# AMI used to deceive **URL:** \ **Category:** New York\ **Created:** [September 7, 2026, 7:28pm UTC](https://forum.newyorkyimby.com/t/ami-used-to-deceive/25694 "2026-09-07T19:28:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![TRdoesthemath](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.newyorkyimby.com/trdoesthemath/32/165290_2.png) [@TRdoesthemath](https://forum.newyorkyimby.com/u/TRdoesthemath)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2026, 7:28pm UTC](https://forum.newyorkyimby.com/t/ami-used-to-deceive/25694/1 "2026-09-07T19:28:52Z")
Has everyone forgotten how percentages work? Whenever “affordable” buildings offer rents at 130%, calling it affordable is a deception. 130% indicates that 80% of the area cannot afford the rent. And there are usually no more than a third of the apartments priced like that, while the rest of them are plan ol’ unaffordable. These buildings recieve all kind of incentives too. We need new standards for affordable apartments. 100% AMI should be the maximum price allowed. Also, buildings should be forced to set lower rents for least half the units. Its absurd to call a building affordable if a majoriry of the building is in fact unaffordable. Don’t we have enough unaffordable apartments by now? Are NYC apartments becoming a giant investor commodity? The staff at your condos and others who earn less than 6 figures have to live somewhere. ---
**Author:** ![b264](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.newyorkyimby.com/b264/32/177793_2.png) [@b264](https://forum.newyorkyimby.com/u/b264)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2026, 12:31am UTC](https://forum.newyorkyimby.com/t/ami-used-to-deceive/25694/2 "2026-09-08T00:31:15Z")
Everything you just mentioned causes housing to be more unaffordable, not less. The thing that needs to happen is more housing built, that lowers rent for everyone. Quantity. This is simple supply-and-demand economics. What you are talking about reduces the supply without reducing the demand. ---
**Author:** ![FedGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/dec6dc/32.png) [@FedGuy](https://forum.newyorkyimby.com/u/FedGuy)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2026, 8:31am UTC](https://forum.newyorkyimby.com/t/ami-used-to-deceive/25694/3 "2026-09-09T08:31:28Z")
I feel bad for people that advocate against their own best interest. Austin and other cities that have been building a ton of housing in general, not just affordable units, are seeing rent decreases in their markets. One or two months free. Reduced or no security deposit. And an ample supply of housing to choose from regardless of the income levels. And then there is the NYC affordable housing advocate advocating for making housing less affordable. ---
**Author:** ![TRdoesthemath](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.newyorkyimby.com/trdoesthemath/32/165290_2.png) [@TRdoesthemath](https://forum.newyorkyimby.com/u/TRdoesthemath)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2026, 12:38pm UTC](https://forum.newyorkyimby.com/t/ami-used-to-deceive/25694/4 "2026-09-09T12:38:57Z")
I am not advocating to stop building apartment buildings. I am advocating we stop calling expensive apartments affordable. 130% is simply unaffordable for most people. Its nuts to determine AMI then add 30% to it. The result is preventing 80% of the area residents from affording these places. In the not too distant past it was true that the more you build the more places that are available, keeping rents in check. In Brooklyn I have seen new buildings go up with higher rents than the previous buildings on the site. Then the landlords of the adjacent places see the higher rents in the new building then raise their asking price without improving a thing. Why? What happened? People used to buy apartments to live in. Now people across the globe buy them as investments then they never occupy them. How many permanently empty units are in NYC right now? Its probably a shocking number especially when there is a scarcity of regular apartments. Can’t we build non-luxury apt buildings anymore? This hybrid of unaffordable apts and almost affordable apts in a building does not help the housing crisis. How much taxpayer money goes towards subsidizing these falsely affordable buildings? ---
**Author:** ![b264](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.newyorkyimby.com/b264/32/177793_2.png) [@b264](https://forum.newyorkyimby.com/u/b264)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2026, 5:40pm UTC](https://forum.newyorkyimby.com/t/ami-used-to-deceive/25694/5 "2026-09-09T17:40:43Z")
Literally everything you mentioned is solved by building more, and it’s exacerbated by building less and/or adding restrictions and bureaucracy to development. You are actively trying to convince other people to help you shoot your own feet. Building more dilutes any investment value and solves that problem as well. It also doesn’t matter what you call affordable or not, it only matters what the actual prices are, not the verbiage, and the way to keep the prices in check is to build more. Or reduce population, which is never a recommended option as it hurts in many other ways. Verbiage only matters if you’re trying to add bureaucracy, as deception is often a key part of bureaucracy. Otherwise, the numbers themselves are the only thing that matters. ---
**Author:** ![TRdoesthemath](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.newyorkyimby.com/trdoesthemath/32/165290_2.png) [@TRdoesthemath](https://forum.newyorkyimby.com/u/TRdoesthemath)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2026, 2:24pm UTC](https://forum.newyorkyimby.com/t/ami-used-to-deceive/25694/6 "2026-09-15T14:24:58Z")
How does building super luxury condos that few people ever inhabit help lower rents? Why are tax payers subsidizing buildings that claim to be affordable but are actually too expensive for 80% of the area population? I have seen expensive buildings cause landlords raise the rent in nearby apartments, the opposite effect of conventional wisdom that building more lowers rents. That doesn’t happen when everything built is top end, but that’s where the greatest profit lies. Meanwhile, the rest of us remain rent poor. I’m not advocating a reduction in development. I am advocating for the truth. Calling 130% AMI affordable is pure bullsh\*t. ---
**Author:** ![b264](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.newyorkyimby.com/b264/32/177793_2.png) [@b264](https://forum.newyorkyimby.com/u/b264)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2026, 3:36pm UTC](https://forum.newyorkyimby.com/t/ami-used-to-deceive/25694/7 "2026-09-15T15:36:34Z")
This is basic economics. Like basic supply and demand. Controlling demand is usually not desirable, as it means removing people. Thus, our control lever is supply. The same way building a lot of expensive new cars lowers prices of used cars. If you restrict the building of new, expensive cars that only some people can afford, then used car prices explode. Because the well-to-do folks are going to have cars anyway, they will just price-out folks in lower income brackets. I know you mean well, but you are advocating for higher housing prices, despite that not being your intention. ---
**Author:** ![TRdoesthemath](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.newyorkyimby.com/trdoesthemath/32/165290_2.png) [@TRdoesthemath](https://forum.newyorkyimby.com/u/TRdoesthemath)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2026, 9:40pm UTC](https://forum.newyorkyimby.com/t/ami-used-to-deceive/25694/8 "2026-09-15T21:40:12Z")
Sounds like dammned if you do, dammed if you don’t. I understand increasing inventory, but I havent seen evidence that more luxury apartments leads to lower rents. The car analogy doesn’t apply because there are no “used” apartments. Old apartments in desirable areas still fetch big money. What do you make of 130 % AMI? Ithink they might as well price them at market rate and save taxpayers some money. ---
**Author:** ![b264](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.newyorkyimby.com/b264/32/177793_2.png) [@b264](https://forum.newyorkyimby.com/u/b264)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2026, 10:12pm UTC](https://forum.newyorkyimby.com/t/ami-used-to-deceive/25694/9 "2026-09-15T22:12:02Z")
Excuse me? So, you are saying that every apartment that people move into is brand new? What would happen if I could provide a counterexample? ---
**Author:** ![b264](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.newyorkyimby.com/b264/32/177793_2.png) [@b264](https://forum.newyorkyimby.com/u/b264)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2026, 10:12pm UTC](https://forum.newyorkyimby.com/t/ami-used-to-deceive/25694/10 "2026-09-15T22:12:35Z")
> [@TRdoesthemath](#): > > What do you make of 130 % AMI? Ithink they might as well price them at market rate and save taxpayers some money. Yes, they should let them be priced at market rate, but enough people don’t understand economics and/or believe in communism, that they must include a little bit of that to placate the uneducated. ---
**Author:** ![maishih717](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@maishih717](https://forum.newyorkyimby.com/u/maishih717)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2026, 11:02pm UTC](https://forum.newyorkyimby.com/t/ami-used-to-deceive/25694/11 "2026-09-15T23:02:43Z")
Here’s a really good analysis from Berkeley CA (where the rent prices on rent-controlled pre-1980 housing stock is made public, note that in Berkeley when a rent-controlled tenant moves out, the landlord is allowed to ask whatever they want for rent from the new tenant but is restricted in raising rent once they move in): [Berkeley Rents Fall Amid Construction Boom](https://darrellowens.substack.com/p/berkeley-rents-fall-amid-construction) and it does show that when new luxury buildings get built, the rent for the existing housing stock decreases. > [@TRdoesthemath](#): > > Also, buildings should be forced to set lower rents for least half the units. The problem with this is that any developer who builds a building with half the rents affordable will go bankrupt outside of the wealthiest of the wealthiest parts of Manhattan unless they get the incentives you’re complaining about. There’s a thread on the forum in Jersey City where we calculated that the developer would not be able to get a loan to build if they were forced to do more than 7-9% affordable housing: [JERSEY CITY | 100 Bay St. (111 First st) | 1055 + ? FT | 90 + 40 FLOORS - #41 by b264](https://forum.newyorkyimby.com/t/jersey-city-100-bay-st-111-first-st-1055-ft-90-40-floors/25046/41). As a bonus, we even calculated how much went toward subsidizing the building. > [@TRdoesthemath](#): > > Can’t we build non-luxury apt buildings anymore? Yes, we can, but we have to make building the apartments less expensive. That means eliminating parking minima, more straightforward permitting, less political interference, reforms to building codes and ULURP, and potentially reducing inclusionary zoning requirements (in order to subsidize affordable units you have to increase the rents on the rest of the project’s units or give incentives you’re complaining about). Also realistically a lot of your non-luxury apartment buildings are going to be (and have always been) buildings that were luxury 10 or 15 years ago but are now surrounded by nicer newer buildings across the street or in the same neighborhood. I have an acquaintance in Rutherford NJ whose landlord voluntarily dropped his rent by $60/month without him asking when he went to renew because the landlord was so afraid he was going to move across the street to the new just completed luxury building. If you’re interested, there’s a neighborhood association in Norwalk, Connecticut that is [proposing a rezoning](https://norwalkct.gov/3902/Wall-St-Neighborhood-Association---2026-) specifically intended to create more non-luxury housing, see here: [https://norwalkct.gov/DocumentCenter/View/39376/3---Project-Description-Narrative](https://norwalkct.gov/DocumentCenter/View/39376/3---Project-Description-Narrative) > [@TRdoesthemath](#): > > 100% AMI should be the maximum price allowed I agree, but it’s among the least of NYC’s worries when it comes to problems with their housing policy. > [@TRdoesthemath](#): > > This hybrid of unaffordable apts and almost affordable apts in a building does not help the housing crisis. It feels this way because New York City is so hopelessly behind the supply and demand curve, [700,000 housing units short](https://gothamist.com/news/how-many-new-homes-does-nyc-need-700k-housing-agency-says), or approximately 152 copies of LeFrak City / 46 copies of Co-Op City. But some of the suburbs (New Rochelle, etc.) have actually managed to build enough to keep rents somewhat in check. Austin, Minneapolis and [Tokyo](https://inroadsjournal.ca/how-japan-keeps-housing-available-and-affordable/), where the median rent for a 1-bedroom apartment is still less than US$1,000 a month despite a recent spike, have built enough to contain rents on a much larger scale. ---
**Author:** ![stache](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.newyorkyimby.com/stache/32/30186_2.png) [@stache](https://forum.newyorkyimby.com/u/stache)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2026, 2:51pm UTC](https://forum.newyorkyimby.com/t/ami-used-to-deceive/25694/12 "2026-09-16T14:51:18Z")
New Rochelle is going down so there is no strong desire to live there. We would have to go back to Mitchell Lama type development to get back to realistic rents in new buildings. Problem being slum clearance is not going to happen any more.