So those middle-income "affordable" units at 595 Dean were open to a tiny fraction of New York City renter households, and a nice bargain to some eligible.

In writing Is 595 Dean a "Successful Project"? a few weeks ago, I noted reasons for doubt, including the not-so-affordable "affordable housing":

Yes, there are 240 below-market units aimed at middle-income households earning 130% of Area Median Income (AMI), which in most cases is six figures, all thanks to the 421-a tax break.

Though “affordable,” given the loose definition applied to income-targeted apartments, they hardly help the people who rallied for the project with great hopes and expectations.

Let's drill down on that a bit more. As I reported in April, drawing on a policy brief from New York University’s Furman Center, it's widely acknowledged that the 421-a tax break that enabled buildings with 130% AMI units was too generous.

A tiny fraction

Take a look at the chart below, from the Furman Center.

Only 16.7% of renter households were earning at least 130% of AMI, while only 24.3% were earning at least 100% of AMI and 67.2% earning less than 80% of AMI, which is technically low-income, under distorted AMI calculations.

Looking more closely

So, assuming many of the people who rented those 595 Dean "affordable" units were somewhat below 130% of AMI, surely it was a minority--perhaps no more than 24.3% of renter households, which is the share above 100% of AMI. 

595 Dean: 2023 income ceilings expanded

That said, a few more people were eligible. 

For example, the income floor for a single person, $78,515, was about 84% of 2022 AMI and 79% of 2023 AMI. 

(Extending the lottery deadline allowed the landlord to expand the income ceilings in 2023 to take advantage of the new AMI calculations.) 

But if someone earning $78,515 were to get a studio at $2,290, they'd be spending 35% of their pre-tax income on rent, so they'd be technically rent-burdened.

If someone earning the 2023 income ceiling, $128,570, got a studio, they'd be spending only 21.5% of their income on rent. If they were earning the 2022 income ceiling, $121,420, they'd be spending 22.6% of their income on rent.

In other words, those closer to the 130% of AMI income ceiling would find a serious bargain. 

Why didn't the landlord seek the allowable maximum rent: $3035, according to 2022 AMI, or $2,756, according to 2023 AMI? (Yes, there was a decrease. The math didn't make sense.)

Because those numbers weren't realistic in the first place.

Not much of a burden

Similarly, the chart below shows that only 7.7% of renter households earning over 100% of AMI were rent-burdened, meaning they spent more than 30% of their income on rent, more than half of those earning 50%-60% of AMI are in that category.

Notably, the chart doesn't even go up to 130% of AMI, which suggests so few are rent-burdened that it's not a meaningful statistic.

That doesn't mean that they don't appreciate the opportunity to get a new apartment in a prime area well below market rate. 

The changing pitch

That's why the advertisement below emphasized relative affordability.

It just wasn't helping the people who put faith in the project.

Note that the maximum incomes were initially listed based on 2022 income limits, so, for example, $121,420 was the maximum for a single person. 

However, as I reported, the developer later got permission to apply 2023 income ceilings, opening the building up to a wider range of people, including individuals earning as much as $128,570.