Wednesday, September 4, 2013

Jobs Available With Roosevelt Island Youth Program - Assistant Beacon Director To Help Establish New Programming, Activity Specialists For After School And Music Teacher To Establish Drum Corp

Are you looking for a job on Roosevelt Island? Maybe one of these positions with the Roosevelt Island Youth Program (RIYP) are suitable for you. According to the RIYP:
Roosevelt Island Youth Program Inc. Fall Hiring

The Roosevelt Island Youth Program is looking to fill part-time positions at the Beacon program, located at PS/IS 217 and Youth Center at 506 Main Street. All applications should be e-mailed to

Positions Available are:
P/T Assistant Beacon Directors: two positions are available, these positions are to help establish new programming and oversee the daily operations of the Beacon.

P/T Activity Specialist: work with youth ages 5 to 14 in our after-school program at PS/IS 217 and Youth Center. The activities are both educational and recreational, the after-school operates from 3pm to 6pm, Monday – Friday.

P/T Music Teacher: to teach youth how to play the drums in an effort to establish a drum corps at the Beacon/Youth Center programs
Good Luck


CheshireKitty said...

Frank's view is somewhat distorted, Bill. The fact that you take the voucher doesn't mean the next needy family doesn't receive the voucher. It's not a zero-sum game. The Fed gov is always more than happy to keep printing money - to pay not only for social programs, but for the biggest chunk of the budget, military spending. The Fed gov has an unlimited credit limit because it can keep printing money.

CheshireKitty said...

Bill, he says this because he doesn't understand that NYCHA isn't Eastwood. Housing in NYCHA isn't market rate housing. There are strict income limits to obtain an apt in NYCHA housing, with or without a voucher. Frank is either being disingenuous or just plain ol' uninformed in considering the two as being equivalent.

CheshireKitty said...

That's the only way the gov has to measure unemployment - by looking at the number of those who are claiming for weekly unemployment ins benefits.

There are also those who have given up - and although they are certainly unemployed are not counted as unemployed by the gov.

If you count those that have given up alongside those that are claiming unemployment ins benefits, especially among the youth, the rate rises to something like 60-70%.

Is it really surprising? It's not that we're teaching kids to opt out or not even bother to look, it's that the good-paying jobs aren't exactly going to the poorly-educated inner-city youth. Those jobs are going most times to the well-educated, middle-class youth flooding the city from all points of the country/globe. The good-paying jobs otherwise have been outsourced to Asia. You can thank your outsourcing capitalist buddies for the tax dollars you must now pay to support the legions of those that were laid off and possibly rendered unemployable because of long years of unemployment. That's the system you support Rossie - so you might as well not complain about the taxes you must pay to support dislocated workers as a result of outsourcing.

Poorly-educated youth are brushed aside, recommended for military service perhaps, or for migration to a low-paying area of the country, where they can scrape by on minimum/welfare. And, as we know, welfare traps mostly white people nationally.

billblass said...

I dont Know why frank can. Not unstandE

CheshireKitty said...

Please: Finance/developers/landlords/mega-corporations are all inter-connected, via Board memberships etc. These corporations suffered? How many banks collapsed? Some did - but most that should have didn't. They got the bailouts. The greedy banks that were pushing mortgages and the idea of home ownership as the end-all and be-all, and lied on mortgage applications, they were bailed out.

KTG: There is always the possibility of a revolution in every country. There are plenty of reasons for one to occur here, such as glaring income inequality and a system that is rigged against the 99%.

Many times, when economic conditions reach the breaking point, a new war will be foisted on the population, to foster national unity/patriotism, the sense that the rich and the poor aren't that different. This seems to happen every 10 years or so, with a new war; today, the target is Syria. In 10 years, another country will be selected for "liberation" or "invasion" or whatever reason can be dreamed up.

billblass said...

Frank if this is a great deal why didn't you get it for the tenants in inland house

CheshireKitty said...

Frank feels he has to defend the status quo, since he may become a property owner himself next year when his building goes coop. The value of his property rises in inverse proportion to the number of people like you on RI. The less "poor" people walking around, "upsetting" the yuppies, the higher his (eventual) property value.

That's why RIOC, UA, even nominal liberals like Frank, all want to see you and people like you off this island, and not only off this island, but off Manhattan island as well -- off the entire gentrifying metro area, so that development/profits can continue without interruption/interference.

OldRossie said...

That is exactly the stupidity that causes taxes on people that work to go up. Keep preaching CheshireKitty, you should run out of credibility real soon.

CheshireKitty said...

Exactly. The deal he negotiated is a version of LAP - but for all IH tenants. The deal he negotiated is even better than LAP, since it's straight rent stabilization, instead of rent stabilization + 1%, as in LAP.

However, at IH, the tenants will need to submit annual income affidavits. Those that exceed the income limit will have to pay a surcharge in addition to the rent stabilized rent increase.

Frank has always said the landlord at IH will not accept Sec 8 vouchers, even though there are already a number of tenants at IH that pay rent with the assistance of Sec 8 vouchers (the "corporate" tenants). This remains to be seen. If circumstances force some tenants to seek assistance in the form of vouchers, it will probably be impossible for the landlord to refuse to accept the vouchers (since he is already accepting them from some tenants).

OldRossie said...

Now you're calling for a revolution? Because of income inequality? While you're voluntarily retired? Defending section 8, a gov't program? I think we just gave webster a great example for the definition of paradox.

OldRossie said...

Frank, beyond the insanity of this conversation, is there really a potential for MP to go coop? Personal interest, but not sure if CheshireKitty is off her rocker again.

CheshireKitty said...

Maybe you haven't heard that we have a progressive system of taxation? Those that earn less, pay less in taxes. Some pay no tax at all, if they earn too little or have enough dependents.

Am I saying anything that isn't true? Bonds are debt. They are issued by the gov and bought by investors, many times by the Chinese. Everyone knows this. The gov has the ability to keep issuing bonds - this is the equivalent of printing money. In this way, they write "balance transfer checks" for themselves, pledging to repay in a certain number of years. Of course they pay, based on new debt they issue, or your tax revenue. Therefore, credit for the gov is unlimited. There is nothing incorrect in what I'm saying.

CheshireKitty said...

I doubt it if MP would ever go coop, Rossie. Why not start a tenants' organization and see if anyone has any interest in the notion.

If it did go coop, you would have quite a problem, Rossie - 2-4 RR!

Remember - the value of your coop would rise and fall in inverse proportion to the number of poor, disabled, elderly, minority residents of your complex: The more "undesirables" around, the less your coop would be worth. Thus the drive by the r/e industry to economically "cleanse" neighborhoods of the poor - better known as gentrification.

So I wouldn't be in such a rush to buy an apt in MP, Rossie: 2-4 RR is a *permanent* Sec 8 building!

OldRossie said...

There are all kinds of incorrect things in what you're saying. I'm not bothered by the fact that you have it wrong - they're general misconceptions. I'm just bothered by how CONVINCED you are. This isn't the forum for a finance lesson, take some time, talk to google, find out for yourself. Come back when you make some new discoveries.

billblass said...

How the hell do I have a high Income when I get sec 8
But if I get a good paying job I no longer get sec 8 and I get a market rate apartment thats what I think that is fair. While the. Others have lap apartments

OldRossie said...

Appreciated, but I can't in good conscious take investment advice from you. You may suggest I borrow from China...

OldRossie said...

Sounds to me like the LAP apartments got a good deal. Otherwise, paying your own rent without gov't subsidy? Yes, that's fair.

CheshireKitty said...

I'm not voluntarily retired. I was laid off involuntarily. I resisted retirement for years and was finally laid off. Many people have noted the trend of income inequality - I certainly was aware of it long before I was laid off. It's a given, Rossie. It's a fact.

As far as revolutions, no system is set in stone. We have an institutionalized system of "change" in the US with the overthrowing of administrations every 4 or 8 years. However, real change is very difficult to effect since the rich have their talons tightly hooked into the backs of our representatives, via the campaign finance system. Also, the tendency is to kowtow to business interests, as if business as it is currently constituted, is the "solution" to all our problems. If that were the case, then we should have no problems. Clearly, business or the system, is quite flawed.

As far as defending social welfare programs including the voucher - you don't? You are opposed to Food Stamps, Sec 8, cash assistance, Medicaid, and so forth? Go ahead - admit it: You hate poor and would prefer to not have to pay tax to support these programs. Maybe you are a neo-fascist after all!

CheshireKitty said...

LOL. But seriously, try to organize a tenants' association in MP! For some reason, there has never been a tenants' association there. Then you could float the idea of the complex going co-op.

I'm sure the Chinese would be only too happy to underwrite your loan.. indirectly, of course.. through a US bank they may be propping up..

OldRossie said...

This is a lot of fun! I think you should work and pay your bills if you can. To you, that means I hate poor people! Can't imagine why you were laid off...

CheshireKitty said...

RIOC said all the tenants would be protected on building exit; some were more protected than others. The unfairness is that the LAP tenants did get a good deal, but the same deal wasn't extended to all the tenants even though it could have been. A "LAP" for all is what's been negotiated at IH - thus, at IH at least, there isn't an issue of some tenants treated unfairly. All IH tenants have been placed under the protection of rent stabilization.

OldRossie said...

And what was the differentiating factor between those that were and those that weren't treated fairly?

CheshireKitty said...

No kidding - I agree: In the best of all possible worlds, everyone should work and pay bills. Wages should keep up with rents.

However: A) There is such a thing as people who are elderly/retired/disabled/otherwise are unable to work. B) Wages have not kept up with rents. C) Scarce jobs means that work is not always available. D) Many jobs do not pay enough to enable the worker to afford market rate rents. If you do not agree with the need to have a social safety network to help those in category A, and do not agree with B-D, then I can only conclude you simply hate those in category A. Thus, you're a neo-fascist.

I was laid off due to downsizing. They were going after the old-timers (those over 50 years old) for years. I was the last to go. This despite a stellar work record - 21+ years on the job - including 10 years with not a single sick day taken (including some years back to back). I earned that company a lot of money.

But, I guess it's OK that I was laid off, for nothing - that's capitalism for you, and the boss is always right.

OldRossie said...

Full circle. No one questioned A, we're questioning people that are voluntarily A. And I disagree with B - rents can only be what people are willing to pay. Maybe your wage didn't keep up, maybe mine isn't, but that's not the fault of the building owners.

CheshireKitty said...

Just go back to the beginning of the discussion: Sec 8 tenants do not go into rent stabilization/LAP upon leaving Sec 8, thus they are no longer "protected" from market.

At IH, there is a surcharge for high earners under rent stabilization. At RL, under LAP, there isn't even that.

So LAP tenants get to pay basically the same low rents as under M-L indefinitely, and even get to "will" their apts to their kids/relatives. Sec 8 tenants get nothing of the kind.. unless they continue to qualify for the voucher indefinitely.

What's the unfairness? Sec 8 depends on the person remaining "poor" forever. Those in LAP continue to be protected by the LAP no matter what their income may be. A good question is what would happen if a LAP tenant applied for Sec 8 voucher - would the landlord accept it?

CheshireKitty said...

Presumably the gov keeps track of those that are voluntarily A. Just like ins cos can yank a physically disabled person off of disability if they are photographed playing golf etc. There's no disagreement that the social safety net is designed and should be used by those who need it.

The housing market is distorted IMO. We can argue this until we're blue in the face, but IMO wages haven't kept up with rents. Let's agree to disagree on this point. I don't blame building owners per se, I blame the system that enables the distortion.

There probably would be a way to take into account the ability of a prospective tenant to pay. However, that would smack too much of fair play. The system is unfair as currently constituted. That at least is my opinion.

OldRossie said...

What is the differentiating factor between those that got LAP and those that didn't?

CheshireKitty said...

Income: Low- to moderate-income tenants were placed in Sec 8 (they qualified for the vouchers). Those in Eastwood that had a higher income went into the LAP. All tenants had to fill out forms for Sec 8. But not all qualified for the voucher. Those that didn't were placed in the LAP.

Why do you need to ask this question again after this, and other, extended discussions on the topic?

CheshireKitty said...

Isn't the US gov the biggest debtor on the planet? But we can do it since we also have the biggest economy - so no-one can say boo to us.

Who buys alot of US bonds? The Chinese of course, among other rich nations. Bonds are floated, of course we pay on them. But the system of expanding debt isn't going to change anytime soon.

What's incorrect about what I'm saying? You can't dispute that bonds = debt, and that the gov runs on these monies in addition to tax revenue. This is way the gov has been financed since probably the time of Alexander Hamilton. Why deny it?

OldRossie said...

You haven't taken the time to research anything... ok.... Do you have a pension?

OldRossie said...

At the time, what was more beneficial, LAP, or section 8? That is, who would be paying more toward the first months rent: those given LAP or those given section 8?

billblass said...

He is so so off the mark 160
000 he is cazy

billblass said...

I see you also do not understand what happend here ok just say we add another 2500 to your rent each month that's 2500.00 what would you do

OldRossie said...


billblass said...

Rossie why don't you just pay 30percent of your incomr your kids income and any other member of your household that would be fair. According to frank this is what most americans are doing.

OldRossie said...

Frank is exactly right, and I in fact do just that.

KTG said...

Incorrect there is no such thing
as unlimited money anywhere, its an illogical policy. Again you refuse to look at larger economic constraints. US bonds are only purchased due to perceived stability. So if we follow your budgetary advice keep over using that credit, that perception will falter and our ability to use that budget catch all will diminish.
I know there are rocket scientist who say we can selectively default without impact. That is pure B.S. - one it will cripple securities markets that base lending and collateral assumption on stability of US treasuries , 2nd it will diminish long term demand.

We carry a greater debt load than ever before 6% of national budget goes to interest servicing not even paying down the debt. Clearly you are not dealing in facts, but a desire to support a larger social welfare system than we can support. Progressive tax systems sound great to you but I would prefer a flat tax and tighter spending controls.

billblass said...

Yes that's what I want. I want to pay my rent without a govt subsidy its called lap

OldRossie said...

Agreed on all points.

billblass said...

Only in america can a person be forced to get a govt handout I guess they don't care about the tax payers

CheshireKitty said...

Bill - Rossie has no kids yet. He & his wife are expecting. It'll be quite a few years before his kid can contribute to his household income. If Rossie and his wife pay 30% of their income to Grenadier/MP for what must be a 1-BR, and considering the high rents at MP, then we can extrapolate from those facts to conclude that Rossie is making probably over $150,000 per year, thus, is a high-income individual.

CheshireKitty said...

C'mon Rossie: The rents in the building doubled at building exit. It became a luxury building overnight - or, un-affordable. To defray the cost, all the tenants were enrolled in Sec 8. Some tenants were not eligible to receive Sec 8, they were income-disqualified. Their rents were not doubled. Their rents stayed at the low M-L rate at building exit. Rent increases for them follow rent stabilization + 1%. The more beneficial program was LAP, but it's the program the landlord would not want, since it means the building does not become "market rate" or "luxury".

CheshireKitty said...

So the market rules as far as you're concerned, Rossie? The law of survival of the fittest/richest? Very nice. I suppose if it were up to you, we would have no public housing, no Food Stamps, no social safety net. No Social Security, no Medicare. Just let each person float or sink depending on how "smart" or "correct" they are in terms of financial planning, scholastic achievement, ability to land a high-paying job, etc.

So what's your solution for those that don't measure up? Move? Move where? Market rate rents throughout the metro area are up. You are saying the 1,000+ families in Eastwood should have just - moved - to satisfy the landlord's greed? Have hundreds of people lose their homes so 1 person or 1 corporation can make a profit? Even if the 1 person/corporation is already plenty rich? So there's no limit to the person's impinging on others in order to make money? It's a wild West of profit? And the tenants - they're supposed to meekly accept it all like so many sheep? Just move, because the owner says so?

CheshireKitty said...

Bill is right. LAP should have been extended to all the tenants. The EBC & RIOC didn't fight to truly protect tenants. The cop-out was Sec 8, a siren's song that lulled tenants into thinking it was a good deal. It was a trap.

CheshireKitty said...

I don't know how he got that number. The income limit is waayyy less. Sec 8 is very "stingy". You have to really be a hardship case to qualify. The income limit is nowhere near $160,000/year - for any number of people in a household.

OldRossie said...

Just keep on going right to the exaggerations, huh? Yes, owners rule. Don't like it, own your own. Have JUSTIFIABLE economic issues? no problem, gov't support is there. BUT: simply chose to not work and take advantage of gov't handouts? stop complaining.

OldRossie said...

Good analysis! Off on a few levels - like assuming my kid will be my only dependent, what size place I live in, that I have only one place, and the approximation of the %... but a good analysis just the same!

CheshireKitty said...

What exaggerations? At building exit, the vast majority of tenants who were later placed into Sec 8 were working. A good percentage were occupants of the senior/disabled building - therefore, they were either retired or disabled. Yes - hundreds of people who were working in low-paying or moderate-paying jobs were automatically put into Sec 8 so they could pay the new market rate rent. They weren't taking advantage of gov handouts - Sec 8 was pushed on them. Those that didn't qualify (income disqualified) were placed into LAP. I suppose you are opposed to both LAP & Sec 8 since each one limits the ability of the owner to profit, right? I'm not complaining - I'm simply stating the facts. The gov enabled the landlord to profit in the exit of Eastwood from M-L. You are underwriting the gov program that is fattening the landlord. Since you are evidently pro-landlord, then why should the Sec 8 program, as it is currently implemented at Eastwood, bother you?

CheshireKitty said...

I'm not assuming anything - I'm just pointing out things you have already said about yourself. I have no idea how many kids you & your wife are planning to have. If you are just starting to have kids, then it will be something like 15 or 16 years before the kids can go to work and contribute to the family income. I have no idea if you live in a 1 BR, that was a guess. If you live in a 2 BR, you may be paying something like 4K/mo in rent. That means you may be earning more like 200K/yr if you are paying 30% in rent. Either way, you are a high-income individual.

CheshireKitty said...

That's a conservative approach, KTG. We know what the conservative approach led to: Dickensian social conditions. At least with the social safety network, there is some dignity, you don't have people starving, living in absolute squalor.

As far as our national budget - the US is the most irresponsible country as far as debt is concerned, but can get away with it since it forms the linch-pin of the world economic system. That is all I will say about our national debt. It's a reality, it has continued to grow under both pol parties, even without a Fed income tax there was a national debt. Of course the US pays on its debt. But look at the size of the debt. Could any other country really get away with that level of debt? It's like our attitude toward the UN. Since we underwrite it to some extent, we can ignore it, when convenient. I'm not saying this is good or bad - it just is.

CheshireKitty said...

And how does my having or not having a pension relate to the national debt? But, since you ask, yes, I did receive quite a nice mini golden-parachute when I was let go - all the retirement benefits they had tried to get me to accept voluntarily, I was given when I was involuntarily laid off. Plus even more since I also received quite a bit of severance.

OldRossie said...

Do you know why my income doesnt apply to this conversation? Because i ay my rent? Not my neighbors. Because i wouldnt teach my kids how NOT to work. These programs are so costly because of the sort of nonsense you preach. You can categorize people as pro-whatever helps you sleep at night, but in the morning your ramblings and abusive behavior will just be a flicker on the tax returns of those that want to participate in society, so i'm not sure why i'm arguing with you.

OldRossie said...

Wait, you don't understand the relationship between gov't debt and pension investments? And you seemed so confident in how endless the money supply is!

billblass said...

Really why the hell should I move when others stay I like living Here just as much as they do and if the tax payers are willing to pay the rent. Well ok i Am stayinG.remeber this was the reason why the rent are so high In eastwood because sec8 are the one to pay for why the hell should i move

Frank Farance said...

billblass, OldRossie is onto to something: when Eastwood converted, which rent was lower: Section8 or LAP? I'm guessing Section8 was lower because LAP rents were about the same as the prior M-L non-section8 tenants. So with your explanation of your circumstances "I was making much more money than alot of people in in eastwood and i
was put in sec8 and people making less money than me were put in
lap.thats how messed up this deal was", then that means your were making more money than LAP tenants. However, Section 8 would have meant lower rents then, and you took a gamble.

The landlord was happy to give Section 8 to anyone who qualified because: it meant that the landlord would be getting their full market rate from the apartment (higher profitability for landlord) than a LAP (low profitability because the landlord is reducing the rents, as compared to market rate).

But to echo KTG's point: certainly, billblass understood the tradeoff: section 8 offer lower initial rents, but had a 30% income structure; while LAP offered higher initial rents, with no income tie-in, but pegged to RGB+1% increases (at some point years later, this might approach market rate).

Simply, billblass was short-sighted in opting for the initial low rents.

billblass frames this as: paying 30% of income as rent is no incentive to work, which is not true. There is always a financial incentive to work: the more money you make, the more you take home, even with 30% of income as rent.

billblass said...

ROssie you write like a woman who has lots of money I guess you don't no what it feels like to have no money. I hate rich people and you make me hate them even more because they are just like you. You and them have no feelings for people with less than you Well thank god your rich mayor is done soon I know you and you kind will miss him. See when this island was only the wire buildings there really were not too many people Like you but these new people think just like you
I will be voting for bill de blasio for mayor so he can make you pay mores taxes than you are paying now cant wait

billblass said...

Where did he get the 160k.I am sure he is joking

billblass said...

Frank do you know what the hell you are talking about. When the agreement was signed all rents stayed the way they were sec8 and lap
But the market rent for the sec 8 apts went to market rent in which sec 8 paid but but the rent the tenants were paying stayed the ssame 30 percent of income now the lap tenants rent stayed the same as it was in m
Ml then after one year they got their frist raise which was the rgb plus one percent now tell me what the hell are you saing

Frank Farance said...

CK: I do understand that NYCHA is not the same as Eastwood, which is why I didn't quote the Fair Market Rents (FMRs) in the website.

Please carefully read my post.

I've heard from many Eastwood tenants that market-rate rents are on the order of $4000/month. If you look at on-line postings of apartments in Eastwood they range from $2900 (1 bedroom) to $4700 (4 bedroom). I picked $4000 because that's the number I've heard from tenants.

However, the number really doesn't matter much, based upon the calculation: take the rent, multiply it by 10/3 (100%/30%) and then multiply it by 12 (convert to annual rent). $4000/month fair market rent corresponds to an income of $160,000 per year. $3000/month fair market rent corresponds to an income of $120,000 per year.

My point is: unless you are making more than $160,000/year (for a $4000/month apartment) or more than $120,000/year (for a $3000/month apartment), then paying 30% of your income towards rent actually saves you money (which is why Section 8 is a great deal), because if you were paying the rent directly, you'd be paying MORE THAN 30% of your income as rent. And, according to the US Census Bureau (something billblass things is BS, but offers not counterpoint of substance), about half the renters in the US pay 30% or more each month, so capping it at 30% is a great deal.

I believe you and I agree: Section 8 was not intended for people making over $160K (assuming $4K/month market rate rent) or $120K (assuming $3K/month market rate rent).

And if you're an owner (not a renter), according to the Census Bureau report, your housing costs are a higher percentage (32-45%) of your income. Again, capping rent at 30% of income seems to be a great deal, compared to everyone else (in NYC, or in the US).

billblass said...

You should be upset with the people in albany who let this happend
After all this is your money. Also were you going to give me and others money to move one months rent two mos sec deposit and money for a moving van
See we don't have money like you.

Frank Farance said...

OldRossie: A couple issues with MP going coop. Unlike the WIRE buildings, which all had a clear sense of internal costs (as revealed in the M-L rent-budget determination process), in MP you don't know what your real operational costs are. Mark Lyon has pointed this out several times.

In the M-L program, essentially, the building costs were apportioned over the "rooms" (not bedrooms) in each apartment. For example, a 2-bedroom was apportioned at 3.5 rooms, unlike a co-op/condo where sq-ft/view/height/etc. would determine shares, which determines maintenance cost.

So excluding the 6% "profit" (return on investment) that was permitted by DHCR, you could quickly determine the operational costs in M-L buildings. And (with an eye towards longer-term maintenance costs), the owners really didn't have a financial incentive to skip on maintenance because those costs were recovered in rent increases - typically, it is the tenants that are pushing for lower rents (e.g., via deferred maintenance), not the owners. But in non-M-L buildings, the opposite is true: a strong focus on minimizing maintenance (because that maximizes profits), and a non-transparent method for determining rents/charges (less sense of actual cost).

If you wanted to look towards such a conversion, the first step would be to have a tenants association. Probably 10-40 River Road have different interests than 2-4 RR, but maybe each of the buildings (10-40) have separate interests, based upon tenant make-up. For example, who would have thought that Westview and Island House had different tenancies, they were a combined tenants association about 15 years ago, but they separated, and produced different tenancies and different reactions to the owners.

MP has tried several times to establish a tenants association in the past two decades, but it hasn't stuck. My sense is: there is a significant transient tenancy (due to dorm/corporate apartments, and also due to the landlord's cyclic policy of providing rent incentives to attract people, and then jacking up the rents significantly at lease renewal), which will have its own negative consequences post-conversion: transient tenancies cause a variety of lending problems and, thus, higher costs.

Once you have a tenants association, then you can start thinking about conversion possibilities (owner-sponsored, tenant-sponsored, etc.) and hire engineering firms (get a sense of how much you really need to spend over the next decade or two) and real-estate advisers (who can help formulate the financials) and legal staff. Much of this will need to be paid for via donations by the tenancy, thus having a tenants association can help organize this, but corporate/dorm tenants might have the own concerns that differ.

My sense over the years is that MP park is financially weak. They are behind in payments on Motorgate (which is why the elevator on the north side isn't working), and they never really hit the mark on attracting a consistent tenancy (higher vacancy rates than other Island developments).

However, their financial weakness might be good in that they might have a stronger interest in exiting this investment (e.g., lower purchase price).

In summary: (1) get a tenants association, (2) get info on building operations costs and appraisal, (3) be prepared to spend $50-150K on the professionals/advisers to help y'all consider a conversion to co-op/condo.

billblass said...

If I go to work I will lose my sec 8. What part of that doses frank not understandmy household income will drive me out of sec 8
Now can I get a lap apartment

billblass said...

Right now I am paying more in rent being in sec 8 than if I was on lap that's if I was in lap I would be paying less in rent

CheshireKitty said...

You can calculate exactly how much rent you would be paying - whatever your M-L rent was at exit + the rent stabilization rent increases + 1% since then. Of course you would be paying less in rent, since the landlord doubled the rent for you on building exit and has no doubt increased the rent since then as well!

CheshireKitty said...

All I said is that there is always that possibility - no society is immune from the phenomenon. We seem to always hope for "change" and "reform" and "human rights" all over the world. Well, a lot of people would like to see "change" and "reform" right here. Call it what you will. It would mean the status quo is overturned - and the basis and point of the game is changed.

I defend not only Sec 8, but all the social safety net programs. You don't think the landlords love Sec 8? They have their own reasons for loving it. Any program that alleviates human misery and serves to level the playing field - I'm all for it.

Why should that be a paradox? I'm opposed to exploitation. I'm not opposed to income equalization, if necessary, via taxation. CEOs should not be making more than 5x the lowest paid worker. There are some countries in Europe that have laws mandating this, Rossie. Why should they get the obscene amounts of compensation, stocks, perks and what have you, they currently get? And receive gov bailouts when they screw up?

Look at it this way: Maybe Sec 8 represents the money these people should have received if they were compensated fairly for their labor. Or, look at it this way: Sec 8 is your paying the greedy landlords, subsidizing the landlord's "idea" of what the rent should be, thus, it upholds the "idea" of the free market, and charging whatever the market will bear. I'm sure you can enthusiastically support that, since you're pro-capitalism etc.

billblass said...

You are the only one who understands this mess. Frank is ron vass lap dog frank will never say that ron and rioc sold out the 870 ,families in eastwood

CheshireKitty said...

Yes, I understand that pension funds are invested, usually in a diversified manner. Of course they have to pick less risky investments such as bonds. So what? I'm not here to debate the fine points of what goes into investment portfolios, or the money supply, or the nation's expanding debt. The topic, way back when at the beginning of this thread, is why some parents in Eastwood might discourage their kids from working if the additional income would knock the family out of Sec 8, and thus make it impossible for them to continue to live at Eastwood. It is indeed a sad situation, at least we can agree on that.

CheshireKitty said...

Rossie, we all pay our rent. If we didn't pay our rent, we wouldn't be in our units. I pay my rent, and isn't it too bad that my rent is about half your rent, even though my apt is probably double the size of yours. Plus - I get free utilities! I bet you don't. That's what really burns you up. Not only do the folks in the Wire buildings get the wonderful subsidies that you have to pay for, we don't even pay for the utilities! Hahahahahaha... ;-D

Now, as I said above, we all pay rent. That is a given. Blass pays, I pay, and you pay. Unfortunately, you, as a "victim" of the free market, are paying the market rate for your tiny MP apt. Probably in the neighborhood of 3-4K/mo. I can tell this really irks you, and I don't blame you, since those units are legendarily tiny! You wish you were in a spacious Wire apt.

As far as teaching one's kids not to work. Nobody said that, Rossie. Blass was simply pointing out that, under the circumstances, unless a child can really earn a lot of money, I mean a lot of $ - like you do, Rossie, say in the neighborhood of 2-300,000/yr, then it isn't worth it for them to earn less than that and risk knocking the entire family off of Sec 8! Of course it isn't worth it. It's obvious it isn't worth it.

We're not living in the time of Horatio Alger Rossie! Look at the kids in Eastwood. Look at the kids in Queensbridge, or in any of the projects. Do you really think they are going to end up like you - a white woman, earning about 200,000/yr, living in a tiny apt in MP, squeezed into such a tiny apt but paying so much money for so little space!? How are they possibly going to get such a high paying job, when they are disadvantaged? Society didn't pour the advantages into them that were poured into you. The soccer lessons, the music lessons, the sleepovers at other middle-class friends' houses, the better nutrition, the better medical care, the endless advantages people of your class obtain that are of necessity denied to the poorer classes. Unfortunately, you fit in with those making the decisions on who to hire for the good paying jobs, you fit in, you probably have the educational credentials, and so you get hired, whereas the poor kid with nothing, he don't. All he has is the voucher. And you, and others like you, you want to deny him even that. Hah. Talk about Christian charity: You really exemplify it.

I'm not abusive, Rossie, and neither is Blass. The Sec 8 families in Eastwood got a raw deal. Blass and I have gone over the reasons why numerous times. Remember, we all pay taxes: Social security, pensions, 401ks, retirement IRAs - all are taxed when used. So don't think you are the "righteous" one because you have to work, and you have to pay tax. You'll see - in about 30 years, you will need to retire, you will have a pension, you will pay tax on that, and you might need a Sec 8 voucher to pay the rent on that market rate apt you don't want to leave.

Hey, nobody is forcing you to "argue" with me, or Bill, or Frank, or anybody else on the blog. You can ignore any of us at any time if you wish. I don't think we've been abusive to you - certainly I haven't pulled out all my stops. As the saying goes: If you can't stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen!

CheshireKitty said...

No - I can't agree on Frank being Ron Vass's lap dog. That image is just too, too weird, Bill. Even if you mean that figuratively. Frank had nothing to do with Eastwood exiting, with the negotiations, etc. He has defended Ron on occasion, because Ron was also involved in other island affairs, and is civic-minded. I don't know what Ron, Serge, the late lamented Amelia, or any or the other figures involved in the EBC/negotiations could have done, Bill. The leverage wasn't there - did you see elected officials going to bat for the Eastwood tenancy back then? Berman was a tool of Pataki, and the r/e powers-that-be had Pataki in their hip pocket. The exit agreement wasn't perfect, far from it. But it was something. I just don't see what can be done now.. the building became a luxury building at the stroke of a pen. Had Shane been in office when the building exited, the story may well have been different. It just was Eastwood's unfortunate timing to exit when the Pataki admin was in power...

CheshireKitty said...

You should stay where you are IMO. You are in a tough situation because you cannot earn enough to afford the current apt. Thus, Sec 8 is actually worth more than a job. The only reason this is so is because the rent on your apt was jacked up as opposed to the rent on the LAP apts, which wasn't, and which you previously were able to afford out of your earnings. Thus, the State of NY forced you into a kind of diabolical "welfare" dependency, which you didn't ask for and didn't need previously. Now you need the assistance, and you you needed it from the second the building exited. So how could the privatization of Eastwood been handled differently, in such a way that you weren't rendered dependent, ham-strung, almost financially "paralyzed" by the voucher? Obviously, the answer was the LAP program. But Belson wouldn't hear of it, no doubt. Belson refused to consider extending it to all the tenants. Instead, he wanted to rake in the big Fed subsidy money, which is what happened in the end.

You cannot get a LAP apt now - because the LAP was only available on building exit. That at least, is my impression on how the LAP works. And, I very much doubt if a LAP tenant can switch to Sec 8 now. However, IMO, these programs should be interchangeably offered to the original tenants, so that protection is continued, no matter what their financial circumstances.

CheshireKitty said...

Blass, we don't know exactly how much money Rossie has. She may have money, or she may be in her own squeeze - high rent, high utility costs, kid on the way, facing the stress of a new kid is one of the most major stresses in life. She tends to go off on those less fortunate - certainly, she doesn't exemplify the spirit of sharing, of appreciating your neighbors even if they don't earn as much as you, even if they are retired, or disabled, or disadvantaged, etc. In the end, we're all in this together - why not put our differences aside, recognize that yes, the rich should pay more in tax. Obama has said this, and now deBlasio says it. It makes sense to have a progressive tax system.

CheshireKitty said...

Rossie, I'm afraid Bill is right: Why should he move?

Obviously, you are advocating mass evictions for Eastwood, since the vast majority of the tenants receive the voucher.

Don't forget that a substantial fraction of tenants are elderly and/or disabled. Don't you see how utterly cold, callous, and unethical you sound when you kick the poor, elderly, disabled to the gutter because they can't come up with UA's ridiculously high "market-rate" rents and must accept the Sec 8 voucher in order to pay those sky-high rents?

This is what Bill and I object to: The utter coldness, harshness, of your attitude. You would have nearly 1,000 families kicked to the gutter, so 1 man or 1 corporation - UA, the Eisenberg family etc. - can reap obscene profits. You should really meditate on what that means, Rossie: Meditate and atone.

CheshireKitty said...

Yes, Frank is incorrect in his description of the rent situation at Eastwood upon building exit. Prior to building exit, all tenants were under M-L, and all tenants paid rent. Because the rents were affordable, the tenants had no problems.

The owner wished to convert the building into a luxury building by (at least) doubling the rents. The rents were doubled (at least) and to help the vast majority of tenants who could not afford the new doubled rent, the vouchers were offered. Those tenants who did not qualify for the voucher (earned too much) had their rents lowered back to the M-L rent. They were placed in the LAP (RGB+1%).

The landlord still made money - from Sec 8. He lost money, or had to accept the (old) M-L rent structure on about 10% of tenants - those who earned too much to qualify for the voucher - the LAP tenants.

The new rents were only partially defrayed for the majority of tenants by the voucher. The tenants receiving the voucher also had to abide by income guidelines - there were definite strings attached to the voucher. The only entity who did well with the voucher was the landlord - he could continue to make money hand over fist on the voucher system, continue to raise rents as much as he likes since the money keeps flowing in from the gov. The tenants on Sec 8 may have been paying more than 30% of their income to rent before, but they didn't have the Damocles sword of the income guidelines hanging over their heads. What did they really get out of the conversion? They got to keep their apts, but at what price? Did they really see the voucher money? Nope - those payments go directly from the gov to the landlord. They get to keep their apt, but their financial situation must remain static, which is quite remarkable and unrealistic in our society.

The LAP tenants, as Frank says, they will see their rent gradually rise to near market levels eventually.

So the only entity who really did well in the conversion was Belson, especially when he flipped the entire building after conversion for a tidy profit.

Sec 8 isn't a bad program for those folks who may be on a fixed income. Sec 8 is not the optimal housing-assistance program for those who may work. It definitely stifles the incentive to earn more - because of the fear of broaching the income guidelines. The only reason the working people in Eastwood had to accept the voucher is because Belson was a greedy landlord who wanted to maximize profits, and the only solution was to force all the tenants to accept the voucher just so he could make a ton of money. Basically, the State bent over backwards, made it ever so easy for 1,000+ families to get the voucher even though it is usually very difficult to obtain one, just so Belson could have a money orgy on building exit. And of course the State Sec 8 program is financed by tax dollars/debt/etc. What can i say? You gotta love the US of A.. makes every landlord a king, one way or another...

CheshireKitty said...

No, we don't disagree at all. Most low to moderate rate workers cannot afford the 4K/mo rents in Eastwood. They may very well have been paying more than a third of their income before conversion, when the rent was much lower. That gives you an idea of how little most of the folks there earn. Under Sec 8, they pay a third of their income to rent, and the rent can float as high as the landlord wants. Fine. There's nothing to agree or disagree about.

Is Sec 8 an excellent program for all families? For many families it's fine. For others, it may pose problems. Suppose a family has a couple of kids that, 8 years ago, at building exit, were in grade school. Now the kids have graduated HS and unfortunately, unless the kids move out and establish their own households, if the kids go to work, their income may knock the household out of Sec 8. Unfortunately, the kids cannot move out because they cannot afford market rate rents. And it isn't so easy to obtain affordable housing either. An alternative for the kids is to obtain a share and become part of the market rate rent structure - paying 1K or so a month (at a minimum) for a room, in a "chopped up" apt perhaps.

Suppose the kid doesn't want this future, suppose the kid is only equipped to earn minimum and can't possibly afford a market rate apt and hasn't managed to score an affordable apt. What is the upside for the kid and his family if the kid works for minimum, and the family loses the voucher which is actually worth more than what the kid takes home?

Actually, as Frank says, Bill, LAP isn't the solution either - since those rents too will eventually approach market rate.

The solution is a new M-L program. New apts must go on line that are really affordable, pegged to minimum. And rents on these apts must be rent-controlled - a new rent control program must be mandated. All that would have to come from Albany - and would depend on a political changeover in the State Senate, which is unlikely.

Under a new M-L program, you might find a 1 BR apt at under $500/mo. That would be affordable. And no 10%/year rent increases either.

But we didn't exactly see that the last 20 years or so under BB or Giuliani, did we? Instead, the landlords made out like barons collecting Sec 8 payments, as M-L was gradually phased out..

Basically, the problem is either workers have to earn a lot more (raise the minimum wage) or housing costs have to be a lot less. Until one or the other happen, the programs, such as Sec 8, must continue.

billblass said...

Really don't you see its tax payer money that the owner is making a profit on

Frank Farance said...

CK, billblass: The incentives in sec8 aren't wrong, the problem is: your notion of "family" housing is a bunch of adults, capable of working, but choosing not to to avoid sec8 limits. The goals of "family" housing are to support parent(s) with non-adult children (possibly, dependent children up to age 26).

The expectation is: children grow up to become adults, become productive members of society, and live on their own. The goals of "family" housing cannot be endless of support of a family whose children are now in their thirties and are capable, but unwilling to work.

The sec8 enhanced voucher income limits for a family of 4 (typical 2-bedroom) is $73,000, see "".

If a "child" is able to work, and work enough that they have substantial earnings that push them over the $73,000 mark, then that "child" should move out and get his/her own apartment (which might require section 8 support for themselves).

With $73,000 income, the monthly rent (times 30%, divided by 12) on that 2-bedroom apartment would be $1825. Really, paying $1825 per month (30% of income) for a 2-bedroom apartment is a great deal, and less of your income goes to rent, as compared to most other City residents.

Oh, and your rent is about the same as M-L rates for 2-bedroom apartments, so stop the whining.

CheshireKitty said...

That's the ideal scenario - but things don't always work out that way. It's nice to throw around a figure like ~2K/mo as an "affordable" level for a 2-BR apt. That comes out to $24K/year. For that to represent 1/3 of income, the family would have to *take home* 75K/yr. Considering taxes, the pretax would have to be north of 100K/yr - this is a lot more than minimum, Frank. You are assuming that everyone can go out and find good-paying jobs that pay upwards of 100K/yr just like that. A job paying 100K/yr is often in an organization reserved for top management, for very qualified, skilled personnel.

So you have unrealistic expectations of the average project dweller, coming from a background that did not make it possible for them to go to a fine college and meet the right people, participate in the sports programs that would lead to social introductions that might lead to employment contacts and so forth. Most people are not in the position to land 100K/yr jobs - accept it. Most people cannot afford on their own the market rate apts - or, if they do live there, they are paying much more than 1/3 of their income into rent.

The problem is there aren't well-paying industrial/production jobs, or any sort of well-paying jobs for the average person. By well-paying, I'm talking about jobs that pay say even double the minimum wage to start. The places that used to offer employment have all been converted into luxury lofts and the last few pockets of industry are disappearing.

So it's not so much whether or not the child is able to work, it's that there are no jobs out there for that child that would pay enough for the child to go out on their own. What is the Fed minimum wage? $7.25. In NYS, the minimum wage = the Fed minimum wage. (For info on minimum in other States, see this page Let's say the person works 40 hours/wk = $290/wk x 4 = 1,160/mo x 12 = 13,920/yr. Excuse me if I have made any math mistakes.

The child who may only be able to swing a job that pays minimum, doesn't even come close to being in a position to afford any housing in NYC today, since there is no apt available at a third of 1,160 = 386, or even a half of 1,160 = 580. The child would have to pay at least 1000 for a share, even. Why should that child work for minimum to pay 1K into a share to be left with 40/wk - which would hardly pay for commutation costs, much less food, and any other expenses?

There's no way the child is going to accept a situation like that, and rightly so. Simply - it's not worth it. So, they stay home, or they stay here or there, and try to stay out of trouble.

The bottom line is as I've written before on this thread: Affordable must mean being able to afford it on minimum, if those are the only sorts of jobs available to those that need affordable apts. The rent has to be in the neighborhood of $350/mo. Yet, nobody is pushing for the construction of apts that are truly aimed at the work force. Instead, you have un-affordable luxury housing, starting at 2K/mo for a 1 BR. A person earning minimum cannot afford even a share in such an apt - unless the rent is split 3 ways, or 4 ways.

You can see how far apart the numbers are: The 1825 you mention exceeds the monthly minimum pre-tax. $73,000 income is quite a lot of money, quite a bit more than $13,920, the minimum. The roughly $60,000 difference, which comes out to 5K/mo, is what the landlord gets, unjustly, out of our tax dollars to satisfy his notion of a "fair" profit.

Frank Farance said...

CK, you're not reading right how HUD calculates sec8 rents. Also, billblass is not telling the truth on several points, please ignore his bait.

The reason for $73K salary is because billblass complains that if he makes more money, he'll lose his sec8 housing, thus choosing (say) $35K as family income (which would make for $875/month rent for a 2-br apt), would leave lots of room for billblass' child to earn more money.

I'm not saying that people can go out and make $73K, it is billblass who is saying he's at the upper limit on income, so his income must at least be $73K-ish.

So you ask: if billblass is making $73K, then why is he complaining? The problem, I believe, is that billblass isn't telling us the truth about his circumstances, which is why is stories about 30% are all wrong (it would mean he's making $120-160K), and why his story about making more money is a disincentive (not true), and how making more money will cause him to lose sec8 housing so his son doesn't want to work: again, not true because it would mean billblass is earning $73K (good), yet paying only $1825/mo in rent for a 2-br, which means billblass is paying less than LAP (contrary to billblass' statements). See the HUD worksheet at "".

The reason for patiently listening to billblass is to let him speak enough to show (1) his foolish ideas, (2) he isn't telling the truth, and (3) what's right/wrong with Eastwood housing.

billblass is trolling (troll: submit a deliberately provocative posting
to an online message board with the aim of inciting an angry response).

CK, I suggest you don't take his bait because, even though there were/are significant housing issues to worry about in Eastwood, he isn't giving you anything factual, as I've patiently demonstrated with the calculations his statements would imply.

billblass said...

People in lap will never pay market rent because the market rent goes up each year the rgb will not incease as much as the market rent so frank is not right on this and many others things that he says

billblass said...

Ok let's talk about a two bedroom the income limit is 74000 I pay pay 1825 now next year I make 74k Well now its good bye to sec 8 and my rent is 2700 on .now can I have a lap apartment

billblass said...

From 1825 to 2700 see frank I just can't get out of sec 8

CheshireKitty said...

Market rent can increase as much as the landlord wants. The landlord can even lower it to lure tenants, then slap them with a big rent increase the following year.

LAP rents started from the M-L base, and then increased according to the rgb+1%. Depending on what the rent was at building exit, they
can eventually catch up with market rents, but will never be subject to the caprice of the landlord in raising rents as he sees fit (such as when the landlord doubled the rents at building exit). Instead rent increases for LAP tenants are governed by rent stabilization.

We are all trying to find some clarity or common ground in our discussion on this thread, Bill. At least Rossie, the most virulently conservative of us, seems to have dropped out of the discussion (for the time being).

Of course we all agree that the landlord should have extended the LAP, or rent stabilization + 1%, to all tenants following building exit. He didn't do it.

There is no way to turn back the hands of time. So the problem is - is there a lawsuit in the
"protection" inequality between Sec 8 & LAP tenants? The LAP tenants got an excellent deal, the Sec 8 tenants, despite receiving the voucher, not so good.

Why were the tenants placed into these two groups in the first place? If the landlord agreed to the LAP for some tenants, why not for all tenants? NYS should re-examine the circumstances of the building exit - even though the building is now privatized. There is some leverage in that the landlord gets the vast majority of his rental income from the Fed gov in the form of the vouchers.

Why didn't the State insist on the LAP for all tenants? It would have saved the gov probably billions of dollars in the long run. Why did the State bow down to real estate interests? Where was the watchdog in all of this - someone to look after not just the tenants' interests but the taxpayers' interests as well?

There was no-one who took on
that role back then.

Berman? He was a political hack. The elected officials? Where were they?

Instead, you had a relatively weak tenants association trying to get at least some kind of deal for Eastwood tenants, instead of mass evictions.

But, you cannot go backwards. You cannot undo what's been done.

You can however, examine why the class of tenants that is in Sec 8, is not exactly as "protected" as the class of tenants in LAP. Whether the complaints you have about being in Sec 8 could translate into a lawsuit, is the question.

The outlines of such a suit would include forcing the landlord to place all Sec 8 tenants into the LAP program, or at least giving all
Sec 8 tenants that option. Accordingly, Sec 8 rents (market rate) would have to be recalculated according to the
M-L rents at building exit + any LAP increases since then - not a terribly difficult calculation.
In this scenario, the rents would be halved, at least, making them, once again, affordable. Tenants could apply for promotions, their kids kid go to work, etc. There would be no income limit under LAP! So, having the ability to transfer back and forth between the programs is something Eastwood tenants should fight for.. but that seems like a remote possibility, given the lack of interest in the issue.

Bill: You should put up a sign (if management still permits putting up signs since all the bulletin boards have been removed from building lobbies to prevent effective organizing/communication among tenants) requesting feedback on the notion that Sec 8 & LAP programs should be interchangeable. See how many people come to a meeting. Or, you could try to do a petition on the same question. Try to find out how many tenants think the way you do; if enough seem to agree with you,then you could try to start your own committee etc.

Frank Farance said...

CK, wrong, read the form. You'll see that line #24 is the calculated rent payment. Of course, the value to the landlord will be different based upon the fair market rents, but the rent calculation is the same, regardless of apartment.

This is one reason for downsizing Section 8 apartments (which is part of HUD regulation): it doesn't matter how many bedrooms you have (1-br vs. 4-br), you still pay the same rent with the same family/income configuration. So if you're a family of 4 making $73,000, you'll pay the same rent ($1825) if you're in a 2-bedroom as you would in a 4-bedroom.

Frank Farance said...

billblass: My guess is that you're fibbing because if you're making $74K now and were making more money than LAP tenants ("I was making much more money than alot of people in in eastwood and i
was put in sec8 and people making less money than me were put in lap"), then you've never explained why you didn't go into LAP when you had the income to support it. Please explain why you didn't go into LAP?

billblass said...

The market rent for a two bedroom should be 1830 this way when I lose the sec 8 I can pay the rent myself understand what this is aBout they made the rents so high we can not pay them without sec8 i am a slave to sec 8.

CheshireKitty said...

Excuse me but I don't remember Bill ever saying explicitly that he makes 73K/yr. He agrees that the income limit is 73K/yr. He must make less than 73K/yr to still be in Sec 8.

It is possible that there are those making less than Bill (whatever Bill is making and we still don't know what Bill makes) that were assigned to LAP as classification takes into account household composition.

Bill may have 8 kids, or, the LAP person may be a single. Sec 8 would take all that into account. Thus a LAP person could earn less than Bill and still be in LAP, depending on the number of people/dependents he has to support.

billblass said...

Because I am not alone I have a family

billblass said...

You hit it right on the head

Frank Farance said...

billblass: I know other Eastwood residents who have families that went into LAP. So having a family wasn't the reason. What was the reason you didn't go into LAP?

billblass said...

I like to know what frank would do if his kids came home and Said hey we got a job
Now frank you must worry wIll this put us out of sec8 .think about It frank it seems to me that you can never admit that ron sold us out so he could get agood deal for himself
And the Others who you know who they are

billblass said...

Ask ck she is the only one besides me who kNows what happend this is why ron And rioc got away with this no one was keeping aN eye out we all put it in rons hands thinking he would do the right thing for all tenants how sad

Frank Farance said...

CK, you still are misreading it: the HUD worksheet calculates the rent the *tenant* pays (line 21, "RESIDENT RENT PAYMENT"), not what the landlord sets as fair market rate. So if you have the same income and family composition, you are paying the same sec8 enhanced voucher rent everywhere. Here it is again:

"You will be charged whichever is highest:
- 30% of your household adjusted income
- 10% of your household gross income, or
- the last rent you were paying before you got enhanced voucher."

(see "")

Regardless of the inequalities of section 8 and LAP tenants, bilblass had enough income to have a choice, he chose section 8 (probably because it initially had lower rents), but now at $73,000 income he is making enough money to top out of section 8 (which means the program is no longer for him because there are needier families), and he wants to prolong the benefit forever, which displaces some needy family who actually needs the benefits.

billblass said...

Frank it goes by how many people are In the house hold i was making more tHen people going into lap but I had more people in the household
Which is unfair because I was the only one working .frank let's be honest this deal is a killer for people npt on a fixed income And more so when there are kids in the household

Frank Farance said...

billblass, you're so wrong: sec8 is better for people on fixed income because their rent doesn't go up, LAP is worse for people on fixed income. Section 8 provides downward adjustments on the rent for dependents (children under 18, elderly, handicapped, disabled, full-time students), medical expenses, child care, unemployment, TANF assistance, and so on. Whereas LAP doesn't have downward adjustments, and rent keeps going up every year.

So section 8 isn't a "killer", it's very reasonable - it's only a "killer" for people like you who make a lot of money and are topping out of the program, but still want to receive the benefits.

You really haven't a clue, you don't know what you're talking about, you keep fibbing, and you're evasive on your answers.

billblass said...

Frank I don't understand you for some reason you are making me out to be a bad guy
don't you see i dont want this gov handout i like to pay my rent without handout from The gov i like to make money for my family just like you with out worry of losong My apartment
Whats so bad abouT that

billblass said...

Frank one other thing I missed the cut off for lap by 300 dollars frank now i am in hell because of 300 dollars Did sec 8 think my income was going To stay the same forever

billblass said...

Frank i feel very sorry for you
Now i understand why people say the things they say about you. May you get.a life bye

CheshireKitty said...

That is what I was saying: It is a worksheet to calculate what the tenant is to pay in rent.

Suppose you were paying the full rent of 1,000 a month one day. The next day the rent is quadrupled to 4,000 a month. On your income, you can no longer afford the apt. This example gives you a picture of what happened at Eastwood.

Sec 8 vouchers are made available to those who cannot afford the new "market rate" rents. The determination of your payment is based on your income as well as on what you were paying prior to building exit. Obviously, you can afford 1,000 a month. The remaining 3,000/mo would then be picked up by the voucher. If your income warrants it, you can be made to pay even more than your prior rent when you are placed into Sec 8.

Subsequently, depending on what you earn at the time of re certification each year, your payment may rise/fall - the value of the voucher likewise varies accordingly. 30% of household adjusted income is the benchmark, because that factor is the first consideration. If you have had a catastrophic event such as a layoff, or one member of the household unable to work for whatever reason, it is out of the question that you can pay what you were paying before you go the voucher because your current household adjusted income, which is now a lot less, will dictate your payment/the amount of the voucher.

The tenants had no problem paying the same amount they were paying before. But Sec 8 doesn't work that way: Sec 8 takes into account income, as it varies through the years.

Bill has never said he now makes 73K/year. All he said was that he makes more than some who were placed in the LAP and some in LAP make less than him. You have already figured out that even if he were making 73K/year he would need to come up with quite a more than 1/3 of his income to pay for even a 2K/mo apt.

Bill is not exactly needy; in many localities, making anywhere close to 73K is well-off. In NYC, however, with the inflated price of housing, he is priced out of the market, effectively, and must accept the voucher. Notice that the upper guideline at 73K/year is not exactly poverty wages, in fact, it is several times minimum - but for NYC, you need alot more than 73K to pay the rent on a 2 BR, or at least to pay the rent and have some money left over for utilities, and anything else you might care to purchase. Let's all remember that there are also waiting lists for the projects, and that, unlike what happened when Eastwood exited M-L, it is ordinarily not exactly easy to obtain a Sec 8 voucher. Let's all remember the mushrooming shelter population under Bloomberg - a direct result of New Yorkers unable to find work and/or pay the inflated rents prevalent today.

We don't know how much money Bill has because he's never said how much money he has, or makes. He is complaining about the restrictions on income imposed by Sec 8.

The unfairness is that the LAP tenants have no restrictions on income, and so, the Sec 8 tenants are at a disadvantage. They cannot "better" themselves unless they score very well paying jobs that would enable them to pay the inflated so-called "market-rate" rents prevalent today. The likelihood of that happening is slim, however.

Thus, they can only hold on to their apts - look with some envy/regret at their LAP neighbors who can earn as much as they want, and moreover, can apply for Sec 8 vouchers should their circumstances change. Sec 8 tenants however, can not transfer to the LAP if their circumstances change. This is the unfairness of the exit agreement that was negotiated by Berman, Belson, Vass and company.

billblass said...

Frank I am not maxing out of sec 8 I am not a fool I keep my income low for this reason so belive Me i am no ones fool

CheshireKitty said...

You could try putting yourself on the waiting list for M-L or rent stabilized places. It might take years but you could try. Or, you could try for senior housing (if you are age 62 and up). There is (unfortunately) an increased chance of scoring an apt in those developments because of the more rapid tenant turnover (elderly expiring).

CheshireKitty said...

Wait a minute, Frank: Bill never said he wants to keep getting Sec 8 benefits. He simply wants the low rents of the LAP people, he wants that option extended to Sec 8 tenants who have the opportunity to better themselves. It's not such an "extreme" or greedy position.

The LAP tenants have no income limit, but the Sec 8 tenants have to pay market rate if their income maxes out even by $1, even when they can't actually afford the market rate rent.

There is something very unfair about putting these Sec 8 tenants in this no-win situation whereas the LAP tenants never have to worry about exceeding income guidelines, or paying a surcharge for high income.

CheshireKitty said...

Bill: Frank isn't a bad person. He has misunderstood the drift of what you say. Frank negotiated a kind of LAP for his building, the affordability plan. All the tenants were included in the IH Affordability Plan. Why couldn't the same thing have been done with the LAP at Eastwood? That is all you are asking.

billblass said...

I can't belive that I voted for frank for rira pes
Over matt katz a few years ago I must have been cazy a person canot not reason with he is saying things about me that are not true this guy is off the hook

CheshireKitty said...

Frank - Bill said Sec 8 is a killer for people not on fixed income; i.e. you and Bill agree that Sec 8 is fine for people on fixed income.

You and he agree that Sec 8 has a mixed outcome with families that have kids. Not all families include kids - families can be a single person. So Bill is specifically looking at the situation of families with kids.

Please don't negatively characterize families with kids who may be in a position to work and thus max out of Sec 8, but who may not earn enough to actually afford the market-rate rent, as being manipulators - making a lot of money but still wanting to hold on to the Sec 8 benefits.

This is far from the facts and the reality of the present socio-economic condition in NYC, which is characterized by jobs that do not pay particularly well, combined with apts priced far beyond what the average moderate income person/family can afford.

billblass said...

So why can't He understand that

CheshireKitty said...

It was purely based on the Sec 8 eligibility determination. Those were not eligible for Sec 8 benefits were placed into LAP.

CheshireKitty said...

Bill, Frank has a lot of integrity, but looks at the socio-economic situation from a specific vantage point that may not reflect the reality of most of the population. There are many "average" people out there who will only be in a position, for whatever reason, to earn an "average" salary. They are not destined to become business owners, or professionals. They are middle-income, or even, low-income. There's nothing wrong with them - they work hard, but they will never earn the big bucks.

RI was designed to be a mixed-income development. That is why we, those who care about retaining the "average" people on RI, should continually fight for affordable housing to be retained/constructed on RI.

The alternative is Bloomberg's vision for NYC: A mecca for yuppies, where the "average" people are priced out of all the neighborhoods they used to live in, from Harlem to the Lower East Side, from Williamsburg to Long Island City to Willet's Point - with many more neighborhoods in the "gentrification pipeline" - because of Bloomberg's rezoning, land giveaways to developers, tax incentives (i.e. helpful payments) to developers, and so forth.

So I, at least, know exactly where you are coming from, Bill; and in his heart of hearts, I think Frank also stands with you. No-one can applaud the absurdly high housing prices in NYC today. Wages have not kept up with rents.

I'm certain, if you asked Frank explicitly if he feels the inflated housing market in NYC is a good thing for the majority of the population, he would agree that it is not a good thing.

It is this very problem - of landlord greed leading to the inflated housing market - that has caught the tenants of Eastwood (*all* the tenants of Eastwood by the way) in its relentless teeth, ripping away the flesh of any sort of hope of betterment, advancement, and so forth, as people see hard-earned money - either their own or that of the voucher - that could have been spent on education/tuition, books, after-school lessons, poured instead into the gigantic and insatiably hungry maw of the landlord.

CheshireKitty said...

For one thing, there was no-one like Frank at Eastwood in 2004-05, although I'm not even so sure he was the "mastermind" behind IH's affordability plan. Probably the lawyer IHTA hired was superior to Serge - that may have been one factor.
I have no idea why the EBC was so spineless as opposed to IHTA.

Another factor was the Rep admin in Albany, and Pataki's stooge Berman at RIOC. Neither put the brakes on Eastwood privatization although IH privatization has been delayed many times pending the affordability plan negotiations.

Eastwood tenants were railroaded pure and simple - even the EBC was hustled into accepting the agreement. Everything proceeded too quickly to allow for consideration of the implications of the exit agreement. The building exited very quickly, too quickly for the plan to really be examined, possible alternatives discussed, and so forth. Then Belson raised the rents astronomically, and it was all over.

Frank Farance said...

CK, here is what you say was wrong: "HUD doesn't calculate Sec 8 rents. The landlord is setting his own
rents. Sec 8 fixes the amount of the voucher according to the
applicant's income.". HUD determines what the Section 8 rent should be, i.e., rent is what the tenant pays (see line 21 of worksheet). So if there are three apartment buildings, each with a 2-bedroom apartment, but have monthly rents for $2500, $3000, and $3500, then the Section 8 enhanced voucher means the tenant, assuming $73K/year and 4-person family, pays the same Section 8 rent or $1825/month at each building (with possibly different HUD subsidies for each of the buildings). Thus, HUD determines Section 8 rents, i.e., rent is how much the tenant pays (the $1825/month number, not the $4000/month number; the HUD subsidy is the difference between the $1825 and the $4000 numbers).

Frank Farance said...

billblass: You're just fibbing again: you made more money than other LAP people, but you tell us that you were $300 short for LAP.

People who didn't qualify for Section 8 were put in LAP. So going back to 2007, the income limit for Section 8 enhanced vouchers was $67,300 for a 4-person family, if you earned more than that, you didn't qualify for Section 8 enhanced vouchers. Subtracting $300, this means you earned $67K in 2007.

Yet you tell us "Frank I am not maxing out of sec 8 I am not a fool I keep my income low for this reason so belive Me i am no ones fool" and based upon your $300 difference, you are closed to the Section 8 enhanced voucher maximum.

What seems really clear is: you inconsistent statements means you're not telling us the truth, and it seems, based upon your statements, that you're hiding income, right?

CheshireKitty said...

I agree with you on this. We misunderstood each other on the meaning of the word rent: Rent as in what the landlord is charging vs rent as in what the tenant pays (1/3 of income) under Sec 8. The amount the tenant pays is not the same as what the landlord is charging. Thus rent does not equal rent - because Sec 8 voucher is picking up the difference. When I said "HUD doesn't calculate Sec 8 rents" I meant it doesn't, or cannot tell the landlord what he is going to charge in rent. The only rent amount HUD can set is the rent the tenant will pay (1/3 of income). So, we were referring to two different things because in the case of Sec 8 tenants, the rent the tenant pays does not equal the rent the landlord is charging.

CheshireKitty said...

"Good luck" to Bill if he is trying to do that! There are quite stiff penalties for lying on the Fed income re-certification form - penalties that certainly make it not worth it relative to the value of the voucher to lie.

I doubt if Bill is hiding income, although if he is earning a straight salary and is subject to regular raises, he must have long ago exceed the $300 amount & maxed out of Sec 8. If was earning 67K, even a trivial raise in '08 would have thrown him off Sec 8.

We don't have the exact particulars of Bill's situation. Maybe his family is bigger than 4 people. Perhaps he has 4 kids; maybe there are additional relatives that depend on him as well that are counted as part of the household.

Yet, Bill's situation is not unique. The likelihood is that quite a few of those in Sec 8, if they are working at even moderate income jobs, will exceed the income limit eventually.

Suppose Bill exceeded the limit and was then given the same rent bill but had no voucher to assist him paying the rent. Bill could try to pay the rent, or possibly not pay the rent and be evicted in about 6 months, following a court battle in Housing Court. What if Bill lost his job - after losing his Sec 8 benefits? The Sec 8 would be reactivated, but would the landlord start accepting the voucher again?

There were so many contingencies the exit agreement left unexplained, or unsaid, which is unfortunate, given the vagaries of a person's working life. People have a job one day but can be laid off the next.

Just as those in Sec 8 should have been afforded the option of moving on to LAP if their income eventually exceeded the Sec 8 income limit, they should also have been given the option of using the voucher again if their income subsequently fell into the range covered by Sec 8. This was the only truly fair protection for all tenants of Eastwood - seamless, ongoing protection from market rate rents. Yet, this was something that the EBC was unable to negotiate.

This then remains the glaring injustice of the exit agreement that Bill complains about.

CheshireKitty said...

This is one way of approaching the problem if Eastwood was going coop, or was a coop; there is slim to zero chance of that happening anytime soon, however.

Thus, the situation can only be "confrontational" - as in a labor dispute over wages. A labor dispute over wages or benefits, can you imagine if the union leadership looked at the problem from the owner's point of view? That's like asking the US gov to look at AQ's vision of a world caliphate as correct, and to give up fighting AQ! That will never happen since the US gov stands for democracy instead of a theocracy which is what a world caliphate would be. Likewise, labor unions will never give up their struggle with business owners, since the interests of workers do not mirror those of business owners.

It is depressing, even heart-breaking, but real to recognize that the interests of renters in any rental property including Eastwood, do not mirror the interests of the building owners.

That is why Housing Court has been devised to sort out the myriad issues that can arise between landlord & tenant. If a building is bought by tenants then the tenants become the owners. There is nothing wrong with coops of any sort - business coops, building coops etc. The coop movement has always been progressive.

Thus, tenants of Eastwood, unlike those at IH who organized to buy their building, cannot get on the same wavelength as the owner, UA. Of course the owner doesn't want to lose money by extending LAP benefits to Sec 8 tenants that exceed the income limit - since he would lose money in doing so. Yet, there are probably not that many tenants who would be eligible for this transition - maybe no more than 200. So the landlord wouldn't be losing tons of money by extending this courtesy to Sec 8 tenants and the good will generated from a public relations/good neighbor standpoint would exceed the monetary loss. UA could be a hero instead of remaining a "villain".

You mention that once a Sec 8 tenant leaves, he may be replaced by another Sec 8 tenant. This is news to me although I would only be too happy to hear that UA is renting to new Sec 8 tenants. It was my impression that UA is not renting to new Sec 8 tenants, that once a Sec 8 tenant leaves, the apt is rented to market rate tenants (or a group of them). In this way, little by little, the building is transformed into one occupied by the "rich" instead of the previous tenancy which had been mandated by the GDP to be low to moderate income. Obviously, low to moderate income tenants cannot afford the market rate rents UA is charging.

billblass said...

Eastwood no longer takes sec8 because the sec 8 in eastwood is only good in eastwood its called enhance sec 8
Once a person moves out of eastwood it becomes reg sec which reg sec 8 will pay a lot less then then enhance sec 8 in eastwood that's was the owner stop taking it because reg sec 8 will not pay for these rents in eastwood this is another that was a lie they told us its called a sticky vocter And you can take it anywhere that's takes sec8 that is a lie when you move it becomes reg sec 8 ex. In eastwood sec 8 will pay up to 4000 for a 4 bedroom reg sec 8 will pay 1600.