3 ms·

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 empt

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.

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.