6 ms·

"Only if there were a monopolistic housing provider." Come on, man, housing isn't a commodity. If you're an owner charging whatever crazy price you can get in

"Only if there were a monopolistic housing provider." Come on, man, housing isn't a commodity. If you're an owner charging whatever crazy price you can get in the LES as passive income on top of doing whatever you do as a day job, you're not interested in going out and spending the energy on amping production of more housing units. Plus, maybe you live in the neighborhood yourself, and you'd hate to see soulless apartment blocks go in, and if they did go in, all the charm and neighborliness that makes it so great and desirable in the first place disappears, and prices collapse. You really don't think that guy is spending his political capital on preventing new apartment construction in his awesome neighborhood? I know that's how it happens in the Mission in SF, where I'm living now. "Living in a bad neighborhood is rewarded; the reward is cheap rent." Until the rich people see you living there happily and drive up prices trying to be your new neighbor - hence, rent control. "So if you argue for subsidizing hip locals who make a neighborhood attractive, do you also want to penalize disagreeable locals? If not, why not?" I said subsidize the people who make the neighborhood desirable to live in. It's pretty cynical if you think that's just the hip locals who moved in only a little before the rest of the wave. Harlem is a little rough today in parts, but I fucking love that part of town. Crime hurts everyone; people who are less well-off have just as much right to live in a crime-free neighborhood as everyone else. Squint a little, and maybe you can see it another way: how much does it suck that the rich white people have to move in before a neighborhood gets policed properly?

yummyfajitas 18y ago
"If you're an owner charging whatever crazy price you can get in the LES as passive income on top of doing whatever you do as a day job, you're not interested in going out and spending the energy on amping production of more housing units." So basically, you believe landlords/builders are 1) greedy when it comes to raising rents 2) not greedy when it comes to building more houses. And superpowerful, able to prevent any other greedy people from building housing and renting it for a profit. They sound like the villain in a poorly written movie. (I should be more specific; it's not all builders, since condos do get built. I guess these problems only apply to the rental market.) "Until the rich people see you living there happily and drive up prices trying to be your new neighbor - hence, rent control." It's probably not very bad by this time. Why should I continue to get the reward? "I said subsidize the people who make the neighborhood desirable to live in." Yes, and the flip side of that is to tax the people who make it undesirable to live in. Why is this bad policy? And I'm not just referring to criminals, but also people who lower the quality of life. You want to live near the hipster. But what about living near people who insist on talking at 2AM outside your window, or people who just need to take a shower? As for police protection, I don't believe I ever advocated reducing it for the poor. I just see no reason to subsidize the stationary at the expense of the mobile.
- calambrac 18y ago
  "So basically, you believe landlords/builders are 1) greedy when it comes to raising rents 2) not greedy when it comes to building more houses." Yes. Believe it or not, there are a ton of people who don't act exactly how economic theory says they maybe should. "And superpowerful, able to prevent any other greedy people from building housing and renting it for a profit." When you're out of new land to build on (NYC or SF, for instance; interesting how those are the two cities we keep coming back to, isn't it?), and other greedy people would have to buy your land or building, then yes. "Why should I continue to get the reward?" Because it was your sweat-equity that made it not very bad. It's not like you're paying the same amount that you used to - rent does still go up in rent-control environments - you're just not getting your ass thrown to the street because of a market fluctuation. "Yes, and the flip side of that is to tax the people who make it undesirable to live in. Why is this bad policy? And I'm not just referring to criminals, but also people who lower the quality of life. You want to live near the hipster. But what about living near people who insist on talking at 2AM outside your window, or people who just need to take a shower?" I don't get what you're saying here. Who are we taxing? The thugs hassling your friends walking home? Homeless people? Are they reliable taxpayers? And as for people who insist on talking at 2AM outside your window, there are noise laws in most places... "As for police protection, I don't believe I ever advocated reducing it for the poor. I just see no reason to subsidize the stationary at the expense of the mobile." You said that people don't move to Harlem because they don't want to get hassled by the undesirable locals. I was just saying that those undesirable locals are probably just as undesirable for the current locals as well. I assumed you meant criminal, since the example you gave was your friends being threatened on their walk home - nobody should have to put up with that. "I just see no reason to subsidize the stationary at the expense of the mobile." Because you're a caring human being? Because those wealthy enough to enjoy a mobile lifestyle can fend for themselves?
  - yummyfajitas 18y ago
    "Believe it or not, there are a ton of people who don't act exactly how economic theory says they maybe should." All it takes is a few people to behave greedily. And again, how come the condo market in NYC doesn't have these problems? "Because it was your sweat-equity that made it not very bad." I think you've got me confused with the cops. I did nothing to improve Jersey City or Harlem, I just live here. "...you're just not getting your ass thrown to the street because of a market fluctuation." I think you misspelled "be forced to move to a cheaper apartment in the next 30-60 days". "I don't get what you're saying here. Who are we taxing?" The locals that make a place undesirable to live in. You advocate rewarding certain stationary locals who create positive externalities ("make the neighborhood worth living in"). The flip side of that is to punish negative externalities. It's something along the lines of rewarding the creators of public art (who create positive externalities), while punishing polluters (who create negative externalities). "Because you're a caring human being? Because those wealthy enough to enjoy a mobile lifestyle can fend for themselves?" If subsidizing the needy is your goal, then why not target neediness directly, rather than using mobility is a (very poor) proxy? Using mobility, you hit (non-wealthy) guys like me. I moved once to be close to my job (underpaid postdoc), once to be close to my live-in girlfriend's job, and again last month because she became my ex-girlfriend. Stuff like that is uncorrelated to wealth.

yummyfajitas 18y ago

"If you're an owner charging whatever crazy price you can get in the LES as passive income on top of doing whatever you do as a day job, you're not interested in going out and spending the energy on amping production of more housing units." So basically, you believe landlords/builders are 1) greedy when it comes to raising rents 2) not greedy when it comes to building more houses. And superpowerful, able to prevent any other greedy people from building housing and renting it for a profit. They sound like the villain in a poorly written movie. (I should be more specific; it's not all builders, since condos do get built. I guess these problems only apply to the rental market.) "Until the rich people see you living there happily and drive up prices trying to be your new neighbor - hence, rent control." It's probably not very bad by this time. Why should I continue to get the reward? "I said subsidize the people who make the neighborhood desirable to live in." Yes, and the flip side of that is to tax the people who make it undesirable to live in. Why is this bad policy? And I'm not just referring to criminals, but also people who lower the quality of life. You want to live near the hipster. But what about living near people who insist on talking at 2AM outside your window, or people who just need to take a shower? As for police protection, I don't believe I ever advocated reducing it for the poor. I just see no reason to subsidize the stationary at the expense of the mobile.

calambrac 18y ago
"So basically, you believe landlords/builders are 1) greedy when it comes to raising rents 2) not greedy when it comes to building more houses." Yes. Believe it or not, there are a ton of people who don't act exactly how economic theory says they maybe should. "And superpowerful, able to prevent any other greedy people from building housing and renting it for a profit." When you're out of new land to build on (NYC or SF, for instance; interesting how those are the two cities we keep coming back to, isn't it?), and other greedy people would have to buy your land or building, then yes. "Why should I continue to get the reward?" Because it was your sweat-equity that made it not very bad. It's not like you're paying the same amount that you used to - rent does still go up in rent-control environments - you're just not getting your ass thrown to the street because of a market fluctuation. "Yes, and the flip side of that is to tax the people who make it undesirable to live in. Why is this bad policy? And I'm not just referring to criminals, but also people who lower the quality of life. You want to live near the hipster. But what about living near people who insist on talking at 2AM outside your window, or people who just need to take a shower?" I don't get what you're saying here. Who are we taxing? The thugs hassling your friends walking home? Homeless people? Are they reliable taxpayers? And as for people who insist on talking at 2AM outside your window, there are noise laws in most places... "As for police protection, I don't believe I ever advocated reducing it for the poor. I just see no reason to subsidize the stationary at the expense of the mobile." You said that people don't move to Harlem because they don't want to get hassled by the undesirable locals. I was just saying that those undesirable locals are probably just as undesirable for the current locals as well. I assumed you meant criminal, since the example you gave was your friends being threatened on their walk home - nobody should have to put up with that. "I just see no reason to subsidize the stationary at the expense of the mobile." Because you're a caring human being? Because those wealthy enough to enjoy a mobile lifestyle can fend for themselves?
- yummyfajitas 18y ago
  "Believe it or not, there are a ton of people who don't act exactly how economic theory says they maybe should." All it takes is a few people to behave greedily. And again, how come the condo market in NYC doesn't have these problems? "Because it was your sweat-equity that made it not very bad." I think you've got me confused with the cops. I did nothing to improve Jersey City or Harlem, I just live here. "...you're just not getting your ass thrown to the street because of a market fluctuation." I think you misspelled "be forced to move to a cheaper apartment in the next 30-60 days". "I don't get what you're saying here. Who are we taxing?" The locals that make a place undesirable to live in. You advocate rewarding certain stationary locals who create positive externalities ("make the neighborhood worth living in"). The flip side of that is to punish negative externalities. It's something along the lines of rewarding the creators of public art (who create positive externalities), while punishing polluters (who create negative externalities). "Because you're a caring human being? Because those wealthy enough to enjoy a mobile lifestyle can fend for themselves?" If subsidizing the needy is your goal, then why not target neediness directly, rather than using mobility is a (very poor) proxy? Using mobility, you hit (non-wealthy) guys like me. I moved once to be close to my job (underpaid postdoc), once to be close to my live-in girlfriend's job, and again last month because she became my ex-girlfriend. Stuff like that is uncorrelated to wealth.