pixel_of_moral_decay t1_jcmaoml wrote

It’s also the data sources. Different real estate companies use different listing services to advertise units. Nobody is everywhere. Some even have exclusivity periods with certain services. There’s also landlords who only do by referral or advertise with a sign in the window.

And despite what many people think, there’s no official registry of available units, so any research on listed rent is going to have a lot of bias. Just depends what the researchers want to say.


pixel_of_moral_decay t1_jc6lpm6 wrote

Yea. It’s almost like they realized they don’t need a unified fleet and this is perfectly fine. They plan to use the double deckers on some lines where they are useful.

Meanwhile the subway has incompatible platforms for its entire existence and the system has cars that can’t run on other lines too… but Gothamist won’t be critiquing that too loudly.

It’s just a piece to complain that MTA dollars were used for LIRR rather than the subway.


pixel_of_moral_decay t1_jbv7v6g wrote

Taxes don’t disincentivize. That’s conservative fear mongering. It’s been shown again and again taxes don’t do that. There’s decades of data on this.

The whole premise of your argument is a flawed attempt to mask being cheap.


pixel_of_moral_decay t1_jbv5kob wrote

Right.., and the way they make good things is by taxing those with advantage and using it to expand those borders to incorporate more people. Not by letting the top couple percent hoard wealth and be exclusionary as you propose we continue.

Just admit it: you’re cheap and like benefitting off others even to the detriment of others.


pixel_of_moral_decay t1_jbuynv0 wrote

It’s not based on where you live. It’s based on you already have access to the system funded by others and now need to contribute your share not only for usage but expansion.

Reality is you’re mostly subsidized by those who fly, drive and purchase stuff that came in through the ports.

It’s not like you’re paying your own way. By living here you’re heavily subsidized, you just chose not to count it that way.

I’m merely suggesting a small reduction in that subsidy based on income. While you’re suggesting continuing to subsist on the backs of others.


pixel_of_moral_decay t1_jbu5mx2 wrote

Imagine one of the wealthiest parts of the wealthiest states needs to hoard money rather than expand public transit to change that.

Take one less planet killing flight a year and help add a bus line to someplace in the state without one.


pixel_of_moral_decay t1_jbrycxg wrote

City is going to need the feds to step in and allow conscription to fill the vacancies city and state departments are seeing.

FWIW this is a thing in many parts of the world, and technically US law doesn't limit it to military (IIRC congress must approve). So it is plausible.

I just don't see how the hell anyone could make the rational choice to work for the city at this point. You're way underpaid relative to work load, and there's no real career future for you. Benefits are going to continue to be cut. You need to really hate yourself to do it.


pixel_of_moral_decay t1_jbry2sd wrote

Hot take: If you live within 1 mile of light rail/rapid transit or 10 miles of heavy rail you should be taxed 1.5% of your income + capital gains.

Yea, richer you are, the more you should pay.

And 50% of that money should be dedicated towards transit outside of metro areas.


pixel_of_moral_decay t1_jbmc2r6 wrote

They aren’t telling you the full story. Year over year it’s about 20% from 2021 to 2022 from the budget I’ve seen for door staff in my building. And still short staffed because you make way more if you take a job across the river, and there’s a ton of openings there.

You should do the right/ethical thing and suggest they job hunt then, because they can do way better in this economy.


pixel_of_moral_decay t1_jbkk3xo wrote

It is when you realize minimum wage climbs each year in NJ (for another 2 years?), and unionization across the river made labor way more expensive here.

Newport buildings have concierge and porters maintaining them. Their wages had to go up about 20% if they kept up with the region. A bit more if it was someone they really wanted to retain.

And wages are likely ~40% of the operating budget for any luxury building that age.


pixel_of_moral_decay t1_jbfpcxe wrote

Financing requires either the board have assets and good credit or telling individuals to get their own line of credit (which requires the same).

This works with wealthier buildings where you’ve got that. But those buildings generally do that because it’s cheaper to take on a low interest loan the past decade than pay upfront and loose the investment opportunity. Same reason people take mortgages and pay the minimum, your return in the market is higher than the cost of the interest rate, so you can essentially profit off the loan.

If I can take a loan out for $50k at 3% (not hard until recently) I can keep my $50k I have in the market and keep earning 4-5%. 1-2% profit for taking a loan vs paying up front.

None of that really applies with a building of cash strapped people.


pixel_of_moral_decay t1_jbf1v2e wrote

The problem is enforcing, especially with a poorer population. Telling someone who makes < $100k, they owe $50k in the next 90 days or it’s going to get legal is not pretty, but the reality of this proposal.

$50k per unit doesn’t even go that far when you’re talking about a neglected building. Even well maintained buildings need a surprise $10-15k every now and then for random projects. $50k for a neglected building is hardly a crazy high number.

Current owners would just be subsidizing wealthier people/investors who would buy up the foreclosures while losing their savings in the process.

IMHO that’s predatory.


pixel_of_moral_decay t1_jbepp73 wrote

Problem is you need to have enough coop members with balls to sue those who can’t/won’t pay assessments as these buildings need substantial repairs. If you buy and can’t fork over $50k, you need neighbors who will sue, put a lien on the property and push until it’s sold to someone who can pay during foreclosure.

That’s the only way that model works, and I don’t think there’s enough people with the common sense to do it.

Condo’s and coops only work when you have a board who is willing to be tough.


pixel_of_moral_decay t1_jbdc7bj wrote

Excellent answer.

Only other thing I'd point out is something I think most of this thread is ignoring:

There's a difference between homeless and panhandler.

Homeless is someone who literally has no home. Identifiable by the fact they've basically got everything with them. The ones with a bunch of bags or shopping carts. Occupying the end of a subway car, or a whole bench surrounded by crap. Despite some of them looking like hoarders or offensive smells, that's hardly universal. Some look like tourists with a few suitcases. Groomed and everything.

There's also people who just panhandle. They might be on disability, social security, or live with family. They just need money for their vices. Gambling, alcohol, whatever. They generally will be dressed seasonably and not have belongings with them. They've got a place for them. They're just looking for spending money.

These are two distinct groups with different needs. NYC is especially more hospitable to panhandlers than NJ. Foot traffic and all. Much more tolerant, and much more opportunity.

I'd argue for most, NJ is slightly more hospitable to homeless. A ton of homeless people in NJ (and in much of the US) live in their car parking in places like Walmart, largely unnoticed. While hardly great, lets be honest it's safer than many shelters, and protects them from the elements. It also gives them some degree of privacy. I suspect that's the preferred route when possible in NJ for people who lose their home.


pixel_of_moral_decay t1_jbcyigf wrote

Airport or any cell phone store really. In many places (I think London is among them) you'll even find prepaid SIM's at the checkout at grocery stores like you'd find gift cards here.

If you're staying at a Hotel, they also can give some recs on where to find better priced packages. They get asked multiple times a day.


pixel_of_moral_decay t1_jb3e9l1 wrote

This was always a place to test technology they hoped to eventually sell as a service to merchants.

They don’t need it anymore, they have WholeFoods which can do the job.

What’s odd is how long they kept it going.

Amazon eventually wants a cut of every stores revenue by powering them the same way AWS powers so much of the internet.