Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

PKMKII t1_j6no2ue wrote

I’m all for adding more housing but it needs to be done in a way that ensures truly affordable and supportive housing, not the City and State burning through tax dollars just to have it handed over to private landlords reaping inflated rents off that public investment.

8

markbass69420 t1_j6nqz0b wrote

>I’m all for adding more housing

>but

least surprising housing comment

59

Status_Fox_1474 t1_j6nsk1f wrote

He's not wrong. There needs to be some mechanism to ensure that all housing stock is developed -- that the market actually works.

Currently, a housing unit that's built but not rented out can still accrue some tax benefits by sitting empty -- more than having it sell at a rate too low.

9

markbass69420 t1_j6nteuj wrote

>He's not wrong.

Nah, it's absolutely wrong. Wringing hands and worrying about the "buts" and vaguely gesturing at "affordability" are exactly the kind of nimbyism that cause the current shortages we have now. You don't even have to look far - blocking an apartment complex in Harlem because of "affordability" instead got us a truck depot. How many affordable units are in a truck depot?

>Currently, a housing unit that's built but not rented out can still accrue some tax benefits by sitting empty

Nah, this is some braindead Twitter shit.

34

Status_Fox_1474 t1_j6nyj2y wrote

It was the city that didn't let the Harlem project get built. I think they all should get built. Upzone everywhere. And then have a vacancy tax.

7

PKMKII t1_j6nygu3 wrote

So if the City develops these unused properties, turns them into housing, but doesn’t sell them off to the highest bidder, just collects modest rents from the tenants, you’re okay with that?

5

markbass69420 t1_j6ogzia wrote

What are you even asking me? If I'm ok with the concept of rental properties existing in Manhattan?

10

PKMKII t1_j6oho9d wrote

If you’re okay with it being publicly owned rental properties.

2

jay5627 t1_j6oc3id wrote

As long as it doesn't turn into a shit-show like NYCHA, sure

9

Evening_Presence_927 t1_j6nu9ux wrote

Bullshit it is. Please show us where all the affordable housing is being built.

−1

Even_Acadia3085 t1_j6nwr9o wrote

It's being built in other cities! NYC has a lot of demand from rich people from around the world who want a place in New York. Us regular types have to make do with a patchwork of rent-controlled, public, market rate, and subsidized units that fall somewhere in between. It's a supply and demand problem where the supply is constrained by do-gooders who don't seem to realize that the perfect can be the enemy of the good. Manhattan will always have a high cost of land so it'll never be truly affordable but we could in some dream world once again build Potemkin Mitchell-Lama villages...but those aren't coming given the mood in Washington. The nimbys who SAY they want affordable housing are really working to doom it. They work to stop building anything which lowers supply and do nothing to reduce NYC's insanely high cost of labor (exacerbated by union rules) that makes building anything but luxury condos prohibitive.

15

Evening_Presence_927 t1_j6nxn5p wrote

It’s not even good, though. How come the poor are forced to fight for expensive scraps while the rich get the lion’s share of housing?

> They work to stop building anything which lowers supply and do nothing to reduce NYC's insanely high cost of labor (exacerbated by union rules) that makes building anything but luxury condos prohibitive.

Ah yes, if we only got rid of those pesky unions and treated the poor like the animals they are, everything would be fine.

Give me a fucking break.

−5

markbass69420 t1_j6nwxp7 wrote

I don't understand what point you're trying to make, and I don't think you do, either.

1

Evening_Presence_927 t1_j6nxe3v wrote

My point is you can’t just blanket throw out accusations of nimbyism at every critique of the city’s half-assed plan to expand housing. The housing market can’t sustain building only luxury apartments.

−3

markbass69420 t1_j6ogqnp wrote

>My point is you can’t just blanket throw out accusations of nimbyism at every critique of the city’s half-assed plan to expand housing

Then it's a shitty point.

>The housing market can’t sustain building only luxury apartments.

Lmao this is exactly why it's fine to call anyone who says "I like housing, but...." a nimby. Vaguely complaining about "affordability" and "luxury" is NIMBY 101. You're literally the problem.

3

Evening_Presence_927 t1_j6oqz3f wrote

> Then it's a shitty point.

Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s shitty.

> Lmao this is exactly why it's fine to call anyone who says "I like housing, but...." a nimby. Vaguely complaining about "affordability" and "luxury" is NIMBY 101. You're literally the problem.

No, you’re the problem, because you have no plan for keeping housing affordable.

−1

markbass69420 t1_j6p34y1 wrote

>Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s shitty.

You're right. I don't like it and it's a shitty point.

>you have no plan for keeping housing affordable.

Sure I do. I'm not the one adding a "but" at even the vague notion of building housing.

3

Sad-Principle3781 t1_j6oyhdp wrote

People always bring that harlem truck depot example, but those voters are voting rationally. They live and vote there, but they wouldn't get be able to afford the newly proposed apartments. What incentive would those voters have to support new construction. You need a new paradigm.

−1

markbass69420 t1_j6p3dfj wrote

Yes, you're right. Having zero housing built is definitely the solution. So rational, I love traffic congestion and asthma because I am rational.

7

TeamMisha t1_j6peten wrote

No one has any incentive to support any new construction. Everyone is out for themselves. But the city is bigger then you, bigger then me, bigger then any one opponent to development. There are too many council persons and people believing their district is their little fiefdom. "We agree we need housing, but not in our district, go build it somewhere else". That's why we're in this mess today. One45 in Harlem was going to be 50% below market units, you're living in la la land if you think a developer will do 100% below market units without government subsidies, that's just how it works. The big issue here is you and others are envisioning private developers operating supportive or basically fully subsidized housing projects, which is not how it works right now, and is a question for council and the mayor to figure out, whether through new 421a type legislation or an entirely new housing scheme. Private developers will not build unprofitable buildings, accept this and move on so we can start addressing the problem versus just vote no to every new building.

3