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.
Desi..here are my thoughts. I have not at all seen "so many family businesses pushed out over the last 5 years because they cannot afford a new lease." Please list for me the businesses that have closed due to "unbearable" increase in rent ONLY, and not increased competition, business is relocating to a better location, family sold the business, etc. Unless you know personally these owners, how can you say definitively that they closed because of "unbearable" rent increase? In the past 5 years, I have seen NOTHING close in my community, and ALOT open, like new supermarkets, convenience stores, gas stations, cafes, restuarants, floral shops, etc. I have also seen new establishments from Manhattan relocate to the Bronx due in fact to rent, however this is normal and healthy, as it is leaving a saturated market and entering one that benefits the Bronx and the establishment as well. As for your comment that "even we had to move due to rent." Can you indicate what year you had to move, the size of your apt, the amount of rent you were formerly paying, what the new rent was going to, and whether you had any subsidies like section 8 etc, that way I can have all the information. I understand the concept of locking out newcomers versus keeping oldtimers in their homes...there is a difference. However, your policies do not ensure that oldtimers are not kicked out of the neighborhood, it only serves to instill hostility, breeds resentment, and promotes disinvestment in communities. What happens when rents are "locked", there is no free movement of people, and expenses skyrocket? We know the answer from the 70s...the city burned because of it and we have lost entire swaths of our city. What happens when you maintain one specific group of people in a community at the expense of everyone else? We know the answer to that question too...extreme segregation and isolation. What happens when extreme regulations and well-intentioned protections (like the ones you propose) are implemented? We know the answer to that one too..they restrict the free market, investment disappears, and neighborhoods decline and people flee. These are not my views, these are all what has happened in NYC, and we are living through the results of all of it today. Yes some regulations are necessary, but to implement "locked" rents, and to openly discriminate against people who have not lived in communities for 30 years would mean you and your friends likely would not have been able to move to the Bronx, or any other community in NYC because those slots would have gone to the locals whom, according to you, "deserved it." Where would you and your friends and families have gone exactly? Mathematics says no apts, means nobody moves. However logic dictates that there will always be apts available, and the problem becomes the only people those apts are available to are the "locals" which essentially locks everyone else out. I don't understand the assigment of value of one person's right to live in a neighborhood over another? Because I was here 3 days longer than you? I have more friends here? I went to school here? My grandmother was born here? What is the criteria? I do recognize not kicking people out who want to stay...but I also understand the reality of wanting things and being able to afford things. I want to live in Chelsea in a 3 bedroom apt, and I want to pay $1,000 a month, because that is what I deem fair and reasonable. Is that right? Or should I live where I can afford? Is the city responsible to provide me with the lifestyle I want at the price I deem fair and reasonable? Do I have a right to live in my apt no matter what just because I have always lived there? These are the underlying issues that you should answer before asserting your proposals as fair and just.
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 10-01-2008 at 10:49 PM..
Reason: Just cleaning up some non-functioning HTML code
Absolutely, I could sell my apartment tomorrow for market rate. There is absolutely no restriction on that. In fact, the only restriction that the management could place on the sale of a condo would be if a seller tried to sell too LOW. Again, these are condos just like condos anywhere else. The prices have actually been steadily rising (not wildly so, but steadily), which is great as a long term investment.
And remember, corporations and multi-million dollar developments also get tax abatements all the time to spur investment...
bmwguydc
Quote:
Definitely, I can see your point as to classifying the abatement program as a government program, since it was a component of the incentive to move the condominium conversions forward with renewed spaces. And, they are quite common as NYCwoman pointed out, which can be a very good policy for spurring development and redevelopment, since maintaining a population of working people paying payroll taxes and consumption taxes is always a good policy, even if it means offsetting property taxes to do it.
Thank you nycwomen for the resale info. Thank you both for your comments on the tax abatements. I agree with both of your comments. NYC properties are like no other in the country. I think in the case of the middle class there has to be some incentives and protections.
I see both sides to the gentrification argument. It is very sad to see people have to move b/c they are being priced out of a neighborhood they want to live in.
But on the other hand, the price is a product of the market, and thats the way our system is set up. Does someone have more of a right to live in a neighborhood b/c they grew up there??
I currently could never afford to live in the neighborhood I grew up in, should I go back and demand that the goverment provide rent controlled housing so that I can? Where as I would love to move back there some day, I just dont feel I have more of a right to that neighborhood than anyone else. If someone else can pay the market rate for the housing there, then they have a right to be there, dont you agree?
Also, the people who are currently living in these gentrifying neighborhoods did the same thing to the people who were there prior to them, right?
Hello everyone, I'm brand new to forums (just joined this, my 1st, yesterday) and I hope you don't mind my intrusion. Although I haven't yet read all the posts, I wanted to share a personal story with U. Where I am now in reading the posts reminds me of my first date ever in NJ a month after I moved there from East Flatbush. I'm a naturalized immigrant (citizen) who grew up in Queens, then started my adult life in Brooklyn. After renting from a friend's parents in E. Flatbush for years after college, I found that I needed more space. Imagine my surprise when I realized that my family's friend had been charging me way below market value and even on my professional middle-class salary, I realized that there was no way I could afford a 2bedroom in my 'hood much less a better 'hood? I decided the best bet for me was to take my $ elsewhere and invest in me by purchasing instead of continuing to rent, upside being my NJ mortgage was way less than what I would be paying in rent here and I wouldn't be struggling from paycheck to paycheck. On to my first NJ date with a nice NJ man. We went to a very nice restaurant with magnificent views of NYC's skyline. Engrossed in our conversation, we didn't realize that a woman had been so focused on us she had heard all of what I said above, in answer to his question why I would move to NJ when I knew no one there, had no family to fall back on, etc., etc. This woman came over to our table and proceeded to cuss me out!! I was so shocked I didn't even know how to respond at first. She kept railing at me about how it was NYers like me who were coming across the river and pushing people like her further South Jersey because we raised their property values and made it that much harder for them to get real estate. After I recovered, my only answer was "I'm sorry, but someone else pushed me out of my home area, where else was I supposed to go? Its cyclic... as I've become displaced, so too shall U be". Its unfortunate, but I don't see it stopping anytime soon...
I agree with sobroguy there should not be any regulations or laws that artificially manipulate the market to bring down rents. Rent control, however, is not such a terrible regulation given that rents may be increased, but more gradually. Other than that, there should be no need for public housing or section 8 or other government programs if this city simply supplied an adequate number of housing units. Of course prices here will always be high, but I would like to see this city more aggressively seek to redevelop underdeveloped neighborhoods. Linking far rockaway to lower manhattan via the LIRR and new tunnel under the east river would allow for tens of thousands of new units to be built, contributing big time to the tax base at a rather modest investment of a new tunnel (estimated to be around 350 million). And extending the 2nd ave subway up third ave would spur all sorts of new development. And redevelop the projects, integrate them with the street and remove the government from them altogether would allow values to rise around the neighborhoods for new housing to be built. Instead of people comming in and pricing people out of their buildings, they simply have new and better buildings to move into. the old ones will remain the more affordable as they simply are not as desirable as the new buildings.
I agree jackson, and I think the city's huge affordable housing program, which is having the largest impact in undeveloped communities, is having a major impact. It is providing quality housing, tens of thousands of units, rapidly developing neighborhoods, bringing back middle/working class to formerly blighted areas, and spurring increased business and tax revenues for the city...and we have Bloomie to thank for it.
The land shortage is not (although there’s nothing we can do about it).
Combine the two and you get gentrification combined with insanely high prices that very few professional types and businesses can afford. With rents so high only banks and pharmacies and afford to open, pushing out some of the great ethnic restaurants and cultural flagships. The immigrants from various countries looking for a fresh start can’t afford to move in. If the demand and prices are both crushing for an extended period of time, the gentrification can sometimes have a bleaching effect where the city begins to loose its soul. The Asian teahouse loses its lease to the coach purse boutique, and the Cuban deli on the corner eventually gives way to a starbucks.
I agree that the city isn’t the same, and I don’t have hope for a reversal. It wasn’t 9/11 that did it; simply put NYC is a successful place. And once the crime was alleviated it didn’t take long for people around the country to be enticed by the harmonious mixture of cultures, the artistic atmosphere, the gritty charm, the conveniences, and the exotic experiences to be had. Sadly the influx of people around the country who wanted out of bland places has significantly diluted the multicultural, worldly native stock. When I tell people I’m a native, born and raised, I suddenly get looked upon like a rare creature driven to extinction. The vast majority of people I meet are not true new Yorkers, but transplants who don’t have the crucial combination of confidence, a brass pair and open mind of a true native- but desperately want to think they do. Intellectual snobbery has taken the place of racial tolerance, and liberals have become are more communist than the tolerant free spirits of old.
My spouse and I are seriously considering leaving NYC. Not because we have to, but because we’re an island. While I welcome the decline of crime, I resent how popular it has made the place. A good thing has been spoiled. My beautiful east village is now becoming sterile and generic. Why stay? It is a question I’m having a hard time answering.
Apparently we're all supposed to just sit back while we're all priced out of our own city and do it with a smile and welcome all the out of staters in. I have a professional job, 2 college degrees and I STILL can't afford most decent areas of even Queens and Brooklyn forget Manhattan. How the hell is a working class family with kids supposed to survive when rents even in the ghetto are even 1200+? Oh it doesn't matter because there are 100 Notre Dame grads with trust funds and connections who are willing to pay double that.
I agree jackson, and I think the city's huge affordable housing program, which is having the largest impact in undeveloped communities, is having a major impact. It is providing quality housing, tens of thousands of units, rapidly developing neighborhoods, bringing back middle/working class to formerly blighted areas, and spurring increased business and tax revenues for the city...and we have Bloomie to thank for it.
I agree. I have my criticism of Bloomberg, but this program really does help these neighborhoods. You can already see the positive effect all over the city!
Desi..here are my thoughts. I have not at all seen "so many family businesses pushed out over the last 5 years because they cannot afford a new lease." Please list for me the businesses that have closed due to "unbearable" increase in rent ONLY, and not increased competition, business is relocating to a better location, family sold the business, etc. Unless you know personally these owners, how can you say definitively that they closed because of "unbearable" rent increase? In the past 5 years, I have seen NOTHING close in my community, and ALOT open, like new supermarkets, convenience stores, gas stations, cafes, restuarants, floral shops, etc. I have also seen new establishments from Manhattan relocate to the Bronx due in fact to rent, however this is normal and healthy, as it is leaving a saturated market and entering one that benefits the Bronx and the establishment as well. As for your comment that "even we had to move due to rent." Can you indicate what year you had to move, the size of your apt, the amount of rent you were formerly paying, what the new rent was going to, and whether you had any subsidies like section 8 etc, that way I can have all the information. I understand the concept of locking out newcomers versus keeping oldtimers in their homes...there is a difference. However, your policies do not ensure that oldtimers are not kicked out of the neighborhood, it only serves to instill hostility, breeds resentment, and promotes disinvestment in communities. What happens when rents are "locked", there is no free movement of people, and expenses skyrocket? We know the answer from the 70s...the city burned because of it and we have lost entire swaths of our city. What happens when you maintain one specific group of people in a community at the expense of everyone else? We know the answer to that question too...extreme segregation and isolation. What happens when extreme regulations and well-intentioned protections (like the ones you propose) are implemented? We know the answer to that one too..they restrict the free market, investment disappears, and neighborhoods decline and people flee. These are not my views, these are all what has happened in NYC, and we are living through the results of all of it today. Yes some regulations are necessary, but to implement "locked" rents, and to openly discriminate against people who have not lived in communities for 30 years would mean you and your friends likely would not have been able to move to the Bronx, or any other community in NYC because those slots would have gone to the locals whom, according to you, "deserved it." Where would you and your friends and families have gone exactly? Mathematics says no apts, means nobody moves. However logic dictates that there will always be apts available, and the problem becomes the only people those apts are available to are the "locals" which essentially locks everyone else out. I don't understand the assigment of value of one person's right to live in a neighborhood over another? Because I was here 3 days longer than you? I have more friends here? I went to school here? My grandmother was born here? What is the criteria? I do recognize not kicking people out who want to stay...but I also understand the reality of wanting things and being able to afford things. I want to live in Chelsea in a 3 bedroom apt, and I want to pay $1,000 a month, because that is what I deem fair and reasonable. Is that right? Or should I live where I can afford? Is the city responsible to provide me with the lifestyle I want at the price I deem fair and reasonable? Do I have a right to live in my apt no matter what just because I have always lived there? These are the underlying issues that you should answer before asserting your proposals as fair and just.
In my case, we lived in the quieter west 170's side of Washington Heights by the hudson close to a park, back in 2001, our 2 bedroom Apartment was $900 a month, that year, landlord decided to increase it too $1200 immediately, and someone else immediately moved in. So, we did not have the choice as we were already struggling before, had been on the waiting lists of numerous section 8 lists, and had been on NYCHA waiting list for many years to no avail. We even had applied to several of the lotteries, one in East Harlem, one near Yankee Stadium, and one on the west side,also to no avail. That same year several of my friends moved to the bronx, mostly into Section 8 on similar waiting lists.
As for your questions at the end: "I want to live in Chelsea in a 3 bedroom apt, and I want to pay $1,000 a month, because that is what I deem fair and reasonable. Is that right? Or should I live where I can afford? Is the city responsible to provide me with the lifestyle I want at the price I deem fair and reasonable? Do I have a right to live in my apt no matter what just because I have always lived there?"
Well, I don't think the issue is whether YOU or ME believe personally that $1,000 is fair for an apartment. Rather I think the City of New York should do an analysis of what average rent for a 3BR is currently in Chelsea, and do a similar analysis of all neighborhoods, legally bind most if not all to a rent control plan based on what average current values are, say 80% are controlled under the new plan. Now if lets say theoretically New York agrees that a 3BR is worth $1,000 on that block, then you are in luck. However say someone from The European Union moves next door to your new apartment in Chelsea with income in Euros and can easily pay $2,000 for a studio next door to yours. It should be illegal for the landlord to accept anything above say $1100 as having someone move in paying significantly higher rents would immediately inflate the value of surrounding tenants.
I also think it is more responsible for individuals o always move into neighborhoods which they can AFFORD, yet once there , the law should ensure those apartments STAY reasonably affordable.
That said, I doubt the city would currently value $1000 for a 3BR in Chelsea as fair rent, as section 8 already values $1444 as fair rent for a 2BR in New York City.
"Is the city responsible to provide me with the lifestyle I want at the price I deem fair and reasonable?"
No, but I think they are responsible to provide you with the lifestyle you NEED at a price that THEY deem fair and reasonable
"Do I have a right to live in my apt no matter what just because I have always lived there?"
Absolutely, so long as you continue to make payments required towards your rent price be it subsidized/unsubsidized subject to reasonable restricted and limited increases over time.
That said I also agree that the city should be required to build public housing units so long as there is still qualifying demand. A waiting list any longer than 1 month should be ILLEGAL for anyone who QUALIFIES for public and or subsidized housing. The city should stop paying $2,000 a month in hotels for city shelters all over the city for years at a time, (often spending $100,000 or more EACH person) AND spend the money on public housing and put these people there immediately , thereby saving A LOT of money, creating more apartments, and giving these people the opportunity to live in a bigger and more appropriate setting.
Oh I almost forgot, as for the family businesses being moved out, look at 3rd Avenue around the 150's. I don't know each and every specific case. Though one specifically I do remember a dollar store put a sign on their window when they were closing that said "Closing due to Rent Increase" which is pretty clear in itself. As for two other similar stores in the area, the owners said the same thing was the reason for closing. As for the numerous other stores that closed for development in that area recently, you are right I dont know, I couldn't talk to EVERY owner, theres no way I can guarantee that they were ALL pushed out in gentrification. I know At LEAST 3 were, and the rest seem likely to have fallen the same way. Are you suggesting that whole corridor, all those people just woke up and decided that they felt like voluntarily not renewing their leases all at once? And they all thought they would be better off moving to a "better location" I suppose anythings possible If they did voluntarily move, it was a bad business decision as the new corporate mega-stores seem to be doing just fine in that location.
Last edited by DesiArnez6; 10-02-2008 at 04:27 AM..
It's tough to really accept gentrification when you see how it tears things up; look at how Harlem has basically ceased to exist. It's sad, especially when you consider what a cultural hub it was, how much history it has.
There needs to be some middle ground that doesn't involve people being kicked out because they can no longer afford to live in their homes.
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.
Its unfortunate, but I don't see it stopping anytime soon...
If they did voluntarily move, it was a bad business decision as the new corporate mega-stores seem to be doing just fine in that location.
