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 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 01-03-2010, 10:19 PM
 
1,014 posts, read 1,665,715 times
Reputation: 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeventhFloor View Post
so its ok for the govt to tax us to fund wars but not to provide people a place to live....do u think you're going to collect SSI? please...
I don't really want to take the conversation there, if possible. I'm sure there are loads of things the government spends money on that we both would disagree with.

I don't have a problem with the government building someone a home, on the basis of some high principle. It sounds like such a nice thing: let's give someone who doesn't have much something! I just see that there are negative effects of doing so- high taxes and such, especially compared to the benefit created (it's confined to a precious few). Similar, negative net effects, imo, to forcing developers to build affordable housing within their developments.

 
Old 01-03-2010, 10:35 PM
 
Location: Confines of the 100 Precinct
9,670 posts, read 16,860,330 times
Reputation: 3396
Quote:
Originally Posted by gradstudent77 View Post
I don't really want to take the conversation there, if possible. I'm sure there are loads of things the government spends money on that we both would disagree with.

I don't have a problem with the government building someone a home, on the basis of some high principle. It sounds like such a nice thing: let's give someone who doesn't have much something! I just see that there are negative effects of doing so- high taxes and such, especially compared to the benefit created (it's confined to a precious few). Similar, negative net effects, imo, to forcing developers to build affordable housing within their developments.
well developers have a choice...the kicker is that in nyc for example the zoning resolution allows bonuses to the developers in form of more square footage to build for example, if a public plaza is provided, or the 80/20 rule.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence

Forum TOS: http://www.city-data.com/forumtos.html
 
Old 01-03-2010, 11:58 PM
REM
 
366 posts, read 557,598 times
Reputation: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYCAnalyst View Post
If someone doesn't like living far away from their job, they should either

  • Get another job closer to where they live, or
  • Get a job that pays more so they can afford the rent in the pricier neighborhoods.
So you think New York should only be for the rich?
 
Old 01-04-2010, 12:01 AM
 
784 posts, read 1,648,133 times
Reputation: 420
Quote:
Originally Posted by REM View Post
So you think New York should only be for the rich?
I think that the New York housing market (as well as anywhere) should be governed by the laws of the free market, not by our government.

If that means that the poor will be displaced, so be it. Nobody (except for perhaps...our elected officials) is entitled to live in this city.

Of course this will never happen, as long companies still need janitors / cashiers / etc. They will have to live somewhere.
 
Old 01-04-2010, 12:08 AM
 
142 posts, read 46,842 times
Reputation: 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woozle
Words

Silly argument.

I don't think any of the world's economic epicenters, such as NYC, London, Paris, SF or LA, offer a particularly admirable standard of living for most middle-income joe schmoes.... nothing new. These glamorous cities tend to be for yuppies, very wealthy families or welfare recipients.

Most middle income families have been raising kids in suburbs of any city for 30+ yrs now, not cities. Most middle-income Americans would probably enjoy a greater standard of living in someplace Podunk like San Antonio or Orlando.

With that said; there's no place on the planet with as much wealth as Manhattan and its environs. No place on the planet as powerful and with as much influence. As one of the said "yuppies" who has tastes far too advanced for middle-America (i.e. decent food I can actually consume without vomiting, upscale bars/shopping, and a very high saturation of like minded and well moneyed "yuppies"), I would would rather live in an apartment someplace shabby like Alphabet City in the East Village than a mansion someplace like Tennessee (or wherever the trendy refugee city is nowadays). Death would probably be a better option, really.

Carry on....
 
Old 01-04-2010, 12:36 AM
 
Location: South Philly
1,943 posts, read 4,113,815 times
Reputation: 580
A lot of the people doing menial jobs in Manhattan already live in the Bronx, Newark, Jersey City, Elizabeth and low-rent parts of Brooklyn, Queens and Nassau. For those who can't walk to an MTA stop the monthly commute costs are a lot more than $92/month.

I'm also a fan of the market and I think that, even the poor recognize opportunity costs. So when Manhattan wages aren't high enough to support 2 hour commutes and their $250/month price tags the rich can pour their own coffee and clean their own apartments.
 
Old 01-04-2010, 01:06 AM
 
Location: Confines of the 100 Precinct
9,670 posts, read 16,860,330 times
Reputation: 3396
Quote:
Originally Posted by solibs View Post
a lot of the people doing menial jobs in manhattan already live in the bronx, newark, jersey city, elizabeth and low-rent parts of brooklyn, queens and nassau. For those who can't walk to an mta stop the monthly commute costs are a lot more than $92/month.

I'm also a fan of the market and i think that, even the poor recognize opportunity costs. So when manhattan wages aren't high enough to support 2 hour commutes and their $250/month price tags the rich can pour their own coffee and clean their own apartments.
amen
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence

Forum TOS: http://www.city-data.com/forumtos.html
 
Old 01-04-2010, 10:46 AM
 
Location: Bed-stuy/Clinton Hill
952 posts, read 1,275,896 times
Reputation: 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDGJFK View Post
Silly argument.

I don't think any of the world's economic epicenters, such as NYC, London, Paris, SF or LA, offer a particularly admirable standard of living for most middle-income joe schmoes.... nothing new. These glamorous cities tend to be for yuppies, very wealthy families or welfare recipients.

Most middle income families have been raising kids in suburbs of any city for 30+ yrs now, not cities. Most middle-income Americans would probably enjoy a greater standard of living in someplace Podunk like San Antonio or Orlando.

With that said; there's no place on the planet with as much wealth as Manhattan and its environs. No place on the planet as powerful and with as much influence. As one of the said "yuppies" who has tastes far too advanced for middle-America (i.e. decent food I can actually consume without vomiting, upscale bars/shopping, and a very high saturation of like minded and well moneyed "yuppies"), I would would rather live in an apartment someplace shabby like Alphabet City in the East Village than a mansion someplace like Tennessee (or wherever the trendy refugee city is nowadays). Death would probably be a better option, really.

Carry on....
You make a valid point, at the same time you can understand how some of us don't want to live in a car dependent city such as Orlando (where I've lived for some time). Some of us appreciate those same things about the city as well, I mean middle class people help to run the small businesses and mid level jobs. And somebody has to populate those far stretches of Queens... As the old saying goes "I'd rather be a light post in harlem than governor of Georgia..." I'm not a yuppie by far, but as your apartment vs mansion statement points out 'place matters' and I'm willing to sacrifice a front lawn and swimming pool in order to have access to greater surroundings outside of the house/apt. Those cookie cutter suburban automobile slums are for homebodies.
 
Old 01-04-2010, 11:22 AM
 
8,752 posts, read 8,621,339 times
Reputation: 4168
My thoughts on gentrification are a little different. I see the long overdue revitalization of places like the south bronx NOT as gentrification, although the net effects has become working/middle class people of color moving back in, and indirectly putting the squeeze on the lower class. What are we supposed to do..leave entire swaths of the city as segregated,ghettos so as not to inconvenience the poor? Is having the areas disinvested and poverty stricken for eternity better than revitalizing these areas so that it improves the area for those who do live there, and also makes it better for ALL residents?

We have the strongest tenant protections in the country, a huge supply of rent regulated units, substantial amounts of government subsidies for rent/food etc, and yet we still are not able to repave a street in the South Bronx without the usual, and oftentimes ignorant screams of "gentrification!" When we disnvested and abandoned these communities it was termed racist, and now that we are investing, revitalizing, attracting businesses, guess what they call it now? Gentrification/racism. You can't win.

I believe as a whole our society is better off revitalizing these communities and desgregating them economically/socially/racially. If this means SOME people are forced to seek other places to live, it's unfair but it is life. We cannot hold up our entire society so as not to inconvenience a poor family. There are a plethora of ways to move our communities forward that maintain much of the current residents, put SOME people will always be at the losing end of the stick. That's the way it goes.

Do I think gentriciation is a good thing or solve's problems? Not necessarily, however if it diversifies a segregated community, I say it is a good thing. Do I believe we should not invest in communities for fear of indirectly forcing some residents to move? Absolutely not....we must revitalize our communities, all of them, and position ourselves for the future. However, in general, I am against gentrification as a tool to "rid" communities of certain members, but I am almost always for revitalizing poor communities even if it means some residents will be forced to move.
 
Old 01-04-2010, 11:27 AM
 
Location: Bed-stuy/Clinton Hill
952 posts, read 1,275,896 times
Reputation: 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by SobroGuy View Post
My thoughts on gentrification are a little different. I see the long overdue revitalization of places like the south bronx NOT as gentrification, although the net effects has become working/middle class people of color moving back in, and indirectly putting the squeeze on the lower class. What are we supposed to do..leave entire swaths of the city as segregated,ghettos so as not to inconvenience the poor? Is having the areas disinvested and poverty stricken for eternity better than revitalizing these areas so that it improves the area for those who do live there, and also makes it better for ALL residents?

We have the strongest tenant protections in the country, a huge supply of rent regulated units, substantial amounts of government subsidies for rent/food etc, and yet we still are not able to repave a street in the South Bronx without the usual, and oftentimes ignorant screams of "gentrification!" When we disnvested and abandoned these communities it was termed racist, and now that we are investing, revitalizing, attracting businesses, guess what they call it now? Gentrification/racism. You can't win.

I believe as a whole our society is better off revitalizing these communities and desgregating them economically/socially/racially. If this means SOME people are forced to seek other places to live, it's unfair but it is life. We cannot hold up our entire society so as not to inconvenience a poor family. There are a plethora of ways to move our communities forward that maintain much of the current residents, put SOME people will always be at the losing end of the stick. That's the way it goes.

Do I think gentriciation is a good thing or solve's problems? Not necessarily, however if it diversifies a segregated community, I say it is a good thing. Do I believe we should not invest in communities for fear of indirectly forcing some residents to move? Absolutely not....we must revitalize our communities, all of them, and position ourselves for the future. However, in general, I am against gentrification as a tool to "rid" communities of certain members, but I am almost always for revitalizing poor communities even if it means some residents will be forced to move.
Correct me if I'm wrong but alot of what is going on in the Bronx is community based isn't it? Like in Mott Haven and other areas from what I know is that development there is alot different than whats going on in some communities. I would definately agree and call that revitalization as opposed to gentrification. I think the it would be great to desegregate economically because then some communities wouldn't be so depressed and tax dollars and other resources wouldn't have to be reallocated to the degree that they need to be now. But from my observations and with some of the solutions put forth by some on the board they are calling for a complete removal of those of lower incomes to the edges which is sweeping the problem under the rug only to resurface again. But yes, deconcentrating poverty is I believe essential, but with the current trends I think the diversifying aspect of gentrification is only a transitional point until the pendulum(bad spelling) swings in a completely other direction. I don't know, but with dynamics in the Bronx being different hopefully in the future it turns into something decision makers can take cues from and use as a model.

Last edited by twist07; 01-04-2010 at 11:38 AM..
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.


 


Over $79,000 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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, 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 - Top