Can We Talk About Housing?
The title of this post was the title of the sixth and final discussion in the Future Hudson series this past Saturday. In addition to this discussion, there's been a lot of talk about housing in Hudson lately. A few weeks ago, Congressman Antonio Delgado was here to talk about housing, first, on September 4, at Bliss Towers, and again, on September 7, at the Hudson Area Library, in a youth forum presented in collaboration with Kite's Nest. Last night, Alderman Tiffany Garriga (Second Ward), who chairs the Common Council Housing and Transportation Committee, held a meeting for tenants at Bliss Towers. The meeting featured Rebecca Garrard from Citizen Action of New York and focused on the recently enacted Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019. Also at the meeting was Jumaane Williams, public advocate for New York City.
The indefatigable Dan Udell was present to videotape all but one of these events: the youth forum. Here are the links to each one.
COPYRIGHT 2019 CAROLE OSTERINK
It is all very interesting, tenant protections are good, but unless the government is going to start telling people what they are allowed to charge for an apartment, I don't know how they are going to lower costs for renters. If the city and school district would stop spending so much money, they can lower taxes and reduce costs for homeowners, that's something they could do, but no one is talking about that. The housing prices were lower when Hudson was more decrepit, but I don't know if bringing back decay is a good way to lower the cost of a house. I guess you could build more housing projects and bring in more Section 8 people to fill them up. If you built enough of them that would lower the prices of the homes and get some of the upper crust to sell out, that might work. A few rowdy low class bars, some shootings, robberies and late night drunken brawls, people vomiting and police sirens racing up and down Warren Street at 2AM, that would help bring values down too. More garbage helps, broken beer bottles on the street, some rats, then rents might come down.
ReplyDeleteA school district out of control is killing the goose.
DeleteOr we think a little bigger: get creative about ways to invest in our community to make sure people of varying incomes can live well in it. Because even those of us lucky enough to own houses live richer lives in economically diverse, inclusive communities. We experiment with building middle income housing, rental assistance, community improvement days on existing housing; we build trust within our community. We see how it's done in places where there is dignified housing for all.
ReplyDeleteThe City of Hudson is going to do that? It doesn't pick up the garbage and it's going to build or finance housing? On a roughly $12m annual budget? How's that going to be funded when 1/2 the property in the city isn't subject to taxation? Thinking big is good; thinking realistically is good, too.
DeleteI wonder if the non profits are going to pay the proposed sidewalk maintenance fee, or if we are going to pay to fix their sidewalks too? Do they pay water bills? If they have to pay fees, perhaps the govt. should reduce taxes by separating services and charging everyone a fee for road maintenance, police services, etc?
DeleteI agree, dignified housing for all. The problem is government solutions invariably involve isolating the poor into concentrated islands of poverty within communities, rather than integrating them into the community. Building more housing projects is not a solution, it exacerbates the problem. We do need a more creative approach, the traditional model is dysfunctional and is not designed to lift people out of poverty, it is designed to keep them confined and in their place.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree! Less silo-ing, more creative thinking! Re. taxation, I don't think those numbers are right. But in any case, I would be a poor thinker if I used only precedent to establish my hopes and vision. Just because we haven't done it doesn't mean it can't be done. It just means we haven't done it.
DeleteThe numbers are, depressingly, accurate. The City has no infrastructure, human or capital, to undertake a significant plan in a conscientious manner. That, too, is depressingly accurate.
DeleteHere are the city assessor's numbers: 10% of buildings off the tax rolls; 18% land mass off rolls. 28% assessed value off rolls.
Deletelandlords = bad
ReplyDeletetenants = good
the truth is that as taxes go up, so do rents.