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.
Or this tax may make developers feel like demand will be less aka less developerment and real estate sales. That’s not a contradiction because the rich can be here without buying more real estate
And what will they rent, pray tell? A tent under a bridge? An airbnb in Harlem? Or a similar caliber apartment that would still need to be built, and owned by someone else? Your arguments simply don't hold water.
The rich didn't become rich by ignoring taxes. Maybe that particular guy will stay, but it will discourage other future buyers/future luxury construction, etc. Also, gov Cuomo disagrees with you, since recently he was whining about the rich people fleeing the state.
I'm the first one to complain about over taxation believe me, but having people come here and speculate on our real estate is just artificially driving up prices for the people that DO live here. Meanwhile we see major avenues with storefronts shuttered. A total eyesore for our communities. People that don't live here don't have a vested interest in our communities.
I'm the first one to complain about over taxation believe me, but having people come here and speculate on our real estate is just artificially driving up prices for the people that DO live here.
They do not artificially drive up prices. All the city has to do is make an allowance in FAR where they increase FAR to build "denser" buildings, knowing that a certain % of them will not be occupied. So if FAR allows for 50 floors, just allow to build 55 floors, anticipating that the top 5 floors will not be occupied year around, so that a 55fl building will have the same density as 50fl building. Sit back and rake in the cash.
Quote:
Meanwhile we see major avenues with storefronts shuttered. A total eyesore for our communities.
These apartments do not contribute anything to pedestrian activity or storefronts at all. They constitute a very small minority of housing units to begin with and have absolutely no connection to commercial street frontage rents.
Quote:
People that don't live here don't have a vested interest in our communities.
Correct, but they also do not vote, since they are not eligible for residency here. All they do is literally contribute free money to NYC economy via their property taxes on overvalued real estate and maintenance fees.
What people do not realize is that these properties are there for investment reallocation and not because these people *love* NYC.
A guy has $2 billion net worth. He wants to allocate his assets so that 10% of his net worth is in real estate. That means he must buy $200 million worth of property. His options are:
- Buy a condo in Hong Kong at a cost of ~2% a year + uncertainty about Chinese government
- Buy a condo in NYC at a cost of ~3% a year
- Buy a condo in London at a cost of ~3.5% a year
- Buy a commercial building in downtown Nashville and hire a management company to run it at a cost of 4% a year and an opportunity cost of X% since now he is involved in real estate business which he doesn't want to be in.
- Buy a bunch of properties in random locations (Miami, Beverly Hills, etc) at a cost of ~5% a year
If you see the cost of investing in NYC property go up, the calculus and decision making changes. Again, for most of these people it is an investment decision to park some of the money, and not about residence.
They do not artificially drive up prices. All the city has to do is make an allowance in FAR where they increase FAR to build "denser" buildings, knowing that a certain % of them will not be occupied. So if FAR allows for 50 floors, just allow to build 55 floors, anticipating that the top 5 floors will not be occupied year around, so that a 55fl building will have the same density as 50fl building. Sit back and rake in the cash.
That's a brilliant idea. Allow developers to build monstrosities that are out of scale with other buildings in the neighborhood... Oh if the developer runs out of money and is broke, those half finished buildings can stay there and remain eyesores for years as some have around the City. I hope you gave yourself a pat on the back for thinking outside of the box.
What people do not realize is that these properties are there for investment reallocation and not because these people *love* NYC.
A guy has $2 billion net worth. He wants to allocate his assets so that 10% of his net worth is in real estate. That means he must buy $200 million worth of property. His options are:
Wasn't it you that argued that prices only go up if people are willing to pay them? Well if we have more and more people buying up property for the sole purpose of investment reallocation (which it is most certainly is - we finally agree on *something* ), then how can the argument be made these sorts of individuals aren't driving up prices when we have a housing shortage? I mean when property values are assessed, comps in the area with similar amenities (or lack thereof) have to be looked at, or am I missing something?
UHm, no he does not. That apartment's assessed value is just 9.4m and that works out to about $500K in annual taxes which is $1,400 per day. So yes, he should pay more. Yes he is not using city services but he is also NOT patronizing local businesses and thus NOT creating jobs and not contributing to the local economy either. And the place is taking up space that could have been used more productively rather than sitting empty.
You don't know what the eff you're talking about.
Where and what do these people eat when they are in town? Where or who does their laundry/dry cleaning? You think people come here and sit in their apartments starting at the moon and stave themselves for days at a time?
You know nothing about these people and their world; just another hater spouting off nonsense directed at people who've got more than you.
That's a brilliant idea. Allow developers to build monstrosities that are out of scale with other buildings in the neighborhood... Oh if the developer runs out of money and is broke, those half finished buildings can stay there and remain eyesores for years as some have around the City. I hope you gave yourself a pat on the back for thinking outside of the box.
What an incoherent rant. First, how can 5 more floors make a building a "monstrosity?" And why does everything have to be exactly the same height? The New York skyline is world renowned because of its peaks and valleys. If it was flat-topped (same height throughout), it would not be as attractive so there goes your "out of scale" theory.
Second, how does changing the FAR allowance make a difference in a developer running out of money or not?
Where and what do these people eat when they are in town? Where or who does their laundry/dry cleaning? You think people come here and sit in their apartments starting at the moon and stave themselves for days at a time?
You know nothing about these people and their world; just another hater spouting off nonsense directed at people who've got more than you.
Spare me this BS. These people come here for 5 days a year. Yeah right, the amount of dry cleaning eating out they do in those 5 days REALLY is going to revitalize the neighborhood *sarcasm off*
Wasn't it you that argued that prices only go up if people are willing to pay them? Well if we have more and more people buying up property for the sole purpose of investment reallocation (which it is most certainly is - we finally agree on *something* ), then how can the argument be made these sorts of individuals aren't driving up prices when we have a housing shortage? I mean when property values are assessed, comps in the area with similar amenities (or lack thereof) have to be looked at, or am I missing something?
Because there is only so much investment money available at any point in time and only so many people looking to invest in real estate at any point in time. It is not an endless supply. Therefore, if you make more supply including the high end ones, then prices should go down across the board.
What an incoherent rant. First, how can 5 more floors make a building a "monstrosity?" And why does everything have to be exactly the same height? The New York skyline is world renowned because of its peaks and valleys.
Second, how does changing the FAR allowance make a difference in a developer running out of money or not?
If an area is upzoned, well then naturally you're going to have larger buildings that are not in scale with the rest of the neighborhood, that's just a no-brainer. Just because a developer is granted the right of way to build larger doesn't mean it fits in with a community, so with that said, adding another 5 floors on top of an edifice that is out of scale just makes things worse.
Cramming more people into a neighborhood without taking infrastructure into consideration (you know more parking and transportation) is usually what happens, so you have the people that actually live there putting more of a strain on the existing resources while the developer is long gone. In the construction industry it's all about time and money for a developer. Get in and get out as quickly as possible to maximize profit because the more time that is lost, the more money is lost.
I'm sure you could care less since you're nice and safe over in swamp land - I mean Jerzee...
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.
Oh if the developer runs out of money and is broke, those half finished buildings can stay there and remain eyesores for years as some have around the City. I hope you gave yourself a pat on the back for thinking outside of the box. 
), then how can the argument be made these sorts of individuals aren't driving up prices when we have a housing shortage? I mean when property values are assessed, comps in the area with similar amenities (or lack thereof) have to be looked at, or am I missing something? 
