U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-27-2015, 10:04 PM
 
18,311 posts, read 11,700,635 times
Reputation: 11948

Advertisements

If anything do blame the Bloomberg administration for the strong class feeling we have in the City today.

Am speaking of the anti-rent stabilization/ if you cannot afford to live here get out, moocher, and so forth attitude that has taken root and grown over the past several years.

As services and places that while open to all but mainly used by middle class and below NYer's vanished, you heard nothing but cheers in some quarters. Saint Vincent's Hospital, Long Island College Hospital, scores of small businesses and past times such as Bowlmor Lanes off Union Square and so forth. People do not use these services/places and are more than happy when something new and modern replaces them.

You also see a more hardening attitude from them that got towards them that don't. To be fair NYC and NYS tax the heck out of everything that moves or breathes to pay for a vast social service network that never seems to be enough, but now we are reaching the point where the poor are being demonized.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-27-2015, 11:59 PM
 
23,265 posts, read 16,096,003 times
Reputation: 8543
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBMW View Post
Bloomberg certainly didn't do anything to slow down the increasing COL in NYC, but he wasn't the cause of it.

There had been factors that had been preventing wholesale gentrification in the city for a few decades before the end of the twentieth century. Think in terms of the collapse of the industrial economy in the city, the 70s financial crisis, the rampant crime, the rent laws, etc.. Through the 90s, these were all in one way or another dealt with. By the time Bloomberg got into office, NYC had become a highly desirable place to live, and for demographic groups for whom it really hadn't been previously (think we'll of parents with children.) So the working class just had more and richer competition for city resources, and they couldn't, and still can't compete.

Bloomberg didn't do anything to change that situation, was happy to let it continue, and did everything possible to help it along. But, of course, this was the proper thing for him to do.
Bingo. The collapse of the industrial sector ruined big parts of Manhattan itself (West Side, Harlem), East River Brooklyn and East River Queens.

In the 1990s the federal government gave cities more money to hire police (so Giuliani dealt with rampant crime). Companies were given tax credits for investing in decayed urban areas as the federal government decided the nation's cities were in crisis and this could not continue.

Where Bloomberg does deserve credit is he rezoned industrial areas for corporate or residential use. So many former industrial assets were either torn down and replaced or repurposed for corporate or residential use.

Bloomberg went with the times and had the city's recruiters recruit tourism, tech, film, and tv companies as well as encouraged the expansion of education. He helped diversify the city's tax base from Wall Street.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2015, 06:24 AM
 
Location: West Harlem
6,886 posts, read 7,834,375 times
Reputation: 3000
Quote:
Originally Posted by BugsyPal View Post
If anything do blame the Bloomberg administration for the strong class feeling we have in the City today.

Am speaking of the anti-rent stabilization/ if you cannot afford to live here get out, moocher, and so forth attitude that has taken root and grown over the past several years.
Agree, I do believe however that some interesting things unfold as we speak.

Regarding the "attitude" - a lot of it comes from Sex in the City-oriented transplants who are bitter about their inability to find affordable apartments. It is usually the case that people will turn on those just above or just below them before they recognize the actual agents.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2015, 11:58 AM
 
9,968 posts, read 8,460,132 times
Reputation: 5851
Bloomberg didn't screw with what Giuliani implemented on the law enforcement front. And he was strongly pro business and pro development.

The LE initiative created a 20 year lull in what had been previously a pretty rampant crime situation. This had the effect of disrupting the demographic circulation between the city and suburbs, and young parents, particularly affluent ones (who benefited from Bloomberg's pro business initiatives), considered the city safe enough to raise children in. So they stayed, pushing up the price of, and creating demand for, bigger apartments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NyWriterdude View Post
Bingo. The collapse of the industrial sector ruined big parts of Manhattan itself (West Side, Harlem), East River Brooklyn and East River Queens.

In the 1990s the federal government gave cities more money to hire police (so Giuliani dealt with rampant crime). Companies were given tax credits for investing in decayed urban areas as the federal government decided the nation's cities were in crisis and this could not continue.

Where Bloomberg does deserve credit is he rezoned industrial areas for corporate or residential use. So many former industrial assets were either torn down and replaced or repurposed for corporate or residential use.

Bloomberg went with the times and had the city's recruiters recruit tourism, tech, film, and tv companies as well as encouraged the expansion of education. He helped diversify the city's tax base from Wall Street.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2015, 02:26 PM
 
18,311 posts, read 11,700,635 times
Reputation: 11948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlem resident View Post
Agree, I do believe however that some interesting things unfold as we speak.

Regarding the "attitude" - a lot of it comes from Sex in the City-oriented transplants who are bitter about their inability to find affordable apartments. It is usually the case that people will turn on those just above or just below them before they recognize the actual agents.
RS is unique to only a few American cities with NYC being the largest IIRC. So on one had can understand why persons moving here would be confused as to why someone living next door to them is paying $$ while they must pay $$$$ to live in same building. Worse for them as market rate they have no protections against various forces such as rent increases while the RS do.

They aren't to thrilled about "affordable" 80/20 or whatever housing schemes either. Again why should they have worked hard to afford an apartment in a building why others didn't?

There is a whole hardening of attitudes against the poor or anyone that is seen as not paying their own way. Don' think SITC has much to do with it but just the growing lack of empathy and compassion for those different or worse off than yourselves. You see it in many places not just New York City.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2015, 05:39 PM
 
5,722 posts, read 5,174,047 times
Reputation: 3840
Quote:
Originally Posted by BugsyPal View Post
Again why should they have worked hard to afford an apartment in a building why others didn't?
Just cause you don't make a lot of money does not mean you don't work hard.

But to answer you question NYC needs plenty of people working jobs that don't pay much to operate. If you had all wealthy people you'd have no stores, restaurants, schools, or activities to do cause who do you think works those kind of jobs? Not people pulling in 6 or more figures.

Last edited by livingsinglenyc; 09-28-2015 at 06:08 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2015, 06:03 PM
 
Location: West Harlem
6,886 posts, read 7,834,375 times
Reputation: 3000
Quote:
Originally Posted by BugsyPal View Post

There is a whole hardening of attitudes against the poor or anyone that is seen as not paying their own way. Don' think SITC has much to do with it but just the growing lack of empathy and compassion for those different or worse off than yourselves. You see it in many places not just New York City.
"Seem" is the operative word. While some people do not work hard, granted, a great many people work very hard and are not sufficiently compensated for the contributions they make.

The system rewards those who join the ranks - contributions notwithstanding.

I think Sex in the City appealed to precisely that mentality lacking empathy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2015, 07:06 PM
 
1,241 posts, read 3,601,099 times
Reputation: 851
Quote:
Originally Posted by ny123 View Post
What he did to improve the lifestyle (so to speak) of NYers, such as those targeted at health and exercise, certainly benefits more of the people you refer to than the more wealthy.
You mean 20 & 30 something millenials making $150,000 or more who have an $150 a month equinox gym membership (and who buy the latest workout gear at Paragon Sports) and who can afford to shop at Whole Foods & impulse shop whenever the need hits at Duane Reade..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2015, 11:50 PM
 
3,333 posts, read 3,286,892 times
Reputation: 2834
Quote:
Originally Posted by BugsyPal View Post
RS is unique to only a few American cities with NYC being the largest IIRC. So on one had can understand why persons moving here would be confused as to why someone living next door to them is paying $$ while they must pay $$$$ to live in same building. Worse for them as market rate they have no protections against various forces such as rent increases while the RS do.

They aren't to thrilled about "affordable" 80/20 or whatever housing schemes either. Again why should they have worked hard to afford an apartment in a building why others didn't?

There is a whole hardening of attitudes against the poor or anyone that is seen as not paying their own way. Don' think SITC has much to do with it but just the growing lack of empathy and compassion for those different or worse off than yourselves. You see it in many places not just New York City.
Hardening of what attitudes?

I grew up and lived in this City for 30 years. Can I have RS/RC?

Close to 50% of the City's apartments are under some form of rent regulation. Do you realize what that does to the other 50%? These regulations create an artificial constraint on supply and the only ones winning are the landlords.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2015, 07:19 AM
 
23,265 posts, read 16,096,003 times
Reputation: 8543
Quote:
Originally Posted by wawaweewa View Post
Hardening of what attitudes?

I grew up and lived in this City for 30 years. Can I have RS/RC?

Close to 50% of the City's apartments are under some form of rent regulation. Do you realize what that does to the other 50%? These regulations create an artificial constraint on supply and the only ones winning are the landlords.
Yes you can have a RS apartment. Any old unit that is priced under $2500 a month is going to be rent stabilized. Finding a rent stabilized apartment in the hottest areas of Manhattan is going to be pretty tricky. But in the overall city you can still find quite a few.

The city needs to keep RS. The city is perfectly content to let people work in rock bottom service jobs with no benefits and where most of their salary is in cash (bartender, some waiters, delivery boys, etc). When these people get old they have no retirement and they in some cases have worked on the books too little to get social security or if they do get social security it is the minimum. So the city is obligated to take care of them in the form of keeping rent stabilization and other social services.

These people helped work in and serve an essential part of the NYC economy, hospitality/tourism.

Moving out of NYC will not work for these people because there is nowhere in this nation where one can survive off $800 in SS benefits (these people would only get the bare minimum of SS) without considerable other government subsidies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top