[quote=NeedAHouse]I'm not sure you understand the meaning of "subsidized housing". It is housing whose cost is subsidized. Your idea was that since the housing has become too expensive, move them to other housing that is too expensive and give them a subsidy. Why move them in the first place?

Their property tax goes up the proverbial $800 a year. What do you think that probably translates to their house value?

I lived in Jersey and my property tax went up from 2600 to 3800 in three years for no change in quality of life.

When you are a house owner, isn't it assumed that your property taxes will probably go up over time? Doesn't that go with the terrirtory of owning a home?

Line up 10 people on the street and ask them "if your property tax went from $200 to $1000 a year, but the worth of your home went from $20,000 to $100,000, would you be happy"? What do you think the percentage of people be that are happy with that?

Let's take a look at it in a different light.

You drive some old beat up car. Let's say an 88 Volkswagen. You do just enough to keep it running to get you to work. It isn't pretty. You have to deal with breaking down periodically, but you don't want to have to get a car payment for a new one and have to pay full coverage insurance.

Then one day someone stops at your door and says "You won a brand new Toyota Prius!" What do you do? Do you say "no thanks. I don't want to have full coverage auto insurance, so I don't want the car at all."

Of course not. You either:
1) Take the car and find a way to pay for the auto insurance because you still have the same car payment as before (in this case $0) and realize that for the extra money a month, you quality of life is better by having something safer?

or

2) You sell the new car and keep driving a broken down car, but you are $20,000 richer?


Do you see the correlation? Is there something I am viewing incorrectly?

The high rise projects didn't work for a number of reasons. Most of them were built in a garden style fashion with huge expanses of open land that were left unwatched and therefore became dangerous. Most of them cut off the main city grid and became neighborhoods of their own. Jane Jacobs talks about the problems of projects in depth.

I personally think apartment buildings could work if done in the right way. Maybe if set up as condo's instead rentals. Maybe if they were integrated into existing neighborhoods mixing up the socio economic classes and not seperating them into seperate garden communities breaking them off from the rest of the city. I don't see why it couldn't work.

House value isn't realized until you sell. One option is to mortgage, but if you have crappy credit, or no credit history, not much help there.

No idea, and what's the point of guessing? The point I was making is that people have LEGITIMATE concerns. Taking a poll and telling them they're in the minority doesn't address those concerns.

Your car analogy is ignoring a lot of aspects of finance and is not really applicable. But, let's assume it is for a second....lots and lots of people turn down the prizes they win on game shows once they find out they have to pay tax on it. Your analogy proposes giving someone "a prize" if they pony up some cash that is a fraction of the value of the prize. There are many people that would turn that down, and rightfully so. There's more to value than dollars.

That's my point. Adam was proposing taking people who are fine with where they lived but are forced out due to rising taxes, concentrating them in an apartment development that is more expensive than their old place was pre-tax-increase, and subsidizing them. I'm just trying to figure out why you would do all that instead of just taking measures to limit their tax increase, which is another form of subsidy? What's the advantage? Other than the obvious that their immediate neighbors don't want poor people holding their value down.

The discussion started with the claim that they should be grateful they are getting an improved quality of life in their neighborhood. How do they benefit from that if they are moved to the projects?

there is no remedy for this problem. the only people who benefit from this are those with tax abatements. the city has agreed to give new construction a ten year tax abatement and raise the taxes of those in the hood because there is new construction in their neighborhood, it seems a little bit backwards to me. sometimes what is not said through policy speaks louder. how do you think these areas got the way they are today, bad public policy and insurance redlining. most will stay and pay their taxes and some will will leave. most who rent will most definitely leave. i live in brewerytown and most people on my block would not mind paying an extra $40 a month for a better way of life (mostly crime and gun violence). and then there are some that are grateful that their property is worth something so that they can sell their home in the hood and move into an apartment on city line or the north east. not all want what is assumed. some people here have seen many things that they want nothing to do with anymore and the benefits of gentrification will not change how they feel about their hood.

__________________
www.rob-sutherland.com

Any senior who owns a home in a gentrifying neighbourhood has a huge amount of potential cash at their disposal. You can get $150K + from a speculator/developer for the worst dump out there, and even if they don't want to leave the family home any bank would love to give you a line of credit secured by that kind of equity.

what you are saying makes perfect sense. I'm not sure what the nj reference is for because I live in PA and jersey is one place I'd like not to become. I think we have a lot to benefit from reducing property tax burdens. everything from displacement of seniors to encouraging homeownership. everone gives lip service to diversity but when it comes down to it, they like it when people are priced out of their neighborhood (or so it woudl seem form this blog). new jersey is a shining example of a poorly managed state. they already have high taxes and still have a $1.5 bn deficit. as for home prices, if your house goes up 150% and so does every other house, you've gained nothing unless you are willing to leave the area for, say, pitt or the midwest. if you take the tax bite out of development, you'd less a lot less opposition to it. overall it woudl be good for the city and cheaper than having to help seniors relocate or deal with the tension displacement can cost. unfortunately for the renters, they have no claim to the neighborhood and that's part of renting.

__________________
"You down wit OPM?"
Fumo: "Yeah, you know me!"

i think you hit the nail on the head, merkin. you can offer moratoriums on tax increases til the cows come home. but you can't change the fact that while socio-economic integration and diversity may sound fine and dandy to me, it doesn't to many, many people. historically poor, black nieghborhoods such as francisville aren't jumping for joy that white yuppies are coming. many feel threatened, and as a result will recede from the neighborhood as new money starts to trickle in. look at the threads in the NE forum and see how the white folks there are going bonkers becuz of all the Asians and North Philly folk that are encroaching on their nbhds.

i wish there was an easy solution to this, but there isn't. i think a lot of it has to do w/ employment. w/o it, there are very limited ways in which existing poor residents can share in the revitalization of their nbhd. this is esp. true if an informal economy exists. as revitalization ensues, business is forced to become more legitimate. this does not bode well for existing residents, esp. those in the drug trade (i'm not condoning it). when you have nothing to replace this informal economy for the existing residents, they really have no choice but to move out. this is why this city needs good jobs!!!

Read closer, sherlock.

Many have issues with out of town Asian slum lords who were buying up 'investment' homes by the dozen and converting them to Section 8. I know I do.

i'd say it's a combination of both, watson. yes, mismanaged properties and high concentrations of section 8 are causing white flight. but it is exacerbated by the unwillingness of existing residents (not all of them) to tolerate people that are different then them.

but be it francisville, oxford circle or swcc I think the negative externalities of growth and decline can all be attributed in some way to a complete lack of planning in this town.