I know what you're saying. Here in Scottsdale there are typically 3 cars at a stoplight. There used to be 4. People just aren't going out anymore. And I saw a 40 year old woman last night with a noticable wrinkle line on her forehead. Would have never seen that before. It would have been removed before she ever set foot out the door. The world is going to hell. :eek:
This article explains about rent control in the city and how it's messed up the housing market. http://robparis.blogspot.com/2009/0...ing-in-new.html ------------------------------------------ I disagree regarding rent controls. Free market rents work fine outside the city limits but a city such as New York, rent control has its benefits for the diversity you need and to maintain the unique make up of an urban area. The gov't is a poor landlord (projects). Private housing with rent controls work well to include all income classes, it provides a diverse work force and a more various retail customer base nearby. Maybe gov't incentives could be better to subsidize rent controls in private building via generous tax breaks.
You must have skipped Econ 101. Rent control is a price control with the government setting the price (rent) below where the market based supply and demand curves intersect. Economist actually do agree on some things and pretty much are in consensus that rent control is economically destructive. It has no place in a market-based economy. I believe in a social safety net but not rent control which singles out a minority of private owners of property and forces them to provide a social/charity role that general real estate owners don't have to provide.
The diversity of New York City would survive without rent control. There are still plenty of place where there is cheap rent in the city (not due to rent control). Alphabet city and Inwood are two examples. But that's beside the point. The government has no duty or right to maintain the diversity of the city. Private housing with rent control amounts to not private housing. If the owner can't set the price, then he doesn't fully own the property. Again, an individual owns property, the government has no right to tell him what he can charge for its use. http://robparis.blogspot.com/
Is that possible mister? ( 2 live in a RV) I ask cause my mommy keeps telling me when just might have to move from where we live here on Long Island cause it cost to much money to live here. There's just me and her and I'm just a kid ( special needs kid ) who goes to school so she works two jobs and sometimes three She says maybe we should go to FloriDUH but I told her it would be to hot for me so she said just last night while we were talking that maybe we can get a small RV that she can drive and we will live in it and travel around the country.....she said she can always get work ( mostly waitress ) and we can park in parks and stuff....she also said we could stay in warm places in the winter and then not so warm or HOT places in the summer. Is that possible mister? Is that what you are thinking of doing when you said live in a RV?
I know of people who live in Manhattan and pay under 300 dollars rent for a 1 room apartment while other tenants are paying much higher. I guess it is unfair, but without rent stabilization my friend would never live in Manhattan. I bet the owners are wishing for my friend to move out or pass away
I have 4 sq ft available in my store, I can put in a gumball machine and generate some revenue but the gov't says I must put a recycling container for plastic bags.
This thread should be moved to chit chat. I'm only saying this because the thread on Michigan, where I happen to live, was. Here, as in the Michigan thread, quite a few people who've probably never been to NY have been slamming it pretty hard. I have only been to New York City proper, and not often, so I'd never pretend to know what the quality of life or conditions are in the city or state, in general. I do think New York will feel much more pain in coming years, as financial sector jobs continue to bleed until the point of the new equilibrium, which might take a good 4 years or so, but hope that I'm wrong. While not as pegged to one industry as Michigan was, New York was and is still pretty intensely pegged to all things finance.
Do you even understand how & why rent control was enacted? It's relatively easy to find out, just go on wikipedia. I can see robparis has an agenda, he is obviously in favor of NYC greedy slumlords, but maybe you can educate yourself. The government does not just show up and turn regular apartments into rent-controlled. These apartments have been passed down for decades, in mostly old ass buildings that are falling apart. These are technically leases established 40-50 years ago which are passed down. I'm not in favor of rent controlled apartments at all, but I certainly do not support the scumbag slumlords who purchase those buildings & then try to force the people to leave. There are already enough problems with rent controlled apartments. On the flipside, the new "market rate" overpriced, cheaply built "luxury" buildings have detrimentally impacted NYC in a way that it may not recover.
I agree with you Anaconda. Buildings that have rent-control are usually "old ass buildings that are falling apart". The old buildings with rent-control will continue to fall apart as long as rent-control continues. If the landlord isn't making money, he can't afford to fix the building's problems. In some cases, it's probably best to demolish the building and re-build. This can't be done as long as the landlord can't choose to stop renewing leases. The people living in the building are renters, not owners. They have no "right" to stay in the building year after year. The person who owns the building has the right to do whatever he wants with his property as long as he doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. I am not in favor of greedy slumlords. Yes, there may be "scumbag slumlords" who will profit. And it's not ideal, but it's a side-effect of ending rent-control. Once rent-control is over, ideally, many of these slums would become much nicer buildings. There are so many problems with rent-control that the best solution is to just end it. There is near consensus with economists that rent-control hurts the community. Why do you believe that the cheaply built luxury buildings have detrimentally impacted NYC? http://robparis.blogspot.com/