4 ms·

"and 27,009 held off the market for unexplained reasons" the title of the article is sensationalized. most off the apartments have a legitimate reason for bein

"and 27,009 held off the market for unexplained reasons" the title of the article is sensationalized. most off the apartments have a legitimate reason for being vacant while there were only 30K that they couldn't find a reason for.

sp332 9y ago
> Additionally, many of the 75,000 temporary apartments are pied-à-terres, weekend or vacation crash pads for the rich, up from just 9,282 in 1987. And 3x that number that are vacant for pretty questionable reasons.
- thrownaway954 9y ago
  "weekend or vacation crash pads for the rich" how is that even remotely "for pretty questionable reasons"? it states right there that the rich are using them as second homes and party pads which is very common. what ticked me off about the article is they claim that there are close to 250K vacant apartments cause they are "priced out of reach for most renters" which is totally false.
  - sp332 9y ago
    When there are so many homeless people in the city, renting out an apartment that will only be used for a few weekends a year is morally questionable for both the renter and the landlord.
    - thrownaway954 9y ago
      excuse me, take a step back just one minute. you cannot make a false statements as "And 3x that number that are vacant for pretty questionable reasons" and then turn around and use the sympathy card as justification by stating that what someone is doing with the property they rightfully own as "morally questionable". by doing so, you are no better than the author of the article in my eyes. i don't like it either that people are sleeping on the streets while these places are "uninhabited" for whatever reason, but the people who own these places have the right to do with them whatever they want.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - sp332 9y ago
        The people who own and rent these places have a moral obligation to make moral decisions. A landlord deciding that people should be homeless just so they can make some more money is probably morally wrong. I'm sure we could imagine some exceptions, but in the common case I believe this is true. Your last part about rights seems to be talking about legal rights, which is a bit irrelevant and also factually wrong. There are regulations on renters and owners, and there's no reason a city can't democratically decide they want different regulations.
        dpark 9y ago
        > A landlord deciding that people should be homeless just so they can make some more money is probably morally wrong. By the same logic, someone who chooses to save money rather than pay to rent a dwelling for someone homeless is also probably morally wrong.
        sp332 9y ago
        Sure, and this is sometimes reflected in law as taxes and subsidies or regulations on rent prices.
        thrownaway954 9y ago
        again... you are trying to play the sympathy card since your original reply was false and rather than admitting it, you chose to take an emotional path in the discussion in an attempt to side step this fact. this discussion is done.
        MR4D 9y ago
        Aren’t you then deciding that people should be car-less? (presuming you have a car - clearly many of us do), and that car sits idle most of the time in a parking lot, isn’t that the same thing? So are you (and all of us) then acting immoral by not letting a car-less person use our car? I think your understanding of morality is deeply flawed.
    - rayvd 9y ago
      Clearly we need a morality board to determine what is or isn't in the best interest for someone to do with their private property. /s Slippery slope right there.
      - sp332 9y ago
        We already made fraud and racial discrimination illegal, where will it end??
    - lifeformed 9y ago
      It's a morally questionable situation, but I wouldn't put the blame and responsibility on the individual renters/landlords. The flaw is in the system that incentivizes and perpetuates such a situation. The people involved are simply rational actors in that system. Problems aren't solved by just hoping everyone acts more morally, but by redesigning the structures and incentives that shape both the outcomes and our values.
    - cafard 9y ago
      Let me mention a case I know of at second hand: penthouse apartment facing Central Park. Assume that the owners decide that it is the socially responsible thing to sell the apartment. Now, clearly, the next occupants will not be formerly homeless: the homeless can't afford it, and the coop board wouldn't have them. What are the odds that the sale causes an effect all the way down from the 5th Avenue world to the sort-of affordable world?
      - sp332 9y ago
        I think selling to someone who will actually live there instead of someone who will just visit sometimes will increase local housing availability. It might also push the price down substantially. That means someone local might be able to afford a penthouse who otherwise would not. And while that individual buyer is probably not homeless, it does take them out of the market for lower-scale apartments which decreases pressure right down the line. It could literally reduce homelessness at a 1:1 rate.
dpark 9y ago
It’s not just sensationalized. It’s a lie. The “overpriced” part is entirely made up and the “63k families” is a misrepresentation of the 63k individuals in homeless shelters.
- Nomentatus 9y ago
  Not sure how you got there, unless you mean that the new competition on the demand side (rich weekenders) has already been fully discounted by the market somehow and the high prices are actually reflecting material cost rises the rest of us don't know about, say. In other words, I think you're gainsaying, and that doesn't help me figure it all out.
  - dpark 9y ago
    “Overpriced” means the market will not bear the cost. That’s all it means. Most of these vacancies are accounted for in some way already (vacation property, rented but not yet occupied, etc). The article provides no evidence that the majority of the vacant properties are in any way overpriced.
    - Nomentatus 9y ago
      Nor need it.

sp332 9y ago

> Additionally, many of the 75,000 temporary apartments are pied-à-terres, weekend or vacation crash pads for the rich, up from just 9,282 in 1987. And 3x that number that are vacant for pretty questionable reasons.

thrownaway954 9y ago
"weekend or vacation crash pads for the rich" how is that even remotely "for pretty questionable reasons"? it states right there that the rich are using them as second homes and party pads which is very common. what ticked me off about the article is they claim that there are close to 250K vacant apartments cause they are "priced out of reach for most renters" which is totally false.
- sp332 9y ago
  When there are so many homeless people in the city, renting out an apartment that will only be used for a few weekends a year is morally questionable for both the renter and the landlord.
  - thrownaway954 9y ago
    excuse me, take a step back just one minute. you cannot make a false statements as "And 3x that number that are vacant for pretty questionable reasons" and then turn around and use the sympathy card as justification by stating that what someone is doing with the property they rightfully own as "morally questionable". by doing so, you are no better than the author of the article in my eyes. i don't like it either that people are sleeping on the streets while these places are "uninhabited" for whatever reason, but the people who own these places have the right to do with them whatever they want.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - sp332 9y ago
      The people who own and rent these places have a moral obligation to make moral decisions. A landlord deciding that people should be homeless just so they can make some more money is probably morally wrong. I'm sure we could imagine some exceptions, but in the common case I believe this is true. Your last part about rights seems to be talking about legal rights, which is a bit irrelevant and also factually wrong. There are regulations on renters and owners, and there's no reason a city can't democratically decide they want different regulations.
      - dpark 9y ago
        > A landlord deciding that people should be homeless just so they can make some more money is probably morally wrong. By the same logic, someone who chooses to save money rather than pay to rent a dwelling for someone homeless is also probably morally wrong.
        sp332 9y ago
        Sure, and this is sometimes reflected in law as taxes and subsidies or regulations on rent prices.
      - thrownaway954 9y ago
        again... you are trying to play the sympathy card since your original reply was false and rather than admitting it, you chose to take an emotional path in the discussion in an attempt to side step this fact. this discussion is done.
      - MR4D 9y ago
        Aren’t you then deciding that people should be car-less? (presuming you have a car - clearly many of us do), and that car sits idle most of the time in a parking lot, isn’t that the same thing? So are you (and all of us) then acting immoral by not letting a car-less person use our car? I think your understanding of morality is deeply flawed.
  - rayvd 9y ago
    Clearly we need a morality board to determine what is or isn't in the best interest for someone to do with their private property. /s Slippery slope right there.
    - sp332 9y ago
      We already made fraud and racial discrimination illegal, where will it end??
  - lifeformed 9y ago
    It's a morally questionable situation, but I wouldn't put the blame and responsibility on the individual renters/landlords. The flaw is in the system that incentivizes and perpetuates such a situation. The people involved are simply rational actors in that system. Problems aren't solved by just hoping everyone acts more morally, but by redesigning the structures and incentives that shape both the outcomes and our values.
  - cafard 9y ago
    Let me mention a case I know of at second hand: penthouse apartment facing Central Park. Assume that the owners decide that it is the socially responsible thing to sell the apartment. Now, clearly, the next occupants will not be formerly homeless: the homeless can't afford it, and the coop board wouldn't have them. What are the odds that the sale causes an effect all the way down from the 5th Avenue world to the sort-of affordable world?
    - sp332 9y ago
      I think selling to someone who will actually live there instead of someone who will just visit sometimes will increase local housing availability. It might also push the price down substantially. That means someone local might be able to afford a penthouse who otherwise would not. And while that individual buyer is probably not homeless, it does take them out of the market for lower-scale apartments which decreases pressure right down the line. It could literally reduce homelessness at a 1:1 rate.

dpark 9y ago

It’s not just sensationalized. It’s a lie. The “overpriced” part is entirely made up and the “63k families” is a misrepresentation of the 63k individuals in homeless shelters.

Nomentatus 9y ago
Not sure how you got there, unless you mean that the new competition on the demand side (rich weekenders) has already been fully discounted by the market somehow and the high prices are actually reflecting material cost rises the rest of us don't know about, say. In other words, I think you're gainsaying, and that doesn't help me figure it all out.
- dpark 9y ago
  “Overpriced” means the market will not bear the cost. That’s all it means. Most of these vacancies are accounted for in some way already (vacation property, rented but not yet occupied, etc). The article provides no evidence that the majority of the vacant properties are in any way overpriced.
  - Nomentatus 9y ago
    Nor need it.