Cabby lands $226/month Manhattan pad for life (New York, York: sales, coupons)
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.
The more we allow subsidization to exist in prime areas the more gentrification will simply push further outward. The person who would normally rent this place will simply look somewhere else like Harlem or Brooklyn which will in turn raise those areas rents even more, which will push those people further out, raising rents in another area of the city, etc, etc.
The more we allow subsidization to exist in prime areas the more gentrification will simply push further outward. The person who would normally rent this place will simply look somewhere else like Harlem or Brooklyn which will in turn raise those areas rents even more, which will push those people further out, raising rents in another area of the city, etc, etc.
It is important to increase - and in some cases establish - diversity in neighborhoods. Harlem has tons of regulated buildings and many modest income people. Market-rate tenants and actual luxury buildings are needed. Of course, this should not happen at the expense of the lower-income people.
Conversely, certain areas have been completely counter-diversified - moved in the opposite direction.
More modest- and low-income buildings are needed, whether new or protections for already existing buildings.
But that's not the issue. Neighborhoods, which are maintained by long-term residents in stable situations, do not fit into the predatory scheme of things. Predatory value extraction as present in New York real estate mandates transitory populations. Already tiny tenement apartments subdivided into "two-bedroom" units with no living room and enormous washer-dryer appliances stuck somewhere. You can identify these by the number of times the word "share !!!!!" is repeated in the advertising. These units are sold using the "neighborhood" lingo, at this point a completely empty sign. No content, because this has been consumed and the original creators were forced out long ago save a few.
The developers and landlords want to create a New York that is entirely opened to profiteering, and making everything merely transitional housing is the strategy. One big hotel resting on its long-gone laurels - that is to say, until this implodes. Which it will.
Probably the $226 is the monthly rent the former SRO charged when it went Hotel. I imagine each is different and there is nothing sacrosanct about the $226 figure.
Here's the part that confuses me:
So why did the hotel switch back and forth between exempt Hotel and rent stabilized SRO?
Only if the Four Seasons had once been an SRO.
What confuses me is the fact that people seem not to grasp the situations around SROs.
I would guess - the developer was trying to hide the SRO thing as it remained for some of the units. As is the case with everything, people need to complain. Nobody checks.
He didn't stay for 15 days; he requested a lease after only staying one day.
Nope that's not quite right. He walked in and paid cash for one night then went online and booked for the maximum stay allowed by the hotel (14 days) and stayed there a second day. So he had a reservation for +14 days but when the owner realized that he had put 1 + 14 together he wiped his access card and dumped his stuff outside. He went to court and argued unlawful eviction because he had a contract for a 14 day stay. The judge granted his return and by virtue of the 15 consecutive day stay he was entitled to the permanent rent controlled lease
The hotel owner knew about the 15 day requirement, but the cab driver snuck in that first day and by the time they realized he had booked 15 it was too late
It is important to increase - and in some cases establish - diversity in neighborhoods. Harlem has tons of regulated buildings and many modest income people. Market-rate tenants and actual luxury buildings are needed. Of course, this should not happen at the expense of the lower-income people.
Conversely, certain areas have been completely counter-diversified - moved in the opposite direction.
More modest- and low-income buildings are needed, whether new or protections for already existing buildings.
But that's not the issue. Neighborhoods, which are maintained by long-term residents in stable situations, do not fit into the predatory scheme of things. Predatory value extraction as present in New York real estate mandates transitory populations. Already tiny tenement apartments subdivided into "two-bedroom" units with no living room and enormous washer-dryer appliances stuck somewhere. You can identify these by the number of times the word "share !!!!!" is repeated in the advertising. These units are sold using the "neighborhood" lingo, at this point a completely empty sign. No content, because this has been consumed and the original creators were forced out long ago save a few.
The developers and landlords want to create a New York that is entirely opened to profiteering, and making everything merely transitional housing is the strategy. One big hotel resting on its long-gone laurels - that is to say, until this implodes. Which it will.
No profit, no housing. People do things in the hopes of making a profit and absent that no housing would be built. It's fine to mandate making affordable housing part of that mix, but in the end people have a right to make money. The only alternative to that is the city taking over complete responsibility for housing (ala NYCHA) and we all see how that turns out.
No profit, no housing. People do things in the hopes of making a profit and absent that no housing would be built. It's fine to mandate making affordable housing part of that mix, but in the end people have a right to make money. The only alternative to that is the city taking over complete responsibility for housing (ala NYCHA) and we all see how that turns out.
I do not necessarily or entirely disagree with the last statement. NYCHA is a mess and I wonder whether it would benefit, and serve people far more fairly, if the version of privatization that is being discussed in that context was indeed introduced. It could not possibly be worse. The current NYCHA bears the worst aspects of everything.
Keep in mind that "profit" and "predatory profiteering" are two very different things. The latter doesn't necessarily proceed from the former, although here it definitely has. Our lack of consensus in terms of cultural norms and everything else make responsible profit a challenge here. Not enough homogeneity in terms of population.
Doesn't mean it's impossible though.
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.
