On the face of it, it's certainly mean. Keeping low income renters from a safe place for their bikes that you provide to other renters is just mean.

Second, it is probably counterproductive. Keep the poor kids from playing in the play room, fine. Don't be upset when they play in the street and trash erupts.

And likely I think it is unethical, and possibly illegal and fraudulent:

The high cost of construction means developers often rely on public financing and tax breaks to build new luxury housing, either as rentals or as condos. In exchange, as many as 20 percent of the apartments must be set aside as affordable housing. Despite the financial benefit, developers worry that well-heeled buyers might be turned off by low-income neighbors.

These guys are assholes, if this article is accurate, their construction was financed on the back of the taxpayer. If they want to make luxury apartments only for the richy rich they can do it without public financing and tax breaks.

They want to build luxo condos but they accept a deal for public financing in exchange for rent regulated rooms, then they should keep their end of the bargain.

Amenities should be fairly accessed by all.

Jerry,
please post your SSN and banking info. I want to fairly access them. Not mine? Didn't pay for them? Pfft.

☐ phunctor

☑ jerry

If I were a condo owner being forced to extend amenities to my subsidized tenants, I would simply stop offering subsidized housing.

Jerry: On the face of it, it's certainly mean.

Oh, and forcing people to pay top dollar for amenities while someone else gets the same thing for a pittance isn't mean?

I don't see it as "mean" at all. Why shouldn't people who pay more get more for their money?

These amenities are paid for by the high-dollar tenants. Why should people who are not paying for them have access to them. Is it "mean" that I don't have access to a Bel Air mansion's pool and helipad? I mean, I live right here in Los Angeles, right near all this wealth.

The market has been so distorted in New York and other blue cities, by perverse tax incentives, Byzantine building codes, and rent control subsidies, that the market doesn't operate anymore.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to the builders and developers, because it is like trying to do business in a Mafia controlled neighborhood. If they don't play the game, they will most likely be unable to build at all.

However, Jerry and Crid, do have a point. When you do petty things to deprive the rent controlled tenants of the buildings amenities, (which are a sunk cost) it is terrible PR, and ought to come back to haunt you in a lot of poor publicity for your building.

Why not do something like eliminate subsidized housing and rent control? You can replace the former with some modest enhancements to income transfer programs. You can replace the latter in stages by moving all rent-frozen apartments to the rent-stabilized category, allowing stabilized rents to rise pari-passu with nominal personal income per capita in the locality, providing a legal facility for tenants to sell their rent-control rights back to the landlord and put the apartment in question on market rents, and exempting all new construction from controls. A further amendment to income transfer programs can compensate for the economic effects.

Oh, you mean there are business opportunities for lawyers while landlords and tenants bicker over the sublets of sublets of sublets? Or for politicians acting as brokers for housing benefits ("Awardable Housing"!)? Well, in that case, never mind.

The only points that Jerry and Crid have are covered by hats.

It just sickens me that people without the means to afford amenities should be entitled to them nonetheless, while other people pay for them (and consequently pay for someone else's use, since the freeloaders don't even cover their own costs).

There are gyms available that offer help to those with limited means. My local YMCA, for instance, has a beautiful gym, and it offers a program called "Members Helping Members" that subsidizes the membership cost. The initial payment is reduced by a whopping 80%, while the monthly fees are reduced by 40%.

Not good enough? In Florida, we have parks along the Pinellas trail that feature bodyweight resistance equipment that's free to anyone who wants to drag their ass down there.

"Waaaah! People with money get to exercise on nice equipment in A/C comfort! It's not fair! It's not right! I should be able to do the same thing, even if I don't pay for it and other people have to pay for the maintenance of my use! So, there!"

Yeah, it's really mean to make people pay for things that other people have to pay for. Like it's the condo owner's fault that these people can't afford the amenities.

So Patrick is absolutely right in principle, but Isab points up the confounding factor... the regulatory regime is such a mess that nobody really knows who's paying for what. (And it isn't going to change because it offers such wonderful opportunities for graft and corruption.)
However, let me tell how it's going to go down once the city decrees that the subsidized renters should have free access to all the amenities (which it will). The amenities will began losing money as the cost of maintenance goes up, and eventually the developers will threaten to get rid of them, or else the city will condemn them after they decay enough. Developers will learn from this, and new developments will have the ameneties physically segregated so that they can be spun off as a private club, which will pay rent to the developer. This way, it turns from a cost item to a profit center. Of course, once this happens the cost goes up and it becomes unaffordable to most residents. But hey, that's life in the big city.

If I were a condo owner being forced to extend amenities to my subsidized tenants, I would simply stop offering subsidized housing.

***

You'd lose all the tax breaks that come with it. You also might not be legally allowed to do so, depending on zoning laws.

Jerry did the reading and immediately detected the core issue:

> their construction was financed on
> the back of the taxpayer.

But we see that many enthusiast Obamanoids remain, even on this blog and even in 2014, just totally tickled pinko to see public money converted (shamelessly, forcefully) into private wealth... As if in the truly righteous Socialism of Tomorrow™, everybody could just shave off a big ol' slice of the common pie... That being, after all, the only kind of value they imagine to be extant.

Such people are shits. They've never, across their working lives, turned a single dime into eleven cents. And they're going to do their God Damnedest to extend the fantasy that nobody else in the world ever could, either. Seeing things created which others regard worthy of compensation offends them in the marrow: They'll be much less ashamed of their own stifled, hollow lives if they can depict uselessness as the human standard.

Of course these people are childish… Of course they are.

I was thinking sort of along the lines of Cousin Dave.

Let's say they operate it like some hotels. They have a gym (or office center or whatever) and there is a fee to use them. Some hotels offer them free, some don't. So, you want to use the pool, it's a $x per month addition to your rent. Then it's open to all tenets in the same way. They don't want to use it or pay for it, they don't.

Actually, most rental places I've seen have something like this already set up. It's the "pet clause" wherein you pay an extra monthly fee (or sometimes just an extra one-time fee or deposit) for having pets. No pets, no fee.

So, by their logic, concierge floors in hotels can't have amenities either. The floors or rooms are usually blocked and require the room key to open them or go to that floor via elevator. And no, regular rooms can't pay for access in most hotels, that is the entire point of paying double or triple for a room, perks.

If a developer offers a gym to a rent-regulated tenant and later decides to remove it, the landlord would have to get permission from the Division of Housing and Community Renewal, the state agency that oversees rent rules.

So, offering an amenity to rent-control tenants means that amenity becomes part of the rental package and would be subject to government bureaucratic oversight.

Seems to me that letting rent subsidy tenants pay a separate fee for services would get around that. You can have the all-inclusive rent package or the value package. The value package comes with a buffet menu for additional services.

==============================

...their construction was financed on the back of the taxpayer. If they want to make luxury apartments only for the richy rich they can do it without public financing and tax breaks.

The only problem with Jerry's argument is that, in most major cities, developers cannot get housing construction permits without first promising the low-income set asides.

"Affordable housing" activists spent years using affordable housing and equal lending laws to bludgeon developers and lawmakers into making low income set asides a required part of every major housing construction project.

==============================

The real issue in this is that the rent-subsidy tenants don't want anyone to know they're rent subsidy tenants. They want the full package at a low price and without stigma. They want the Upper East Side lifestyle at New Jersey prices.

The gyms and other amenities are not part of the construction and/or regular operation of the building. They're add-on extras to attract high-rent tenants - tenants whose higher rent payments help to subsidize the rent-control tenants.

If you're living in an apartment building that you can't afford at its regular price (i.e., you're paying bare bones rent), don't expect the landlord (or your fellow tenants) to roll out the red carpet and treat you like penthouse tenants.

Accept that you're getting the location and school district that you want and that it comes with a price - either higher rent or fewer amenities and maybe a separate entrance.

==============================

All of that aside, Jerry and Crid have valid points, too.

This just looks like mean on the surface and can backfire publicity-wise. Also, it leaves the non-amenity tenants to make do with what they have. So, if you don't want children playing on the stoop or in the street or in the hallways, let them into the playroom.

Who knows, the budding Holden Caufields already in there might learn something from the kids whose parents are scratching and clawing their way to a higher socio-economic bracket.

Another point that no one's addressed so far is that if you don't pay for something, you don't tend to value it much. When the gym gets trashed, as Cousin Dave correctly anticipates, I guarantee that the bulk of the damage will be done by the freeloaders. When people shell out the money for something, they tend to take care of it. Those who have it handed to them, not so much.

> developers cannot get housing construction
> permits without first promising the low-income
> set asides.

Yes. Exactly. Seekers, this is why socialism sucks. This is why small-minded busybodies who imagine themselves to be offering "free" assets (bodybuilding equipment!) to the downtrodden are to be resisted. These things are never free, they're merely paid for with the assets of someone other than the childish busybody.

It's immoral for the state to be so meddlesome, but nonetheless immoral for developers to accept the interference, whatever the cleverness of their tactics.

The reprehensible cuntliness of these Obama years —the blind, oblivious corruption of these incessant intrusions— will be famous in American history. These weasels sincerely think they're buying their way into Heaven on someone else's dime... And they further expect to be admired for that sincerity...

But that will never happen.

Bodybuilding equipment.

If they charge for the amenities that the subsidized tenants could then buy, it will often affect whether or not they qualify for the cheaper rent or not. They calculate it based on what your income is and what portion is for rent, utilities, groceries, etc. You then pay whatever the percentage is of your budget for housing. If you had the disposable income to pay for the amenities yourself your subsidy would be adjusted to make you pay more for the apartment or even lose the subsidy. At least that's how it works here.

The apartment complex I was living in had subsidized renters and they weren't allowed to have pets or access to the amenities either. If we, paying our full share, wanted to use the gym and pool we had to pay $40 a month for an access card. Pets were an extra yearly deposit on the lease plus a monthly fee ($200 a year for a dog and up to $50 a month depending on size of dog; cats were $15 a month plus the $200 deposit). They didn't allow those with subsidies to purchase the amenities. The way I see it is they couldn't afford to pay their own rent so why are they able to purchase luxuries while someone else pays for their necessities?

The apartment complex I was living in had subsidized renters and they weren't allowed to have pets or access to the amenities either.

Toll charges for special amenities are reasonable. Debarring pets for aught but concerns about nuisance problems is not. If the impecunious are willing and able to pay for their pet food and veterinary services, they should be permitted a pet unless the character of the space set aside for subsidized tenants makes it inadvisable or unless the landlord elects not to have pets as tenants. Of course, that sort of thing is not a matter for city ordinances to address. City ordinances properly address only externalities derived from keeping pets.

To clarify, should be permitted a pet if they pay the pet tolls the other tenants do.

Isn't the simple solution just that you should be able to pay for access to these things?

In my NYC building there's parking and storage, but you have to pay extra for them. I don't need them, so I don't pay. There are plenty of building owned gyms that ask for reasonable membership dues.

The door thing is kind of a slap in the face though.

What if the gym, spa and rooftop bar had opened as a private business(es) instead of building amenities -- would they still expect to get it for free?

Maybe that is what they should do -- give a severe discount for full price tenants and get one outside person to be a member.

Subsidized tenants don't the discount.

Pets cause extra wear and tear on the apartment, so it makes sense to have a fee for them.

It's worth considering what "bad PR" is these days.

A howling tweet-storm of condemnation is on tap, available to be pointed now here, now there, at targets selected by whom exactly doesn't matter. Or maybe it does. The power is real, who wields it?

Livelihoods have been crushed for unpopular views. Preemptive surrender never looked so good.

Caution argues for surrender. History suggests that appeasement is not a long term solution. If forced to bow to the power of the mob never deceive yourself that you're doing anything else.

"These weasels sincerely think they're buying their way into Heaven on someone else's dime... "

I've heard Reynolds say the same thing a different way: We're trying to bribe/appease them into buying into the middle-class culture, with all of the responsibility that that entails, by giving them the trappings of a middle class lifestyle. Of course, we can see all around us that it isn't working.

I've heard Reynolds say the same thing a different way: We're trying to bribe/appease them into buying into the middle-class culture, with all of the responsibility that that entails, by giving them the trappings of a middle class lifestyle. ~ Posted by: Cousin Dave at May 19, 2014 12:29 PM

Unless we inculcate into them the hard work, delayed gratification, and personal responsibility involved in getting and keeping that lifestyle, we're doing them no favors.

I learned the futility of this firsthand.

My wife's nephew stayed with us for a while - rent free - because his only other option was homelessness after his own brothers kicked him out. That plea worked on us then, but no longer works on us.

He seemed to believe that since we had money, it was no big deal for us to help him out with gas money, movie money, etc. while he spent his time at the gym or playing basketball with his friends.

He didn't seem to understand that the meals he ate, the water he showered with, the air conditioning in the summer, etc. cost us real money.

He saw me get up every morning at 6:00 am and leave for work, never seeming to make the connection that I was doing that to put roof over my (and my wife's) heads and food on our plates and not because I enjoyed it. He never seemed to grasp that it was real work and not sitting around playing computer games for eight hours a day (I guess he thought I had a "good" job because I was lucky).

He would get a low-level job (all he qualified for as a high school dropout) and then quit when it became real work or inconvenient. Then, he'd spend a few weeks or months unemployed (not qualifying for unemployment since he quit).

He was surprised and upset when I told him he had to move out, sure that he did nothing to warrant an eviction or any hostility on our part.

Letting him live a middle class lifestyle didn't make a dent in his sense of entitlement or spur him toward any sort of middle class mind-set (saving money, delaying gratification, getting an education or a skill set, etc.).

I had tried to teach him that even the lowest job is a starting point and that it can be a springboard to greater things if one takes advantage of the opportunities presented.

He never seemed to grasp that getting and keeping a "good job" comes from studying, increasing one's skill set, and putting up with the frustration, petty politics, and drama that inevitably go with putting individuals together in a confined environment for eight hours a day to do tasks they would not normally do.

Last I heard, he's living off a girlfriend (he never seems to lack for girlfriends who will support him) who gets child support from the government because her baby-daddy is always broke or in jail.

Bodybuilding equipment.

Bodybuilding equipment.

Posted by: Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at May 19, 2014 3:49 PM

Next up, Scholarship students at both public and private universities will be able to attend class, and participate in the sport they were recruited for (if any) but will not have the use, of the pool, the climbing wall, the student union, or free admittance to games.....or the bike rack, or a parking pass. :-)

Those amenities are reserved for students with parents who are paying the full inflated list price for a crappy third rate education.

This is New York where they just elected a socialist mayor - so, of course, they think they are entitled to it without having to pay for it.

"Jerry did the reading and immediately detected the core issue:

> their construction was financed on
> the back of the taxpayer."

This, this. The taxpayer should be able to use all those amenities, not even just the people who live there.

Remove this kind of government crap from the equation, and we wouldn't even have to have this discussion.

The Daily News did this story, with almost the same photo, in February. Why is the NYT doing it now?
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/uptown/rent-stabilized-tenants-booted-fancy-roof-article-1.1706974

Conan, while I sympathize to some extent, you kind of lost me with the "gas money, movie money..." Why are you supplying funds (and do you really that he was spending this money for it's intended purpose?) for what amounts to luxury items for someone who doesn't work?

As you undoubtedly realize now, you were contributing to your nephew's (yes, he's your nephew, too, not just your wife's) sense of entitlement.

Crid: Bodybuilding equipment.

Your needle's stuck, Cridsy. Not sure what point you're trying to make. But perhaps you're under some pressure. Your second post in this thread was a lofty, incomprehensible mess.

Are you suggesting that it would be petty to deny someone the amenity of "bodybuilding equipment" because they lack the means to pay for it, because "bodybuilding equipment" just isn't all that important?

Au contraire, that's all the more reason that the moochers shouldn't care about it. A gym membership is a luxury item. If you can't afford to pay your own rent without a subsidy, why are you even concerned about purchasing a gym membership. Someone's sense of priorities are massively fucked if they're subsidized but worrying about the right to use a gym.

Isab, your skill at debate leaves a lot to be desired. Granted, there are many posters on this forum I could say that about, but you're the only one who professes to be a lawyer. A lawyer who sucks at debate? I certainly hope, for the sake of your clients, that you're not a trial lawyer.

Scholarships, for one thing, are not always extended by the college. Most of them come from private agencies who wish to reward students (for whatever reason) with financial assistance. Even scholarships extended by the college are not always funded by the college.

But subsidies for rent come from the government, and we all pay for them.

Athletic scholarships do give payback of sorts for the school, since athletic events sell tickets, have sponsors for televised games, etc.

A good athlete on scholarship will produce more money for the school that any student who just pays the tuition. And this surplus should, in theory, help keep the tuition lower for the other students.

Scholarships are given because the school, one way or another, anticipates a greater return.

Where's the government's kickback for subsidizing rent?

Duh.

I should have worded my comments better or differently. Basically, if you can afford to pay for all the luxuries of the gym, pool, pets, etc., then you should be able to pay your own rent first. That would be like me taking money to pay my utility bills but then going out and buying a new Coach purse because I had extra money by someone else paying for my necessities.

@Patrick, Debate skills are overrated. Drama and table pounding don't overcome basic faulty arguments.

It is clear you have no understanding of the amount of federal and state taxpayer money subsidizing tuition and scholarships at almost every college.

My analogy was a good one. Your failure to understand it, and your default to an ad hominem attack, does not bolster your pathetic arguments.

There are many lawyers, and others with first class educations, who post on this board. You are not one of them.

Careful Isab, he might start "ignoring" you

So the upshot of the discussion for me is, it reinforces my perception that living in New York is a lot like living in a town that's controlled by organized crime. Which, in a way, it is.

> their construction was financed on
> the back of the taxpayer."

I'm sorry, but I have to call bullshit on that one. The only mentions in the article are of "tax credits" and "public financing." The latter isn't free, they're going to have to pay it back, and likely it has to be done that way these days due to onerous rules that banks can't work with anymore. The politicians likely set up the rules to make it this way so that they have even more sway over what can and can't be done in any development.

The tax credits are NOT on the backs of taxpayers. I'm sorry, but taking less from someone is not a cost.

I've gotten a pretty good view into a lot of the crap required to do development these days after serving on the board for my neighborhood planning group for 8 years. This is in San Diego, CA, but I'm betting that NY, NY is, if anything, even worse.

The article talks about said tax credits as due to a choice. IME said "choice" is as follows:
1. You build the "affordable housing" units on site.
2. You pay a huge tax/fine that's supposed to go towards said housing elsewhere.
3. Your project is denied. Often well into the process after $millions has been spent.

That's really not a choice at all. I also saw that most of the left-wing people (most of the board members, save a few of us, were pretty left-wing, enjoying trying to squeeze every penny out of developers they could) think even the huge hurdles that have to be overcome aren't enough. A direct quote in one meeting was, "I noticed that developers almost always opt for the fee vs having affordable housing on site. That tells me the fee is far too low." I'd bet the fee in Manhattan is crazy high, and that's the only reason these places keep those units on site (or the previously mentioned financing only happens if they choose this route).

Of course, when possible, most developers would rather pay a fee, given the choice, and keep those units elsewhere. Nobody wants people living next to them that aren't paying similar rates, because those people are far more likely to not take care of their place and lower the value of the entire area.

What really drives me crazy about things like housing costs are the blinders that so many nanny-staters have on. They put all kinds of rules in place (you should see the things that companies have to do for years before they even break ground: Environmental impact studies, traffic studies, soil studies, plans submitted with changes required again and again, anyone can claim a study isn't right and require legal fighting to prove it is, Development Impact Fees, requirements to build nearby park areas or other public places, etc). Then these same people see the huge cost of housing and decide that, "Something must be done!" They react with things like "affordable housing" rules that only serve to drive up the cost for everyone save the few lottery winners (thereby often essentially buying votes), and the cycle continues.

"Affordable housing" is one of the most loaded phrases in politics today, and you know when a politician starts spouting it, that they're really going to look for more ways to squeeze the responsible, tax paying citizen even more.

you should see the things that companies have to do for years before they even break ground: Environmental impact studies, traffic studies, soil studies, plans submitted with changes required again and again, anyone can claim a study isn't right and require legal fighting to prove it is, Development Impact Fees

I do not care for the professional preventers any more than you do, but real estate development does have some externalities which need to be addressed before you build, and these would include the effect of the development on the use of common property and public works (e.g. public thoroughfares, views, hydrological systems, ambient odors, and the sewer and drainage system).

"does have some externalities which need to be addressed before you build, and these would include the effect of the development on the use of common property and public works "

Yeah, but a lot of the time, the work is redundant -- either to existing zoning rules, or to similar work that has already been performed. Except for very large works, or works for which a zoning variance is proposed. If you are complying with existing zoning, and your project is similar to existing ones in the same area, you should not be forced to jump through a bunch of hoops to prove, Minority Report-style, that you don't intend to break the law. As for the environmental impact stuff, a lot of the time it winds up being identical to a previous study. But there's still years and years of hoop-jumping to do, reams of paper to file, and gatekeepers who have to be paid off.

One of the things I'd do if I were President would be to order the completion of a National Environmental Impact Study. It would be a cost up front, but once it was done, there would be little need for future studies -- anyone proposing a project could simply refer to the existing study for that area.

I would not doubt the specific applications of attending to foreseeable externalities are ill-conceived. Just saying that a regulatory architecture of some sort is justifiable here. Dictating the price of rental housing or the portfolio of amenities appended to it is not justified.