Henry David Thoreau, and see what they say about how to treat the impoverished. All human beings have a right to be housed and have enough to eat, and those of us who have those basic comforts should do more to help those who don't. It doesn't matter where they live, just that they have the basic necessities of life and a chance at employment (teach a man to fish...).

In response to the caller who says that people on public assistance are a problem: public assistance recipients are not the problem. Most of the social problems in those areas are caused by renters in private housing.

When you're on subsidized housing vouchers (i.e. Section 8, Work Advantage) you can get kicked off those programs if you aren't working or get evicted. So those people actually have an incentive to be responsible. Landlords having problems with people on Section 8 are rare. The only problem most landlords have with Section 8 are with the government; the housing agencies tend to pay vouchers late.

I wonder just how familiar this guest is with the various communities in Westchester that this initiative would impact. Has he visited any of them and does he understand what the problems actually are ?

Low income housing does not affect home values?! Is this guy on something? I'm pretty left of center, but even I have a shred of reality when it comes to that.

My income is too high for subsidized housing, but it is not high enough to buy a house in Westchester. Why can't I get government subsidies to supplement my income to buy a house in Westchester? From what I remember of this dispute, Westchester was also supposed to target specific racial minorities. However, there are many low income whites who would, apparently, not benefit from this housing.

I appreciate Sec. Jones's answer to the caller who opposed racial discrimination but thought income discrimination was fine, but it's not only the assumption that certain behavior is limited to low-income people that needs to be challenged--even more, it's the assumption that such behavior is common among low-income people.

@Truth & Beauty
perhaps because there really wasn't a large homeless population in Westchester until poverty was "imported" with these types of initiatives.

Hmm... ever heard of something called "Classism"? Just because people make a certain amount of money doesn't mean they are actually anything like the stereotypes that you've all grown to love.

As it happens, providing low-income housing reduces homelessness, and, with a roof over their heads, gives the residents a base from which to seek, obtain and profit from employment. Why on earth would anyone object to such a thing? Unless the citizens of Westchester County would like to have more and more homeless individuals wandering about...

Basically the Government wants Landlords to take government programs, even though these so-called benefits are a bureaucratic nightmare to get.

The NYC council, in their infinite wisdom, passed a similar "source of income discrimination" law and just two years later, they discontinued their "work-advantage" program - without warning or an alternative, leaving landlords stuck with tenants that can't pay their rent and now face eviction - brilliant.

This kind of social engineering is a disgrace. It was the same good deeds that created the urban blight of the 60s. We should learn that communities need to form organically to be cohesive.

I'd like to know what it cost per unit to provide housing to those that need it as well as what it costs to maintain each unit under state, city, or federal control.

LOL, I heard Maurice Jones, a jolly fellow, interviewed August 10th on WOR by John Gambling and it was a much tougher and more demanding interview than we are likely to get here by Brian Lehrer. (Yes, the King of Kid Glove Puff Pieces with democratic administration lackeys.) Link to podcast is below

Particularly enjoyable are Jones’s bureaucratic techno speak phrases like “analysis of impediments” to affordable housing ..... demanding that local governments pass “source of income” legislation .... and HUD’s use of their fat purse strings in ways that resemble, oh say, a garrote.

HEY, BRIAN…..ASK MR. JONES ABOUT MIKE KRUGLIK !!!

(http://wor710.com/topic/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=5978764)

Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan
I cannot wait till this election is over to stop reading your biased comments. I remind you that Obama has been in office 3 1/2 years and any action he tried was blocked by the right.

Every topic is not a chance to attack Obama.

“HOW OBAMA IS ROBBING THE SUBURBS TO PAY FOR THE CITIES”

This new book by the excellent journalist Stanley Kurtz should be noted by anyone listening from the suburbs, yes even the Lefties and especially minorities, who value their homes and the lives they have worked hard to establish outside New York. Kurtz describes how Obama is going after the suburbs with the intent of redistributing their wealth and purposely shrinking the advantages of living there. (He still thinks, having never left his urban academic bubble, that the suburbs are inhabited only by “rich white folks”.)

Obama is supporting the “Regional Equity Movement” and intends to move on this in a second term. In fact, one of Obama’s original trainers as a community organizer, Mike Kruglik, is on the White House staff working full time on this. Maurice Jones is another bureaucratic foot soldier in this movement.

http://www.amazon.com/Spreading-Wealth-Robbing-Suburbs-Cities/dp/1595230920/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1345551994&sr=1-1&keywords=stanley+kurtz+spreading+the+wealth

I traveled to Yonkers in the early 80s and it was a quite small town, Majority white. Now it is an extention of the Bronx, with all the problems of the inner city. This is because good people try to escape the Bronx and bring the bronx up with them. The same has happened all along the Hudson line.

I don't know what is the solution, but I doubt it is to pack poor people together as in the projects.