"Poor Door"-- What kind of fuckery is this?!

[zelda25]

City-sanctioned separate building entrances for affordable housing renters? I've never heard of this foolishness 

‘Poor door’ divides haves, have-nots


By Jennifer Peltz Associated Press


NEW YORK — One new Manhattan skyscraper will greet residents of pricey condos with a lobby in front, while renters of affordable apartments that got the developer government incentives must use a separate side entrance
 — a so-called “poor door.”


In another apartment house, rent-regulated residents can’t even pay to use a new gym that’s free to their market-rate neighbors. Other buildings have added playrooms and roof decks off-limits to rent-stabilized tenants.


New York is a city where the rich and relatively poor have long lived side by side, with who pays what often a closely held, widely varying secret. But a recent spate of buildings with separate amenities for the haves and have-nots is hurling that question out in the open, provoking an uncomfortable debate over equality, economics and the tightness of the social fabric.


“Nobody treats me like a second-class citizen in my own home,” says Jean Green Dorsey, who filed a complaint with the city Human Rights Commission this spring over her Manhattan building’s fitness center. She and fellow rent-stabilized tenants aren’t allowed to enter it despite a willingness to pay afee; market-rate renters use it gratis.


Developers say they’re motivated by business, not bias, and reserving some prime features for higher-paying residents is the price of having affordable housing in hot neighborhoods.


But officials are broaching proposals to force more inclusiveness, troubled by seeing landlords use affordable-housing tax and zoning breaks to create what critics view as a caste system.


In a city where Mayor Bill de Blasio was elected last year on pledges to increase affordable housing and shrink income inequality, an outcry erupted after his housing department signed off last month on the affordable bona fides of the Manhattan “poor door” building; the project was approved and started construction before de Blasio took office. Its creator, Extell Development Co., declined to comment.


“We believe there should be a much more equal approach to all residents,” said de Blasio, who as a councilman voted for the 2009 zoning code change that allowed such arrangements, but says the “nuances” of different doors weren’t evident then.


His administration is taking a sweeping look at affordable housing programs.


Meanwhile, Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer and other officials are clamoring to change the zoning code to end separate-door layouts. State Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal wants to require landlords to offer amenities to all tenants, with provisions for reasonable fees. Councilmen Mark Levine and Corey Johnson are drafting a proposal to add “class of renter” to the city’s anti-discrimination laws.

[Velar Fricative]

We discussed this maybe about a month ago and it was also discussed on the Money Matters board where there was more support for the poor door. Can't let the poors access the good stuff like fancy gyms and fancy cocaine.

[elleblue]

Aug 18, 2014 10:18:42 GMT -5 Velar Fricative said:

We discussed this maybe about a month ago and it was also discussed on the Money Matters board where there was more support for the poor door. Can't let the poors access the good stuff like fancy gyms and fancy cocaine.

Are you serious? Wtf MM peeps? 

[Deleted]

Aug 18, 2014 10:18:42 GMT -5 Velar Fricative said:

We discussed this maybe about a month ago and it was also discussed on the Money Matters board where there was more support for the poor door. Can't let the poors access the good stuff like fancy gyms and fancy cocaine.

LOLOLOLOL at "fancy cocaine"

[Deleted]

Aug 18, 2014 12:40:06 GMT -5 elleblue said:

Aug 18, 2014 10:18:42 GMT -5 Velar Fricative said:

We discussed this maybe about a month ago and it was also discussed on the Money Matters board where there was more support for the poor door. Can't let the poors access the good stuff like fancy gyms and fancy cocaine.

Are you serious? Wtf MM peeps? 

I see it as two separate developments on one lot. If they don't do the "poor door", they'll just scrap the low income housing altogether. It makes quite a bit of sense and is pretty win/win overall.

I get the knee jerk "not right" reaction, but it really didn't pan out for me when I thought it through. There are plenty of buildings I can not access in my city. I lived in plenty of shitty apartments. This isn't a big deal.

[overture]

Aug 18, 2014 13:48:18 GMT -5 @tokenhoser said:

Aug 18, 2014 12:40:06 GMT -5 elleblue said:

Are you serious? Wtf MM peeps? 

 If they don't do the "poor door", they'll just scrap the low income housing altogether.

[citation needed]

[Deleted]

Aug 18, 2014 13:55:07 GMT -5 overture said:

Aug 18, 2014 13:48:18 GMT -5 @tokenhoser said:

 If they don't do the "poor door", they'll just scrap the low income housing altogether.

[citation needed]

The rest of the block on that street. Do you think they'll scrap the low-income suites or the 27 million dollar condos?

[elleblue]

Aug 18, 2014 13:48:18 GMT -5 @tokenhoser said:

Aug 18, 2014 12:40:06 GMT -5 elleblue said:

Are you serious? Wtf MM peeps? 

I see it as two separate developments on one lot. If they don't do the "poor door", they'll just scrap the low income housing altogether. It makes quite a bit of sense and is pretty win/win overall.

I get the knee jerk "not right" reaction, but it really didn't pan out for me when I thought it through. There are plenty of buildings I can not access in my city. I lived in plenty of shitty apartments. This isn't a big deal.

That's no justification imho. But obviously we won't agree on this as you don't see how it's a big deal. 

[blink]

Aug 18, 2014 13:48:18 GMT -5 @tokenhoser said:

Aug 18, 2014 12:40:06 GMT -5 elleblue said:

Are you serious? Wtf MM peeps? 

I see it as two separate developments on one lot. If they don't do the "poor door", they'll just scrap the low income housing altogether. It makes quite a bit of sense and is pretty win/win overall.

I get the knee jerk "not right" reaction, but it really didn't pan out for me when I thought it through. There are plenty of buildings I can not access in my city. I lived in plenty of shitty apartments. This isn't a big deal.

I thought the low-income housing allowed them take up a larger footprint, which was beneficial to the luxury apartments as well.

[Deleted]

Aug 18, 2014 14:00:42 GMT -5 blink said:

Aug 18, 2014 13:48:18 GMT -5 @tokenhoser said:

I see it as two separate developments on one lot. If they don't do the "poor door", they'll just scrap the low income housing altogether. It makes quite a bit of sense and is pretty win/win overall.

I get the knee jerk "not right" reaction, but it really didn't pan out for me when I thought it through. There are plenty of buildings I can not access in my city. I lived in plenty of shitty apartments. This isn't a big deal.

I thought the low-income housing allowed them take up a larger footprint, which was beneficial to the luxury apartments as well.

It's mostly about the massive tax incentives, I think. They're not doing it to better the 'hood and help the poor, that's for sure.

There are lots of "rich only" doors around there. Tons. I guess they only offend if you let some of the maids and nannies live nearby?

[overture]

How were these buildings financed? It's bullshit in any event, but if these developers were part of the 80/20 program, this is some serious bullshit that needs legal clarification.

[overture]

Aug 18, 2014 14:03:49 GMT -5 @tokenhoser said:

Aug 18, 2014 14:00:42 GMT -5 blink said:

I thought the low-income housing allowed them take up a larger footprint, which was beneficial to the luxury apartments as well.

It's mostly about the massive tax incentives, I think. They're not doing it to better the 'hood and help the poor, that's for sure.

There are lots of "rich only" doors around there. Tons. I guess they only offend if you let some of the maids and nannies live nearby?

So you see no problem with a developer being allowed to reduce their building costs on the state's dime by building a separate entrance for the poors?

[Deleted]

Aug 18, 2014 14:13:21 GMT -5 overture said:

Aug 18, 2014 14:03:49 GMT -5 @tokenhoser said:

It's mostly about the massive tax incentives, I think. They're not doing it to better the 'hood and help the poor, that's for sure.

There are lots of "rich only" doors around there. Tons. I guess they only offend if you let some of the maids and nannies live nearby?

So you see no problem with a developer being allowed to reduce their building costs on the state's dime by building a separate entrance for the poors?

not really. the state wants units available. units will be available. that they don't come with granite countertops and access to the spa seems kind of like... common sense? People buying $27M condos don't want to mingle with regular people, unless said regular person is an employee.

[overture]

I'd be pissed if I paid $27 million for a condo with fucking granite countertops. That shit is for the pleebs.

[zelda25]

Since it's easy enough to make certain amenities available to certain people (members of the HOA, for instance) without having separate building entrances for owners vs. renters AND because they won't allow renters to use any of those amenities even if they pay for them, it seems pretty clear that these are instances of well-to-dos preferring to pretend that the unwashed poors don't live so close to them.

[overture]

You might see it as two separate developments on one lot, but that's not what they are. They are, by definition, a single development. That's how they got the funding.

[downtoearth]

I saw this on Colbert or Daily Show, but wondered then and now who lives in the poor side - actual Section 8 housing or just apartments that are too expensive for most people, but not $27mil?

[Deleted]

So explain to me why this is really, really bad. I don't see it. Or at least... I don't see how it's any more bad than every other ritzy building in the neighbourhood.

[elleblue]

Aug 18, 2014 14:16:03 GMT -5 @tokenhoser said:

Aug 18, 2014 14:13:21 GMT -5 overture said:

So you see no problem with a developer being allowed to reduce their building costs on the state's dime by building a separate entrance for the poors?

not really. the state wants units available. units will be available. that they don't come with granite countertops and access to the spa seems kind of like... common sense? People buying $27M condos don't want to mingle with regular people, unless said regular person is an employee.

But if they live in the same building, shouldn't they? 

[secretlyevil]

This is going to need popcorn and wine but I'm at work. Dammit!

[Deleted]

Aug 18, 2014 14:22:48 GMT -5 elleblue said:

Aug 18, 2014 14:16:03 GMT -5 @tokenhoser said:

not really. the state wants units available. units will be available. that they don't come with granite countertops and access to the spa seems kind of like... common sense? People buying $27M condos don't want to mingle with regular people, unless said regular person is an employee.

But if they live in the same building, shouldn't they? 

In a perfect communist utopia, maybe.

In reality, we all cluster to our own SES, don't we?

[overture]

That's not a mindset that the state should be encouraging through housing finance dollars.

[elleblue]

Aug 18, 2014 14:22:03 GMT -5 @tokenhoser said:

So explain to me why this is really, really bad. I don't see it. Or at least... I don't see how it's any more bad than every other ritzy building in the neighbourhood.

So I imagine other ritzy buildings have doormen, who only allow residents and domestic employees of residents access to the building, right? So in that way, yes, the unwashed masses are kept from these luxury apartment buildings. 

But if there are people who actually living in those buildings, I don't think it's right that they have only have access through a different door. It's really just another form of separate but equal and we all know that's not how things go. 

[downtoearth]

Aug 18, 2014 14:22:03 GMT -5 @tokenhoser said:

So explain to me why this is really, really bad. I don't see it. Or at least... I don't see how it's any more bad than every other ritzy building in the neighbourhood.

I think this is the crux of the argument... they are using these mixed-use zoning laws, which were put in place to not develop entire neighborhoods into rich-central and price the majority of the people from living in the City as jokes.  It's like, well, we put in affordable rental housing (in the back where the views aren't worthy of anything except the trash containers and alley), so aren't we great?  Oh and we're also not rent-controlled, so we'll make a ton of money off apt sales on the rich side, but over time, we'll be able to keep providing amenities from the steady money from the rental side.  It's a win/win for the rich/developers, but it's just another way to pay a lot of money to live in an urban area that was once more affordable for most everyone else. 

From the OP article...

"Developers say they’re motivated by business, not bias, and reserving some prime features for higher-paying residents is the price of having affordable housing in hot neighborhoods.

But officials are broaching proposals to force more inclusiveness, troubled by seeing landlords use affordable-housing tax and zoning breaks to create what critics view as a caste system.

 In a city where Mayor Bill de Blasio was elected last year on pledges to increase affordable housing and shrink income inequality, an outcry erupted after his housing department signed off last month on the affordable bona fides of the Manhattan “poor door” building; the project was approved and started construction before de Blasio took office. Its creator, Extell Development Co., declined to comment."

[Deleted]

It is how things with money go, though. It's exactly how things with money go.

[downtoearth]

Aug 18, 2014 14:28:30 GMT -5 @tokenhoser said:

It is how things with money go, though. It's exactly how things with money go.

The more you have, the more you can gentrify whole areas and take on (aka pay for/buy) politics that support your point of view and ability to take more?

[overture]

Aug 18, 2014 14:22:02 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

I saw this on Colbert or Daily Show, but wondered then and now who lives in the poor side - actual Section 8 housing or just apartments that are too expensive for most people, but not $27mil?

If this is 80/20 program housing, it's not section 8.  At least 20% of the units are can't be more than 30% of the income of a household earning 50% or less of the area's median income.  I believe the actual tenants are chosen by lottery.

[elleblue]

Aug 18, 2014 14:25:30 GMT -5 @tokenhoser said:

Aug 18, 2014 14:22:48 GMT -5 elleblue said:

But if they live in the same building, shouldn't they? 

In a perfect communist utopia, maybe.

In reality, we all cluster to our own SES, don't we?

Lolz. I think that's the first time I've ever seen those words paired together. 

Really what it comes down to is if the builders are so concerned that wealthy residents won't want to mix with those who need low income housing, they shouldn't accept the gov't incentives for doing so and keep it luxury only. 

[Deleted]

How long until the MMers return to their coke board?

[Deleted]

Aug 18, 2014 14:22:02 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

I saw this on Colbert or Daily Show, but wondered then and now who lives in the poor side - actual Section 8 housing or just apartments that are too expensive for most people, but not $27mil?

The article I read said you could make up to $64k to live in those units. I was also under the impression is was a purchase, not a rental.