luxurious loophole report [real affordability for all campaign]

5/28/2018 Luxurious Loophole Report [Real Affordability for All Campaign]

http:///reader/full/luxurious-loophole-report-real-affordability-for-all-campa

LUXURIOU$ LOOPHOLE:

How Developer$ Use Taxpayer$ to

$ubsidize Housing for the Rich

A New Report on Downtown Brooklyn

and the 421-a Program,

Researched and Written by the

Real Affordability for All Campaign

April 2014



2

Table of Contents:

Fact Sheet 2

I. Introduction 3i. Synopsis 3

ii. Executive Summary 3II. Public Money Funding the Creating of Luxury Housing 5

III. Overwhelmed by Gentrification 7i. Making Neighborhoods off Limits for Average New Yorkers 7

ii. Disappearing Affordable Housing 8iii. Evidence of Displacement 10

IV. Area Developments 12V. Recommendations 15

VI. Conclusion 16Table 1. Demographics By Percentage 10

Table 2. Demographics By Number 11

Table 3. Break Down of Affordable Housing 14

Table 4. Studied Buildings 18



3

FACT SHEET

Between 2008-2012 61 buildings, with a total 4,395 units, were built that received 421atax abatements in zip codes 11201, 11217, and 11215which encompass the area in andaround downtown Brooklyn1.

Only five of the 61 buildings included any below market rate apartments. Of the 4,395units identified for this project, only 2576% of the totalwere affordable to low- ormoderate-income households.

The average purchase price for new condos was $777,000, which would require anincome of at least $150,000almost double the study areas median household income.

The average rent for rental units was $2,643, which would require a household income of$106,00020% higher than the study areas median household income. This is 40%higher than the existing median rents in the study area.

Between 2002 and 2009 the percentage of the study areas residents living in rentregulated, subsidized, or public housing decreased by 23% from 71% to 48%.

The average building saved $2,598,937.56 in property taxes ($642,000 per affordableunit) through the 421a tax abatement program.

45 of the 61 buildings received a 15-year real estate tax abatements-of-right, with norequirement to build affordable housing.2

Between 2000 and 2011 the average household income in the study area increased by61%, which is double the citywide increase.

Within the study are the percentage of residents earning below $75,000 has beendecreasing while the percentage of those earning more than $75,000 has been increasing.

Between 2000 and 2011, the Black population in the study area dropped 23% (40% since1990).

Between 2000 and 2011 the Hispanic population decreased by almost 20% (40% since1990) even though it was increasing city and borough wide.

1The study area goes as far west as the East River, as far south as 36thStreet, as far east as

Prospect Park and, just slightly further north than Flatbush Avenue.211 of the buildings that received 25 year abatements received their New Building permits

before 6/30/2008 (the date that the expanded GEA went into effect) so those developments

were not required to provide any affordable housing.



4

Between 2000 and 2011 the White population in the study area increased 23%, while itdeclined citywide.



5

I. Introductioni. Synopsis

Rising rents and stagnant wages have dramatically increased the need for affordable

housing. Yet the city continues to subsidize the creation of housing for the wealthiest New

Yorkers. The 421a tax abatement program has been a crucial factor fueling this disparity.

Because developers receiving the 421a tax abatement are not required to provide any

substantial affordable housing in exchange for the subsidy, many of these developments, while

generating new housing units for the marketplace, do not generate new affordable housing

units. In fact, these taxpayer-subsidized buildings have significantly contributed to the

displacement of longtime residents by causing rents to rise in the surrounding neighborhoods.

This phenomenon can be seen with particular clarity in the neighborhoods in and around

downtown Brooklyn and the zip codes studied herein.

ii. Executive SummaryAccording to the New York City Department of Finance (DOF), 61 buildings receiving

421a tax abatements were constructed between 2008-2012 in zip codes 11201, 11217, and

11215. There are a total of 4,395 units in these buildings, and they will receive a total of $158

million in tax subsidies over the next 25 years. Only 151 (about 3.5%) of these units are

affordable for low-income families3and only 106 more (about 2.5%) are affordable to moderate-

income families. In total, the affordable-units generated in these new developments are a mere

6% of the total units created. Ninety percent of taxpayers who subsidized these new buildings

cannot afford to live in them. The luxurious loophole that developers exploited to create these

new buildings came at the extreme expense of low-income and moderate-income families.

3Low-income families are those earning 50% or less of the Area Median Income



6

Indeed, this is heavily subsidized housing even though the units are only affordable to

wealthiest residents of the city. The average purchase price of the condo units included in this

study was $777,000, and the average rent for leased units was over $2,600.

The increase in high-income earners within the study area was accompanied by a sharp

increase in the white households even as the white demographic declines citywide. This increase

was accompanied by a decrease in African-American and Hispanic households within the study

area. Although the African-American population decreased borough-wide and citywide, it

decreased five times as fast in the study area (in and around downtown Brooklyn). Even more

striking is that, despite an increase in the Hispanic population borough-wide and citywide, the

Hispanic population in and around downtown Brooklyn has been decreasing at nearly the same

rate as the African-American population.

The need to create housing that is affordable for low- and moderate-income families is

greater than ever. In recent years, the number of rent-regulated apartments has been steadily

declining throughout the city and more rapidly in the study area. Over the past 10 years, rents

have increased at twice the rate of household incomes both in the study area and citywide.

Without a serious intervention, it will become increasingly difficult for everyday New

Yorkers to find housing hey can afford. A recent study by the Real Affordability for All

campaign found that more than 700,000 low-income New Yorkers were shut out of the

Bloomberg housing boom. The use and abuse of 421-a to subsidize new housing for wealthy

New Yorkers at the expense of low and moderate New Yorkers is a key factor in that trend.

To reverse this disturbing trend, Mayor de Blasio should include in his affordable

housing plan set to be released May 1, 2014 a requirement that developers who receive tax



7

exemptions for their new developments set aside a minimum of 50% of new units for real

affordable housing.

Requiring a minimum of 50% of new apartments within the existing tax-abatement

parameters to meet these standards would ensure long-term real affordability to a wide array of

low-income and moderate-income households shut out of the new housing developments built

under Bloomberg. And it would give city taxpayers a much better return on their investment in

new housing developments while still enabling real-estate developers to reap significant profits.

There are many ways to achieve a significant number of 50/50 developments. We

recommend two 50/50 scenarios: 1) for the highest-cost areas of the city (particularly

Manhattan), 50 percent of the units are market rate and 50 percent are targeted to low-income

households (those earning 30-60 percent of AMI); 2) for the outer boroughs and lower-cost areas

of the city, 100% of the developments are affordable: 50 percent of the units are for low-income

households (those earning 30-60 percent of AMI) and 50 percent are middle income (for families

earning up to 100 percent of AMI). The second scenario holds a lot of promise, as current

residents and new arrivals look to the outer boroughs for real affordable housing, especially in

neighborhoods that have not yet gentrified. But together, both scenarios can achieve a much

greater level of real affordability across the city than was achieved by Bloombergs housing

policies and programs over the past decade or so.

II.

Public Money Funding the Creation of Luxury Housing

The city is using taxpayer dollars to subsidize the creation of luxury housing for the

wealthiest New Yorkers, causing rents to rise and making the area unaffordable for low- and



8

moderate-income New Yorkers. All of the buildings described in this report are receiving 421a

tax abatements.

421a is a tax-exemption program for new construction that was initially created in the

1970s after an economic crisis in the city required an incentive to spur development within the

citys limits. Under this program, developments anywhere in the city can receive tax abatements

for 15 to 25 years except in the defined exemption zones. Instead of assessing real estate taxes

in accordance with post-construction value of a property, owners of buildings with tax

abatements are assessed real estate taxes based on the pre-construction value of the property.

The tax-assessed value is then increased gradually over 15 or 25 years until the value used to

assess real estate taxes is equal to the post-construction value.4 This results in thousands of

dollars in real estate tax savings over the period of the tax abatement to developers and owners of

these units.

Developments that received new building (NB) permits before June 30, 2008 anywhere

in the city, except between 110thStreet and 14thStreet in Manhattan, were not required to

provide any affordable housing in order to receive the tax abatement. After the June 30, 2008

deadline, new developments in Manhattan and downtown Brooklyn were required to make 20%

of a developments units affordable if they opt for a 25-year abatement. If they build in other

areas of the city or opt for a 15-year abatement, there is no affordable housing requirement to

receive these tax savings.5

4New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), 421-a Legislative

Overview and FAQ, 2-4 (2013)5Id.



9

Between 1989 and 2003, 69,000 buildings were constructed that received 421a tax

exemptions, and only 7% of these units were affordable.6 According to the Independent Budget

Office, there are 150,000 units receiving 421a tax exemptions and have cost the city $1.1 billion

in uncollected taxes.7 A studypublished in 2006, looking at buildings built in this reports study

area, found essentially the same percentage of affordable units that this report finds.8 After the

extension of the GEA, developers simply opted for the 15-year tax abatement instead of a 25-

year abatement to get around the affordability requirement. That is the luxurious loophole they

exploit. The city continues to engage in multi-million dollar giveaways to create housing for the

wealthy, while low- and moderate-income families occupying older buildings continue to pay

property taxes (either directly for homeowners or indirectly through rising rents for renters).

III. Overwhelmed by GentrificationThe area in and around downtown Brooklyn has experienced overwhelming

gentrification in recent years. Gentrification is the process by which low- and moderate-income

urban neighborhoods begin to experience renewed commercial and real estate investment, an

increasing population caused by an influx of affluent professionals, and a racial transition that is

often marked by the displacement of longtime residents. During the past 25 years, downtown

Brooklyn has gone from a majority minority to a majority white neighborhood. Median income

has grown much faster than the rest of the borough and city, hundreds of new luxury apartment

6Nilback, Preston, Molly Wasow Park, Worth the Cost? Evaluating the 421-a Tax Exemption, 1

(2003).7Champeny, Ana, What Type and Size of Buildings are Receiving 421-a Tax Exemptions in 2013,

http://ibo.nyc.ny.us/cgi-park2/?p=436(2013).8Timmer, Doug, Ann Sulliva, and Joseph Catron, Sweetheart Development; Gentrification and

Resegregation in Downtown Brooklyn, 2 (2006).
http://ibo.nyc.ny.us/cgi-park2/?p=436http://ibo.nyc.ny.us/cgi-park2/?p=436http://ibo.nyc.ny.us/cgi-park2/?p=436



10

buildings have been constructed, mainstream chain retailers have been replacing the mom-and-

pop retailers that historically characterized Fulton Mall, and affordable housing is disappearing.

i. Making Neighborhoods Off Limits to Average New YorkersIn recent years there has been much debate over how longtime residents are affected by

the process of gentrification. In 2005, Lance Freeman and Frank Braconi studied the relationship

between displacement and gentrification in New York neighborhoods and found no evidence of

displacement in gentrifying neighborhoods, asserting that low- and moderate-income residents

were actually more likely to stay in gentrifying neighborhoods because of improved services and

employment opportunities.

9

Likewise Mark Davidson found little evidence of direct

displacement caused by gentrification in London.10 However, several other studies have

demonstrated that these findings do not capture the entire picture.

It is true that the type of gentrification experienced by downtown Brooklyn is often

marked by the creation of new housing occupying previously unused space, which means that

those moving into the new developments dont directly displace low- and moderate-income

residents. However, new development for higher income households leads to neighborhoods that

become increasingly unaffordable in the long run, which in turn results in gradual displacement

of original neighborhood residents. The construction of new luxury housing puts upward

pressure on rents and orients new retail toward the preferences and tastes of affluent newcomers,

making such neighborhoods off limits to low-income people trying to move into or within the

9Freeman, Lance, Frank Braconi, Gentrification and Displacement; New York City in the 1990s,

70,J. Am. Planning Assc. (2004).10

Davidson, Mark, Spoiled Mixture; Where does State led Positive Gentrification End?, 45, J.

Urban Studies (2008).



11

neighborhood.11 Luxury developments in downtown Brooklyn are raising rents in other nearby

buildings, making the entire area too expensive for many residents.

Evidence of Displacement

It is hard to determine the precise number of people who have been displaced by

gentrification in downtown Brooklyn, but the changing demographics of the neighborhood show

a racial and economic transition. In 1990, African Americans were the largest ethnic group in

the study area, and the African-American and Hispanic populations combined comprised well

over two thirds of the neighborhood. Between the 1990 and 2000 Census, the white population

grew by 12% while the African-American population decreased by 17.2%.12 Between 2000 and

2011, the African-American population dropped by another 23%, the Hispanic population also

dropped by 20%, and the white population increased by 23%.13

These demographic shifts are striking. It is worth comparing them to what has happened

in the borough and across the city between 2000 and 2011. In Brooklyn and New York City as a

whole, the African American population declined by just under 5%, which is less than one fourth

the decline in downtown Brooklyn. The Hispanic population increased by 7% citywide and by

almost 1% in Brooklyn, while it declined in downtown Brooklyn. The white population

decreased by almost 3% citywide while increasing significantly in downtown Brooklyn.

11Newman, Kathe, Elvin K. Wyly, Right to Stay Put, Revisited: Gentrification and Resistance to

Displacement in New York City, 43, J. Urban Studies, 27 (2006); Davidson, supra; Freeman,

Lance, There Goes the Neighborhood: Views of Gentrification from the Ground Up, (2006).12

Community District Profiles, New York City Department of City Planning. December 2004.13

U.S. Census 2010



12

Furthermore, the median income increased by 61% between 2000 and 2011, which is

double the increase citywide.14 The number of people earning over $75,000 annually increased,

while those earning less than that decreased; the largest rate of increase was among those making

more than $150,000 annually.15 The African-American and Hispanic median incomes are well

below $75,000 in the study area and the white median income is well above $75,000. During the

past decade the median income of white residents has increased by 65%, which is roughly twice

the increase of the median income borough and citywide. The African-American median

income, on the other hand, increased by only 18%, which is only about half the increase in

median income borough and citywide. Also, the number of people with professional degrees

increased by 40%, which is double the increase citywide.16 A growing body of evidence shows

that the socioeconomic character of downtown Brooklyn has changed dramatically.

Taxpayer-subsidized luxury developments built with 421a abatements have fueled an

aggressive gentrification process in the area. The areas stock of affordable housing is shrinking

and new developments are making the area unaffordable for low- and moderate-income families.

Table 2. Demographic Data By Number

14Id.

15Id.

16Id.

Statistics 2000

Study

Area

2000

Kings

County

2000

NYC

2011

Study

Area

2011

Kings

County

2011

NYC

Change

Study

Area

Change

NYC

Change

Kings

County

White 76,422 854,532 2,801,267 94,354 886,855 2,724,300 17932 -76,967 32,323

African

American23,811 848,583 1,962,154 18,437 807,108 1,873,853 -5374 -88,301 -41,475

Asian 7,950 184,291 780,229 11,175 256,869 1,024,303 3225 244,074 72,578Hispanic 32,376 487,878 2,160,554 26,404 492,496 2,310,163 -5972 149,609 4,618

Professional

Degrees7,681 32,842 156,649 10,731 35,680 168,501 3050 11,852 2,838



13

IV. Area Developments

To document the taxpayer-subsidized gentrification that has been overwhelming downtown

Brooklyn, this report looks at 60 developments in zip codes 11201, 11217, and 11215. These zip

codes cover most of the area in and around downtown Brooklyn. This list includes every

development listed on the New York City Department of Finances (DOF) website that was built

between 2008-2012 and that is receiving a 421a tax abatement. Many buildings pulled permits

prior to the 421a changes effective July 1, 2008 so they could benefit from the prior 421-a ruling.

Appendix 1 lists the developments studied for this report. It includes the address, the date

that new building permits were pulled, the date the certificate of occupancy was issued, the total

dollar amount of subsides the development received, the number of units, the number of

affordable units, and the cost of those units. It also includes information about the cost of the

project and the identity of the developers.

Information about permits and COOs and number of units was obtained from the New

York City Department of Buildings Building Information System (BIS). Information about the

number of affordable units and any mortgage-related subsidies were gleaned from ACRIS by

looking at the deeds and mortgages associated with each property. The amount and duration of

the tax abatement came from the DOF. Average prices per unit for market rate owner-occupied

units were determined by averaging the deed prices for individual condos that can be found on

ACRIS, rental prices were determined by searching rental listing records on streeteasy.com and

Median

Income$53,329 $32,135 $38,394 $85,985 $44,593 $51,312 $32,656 $12,918 $12,458



14

Zillow. Information about the owners and developers also came from deed and mortgage

documents on ACRIS.

The information obtained about the developments researched for this report shows that

the city has been foregoing millions in tax revenue to create luxury housing for the rich, despite

the growing need for affordable housing. Between property tax exemptions and special

mortgage financing these developments received over $165,000,000 in subsidies.17 That is

roughly $2.7 million per development, $37,000 per unit, and a whopping $642,000 per

affordable unit created.

Only a small percentage of the apartments were affordable for the majority of households

currently living in the area or anywhere else in the city. Of the 4,395 units created, 257 were

affordable to low or moderate-income earners.18 Fifty-six of the 61 developments had no

affordable housing at all.19 The average purchase price of condo units was $777,00020and the

average rent for rental units was over $2,600.21

According to the Department of Housing Urban Development a households housing

expense shouldnt exceed 30% of the households income.22 That means that in order to qualify

to purchase the average condo in these developments, a household would need to earn over

$150,000 a year; for one of the rentals, theyd need to earn over $100,000 annually, both of

which are well over the areas median household income of $86,000 and more than double the

17New York City Department of Finance, Property Tax Benefit Information,https://a836-

propertyportal.nyc.gov/(last accessed Dec. 22, 2013); Automated City Register Information,

Search Property Records,http://a836-acris.nyc.gov/DS/DocumentSearch/Index(last accessedDec. 22, 2013).18

ACRIS, supra at Party Name -> Document Type -> Mortgage.19

Id.20

Id.21

www.streeteasy.com;www.zillow.com.22

Bravve, Elina, Megan Bolton, Sheila Crowley. Out of Reach 2013. National Low Incom

e Housing Coalition. March 2013.
https://a836-propertyportal.nyc.gov/https://a836-propertyportal.nyc.gov/https://a836-propertyportal.nyc.gov/https://a836-propertyportal.nyc.gov/http://a836-acris.nyc.gov/DS/DocumentSearch/Indexhttp://a836-acris.nyc.gov/DS/DocumentSearch/Indexhttp://a836-acris.nyc.gov/DS/DocumentSearch/Indexhttp://www.streeteasy.com/http://www.streeteasy.com/http://www.streeteasy.com/http://www.streeteasy.com/http://a836-acris.nyc.gov/DS/DocumentSearch/Indexhttps://a836-propertyportal.nyc.gov/https://a836-propertyportal.nyc.gov/



15

$45,000 median income of African-American and Hispanic households. Even the vast majority

of affordable units that were created are, in fact, unaffordable for low-income New Yorkers.

Only 31 units, or 12% of the affordable units and .7% of the total units created, are affordable for

families making less than 50% of the AMI ($40,900 for a family of four).

Table 3. % of AMI for Affordable Units

Number of

Units

Percentage

of Total

Percentage

of AMI

Units if

Affordable

For21 8.00% 40.00%

10 4.00% 45.00%

120 47.00% 50.00%

9 4.00% 65.00%

39 15.00% 80.00%

39 15.00% 90.00%

19 7.00% 130.00%

257 100% 71%

These findings unfortunately mirror the findings of a similar study done in 2006 that

looked at 87 buildings in roughly the same area. The 2006 study found that barely 7% of the

6,000 units researched were affordable.23 Both studies found essentially the same amount of

affordable housing in the developments researched as was found in a study by the Independent

Budget Office that looked at all of the buildings receiving 421a tax abatements between 1989

and 2003 (7% affordability).24

This is especially alarming in light of the fact that the GEA was vastly extended in 2008 in

order to compel real estate developers to create more affordable housing in exchange for the

23Timmer, supra.

24Nilbakc, supra.



16

huge subsidies they were receiving. Buildings within the new GEA that received 25-year tax

abatements were required to provide 20% onsite affordable housing.25 The fact that 45 of the 61

buildings researched for this report opted for the 15-year tax break indicates that developers have

adjusted to the new policy by taking a smaller tax break to avoid the affordability requirement.

V. Recommendations for Mayor de Blasio and His AdministrationThe city must end its practice of subsidizing the development of expensive luxury

housing without requiring developers to include real affordable housing. The recommendations

outlined below are offered as part of a larger effort to make low and moderate income New

Yorkers the focus ofhousing policy and programs in the de Blasio administration. The goal is to

curb and mitigate the worst effects of gentrification and preserve downtown Brooklyn and other

neighborhoods as vibrant, diverse, mixed-income communities. The Real Affordability for All

campaign is asking Mayor de Blasio and his administration to include these recommendations in

their affordable housing plan set to be released May 1.

Replacing 80/20 and Luxury Condo Development with 50/50 to Ensure Real Affordability

in Subsidized Buildings

Any building being built within the geographic exclusion area (GEA) that is receiving tax

abatements should have to provide 50 percentaffordable housing. The current policy requires

developers taking advantage of the 25-year abatement to provide 20% affordable housing, and

the remaining 80 percentis market-rate, but those receiving 15-year abatements have no

requirement for affordable housing. The luxurious loophole exploited on behalf of the wealthiest

25HPD, supra.



17

New Yorkers should be closed by requiring 15-year abatement developments to provide 50

percent affordable housing. To increase real affordability in our citys housing stock, all future

taxpayer subsidized buildings should set aside at least 50 percent of the units for real affordable

housing. Real affordability is defined as housing that is affordable for low-income households of

four earning 30% to 60% of Area Median Income and moderate-income households of four

earning up to 100% of Area Median Income.

The de Blasio administration should work with state legislators to amend the 421a tax

abatement law so that it requires all developers receiving a tax abatement under the program to

set aside 50% of the units as real affordable units to low- and moderate-income households.

The 50/50 model can be implemented through common sense financing and policy reforms.

Key elements of the 50/50 model could include: upzoning for maximum density in

neighborhoods with the most vacant land; increasing floor-to-area (FAR) bonuses in all new

developments; removing height and bulk restrictions in new developments; transferring air

rights; providing permanent low-cost financing for new developments; and increasing current per

unit subsidies marginally and applying those subsidies to all affordable housing units.

VI. ConclusionDevelopers have used millions of taxpayer dollars, from New York City residents including

low and moderate income families, to create housing for the most affluent New Yorkers. For too

many years, city developers receiving massive taxpayer subsidies have produced little affordable

housing. Luxury housing built using these subsidies has contributed to the displacement of

longtime residents in gentrifying neighborhoods like downtown Brooklyn. But Mayor de Blasio



18

and his administration can begin to reverse this trend by including the recommendations

described above in their affordable housing plan set to be released on May 1.

Appendix 1. Study Buildings Information

Address

Benefit

Amount

Other

Subsidies

Number of

Units

Number of

Affordable

Units

218 Myrtle Ave $3,920,508 95 0

306 Gold Street $13,900,00 303 0

343 Gold Street $22,015,626 631 0

109 Gold Street 2,297,523 33 0

309 Atlantic Ave $1,686,977 28 042-44 Duffield Street $950,947 16

107 Lawrence Street $16,304,403 491 0

235 Gold Street $21,600,610 372 0

277 Gold Street $8,840,810 268 0

236 Livingston $23,069,975 314 8

100 Gold Street $720,000 10 0

181 York Street $353,160 10 0

185 York Street $640,101 17

414 Hick Street $4,115,142 $20,020,000 149 49

100 Congress St $1,579,839 30 0

73 Pineapple St $633,960 9 0

117 Court Street $562,655 7

205 Water Street 65

233 Pacific Street $1,949,728 42 0

384 Bridge Street $11,747,219 86,000,000 378 75

94 Prospect Place $198, 614 4 0

340 Dean Street $116,324 8 0

392 Atlantic Ave $41,130 7 0

212 South Oxford Street $5,369,238 $2,075,000 80 59152 4th Avenue $1,625,540 95 0

695 Sackett Street $405,567 6

137 5th Ave $42,336 4 0

53 Lincoln Place $285,143 4 0

17 Bergen Street $1,043,080 4 0

200 Atlantic Ave $1,863,869 32



19

29 Flatbush $382,887 $90,000,000 329 66

252 18th Street $981,879 18 0

433 3rd Ave $1,261,836 27 0

574 4 AVENUE $3,094,974 81 0

232 7 STREET, 1F $76,773 7 0

571 CARROLLSTREET $467,251 18

580 CARROLLSTREET, $934,902 17 0

628 10th Street $640,023 10 0

390 14 Street $374,613 6 0

20 Jackson Place $4,513 5 0

169 16 STREET $1,470,573 31 0

182 16th Street $1,582,112 31 0

572-576 5th Ave $958,860 36 0593 6th Ave $1,949,268 27 0

406 15th Street $1,617,955 29 0

686 6th Ave $353,511 4 0

272 19th Street $316,620 6 0

251 7th Street $1,981,776 57 0

175 12th Street $269,162 7 0

309 2 Street $540,519 21

638 President St $234,466 4 0

515 5 Avenue $324,824 15 0

155 15 Street $1,318,183 21 0226 15 Street $399,339 22 0

353 13 Street $165,391 4 0

360 12 Street $438,036 4

226, 228, 230 16 Street $911,291 18 0

224 16 Street $181,190 6 0

300 20 Street $283,234 4 0

282 21 Street $459,662 10 0

28 Garfield Place $778,158 8

$2,598,937.56 4395 257

Total $158,535,191 $3,247,459

Percentage

of Units

Affordable 6%

luxurious loophole report [real affordability for all campaign]

Documents