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.
It is obvious that there needs to be more units in the city, given the low vacancy rate. I'm saying that in general, whether they are upscale or mixed income units.
Every comment doesn't have to include the government, especially when it wasn't included or even thought of in that post.
What part of the government imposing a rent control law don't you understand?
You seem to be very obsessed with the government, yet you don't realize that your posts almost always have a political slant. The problem is, you see them as the sollutions to everything, and they are not. Usually the programs make problems worse.
What part of the government imposing a rent control law don't you understand?
You seem to be very obsessed with the government, yet you don't realize that your posts almost always have a political slant. The problem is, you see them as the sollutions to everything, and they are not. Usually the programs make problems worse.
No I don't and you know that. My point was pretty simple in terms of what the city needs and that is more residential units to address the very low vacancy rate. Never mentioned the government in that post.
I'm starting to think that you just say things to argue versus actually reading things for what they are.
Perhaps private developers have dropped the ball in terms of looking at the city, which has been known for its artsy scene and attracting folks from NYC there to live(primarily or second homes), as a place for housing development.
Last edited by ckhthankgod; 08-02-2022 at 11:59 AM..
No I don't and you know that. My point was pretty simple in terms of what the city needs and that is more residential units to address the very low vacancy rate. Never mentioned the government in that post.
I'm starting to think that you just say things to argue versus actually reading things for what they are.
Perhaps private developers have dropped the ball in terms of looking at the city, which has been known for its artsy scene and attracting folks from NYC there to live(primarily or second homes), as a place for housing development.
City of Kingston is the government, last I knew- they made the law--see the 1st post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You want the city (government) to build more housing at taxpayer expense.
Just saying things, hmmm, that's what I think about your comments.
Actually I think that you are an administrator, just trying to get the hit count up. Can can't figure out your responses, and no thought and no depth to your responses. Always government must do something, instead of the people need to do something. That is pure politics, (democrat), when no other viewpoints are examined.
City of Kingston is the government, last I knew- they made the law--see the 1st post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You want the city (government) to build more housing at taxpayer expense.
Just saying things, hmmm, that's what I think about your comments.
Actually I think that you are an administrator, just trying to get the hit count up. Can can't figure out your responses, and no thought and no depth to your responses. Always government must do something, instead of the people need to do something. That is pure politics, (democrat), when no other viewpoints are examined.
Again, I'm not talking the government. I'm just saying that the city needs more housing, which is the heart of the issue and the low vacancy illustrates that. This is plain English. The rest of your post doesn't make sense at all and is incorrect. Stop being a slave to politicizing things, when it isn't presented that way. If I thought the government should step in to build housing, I would have said so(which I didn't).
Again, I'm not talking the government. I'm just saying that the city needs more housing, which is the heart of the issue and the low vacancy illustrates that. This is plain English. The rest of your post doesn't make sense at all and is incorrect. Stop being a slave to politicizing things, when it isn't presented that way. If I thought the government should step in to build housing, I would have said so(which I didn't).
Ironically, the mayor is in favor of the development and tax breaks have been offered.
So the city needs more housing. I'm not arguing that point. I'm not familiar with the region, and nether are YOU. So I can comment! Obviously, the private sector can see right through the B*ll sh*t, and aren't interested
No I don't and you know that. My point was pretty simple in terms of what the city needs and that is more residential units to address the very low vacancy rate. Never mentioned the government in that post.
I'm starting to think that you just say things to argue versus actually reading things for what they are.
Perhaps private developers have dropped the ball in terms of looking at the city, which has been known for its artsy scene and attracting folks from NYC there to live(primarily or second homes), as a place for housing development.
Ok, so you put out these posts (the city needs more residential units) for what reason? Who do you mean by "the city"? Who do you expect/ want to build these? And who will pay for them?
Ok, so you put out these posts (the city needs more residential units) for what reason? Who do you mean by "the city"? Who do you expect/ want to build these? And who will pay for them?
It’s called economic development, just like what you see in cities across the country. Cities can market land and properties to developers for housing. No different from what you see from chambers of commerce, economic development divisions/corporations, etc. across the country. Especially given the movement of people coming from NYC to cities in the Hudson Valley and the developments that have taken place or are slated for other cities in the region.
Just read the post as is next time. Geez…In fact, this topic was discussed a little bit earlier in the thread and included the Kingstonian, as an example of a private development with a housing component.
Last edited by ckhthankgod; 08-02-2022 at 07:11 PM..
It’s called economic development, just like what you see in cities across the country. Cities can market land and properties to developers for housing. No different from what you see from chambers of commerce, economic development divisions/corporations, etc. across the country. Especially given the movement of people coming from NYC to cities in the Hudson Valley and the developments that have taken place or are slated for other cities in the region.
Just read the post as is next time. Geez…In fact, this topic was discussed a little bit earlier in the thread and included the Kingstonian, as an example of a private development with a housing component.
Just to be clear, we are talking about the "private development" that has received substantial public funding, right?
So yes, in all of those things, who has the authority to TAX the citizens to fund those things?
Just to be clear, we are talking about the "private development" that has received substantial public funding, right?
So yes, in all of those things, who has the authority to TAX the citizens to fund those things?
NYS RS laws can only apply to buildings built before 1974 (or is it 1972?).
What local governments where RS has been enacted can do is force developers to make percentage of any or all new construction part of rent stabilization system for a period of years or permanently.
This is done largely by either enacting various "inclusion" zoning statues, and or in lieu of landlord or developer receiving something (usually tax breaks) from state or local government.
So the city needs more housing. I'm not arguing that point. I'm not familiar with the region, and nether are YOU. So I can comment! Obviously, the private sector can see right through the B*ll sh*t, and aren't interested
How would you even know and where did I say you couldn't comment? My point was to take the comment as is and not turn it into something it wasn't.
As for the private sector, I think as mentioned earlier, there is also a side where people in Kingston are aware of potential gentrification taking place. Other Hudson valley cities such as Beacon and Hudson have garnered attention from people from NYC due to the arts and antiques scenes in those cities. In turn, those cities are now dealing some degree of gentrification. Now Poughkeepsie is starting to see interest and I honestly believe it is a matter of time for Newburgh as well. So, some of this is likely coming up due to the development/gentrification taking place in other Hudson Valley cities and communities.
I'm just surprised that there haven't been more developments for market rate or mixed income housing by private developers, whether wholly or partially, in Kingston given the interest there and other cities in that region.
Also, most private funding gets some degree of tax breaks, Bugsy's post mentions. So, I'm curious to find any developer that isn't taking ANY type of tax breaks for their development. Perhaps that is the issue on the side of private developers not developing without some type of break.
Last edited by ckhthankgod; 08-03-2022 at 06:10 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.
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.
