Haves, have-nots divided by apartment poor doors

[kent]

Submitted without comment.

NEW YORK (AP) — One new Manhattan skyscraper will greet residents of pricey condos with a lobby in front, while renters of affordable apartments that got the developer government incentives must use a separate side entrance — a so-called poor door.


In another apartment house, rent-regulated residents can't even pay to use a new gym that's free to their market-rate neighbors. Other buildings have added playrooms and roof decks off-limits to rent-stabilized tenants.

New York is a city where the rich and relatively poor have long lived side by side, with who pays what often a closely held, widely varying secret. But......

news.msn.com/us/haves-have-nots-divided-by-apartment-poor-doors

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

Money discrimination. The fact that the apartments are in the same building as the condo suites, along with all the other amenities (gym, playroom, roof decks) the residents of the building should all have access to the building through the main lobby, as well as access to the other facilities (even if they have to pay a minimal fee for their use).

Some buildings have a separate elevator for the "penthouse" or "executive" suites (usually on the upper floors), but other than that, all residents use the same main entrance, and other facilities of the building.

[Deleted]

I thought you guys outlawed segregation back in the 60's?

[justme]

The separate doors for the same building seems too much. But some amenities only going to those that pay market rate doesn't bother me, especially if they really are paying at a quarter of market rate.

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

The people living in the condos are purchasers/owners of the suites - the apartment units are rental units.

That may be the legal out that the building management company has for making the extra amenities (gym, rooftop area, and playroom) available for the condo unit residents only. It's probably extras that are included in the purchase price.

The renters are paying a monthly fee for their living space (apartments) only. The main lobby may also only have an elevator/stairwell that exits onto the upper floors where those units are.

The side entrance/lobby most likely has a separate elevator system that stops only on the rental unit floors.

[EVT1]

Heard about this a while back- and people are not happy about it- taxpayers allowed the incentives, etc. with the condition there would be affordable housing- and the developer found a real neat way to be dickish. Of course can't blame the rich people from not wanting to set eyes on the poor people- it breaks the bubble they live in.

Nothing new though- rich people have always done this whether via moat, gate,etc. They only want to deal with these people when they need their services for something and then they are supposed to crawl back under their rocks.

[Deleted]

Aug 17, 2014 15:26:50 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

I thought you guys outlawed segregation back in the 60's?

That was segregation by skin color... not by size of bank account.

This just proves the old saying "size matters".

[jkapp]

I've heard a lot of griping from people who heard about this issue, but do the renters who live in these buildings actually give a shit? If I was getting an apartment in NYC in a nice neighborhood for 1/4 the cost, I'd go in a f'ing window if I had to

And the tax incentives thing is a bullshit argument.  The tax incentives are given as a courtesy for MANDATING that the apartment builders reserve a certain number of apartments at lower cost.  If the mandate wasn't there, the builders would have no problem giving up those tax "incentives" for a full-priced apartment. 

[EVT1]

I really could care less who gives a shit or not- it is a disgusting practice.  Perhaps you can give a valid reason for doing this....

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

Condo units are purchase properties in 99.9% of cases. The residents own them (or have mortgages on them).

Renters are come-and-go.

I don't know an easy way to explain it to you, but the Condo unit floors (most likely upper floors) are occupied by the persons who purchased them as a residence.

I don't see a problem with them having a separate entrance to the building from the renters.

(As I mentioned in my previous post, separate elevator system, and stairwell access. It keeps the renters (tenants), from having access/wandering the halls of those units that are privately owned.)

This isn't racial segregation, if that's the spin you're trying to put on it.

If the Management Company for that building has it set in writing in the rental contract, and the renters sign, then they accept the conditions of their lease.

The headline in the link and the way it's worded are so skewed to make it look like an injustice - where there is no injustice.

They (MSN) also combined the entranceway issue and the amenities (gym/rooftop/play area) issue into one story - even though those are both separate issues from two separate buildings - which makes their story misleading - probably to create a reaction such as yours:

One new Manhattan skyscraper will greet residents of pricey condos with a lobby in front, while renters of affordable apartments that got the developer government incentives must use a separate side entrance — a so-called poor door.


In another apartment house, rent-regulated residents can't even pay to use a new gym that's free to their market-rate neighbors. Other buildings have added playrooms and roof decks off-limits to rent-stabilized tenants.

.

[EVT1]

Aug 17, 2014 21:41:34 GMT -5 ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ said:

Condo units are purchase properties in 99.9% of cases. The residents own them (or have mortgages on them).

Renters are come-and-go.

I don't know an easy way to explain it to you, but the Condo unit floors (most likely upper floors) are occupied by the persons who purchased them as a residence.

I don't see a problem with them having a separate entrance to the building from the renters.

(As I mentioned in my previous post, separate elevator system, and stairwell access. It keeps the renters (tenants), from having access/wandering the halls of those units that are privately owned.)

This isn't racial segregation, if that's the spin you're trying to put on it.

If the Management Company for that building has it set in writing in the rental contract, and the renters sign, then they accept the conditions of their lease.

The headline in the link and the way it's worded are so skewed to make it look like an injustice - where there is no injustice.

They (MSN) also combined the entranceway issue and the amenities (gym/rooftop/play area) issue into one story - even though those are both separate issues from two separate buildings - which makes their story misleading - probably to create a reaction such as yours:

One new Manhattan skyscraper will greet residents of pricey condos with a lobby in front, while renters of affordable apartments that got the developer government incentives must use a separate side entrance — a so-called poor door.


In another apartment house, rent-regulated residents can't even pay to use a new gym that's free to their market-rate neighbors. Other buildings have added playrooms and roof decks off-limits to rent-stabilized tenants.

.

Where the hell did you get racial segregation? About done with you misrepresenting my arguments. The position of one that thinks they are part of the club- you aren't.

[Sum Dum Gai]

I don't really see a problem with it. The government requires the developers to set aside a certain percentage of units for subsidized housing. They're complying with that. There's no requirement for them to get full amenities. If they want a fancy lobby, gym, roof deck, pool, etc they can pay full price.

[zibazinski]

Same spin that only white people are racist and all black "children" are automatically given a pass to do whatever they want because they're black. Glad we have black posters who don't use the race card but actually bust their ass like everyone else does to get along in this world. Sometimes the jealously gets real old. Same as only bad people own guns and are always careless with them. Never anything nice to say about anyone, just the same old song and dance.

[zibazinski]

You want to ride on someone else's nickel? Beggars can't be choosers.

[resolution]

I didn't read the particular links but other stories presented the developer's reasoning. The amount of rental units required in order to get the tax subsidy is fairly high. Many banks will not finance mortgages if the percent of rental units goes above a certain percentage, but the subsidized units don't count toward that percentage if they have a separate entrance.

This is done by the developer to maintain the fiction to the banks that the building doesn't have these rental units, so that when the new owners start renting out their units it doesn't tip the development into the range that no one can get approved for a mortgage.  I don't agree with it, but I understand why it is important for people to know that units in the building will continue to qualify for mortgages. It ends up being nasty but the reasoning behind it is the % of rentals, not the desire to be nasty.

[Tennesseer]

Aug 18, 2014 6:56:51 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

To add on to my earlier post... maybe this is a better analogy than my duplex one.  Is first class air travel discrimination?  I mean they sometimes get their own bathrooms and pillows that I don't have on the same flight.  We are all buying tickets to ride the same airplane. Shouldn't I get a big seat too for the price of my super saver economy ticket?

Coach passengers do enter the aircraft from the same entrance as first class.passengers.  

You are correct on the rest of your post.  You get what you pay for.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 17, 2014 15:04:36 GMT -5 kent said:

Submitted without comment.

NEW YORK (AP) — One new Manhattan skyscraper will greet residents of pricey condos with a lobby in front, while renters of affordable apartments that got the developer government incentives must use a separate side entrance — a so-called poor door.


In another apartment house, rent-regulated residents can't even pay to use a new gym that's free to their market-rate neighbors. Other buildings have added playrooms and roof decks off-limits to rent-stabilized tenants.

New York is a city where the rich and relatively poor have long lived side by side, with who pays what often a closely held, widely varying secret. But......

news.msn.com/us/haves-have-nots-divided-by-apartment-poor-doors

The article states that the developer got "incentives" so we know there was a carrot.  Was there also a stick?  In other words, could the developer have refused?  Because here's the deal- if he's forced, if those people are coerced to accept "low income housing" as part of zoning or other regulations, than it's not much of an "incentive" if the alternative is criminal charges.

[zibazinski]

You bet they are coerced into making X amount low income housing. Then you have issues with other people who pay full price either not wanting to live there or wanting to feel very secure if they take the chance and live there. I don't want some thug waiting in the hall for me.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 18, 2014 8:57:34 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

You bet they are coerced into making X amount low income housing. Then you have issues with other people who pay full price either not wanting to live there or wanting to feel very secure if they take the chance and live there. I don't want some thug waiting in the hall for me.

Right, so whatever the "incentives" are, they were no doubt peanuts compared to the destruction of the property value through the theft of a set number of units by the state.

[zibazinski]

Probably but not my call to make. I wouldn't live there so it isn't my issue.

[resolution]

Aug 18, 2014 11:42:46 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 18, 2014 8:57:34 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

You bet they are coerced into making X amount low income housing. Then you have issues with other people who pay full price either not wanting to live there or wanting to feel very secure if they take the chance and live there. I don't want some thug waiting in the hall for me.

Right, so whatever the "incentives" are, they were no doubt peanuts compared to the destruction of the property value through the theft of a set number of units by the state.

In most cases that I have read about, it is the original land owners that are hurt and the developers that benefit. The developers buy land that is zoned for a certain amount of units, and then they make the concession to get the land rezoned for more units, which increases the value.

The zoning regulations kept the value of the land down from what it would be without the zoning, and the developers that bought the land at the depressed price end up benefiting. 

[Sum Dum Gai]

Aug 18, 2014 13:08:45 GMT -5 resolution said:

Aug 18, 2014 11:42:46 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Right, so whatever the "incentives" are, they were no doubt peanuts compared to the destruction of the property value through the theft of a set number of units by the state.

In most cases that I have read about, it is the original land owners that are hurt and the developers that benefit. The developers buy land that is zoned for a certain amount of units, and then they make the concession to get the land rezoned for more units, which increases the value.

The zoning regulations kept the value of the land down from what it would be without the zoning, and the developers that bought the land at the depressed price end up benefiting. 

They also have a big loss though. They buy an older five story walk up building. They knock it down and build a ten story with elevators and whatnot. They build twice as much housing as the site previously had. Each unit could sell for $500k. However the state requires that a certain percentage of the units need to be rent controlled, and they're losing $500k in sales income on every single one. You know the tax incentive is far less than $500k per unit. The rent price they can charge is nowhere close to getting them their $500k back in any kind of reasonable time line.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 18, 2014 11:43:59 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Probably but not my call to make. I wouldn't live there so it isn't my issue.

Well, there is that.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 18, 2014 13:25:51 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Aug 18, 2014 13:08:45 GMT -5 resolution said:

In most cases that I have read about, it is the original land owners that are hurt and the developers that benefit. The developers buy land that is zoned for a certain amount of units, and then they make the concession to get the land rezoned for more units, which increases the value.

The zoning regulations kept the value of the land down from what it would be without the zoning, and the developers that bought the land at the depressed price end up benefiting. 

They also have a big loss though. They buy an older five story walk up building. They knock it down and build a ten story with elevators and whatnot. They build twice as much housing as the site previously had. Each unit could sell for $500k. However the state requires that a certain percentage of the units need to be rent controlled, and they're losing $500k in sales income on every single one. You know the tax incentive is far less than $500k per unit. The rent price they can charge is nowhere close to getting them their $500k back in any kind of reasonable time line.

That's pretty much what I'm saying.  You get these arguments from people that have never owned anything substantial and been told what they can and can't do with it.  I own a nice chunk of land on the ICW now, and I don't want to do much with it at all-- boat slips, a gravel parking lot, and a gravel road.  You would not believe the rigmarole. Well, actually- you probably would.  And no matter how much I think I've thought of the worst case scenario, the dumbest, stupidest, most idiotic flaming hoop a bureaucrat can come up with-- the idiots have thought of something worse, that'll take longer, and cost more.

[zibazinski]

Aug 18, 2014 19:23:48 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 18, 2014 11:43:59 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Probably but not my call to make. I wouldn't live there so it isn't my issue.

Well, there is that.

Yup. I wouldn't rent a place that took section 8 housing and I wouldn't buy a place that had residents in there who were paying less than I was or tenants or whatever. You're either an owner or a renter. Both rarely mix well.

[EVT1]

Owners and renters don't mix well?  What does that mean?  I have a couple friends that rent out houses- in nice neighborhoods- and no way you would know who was owning or renting unless you asked them.

Now if you are talking slum lords that's another story- they will rent shit to anyone.  They might be owners but they are worse than the renters in a lot of cases.  Nothing like having a few assholes in a neighborhood buy up some houses and convert them to duplexes- just as bad as the assholes that will tear down a house and build one that barely fits on the lot.  I despise both.

[resolution]

Aug 18, 2014 13:25:51 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Aug 18, 2014 13:08:45 GMT -5 resolution said:

In most cases that I have read about, it is the original land owners that are hurt and the developers that benefit. The developers buy land that is zoned for a certain amount of units, and then they make the concession to get the land rezoned for more units, which increases the value.

The zoning regulations kept the value of the land down from what it would be without the zoning, and the developers that bought the land at the depressed price end up benefiting. 

They also have a big loss though. They buy an older five story walk up building. They knock it down and build a ten story with elevators and whatnot. They build twice as much housing as the site previously had. Each unit could sell for $500k. However the state requires that a certain percentage of the units need to be rent controlled, and they're losing $500k in sales income on every single one. You know the tax incentive is far less than $500k per unit. The rent price they can charge is nowhere close to getting them their $500k back in any kind of reasonable time line.

The loss is accounted for by the lower price that they pay for the land, because it is known to be zoned for x units. They make quite good money getting the zoning changed into a higher number of units. The person taking the real loss is the little guy that couldn't get the zoning changed, that had to sell it to the developer for a smaller amount than it would have otherwise commanded.

[Sum Dum Gai]

Aug 18, 2014 22:14:16 GMT -5 resolution said:

Aug 18, 2014 13:25:51 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

They also have a big loss though. They buy an older five story walk up building. They knock it down and build a ten story with elevators and whatnot. They build twice as much housing as the site previously had. Each unit could sell for $500k. However the state requires that a certain percentage of the units need to be rent controlled, and they're losing $500k in sales income on every single one. You know the tax incentive is far less than $500k per unit. The rent price they can charge is nowhere close to getting them their $500k back in any kind of reasonable time line.

The loss is accounted for by the lower price that they pay for the land, because it is known to be zoned for x units. They make quite good money getting the zoning changed into a higher number of units. The person taking the real loss is the little guy that couldn't get the zoning changed, that had to sell it to the developer for a smaller amount than it would have otherwise commanded.

If the zoning can be changed that's already baked into the price. Take Santa Cruz for example, since I'm familiar with the area. Zoning laws don't allow any building over three stories. No exceptions. If you have a two story apartment building the land is just as valuable as a one story building on a per acre basis, because you could build a three story building on it. The existing building will be valued based on age, upkeep, rental income, etc, but the underlying land price is pretty much the same for every piece of land in a given neighborhood.

[truthbound]

Aug 17, 2014 17:31:34 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Heard about this a while back- and people are not happy about it- taxpayers allowed the incentives, etc. with the condition there would be affordable housing- and the developer found a real neat way to be dickish. Of course can't blame the rich people from not wanting to set eyes on the poor people- it breaks the bubble they live in.

Nothing new though- rich people have always done this whether via moat, gate,etc. They only want to deal with these people when they need their services for something and then they are supposed to crawl back under their rocks.

So did I. But you have to understand the Colbert viewers weren't told to be upset about it until last week.

[marvholly]

IMHO: I can see OWNERS having access/privaleges renters do not. m I can landscape my house anyway I wish but if I rented it out that would NOT be allowed. Same for hanging pictures, doing closet organizers, puting in screwed to the wall shelves...........