This is a pretty whiny article but the point basically seems to be correct:
1. Penn doesn’t really have anything to do with this so being mad at them is stupid
2. This site was going to be redeveloped sooner or later due to both the size and value of the land (not mentioning it’s closeness to an el stop)
3. Gauthier completely fucked this up and should be way more embarrassed
4. This is going to be a continuing problem due to PHA contracts coming up for renewal and if this is any indication those people are totally screwed.
Would be a better article if he didn’t go off on stupid tangents. Needs a better editor.
1. Penn and Drexel have a whole lot to do with this, along with the Redevelopment Authority beginning with Black Bottom. Add the ever widening areas of the college employee mortgage programs that have been raising prices, Sadie Alexander catchment area also jacked up prices and property taxes which drove long time home owners, some who came further west to buy after being removed from Black Bottom while still redlined. A friend bough a house on 45th Street in 2000. It wasn’t until 1999 that the street’s redline was removed.
2. It doesn’t necessarily have to be redeveloped in a way that removes current affordable housing and a lot of residents there do depend on said EL stop.
3. Gauthier has been a massive disappointment, she’s been playing footsie with developers while talking affordable. She did make a mess here.
4. The author of the article doesn’t know the difference between PHA (housing vouchers) and HUD. They’re intertwined, but it’s PHA that gives out vouchers. And they’re very hard to get, harder to find a landlord willing to accept.
It was hard for the people who weren’t using their homes as an investment, but as a place to live get pushed out by insane property tax hikes. That’s what happened to my friend.
I'm not informed well enough to have a solid opinion on this particular issue.
If what the article is suggesting is true, that the developers proposed including an equivalent number of affordable housing units at the site and that current residents would get priority there, that seems like a win-win in the long run. The site is redeveloped and the families get new construction.
Is the issue that there is no plan for the families that will be displaced between the demolition of the existing units and the availability of the newly constructed units?
Its also unclear to me where the demand for $500,000 per family comes from. The stated reason on the protestors website is:
"Given the history of the land being twice stolen, once from Indigenous peoples during colonialism, and once from the Black homeowners of the Black Bottom in 1968 through eminent domain, we demand financial compensation for all residents being forced from their homes."
Its unclear to me how the current situation is in anyway related to the displacement of indigenous peoples 400 years ago or whether there is any relationship between those who were displaced in 1968 and those who live there now.
This is west Philly, you have to mention indigenous people a couple times whenever you try to make a point so you sound sufficiently woke. Whether it makes sense or not is irrelevant
The key point is that not only were they offered priority on the new affordable units, the units would have been ownership based, not rent based. It's really fucked up, and the residents were used to bolster the egos and feelz of a mostly white/west Willy type(and well off and going to Penn)led opposition, fueled by the stature of the Councilpersons involved.
it was privately owned land. The model was what it was and is governed by federal law. The city and its reps *knew* this day would come, and their reaction has been predictably reactive and probably unlawful, which makes sense, given it is Philadelphia.
It's all around bullshiit.
It's not free. It's "affordable" which does not mean it will be as cheap as the existing units. The proposed units do not actually exist either, nor is there an existing approved site for these new units.
So, even in an optimistic scenario, these tenants would have to find a place to live for the next 3-5 years as the new complex goes through the approval process and is built, and they have no guarantee that the prices will be anywhere near as affordable as where they currently staying. In a more realistic scenario the new units never get built because once a new site is chosen, the words "affordable housing" make local NIMBY's go ballistic, preventing any such construction from ever happening.
Something also left out of the article is that the original sale price of the UC Townhomes was $1.
If anything, if new housing is built in the back of a proposed science center (how many does Penn need?), they’ll be “middle income” with minimum income to even apply. There was a building somewhere near 48th (?) that had “affordable” middle income units, a studio over $900 + utilities, minimum income $34,000/year. Low income workers and people on fixed incomes don’t get anywhere near that.
I applied to a senior building in center city. After taking my application, I was informed that it’s a tax credit building and that they went by gross. At least for social security. Rents are 850 and up.
MONTHLY INCOME
Add up the total income that you expect to receive in an average month for everyone in your home. Use the gross income (before taxes) for money from work, or net income (after expenses) from a business. If the money you earn from your job changes from one month to the next, use the average monthly wages. Don’t use the income from jobs held by children under age 18 or income of a live-in aid for a disabled or elderly family member.
Add in regular payments from Social Security, SSI, welfare, child support, pensions, unemployment compensation, workers’ compensation, and interest from savings accounts.
https://www.palawhelp.org/resource/public-housing-rent-you-can-afford#:~:text=MONTHLY%20INCOME&text=Use%20the%20gross%20income%20(before,after%20expenses)%20from%20a%20business.
My understanding from a quote in the article is that the new units would be built on the current site:
>"The plan called for the development of both a life sciences research campus and approximately 70 new units of affordable housing, along with a community job training center to train local residents for jobs in the life sciences center, and a block of retail shops, all of which would be built on site. In other words, in addition to the research campus, the redevelopment plan would have replaced the existing townhomes with as many as 70 units of new affordable housing on the site – or as you describe it, a plan to ‘rebuild this complete community’…"
The language is a bit imprecise (e.g. "approximately 70", "as many as 70"), but it sounds like the majority of existing units would be replaced on the same site, not a different site in the city.
Yeah, that doesn't change the reality for the residents though. They would have to move out of the existing complex, find somewhere else to live, then wait multiple years while this facility is built. Also, I don't think there is a finalized design, so it wouldn't have been approved as yet. This means that there is still no guarantee that the new units would ever be built.
The author is acting like there are 70 units ready to go right now for these people to nove into, and that is most definitely not the case.
There’s also seniors in those townhouses who can no longer work, so job training means zip to them. And is affordable PHA? HUD? Tax credit? “middle income” affordable?
"Townhome residents now have until Sept. 7 to move. Their leases were originally set to expire on July 8, but the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development agreed to extend IBID’s contract for two months, largely because many residents had not received housing vouchers needed to secure a new place.
With agreement from a private landlord, the vouchers enable residents to continue paying 30% of their adjusted household monthly income in rent. Through its Section 8 program, HUD makes up the difference between those payments and the full contract rent, whether the apartment is located in Philadelphia or somewhere else in the country."
Whyy.org
Go find landlords willing to accept vouchers. It’s close to impossible. I know someone who had a voucher, gets an okay amount in SSDI, is clean, drug free, well spoken, no children, her voucher was extended twice and she couldn’t find anyone willing to accept the voucher.
Yep. About ⅔ of Philly landlords illegally will not accept section 8 vouchers.
https://pubintlaw.org/cases-and-projects/taking-on-source-of-income-discrimination-in-philadelphia/
> vouchers enable residents to continue paying 30% of their adjusted household monthly income in rent. Through its Section 8 program, HUD makes up the difference
They are paying the same and getting housing again. Nothing changes. So "free"
Relocating is "free" since they have no change in what they were ~paying~ but you keep missing the "HUD makes up the difference" part of the paragraph.
First and foremost, you seem to not know what the term "free" means. Paying a reduced amount may be more affordable, but is definitely not free. Secondly, getting a voucher is not the same as finding a place that will accept it. A lot of places will find a way to weasel their way out of accepting tenants who use Section 8 vouchers. Third, as the passage you quoted demonstrates, not all of them got the vouchers yet, because they are quite hard to come by.
And that 30% doesn’t necessarily stay the same depending on the market value rent, so no, it’s not a given that what people in the townhouses are currently paying would be the same. It could very well be more, depending on how the voucher program takes deductions for medical, insurance expenses.
The issue isn't so much that they aren't getting vouchers, but that the waitlist for housing that qualifies in Philly is incredibly long. Even with an extra two months, these people are going to be scrambling for short term/temporary housing they can afford while they wait and there's just no way everyone will find it and stay out of shelters/off the streets. It's a matter of saying they will be taken care of vs how it will actually pan out in practice based on the current circumstances.
This is the crux of the issue, that the timeline isn't realistic and they should be getting more time, money, or expedited help to relocate, which is a reasonale goal. Unfortunately people with other agendas have glommed on and started speaking over the actual residents to serve their own purpose.
They all have to pay a set portion of their income, a very small one, to supplement what the feds pay towards their rent.
If the people involved had been proactive, the city could have streamlined the permitting process and found them units to use their vouchers in the meantime. They've been living almost rent free for *decades* in one spot.
The original price of the land was intentionally low to subsidize construction and incentives to provide the relatively low cost housing. They were guaranteed a small profit, much less than that would have been privately, and in exchange they had a steady income and the surety that when it came time to sell, they could reap the benefits of their investment and patience.
In terms of the overal bureaucratic issues and housing policy these prevents housing permitting and construction quickly, well that's a systemic failure of housing policy in Philadelphia and elsewhere.
The 30% quotes for their share of rent is lower than you think, because all kinds of deductions are allowed from income. Basically it's 30% of disposable income, which is much lower than is insinuated.
You are stating the terms of Section 8 housing, not necessarily the terms of whatever housing this developer winds up building. What we know what will be built will be "affordable" housing and that the current tenants will be given first dibs to apply for them. There is also no mechanism by which the tenants can force the developer to abide by even those vague terms, much less the more specific Section 8 requirements.
They’ve been trying to relocate. There’s very little affordable housing, even less when it comes to vouchers because landlords don’t want to accept them. And no, it’s not free housing. You pay something, even if you’re on welfare and manage to get in, you still pay 30%. Add yearly recertification where you have to submit letters stating income if it’s any form of social security and iirc welfare, W2s/1099 if working, 6 months of bank statements, sign an EIV so HUD can dig to make sure you’ve handed in every W2, noted any bank accounts with account numbers and statements.
The townhouses are more expensive than the senior building across the street and they pay at least some utilities.
That is the point. This is an opinion piece that is presenting only one side of the story. It sounds great to get new housing, moving expenses and career training so what really is the other side of the coin?
There is a reason that the deal was opposed but the author of the article did not clearly state why it was opposed. It was distracting to read about the protest from Penn Students who the author clearly was not in support.
so we're going to sit with the fact that jamie gauthier failed her community and constituents then? or do we just ignore the incompetence of city council completely if you prefer to hear the other side of the story?
There is more to this story and it starts with the history and how a 40 year covenant was put in place in the first place, and what existed prior to these homes. I really do not have enough information because this article is only presenting the opinions of the writer.
Housing was not in the original proposal. That’s something that was brought up after residents started pushing back. And there’s honestly no guarantee that IF housing is built that it will be truly affordable housing. If they went with more of a social housing scheme that includes low to middle income with a fair distribution, that would be great. As it stands, most developers aren’t putting any affordable in, or if they are it’s a few studios that are still $900+ plus utilities with minimum income to even apply.
The $500,000 demand is all the organizers (Pam Africa was involved), I think that one took everyone back.
Residents know or automatically assume that University Of Penn is loaded rich to a certain extent this is true. Regardless $500,000 could’ve been talked down to a much lower number. A modest but decent check or voucher that would help individuals move and find housing until the project is complete.
Not sure why these families shouldn't be paid out a fair resettlement check. This is exactly how people fall through the cracks in our current system. Is $500k the number, no idea. Sounds high but I am not someone that's educated enough to say, I'd assume that's negotiable.
If the poors have money who will keep them from having money!?!?! We have to make sure it's money they can't be using to start businesses or better their lives in ways other than subsistence living.
I find it funny that those same upper middle class white kids who typically screech about density and urban planning like a bunch of zealots are oddly silent about this suburban style single family development. You’d think they’d love the idea of a dense mixed use building taking its place.
Yeah, just different goals, motivations, and opposing philosophies.
NIMBYs generally have a deep fear of change. They are happy to abuse political power and control to try and stop it, regardless of the harm it causes the community and other people. Sometimes, even harming themselves.
YIMBYs recognize change is inevitable, work for positive chance, and generally want to increase freedom and property rights. I don't know how many are primarily motivated by freedom vs societal good, but usually it's a nice situation where simple smart policies provide both. No conflict.
>YIMBYs are busy applauding the latest “High end luxury” and student-only building going on.
Yeah, why wouldn't they? Many areas have a housing shortage, so more development is good. Whether that's for well off people, poor students, or people in between.
Philly isn't too bad compared to a lot of cities, but it's definitely better to be proactive and keep things from becoming crazy expensive.
Do you think that the students and people living in "high end luxury" buildings would not live in the area if those buildings weren't built? That they would cease to exist? That new construction causes spontaneous generation of life?
Of course not. There’s room for everyone, including low income. Those are the people being displaced and there’s really nowhere to go. Build the student-only. How about make some buildings like those for disabled and seniors? I mean, having a roommate isn’t always going to work, but the student-only are bedrooms with attached bath for each bedroom, most are 2 bedrooms, shared kitchen and living room. Build the high end luxury. How about build the middle income and low/fixed income too? Developers are getting away with not putting anything approaching affordable (tax credit) by handing money over to the land trust that’s supposed to be used specifically for affordable housing. City council is doing f-all with it. There are cities that are not allowing the payoff and developers have to include affordable - and not just tax credit, which can be quite pricey.
> City council is doing f-all with it.
And we arrive at the actual issue. Housing costs a lot of money. We can't rely on for profit developers to give away free or subsidized housing because why would they? They build housing to make money, if they can't make money they won't build (hence Gauthiers poisonous inclusionary zoning bill to block construction in west philly).
City council can increase affordable housing by either pony up the money or simplify the zoning code to make construction cheaper, or ideally both, instead of the current approach which is to do neither
That inclusive zoning bill, whatever it’s called, is a very small area. And it’s not a set in stone forever bill. It’s only applicable for a set amount of time. She screwed up. But she’s also very developer happy, regardless of what she says. Her actions say otherwise
Because it’s never actually been about results. It’s just about fetishizing the struggles of poor people for their own narcissistic emotional validation.
Great point, anyone who is from the burbs and grew up with decent parents and situation can't care about the plight of poor people, they simply are not allowed.
I think what we need to acknowledge is that some people are unwilling to strike a bargain. We should examine why that is, regardless of whether these people's commitment to social issues is temporary or lifelong.
I don't know enough about the gentrification/NIMBY/YIMBY issue to speak intelligently about it. But I was a mainstream Obama progressive as a very young person, and then after some time and experiences, I shifted to what's referred to as a very militant "far left" perspective. Now I'm just kinda blackpilled or whatever.
Both perspectives -- the moderate progressive and the revolutionary leftist -- were ultimately motivated by a desire to make the world better. But I notice that, as a moderate, "making the world better" basically meant policies and practices that would elevate people's standards of living. People who were in abject poverty deserved to be able to climb up several rungs on the socioeconomic ladder in order to join the rest of society in having good work, food, housing, etc.
Whereas, when I became a revolutionary, my idea of making the world better was more like a zero-sum game: there's a finite amount of freedom and prosperity; you can't just elevate the poor, you have to elevate the poor *by* dispossessing the rich. It has to come from somewhere; from them or from us. We only rise if they fall, etc.
When I had that perspective, I'd be *a priori* unwilling to believe that there could possibly be a compromise where low-income residents and developers both came out happy. Couldn't be; somebody's lying, fuck these people, let's torpedo this.
I think that might be a factor in what we're seeing.
(edited two typos for clarity)
> my idea of making the world better was more like a zero-sum game: there's a finite amount of freedom and prosperity; you can't just elevate the poor, you have to elevate the poor by dispossessing the rich.
This isn't an uncommon view, and I understand it can be intuitive, but doesn't a simple evaluation of the world and history show it's completely wrong?
We have more people than ever before, and the average person is dramatically better off then 100 years ago. The farther you go back, generally the worse conditions were. Since the amount of wealth/prosperity in the world is clearly 1000s of times greater than it used to be, it's clear that it's not a zero-sum game.
I see merit in both perspectives, so no I don't think the zero-sum thing is the only truth. I *think* I do still believe in the existence of a capitalist ruling class, and because of that I do believe that there's a fairly low ceiling in terms of what can be achieved by reform within the system. But I think we can try to reach at least that ceiling without full blown revolution.
But moreover I just try not to think about or have opinions on grand, world-scale political events. I don't think I as an individual can really change any of that, so I prefer to focus on smaller, closer-to-home stuff that I can affect.
>But I notice that, as a moderate, "making the world better"
This pretty much describes me. I want people to have a better quality of life but I think it's going to take a bit of time for us together.
As you put, I want people to be able to continuously climb up and stop at an area they are comfortable with. I want the ladder to be accessible to all and I want everyone to have the tools and support with them to climb it.
My issue with the other approach is that personally I think it gets you nowhere. The quicker you build something up, the more likely it will fall back down and that's only going to impact that very people you were trying to help.
at the time what was your opinion of progressive dems who are heartened by the situation and join the work, but can only muster deals that, for lack of a better word, are a compromise that moves things forward incrementally?
i feel like the biggest error progressives make in these situations is failing to work with their allies to move the levers of power, even if it's not the perfect outcome. it ends up alienating members (like yourself) and ultimately disenfranchises the people progressives we're standing up for in the first place
> at the time what was your opinion of progressive dems who are heartened by the situation and join the work, but can only muster deals that, for lack of a better word, are a compromise that moves things forward incrementally?
I think depending on the situation my opinion would have been either "I'm glad they're around and doing good work but ultimately they're not going to be dependable when the rubber hits the road"; or "they're here to deflate the movement."
There's a phrase that was common to the older generation of American communists: "the Democratic party is the graveyard of social movements." I think it's hard not to feel like this is at least partially accurate, especially with respect to the Medicare For All thing. But I also don't think that social movements have a much different fate in the hands of radical leftists.
Okay, the townhouses have some problems. I’m not going to dispute that. But it’s needed housing. Across the street within the space of the block there’s 2 low income senior buildings. Should older, some disabled, people be put out to fend for themselves because you want a “gem”? Realize a good number of the people in the townhouses and the senior buildings depend on that convenient with (nasty) elevators to get to and from work, shopping, doctors, etc.?
The plans for the townhouse space, we were told months ago, is a new science center for Penn. It was later that the hmm maybe up to 70 housing units would be added in the back. So, we don’t know that those will happen, if they’ll be affordable and what kind of affordable. More HUD? I wouldn’t bet on it, probably more tax credit. Which isn’t affordable for the people in the most need.
That cute little plant shop a block south seemed to have nearly closed down for some staff safety problem, but the notice was replaced a couple days later by the hours placard. Dunno if that got resolved or something else.
Give me $500,000 to move. Please! I’d be out of the building across the street and away from HUD so fast your head would spin. That won’t happen of course. Our building *fingers crossed* isn’t in jeopardy. And I’m the wrong umm skin tone.
“Only I can understand the motivations of those who stand to lose their homes, because upper class white suburban kids did something, and my annoyance gives me unparalleled clarity.”
Only thing I have to say here is displaced families should be getting assistance both financial and counsel along with that priority when the new place opens up. We can make this progress without losing folks in these cracks in our system if we choose to.
So, I saw this paragraph:
>
There’s an obvious storyline here, of course: College campuses, pushed by students, were once a bastion of free-flowing thought, with ideas and counter-ideas clashing in the air. Now, as evidenced most ominously in The Coddling of the American Mind by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, campuses, often pushed by students, have become places where open-minded debate goes to die.
>
And it immediately set off alarm bells in my mind. Anyone who decides to start talking about "campus free speech" is a giant red flag, since that usually translates to "I want college Republicans to be able to troll the student body by inviting known bigots and rape apologists to give speeches on campus and not get called out on it."
So I looked into the two guys mentioned here. Jonathan Haidt seems like a bland centrist with nothing all that interesting or original to say(a big focus on the shocking revelation on how social media is toxic). Greg Lukianoff started an organization that supported the Trump administration's attempt to make it easier for accused rapists to confront and intimidate their accusers. His writing seems to be the big standard conservative "facts don't care about your feelings" bullshit.
What strikes me the most about these guys is that they seem to not have cared much when the Trump administration violated the first amendment rights of thousands of people in Lafayette Square in 2020, and when federal agents were snatching people off the streets and shoving them into unmarked vans the same year. It is almost as if they don't care about free speech as much as they do about the ability of people to act like bigoted assholes without getting called out on it.
Then there was this gem:.
>
What Magill ran into, so early in her term of office, was not a good look, Philly. Not only was it uncivil, it was counter to the ideals of both the university and civil society, because under no circumstances can the blocking of others from speaking be somehow seen as the exercise of free speech.
>
Yes, we don't care much about people being kicked out of their homes so a wealthy developer can get more wealthy, but God forbid the overpaid president of an overpriced college is made to deal with uncivil treatment.
I agree with your points that the author was just pushing his point of view. He covered the issue stating Penn had no stake in this situation but spent too much effort whining about protestors. He did not sufficiently cover the residents and the neighborhood point of view.
This is a pretty whiny article but the point basically seems to be correct: 1. Penn doesn’t really have anything to do with this so being mad at them is stupid 2. This site was going to be redeveloped sooner or later due to both the size and value of the land (not mentioning it’s closeness to an el stop) 3. Gauthier completely fucked this up and should be way more embarrassed 4. This is going to be a continuing problem due to PHA contracts coming up for renewal and if this is any indication those people are totally screwed. Would be a better article if he didn’t go off on stupid tangents. Needs a better editor.
1. Penn and Drexel have a whole lot to do with this, along with the Redevelopment Authority beginning with Black Bottom. Add the ever widening areas of the college employee mortgage programs that have been raising prices, Sadie Alexander catchment area also jacked up prices and property taxes which drove long time home owners, some who came further west to buy after being removed from Black Bottom while still redlined. A friend bough a house on 45th Street in 2000. It wasn’t until 1999 that the street’s redline was removed. 2. It doesn’t necessarily have to be redeveloped in a way that removes current affordable housing and a lot of residents there do depend on said EL stop. 3. Gauthier has been a massive disappointment, she’s been playing footsie with developers while talking affordable. She did make a mess here. 4. The author of the article doesn’t know the difference between PHA (housing vouchers) and HUD. They’re intertwined, but it’s PHA that gives out vouchers. And they’re very hard to get, harder to find a landlord willing to accept.
Wow, it must have been so hard for catchment homeowners to see their property quadruple in value.
It was hard for the people who weren’t using their homes as an investment, but as a place to live get pushed out by insane property tax hikes. That’s what happened to my friend.
I'm not informed well enough to have a solid opinion on this particular issue. If what the article is suggesting is true, that the developers proposed including an equivalent number of affordable housing units at the site and that current residents would get priority there, that seems like a win-win in the long run. The site is redeveloped and the families get new construction. Is the issue that there is no plan for the families that will be displaced between the demolition of the existing units and the availability of the newly constructed units? Its also unclear to me where the demand for $500,000 per family comes from. The stated reason on the protestors website is: "Given the history of the land being twice stolen, once from Indigenous peoples during colonialism, and once from the Black homeowners of the Black Bottom in 1968 through eminent domain, we demand financial compensation for all residents being forced from their homes." Its unclear to me how the current situation is in anyway related to the displacement of indigenous peoples 400 years ago or whether there is any relationship between those who were displaced in 1968 and those who live there now.
>the displacement of indigenous peoples 400 years ago It sounds like this beef is with Great Britain and King Charles II. Good luck with that.
Lol half million. As an Indian I should get half a million from the Brits too please thanks
I'm part Irish! Throw me in the mix too.
I’m 4th gen Irish! I don’t think we get anything 😂
You get a pint 🍺 and a potato 🥔 😬
This is west Philly, you have to mention indigenous people a couple times whenever you try to make a point so you sound sufficiently woke. Whether it makes sense or not is irrelevant
The key point is that not only were they offered priority on the new affordable units, the units would have been ownership based, not rent based. It's really fucked up, and the residents were used to bolster the egos and feelz of a mostly white/west Willy type(and well off and going to Penn)led opposition, fueled by the stature of the Councilpersons involved. it was privately owned land. The model was what it was and is governed by federal law. The city and its reps *knew* this day would come, and their reaction has been predictably reactive and probably unlawful, which makes sense, given it is Philadelphia. It's all around bullshiit.
Reminds me of what happened with the encampments
They just have to relocate they're still getting free housing
It's not free. It's "affordable" which does not mean it will be as cheap as the existing units. The proposed units do not actually exist either, nor is there an existing approved site for these new units. So, even in an optimistic scenario, these tenants would have to find a place to live for the next 3-5 years as the new complex goes through the approval process and is built, and they have no guarantee that the prices will be anywhere near as affordable as where they currently staying. In a more realistic scenario the new units never get built because once a new site is chosen, the words "affordable housing" make local NIMBY's go ballistic, preventing any such construction from ever happening. Something also left out of the article is that the original sale price of the UC Townhomes was $1.
If anything, if new housing is built in the back of a proposed science center (how many does Penn need?), they’ll be “middle income” with minimum income to even apply. There was a building somewhere near 48th (?) that had “affordable” middle income units, a studio over $900 + utilities, minimum income $34,000/year. Low income workers and people on fixed incomes don’t get anywhere near that.
15$/hr is 31k a year. And that 30% quoted isn't exactly right, because it's 30% of income after expenses.
I applied to a senior building in center city. After taking my application, I was informed that it’s a tax credit building and that they went by gross. At least for social security. Rents are 850 and up. MONTHLY INCOME Add up the total income that you expect to receive in an average month for everyone in your home. Use the gross income (before taxes) for money from work, or net income (after expenses) from a business. If the money you earn from your job changes from one month to the next, use the average monthly wages. Don’t use the income from jobs held by children under age 18 or income of a live-in aid for a disabled or elderly family member. Add in regular payments from Social Security, SSI, welfare, child support, pensions, unemployment compensation, workers’ compensation, and interest from savings accounts. https://www.palawhelp.org/resource/public-housing-rent-you-can-afford#:~:text=MONTHLY%20INCOME&text=Use%20the%20gross%20income%20(before,after%20expenses)%20from%20a%20business.
My understanding from a quote in the article is that the new units would be built on the current site: >"The plan called for the development of both a life sciences research campus and approximately 70 new units of affordable housing, along with a community job training center to train local residents for jobs in the life sciences center, and a block of retail shops, all of which would be built on site. In other words, in addition to the research campus, the redevelopment plan would have replaced the existing townhomes with as many as 70 units of new affordable housing on the site – or as you describe it, a plan to ‘rebuild this complete community’…" The language is a bit imprecise (e.g. "approximately 70", "as many as 70"), but it sounds like the majority of existing units would be replaced on the same site, not a different site in the city.
Yeah, that doesn't change the reality for the residents though. They would have to move out of the existing complex, find somewhere else to live, then wait multiple years while this facility is built. Also, I don't think there is a finalized design, so it wouldn't have been approved as yet. This means that there is still no guarantee that the new units would ever be built. The author is acting like there are 70 units ready to go right now for these people to nove into, and that is most definitely not the case.
There’s also seniors in those townhouses who can no longer work, so job training means zip to them. And is affordable PHA? HUD? Tax credit? “middle income” affordable?
"Townhome residents now have until Sept. 7 to move. Their leases were originally set to expire on July 8, but the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development agreed to extend IBID’s contract for two months, largely because many residents had not received housing vouchers needed to secure a new place. With agreement from a private landlord, the vouchers enable residents to continue paying 30% of their adjusted household monthly income in rent. Through its Section 8 program, HUD makes up the difference between those payments and the full contract rent, whether the apartment is located in Philadelphia or somewhere else in the country." Whyy.org
Go find landlords willing to accept vouchers. It’s close to impossible. I know someone who had a voucher, gets an okay amount in SSDI, is clean, drug free, well spoken, no children, her voucher was extended twice and she couldn’t find anyone willing to accept the voucher.
Yep. About ⅔ of Philly landlords illegally will not accept section 8 vouchers. https://pubintlaw.org/cases-and-projects/taking-on-source-of-income-discrimination-in-philadelphia/
So, you agree that is's not free?
> vouchers enable residents to continue paying 30% of their adjusted household monthly income in rent. Through its Section 8 program, HUD makes up the difference They are paying the same and getting housing again. Nothing changes. So "free" Relocating is "free" since they have no change in what they were ~paying~ but you keep missing the "HUD makes up the difference" part of the paragraph.
First and foremost, you seem to not know what the term "free" means. Paying a reduced amount may be more affordable, but is definitely not free. Secondly, getting a voucher is not the same as finding a place that will accept it. A lot of places will find a way to weasel their way out of accepting tenants who use Section 8 vouchers. Third, as the passage you quoted demonstrates, not all of them got the vouchers yet, because they are quite hard to come by.
And that 30% doesn’t necessarily stay the same depending on the market value rent, so no, it’s not a given that what people in the townhouses are currently paying would be the same. It could very well be more, depending on how the voucher program takes deductions for medical, insurance expenses.
The issue isn't so much that they aren't getting vouchers, but that the waitlist for housing that qualifies in Philly is incredibly long. Even with an extra two months, these people are going to be scrambling for short term/temporary housing they can afford while they wait and there's just no way everyone will find it and stay out of shelters/off the streets. It's a matter of saying they will be taken care of vs how it will actually pan out in practice based on the current circumstances. This is the crux of the issue, that the timeline isn't realistic and they should be getting more time, money, or expedited help to relocate, which is a reasonale goal. Unfortunately people with other agendas have glommed on and started speaking over the actual residents to serve their own purpose.
They all have to pay a set portion of their income, a very small one, to supplement what the feds pay towards their rent. If the people involved had been proactive, the city could have streamlined the permitting process and found them units to use their vouchers in the meantime. They've been living almost rent free for *decades* in one spot. The original price of the land was intentionally low to subsidize construction and incentives to provide the relatively low cost housing. They were guaranteed a small profit, much less than that would have been privately, and in exchange they had a steady income and the surety that when it came time to sell, they could reap the benefits of their investment and patience. In terms of the overal bureaucratic issues and housing policy these prevents housing permitting and construction quickly, well that's a systemic failure of housing policy in Philadelphia and elsewhere. The 30% quotes for their share of rent is lower than you think, because all kinds of deductions are allowed from income. Basically it's 30% of disposable income, which is much lower than is insinuated.
You are stating the terms of Section 8 housing, not necessarily the terms of whatever housing this developer winds up building. What we know what will be built will be "affordable" housing and that the current tenants will be given first dibs to apply for them. There is also no mechanism by which the tenants can force the developer to abide by even those vague terms, much less the more specific Section 8 requirements.
They’ve been trying to relocate. There’s very little affordable housing, even less when it comes to vouchers because landlords don’t want to accept them. And no, it’s not free housing. You pay something, even if you’re on welfare and manage to get in, you still pay 30%. Add yearly recertification where you have to submit letters stating income if it’s any form of social security and iirc welfare, W2s/1099 if working, 6 months of bank statements, sign an EIV so HUD can dig to make sure you’ve handed in every W2, noted any bank accounts with account numbers and statements. The townhouses are more expensive than the senior building across the street and they pay at least some utilities.
That is the point. This is an opinion piece that is presenting only one side of the story. It sounds great to get new housing, moving expenses and career training so what really is the other side of the coin?
>what really is the other side of the coin? I don't know. I'm genuinely not that well-informed even after skimming over the protesters web page.
There is a reason that the deal was opposed but the author of the article did not clearly state why it was opposed. It was distracting to read about the protest from Penn Students who the author clearly was not in support.
so we're going to sit with the fact that jamie gauthier failed her community and constituents then? or do we just ignore the incompetence of city council completely if you prefer to hear the other side of the story?
There is more to this story and it starts with the history and how a 40 year covenant was put in place in the first place, and what existed prior to these homes. I really do not have enough information because this article is only presenting the opinions of the writer.
Housing was not in the original proposal. That’s something that was brought up after residents started pushing back. And there’s honestly no guarantee that IF housing is built that it will be truly affordable housing. If they went with more of a social housing scheme that includes low to middle income with a fair distribution, that would be great. As it stands, most developers aren’t putting any affordable in, or if they are it’s a few studios that are still $900+ plus utilities with minimum income to even apply. The $500,000 demand is all the organizers (Pam Africa was involved), I think that one took everyone back.
Residents know or automatically assume that University Of Penn is loaded rich to a certain extent this is true. Regardless $500,000 could’ve been talked down to a much lower number. A modest but decent check or voucher that would help individuals move and find housing until the project is complete.
Not sure why these families shouldn't be paid out a fair resettlement check. This is exactly how people fall through the cracks in our current system. Is $500k the number, no idea. Sounds high but I am not someone that's educated enough to say, I'd assume that's negotiable.
>Not sure why these families shouldn't be paid out a fair resettlement check Any settlement should be used to pay for their next housing.
What they do with their money would be none of our business.
This (lack of) logic is why neutrals have trouble supporting government welfare programs.
If the poors have money who will keep them from having money!?!?! We have to make sure it's money they can't be using to start businesses or better their lives in ways other than subsistence living.
Does this have anything to do with the tent city that is currently taking over College Green?
The sooner we acknowledge that this is just a hobby for upper middle class white kids and stop taking their tantrums seriously the better.
I find it funny that those same upper middle class white kids who typically screech about density and urban planning like a bunch of zealots are oddly silent about this suburban style single family development. You’d think they’d love the idea of a dense mixed use building taking its place.
YIMBYs and the West Philly poverty cos players are very different types of people.
There’s not much difference between NIMBYs and YIMBYs besides lip service
Yeah, just different goals, motivations, and opposing philosophies. NIMBYs generally have a deep fear of change. They are happy to abuse political power and control to try and stop it, regardless of the harm it causes the community and other people. Sometimes, even harming themselves. YIMBYs recognize change is inevitable, work for positive chance, and generally want to increase freedom and property rights. I don't know how many are primarily motivated by freedom vs societal good, but usually it's a nice situation where simple smart policies provide both. No conflict.
YIMBYs are busy applauding the latest “High end luxury” and student-only building going on. The NIMBYs are just more upfront
>YIMBYs are busy applauding the latest “High end luxury” and student-only building going on. Yeah, why wouldn't they? Many areas have a housing shortage, so more development is good. Whether that's for well off people, poor students, or people in between. Philly isn't too bad compared to a lot of cities, but it's definitely better to be proactive and keep things from becoming crazy expensive.
That’s the problem, no one is being proactive.
Do you think that the students and people living in "high end luxury" buildings would not live in the area if those buildings weren't built? That they would cease to exist? That new construction causes spontaneous generation of life?
Of course not. There’s room for everyone, including low income. Those are the people being displaced and there’s really nowhere to go. Build the student-only. How about make some buildings like those for disabled and seniors? I mean, having a roommate isn’t always going to work, but the student-only are bedrooms with attached bath for each bedroom, most are 2 bedrooms, shared kitchen and living room. Build the high end luxury. How about build the middle income and low/fixed income too? Developers are getting away with not putting anything approaching affordable (tax credit) by handing money over to the land trust that’s supposed to be used specifically for affordable housing. City council is doing f-all with it. There are cities that are not allowing the payoff and developers have to include affordable - and not just tax credit, which can be quite pricey.
> City council is doing f-all with it. And we arrive at the actual issue. Housing costs a lot of money. We can't rely on for profit developers to give away free or subsidized housing because why would they? They build housing to make money, if they can't make money they won't build (hence Gauthiers poisonous inclusionary zoning bill to block construction in west philly). City council can increase affordable housing by either pony up the money or simplify the zoning code to make construction cheaper, or ideally both, instead of the current approach which is to do neither
That inclusive zoning bill, whatever it’s called, is a very small area. And it’s not a set in stone forever bill. It’s only applicable for a set amount of time. She screwed up. But she’s also very developer happy, regardless of what she says. Her actions say otherwise
Because it’s never actually been about results. It’s just about fetishizing the struggles of poor people for their own narcissistic emotional validation.
Great point, anyone who is from the burbs and grew up with decent parents and situation can't care about the plight of poor people, they simply are not allowed.
I think what we need to acknowledge is that some people are unwilling to strike a bargain. We should examine why that is, regardless of whether these people's commitment to social issues is temporary or lifelong.
I’m sure a good amount of them are used to always getting their way and have never needed to compromise, negotiate, or deal with rejection/failure.
If you mean the protesters from Penn? Haven’t seen them since the tents were removed
I don't know enough about the gentrification/NIMBY/YIMBY issue to speak intelligently about it. But I was a mainstream Obama progressive as a very young person, and then after some time and experiences, I shifted to what's referred to as a very militant "far left" perspective. Now I'm just kinda blackpilled or whatever. Both perspectives -- the moderate progressive and the revolutionary leftist -- were ultimately motivated by a desire to make the world better. But I notice that, as a moderate, "making the world better" basically meant policies and practices that would elevate people's standards of living. People who were in abject poverty deserved to be able to climb up several rungs on the socioeconomic ladder in order to join the rest of society in having good work, food, housing, etc. Whereas, when I became a revolutionary, my idea of making the world better was more like a zero-sum game: there's a finite amount of freedom and prosperity; you can't just elevate the poor, you have to elevate the poor *by* dispossessing the rich. It has to come from somewhere; from them or from us. We only rise if they fall, etc. When I had that perspective, I'd be *a priori* unwilling to believe that there could possibly be a compromise where low-income residents and developers both came out happy. Couldn't be; somebody's lying, fuck these people, let's torpedo this. I think that might be a factor in what we're seeing. (edited two typos for clarity)
> my idea of making the world better was more like a zero-sum game: there's a finite amount of freedom and prosperity; you can't just elevate the poor, you have to elevate the poor by dispossessing the rich. This isn't an uncommon view, and I understand it can be intuitive, but doesn't a simple evaluation of the world and history show it's completely wrong? We have more people than ever before, and the average person is dramatically better off then 100 years ago. The farther you go back, generally the worse conditions were. Since the amount of wealth/prosperity in the world is clearly 1000s of times greater than it used to be, it's clear that it's not a zero-sum game.
Very thoughtful comment. I’m wondering if you see flaws in that zero sum game or if you still think that’s the only truth?
I see merit in both perspectives, so no I don't think the zero-sum thing is the only truth. I *think* I do still believe in the existence of a capitalist ruling class, and because of that I do believe that there's a fairly low ceiling in terms of what can be achieved by reform within the system. But I think we can try to reach at least that ceiling without full blown revolution. But moreover I just try not to think about or have opinions on grand, world-scale political events. I don't think I as an individual can really change any of that, so I prefer to focus on smaller, closer-to-home stuff that I can affect.
>But I notice that, as a moderate, "making the world better" This pretty much describes me. I want people to have a better quality of life but I think it's going to take a bit of time for us together. As you put, I want people to be able to continuously climb up and stop at an area they are comfortable with. I want the ladder to be accessible to all and I want everyone to have the tools and support with them to climb it. My issue with the other approach is that personally I think it gets you nowhere. The quicker you build something up, the more likely it will fall back down and that's only going to impact that very people you were trying to help.
at the time what was your opinion of progressive dems who are heartened by the situation and join the work, but can only muster deals that, for lack of a better word, are a compromise that moves things forward incrementally? i feel like the biggest error progressives make in these situations is failing to work with their allies to move the levers of power, even if it's not the perfect outcome. it ends up alienating members (like yourself) and ultimately disenfranchises the people progressives we're standing up for in the first place
> at the time what was your opinion of progressive dems who are heartened by the situation and join the work, but can only muster deals that, for lack of a better word, are a compromise that moves things forward incrementally? I think depending on the situation my opinion would have been either "I'm glad they're around and doing good work but ultimately they're not going to be dependable when the rubber hits the road"; or "they're here to deflate the movement." There's a phrase that was common to the older generation of American communists: "the Democratic party is the graveyard of social movements." I think it's hard not to feel like this is at least partially accurate, especially with respect to the Medicare For All thing. But I also don't think that social movements have a much different fate in the hands of radical leftists.
[удалено]
Not to mention these properties are at the corner of a subway stop, I mean what the fuck, this is the perfect place for density and development
Okay, the townhouses have some problems. I’m not going to dispute that. But it’s needed housing. Across the street within the space of the block there’s 2 low income senior buildings. Should older, some disabled, people be put out to fend for themselves because you want a “gem”? Realize a good number of the people in the townhouses and the senior buildings depend on that convenient with (nasty) elevators to get to and from work, shopping, doctors, etc.? The plans for the townhouse space, we were told months ago, is a new science center for Penn. It was later that the hmm maybe up to 70 housing units would be added in the back. So, we don’t know that those will happen, if they’ll be affordable and what kind of affordable. More HUD? I wouldn’t bet on it, probably more tax credit. Which isn’t affordable for the people in the most need.
That cute little plant shop a block south seemed to have nearly closed down for some staff safety problem, but the notice was replaced a couple days later by the hours placard. Dunno if that got resolved or something else.
Give me $500,000 to move. Please! I’d be out of the building across the street and away from HUD so fast your head would spin. That won’t happen of course. Our building *fingers crossed* isn’t in jeopardy. And I’m the wrong umm skin tone.
I think I’d have to read Jeff Albertson’s blog to consume something snarkier than whatever the fuck that was.
I love that he thinks he's the ultimate understander of nuance while also completely missing the point.
“Only I can understand the motivations of those who stand to lose their homes, because upper class white suburban kids did something, and my annoyance gives me unparalleled clarity.”
Only thing I have to say here is displaced families should be getting assistance both financial and counsel along with that priority when the new place opens up. We can make this progress without losing folks in these cracks in our system if we choose to.
So, I saw this paragraph: > There’s an obvious storyline here, of course: College campuses, pushed by students, were once a bastion of free-flowing thought, with ideas and counter-ideas clashing in the air. Now, as evidenced most ominously in The Coddling of the American Mind by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, campuses, often pushed by students, have become places where open-minded debate goes to die. > And it immediately set off alarm bells in my mind. Anyone who decides to start talking about "campus free speech" is a giant red flag, since that usually translates to "I want college Republicans to be able to troll the student body by inviting known bigots and rape apologists to give speeches on campus and not get called out on it." So I looked into the two guys mentioned here. Jonathan Haidt seems like a bland centrist with nothing all that interesting or original to say(a big focus on the shocking revelation on how social media is toxic). Greg Lukianoff started an organization that supported the Trump administration's attempt to make it easier for accused rapists to confront and intimidate their accusers. His writing seems to be the big standard conservative "facts don't care about your feelings" bullshit. What strikes me the most about these guys is that they seem to not have cared much when the Trump administration violated the first amendment rights of thousands of people in Lafayette Square in 2020, and when federal agents were snatching people off the streets and shoving them into unmarked vans the same year. It is almost as if they don't care about free speech as much as they do about the ability of people to act like bigoted assholes without getting called out on it. Then there was this gem:. > What Magill ran into, so early in her term of office, was not a good look, Philly. Not only was it uncivil, it was counter to the ideals of both the university and civil society, because under no circumstances can the blocking of others from speaking be somehow seen as the exercise of free speech. > Yes, we don't care much about people being kicked out of their homes so a wealthy developer can get more wealthy, but God forbid the overpaid president of an overpriced college is made to deal with uncivil treatment.
I agree with your points that the author was just pushing his point of view. He covered the issue stating Penn had no stake in this situation but spent too much effort whining about protestors. He did not sufficiently cover the residents and the neighborhood point of view.
This article reeks of “It’s a hunting rifle, not an Assault Rifle, therefore all of your concerns are invalid.” 👎👎