It's no secret that New York City was formerly the nation's biggest landlord in 1979 when it owned over 8,950 abandoned buildings city wide but then aggressively sold them off for almost nothing to private owners. Many of those formerly decaying properties became low income rentals or co-ops. The New York Times today reveals that some of those buildings with co-op apartments bought for $250 or rental apartments going for as low as $90 a month are having hard times in recent years. With higher facility fees and people not able to find work, mortgage defaults are a concern in neighborhoods such as the Bronx and Harlem. The article also reveals that the city now only actually owns 190 buildings (in greater NYC) altogether out of the original thousands. Read more in the New York Times: LINK. Photo by Ulysses
Monday, July 19, 2010
☞ READ: Trouble for Some Affordable Buildings
It's no secret that New York City was formerly the nation's biggest landlord in 1979 when it owned over 8,950 abandoned buildings city wide but then aggressively sold them off for almost nothing to private owners. Many of those formerly decaying properties became low income rentals or co-ops. The New York Times today reveals that some of those buildings with co-op apartments bought for $250 or rental apartments going for as low as $90 a month are having hard times in recent years. With higher facility fees and people not able to find work, mortgage defaults are a concern in neighborhoods such as the Bronx and Harlem. The article also reveals that the city now only actually owns 190 buildings (in greater NYC) altogether out of the original thousands. Read more in the New York Times: LINK. Photo by Ulysses
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well here's a discouraging if not surprising beginning to the week.
ReplyDeleteNot surprised.
ReplyDelete"In shedding its enormous real estate portfolio, once numbering nearly 9,000 buildings, the city steered ownership of the buildings to tenants"
"People bought co-op apartments for as little as $250, according to the city, while renters pay as little as $90 a month."
So how the hell can't they make mortgage or rent payments, or do they want the tax payer to pick up the tab for those too...along with the water, gas, electric etc?
The city is in a financial crisis. How can we continue to carry those who are not working BUT are able to work and are too damn lazy b/c welfare takes care of them for free?
9:38am, Our social welfare programs including housing has cultivated an entitlement posture & expectation from the underclass, cradle to grave, immunized from fiscal responsibility and the cost of living in NYC. I know people that are pissed that they have to pay $300/Month for 3 bedroom Apts 2 blocks from Central Park.
ReplyDeleteI know a guy that was homeless & living in a card board box here in NYC in the 70's, he got one of these near free Harlem Brownstones back in the day and fixed it up, became a landlord, he's now got 2 or 3 Brownstones and has a good measure of financial security.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I've heard Graham Court (116th & 7th), also known as "The New Jack City" Bldg (where it was filmed, the drug mfg plant) sold in 1980 for $10,000, the whole building, can anyone verify this?
So the people with those lovely apartments between 110th & 125th who refuse to work and don't pay rent/mortgage, kick them out and replace them people who will pay market rate. Not only will this improve the immediate areas (i.e not throwing garbage and expecting others to pick up after them) it will actually bring some income into the surrounding areas and businesses. This will never happen though will it.
ReplyDeleteIt would be interesting to find out an accurate number of SRO's in Central Harlem?
ReplyDeleteI live in an HDFC co-op and know for a fact that there are near riots everytime the Board increases the maintenance to cover operating costs. Those complaining the most are the ones who paid $250 to purchase their apt. The Board will still raise the maintence to cover the costs, but I imagine that in many other HDFC's they don't raise the maintenance for this reason. If someone can't afford the $500 or $600/month for maintenance, maybe they should not be living in a co-op to begin with. The HDFC model is not sustainable in those situations.
ReplyDeleteoh this is going to be a good thread.
ReplyDeleteHarlem is being crippled by its dump zone for social programs. If people are given an opportunity to purchase properties for their families at deep deep discounts and cannot afford to pay for at least market rate maintenance or taxes, then they should not be allowed to hold onto the properties. The city is in a recession, we and Harlem need as many working class people that are paying taxes as opposed to getting hand outs as possible. The sooner these hdfc properties turn market rate the better. I am all for the keeping and investing in the projects and even a percentage of section 8 housing, but there is a disproportionate amount of social programming going on in Harlem, and that needs to change.
ReplyDeleteSooner or later a decision has to be made as to wether or not Harlem is simply designated as a socially funded welfare zone or an actual NYC market rate neighborhood with restraints removed. Rezoning FDB and a percentage of sales to developers for market rate is not enough. The city needs to get its hands out of a considerable number of subsidized properties in harlem. The density of just projects alone in harlem from river to river is so strong it towers over anything in the rest on the the 5 boroughs. To keep subsidizing non market rate elsewhere in the harlem just holds it back from developing and keeps it a ghetto.
ReplyDeleteThe HDFC rules allow people to sell at whatever the market will bear--as long as the buyers meet the income requirements. Meaning that a lot of those $250 apartments are being re-sold for $300K, $400K. Quite a windfall for the owners.
ReplyDelete12:26 said "Sooner or later a decision has to be made as to wether or not Harlem is simply designated as a socially funded welfare zone or an actual NYC market rate neighborhood with restraints removed".
ReplyDelete*Newsflash* That decision was made, a LONG time ago. The Book is called, "America's Trillion-Dollar Housing Mistake: The Failure of American Housing Policy" - Howard Husock.
The HDFC program is crippling Harlem. Here is an example:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.corcoran.com/property/listing.aspx?Region=NYC&listingid=2020893
This 3 bedroom property is listing for 439K. A great deal as it is priced below the market rate for the area, but likely priced lower because living in an HDFC building has its own headaches.
The max income allowed for this property on the most generous scale is 4 person occupancy at 95k a year combined. We have learned in the non subsidized market that buying more home than 3 times you combined income is bad business. The whole HDFC system extends people beyond their incomes on these properties.
They should abandon the income limits and just let the market dictate. There should be a mix of income in these properties. Get rid of the constraints in Harlem. Let it rejuvinate itself from within.
@1:55 If that decision was made, then why does the city still subsidize such a big portion of "affordable housing" in Harlem to people who do not really want to work?
ReplyDeleteD'ja ever notice the numbers of bmw's and mercedes parked around the projects? or even the number of cars period? How many middle class new yorkers own a car? The whole welfare system in Harlem is like an anchor. No other developing neighborhood in New york has had to overcome the entrenchment like Harlem does. Thats not to say that most of the rest of new york was a total crime ridden dump and has made obviously made complete turn arounds. Even Harlem has made huge huge advances in the last 10 years, but that is because of rezoning and bringing properties up to free market rate. Every single resident in harlem being subsidized by the city or state is just one small anchor in the future of harlem. Harlem has many deeply entrenched anchors.
ReplyDeleteI agree that to some extent the HDFC program is flawed. My husband and I bought an HDFC unit last year in an amazingly well run building with a huge reserve fund. But we looked at several here in Harlem that were horribly run and that no bank would even lend on so the deals had to be all cash. Many sellers (at times the co-op itself selling sponsor units) asked way too much money considering the income restrictions on the buyer - many of the units we looked at are still empty as I write this and the buildings are looking worse and worse. Many of the original tenants who bought in for $250 do not want any increase in maintenance and basically should not even be in an ownership situation. But the irony is that since they do "own" their units they can sell- so they actually do have access to money; their unique and very lucky situation makes them far better off than most people who would simply be thrown out on the street. I think the city's idea to force new management on these co-ops is a good idea. If the owners won't or can't pay the maintenance then they should be forced to sell.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone know where you can get a map of harlem that includes shows where all the subsidized housing, projects, section 8, hdfc.....etc?
ReplyDelete2:34: You cannot find out about benefits subsidized housing unless there are awnings (such as West Harlem Group Assistance sometimes has) or the buildings are clearly projects. You can look up property ownership for specific addresses, which I would do before even considering a purchase. If certain individuals and organizations are indicated as "owners," then a given property is subsidized. You get to know these. Much of this is kept very low-key, whether by intention or happenstance is hard to know.
ReplyDeleteI am not unsympathetic but I definitely agree that the entrenchment of entitlement benefits as "culture," "lifestyle," is a huge problem in Harlem.
kumbaya...... So, how and when will it change?
ReplyDelete2:34:
ReplyDeleteSome hdfc buildings have the letters "hdfc" next to the address on their awnings. Another way to find out which buildings are hdfc is to look for co-ops for sale in Harlem on Trulia or other sites, in the $200,000 to $400,000 price range. These will probably be units in an hdfc building. Section 8 is hard to figure out because some landlords accept vouchers but maybe just for some tenants. Other buildings are essentially Section 8 projects - everyone in the building uses a voucher. Those buildings are not owned by NYCHA like real projects but the owners have some deal with the city - I think it seems kind of shady and it seems the landlord is the one laughing all the way to the bank since the apartments are market rate and the city makes up the difference to the landlord on top of the voucher they give out to the tenant. I think this program is in serious need of examination by city agencies. I live near one on FDB and it is far worse than the NYCHA projects which actually have fairly strict rules these days.
2:57: You are asking my opinion ... ? I assume. Well, as I said, I am not unsympathetic, and so I worked with and for the aforementioned, entitlement recipients with long family histories of such. Currently, I am totally out of ideas. This happened somewhere after the tenth fourteen year-old girl informed me that she had gotten pregnant because her church had said that there was a conspiracy to curtail births in the black community, and it was her responsibility ...
ReplyDeleteFirsthand experience did add a shocking dose of reality to my previously optimistic views but has offered few solutions as yet.
I DO think it is most important to judge on a case-by-case basis. Some people actually do need help and then improve their own lives, and we should not overlook or abandon those people. You would appreciate help, were you to need it.
But dumping garbage in the park after your outing, for example ... ? I don't know, I think regulating needs to become much, much, much more unforgiving and immediate.
People need to talk out about the problems honestly without fear of being, or of being called, racist on the one hand, or a traitor to their race on the other. None of the anti-social behaviors one might witness on any day in Harlem have any necessary connection with race at all. None. These are choices people make, even when there are other choices. This happens, I have observed, on all sides. People say "black people" when they actually mean "people on welfare," and not even all of those.
2:21 -- The regulatory agreement and corporate structure of an HDFC allow the city (meaning HPD) to install a new board and take over management of the building if things are not being run properly.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it sounds like this is an option they are loathe to exercise. And for good reason -- in some of the seriously unbalanced situations, there is little reason to think they could do any better. That's because the root of the problem is rent stabilization / tenant law.
Whether you're talking about an HDFC co-op or a privately owned townhouse with rental apartments, this might be the only place in the country where the "owner" of private property lacks any real recourse for non-payment. It's just a nightmare to try to evict anyone, so the "owner" is effectively held hostage to the tenants.
This can be true for HDFCs as well. Some have been lucky (or visionary) and have had a number of responsible low and middle income people buy in with investments significantly greater than $250 -- but obviously others have not fared as well. For example, it's hard to blame the "owners" cited in the article for mismanagement when so much of their shareholder / tenant base is, as a matter of law and reality, completely outside their zone of control. Otherwise they could just kick the bums out.
If rent stabilization were eliminated and tenant law were significantly liberalized, I firmly believe the average rent in the city would go DOWN. There would be chaos for a while, to be sure, but an actual "market" would emerge in which people move to where they truly want to live. What we have today is an arrangement in which 99% of the housing stock is "special" or otherwise unavailable for use. Many units are effectively withdrawn by various forms of grandfathered tenants who will desperately cling to their units for life (or longer). And the remaining 1% (the "market," such as it is) gets bid up to obscene levels.
If an NYC property owner were free to enter into a rental arrangement, and *also* free to evict the tenant for non-payment, you would see more supply. You would also see a much greater supply made available to people with lower incomes, including those receiving rental support through housing vouchers. The problem right now is the lack of effective recourse in dealing with a "problem" tenant -- accordingly, why would anyone in his right mind take a risk on somebody who isn't "perfect"?
If NYC truly cared about making housing "affordable" for people with a variety of incomes, they would deregulate housing and tenant law to the maximum extent possible while still retaining protections for physical safety. Eviction for non-payment of rent should be a no-brainer. If, as a society, we think the renter deserves leniency or support, then our public policy should provide support to that person in a manner that doesn't create a system-wide distortion (or dozens of them) in the market for housing.
I say all of this as a very left-leaning Democrat. Our "market" for housing is dysfunctional beyond words, and most every fix that legislators try has just made it worse. The HDFC structure may be a bit of an exception, to the extent that it at least creates the possibility of changing the tenant culture to a shareholder culture in some buildings.
But even with a great board and management in place, their hands are tied when push comes to shove.
Poster at 3:21: You can find statistics on the allocation of tax dollars for rent subsidies - at specific addresses. Google different words; things come up.
ReplyDeleteHmmm. Seems to me if the section 8 buildings are essentially being paid market rate for those apartment through subsidy, that brings about some thoughts:
ReplyDelete1. Who sets what market rate is?
2. Until all the general oversupply of actual market rate apartments are rented or bought, there is really not enough demand for get a premium for the spaces.
3. If a landlord rents to section 8, they probably do not have to maintain the building as they would for a market renter, while still getting paid market rent which asks again. what is is or who sets market rate for these places.
This sounds like a total con job to me, while at the same time simply propagating poverty.
Poster at 3:31: Many buildings have the rents basically set in the deeds; section 8 is how that rent is paid. These properties are a bigger challenge than the regular buildings populated, currently, by section 8 tenants. The landlords receive a significant tax break for accepting the vouchers.
ReplyDeleteWow, The cycle being described seems never ending. Where are the elected officials? Where is bloomberg? Where are the community leaders to address the comments of 3:24, which by the way 3:24 thanks for your candor. Food for thought.
ReplyDelete@3:36 I am trying to figure out how any of this is good for nyc? If the rent is set in the deed? How does it adjust for market rate? How do we know that a landlord is not just fleecing the tax payer and is essentially getting paid more than the apartment is worth, essentially to give away a subsidized apartment near central park.
ReplyDelete3:24 -- Economic signals are powerful things, and hard for people to ignore. This is why we should be thoughtful when it comes to adopting public policies that short-circuit them.
ReplyDeleteWhen living in Manhattan is to a large extent free, the "underclass" beneficiaries of such policy will understandably dig in their heels to keep it going (while also, paradoxically, developing an attitude that holds it to be something not all that valuable anyway). Many such individuals face a microeconomic situation in which the marginal benefit of work and financial success is literally zero (or indeed negative) until they reach the point of being statistically upper-middle class. Which is obviously not going to happen in the absence of any significant incentives, or in the face of a host of disincentives.
Likewise, the prospect of having a child is something that should scare the shit out of anyone who is not in a position to bear the costs, which are quite significant. However, the habitual beneficiary of social programs might receive the opposite economic signal, instead looking to a child (or another child) as a ticket to increased income. By bearing the direct costs and creating this incentive, society also bears all of the externalities -- the indirect costs of dysfunctional family formation.
What I get out of the article is that many of these buildings can not stay at below market rate for rent and many of them will fold. When that happens, they will exchange hands and become market rate since the government no longer owns them.
ReplyDeletePoster at 3:50: I completely agree - in theory. But in actuality, there are children involved. How do you cut off benefits for a woman's three year-old ? This is the problem.
ReplyDeleteMandate birth control ? Unconstitutional, probably unethical, and I already mentioned the very powerful social sanctioning in place regarding that.
I am remembering how critical I was about the "trade guns for stuff" thing, perhaps those sorts of programs are the only ones that work given the tendencies of most people.
It is not that the entitlement history people are odd or different; indeed, they are exactly human. People almost never change behaviors. This is true of everyone here as well, even though the behaviors might be different (quit smoking, eat better, be a better person !, get my fifth PhD, etc). Most people of any strata just are not smart or ambitious enough to change long-held beliefs or habits.
Here are the cliff notes:
ReplyDelete"housing officials must either force deadbeat owners to pay their debts, or else foreclose on the buildings and find new owners in a harsh real estate climate. A total of $140 million is owed on the buildings, and nearly half of them have arrears of at least $3,000 of debt per unit, according to the city’s housing department.........
.......The group has failed to provide required financial reports to the city for at least five years."
Sounds to me like they should forclose, but then they should unload the building to a market rate buyer. No restrictions or subsidies.
Not an expert by any means, but the fact is things have improved in Harlem dramatically over the past 10 years. One by one, abandoned townhouses and SRO's are being bought up and renovated to market rate homes. You see it and read about it every day (well, on here at any rate). I spend most of my time around and below 125th and you just get the feeling that things are happening. One house here, one house there. I also run into plenty of people from HDFC homes who want pretty much the same thing: A decent place to live.
ReplyDeleteI think the recession (double dip and all) has made many of us aware of the dysfunctional nature of how these subsidized buildings are handled. Most of us seem to be in agreement here. The tricky thing is for the City to try to correct the situation while not throwing people into homelessness. The last statistics I heard were that 130,000 people were on the waiting list for NYCHA public housing and another 130,000 were on a waiting list for section 8 vouchers. The City's homeless population is quite high as it is so care has to be taken not to swell the ranks and add to that cost.
ReplyDelete@4:00 O.K. good points, but this is not someones personal choice to quite smoking or eat better. The behavior to propagate to play the social system effects everyone, tax payers, people who live in the community. No one is saying to not take care of our children, but something must be done to break this cycle. we need to distribute the social housing situation a little better. The quantity of social housing in Harlem has created and army entrenchent, coupled with the churches, and to corruption if the politicians.We need to mix more market rate middle class into harlem and shutdown a percentage of the subsidy there to make the community more multi class.
ReplyDeleteThe building may be unloaded, but the tenants will probably remain.
ReplyDeleteThat is the key thing. If they are rent stabilized, middle class, whatever, then who cares ? This lends economic diversity. Luckily there are protections to allow teachers, social workers, nonprofit lawyers, etc., to stay in place.
If a building is entirely or mostly completely supported tenants, and has been for generations, it is equally hard if not even more impossible to remove them.
When I hear a story like the 14 y/o girl who gets pregnant because here church or community encourages it, I wonder what kind of school she goes too. I do not expect a school to always overcome the failures of the home, in fact often argue that without the home school is bound to fail. But, At 14 years old I would hope a child would have enough solid education to be able to make life decisions like wether or not to get pregnant on purpose.
ReplyDelete3:52 -- No. First off, the government already "no longer owns them." Like any other cooperative, an HDFC is owned by its shareholders. The difference is the corporate entity of an HDFC is subject to a 30-year regulatory agreement with the city. This means the corporations cannot be dissolved, or their buildings sold to another party, within that period of time -- at least not without written approval by the city.
ReplyDeleteSo in effect, they can't "fold" or become "market rate" until the 30-year regulatory period expires. The only other possibility would be for the city itself to drop the regulatory agreements from the books -- but that would also involve the loss of favorable property tax treatment, and would set off a whole lot of teeth-gnashing in political circles. The reality is that deregulating HDFCs would represent a huge equity windfall for just about everyone -- which tenant-shareholders could then use to move, or to refinance, if they so desired.
@4:14. What if the city condemns the building. If it is in such dissrepair, if it is foreclosed and condemned, could it not be resold as a market rate shell?
ReplyDeleteI know this sounds harsh but there have to be either incentives in place for teenage black girls to delay pregnancy until they can support a child or disincentives such as not allowing overcrowding in project apartment units and/or not offering larger project apartment units, and not offering additional public assistance after the first child. I know this is a difficult problem but the cycle of poverty continues because of this.
ReplyDeleteAs a previous poster said "... the habitual beneficiary of social programs might receive the opposite economic signal, instead looking to a child (or another child) as a ticket to increased income."
If people are given forewarning that the cycle will not continue then most likely as a matter of self preservation, they will comply.
In order to be constructive, please avoid using racial designation. This is neither a black nor white problem, it is a social problem and is demonstrated by people of all color.
ReplyDeleteThe city should increase the income limits for the buyers of HDFC apartments. Many income caps are ridiculously low in proportion to the price of the units. The city could raise the caps and the limits would still fall well within the middle/low income range they were meant for. This way more units would sell more quickly and the co-ops would have an infusion of cash. Just that much of a tweak could solve a lot of the problems.
ReplyDeleteThe fact of the matter is that NYC and NYS can no longer afford to pay the subsidies they are currently paying. Either taxes go up or social cuts need to be made. The sooner we get rid of what ever social programs or subsidized housing to the market, the better. We cannot touch the properties in the original post with a ten foot pole. Foreclose on the properties and get as many of them to market rate as soon as possible.
ReplyDelete4:09 -- 3:25 here. I think the key is to break the link between buildings and benefits. If as a society we determine that a person is deserving of a subsidy, fine. That should come in the form of a housing voucher (and clearly the system needs to be better funded if that is the size of the waiting list).
ReplyDeleteBut those benefits should follow the person, and the person should not have to live in a concentrated poverty building. Such buildings should be converted to market rate (with existing tenants receiving vouchers), or something resembling an HDFC with tenants buying in as shareholders. Tenants would obtain mobility, perhaps with an equity boost.
The final link the equation is making sure "owners" and landlords can evict tenants for non-payment. If the tenant law truly allowed for this remedy, more properties would open up to "non-traditional" residents, allowing them to escape concentrated poverty conditions if they choose.
Before anyone howls in protest: If we are supplying an adequate number of housing vouchers under the sort of new regime I am describing, we shouldn't be too sympathetic about the plight of someone who deliberately withholds payment of rent -- their portion is 30% of whatever their means-tested income is determined to be.
No doubt it is complicated and hard. But if "benefits" can be attached more cleanly to individuals rather than to buildings, there could be a trend toward not only diversification of incomes, but also toward implementing greater personal accountability. If everyone is playing by the same rules, the free riders become more visible and less sympathetic.
Part of the problem with HDFC's when the first started out in the late 70's was that once the building graduated from the TIL program to the HDFC program and a board was put in place and shares certificates were distributed, HPD left and said now run it! Those early HDFC boards had very little in terms of education and preparation and many of the officers on the boards were not properly screened. Therefore, you had a significant amount of nepotism, graft, greasing of palms, etc.
ReplyDeleteNow, HPD has a program in place where there is a significant amount of official over-sight in place with strong penalties if one is non-compliant. Also, the period of time that an HDFC is under the thumb of HPD is extended. Programs like UHAB come in and offer free classes and in some cases these classes are required if someone wants to be elected to the co-ops board. UHAB offers free services also like tax preparation, etc. But unfortunately this does not help HDFC's like my own which came into being in '82 and we have a significant amount of disfunction in progress. Someone bought 2 5-room apartments for $60,000 and now rents them out at $1650 per week. She is also the board VP and doesn't even live here. The pres. of the board is not a shareholder he is a renter. I've written the AG, and all the other Harlem politicians for help and people are reluctant to help or are confused because they don't know what an HDFC is. HDFC's are a problem that could have been prevented only if the municipal agencies would have worked a little harder and not been so anxious to relieve themselves of being landlords of these buildings. Its criminal what goes on in HDFC's. Its not only about people who don't want to pay less-than-market-rate rents/maintenance, its twisted individuals who see the HDFC as opportunity to make a buck.
Where are the community leaders and politicians?! I swear this is the one of the most dis-functional city state systems in america.
ReplyDelete4:33 -- You could just as easily say the asking prices for those apartments is ridiculously high in light of the limits imposed.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the somewhat inconsistent income limits for HDFCs can and should be raised to at least 120% AMI, and perhaps phased out within a short period. However, my sense is that this would be as hard to do politically as dropping the regulatory agreements altogether, and not nearly as beneficial to the shareholders and cooperatives themselves.
Agree with 4:40 above. I live in a good hdfc building but even so the original co-op board president (before i was here) was scamming everyone else and not paying any maintenance. Finally she was ousted. It's hard to find a good building but as you said the ones newer to the program are better.
ReplyDeletePoster at 4:17: Not true, unfortunately. Not to be mean but you might want to gain some experience in the population under discussion here !
ReplyDeleteA common held belief in ghetto culture: It is the job of schools to control and teach my children. I have heard this again and again from the parents of children I tutored. They do not feel responsible unless you suggest that their child needs to improve in some way - then, suddenly, it is MY kid and How dare you suggest that he should not break in that window with a hammer if he gets the urge. This is not quite an across-the-board thing, but it is all too common.
Funnily enough, I have observed that the opposite is true, that in spite of bad schools, a good child will always have with him/her what was learned at home.
Connected to this: It is the job of the city to clean up the garbage that I throw there. How many times I saw bands of volunteers (clearly, not from the neighborhood) clean the litter in St. Nicholas Park while residents stood and watched from across the street - even though it was their garbage in the first place. They were neither disabled nor seniors, but residents of a 99% section 8 building. Often, they made fun of the volunteers.
How do you change that ? Force ? Money ? I think possibly social pressure, established ... somehow.
Poster at 4:27: I know for a fact that pressures have been applied, they did not work as hoped. Insisting that welfare recipients work outside the home was one of the things. It is unobservant of history to imagine that these girls will stop having children because they feel that money might be cut off.
With the entrenchment of subsidized people in harlem in such great numbers, market rate people are a minority. Why would politicians want to support tightening up social programs and hand outs, they would never get elected in their districts.
ReplyDelete4:40 -- I'm not sure UHAB is the answer -- they seem to have a pretty strong ideological agenda of their own.
ReplyDeleteHave you tried HPD directly? Your HDFC is answerable to "the city" through its regulatory agreement, but HPD is the only government actor I would expect to have the institutional capacity to understand what is going on. Whether they would act upon it is, of course, another question.
Actually 4:48 I think Clinton's welfare to work did help to some extent. Also NYCHA now reserves 1 of every 2 vacant public housing apartment units for working families. Bloomberg tried cash rewards for certain behaviors (school, dentist, etc) last year but admitted that it didn't work. So there is no magic bullet but because we are living in tough times, the downwardly mobile middle class is not going to want to keep subsidizing this nonsense. We have to keep trying solutions - some will work, some won't. The biggest forum for change right now is charter schools. I support them and hope they help break the cycle of poverty but they may not...
ReplyDelete4:48 -- I'm not sure the welfare reform efforts of the 1990's were altogether misguided or ineffective. I know they were implemented differently in different states. In addition, I would say that single program (TANF) operates differently in the thicker milieu of programs and subsidies that exists in a place like Manhattan.
ReplyDeleteWe know how the argument would go. The city, state, or federal governments (or all of them) would announce that subsidies would be cut off after the first (or second) child. There would be cries of racism, howls about fairness to children, and even accusations of genocide from the fringe voices.
None of this says it wouldn't work. It just says it would be politically tough to implement. But I would think now is probably the greatest opportunity, possibly ever, to make it happen, given the budget crisis at every level.
Just look at the state government. All it would take to get a comprehensive package of cutbacks in the budget would be for GOP state senators to stop lobbing spitballs and to climb on board a serious package with at least a few Democrats.
I'm not saying it will happen, but I think the ingredients are there for "thinking outside the box."
Agreed 5:07pm.
ReplyDeleteOne of the first steps is getting rid of the Harlem poloticians that feed and benefit off the entrenchment of poverty and subsidized. Let's hope the population of middle class owners will someday have a strong enough voice to make change. Real change. Today and for the forseeable future that is not goon to change. We hold onto possible whole foods stores meanwhile, our tax dollars ht drained and the city and states deficit grows. This is unsustainable until we wake up and deal with the real problem.
ReplyDeleteThe occupation of all the market rate apartments in Harlem is actually the first step. Once that inventory actually starts selling then the remaining townhouses will get bought, then the businesses will start to profit and surge, and then finally anything that can go market rate, will. But if the economy tanks again or developers don't start accepting reasonable offers, things will halt. If a place like aloft doesn't sustain itself it will be a bad omen. We need for the re market to pick up and those developments that stalled construction to finish and sell.
ReplyDelete5:55 - unfortunately developers are not altruistic urban planners - they may try to hold out for unreasonable prices (and they are unreasonable!) and just sit on the units. hopefully common sense will prevail and they will realize that waiting may only end up making this area even more unattractive - but as i said, they are not altruistic and may just follow the "there's a sucker born every minute" truism.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous July 19, 2010 4:46 PM said...
ReplyDelete"Where are the community leaders and politicians?! I swear this is the one of the most dis-functional city state systems in america".
....
Our Governor enjoys a rent stabilized apartment in Harlem at Lenox Terrace and he has already said after he leaves office he will keep his rent stabilized apartment and live there. Our Congressman, Charles Rangel, has 4 Rent Stabilized Apartments at Lenox Terrace.
You ask "where are our politicians"? They're enjoying rent stabilized apartments in Harlem. And you want these people to fix the problem? LOL. Yeah, right....don't hold your breath...
uh oh...this just in from the ny times:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/nyregion/20shelter.html?ref=nyregion
more homeless, more subsidy discussion.
the only answer: poor people need to stop having children that they cannot afford to have! until this aspect of poverty is put front and center no amount of policy repositioning will make a difference. make family planning the number one priority and do not give anyone an economic incentive to have more children.
Agreed, and I would say that, unfortunately, discussion of family planning tends to get thrown off nearly as much by overly sensitive folks on the left, as fundamentalist whackjobs on the right.
ReplyDeleteProcreation is not a human right! To the contrary, having children is a serious human *responsibility* -- perhaps the greatest one that exists.
I do believe we do need to have a societal commitment to "positive" human rights -- meaning that we truly provide equal opportunity to all in terms of education, health and freedom from serious deprivation as children. However, if we are going to get anywhere close to that, the voting public cannot believe that irresponsible behavior is and will continue to be rewarded.
Every child should be wanted and cared for by parents who have the serious intention and resources to do so. In other words, families should be planned. That this should even be a matter of debate among well-intentioned persons in our society is just baffling to me.
11:43, One-third of the Hasidic families in Williamsburg are on welfare. The benefits, including welfare payments, food stamps and subsidized housing, sustain the families with as many as 10 or 12 children; they fill the cash registers of the kosher supermarkets on Lee Avenue and help underwrite much of the work done by the Hasidim, whether in schools, retail stores or factories. You want to take your high and mighty speech to the Jews too? Who's going to tell the Jews they gotta cut this crap out? , that's what I thought.
ReplyDeleteHarlem's African-American population has declined over 20% since 1980 so I guess the birth-rate ranter is talking about immigrants since that is the segment of the population that is growing the fastest. Culturally, foreign born individuals marry early and have large families. FYI, if you haven't heard, the majority is now mostly Hispanic and other race groups in Greater Harlem.
ReplyDelete7:24am, Yes, the majority of the 15th Congressional district is Hispanic/Latino. But the majority of them work off the books, are not politically active and if they were, would support cradle to grave entitlement supported by the "on the books" tax payer. They're also "good Catholics", listen to the Pope, ignore birth control and are great at multiplying.
ReplyDelete6:40 -- Yes, and thank you for pointing that out, again, that this is more than just a Harlem issue. And outright abuse of welfare programs is worse than mere dependence.
ReplyDeleteThe Hasidim and others in that category (LDS fundamentalists do the same thing out west) should absolutely be held to account, and taken off the teat. I don't think any of us here are talking about targeting any particular group -- we need to cut the crap across the board.
I don't think the poster was "ranting" - he or she was right to say that family planning is the subject that gets shoved aside. it does. and so what if it is black, hispanic, or hasidim, it is still putting an enormous tax burden on the rest of us who have less and less. we talk about the environment and our unsustainable policies, well what about our unsustainable welfare policies?
ReplyDeleteAbout five years or so ago, an officer in the 32nd precinct commented to me that a situation where working and/or middle class people were suddenly brought into proximity with careerist entitlement benefits recipients could occasion a rude awakening with an uncertain outcome. He concluded, "Could be trouble there ..." He did not say, trouble for whom ! In any case, more people having actual experience with the populations in these programs could engender ideas for reform from greater numbers of taxpayers.
ReplyDelete8:24 am. Nonsense. Upper income Harlemites that have lived here a while are familiar with the problems & abuses of societal entitlement programs. But we're also familiar with the pervasive corporate welfare NYC happily gives Wall St, we see how the Federal Government takes care of Goldman Sachs, we see how George Steinbrenner (NY Yankees) was allowed to take public park space from mostly people of color for his private business interest. We see the unfairness, abuse, on a major scale that routinely takes place in this City, State, & Country. We see the tax payer money that flowed to Blackwater, we see how much tax payer money goes to Halliburton, etc.....and after seeing what really goes on in this country.....so what if people take advantage of and even abuse entitlement programs. It's a drop in the bucket.
ReplyDeleteThe real exploitation and abuse is taking place on a far higher and greater scale big rich people, insiders, those with access. You can just see and relate and get upset over the small person, as it's in your face. I have over a dozen friends who received their SIX FIGURE BONUS as usual thanks to Government & a Bail Out.
The small people pimping the system is not right, but it's just diversion and small time compared to the real abuse routinely taking place.
I worked on Wall St for 20 years, retired in my 40's financially secure. I saw lots of crime and abuse on Wall St, exploitation and violation of the rules. I see lots of crime and abuse in Harlem, exploitation and violation of the rules. The crime and abuse I saw on The Street far outstrips that of the welfare class of Harlem.
I am unconcerned about poor people getting over any way they can, after it's it's "The American Way", they learned it from the people and institutions with real money.
@8:24 That is something to think about. But instead of waiting for the next coffee shop or whole foods to open up, or cheerleading that there is less garbage on the street......... we as tax payers and voting public need to have more input and opinion on the way our neighborhood is run, and who the politicians are. How many people just go to the voting booth and vote on party lines? We need to be more vocal during the primaries, we need to understand the methods of the programs that cripple our neighborhoods. We need to have opinions. We need to have a voice.
ReplyDeletePoster at 9:33: If you want to have a voice and be more informed, you should attend meetings such as the "Freedom Party" gatherings.
ReplyDeletePoster at 9:31: I wondered when this view would materialize. The career entitlement people are not okay given what happens on Wall Street. Neither justifies the other; indeed, both are different sides of the same coin. This is a common error in liberal thinking. I am quite left in orientation, which means that I believe EVERYONE must make a fair contribution to the greater good. We should all resent those people who refuse. Frankly, this is my biggest objection to welfare lifestyle.
@9:31, Thats a bunch of hooey. No one is defending the greed of wall street, but a new york without wall street would be less. A new new york without the quantity of projects and welfare mentality would be cleaner, have less violent crime, and have more tax money (paid in large part by those greedy wall streeters) to fund public projects that benefit everyone.
ReplyDeleteJust chiming in to agree with 10:11, and to some extent 10:34 as well. More often than not, it's a mistake to stereotype and then reflexively demonize one "side" or another for exhibiting negative characteristics that are shared more widely -- this is true whether the object of derision is "Wall Street" or "welfare queens."
ReplyDeleteLikewise, it is a mistake for folks to reflexively lionize their own "side" in response to such attacks, glossing over any misconduct or personal failings in favor of group-think and tribalism.
Pointing out the existence of other bad things is not an answer to someone who has pointed out a real problem. If your response is "Hasidim!" or "Wall Street!" my rejoinder will have to be, "Let's take care of them, too."
The point here is that we need to work toward a social contract in which everyone truly gets a fair shake. Yes, the dealings of the financial and real estate industries can be just as putrid as the rotting carcass of the welfare state in NYC. Pointing that out does not change the fact that we need to change that -- all of it -- if we are not to simply give up on the ideal of a healthier society and better future for ourselves and our children.
Nothing should be sacrosanct.
I shared some of these comments today with my boyfriend and we both had a laugh. He wondered where you all could possibly live to have these complaints. I have lived in Harlem for over a year now and found the people to be friendly. There was a little culture shock at first being I'm from Arizona. Neighbors came by to introduce themselves people offered lemonade. I could not get over that last part. I lived in a condo directly across from someone for years and never knew their name. We never said hello or even spoke at all. Here I am in Harlem less than an hour and this woman is offering me a drink. Sure we have problems. I'm close to St. Nicholas park and Monday - Thursday its full of garbage left over from the weekend. A lot of it has to do with the people but a huge part of it is also the lack of garbage cans. This is a huge problem throughout Harlem. The garbage cans we do have are left overflowing for days. I have also noticed signs saying coal is bad for trees but they don’t offer another alternative. I have seen 1 coal bin and it was full of trash. I also get frustrated with people littering and you know what I do? pick it up. If someone lets there dog go to the restroom and doesn’t clean it up I offer them a bag. Most of the time they take it. If not I’ll pick it up. This is my neighborhood. I want it to look nice. Those thugs in front of the projects like my dog. They have entire conversations with her completely ignoring me except to ask her name. We all keep talking about getting rid of those people. The undesirables. The project dwellers, the people hanging out on the corners. You know who I blame? The city. Not for the projects but because there is no way for these people to get out of them. They keep trying to solve our problems with condos and box stores. Like Target is going to be are salvation. Where is the money to open small businesses? In Buenos Aires where I once lived there is a whole area where you can buy clothes from the designer. The city subsidizes it. Here the city subsidizes box stores with their wares all coming from china and then on top of it pays welfare to its employees. I could go on but instead I leave you with this Gentrification is a dirty word not something we should be hoping for.
ReplyDelete