9 ms·

A few points. First, I agree 421a is ludicrous, which is why I don't see why you credit NYC for "extracting concessions like low and moderate-income housing".

A few points. First, I agree 421a is ludicrous, which is why I don't see why you credit NYC for "extracting concessions like low and moderate-income housing". 421a and similar programs trade billions of dollars in tax revenue that could be spent on everyone for hundreds of thousands of dollars in rental subsidies handed out to a few lucky lottery winners. That is terrible public policy. A park or subway station improvement is a little closer call, but cash ought to be the gold standard. Second, I'm not sure I care whether billionaires buy castle in the sky in midtown or townhouses in Greenwich Village. I wasn't going to be able to afford the townhouses anyway. It seems like the people most concerned about billionaires bidding up property are the centimillionaires being priced out. 100 units, even extremely large units, are a drop in the bucket for NYC. The knock-on effects are just not that large out in the places where the middle and lower classes live. Finally, in terms of extracting more, I think the in-kind programs are both inefficient and a massive opportunity for corruption. I'd much rather see all the special deals -- parks, affordable housing, etc. eliminated and property taxes that reflect reality imposed, with perhaps a small pied-à-terre differential. The billions of dollars of missing tax revenue would be a lot more valuable to NYC than a few more housing lotteries or a small park, if for no other reason than you can subsidize rentals with cash but you can't fix potholes with subsidized rentals.

allworknoplay 12y ago
Right, but a rich person with lots of money to throw around would buy three a three unit townhouse and price out three families just to keep it empty 80% of the time -- This is the value of midtown luxury building construction -- it draws a remarkable amount of the money away from pricing out actual new yorkers. I agree that we don't do enough -- that's why I said that twice. I was simply adding that there is some value to construction of luxury property buildings, and perhaps insinuating that if we went so far on taxes that none of these got built, we would be worse off. I don't know where the actual trade off is -- again, we're well beyond it with 421a.
- minot 12y ago
  > Right, but a rich person with lots of money to throw around would buy three a three unit townhouse and price out three families just to keep it empty 80% of the time Sorry but what's wrong with that? We have land tax for exactly the same reason. If someone is willing to own the expensive apartments (and the expensive land that they build upon) and pay the taxes, why is that a problem? I guess I don't see how gentrification is a problem at all. If Manhattan is expensive, people should move out. This is a genuine question. Why should they live there if they can't afford to live there? Is it a good use of public resources (policy makers' time, potential tax income etc)? Honest question.
  - rtpg 12y ago
    Well the big thing is that most people can't just move if they want to. They have their jobs, and (especially if they're older) it might be really hard for them to get an equivalent job elsewhere. So moving will already cost them money. The second part of this is that it costs a lot of money for these people to move/be without income. So for some, they might just be too poor to move, and suffer with diminishing disposable income as the price of everything else around them rises. I think the core of the argument is that it's not like these rich people came into a barren land and built giant apartments. There are many people in NYC that simply live there, and why let these billionaires come in and make everything more expensive? I think that's the crux of the counter-argument. I think that a combination of proper tax brackets, loose zoning regulation allowing for high-density housing + commercial mixes, and primary-residence rules can solve the problem. I think the central moral argument is that having giant empty houses in the middle of a city with a community trying to do otherwise isn't exactly useful for society as a whole (see Detroit) , so we should disincentive it as much as possible.
    - minot 12y ago
      >I think the central moral argument is that having giant empty houses in the middle of a city Raise property taxes if you don't want property to be left unoccupied. I sympathize with people who are already living there but it just doesn't make any economic sense to give tax breaks to benefit a small population that's already living there. There is no benefit to the population at large to prevent an incumbent population from getting priced out. The goal should be to increase the supply of cheaper housing and make it abundant. I doubt it is possible in Manhattan today. Why not do it somewhere close by where they are not likely to be priced out? Instead, we build things like the east rover ferry which is clearly intended to raise the rent in apartment complexes midtown and first avenue...

allworknoplay 12y ago

Right, but a rich person with lots of money to throw around would buy three a three unit townhouse and price out three families just to keep it empty 80% of the time -- This is the value of midtown luxury building construction -- it draws a remarkable amount of the money away from pricing out actual new yorkers. I agree that we don't do enough -- that's why I said that twice. I was simply adding that there is some value to construction of luxury property buildings, and perhaps insinuating that if we went so far on taxes that none of these got built, we would be worse off. I don't know where the actual trade off is -- again, we're well beyond it with 421a.

minot 12y ago
> Right, but a rich person with lots of money to throw around would buy three a three unit townhouse and price out three families just to keep it empty 80% of the time Sorry but what's wrong with that? We have land tax for exactly the same reason. If someone is willing to own the expensive apartments (and the expensive land that they build upon) and pay the taxes, why is that a problem? I guess I don't see how gentrification is a problem at all. If Manhattan is expensive, people should move out. This is a genuine question. Why should they live there if they can't afford to live there? Is it a good use of public resources (policy makers' time, potential tax income etc)? Honest question.
- rtpg 12y ago
  Well the big thing is that most people can't just move if they want to. They have their jobs, and (especially if they're older) it might be really hard for them to get an equivalent job elsewhere. So moving will already cost them money. The second part of this is that it costs a lot of money for these people to move/be without income. So for some, they might just be too poor to move, and suffer with diminishing disposable income as the price of everything else around them rises. I think the core of the argument is that it's not like these rich people came into a barren land and built giant apartments. There are many people in NYC that simply live there, and why let these billionaires come in and make everything more expensive? I think that's the crux of the counter-argument. I think that a combination of proper tax brackets, loose zoning regulation allowing for high-density housing + commercial mixes, and primary-residence rules can solve the problem. I think the central moral argument is that having giant empty houses in the middle of a city with a community trying to do otherwise isn't exactly useful for society as a whole (see Detroit) , so we should disincentive it as much as possible.
  - minot 12y ago
    >I think the central moral argument is that having giant empty houses in the middle of a city Raise property taxes if you don't want property to be left unoccupied. I sympathize with people who are already living there but it just doesn't make any economic sense to give tax breaks to benefit a small population that's already living there. There is no benefit to the population at large to prevent an incumbent population from getting priced out. The goal should be to increase the supply of cheaper housing and make it abundant. I doubt it is possible in Manhattan today. Why not do it somewhere close by where they are not likely to be priced out? Instead, we build things like the east rover ferry which is clearly intended to raise the rent in apartment complexes midtown and first avenue...