Sorry for the disappearance the last week or so!
When life grabs you by the arm, you have to run with it. So one of the excursions threw me an interesting question and gave me some insight.
The question was tackling a societal issue. Naturally, the first thought that came to mind was rent-stabilization, and the bigger term of rental and housing subsidies in New York City. I had finished reading the Gothamist article about the clever way of that luxury real estate developers were able to have taxpayers (people like you and me) foot the bill on a $100 million penthouse apartment and call it “affordable housing.”
A day later, Mayor De Blasio has his State of the City address, the main focus was on affordable housing. This is an issue I always wonder why it keeps getting put to the side. It seems that since this New York City, people are resigned to the idea that rent goes up and it is just easier to deal with it. But how are you supposed to deal with it? Why should you care?
You should care because a large chunk of renters in The City spend more than 30% of their income on rent—personal finance experts claimed that 20-25% of your income should go to rent. The fact that so many of us are at the 30+ per cent class means that we are rent burdened. And why should we be rent burdened? Why should a big chunk of your income go towards housing?
I was excited when Mayor De Blasio dedicated his second state of the city towards housing and genuine concern for the working class and poor. I downloaded a copy of his housing plan through 2025. While the details were vague on the plan itself, the New York Times has some of the numbers together:
Mr. de Blasio said that with $2.9 billion in state and federal money and more than $30 billion the city expects to attract in private funds, the projected investment to create and maintain affordable units would total more than $41.1 billion over 10 years. The city’s money would fund a host of housing initiatives, including programs that help landlords keep apartments under rent regulation.
The bold text also reminds me of the other side of the argument. Soon after the address, a
This is NOT what you think this is… BEWARE
random television commercial came on. It was on News 12 Brooklyn right after a news clip about the mayor’s SOTC. In the commercial, the argument was that rent control and rent stabilization basically encourages landlords to be slumlords and to support the notion for better alternatives when it comes to housing for all New Yorkers and then came the organization: the Rent Stabilization Association. Now of course, not being a sheeple, I had to rewind the commercial because how could an agency of with this name say something so opposite? And my ears weren’t playing tricks. So I did a little Googling.
Beware of the RSA! They are in fact a pro-landlord lobby! I was of course livid and disgusted by how this lobby uses moniker that would have you believe otherwise. Also on this website was a video from Prager University* about how rent control is actually bad for everyone especially the very people the subsidy is designed for.
*whom say on their About Page that there are “not an accredited academic institution” and they do not want to be! Thank God, I don’t care if their courses are free (as a Career Student, free is our favorite word but not so much here.
So to you reading this: Consider this the glove smacking me in the face and challenging me to a duel. This affects all of us, especially those that are working class, artists, young families, and the elderly.
Keep tabs on this blog as I continue to research and explain the basics of “affordable housing,” what it means for you, and what the hell is going down with that vote this coming June.
In the meantime, drop a line or comment about your take on affordable housing? It is a true issue or just a unicorn?
find me on Twitter: @laidbackandloud and tune in every Sunday to Thinking Out Loud, 3-4p and Laidback Wednesdays, Wednesday 1-2p.
Thinking Out Loud 