Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wow, I don't know about more of a right even though I understand the premise. I think that a certain amount of preferential treatment should be given to those that live in the neighborhood but it makes no difference how much preference is given if the rent is unaffordable to those that live in the neighborhood.
We left Stuyvesant Town in 1985 paying $550 for a large 2BR. The same apt at market rate now rents for over $3,500.
We really were considering a return to Manhattan from NC, but there's no way these rents would work.
My late Mom lived in Alphabet City. Sure couldn't come in now if the apt wasn't stabilized.
The middle class is a stabilizing influence on the city. These folks use city schools, subways, and parks. They are many times moderately paid government workers who have a big interest in the viability of the city.
Replacing them with high paid yuppies sets things up for a big fall when the big finance jobs go away in market crashes.
Well, I look at it this way. We are citizens of the United States, residents of New York State, residents of New York City, residents of a certain boro, and then residents of a neighborhood.
If the United States continues to sign laws that continue to allow the "free market" to ship my jobs to India, and then we borrow money from China to the point that our dollar becomes worthless and then the financial markets have their run on the dollar switching to the Euro, sparking rapid inflation and Making me run to Mexico because its cheaper and the only place I can afford to live, I'd be ticked.
I feel as though I have a Right to live in the United States because I grew up here, I I feel perfectly fine demanding from my government that they enact policies that allow me to stay in this country and not move to another country because of lack of jobs, or cost. EVEN if it jeopardizes the Free Market. My government's responsibility is me first as a citizen, then the markets.
So, I feel the same way with the state of New York, If New York enacted laws that made all businesses go to New Jersey I'd be mad at them, because I shouldn't have to move to New Jersey just because the free market moves all the jobs there, or down south to Florida, or Texas, No, I feel that I have a right to live up in New York because I grew up here.
Same with my neighborhood. I believe the governments first obligation is the people, THAN the "free markets". I suppose that a fundamental political difference that people debate. But for me it holds true. Moving is Not easy, it is VERY VERY difficult, especially if you can't afford to have movers to the work for you. Neighborhoods are much healthier when there is a strong bond between local neighbors. Not when everyone is coming and going all the time.
As for anybody that can afford to pay the market rate for housing in an area having a RIGHT to be there I'd disagree. I wouldn't categorize it as a fundamental right. Many people can afford to live in the United States, but should they ALL move here because they can? I am not an advocate of open borders. That doesn't mean that these newcomers should be prohibited. I just believe that those that are already here should be protected by law first because we have the seniority, and have been here longer. I think the same principle applies to neighborhoods.
If the Italians of Bensonhurst demanded Albany prevented people of color from moving in, how would you feel? This is a very dangerous road you're walking on, which is why the free market is the only way.
Who "Belongs" in a nabe? Is it a certain skin color? Is it your religon? Is it your income? Should UES ban all persons making under 100K from entering? Extremely bad ideas being floated here.
The fundamental problem with legislated rental mandates when they impose price ceilings is that someone must pay for the difference. If it's the municipality, then it's higher taxes. Some argue that an individual owner is supplementing an unrealistic lifestyle for the controlled/stabilized tenant, especially at the lower end of rental ranges imposed by legislative mandate. If an individual owner cannot write off the difference between their expenses for the unit and the income received, then it comes out of the operating profit, which is an unrealistic business model for long term sustainability. In effect, there is no free flowing market with units subject to oversight and control by legislative mandate, so such units are frozen in time from an income perspective, yet expenses can fluctuate with the market, potentially resulting in a loss for the owner. A non-controlled market can move to equilibrium, increase supply since it would be reasonably profitable to operate a moderate income rental building, and actually help to stabilize neighborhood tensions in transitional zones. No longer would one find a characterization of the "rich" versus the "old" residents of a neighborhood, since many more moderate and middle income residents would be able to afford to live in the area, since in many places the current market-rate rents are a little inflated due to the shortage and to make up the differences in operating profit across a building that may have stabilized/controlled units.
People who have lived in an area and who helped to turn it around do have a right to continue living in the area, and a lottery system could be used going forward, grandfathering a certain number of the apartments as moderate income as the neighborhood progresses, but to say that they in effect own the apartment and can have it subsidized is not going to help to create an adequate housing supply. I am not in favor of moving them out en masse, either. I would like to see a system of proffers, allowing developers to consolidate properties, increase the supply of apartments, and give the existing residents an opportunity for a lottery in the new building and/or to designate other renovated older apartments in the area for them. Removing the barrier to replace aging structures by transferring the right to lease under the current system would enable newer, larger properties to be incorporated into redeveloping areas since residents could remain in the neighborhood, but increased supply of market rate housing would enable the stabilized/controlled apartments to be afforded by structuring a real estate portfolio that takes this into account.
The expansion of rent controls as a social program, however, has no basis in economics is just not responsible governance, unless there's a way to magically lower costs associated with owning/operating a rental building to account for the en masse controls/stabilization. It's a nice idea, but someone has to pay for it, and portability of leases, consolidation of air rights, and movement to integrate newer buildings into reemerging zones would greatly improve the available rental inventory, something that must be done to move the market rates to equilibrium and not disrupt much of the social and cultural fabric that has made NYC.
Let me ask you this, I will soon be moving out of my place in Harlem b/c I want to have less money going to rent, someone new will move in. Lets say they are brand new to NYC, I have lived here longer (niether of us grew up here) Do I have more of a right to this apartment than the new renter does?
Are you able to find something cheaper than what you are paying now? What nabe are you moving to next?
Based on what I have read so far no wonder younger NYers are taking civil service and transportation jobs similiar to MTA's in other places. There is no way that they will be able to pay the rents or buy something. Most people coming here are not coming for these types of jobs.
Sure somebody picks up the tab when an apartment is stabilized or under rent control, Section 8, etc. Sure the owner has to cover costs. Who picks up the difference? The taxpayer via government subsidies, tax concessions, rebates.
And I argue on behalf os such arrangements for people who have been in neighborhoods for generations and are unable to compete with the arriving hipsters and subsequent yuppies. In the interest of equity, diversity, fairness, ensuring that NYC, the capital of the world is not viewed internationally as another Beverly Hills - for these and countless other reasons - we can and should subsidise such residents.
Don't we as taxpayers see our money spent on programs that some of us have moral or religious objections to? So some of us will have objections, but that never stoppoed anybody before, and that is one way to maintain stability in neighborhoods undergoing gentrification. You'll still have your free-market luxury condos and your valet services for the well heeled and those who can afford to move up, but let's not feel that longtime residents are disposable elements in this whole scenario.
Let's make this a win-win situation, as even the taxpaying resident comes out ahead in the long run when all of NYC becomes relatively safe, clean, desirable.
Good point, Miles. I agree that we should not be displacing people out of the neighborhoods, and there has to be a medium between the two forces. It's just difficult to find it and make it work, without needless red tape.
Good point, Miles. I agree that we should not be displacing people out of the neighborhoods, and there has to be a medium between the two forces. It's just difficult to find it and make it work, without needless red tape.
I know what you mean, BMW. It's easier on paper than in practice and I certainly don't mean to underestimate the volatility or to simplify the implementation. It's definitely not an easy ride but too much is at stake. The points you raised in your post earlier were forcefully accurate. One has to bring it all into the open and face the issues squarely before we can truly find longterm solutions. And your post helped to formulate some of the issues.
Are you able to find something cheaper than what you are paying now? What nabe are you moving to next?
Based on what I have read so far no wonder younger NYers are taking civil service and transportation jobs similiar to MTA's in other places. There is no way that they will be able to pay the rents or buy something. Most people coming here are not coming for these types of jobs.
I am not sure yet, but pretty much anywhere I can afford, I will be pushing someone out that can afford even less than me.
See, there is this whole slew of people (not from here) caught b/t the lower class NYC natives who have lived here forever and the really wealthy yuppie people who can afford the high rents. I am not rich enough to be a yuppie, not lazy enough to be a hipster,and what I am living on is equivalent to middle class in NYC. I am white and I did not grow up in NYC. So where can I live where I can afford, I am not pushing out someone who has less than me, and I am not hated b/c I am an evil white gentrifyer??
Assuming you are not one of the posters that believes I have no right to live anywhere in NYC, where would you suggest I live?
I am not sure yet, but pretty much anywhere I can afford, I will be pushing someone out that can afford even less than me.
See, there is this whole slew of people (not from here) caught b/t the lower class NYC natives who have lived here forever and the really wealthy yuppie people who can afford the high rents. I am not rich enough to be a yuppie, not lazy enough to be a hipster,and what I am living on is equivalent to middle class in NYC. I am white and I did not grow up in NYC. So where can I live where I can afford, I am not pushing out someone who has less than me, and I am not hated b/c I am an evil white gentrifyer??
Assuming you are not one of the posters that believes I have no right to live anywhere in NYC, where would you suggest I live?
As for me, Rudbeckia, you absolutely have every right to live where you can afford. It's an uneasy balance with growing pains that we're all going through as gentrifying neighborhoods take off.
We can't have a city of two polar extremes - ultra wealthy and those on government subsidies alone. We need the middle also.
Please stay in NYC. And I have a personal reason too for my advocacy on your behalf - I need to meet you someday.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
