16 ms·

I have a feeling many of these buildings will just give up on the tax break and stop offering units to low income tenants.

eli 11y ago
I think it's a pretty significant tax break
jsprogrammer 11y ago
Wouldn't want to mix the rich with the poor.
- Grue3 11y ago
  How can you even mix rich and the poor in the same building? Assuming both rich and poor have to pay the same rent, it would be either too much for the poor, or "too cheap" for the rich (meaning, they will move to a more upscale property). The "segregation" just happens naturally.
  - serve_yay 11y ago
    Wow.
    - penprogg 11y ago
      Wow, it's like you didn't even take the time to process what he said and decided to get outraged anyway.
      - serve_yay 11y ago
        I agree someone wasn't reading, but I don't think it was me!
  - sp332 11y ago
    receive a tax break for offering some units to low-income tenants Literally the second sentence of the article. On top of that, units in the same building often cost vastly different amounts of money depending on the height, the view, etc.
    - Grue3 11y ago
      I was talking in general, not New York specifically. Of course if a third party (the government in this case) basically pays the difference, anything can happen. But it seems like it's because you can't just build new housing in New York City, so existing houses have to accomodate the poor, which is a pretty unique situation.
  - peloton 11y ago
    There's typically an application process for the low income units. The rents are much cheaper than for the regular units. http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2012/06/05/city_now_accepting_affordable_housing_applications_online.php http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2012/06/05/city_now_accepting_... I've seen buildings with separate doors and some without that have low income units. Even in the same building, the low income units are not as nice (e.g. no in-unit washer dryer, no stainless steel appliances, cheaper fixtures). Also, some buildings only provide keys to the gym and other common areas for non-low income. But I think they got in trouble for that and may have stopped.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    >How can you even mix rich and the poor in the same ship? Assuming both rich and poor have to pay the same fare, it would be either too much for the poor, or "too cheap" for the rich (meaning, they will use a more exclusive vessel). The "segregation" just happens naturally. My guess is that the rents in the building are not uniform.
bradleyjg 11y ago
It's highly unlikely. The tax benefits are enormous and last twenty years. I'd be very happy if developers choose to forgo them but I don't think it is going to happen.
ics 11y ago
See my post above (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9826916 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9826916). The break itself is pretty significant and, if I read it correctly, would also make their rate static/predictable for a long period. That is pretty tempting for developers.

eli 11y ago

I think it's a pretty significant tax break

jsprogrammer 11y ago

Wouldn't want to mix the rich with the poor.

Grue3 11y ago
How can you even mix rich and the poor in the same building? Assuming both rich and poor have to pay the same rent, it would be either too much for the poor, or "too cheap" for the rich (meaning, they will move to a more upscale property). The "segregation" just happens naturally.
- serve_yay 11y ago
  Wow.
  - penprogg 11y ago
    Wow, it's like you didn't even take the time to process what he said and decided to get outraged anyway.
    - serve_yay 11y ago
      I agree someone wasn't reading, but I don't think it was me!
- sp332 11y ago
  receive a tax break for offering some units to low-income tenants Literally the second sentence of the article. On top of that, units in the same building often cost vastly different amounts of money depending on the height, the view, etc.
  - Grue3 11y ago
    I was talking in general, not New York specifically. Of course if a third party (the government in this case) basically pays the difference, anything can happen. But it seems like it's because you can't just build new housing in New York City, so existing houses have to accomodate the poor, which is a pretty unique situation.
- peloton 11y ago
  There's typically an application process for the low income units. The rents are much cheaper than for the regular units. http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2012/06/05/city_now_accepting_affordable_housing_applications_online.php http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2012/06/05/city_now_accepting_... I've seen buildings with separate doors and some without that have low income units. Even in the same building, the low income units are not as nice (e.g. no in-unit washer dryer, no stainless steel appliances, cheaper fixtures). Also, some buildings only provide keys to the gym and other common areas for non-low income. But I think they got in trouble for that and may have stopped.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  >How can you even mix rich and the poor in the same ship? Assuming both rich and poor have to pay the same fare, it would be either too much for the poor, or "too cheap" for the rich (meaning, they will use a more exclusive vessel). The "segregation" just happens naturally. My guess is that the rents in the building are not uniform.

bradleyjg 11y ago

It's highly unlikely. The tax benefits are enormous and last twenty years. I'd be very happy if developers choose to forgo them but I don't think it is going to happen.

ics 11y ago

See my post above (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9826916 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9826916). The break itself is pretty significant and, if I read it correctly, would also make their rate static/predictable for a long period. That is pretty tempting for developers.