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.
Actually no. There are a lot of places that are undervalued because they are undersized. Go down the avenues in Manhattan. There are any number of towers lining them, but there are still more walk up tenements. These lots would be paying a lot more in the way of real estate taxes if they were torn down and the land used to build much bigger towers, that would house more residents. Also, the additional residents would be paying NYS/C's high income taxes.
Of course, they can't be torn down, because they're full of rent regulated tenants and/or are subject to to the tyranny of the Landmark Preservation Commission. If they can be torn down, in many neighborhoods, due to the influence of the neighborhood NIMBYs, the area has been downzoned, so that the buildings are undersized relative to the ability of the infrastructure to carry them and their residents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NyWriterdude
Why on earth would the city not be happy with the current high price of housing in NYC? Those real estate taxes flow straight into city coffers. The status quo suits their interest.
Not really. I can't ever imagine complaining about someone who has billions. If I wanted that kind of money I need to be a CEO, and I did not chose that career path so why would I complain?
Those people in the video complaining about building air rights are probably coop and condo owners near by and those people are affluent or have some sort of money. These folks do not want the ultra rich in the area. Also I work in the area and I know those very affluent folks who dislike those new high risers that they would never benefit from!
Actually no. There are a lot of places that are undervalued because they are undersized. Go down the avenues in Manhattan. There are any number of towers lining them, but there are still more walk up tenements. These lots would be paying a lot more in the way of real estate taxes if they were torn down and the land used to build much bigger towers, that would house more residents. Also, the additional residents would be paying NYS/C's high income taxes.
Of course, they can't be torn down, because they're full of rent regulated tenants and/or are subject to to the tyranny of the Landmark Preservation Commission. If they can be torn down, in many neighborhoods, due to the influence of the neighborhood NIMBYs, the area has been downzoned, so that the buildings are undersized relative to the ability of the infrastructure to carry them and their residents.
Of course they can be and often are torn down. Simply buy out the rent regulated tenants. Or if the building is in really bad shape, it has to be either torn down or gut renovated.
But the bottom line is people here are going through all kinds of fantasies and excuses. Could, should, would. The current reality is what one must deal with. If you want to live in Manhattan it's going to cost a fantastic amount of money. Period.
Moyers' premise is that income inequality is driving people out of the city. What I'm saying is that NYC's regulatory structure is much more to blame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NyWriterdude
Of course they can be and often are torn down. Simply buy out the rent regulated tenants. Or if the building is in really bad shape, it has to be either torn down or gut renovated.
But the bottom line is people here are going through all kinds of fantasies and excuses. Could, should, would. The current reality is what one must deal with. If you want to live in Manhattan it's going to cost a fantastic amount of money. Period.
public servants such as teachers, firemen and policemen, and government workers, etc.,
Almost 80% of NYC's public employees reside in NYC, generally because they are required to do so. With an average starting salary of $40K, and a median salary of $65K, most can afford it, albeit in the outer boroughs. The 3 categories you named are not mandated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBMW
NYC has far to many restrictions and regulations on housing. Between zoning, rent regulation, and landmarking, the city has made it much too difficult and expensive to create new housing. ...
NYC is full. The current population is estimated at 8.4 million. IMO there are at least 600K uncounted. Some are illegal aliens. Others live in illegal apartments. Some are snowbirds, etc., who claim to live elsewhere to avoid paying NYC & NYS income taxes. So, at least 9 million. How many more do you want? Another million? Because, face it, there are a lot of people who would like to live in NYC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Columbiadata
someone who works hard but earns only around 40K ... ought to have available to them a place to live in the city that they can afford.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Columbiadata
Paying the appropriate percentage of 40K per year to rent an apartment or buy a little house isn't living for free.
30% of $40K is $12K, so $1,000 per month. I can't see a house from that, but a tiny apartment. Of course, when there's a mate & a gang of kids, the worker creates problems. Should the city be required to subsidize housing for breeders?
Last edited by bigjake54; 11-30-2014 at 08:14 PM..
Moyers' premise is that income inequality is driving people out of the city. What I'm saying is that NYC's regulatory structure is much more to blame.
Boston done away with rentr control yet it's still one of the most inequality cities in America. Like NYC and DC and SF Boston residents face higher rents thanks to the end of rent control. Even if NYC got rid of rent stabilized, rent subsidized including nycha, hasa, section 8 and eliminated preservation board rents will go through the roof.
The funny thing about all of this is you barely spend time at the apt. The majority of the time spent in your apartment you are sleeping. Otherwise, you are cleaning, cooking, watching tv, having sex and 70% of the time sleeping. You probably spend 40% of your day at the apt. (unless you are retired or work from home).
The funny thing about all of this is you barely spend time at the apt. The majority of the time spent in your apartment you are sleeping. Otherwise, you are cleaning, cooking, watching tv, having sex and 70% of the time sleeping. You probably spend 40% of your day at the apt. (unless you are retired or work from home).
Paying over 800 for an apt is crazy.
Not even. If your apartment is close to where you work and all the things you like to do, well you get what you pay for.
I don't even think in the worst ghetto you can find an apartment for $800 today in NYC.
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.
