Public Housing (Projects) Good Idea?

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Should we put an end to Public housing all together?
We have seen the effects of them with Cabrini Green etc.
Although the common goal is to provide affordable housing, the details
of the arrangements differ between countries, and so does the
terminology, the definitions of poverty and the criteria for public
housing allocation.
Canada, public housing is usually a block of purpose-built government
subsidized housing operated by a government agency, often simply
referred to as housing projects. In American cities, many high rise
developments have been torn down and replaced with easier to manage
town houses. Numerous federal, state and local enactments have greatly
diminished criminal activity inside projects and altered who is
entitled to live in them. Should we end public housing?

Check the literature. Government is really doing this now with Hope-VI. Do
some reading.

Pat

2007-05-07 00:41:01 UTC

Check the literature. Government is really doing this now with Hope-VI. Do
some reading.

HOPE VI is on the way out. I did a similar project using LIHCs, HOME,
CDBG, FHLBNY, and some foundation money. So you can do a HOME VI-type
project without HOME VI.

I think HUD believes that all of the projects that should get HOPE VI
money has already gotten it.

One problem is that many of the PHAs haven't been able to implement
their grandeous schemes.

George Conklin

2007-05-07 12:06:06 UTC

Check the literature. Government is really doing this now with Hope-VI.

Post by George Conklin
some reading.

HOPE VI is on the way out. I did a similar project using LIHCs, HOME,
CDBG, FHLBNY, and some foundation money. So you can do a HOME VI-type
project without HOME VI.
I think HUD believes that all of the projects that should get HOPE VI
money has already gotten it.
One problem is that many of the PHAs haven't been able to implement
their grandeous schemes.

Hope VI still dominates our the local news. Only 1% of former residents
qualify to move back to the old neighborhoods.

Amy Blankenship

2007-05-07 13:59:08 UTC

Post by Pat
HOPE VI is on the way out. I did a similar project using LIHCs, HOME,
CDBG, FHLBNY, and some foundation money. So you can do a HOME VI-type
project without HOME VI.
I think HUD believes that all of the projects that should get HOPE VI
money has already gotten it.
One problem is that many of the PHAs haven't been able to implement
their grandeous schemes.

Hope VI still dominates our the local news. Only 1% of former residents
qualify to move back to the old neighborhoods.

It's so sweet the way George is convinced that his little community is an
accurate reflection of the entire world.

-Amy

George Conklin

2007-05-08 21:46:23 UTC

Hope VI still dominates our the local news. Only 1% of former residents
qualify to move back to the old neighborhoods.

It's so sweet the way George is convinced that his little community is an
accurate reflection of the entire world.
-Amy

It is a national pattern sweeheart. You don't know the literature. There
is an article on Durham forthcoming in Urban Studies documenting the
problem. Read up.

Pat

2007-05-07 16:47:07 UTC

Check the literature. Government is really doing this now with Hope-VI.

Post by George Conklin
some reading.

HOPE VI is on the way out. I did a similar project using LIHCs, HOME,
CDBG, FHLBNY, and some foundation money. So you can do a HOME VI-type
project without HOME VI.
I think HUD believes that all of the projects that should get HOPE VI
money has already gotten it.
One problem is that many of the PHAs haven't been able to implement
their grandeous schemes.

Hope VI still dominates our the local news. Only 1% of former residents
qualify to move back to the old neighborhoods.

Hope VI down to about 4 projects per year and is in the $70 -- $80mm
per year.

George Conklin

2007-05-08 21:47:32 UTC

Check the literature. Government is really doing this now with Hope-VI.

Post by George Conklin
some reading.

HOPE VI is on the way out. I did a similar project using LIHCs, HOME,
CDBG, FHLBNY, and some foundation money. So you can do a HOME VI-type
project without HOME VI.
I think HUD believes that all of the projects that should get HOPE VI
money has already gotten it.
One problem is that many of the PHAs haven't been able to implement
their grandeous schemes.

Hope VI still dominates our the local news. Only 1% of former residents
qualify to move back to the old neighborhoods.

Hope VI down to about 4 projects per year and is in the $70 -- $80mm
per year.

Tearing down affordable housing and replacing it with nothing is a
national problem, regardless of Hope VI.

Pat

2007-05-09 01:59:34 UTC

details

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
of the arrangements differ between countries, and so does the
terminology, the definitions of poverty and the criteria for

public

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
housing allocation.
Canada, public housing is usually a block of purpose-built

government

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
subsidized housing operated by a government agency, often simply
referred to as housing projects. In American cities, many high

rise

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
developments have been torn down and replaced with easier to

manage

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
town houses. Numerous federal, state and local enactments have

greatly

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
diminished criminal activity inside projects and altered who is
entitled to live in them. Should we end public housing?

Check the literature. Government is really doing this now with

Hope-VI.

Post by George Conklin
Do

Post by George Conklin
some reading.

HOPE VI is on the way out. I did a similar project using LIHCs, HOME,
CDBG, FHLBNY, and some foundation money. So you can do a HOME VI-type
project without HOME VI.
I think HUD believes that all of the projects that should get HOPE VI
money has already gotten it.
One problem is that many of the PHAs haven't been able to implement
their grandeous schemes.

Hope VI still dominates our the local news. Only 1% of former residents
qualify to move back to the old neighborhoods.

Hope VI down to about 4 projects per year and is in the $70 -- $80mm
per year.

Tearing down affordable housing and replacing it with nothing is a
national problem, regardless of Hope VI.

Tearing down Public Housing is a concern, but Mark to Market is a
bigger one in most communities.

If you know of a place that has demo'd -- and not replaced -- a bunch
of public housing, let me know. It can be replaced with other funding
sources and you can do a subsidy-only Mixed Finance application to
reactivate the units under the a new HAC. I've done that before and
it works well.

Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

2007-05-09 02:59:12 UTC

details

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
of the arrangements differ between countries, and so does the
terminology, the definitions of poverty and the criteria for

public

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
housing allocation.
Canada, public housing is usually a block of purpose-built

government

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
subsidized housing operated by a government agency, often simply
referred to as housing projects. In American cities, many high

rise

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
developments have been torn down and replaced with easier to

manage

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
town houses. Numerous federal, state and local enactments have

greatly

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
diminished criminal activity inside projects and altered who is
entitled to live in them. Should we end public housing?

Check the literature. Government is really doing this now with

Hope-VI.

Post by George Conklin
Do

Post by George Conklin
some reading.

HOPE VI is on the way out. I did a similar project using LIHCs, HOME,
CDBG, FHLBNY, and some foundation money. So you can do a HOME VI-type
project without HOME VI.
I think HUD believes that all of the projects that should get HOPE VI
money has already gotten it.
One problem is that many of the PHAs haven't been able to implement
their grandeous schemes.

Hope VI still dominates our the local news. Only 1% of former residents
qualify to move back to the old neighborhoods.

Hope VI down to about 4 projects per year and is in the $70 -- $80mm
per year.

Tearing down affordable housing and replacing it with nothing is a
national problem, regardless of Hope VI.

Tearing down Public Housing is a concern, but Mark to Market is a
bigger one in most communities.
If you know of a place that has demo'd -- and not replaced -- a bunch
of public housing, let me know. It can be replaced with other funding
sources and you can do a subsidy-only Mixed Finance application to
reactivate the units under the a new HAC. I've done that before and
it works well.

The Housing Assistance Council tipically only helps manage affordable
housing in rual areas. I am not sure how much work HAC would do for a
place like Cabrini Greens. Public housing was established to provide
decent and safe rental housing for eligible low-income families, the
elderly, and people with disabilities.
But it just results in a large crime area, and places for gangs to
hide out in.

Pat

2007-05-09 16:28:45 UTC

On May 8, 10:59 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"

details

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
of the arrangements differ between countries, and so does the
terminology, the definitions of poverty and the criteria for

public

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
housing allocation.
Canada, public housing is usually a block of purpose-built

government

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
subsidized housing operated by a government agency, often simply
referred to as housing projects. In American cities, many high

rise

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
developments have been torn down and replaced with easier to

manage

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
town houses. Numerous federal, state and local enactments have

greatly

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
diminished criminal activity inside projects and altered who is
entitled to live in them. Should we end public housing?

Check the literature. Government is really doing this now with

Hope-VI.

Post by George Conklin
Do

Post by George Conklin
some reading.

HOPE VI is on the way out. I did a similar project using LIHCs, HOME,
CDBG, FHLBNY, and some foundation money. So you can do a HOME VI-type
project without HOME VI.
I think HUD believes that all of the projects that should get HOPE VI
money has already gotten it.
One problem is that many of the PHAs haven't been able to implement
their grandeous schemes.

Hope VI still dominates our the local news. Only 1% of former residents
qualify to move back to the old neighborhoods.

Hope VI down to about 4 projects per year and is in the $70 -- $80mm
per year.

Tearing down affordable housing and replacing it with nothing is a
national problem, regardless of Hope VI.

Tearing down Public Housing is a concern, but Mark to Market is a
bigger one in most communities.
If you know of a place that has demo'd -- and not replaced -- a bunch
of public housing, let me know. It can be replaced with other funding
sources and you can do a subsidy-only Mixed Finance application to
reactivate the units under the a new HAC. I've done that before and
it works well.

Wrong HAC. The HAC I am referring to is a Housing Assistance
Contract. Each new development/complex gets a new one. They are all
numbered, as only HUD can number things as something like 36-
PIH-999-02 but I forget the exact format.
36 is NY
PIH is Public & Indian Housing
999 is the agency number
02 is the HAC number.

So if you have 100 units on HAC 01 and you tear down 20 units. Your
HAC is now limited to 80 units. Sometimes you can revive (if you
will) the 20 units but you get a new HAC, which in this case would be
02.

As for the "other" HAC, I've dealt with them and I'm not sure how much
help they would be in rural areas, either. They've got a lot of money
and political connections, but you don't see them doing too much -- at
least around here.

george conklin

2007-05-09 20:11:00 UTC

Post by Pat
On May 8, 10:59 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"

Post by Pat
May 6,

details

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
of the arrangements differ between countries, and so does the
terminology, the definitions of poverty and the criteria for

public

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
housing allocation.
Canada, public housing is usually a block of purpose-built

government

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
subsidized housing operated by a government agency, often
simply
referred to as housing projects. In American cities, many
high

rise

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
developments have been torn down and replaced with easier to

manage

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
town houses. Numerous federal, state and local enactments
have

greatly

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
diminished criminal activity inside projects and altered
who is
entitled to live in them. Should we end public housing?

Check the literature. Government is really doing this now with

Hope-VI.

Post by Pat
Do

Post by George Conklin
some reading.

HOPE VI is on the way out. I did a similar project using
LIHCs, HOME,
CDBG, FHLBNY, and some foundation money. So you can do a HOME
VI-type
project without HOME VI.
I think HUD believes that all of the projects that should get HOPE VI
money has already gotten it.
One problem is that many of the PHAs haven't been able to implement
their grandeous schemes.

Hope VI still dominates our the local news. Only 1% of former residents
qualify to move back to the old neighborhoods.

Hope VI down to about 4 projects per year and is in the $70 -- $80mm
per year.

Tearing down affordable housing and replacing it with nothing is a
national problem, regardless of Hope VI.

Tearing down Public Housing is a concern, but Mark to Market is a
bigger one in most communities.
If you know of a place that has demo'd -- and not replaced -- a bunch
of public housing, let me know. It can be replaced with other funding
sources and you can do a subsidy-only Mixed Finance application to
reactivate the units under the a new HAC. I've done that before and
it works well.

Wrong HAC. The HAC I am referring to is a Housing Assistance
Contract. Each new development/complex gets a new one. They are all
numbered, as only HUD can number things as something like 36-
PIH-999-02 but I forget the exact format.
36 is NY
PIH is Public & Indian Housing
999 is the agency number
02 is the HAC number.
So if you have 100 units on HAC 01 and you tear down 20 units. Your
HAC is now limited to 80 units. Sometimes you can revive (if you
will) the 20 units but you get a new HAC, which in this case would be
02.
As for the "other" HAC, I've dealt with them and I'm not sure how much
help they would be in rural areas, either. They've got a lot of money
and political connections, but you don't see them doing too much -- at
least around here.

How about a FActoid here: only 1.3% of American live in public housing
anyway.

Pat

2007-05-09 20:21:27 UTC

Post by Pat
On May 8, 10:59 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"

Post by Pat
May 6,

details

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
of the arrangements differ between countries, and so does
the
terminology, the definitions of poverty and the criteria
for

public

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
housing allocation.
Canada, public housing is usually a block of purpose-built

government

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
subsidized housing operated by a government agency, often
simply
referred to as housing projects. In American cities, many
high

rise

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
developments have been torn down and replaced with easier
to

manage

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
town houses. Numerous federal, state and local enactments
have

greatly

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
diminished criminal activity inside projects and altered
who is
entitled to live in them. Should we end public housing?

Check the literature. Government is really doing this now
with

Hope-VI.

Post by Pat
Do

Post by George Conklin
some reading.

HOPE VI is on the way out. I did a similar project using
LIHCs, HOME,
CDBG, FHLBNY, and some foundation money. So you can do a HOME
VI-type
project without HOME VI.
I think HUD believes that all of the projects that should get
HOPE VI
money has already gotten it.
One problem is that many of the PHAs haven't been able to
implement
their grandeous schemes.

Hope VI still dominates our the local news. Only 1% of former
residents
qualify to move back to the old neighborhoods.

Hope VI down to about 4 projects per year and is in the $70 -- $80mm
per year.

Tearing down affordable housing and replacing it with nothing is a
national problem, regardless of Hope VI.

Tearing down Public Housing is a concern, but Mark to Market is a
bigger one in most communities.
If you know of a place that has demo'd -- and not replaced -- a bunch
of public housing, let me know. It can be replaced with other funding
sources and you can do a subsidy-only Mixed Finance application to
reactivate the units under the a new HAC. I've done that before and
it works well.

Wrong HAC. The HAC I am referring to is a Housing Assistance
Contract. Each new development/complex gets a new one. They are all
numbered, as only HUD can number things as something like 36-
PIH-999-02 but I forget the exact format.
36 is NY
PIH is Public & Indian Housing
999 is the agency number
02 is the HAC number.
So if you have 100 units on HAC 01 and you tear down 20 units. Your
HAC is now limited to 80 units. Sometimes you can revive (if you
will) the 20 units but you get a new HAC, which in this case would be
02.
As for the "other" HAC, I've dealt with them and I'm not sure how much
help they would be in rural areas, either. They've got a lot of money
and political connections, but you don't see them doing too much -- at
least around here.

How about a FActoid here: only 1.3% of American live in public housing
anyway.

I'm surprised it's that high. But don't forget most reports exclude
Indian Housing and FmHA (which is quite similar) as well as project-
based Section 8.

Another whole group have vouchers.

I read somewhere a while ago that something like 40% of new
construction of apatments have either Section 42 or Section 142
financing. In NYC, I bet it's higher. The use 142 for a lot of
upscale housing under NYS HFA's 80/20 program. The good news seems to
be that they are trying to scale that down and take out some of the
insanity.

However, I just pulled a project from there because they take sooooo
long to do anything and their requirments are quite attrocios.

Anonymous

2007-05-11 01:33:16 UTC

Post by Pat
As for the "other" HAC, I've dealt with them and I'm not sure how much
help they would be in rural areas, either. They've got a lot of money
and political connections, but you don't see them doing too much -- at
least around here.

Where is here, Pat?

Pat

2007-05-11 14:29:59 UTC

Where is here, Pat?

I don't know where you are. ;-)

I'm in upstate NY.

george conklin

2007-05-09 20:10:01 UTC

Post by Pat
May 6,

details

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
of the arrangements differ between countries, and so does the
terminology, the definitions of poverty and the criteria for

public

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
housing allocation.
Canada, public housing is usually a block of purpose-built

government

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
subsidized housing operated by a government agency, often simply
referred to as housing projects. In American cities, many high

rise

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
developments have been torn down and replaced with easier to

manage

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
town houses. Numerous federal, state and local enactments have

greatly

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
diminished criminal activity inside projects and altered who is
entitled to live in them. Should we end public housing?

Check the literature. Government is really doing this now with

Hope-VI.

Post by Pat
Do

Post by George Conklin
some reading.

HOPE VI is on the way out. I did a similar project using LIHCs, HOME,
CDBG, FHLBNY, and some foundation money. So you can do a HOME VI-type
project without HOME VI.
I think HUD believes that all of the projects that should get HOPE VI
money has already gotten it.
One problem is that many of the PHAs haven't been able to implement
their grandeous schemes.

Hope VI still dominates our the local news. Only 1% of former residents
qualify to move back to the old neighborhoods.

Hope VI down to about 4 projects per year and is in the $70 -- $80mm
per year.

Tearing down affordable housing and replacing it with nothing is a
national problem, regardless of Hope VI.

Tearing down Public Housing is a concern, but Mark to Market is a
bigger one in most communities.
If you know of a place that has demo'd -- and not replaced -- a bunch
of public housing, let me know. It can be replaced with other funding
sources and you can do a subsidy-only Mixed Finance application to
reactivate the units under the a new HAC. I've done that before and
it works well.

Affordable housing in rural areas really means what we used to call trailer
parks. 1/3 of the new houses in NC are in fact mobile homes. That is what
makes the housing market affordable. As for urban areas, please remember
that today most poor people live in RURAL areas. Cities are busy throwning
them out, the "Revanchist City" movement.

Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

2007-05-09 20:41:53 UTC

Post by Pat
May 6,

details

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
of the arrangements differ between countries, and so does the
terminology, the definitions of poverty and the criteria for

public

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
housing allocation.
Canada, public housing is usually a block of purpose-built

government

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
subsidized housing operated by a government agency, often
simply
referred to as housing projects. In American cities, many
high

rise

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
developments have been torn down and replaced with easier to

manage

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
town houses. Numerous federal, state and local enactments
have

greatly

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
diminished criminal activity inside projects and altered who
is
entitled to live in them. Should we end public housing?

Check the literature. Government is really doing this now with

Hope-VI.

Post by Pat
Do

Post by George Conklin
some reading.

HOPE VI is on the way out. I did a similar project using LIHCs,
HOME,
CDBG, FHLBNY, and some foundation money. So you can do a HOME
VI-type
project without HOME VI.
I think HUD believes that all of the projects that should get HOPE VI
money has already gotten it.
One problem is that many of the PHAs haven't been able to implement
their grandeous schemes.

Hope VI still dominates our the local news. Only 1% of former residents
qualify to move back to the old neighborhoods.

Hope VI down to about 4 projects per year and is in the $70 -- $80mm
per year.

Tearing down affordable housing and replacing it with nothing is a
national problem, regardless of Hope VI.

Tearing down Public Housing is a concern, but Mark to Market is a
bigger one in most communities.
If you know of a place that has demo'd -- and not replaced -- a bunch
of public housing, let me know. It can be replaced with other funding
sources and you can do a subsidy-only Mixed Finance application to
reactivate the units under the a new HAC. I've done that before and
it works well.

Thats true. Cities are very expensive to live in alot due to property
taxes.
Affordable, or public housing allows for those who need to stay in
the
city for a job are able to with out having to move into the suburbs
far away from their work, where they
then have to drive a car, and pay the big bucks to get a parking spot.

george conklin

2007-05-09 21:10:43 UTC

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
7,

Post by Pat
May 6,

details

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
of the arrangements differ between countries, and so does
the
terminology, the definitions of poverty and the criteria
for

public

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
housing allocation.
Canada, public housing is usually a block of purpose-built

government

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
subsidized housing operated by a government agency, often
simply
referred to as housing projects. In American cities, many
high

rise

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
developments have been torn down and replaced with easier
to

manage

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
town houses. Numerous federal, state and local enactments
have

greatly

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
diminished criminal activity inside projects and altered
who
is
entitled to live in them. Should we end public housing?

Check the literature. Government is really doing this now with

Hope-VI.

Post by Pat
Do

Post by George Conklin
some reading.

HOPE VI is on the way out. I did a similar project using LIHCs,
HOME,
CDBG, FHLBNY, and some foundation money. So you can do a HOME
VI-type
project without HOME VI.
I think HUD believes that all of the projects that should get
HOPE VI
money has already gotten it.
One problem is that many of the PHAs haven't been able to implement
their grandeous schemes.

Hope VI still dominates our the local news. Only 1% of former
residents
qualify to move back to the old neighborhoods.

Hope VI down to about 4 projects per year and is in the $70 -- $80mm
per year.

Tearing down affordable housing and replacing it with nothing is a
national problem, regardless of Hope VI.

Tearing down Public Housing is a concern, but Mark to Market is a
bigger one in most communities.
If you know of a place that has demo'd -- and not replaced -- a bunch
of public housing, let me know. It can be replaced with other funding
sources and you can do a subsidy-only Mixed Finance application to
reactivate the units under the a new HAC. I've done that before and
it works well.

More poor live in the suburbs than the city.

Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

2007-05-09 21:28:32 UTC

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
7,

Post by Pat
May 6,

details

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
of the arrangements differ between countries, and so does
the
terminology, the definitions of poverty and the criteria
for

public

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
housing allocation.
Canada, public housing is usually a block of purpose-built

government

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
subsidized housing operated by a government agency, often
simply
referred to as housing projects. In American cities, many
high

rise

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
developments have been torn down and replaced with easier
to

manage

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
town houses. Numerous federal, state and local enactments
have

greatly

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
diminished criminal activity inside projects and altered
who
is
entitled to live in them. Should we end public housing?

Check the literature. Government is really doing this now
with

Hope-VI.

Post by Pat
Do

Post by George Conklin
some reading.

HOPE VI is on the way out. I did a similar project using
LIHCs,
HOME,
CDBG, FHLBNY, and some foundation money. So you can do a HOME
VI-type
project without HOME VI.
I think HUD believes that all of the projects that should get
HOPE VI
money has already gotten it.
One problem is that many of the PHAs haven't been able to
implement
their grandeous schemes.

Hope VI still dominates our the local news. Only 1% of former
residents
qualify to move back to the old neighborhoods.

Hope VI down to about 4 projects per year and is in the $70 -- $80mm
per year.

Tearing down affordable housing and replacing it with nothing is a
national problem, regardless of Hope VI.

Tearing down Public Housing is a concern, but Mark to Market is a
bigger one in most communities.
If you know of a place that has demo'd -- and not replaced -- a bunch
of public housing, let me know. It can be replaced with other funding
sources and you can do a subsidy-only Mixed Finance application to
reactivate the units under the a new HAC. I've done that before and
it works well.

More poor live in the suburbs than the city.

Or Will be in a few years.

o***@hotmail.com

2007-05-09 23:08:46 UTC

On May 9, 4:41 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"

Post by Pat
May 6,

details

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
of the arrangements differ between countries, and so does the
terminology, the definitions of poverty and the criteria for

public

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
housing allocation.
Canada, public housing is usually a block of purpose-built

government

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
subsidized housing operated by a government agency, often
simply
referred to as housing projects. In American cities, many
high

rise

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
developments have been torn down and replaced with easier to

manage

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
town houses. Numerous federal, state and local enactments
have

greatly

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
diminished criminal activity inside projects and altered who
is
entitled to live in them. Should we end public housing?

Check the literature. Government is really doing this now with

Hope-VI.

Post by Pat
Do

Post by George Conklin
some reading.

HOPE VI is on the way out. I did a similar project using LIHCs,
HOME,
CDBG, FHLBNY, and some foundation money. So you can do a HOME
VI-type
project without HOME VI.
I think HUD believes that all of the projects that should get
HOPE VI
money has already gotten it.
One problem is that many of the PHAs haven't been able to
implement
their grandeous schemes.

Hope VI still dominates our the local news. Only 1% of former
residents
qualify to move back to the old neighborhoods.

Hope VI down to about 4 projects per year and is in the $70 -- $80mm
per year.

Tearing down affordable housing and replacing it with nothing is a
national problem, regardless of Hope VI.

Tearing down Public Housing is a concern, but Mark to Market is a
bigger one in most communities.
If you know of a place that has demo'd -- and not replaced -- a bunch
of public housing, let me know. It can be replaced with other funding
sources and you can do a subsidy-only Mixed Finance application to
reactivate the units under the a new HAC. I've done that before and
it works well.

Thats true. Cities are very expensive to live in alot due to property
taxes.

That is not the case in the New York metropolitan region. Even
moderate suburbs in Westchester, Connecticut and New Jersey have far
high property taxes than New York City or Newark for comparable
properties, thanks to immense subsidies for the cities.

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Affordable, or public housing allows for those who need to stay in
the
city for a job are able to with out having to move into the suburbs
far away from their work, where they
then have to drive a car, and pay the big bucks to get a parking spot.

Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

2007-05-10 02:07:14 UTC

Post by o***@hotmail.com
On May 9, 4:41 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"

Post by Pat
May 6,

details

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
of the arrangements differ between countries, and so does the
terminology, the definitions of poverty and the criteria for

public

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
housing allocation.
Canada, public housing is usually a block of purpose-built

government

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
subsidized housing operated by a government agency, often
simply
referred to as housing projects. In American cities, many
high

rise

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
developments have been torn down and replaced with easier to

manage

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
town houses. Numerous federal, state and local enactments
have

greatly

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
diminished criminal activity inside projects and altered who
is
entitled to live in them. Should we end public housing?

Check the literature. Government is really doing this now with

Hope-VI.

Post by Pat
Do

Post by George Conklin
some reading.

HOPE VI is on the way out. I did a similar project using LIHCs,
HOME,
CDBG, FHLBNY, and some foundation money. So you can do a HOME
VI-type
project without HOME VI.
I think HUD believes that all of the projects that should get
HOPE VI
money has already gotten it.
One problem is that many of the PHAs haven't been able to
implement
their grandeous schemes.

Hope VI still dominates our the local news. Only 1% of former
residents
qualify to move back to the old neighborhoods.

Hope VI down to about 4 projects per year and is in the $70 -- $80mm
per year.

Tearing down affordable housing and replacing it with nothing is a
national problem, regardless of Hope VI.

Tearing down Public Housing is a concern, but Mark to Market is a
bigger one in most communities.
If you know of a place that has demo'd -- and not replaced -- a bunch
of public housing, let me know. It can be replaced with other funding
sources and you can do a subsidy-only Mixed Finance application to
reactivate the units under the a new HAC. I've done that before and
it works well.

Thats true. Cities are very expensive to live in alot due to property
taxes.

But its not just property taxes that make the city expensive.

o***@hotmail.com

2007-05-10 02:24:02 UTC

On May 9, 10:07 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"

Post by o***@hotmail.com
On May 9, 4:41 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"

Post by Pat
May 6,

details

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
of the arrangements differ between countries, and so does the
terminology, the definitions of poverty and the criteria for

public

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
housing allocation.
Canada, public housing is usually a block of purpose-built

government

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
subsidized housing operated by a government agency, often
simply
referred to as housing projects. In American cities, many
high

rise

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
developments have been torn down and replaced with easier to

manage

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
town houses. Numerous federal, state and local enactments
have

greatly

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
diminished criminal activity inside projects and altered who
is
entitled to live in them. Should we end public housing?

Check the literature. Government is really doing this now with

Hope-VI.

Post by Pat
Do

Post by George Conklin
some reading.

HOPE VI is on the way out. I did a similar project using LIHCs,
HOME,
CDBG, FHLBNY, and some foundation money. So you can do a HOME
VI-type
project without HOME VI.
I think HUD believes that all of the projects that should get
HOPE VI
money has already gotten it.
One problem is that many of the PHAs haven't been able to
implement
their grandeous schemes.

Hope VI still dominates our the local news. Only 1% of former
residents
qualify to move back to the old neighborhoods.

Hope VI down to about 4 projects per year and is in the $70 -- $80mm
per year.

Tearing down affordable housing and replacing it with nothing is a
national problem, regardless of Hope VI.

Tearing down Public Housing is a concern, but Mark to Market is a
bigger one in most communities.
If you know of a place that has demo'd -- and not replaced -- a bunch
of public housing, let me know. It can be replaced with other funding
sources and you can do a subsidy-only Mixed Finance application to
reactivate the units under the a new HAC. I've done that before and
it works well.

Thats true. Cities are very expensive to live in alot due to property
taxes.

But its not just property taxes that make the city expensive.

Well, yes, there are major added costs like policing, firefighting,
sanitation, sewage, education, transportation, expensive utilities,
restrictive zoning, overgenerous health, welfare and housing benefits
and much more that send urban costs skyrocketing.

george conklin

2007-05-10 11:24:49 UTC

Post by o***@hotmail.com
On May 9, 10:07 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"

Post by o***@hotmail.com
On May 9, 4:41 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"

On May 8, 5:47 pm, "George Conklin"

On May 7,

Post by Pat
May 6,

Post by Pat
"Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"
in

details

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
of the arrangements differ between countries, and so
does the
terminology, the definitions of poverty and the
criteria for

public

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
housing allocation.
Canada, public housing is usually a block of
purpose-built

government

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
subsidized housing operated by a government agency,
often
simply
referred to as housing projects. In American cities,
many
high

rise

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
developments have been torn down and replaced with
easier to

manage

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
town houses. Numerous federal, state and local
enactments
have

greatly

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
diminished criminal activity inside projects and
altered who
is
entitled to live in them. Should we end public
housing?

Check the literature. Government is really doing this
now with

Hope-VI.

Post by Pat
Do

Post by Pat
some reading.

HOPE VI is on the way out. I did a similar project
using LIHCs,
HOME,
CDBG, FHLBNY, and some foundation money. So you can do
a HOME
VI-type
project without HOME VI.
I think HUD believes that all of the projects that
should get
HOPE VI
money has already gotten it.
One problem is that many of the PHAs haven't been able
to
implement
their grandeous schemes.

Hope VI still dominates our the local news. Only 1% of
former
residents
qualify to move back to the old neighborhoods.

Hope VI down to about 4 projects per year and is in the
$70 -- $80mm
per year.

Tearing down affordable housing and replacing it with
nothing is a
national problem, regardless of Hope VI.

Tearing down Public Housing is a concern, but Mark to Market is a
bigger one in most communities.
If you know of a place that has demo'd -- and not replaced -- a bunch
of public housing, let me know. It can be replaced with other funding
sources and you can do a subsidy-only Mixed Finance application to
reactivate the units under the a new HAC. I've done that before and
it works well.

Thats true. Cities are very expensive to live in alot due to property
taxes.

But its not just property taxes that make the city expensive.

Density is expensive.

george conklin

2007-05-10 11:23:56 UTC

Post by o***@hotmail.com
On May 9, 4:41 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"

May 7,

Post by Pat
On
May 6,

details

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
of the arrangements differ between countries, and so
does the
terminology, the definitions of poverty and the criteria
for

public

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
housing allocation.
Canada, public housing is usually a block of
purpose-built

government

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
subsidized housing operated by a government agency,
often
simply
referred to as housing projects. In American cities,
many
high

rise

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
developments have been torn down and replaced with
easier to

manage

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
town houses. Numerous federal, state and local
enactments
have

greatly

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
diminished criminal activity inside projects and altered
who
is
entitled to live in them. Should we end public housing?

Check the literature. Government is really doing this now
with

Hope-VI.

Post by Pat
Do

Post by George Conklin
some reading.

HOPE VI is on the way out. I did a similar project using
LIHCs,
HOME,
CDBG, FHLBNY, and some foundation money. So you can do a HOME
VI-type
project without HOME VI.
I think HUD believes that all of the projects that should get
HOPE VI
money has already gotten it.
One problem is that many of the PHAs haven't been able to
implement
their grandeous schemes.

Hope VI still dominates our the local news. Only 1% of former
residents
qualify to move back to the old neighborhoods.

Hope VI down to about 4 projects per year and is in the $70 -- $80mm
per year.

Tearing down affordable housing and replacing it with nothing is a
national problem, regardless of Hope VI.

Tearing down Public Housing is a concern, but Mark to Market is a
bigger one in most communities.
If you know of a place that has demo'd -- and not replaced -- a bunch
of public housing, let me know. It can be replaced with other funding
sources and you can do a subsidy-only Mixed Finance application to
reactivate the units under the a new HAC. I've done that before and
it works well.

Thats true. Cities are very expensive to live in alot due to property
taxes.

That is becuase the value of even ordinary small apartments in NYC is
inflated ot about 10 times their real value. Thus taxes do not have to be
as high.

Amy Blankenship

2007-05-10 12:53:54 UTC

"george conklin" <***@nxu.edu> wrote in message news:ghD0i.5552$***@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
...

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Thats true. Cities are very expensive to live in alot due to property
taxes.

That is becuase the value of even ordinary small apartments in NYC is
inflated ot about 10 times their real value. Thus taxes do not have to be
as high.

George, how come you're in favor of the "market" forces" which you contend
are the only thing that give Wal-Mart their advantage, yet you are against
the "market forces" that drive up the value of housing in desirable areas?

-Amy

Sancho Panza

2007-05-10 16:29:41 UTC

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Thats true. Cities are very expensive to live in alot due to property
taxes.

That is becuase the value of even ordinary small apartments in NYC is
inflated ot about 10 times their real value. Thus taxes do not have to
be as high.

Uh, New York City has had rent control/rent stabilization for more than 60
years, a not inconsequential factor over a not inconsequential period of
time.

Amy Blankenship

2007-05-10 16:52:47 UTC

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Thats true. Cities are very expensive to live in alot due to property
taxes.

That is becuase the value of even ordinary small apartments in NYC is
inflated ot about 10 times their real value. Thus taxes do not have to
be as high.

George, how come you're in favor of the "market" forces" which you
contend are the only thing that give Wal-Mart their advantage, yet you
are against the "market forces" that drive up the value of housing in
desirable areas?

Uh, New York City has had rent control/rent stabilization for more than 60
years, a not inconsequential factor over a not inconsequential period of
time.

Yes, but that's not causing housing there to be *higher* than market forces
would dictate, is it?

george conklin

2007-05-10 20:25:25 UTC

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Thats true. Cities are very expensive to live in alot due to property
taxes.

That is becuase the value of even ordinary small apartments in NYC is
inflated ot about 10 times their real value. Thus taxes do not have to
be as high.

George, how come you're in favor of the "market" forces" which you
contend are the only thing that give Wal-Mart their advantage, yet you
are against the "market forces" that drive up the value of housing in
desirable areas?

Uh, New York City has had rent control/rent stabilization for more than
60 years, a not inconsequential factor over a not inconsequential period
of time.

Yes, but that's not causing housing there to be *higher* than market
forces would dictate, is it?

Yes, it holds down new housing big time.

o***@hotmail.com

2007-05-10 21:52:36 UTC

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Thats true. Cities are very expensive to live in alot due to property
taxes.

That is becuase the value of even ordinary small apartments in NYC is
inflated ot about 10 times their real value. Thus taxes do not have to
be as high.

George, how come you're in favor of the "market" forces" which you
contend are the only thing that give Wal-Mart their advantage, yet you
are against the "market forces" that drive up the value of housing in
desirable areas?

Uh, New York City has had rent control/rent stabilization for more than
60 years, a not inconsequential factor over a not inconsequential period
of time.

Yes, but that's not causing housing there to be *higher* than market
forces would dictate, is it?

Yes, it holds down new housing big time.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

And has been for 60 years. Except for the zoning revision of the
1960's, not much was done to loosen up residential building until
Giuliani. Planners and other urbanists who discuss city populations
and economics should also be required to examine other case studies
like San Francisco and Oakland, Calif.

george conklin

2007-05-11 01:02:02 UTC

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Thats true. Cities are very expensive to live in alot due to property
taxes.

That is becuase the value of even ordinary small apartments in NYC is
inflated ot about 10 times their real value. Thus taxes do not have to
be as high.

George, how come you're in favor of the "market" forces" which you
contend are the only thing that give Wal-Mart their advantage, yet you
are against the "market forces" that drive up the value of housing in
desirable areas?

Uh, New York City has had rent control/rent stabilization for more than
60 years, a not inconsequential factor over a not inconsequential period
of time.

Yes, but that's not causing housing there to be *higher* than market
forces would dictate, is it?

Yes, it holds down new housing big time.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

What about Portland today? It went from affordable to terribly unaffordable
once the "plans" were put in place.

Anonymous

2007-05-11 01:54:49 UTC

Post by george conklin
What about Portland today? It went from affordable to terribly unaffordable
once the "plans" were put in place.

Wake up, George!

According to the National Association of Home Builder's housing
affordability index, the Portland metro area is one of the most
affordable cities on the west coast (OR, CA, WA).

http://www.nahb.org/page.aspx/category/sectionID=135

george conklin

2007-05-11 11:29:00 UTC

Post by george conklin
What about Portland today? It went from affordable to terribly unaffordable
once the "plans" were put in place.

Wake up, George!
According to the National Association of Home Builder's housing
affordability index, the Portland metro area is one of the most
affordable cities on the west coast (OR, CA, WA).
http://www.nahb.org/page.aspx/category/sectionID=135

It told me I had to have an access code. Besides, there are many articles
on this subject around, and they all say Portland went from affordable to
unaffordable. But since you cannot buy a similar house there anymore,
propaganda from a special interest group does not count. Further, Portland
is closing schools because it attracts ONLY rich retirees and single people,
which is the real goal of all Smart Growth plans. You hate children.

Anonymous

2007-05-11 14:52:50 UTC

Post by Anonymous
Wake up, George!
According to the National Association of Home Builder's housing
affordability index, the Portland metro area is one of the most
affordable cities on the west coast (OR, CA, WA).
http://www.nahb.org/page.aspx/category/sectionID=135

The link works. It is to an Excel file, do you have Excel? Perhaps
you need some tutoring?

Why do you attack NAHB statistics? Like you, most Home Builders hate
smart growth, new urbanism, growth boundaries and other planning fads.

What proof do your articles provide? Do they also look at what
happened to home prices in other metro areas - especially other metro
areas in the west - over the same time period? Housing is less
affordable in most western and probably southern metro areas today
than it was 10 or 20 or 30 years ago.

Housing may be less affordable in Portland today than it was during
the last recession in Oregon, but it is quite affordable compared to
many areas of the country, especially other metro areas on the Pacific
Coast.

Portland's median home sales price is within 10% of the national
median. The median home sales price in the Portland metro area during
the 4th quarter of 2006 was $269,000. For the same period, the
national median was $247,000. The median income in Portland was
$66,900 while the national median was $59,600.

george conklin

2007-05-11 16:27:58 UTC

The link works. It is to an Excel file, do you have Excel? Perhaps
you need some tutoring?
Why do you attack NAHB statistics? Like you, most Home Builders hate
smart growth, new urbanism, growth boundaries and other planning fads.
What proof do your articles provide? Do they also look at what
happened to home prices in other metro areas - especially other metro
areas in the west - over the same time period? Housing is less
affordable in most western and probably southern metro areas today
than it was 10 or 20 or 30 years ago.
Housing may be less affordable in Portland today than it was during
the last recession in Oregon, but it is quite affordable compared to
many areas of the country, especially other metro areas on the Pacific
Coast.
Portland's median home sales price is within 10% of the national
median. The median home sales price in the Portland metro area during
the 4th quarter of 2006 was $269,000. For the same period, the
national median was $247,000. The median income in Portland was
$66,900 while the national median was $59,600.

george conklin

2007-05-11 16:30:01 UTC

The link works. It is to an Excel file, do you have Excel? Perhaps
you need some tutoring?
Why do you attack NAHB statistics? Like you, most Home Builders hate
smart growth, new urbanism, growth boundaries and other planning fads.
What proof do your articles provide? Do they also look at what
happened to home prices in other metro areas - especially other metro
areas in the west - over the same time period? Housing is less
affordable in most western and probably southern metro areas today
than it was 10 or 20 or 30 years ago.
Housing may be less affordable in Portland today than it was during
the last recession in Oregon, but it is quite affordable compared to
many areas of the country, especially other metro areas on the Pacific
Coast.
Portland's median home sales price is within 10% of the national
median. The median home sales price in the Portland metro area during
the 4th quarter of 2006 was $269,000. For the same period, the
national median was $247,000. The median income in Portland was
$66,900 while the national median was $59,600.

And they care closing schools because Portland only wants rich retirees who
buy the type of housing planners want, unsutable for children. I have a
long pile of articles but I am not going to try to scan them.

Pat

2007-05-10 16:32:05 UTC

On May 10, 8:53 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Thats true. Cities are very expensive to live in alot due to property
taxes.

That is becuase the value of even ordinary small apartments in NYC is
inflated ot about 10 times their real value. Thus taxes do not have to be
as high.

Don't tell George this, but it the problem in NYC isn't that too many
people want to live there, it is that they have way too little
housing. It really isn't quite the same issue. It is along the lines
of demand for housing vs. need for housing.

In general, the problem appears to be zoning laws both in Manhattan
and in the areas contiguous to it. If they changed the zoning and
allowed more construction, the prices would fall signifiantly. It is
all an artificially inflated market.

george conklin

2007-05-10 16:40:31 UTC

Post by Pat
On May 10, 8:53 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Thats true. Cities are very expensive to live in alot due to property
taxes.

That is becuase the value of even ordinary small apartments in NYC is
inflated ot about 10 times their real value. Thus taxes do not have to be
as high.

Don't tell George this, but it the problem in NYC isn't that too many
people want to live there, it is that they have way too little
housing. It really isn't quite the same issue. It is along the lines
of demand for housing vs. need for housing.
In general, the problem appears to be zoning laws both in Manhattan
and in the areas contiguous to it. If they changed the zoning and
allowed more construction, the prices would fall signifiantly. It is
all an artificially inflated market.

I just posted that. Further, Wal-Mart's prices cannot be manipulated by
NYC, thus they are not wanted.

Amy Blankenship

2007-05-10 16:54:18 UTC

Post by Pat
On May 10, 8:53 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Thats true. Cities are very expensive to live in alot due to property
taxes.

That is becuase the value of even ordinary small apartments in NYC is
inflated ot about 10 times their real value. Thus taxes do not have to be
as high.

It's not that I'm overweight, it's that I'm undertall.
-Garfield

What you describe is, in fact, market forces at work. Limited supply, high
demand.

-Amy

2007-05-10 17:29:20 UTC

Post by Pat
On May 10, 8:53 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Thats true. Cities are very expensive to live in alot due to property
taxes.

That is becuase the value of even ordinary small apartments in NYC is
inflated ot about 10 times their real value. Thus taxes do not have to be
as high.

It's not that I'm overweight, it's that I'm undertall.
-Garfield
What you describe is, in fact, market forces at work. Limited supply, high
demand.

The limited supply is strongly affected by local politics. Not market
forces.

Amy Blankenship

2007-05-10 17:45:57 UTC

Post by RJ

Post by Pat
On May 10, 8:53 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Thats true. Cities are very expensive to live in alot due to property
taxes.

That is becuase the value of even ordinary small apartments in NYC is
inflated ot about 10 times their real value. Thus taxes do not have
to
be
as high.

It's not that I'm overweight, it's that I'm undertall.
-Garfield
What you describe is, in fact, market forces at work. Limited supply, high
demand.

The limited supply is strongly affected by local politics. Not market
forces.

Yes, this is exactly the same as all markets work in this country. For
instance, big box retail stores receive hefty government subsides and
largely don't pay state sales tax, allowing their prices to be artificially
low. That also is politics at work, but more a blend of national, state,
and local. You can't have it both ways, as George wants to, saying "It's
market forces" when you happen to like the result but "It's all politics"
when you don't.

Get it now, or should I use smaller words?

-Amy

2007-05-10 17:55:40 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
should I use smaller words?

Maybe they would fit your smaller brain better.

Pat

2007-05-10 18:28:00 UTC

On May 10, 12:54 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Pat
On May 10, 8:53 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Thats true. Cities are very expensive to live in alot due to property
taxes.

That is becuase the value of even ordinary small apartments in NYC is
inflated ot about 10 times their real value. Thus taxes do not have to be
as high.

It's not that I'm overweight, it's that I'm undertall.
-Garfield

Not really. There is a difference between demand and need. Believe
me, I fight with market analysts over this on a routine basis. When
the two differ, makes for a weird market.

There is a community up in the Adirondacks. It is a small town. On
the lake that is the center of the village is an apartment building.
It's 10 or 12 floors and mostly studios. There is a huge "demand" for
more senior apartments and one could easily build an apartment complex
and rent it. But you can't get it funded because even though there's
a demand, there is not need. That tower sits there with a HUGE
vacancy rate because no one wants the apartments. It is a community
where no one wants to live over 2 floors in the air. Demand and need
are related, but not the same.

One can envision a community in a warm climate with a tight housing
market which has a huge homeless population. The population is
content living in a tent city or something. There is a need for
housing for these people, but there is no demand for the units.

NYS has a high demand. It's need is probably close to the demand.
But the prices are inflated through government policies. The demand
is at a high enough prices that it could be filled through new
construction.

Post by Amy Blankenship
What you describe is, in fact, market forces at work. Limited supply, high
demand.

Yes, it is the market forces, but it is not a free market (nor is it a
market that is functioning well). The high prices are due to an
artifially restricted supply of buildings.

Post by Amy Blankenship
-Amy

Amy Blankenship

2007-05-10 19:50:46 UTC

Post by Pat
On May 10, 12:54 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Pat
On May 10, 8:53 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Thats true. Cities are very expensive to live in alot due to property
taxes.

That is becuase the value of even ordinary small apartments in NYC is
inflated ot about 10 times their real value. Thus taxes do not have
to
be
as high.

It's not that I'm overweight, it's that I'm undertall.
-Garfield

Not really. There is a difference between demand and need. Believe
me, I fight with market analysts over this on a routine basis. When
the two differ, makes for a weird market.
There is a community up in the Adirondacks. It is a small town. On
the lake that is the center of the village is an apartment building.
It's 10 or 12 floors and mostly studios. There is a huge "demand" for
more senior apartments and one could easily build an apartment complex
and rent it. But you can't get it funded because even though there's
a demand, there is not need. That tower sits there with a HUGE
vacancy rate because no one wants the apartments. It is a community
where no one wants to live over 2 floors in the air. Demand and need
are related, but not the same.
One can envision a community in a warm climate with a tight housing
market which has a huge homeless population. The population is
content living in a tent city or something. There is a need for
housing for these people, but there is no demand for the units.
NYS has a high demand. It's need is probably close to the demand.
But the prices are inflated through government policies. The demand
is at a high enough prices that it could be filled through new
construction.

Post by Amy Blankenship
What you describe is, in fact, market forces at work. Limited supply, high
demand.

Yes, it is the market forces, but it is not a free market (nor is it a
market that is functioning well). The high prices are due to an
artifially restricted supply of buildings.

Yes, this is approximately the reverse of artificially low prices at
Wal-Mart due to government policies. In the case of Wal-Mart, the questions
have been asked as far as what negative things are done to produce those low
prices or what are the negative effects of having those low prices, but I
don't see any evidence that anyone is asking analogous questions about NYC's
housing market,

Such as: what does the city gain by introducing policies that have the
effect of limiting housing? Are alternative types of construction going up
instead? If so, is it conceivable there might be more benefit in those than
in housing (to the city government or to the population as a whole)? If
not, is that because there are no lots available, or because of something
else? Is it conceivable that actually it is not the city responsible at
all, but that landowners feel that they can get a better ROI building
something other than housing?

I don't pretend to know the answer to these things, but the truth is rarely
as simple as "the government is a big meanie."

-Amy

Pat

2007-05-10 20:05:52 UTC

On May 10, 3:50 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Pat
On May 10, 12:54 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Pat
On May 10, 8:53 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Thats true. Cities are very expensive to live in alot due to property
taxes.

That is becuase the value of even ordinary small apartments in NYC is
inflated ot about 10 times their real value. Thus taxes do not have
to
be
as high.

It's not that I'm overweight, it's that I'm undertall.
-Garfield

Not really. There is a difference between demand and need. Believe
me, I fight with market analysts over this on a routine basis. When
the two differ, makes for a weird market.
There is a community up in the Adirondacks. It is a small town. On
the lake that is the center of the village is an apartment building.
It's 10 or 12 floors and mostly studios. There is a huge "demand" for
more senior apartments and one could easily build an apartment complex
and rent it. But you can't get it funded because even though there's
a demand, there is not need. That tower sits there with a HUGE
vacancy rate because no one wants the apartments. It is a community
where no one wants to live over 2 floors in the air. Demand and need
are related, but not the same.
One can envision a community in a warm climate with a tight housing
market which has a huge homeless population. The population is
content living in a tent city or something. There is a need for
housing for these people, but there is no demand for the units.
NYS has a high demand. It's need is probably close to the demand.
But the prices are inflated through government policies. The demand
is at a high enough prices that it could be filled through new
construction.

Post by Amy Blankenship
What you describe is, in fact, market forces at work. Limited supply, high
demand.

Yes, it is the market forces, but it is not a free market (nor is it a
market that is functioning well). The high prices are due to an
artifially restricted supply of buildings.

Yes, this is approximately the reverse of artificially low prices at
Wal-Mart due to government policies. In the case of Wal-Mart, the questions
have been asked as far as what negative things are done to produce those low
prices or what are the negative effects of having those low prices, but I
don't see any evidence that anyone is asking analogous questions about NYC's
housing market,
Such as: what does the city gain by introducing policies that have the
effect of limiting housing? Are alternative types of construction going up
instead? If so, is it conceivable there might be more benefit in those than
in housing (to the city government or to the population as a whole)? If
not, is that because there are no lots available, or because of something
else? Is it conceivable that actually it is not the city responsible at
all, but that landowners feel that they can get a better ROI building
something other than housing?
I don't pretend to know the answer to these things, but the truth is rarely
as simple as "the government is a big meanie."
-Amy

The government is a big meanie ;-)

It's a trade off. To build more you have to rip out the old which
creates historic problems (as I say, problems of a historic nature).
You also have to build higher, which bothers a lot of people. Many
are of the "I am the last one who can move in so the rest of you can
go away. I don't care" mindset. There is also the rent-control issue
so no one wants to build if they are facing rent control. So they
build and set the rent over $2000 a month to avoid it or they build
condos.

They also don't want to build higher in Brooklyn to solve the
Manhattan problem even though parts of Brooklyn are near lower
Manhattan. That is compounded by transportation problems -- Manhattan
having a lot of water around it.

Finally, I think that they like the idea of being expensive because
they view it as prestigious: "everyone wants to live here".

And no to your next question: I don't think they should pave over
Central Park and put up buildings -- but maybe some offshore on the
piers.

It is a solveable problem, but what would happen if they went on a
building spree and dropped rents for apts to $1500 per month: Who
knows. That might trigger a waive of in-migration that would require
yet more housing.

Another option is to build up the suburbs and "extend" the city.
Yonkers, White Plains, Newark, etc are already part of the city for
all intents of purposes.

Amy Blankenship

2007-05-10 20:21:40 UTC

Post by Pat
On May 10, 3:50 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Pat
On May 10, 12:54 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Pat
On May 10, 8:53 am, "Amy Blankenship"

...

Post by Pat
Don't tell George this, but it the problem in NYC isn't that too many
people want to live there, it is that they have way too little
housing. It really isn't quite the same issue. It is along the lines
of demand for housing vs. need for housing.

It's not that I'm overweight, it's that I'm undertall.
-Garfield

Not really. There is a difference between demand and need. Believe
me, I fight with market analysts over this on a routine basis. When
the two differ, makes for a weird market.
There is a community up in the Adirondacks. It is a small town. On
the lake that is the center of the village is an apartment building.
It's 10 or 12 floors and mostly studios. There is a huge "demand" for
more senior apartments and one could easily build an apartment complex
and rent it. But you can't get it funded because even though there's
a demand, there is not need. That tower sits there with a HUGE
vacancy rate because no one wants the apartments. It is a community
where no one wants to live over 2 floors in the air. Demand and need
are related, but not the same.
One can envision a community in a warm climate with a tight housing
market which has a huge homeless population. The population is
content living in a tent city or something. There is a need for
housing for these people, but there is no demand for the units.
NYS has a high demand. It's need is probably close to the demand.
But the prices are inflated through government policies. The demand
is at a high enough prices that it could be filled through new
construction.

Post by Amy Blankenship
What you describe is, in fact, market forces at work. Limited supply, high
demand.

Yes, it is the market forces, but it is not a free market (nor is it a
market that is functioning well). The high prices are due to an
artifially restricted supply of buildings.

Yes, this is approximately the reverse of artificially low prices at
Wal-Mart due to government policies. In the case of Wal-Mart, the questions
have been asked as far as what negative things are done to produce those low
prices or what are the negative effects of having those low prices, but I
don't see any evidence that anyone is asking analogous questions about NYC's
housing market,
Such as: what does the city gain by introducing policies that have the
effect of limiting housing? Are alternative types of construction going up
instead? If so, is it conceivable there might be more benefit in those than
in housing (to the city government or to the population as a whole)? If
not, is that because there are no lots available, or because of something
else? Is it conceivable that actually it is not the city responsible at
all, but that landowners feel that they can get a better ROI building
something other than housing?
I don't pretend to know the answer to these things, but the truth is rarely
as simple as "the government is a big meanie."
-Amy

The government is a big meanie ;-)
It's a trade off. To build more you have to rip out the old which
creates historic problems (as I say, problems of a historic nature).
You also have to build higher, which bothers a lot of people. Many
are of the "I am the last one who can move in so the rest of you can
go away. I don't care" mindset. There is also the rent-control issue
so no one wants to build if they are facing rent control. So they
build and set the rent over $2000 a month to avoid it or they build
condos.
They also don't want to build higher in Brooklyn to solve the
Manhattan problem even though parts of Brooklyn are near lower
Manhattan. That is compounded by transportation problems -- Manhattan
having a lot of water around it.
Finally, I think that they like the idea of being expensive because
they view it as prestigious: "everyone wants to live here".
And no to your next question: I don't think they should pave over
Central Park and put up buildings -- but maybe some offshore on the
piers.
It is a solveable problem, but what would happen if they went on a
building spree and dropped rents for apts to $1500 per month: Who
knows. That might trigger a waive of in-migration that would require
yet more housing.
Another option is to build up the suburbs and "extend" the city.
Yonkers, White Plains, Newark, etc are already part of the city for
all intents of purposes.

None of this sounds like there are artificial restrictions at all. Instead,
it sounds like a geographic limitation because you have an island where most
of the existing land has been built upon. There's not really a way to
manufacture more places to put housing in such a case except to do the thing
that George hates: force existing uses out, rip them out, and put in
housing.

-Amy

o***@hotmail.com

2007-05-10 22:57:31 UTC

On May 10, 4:21 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship
None of this sounds like there are artificial restrictions at all. Instead,
it sounds like a geographic limitation because you have an island where most
of the existing land has been built upon.

It is precisely forced artificial restrictions. For decades, private
builders refused to build on anything close to the scale needed
because they saw that their return would be severely limited. Same
with zoning.

Just what are the subsidies that big-box stores are supposed to be
enjoying?

george conklin

2007-05-11 01:03:12 UTC

Post by o***@hotmail.com
On May 10, 4:21 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship
None of this sounds like there are artificial restrictions at all.
Instead,
it sounds like a geographic limitation because you have an island where most
of the existing land has been built upon.

It is precisely forced artificial restrictions. For decades, private
builders refused to build on anything close to the scale needed
because they saw that their return would be severely limited. Same
with zoning.
Just what are the subsidies that big-box stores are supposed to be
enjoying?

Big box stores sometimes get economic development money to move into
unserved areas. Other than that, they have a horrible time with planners,
who worship the store of about 1920.

Amy Blankenship

2007-05-11 12:54:58 UTC

Post by o***@hotmail.com
On May 10, 4:21 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship
None of this sounds like there are artificial restrictions at all.
Instead,
it sounds like a geographic limitation because you have an island where most
of the existing land has been built upon.

It is precisely forced artificial restrictions. For decades, private
builders refused to build on anything close to the scale needed
because they saw that their return would be severely limited. Same
with zoning.
Just what are the subsidies that big-box stores are supposed to be
enjoying?

Communities pay millions of dollars to big box stores directly, build their
facilities, and give them huge sales tax breaks. Additionally, there's the
Geoffrey loophole. And that's just the beginning. If you do a web search
on Wal-Mart corporate welfare, you can find at least a hint of the extent of
the problem.

HTH;

Amy

george conklin

2007-05-11 13:41:14 UTC

Post by o***@hotmail.com
On May 10, 4:21 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship
None of this sounds like there are artificial restrictions at all.
Instead,
it sounds like a geographic limitation because you have an island where most
of the existing land has been built upon.

It is precisely forced artificial restrictions. For decades, private
builders refused to build on anything close to the scale needed
because they saw that their return would be severely limited. Same
with zoning.
Just what are the subsidies that big-box stores are supposed to be
enjoying?

Communities pay millions of dollars to big box stores directly,

A very few. Very, very few.

Just because it has happened in a few places does not make it the norm,
nor does it make it important enough to worry about.

Wal-Mart made its fortune on distribution efficiency. It also violated the
usual norm that anything important has to start in NYC, and then move out.
This annoys the urban militant, who wants everything centered in some
downtown. Wal-Mart shows that important businesses can start in small areas
and then into cities, much to the annoyance of the city itself, as in NYC,
which is pretty good about keeping Wal-Mart out. It is a cultural thing.

Amy Blankenship

2007-05-12 16:02:26 UTC

Post by o***@hotmail.com
On May 10, 4:21 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship
None of this sounds like there are artificial restrictions at all.
Instead,
it sounds like a geographic limitation because you have an island where most
of the existing land has been built upon.

It is precisely forced artificial restrictions. For decades, private
builders refused to build on anything close to the scale needed
because they saw that their return would be severely limited. Same
with zoning.
Just what are the subsidies that big-box stores are supposed to be
enjoying?

Communities pay millions of dollars to big box stores directly,

A very few. Very, very few.
Just because it has happened in a few places does not make it the norm,
nor does it make it important enough to worry about.
Wal-Mart made its fortune on distribution efficiency. It also violated
the usual norm that anything important has to start in NYC, and then move
out. This annoys the urban militant, who wants everything centered in some
downtown. Wal-Mart shows that important businesses can start in small
areas and then into cities, much to the annoyance of the city itself, as
in NYC, which is pretty good about keeping Wal-Mart out. It is a cultural
thing.

If you look just at Wal-Mart, and not all big box, it seems that actually
the number receiving subsidies is pretty significant. The data is difficult
to get on stores, but on distribution centers, which are easier to check up
on because of their lower numbers, a whopping 84% received some kind of
subsidy, with the average being 7.5 million dollars. Now you tell me that's
a level playing field with local business?

http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/pdf/wmtstudy.pdf

-Amy

Amy Blankenship

2007-05-12 16:04:24 UTC

Post by o***@hotmail.com
On May 10, 4:21 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship
None of this sounds like there are artificial restrictions at all.
Instead,
it sounds like a geographic limitation because you have an island where most
of the existing land has been built upon.

It is precisely forced artificial restrictions. For decades, private
builders refused to build on anything close to the scale needed
because they saw that their return would be severely limited. Same
with zoning.
Just what are the subsidies that big-box stores are supposed to be
enjoying?

Communities pay millions of dollars to big box stores directly,

A very few. Very, very few.
Just because it has happened in a few places does not make it the norm,
nor does it make it important enough to worry about.
Wal-Mart made its fortune on distribution efficiency. It also violated
the usual norm that anything important has to start in NYC, and then move
out. This annoys the urban militant, who wants everything centered in
some downtown. Wal-Mart shows that important businesses can start in
small areas and then into cities, much to the annoyance of the city
itself, as in NYC, which is pretty good about keeping Wal-Mart out. It
is a cultural thing.

If you look just at Wal-Mart, and not all big box, it seems that actually
the number receiving subsidies is pretty significant. The data is
difficult to get on stores, but on distribution centers, which are easier
to check up on because of their lower numbers, a whopping 84% received
some kind of subsidy, with the average being 7.5 million dollars. Now you
tell me that's a level playing field with local business?
http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/pdf/wmtstudy.pdf

Oops, sorry. That's 90%, not 84%.

george conklin

2007-05-12 19:10:57 UTC

Post by o***@hotmail.com
On May 10, 4:21 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship
None of this sounds like there are artificial restrictions at all.
Instead,
it sounds like a geographic limitation because you have an island where most
of the existing land has been built upon.

It is precisely forced artificial restrictions. For decades, private
builders refused to build on anything close to the scale needed
because they saw that their return would be severely limited. Same
with zoning.
Just what are the subsidies that big-box stores are supposed to be
enjoying?

Communities pay millions of dollars to big box stores directly,

A very few. Very, very few.
Just because it has happened in a few places does not make it the
norm, nor does it make it important enough to worry about.
Wal-Mart made its fortune on distribution efficiency. It also violated
the usual norm that anything important has to start in NYC, and then
move out. This annoys the urban militant, who wants everything centered
in some downtown. Wal-Mart shows that important businesses can start in
small areas and then into cities, much to the annoyance of the city
itself, as in NYC, which is pretty good about keeping Wal-Mart out. It
is a cultural thing.

If you look just at Wal-Mart, and not all big box, it seems that actually
the number receiving subsidies is pretty significant. The data is
difficult to get on stores, but on distribution centers, which are easier
to check up on because of their lower numbers, a whopping 84% received
some kind of subsidy, with the average being 7.5 million dollars. Now
you tell me that's a level playing field with local business?
http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/pdf/wmtstudy.pdf

Oops, sorry. That's 90%, not 84%.

Amy, those "subsidies" are tiny compared to Wal-Mart's volume. As you say,
those are not stores getting subsidies, but large-volume distribution
centers. The number of stores cited is small compared to the total number
also. In fact, pocket change to you and me if scaled to our incomes.

Amy Blankenship

2007-05-12 20:57:42 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
Communities pay millions of dollars to big box stores directly,

A very few. Very, very few.
Just because it has happened in a few places does not make it the
norm, nor does it make it important enough to worry about.
Wal-Mart made its fortune on distribution efficiency. It also violated
the usual norm that anything important has to start in NYC, and then
move out. This annoys the urban militant, who wants everything centered
in some downtown. Wal-Mart shows that important businesses can start
in small areas and then into cities, much to the annoyance of the city
itself, as in NYC, which is pretty good about keeping Wal-Mart out. It
is a cultural thing.

If you look just at Wal-Mart, and not all big box, it seems that
actually the number receiving subsidies is pretty significant. The data
is difficult to get on stores, but on distribution centers, which are
easier to check up on because of their lower numbers, a whopping 84%
received some kind of subsidy, with the average being 7.5 million
dollars. Now you tell me that's a level playing field with local
business?
http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/pdf/wmtstudy.pdf

Oops, sorry. That's 90%, not 84%.

Amy, those "subsidies" are tiny compared to Wal-Mart's volume. As you
say, those are not stores getting subsidies, but large-volume distribution
centers. The number of stores cited is small compared to the total number
also. In fact, pocket change to you and me if scaled to our incomes.

If you read the study, you will see that the figures were only what could be
documented, and quotes from Wal-Mart's officials suggested the true number
was something like 1/3 of Wal-Mart's retail stores are subsidized.
Regardless, local businesses do _not_ get subsidies, regardless of the fact
that the money spent in local businesses stays in the locality, whereas
money spent in chains is exported to the chain's headquarters.

-Amy

Sancho Panza

2007-05-12 21:51:27 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
Communities pay millions of dollars to big box stores directly,

A very few. Very, very few.
Just because it has happened in a few places does not make it the
norm, nor does it make it important enough to worry about.
Wal-Mart made its fortune on distribution efficiency. It also
violated the usual norm that anything important has to start in NYC,
and then move out. This annoys the urban militant, who wants
everything centered in some downtown. Wal-Mart shows that important
businesses can start in small areas and then into cities, much to the
annoyance of the city itself, as in NYC, which is pretty good about
keeping Wal-Mart out. It is a cultural thing.

If you look just at Wal-Mart, and not all big box, it seems that
actually the number receiving subsidies is pretty significant. The
data is difficult to get on stores, but on distribution centers, which
are easier to check up on because of their lower numbers, a whopping
84% received some kind of subsidy, with the average being 7.5 million
dollars. Now you tell me that's a level playing field with local
business?
http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/pdf/wmtstudy.pdf

Oops, sorry. That's 90%, not 84%.

Amy, those "subsidies" are tiny compared to Wal-Mart's volume. As you
say, those are not stores getting subsidies, but large-volume
distribution centers. The number of stores cited is small compared to
the total number also. In fact, pocket change to you and me if scaled to
our incomes.

If you read the study, you will see that the figures were only what could
be documented, and quotes from Wal-Mart's officials suggested the true
number was something like 1/3 of Wal-Mart's retail stores are subsidized.
Regardless, local businesses do _not_ get subsidies, regardless of the
fact that the money spent in local businesses stays in the locality,
whereas money spent in chains is exported to the chain's headquarters.

Subsidies=tax abatements is an extremely loose definition. By that
criterion, property owners' tax deductions constitute subsidies.

s

george conklin

2007-05-13 01:18:12 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
Communities pay millions of dollars to big box stores directly,

A very few. Very, very few.
Just because it has happened in a few places does not make it the
norm, nor does it make it important enough to worry about.
Wal-Mart made its fortune on distribution efficiency. It also
violated the usual norm that anything important has to start in NYC,
and then move out. This annoys the urban militant, who wants
everything centered in some downtown. Wal-Mart shows that important
businesses can start in small areas and then into cities, much to the
annoyance of the city itself, as in NYC, which is pretty good about
keeping Wal-Mart out. It is a cultural thing.

If you look just at Wal-Mart, and not all big box, it seems that
actually the number receiving subsidies is pretty significant. The
data is difficult to get on stores, but on distribution centers, which
are easier to check up on because of their lower numbers, a whopping
84% received some kind of subsidy, with the average being 7.5 million
dollars. Now you tell me that's a level playing field with local
business?
http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/pdf/wmtstudy.pdf

Oops, sorry. That's 90%, not 84%.

Amy, those "subsidies" are tiny compared to Wal-Mart's volume. As you
say, those are not stores getting subsidies, but large-volume
distribution centers. The number of stores cited is small compared to
the total number also. In fact, pocket change to you and me if scaled to
our incomes.

If you read the study, you will see that the figures were only what could
be documented, and quotes from Wal-Mart's officials suggested the true
number was something like 1/3 of Wal-Mart's retail stores are subsidized.
Regardless, local businesses do _not_ get subsidies, regardless of the
fact that the money spent in local businesses stays in the locality,
whereas money spent in chains is exported to the chain's headquarters.
-Amy

No community needs to subsidize Wal-Mart unless it wants to.

Amy Blankenship

2007-05-13 13:41:42 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
Communities pay millions of dollars to big box stores directly,

A very few. Very, very few.
Just because it has happened in a few places does not make it the
norm, nor does it make it important enough to worry about.
Wal-Mart made its fortune on distribution efficiency. It also
violated the usual norm that anything important has to start in NYC,
and then move out. This annoys the urban militant, who wants
everything centered in some downtown. Wal-Mart shows that important
businesses can start in small areas and then into cities, much to the
annoyance of the city itself, as in NYC, which is pretty good about
keeping Wal-Mart out. It is a cultural thing.

If you look just at Wal-Mart, and not all big box, it seems that
actually the number receiving subsidies is pretty significant. The
data is difficult to get on stores, but on distribution centers, which
are easier to check up on because of their lower numbers, a whopping
84% received some kind of subsidy, with the average being 7.5 million
dollars. Now you tell me that's a level playing field with local
business?
http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/pdf/wmtstudy.pdf

Oops, sorry. That's 90%, not 84%.

Amy, those "subsidies" are tiny compared to Wal-Mart's volume. As you
say, those are not stores getting subsidies, but large-volume
distribution centers. The number of stores cited is small compared to
the total number also. In fact, pocket change to you and me if scaled
to our incomes.

If you read the study, you will see that the figures were only what could
be documented, and quotes from Wal-Mart's officials suggested the true
number was something like 1/3 of Wal-Mart's retail stores are subsidized.
Regardless, local businesses do _not_ get subsidies, regardless of the
fact that the money spent in local businesses stays in the locality,
whereas money spent in chains is exported to the chain's headquarters.
-Amy

No community needs to subsidize Wal-Mart unless it wants to.

Unless its politicians want to...

george conklin

2007-05-13 18:16:06 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
Communities pay millions of dollars to big box stores directly,

A very few. Very, very few.
Just because it has happened in a few places does not make it the
norm, nor does it make it important enough to worry about.
Wal-Mart made its fortune on distribution efficiency. It also
violated the usual norm that anything important has to start in NYC,
and then move out. This annoys the urban militant, who wants
everything centered in some downtown. Wal-Mart shows that important
businesses can start in small areas and then into cities, much to
the annoyance of the city itself, as in NYC, which is pretty good
about keeping Wal-Mart out. It is a cultural thing.

If you look just at Wal-Mart, and not all big box, it seems that
actually the number receiving subsidies is pretty significant. The
data is difficult to get on stores, but on distribution centers,
which are easier to check up on because of their lower numbers, a
whopping 84% received some kind of subsidy, with the average being
7.5 million dollars. Now you tell me that's a level playing field
with local business?
http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/pdf/wmtstudy.pdf

Oops, sorry. That's 90%, not 84%.

Amy, those "subsidies" are tiny compared to Wal-Mart's volume. As you
say, those are not stores getting subsidies, but large-volume
distribution centers. The number of stores cited is small compared to
the total number also. In fact, pocket change to you and me if scaled
to our incomes.

If you read the study, you will see that the figures were only what
could be documented, and quotes from Wal-Mart's officials suggested the
true number was something like 1/3 of Wal-Mart's retail stores are
subsidized. Regardless, local businesses do _not_ get subsidies,
regardless of the fact that the money spent in local businesses stays in
the locality, whereas money spent in chains is exported to the chain's
headquarters.
-Amy

No community needs to subsidize Wal-Mart unless it wants to.

Unless its politicians want to...

And the people elect them.

Amy Blankenship

2007-05-14 13:01:08 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
Communities pay millions of dollars to big box stores directly,

A very few. Very, very few.
Just because it has happened in a few places does not make it the
norm, nor does it make it important enough to worry about.
Wal-Mart made its fortune on distribution efficiency. It also
violated the usual norm that anything important has to start in
NYC, and then move out. This annoys the urban militant, who wants
everything centered in some downtown. Wal-Mart shows that
important businesses can start in small areas and then into cities,
much to the annoyance of the city itself, as in NYC, which is
pretty good about keeping Wal-Mart out. It is a cultural thing.

If you look just at Wal-Mart, and not all big box, it seems that
actually the number receiving subsidies is pretty significant. The
data is difficult to get on stores, but on distribution centers,
which are easier to check up on because of their lower numbers, a
whopping 84% received some kind of subsidy, with the average being
7.5 million dollars. Now you tell me that's a level playing field
with local business?
http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/pdf/wmtstudy.pdf

Oops, sorry. That's 90%, not 84%.

Amy, those "subsidies" are tiny compared to Wal-Mart's volume. As you
say, those are not stores getting subsidies, but large-volume
distribution centers. The number of stores cited is small compared to
the total number also. In fact, pocket change to you and me if scaled
to our incomes.

If you read the study, you will see that the figures were only what
could be documented, and quotes from Wal-Mart's officials suggested the
true number was something like 1/3 of Wal-Mart's retail stores are
subsidized. Regardless, local businesses do _not_ get subsidies,
regardless of the fact that the money spent in local businesses stays
in the locality, whereas money spent in chains is exported to the
chain's headquarters.
-Amy

No community needs to subsidize Wal-Mart unless it wants to.

Unless its politicians want to...

And the people elect them.

Yes, but once they're elected there's really nothing you can do till the
next election. By then the damage is done.

Pat

2007-05-14 02:00:03 UTC

On May 12, 12:02 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by o***@hotmail.com
On May 10, 4:21 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship
None of this sounds like there are artificial restrictions at all.
Instead,
it sounds like a geographic limitation because you have an island where most
of the existing land has been built upon.

It is precisely forced artificial restrictions. For decades, private
builders refused to build on anything close to the scale needed
because they saw that their return would be severely limited. Same
with zoning.
Just what are the subsidies that big-box stores are supposed to be
enjoying?

Communities pay millions of dollars to big box stores directly,

A very few. Very, very few.
Just because it has happened in a few places does not make it the norm,
nor does it make it important enough to worry about.
Wal-Mart made its fortune on distribution efficiency. It also violated
the usual norm that anything important has to start in NYC, and then move
out. This annoys the urban militant, who wants everything centered in some
downtown. Wal-Mart shows that important businesses can start in small
areas and then into cities, much to the annoyance of the city itself, as
in NYC, which is pretty good about keeping Wal-Mart out. It is a cultural
thing.

I don't think the problem is with Walmart, it's with the politicians.

When you go to the grocery store and they have your favorite brand of
widgets on sale for "buy one get one free", you don't pass up the free
one. No, you grab it. That makes sense.

If Walmart or any company is offered an "incentive" it makes sense
that they take it -- even if it may not make sense for it to have been
offered. I also agree that if a company is siting a distribution
center in the middle of a state, it doesn't make sense to subsidize it
because they will build within the state, anyway. But then the
localities all fight for the jobs and the bidding war begins.

I'm not saying all subsidies are wrong -- some are incredibly
important and useful. But others are just stupid. But from the
company's perspective, you take what you can get.

george conklin

2007-05-14 11:03:59 UTC

Post by Pat
On May 12, 12:02 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by o***@hotmail.com
On May 10, 4:21 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship
None of this sounds like there are artificial restrictions at all.
Instead,
it sounds like a geographic limitation because you have an island
where
most
of the existing land has been built upon.

It is precisely forced artificial restrictions. For decades, private
builders refused to build on anything close to the scale needed
because they saw that their return would be severely limited. Same
with zoning.
Just what are the subsidies that big-box stores are supposed to be
enjoying?

Communities pay millions of dollars to big box stores directly,

A very few. Very, very few.
Just because it has happened in a few places does not make it the norm,
nor does it make it important enough to worry about.
Wal-Mart made its fortune on distribution efficiency. It also violated
the usual norm that anything important has to start in NYC, and then move
out. This annoys the urban militant, who wants everything centered in some
downtown. Wal-Mart shows that important businesses can start in small
areas and then into cities, much to the annoyance of the city itself, as
in NYC, which is pretty good about keeping Wal-Mart out. It is a cultural
thing.

I don't think the problem is with Walmart, it's with the politicians.
When you go to the grocery store and they have your favorite brand of
widgets on sale for "buy one get one free", you don't pass up the free
one. No, you grab it. That makes sense.
If Walmart or any company is offered an "incentive" it makes sense
that they take it -- even if it may not make sense for it to have been
offered. I also agree that if a company is siting a distribution
center in the middle of a state, it doesn't make sense to subsidize it
because they will build within the state, anyway. But then the
localities all fight for the jobs and the bidding war begins.
I'm not saying all subsidies are wrong -- some are incredibly
important and useful. But others are just stupid. But from the
company's perspective, you take what you can get.

There are lawsuits in NC now trying to stop all incentives as
unconsitutional. They may be, but in the meantime getting a Google server
farm has cost the state all kinds of money and the right wing is upset, not
the left wing.

Sancho Panza

2007-05-11 17:56:53 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
Communities pay millions of dollars to big box stores directly, build
their facilities, and give them huge sales tax breaks.

The only tax breaks known in New Jersey are for cities like Newark, Camden,
Elizabeth, Asbury Park, Long Branch, Paterson, etc. etc. There are none for
the suburbs. In fact, the suburbs support extra billions for the largest
spending item--education--in those 30 so-called Abbott districts. So which
"communities pay millions to big box stores directly, build their
facilities"?

Clark F Morris

2007-05-15 00:52:36 UTC

On Fri, 11 May 2007 13:56:53 -0400, "Sancho Panza"

Post by Amy Blankenship
Communities pay millions of dollars to big box stores directly, build
their facilities, and give them huge sales tax breaks.

The reason that the suburbs may be willing to do this is to avoid
having to have affordable housing and an influx of city people. This
is a result of a landmark New Jersey Supreme Court ruling in Mount
Laurel exclusionary zoning case. The court ruled that all
municipalities had to zone for affordable housing. It would be
interesting to see whether places like Bedminster Far Hills or Murray
Hill have housing that the lower echelons who work in offices and labs
in those communities can afford.

Sancho Panza

2007-05-15 03:56:51 UTC

Post by Clark F Morris
On Fri, 11 May 2007 13:56:53 -0400, "Sancho Panza"

Post by Amy Blankenship
Communities pay millions of dollars to big box stores directly, build
their facilities, and give them huge sales tax breaks.

Those towns and their ilk don't give Wal-Mart tax breaks (or too many
customers, for that matter).

george conklin

2007-05-15 11:12:47 UTC

Post by Clark F Morris
On Fri, 11 May 2007 13:56:53 -0400, "Sancho Panza"

Post by Amy Blankenship
Communities pay millions of dollars to big box stores directly, build
their facilities, and give them huge sales tax breaks.

First planners push for expensive "solutions" which raise prices and
push out the middle class. Then courts come along and demand even higher
prices so builders will then put up a few apartments.

Clark F Morris

2007-05-15 15:14:33 UTC

Post by Clark F Morris
On Fri, 11 May 2007 13:56:53 -0400, "Sancho Panza"

Post by Amy Blankenship
Communities pay millions of dollars to big box stores directly, build
their facilities, and give them huge sales tax breaks.

First planners push for expensive "solutions" which raise prices and
push out the middle class. Then courts come along and demand even higher
prices so builders will then put up a few apartments.

Both communities mentioned attracted industry such as Bell Labs and
the AT&T headquarters (since vacated by AT&T) yet were zoned for
affluent suburbia. Presumably the politicians hired the planners who
believed in upper middle class and rich exclusivity. Would you
advocate elimination of all zoning limitations on housing such as
removal of minimum lot size restrictions?

Baxter

2007-05-15 19:07:12 UTC

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by george conklin
First planners push for expensive "solutions" which raise prices and
push out the middle class. Then courts come along and demand even higher
prices so builders will then put up a few apartments.

George, you're full of shit. It's not planners that raise prices - it's the
Free Market. If people didn't like what the planners came up with they
wouldn't buy it and the prices would drop. Prices only go up when people
want the item they're buying. You clearly have no conception of how the
Market works.

o***@hotmail.com

2007-05-15 22:42:15 UTC

Post by Baxter
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworkswww.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As if artificially manipulating and constricting supply has nothing to
do with markets. Thereby demonstrating a fundamental flaw in basic
understanding of the subject.

Baxter

2007-05-17 17:25:38 UTC

As if artificially manipulating and constricting supply has nothing to
do with markets. Thereby demonstrating a fundamental flaw in basic
understanding of the subject.

"Artificially manipulating and constricting supply" will only carry you so
far before the Market speaks up. New Urbanism is the reaction of the
Market to the forced Suburbanization of the last half-century.

Sancho Panza

2007-05-18 05:10:35 UTC

Post by Baxter
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As if artificially manipulating and constricting supply has nothing to
do with markets. Thereby demonstrating a fundamental flaw in basic
understanding of the subject.

"Artificially manipulating and constricting supply" will only carry you so
far before the Market speaks up.

It certainly seems to still function quite effectively in places like New
York after more than 65 years.

Post by Baxter
New Urbanism is the reaction of the Market to the forced Suburbanization
of the last half-century.

Maybe some people think that New Urbanism in places like San Francisco and
Oakland provides examples of "the reaction of the Market." Those people are
probably unaware
that those place manipulate and constrict even more tightly than previously
known controls.

George Conklin

2007-05-18 11:42:57 UTC

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------

Post by Baxter
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------

George, you're full of shit. It's not planners that raise prices -

it's

Post by Baxter
the
Free Market. If people didn't like what the planners came up with they
wouldn't buy it and the prices would drop. Prices only go up when people
want the item they're buying. You clearly have no conception of how the
Market works.

As if artificially manipulating and constricting supply has nothing to
do with markets. Thereby demonstrating a fundamental flaw in basic
understanding of the subject.

"Artificially manipulating and constricting supply" will only carry you so
far before the Market speaks up.

It certainly seems to still function quite effectively in places like New
York after more than 65 years.

Post by Baxter
New Urbanism is the reaction of the Market to the forced

Suburbanization

Post by Baxter
of the last half-century.

New Urbanism adds about 25% to the costs of anywhere it plops itself.

Baxter

2007-05-18 14:57:19 UTC

Post by George Conklin
New Urbanism adds about 25% to the costs of anywhere it plops itself.

No, georgie porgie, New Urbanism does NOT *add* - it *commands* a 25%
increase in *price* (not *costs*). People are -willing- to pay more for New
Urbanism than the exact same house out in the suburbs.

rotten

2007-05-19 13:13:43 UTC

On May 10, 12:54 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Pat
On May 10, 8:53 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Thats true. Cities are very expensive to live in alot due to property
taxes.

That is becuase the value of even ordinary small apartments in NYC is
inflated ot about 10 times their real value. Thus taxes do not have to be
as high.

It's not that I'm overweight, it's that I'm undertall.
-Garfield
What you describe is, in fact, market forces at work. Limited supply, high
demand.
-Amy

You are correct and yes there is high demand for housing in NYC (which
is probably better than the opposite and a sign of good things). But
it's not like that isn't a huge problem, cities in the NE are becoming
third-world like, where the middle class is moving out and the only
people left are the very rich and the very poor. A larger influx of
housing would help solve this problem, but the connected rich NIMBY
yuppies who moved in and gentrified everything will not have it.
Hence, the middle class is fleeing like you wouldn't believe,
especially to "red states" as they say. The rich here in Boston have
virtually stopped nearly all housing construction and the mayor only
cares about the very rich and the very poor.

So on one hand, you are right in that in the last 20 years leaders of
Northeastern cities have made them more desirable places to live, but
on the negative side they have made the entire region more "third
world".

george conklin

2007-05-19 15:06:31 UTC

-Amy

Many people have noted this. The New Urbanist agenda is to replace
current urban residents which richer ones who can afford the expensive
housing they want built. It is called "infill." That means, tear down
anything affordable and build something unaffordble and then use that to
"attract" those without children or retired people, so you don't have to
educate any children either.

Joe the Aroma

2007-05-19 17:09:51 UTC

-Amy

Every new housing development here in Boston is "luxury condos".... out with
the poor, in with the rich.

Pat

2007-05-19 18:37:04 UTC

-Amy

Every new housing development here in Boston is "luxury condos".... out with
the poor, in with the rich.

Well almost all new housing is aimed for the rich. It's been like
that for a long time. Rich can afford new construction. Poor
cannot. In fact, the worse the economy gets, the more upscale the new
construction is -- because then only the rich can afford anything new.

Rotten

2007-05-19 19:07:50 UTC

-Amy

Every new housing development here in Boston is "luxury condos".... out with
the poor, in with the rich.

Where are you from? I don't think it's like that in other parts of the
country.

Pat

2007-05-19 20:08:14 UTC

Post by Rotten

-Amy

Every new housing development here in Boston is "luxury condos".... out with
the poor, in with the rich.

Where are you from? I don't think it's like that in other parts of the
country.

The unavailability of land and the expense of the permitting process
means that if you are going to put out a given amount of time and
money, you want to maximize your return so you go after the highest
return, which is higher end housing.

almost all affordable stuff is subsidized, which also boosts returns.

As for the economy, say a given market produces 100 "normal houses"
and 100 houses for rich folks. Then the economy tanks. You'll find
then they are producing say 25 "normal" houses and 75 rich houses. So
now the proportion of houses for rich folk goes up. Rich people will
always do what they want -- they can because they are rich.

george conklin

2007-05-19 21:22:39 UTC

-Amy

Every new housing development here in Boston is "luxury condos".... out
with the poor, in with the rich.

It is also known as "The Revanchist City." (the book by that name....)

Amy Blankenship

2007-05-20 02:59:38 UTC

-Amy

Every new housing development here in Boston is "luxury condos".... out
with the poor, in with the rich.

It is also known as "The Revanchist City." (the book by that name....)

George is always so proud to remind people he can spell "revanchist." It's
kinda cute :-)

Baxter

2007-05-20 02:32:24 UTC

-Amy

The New Urbanist agenda is to make your house and the areas nearby more
pleasent. Developers then implement New Urbanist designs in order to make
money.

george conklin

2007-05-10 16:39:38 UTC

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Thats true. Cities are very expensive to live in alot due to property
taxes.

That is becuase the value of even ordinary small apartments in NYC is
inflated ot about 10 times their real value. Thus taxes do not have to
be as high.

There are no market forces when apartment development is constrained.
The prices are manipulated. That is why NYC wants Wal-Mart out. Then the
city can no longer manipulate the retail market.

Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

2007-05-11 00:29:08 UTC

On May 10, 7:53 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Thats true. Cities are very expensive to live in alot due to property
taxes.

That is becuase the value of even ordinary small apartments in NYC is
inflated ot about 10 times their real value. Thus taxes do not have to be
as high.

If their was a Wal Mart in New York City where would all the soccer
moms park their vans?

george conklin

2007-05-11 01:04:18 UTC

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
On May 10, 7:53 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Thats true. Cities are very expensive to live in alot due to property
taxes.

That is becuase the value of even ordinary small apartments in NYC is
inflated ot about 10 times their real value. Thus taxes do not have to be
as high.

If their was a Wal Mart in New York City where would all the soccer
moms park their vans?

In NYC, you don't play soccer. We played Chinese Handball. I bet you don't
even know what that street game is. I loved it myself. You can play it
against any abandoned factory wall.......

Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

2007-05-11 03:30:17 UTC

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
On May 10, 7:53 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Thats true. Cities are very expensive to live in alot due to property
taxes.

That is becuase the value of even ordinary small apartments in NYC is
inflated ot about 10 times their real value. Thus taxes do not have to be
as high.

If their was a Wal Mart in New York City where would all the soccer
moms park their vans?

In NYC, you don't play soccer. We played Chinese Handball. I bet you don't
even know what that street game is. I loved it myself. You can play it
against any abandoned factory wall.......

Haha, I love the "abandoned factory wall......." part. Gives it such a
neighborly
childhood feeling! Haha sorry to nit pick your sentence but I felt
that little part at the end was alittle....... exsesive. But yea that
game is
predominantly played in New York City and considering im from
Minneapolis
it makes sense I havent played that game before. But today I did
make a mural with chalk on my Garage and I live on a pretty busy
intersection
so alot of people will see it and also the mayor drives down that
street to get home from
work in Downtown so he sees it to its pretty cool. Glad to hear that
theres
still neighborhood unity alive.

george conklin

2007-05-11 11:30:13 UTC

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
On May 10, 7:53 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Thats true. Cities are very expensive to live in alot due to property
taxes.

That is becuase the value of even ordinary small apartments in NYC is
inflated ot about 10 times their real value. Thus taxes do not have
to
be
as high.

If their was a Wal Mart in New York City where would all the soccer
moms park their vans?

In NYC, you don't play soccer. We played Chinese Handball. I bet you don't
even know what that street game is. I loved it myself. You can play it
against any abandoned factory wall.......

Buddy, I played the game against an abandoned factory wall. FAct. They
finally tore it down.

Pat

2007-05-10 16:28:41 UTC

Post by o***@hotmail.com
On May 9, 4:41 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"

May 7,

Post by Pat
On
May 6,

details

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
of the arrangements differ between countries, and so
does the
terminology, the definitions of poverty and the criteria
for

public

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
housing allocation.
Canada, public housing is usually a block of
purpose-built

government

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
subsidized housing operated by a government agency,
often
simply
referred to as housing projects. In American cities,
many
high

rise

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
developments have been torn down and replaced with
easier to

manage

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
town houses. Numerous federal, state and local
enactments
have

greatly

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
diminished criminal activity inside projects and altered
who
is
entitled to live in them. Should we end public housing?

Check the literature. Government is really doing this now
with

Hope-VI.

Post by Pat
Do

Post by George Conklin
some reading.

HOPE VI is on the way out. I did a similar project using
LIHCs,
HOME,
CDBG, FHLBNY, and some foundation money. So you can do a
HOME
VI-type
project without HOME VI.
I think HUD believes that all of the projects that should
get
HOPE VI
money has already gotten it.
One problem is that many of the PHAs haven't been able to
implement
their grandeous schemes.

Hope VI still dominates our the local news. Only 1% of former
residents
qualify to move back to the old neighborhoods.

Hope VI down to about 4 projects per year and is in the $70 --
$80mm
per year.

Tearing down affordable housing and replacing it with nothing is a
national problem, regardless of Hope VI.

Tearing down Public Housing is a concern, but Mark to Market is a
bigger one in most communities.
If you know of a place that has demo'd -- and not replaced -- a bunch
of public housing, let me know. It can be replaced with other funding
sources and you can do a subsidy-only Mixed Finance application to
reactivate the units under the a new HAC. I've done that before and
it works well.

Thats true. Cities are very expensive to live in alot due to property
taxes.

That is becuase the value of even ordinary small apartments in NYC is
inflated ot about 10 times their real value. Thus taxes do not have to be
as high.

I don't think you can really figure out what the heck is going on with
real estate taxes in NYC. They have a particularly conveluted tax
code. For example, you subdivide a hypothetical highrise apartment
building in half and make one half into condos and the other half into
coops. The units are identical and the only difference is the form of
ownership. The coops will be taxes at a significantly lower rate than
the condos. There are so many exemptions and stuff it is impossible
to say what is going on. Another example is tax certificates. If you
do a rehab of a building you can get a tax reduction in the form of a
certificate. Those certificates can be bought, sold, and traded with
your friends.

At best, you might be able to look at some overall factors such as
real estate taxes collected as a percentage of value or per capita.
But that is still a bad number compared to any sane standard.

Sancho Panza

2007-05-10 16:33:09 UTC

Post by o***@hotmail.com
On May 9, 4:41 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"

On May 8, 5:47 pm, "George Conklin"

On
May 7,

Post by Pat
On
May 6,

details

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
of the arrangements differ between countries, and so
does the
terminology, the definitions of poverty and the
criteria
for

public

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
housing allocation.
Canada, public housing is usually a block of
purpose-built

government

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
subsidized housing operated by a government agency,
often
simply
referred to as housing projects. In American cities,
many
high

rise

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
developments have been torn down and replaced with
easier to

manage

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
town houses. Numerous federal, state and local
enactments
have

greatly

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
diminished criminal activity inside projects and
altered
who
is
entitled to live in them. Should we end public
housing?

Check the literature. Government is really doing this
now
with

Hope-VI.

Post by Pat
Do

Post by George Conklin
some reading.

HOPE VI is on the way out. I did a similar project using
LIHCs,
HOME,
CDBG, FHLBNY, and some foundation money. So you can do a
HOME
VI-type
project without HOME VI.
I think HUD believes that all of the projects that should
get
HOPE VI
money has already gotten it.
One problem is that many of the PHAs haven't been able to
implement
their grandeous schemes.

Hope VI still dominates our the local news. Only 1% of
former
residents
qualify to move back to the old neighborhoods.

Hope VI down to about 4 projects per year and is in the $70 --
$80mm
per year.

Tearing down affordable housing and replacing it with
nothing
is a
national problem, regardless of Hope VI.

Tearing down Public Housing is a concern, but Mark to Market is a
bigger one in most communities.
If you know of a place that has demo'd -- and not replaced -- a bunch
of public housing, let me know. It can be replaced with other funding
sources and you can do a subsidy-only Mixed Finance application to
reactivate the units under the a new HAC. I've done that before and
it works well.

Affordable housing in rural areas really means what we used to call trailer
parks. 1/3 of the new houses in NC are in fact mobile homes. That
is
what
makes the housing market affordable. As for urban areas, please remember
that today most poor people live in RURAL areas. Cities are busy throwning
them out, the "Revanchist City" movement.

Thats true. Cities are very expensive to live in alot due to property
taxes.

That is becuase the value of even ordinary small apartments in NYC is
inflated ot about 10 times their real value. Thus taxes do not have to be
as high.

I don't think you can really figure out what the heck is going on with
real estate taxes in NYC. They have a particularly conveluted tax
code. For example, you subdivide a hypothetical highrise apartment
building in half and make one half into condos and the other half into
coops. The units are identical and the only difference is the form of
ownership. The coops will be taxes at a significantly lower rate than
the condos. There are so many exemptions and stuff it is impossible
to say what is going on. Another example is tax certificates. If you
do a rehab of a building you can get a tax reduction in the form of a
certificate. Those certificates can be bought, sold, and traded with
your friends.
At best, you might be able to look at some overall factors such as
real estate taxes collected as a percentage of value or per capita.
But that is still a bad number compared to any sane standard.

About the only rational way to deal with comparative property taxes is to
take the true market value of, say, two given properties and compare how
much in property taxes they really do pay.

george conklin

2007-05-10 16:42:30 UTC

Post by o***@hotmail.com
On May 9, 4:41 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"

On May 8, 5:47 pm, "George Conklin"

On
May 7,

Post by Pat
On
May 6,

Post by Pat
"Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"
in

details

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
of the arrangements differ between countries, and so
does the
terminology, the definitions of poverty and the
criteria
for

public

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
housing allocation.
Canada, public housing is usually a block of
purpose-built

government

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
subsidized housing operated by a government agency,
often
simply
referred to as housing projects. In American cities,
many
high

rise

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
developments have been torn down and replaced with
easier to

manage

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
town houses. Numerous federal, state and local
enactments
have

greatly

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
diminished criminal activity inside projects and
altered
who
is
entitled to live in them. Should we end public
housing?

Check the literature. Government is really doing this
now
with

Hope-VI.

Post by Pat
Do