New York Condo Will Have A 'Poor Door' For Lower-Income Residents

[Oldgamer]

I was responding to Old Gamer who wanted to have 2 different buildings.

So is the fear that people will feel bad having to go through a different door?
Also, if the city did away with the tax breaks, how would the poor get housing?

Its almost impossible to build something new that the poor in those areas can afford. Why would any private company build something for a demo that cannot buy the good?

You may be letting the name confuse you. The poor aren't getting these "affordable" units anyway, it's the upper middle class.

Regardless, there's no need to do away with these tax breaks, you can just add the requirement for no separate entrance. The demand for developing land in Manhattan is so high that if one developer won't do it another one certainly will. Simple.

There is no need for a separate entrance period. This is to cause people to feel like they are so poor that they shouldn't be seen with the rich. This is shaming folks for not having the same level of wealth as the people living in the same damned building as them. It's retarded.

 

[glenn1]

You may be letting the name confuse you. The poor aren't getting these "affordable" units anyway, it's the upper middle class.

Regardless, there's no need to do away with these tax breaks, you can just add the requirement for no separate entrance. The demand for developing land in Manhattan is so high that if one developer won't do it another one certainly will. Simple.

Just allow the people in the affordable units to pay a premium to use the "rich people" doors if it's that important to them. Sorry you feel a separate door is making them feel second class, but to me it's the reduced rent they pay that gives them that distinction not which door they use. One of the perks about being wealthy is the freedom from little indignities the rest of us face daily, aand to me someone getting subsidized housing isn't entitled to a full share of those kinds of perks also.

 

[chucky2]

If they didn't build it out of the kindness of their heart, then why does what you said before apply?

The city gave them a bunch of money in exchange for building "affordable" units. (Note: they aren't actually affordable to most people) The city can, and should, demand that in exchange for their money the affordable residents aren't treated like second class citizens. If the developers don't like it they can always not build there, as there will be someone else waiting right behind them who will.

But they are?

 

[Zaap]

Next thing you know the poor won't be able to use the helipad on the penthouse roof either. They'll have to park their private helicopters around the corner.

Where is the end of these first-worlder horror stories of injustice at the hands of the dastardly rich ?????!!!!!!!

 

[stag3]

i see no issue with it, hell if i were rich i'd want a complex w/o a poor door option hah!

 

[Exterous]

"Second class citizen" is used in this case as an idiom

Ah so you avoid the actual definition for a nebulous one likely in an attempt to evoke an emotional response. I think considering people who can't use a pool or using a different door to get into an area they are not forced to live in as 'second class citizens' is a bit demeaning towards those who are actually treated as second class citizens but to each their own.

All special tax breaks can come with strings attached to them, of course. It doesn't mean all conditions attached to tax breaks would be good ones.

Fair enough. I still don't know why is this suddenly an issue now? This is not a new practice by any means and has been going on for at least 50 years. Tax breaks for expensive building construction is, in no way, new. Neither are separate entrances for different parts of the building. I can 100% guarantee you that other older structures in NYC have gotten tax breaks and still had separate entrances for different occupant units and that rent\ownership costs were associated with those different unit entrances

 

[fskimospy]

Just allow the people in the affordable units to pay a premium to use the "rich people" doors if it's that important to them. Sorry you feel a separate door is making them feel second class, but to me it's the reduced rent they pay that gives them that distinction not which door they use. One of the perks about being wealthy is the freedom from little indignities the rest of us face daily, aand to me someone getting subsidized housing isn't entitled to a full share of those kinds of perks also.

The building is free to build all the entrances it wants, I just don't think it should do so while being subsidized by the city. The "reduced rent" is a benefit that stems from the city, not the building.

If you want a poor door you should have to do it on your own dime, not the public's.

 

[glenn1]

There is no need for a separate entrance period. This is to cause people to feel like they are so poor that they shouldn't be seen with the rich. This is shaming folks for not having the same level of wealth as the people living in the same damned building as them. It's retarded.

They shouldn't be seen with the rich, and unless they were given subsidies they wouldn't. You're welcome to go back trolling for a place to live on worstroom if you want the luxury of a single doorway without the subsidies.

 

[fskimospy]

Ah so you avoid the actual definition for a nebulous one likely in an attempt to evoke an emotional response. I think considering people who can't use a pool or using a different door to get into an area they are not forced to live in as 'second class citizens' is a bit demeaning towards those who are actually treated as second class citizens but to each their own.

No, I just used an idiom that is so common that it is available in dictionaries. Similarly, when someone lets the cat out of the bag they are not actually allowing cats to escape from sacks, despite that being the actual definition of the word.

Fair enough. I still don't know why is this suddenly an issue now? This is not a new practice by any means and has been going on for at least 50 years. Tax breaks for expensive building construction is, in no way, new. Neither are separate entrances for different parts of the building. I can 100% guarantee you that other older structures in NYC have gotten tax breaks and still had separate entrances for different occupant units and that rent\ownership costs were associated with those different unit entrances

Probably because in these cases the people affected by the "poor door" are actually upper middle income people who have the resources and social capital to speak out.

 

[fskimospy]

They shouldn't be seen with the rich, and unless they were given subsidies they wouldn't. You're welcome to go back trolling for a place to live on worstroom if you want the luxury of a single doorway without the subsidies.

This argument makes no sense. The building is not subsidizing the units, the city is. We should make it so if the building wants welfare from the city they can't be shitty to their residents.

It never ceases to amaze me how people are so excited to put requirements on welfare for the poor but when the rich get city money we... Still go after the poor.

 

[realibrad]

Demand is super high and there is a shortage of housing. This is because manhattan is a relatively small island. There is literally not enough space for everyone who wants to live there to do so.



There is massive housing construction all over the city at all times. Insofar as why there are fewer affordable units it is because demand is so high that they can simply charge more. The people who actually live in the city don't want it to become a place for only multimillionaires, however, so they do things like this.

The city, like all cities, regulates buildings. This is particularly important in an area as dense as manhattan. If you want to build there you accept it. If you want city money you accept more restrictions. Again, it's pretty simple.

So, if demand out spaces supply, what better way to ration than cost?

 

[glenn1]

This argument makes no sense. The building is not subsidizing the units, the city is. We should make it so if the building wants welfare from the city they can't be shitty to their residents.

It never ceases to amaze me how people are so excited to put requirements on welfare for the poor but when the rich get city money we... Still go after the poor.

Yeah, it's really shitty how they get below market rent apartments in a prime location. We can't let poor people be disabused of their fantasies of Carrie Bradshaw lifestyle.

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah, it's really shitty how they get below market rent apartments in a prime location. We can't let poor people be disabused of their fantasies of Carrie Bradshaw lifestyle.

Those poor building developers. They're getting tons of special tax benefits and building regulation exemptions and they AREN'T EVEN ALLOWED TO HAVE A SPECIAL DOOR FOR POOR PEOPLE.

We shouldn't let them be disabused of their fantasies of getting free stuff from the city without any strings attached.

 

[glenn1]

So, if demand out spaces supply, what better way to ration than cost?

Progressives don't believe in that, see Obamacare for an example. If you're poor they assume that any demand you have is valid and justifiable, they'll just seek to shift the costs onto someone else while picking up a token amount themselves. Of course they'll only do this if other people are forced to, ask them to do it proactively and voluntarily and they'll scream "collective action" which evidently translates to "you first."

 

[fskimospy]

So, if demand out spaces supply, what better way to ration than cost?

Cities aren't widgets. A lot of what makes NYC such a cultural powerhouse are people that, under your plan, would no longer be able to live there. That is not in the best long-term interests of the city. Additionally, land values in Manhattan are driven up by extremely wealthy foreigners who purchase condos, etc, in NYC as a place to park their money when they don't even live there. This is also something that should be regulated against.

 

[glenn1]

Those poor building developers. They're getting tons of special tax benefits and building regulation exemptions and they AREN'T EVEN ALLOWED TO HAVE A SPECIAL DOOR FOR POOR PEOPLE.

We shouldn't let them be disabused of their fantasies of getting free stuff from the city without any strings attached.

Rescind the tax benefits then. You always complain about "corporate welfare" so here's a perfect example for you to tackle.

 

[fskimospy]

Progressives don't believe in that, see Obamacare for an example. If you're poor they assume that any demand you have is valid and justifiable, they'll just seek to shift the costs onto someone else while picking up a token amount themselves. Of course they'll only do this if other people are forced to, ask them to do it proactively and voluntarily and they'll scream "collective action" which evidently translates to "you first."

What's funny is in this case the building owners are shifting costs to the city and when people recommend that the city asks for modest regulations in return you assume that any demand the developers have is valid and justifiable.

You're doing exactly what you complain about, only in the service to the ultra-rich.

 

[Brainonska511]

Yeah, it's really shitty how they get below market rent apartments in a prime location. We can't let poor people be disabused of their fantasies of Carrie Bradshaw lifestyle.

Most of this housing is not for "poor" people. The income ranges for living in affordable housing are quite large. It's mainly because rentals have become absurdly expensive throughout NYC, and not just in Manhattan, but other areas of the city and surrounding areas.

 

[fskimospy]

Rescind the tax benefits then. You always complain about "corporate welfare" so here's a perfect example for you to tackle.

Uhmm, that was my exact point from the very beginning. Make it so that such entrances are prohibited if you're getting tax benefits.

Did you bother to read the thread before posting?

 

[Oldgamer]

Have you seen the cost of these so called affordable housing units?? Go look it up. I doubt the "truly poor" could afford them. So those of us regular middle class folks who could afford them are being labeled poor and being segregated to use a poor door.

 

[glenn1]

Uhmm, that was my exact point from the very beginning. Make it so that such entrances are prohibited if you're getting tax benefits.

Did you bother to read the thread before posting?

So remind me, is corporate welfare a problem or not? Or just corporate welfare that involves doors?

 

[K1052]

So, if demand out spaces supply, what better way to ration than cost?

The demand is in large part artificial. Foreign investors are scooping up huge amounts of Manhattan real estate to park wealth which drives up prices and propels developers to only build yet more high end residences for them to buy. They're using condos as savings accounts to the detriment of people who actually live in the city.

 

[fskimospy]

So remind me, is corporate welfare a problem or not? Or just corporate welfare that involves doors?

Huh? Subsidies for corporations can be good or bad, it all depends on the circumstances.

 

[nehalem256]

Have you seen the cost of these so called affordable housing units?? Go look it up. I doubt the "truly poor" could afford them. So those of us regular middle class folks who could afford them are being labeled poor and being segregated to use a poor door.

If the government is subsidizing your housing I think its fair to say you are poor.

So enjoy your poor door.

 

[BoberFett]

Lets bring back segregation while were on a roll....nah fuck it..full slavery.

Aahahahahaha, liberals.

Yes, this is just like slavery.