NationStates

San Lumen wrote:It wouldn’t be so expensive if buildings like this were illegal

Do we know this for sure, however? It isn't like these buildings are being built for no reason. It costs more in maintenance and utilities to keep an existing building vacant. There are apparently wealthy types from overseas or from other places in the US that're able to pay NYC rents or for NYC real estate. NYC is a massive international city that is the US financial center, trading hub, etc. which is flush with cash; so of course it is more expensive to live there.

San Lumen wrote:

Trumptonium1 wrote:
More like not wasting taxpayer money.

Why should a carpenter in Albany pay his state taxes so some stubborn arsehole in Midtown gets protection from being moved away to places he can actually afford?

So in others words the government should get to decide who lives where?

The exact opposite actually.

Bear Stearns wrote:

San Lumen wrote:And it takes away land area for the average citizen

What average citizen can afford to buy Manhattan real estate?

The average citizens all live in the suburbs.

Because cheap flats fall down from the sky

San Lumen wrote:

Trumptonium1 wrote:
More like not wasting taxpayer money.

Why should a carpenter in Albany pay his state taxes so some stubborn arsehole in Midtown gets protection from being moved away to places he can actually afford?

So in others words the government should get to decide who lives where?

No, the market does. The government simply says if you can't afford to live in a villa in Hollywood between Adele and Beckham, it won't support you in your endeavour because your personal wishes have less value than respecting the rights of taxpayers and other ordinary citizens who don't get the same privilege.

San Lumen wrote:

Trumptonium1 wrote:
So turn NYC into a cesspit like it was in 1970s round two?

Banning ugly towers like this would not bring a return to that by a long shot

You're saying the rich should go away. That's what 1970s New York was. A complete cesspit devoid of anyone with an income more than slightly above national average. Place literally had blackouts and a bankruptcy.

Wunderstrafanstalt wrote:

Bear Stearns wrote:
We could conquer some tropical island nation and send all homeless people there and provide them with monthly food and equipment supplies, and it'd still be cheaper than our current welfare state.

But it will bloat the defense budget and strengthen the military-industrial complex since we tropical islanders will try to kick them out

What about an uninhabited island?

Bear Stearns wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Look at San Francisco

A city wrecked by anti-development policies and zoning laws.

Also it doesn't help the ultra-progressive government has a tolerance for sidewalking defecation and shooting galleries.

Along with using the sidewalk, street, gutter, etc., as a syringe disposal.

Wunderstrafanstalt wrote:

Bear Stearns wrote:
What average citizen can afford to buy Manhattan real estate?

The average citizens all live in the suburbs.

Because cheap flats fall down from the sky

Cheap flats are easy to come by...in cheap locations.

Saiwania wrote:

San Lumen wrote:It wouldn’t be so expensive if buildings like this were illegal

Do we know this for sure, however? It isn't like these buildings are being built for no reason. It costs more in maintenance and utilities to keep an existing building vacant. There are apparently wealthy types from overseas or from other places in the US that're able to pay NYC rents or for NYC real estate. NYC is a massive international city that is the US financial center, trading hub, etc. which is flush with cash; so of course it is more expensive to live there.

No one is living in these eyesores. They are for the Uber rich to flaunt their wealth. No one lives in most of them. Real estate should not be a investment to the detriment of everyone else

Grinning Dragon wrote:

Bear Stearns wrote:
A city wrecked by anti-development policies and zoning laws.

Also it doesn't help the ultra-progressive government has a tolerance for sidewalking defecation and shooting galleries.

Along with using the sidewalk, street, gutter, etc., as a syringe disposal.

That's what shooting galleries are haha

Bear Stearns wrote:

San Lumen wrote:And it takes away land area for the average citizen

What average citizen can afford to buy Manhattan real estate?

The average citizens all live in the suburbs.

Well if you include San Lumen's plans of government subsidies for the physical redistribution of the poor across America's wealthiest zip codes, virtually any.

San Lumen wrote:

Saiwania wrote:
Do we know this for sure, however? It isn't like these buildings are being built for no reason. It costs more in maintenance and utilities to keep an existing building vacant. There are apparently wealthy types from overseas or from other places in the US that're able to pay NYC rents or for NYC real estate. NYC is a massive international city that is the US financial center, trading hub, etc. which is flush with cash; so of course it is more expensive to live there.

No one is living in these eyesores. They are for the Uber rich to flaunt their wealth. No one lives in most of them. Real estate should not be a investment to the detriment of everyone else

1) How does "flaunting" wealth have any effect on you?
2) How do these buildings negatively impact "everyone else"?

Bear Stearns wrote:

Grinning Dragon wrote:Along with using the sidewalk, street, gutter, etc., as a syringe disposal.

That's what shooting galleries are haha

Oh,
I assumed you meant people getting shot, like here in NOLA

San Lumen wrote:

Saiwania wrote:
Do we know this for sure, however? It isn't like these buildings are being built for no reason. It costs more in maintenance and utilities to keep an existing building vacant. There are apparently wealthy types from overseas or from other places in the US that're able to pay NYC rents or for NYC real estate. NYC is a massive international city that is the US financial center, trading hub, etc. which is flush with cash; so of course it is more expensive to live there.

No one is living in these eyesores. They are for the Uber rich to flaunt their wealth. No one lives in most of them. Real estate should not be a investment to the detriment of everyone else

San Lumen, the place those towers stand in are already some of the most expensive real estate in the City. The poor would not be able to buy anything there, no matter what.

Trumptonium1 wrote:

San Lumen wrote:So in others words the government should get to decide who lives where?

No, the market does. The government simply says if you can't afford to live in a villa in Hollywood between Adele and Beckham, it won't support you in your endeavour because your personal wishes have less value than respecting the rights of taxpayers and other ordinary citizens who don't get the same privilege.

San Lumen wrote:Banning ugly towers like this would not bring a return to that by a long shot

You're saying the rich should go away. That's what 1970s New York was. A complete cesspit devoid of anyone with an income more than slightly above national average. Place literally had blackouts and a bankruptcy.

So why not just make all housing something only the rich can afford it’s more profitable after all

Bear Stearns wrote:
What about an uninhabited island?

That wouldn't really be sustainable. Still, cheaper than trying to make the poorer people to live next to Trump Tower.

Bear Stearns wrote:

San Lumen wrote:No one is living in these eyesores. They are for the Uber rich to flaunt their wealth. No one lives in most of them. Real estate should not be a investment to the detriment of everyone else

1) How does "flaunting" wealth have any effect on you?
2) How do these buildings negatively impact "everyone else"?

Runing the skyline and views and casting shadows on other buildings

Trumptonium1 wrote:

Bear Stearns wrote:
What average citizen can afford to buy Manhattan real estate?

The average citizens all live in the suburbs.

Well if you include San Lumen's plans of government subsidies for the physical redistribution of the poor across America's wealthiest zip codes, virtually any.

I pay good money for my apartment in a good neighborhood.

I'd be pretty upset if someone got the same place I had, but subsidized by the government.

Bear Stearns wrote:

San Lumen wrote:And it takes away land area for the average citizen

What average citizen can afford to buy Manhattan real estate?

The average citizens all live in the suburbs.

That it simply not true. Young people are leaving suburbs for cities

San Lumen wrote:

Bear Stearns wrote:
1) How does "flaunting" wealth have any effect on you?
2) How do these buildings negatively impact "everyone else"?

Runing the skyline and views and casting shadows on other buildings

Your opinions on the skyline are subjective and really don't matter.

Your shadow argument might have merit, if it weren't a moving of the goalpost.

Bear Stearns wrote:

Trumptonium1 wrote:
Well if you include San Lumen's plans of government subsidies for the physical redistribution of the poor across America's wealthiest zip codes, virtually any.

I pay good money for my apartment in a good neighborhood.

I'd be pretty upset if someone got the same place I had, but subsidized by the government.

No one said anything about subsidies merely banning eyesores like those described in the article in OP

San Lumen wrote:

Bear Stearns wrote:
I pay good money for my apartment in a good neighborhood.

I'd be pretty upset if someone got the same place I had, but subsidized by the government.

No one said anything about subsidies merely banning eyesores like those described in the article in OP

What if other people don't consider them to be eyesores and actually don't care too much about the way they look?

What will you do then? Tell them your opinion is right and they are wrong?

Neutraligon wrote:

San Lumen wrote:No one is living in these eyesores. They are for the Uber rich to flaunt their wealth. No one lives in most of them. Real estate should not be a investment to the detriment of everyone else

San Lumen, the place those towers stand in are already some of the most expensive real estate in the City. The poor would not be able to buy anything there, no matter what.

There are going up almost everywhere. Pretty soon NyC will be a gated community for only the super rich like San Francisco

San Lumen wrote:

Bear Stearns wrote:
I pay good money for my apartment in a good neighborhood.

I'd be pretty upset if someone got the same place I had, but subsidized by the government.

No one said anything about subsidies merely banning eyesores like those described in the article in OP

And what will we get in return for that??

Bear Stearns wrote:

San Lumen wrote:No one said anything about subsidies merely banning eyesores like those described in the article in OP

What if other people don't consider them to be eyesores and actually don't care too much about the way they look?

What will you do then? Tell them your opinion is right and they are wrong?

If I was mayor I’d fix the loophole that allows them to be built, seize the property and tear them down

Wunderstrafanstalt wrote:

San Lumen wrote:No one said anything about subsidies merely banning eyesores like those described in the article in OP

And what will we get in return for that??

Everyone being able to afford living in a city