4 ms·

> The plan was bitterly opposed by residents who apparently value massively subsidized parking over non-falling-down buildings and/or believe that the money is

> The plan was bitterly opposed by residents who apparently value massively subsidized parking over non-falling-down buildings and/or believe that the money is going to magically appear in some other way. This isn't a very charitable evaluation. After all, these blocks have parking lots because the residents (or a certain number of them) need some place to park! Yes, NYC has a vast public transportation network, and many people don't need to drive, but this transportation network is often weakest in areas of high poverty, and the poor are also especially likely to work in highly inconvenient locations. Presumably these residents hope that if they put up some resistance to having their parking spaces sold to developers, then maybe their elected officials will find a better way of coming up with the money. It's not as though selling parking lots is the only way policymakers have ever devised for raising money, so I'm not sure why you would describe this as "magic." Look at it another way: these are the people who live in the buildings. If they would rather keep the parking lots than pay for building repairs, shouldn't their preference -- particularly given their privileged access to useful information like how bad the living conditions are and how badly they need the parking -- be entitled to some weight? All this is not to say that the sale/lease of parking space isn't a good idea--I'm undecided, myself. I'm just puzzled by your tone, which would seem to take for granted, with little evidence, that this is the only possible money-raising plan, and that anyone who doesn't use it to raise the maximum possible amount is an idiot, without taking seriously the proposal's significant effects on residents.

bradleyjg 11y ago
If there were one building with one parking lot, what you say would make some sense. But the dynamic you are missing is that some public housing residents have won the lottery within the lottery -- not only are they in public housing for which they pay little in rent, but they are in public housing that sits on some of the most expensive land in the entire nation. On top of that, they get virtually free parking in neighborhoods where even rich people don't own cars because it costs hundreds of dollars a month to park. There was a mooted proposal which would have a net effect of sharing a bit of these resident's good fortune with some of the rest of the public housing community. Residents of those buildings would still have apartments in some of the most desirable places on earth, but they wouldn't also get parking there. The money freed up would be used to not only repair their buildings (although the plan did give them first dibs) but also buildings in less desirable areas. As I said it was fought bitterly. This story is a parable for the entire "affordable housing" movement over the last 70 years. It doesn't aim to put in place policies that make housing more affordable generally, on the contrary it has been a driving policy goal of governments since the end of World War II to do everything possible to ensure that housing costs in general would grow faster than the rate of general inflation in order to give money to homeowners in a way that didn't look like welfare. Instead, the movement is designed to pick a few lucky winners and give them housing. Although there's generally hasn't been an ownership interest transferred to the lucky winners (but see Mitchell Lama Co-Ops) this housing has generally been heritable -- so much so that people today can't even get a lottery ticket because almost all the prizes have long since been issued. As for as calling the alternatives magic, as someone who has observed NYC, NYS, and US politics for a couple of decades now, I feel pretty confident in labeling the idea that any of those governments is going to come up with $18B out of general funds for NYC public housing capital needs magical thinking. We can't even get a fair share of transportation funds.
- pdabbadabba 11y ago
  I understand what you're saying about the good fortune of people who live in public housing in desirable areas. And I see what you mean about the benefits of spreading some of that good fortune around by selling parking. Both of these may be good reasons to support Bloomberg's plan. But I don't see what any of this has to do with your assertions about the rationality/wisdom of residents who oppose the plan: > The plan was bitterly opposed by residents who apparently value massively subsidized parking over non-falling-down buildings and/or believe that the money is going to magically appear in some other way. > DeBlasio has put out a modified version of the same plan . . . [which] will mean less money for NYCHA, which means fewer repairs, but I guess he doesn't care.
clarkevans 11y ago
Why was this comment downvoted?

bradleyjg 11y ago

If there were one building with one parking lot, what you say would make some sense. But the dynamic you are missing is that some public housing residents have won the lottery within the lottery -- not only are they in public housing for which they pay little in rent, but they are in public housing that sits on some of the most expensive land in the entire nation. On top of that, they get virtually free parking in neighborhoods where even rich people don't own cars because it costs hundreds of dollars a month to park. There was a mooted proposal which would have a net effect of sharing a bit of these resident's good fortune with some of the rest of the public housing community. Residents of those buildings would still have apartments in some of the most desirable places on earth, but they wouldn't also get parking there. The money freed up would be used to not only repair their buildings (although the plan did give them first dibs) but also buildings in less desirable areas. As I said it was fought bitterly. This story is a parable for the entire "affordable housing" movement over the last 70 years. It doesn't aim to put in place policies that make housing more affordable generally, on the contrary it has been a driving policy goal of governments since the end of World War II to do everything possible to ensure that housing costs in general would grow faster than the rate of general inflation in order to give money to homeowners in a way that didn't look like welfare. Instead, the movement is designed to pick a few lucky winners and give them housing. Although there's generally hasn't been an ownership interest transferred to the lucky winners (but see Mitchell Lama Co-Ops) this housing has generally been heritable -- so much so that people today can't even get a lottery ticket because almost all the prizes have long since been issued. As for as calling the alternatives magic, as someone who has observed NYC, NYS, and US politics for a couple of decades now, I feel pretty confident in labeling the idea that any of those governments is going to come up with $18B out of general funds for NYC public housing capital needs magical thinking. We can't even get a fair share of transportation funds.

pdabbadabba 11y ago
I understand what you're saying about the good fortune of people who live in public housing in desirable areas. And I see what you mean about the benefits of spreading some of that good fortune around by selling parking. Both of these may be good reasons to support Bloomberg's plan. But I don't see what any of this has to do with your assertions about the rationality/wisdom of residents who oppose the plan: > The plan was bitterly opposed by residents who apparently value massively subsidized parking over non-falling-down buildings and/or believe that the money is going to magically appear in some other way. > DeBlasio has put out a modified version of the same plan . . . [which] will mean less money for NYCHA, which means fewer repairs, but I guess he doesn't care.

clarkevans 11y ago

Why was this comment downvoted?