A towering new residential and retail
building will dramatically change the landscape in Central Brooklyn,
but it is not without opposition. There are big plans for a
vacant parking facility on Flatbush Avenue: a 23-story high rise that
will dwarf Prospect Lefferts Gardens and tower over nearby Prospect
Park.
A community group called Prospect Park East Network says that the development is out of scale for the neighborhood and will ruin the park experience.
"We don't want a tower shadowing it and feeling like we're in the middle of Manhattan," said resident Brenda Edwards.
"It's a very intimate community. It's low rise. People are very neighborly," said resident Suki Cheong. "This tower is going to really be visible from many of these scenic views by the lake."
The group put together its own rendering to dramatize the impact to the park and is asking residents to sign a petition to stop the project, but the developer says that the building was designed to fit into the community. It'll have a brick facade instead of glass and metal. It'll be ground-floor retail with 254 rental apartments, with 20 percent for low- and middle-income tenants. It also follows city zoning rules for the area.
"We haven't asked for any special variances, so what we're doing is as-of-right zoning," said Alison Novak, vice president of Hudson Companies. "And I think that when City Planning put together the zoning code, they were very careful about light and air and shadows. So I don't think that that will be actually a major issue."
However, the Prospect Park Alliance, which helps oversee the park, says "We feel a 23-story building on the edge of the park will compromise the original Olmstead and Vaux vision for the park as an urban refuge where the public can enjoy unspoiled natural views."
Both the Alliance and community opponents are calling for zoning changes.
"We are the only section next to the park that does not have what we call contextual zoning," said resident Carole Schaffer. "All of the other areas - Park Slope, Windsor Terrace, everything around the perimeter - has it."
The city says that it's received requests about rezoning and will look into the possibilities. In the meantime, the developer says that he has all the permits and money to move ahead, and plans on starting demolition by the end of the year.
A community group called Prospect Park East Network says that the development is out of scale for the neighborhood and will ruin the park experience.
"We don't want a tower shadowing it and feeling like we're in the middle of Manhattan," said resident Brenda Edwards.
"It's a very intimate community. It's low rise. People are very neighborly," said resident Suki Cheong. "This tower is going to really be visible from many of these scenic views by the lake."
The group put together its own rendering to dramatize the impact to the park and is asking residents to sign a petition to stop the project, but the developer says that the building was designed to fit into the community. It'll have a brick facade instead of glass and metal. It'll be ground-floor retail with 254 rental apartments, with 20 percent for low- and middle-income tenants. It also follows city zoning rules for the area.
"We haven't asked for any special variances, so what we're doing is as-of-right zoning," said Alison Novak, vice president of Hudson Companies. "And I think that when City Planning put together the zoning code, they were very careful about light and air and shadows. So I don't think that that will be actually a major issue."
However, the Prospect Park Alliance, which helps oversee the park, says "We feel a 23-story building on the edge of the park will compromise the original Olmstead and Vaux vision for the park as an urban refuge where the public can enjoy unspoiled natural views."
Both the Alliance and community opponents are calling for zoning changes.
"We are the only section next to the park that does not have what we call contextual zoning," said resident Carole Schaffer. "All of the other areas - Park Slope, Windsor Terrace, everything around the perimeter - has it."
The city says that it's received requests about rezoning and will look into the possibilities. In the meantime, the developer says that he has all the permits and money to move ahead, and plans on starting demolition by the end of the year.
65 comments:
You have to be kidding me!!! These old timers are going to get their way again. They ruined 33 Lincoln Road and now Tom Anderson is building an ugly white box there. This is not South Beach Miami. In a few years, 33 Lincoln Road is going to look so worn and dirty, why oh why did he choose white?
And you know these old timers will win again with 626 Flatbush. I hope Hudson group pulls out and leaves that Medical building to decay. I hope it grows into an empty decrepit parking lot with garbage all over the place. I hope the old timers truly get what they want, dirty filthy streets. Because friends that is what PLG is right now!!
Anon at 9:37, I'll give you the same advice I was given when I voiced my opposition to the building; if you don't like it, you can move.
That's right Anon 9:37. It's either 626 Flatbush, or decay and filth. There's no in-between.
I'm glad someone finally understands that there is no gray area! In fact, I think "gray" is a concept the old-timers came up with, along with their inability to see the world as you do!
LONG LIVE THE OLD TIMERS IN PLG...in peace and harmony without anon at 9:37....may you find no decay or filth in your new neighborhood!!!!
One thing that I think many people forget is that there is a serious housing shortage. When a one bedroom apartment in LPG sells for $450k you gotta scratch your head. The only way to drive the cost down is with supply. The population is growin in good ole NYC, steadly. Look what's happened in Manhattan, take a drive through Soho on a weekday morning, it's turned into a sleeper community. Small businesses are driven out, the only people who can afford to live there are money boys and neuro surgeons. It's going to be the same here. Supply and demand it's that simple. Look at the Hudson Yards project, the reasoning around GC, in two years the new line is going to be open on the east side. If more housing isn't built, you can bet that Manhattan will be cheaper than Brooklyn. That tower may be an eye sore, but you have a better idea? The old times who are complaining I understand, nature abhors change, but its the only thing that will make this place affordable.
I vote for Cheryl's post to be removed. She personally attacked Anon 9:37 and wanted to illegally ban a resident from living in the neighborhood due to expressing an opinion. I'm so glad the Constitution's First Amendment right is not allowed on this blog.
Well, the final line is that story is all that really matters. Hudson has got permits, they've got financing, and they can build as-of-right. It doesn't matter how many signatures the petition gets. I for one can't wait to see this place built.
Flagrant Foul Anon 12:01 PM. May the blog take note that speaking your mind freely against the group is prohibitive. This is your first warning next time you will get your fingertips cut off.
It DOES mean if it's not a tall building nothing will be built. Really, you think space in PLG is the same value per square foot as Prospect Park West? Dream on. The only thing that makes it financially viable is it being taller and having more units to sell. And the views that result. A shorter building still does well in Park Slope....because it's Park Slope. It's worth twice as much per square foot.
Cheryl's comment was not offensive in any manner. She said nothing of banning anything. She was seconding the motion placed by Anon at 9:57, and with humor.
Motion denied.
Speaking in favor of the project is fine. Speaking in favor of public torture of cats is fine, as long as you don't personally denigrate a particular cat with species-ist language.
The first comment at 9:37 rode a fine line, since the inference was that old timers like dirty filthy streets, a clear lie and intended only to inflame. I let it stand because it's clearly over the top.
Amused @ Anonymous 12:33. It's quaint when people don't realize how extremely quickly the values on this side of the park are/will catch up to the other parts of the park. This isn't 5 years ago - we are next, so stop pretending that we're lucky to have anyone coming to the neighborhood. For better or worse, the neighborhood is already heading down the rabbit hole (so to speak).
I personally do not see the gentrification that everyone speaks about? Can u please cite examples Anon 2:21 PM?
Values of very high-end-renovation houses in Lefferts Manor have gone up, prices of market rate apartment rentals have gone up, but we're still no where near what Park Slope is worth. And remember their values are still going up too. Theirs isn't at a standstill while ours go up. You can still buy a dump of an unrenovated house in the Manor for $600K (actual comp from this year from our block) which is incredibly cheap for NYC. An unrenovated 2-story house in Park Slope is $2 million. A 3-4 story house on Ocean on the Park here is maybe $1.5 million. The same will cost several million on PPW. Per square foot in Park Slope is far higher than in PLG. Period.
Anon: I'm struggling to find the relevance of your comment. Please clarify. Ever since I've lived here, prices of houses have been roughly half what they've been on the other side of the park, tit for tat. The same is still true.
Are you trying to make a statement about gentrification? Using prices of single family homes is hardly a useful comparison, particularly since most of the houses in Park Slope are cut up into apartments, and the neighborhood mean income is nearly four times as high and over 80% white.
Like I said, clarify your point.
Hmm, I don't think I was being unclear. I think you're projecting with the gentrification thing. In response to you in your own post pointing out we're not downzoned along the park when Park Slope and Windsor Terrace are, I made the point the difference in values doesn't make that an equal comparison. If a new development isn't profitable they won't build it. A really nice, stunning building made with good materials is not going to be built at a low-rise height here like it can and it is in Park Slope because it just won't be profitable. Not yet. Not enough units to sell to compensate for the lower value per square foot. "Lower" does not mean cheap. I didn't say that. Again, you talked about a comparison with Park Slope so that's what I'm addressing. You can create a very luxury condo conversion in an historic lowrise building on PPW and sell the condos for millions each. You can't do that here. Maybe 20 years from now, sure. But I thought we were talking about developments right now in 2013.
Spot on Anon! I was able to buy an entire 4 floor row house in the Manor for only $150 a square foot. You can't even get that in Ohio!! Why you ask? Because PLG is viewed as a highly undesirable neighborhood. I somewhat agree.
Give me a break, of course it could be profitable, at whatever height. The guy got the lot for a song and could build it six stories and make plenty of money. I don't know where you're crunching your numbers from, but you've certainly made up some scenario wherein it's impossible to make money unless you build 23 stories. Poppycock.
P.S. Why is what I'm saying so offensive? I thought it was straightforward. If it's not the city building a building then it's somebody hoping to see a profit. We've seen proof if a developer can't build a certain kind of building here they don't bother. Happened on Lincoln Rd. Hudson Co has said as much when they said it is not feasible to make their building lower. Is what it is guys. If we're downzoned and okay maybe that's best, we just have to temper expectations.
Ohio? Big state...now I'm being had.
If I was Hudson I would sell the land and walk away. There are too many limousine liberals like Mr. Q in this neighborhood. Anti- development so they can help out their buddies living on Chester Court or Ocean Avenue, but enjoying there beautiful row houses and summer vacations in the country. Total hypocrites.
What Hudson says? You're pretty gullible to believe what Hudson or any other developer says about what's profitable. Sheesh. Do you believe the same about what Goldman Sachs and Coca Cola and Bruce Ratner say too? Did you hear what the new date is that Forest City says the affordable apartments are going to go up around Barclays? 2035! They were supposed to go up NEXT YEAR!
I can't believe what I'm hearing. Seriously, cannot believe it.
I happen to know some stuff that you don't about this particular deal, and I'll keep my trap shut, but maybe you should keep yours shut until you have an idea of just how much money can be made building a 23 story building along one of the greatest parks in the world in one of the greatest cities in the world in one of the hottest markets in the world.
I'm sorry Anon 9:39. My friends Saul and Seth on Chester and I are too busy drinking Cristal in our limo to be bothered with your musings. Please speak to our girl about scheduling an appointment and perhaps we'll reconsider your need for a 23-story building to complete your corporate fantasy for the neighborhood. Your banker and attorney friends are more than welcome to join, though please be sure to check their liberal credentials at the door and make sure their weekend places have "no fracking" sign on the lawns? Say hi to your colleagues at American Express!
I think that like most people, I feel mixed about the building and its height, so I am fine with a compromise between the community and the developer. I think it's a shame that the community and the park did not do something about zoning prior to it becoming a crisis management situation, which would have been a lot more practical and more fair for everyone on all sides of the argument.
I agree with you Alex. The community should have been having this discussion with the developer at the onset. Now I believe it’s a waste of time and energy. Granted I am in favor of bringing some new development in the area, which should encompass both market rate and affordable rate apartments. We need both… PLG’s make-up can accommodate all types of people. Let us remain optimistic!
Rose, I agree that zoning should have been addressed long ago. In fact, it was. A letter was sent from the Community Board asking the planning commission to reassess zoning back in 2008. The planning commission refused citing a lack of funding. Granted, someone should have stayed on the ball.
The fact is that Hudson received public-backed funding for the project. Don't you think they should have approached the community at some point for comment? You seem to put all the onus on the community. It's clear to me, and to plenty of others, that Hudson saw an opportunity to make a ton of dough when no one was looking at moved as quickly as possible. In fact, it will become clear very soon that this was the case, and all of the supporters of this project will realize they have been taken advantage of. Or rather, if they really feel the need to greatly accelerate the cause of gentrification, they will get their wish.
It's not my wish to assess blame. It's my wish to call people to task for pretending they are the masters of their own destiny when they are in fact pawns. It's really very, very sad.
Airhead 9:39 am got served.
Nice job Q.
The severe lack of housing in the borough and city is what is driving up rents and prices across the board (it is crazy out there right now). Adding more housing stock (even if most new stock is added at the higher end*) is key to any strategy to keep housing affordable in the city. Tall buildings are an excellent way to add more housing to a region that has very limited vacant land to build new housing on.
Park-adjacent lots are particularly good spots for taller buildings as you limit the "canyon effect" when buildings are truly out of scale with the width of the street because there aren't buildings on the opposite side of the street.
All together, this seems like an excellent place to build a large new building. CPW/CPE/PPW are not awful streets because they have tall buildings on them. Central Park is not "ruined" because you can see some buildings peak over the treeline. This seems like a reasonable tradeoff to add a significant amount of new housing to the area.
* And to explain my comment about how even if most new housing is added at the higher end of the market it can still help keep housing costs in line ...
The reasons people move to the neighborhood is because they're moving to or within the city. The reasons they are moving to and within the city aren't because there is expensive housing, but because they can afford the housing (either because they have a new or better job or because they are lucky enough to be extremely wealthy). More people (and more people with more money) are moving to the city than lived here previously. If we don't add more housing for those people to buy, they drive the prices up on existing housing and in adjacent neighborhoods. This pressure starts at the top but ripples through the market because there is no substitute for housing; everyone trying to rent or buy a home is in competition. If there aren't enough homes to go around, those who can pay the least get pushed out. The easiest way to keep off the pressure is to add more housing. So even if you're mostly adding new housing to the high-end on the market, this takes pressure off the alternatives for the people who can afford those places. If you don't build the big new luxury building, they'll start bidding up the price of existing buildings (and renovate those), which is basically what you're seeing happen rapidly in neighborhoods like Bed Stuy & Bushwick for people who'd otherwise be perfectly happy to settle in Carroll Gardens or Williamsburg, if they could afford it. Not enough new housing was built so the pricing is pushing people rapidly into other neighborhoods and upending things quickly.
Anon @ 9:06am - There may in fact be the occasional "steal" where somebody sells their house in the Manor for $600k, but that is way below the market price and I can guarantee you it was not the result of a broker marketing it to the highest bidder. I know for instance of a sale down the street from me for $400-something about a year ago--probably half of the market value of the house--and the reason is that it was a short sale. I would not be surprised if cash changed hands under the table there. *Outside* of the manor, you can't get a house for under $800,000 and that get you a total dump that needs to be gutted. But yes, these prices are still way cheaper than across the park.
Q, with all due respect, I don't think any of us can say whether Hudson needs to build 23 stories to have a feasible project, or whether a low rise project could be equally successful. We don't know because they haven't shared that information with us.. nor do they have the obligation to share that with us. They have the right to build 23 stories "as of right".
One thing we do know for certain is that they didn't buy the lot "for a song". What they paid might be cheap up the hill on the other side of the park but it was definitely a big risk to take in our neck of the woods.
Anon at 4:56, with all due respect, I can in fact state with all certainty that 11 million dollars for a lot that huge is in fact cheap. And I can state with a great deal of confidence that it is possible to make a great deal of money with an apartment building of considerably less height. Ask any of the builders of buildings around here of, well, buildings of considerably shorter stature. The plan is for 254 "luxury" units. 200 won't cut it? Look, at this point I could care less about this particular project. I'm just stunned at the lack of empathy expressed here and elsewhere for the MANY neighbors who have put up strong resistance, interest in the character of the neighborhood, concern for the longterm residents who are being displaced as I write this, and the general level of salivating for "amenities" that seems to await the arrival of affluence.
I shouldn't be surprised of course. I'll explain more what I mean about us all being "pawns" at a later date, having watched it unfold first-hand in downtown Brooklyn. I can only hope that that monster towers of Myrtle et al don't foretell our future as well. Let me just say they didn't just happen, anymore than the financial crisis of 2007-8 just "happened"
Maybe five years ago, I'd agree that they were taking a risk. Not now.
$11M is a serious commitment, but in the current climate, it's not a serious risk. And Hudson has no real motive to have a discussion with the community at this point. They've got everything in place they need to have in place. The community needs to pick its battles, and tilting at a fait-accompli windmill will do very little but dispirit people. We should be organizing for the future, not something that's already happening.
I like that Scott added the supply argument to the mix. Your argument sounds like it was ripped from a textbook though. I see no evidence of the "upside" in NYC though. Look at the new construction in Ft. Greene and Crown Heights and downtown and Park Slope. Has there really been any advantage for low income residents? Any? Any downward pressure on rents or prices? If so, it's certainly not helpful to real people making real salaries.
Look, Brooklyn is fast becoming Manhattan, in the sense that it is becoming unaffordable to the very people that made it so attractive in the first place. It's a big bummer y'all, and not just to poor people of color. That's the last laugh of course, to all the rah rah gentrifier types. It won't be affordable to the renters, and it won't be fun for the owners. Ironically, those with longterm housing subsidies in rent stabilized apartments who know and use the law may be the last holdouts.
I encourage everyone complaining about the height of this building to take a walk around the park and count how many other high rises you can see clearly from the park? Then let's form another group to knock these buildings down in size so they don't interfere with the serenity. Because you all seem to have forgotten we live in a city. A major city. Where high rise buildings are the norm. Move to the country if you don't like it or want more sky!
At Anon 8:38, here we go AGAIN, with the if-you-don't-like-it-then-move reply. So YAWN.
How about if YOU don't like it, move to the city where they have all those nice shiny buildings that you love? Some of us are happy with what the neighborhood is, and we don't want change. Change is NOT always good. Sometimes change brings things like higher rents, and that is NOT good for decent working people like me, who likes my (currently) affordable rent. I don't need a whole bunch of restaurants right outside my door, and guess what?? If I did want that, I WOULD MOVE TO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. Maybe you should consider that move too, if those are the things that YOU want. It's out there, go for it. Leave those of us who are happy with the status quo alone.
The building is supposedly out of character with the neighborhood? Oh. How about the Empire State Building?
It's easily four times the height of every building within many blocks in every direction. Are there complaints about its excessive height?
Meanwhile, once a building is built, no one thinks about its height. If you're walking in the park, you won't have your eyes on it. And if you're walking on the sidewalk, you're looking at objects and sights at ground level.
11:14 am, are you really comparing 34th St in Manhattan to 626 Flatbush Ave? REALLY??
anon 12:13,
All over the city there are buildings way out of the neighborhood scale. Up on 125th St. Down Flatbush Avenue. The Citibank building in Long Island City.
Until recently, the Williamsburg Bank Building towered over its neighborhood. Same story when you get over to 63rd St and 3rd Ave in Bay Ridge.
Anyway, once the building is up, it's accepted as part of the streetscape.
Q -- regarding the upside to the large new developments in downtown Brooklyn ... where do you think the thousands of people who can afford those rents and prices (I am not one of them but I know some of them) would have moved if those buildings hadn't been built? The buildings don't bring the people, the people bring the buildings. If you don't add new housing stock they'll bid up what is left. So, assuming we didn't instead add a ton of new housing somewhere else, the rapid rise in rents & gentrification of other parts of Brooklyn would have just accelerated at an even faster pace. The "upside" for anyone not rich enough to afford to live in those places means the rate of displacement (for anyone not lucky enough to own or have landed a rent stabilized place) is slowed down. I'd agree that the rate of displacement is still too fast, too unfair and squeezes everyone (the poorer you are the worse it is), but I don't see a plausible solution to keeping housing price rises under control without either adding a lot more housing wherever we can or finding a way to convince a lot of people to leave the city entirely.
And yes, rent stabilization/control (and NYCHA) are back-stops at the end of the wealth & income chain in the housing market, and they do have some value as policy for stabilizing neighborhoods and slowing down the rates of change, but they only benefit a fraction of low & mid-income people (who are lucky enough to have scored a rent stabilized place) at the expense of everyone else in the less-regulated housing market. It is reasonable to argue that these policies are worth the costs they impose (ie making housing even more unaffordable for those not "in the system"), but the cost is real, and it is not equitable. One of the bests ways to alleviate the external costs rent regulation (and certain other "affordable housing" policies) impose on the non-regulated housing market is to encourage policies that add a lot more housing to the entire housing pool.
I like your tone Scott...thanks for the rational analysis. However, this phrase stuck with me even as I was feeding my face: "The buildings don't bring the people, the people bring the buildings." I'm actually not sure I entirely agree with that.
In a freaky scene like we've somehow sparked in Brooklyn, building a big building seems to just feed the flames. I know that a certain number of people simply MUST live here or they'll DIE trying. But many people, when they move to the City, don't do so to take their dream job at BAM. They flip a coin and pack the car with their LPs and a dream. The availability of housing has a huge impact on where they end up. Tell them that it's "cool", or better yet have their friends tell them, and by gum they'll jump right into a neighborhood that's 180 degrees from where they've been. Hey, it's a free country, more power, etc. Developers and Marketers prey on that elusive "cool" factor, and you see it oozing out of the advertisements in the buildings of downtown Brooklyn and Williamsburg and Dumbo. Clearly these apartments are for folks with either decent paychecks or moms and dads' backing, but I'm not convinced these folks couldn't be sold on living just about anywhere. I mean somebody decided to live in the landfill called Battery Park City, long before it was even halfway livable like it is now. I think they had a deli, then a movie theater, maybe a dog run. And a view of pre-built-up Jersey. And those rents were NEVER cheap.
As to affordable housing and rent stabilization - for years I've heard the argument that eliminating r.s. would be the best thing that could happen to housing prices. Well, okay all you smarty pants freakanomicists. Why then are rents sky-high and rising fast in every other desirable City without rent stabilization, like San Fran and Atlanta and Los Angeles, even as those towns go on building sprees? Decent middle class workers are being squeezed out in droves. I see no evidence to suggest that were you to eliminate rent regs you'd see anything but a one-time reset and then costs would be off to the races again.
It's politically impossible to totally kill r.s., so personally I'd rather see it expanded to EVERY apartment in the City under $5K. How's that for limousine liberal.
Why is the Q so radical on the issue? Because I see no other way to protect the greatest City on earth from becoming impossible to afford for the lower and middle classes. And once it's no longer a melting pot, it's no longer the greatest City on earth. Sorry, that's just my take.
At this point, we're building almost entirely for the upper classes, and yeah throwing in some bones for the poor now and then. Soon more than 90% of the workers in the City will make too little to live here in a decent manner, unless they're lucky enough to be granfathered into a family member's dwelling. Most of the super high-end apartments are going to foreign investors and billionaires. Highly educated folks who get priced out say "we're outa here" and move to another town or suburb - that's the ultimate freedom...the "just move" you hear so frequently in the comments here. But what about those for whom the phrase strikes terror?
I think some people have forgotten that we built hundreds of thousands of units of public housing in the mid-century for a reason. We needed to keep the city together, so that it was made of one fabric...it's how we manage to get along relatively well despite the enormous differences in income and culture. Force all the service workers packing, those who generally serve the more wealthy, and watch how quickly the great human experiment falls apart, and how quickly the smug sense of entitlement felt by the upper classes becomes fear of revolution.
Like I said, they built housing for a reason. And we don't seem to want to build it anymore. It's just sound policy, not just because it's the RIGHT THING TO DO. To the powerful you have to say - take care of the least well off, or frankly, you're not taking good care of yourself or your descendents either.
You know when I knew we were all screwed up? When people started calling 80/20 a good deal. That's right. You get 80. I get 20. Fair.
Like I say, I'll always call it like I see it. And right now, I see a culture sucking on the teet of big money and gorging on excess. When "food" becomes the new "rock and roll," you know something is twisted.
I got a better proposal Q, why don't we force all land owners in NYC to rent out a minimum of 50% of their home's total space to low income residents (including owners of brownstones and single family homes). 50% sounds fair to me, what do you think?
Q, don't you ever find it strange why your property taxes are so low on a rowhouse that is probably valued over a $1M? Do you think that's fair? It almost seems like your receiving a subsidy from the government, dear lord!!
Anon at 1:01: I'm not talking about private building owners or buyers of pre-built buildings ; I'm talking about developers using government financing. They have a right to build what they like with their own money. For some reason they find it advantageous to get tax breaks for years and easy access to capital, so let's get everything we can out of it. And frankly, if the market is so HOT out there, I don't know why we the government doesn't hire the developers ourselves. It's not the '70s anymore, and maybe we'd get some good looking buildings once in a while.
No, my house is not worth more than a million bucks. And what's high property taxes, anyway? Relative to what? Jersey? Westchester? Sure they're cheap. But not compared to Iowa or Missouri or Texas. Frankly they could raise them if I were getting something in return, like more money for the schools or more affordable housing.
You talk about fair, but you're not prepared to make trade-offs. That's the difference between you and me. I'm more than willing to sacrifice for the public good, and I suspect you're not. It's written all over your tone.
Rent control? Rent stabilization?
Rent control is going away, a result of attrition. The occupants are dying off, while no new parties are admitted to the program. That seems to be an effective way to wind down a program that once served a purpose but has outlived its usefulness.
Rent stabilization? The program shows no signs of going away and is overwrought with corruption. A rent stabilized apartment has become a de facto private home.
Perhaps a rent stabilized apartment is even better than outright private ownership. You get almost all the benefits of ownership, but you're saddled with none of the responsibilities.
Not only that, you can assign your lease to your kids, a spouse, or a significant other. And if the building owner is desperate for you to move out, he may offer to buy out your lease.
It's way past time to restrict the transference of rent stabilized leases. And it's way past time to begin winding down the program.
To borrow a phrase, If You Have A Rent Stabilized Apartment, YOU Can Keep Your Rent Stabilized Apartment. But for future renters, no deal.
The way people complain about housing built for affluent tenants, you 'd think there were more wealthy New Yorkers than low-/middle-income New Yorkers.
Renters should pay for what they get. Park views, water views, they should cost more. But rent stabilization results in low-revenue apartments in great locations that are also protected from redevelopment.
There's also massive under-utilization of large stretches of real estate, such as Floyd Bennett Field, which should become Floyd Bennett City.
clarkson asks:
Why then are rents sky-high and rising fast in every other desirable City without rent stabilization, like San Fran and Atlanta and Los Angeles, even as those towns go on building sprees?
San Francisco? You must be faking blindness. You can't build UP in that city. Nature's unpredictability has put a limit on real estate development there. Meanwhile, Silicon Valley is nearby and loads of tech people from SV are choosing to live in SF, rather than in the hum-drum neighborhoods near their employers.
There's a new surge of SV money chasing a limited amount of real estate in SF, hence, the cost of real estate in SF is going up. Fortunately, the Google Bus will carry you from one place to the other.
As for Los Angeles, uh, LA is another city that loves rent stabilization:
http://lahd.lacity.org/lahdinternet/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=CohLSEKsZMk%3D&tabid=146&language=en-US
Atlanta? Rising rents? Doubtful.
P.S. To be clear, there is rent stabilization in San Francisco. That's on top of the fact that building height is limited by earthquake danger.
clarkson wrote:
It's politically impossible to totally kill r.s., so personally I'd rather see it expanded to EVERY apartment in the City under $5K. How's that for limousine liberal.
How's that? It's this -- it's another Obamacare fiasco. A broad policy springing from a single mind, or even a number of minds shaped by the same rationale, inevitably leads to unintended consequences that none of the advocates foresaw or none that advocates will admit to foreseeing.
In other words, let's take a huge segment of the real estate market and permit city bureaucrats to determine its future.
If you want the not-so-microcosmic view of where that would lead, then look at housing projects and Section 8 housing to see how things might wind up.
Limited rents vs rising expenses. After several years, that adds up to, at best, a decay in the housing stock, to, at worst, eventual wholesale abandonment of housing as social pathologies overwhelm a landlord's capacity to operate.
rents are rising across the u.s. faster than inflation. obamacare, like the cahnges on flatbush, will work out just fine in the long run. stop bashing bureaucrats...those bureaucrats manage a lot of the business of the city and lots of them are probably your neighbors.
there is a reason for the enormous income gap in this country...we've offered the wealthy WAY too much for WAY too long, all in the expectation that the effects will somehow trickle down. Enough. We've tried that route and it's not working.
now we should give developers MORE incentives? shall we wipe their bottoms as well?
clarkson writes:
rents are rising across the u.s. faster than inflation. obamacare, like the cahnges on flatbush, will work out just fine in the long run.
In the US, about 65 percent of the population OWNS the homes in which they live. The other 35 percent are renters. In New York City, the percentages are flipped. About 35 percent own, and 65 percent rent.
Why? For many, rent stabilization is too good to pass up. In fact, having a rent stabilized apartment in NY City makes it possible for many of those same people to OWN a weekend home in the Poconos.
Therefore, IF rents are rising across the US -- even though we know rents are falling in some places, and we know Detroit real estate has been hovering near a bottom that might go lower if the city's bankruptcy plan is accepted -- that means home prices are rising, which means 65 percent of the population is experiencing an increase in wealth.
Soooo, you really can't draw any negative conclusions about your rising-rent scenario.
After all, rising rents and rising home prices are all evidence of an improving economy.
If you want to see a tight real estate market, visit the region around Williston, North Dakota. One bedroom apartments for $2,000 a month.
But the unemployment rate in the western half of North Dakota is 1 percent, and oil jobs come with hefty paychecks.
No, Obamacare won't work out just fine in the long run. Unless, by "just fine in the long run" you mean premiums rising faster than ever while deductibles increase.
The same wishful thinking that allows people to believe it costs less to provide medical coverage for millions more patients, many of whom qualify for Medicaid, is at work in the real estate market. You can't get more housing by constraining developers with social engineering regulations.
The key to rent/price is supply/demand. The population of NY City is somewhat more than 8 million. Some say it's 8.5 million. At the lowest point since WWII, it dipped to almost 7 million.
Population growth in NY City is way way behind the rate of growth nationwide. Why? Slow rate of construction due to heavy regulation and high costs. Plenty of people are born here, and plenty pass through. But there's always an exodus underway, due in part to high real estate costs here and more affordable real estate in other regions.
Like I said, Floyd Bennett Field should become Floyd Bennett City. And developers should build skyward as far as they can, as far as financing will take them. That way, when the more affluent tenants are looking out over Prospect Park from their expensive new unit, they will have left behind an empty apartment that needs an occupant.
If the local real estate market were truly market driven, then prices would reflect location, building quality and supply/demand. But as long as there's rent stabilization, which sets prices on One Million apartments in NY City, pricing will be skewed, a skewing that has the unintended consequence of making apartments more costly for people with less money. Happens every time.
clarkson writes:
rents are rising across the u.s. faster than inflation. obamacare, like the cahnges on flatbush, will work out just fine in the long run.
In the US, about 65 percent of the population OWNS the homes in which they live. The other 35 percent are renters. In New York City, the percentages are flipped. About 35 percent own, and 65 percent rent.
Why? For many, rent stabilization is too good to pass up. In fact, having a rent stabilized apartment in NY City makes it possible for many of those same people to OWN a weekend home in the Poconos.
Therefore, IF rents are rising across the US -- even though we know rents are falling in some places, and we know Detroit real estate has been hovering near a bottom that might go lower if the city's bankruptcy plan is accepted -- that means home prices are rising, which means 65 percent of the population is experiencing an increase in wealth.
Soooo, you really can't draw any negative conclusions about your rising-rent scenario.
After all, rising rents and rising home prices are all evidence of an improving economy.
If you want to see a tight real estate market, visit the region around Williston, North Dakota. One bedroom apartments for $2,000 a month.
But the unemployment rate in the western half of North Dakota is 1 percent, and oil jobs come with hefty paychecks.
No, Obamacare won't work out just fine in the long run. Unless, by "just fine in the long run" you mean premiums rising faster than ever while deductibles increase.
The same wishful thinking that allows people to believe it costs less to provide medical coverage for millions more patients, many of whom qualify for Medicaid, is at work in the real estate market. You can't get more housing by constraining developers with social engineering regulations.
The key to rent/price is supply/demand. The population of NY City is somewhat more than 8 million. Some say it's 8.5 million. At the lowest point since WWII, it dipped to almost 7 million.
Population growth in NY City is way way behind the rate of growth nationwide. Why? Slow rate of construction due to heavy regulation and high costs. Plenty of people are born here, and plenty pass through. But there's always an exodus underway, due in part to high real estate costs here and more affordable real estate in other regions.
Like I said, Floyd Bennett Field should become Floyd Bennett City. And developers should build skyward as far as they can, as far as financing will take them. That way, when the more affluent tenants are looking out over Prospect Park from their expensive new unit, they will have left behind an empty apartment that needs an occupant.
If the local real estate market were truly market driven, then prices would reflect location, building quality and supply/demand. But as long as there's rent stabilization, which sets prices on One Million apartments in NY City, pricing will be skewed, a skewing that has the unintended consequence of making apartments more costly for people with less money. Happens every time.
clarkson writes:
there is a reason for the enormous income gap in this country...we've offered the wealthy WAY too much for WAY too long, all in the expectation that the effects will somehow trickle down. Enough. We've tried that route and it's not working.
"We've offered the wealthy WAY too much for WAY too long."? Wow. What do you mean by "WE"?
I'm assuming you realize that Microsoft, Apple, Google, Twitter, IBM, Facebook and a very long list of other employers have created enormous wealth that's shared by many people.
It's hardly a flaw in their habits of living that they've enjoyed a large return on the intellectual efforts. Their ability to spot the market and give the consumers what they want, not only in the US but around the world.
Wealth among the wealthiest is tied to the impact of globalization. That wealth is not taken out of some fixed pie from which a handful of people get big pieces they don't deserve.
Do you realize the brownstones and limestones in Brooklyn Heights, Park Slope, Fort Greene and elsewhere were built for the carriage trade? They weren't built for the middle class of the day.
But over the years those homes were acquired by middle class buyers who've prospered a lot. Just like people who bought taxi medallions, which have risen from their first offering price of $10 in 1938 to a million bucks today. A better return than the stock market over the same period.
Many town houses were built for the middle class of its day, though middle class didn't resemble what it does now. There are thousands upon thousands of row houses, and there simply weren't that many rich folks back then. That's a fact. My house, the tract housing of its day, was built for the building trades.
Apple pays the U.S. practically zilch in taxes vs profits, so I don't know why you're choosing to highlight them.
An offline commenter has posted that my taxes should rise, to which I say whatever. I'll struggle but I'll survive somehow. Even the playing field. Perhaps other sorts of owners taxes should fall and mine should rise to meet? I dunno. Fix it I say.
And if I'm mandated, along with other homeowners, to rent out my basement to lower income families because the housing apocalypse comes, so be it. I hope the gov't will pick up the tab for finishing the basement though, changing the c of o, and adding an egress for safety. Perhaps our families will share Thanksgivings together.
Still waiting for your solution! I'm all ears...in fact, I'm out of this thread so have at it!
t
clarkson writes:
Many town houses were built for the middle class of its day, though middle class didn't resemble what it does now. There are thousands upon thousands of row houses, and there simply weren't that many rich folks back then.
Town houses, the substantial limestones and brownstones, were built for the carriage trade. Row houses, often wood and brick structures, were built for those with less money.
Brooklyn Heights, Park Slope and Fort Greene were home to a lot of people with money in those days, when those neighborhoods were developed in the 1800s.
Windsor Terrace, the South Slope, Sunset Park, Kensington, etc, drew middle class and working class people. Rego Park in Queens was built in time for the 1939 World's Fair. It was the last large open stretch of ground in Queens available for a lot of residential real estate development.
Anyway, as you pointed out, there weren't a lot of rich people then. Just like now. However, now is a good time to be poor in NY City. Medicaid coverage is billed to taxpayers at more than $13,000 per person. Food stamps cost taxpayers about $2,400 per recipient per year. Public schools are now spending an average of well over $20,000 per student per year. Rent subsidies can be $18,000 a year. Some people get free housing.
Then there's the Earned Income Credit -- the taxpayers give low-wage workers extra money just for having a job, such as a sales job at Target. Or McD's.
You wrote:
Apple pays the U.S. practically zilch in taxes vs profits, so I don't know why you're choosing to highlight them.
Where do you get your information? From the Internet? In Apple's latest fiscal year, which ended 9/28/13, it paid income taxes in the US of $13 billion. In the previous year it paid $14 billion.
In the latest year, it's Cost of Goods Sold was $106 billion. A lot of that money is filtered through the hands of tax collectors.
Last year the company paid out dividends of over $10 billion. A portion of that money went to taxable entities. Some went to pension funds. And some investors sold their Apple stock for perhaps a large profit, on which they were hit with tax bills. So don't worry, the fact that Apple uses various legal maneuvers to minimize its tax bill doesn't mean the company doesn't pay taxes -- like Credit Unions, which are nothing but banks that don't have to pay any taxes.
What to do? How to make things better? As always, reduce the regulations. Real estate zoning is important. But haggling over the height of a building isn't.
What's the goal? The goal is the creation of the maximum number of net new units in the city. Knocking down a few dilapidated houses to clear space for an new apartment building is almost always a good idea.
Fourth Avenue in Park Slope was a dump till only a few years ago. Now it's alive, though there are still plenty of sites for more development. No one will miss the tire shops or marginal food servers.
Meanwhile, either Walmart should take over the Sears site, or it should become the location of new housing.
Just wanted to say that the Sears Roebuck store on Beverley Rd is very much in business (so not merely a "site") AND it is landmarked meaning that (Hallelujah) it would most likely not be of interest to Walmart or greedy developers.
Actually, that $13 billion referenced above is merely Apple Inc's PROVISION for income taxes; it is not the amount actually paid.
Some of the details (although not how much they actually PAID) are found in the firm's form 10-K (publicly available on the SEC's EDGAR database) for the fiscal year ended (FYE) 9/28/13.
First of all, that $13 billion number includes federal, state, and foreign taxes, both current and deferred (which may never actually become due, depending on the results and expenses of future years).
For the FYE 9/28/13, Apple recognized $9.3 billion in current federal taxes vs. $1.9 billion in deferred (again, note that this is specifically referred to as a PROVISION, and still doesn't tell us how much they actually paid), with $1.1 billion in current state tax provisions and a credit of $0.4 billion (meaning that previously-provisioned amounts were reduced due to the magic of accounting, changing legislation, etc.) for a net provision of $0.8 billion. The balance is foreign taxes, not relevant to our discussion here.
And, as noted in the firm's own annual report, that $13 billion provision, which as we've seen, represents both actual and hypothetical tax liabilities, here and abroad, translates to a statutory tax rate of 26.2%, pretty comparable to that of your average NYC middle-class resident (federal, state, and city combined).
And Apple is hardly the worst offender here.
babs writes:
Actually, that $13 billion referenced above is merely Apple Inc's PROVISION for income taxes; it is not the amount actually paid.
Some of the details (although not how much they actually PAID) are found in the firm's form 10-K (publicly available on the SEC's EDGAR database) for the fiscal year ended (FYE) 9/28/13.
Yes, Apple's cash payments for income taxes in 2013 are included in the 10-K. You just have to know where to look.
You'll find the answer in the Cash Flow Statement.
As for tax assets, tax liabilities and deferred taxes -- unless Apple starts posting losses, those deferred taxes will be paid, most likely in the coming year. Why? Because deferred taxes are mainly the result of differences tied to the timing of collecting revenue versus the date of the transaction that will eventually bring in the revenue.
babs writes:
And Apple is hardly the worst offender here.
Apple violates no tax laws. It is not an offender of any kind.
babs writes:
...the Sears Roebuck store on Beverley Rd is very much in business (so not merely a "site")...
Sears in in trouble, and Eddie Lampert has begun selling it, a piece at a time. Eventually the store sites will go.
AND it is landmarked meaning that (Hallelujah) it would most likely not be of interest to Walmart or greedy developers.
The biggest loser will be Sears itself, when losses force the company to unload its real estate. Then the "landmark" status will knock down the price Sears can expect.
Until then, yeah, the clock tower is a notable sight, but the store isn't doing well, which means the property is seriously under-utilized.
I'd bet Walmart could turn the site into a huge tax generator for the city, as well as a place offering more jobs than Sears.
google "apple and overseas profits" and you'll see what i mean. of course, one could make a case that they owe the taxes elsewhere...except that they pay nothing. they also hire no one in the u.s to make any of their products; the very least they could do is pay some tax, considering they sell a luxury brand to half the country's non-poor citizens.
Hey man I bought all my kitchen appliances at that Sears - and got quality service too. It does more business than you might think.
- Paul G.
(been out of town and missed all the fun debate)
Gee, Anonymous 7:58, if you're so smart, why did you claim initially that Apple paid $13 billion in taxes, when the actual answer, according to their cash flow statement, is $9 billion (and we do not know how much of this was federal vs. state vs. foreign)? Just to make your case seem stronger I guess.
And while Apple has not yet been found guilty of violating any laws, as disclosed elsewhere in the 10-K, "The Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) has completed its field audit of the Company’s federal income tax returns for the years 2004 through 2006 and proposed certain adjustments. The Company has contested certain of these adjustments through the IRS Appeals Office. The IRS is currently examining the years 2007 through 2012. In addition, the Company is also subject to audits by state, local and foreign tax authorities. In major states and major foreign jurisdictions, the years subsequent to 1989 and 2002, respectively, generally remain open and could be subject to examination by the taxing authorities," meaning that both the IRS and other jurisdictions are not convinced of Apple's total innocence here.
Again, as the firm's accountants state, "the outcome of tax audits cannot be predicted with certainty. If any issues addressed in the Company’s tax audits are resolved in a manner not consistent with management’s expectations, the Company could be required to adjust its provision for income tax in the period such resolution occurs," so it could be liable for more.
And no thank you to an employee-abusing Walmart anywhere in NYC. Did you see that the employees of one Walmart in Ohio actually set up a Thanksgiving food drive for themselves? We certainly don't need that kind of corporate greed here!
Post a Comment