3 ms·

What a surprise, yet another case where letting companies do whatever they want leads to them serving themselves to the detriment of everyone else! Simple solu

What a surprise, yet another case where letting companies do whatever they want leads to them serving themselves to the detriment of everyone else! Simple solution: if a unit is vacant for 12 months, the city gets to use the space for housing the homeless. I suspect this wouldn't house the homeless, because property owners would do everything in their power to not let this happen. Instead, we'd quickly see rents drop so that supply actually connects with demand. Either way it's better than what we're seeing. But I'm sure the HN crowd will demand that we pay the rich to do the right thing, since incentives are the only way we are allowed to do things and have been working so well so far.

mvdwoord 7y ago
Isn't the underlying issue often one of accounting? As I understand it, prices cannot drop because the appraisal is tied to the rent, and the financing is tied to the appraisal, and the overall business is dependant on the financing. As strange as it is, this makes it "cheaper" overall for some properties to remain empty rather than trying to get any, albeit reduced, rent.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  That's a problem for businesses that buy up land and build more luxury housing than there is demand for. It isn't a problem for society unless we decide to prop up their harmful business model. So what if their properties go down in value and they can't finance them? Why should we care? If they can't finance the housing, it can go through the normal foreclosure and public sale process and a bunch of high-quality, inexpensive housing will enter the market. The housing market would be fulfilling it's entire reason for existence: to provide housing. That's exactly what I would love to see happen. We as a society need to stop propping up harmful business models like this. If property values readjust and they go bankrupt: good. Americans aren't dumb or lazy: we'll come up with other business models that aren't so destructive. We cannot continue to claim that unfettered capitalism will solve all problems when it clearly is causing some of them, like skyrocketing rents and homelessness. These are actually not difficult problems if we are willing to regulate and tax to fund the solutions.
totalZero 7y ago
Or alternatively, increase property tax for rental properties where average utilization drops below a set threshold.
mancerayder 7y ago
Simple solution: if a unit is vacant for 12 months, the city gets to use the space for housing the homeless. That's an egregious suggestion. OK, I had an empty apartment for years. It was too expensive to renovate it, and I didn't want to get sued or scammed by tenants who would use small violations to avoid paying rent, so it was empty. It's a small house with a couple of apartments in it. What you're suggesting is straight up expropriation. And you trust NYC government workers to do the right thing, constitutional violations aside? Is this the new norm of thinking? Turning our government into some dictatorship who decides winners and losers? You'd have me personally go bankrupt and your personal thinking process is, oh I bet those landlords will fight tooth and nail? Your stance is as miguided as it is deeply immoral.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  The government already decides winners and losers, and right now they're deciding that the loers sleep outside in the middle of a winter storm system. Deciding winners and losers is inherent to living under the rule of law. Your only complaint here is that I'm saying government should decide that you lose. Except not really, because you still own a home you can rent out and make money off of, while the so-called "winners" have to live in your crappy unrenovated apartments. So really, your complaint is that you don't get to win by as enormous a margin. Maybe if you play that tiny violin on a street corner in the freezing cold you'll gain a sense of empathy for the homeless. Let's not pretend this is some sort of moral argument when you're forcing people to sleep on the street so you don't have to risk being scammed by tenants.
  - mancerayder 7y ago
    So really, your complaint is that you don't get to win by as enormous a margin. Maybe if you play that tiny violin on a street corner in the freezing cold you'll gain a sense of empathy for the homeless. Let's not pretend this is some sort of moral argument when you're forcing people to sleep on the street so you don't have to risk being scammed by tenants. You're demonstrating a limited knowledge of both housing code and its implications, and also the homeless problem. Homeless break down into sheltered and unsheltered homeless. People on the street, the unsheltered, are primarily people with mental and substance issues not receiving help, and don't want to be in shelters. It's completely irrelevant to a two family house being partly empty? Why not then requisition a one family house forcibly and cut it in 10? Do you think that would solve the issue? The City provides shelters, section 8, public housing and now affordable housing. Secondly no the government doesn't pick winners and losers as you put it. What if the government decided to confiscate your car because some people can't afford them to get to work? If you spend your life savings on a two family house, you think the government can force you to lodge anyone they please? Is there a single democratic country where people do this? More importantly, you'd have a house owner go bankrupt out of spite, which is what you demonstrate here? Violins, the violins aren't coming from me, if you read our exchange. People like yourself, who see no difference between a small landlord or business owner and a huge landlord with 100 buildings or a corporation, are what give even reasonable-minded social democrats the shivers.

mvdwoord 7y ago

Isn't the underlying issue often one of accounting? As I understand it, prices cannot drop because the appraisal is tied to the rent, and the financing is tied to the appraisal, and the overall business is dependant on the financing. As strange as it is, this makes it "cheaper" overall for some properties to remain empty rather than trying to get any, albeit reduced, rent.

kerkeslager 7y ago
That's a problem for businesses that buy up land and build more luxury housing than there is demand for. It isn't a problem for society unless we decide to prop up their harmful business model. So what if their properties go down in value and they can't finance them? Why should we care? If they can't finance the housing, it can go through the normal foreclosure and public sale process and a bunch of high-quality, inexpensive housing will enter the market. The housing market would be fulfilling it's entire reason for existence: to provide housing. That's exactly what I would love to see happen. We as a society need to stop propping up harmful business models like this. If property values readjust and they go bankrupt: good. Americans aren't dumb or lazy: we'll come up with other business models that aren't so destructive. We cannot continue to claim that unfettered capitalism will solve all problems when it clearly is causing some of them, like skyrocketing rents and homelessness. These are actually not difficult problems if we are willing to regulate and tax to fund the solutions.

totalZero 7y ago

Or alternatively, increase property tax for rental properties where average utilization drops below a set threshold.

mancerayder 7y ago

Simple solution: if a unit is vacant for 12 months, the city gets to use the space for housing the homeless. That's an egregious suggestion. OK, I had an empty apartment for years. It was too expensive to renovate it, and I didn't want to get sued or scammed by tenants who would use small violations to avoid paying rent, so it was empty. It's a small house with a couple of apartments in it. What you're suggesting is straight up expropriation. And you trust NYC government workers to do the right thing, constitutional violations aside? Is this the new norm of thinking? Turning our government into some dictatorship who decides winners and losers? You'd have me personally go bankrupt and your personal thinking process is, oh I bet those landlords will fight tooth and nail? Your stance is as miguided as it is deeply immoral.

kerkeslager 7y ago
The government already decides winners and losers, and right now they're deciding that the loers sleep outside in the middle of a winter storm system. Deciding winners and losers is inherent to living under the rule of law. Your only complaint here is that I'm saying government should decide that you lose. Except not really, because you still own a home you can rent out and make money off of, while the so-called "winners" have to live in your crappy unrenovated apartments. So really, your complaint is that you don't get to win by as enormous a margin. Maybe if you play that tiny violin on a street corner in the freezing cold you'll gain a sense of empathy for the homeless. Let's not pretend this is some sort of moral argument when you're forcing people to sleep on the street so you don't have to risk being scammed by tenants.
- mancerayder 7y ago
  So really, your complaint is that you don't get to win by as enormous a margin. Maybe if you play that tiny violin on a street corner in the freezing cold you'll gain a sense of empathy for the homeless. Let's not pretend this is some sort of moral argument when you're forcing people to sleep on the street so you don't have to risk being scammed by tenants. You're demonstrating a limited knowledge of both housing code and its implications, and also the homeless problem. Homeless break down into sheltered and unsheltered homeless. People on the street, the unsheltered, are primarily people with mental and substance issues not receiving help, and don't want to be in shelters. It's completely irrelevant to a two family house being partly empty? Why not then requisition a one family house forcibly and cut it in 10? Do you think that would solve the issue? The City provides shelters, section 8, public housing and now affordable housing. Secondly no the government doesn't pick winners and losers as you put it. What if the government decided to confiscate your car because some people can't afford them to get to work? If you spend your life savings on a two family house, you think the government can force you to lodge anyone they please? Is there a single democratic country where people do this? More importantly, you'd have a house owner go bankrupt out of spite, which is what you demonstrate here? Violins, the violins aren't coming from me, if you read our exchange. People like yourself, who see no difference between a small landlord or business owner and a huge landlord with 100 buildings or a corporation, are what give even reasonable-minded social democrats the shivers.