It only stands to benefit existing contracts. Similar to when Unions sellout future worker benefits in exchange for boosting existing worker benefits.

At the moment you are agreeing to borrow said space for X amount of time. The proposal seeks to extend existing contracts whether or not the lender agrees to lend said space. If you're saying that the lender has too much power in that dynamic then duh. They are the ones lending the property. If you're upset at the rates then blame the city for creating the situation.

IDC if they detest me. I know what the relationship is from the jump.

Why would LLs want to lease you an apartment with the proposed bill? They might as well just sell them as condos.

Is the city willing to buy and renovate it?

Isn't it saying "If RENT < EXPENSES, this is beneficial for the DOE."?

Shouldn't 'A' be greater than the other side of the equation(?)/expression(?) in order for the DOE to profit?

Those would fill out black on any US government form.

Everything also going bankrupt or investors choose not to take on that burden and the city is left trying to dig itself out of financial holes via taxes and such. Sounds shitty to me.

Wouldn't Dubai have greater amenities?

If you're shooting people for funsies you probably don't care about gun control laws.

Wasn't a fan of the toll hike either.

Just how poverty can be the cause of said symptoms it can also bet the result.

What percentage of society do you think uses delivery services enough to warrant society footing a bill for a QoL improvement?

Entitled to what? They are paying for the service.

Can't they rest at the park 2-3 blocks from there?

As long as they transfer proportionate maintenence costs over to the other commuters then all power to them.

Its good enough for a junior banker but not for an MTA executive?

I said with probable dedicated parking.

Seems more trustworthy than dropping it in the mailbox.

>>What else is our fucking tax money going to? Lazy cops standing by the ticket machines and stiles preventing jumpers?

Shouldn't they do both? Or should they lose money with both shit management/workforce and fare evasion?

Why would anyone in that salary range, probably with dedicated parking, want to take the subway? It's a worse experience overall.

You're right. I forgot that only ppl who inherit wealth are subject to the progressive tax bracket. In fact, the ppl who inherited their wealth are the majority of the people affected. It also doesn't affect ppl who get a second job/work overtime.

EDOT: Not to mention its none of your business if the target is not an overachiever.

How long would it take to recoup the costs of renovating a rent controlled apartment when accounting for monthly expenses?

I'm not denying that it happens, I just don't see it as a big deal. For that one street, each precinct, it's inconvenient at most. This isn't even exclusive to precincts, I see this shit outside of mechanics just as much.

>>Another way of putting this is, "they don't ask as much from small businesses because they know they can't afford it." Like, no shit. It's a fine on a business. It takes economies of scale into account.

Sure, if you ignore the current timeline it can be viewed as "not asking as much from small businesses". A disproportionate fine on a business for what exactly? They are not anymore responsible for keeping their storefront plowed than any other business.

>>I wonder what you think of progressive taxation. Actually, no I don't.

As you have correctly assumed, I don't think ppl should be taxed/penalized based on their levels of success. The government isn't responsible for anybody overachieving and is therefore not entitled to anything more than what any other citizen owes. People already get charged on earnings, sales, luxuries, property, etc. That should suffice to cover what transpires on the land being governed. If you're going to charge somebody more than you will another than that person should/better receive benefits matching/justifying their additional costs. However that's not to say that I'm against very basic social safety nets.