Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

natekrinsky OP t1_jbejjoe wrote

Reply to comment by Airhostnyc in With an absentee corporate landlord, Upper Manhattan tenants unite to demand repairs by natekrinsky

It's a great example of how the profit motive doesn't guarantee stable housing for tenants.

8

ChrisFromLongIsland t1_jbf4qy5 wrote

Well when things are so bad that the artificially controlled rents don't cover the building costs it's hardly the profit motive.

Though there are plenty of situations where buildings were basically worthless and not worth keeping up. There were many examples in American cities in the 70s and 80s. Or go on abandoned porn on reddit.

9

Airhostnyc t1_jbeksbw wrote

Yes when the government tinkles with the laws to prevent reasonable profit and incentives, that happened. The MCI improvements are trash. Who is going to invest 20k and it takes 15 years to see that investment back. Putting 20k in the stock market will reap better rewards. Then add that these buildings won’t increase in value due to said laws. More and more you are going to hear about these buildings breaking down, they are old and require a lot of maintenance/repairs.

Even if you convert these buildings to condo’s/co-ops, how exactly will tenants used to paying $600 to $1200 a month. Take care of property taxes, maintenance and a loan? All these buildings will end up being the government’s problem aka taxpayers. As complaints start to roll in again.

Just look at any co-op/condo maintenance fees on old buildings…it’s a reason the condo board makes sure applicants are financially stable to take on ownership. You skip over that crucial part and over a few years…things will blow up.

Inflation is real, cost of goods/labor is real. These things don’t stay the same for life.

3

Louis_Farizee t1_jbevp05 wrote

Tinkers. Tinkling with the law is something different.

−1

vine-el t1_jbfe20k wrote

With the leak in my apartment's ceiling, it definitely feels like they're tinkling.

2

movingtobay2019 t1_jbgsxvi wrote

You have it backwards. The fact this has 4 upvotes as of this writing shows how fucked our education is.

Properties making money don't get abandoned. It got abandoned because writing it off is a win compared to operating it.

−4

natekrinsky OP t1_jbh0kgu wrote

What I'm saying is a housing system driven by the pursuit of profit would rather abandon apartments than maintain them. If we had a more humane economic system that prioritized the human need for housing above profit those properties would not be left in disrepair.

4

movingtobay2019 t1_jbh28nv wrote

You can't maintain apartments with feelings. Eventually, budgetary reality kicks in.

Or really run anything in the city, as NYC is finding out with the migrant situation.

So who in this case pays the funds to maintain the apartment? The owners have abandoned it. So I am fine if it gets sold to the current tenants for free. You think the tenants have the money to maintain it? Because I sure as hell am not using city funds to maintain private housing.

The money has to come from somewhere. So where does it come from here?

−1