I have always believed that the 421-a tax abatement program should end. In the '70s, when no one was developing, it was a wonderful plan. But now the incentive has been bastardized, used as a come on to entice prospective buyers of luxury units. The abatement is a crutch for developers that costs the city millions in tax revenue, dollars badly needed to improve the city's increasingly overloaded infrastructure and fund community amenities like affordable housing, schools, firehouses, ect.
The original intent of the law establishing the 421-a tax abatement was to encourage housing development in an area where market rate development was not occurring and would not occur without the tax abatement. At this time, market rate housing development is clearly occurring and will continue to occur in the city without the benefit of the 421-a tax abatement. Therefore, the tax abatement is not needed as an incentive to build market rate units.When a development gets the tax break, most brokerages feature "421-a" prominently in their real estate listings, and call it a valuable marketing tool.
This has to end. We can no longer continue down this slippery slope of spot zoning and handing out 421-a tax abatements.

I'm very surprised this post appeared on the fake-progressive DMI blog, which up until now seemed 100% apologetic for the 421(a), inclusionary zoning and Acorn Benefit Agreements. At least in this post the writer is 50% there in understanding what's going on. but you have a ways to go as the first comment illustrates.

But where in the world does the poster get the idea that towers will be 'jam-packed' with affordable housing. It simply isn't true and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what is happening in our neighborhoods under seige.

And of course, there's no mention of wider secondary displacement and community destruction that leads to a net loss of affordable housing, but benefits political hacks and local cronied NFP developers.

Get with it DMI. Stop being apologists for urban planners whose only purpose in life is to play with communities like doll houses. Gee, Barbie won't mind if we move her 2 miles away.

While the debate seems to revolve around whether 421(a)'s are needed in areas that are already experiencing development, the better question is would this nonsense continue anywhere?

Thank you for your response.

Of course I didn't write an exhaustive thesis about this topic?it was a blog post aimed at calling attention to the 421-A issue. The blog shouldn?t be the site of angrily blaming each other?instead, maybe your attention would be better directed at posting additional information, helping to educate readers more thoroughly on the topic.

That said, I wrote about the displacement of affordable housing when I said "has the net result of pushing out the people in the neighborhood who had been living there affordably before the surge of new development. We may just lose more affordable housing than we gain."

When you successfully write a blog that truly examines every aspect of a given subject, please let me know because it's not a blog post then, it's a book.

But I do want to hear your continued thoughts on the problems with 421-a's.

Oh yeah, they are simply huge ACORN apologists writing for this blog. NOT.

http://www.dmiblog.net/archives/2005/12/calling_the_question_of_acorn.html

Anon is so angry he can't even read straight. Hey, its ok to be angry but you're venting in the wrong direction.

The whole point was that 421-a's are such a scam that even Bloomberg is realizing they are a rip-off.

Bah is wrong. Bloomberg is looking to expand the 421(a)'s. Read his comments carefully. And the comment Bah points to is more intra-turf battle than anything else. Griffith is involved in much the same effort as Acorn and some of the others here on DMI. Look at the comments on CBAs and such.

And yes Ms. Solon, you're halfway there and I do credit you for the line you highlighted. Think the rest of it through.