3 ms·

Existing programs appear too complex by focusing on "conversion". Government should just fund tear down of the existing office building and subsidize developmen

Existing programs appear too complex by focusing on "conversion". Government should just fund tear down of the existing office building and subsidize development of multi-family on these lots that had office prior. The theoretical arguments against office conversion are overblown and too fixated on what the "perfect" or currently regulated apartment setup is... both of which are flexible. An apartment or condo doesn't have to be "ideal" to be viable. But it is true that many don't know how or want to invest into figuring out how to do the conversions. Each project is unique and requires careful thought. Building multi-family on an empty lot is far simpler, and government can hand office lots to developers as if they were an empty lot.

FooBarBizBazz 3y ago
That may generally be true, but that's a beautiful building shown in the article; I hope they don't tear that one down. When we're talking about some glass-box office building though, then by all means, just replace it.
frankharv 3y ago
Why should government (ME) fund this?
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  It is basically a one time investment in shoring up the tax base. Not doing so may mean that residents are asked up to pick up more of the tax slack to fill budget holes.
  - from-nibly 3y ago
    Right so, me (not from New York) should invest in fixing New York through my federal tax dollars.
    - bobthepanda 3y ago
      Considering that New York puts more in the revenues than it receives in federal dollars, probably. Otherwise rates will have to hike to make the difference.
- tsunamifury 3y ago
  Because ultimately the collapse of value, privately or publicly held, results in the collapse of the system that supports your value exchange system. This is overly broad, but im just trying to point out we are a part of a deeply interconnected system -- it's not just me-capitalism. But I understand the counter -- why should the government fund private market screwups? And the terrible answer is -- because we suffer the consequences regardless. There is a third question though which is: with the collapse of both retail, mutli-family, and office CRE, what in the world is the future of cities?

FooBarBizBazz 3y ago

That may generally be true, but that's a beautiful building shown in the article; I hope they don't tear that one down. When we're talking about some glass-box office building though, then by all means, just replace it.

frankharv 3y ago

Why should government (ME) fund this?

bobthepanda 3y ago
It is basically a one time investment in shoring up the tax base. Not doing so may mean that residents are asked up to pick up more of the tax slack to fill budget holes.
- from-nibly 3y ago
  Right so, me (not from New York) should invest in fixing New York through my federal tax dollars.
  - bobthepanda 3y ago
    Considering that New York puts more in the revenues than it receives in federal dollars, probably. Otherwise rates will have to hike to make the difference.
tsunamifury 3y ago
Because ultimately the collapse of value, privately or publicly held, results in the collapse of the system that supports your value exchange system. This is overly broad, but im just trying to point out we are a part of a deeply interconnected system -- it's not just me-capitalism. But I understand the counter -- why should the government fund private market screwups? And the terrible answer is -- because we suffer the consequences regardless. There is a third question though which is: with the collapse of both retail, mutli-family, and office CRE, what in the world is the future of cities?