TarumK

TarumK t1_j88xmoc wrote

This is the most negative framing of a new development I've ever seen. Were Staten Island and North Jersey also snubbed? I mean come on, if they actually build this it's gonna be the first time in decades a major train line got built this.

88

TarumK t1_j7zb1ux wrote

I think you're confusing stabilized and controlled. A huge fraction of the buildings in NY are stabilized b default. If you rent a stabilized building now you're gonna pay market rate, and the rent's gonna go up 3/4 percent annually. In a couple years you'll probably be below market, but not that far below market. It's really only gonna be way below market if you've been there 20 years. But it's not hard to get at all.

1

TarumK t1_j7zakvs wrote

These headlines are clickbait. The vast majority of Ny'ers aren't paying this. This is the median of new leases signed in Manhattan. Most people have been in their apts a while and most people don't live in Manhattan. I pay 2k per month and live alone in Brooklyn.

I'm not saying this carries no information value but what it says is mostly about newer high end buildings in Manhattan.

8

TarumK t1_iu0rj59 wrote

I don't know what immigrant friendly means. Most of the people coming from Venezuela are clearly economic migrants not political refugees. The liberal position on this is very hypocritical. Is the idea that America should take in unlimited immigrants? If so why are we making them go through all the trouble of an incredibly dangerous route through gangland and the desert? Why not just sell them plane tickets from their home countries? There's no coherent position there at all. No matter how restrictive or open immigration policy is, most people who would like to come to America are never gonna be able to come to America.

28