"Poor Doors" Banned in NYC

[Themius]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/m...ending_strip_6

Though such a system might smack of Victorian England — or worse, the Jim Crow South or apartheid South Africa — plans for it existed in New York City until last week, when Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) inserted language into a rent-regulation bill that was passed the state legislature outlawing some “poor doors.”

The key sentence, as the New York Post reported: “Affordable units shall share the same common entrances and common areas as market rate units.”

So that's great news, I remember this topic was posted about and unsurprisingly many agreed last time, well now it's banned.

It doesn't make sense for a building to get breaks to build a building if they allow some low income (or mid income as sometimes the cut off is 70-80k) and then force them all to use a separate entrance for a building that wouldn't have been built if not for those very people they're trying to shaft.

[Darsithis]

I always thought the concept of poor doors was poorly thought. Pun intended.

Who wants to feel marginalized? It's nearly as bad as "colored" vs "white" doors.

[Ofmanv]

Politicians shouldn't be deliberately hiking taxes through the roof then offering "subsidies" for agreeing to their terms for developing property. It's basically politicians manipulating the private sector.

[theostrichsays]

I know the thread is more about the doors, then the other things mentioned, but in the quote it also mentions the same common areas will be shared between different rate tenets. Do people in larger cities actually use shared common areas?
When I was in Texas, I knew a few people in Dallas who lived in larger apartments that had common areas for a t.v. and some chairs, but they were always completely empty.

Anyways, my understanding of this was the lower floors were meant to be for the lower income tenets, and the higher floors were for the rich people (in a general way) so fi they build an elevator on the outside, like you see in many condos, then they will simply bypass this. One of the condos I worked on when I was in Alabama, the elevators didn't start until the 3rd floor there was a ground level e;evator, which generally started at $450k or something while the first two floors were "affordable" condos at $100k or so, from wht I picked up on talking to those who owned them.

[Independent voter]

It seems un-American, in a country that prides itself on being a meritocracy. It doesn't matter how practical it is, it seems wrong.

[Lilly32]

this is actually unconstitutional regardless of if you believe its right or wrong morally. If people want to have poor doors on their buildings they have that right and Im pretty sure this will find its way to the NY Supreme Court. Unlike Religious beliefs, gender, age, sexual orientation, and race you most certainly are allowed to discriminate based on wealth.

[obdigore]

this is actually unconstitutional regardless of if you believe its right or wrong morally. If people want to have poor doors on their buildings they have that right and Im pretty sure this will find its way to the NY Supreme Court. Unlike Religious beliefs, gender, age, sexual orientation, and race you most certainly are allowed to discriminate based on wealth.

Well no, it isn't unconstitutional for a state to say 'If you want the tax credits, you can't treat the people who are 'earning' you those tax credits like second class renters'.

Sorry, but you lose this round, and you evidently don't know how the constitution works.

[Deleted]

this is actually unconstitutional regardless of if you believe its right or wrong morally. If people want to have poor doors on their buildings they have that right and Im pretty sure this will find its way to the NY Supreme Court. Unlike Religious beliefs, gender, age, sexual orientation, and race you most certainly are allowed to discriminate based on wealth.

I think they use government funds to build those things? And then go on and cut a small space off and market it for a separate segment of customers.

[Lilly32]

Well no, it isn't unconstitutional for a state to say 'If you want the tax credits, you can't treat the people who are 'earning' you those tax credits like second class renters'.

Sorry, but you lose this round, and you evidently don't know how the constitution works.

But they are second class renters. Or are you saying if you compared their rents and actual quality of rooms that both would be equal?

[obdigore]

But they are second class renters. Or are you saying if you compared their rents and actual quality of rooms that both would be equal?

I believe that the supposed tax credits make up for them paying less rent. And no, a city/state/federal government is perfectly within it's rights to say 'if you want this money, you can't treat group 1 differently from group 2.'

I challenge you to show me where in the Federal (or even NY State) constitution it says 'Owners of buildings are required to have two separate ways in to and out of the building they own, one for poor people, and another for not poor people.'.

[Deleted]

But they are second class renters. Or are you saying if you compared their rents and actual quality of rooms that both would be equal?

It's about the administrative conditions of those funds.

You can't spend extra to embezzle funds for luxury apartments when you got the money for affordable units.

[Wells]

Yeah I have no problem with this. If the government is offering tax incentives for affordable housing, which is good, they're entirely justified in putting some restrictions on what that housing must be like.

[Dhrizzle]

I know the thread is more about the doors, then the other things mentioned, but in the quote it also mentions the same common areas will be shared between different rate tenets. Do people in larger cities actually use shared common areas?
When I was in Texas, I knew a few people in Dallas who lived in larger apartments that had common areas for a t.v. and some chairs, but they were always completely empty.

I'm guessing "common areas" will be things like the hallway, mailboxes and laundry rooms.

[IIamaKing]

So, if I wanted to have a rental and did not take the tax breaks, I could still have "poor doors"?

[Deleted]

So, if I wanted to have a rental and did not take the tax breaks, I could still have "poor doors"?

Yes of course lol

Or do you think being poor is a protected class in the US?

[Sunseeker]

this is actually unconstitutional regardless of if you believe its right or wrong morally. If people want to have poor doors on their buildings they have that right and Im pretty sure this will find its way to the NY Supreme Court. Unlike Religious beliefs, gender, age, sexual orientation, and race you most certainly are allowed to discriminate based on wealth.

No, it's non-constitutional. Which means the Constitution holds no bearing on the matter.

- - - Updated - - -

So, if I wanted to have a rental and did not take the tax breaks, I could still have "poor doors"?

Certainly, but there's really be no point for you to do so.

[Themius]

But they are second class renters. Or are you saying if you compared their rents and actual quality of rooms that both would be equal?

I believe that in many of these cases the building would not exist without those low-mid waged people. Many buildings of this type typically have equal apartments.

[Dondi49]

I believe that in many of these cases the building would not exist without those low-mid waged people. Many buildings of this type typically have equal apartments.

I believe that is correct. The city will refuse building permits unless some minimum number of ""affordable" units are made available. If there is a tax credit it is nowhere near the lost rent revenue.

[Deleted]

I believe that is correct. The city will refuse building permits unless some minimum number of ""affordable" units are made available. If there is a tax credit it is nowhere near the lost rent revenue.

Is it a right to build wherever the fuck you want?