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.
Wealthy investors only invest in real estate areas. That is why Buffalo or Paterson NJ is cheap and no wealthy investor problems. Unless you want to be a downtrodden area you are going to have wealth and investment. It is a sign of a healthy city. In other words, having wealth and investment is not a problem unless you make it into one. If you make plenty of room for the wealthy in their little enclaves, then them and their investment will not affect you anf thek rest of the working class city. What part of that do you not understand? (I have a feeling that will totally go over your head so all this writing is just a waste of my time.)
That is a lie. Toronto’s was only implemented in April of last year and data showed that sales have fallen since the tax so whatever increase the higher tax rate generated was offset by falling sales activity. With falling sales, construction will follow suit. This will lead to higher unemployment for the construction and related industries, and income tax revenue as well. So basically this tax will have negative unintended consequences like I HAD TOLD YOU BEFORE.
I think you have it backwards here--wealthy real estate investors do not make NYC's economy what it is. People actually working here make its economy and the wealthy real estate investors want to make a profit from that because it's attractive. Sure, it's a sign of a prosperous city, but again, you have ample real world examples of other cities which were also very attractive to wealthy real estate investors that have leveraged these fees and got way more out of it. You're assuming this is going over my head--should I assume the same for you?
Toronto levied it just last year and its sales activity has fallen--that's absolutely true. Same thing happened the immediate year afterwards when Vancouver levied it earlier. What happened in the subsequent years in Vancouver? Do some actual homework, yea?
Also, to clarify, I'm not saying doing only the same as those cities. That's simply a foreign ownership tax that they're doing. I'm saying that and a vacancy tax.
Investors are going to buy in regardless and it's been obvious that the investors come back after an initial hesitancy in those real world examples. This then is a reprieve in housing cost appreciation for people actually living in the city. At the same time, this is also an additional boost to public funds which NYC and its metropolitan area needs in order to extend and improve its transit since it is transit-accessible housing that is under the tightest squeeze. Again, upzoning in the same limited number of transit-accessible places alone is not enough.
I'm also not saying that these taxes must be permanent either. It's perfectly reasonable to change with shifting conditions.
Right, it is that person's property and possibly means of living and it's not their doing that the supply for available housing is low. Good landlords are doing valuable work in renting these places.
I bold'd part of your post, because I think that's a large part of the issue. We need to have more housing that is in good or decent commute to jobs, but there are several things tied into the phrasing "good or decent subway transit to Manhattan" and "good or decent commute to jobs".
Upzoning along current subway stations is one way to add to the supply and that works for both phrases.
Changing the wording from subway transit to commute means looking at other forms of commuting that are good or decent and comparable in some way to subway transit in the travel time, frequency, and cost. A unified through-running commuter rail system that essentially operates as rapid transit would mean opening up a huge amount of supply to the market and then it would make sense to also upzone those areas as well which further contributes to the supply.
Changing the wording from "to Manhattan" to simply "jobs" means actively shifting more work and retail to other parts of the city and metropolitan area that are also transit accessible. It's at the same time a much better use of our transit infrastructure if the load was more balanced between peak direction headed into Manhattan and headed out from Manhattan.
I think you have it backwards here--wealthy investors do not make NYC's economy what it is. People actually working here make its economy and the wealthy real estate investors want to make a profit from that because it's attractive. Sure, it's a sign of a prosperous city, but again, you have ample real world examples of other cities which were also very attractive to wealthy real estate investors that have leveraged these fees and got way more out of it. You're assuming this is going over my head--should I assume the same for you?
I do not have it backwards. You are the one misunderstanding. I clearly said that a healthy city will have wealth and investment. I did not say wealth and investment is what makes a city healthy, although it definitely helps play a part in it.
Quote:
Toronto levied it just last year and its sales activity has fallen--that's absolutely true. Same thing happened the immediate year afterwards when Vancouver levied it earlier. What happened in the subsequent years in Vancouver? Do some actual homework, yea?
Why should I do the homework? You are trying to make your point but you want me to disprove your claim?
Quote:
Also, to clarify, I'm not saying doing only the same as those cities. That's simply a foreign ownership tax that they're doing. I'm saying that and a vacancy tax.
So you want to add on top of what those cities are doing, a vacancy tax? LOL. Like that would help keep things affordable. So you think a $50 million penthouse is all of a sudden going to rent for $800 a month because the wealthy owner wants to avoid your vacancy tax? Are you serious?
It’s going to rent for $100,000 a month (assuming it will be rented anyway) so how is that going to help with your affordability problem?
Quote:
I’m also not saying that these taxes must be permanent either. It's perfectly reasonable to change with shifting conditions.
So in other words, even you have little confidence in your tax and so you are leaving in a little escape clause. LOL.
I do not have it backwards. You are the one misunderstanding. I clearly said that a healthy city will have wealth and investment. I did not say wealth and investment is what makes a city healthy, although it definitely helps play a part in it.
Why should I do the homework? You are trying to make your point but you want me to disprove your claim?
So you want to add on top of what those cities are doing, a vacancy tax? LOL. Like that would help keep things affordable. So you think a $50 million penthouse is all of a sudden going to rent for $800 a month because the wealthy owner wants to avoid your vacancy tax? Are you serious?
It’s going to rent for $100,000 a month (assuming it will be rented anyway) so how is that going to help with your affordability problem?
So in other words, even you have little confidence in your tax and so you are leaving in a little escape clause. LOL.
And I clearly said that it's simply a sign and not the result. Your example that you pushed of Buffalo and Paterson, and your earlier statement of "unless you want to be a downtrodden area you are going to have wealth and investment" doesn't relate to what I'm saying.
You should do your homework because you obviously didn't know as you're citing the first year of its implementation in Toronto. That's the problem. What happened after that first year in Vancouver of leveraging that tax?
I'll help you out--construction was still burgeoning, sales were back up, and the city got a metric crapload of funding which it now has at its disposal for public projects including transit.
Even with that, leveraging those taxes means that for the tiny minority of housing in the nine figure range, they'll have to pony up more money which means more public funding. It may or may not also mean development gears itself towards more apartments and construction that are in a more affordable range with a greater number of non-luxury units (though it's hilarious what some of developments labelled as luxury are these days).
Yes, I think leveraging a vacancy tax could work. I think you misunderstand how a vacancy tax would work or what the distribution of new construction in the city is. I'm sure you don't think all that new supply taken off the market is $50 million penthouses, because that would be silly. There's a far greater supply of middle and upper middle class kind of housing built than eight figure penthouses. We're talking about six and seven figures. A vacancy tax would not preclude people from owning property--it would only nudge people towards having it actually filled if they aren't occupying it themselves. I'm also not for a vacancy tax that's putting landlords into bankruptcy. It does not need to be an extreme tax.
Seldom should someone have complete and absolute confidence in specific implementations of large scale public policy. It is ridiculous to do so, because at that point you're likely running on faith and ideology instead of actual metrics. It's reasonable for policy to be based on most likely predictions and continuation of policy to be contingent on the actual results. A studied and reasonable feedback loop seems like a hallmark of good policy in general for housing among other things.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 03-20-2018 at 07:28 AM..
It is good there is finally some grassroots for the immigrant population along the 7 line. but the are 15 years too late.
Home of the 3 room /1 br apartment. These new buildings, 8x1 br apartments replacing a 1 or 2 family home, seem to get that 25 years abatement, even though they are renting for above market. which was $1750 15 years ago .
The bigger problem is a place like Corona, must have added a few thousand apartments in the neighborhood, where there is no capacity for the number of families. 5-6 different schools were constructed to deal with capacity. You dont under the 7 train on Fridays, Saturdays,Sundays.
Gentrification is still a little cautious of mixing it up with these locals. For fear of getting swallowed up alive!
Yes. Maybe 20 years too late. A lot of minorities ignored gentrification when it was first hitting Manhattan and even after it moved Brooklyn. Now Lefrak City is getting rid of welfare clients and replacing them with more affluent Asian families. That’s gentrification. Plus all the new stores in the area including the expanded Queens Mall.
Despite some transplants dreaming for it to otherwise NYC and other expensive cities will not flood the market with cheap housing. High real estate prices help surpress demand, pay for city services, etc.
Cost are going to increase since the landlords have the power. NYC is a hot job sector so it will have countless of tenants that are going to be willing to pay that rent.
You can create new developments but i don't see this changing anything. Micro-Apts were introduced at 2500 to 3K. There is no logic. New developments are made for the rich/wealthy in mind with a couple of apts for the poor and none for the middle class unless you want your whole paycheck going to rent.
The only option is to start buying instead of renting. This is want i plan to do in 2019/2020. I am saving up for a decent apt with a decent HOA and call it a day. The only way that landlords will get hit is by people stop renting.
Cost are going to increase since the landlords have the power. NYC is a hot job sector so it will have countless of tenants that are going to be willing to pay that rent.
You can create new developments but i don't see this changing anything. Micro-Apts were introduced at 2500 to 3K. There is no logic. New developments are made for the rich/wealthy in mind with a couple of apts for the poor and none for the middle class unless you want your whole paycheck going to rent.
The only option is to start buying instead of renting. This is want i plan to do in 2019/2020. I am saving up for a decent apt with a decent HOA and call it a day. The only way that landlords will get hit is by people stop renting.
Cost are going to increase since the landlords have the power. NYC is a hot job sector so it will have countless of tenants that are going to be willing to pay that rent.
You can create new developments but i don't see this changing anything. Micro-Apts were introduced at 2500 to 3K. There is no logic. New developments are made for the rich/wealthy in mind with a couple of apts for the poor and none for the middle class unless you want your whole paycheck going to rent.
The only option is to start buying instead of renting. This is want i plan to do in 2019/2020. I am saving up for a decent apt with a decent HOA and call it a day. The only way that landlords will get hit is by people stop renting.
Agreed that’s the most prudent thing people can individually do. Best of luck!
In terms of larger overall policy, working to add a much larger supply of housing that actually house people with good commutes to jobs is what the city should be trying for.
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.
There is no logic. New developments are made for the rich/wealthy in mind with a couple of apts for the poor and none for the middle class unless you want your whole paycheck going to rent.
