Posted on 04/30/2024 11:55:05 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
When Merete Muenter tells people that she pays $623 a month for her studio in an affordable housing complex in New York City, many assume the worst: a run-down dump in a crime-ridden neighborhood.
The reality is that her subsidized rental is far nicer than any of the market-rate places she’s lived in previously.
“People … don’t realize that my affordable housing apartment is in a luxury building that has all the amenities that I never dreamed of having, living in midtown Manhattan,” says Muenter. “I have a doorman, elevators, gym, roof terrace, courtyard, even a washer and dryer in my apartment.”
In 2014, this choreographer and director of musical theater landed this windfall by entering an affordable housing lottery. The effect was life-changing.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
cuz she is
Yep. We are paying for her doorman.
The reality is that her subsidized rental is far nicer than any of the market-rate places she’s lived in previously.
Subsidized rental.
Meaning that, it’s not really affordable if the subsidy wasn’t there.
What would the rest be without the subsidy? Subsidy means that, others are paying part of the rent.
$623 in rent. She’s a fool.
New York supports squatters rights to invade your property and live there for FREE!
Or declare yourself an immigrant and get put up in a luxury hotel. Also for FREE!
Get with the program, lady.
leaches
“She sounds like a mooch”
Don’t blame her. Blame the system.
Kinda like winning the Powerball except at least the Powerball is funded by people who volunteer to throw their money into the pot.
“Don’t blame her. Blame the system.”
“Hate the game, not the player.”
It had exactly the opposite effect.
The rental rates were so low the 1960s hippies never moved out so young families have no affordable place to live
This resulted in a housing shortage that persists to this day.
Many of the hippie crowd still live in the same houses they took over 50 years ago .
The only way to get rid of them is when they die.
What is the purpose of this article? Is it to upset those who pay higher taxes to subsidize these moochers or to anger the poor that haven’t been as fortunate to get into a “classy” project? Because this is going to tick off both constituencies.
I’m guessing that the real point of this article is to glamorize public housing in the hopes that it will make people on the brink of financial destruction less likely to vote their pocketbook in November.
Government economic nonsense that sooner than later shuts down the economy. Everyone loses and there’s your forced government “equality”.
she was a winner of a lottery.
the dumb masses will be told they can get the same as her some day.
She doesn’t understand where the money comes from to subsidize her
She’s been bought and paid for by our TAX DOLLARS!
Rent control and these subsidized housing programs are tools of the Democrats. They use housing as a reward for loyalty. I’ve known many people who had rent control apartments. Not one of them was poor. Some had sailboats (40’+) and drove Mercedes. Many had beach houses. Most poor people had no chance of getting one.
One woman I worked with was losing her apartment. She almost had tears in her eyes saying she couldn’t afford to pay market rate rent. She wore Louis Vuitton purses and Louboutin shoes.
I probably isn’t much of a subsidy. I lived in a coop in Manhattan, a nice building with a doorman, and I paid about $520 maintenance. That covered the property tax, the salaries of our staff of ten workers, the building mortgage, and various other things. The primary expense in an apartment building is the capital cost, and we all owned our apartments. It’s probably up to $600 a month or more by now, but the actual cost of running a building is not that high.
What passes for politics in Democratic states is the attempt by everybody to live at the expense of everybody else. At some level, people should realize that everybody CAN’T be subsidized. Even that the idea that the majority can live at the expense of the rich is unworkable, as the rich aren’t stupid enough to be much exploited. Nevertheless, a lot of people can get sucked into lives of being subsidized by others, whether through rents subsidized by those who aren’t subsidized, health care that’s subsidized by the medical payments of others, and even free or reduced cost cell phones paid by those who aren’t subsidized. Low cost tuition based on skin color disguised as need, student loan forgiveness, and make-work DEI jobs. Subsidies for electric vehicles, wind and solar energy, and enumerable other parts of the green agenda. The list of subsidies is simply endless. At some point, the system become so corrupt, you think you’re just getting some of your own money back. But, no, it’s a foo’s game; and, we are ALL made much worse off.
Yup. Well, she's lucky... she lives in that rare NYC subsidized rental bubble that is *far* different from the rest of the United States. I've never hard of subsidized rentals anywhere else in the US.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.