You're being down-voted because the right-wingers in this sub don't want anyone seeing that their constant chanting of "we're not racist, we just can't afford it" is a load of nonsense.

Um, no, not when you know you're buying a rent-regulated property and happy to accept the tax breaks that come with it.

You and yours are just so used to getting the benefit and then having the lobbying power to change the terms in your favor that actually having to abide by your legal agreements feels like theft to you.

Regardless.of whether you believe this or don't, it doesn't change the fact that this was a system the landlords knew full well existed and in most cases voluntarily opted into; nothing was stolen from them.

Lord, all you have to do is look at this sub to figure that out.

Ok, but that still doesn't explain how they were using this as a basis to broadly challenge the notion of regulation in and of itself. This is a system they bought into--anyone with basic common sense understands that if you opt into a regulated system that the terms of the regulation are subject to change. I work in pharmaceutical advertising, a highly regulated industry. If the FDA narrows the scope of advertising the pharma companies don't get to say, "Regulation is theft" decades after having agreed to participate.

Let us not forget that the regulation has been changed MANY times, over MANY years, and almost uniformly to the benefit of the landlord lobby up until this point. THAT was OK by them, right? But it went the other way this time and suddenly "regulation is illegal!"

Can someone explain to me, as a layman, what exactly the landlord lobby was claiming? I don't understand how landlords who opted to buy property that was regulated, knowing it was regulated, and, in many cases, receiving breaks because it was regulated, can claim a "taking" here? Or are these all nonagenarian landlords who are claiming regulation was forcibly imposed on them without a choice?

What is the over/under on the first time the escalator is closed for maintenance?

I have no idea why you're being down-voted when it's well-known by a actual bike riders that Citibikes are shitty and poorly maintained. Hell, other people are saying exactly the same thing down thread and they aren't getting this.

If the MTA does not want people (including people with heavy suitcases/bags, bikes, mobility aids, etc) to use the convenient, practical doors, then the MTA should work out a way to separate incoming and out coming turnstiles. Those of us who are older and have physical challenges don't need to get into games of chicken with narcissists who don't bother to look at whether someone is coming the other way or not.

I'm also (basically) invisibly disabled (although if anyone ever paid attention to strangers it's not all that invisible when you see my gait, etc). I have been physically injured by people who refuse to yield right of way on turnstiles so I always use the doors when I can. Now I can look forward to Rent-a-Robocop yelling at me to comply, I guess.

Predictably, the Post readership is evenly divided between "nothing wrong with this, woke liberals don't believe in punishment" and "this is because of the Democratic mayor being corrupt."

Roz Chast was born and raised in Brooklyn, is a famous cartoonist, and a nice lady.

I'm waiting for the moment he swallows a live rat on television and starts peeling off his outer skin layer.

Better at it than you, since, unlike you, I'm aware that: 1.There are 50 countries on the African continent, 2. 15 of them have >50% of their population living at poverty levels and 3. How numbers work, how geography works, and what the word "most" means, bigoted troll.

"You do realize that most people in Africa can barely afford food right?" Aaaaaaand, that's where I stopped reading.

Wow, either a very bad troll or a very good simpleton.

Actual children who require a stroller should absolutely stays strapped in a stroller and we should accommodate that.

That said, as a disabled and middle aged person I am routinely baffled by adults who think their able bodied children are more in need of a seat than actual adults who have experienced gravity for decades so it's hard for me to be completely empathetic to the struggles of people who spend more on their strollers than I ever have on any mode of adult transportation.

I think the second paragraph is most pertinent here. The reason we can't have nice things is because this city is overrun with entitled, overprivileged people. If it weren't for the fact that every inch given in this city is interpreted as a mile by the self-absorbed and clueless, things like this might have happened years ago.

And did you read the part that says "...Gamal purchased the building for $61.5 million and inherited the synagogue’s lease agreement."? 99 years has not passed. What part of this is failing to get through to you?

They can't. The lease hasn't expired. Did you read the article?

Most, if not all, leases dictate what future owners can do. A lease is a legal contract between two parties, one party can't just unilaterally nullify it, even by selling. If I were to buy an apartment building tomorrow I would be inheriting the former owner's lease agreements and would either have to abide by them or buy the other parties out (or mutually agree to new terms). It's no different in a commercial sphere.

Do you seriously think a person can just get out of a contract by selling a property? That would basically just open the door to any landlord being able to nullify leases by selling to another shell company they had an interest in. It makes a mockery of the whole concept of a legally binding agreement.

My experience is that their incentive for customers to come in often leads to them making a path from the street directly to their door and screw anyone who is a pedestrian and actually just wants to walk past the building.

The number of people defending chain stores is weird. Considering the number of times I've seen elderly people almost face plant in front of the Banana Republic outlet near me (and the fact that I have TRIED the polite route with these people only to be told, "Yeah, we were supposed to have someone come in but they didn't" with a shrug) and the fact that by the time 311 gets someone out there there's a fifty/fifty shot the ice has already melted, I honestly can't find it in my heart to bitch about disproportionate punishment or whatever ideological thing is getting people's jockeys ib a twist.

If if you want an idea of what you're getting when you deal with a "host" just lurk at the subs for AirBnB and AirBnB hosts where the posts are fairly evenly divided among 1. "I'm a host and everyone who says it's gone downhill is a paid shill for the hotel industry," 2. "I'm a host and I hate the people who stay at my place because they make me work after they're gone," and 3. "I'm a 'host' who owns 30+ rental properties but seriously I'm just a little guy trying to get ahead," with the rest of them being people sharing why they will never use the service again (me included--when it was a side gig for people I was happy to throw some money their way and save a buck but now it's "their business" and "their business" only exists because the business model is to skirt common sense regulations, break laws, and exploit people).

Nothing turns you against an enterprise faster than watching unfiltered people whining about how hard their lives are when they do nothing but utilize the extra capital they have to "invest" in hoarded housing stock and pay non-union housekeepers. They're neck-and-neck with the r/landlords sub when it comes to clueless people who don't seem to understand that people can read what they write when they tell on themselves.

Of course, the article is also useful for the comments, because, predictably, the Post readership understands nothing other than "liberuls did it so they must be taking away muh liberties."