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.
Thanks Miles, I agree I have a right to live where I can afford.
The fact that there are people on here that do not believe that is interesting.
I will eventually make it to a city data gathering We need to have one in central park!!
Would love that. We should meet someday in one of those gatherings. I live on the UWS presently also but will be moving to Queens in the near future. We'll meet up regardless. Just stay with us!
Sounds good, I think if I could live anywhere in NYC I would live on Central Park West in the UWS, with a view of the park, wouldnt that be nice!
I really love Forest Hills Gardens the most, But Central Park West is right up there - an apartment with lovely view of the park. Something to die for! I've known people to salivate for the Village or Soho but if i had all the money in the world and could buy two places, one would be a house in Forest Hills and the second would be a condo on Central Park West. Call me naive.
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?
You are not pushing anybody out if you are leasing a legally vacated unit. So, when you find one in NYC (don't leave) that you can afford, and it's vacant, it's a fallacious argument to assert that you do not have the right to do so and that you are not entitled so to do. Last time I checked, NYC is part of the USA, after all. And, once you sign on the dotted line, it's yours.
Deciding what to do about the larger problem of gentrification should not be a factor, nor should you feel even a twinge of guilt assigned to you for entering into a legal contract to rent the premises for the duration of your lease. Working toward a long-term solution is something for which we should strive in NYC.
Interesting viewpoint DesiArnez. We will just have to agree to disagree
Lets pretend for a second that you get to make the rules. So when I move in about 6 months, where would you suggest I move to within NYC? Having not grown up here, what are my options? Or am I not welcome anywhere in NYC?
Agreed That why NY is so great, diversity in every way possible
I didn't intend to imply that as someone from outside of NYC you wouldn't be welcome. It would be fine for you to go anywhere you want... so long as people already there weren't told to leave their apartments so that you could move in with more money.
I personally believe that all families, once they are settled into an apartment their rent should be controlled and negotiated by the city so that increases will not be unbearable on current families or their children, so long as the family or relative are still in that apartment; like a lock in rent similar to rent control laws implemented before. Once they move out, sure ... raise it. But the number 1 rule should be NO Displacement to current families, not even one. After that, all newcomers welcome!
That said, I do believe that people from the same neighborhood should also have first preference for a vacant apartment over someone from another neighborhood. If enough apartments are built though, this wont interfere with newcomers. Either way the same total amount of apartments would be vacant in the City.
You know its very Interesting, I was listening to Radio Sweden just over a week ago, and they were debating a new measure to allow the free market to determine rents, as in Sweden All rent amounts are government controlled and set in negotiation with the public housing authorities, forcing them to be artificially lower in city centers. I'm not sure if this would be the right approach, but it is fascinating, and wasn't an "outright disaster" there.
Also about the argument that this artificial control of prices somehow raises prices for others, Private market apartments are more expensive because of a short supply of housing. Gentrification and making people homeless sure are ways to free up the housing stock, but I think building more affordable and public housing units and protecting low income renters, and tenants is a good recipe for stability. With more available housing apartment value will inevitably fall.
Remember the free market has NO interest whatsoever in decreased property value, it naturally will try to increase value whenever possible. The free market also treat housing as a commodity, not a need. So the free market simply doesn't care much about homelessness or low income individuals, as they are merely economic numbers. There is no room for empathy. That is where government regulation steps in, to protect these people and ensure that they are taken care of in a market that could care less about them.
Many New Yorkers cannot afford market rates, and if the free market controlled everything, MANY MANY would be homeless, and that would have a large social and fiscal price tag in its own.
Last edited by DesiArnez6; 09-28-2008 at 10:39 PM..
I agree there needs to be some regulation, and more mixed income housing built, just not sure where you draw the line, and who gets to draw the line, the market or the goverment.
Well I have the answer for everyone! You want a place that feels like Old School NYC? You want a place that still has a raw edge? You want a place that has not been "gentrified" with all those "evil" middle america folks? You want a place that is AFFORDABLE for every type of person/family/situation? You want a place that is an easy/short commute to NYC? You want a place that is attractive to the "freaks, emos, losers" and whatever other term you want to use to describe people who are not the "middle america quarterbacks and princesses'? And you want all this within NYC? Well guess what..COME TO THE BRONX because it is all here. So what exactly are you complaining about? What you seek is here and all around, you are choosing not to see it.
Desi I was reading your above comment and I think the kinds of regulations you are talking about hurts people and communities more than it helps. Once people are in their apts they should have a "lock" on rent so that it is not unbearable for families? Hmm...how about the flip side then....I think the city should "lock" my expenses as a Landlord once I buy a building, so things like heating oil and heating gas, electricity, taxes, repairs, maintenance, and all the other costs associated with owning a building and supplying tenants with a home is not "unbearable" to me. Do you think that would fly? Nope....but based on your argument we should subsidize Tenants so their lifestyle is not inconvenienced, but stick it to the LLs and the city for that matter? We must shoulder all of the burden and expense so that RENTERS are comfortable? Secondly, families should have preference in their neighborhoods over "outsiders?" I think this is a very bad policy and only promotes segregation and isolation. What if your policies were instituted in the 50s and 60s? White neighborhoods would never have "allowed" anyone else to move in....the families would never have moved b/c they would have "locked" rent....and any apts that did open up would go first to those already in the community..again locking out anyone else from entering. How is this good or healthy for a community? Thirdly, comparing something that works in Sweden is pointless, as our population and society is 1,000% different. That is like trying to pickup democracy and drop it into a place like, hmm..Iraq...and thinking it would work just the same. It works over here after all! Fourthly, the free market does not have any interest in ANYTHING besides making money, and that includes declining values as well as increasing values, b/c you can make mone on both ends. So there is not natural inclination in the free market to increase the value of anything, it is only to make money, and that can happen whatever way the mrket moves. But yes the free market treats housing as a commodity, and it is different from other commodities as it is a need. And NYC has plenty of regulations and protections for Tenants, so adding more is ludicrous. I also agree that many people cannot afford market rates, but the fact is most people do not pay market rates to live in NYC b/c of all the regulations/manipulation by the city. There is a strong affordable housing initiative that is changing the entire landscape of our city (primarily in the boroughs) and will provide a healthy resource for working/middle income families. I am happy to see it and acknowledge the value/necessity. As for gentrification itself, it is basically alot of hype. What is really happening in the city is a revitalization of areas that were formerly off -limits due to sever crime and horrendous reputations. As a result of the recent investment in these communities, and the sharp drop in crime (and continued decreasing crime in most to this day), the neighborhoods are stable and growing and are now appealing to a wider group of people, instead of just the destitute. This increased interest is in fact GOOD for the community, as most were so isolated and segregated the neighborhoods and people suffered greatly. With new people coming in, there are new faces, ideas, more diversity, amenities, services, investment, etc that are helping the community grow W/O displacing residents in the VAST majority of cases. There is alot of gentrification hype, and it has become a buzz word that people throw around to get attention, and to push their agenda, when the reality is gentrification is not happening, it is really a revitalization of communities, with the locals staying put for the most part.
Desi I was reading your above comment and I think the kinds of regulations you are talking about hurts people and communities more than it helps. Once people are in their apts they should have a "lock" on rent so that it is not unbearable for families? Hmm...how about the flip side then....I think the city should "lock" my expenses as a Landlord once I buy a building, so things like heating oil and heating gas, electricity, taxes, repairs, maintenance, and all the other costs associated with owning a building and supplying tenants with a home is not "unbearable" to me. Do you think that would fly? Nope....but based on your argument we should subsidize Tenants so their lifestyle is not inconvenienced, but stick it to the LLs and the city for that matter? We must shoulder all of the burden and expense so that RENTERS are comfortable? Secondly, families should have preference in their neighborhoods over "outsiders?" I think this is a very bad policy and only promotes segregation and isolation. What if your policies were instituted in the 50s and 60s? White neighborhoods would never have "allowed" anyone else to move in....the families would never have moved b/c they would have "locked" rent....and any apts that did open up would go first to those already in the community..again locking out anyone else from entering. How is this good or healthy for a community? Thirdly, comparing something that works in Sweden is pointless, as our population and society is 1,000% different. That is like trying to pickup democracy and drop it into a place like, hmm..Iraq...and thinking it would work just the same. It works over here after all! Fourthly, the free market does not have any interest in ANYTHING besides making money, and that includes declining values as well as increasing values, b/c you can make mone on both ends. So there is not natural inclination in the free market to increase the value of anything, it is only to make money, and that can happen whatever way the mrket moves. But yes the free market treats housing as a commodity, and it is different from other commodities as it is a need. And NYC has plenty of regulations and protections for Tenants, so adding more is ludicrous. I also agree that many people cannot afford market rates, but the fact is most people do not pay market rates to live in NYC b/c of all the regulations/manipulation by the city. There is a strong affordable housing initiative that is changing the entire landscape of our city (primarily in the boroughs) and will provide a healthy resource for working/middle income families. I am happy to see it and acknowledge the value/necessity. As for gentrification itself, it is basically alot of hype. What is really happening in the city is a revitalization of areas that were formerly off -limits due to sever crime and horrendous reputations. As a result of the recent investment in these communities, and the sharp drop in crime (and continued decreasing crime in most to this day), the neighborhoods are stable and growing and are now appealing to a wider group of people, instead of just the destitute. This increased interest is in fact GOOD for the community, as most were so isolated and segregated the neighborhoods and people suffered greatly. With new people coming in, there are new faces, ideas, more diversity, amenities, services, investment, etc that are helping the community grow W/O displacing residents in the VAST majority of cases. There is alot of gentrification hype, and it has become a buzz word that people throw around to get attention, and to push their agenda, when the reality is gentrification is not happening, it is really a revitalization of communities, with the locals staying put for the most part.
Exactly, plus people don't realize that it goes both ways. What if the residents of the UES tried to block people making below 100K from coming? What if the residents of Midwood tried to stop Gentiles from coming? What if the residents of Staten Island barred Blacks? Being in a neighborhood doesn't give you the right to say who lives there. I believe the last group to advocate that was the KKK. Plus, as much as I heart the poor/middle class/immigrants, they don't have sole ownership of the claim to being "real" NYers. Without the rich of Manhattan, there would be no base for the Operas, Museums, Theatures, Clubs and Resturants that make NYC a world capital. If for anything, you could argue we live on their backs, not the other way around.
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.
We need to have one in central park!!
