Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

jgalt5042 t1_je205kf wrote

Ok? Pay rent then…

54

senteroa t1_je3h1t9 wrote

what will you do when the people get fed up with your greedy ways? run, hide, or beg for forgiveness?

−24

jgalt5042 t1_je4rj84 wrote

What is greedy? Paying rent? Should it be free?

8

Cascando-5273 t1_je4thkj wrote

Not free, of course. At the same time, everyone deserves a safe, decent and clean place to live, and government should ensure that the right to housing is guaranteed.

If that means that the city pays for housing for the poor and indigent, so be it. In fact, the city saves approximately $1000 per person per month by moving people out of shelters and into apartments. Unless you want to abolish the shelter system, everybody wins by putting the formerly homeless into rental units.

Caveat emptor: I am a former homeless person whose rent is paid for by the city. I would like to work, but ageism prevents me from getting a job which pays decently and utilizes my experience and education. By paying for my apartment, I have dignity and privacy, and the city saves $12,000 annually.

−7

Sirrplz t1_je4teka wrote

Probably press charges before you and your angry mob attack another person unrelated to your cause

1

Tinkiegrrl_825 t1_je33pif wrote

There’s got to be some solution. This isn’t just about the homeless. People vital to keeping the city running are being priced out of the city. Teachers, cops, fire fighters, EMT workers, you name it. All the cashiers in all the stores.. think they can afford to live here? I work full time and I have a side hustle and I can only afford to be here because I’m renting from a family friend. I knew someone. That’s all. I hear all the arguments against Good Cause Eviction protections but then, how will this city run if all the people who run it can no longer be here?

23

Substantial_Bend_580 t1_je367ij wrote

It won’t be ran at all. All the working class people are retiring or cannot afford to live here anymore. City hates us

13

grizybaer t1_je3p9c3 wrote

Tenant and eviction protections raise the costs to landlords, which will trickle down to tenants in increased rent.

This increased cost more heavily burdens small landlords, who eventually sell to larger landlords who can operate and have the advantage of scale and better lawyers

10

Tinkiegrrl_825 t1_je4cuf7 wrote

Those larger landlords and corporations are buying up properties around the country. Not just here where there are some protections.

5

grizybaer t1_je4m3ag wrote

Its more of a problem in lower cost of living areas with lower costs to buy.

In higher cost of living areas, higher home prices mean lower rates of return.

When comparing Boston vs NYC, home prices are 7% more in NYC but rents are 40% higher in NYC

0

Tinkiegrrl_825 t1_je4mn6n wrote

So what’s the solution? Lift all the protections, let the city crumble a bit because the people who run it can’t afford to be here, wait years for it to become less desirable over it?

3

supermechace t1_je5dj9g wrote

I have a theory that much of current American capitalism is finding ways to shift costs(including labor and time) to someone else. I would say current crisis has been brewing partly because employers were able to get away with low salaries and benefits for a long time. The resulting consequences of people being priced out causing homelessness was shifted to tax payers to pay for homeless shelters. NYC politicians talk a lot about affordable housing but ultimately fail to enact anything and keep leaning on private sector solutions because they're backed by real estate industry yet propped up by property tax revenue. Unfortunately in this musical chairs of shifting responsibility and costs it's hard to see a solution. If govt services collapse the govt might resort to outsourcing complete depts

1

grizybaer t1_je60y9q wrote

Not mentioning a solution but a deeper dive into unintended consequences.

NYC and Boston are large cities. As far as I know, there were fewer tenant protections enacted in Boston and overall, rent has not increased as quickly.

More protections seem to protect bad actors and also has a disproportionate impact on smaller owners who cant absorb the costs.

Small owners leaving the market seems to create a larger problem of consolidated ownership/ fewer players, which leads to higher rent .

If my logic is wrong please let me know. Property in NYC is expensive and renting your property carries risk. Having tenants who refuse to pay rent can easily push owners into foreclosure

1

NetQuarterLatte t1_je805gb wrote

The solution is to build more housing (we need to build a heck more to make a difference), so that there’s no scarcity premium and everyone can pay market rates when renting or buying their own house.

Tenants should ideally be the short term only. Anyone who wants long term housing security should ideally own their own home: the ultimate solution.

But again, for that to be possible, we need a lot more housing supply.

You nailed the reason why we have this legacy of artificially lower cost housing: to subsidize artificially cheap labor.

Such legacy goes back in history when employers would directly provide housing to their employees, and obviously that would come with even lower wages, or even “free labor”.

In reality, the multiplicative gains of a high density economy should allow even low skilled work to be paid a lot more compared to a lowers density location. But the distortion in the housing market basically perpetuates a distortion in the labor market.

3

Sirrplz t1_je4txfe wrote

Hell, even affordable housing in some places will be like 2800 for people making 120k. At first you think it’s absurd until you realize dude next to you is paying 5k for the same layout

2

Tinkiegrrl_825 t1_je4ub1r wrote

There will be no one left to teach kids, remove garbage, police the streets, drive the ambulances, busses, etc at this rate. What, are we all supposed to move 2 hrs upstate and commute? Everyone? Who wants to do that?

2

supermechace t1_je5iatq wrote

The govt will just outsource everything and will wind up paying more than if they had offered competitive wages

1

Tinkiegrrl_825 t1_je6g9ol wrote

For government jobs, but what about the guy that makes you lunch at the office? They’ll need to make 6 figures to live here

1

supermechace t1_je6p9p0 wrote

I think six figures is a bit of an exaggeration as theres more affordable housing (or arrangements like room mates )further out from Manhattan. But big corps can find ways to fill the void like packaged food prepared off site or in ghost kitchens. McDonald's is researching robotics and already has self serve kiosks

0

Frequent-Shape6950 t1_je808bv wrote

>I think six figures is a bit of an exaggeration

My friend pays his nanny $90,000/yr.

1

supermechace t1_je8bffz wrote

Does he provide healthcare? If no healthcare I would say her actual take home is $78k and that's not counting if he provides retirement match plan, though if he pays under the table then that's better than if you're making 120k

1

Frequent-Shape6950 t1_jeakd0a wrote

Good question. I'll ask next time he brings it up. He is a longtime close friend but makes 40x my income so I don't want to be nosy.

The point is, in 2023 NYC "six-figures" doesn't mean what it used to.

1

supermechace t1_jeasjfi wrote

Oh definitely but in the framework of the article it doesn't mean you can't find a place to live in NY, just that it gets you a lot less. For those that make much less it's much harder to get by much less get ahead.

1

MarbleFox_ t1_jefw469 wrote

Why should someone have to commute to Manhattan just work a job that doesn’t pay them enough to live in Manhattan?

1

supermechace t1_jeg6huj wrote

This particular scenario would be up to the person whether through demanding better pay, quitting, or unionize. I think the bigger issue is long term NYC residents being pushed out of their neighborhoods. In a capitalist society that's hard to prevent but ideally people would profit from the sales of their homes and use it to move to lower costs areas appropriate for them and their fiances. Unfortunately the answer for that in many cases is outside NYC like Florida.

1

Type_suspect t1_je69yzr wrote

About a million people leaving the city probably. But more seem to want to come than are leaving. Growth cant be infinite we can’t build one million more apartments. Maybe The city is going to get harder to deal with the policies liberal or conservative and costs etc that might be the catalyst to get ppl to give up and leave. Cause some economic and social despair which hopefully leads to a correction. then we head back into ppl wanting to live here and everything increases.

1

NetQuarterLatte t1_je7vmhr wrote

Some may consider that having a place to live is a human right. And reasonable people may have a reasonable debate about that.

But it takes a very narrow worldview and ideology to believe that having a place to live in one of the most expensive cities in the world should be a human right.

4

supermechace t1_je9d2tz wrote

It's not as black and white as that, as NYC used to have a range of housing at affordable price points relative to your position, giving a lot of immigrants their head start. But the acceleration of people being priced out of the neighborhoods and communities they grew up occured while wages were pushed down. Overall homeownership in America is low thanks to the govt bailing out in 08 the very wall street companies that caused the crash instead of the builders and mortgage companies supporting lower income ranges. So now you've got NYC families being pushed out. A bigger issue for families on the lower income scale as picking up and moving to low cost states to compete with existing residents for low skill jobs is probably not practical. NY govt fails to do any long term planning and relies on "private sector" leadership which means no one will build low cost housing unless they make a lot of money. Affordable housing solution is to sprawl out to surrounding areas but that was already done with NYCers moving to NJ and transit infrastructure built. Now there's little political will for the effort to sprawl upstate.

2

MarbleFox_ t1_jefxa6e wrote

The lack of housing and development is why NYC is one of the most expensive cities in the world.

If we treated housing as a right (as we should) and actually built housing then NYC wouldn’t be so expensive.

2

[deleted] t1_je337il wrote

[removed]

−2

senteroa t1_je3h769 wrote

And they really think downvoting can hide the truth of your statement. Old coots.

3

Cascando-5273 t1_je4si8b wrote

I agree with you and the person you're responding to, even if I am an old coot! ✌️ Just because I'm in my 60s doesn't mean I've lost my commitment to others'wellbeing; quite the opposite, actually. I face enough ageism and stereotyping - please remember that not all of us are gray haired greedheads. 🙂

2

jaazzzw t1_je56ehu wrote

So glad to hear☺️ you guys are definitely out there and making your presence known.

2

Cascando-5273 t1_je5716l wrote

Thanks..I just get a little touchy sometimes - I've always been aware that ageism is one of the generally acceptable prejudices, and hated it even when I was in my 20s. ✌️

2

jaazzzw t1_je55sj1 wrote

Completely agreed. I am fine debating the solution, but firstly we have to agree that eviction or even the threat of eviction is soul crashing. We have to have empathy for our neighbors

1

LOVE2FUKWITHPP t1_je0mggz wrote

I don’t think it’s fare land lords can just ride rents by more then 500 at a time

−37

Substantial_Bend_580 t1_je364rl wrote

Try telling that to bootstraps Reddit. They all think NYers have been rich/well off salaried $60K+ workers when in reality most of New York’s working class is barley doing $50K. Rents randomly going up thousands & our city giving development funds to private developers putting luxury housing in poor neighborhoods. NY is fucked

3

natekrinsky OP t1_je09c5e wrote

>But after their leases expired, the landlord did not give the tenants the option to renew their agreements and rents went up by about $700, residents said. The landlord, 67 Pitt Realty LLC, filed to evict all 11 residents in January after residents stopped paying rent. The residents now say they are at risk of returning to shelters, pointing to gaps in the city's safety net programs and tenant protections.

This is why we need Good Cause Eviction protections. Please use this link to urge your elected representatives to support the bill: https://housingjusticeforall.org/our-platform/good-cause/

−38

bittoxic00 t1_je26yr5 wrote

They didn’t like the increase so they decided to stop paying entirely? Great way to be evicted

40

natekrinsky OP t1_je27f5z wrote

The article states that he stopped paying rent after the termination notice, not before.

−14

bittoxic00 t1_je28zdb wrote

Why pay nothing? Out of protest?

They were given 1 years of paid rent for free, a $1,500 on the LES.

A private one bedroom for fifteen hundred. Show me a one bedroom in the LES right now and I’ll move right in

22

natekrinsky OP t1_je29b8e wrote

It's standard to not pay rent if you're going through an eviction case. If you're able to stay you pay back what you owe.

−15

bittoxic00 t1_je2aem1 wrote

If you plan on not staying and being evicted with a judgement along with an eviction on your record, by all means pocket that money and move on. If you hope to stay and would like to withhold money for reasons because of conditions that money has to be deposited in a separate account. They’re just setting themselves up for failure IMO

5

JE163 t1_je0g1tl wrote

This will not work as long as there is no cap in place for expenses like utilities and property taxes. This will kill smaller home owners and reduce available apartments for rent thus allowing corporations to further hike prices.

28

woman_thorned t1_je0tbvh wrote

That's already happening.

17

ShadownetZero t1_je1tklg wrote

Therefore it cant get worse?

5

woman_thorned t1_je1u1sd wrote

Therefore it is reason for more regulation, not less.

I'm sorry it's hard for you to grasp that the solution to "big corporations will buy up properties" is to regulate those big corporations, not to let small landlords continue to exploit.

2

JE163 t1_je35aq8 wrote

Allow exceptions for the small home owners and I’d be more for it

1

Chewwy987 t1_je0dwys wrote

Even if offered there’s probably other reasons why the landlord wants them out and won’t offer them a leases

7

natekrinsky OP t1_je0ptkz wrote

Sure there could be reasons that landlords don't want to offer a renewal lease. The most obvious one is they think they could get more money from someone else. But a tenant's ability to stay in their homes is more important than a landlord's ability to make more money. I'm sure some people here would disagree with that but I think it's common sense that the human need of New York's 5.6 million renters should be prioritized over the business interests of relatively few landlords, the vast majority of which are corporate entities.

−12

movingtobay2019 t1_je1jxif wrote

Since when did living in NYC become a right?

But that's besides the point. You are too focused on the needs of one group of people.

What happens when there are no price signals in the market? Who determines where who lives? The corrupt NYC government?

What happens when capital flows out of real estate and no one builds anymore because you capped rental increases? Where are new people coming to the city going to live?

What happens when you limit rent increases to the point it doesn't cover taxes, utilities, or maintenance? What, LLs just going to eat the loss? Print money in their basement?

There are so many factors and stakeholders that advocates like you gloss over.

31

Xxx_chicken_xxx t1_je3bj50 wrote

Price signals of the market. Give me a break. Landlord corporations are colluding to drive the prices up and keep the stock off the market

−6

Chewwy987 t1_je1p1fi wrote

If you were not paid to for doing your job would you still do it same concept. Can’t run a building without money to run it. They don’t have to be homeless they can move upstate where land is cheap. They are choosing to stay and do the landlord is choosing to increase the rent simple as that. You are always welcome to share your home with the homeless if you are so concerned about them.

8

ShadownetZero t1_je1tmn8 wrote

> The most obvious one is they think they could get more money from someone else.

And that's the only reason needed. :)

4

mehkindaok t1_je2uta0 wrote

Say, can I have your $30,000 car for $1,000? I know you can get more money from someone else but my ability to get a cheap car is more important than your ability to get more money!

1

ShadownetZero t1_je1tiw3 wrote

No thanks. The city can pay if they want to expand rent stabilization.

1

Bubbly_Experience694 t1_je1eris wrote

People downvoting cannot tell me that they genuinely care about homelessness.

−12

movingtobay2019 t1_je1l919 wrote

Solving homelessness doesn't have to involve housing them in the most fucking expensive piece of real estate in the country.

It's people like you who care less about homelessness and just want to stick it to people who are better off than you.

I'd easily support a bill where NYC raised my taxes to house homeless upstate where land is cheaper and get them in programs to help them integrate back in society. But not this shit.

17

Bubbly_Experience694 t1_je1lrke wrote

Solving homelessness has to involve housing the homeless.

1

movingtobay2019 t1_je1nwp7 wrote

Agreed.

But said housing does not have to be in the most expensive city in the world. You can house way more people up state and provide more services for the same budget.

There is literally no reason to house them in NYC. They are from NYC? Beggars can't be choosers - otherwise you introduce perverse incentives.

8

Bubbly_Experience694 t1_je1oqez wrote

Look, man… I’m willing to meet you halfway as long as we agree that the only solution to this problem is to provide government subsidized permanent housing to the homeless. I just don’t believe in rounding them up like cattle and shipping them off. That this city is expensive (though not even the most expensive in the country) is the result of very deliberate policy decisions as opposed to some law of nature.

0

movingtobay2019 t1_je1rynh wrote

> result of very deliberate policy decisions as opposed to some law of nature.

I have no problem with telling NIMBYs to go fuck themselves as I'd also benefit more housing and lower rent, but demand will always outstrip supply in a highly desired city like NYC. You simply can't build out of it. Someone will ALWAYS be priced out or homeless in NYC. So housing shortages in highly desired cities are laws of nature. Otherwise, they wouldn't be highly desired cities. People compete globally to live in NYC.

>I just don’t believe in rounding them up like cattle and shipping them off.

Do you have a better idea? Because any idea that involves providing nice government housing for free to the homeless is politically DOA. Look at how unpopular housing migrants in hotels are.

>only solution to this problem is to provide government subsidized permanent housing

Depends on where and how it is implemented. There needs to be checks and balances to ensure they have the resources to get back on their feet and not pull the rug before they have the opportunity to do so. But also so that we don't have a permanent class of people reliant on tax dollars. I am sure we can all agree on that.

6

ShadownetZero t1_je1ts1q wrote

People arguing in favor of "good cause eviction" cannot tell me that they genuinely care about the housing problem.

4

TizonaBlu t1_je6hxpt wrote

I care in that I want them gone.

2

Bubbly_Experience694 t1_je6iui6 wrote

I get it. So it’s not that there are human beings without homes, it’s that you must deign to have to look at them. So how do we solve that? Concentration camps? What about mass execution? I’m genuinely curious how you suggest we solve the issue of you having to live in general proximity to abject poverty?

0

TizonaBlu t1_je6l18c wrote

The how doesn’t matter to me, I speak for most people in NYC, we just want them gone. Good thing I’m not a politicians, so it’s not my job to provide solutions. All we can do is to vote out politicians and who can’t deal with the issue and keep trying.

3

Bubbly_Experience694 t1_je6l5t9 wrote

Well if we gave them homes, you wouldn’t have to deal with them.

0

TizonaBlu t1_je6lk51 wrote

Sure. Give them homes, incarcerate them, ship them to Texas, I don’t care, just get rid of them.

3