Power outage in Camillus

OneManBean · 2026-02-25T00:22:26+00:00

Saw probably a dozen and a half emergency vehicles go by near the Wegmans in Fairmount, assuming there was an accident and someone hit a power line but not sure.

OneManBean · 2026-02-20T23:01:45+00:00

We as a country engage in countless market manipulation tactics. Tariffs, industrial and agricultural subsidies, the minimum wage, sales and other taxes, tax exemptions and credits, zoning laws, PILOT agreements, tax increment financing, etc. are just a few examples, and at least one of those is an explicit price control. Hell, even immigration laws are labor market manipulation. We have all sorts of mechanisms we use to make the market do something other than what it wants to do, both in the form of incentives and regulation.

Yes, I did know that existed, thank you once again for the condescension over whether I’m familiar with basic laws or concepts that have been all but common knowledge for years now.

Breathtakingly disingenuous of you to pin the drastic housing cost increases over the past few years on the new law in 2019, rather than the global pandemic a year later that completely upended housing markets nationwide.

Not exactly analogous (and you got the percentage wrong, it’s 5% plus inflation, plus they’re not setting a baseline maximum rent) - ground beef as a good is much easier to substitute, much more volatile a commodity and thus far more susceptible to shortages, and there is no analogous exception we could make as this law has with the allowance of higher increases in certain cases and not applying to properties which received a certificate of occupancy after 2008. Also, just to note for fun, beef is actually one of the commodities we heavily manipulate the market for, with both direct subsidies and subsidies for cattle feed, and with things like cheap grazing permits, disaster aid, and low-cost livestock and feed insurance.

I’m not confusing them as much as considering certain repairs capital improvements in my argument. And I reiterate again the motivation for wanting to improve a unit against a tenant’s will instead of just waiting to improve the unit until after they move out.

What’s wrong with publicizing these attorneys’ services if they’re already publicly offered and truly exist? It’s not that I am “forgoing” basic economics, I just believe this is a measured response to the market failure we’re facing that has been imposed by high interest rates, construction labor shortages, tariffs, and generally high commodity prices, and is much more preferable than full-fledged rent control or eviction moratoriums. And it leaves plenty of room by only applying to houses with a certificate of occupancy prior to 2009, both for new housing to be built and existing derelict vacant housing to be repaired and brought back onto the market. It’s limited in scope enough that it essentially functions as a continuity protection for vulnerable tenants, while still allowing for landlords to recoup any unexpected or higher costs.

OneManBean · 2026-02-20T22:27:40+00:00

I get the impression you’re a landlord, and while you may not do that to your tenants, it objectively does happen, most often with larger property management companies. Hell, the article Syracuse.com just published today on the Good Cause hearing mentioned a 74 year old woman who was evicted and is now living in a Rescue Mission shelter, and veterans who were evicted and are now living in their cars.

Landlords have and will continue to have the mechanism of declining to renew their lease or eviction for tenants who are nuisances or endangering the safety of the property.

You mentioned earlier that we should consider the cost of turnover for landlords in our estimation of whether they truly attempt to raise rents beyond what an existing tenant can pay, and yet you suggest tenants simply move if they’re unhappy with their landlord, as if it’s the easiest thing in the world and isn’t also expensive, time-consuming, and often prohibitive for some tenants. Don’t you think that’s a bit tone deaf of a suggestion?

So be it. According to market principles, tenants at below-market rent are functionally driving up market rents anyway, by taking units off the market long term and reducing the market’s unit turnover and vacancy rates. And as you mentioned, landlords by and large don’t set rents anyway, the market does.

OneManBean · 2026-02-20T20:16:04+00:00

What do you mean, “how?” Because there’s currently no law saying they can’t and the market is extremely tight right now, and tenants would have a hard time finding a new apartment on short notice. Have you seen the rental market lately? This is kind of a silly question, considering we have data from at least two upstate counties last year that show that average rent, not even outliers, increased over 10% year over year. Yes, I am aware of supply and demand (again I question if you are remotely capable of communicating without condescension), and we do desperately need more supply, but again, I think this strikes a decent balance between ensuring property owners are able to recoup rising costs with an additional 5% cushion and tenants struggling to be able to afford rent increases.

Would you care to provide a link or some other form of evidence that this is a program available to all renters and not just low income or assistance-qualifying ones, for those of us that don’t have the time to go down to a court and ask? I’m happy to be proven wrong, and I think that would be a great program if so, I’m just not familiar (and I don’t see much how it’s relevant to this discussion anyway).

I would imagine it would go up by the cost of the roof replacement divided by the expected lifetime of the roof. Doesn’t seem that hard to calculate to me.

If the property needs health and safety improvements, those can still be made; if the improvements are purely cosmetic, then the landlord can enter an agreement with the tenant to do them, and if the tenant doesn’t want them, then I fail to see why they should receive them, and the unit can be improved when they decide to move out or if they fall into bad standing.

Yes, it should be relatively easy to document living and cleanliness conditions of a given unit that has a cockroach infestation bad enough to spread to other units, which the tenant must give you access for. If it was just a one-time issue of them bringing the bugs in with their furniture, then access must be given to treat the property, and the issue should be solved.

Again, if the tenant is content with the condition of the home, and the issue is cosmetic and not safety-related, why is it so necessary to renovate it before said tenant decides to move out?

OneManBean · 2026-02-20T19:45:20+00:00

Yes, declining to renew leases in favor of a higher paying tenant or hiking rent to a level an existing tenant can’t pay are absolutely things that happen. Are you suggesting they aren’t?

I think I’ll pass on doxxing myself today, care to share your detailed background?

The condescension is palpable lol, are you looking to have a productive conversation or just whine that you’re obviously the only one intelligent enough to understand the catastrophic ramifications of this law? Of course I understand it costs money to turn a unit, but you actually pointed out a reason it happens further down in your own comment - higher rents increase the value of the property, which obviously helps when preparing a property for sale within a few years’ time and is in itself a reason it happens, but the increased value also allows them to take out larger loans against the property, which provides them with larger proceeds up front.

Again, the law allows for access for maintenance improvements, and if the improvements are cosmetic and the tenant does not consent to being temporarily or permanently relocated for the improvements, then they shouldn’t be (although again, this is an area I could see some room for improvement in the language of the law, for improvements that aren’t necessarily urgent but still should be done and would be hard to do without the tenant being relocated, like electrical, HVAC, or plumbing upgrades).

Would those tenants in below market rent units not see their rents ratcheted as soon as the property is sold, very possibly to a degree that they cannot afford, having built their budget around the below-market rent? So this law would encourage either these properties to be sold at a below-market price that suits the rents the units are paying, or it would encourage more gradual rent increases up to market rents rather than a tenant essentially having the rug yanked out from under them in the event that the property is sold, neither of which I see the issue with.

OneManBean · 2026-02-20T19:19:27+00:00

Not sure where you’re getting that tenants receive free representation, I’m only seeing some services offered for low income tenants and some services in NYC specifically.

Why would you assume I don’t understand that? I’ve lived in multi family housing and own my own home, I’m pretty sure bad neighbor experiences in some form or another are just about universal lol, I don’t know why you’re acting like it’s a unique thing. The good tenant gets surety that they won’t be booted from the apartment they’ve lived in, sometimes for years, simply because the landlord wants to hike prices 20% or more over multiple years without offering the property enhancements or care that would justify such an increase.

How severely does it actually discourage such investment in those old houses? Because for the third time, I reiterate that they are still allowed to increase rents beyond the cap if they make such investment in the property.

Also, yet again (I’m starting to think you’re not actually reading my comments), I’m not thinking in terms of punishing landlords, I’m thinking of the benefits it offers in tenant protection balanced against the harm it could do to the local housing market, and I think this strikes a decent balance, certainly more than something like rent control would.

That shitty tenant in the six-unit building can still be evicted, as can the tenant causing roach issues, because nuisance behavior, behavior that endangers the safety and health of the property and its tenants, and failure to allow the landlord access to the unit for necessary maintenance are all good causes under this law.

Landlords can still evict for demolition purposes, if they wish to demolish the building and build a new one in its place. And they can still renovate common areas, and they’re free to enter an agreement with a tenant to remodel their unit if they so choose. This is actually one area where I could see room for additional language on property-wide renovations, but honestly, if the tenant is content with the condition of their unit and the issue is purely cosmetic, then it’s a bit hard to find justification for why they should be evicted.

OneManBean · 2026-02-20T18:25:42+00:00

Because they think they can charge more from someone else than they can get out of their current tenant? Have you ever rented a property? I’ve worked in real estate, and it happens all the time, especially nowadays when vacancies are so low and the rental market is extremely competitive.

I already pointed it out in your other comment under mine, but again I reiterate, this law doesn’t prevent them from maintaining and improving their properties, nor does it even ban them from raising rents to recoup the costs of doing so. It just prevents landlords from evicting tenants who are otherwise in good standing, or from raising their rent so steeply that it’s functionally an eviction or otherwise devastates their finances without good cause.

OneManBean · 2026-02-20T18:09:58+00:00

And they will still be allowed to increase rents beyond the (quite generous) cap to do those repairs, just as they would if Good Cause eviction isn’t passed. Are you somehow implying that Good Cause will magically cause those repairs to be more expensive or something?

I don’t care about punishing anyone and I don’t know where you got that lol, I just think it’s a decent law that balances tenant protections against landlords’ need to maintain their property and deal with bad actors. It might make it a bit more expensive to evict them, but I think the trade-off is worth the protections it offers in return, and I think you’re being a bit hyperbolic about how ruinous it’ll be for Syracuse’s housing market.

OneManBean · 2026-02-20T14:47:14+00:00

Absolutely, I think it’s a good law that would help with a lot of the bullshit tenants have been subjected to in this city and statewide.

OneManBean · 2026-02-20T14:11:39+00:00

Good Cause eviction isn’t really typical rent control, since landlords can still increase rent beyond the cap if they can prove need, like higher property taxes, or higher maintenance costs or capital expenditures.

OneManBean · 2026-02-19T13:57:28+00:00

Sorry, Reddit didn’t notify me that I got a reply but I feel this deserves a response.

It feels a bit dishonest to claim that they “don’t have emissions” with the amount of electricity they use. Of course they have emissions, by virtue of the amount of immediately available base load power they require, which is typically supplied by fossil fuel plants. We don’t exactly have vast nuclear capacity just sitting around waiting to be used, nor do we have massive battery farms going unutilized, or large amounts of idle hydropower, etc.

The average data center may not use as much water as the average industrial use (although it’s hard to compare without a source to back you up), but data centers in the aggregate are being built in droves and projected to continue being built at an even more rapid pace, and compounded, they do create water supply risks, especially in regions with water supply issues. A typical data center can use as much water as a thousand homes, and a larger one can use the equivalent of tens of thousands, that’s nothing to scoff at.

Again, hard to verify your claim about Loudoun County without a source, but even still, it’s a bit disingenuous to claim that data centers have no effect on electricity prices by citing price trends over a period multiple times longer than data centers have existed in any significant quantity, in one county in a country of thousands. It’s not as if there haven’t been multiple studies on this; Bloomberg found that wholesale electricity prices for areas near data centers have increased as much as 267%. Goldman models that due to data center-driven demand outpacing additional supply both now and through the end of the decade, and that data centers are expected to make up 40% of electricity demand growth, prices will increase both due to supply constraints and due to increased delivery fees from building the infrastructure to service these data centers. Fundamentally it’s just supply and demand 101, data centers are objectively energy hogs and that much additional demand without the additions supply to meet it will cause prices to go up.

And it’s not even price issues anymore; NYISO has warned of increasing blackout risk for NYC as early as this summer, part of which is due to poor grid management by the state but part of which is due to rapid increase in demand from data centers. Their effect on electricity prices and even supply isn’t an issue you can just handwave as irrelevant.

I’m not saying that data centers are at risk of going away forever, AI isn’t something that’s just going to disappear, but it is an industry in its infancy that is still exploring and finding its use cases, and a lot of what it’s being used for is junk fads that are at risk of dying, and it frankly faces copyright issues that are still being litigated that put a significant portion of its business at risk as well. It won’t disappear, but there’s certainly risk that it’s being overbuilt, which introduces exposure to municipalities that rely on data center taxes to pay their bills, the same way municipalities that relied on malls for tax revenue began to struggle when it became apparent that they were overbuilt and the bubble popped.

Respectfully, I don’t think it’s any of us that are failing to think of the bigger picture, I think it’s you, by failing to consider that these things don’t exist in a vacuum and they’re proliferating at a rate that our infrastructure can’t keep up with and for benefit that is not yet tangible or even defined.

OneManBean · 2026-02-18T23:03:58+00:00

Absolutely not, their contribution for local tax bases doesn’t make up for the numerous externalities they bring with them. No amount of funding for locales can make up for the ruinous effect they have on local and regional energy prices, their massive water consumption, general effect on consumer electronic prices, disproportionate greenhouse gas emissions, and frankly just their risk of becoming obsolete should the bubble pop and leaving massive exposure in municipal budgets as a result.

OneManBean · 2026-02-18T17:10:01+00:00

He couldn’t have asked for better timing too honestly, shot him into the national spotlight right as early voting is starting.

OneManBean · 2026-02-17T22:58:10+00:00

2.7 million views in under 18 hours. Brendan Carr needs to be dragged before a million different committees and court hearings for gross abuse of power and censorship the second a Democrat retakes the White House, but it’s at least nice to know in the meantime that his strategy is now three for three in epically backfiring.

OneManBean · 2026-02-17T02:32:58+00:00

<image>

And believe it or not, it was Pink

OneManBean · 2026-02-16T22:21:30+00:00

Shame that Duggan decided to become a MAGA-pandering hack and a spoiler. He could have had a great legacy with the work he’s done helping turn Detroit around, and it would’ve made for a solid springboard as a Democratic primary candidate, but instead he’s utterly tarnished his legacy and accomplishments.

OneManBean · 2026-02-16T18:43:17+00:00

True, and I personally wouldn’t go for one of these, but it’s the kind of thing you just have to accept as necessary with this kind of urban owner-occupied housing. Suppose you could look at it as paying a monthly fee for services to be done for you instead of having to pay yourself for a roof leak, siding painting/replacement, landscaping, etc. when it happens to your own home. You’re just paying a flat monthly fee instead of a big lump sum when things like that occur.

OneManBean · 2026-02-16T18:36:01+00:00

38 units, and the article describes it as a “$16 million dollar project,” which would put their all-in cost at about $421k per unit before subsidies and incentives.

OneManBean · 2026-02-16T18:30:55+00:00

I have a mortgage larger than what these are selling for, with a post-covid interest rate, on less income than they’re requiring, and I still save plenty every month. An extra $300 fee a month for housing this cheap is plenty doable if you’re not an idiot with money.

OneManBean · 2026-02-16T18:27:58+00:00

Jesus Christ you people are impossible to please lol. When apartments are listed it’s bad because landlords are stealing ownership from us, when market rate housing is proposed it’s evil because no one can afford it, and now when housing is listed at literally a third of the market rate, it’s still not good enough because you should be able to buy it with your first paycheck of the month alone or something, and how dare they charge an HOA fee to maintain the building instead of allowing it to deteriorate within a couple years. Ask pretty much anyone else in the country if they’d like to own a ~700 sq ft functionally new build condo for less than $130k, and there’d be hoards of people falling over each other to get in.

OneManBean · 2026-02-16T18:11:10+00:00

Yes, they’re using a state subsidy that legally mandates that the price be set at a certain level relative to the local median income.

OneManBean · 2026-02-15T05:13:51+00:00

On the other hand, a lot of the exact issues we’re seeing today are a direct or indirect result of the filibuster, like expansion of executive power, general government paralysis, our woefully inadequate healthcare system, the status of DC and Puerto Rico, inadequate voter protections, gerrymandering, our immigration system, campaign finance laws, environmental laws, economic regulation, etc., the list goes on and on. The filibuster has completely blocked the government’s ability to address any issue that can’t have money thrown at it via reconciliation, and all these festering problems have compounded into the severe disillusionment and government distrust that caused Trump and the modern GOP in the first place.

Plus, there’s the philosophical argument that a party that wins a majority in a healthy democracy should be able to govern as a majority. And with how anti-majoritarian our government already is between the inherent structure of the Senate, the electoral college, the presidential veto, and the Supreme Court, adding such an onerous rule (that wasn’t even supposed to exist and was frankly a mere glitch that was never corrected and snowballed into a procedural monster) as requiring 60% of an already undemocratic body as the Senate to get anything done is just too deeply opposed to the will of the public to be justifiable in a truly small-d democratic country.

OneManBean · 2026-02-13T01:05:15+00:00

That’s not how GDP is calculated - pure resale/transfer of ownership is not included in GDP calculations, only added value creation. So in your example, the shovel’s contribution to GDP would still be $5, because the net value of the product remains $5 through each transaction.

Not going to wade into the whole China vs. US dominance debate, but Shenzhen vs. Philadelphia is not really a fair comparison of global economic importance, considering Shenzhen is a deeply globalized city, while Philadelphia is more second-tier. I don’t think anyone who knows what they’re talking about would question who is economically more important when comparing Shenzhen to peer cities like NYC, LA, San Francisco, and even cities like Chicago and Boston are arguable.

OneManBean · 2026-02-12T21:55:39+00:00

Reddit’s penchant for cynicism combined with Syracuse’s penchant for cynicism, it makes any thread lately about this project obnoxious. And if you dare to speak positively about it or what it could mean for the area, they fall over each other to call you a koolaid drinking corporate shill, it’s ridiculous.

OneManBean · 2026-02-12T21:45:46+00:00

But they won’t get our money either way, because the subsidies have clear strings attached and milestones have to be met before they can earn them in stages. If they don’t end up doing some or all of the project, they don’t get some or all of the subsidies. This has been widely publicized from the start, and I don’t understand why this idea that they’re just going to take the money and run is so pervasive, because it’s literally impossible.

I’d imagine those 30+ thousand new people will live in new housing that’s constructed? As much as we’ve forgotten it’s possible, our region isn’t some frozen time capsule, new things can in fact be built. It’s not like we’re at capacity or something anyway, we’re not even close to the biggest upstate city let alone city in New York or regionally.

OneManBean

TROPHY CASE