Considering the condition of most public housing in New York City, I'd guess that in an open market, $320/mo. is about all those apartments would be worth. It would take some serious doing to gentrify those suckers (not that all you white-collar yuppies aren't up to the task!).

Hey, still not amused:

Guess what, if I lived in a shitty project and I didn't like the urine in the hallways, I would clean it up with bleach because chances are I would have plenty of time on my hands since I don't have a job. Maybe I would pick up the trash in the stairwell too. But chances are that I would be a lazy parasite with no sense of community and a ghetto entitlement problems.

My father worked by a brand new public housing project that was constructed in the 1960s and saw it WRECKED within a matter of weeks - actually seen people rip toilet bowls out of their apartment and throw them off of the balcony. You can't give people a nice place to live and expect them to appreciate it - they have to earn it.

Who do you want to be the janitor at these projects, the working class folks who have to commute into the city from the outer boroughs or further? That seems fair.

There is no reason for housing projects to exist in Manhattan. None whatsoever. Did you ever notice how most housing projects have a medical clinic, a dentist, a drugstore, and a supermarket all within the project? That's because no one wants the residents to leave.

The bigger problem is that rent in New York City is so stupidly high and minimum wage is so slow. Only in this country do people have to work 80 hours a week just to break even. Factor in that minorities do not get as many opportunities as Caucasians and thus have a harder time renting anywhere else.

In reviewing most of the post concerning this story . I have to say that the Ignorance, & total lack of self worth has been exposed by some of those very posters here ! Sure it's easy to point the finger at those living in the Projects while you live in either Ur own home OR Apartment . Just look at it this way, Put Ur self in the shoes of those living in those Projects . Do you think they like the conditions within there building ? Would you like to be greeted with the smell of urine in the hallways, & elevators ? How about when those very elevators break down and you have to walk up [10], [20] flights of stairs shrond with trash for say (Generously suggested) [2] weeks because the Housing Authority took it's time calling a repair person to fix the elevator . I doubt you all would enjoy any of the above . The problems of the Projects could easily have been avoided with the Housing Authority enforcing there own rules for tenants living in the buildings from the very beginning ! With all of that mentioned in this post would you like to pay more for the right to live there ? Think about it, Then respond with all of Ur hateful posts to tear down the Projects !(Which is idol thinking because none of that shit is happening ) You all make no sense posting shit like this . Posted by; "Still Not Amused"

Let's face the fact here with regard to Public housing . It's a necessary for those of us whom can't afford to live in the ritziest parts of town ! Everyone in the city is not "College Material", Sorry to disappoint those stressing the "Education" line ! Hiking the rents in the Projects makes little sense unless it's to benefit the real fair market value of the dwelling . (That means you factor in the conditions within the building, Outside, As well as the surrounding neighborhood) Posted by; "Still Not Amused"

#18 hit it right on the head. Many of you all should read the history of how these things came about and what the competing theories for urban planning was at the time. Most of the people who knew their asses from their elbows believed that garden style low rises that fostered a more personal sense of community was the right way to go.

They bulldozed huge swaths of skid row, but not violent communities to the ground, many of whom were racially mixed..to build these things. And now what are we left with? These monolithic, absolutely horribly constructed, impersonal Le corbusier era fallout shelters that honestly look like prisons from satellite (if you don't believe me, look it up on google maps).

One good thing..I guess..is that the PJ's created some of the most original American ever.

#70...I'm with you on finding ways to encourage people to take more initiative both for themselves (work) and for their children (education). However, unemployment is a permanent (and, according to many economists, healthy) feature of the economy (unemployment rates count only those people who report having actually looked for work). This means that we have to stop thinking of job-holding/the ability to afford housing as solely a matter of choice.

[67] wrote:

Also #56, I've lived a number of other places in NYS, and you don't generally find family sized residences at $320 anymore. Moreover, in the places you do find something that cheap, the economy is so shot that what people do make often puts them in similar straits to what they'd be in here, only without the safety net.

FUCK, when did I become a fiscal conservative?

I'm all for subsidized or public housing... for WORKING people. That means every adult who lives there, has a job. Every child who lives there must be in school. K-12 education is FREE. The people who have commented that the government needs to step in and fix / train people before any public housing system is dismantled have lost the plot. Public school is free, it is the parents' job to make their kids want to go to school everyday and get as much education as they can.

TKaisen - you make a good point. most middle class families can't afford to live in manhattan either. i'm not arguing that only low-income families have a right to affordable housing.

62 - most people commute because they have too, not because they love riding on the subway or on metro-north. granted some people chose to move out of the city who could afford to live here, but that is a trade off they decided to make. people who are getting priced out don't have the luxury of that choice.

i guess the question is who has the right to live in manhattan, only the people with the most money? and if that is the case is that a place where you'd want to live?

64, 65, JMH - i think most of the people in these professions have already been priced out of manhattan, but i could be wrong. i agree with you, there is obviously a link between the cost of living in a marketplace and the salary being paid. as is evidenced by the fact that a receptionist in new york can make $30,000 doing the same job that would pay $18,000 in a different city, but at the same time i don't think it is as simple a link as you are making it out to be.

yes JMH, and it also applies to what would happen if all the illegal workers were deported. the lawn mower and the cleaning lady will suddenly become very valuable.

Again the logic runs counter to history. I'm fairly certain that what we'd see is not an automatic and smooth market correction to salaries, but rather something like what happened the last time the city couldn't cover its services: Before pols can convince folks (the public, the feds, businesses) of the need to subsidize these public sector salaries, the infrastructure and comity collapse and the folks with a high degree of liquidity/mobility exit the city thereby depriving the city of the essential cash flow. Many smaller private service industry job providers simply won't be able to keep up with salary growth and will collapse. Enter urban decay (enter opportunity for developers to make bank, again). Does it all balance out in the end? Perhaps. Do the same people keep suffering needlessly. Absolutely.

This isn't slippery-slope logic. It can and has happened. We're not talking about blank spaces and rational actors. We're talking about a city with a crucial balance and folks with real ties to jobs and communities. Rather than taking drastic measures based on abstractions that are subject to a complex web of factors, perhaps we should be looking at programs that have been relatively successful and consider why.

Also #56, I've lived a number of other places in NYS, and you don't generally find family sized residences at $320 anymore. Moreover, in the places you do find something that cheap, the economy is so shot that what people do make often puts them in similar straits to what they'd be in here, only without the safety net.

[65]: And the same logic applies for teachers, sanitation workers, etc.

yes captain, that's precisely what 59 and 60 said. the logic isn't abstract. what do you think will happen when all the cops get priced out?

a) the city no longer maintains a police force.

b) they raise police salaries so officers can afford to live within a reasonable commute.

really captainblackout? so if no one took a job because the salary was too far below what it cost to live, what would the business do? go into slavery? like I said, either they would increase the wage or not fill the position. its not that complicated.

59 - i do not follow your logic. public services artificially deflate salaries? i think you are being naive if you think companies would pick up the slack in any real or meaningful way.

hey 58

i'm no banker or "corporate b!tch" (as you so eloquently put it) and i live in manhattan. nice try, though.

and what is so bad about commuting from outer boroughs? plenty of people at all sorts of salary ranges do it every day..including bankers and "corporate b!tches"...

so ur saying that generations of low income families are ENTITLED to:

-dirt cheap housing in manhattan

-short commutes

-parking spaces

why? just because

simple minded fool

and what, all the people who work in the service industry (restaurants, hotels, support staff, facilities workers, cops, nurses, etc.) we should have to commute 1 - 2 hours from the outer boroughs or jersey to wait tables for and clean up after pompous self-entitled little sh*ts?

So the guy who picks up trash has an entitlement to a cheap home near his job but the office worker doesn't?

Smart.

#58, if all the service workers were priced so far out of the city that they didn't want to make the commute, their salaries would naturally have to rise in order to bring them back. otherwise, who would protect those "pompous self-entitled little sh*ts"? public housing contributes to this situation, it does not alleviate its problems.

58 - perhaps if we didn't subsidize low salaries in these fields with public services, they would be able to afford where they live. All subsidized housing does is let the employers off the hook. If their employees could not afford to live nearby they would either A - have to raise salaries or B - go out of business. All subsidized housing does is take the responsibility away from the employer, making a mess of the situation and compounding poverty.