As an NYS (but not NYC resident), I find the following quote the most offensive part of the entire article:
>In New York, by contrast, buyers of new construction often qualify for a tax abatement. At One57, currently the city’s most expensive new address, the tax break amounts to around 94 percent. A Times analysis estimated that its priciest penthouse, which is reportedly in contract for more than $90 million, would initially be billed less than $1,500 a month.
So basically, the foreign absentee buyers of these luxury buildings are able to avoid paying property taxes on most of the assessed value, forcing the "regular" residents or landlords to pay more than they would otherwise have to if these apartments were taxed at the same rate.
I agree it is a problem, but the foreign buyers did fund the construction of "affordable housing".
I think the policy of granting tax abatements for developing affordable housing is nuts, but some of that $90 million was used to help the working class.
I agree. This is no different than state governments granting companies generous tax relief for the "creation of jobs," which more times than not are a few hundreds of minimum wage jobs. Doing the math, it does not make sense, but I guess the rationale is that you get $1500 or zero. I am not really sure at what cost though.
>In New York, by contrast, buyers of new construction often qualify for a tax abatement. At One57, currently the city’s most expensive new address, the tax break amounts to around 94 percent. A Times analysis estimated that its priciest penthouse, which is reportedly in contract for more than $90 million, would initially be billed less than $1,500 a month.
So basically, the foreign absentee buyers of these luxury buildings are able to avoid paying property taxes on most of the assessed value, forcing the "regular" residents or landlords to pay more than they would otherwise have to if these apartments were taxed at the same rate.