3 ms·

"All it takes is a few people to behave greedily." A few people acting greedily forces an unwilling owner to sell out? That makes no sense. "And again, how c

"All it takes is a few people to behave greedily." A few people acting greedily forces an unwilling owner to sell out? That makes no sense. "And again, how come the condo market in NYC doesn't have these problems?" I didn't address this before because it sounds like something you're pulling out of your ass - and you said it yourself, your building was built for condos but used for rent b/c the market for condos wasn't there. What, exactly, do you want me to argue against here? "I think you've got me confused with the cops. I did nothing to improve Jersey City or Harlem, I just live here." Did you mug anyone? Sell drugs? Piss on other people's porches? Litter? Pay your rent on time? Spend money in the local stores? Occasionally smile at your neighbors? Call the cops when you saw someone breaking into a car? You don't have to be a hero to make a part of town a better place. "I think you misspelled 'be forced to move to a cheaper apartment in the next 30-60 days'." Cute. 30-60 days, that does make things way easier. Gives people plenty of time to find a place they can afford that's really far away from their current job, so they spend less time with their family, or maybe even need to get a new one. Any local support systems? Churches that sometimes helped with groceries, trusted neighbors to help with babysitting, etc, all gone. "The locals that make a place undesirable to live in." Okay, you come up with a way to enforce it, I'm all for it. Rent control is easy, and it has roughly the same effect in upwardly-mobile neighborhoods. "If subsidizing the needy is your goal, then why not target neediness directly, rather than using mobility is a (very poor) proxy?" Subsidizing the needy isn't my goal. My goal is not kicking people out of their homes because rich people would rather have them. "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." So, wait, hold on: you want to kick people who are even worse off than you financially out of their homes so that you can afford a bit cheaper apartment now that your girlfriend broke up with you?

yummyfajitas 18y ago
"A few people acting greedily forces an unwilling owner to sell out? That makes no sense." You think ALL property owners in NYC are unwilling to sell? You think ALL builders/landlords are unwilling to build investment properties, and are unwilling to sell to those who will? "I didn't address this before because it sounds like something you're pulling out of your ass - and you said it yourself, your building was built for condos but used for rent b/c the market for condos wasn't there. What, exactly, do you want me to argue against here?" You claim that builders are not greedy enough to create new housing in response to market demand, or that there are other monopolistic factors preventing this. Yet for some reason, they build new condos. Why don't these same factors prevent condo construction? "Cute. 30-60 days, that does make things way easier. Gives people plenty of time to find a place they can afford that's really far away from their current job,..." And someone else is now close to their current job and gets more time with their family. Why do the stationary deserve that more than the mobile? "Subsidizing the needy isn't my goal. " In that case, why try to equate mobility with wealth? The two are not very strongly related, if at all.
- calambrac 18y ago
  "You think ALL property owners in NYC are unwilling to sell? You think ALL builders/landlords are unwilling to build investment properties, and are unwilling to sell to those who will?" No, when did I say anything that implied that? "You claim that builders are not greedy enough to create new housing in response to market demand, or that there are other monopolistic factors preventing this. Yet for some reason, they build new condos. Why don't these same factors prevent condo construction?" No, I claimed that the removal of rent control would incentivize some owners to oppose new construction, and that current rent control doesn't disincentivize new building. "And someone else is now close to their current job and gets more time with their family. Why do the stationary deserve that more than the mobile?" Seriously? You're seriously claiming that the person who just moves into an area has equivalent roots in the area as the person who has lived there since 1971? Come on, be serious. "In that case, why try to equate mobility with wealth? The two are not very strongly related, if at all." Yeah, people moving into expensive areas and bidding up rent prices generally aren't wealthy, my bad.
  - natrius 18y ago
    "Yeah, people moving into expensive areas and bidding up rent prices generally aren't wealthy, my bad." My impression was that in a housing market without rent control, people are displaced by periodic, incremental yet substantial increases in rent, not a one-time multiplication of rent. If that's the case, then it's not an issue of the poor being displaced by the wealthy. It's people being displaced by others who are a rung or two above them on the economic ladder. You're also not taking into account poorer people who want to move every once in a while instead of staying in the same place. They end up having to pay the rent control tax each time they move just like the "wealthy." Taxing mobility is rife with unintended consequences.
    - calambrac 18y ago
      You're right, I'm not taking the poorer people who want to move into account. I'm not an anti-market housing zealot. The only thing I'm saying is that the human cost of displacement seems to me to be large enough that we should be willing to sacrifice market rents for people who have been living in an area that's becoming expensive to live in. The people who create the value should have the first shot at enjoying that value, it shouldn't be arbitrarily handed over to the wealthy.

yummyfajitas 18y ago

"A few people acting greedily forces an unwilling owner to sell out? That makes no sense." You think ALL property owners in NYC are unwilling to sell? You think ALL builders/landlords are unwilling to build investment properties, and are unwilling to sell to those who will? "I didn't address this before because it sounds like something you're pulling out of your ass - and you said it yourself, your building was built for condos but used for rent b/c the market for condos wasn't there. What, exactly, do you want me to argue against here?" You claim that builders are not greedy enough to create new housing in response to market demand, or that there are other monopolistic factors preventing this. Yet for some reason, they build new condos. Why don't these same factors prevent condo construction? "Cute. 30-60 days, that does make things way easier. Gives people plenty of time to find a place they can afford that's really far away from their current job,..." And someone else is now close to their current job and gets more time with their family. Why do the stationary deserve that more than the mobile? "Subsidizing the needy isn't my goal. " In that case, why try to equate mobility with wealth? The two are not very strongly related, if at all.

calambrac 18y ago
"You think ALL property owners in NYC are unwilling to sell? You think ALL builders/landlords are unwilling to build investment properties, and are unwilling to sell to those who will?" No, when did I say anything that implied that? "You claim that builders are not greedy enough to create new housing in response to market demand, or that there are other monopolistic factors preventing this. Yet for some reason, they build new condos. Why don't these same factors prevent condo construction?" No, I claimed that the removal of rent control would incentivize some owners to oppose new construction, and that current rent control doesn't disincentivize new building. "And someone else is now close to their current job and gets more time with their family. Why do the stationary deserve that more than the mobile?" Seriously? You're seriously claiming that the person who just moves into an area has equivalent roots in the area as the person who has lived there since 1971? Come on, be serious. "In that case, why try to equate mobility with wealth? The two are not very strongly related, if at all." Yeah, people moving into expensive areas and bidding up rent prices generally aren't wealthy, my bad.
- natrius 18y ago
  "Yeah, people moving into expensive areas and bidding up rent prices generally aren't wealthy, my bad." My impression was that in a housing market without rent control, people are displaced by periodic, incremental yet substantial increases in rent, not a one-time multiplication of rent. If that's the case, then it's not an issue of the poor being displaced by the wealthy. It's people being displaced by others who are a rung or two above them on the economic ladder. You're also not taking into account poorer people who want to move every once in a while instead of staying in the same place. They end up having to pay the rent control tax each time they move just like the "wealthy." Taxing mobility is rife with unintended consequences.
  - calambrac 18y ago
    You're right, I'm not taking the poorer people who want to move into account. I'm not an anti-market housing zealot. The only thing I'm saying is that the human cost of displacement seems to me to be large enough that we should be willing to sacrifice market rents for people who have been living in an area that's becoming expensive to live in. The people who create the value should have the first shot at enjoying that value, it shouldn't be arbitrarily handed over to the wealthy.