Home Is Where The Leak Is
Some East Harlem homeowners are speaking out today, saying their new Madison Avenue apartments are falling apart. Many moderate to middle-income families who won a lottery to buy a city-subsidized home are reporting problems such as leaky roofs, cracked foundations and poorly-fitted windows.
According to the New York Post, dozens of complaints have been filed by residents in the area between 117th and 123rd Street. One new development in particular, Madison Park, has drawn a long record of reported problems since being completed in 2002.
"Affordable does not have to mean inferior," said New York State Assemblyman Keith L.T. Wright.
But as demand for affordable apartments grows, the city is trying to keep up. Mayor Michael Bloomberg has set forth an ambitious $7.5 billion-dollar plan to build 165,000 units of affordable housing by 2013.
"It's a good public policy goal to encourage people to own their own homes, but you have to build a quality product," said Lou Coletti, president of the Building Trades Employers Association. "You can pay now or you can pay later."
Until that decision is made clear, at what cost do East Harlem residents pay for these city-subsidized developments?
posted by Rachel Natalie Klein at 12:14 AM
17 Comments:
...and so we say a hearty Welcome to the neighborhood my friend. I guess the old saying stands, "you get what you pay for." smh
Cocoa Girl, if you're talking about the Renaissance ( co-op building on 130 Lenox), the owners are selling low because the high maintenance charges in the building ($1000+ for two-bedroom apts; $1800+ for three-bedrooms) and the income limitations practically prevent them from upping the prices too much. After all, if you make up to $103K, there's only so much of a mortgage you can take on, provided your maintenance charges are, say, $1200 a month. The building did use to have some maintenance problems, but with a new co-op board, this is all pretty much resolved. (By the way, I don't live or plan to live there, but a friend of mine does and keeps me up to date.)
"you get what you pay for."
Did you not read both articles that said the houses went for about $400,000? Is that not enough to guarantee that the roof doesn't leak?
How much should one pay to make sure that their brand new home is built like crap?
Did you not read this???
"Many moderate to middle-income families who won a lottery to buy a city-subsidized home are reporting problems such as leaky roofs, cracked foundations and poorly-fitted windows." They didn't pay upwards of $400K.
They didn't pay upwards of $400K.
Yes, I did read that. The houses are priced at $400,000 and they won the lottery. I didn't say they paid $400,000, that's how much the houses are supposed to be worth. They still paid their hard-earned money to buy the units in the first place, no matter what they shelling out each month.
So, I ask you again, how much should one pay to make sure that their brand new home is built like crap?
Why are these subsidized housing units inferior to similar others built in the city? Could it be the builder cutting costs and doing shoddy work?
I guess what I'm trying to get at is that you went for the buyer, not the builder. The buyers for these apartments were very lucky to get fresh, new, subsidized apartments to buy, and yet you la-de-da blame them for buying a home that was built shoddily? How were they suppose to know that these problems would occur after putting down their hard earned cash and probably so excited to be able to buy into the New York dream of owning a home?
Just take a minute to think about what you wrote. As cocoa girl said, she has friends that live in 'affordable housing' and they don't encounter these problems.
So, is it the fault of the buyer or the builder?
I don't think anyone's blaming the buyers - after all, absent a crystal ball, how can one tell if a brand new building will fall apart? Yes, normally one would hire a building (home) inspector prior to closing on a home, but I suppose there's no such thing in the case of subsidized housing - especially when winning a lottery is involved.
Remember, in the just-passed housing boom most home buyers were voluntarily foregoing a home inspection in order to close on a deal faster. So having piping problems, etc., isn't just limited to subsidized housing, I'm sure...
OK... I guess it was just the phrase "you get what you pay for" that seemed to me to go after the buyers. When it comes to NYC housing, these subsidized programs are a godsend and are highly coveted... I suppose the best materials needed for the price should be used... but then again, I'm living in a dream world...
True about the closing inspections also.
i think a lot of people forego inspections in new contruction. right?
i think a lot of people forego inspections in new contruction. right?
I happen to live in subsidized "renovated" housing so I say with tongue in cheek...you get what you pay for. I just came from vising a friend who lives in the Renaissance and they are doing a survey due to the leaks and possible mold in the buildings. I am bitter because these places have paper thin walls consisting of dry wall and flat white paint yet they are supposedly better. In some ways they are but in others I like the character of a nice solid building.
This was a nice blog to read and post on until the dialogue became so uppity and self-righteous as of late. I still read Nat Klein's stories because I love her optimism and joy of living, but I haven't wasted my time posting on it in weeks because I'm bored with the self-anointed, er, I mean self-appointed post cops like Cocoa Girl and usually less so Elderta. Who made you the judges of everyone else?
Kind of smug, no? Did you read both articles...?
I was going to explain myself further, but I think their respective icons best sum up their attitudes that I personally find to be such a turn-off. Disagree with me? That's cool, we should all be free to hold our own opinions (right CG?). I will, however, offer that anyone curious enough or wanting to form their own opinions should check-out Cocoa Girl's blog and read some of the things she writes that I, and again personally, find to be stupidly and hatefully judgmental of others - often others as seemingly innocuous as her coworkers. Can't wait for her book! To be fair, Elderta's blog generally has important stories although most are not news to me but might be to others.
OY....
Brave Anonymous (and I say that a bit tongue in cheek), so sorry if I've offended. I guess when I hear comments like "you get what you pay for" about people with less monetary wherewithal than other people in a city that runs the seesaw of wealth and poverty, I get a little righteous. I guess those comments by Anonymous smh (so many Anonymii... how does one tell you all apart?) were made a bit tongue in cheek, but I had just walked through my neighborhood in Mott Haven on Sunday, for the first time since moving there in April. Seeing the poverty in the neighborhood and then seeing this article posted about substandard new housing that people paid their hard-earned money for, kinda made me livid. The comment "you get what you pay for" pushed me over the edge.
I'm no one's blog police (unlike you who has been annointed the policing police or the Polite Police?), that's for sure, and since I've posted on Bagel for all of about eight times, I thank you for lumping me in with the entire Bagel-related blogosphere.
Apologies, Nat, if I've done anything untoward on your blog. You are very optimistic, and that's very nice.
Did I say OY already?
Considering you don't even know who you are responding to Elderta, apology accepted. Perhaps the anons don't want the "self-righteous" behaviors exhibited by some of the bloggers who respond to follow them over to their threads. Just a thought. Besides, what difference does it make? It is only an online persona anyway. It's not like you know the people personally anyhow.
Elderta,
My attempt to temper or qualify my comments as they relate to you ("usually less so") clearly wasn't enough. Sorry. I know you don't post here much, but I recall at least one early post of yours that garnered a similar reaction from me at that time. However, I couldn't find that post in the archives (or any of your past posts in the brief time I had to look), so I won't comment further based solely on memory. I apologize for including you in my comments last night, I should not have done it without something more to substantiate it with, and again I offer you the proper credit and respect for the important value of your own blog.
I am not trying to be the "Polite Police", I just find that CG, who does post here a lot, personally attacks anyone who posts something she disagrees with whether those posts are stupidly angry and hateful, thoughtfully well-intentioned or just plain inane and mostly innocuous. She doesn't differentiate much. She doesn't seem to take the care to try to fully understand what someone is saying; she seems to be emotionally reacting much too quickly. At times, her disagreement seems totally unfounded and off base. And she disagrees a lot.
My point is that this type of reactionary posting does as much damage to any positive outcome this forum can offer as any of the stupidly angry and hateful posts do. None constitute dialogue, just a collection of reactive and reactionary personal opinions. At the least, neither add much enjoyment to reading or posting here.
Although I agree with the points made by anon 12-28/1:01 I don't agree with the personal attack on CG. If you had an issue you might want to address it off-the-loop. Her email is on her website. You were actually doing what you were accusing her of doing. Personal attacks of character aren't cool.
Likewise.
white people are too sensitive
Post a Comment
<< Home