Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Head_Acanthisitta256 t1_ixb5yvc wrote

“Won said Thursday that she’s notched some concessions: 1,436 affordable units, double the 711 initially proposed; 500 units at 30% of the area median income; 157 apartments for homeless New Yorkers; and a $2 million fund to protect tenants from displacement and harassment.”

If this is indeed true then amazing job by this councilwoman. Devil is in the details though.

37

KaiDaiz t1_ixcurhw wrote

The new 700ish units are to be funded by city by a TBD mechanism. Key word tbd.

11

Head_Acanthisitta256 t1_ixdq8g1 wrote

Of course it is. Smh.

2

KaiDaiz t1_ixdr35v wrote

So we may never get these affordable units at the AMI listed...hence Won lost. But she was going to lose anyway bc council was prepare to go with the 40% plan anyway if she didn't support. So Won had to take whatever she can get to close deal or they proceed without her

4

Head_Acanthisitta256 t1_ixdt4av wrote

The same exact thing happened with the Hudson Yards development. There was supposed to be “affordable housing” units set aside and that hasn’t materialized at all. At this rate it probably won’t.

1

KaiDaiz t1_ixdurjz wrote

well setting aside housing for folks that make minimum wage in one of the higher desirable areas be it Hudson Yard or Astoria was unfeasible and ill plan. What should happen is make those "affordable" units to 100% accept/priority for section 8 housing. That way if one makes min wage, they still qualify for section 8 vouchers to to pay the market rate of those new dev housing units.

Owners get to rent their housing at market rate. Min wages get to rent market rate with vouchers. More units accept section 8 vouchers. Win for all cept city who has to pay the voucher.

4

areYouMenthol t1_ixbbutg wrote

Not sure why our council members are in the business of negotiating deals. Set some rules and apply them across the board.

Not only did she nearly nuke the deal, but this type of politics is ripe for corruption via “preferential” affordability rates.

33

MysteriousHedgehog23 t1_ixd63p3 wrote

Because the individual council-people, who have to answer to local voters, represent the specific and unique interests of their particular neighborhoods

4

Daddy_Macron t1_ixdau3c wrote

> who have to answer to local voters

Local homeowner NIMBY's, busybodies, and Karen's mostly. The average age at local government meetings is like 70. Retired people with more free time and resources than they know what to do with.

13

MysteriousHedgehog23 t1_ixdbwh2 wrote

NYC has early voting and mail-in voting so nobody has an excuse not to participate in elections, whether you can attend local community board meetings during the day or not. There are websites (Reddit, Patch News, etc) and community newspapers that tell you what’s happening in your neighborhood. No weak excuses

2

Daddy_Macron t1_ixdchtx wrote

Local community meetings that set things like agenda are purposely held at inconvenient times for anyone who's not retired, stay at home, or a full-time activist. It's not easy to participate in local politics for anyone who has have a family with children, irregular or extended work hours, or doesn't have the free time to stay around in a meeting for 3+ hours.

7

MysteriousHedgehog23 t1_ixddu0z wrote

When would be an ideal time? You going after work and spending your evening there? How about on Saturday morning? Be honest

1

Daddy_Macron t1_ixdf0k8 wrote

How about we don't mire every local government decision in endless hours of meetings? How about the local community votes for hiring experts on relevant issues like zoning, sewage, infrastructure, and education to represent the community's interests instead of leaving it to the local retired Karen's to do it (and inefficiently at that.)

11

MysteriousHedgehog23 t1_ixdi5ix wrote

Who gets to “decide” which experts to hire? Because essentially they will be able to steer any decision their way, based on who they hire. This will simply lead to accusations of backroom dealing and kickbacks.

You are naive if you think it’s that simple.

0

Daddy_Macron t1_ixdj55d wrote

As opposed to our current famously transparent and non-corrupt system? Somehow cities and towns around America can hire city and town managers without issue, prosecuting and stripping licenses away from those who are found to be corrupt, but NYC is just too special to that?

Meanwhile we're the city where it costs $2,500 to plant one fucking tree, we're having a fiscal crisis despite receiving over $100 Billion in revenue every year, and we have the biggest law industry in the country cause everything that will improve the city is mired in lawsuits all the time. The current system of letting retired car salesmen and stay at home moms run local government is working great. Who needs corrupt experts and specialists? The city is easy to run.

5

trainmaster611 t1_ixdznwh wrote

In theory it's supposed to give "local control" over developments that occur in a neighborhood by proxy of their elected representative. In reality, it often becomes a mechanism by which NIMBYs can stop or stall development. In this case, it did end up getting positive concessions even if that's not what the CM was actually trying to accomplish. But that seems like an exception rather than the rule.

I tend to agree with you, consistent rules that both encourage development and bring the kinds of development people are interested in seeing should displace such a bureaucratic process.

1

Johnnadawearsglasses t1_ixb4d4w wrote

People dragged Won through the mud for opposing this plan. Now look at the additional concessions the developers have given. You should always assume the original plan is the starting point for negotiations. And not fall all over yourself to accept it immediately as the build build build crowd would have you do.

18

KaiDaiz t1_ixbank4 wrote

Hope you know Won still didn't get that 55% she wanted and settled for 5% higher that was counter proposed at 40% with city funds and this new round adds more apt units to be built on site to achieve that 1436 affordable number and possibly with more city funds. So basically smaller units vs before and more city spending on the project.

I still say Devs made out. got more units and city paying more of the bill.

5

MysteriousHedgehog23 t1_ixd6hpe wrote

The city desperately needs more apartments. While we need to force developers to include a good amount of apartments affordable to local residents, we can’t expect anybody to invest in too many below market rentals. We’d never get any private development. Only the feds can afford to build that - it’s called the Housing Authority aka the projects. City should pull tax incentives unless things meet a minimum standard of affordable tho.

13

Tyrtle-Bikeoff t1_ixev7a8 wrote

I agree 100%... but can they just be like... normal buildings with normal apartments? Like this instead of this?

They're both roughly the same size with the same number of beds and baths, both condo units, but the new one with nicer finishes (and, tbf, a rooftop terrace) 14 minutes away from the last stop on the Astoria line (N, W) is $1.25m, while the one built in 2005 (not even old enough to vote!) with less nice finishes located one stop outside the city, within 5 minutes of 3 different stations with seven services (7, N, W, E, F, M, R) is $880k, 29% less.

3

MysteriousHedgehog23 t1_ixevj0m wrote

I feel you but even that 800k price is crazy 😳. I feel like if you can afford this for a condo, you probably can work remotely and so don’t need to be close to the city lol

2

Tyrtle-Bikeoff t1_ixf5cml wrote

Yep :/ it is in a condominium not a cooperative though, so whoever buys it can rent the apartment out whenever they want and sell it to whoever they want for however much they can get.

I mostly just like that its simply a regular old modest building that was built for normal people. You don't really see that anymore with new buildings, its all ostentatious luxury (or luxury appearing) buildings almost exclusively aimed toward highly-educated childless professionals and not a broader mix of people, often with unnecessary amenities and units that are over-sized and under-bedroomed.

3

virtual_adam t1_ixb7qo9 wrote

Good for Won. Actively fighting for homeless housing makes her an outlier of the Asian community

This a quote form the CB2 meeting about housing homeless people in Chinatown

“This will only endanger the residents in the area. We already got a sample of the ‘clients’ that were staying there during the pandemic: Mayhem and chaos.”

I hope more people in those communities understand it’s a blessing to live close to someone who was homeless yesterday

−12

k1lk1 t1_ixbbwky wrote

> I hope more people in those communities understand it’s a blessing to live close to someone who was homeless yesterday

It's really not. As "people in those communities" understand extremely well.

12

ssn156357453 t1_ixbi1vf wrote

Oh yes so much of a blessing. Much more than say, a middle or upper class family, sure

4

newestindustry t1_ixc8kqn wrote

“Stay out of my community if you’ve ever been homeless!” is some ugly shit

−5

Daddy_Macron t1_ixdbh1z wrote

Nobody said that. But there are clear downsides to homeless shelters that Progressives from upper middle class backgrounds are more than happy to ignore and pretend the people opposing them in their neighborhoods are heartless monsters. Unless we actually fix some of the fucking issues related to a spike in crime, drug use, and harassment around homeless shelters, we're going to end up with stronger local resistance over time.

7

newestindustry t1_ixdlndz wrote

>Nobody said that.

Not sure how else you could interpret the post I was responding to.

>But there are clear downsides to homeless shelters that Progressives from upper middle class backgrounds are more than happy to ignore and pretend the people opposing them in their neighborhoods are heartless monsters.

OK pal

> Unless we actually fix some of the fucking issues related to a spike in crime and harassment around homeless shelters

Is there any data to back this up or are you just reading off the r/nyc anti-homeless cue cards?

>we're going to end up with stronger local resistance over time.

Yeah, the exact same people who complain about homeless people sleeping on the train fight homeless shelters tooth and nail at every opportunity. Never hear too much about where they think homeless people should go!

−3

Daddy_Macron t1_ixdoi7e wrote

I'm glad your neighborhood is wealthy enough to not get them, but we got far more violent fucks and strung out addicts roaming around Chinatown these days, messing with the local people who are just trying to get by. I'm sure the women and elderly love hearing threats from the homeless that they'll beat them up or rape them. And the street harassment has gone through the roof. Vendors getting threatened by the homeless for free food and money far more frequently now. I've even seen some abandon their usual spots. Homeless fuck with local businesses like parking themselves outside of stores, making it inaccessible for customers, until they get paid off. I've heard and seen it with my own ears and eyes, so don't try to fucking gaslight me. And this is one of the city's poorest neighborhood.

Check my profile if you'd like. I'm consistently YIMBY, anti-conservative, and pro-social safety net, but I'm tired to fucking braindead Progressive policies without the slightest thought to their consequences and this woke scolding of anyone who dares to bring it up.

6

newestindustry t1_ixdx4jf wrote

Gaslighting... woke scolding... a huge paragraph of straight up Travis Bickle shit. I think I'm good on this interaction. Be well.

−6

Competitive_Air_6006 t1_ixbhjmi wrote

My Chinatown landlord and his family were some of the most blatant racists I ever witnessed with my own eyes in NYC.

And I can’t believe one of the recent candidate’s platform was that a higher power effectively created Chinatown for people of her ethnicity. It was some crazy borderline supremacy trash.

−6