Buying Airspace?

[Ethel mermania]

20 years ago you could get a 1 bedroom apt in hells kitchen for 700 a month. If not rent controlled that same apt would be around 3,500 a month now.

In my opinion there ought to be rent control for everyone

It tends to stifle reinvestment in the buildings if you cap the amount of money a landlord can make.

And if you live here I am sure you are aware of the absolute disaster public housing has been. Because of lawsuits, NYCHA now has a federal monitor. No more money mind you, but af least an outsider is now looking at it.

[Ifreann]

Go further. Ban rent. Ban mortgages. Crash the housing market with no survivors.

Ifreann 2020

Olly Niel Contentmakker/Mexie 2020.

[Yusseria]

I'd agree with the eyesores part, but so what? The property value of the neighborhood goes up which benefits everyone and the government gets more tax revenue.

What exactly is the downside besides your own personal opinion?

It doesnt benefit anyone. It causes rent to skyrocket as there is less land for the structures the average person can afford to be built and people like me are pushed out.

Increases in property values greatly benefit neighborhood. As for high rent, have you considered that NY's absurd rent control is the problem?

[Yusseria]

Property value is what brings neighborhoods out of poverty.

Why do you want poor neighborhoods to stay poor?

How about we build affordable housing only and tell the rich no more luxury penthouses for you?

Because their buildings aren't really the problem. But sure, fall into the socialist trap of blaming the rich for all your woes.

[Novus America]

“Fuck the economy”
That says it all.

The economy doesn't matter. People matter. The economy improving is only good if people benefit. All people, not just the rich. The economy failing is only bad if people are hurting. All people, not just the rich.

And giving good person an apartment next to a bad person is not good for the good person.

Giving a homeless person a home is obviously good.

Why do you want so badly for people to die on the streets? You keep trying to find reasons to not give homes to the homeless, and you must understand that living on the streets isn't conducive to a long and healthy life. So fucking what if some homeless people are """bad""". That doesn't warrant being put out onto the streets.

---

People are not allowed to have second homes?

Should they be?

Umm the economy does benefit people.
And the more wealth the economy has, the more the government has to distribute.

Giving the homeless housing is not an obvious good, only according to your personal ethics.
You are just saying “it is good because I say it is”.

But I am not against housing the homeless who will take care of the housing they are provided.

Again housing bad people with good people is bad for the good people!

It makes things worse for them. Living in a once beautiful 1950s apartment building that is now a ruined crime den is not a good way to live. Again this is no hypothetical. This is what happened.

The homeless can be housed, but there has to be enforcement of rules.
And those who refuse to follow the rules need to be held accountable.
To prevent harm to those who do follow the rules.

[Greed and Death]

You want affordable housing repeal rent controls laws. No one wants to build a building that could become unprofitable due to rent control.

[Karu Nadu]

Seems like a shitty thing to do, but it isn't illegal, is it?

[Shofercia]

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/feb/05/super-tall-super-skinny-super-expensive-the-pencil-towers-of-new-yorks-super-rich

A new trend in NYC is for uber rich people to buy up literal airspace to build ugly pencil like towers for apartments they will never live in. Its a investment nothing more. There is a housing shortage in the city and officials have the nerve to wonder why? Fix the loophole in the law that allows this and build only affordable housing.

Housing should not be a privilege only the rich can afford. They should fix the law and stop construction of these luxury towers and tear these eyesores down.

Let these rich people build mansions instead how about a novel idea of them not having investments at the expense of everyone to flaunt their wealth?

Your thoughts NSG?

You want local politicians receiving developer cash to mandate that only affordable housing is built and that developers take a net loss every single time? This should be good.

The poor can't live there anyway, so what?

No matter if you even let them live rent free there's still extremely high food costs, transport costs .. why should everyone subsidise them?

Much cheaper and better to move them out to suburbs. Or other cities in NY.

Why not just ban towers like this by fixing the loophole? Suburbs are bad for the environment anyway

Wait, what?

Don;t comment if your not going to read the article

do you own this thread?

did you pay max berry a premium in which you could decide who responds to your OP?

no?

well fuck me running.

It's Max Barry or Max Cherry. He's very specific about that

No one is renting these places out. Its merely a place for uber rich to park their massive wealth. No one lives in these towers. They are eyesores and a waste of space.

The owners pay property taxes on them, and they employ people to maintain these. What's it to you what someone does with their building? That isn't harming anyone.

Except for the people that are being pushed out.

[The Two Jerseys]

You want local politicians receiving developer cash to mandate that only affordable housing is built and that developers take a net loss every single time? This should be good.

You're late to the game, real estate developers are supposed to be selfless benefactors who buy expensive properties and turn them into low-income housing with zero chance of ever recovering their costs. /s

Wait, what?

You heard, covering the ground with impervious surfaces is better for the environment than lawns and trees and shit.

Max Cherry

Does he dress like Don Cherry?

I would enjoy that greatly.

[Shofercia]

So if the evil eyesore bourgeois castle is destroyed and we stack more zoning laws, will the poor magically have access to affordable housing in the middle of NY?

Yes. If you increase the mandate for affordable housing from 10% to 30%, the poor will have more affordable housing. I think 10% is Cali's, not sure what NY's is, but the point stands.

Ban it for what reason?

Suburbs are not bad for the environment, and if you don't like suburbs there's plenty of cheap cities in NY State. It should be legal for NYC to just pay homeless people to move to Buffalo and get a place to rent for 2 months. It's cheaper for everyone, NYC taxpayers included, and good for "the poor"

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.

"Sir, Americans are invading us!"
"What? Why?"
"It appears their homeless need a place to live, and we 'won' the lottery, sir!"

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.

SF is extremely pro-development: https://sfist.com/2017/07/14/pro-develo ... conferenc/

YIMBY (Yes in my backyard) became a thing here in the last few years, most notably with figures like 2015 mayoral candidate Amy Farah Weiss and the pro-development Bay Area Renters Federation (BARF), whose outspoken leader Sonja Trauss recently announced her candidacy for District 6 Supervisor in 2018. Their position is essentially to try to counter arguments against housing development, push for higher height limits, and run a counter-offense to the NIMBYism that some see as having hindered development and consequently driven SF rents to skyrocket over the last two decades. Trauss herself will be the closing speaker at YIMBYtown on Sunday, and former supervisor now state senator Scott Wiener will be addressing the conference as well.

[Shofercia]

You want local politicians receiving developer cash to mandate that only affordable housing is built and that developers take a net loss every single time? This should be good.

You're late to the game, real estate developers are supposed to be selfless benefactors who buy expensive properties and turn them into low-income housing with zero chance of ever recovering their costs. /s

Wait, what?

You heard, covering the ground with impervious surfaces is better for the environment than lawns and trees and shit.

Damn. Orange County's Great Park must be horrific for the environment.

Max Cherry

Does he dress like Don Cherry?

I would enjoy that greatly.

Me too! But let's get back on topic, before the mods show up...

[Thermodolia]

https://nypost.com/2018/03/10/super-ric ... d-for-nyc/

While I think San lumen's grasp of real estate economics is.... lacking. As far as having many of the apts go unoccupied for long times of the year SL is correct.

Which is why they should be outlawed

No. You just tax them and/or the company that is renting out the apartment for the apartments that are unoccupied for over 2 months straight

[Thermodolia]

Yeah, well, that's, like, your opinion, man.

HOW IS IT A WASTE OF LAND?

If I buy a $15 million piece of prime Manhattan real estate, it doesn't matter if I build a single-family home on it or a 2000' tower full of luxury apartments that nobody else lives in, you're still not going to be living there.

You could be building stuff for the average person not a uber rich person who will likely spend a day or two there.

Then you tax them for every month they don’t live there. I don’t know why this is a hard concept to grasp

[Thermodolia]

Not seeing how the rich building pencil towers in expensive areas prevents one from building affordable housing.

It drives up rent prices for everyone else.

Rent. Controls. Are. A. Thing. Why is this so fucking complicated?

[Shofercia]

Which is why they should be outlawed

No. You just tax them and/or the company that is renting out the apartment for the apartments that are unoccupied for over 2 months straight

Eh, there's a better way. Allow for a five percent vacancy, on a month to month basis. Require that the landlord reduce the rent on the units that are in the above five percent category, or that said landlord pay taxes in the amount of average rent of unit - affordable housing rent, per every unit sold. I might dabble in real estate a tad

It drives up rent prices for everyone else.

Rent. Controls. Are. A. Thing. Why is this so fucking complicated?

It really shouldn't be. It's just tying rent controls to CPI increase + expected insurance/repair increase + property tax increase + newly added necessary structures for the entire complex to be used by all residents...

You could be building stuff for the average person not a uber rich person who will likely spend a day or two there.

Then you tax them for every month they don’t live there. I don’t know why this is a hard concept to grasp

Sorry Thermy, but such a tax might be illegal in the US. Do we have any lawyers on NSG that want to clarify it?

[Thermodolia]

No. You just tax them and/or the company that is renting out the apartment for the apartments that are unoccupied for over 2 months straight

Eh, there's a better way. Allow for a five percent vacancy, on a month to month basis. Require that the landlord reduce the rent on the units that are in the above five percent category, or that said landlord pay taxes in the amount of average rent of unit - affordable housing rent, per every unit sold. I might dabble in real estate a tad

But these units aren’t technically vacant. They are just unoccupied. The state might as well make money off of it.

Rent. Controls. Are. A. Thing. Why is this so fucking complicated?

It really shouldn't be. It's just tying rent controls to CPI increase + expected insurance/repair increase + property tax increase + newly added necessary structures for the entire complex to be used by all residents...

Weather they should or shouldn’t be isn’t the point. The point is that rents across the city aren’t going to jump to the same as the super rich tower rents because some are rent controlled.

Also I think subsided housing is better than rent controlled housing anyway. And NYC has several unused areas that could be transformed into affordable housing areas.

Then you tax them for every month they don’t live there. I don’t know why this is a hard concept to grasp

Sorry Thermy, but such a tax might be illegal in the US. Do we have any lawyers on NSG that want to clarify it?

I will make it legal

[Neutraligon]

Which is why they should be outlawed

No. You just tax them and/or the company that is renting out the apartment for the apartments that are unoccupied for over 2 months straight

What about those that have jobs that require them to travel for long periods of time?

[Thermodolia]

No. You just tax them and/or the company that is renting out the apartment for the apartments that are unoccupied for over 2 months straight

What about those that have jobs that require them to travel for long periods of time?

The whole 2 months is just a guess. It’s not set in stone at all. We can extend that period to 4 months or so.

Or better yet we just tax the company that rents them out for every apartment that is unoccupied over a certain to be defined time period

[Greed and Death]

Considering you were able to afford living in nice, rich areas where they’d build those towers, I’m sure you’ll land on your feet.

20 years ago you could get a 1 bedroom apt in hells kitchen for 700 a month. If not rent controlled that same apt would be around 3,500 a month now.

Because of rent control few developers want to risk building affordable housing. If there is a risk the building will become unprofitable when the neighborhood or market changes. Also keep in mind opportunity costs a Developer needs to beat 6% of a return on his investment in order to beat what he can passively make by investing in an index fund.

Meanwhile in Dallas with no Rent control I live in a new apartment with air conditioned and heated interior hallways and a door man for about 1,100 a month (not a high rise). Why is this well because the developer is protected from risks of being knocked below 6% by changing market and neighborhood conditions so they will build apartments for people in the middle income bracket.

[Ifreann]

The economy doesn't matter. People matter. The economy improving is only good if people benefit. All people, not just the rich. The economy failing is only bad if people are hurting. All people, not just the rich.


Giving a homeless person a home is obviously good.

Why do you want so badly for people to die on the streets? You keep trying to find reasons to not give homes to the homeless, and you must understand that living on the streets isn't conducive to a long and healthy life. So fucking what if some homeless people are """bad""". That doesn't warrant being put out onto the streets.

---

Should they be?

Umm the economy does benefit people.

It can. It doesn't always.

And the more wealth the economy has, the more the government has to distribute.

Very obviously not necessarily true.

Giving the homeless housing is not an obvious good, only according to your personal ethics.
You are just saying “it is good because I say it is”.

Explain to me how it can be good for someone to have to live on the streets.

But I am not against housing the homeless who will take care of the housing they are provided.

So you are against housing some people. You want them on the streets. Because you think they're bad. Is that your system of ethics? Bad people should be denied the basic necessities of life?

Again housing bad people with good people is bad for the good people!

People dying on the streets is bad.

It makes things worse for them. Living in a once beautiful 1950s apartment building that is now a ruined crime den is not a good way to live. Again this is no hypothetical. This is what happened.

Oh no, the poor apartment. My heart bleeds for the inanimate object that has been befouled by the presence of poors, who ruined the precious apartment with their inherent evil. Which obviously is why they did crime, yeah? I mean. It's not like there are any other factors that could have been in play in the 50s. Everyone knows that America in the 50s was a fucking wonderland, especially for the poor, until some evil fuckers just fucked it all up, doing crime for the lulz.

The homeless can be housed, but there has to be enforcement of rules.

Fuck that, everyone should have somewhere to live.

---

Which is why they should be outlawed

No. You just tax them and/or the company that is renting out the apartment for the apartments that are unoccupied for over 2 months straight

No, you just take the apartment and give it to someone who needs an apartment.

[Novus America]

Umm the economy does benefit people.

It can. It doesn't always.

And the more wealth the economy has, the more the government has to distribute.

Very obviously not necessarily true.

Giving the homeless housing is not an obvious good, only according to your personal ethics.
You are just saying “it is good because I say it is”.

Explain to me how it can be good for someone to have to live on the streets.

But I am not against housing the homeless who will take care of the housing they are provided.

So you are against housing some people. You want them on the streets. Because you think they're bad. Is that your system of ethics? Bad people should be denied the basic necessities of life?

Again housing bad people with good people is bad for the good people!

People dying on the streets is bad.

It makes things worse for them. Living in a once beautiful 1950s apartment building that is now a ruined crime den is not a good way to live. Again this is no hypothetical. This is what happened.

Oh no, the poor apartment. My heart bleeds for the inanimate object that has been befouled by the presence of poors, who ruined the precious apartment with their inherent evil. Which obviously is why they did crime, yeah? I mean. It's not like there are any other factors that could have been in play in the 50s. Everyone knows that America in the 50s was a fucking wonderland, especially for the poor, until some evil fuckers just fucked it all up, doing crime for the lulz.

The homeless can be housed, but there has to be enforcement of rules.

Fuck that, everyone should have somewhere to live.

---

No. You just tax them and/or the company that is renting out the apartment for the apartments that are unoccupied for over 2 months straight

No, you just take the apartment and give it to someone who needs an apartment.

Umm the bigger the economy, the more you have to go around.
If the optimal government to spending to GDP ratio is say 25%, obviously 25% of a trillion is better than 25% (even 100%) of a billion.

Economics is clearly not your thing though.

And you just repeating “the poor should be housed” as an axiom, but not going any beyond that. Not a good argument.

Oh and of course there are many reasons why people increasingly turned to crime in the 70s, the simple point is that crime was bad for the law abiding poor.

And homes may be inanimate objects but still need protection or people lose their homes.
Trashing homes of other poor people is not good.
And the good poor people who saw their homes trashed and ruined are NOT better off having their homes trashed!

See the bad people destroy the homes of the good poor. But apparently you are good with that, for some reason. Even though it makes things worse for everyone.

People should be able to get housing if they treat it well.

But they should not be allowed to trash the homes of good poor people.
And if they do they must pay consequences for harming their neighbors.

[Thermodolia]

Umm the economy does benefit people.

It can. It doesn't always.

And the more wealth the economy has, the more the government has to distribute.

Very obviously not necessarily true.

Giving the homeless housing is not an obvious good, only according to your personal ethics.
You are just saying “it is good because I say it is”.

Explain to me how it can be good for someone to have to live on the streets.

But I am not against housing the homeless who will take care of the housing they are provided.

So you are against housing some people. You want them on the streets. Because you think they're bad. Is that your system of ethics? Bad people should be denied the basic necessities of life?

Again housing bad people with good people is bad for the good people!

People dying on the streets is bad.

It makes things worse for them. Living in a once beautiful 1950s apartment building that is now a ruined crime den is not a good way to live. Again this is no hypothetical. This is what happened.

Oh no, the poor apartment. My heart bleeds for the inanimate object that has been befouled by the presence of poors, who ruined the precious apartment with their inherent evil. Which obviously is why they did crime, yeah? I mean. It's not like there are any other factors that could have been in play in the 50s. Everyone knows that America in the 50s was a fucking wonderland, especially for the poor, until some evil fuckers just fucked it all up, doing crime for the lulz.

The homeless can be housed, but there has to be enforcement of rules.

Fuck that, everyone should have somewhere to live.

---

No. You just tax them and/or the company that is renting out the apartment for the apartments that are unoccupied for over 2 months straight

No, you just take the apartment and give it to someone who needs an apartment.

That’s the dumbest idea possible. We aren’t giving away free shit

[Ifreann]

It can. It doesn't always.

Very obviously not necessarily true.


Explain to me how it can be good for someone to have to live on the streets.


So you are against housing some people. You want them on the streets. Because you think they're bad. Is that your system of ethics? Bad people should be denied the basic necessities of life?


People dying on the streets is bad.


Oh no, the poor apartment. My heart bleeds for the inanimate object that has been befouled by the presence of poors, who ruined the precious apartment with their inherent evil. Which obviously is why they did crime, yeah? I mean. It's not like there are any other factors that could have been in play in the 50s. Everyone knows that America in the 50s was a fucking wonderland, especially for the poor, until some evil fuckers just fucked it all up, doing crime for the lulz.


Fuck that, everyone should have somewhere to live.

---

No, you just take the apartment and give it to someone who needs an apartment.

Umm the bigger the economy, the more you have to go around.
If the optimal government to spending to GDP ratio is say 25%, obviously 25% of a trillion is better than 25% (even 100%) of a billion.

Economics is clearly not your thing though.

You know that the GDP isn't a big pile of money somewhere that the government gets to take a chunk of, yeah? Higher GDP doesn't necessarily mean higher government revenues.

And you just repeating “the poor should be housed” as an axiom, but not going any beyond that. Not a good argument.

Everyone should be housed. Do you seriously not fucking understand why it is good to have somewhere to live? Do you think that having shelter or not is a value neutral distinction? Don't be fucking ridiculous.

Oh and of course there are many reasons why people increasingly turned to crime in the 70s, the simple point is that crime was bad for the law abiding poor.

No shit crime is bad.

And homes may be inanimate objects but still need protection or people lose their homes.

Fortunately, fire alarms exist.

Trashing homes of other poor people is not good.
And the good poor people who saw their homes trashed and ruined are NOT better off having their homes trashed!

See the bad people destroy the homes of the good poor. But apparently you are good with that, for some reason. Even though it makes things worse for everyone.

Explain to me how giving people somewhere to live will cause baddies to go around destroying everyone's stuff.

People should be able to get housing if they treat it well.

People should get housing if they need housing, which obviously everyone does. So fucking what if they don't treat it well? Who cares? Who does that hurt? If I smash my TV, will you die? Will you by harmed in any way? No, you won't.

But they should not be allowed to trash the homes of good poor people.
And if they do they must pay consequences for harming their neighbors.

Being forced to live on the street is not a just punishment for property crime. And I don't know why you think that giving people somewhere to live will cause them to start committing property crimes. It really makes no sense. Like. We're talking about people who do exist right now. The people you think are going to trash other people's homes, they are real people who are really living on the streets of New York right now. Why aren't they trashing anyone's homes? Where are the gangs of homeless who break into people's houses and wreck up the place and leave?

---

No, you just take the apartment and give it to someone who needs an apartment.

That’s the dumbest idea possible. We aren’t giving away free shit

You should, it'd be great.

You pretend to care about the worker. Do you think it's good for the worker to give up half their wages just to have somewhere to live? Do you think it's good that a landlord can take half of a worker's wages, and provide no service for that money that the worker could not easily do themselves? Think about what landlords do. Would you ever pay someone to be your landlord, if you owned the place yourself? Would you hire someone to provide you with a landlord service, for a monthly fee equivalent to what you'd be paying in rent if they owned your place? Or would you do all that stuff yourself? Arrange your own insurance, get an electrician or plumber yourself if you need one, whatever.

Landlords are parasites. They produce nothing, they offer no service, they just take money from workers. Do you, an allegedly pro-worker future dictator, really approve of that? I would have thought you'd be all about putting them all in the gulags.

[Neutraligon]

Landlords are parasites. They produce nothing, they offer no service, they just take money from workers. Do you, an allegedly pro-worker future dictator, really approve of that? I would have thought you'd be all about putting them all in the gulags.

Tell that to my landlord, who ensures the functioning of the building I am in.

[Ifreann]

Landlords are parasites. They produce nothing, they offer no service, they just take money from workers. Do you, an allegedly pro-worker future dictator, really approve of that? I would have thought you'd be all about putting them all in the gulags.

Tell that to my landlord, who ensures the functioning of the building I am in.

Obviously I'm not familiar with the specifics of your living arrangements.