Wednesday, September 4, 2013

View Of East River And Roosevelt Island's Southpoint Park, Smallpox Hospital And FDR Four Freedoms Park From Top Of United Nations

From the Roosevelt Island Twitterverse:


billblass said...

These jobs are good for people in eastwood. But there is always the problem of sec 8 thanks to ron .people stop me every day telling me their kids are done with school.but they don't want their kids to get a job because of the mess of sec 8 in eastwood I told these people 8 years a go that this agreement was going to hurt them and no one would pay me any mine. Well the time is here for many of them i tell them to talk to ron vass and cry to him .all i can say to them is i told you so.the chickens have come home to roost

OldRossie said...

so you're saying what? Kids home from school can't work because of section 8?

billblass said...

Yes if the family income is too high
They will lose the sec 8 .then they will have no sec8 and no lap apartment. This agreement which forced people into sec 8 did not asdress this mess because ron vass did not care he got his lap apartment. This is why eastwood will always be in a welfare state.

CheshireKitty said...

They can work, but their income will be counted toward the household income and may render the household ineligible to receive Sec 8 assistance. Yet, the income they earn may not be enough for the household to afford market rate rents. So it's damned if they do, damned if they don't.

OldRossie said...

Just to round things off: say the average household of 2 adults and 2 children. What is the max income to receive section 8, and what (in your estimation) the minimum income to afford market rent?

CheshireKitty said...

The problem is the agreement did not provide for those on Sec 8 moving out of Sec 8 and being treated as part of the same original class of tenants as the LAP tenants. There is probably a very good lawsuit there if the Sec 8 ever decided to pursue it: The Sec 8 tenants are not protected "forever" as are the LAP tenants, who can retain their LAP apts no matter how high their income may rise. The Sec 8 tenants lose the protection of the voucher once their income rises. RIOC and Belson had agreed that all the tenants in Eastwood would be protected upon building exit. Well, the truth is, some tenants are more protected than others. The obvious solution is for the exit agreement to be amended to allow Sec 8 tenants to keep their apt - perhaps place them into rent stabilization - if they no longer qualify for Sec 8 voucher. Nobody wants to look at this problem since they do not want the exit agreement re-examined, fearful that the current management, which was not the management that signed off on the original agreement, will dishonor the entire agreement if the topic is broached, and then all the tenants will be subject to market rate rents.

billblass said...

Yes thank god you know what's going on
As many people on this iland and one of them is old rossie think We don't want to work
Hud this a bad job with this mess. I am now getting a gov. Handout in which i never wanted.many people in lap tell me they are paying so much less in rent being in lap thenbeing in sec 8. And thats because these are working people who Know they can make as much money as they want and the rent wont go up 30 percent each and every time their income gos up do you think ron Vass is paying 30 percent
Yea right

CheshireKitty said...

For a family of 4, living in a 3 BR apt, here are the figures: Sec 8 Income limit is 38,400 Here is a website listing a 4 BR apt in RL for $4,675; probably a 3 BR would be in the 3,000+ range. If the rent is even just 3K for a 3 BR, that comes out to 36,000/yr for rent alone.

If the family exceeded the Sec 8 limit by 600 = 39,000, they would need to live on 3K per year, or $250 per mo. This is not even taking into account the taxes the family must pay on income. If you take into account the taxes, then the family would need to make a lot more than 39K/yr to afford the 3K/mo apt. Now do you see what Blass & I are talking about?

CheshireKitty said...

The LAP tenants do not complete an income re-certification each year. Their income can rise/fluctuate or whatever. They are subject to RGB + 1%, however, so their rents are increased according to rent stabilization + 1%. There is no high income surcharge. Their rents started out as the rent they were paying on M-L building exit.

Even the LAP is not the best solution, since wages have not kept pace with rents. But certainly the LAP tenants were not "screwed" the way the Sec 8 tenants were.

Why wasn't the same program extended to all the tenants? Because Belson was too cheap! He wanted to turn the building into a luxury rental, and he almost got that when he forced 80 or 90% of the building to accept the voucher as a condition for staying. He doubled the rent for those people receiving Sec 8 on building exit.

You can almost imagine Belson's mouth watering as he finally raked in the profits after waiting about 30 years!

Plus, the market rate rents he was charging to Sec 8 tenants (80-90% of the building) made the property that much more attractive to prospective buyers of the property. He flipped the building, the first of about 3 subsequent flips, each transfer yielding big profits to the seller, until finally Putnam/UA bought the property.

billblass said...

This is how america makes people depent on gov. Handouts and now I must be just another person on a gov handout
So that's why i dont work
.why don't you call hud and tell them to fix this mess. I already did and they did nothing.

billblass said...

Why didn't they just have everyone pay 30percent of all their income do you think ron would have gone for that.of couse not he is not on a fix income

billblass said...

I wish you were on the eastwood building comm
Not those backstabbers led by ron vass

OldRossie said...

First: if you're accepting taxpayer money, do you really need a 3 bedroom? if you don't make enough, your kids can't share a room with her siblings? And don't exaggerate saying I'm suggesting a box for 4 people, but I don't know anyone at any income level in this city that lives in a 4 bedroom unless they're splitting rent with unrelated people (except you guys I guess...).
Second: I see your point on the income limit relative to the cost of living - like most gov't programs, it makes no sense. That is, the gov't doesn't seem to recognize market rates on things. But that said: what's the plan? The whole family just hangs out and collects from taxpayers indefinitely? Not to jump across lines, but I think that's why we have teenagers running wild (or "wilding", as they would say) on the island...

I also want to point out - for those fortunate enough to make a living for themselves and not depend on these programs, we're giving arms and legs to those that elect not to work (for the somewhat justifiable reasons you cited). The amount of tax a middle income worker gives up is INSANE. And nothing is more aggravating than hearing someone say they'd just rather not work. Us too!!

OldRossie said...

many people pay than 30% of their income in taxes. Many people pay significantly more than 30% of their income in taxes. Many people pay significantly more than their income in taxes, and pay market rate rent. Mostly, so you don't have to.

OldRossie said...

that was poorly written, but you get the point. Bill aggravates me...

CheshireKitty said...

It all depends on what their income is. If they're in the maximum tax bracket, then they should pay the 30%+ tax. Suppose they were getting a lot of that income in capital gains - they are investors. Shouldn't they pay tax on that? It's similar to interest income IMO.

Anyway, you can't compare high income with low income individuals. The high income people are correctly taxed at a higher rate, but they can afford to pay more in tax. They will still have tons of money left after they pay tax. And they have the means to hire smart tax accountants to find loop holes to help them avoid (notice - I said avoid, which is legal, not evade, which is not legal) taxes.

Of course the high income people will have enough money to pay market rate rents after paying tax - they're high income. I don't get your point.

Yes - Bill aggravates me, too, most of the time.

CheshireKitty said...

You said it was 2 adults + 2 kids; I am figuring the kids are not of the same sex, thus would need separate BRs. I couldn't find anything but 2 BR or 4 BR apts on that website, simply extrapolated a "for-instance" rent on a 3 BR.

You certainly have a valid point on what's the plan. Indeed! Either workers need to get more pay, or rents have to be lower to match the pay the workers receive.

Doesn't McDonald recommend its workers apply for gov benefits, or work a 2nd job? They are admitting no-one can make it on minimum wage. What are the alternatives? The gov is feeding tons of subsidy payments to landlords via Sec 8 benefits. These subsidies that are going directly to greedy landlords who refuse to charge rents that are in keeping with for example what someone receiving minimum might be able to pay in rent, are coming out of your tax dollars. You, Rossie, are directly feeding Urban American's greed - enabling it.

Of course, if anyone suggests cracking down on landlord greed, they're characterized as "un-American" "anti-capitalist" etc. If you agree with this characterization, if you believe in the principles of the free market, then you shouldn't complain about being robbed blind by Urban American and all the other greedy landlords that are siphoning billions from tax dollars to finance their wonderful life-styles.

Unfortunately, Sec 8 distorts the market. There is no real demand for the market rate rents in RL. 70% of the units are subsidized by the gov. Imagine if all the residents of RL were kicked out for some reason. Do you really think UA could rent those units at the rents they are currently demanding? Even H-R never finished renting out some units at Southtown - which explains why they are delaying building 7,8,and 9. The demand - for luxury housing on RI - just isn't there.

OldRossie said...

Wow - that's an incredibly obtuse perspective. I find it interesting that those receiving gov't support are happy to say "if you make more you should pay more because you can afford it", then they refuse to work, because if they made more, they'd pay more!! Our happy dance...

OldRossie said...

The majority of residential rentals in NYC are not subsidized. By definition, market rates are determined by the market - determined by what people are willing to pay for them. You keep saying things should be lowered by the "greedy" landlords, when in fact the market dictates. I can't afford a condo in the plaza - I don't picket the owners saying I shouldn't be excluded just because I can't afford it.... I didn't move out of the burbs until I could afford it. I didn't add a bedroom until I could afford it. I didn't have kids until I could afford it (that one might be a low dig...). Why should things be handed to anyone?

CheshireKitty said...

You're not listening to what I'm saying. The group of people that receive Sec 8/other gov benefits includes disabled, elderly, dislocated workers, etc.
Sec 8 vouchers were handed out to 90% of RL benefits if they qualified income-wise. Some of those recipients were working - yet, were still low to moderate income. The vouchers were given out because the landlord doubled the rent - on everyone. Those that did not qualify for Sec 8 were placed in the LAP: Their rents stayed the same.

I don't understand why you are defending the landlord in all this and blaming the mostly working-class working people who were shafted by the exit agreement. Do you really think they wanted to go on to Sec 8? They had no choice! It was either Sec 8, LAP, or eviction - since the market rate rents became un-affordable for the mostly working-class residents.

CheshireKitty said...

Things aren't being handed to anyone - the reality is, you are catering to the landlords, to the notion that they can and should charge whatever the market will bear. Imagine if all goods and services were sold on the same basis. Guess what Rossie: They ain't. Many goods and services are under some form of state control/subsidy/what have you. Farmers/utilities/etc - all have either subsidies or controls. These anti-capitalist controls keep prices affordable on items like dairy products, electricity, etc. Ever hear of inflation? I guess the cost of living doesn't make an impression on someone like you - since you say you're in the top tax bracket.

No-one is talking about a condo in the Plaza, Rossie. We're talking about someone working at McDonald's making minimum. Where is the market rate housing for him?

You can't imagine that someone might have to work at McDonald's or a similar job, for life. You really think that doesn't happen? And not get raises - all that happens. So where are they supposed to live? In the gutter?

Oh, and only the rich should be allowed to have kids.. Unfortunately, that doesn't always work out that way. Or do you think the poor should be sterilized? Now, you are getting closer and closer to what the Nazis were advocating for those who were "less-successful".. or anyone they wanted "out of the way". If people couldn't measure up to Hitler's idea of "the master race" they would be sterilized. Later, he decided that wasn't enough and opened death factories.

Wasn't the death of 55,000,000 people in WW2 enough to prove that your pseudo-Darwinian ideas are all wrong? The disabled, the elderly, the disadvantaged - the religious, racial, and ethnic minorities - those are the people the war was fought for, all the people that do not fit Hitler's idea of tall, blond, high-achieving, high income, "master race".

I'm sorry I've ended up comparing you to Adolf Hitler - but your attitude just leads to that inevitable neo-fascist conclusion: Just let the poor die off, don't let them "breed", so that only the high income people, the "master race" will be left, right?

OldRossie said...

Wrong. I'm just saying get a job, like the rest of us. It might give you some perspective on the "market" outside of what the gov't is willing to give you. Note: This all started with Bill pointing out kids out of school are opting not to work.

billblass said...

After all this you still don't understand why its better not to work. When living in eastwood
Do you

billblass said...

I wish you were on rioc at the time of the buy out you would have put up a good fight for the tax payers then I would not need you to pay my rent

billblass said...

You may be paying market rent
But I will bet its less than 30 percent of your income on your 1040 tax form for 2012 Right

billblass said...

Its better not to work to keep your home. Than to work and have no home

CheshireKitty said...

The market is such that in NYC today (not counting Staten Island) the average rent is 3K/mo. How much would I need to make to afford 3K/mo in rent? I've considered this problem and the answer is approx 100,000/yr. As a laid off/de facto retired office worker older than 50 y/o, how likely is it I will ever find a job that pays 100K/yr? Hmm?

That is why you see the proliferation of shares these days - most workers (of any age) do not make anything close to 100K/yr.

You also see landlords catering to shares: As we speak, UA is illegally converting 2 BR units in RL into 3 BR units, by turning the LRs into an additional BR. Although these apts then have no LR they are rented out to students to share. Each BR becomes a bed-sitting room for each individual student.

UA is proceeding with these modifications without obtaining the Certificate of Occupancy needed to convert 2 BR apts into 3 BR apts.

The reason UA is doing this? Pure greed: They can charge more for a 3BR; they can find students willing to shell out 1K+/mo for a share in a 3 BR, even if there is no LR/common area.

Apts today in Eastwood are being chopped up by the landlord, just as they would be in illegal brownstone conversions into boardinghouses, for the same reason: To maximize the amount of money the space can bring the landlord, by renting to several unrelated students rather than 1 family or a couple i.e. the landlord prefers renting to students, getting the benefit of the multiple incomes, rather than renting to a family with 1 or 2 incomes. RI becomes a neighborhood of transients, people forced to share, and families are priced out.

If this is what people want who are moving on to the island, so be it; maybe it will one day lead to very positive outcomes in the end meaning, the complete and final gentrification of RI, or, maybe not, as the island acquires a non family-friendly, perhaps vaguely fly-by-night reputation because of the rapid tenant turnover in RL. Time will tell.

OldRossie said...

Average rent in Astoria, a great neighborhood, for a 1 bedroom (which may be more appropriate for a single retiree) is $1,875. You may find this more affordable. I believe the common practice upon retirement is downsizing to a reasonable level for fixed income affordability.

OldRossie said...

Sad but true. I wonder, to what end.

CheshireKitty said...

Why should I go there if I'm paying less than that for a renovated immaculate 2 BR 2 BA on RI in a doorman building? And I'm not in Sec 8.

Yes - downsizing is appropriate for retirees; I don't see how this discussion pertains though to the hundreds of residents of Eastwood: Are you saying they should find "reasonable" apts in Astoria so the landlord can replace them with yuppies? The landlord is getting the market rate rent he is asking for - it's paid mostly by Sec 8 vouchers. This annoys you?

The unexpected consequence of the voucher system is that it means island youth don't dare work, for fear of jeopardizing the family apt. Maybe that explains why the youth unemployment rate in NYC is sky-high.

CheshireKitty said...

It's better to work if you weren't penalized for working by possibly losing your apt. It's better to work if there were good-paying jobs rather than the jobs paying minimum that are usually available.

LAP tenants don't have to worry about this problem - since they do not complete income re-certification forms. UA should expand the LAP to all tenants of RL - roll back the rents on 70% of the apts, and include those units in the LAP. No income re-certification, no downsizing for up to 2 BRs, ability to "leave" the apt to children, etc. The LAP should have been the 1 program in all of Eastwood.

If the landlord agreed to the above, he would of course have to face enormous financial losses. Look at it this way: Either a single rich corporation/family takes a loss they can very well afford, or continue with the impoverishment of hundreds of families in Eastwood, basically forced to stay poor for fear of losing their homes. What's the fair thing, what's the ethical choice?

RIOC didn't have the backbone to stand up to Belson back in 2005 and insist on 1 program for the entire building - the LAP. Albany was under Pataki, who was a complete sell-out to the r/e interests. Today, power has shifted in Albany. Tenants should insist on extending LAP protection to all Eastwood tenants. Rents must be lowered so as to be on par with those of the existing LAP tenants. It shouldn't be too difficult to figure out what the LAP rent would be for every apt currently under Sec 8. Once the rents are again affordable, tenants/their kids will be in a position to accept jobs without fear of losing their apts!

KTG said...

I think you are missing the point of Old Rossie is trying to make. People were not force to accept Sec8 and income restrictions, they chose to accept them rather than moving. I can understand that people might not have recognized the long term implications but its was in their interest to think about these things.

You can always stay in sec8 while looking for other housing and employment options, income verification is probably annual? So if someone is in that scenario again they are choosing to not look at other options.

Section 8, ML, Rent Control are not guaranteed under the constitution can be removed at any time, also inflation other commodities becomes a real concern. Personally I would never let anyone dictate what I could make.

Lastly on dictating terms to the owner keep in mind UA bought a building, that's huge investment that they financed because that how ever major real estate transaction is done. They have an income model that they need to hit or that impacts profitability and value ultimately hurting their investors which are more than likely pensions who tend to love real estate investments.

CheshireKitty said...

Sec 8 was literally sprung on them. There were no meetings going over the implications of accepting the program. The landlord - Fishman et al - were only too happy to sign up the tenants for Sec 8, since that would guarantee the landlord the huge return on investment you mention. Nobody talked about options. The idea was the current tenants would be "protected" under the LAP or Sec 8. Do you have any idea how long the waiting list on comparable properties - ML housing for low-income or moderate-income people? Years - sometimes many years. Nobody in Eastwood had that kind of advance notice to put in applications and wait for their names to come up. The alternative was mass eviction. How nice that would have looked - 1,000+ families kicked out to satisfy landlord greed/capitalism/etc. You are looking at the phenomenon of a skewed, distorted r/e market in NYC. Of course pension would invest in the consortium that financed the transaction - Bill Thompson had a hand in that as I recall. So, accept that the Fed gov and your tax dollars are going into financing huge profits for the consortium, U/A, the investors, the pension funds, banks etc. Accept it - that's what you wanted. Society, or, certain wealthy sectors of society, those that have the funds to be investors - get rich off the misery of the poor, misery which is guaranteed and enabled by your tax dollars.

KTG said...

But Section 8 was sprung on them 5-6 years ago, so adequate time to look at other options. Again it comes down to making a choice low rent and income restrictions or market rate and ability to seek multiple avenues of income. With non-housing related expense subject to inflation and lack of permanent guarantees on protection for low income housing what would you bet on?

Also I do accept that real estate developers should make money for themselves and investors. Its is not purely greed driven they are in business that requires them to be excessively leveraged to make a return on 10-20 year horizon. Yes market values tend to go up but these guys get killed on the downturns. So really that's what their revenue model demands to get through downturns. You really need to stop demonizing corporate america, and focus on the reality that people are responsible for themselves.

CheshireKitty said...

In the past 20 years or so, less and less Americans are apt to see the system as a positive, if 99% continue to struggle, or even suffer. Don't think I'm the only one who looks askance at the "business model" that depends for its success on the blood of the poor.

I should care about the business model, KTG? I and others in my position could care less, if those that depend or, are counting on, the business model, "suffer", because you know and I know, that in fact, they never really suffer. They are always bailed out, they always manage to find a way to survive even when they "get killed" in "downturns". So, how can you expect the 99% to care about the business model? And the "sufferings" of the landlords and developers?

I care about my neighbors' survival. They can't let their kids work - they can't jeopardize their apartments. That simple fact is nothing for you, or the elite, or the 1%, to be proud of.

The system is thoroughly rigged in favor of the 1%. With sky-high unemployment (still), inadequate education/training, corporations finding it ever so convenient to outsource production to mostly docile/nearly enslaved workers overseas, what do you expect the 99% to do? It's a volcano, KTG.

And you, and me, and the 99%, and the 1% - we all know what happens occasionally with volcanoes; They explode!

billblass said...

Really I was going to move really .how dare you say that I could have moved
I have every right to a lap apartment as ron vass and the othet 129 people who got lap aparments
I love living here just as much ad you do .

billblass said...

You must have been on the eastwood building committee they sold out the people of eastwood.and if i am right. I just like to tell all of you to drop dead

billblass said...

Really I Aggravate you. Really. Why dont you be upset with the owners who are ripping off the tax payers
With these cazy rents. Do you really expect Me and others to pay these cazy rents really
Dont you see the big winners on this deal was not me .but the owners and the people who got lap apartments
These are the winners in this mess

billblass said...

Do you think it is too late to hire a lawyer and fight for a lap apartment

CheshireKitty said...

It is too late to do a lot of things, Bill. Simply, Eastwood was sold out by RIOC. An affordability plan could have been worked out, just as one was worked out for IH tenants. Instead, Belson got to realize giant profits, paid for by Uncle Sam, in the form of the vouchers. The bone that was tossed to the tenants? The LAP - coincidentally, most, but not all, of the members of the EBC landed in that program. The LAP should have been extended to the entire building. Instead, it always looked like the EBC was "bought off" by receiving the LAP benefits - not exactly true.

I have no idea what the Sec 8 tenants in Eastwood can now do. They are really, truly trapped in their apts.

You can try to organize yourselves into a committee - although there are already a couple of tenants' associations in Eastwood. You can try to complain to the elected officials. You can try to file a class action lawsuit. Actually, you should probably try to contact Tenants and Neighbors or some similar activist tenants organization, and find out what are your chances of effecting change, that is, allowing Sec 8 tenants to move into LAP if their circumstances change and they are earning more money than that allowed under Sec 8.

In the end, allowing this probably won't affect too many people, and won't seriously cut into the profits of UA. You can try all these things but the chances of succeeding are unfortunately slim to none.

OldRossie said...

You're not missing KTG's point, you're ignoring it. Without the prospect of profit, there'd be no corporate contribution, and ultimately, there would be no building at all...
Also, NO ONE on this island falls into the 1% you love to blame everything on. Having a job and paying your share doesn't make you an elite capitalist, it makes you a contributor to society. Those that choose not to participate aren't leaching from the elite, they're leaching from all of us.

Frank Farance said...

billblass: Isn't it You who is scamming the taxpayers and preventing needy people from getting affordable housing? You said "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". So taxpayers are paying for you, yet you don't belong in sec8, and you are preventing a needy family of affordable housing because you're hogging the apartment with your own high income. But with all your income, you want the taxpayers to further subsidize your scam with even lower rents for you, right?

About two weeks ago, I asked you questions about your circumstances, but you never answered. Here is what I said:

- you complain about the Rich People on the Island but, in fact, you are one of them, as you rate yourself against other Eastwood tenants' incomes

- you made more than LAP people, but didn't qualify for LAP, but *did* qualify for section 8 enhanced voucher

There are significant inconsistencies in your stories, that cause one to question the truthfulness of what you're saying, just like when you claimed to be a new Island resident, but then started your complaint about Mr. Vass's actions circa 2005, thus revealing that you're the old Joe Carbo.

So maybe you should explain your inconsistencies because it sounds like you're scamming the system with higher income than what is allowed, right?

And you no longer get to complain about the Rich People of the Island because you have revealed you are one of them yourself, right?

KTG said...

There was no developer bailout of any kind. Again banks and investment houses did get a bail out rather than see the whole system collapse.

The crisis had more to do with easy access to credit that was pushed by government, banks and consumers. It equally amazes me that consumers try and stand by the argument that they did understand the agreement they signed to borrow significant amounts of money and that banks did not implement risk controls on loans, and that government securitzed all this crap to keep things moving.

As far as the coming volcano you really need to get real, turn down your Pete Seeger records and get back into workforce.

OldRossie said...

The unexpected consequence of youth unemployment you mention is nonsense. To be unemployed, you'd have to be looking for work. Opting out means your not in the labor force and not counted as unemployed. I do enjoy the idea that we're now teaching our kids to opt out.

Frank Farance said...

Here's what happens in NYCHA public housing in their Voluntary Transition Program, which should be adapted here. In short, you keep paying up to 30% of your income up to the Fair Market Rent. Once your income exceeds that, the you just pay the Fair Market Rent. So for Eastwood apartments that rent for $4000/month, you'd have to be making more than $160,000 for your rent to be less than 30%. I don't think section 8 was intended for incomes over $160K.

Meanwhile, if you're paying 30% if you income as rent and it is capped at 30%, then you have a great deal because:

- In NYC, the median rent burden is 32.5% of income (better than Section 8). According to Curbed (""), "... a rent burden between 30 and 50 percent of income is considered moderate. ... A severe rent burden is spending more than 50 percent of one's household income on rent, and 31 percent of New Yorkers were severely rent burdened as of 2011 ... and Philadelphia had a higher percentage of severely rent-burdened residents at 37 percent".

- According to the Census Bureau, "The 2006 American Community Survey (ACS) shows that 46 percent of renters nationwide pay 30 percent or more of their income on housing costs" (see "").

So you're in good company: nationally, 46% of the renters pay 30% or more; in NYC most renters pay more than 30% (because the median is higer); and 31% of renters pay 50% or more.

Here's an excerpt of the Voluntary Transition Program FAQs, see "":

14. What happens to current residents who choose to participate in the Section 8 program when their income increases?

Section 8 residents are required to pay 30% of their income in rent up to the Fair Market Rent (FMR) amount. Once a resident's income is sufficient to pay the entire rent, they will no longer be eligible to receive a Section 8 subsidy but they may remain in their apartment regardless of income.

15. What happens if income goes up to a level that a family is no longer eligible to receive a Section 8 subsidy?

Any resident whose income goes up to the extent they can afford to pay the Fair Market Rent will be allowed to remain in the unit as long as they continue to comply with all requirements (e.g. annual inspections, providing information on income and family composition) of their lease.

16. What happens in cases where income decreases to a level within the Section 8 program limits?

In those cases, residents may be restored to the Section 8 program and pay only 30% of income towards rent.

OldRossie said...

Thanks Frank - this is a great breakdown. It sounds like someone in Eastwood whos teen gets a job would not lose section 8 benefits (unless they're making $160k per year). At worst, they'd have to pay a little more rent. Therefore, there's no reason to worry - let your kids work/learn/grow.

CheshireKitty said...

Sorry, but Frank's analysis is incorrect. He's pulling the numbers, such as $160,000, out of the air.

billblass said...

Frank I would be more than happy to give my sec 8 to a needy family
As long as i can get a lap apartment
And as for most americans pay 30 percent of all of their gross household income thats all working members in the household thats b
S. Do you pay 30 percent how about ron so thats b

billblass said...

A market rent apartment in nyc housing is a 3 bedroom is 900.000. So how the hell can you canpare that with eastwood

CheshireKitty said...

There is no way of knowing Blass's circumstances. All the residents were screened for the Sec 8 vouchers at building exit. Those that earned too much were placed in the LAP. You can earn more than a lot of people in Eastwood and still receive Sec 8 since a lot of people in Eastwood don't earn that much. Those that were placed in LAP, might have been earning less money - since placement in Sec 8 depends on housing composition not just income. (A family of 6 has a higher income cutoff point than a family of 1 or 2. And yes, single people are considered families for housing calculation purposes.) Blass is simplifying, trying to push buttons in some of his comments - so why take them seriously.

Blass can't be considered a Rich Person. He may earn more than some, or even a lot of people in Eastwood, but that doesn't make him rich, because of prevailing income level in Eastwood is so low. It's all relative, of course, but what you consider rich (Blass is rich) isn't what might be considered rich by most people. The fact that Blass earns more than many in Eastwood doesn't mean he is rich, Frank. It just means he is making more than let's say 12,000/per year, or what someone with a modest Social Security/SSDI pension might make.

Because family composition is taken into account in determining eligibility for the programs, it is possible that a LAP tenant might be making less than a Sec 8 tenant but not have been placed in Sec 8, and vice versa. It all depends on the number of people the income is supporting.

Blass = Carbo. We figured that out a long time ago - why is it such a big deal either way? Blass/Carbo says this or that - who cares? He can't be a new island resident if he has the voucher and is living in Eastwood since UA no longer accepts new tenants who have Sec 8. He has to have been one of the original tenants thus must have been here since 2005 at least.

I doubt if he is scamming the system - he may have a number of people in his household that depend on his income, thus he was placed in Sec 8. The same income, if he was a household of 1, might have landed him in LAP.

I doubt if Blass/Carbo is a Rich Person, at least how they are defined on RI. He doesn't make enough to pay market rate rents at any of the developments - that is probably a given. He can only live in Eastwood with the assistance of Sec 8 voucher. To me, it doesn't sound like he's a rich person. A rich person is in a position to afford the $4K/mo rent you mention in an earlier comment. Now, in order to afford that, you have to earn 3 or 4 times that a month post-tax.

Where are the good-paying jobs today that would enable someone like Blass/Carbo to earn that much money? These are jobs wherein he would have to make upwards of $25/hr. Instead, most jobs available today are paying minimum. If you consider minimum vs the value of the voucher, then you see why it is actually "worth it" to not work, since the voucher is worth more than what one might make earning minimum.