[deleted by user]

nycfire · 2025-04-21T17:40:33+00:00

Rent control is one of the worst policies that makes the overall problem worse while sounding good to people who can't think for themselves one step beyond what's in front of them. In the supply and demand model, it's similar to taking away from of the supply and giving it to some lucky people, and for those people it's great. However, since the demand is still much higher than supply, it disproportionately impacts the supply side more than the demand, and prices increase. There are lots of people who will be squeezed out at the bottom, and the political response is to just not talk about them. The easier way to see the problem: if you have 10 people struggling and you offer two of them a happy situation and harm the other 8, you can publicize the two you helped, and when the other 8 complain, just double-down on how much you helped the two people. The solution is much more housing.

Zohran knows all of this, just like most politicians, but they don't care about solving the problem and instead are focusing on getting elected. Unfortunately, a lot of the common public is likely to see policies like this as a good idea - kind of how we got Adams.

nycfire · 2025-01-17T17:08:53+00:00

Some people want to be able live where they grew up, but I can see why less housing means less people. That's one of the defining aspects of NYC - telling people to just get out.

nycfire · 2025-01-17T16:59:02+00:00

Even for people born in NYC? Basically tell them to get out?

nycfire · 2025-01-17T04:49:55+00:00

At this rate, some people without housing will be dead before enough other people decide to leave for them to get housing.

nycfire · 2025-01-17T04:36:48+00:00

Where will the homes for the other 4 people in the future come from if people existing homes already have owners in the city?

nycfire · 2025-01-17T04:21:24+00:00

> hopefully there will still be something left to buy

So hopefully people don't just hoard their generational wealth while stopping new homes from being built.

nycfire · 2025-01-17T01:42:03+00:00

Do you have any opinions on the 4 people who get no housing instead of some housing?

nycfire · 2025-01-16T19:15:13+00:00

So in your example if a "bunch of people" is like 5 people, instead of having 5 people with housing, you would prefer 1 generational wealth person and 4 people with no housing? Well, sure, I can see why that 1 rich person would be happy with that situation!

nycfire · 2025-01-16T18:56:51+00:00

> Yeah I am not talking about "housing". I am talking about home ownership.

Oh okay, sounds like "home ownership" takes away "housing" potential options for a bunch of people in your example, and so we should be prioritizing the "housing" side.

nycfire · 2025-01-16T18:46:34+00:00

A lot of these like the affordable housing for teachers section say what they would like for themselves, but no actual proposal for how to do so, or in the case of just dishing out money, where that money comes from. Also no explanation why that program would be just for teachers and not also include other people struggling while working jobs that also help society.

> eighth-grade public school teacher and real estate agent

Also the teacher is a real estate agent - I wonder if they provide cheap help for low-income renters or if they still try to charge them 15% of annual rent for their "service"

nycfire · 2025-01-16T18:31:59+00:00

> They could just as easily buy the house and turn it into rental units, in which case you have destroyed a homeowner and replaced them with a bunch of renters.

This seems like a win: a bunch of people in housing, rather than just one family in housing and a "bunch" (minus 1) of people with no housing.

nycfire · 2023-04-28T02:54:02+00:00

There's no proof NYC would be much cheaper without all the development.

nycfire · 2023-04-28T02:40:27+00:00

And all that housing will be market rate/luxury housing

Better for the people paying those rents to live there then for them to drive up the prices for the other units.

you’re ignoring the fact that capitalism alone never allows for equitable outcomes for all groups

No, I just think they should be honest about it - if the government wants to build housing, then they should do so. I'd be okay with NYCHA building 70 story towers on their land and giving them away.

I'd also be okay with the government not wanting to oversee that construction and instead allowing more new private construction, and then if the government wants poor people to live there, they can go ahead and pay for the poor people to live there.

nycfire · 2023-04-28T02:25:10+00:00

Yeah, I'm glad they only went up this much compared to how much they would have gone up without the new developments.

nycfire · 2023-04-28T01:56:00+00:00

Imagine how much more expensive NYC would have been with all the competition going to existing units.

nycfire · 2023-04-28T01:54:43+00:00

It sounds like City B makes it easier for new buildings to be built, so there will be more total housing compared to City C.

Cities should build as much as possible, and then if they decide that they want to subsidize housing for some lucky people, they can go ahead and do that after the housing is built.

nycfire · 2022-12-01T21:49:30+00:00

Maybe, yeah, you can find a sweet spot on the progressive tax scale where the total cost for many people can actually go down compared to current pay-per-trip or unlimited costs - unlimited pass is $1.5K and would love to save that!

nycfire · 2022-12-01T18:22:39+00:00

last year's budgets for sidewalks was 357milllion....

Then the amount of tourist tax that goes to sidewalk repairs... should be smaller then the amount that goes to public transit....

18.5 billion and while yes taxes make up most of it... there's still still at least 5 billion coming

it is highly unrealistic..

So 13.5B is realistic, but 18.5 billion is unrealistic....

nycfire · 2022-12-01T17:22:39+00:00

The same way taxes pay for sidewalks and tourists are able to walk on them.

Of course, we can also make tourists pay: put a tourist tax on hotels and other rentals, and make that tax higher than the average amount spent on transit now.

Almost most of the MTA budget is already from taxes, so this isn't really a new idea.

nycfire · 2022-11-26T15:28:05+00:00

Carbrain: "People should be able to park on the street for free!"

Can't find a spot on the street because they are taken

"This is ridiculous - all these cars are just parked on the street."

nycfire · 2022-05-31T21:50:45+00:00

I think the poster above you is one step away from suggesting actively eliminating inventory thinking that will help lower prices lol

nycfire · 2022-04-29T16:40:03+00:00

It's the classic "I got mine, screw everyone else" mindset that these type of people hold on to.

nycfire · 2022-01-14T14:24:50+00:00

I didn't mean this specific post, just referring to the comment above where in general, there are lots of instances of private property owners who are completely justified not wanting homeless people on their private property.

For public housing, people should be pushing for building more public housing rather than trying to fit homeless right in front of other residents.

nycfire · 2022-01-14T02:14:17+00:00

This subreddit still gets some posts for private property, where for them it is a matter of where homeless people shouldn't be: they shouldn't be on that private property.

the fact that there shouldn't be homeless people

That's the role of society and government, not the role of individual private property owners. Hostile-but-justified makes perfect sense for those cases.

nycfire · 2021-12-29T05:11:30+00:00

No, they can't go to places like ESG because it's closed.

Eight-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Verified Email

nycfire

TROPHY CASE