New building at Brooklyn Bridge Park, with middle-income emphasis, inspires cynicism about "affordable housing"
Eleven years ago, when Council Member de Blasio aimed at the 2009 Brooklyn Borough President race, he invited bloggers to a Park Slope coffee shop. Asked about affordable housing, he proposed a tiered approach, from the poorest, families under $20,000, to middle-income households.
Should those earning six figures get subsidized housing?
"Definitely below six figures," he responded.
Well, that's changed, partly because incomes have risen--leaving the truly needy even farther behind--and because lower-income units require more subsidy. Area Median Income (AMI), the base from which a percentage is applied--80% and lower is technically low-income--has risen: 100% of 2018 AMI is $104,300.
Consider the example of "100% affordable" 535 Carlton, with half the units for households earning up to 165% of AMI--affordable but tough to rent, with two months free on some leases--which de Blasio hailed.
At Brooklyn Bridge Park
Now come 100 new affordable units at 15 Bridge Park Drive in Brooklyn Bridge Park, plus 40 market-rate ones, but only 25 of 100 affordable units are technically low-income, and not so low-income at that: at 80% of AMI, that means studios start at $1,394, for individuals making nearly $48,000. (The low-income units at 535 Carlton are for households earning up to 40% and 60% of AMI.
Another 25 units are middle income units renting for 130% of AMI, while the other 50 are middle-income and renting for 165% of AMI: $2,947 for a studio, $3,157 for a one-bedroom, $3,797 for a two-bedroom, and $4,380 for a three-bedroom. The units will be rent-stabilized, but this is clearly not where the need is greatest.
As Curbed's Amy Plitt tweeted:
Should those earning six figures get subsidized housing?
"Definitely below six figures," he responded.
Well, that's changed, partly because incomes have risen--leaving the truly needy even farther behind--and because lower-income units require more subsidy. Area Median Income (AMI), the base from which a percentage is applied--80% and lower is technically low-income--has risen: 100% of 2018 AMI is $104,300.
Consider the example of "100% affordable" 535 Carlton, with half the units for households earning up to 165% of AMI--affordable but tough to rent, with two months free on some leases--which de Blasio hailed.
At Brooklyn Bridge Park
Now come 100 new affordable units at 15 Bridge Park Drive in Brooklyn Bridge Park, plus 40 market-rate ones, but only 25 of 100 affordable units are technically low-income, and not so low-income at that: at 80% of AMI, that means studios start at $1,394, for individuals making nearly $48,000. (The low-income units at 535 Carlton are for households earning up to 40% and 60% of AMI.
Another 25 units are middle income units renting for 130% of AMI, while the other 50 are middle-income and renting for 165% of AMI: $2,947 for a studio, $3,157 for a one-bedroom, $3,797 for a two-bedroom, and $4,380 for a three-bedroom. The units will be rent-stabilized, but this is clearly not where the need is greatest.
As Curbed's Amy Plitt tweeted:
So yes, the city is building "affordable" housing, technically. But the skew towards the higher income brackets—who can likely afford market rate apartments anyway—is bizarre and shitty. (In this particular building, the most units are reserved for the upper-upper tier!)Daily News editorial writer Alyssa Katz tweeted:
Mayor de Blasio forced Brooklyn Bridge Park development into public review that almost derailed construction in order to wedge in affordable housing...that is mostly affordable only to the upper middle class. To what end?Revising the back story
We need a better conversation about Area Median Income, also known as AMI. https://t.co/1gcIOk0A6v— Furman Center (@FurmanCenterNYU) September 10, 2018
That's an intuitive response to affordable housing lotteries where the eligibility is too high for many neighborhood residents. But these outcomes are the result of policy choices at the state and local level, not the methodology used to calculate AMI.— Furman Center (@FurmanCenterNYU) September 10, 2018
First, local policymakers are free to lower the income levels subsidized housing will serve. AMI is just a benchmark policymakers use to define eligibility for subsidized housing.— Furman Center (@FurmanCenterNYU) September 10, 2018
The tradeoff that comes with such choices is a greater subsidy needed per unit, meaning potentially fewer units built if overall resources devoted to subsidized housing are fixed.— Furman Center (@FurmanCenterNYU) September 10, 2018
But removing Westchester, Putnam, and Rockland Counties from HUD's AMI calculation would not significantly change the metro-wide result.— Furman Center (@FurmanCenterNYU) September 10, 2018
Once an area crosses the threshold into one HUD considers "high-cost," the final AMI number is tied to Census data on rent levels, NOT incomes.— Furman Center (@FurmanCenterNYU) September 10, 2018
In fact, for the last two years, HUD’s Studio, 1BR, 2BR, and 3BR Fair Market Rents for the entire Metro-Area (NYC, Westchester, Rockland, and Putnam) were higher than those for Westchester County alone.— Furman Center (@FurmanCenterNYU) September 10, 2018
So to sum up: 1) AMI does not preclude state and local policymakers from serving lower-income households, which would require more subsidy per unit built; and 2) removing suburban counties wouldn't significantly change HUD's AMI result for NYC.— Furman Center (@FurmanCenterNYU) September 10, 2018
Continued focus on the technical details of AMI distracts from more important conversations about the level of public resources devoted to housing, and the tradeoffs involved in choosing how to allocate them. /Thread— Furman Center (@FurmanCenterNYU) September 10, 2018
Comments
Post a Comment