• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

NYC: Death of a Once Great City

myDeaconmyhand said:
Are you brain dead? People already live in these places. This isnt a theoretical concept. The fucking housing shortage is now, not just a prediction for projected influx. Low income people who live in large cities are being pushed out, often illegally. Jared Kushner's real estate company was just fucking accused for exposing children in his low income apartment/slums to cancer causing chemicals in efforts to push tenants out.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busin...s-pushing-tenants-out-20180716-story,amp.html
Click to expand...

That sucks and Kushner and that Trump gang blows but why shouldn't someone be able to get fair market value on a property they own? Legally of course, but if you can get double the rent for a property than what you are getting, you should be able to do it.
 
tau06 said:
That sucks and Kushner and that Trump gang blows but why shouldn't someone be able to get fair market value on a property they own? Legally of course, but if you can get double the rent for a property than what you are getting, you should be able to do it.
Click to expand...
Because it's bad for society. There have always been limitations and exclusions to property rights in this country. Do you think people who live near an interstate or airport expansion get full market value for their property when its taken by eminent domain? The vast harm done by exclusivising access to public resources far outweighs the cost of regulating the market of major rental property.
 
tau06 said:
That sucks and Kushner and that Trump gang blows but why shouldn't someone be able to get fair market value on a property they own? Legally of course, but if you can get double the rent for a property than what you are getting, you should be able to do it.
Click to expand...

What’s “legally?” That’s after the fact. Kick out the poors, get double rent, maybe pay a fine later.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Because it's bad for society. There have always been limitations and exclusions to property rights in this country. Do you think people who live near an interstate or airport expansion get full market value for their property when its taken by eminent domain? The vast harm done by exclusivising access to public resources far outweighs the cost of regulating the market of major rental property.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that it's bad for society but someone having their property value decreased due to an airport is a completely different ball of was than people wanting to stay in a city they can't afford and are renting, not owning property. The problem to me lies more with how do you assist those that can't afford to live there anymore move to somewhere they can afford rather than artificially deflating an economic market. If someone can't afford to live in an area any longer they probably can't afford to move everything they own either and there lies the conundrum to me.
 
PhDeac said:
What’s “legally?” That’s after the fact. Kick out the poors, get double rent, maybe pay a fine later.
Click to expand...

No clue. Not an attorney or property/rental lawyer. If the legal system isn't doing it's job to deter crap like that then the laws need to be changed, fines stiffened etc.

If I have a rental property in NYC, i'd assume there is a lease. At the end of the lease, I don't see why I would have to rent that property to someone who was already there for $1500 a month when I could get $3000 from someone else. I don't see how anyone can disagree with that.
 
Tex98 said:
H2: Indiana (by AM General)
Excursion: Kentucky
Aztek: Mexico
Prius: Japan
Click to expand...

My bad. I saw the Russian location for the H2. Point is that auto manufacturing is global business and the Detroit worker isn't competitive enough.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Because it's bad for society. There have always been limitations and exclusions to property rights in this country. Do you think people who live near an interstate or airport expansion get full market value for their property when its taken by eminent domain? The vast harm done by exclusivising access to public resources far outweighs the cost of regulating the market of major rental property.
Click to expand...

I would argue that a property owner who has his property taken in eminent domain proceedings is far more likely to get market value for the taking than a landlord who is operating under rent controls or the requirement to provide affordable housing in a new building. Rent control prevents the land from being developed to its true highest and best use.
 
tau06 said:
No clue. Not an attorney or property/rental lawyer. If the legal system isn't doing it's job to deter crap like that then the laws need to be changed, fines stiffened etc.

If I have a rental property in NYC, i'd assume there is a lease. At the end of the lease, I don't see why I would have to rent that property to someone who was already there for $1500 a month when I could get $3000 from someone else. I don't see how anyone can disagree with that.
Click to expand...

because your personal values are different than others

again, housing as real estate vs. housing as shelter

and this doesn't even take into account access to schools, healthcare, transit, etc.
 
"highest and best use" has always been a pretty bogus proposition and that changes with the whims of those in power
 
Well, the first thing you consider in highest and best use is what is legally permissible. If you're not allowed to build what the market is willing to pay the most for, then your return on the site is reduced. So yes, the whims of those in power are very important.

Not bogus though. It's how developers maximize profit or decide whether to undertake a project in the first place.
 
That was a terrible example. I can't imagine you read that article and thought the people in that building were low income.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Because it's bad for society. There have always been limitations and exclusions to property rights in this country. Do you think people who live near an interstate or airport expansion get full market value for their property when its taken by eminent domain? The vast harm done by exclusivising access to public resources far outweighs the cost of regulating the market of major rental property.
Click to expand...

Ohhhhhhhh so YOU think it's bad for society. Well I guess we should all just ask you whenever we come to these conundrums. Real Property is a commodity, just like anything else. It has value and can be bought and sold.


Humans are competitive. A society that rewards the lazy and stupid with the same ration as the hardworking and smart does not work. That was called communism, remember?

There is no scenario in which you are going to disenfranchise the landowners of Manhattan, or any other big city for that matter, so just stop. Dnt worry tho I think rent is pretty stable on Peters Creek.
 
it's a commodity because we choose to let it be a commodity, that's a values statement, not an economic one; education could just as well be a commodity (and is in many cases), but we believe in public education. it used to be only for a certain class.

like healthcare, we can decide to continue to treat it like a commodity or we can decide that we're the wealthiest nation in the history of the world and maybe we can start shifting from a growth mindset to an equality mindset.

just because something has always been treated as a commodity doesn't mean it has to continue that way.
 
JuiceCrewAllStar said:
it's a commodity because we choose to let it be a commodity, that's a values statement, not an economic one; education could just as well be a commodity (and is in many cases), but we believe in public education. it used to be only for a certain class.

like healthcare, we can decide to continue to treat it like a commodity or we can decide that we're the wealthiest nation in the history of the world and maybe we can start shifting from a growth mindset to an equality mindset.

just because something has always been treated as a commodity doesn't mean it has to continue that way.
Click to expand...

Do you really believe this? Or just playing devils advocate? Because suggesting that we completely abandon the reasons we are the wealthiest nation in the history seems really weird. What is your thought? Lottery system like college dorms? Mandatory requirements for each building/zip codes/areas to include people across all ages, genders, income levels? I mean property/land/whatever is the oldest source of wealth in the world, much less the US - thats a pretty drastic change.
 
Buildings that have rent stabilized tenants generally receive tax benefits for doing it that way. The tenants have an automatic right to renew the lease at the city mandated increase, which is usually 2-3% every two years. The Kushners purchased the property knowing there were tenants already under those terms. No doubt the paid much less than market rate to buy the building as rent stabilized tenants are a major liability to the owners. Some apartments can be passed down for generations.

Most landlords are at least respectable and don't harass the tenants. most offer to buy them out if it makes financial sense. Some tenants leave and some stay. There are protections against being strong armed. Don't really know who to believe in this circumstance. You can't just increase the rent in a rent stabilized apartment and drive tenants out.
 
JuiceCrewAllStar said:
it's a commodity because we choose to let it be a commodity, that's a values statement, not an economic one; education could just as well be a commodity (and is in many cases), but we believe in public education. it used to be only for a certain class.

like healthcare, we can decide to continue to treat it like a commodity or we can decide that we're the wealthiest nation in the history of the world and maybe we can start shifting from a growth mindset to an equality mindset.

just because something has always been treated as a commodity doesn't mean it has to continue that way.
Click to expand...
This is some pretty wild shit.
 
Where is this evidence that humans are competitive? Sure competitive humans in competitive societies who have to compete to survive are competitive. But that’s not a consistent human trait across time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top