New York City has a population of about 8.5 million people with 45.6 percent of them struggling to make ends meet, according to the study mentioned by a Huffington Post article. It is no surprise that there is a fierce competition for affordable housing, especially in neighborhoods that are deemed”better”, safer or more convenient. Which is why affordable housing policies such as the one mentioned in the Jarrett Murthy’s article so controversial and have many people arguing for or against the policy. The article states that 50% of the affordable housing is set aside for local residents who already live in the area, however, the duration their residence does not matter.  Some arguments for the policy we mentioned in class and in Jane’s powerpoint were that it can preserve the ethnic enclaves, it promises those who were displaced initially due to the building of more affordable housings a rightful place in their neighborhood (for example Barclay Center) and it helps prevent the real estate value of the neighborhood from decreasing. The counter arguments were that the policy fosters segregation when the city is already segregated as the statistics show with New York City being composed of 23% African Americans, but 17 community districts has less than 5% African American, while 11 community districts has more than 50%. This policy also launched us into the conversation about opportunities in the neighborhoods such as the Manhattan district 5, 6 and 7, where there are better education, environment, and location. Not only so, under the Bloomberg administration, areas that are majority whites are typically downzone in density while areas with more low income residents (which tend to have more minorities) are upzone.

Which brings us to the article that states researches and studies “suggest that geography does not merely separate rich from poor, but also plays a large role in determining which poor children achieve the so-called American dream” This is a great example of why there is a class action suit against the city to fight against the preference policy. Many minorities who lives in low income neighborhoods with primarily African American and Latino American residents wants to get in the better neighborhood in hopes of upward mobility through affordable housing but still finds it hard because 50% of the housing is reserved for local residents. They just want their children to have a better education and environment.

After learning both sides of the argument, I feel like the 50% preference is too big of the portion of affordable housing saved up for local residents. It is nice to uphold the ethnic enclaves of the city because that’s what makes the city interesting. People who want to experience the different cultures here can go to different neighborhoods such as Chinatown. Not only so, there are people who have lived in their neighborhood all their lives and they should not be chased out of their neighborhood because buildings needs to be taken down to build bigger buildings (such as Barclay center). However, the policy does foster segregation which makes it hard for minorities living in low income neighborhoods to have a chance at upward mobility. Therefore, the preference for local residents should be lowered back to the 30% like before.