Can someone define what "affordable" housing is supposed to be?

[WNYresident]

To actually answer the question, I think it's defined by a formula of some sort, i.e. where the housing expense is X% (say 30%) of the Gross Monthly Income of a person who makes X% (say 80%) of the median income in the area.

In makes sense in a city like NYC, where housing costs are through the roof, and the middle class have to spend a ridiculous amount of their income on rent (yes, rent is too damn high!), but, why it's needed in Buffalo - where you can rent a decent apartment for peanuts - is beyond me.

HOLY MOLEY you SEE what i'm talking about.

I could see it in NYC but not really. If you can't afford to live "in" the city then you just don't live there. Unless I'm missing your point of where rent controlled apartments are in NYC.

I think hud is just another patronage pit that needs to go. I can see helping the very elderly, handicapped and kids... but beyond that why would you subsidize moderate income people? Specially when you have 100's and I mean hundreds of properties to work with in our community.

If you are going to invest 60,000,000 do it with existing housing responsibility.

[nogods]

As for your example of valuation, if you are a big enough moron (and I am pretty sure you are) to live somewhere that has a 100% disparity between home valuations and does not have a CC&R, that is your problem.

You need to read the example slowly and carefully, they way a moron reads a picture book.

The only disparity in the two houses is the actual FMV of the houses, which is the base of the real property tax. A 25/1000 tax levy on a house with a FMV of 100k results in a 2500 tax. a 25/1000 tax levy on a house with a FMV of 200K results in a tax levy of 5000, that is, for the math challenged like you, twice the amount of tax without receiving twice the amount of government.

There is no legal disparity between the two assessments - they are both assessed at their respective FMV.

[nogods]

HOLY MOLEY you SEE what i'm talking about.

I could see it in NYC but not really. If you can't afford to live "in" the city then you just don't live there. Unless I'm missing your point of where rent controlled apartments are in NYC.

I think hud is just another patronage pit that needs to go. I can see helping the very elderly, handicapped and kids... but beyond that why would you subsidize moderate income people? Specially when you have 100's and I mean hundreds of properties to work with in our community.

If you are going to invest 60,000,000 do it with existing housing responsibility.

Are you in favor of eliminating the mortgage interest and real property tax deductions on federal income tax returns?

Those are just what economists (and the US Treasury) refer to as "tax expenditures", i.e., money "spent" by government by not collecting it because of a gratuitous deduction allowed by the tax law.

Everyone who pays more income tax than a person using such deductions to pay less tax is subsidizing the housing of the later.

[Linda_D]

Are you in favor of eliminating the mortgage interest and real property tax deductions on federal income tax returns?

Those are just what economists (and the US Treasury) refer to as "tax expenditures", i.e., money "spent" by government by not collecting it because of a gratuitous deduction allowed by the tax law.

Everyone who pays more income tax than a person using such deductions to pay less tax is subsidizing the housing of the later.

Oh, but those aren't subsidies! They're ... umm ... umm ... they're ... umm ... well, subsidies only go to undeserving low income folks who want to live in decent housing with such amenities as central heating and safe wiring and indoor plumbing! Hard-working people who can afford mortgages NEVER GET SUBSIDIES!!!!

[Dougles]

Are you in favor of eliminating the mortgage interest and real property tax deductions on federal income tax returns?

Those are just what economists (and the US Treasury) refer to as "tax expenditures", i.e., money "spent" by government by not collecting it because of a gratuitous deduction allowed by the tax law.

Everyone who pays more income tax than a person using such deductions to pay less tax is subsidizing the housing of the later.

Did you forget that NYS and many others allow you to write off your rent to a limit?

The only thing that the mortgage interest deducaiton did for this nation was to provide people a dumb ass reason to get a 30yr loan instead of a 15 or 20 year loan...

Only a fool would think that spending a dollar on interest to save $.25 on taxes is a smart thing.

I would be for getting rid of all deducations (I believe it has been republicans that have been pushing for a flat tax, which does exaclty that).

Their are a lot of bull **** deducations, like kids, interest, other taxes (I do agree that you shouldn't be taxed twice on the same income) and many others.


It's all a big circle to no where!

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

You need to read the example slowly and carefully, they way a moron reads a picture book.

The only disparity in the two houses is the actual FMV of the houses, which is the base of the real property tax. A 25/1000 tax levy on a house with a FMV of 100k results in a 2500 tax. a 25/1000 tax levy on a house with a FMV of 200K results in a tax levy of 5000, that is, for the math challenged like you, twice the amount of tax without receiving twice the amount of government.

There is no legal disparity between the two assessments - they are both assessed at their respective FMV.

I never said:

• There was not a disparity between the FMV of the two houses.
• That the person living in the more expensive house does not pay more

What I did say was:

• Anyone who lives in an area where there is a 100% swing between neighbors is a fool.

Owning a home is not a right and it is a risk. A homeowner can protect themselves by living in areas with less risk.


You feel that a difference in property taxes = subsidized housing. While I see where you are going with that and it is a pretty broad stroke you are using. It is also not the correct use of the term, which is common for morons.

Say you have a high end community that does not have any housing that residents get assistance to live there. While there may be a disparity between a $1M home and a $750k home around the corner, both homeowners are living there by choice. Now if the government was helping either resident live there, that would be one thing. But that is not the case. Both owners made the choice to move there and continue to make the choice to stay.

One more thing, and I am using a broad stroke as well, is your comment that someone who pays more in property taxes does not get more in services. While I can agree with that logic, it has flaws.

For example, say a new subdivision is created on 420 acres. That new subdivision is made up of 420 - 1acre lots and has 2 miles of roads. Next to that subdivision you have another 420 acres and in that subdivision you have 2 miles of roads with 840 homes on a .5 acre lot.

Using your 25/1000 tax levy...

420 in the first development at $500k per house is 5.25M in property taxes.

840 homes in the second development at $300k is $6.3M in property taxes.

So using your logic, the first development is 'subsidizing' the second right? After all, the $500k homes are paying more in taxes than the $300k homes.

What if the second development is filled with garden homes mostly used by empty nesters and the first is filled with all single families? Subdivision A has 600 kids in the school system and subdivision B has just 300. How does your math work out then?

What about plowing. Both have 2 miles of roads to plow. If it costs the town $10k per year per mile, the cost is the same. However, Subdivision A needs to $47.6 per house to cover the cost. Subdivision B needs to pay $23.8.

Your methodology only works if you use a specific example with a massive disparity between the two similar properties. This disparity rarely exists, at least in the neighborhoods that I am familiar with. Maybe it is different in your trailer park but I can't speak to that.

[DomesticatedFeminist]

I would think newer houses are what is available for affordable housing because utilities cost are lower.

[Dougles]

I would think newer houses are what is available for affordable housing because utilities cost are lower.

But your going to spend $160K upfront to save $150 a month in bills VS buying a 50K house and spending a little more.

What the City should use it's money is to update these vacant houses and sell them. Many were "free" and by puting 50 to 60K (and creating a lot of green jobs) you can sell them for 80K and have them the same quality as those 160K houses.

[WNYresident]

I would think newer houses are what is available for affordable housing because utilities cost are lower.

You have to stop saying affordable housing. It's not affordable is someone else is paying for it. I think it's a farce when politicians make that statement.

If someone else has to pay for it for someone else it's not affordable in the first place.

[WNYresident]

But your going to spend $160K upfront to save $150 a month in bills VS buying a 50K house and spending a little more.

What the City should use it's money is to update these vacant houses and sell them. Many were "free" and by puting 50 to 60K (and creating a lot of green jobs) you can sell them for 80K and have them the same quality as those 160K houses.

You would actually start using HUD money to rebuild communities. Shuffliing people from one area to another is just shuffling people around at someone else's expense. I bet there is some developer chopping at the bit to get that 60,000,000 bucks. Can't blame them seeing they are human.

All I know is we have "Experts" that have been telling WNY what we should do or not do and look where we stand. Lot of wasted HUD money over the years with little to show for it.

So anyone know what "moderate" income you need to live in a $400,000 apartment?

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

But your going to spend $160K upfront to save $150 a month in bills VS buying a 50K house and spending a little more.

What the City should use it's money is to update these vacant houses and sell them. Many were "free" and by puting 50 to 60K (and creating a lot of green jobs) you can sell them for 80K and have them the same quality as those 160K houses.

I disagree.

For starters, most of the vacant housed are not worthy of restoration. Even if they were kept up over the years, the numbers do not work. They are also too sporadic in location and would not create a residual return that other developments would.

Secondly, even if the numbers did work on paper, you are talking about the government getting into the home restoration business. Something it is not built to do and would lead to massive cost increases.

I hate to say it but if you are going to be in the business of housing poor people, you need to try and do it as cost effectively as possible. All that is required is to provide safe and affordable housing. Right? So why does it have to be more than that.

As res asked, define what "affordable" housing is supposed to be?

The answer to me is two sided. Affordable to those who live there and as affordable for those who are paying for it to provide it. It is a two way road. A concept that is lost in areas like Buffalo.


Take for example my post in another thread that is an example of 'affordable housing' in San Diego.

The exterior of this building is NICE. Next door to it is a high end condo development. Because the building looks nice, has ground floor retail and underground parking, the neighborhood is not exposed to the same risks as a public complex like McCarley Gardens or Marine Drive.

The units, while being new and energy efficient do not come with the same luxuries as the market rate tower next door. The cost to build that tower was $90M or $393,013 per unit. Cheaper than what is being proposed as a construction cost for the McCarley Gardens residents.

The biggest difference is what Buffalo will build will not help and most likely hurt the neighborhood. Similar costs...different return.

The project in San Diego will place around 400 people on less than 1/2 acre. McCarley Gardens places less people on 14 acres. In other words, San Diego is looking for 800 people per acre, while Buffalo is placing 28 people per acre.

The difference in density = a different in return. When a business is looking to locate a new store, population density is one of the main metrics. Dry Cleaners, Drug Stores, Day Care and every other service provider that contributes to the tax base is more likely to move to a dense area.

You also lower the cost of government. Public transportation is easier when you have a dense population. Providing public safety, street maintenance and the like are also easier.

The only downside is the perception of 'rights' by those who are living in said housing. The right to have a front and back yard. The right to have a front porch. The right to have a driveway. All of the wants for people moving to the burbs are wants by people living in subsidized housing. But this does not mean those wants have to become a reality.

[300miles]

That makes sense but it's a bit of a tangent from the main issue Rez is talking about. In this case they are using the new housing to infill an existing neighborhood. In the sense of "rebuilding buffalo", that will do more to protect the erosion of the Fruit Belt than a high rise tower would. And a high rise will still cost a ridiculous amount of money more than just building a well-designed urban home or townhouse.

[300miles]

Just to help focus here... I think these are the two main questions that aren't being answered:

1. Why are the people in subsidized housing in the first place if they already make moderate incomes? Plenty of other people on moderate incomes live within their means in lower-cost homes, on their own dime. Why are we giving additional subsidies to those select families in the HUD homes?

2. Assuming they do deserve to be in a subsidized home, why are we paying $400,000 to relocate each family, when common sense would tell us we could spend about $100,000 to do the same thing individually? Why is it costing 4x more for HUD than if we put just them in market-rate homes?

[WNYresident]

Just to help focus here... I think these are the two main questions that aren't being answered:

1. Why are the people in subsidized housing in the first place if they already make moderate incomes. Plenty of other people on moderate incomes live within their means in lower-cost homes, on their own dime. Why are we giving additional subsidies to those select families in the HUD homes?

BINGO BINGO BINGO

2. Assuming they do deserve to be in a subsidized home, why are we paying $400,000 to relocate each family, when common sense would tell us we could spend about $100,000 to do the same thing individually? Why is it costing 4x more for HUD than if we put just them in market-rate homes?

BINGO BINGO BINGO


It's BULL$#@# at our expense. Unless these people are handicapped and can't fend for themselves, or elderly and can't fend for themselves why are we subsidizing them. This is the time to take 150 moderate income families and let them fill up some empty homes or apartments in buffalo.

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

That makes sense but it's a bit of a tangent from the main issue Rez is talking about. In this case they are using the new housing to infill an existing neighborhood. In the sense of "rebuilding buffalo", that will do more to protect the erosion of the Fruit Belt than a high rise tower would. And a high rise will still cost a ridiculous amount of money more than just building a well-designed urban home or townhouse.

Well even if they are trying to rebuild a neighborhood, they could still improve on what they are doing.

The townhouse below leaves a LOT of room for improvement. On that same lot, you could build 3-4 units if you removed the lawn and went up a floor or two. Create a park down the road if needed.

The amt of money they are going to sink into the High Street commercial district is crazy. I know it is going to be spent, so at the very least they should try and put more people surrounding that area.

Sometimes the difference between survival and closing for a small business is just 1-2 transactions per day. Having a denser neighborhood makes the opportunity for success for those businesses only greater.

It does not have to be 800 people but how about 100 v. 24?

This project does not 'fit in' with the existing houses, so that argument does not hold much water with me. So why not some 3 story units or 4 story units with live/work space on the fist floor?

All I am trying to say it should be done better.






This is a development around the corner from me. Deep three story townhomes and apartments with ground floor retail. Between every 2 units or so is a drive to secure parking behind the units.

I do not see this costing more to build. In fact, I think with the retail space, it would be cheaper in the long run as they would provide rent.