5 ms·

The problem isn't anything that the local government did, but what it didn't do. There are a lot of steps that could have been taken to lower the rent and prope

The problem isn't anything that the local government did, but what it didn't do. There are a lot of steps that could have been taken to lower the rent and property prices. For example, one measure is disallowing anyone to own property in New York that they don't live in at least 6 months plus 1 day. (The same is true of rent control, since a lot of RC people now live out of the city but keep the apartment because it's cheaper than staying at a hotel for 2-3 weeks.) Finally, the underemployed and parentally funded (trust fund kids) should not be allowed to drive up the rents. (The fact that they ruin the city is an ancillary annoyance.) This can be accomplished by making it illegal to pay more than a certain percentage of one's after-tax salary (say, 40%) in rent.

warfangle 17y ago
Latter idea is interesting. It certainly would have slowed the gentrification of Williamsburg, and kept it an interesting neighborhood for longer. It would have also prevented the multitude of overpriced (and undersold) condos littering that area - along with the empty lots that were going to be overpriced condos before the bust.
_delirium 17y ago
The last seems like it'd have a lot of ways to backfire, though. Will there be a grace period in bad economies, so people who lose their jobs, or involuntarily get moved to part-time work, don't also have to move out? What about people bootstrapping startups by living off savings from a previous job?
- pw0ncakes 17y ago
  Yes, of course. People who recently lost jobs or were working for bootstrapped startups would get an exemption.
  - wallflower 17y ago
    Doesn't NYC have the strictest renting laws? For example, you have to prove you make 52x the monthly rent to sign a lease. Obviously, sublets are a way around that income floor.
    - yummyfajitas 17y ago
      Most landlords will not rent to you if you don't make 40x monthly rent, but it is not a legal requirement.
    - pw0ncakes 17y ago
      It's 40x, but it's not a legal requirement, and if you can get a "guarantor" making 80x, you can circumscribe that, so the parentally-funded unproductives who are ruining this city get a pass.
yummyfajitas 17y ago
...disallowing anyone to own property in New York that they don't live in at least 6 months plus 1 day... Near as I can tell, this would drive up the price of rentals quite significantly. Any landlord would need to factor the risk of getting caught being a landlord into your rent. I like your second idea of punishing people who are not part of my tribe. By the way, a more realistic way to lower rent prices would be to end rent control. One could also move the projects out to distant brooklyn/queens, and rent the projects out at market rates.
- pw0ncakes 17y ago
  Near as I can tell, this would drive up the price of rentals quite significantly. Any landlord would need to factor the risk of getting caught being a landlord into your rent. Fail on my part. I meant to apply this to ownership without renting, with the intention of kicking out the damn speculators. By the way, a more realistic way to lower rent prices would be to end rent control. The original rent control regime (where rents couldn't increase with inflation) turned out to be a huge disaster. It left a bunch of well-connected non-productive rich white people with an arrangement better than ownership, at the rest of our expense. The concept of rent control I don't have an issue with, but the original implementation was awful. I don't mind government interfering with the rental market if all tenants benefit. In a city like New York, government meddling is necessary because the free market fails catastrophically, as we see in these four-digit rents, but I do think the 60+ year-old sweetheart deal that some people have, just because they've been here forever, needs to be ended.

warfangle 17y ago

Latter idea is interesting. It certainly would have slowed the gentrification of Williamsburg, and kept it an interesting neighborhood for longer. It would have also prevented the multitude of overpriced (and undersold) condos littering that area - along with the empty lots that were going to be overpriced condos before the bust.

_delirium 17y ago

The last seems like it'd have a lot of ways to backfire, though. Will there be a grace period in bad economies, so people who lose their jobs, or involuntarily get moved to part-time work, don't also have to move out? What about people bootstrapping startups by living off savings from a previous job?

pw0ncakes 17y ago
Yes, of course. People who recently lost jobs or were working for bootstrapped startups would get an exemption.
- wallflower 17y ago
  Doesn't NYC have the strictest renting laws? For example, you have to prove you make 52x the monthly rent to sign a lease. Obviously, sublets are a way around that income floor.
  - yummyfajitas 17y ago
    Most landlords will not rent to you if you don't make 40x monthly rent, but it is not a legal requirement.
  - pw0ncakes 17y ago
    It's 40x, but it's not a legal requirement, and if you can get a "guarantor" making 80x, you can circumscribe that, so the parentally-funded unproductives who are ruining this city get a pass.

yummyfajitas 17y ago

...disallowing anyone to own property in New York that they don't live in at least 6 months plus 1 day... Near as I can tell, this would drive up the price of rentals quite significantly. Any landlord would need to factor the risk of getting caught being a landlord into your rent. I like your second idea of punishing people who are not part of my tribe. By the way, a more realistic way to lower rent prices would be to end rent control. One could also move the projects out to distant brooklyn/queens, and rent the projects out at market rates.

pw0ncakes 17y ago
Near as I can tell, this would drive up the price of rentals quite significantly. Any landlord would need to factor the risk of getting caught being a landlord into your rent. Fail on my part. I meant to apply this to ownership without renting, with the intention of kicking out the damn speculators. By the way, a more realistic way to lower rent prices would be to end rent control. The original rent control regime (where rents couldn't increase with inflation) turned out to be a huge disaster. It left a bunch of well-connected non-productive rich white people with an arrangement better than ownership, at the rest of our expense. The concept of rent control I don't have an issue with, but the original implementation was awful. I don't mind government interfering with the rental market if all tenants benefit. In a city like New York, government meddling is necessary because the free market fails catastrophically, as we see in these four-digit rents, but I do think the 60+ year-old sweetheart deal that some people have, just because they've been here forever, needs to be ended.