Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

The_Question757 t1_je7pv1b wrote

Reply to comment by toastedclown in Can New York Fix Its Housing Crisis? It Depends on the Suburbs by thenewyorktimes

not to mention scarsdale isn't built for this kind of infrastructure. the traffic on post road or palmer avenue is bad enough as it is. Some sections only have one side of a sidewalk (guess where the snow plows put the snow?) Then you have white plains which is more urban so you're going to have this high density urban area surrounded by suburbs with roads that can't handle the increased traffic of personal vehicles which would be needed to go to nearby stores and it's just a recipe for a disaster. Scarsdale is rich town with a village aesthetic. just dropping an apartment tower in the middle of it isn't going to work.

​

Especially when All Westchester seems to focus on is high rise luxury condos. Look what they did to the south broadway area in Yonkers. They pushed out all the lower income people near the metro north station and put up ridiculously priced condos to attract the 'my daddy owns a dealership' Brooklynites because it's one train ride away from the city.

1

mowotlarx t1_je84l7n wrote

>Scarsdale is rich town with a village aesthetic.

And 90% of Manhattan used to be farmland. It's time to grow, adapt and change. Scarsdale isn't a precious gem. They can build 180 more units of housing and survive.

8

The_Question757 t1_je8ir2z wrote

In the last ten years they built a ton of apartments In white plains and it's still expensive as hell to live there. If people think they are going to build low income housing in a village with a household median income of 150k good luck with that. Not even the democrats in Scarsdale want this let alone the republicans

1

mowotlarx t1_je9b3u4 wrote

The requirement isn't to build low cost housing. It's to build any housing. Being a NIMBY cuts pretty evenly across the political spectrum so I'm not surprised.

4

mehkindaok t1_je9fgjk wrote

I would be extremely surprised if there’s no requirement for a certain non-trivial percentage of all newly built housing to be low-income.

1

mowotlarx t1_je9klqm wrote

And what exactly would happen to Scarsdale if people who are less than millionaires were able to live in their Metro-North train station town? Or is this really just dog whistling about how to prevent wealthy assholes in Scarsdale from having to live anywhere close to "certain people."

1

mehkindaok t1_je9p0n9 wrote

Buyers are paying seven figure prices and five figure property taxes so their kids can attend public schools that rival some of the best private schools in the US. It only takes a few violent, disruptive students to ruin an entire school and that is exactly what low income housing brings - why would current homeowners not fight it tooth and nail? If you disagree with that, would you like to pay $500K for a Ferrari that will be taken away and replaced with a Fiero in a couple months?

1

mowotlarx t1_je9utom wrote

>only takes a few violent, disruptive students

So you're suggesting people who are middle class or even slightly lower than middle class are all violent criminals? Or just non-white people?

Honestly, I'd rather these Scarsdale NIMBYs just say what they really mean.

2

mehkindaok t1_je9vv9t wrote

I am talking about the low-income section 8 renters - are you telling me with a straight face every last one of them is a star student heading to Harvard or Yale?

0

mowotlarx t1_je9w2vd wrote

The housing requirement isn't for low income. It's not requiring section 8 housing. It's requiring they build any housing. But the fact that you jumped there and made the assumption that everyone in section 8 is a violent criminal pretty much proves my point. Just admit that the push to stop any housing is because of straight up racism and stereotyping of what poor or lower income people are like.

I assure you Scarsdale is full of criminals. But we call them white collar despite the destruction they do getting into the millions and billions of dollars in theft.

2

mehkindaok t1_je9xauk wrote

I along with anyone else reasonable have nothing against 100% market rate housing as long as there's infrastructure to support it - the more, the merrier. Currently everything comes with inclusionary zoning strings attached meaning any apartment building comes with a potential mini-NYCHA in it. No thanks!

0

mowotlarx t1_jec9arv wrote

>the more, the merrier

Then Scarsdale really has nothing to worry about, since they're not being asked to make housing for anyone less than a millionaire (ickyyyyy!)

2

mehkindaok t1_jecdsaf wrote

Let’s be honest here - there is a very good chance of ending up with some rather “icky” characters when dealing with the 0-30% AMI crowd that’s typically mandated by inclusionary zoning.

1

The_Question757 t1_je9t2mr wrote

I would be highly highly surprised if the building requirements didn't require a set standard of low income housing.

1

UpperLowerEastSide t1_jeac32c wrote

>In the last ten years they built a ton of apartments In white plains and it's still expensive as hell to live there.

What do you think housing costs are gonna be if nothing's built like wealthy Westchester residents seem to want?

>If people think they are going to build low income housing in a village with a household median income of 150k good luck with that. Not even the democrats in Scarsdale want this let alone the republicans

Wow, rich Democrats and Republicans supporting housing segregation by class? I'm shook.

2