Subsidized and/or Affordable Housing

[ECtransplant]

When the city gives tax credits to developments with a poor door it says either the city is ok giving tax credits to morally objectionable practices or that the city doesn't find it objectionable

[David Greene]

Did anyone ever say it was right?

Have you been reading the thread?

[mattaudio]

Nobody said they like the idea. The discussion is just if we should prohibit it or otherwise curtail the possibility.

[EOst]

It's not because in the case of education and public water fountains these are public services provided by the government, meant for everyone. Housing is a good to be purchased by a consumer. each consumer has the right to buy what they can afford. If you can't afford a high end apartment in Manhattan, I'm sorry that's a bummer, I'm on the same page. Luxury finishes and amenities are a privilege, not a right. You can cite buildings that have combined entrances, THAT'S GREAT, don't get me wrong, that makes me ECSTATIC!!! But it's not the only way to do it, and it's not the only right way to do it. Both sets of consumers are still getting what they are paying for, no one is being short changed.

Given that the tax credits we're talking about here are the modern form of public housing (which has more or less entirely fallen out of fashion) I don't think there's such a clear distinction between this and other more explicitly public goods. More to the point, we impose those same requirements on education, water fountains, etc. that are privately owned, not just publicly. You can't deny someone entry into your private school or water fountain just because they're part of a group you don't like.

[Avian]

Howzabout Costco installing a back-door entrance only for people who earn less than the median? Heck, why stop there? Perhaps you'll soon have to fill out a financial statement before you can even get a membership.

Maybe Southdale will provide premium parking only to those owning a BMW or Mercedes? Or perhaps they can simply scan the license plate to determine who gets to park where.

Why not? Insurance companies already charge you more if you live in undesirable neighborhoods. So let's all just happily slide down that slope and take it to its conclusion.

I love this brave new world.

[David Greene]

Nobody said they like the idea. The discussion is just if we should prohibit it or otherwise curtail the possibility.

If you don't prohibit it, you're accepting it. You're saying it's ok to do. That vs. "like" is a distinction without a difference.

[mattaudio]

If you don't prohibit it, you're accepting it.

Are you being serious, David? Do you realize that's a very anti-freedom worldview? The logical extension of which produces things like the failed war on drugs, or theocracies?

[David Greene]

If you don't prohibit it, you're accepting it.

Are you being serious, David? Do you realize that's a very anti-freedom worldview? The logical extension of which produces things like the failed war on drugs, or theocracies?

Please don't generalize and put words in my mouth. We're talking about a very specific issue here.

But...Freedom (tm)!

[Nathan]

It's not because in the case of education and public water fountains these are public services provided by the government, meant for everyone. Housing is a good to be purchased by a consumer. each consumer has the right to buy what they can afford. If you can't afford a high end apartment in Manhattan, I'm sorry that's a bummer, I'm on the same page. Luxury finishes and amenities are a privilege, not a right. You can cite buildings that have combined entrances, THAT'S GREAT, don't get me wrong, that makes me ECSTATIC!!! But it's not the only way to do it, and it's not the only right way to do it. Both sets of consumers are still getting what they are paying for, no one is being short changed.

Given that the tax credits we're talking about here are the modern form of public housing (which has more or less entirely fallen out of fashion) I don't think there's such a clear distinction between this and other more explicitly public goods. More to the point, we impose those same requirements on education, water fountains, etc. that are privately owned, not just publicly. You can't deny someone entry into your private school or water fountain just because they're part of a group you don't like.

But you could in a private school provide a different type of education to someone with older text books, desks and different classes IF they were paying less than your other students... because that's what the different customers bought and paid for.

*if you think a private school is going to accept one student at one price and another at half the price (unless something subsidizes the complete discrepancy) you're a little loco.

[Nick]

I apologize for interrupting the second half of this semester of SOC 1001, but here are some pictures of what low-income housing in Manhattan looked like a couple decades before my grandparents got there:

http://www.authentichistory.com/1898-19 ... tions.html

[EOst]

But you could in a private school provide a different type of education to someone with older text books, desks and different classes IF they were paying less than your other students... because that's what the different customers bought and paid for.

I'm honestly not sure they could do that. The list of protected classes in Minnesota is quite extensive, and public assistance (the likely one here) is one of them for education.

*if you think a private school is going to accept one student at one price and another at half the price (unless something subsidizes the complete discrepancy) you're a little loco.

They actually do this routinely. It's called a "scholarship"--crazy concept, I know, but they're really catching on now.

[EOst]

I apologize for interrupting the second half of this semester of SOC 1001, but here are some pictures of what low-income housing in Manhattan looked like a couple decades before my grandparents got there:

This. I can't believe we have to routinely remind people of the consequences of allowing "the market" to determine what housing for low-income families will look like, when we've tried it repeatedly and repeatedly found it not only lacking, but horrific.

[FISHMANPET]

Not to make a point about anything in particular, but there are basically 3 types of tenements in NYC, pre law (pre 1879), old law (1879-1901), and new law (1901-? I don't actually know if these regulations still affect building or if they've been superceeded by newer housing code). There was also a tenement law of 1867 but it led to builders doing stupid shit like putting windows between rooms and basically didn't really change the form of tenements like the 1879 or 1901 laws did.

[EOst]

If I remember right (I took a class on NYC tenement history years ago...) the New Law (1901) is still the basis of the law for new residential construction in NYC.

[Nick]

I apologize for interrupting the second half of this semester of SOC 1001, but here are some pictures of what low-income housing in Manhattan looked like a couple decades before my grandparents got there:

This. I can't believe we have to routinely remind people of the consequences of allowing "the market" to determine what housing for low-income families will look like, when we've tried it repeatedly and repeatedly found it not only lacking, but horrific.

Well, that wasn't exactly my point. There was a lot of shock! and outrage! about this a few months ago (much more so than on here) and it seemed a bit misplaced. I guess I can get behind the idea that, in this wealthy and modern country we live in, we probably could have pieced together a right to housing somewhere in between Dorito flavor #46 and automatic door openers on minivans. But "right to a doorman" seems like, uh, a bit much. The way we approach the safety net in this country is sorta whacky. There are many better things to be outraged about, which admittedly is almost always a shitty and smarmy argument, but shucks: some folks are getting subsidized housing in Manhattan.

My thoughts about the whole thing may be skewed due to my recent Twitter signup as well as having ridden a local route bus midday on Monday this week.

[Nathan]

But you could in a private school provide a different type of education to someone with older text books, desks and different classes IF they were paying less than your other students... because that's what the different customers bought and paid for.

I'm honestly not sure they could do that. The list of protected classes in Minnesota is quite extensive, and public assistance (the likely one here) is one of them for education.

*if you think a private school is going to accept one student at one price and another at half the price (unless something subsidizes the complete discrepancy) you're a little loco.

They actually do this routinely. It's called a "scholarship"--crazy concept, I know, but they're really catching on now.

right if you pay to go to one school that cost x dollars you receive x education, you go to one that costs y and you get y education... or you just go to public school. you pay for x apartment, you get x apartment. you pay for y YOU GET Y. just because these are in the same building doesn't necessarily mean they have to be the same.

[mattaudio]

Personally I think it's offensive that people have to pay extra to get a larger unit, an extra bedroom, or a nice view.

[IllogicalJake]

Personally I think it's offensive that people have to pay extra to get a larger unit, an extra bedroom, or a nice view.

I love how you keep strawmaning this argument. Let's not pretend that access to the front door of the building you live in is anything like an extra bedroom.

Does nobody here share my feeling that giving the poor folks a small door in a back alley is dehumanizing?

[mister.shoes]

I share your feelings, but I don't have enough education in this area to intelligently join in on the discussion.

[IllogicalJake]

right if you pay to go to one school that cost x dollars you receive x education, you go to one that costs y and you get y education... or you just go to public school. you pay for x apartment, you get x apartment. you pay for y YOU GET Y. just because these are in the same building doesn't necessarily mean they have to be the same.

If we're so big on letting the market dictate this, as you seem to be a fan of, then why offer tax credits in the first place? If your logic were followed from the beginning, wouldn't this have not happened?

If you're giving a developer a shit-ton of money to build a condo with affordable housing, he should not be allowed to tuck to the affordable housing into the back of the building with a back-alley entrance and continue to use those tax credits to build a fancy condo tower.

That's taking advantage of the tax credits and you know it.