In my current employment as a surveyor and describer of all things real estate across the country, I happened upon a news item which has induced me to renew my complaints against “affordable housing.” As long time readers here may recall, I believe that the government should provide services and benefits for everyone, or at least for the less well off, while “affordable housing” is necessarily made available to the fortunate few, often those with connections. There are urban legends, for example, that those in certain unions and political clubs were tipped off in advance when the lists of subsidized Mitchell-Lama apartments came open, showed up at the right time, and snatched up all the units. Those rental apartments are now the subject of political controversy, as buildings constructed in the late 1970s gain the right to exit the program – and rent stabilization – as their subsidies expire. But there was another aspect of Mitchell Lama, limited equity coops, under which apartment buyers agree to resell at lower prices in exchange for tax breaks. These coops are also gaining the right to exit the program, and sell for more, but the windfall in this case would accrue to individual apartment owners, not landlords. Let the morality tale begin!
According to the Tribeca Tribune, residents of Southbridge Towers, a 1,651 unit limited equity co-op at which covers more than seven acres between Fulton and Frankfort Streets near the South Street Seaport “are inching their way towards the biggest decision in the complex’s 32-year history—and sparring at every turn. Should the development remain in the state-subsidized housing program that has provided the comfort of low monthly maintenance? Or should it be removed from the program, giving residents—many of whom bought into the complex for a few thousand dollars—the right to sell their apartments for what the market will bear?”
A couple of quotes summarize the difference of opinion among these people who, remember, have been subsidized by the rest of us for 32 years and benefited from cheap housing that more recent residents of this city can only dream of.
Representing the values of the “Greatest Generation,” an 87-year-old said “My husband and I lived here 32 years and as a result we’ve had a nice life because of it. And so has the whole community here. Why should we take it away from the youth that are coming up? There’s not enough affordable housing.”
Why indeed? But how many of today’s seniors care about the young, aside from their own children who often live elsewhere? According to another resident: “’Everything is better when you’re private,” said the woman, a recent widow who also would not give her name. She said she had owned an apartment in a private co-op and sold it when one became available at Southbridge, after nine years on the waiting list. She said she understands the importance of being able to cash in on the increased equity of an apartment. ‘Whatever money I got I give to my children now, before I die.’” Aha, a flipper!
Remember, as time goes on, members of the Greatest Generation die off, and members of the Greediest Generations replace them. No wonder the only forward looking thing the administration has done in Washington is propose an estate tax repeal. The Greatest Generation sought to build a better world for the children, but well-off people who came of age in the 1950s and 1960s, the Richest Generations, want to assure a future for their children, and only their own children, in a world their collective decisions have diminished.
The battle has turned fierce, dividing even couples. But I know how it will end. The way it always does. The beneficiaries of “affordable housing” will take the windfall. Sooner of later, they always do. “’I think people finally are getting tired of the [opposition’s] lies,’ Jared Brown, a Southbridge Rights leader and board member, told the crowd. ‘I think this is the first time we’ve had a real study with independent resources tell us what are in our best interests.’”
Ah yes, their best interests. It is worth noting that I am also a beneficiary of “affordable housing” concerns. My property taxes on my one family home are kept from exploding along with what more affluent (or more foolish and desperate) people are willing to pay for houses in my neighborhood. But if the bubble happens to be inflated when I sell, there is nothing stopping me from cashing in with a big profit, just like the Mitchell-Lama coop owners. I proposed a solution to that particular problem in a prior post here.
Worse, owners of 2- and 3-family homes have no obligation to keep their rental units affordable to their tenants in exchange for the city keeping their property taxes down. My solution would jack up my property taxes enormously in the short run, but I consider fairness in my interest in the long run. Who thinks about the long run these days?
Meanwhile, the battle of Southbridge Towers head for its conclusion. “The Southbridge board wants to hold a giant meeting where shareholders can question the author of the feasibility study, Stuart Saft. The problem is space. Even the 1,000-seat auditorium at nearby Pace University, where the board would like to hold the meeting, cannot accommodate even one person from each of the complex’s apartments. But if the mass meeting does take place? As one resident put it: ‘That should be something. That I’d like to see.’”
I suggest people go for the show, and see the hypocrisy of most non-poor beneficiaries of special deals. The true believers might win a round, but will lose in the long run. And besides, if things stay as they are who should be given the privilege of buying those units for so little money? Another flipper looking for a quick buck?