Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rent collections are down in New York

politico.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–550 of 594 posts

Re: Rent collections are down in New York

#541

Post by lmm »

archagon wrote: post #341
lmm wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there are many "free protections" that are taken for granted at our stage of civilizational development. Should fire departments be privatized? Police? I'd argue that housing security is even more important than those. We bear the costs together so that our lives are collectively better. But we don't. Everyone who works in the city is paying the costs, while the lucky few who moved in decades ago are the only ones…

I moved to my city less than three years ago, not ten. I was not “lucky” to get my rent-controlled apartment: just had some foresight and was diligent in my search. My rent is high, but not as egregious as what the recent AI migrants are paying. (New upstairs neighbors are literally paying $2000/m more than we are for the same floor plan.) Thankfully, I have no fear of getting kicked out of my home due to a sudden re…

> New upstairs neighbors are literally paying $2000/m more than we are for the same floor plan.

> None of this seems egregious to me.

Enough said. I wonder if it would feel egregious if you were the one paying $2000/m more.

Re: Rent collections are down in New York

#542

Post by archagon »

lmm wrote: post #541
archagon wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I moved to my city less than three years ago, not ten. I was not “lucky” to get my rent-controlled apartment: just had some foresight and was diligent in my search. My rent is high, but not as egregious as what the recent AI migrants are paying. (New upstairs neighbors are literally paying $2000/m more than we are for the same floor plan.) Thankfully, I have no fear of getting kicked out of my home due to a sudden re…

> New upstairs neighbors are literally paying $2000/m more than we are for the same floor plan. > None of this seems egregious to me. Enough said. I wonder if it would feel egregious if you were the one paying $2000/m more.

My upstairs neighbors have very well-paying jobs that allow them to move to the city in the midst of an AI boom. (When I moved here, I was in a similar boat.) They are not infuriated or offended by the rent they have to pay. And I've also had neighbors that payed thousands less in rent than me. (I was happy for them.) Everyone knows the rules when they move to my city; it's just not a big deal unless you're completely self-absorbed.

The alternative is that half my street gets ousted whenever a tech boom happens. What a horrible way to live.

Re: Rent collections are down in New York

#543

Post by jjav »

tancop wrote: post #299
jjav wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a renter can’t easily absorb losing their home or a sudden 20% rent increase Right, so let's pass laws (where not already in place) that prevent sudden eviction (e.g. nobody should be able to be evicted if they are a few days late or even a few weeks) and prevent sudden 20% rent increases. No need to pass laws that prevent eviction for years. We can solve all these problems without causing other problems.

the obvious middle ground is preventing eviction until a new tenant is found. if you owe 3 months of back rent your landlord can put up your apartment but you can stay there as long as nobody takes it. if you pay back your debt they have to cancel the listing and keep your lease. that way theres less empty apartments and homeless people putting pressure on support systems.

> the obvious middle ground is preventing eviction until a new tenant is found.

Not sure that's obvious (is it done that way anywhere?), but it is an intriguing idea.

On the positive side it does decrease the inefficiency of places sitting empty while a tenant is found, which is good.

On the downside, it kind of goes back to being a sudden eviction, since the current tenant can't predict when a new one will be found, so whenever it happens they'll have a short-notice to move out.

Also, unfortunately there exist people who will take this time to destroy the place, making it un-rentable, to perpetuate staying there. Need to handle this edge case somehow.

Re: Rent collections are down in New York

#544

Post by [deleted] »

rurp wrote: post #527
alexashka wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure some slave owners were 'nice people'. Still slave owners, right? But I treat my slaves better than everyone I know and I only have half a dozen! I don't only have slaves for profit! Slave owners in the south were actually far more likely to be better people than today's landlords because they had far less choice but to compete with other people who engaged in slavery than landlords of today. The 'only' straw…

Good lord, renting a property to someone who voluntarily signs a lease is equivalent to slavery ?! Give me a break. I will say you're doing an excellent job of backing up OPs post. There absolutely are people with an unhinged view of reality who will aggressively try to screw over people they think are in the "wrong" group. Arguing that poor people never try to abuse the system is some serious ivory tower BS.

[deleted]

Re: Rent collections are down in New York

#545

Post by lmm »

archagon wrote: post #542
lmm wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> New upstairs neighbors are literally paying $2000/m more than we are for the same floor plan. > None of this seems egregious to me. Enough said. I wonder if it would feel egregious if you were the one paying $2000/m more.

My upstairs neighbors have very well-paying jobs that allow them to move to the city in the midst of an AI boom. (When I moved here, I was in a similar boat.) They are not infuriated or offended by the rent they have to pay. And I've also had neighbors that payed thousands less in rent than me. (I was happy for them.) Everyone knows the rules when they move to my city; it's just not a big deal unless you're completel…

> The alternative is that half my street gets ousted whenever a tech boom happens. What a horrible way to live.

Or maybe if the pain was more evenly distributed you'd vote to legalise more housing. Not being able to live in a street like yours is just as horrible for those of us who didn't luck into arriving there earlier, we're just out of sight, out of mind.

Re: Rent collections are down in New York

#546

Post by archagon »

lmm wrote: post #545
archagon wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My upstairs neighbors have very well-paying jobs that allow them to move to the city in the midst of an AI boom. (When I moved here, I was in a similar boat.) They are not infuriated or offended by the rent they have to pay. And I've also had neighbors that payed thousands less in rent than me. (I was happy for them.) Everyone knows the rules when they move to my city; it's just not a big deal unless you're completel…

> The alternative is that half my street gets ousted whenever a tech boom happens. What a horrible way to live. Or maybe if the pain was more evenly distributed you'd vote to legalise more housing. Not being able to live in a street like yours is just as horrible for those of us who didn't luck into arriving there earlier, we're just out of sight, out of mind.

No, not getting to live on my street is not "just as horrible" as getting kicked to the curb with pets and/or dependents and losing your entire lifestyle and community without warning or recourse.

(But again, I am 100% for building more housing using any incentives available. This is orthogonal to having robust tenant protections.)

Re: Rent collections are down in New York

#547

Post by lmm »

archagon wrote: post #546
lmm wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The alternative is that half my street gets ousted whenever a tech boom happens. What a horrible way to live. Or maybe if the pain was more evenly distributed you'd vote to legalise more housing. Not being able to live in a street like yours is just as horrible for those of us who didn't luck into arriving there earlier, we're just out of sight, out of mind.

No, not getting to live on my street is not "just as horrible" as getting kicked to the curb with pets and/or dependents and losing your entire lifestyle and community without warning or recourse. (But again, I am 100% for building more housing using any incentives available. This is orthogonal to having robust tenant protections.)

> not getting to live on my street is not "just as horrible" as getting kicked to the curb with pets and/or dependents and losing your entire lifestyle and community without warning or recourse.

Come off it, no-one's talking about kicking people out on the curb instantly. I'm all for processes and reasonable notice periods. But ultimately if you're not willing to pay what it costs to live where you do, yeah you should be pushed out for someone who will, rather than the rest of us subsidising you even as we're forced to cram into shared rooms miles away from our jobs.

> This is orthogonal to having robust tenant protections.

How can it be? How will residents know or care that their city doesn't have enough market-rate housing, that market-rate homes are too expensive, when they're not exposed to that market-rate price? Ever if they support building more housing in theory, they're absolutely going to object to it anywhere near them. It's not a coincidence that cities with rent control consistently build fuck all, that the few cities that have managed to actually build some homes over the past few years are in places like Texas.

Re: Rent collections are down in New York

#548

Post by ekelsen »

archagon wrote: post #225
ekelsen wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If only we could all get free protection from economic forces we don't control. That kind of insurance is usually pretty expensive. Why should you get it for free?

One, we vote for it, and there's far more renters out there than owners. Sorry. Two, there are many "free protections" that are taken for granted at our stage of civilizational development. Should fire departments be privatized? Police? I'd argue that housing security is even more important than those. We bear the costs together so that our lives are collectively better. Three, your entire framing is kind of bananas.…

Ah, tyranny of the majority, the best form of government.

Re: Rent collections are down in New York

#549

Post by archagon »

lmm wrote: post #547
archagon wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, not getting to live on my street is not "just as horrible" as getting kicked to the curb with pets and/or dependents and losing your entire lifestyle and community without warning or recourse. (But again, I am 100% for building more housing using any incentives available. This is orthogonal to having robust tenant protections.)

> not getting to live on my street is not "just as horrible" as getting kicked to the curb with pets and/or dependents and losing your entire lifestyle and community without warning or recourse. Come off it, no-one's talking about kicking people out on the curb instantly. I'm all for processes and reasonable notice periods. But ultimately if you're not willing to pay what it costs to live where you do, yeah you shoul…

Sounds like folks who don't like rent control should move to Texas, then. Market forces and all.

Anyway, you can get mad at this policy all you want, but the bottom line is this: renters don't like getting priced out of their homes and far outnumber landowners. They will vote for rent control as the economy starts to squeeze them.

Maybe more effort should be put into thinking of ways to incentivize housing construction rather than getting fruitlessly angry at social policy.

(Also, as a rent-controlled renter, I'd love more housing to be built near me. I don't think I've ever met any renters who feel otherwise. Most of the actual NIMBYs seem to be owners, not renters. As for how would they know that more housing is needed? Um, by reading the news and talking to people? It's a constant topic of conversation in SF.)

Re: Rent collections are down in New York

#550

Post by [deleted] »

rurp wrote: post #527
alexashka wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure some slave owners were 'nice people'. Still slave owners, right? But I treat my slaves better than everyone I know and I only have half a dozen! I don't only have slaves for profit! Slave owners in the south were actually far more likely to be better people than today's landlords because they had far less choice but to compete with other people who engaged in slavery than landlords of today. The 'only' straw…

Good lord, renting a property to someone who voluntarily signs a lease is equivalent to slavery ?! Give me a break. I will say you're doing an excellent job of backing up OPs post. There absolutely are people with an unhinged view of reality who will aggressively try to screw over people they think are in the "wrong" group. Arguing that poor people never try to abuse the system is some serious ivory tower BS.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN