NYC's future = disneyland for yuppies ?? (New York, Ridge: middle-class, buying, new construction) - New York City - Page 14 - City-Data Forum

Otis_Nevins · 07-19-2008, 11:30 PM

Quote:

is it fair for him to pay that much when others pay less???

"Fair"? Nothing is "fair" in Manhattan when it comes to real estate. If you can afford to pay $3500 a month in rent (that's $42,000 a year - in RENT) you'd have a $400,000 one-bedroom paid off in less than ten years... Just thinking out loud here...

Yeah, there's plenty of paradoxical living here... I don't think "they" pay much to rent the projects on Avenue D, but right across the street they're paying a hell of a lot... Fair? hahahaha!

Materialism · 07-19-2008, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UpstaterInBklyn

Yeah - I know enough about taxes. You really should be reporting your "allowance" on form 1040 Line 21, and the provider of the "allowance" should have reported it via a form 1099 to the IRS. Income is income, whether you earn it or not.

Are you saying you pay no income tax? The IRS, NYS Dept of Taxation and NYC Dept. of Finance won't be too happy about that.

And if you pay no income tax, doesn't that lump you in with the rest of the freeloaders you complain about?

You obviously don't understand.

I live in NYC on my parents dime because I'm a student.

When shop my heart out, I'm contrubuting to New York's economy, when I eat out, i contribute to New York's economy and so on. I probably spend more money on shoes alone per year than most of the public housing leechers make (or report) per year.

When I graduate, my financial contribution to this city will be even more significant.

BXGEAR · 07-20-2008, 02:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Materialism

You obviously don't understand.

I live in NYC on my parents dime because I'm a student.

When shop my heart out, I'm contrubuting to New York's economy, when I eat out, i contribute to New York's economy and so on. I probably spend more money on shoes alone per year than most of the public housing leechers make (or report) per year.

When I graduate, my financial contribution to this city will be even more significant.

There's a lot of people living in the NYC area. What about the people that grow up poor but become successful? I think the come up pushes you harder. Plus I know I'll have lots of stories for when I have kids

bmwguydc · 07-20-2008, 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Materialism

Who cares about history of tenements? Times change.

Manhattan is very wealthy. In fact, Manhattan is the wealthiest county in the United States so I think all public housing in Manhattan should be blown up and be replaced with more market-rate housing for you know, the normal people around the country who actually work and contribute to the economy who kill to get into the city.

Public housing in Manhattan needs to be razed and relocated outside of the city.

It worked for Paris.

Parts of Manhattan are wealthy, yes, but much of the borough is not, and it is an oversimplification to make a pronouncement that it is the wealthiest county in the country based upon an average measure. In terms of per capita income, Manhattan ranks high, but that's a disproportionate statistic, since it averages the abnormally high salaries that exist in some sectors in the city, not reflecting a true picture of the distributed wealth among the population in the area. The median income is much more statistically reliable in terms of providing the true economic picture, and New York County (aka Manhattan) is nowhere near the top.

Most of the top 20 wealthiest counties in the country, as ranked by Forbes, using the median income as the measure, are located around Washington, DC, not New York. Fairfax County (VA) is the wealthiest, with a median income in excess of $100k, followed by Loudoun County (VA) with just under $100k, Howard County (MD) is third, Hunterdon (NJ) is fourth, Doughlas (CO) is fifth, etc. The median is a better measure of the true level of affluence in the area, whereas in Manhattan there is a realtively small population that is truly wealthy. This does not take into account second home owners and international owners, but their incomes would not be factored anyway, since a pied-a-terre is not a residence to which the income would be assigned by a demographer for a US national, and an international buyer would not be factored at all.

Much attention is given to new development, gentrification, and the so-called yuppification of Manhattan, in particular, but there has always been concentrated wealth in Manhattan, and concentrated poverty as well. It is merely the accelerated pace of middle and moderate wage earner populations that is receiving the attention, and the notion that Manhattan suddenly became a wealthy paradise is laughable. Even in the "bad years" of the city, there were neighborhoods in Manhattan, the Bronx, Queens, and Brooklyn that were completely safe and sound, and were insulated pockets of wealth that exist to this day.

This nonsense of moving projects is absurd, since the problem with the projects in the first place is that they were created as a result of flawed city planning, that actually concentrated the poverty in superblocks that they were supposed to be eliminating. Creating new projects is just more of the same situation, and repeating the same behavior over and over again with an expected different result is a definition of insanity. Should the existing projects be eliminated? Yes, they are terrible in terms of superblocks of cities unto themselves, and are not integrated into their neighborhoods, creating conditions whereby poverty is a way of life. If they are demolished and properly scaled affordable and market rate housing is implemented, an area of decline and destruction is turned around, displacing the criminal element from within such communities that the people who live in the projects do not want to be surrounded by, either. I am not arguing that there are abuses in the current projects, as it is easy to see that in some ways they have strayed from the original purposes under which they were built.

The reality is that people who cannot afford New York will leave, and some argue that that is a good thing, but it's not, as the net effect on the true economic picture of the city is negative. It is better to have a broad-based economy that draws the majority of its revenue from the middle, than one that relies on a small number of extremely high income individuals.

To use a fashion example, haute couture is the top of the heap, super luxury, and is truly world class. Now, for those who cannot afford the haute couture, does the business ignore them? No. Haute couture actually loses money, overall, and the real reason why it exists is to provide for an aspirational model and to get press for the design house, so that they can make their real money selling at the pret-a-porter and accessory level where the profits lie. A small number of people can afford haute couture, worldwide, true haute couture, and the designers don't ignore the other markets, since without them, the house would cease to exist in a minute. It is in the integrated model that the business is sustainable, which is akin to New York, since if all people of less means are forcibly relegated to areas outside Manhattan, exclusively, that would cause a cycle in which employers in Manhattan could not employ people to work in capacities that are occupied by moderate and middle income earners, and would either have to artifically raise salaries and cut into profits, or relocate; thus destroying the "new" urban paradise that is the yuppified/gentrified version of the city that is embraced so much by many who have very little experience with Manhattan, much less New York City.

SeventhFloor · 07-20-2008, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Materialism

Who cares about history of tenements? Times change.

Manhattan is very wealthy. In fact, Manhattan is the wealthiest county in the United States so I think all public housing in Manhattan should be blown up and be replaced with more market-rate housing for you know, the normal people around the country who actually work and contribute to the economy who kill to get into the city.

Public housing in Manhattan needs to be razed and relocated outside of the city.

It worked for Paris.

well you're asking why projects are in manhattan, i gave you the answer why they're there. so for you to respond "Who cares about tenements?" means that i'm wasting my time. however i will press on, undaunted.....

manhattan cannot be the wealthiest county in the united states...where did u get that info from? its impossible. there has to be places in california and florida that beat it. maybe 10128 is the richest zip code, but new york county is not the richest county.

look at your quote...market-rate housing for normal people? normal people cannot afford manhattan's market rate housing.

and when you say it worked for paris, how so? did you not read about the riots that were happening there about 2 yrs ago in the projects? forgive me for saying this, but you are living off you parents money. you have no idea of how the real world works, and if you cant put the shoe on the other foot, or at least have a decent discussion, i'll take action because i've had enough of your snobbery. and dont get me wrong, you're entitled to your opinon, but its your close-mindedness that made me ultimately lose my patience.

SeventhFloor · 07-20-2008, 10:11 AM

Quote: