David Byrne: If the 1% stifles New York's creative talent, I'm out of here • Hacker News Board

Re: David Byrne: If the 1% stifles New York's creative talent, I'm out of here

#61

Post by jlgreco » Mon, Oct 07, 2013, 7:07 PM UTC

a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #56

jlgreco wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Philly is way better than it use to be, it just hasn't improved nearly as rapidly or dramatically as NYC has. The blight of urban decay is being pushed back, but that push isn't driven so much by the ultra-rich as it is by college kids and yuppies getting a tad more 'adventurous' in where they live. (I think the effect of universities and their students is most noticeably around Temple in north Philly, though I would…

I think you're a bit delusional about crime in Philadelphia. It's intolerably bad by all reasonable accounts. It makes zero sense to put a business in Philadelphia as opposed to surrounding areas because of the tax and regulatory situation. The city of Philadelphia is a financial basket case, just like Chicago, LA, and Detroit. All these cities are getting closer and closer to the inevitable precipice. New York is no…

Chicago and LA perhaps, but there is no way in hell Philadelphia is in the same basket as Detroit. Philadelphia is improving (slowly), Detroit is rapidly decaying.

I'm not accusing Philadelphia of being clean or safe, I am asserting that it is (slowly) improving. I think you are delusional about just how bad crime in Philadelphia use to be.

(And to be clear, there are extremely livable portions of that city, but the presence of those areas are obscured in course metrics by north and west philly which, to be honest, do bear some resemblance to what you would expect of Detroit. However those boundaries are being pushed back every year, street by street.)

Re: David Byrne: If the 1% stifles New York's creative talent, I'm out of here

#62

Post by busterarm » Mon, Oct 07, 2013, 7:07 PM UTC

misiti3780 wrote: post #54

busterarm wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rent Stabilization isn't all it's cracked up to be. Everyone I know in Rent Stabilized apartments has dealt with large rent increases with some regularity. Even so, rent regulation is _not_ the problem. It's primarily the parking requirement and secondarily the zoning issues. All the co-op and condo owners who dominate most fo the neighborhoods affected WANT it to be this way because it keeps the price of their homes…

They can only legally increase your rent 2% every year or 4% every two years, and they HAVE to renew your lease by law unless you really fuck up (giving you the option of both a 1 and 2 year lease). The apartment only becomes unstabilized if your income is exceeds $250K or your rent exceeds $2500/month. The only possible way you would ever see a large rent increase (that I know of) if you lived in a rent stabilized a…

Heh. My mom has paid $5760 in increased rent since 1989 for new mailboxes and windows. $20/mo. Her and every other rent regulated tenant in the building. $15,360 for a new interior for the elevator. $80/mo since 1997. Her and every other rent regulated tenant in the building.

Capital improvements really hurt rent regulated tenants long-term.

Re: David Byrne: If the 1% stifles New York's creative talent, I'm out of here

#63

Post by Pxtl » Mon, Oct 07, 2013, 7:09 PM UTC

busterarm wrote: post #47

Pxtl wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that the GTA sports some of the worst urban planning on the continent. The simple fact is that while Downtown Toronto is wonderful, there just isn't enough Downtown Toronto to go around and you quickly get into inefficient sprawl. And then it's an ocean of Mississaugaism for 50km in every direction. It's gotten bad enough that poor artsy Torontonians have started moving here to Hamilton . They're so de…

I like Hamilton, despite the industrial smells. Heh. I spent quite a lot of time around there and Burlington and I much prefer that side of the GTA to the eastern side. The GO train commute isn't that bad...90 minutes at the most and it's pretty direct.

It's a 45 minute drive from Hamilton to Toronto if the traffic is perfect (like 3am). Over an hour on a train that only runs to the Hunter St terminal a couple of times per day is absurd. Most of the time the train ends at Aldershot instead of Hamilton anyways, a suburb of Burlington that only exists to let the GO Transit flip Hamiltonians the bird. The combined traffic and transit woes of the GTA are thoroughly ridiculous.

Hamilton is Ontario's leading producer of unrealized potential, an honor I expect to keep for many, many years. I love this city, but it's not an easy city to love.

Re: David Byrne: If the 1% stifles New York's creative talent, I'm out of here

#64

Post by so_says » Mon, Oct 07, 2013, 7:09 PM UTC

misiti3780 wrote: post #54

busterarm wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rent Stabilization isn't all it's cracked up to be. Everyone I know in Rent Stabilized apartments has dealt with large rent increases with some regularity. Even so, rent regulation is _not_ the problem. It's primarily the parking requirement and secondarily the zoning issues. All the co-op and condo owners who dominate most fo the neighborhoods affected WANT it to be this way because it keeps the price of their homes…

They can only legally increase your rent 2% every year or 4% every two years, and they HAVE to renew your lease by law unless you really fuck up (giving you the option of both a 1 and 2 year lease). The apartment only becomes unstabilized if your income is exceeds $250K or your rent exceeds $2500/month. The only possible way you would ever see a large rent increase (that I know of) if you lived in a rent stabilized a…

The amount changes every year. It is voted upon by the rent regulation board. Last year these were the numbers. For a one-year renewal lease commencing on or after October 1, 2011 and on or before September 30, 2012: 3.75% For a two-year renewal lease commencing on or after October 1, 2011 and on or before September 30, 2012: 7.25%

Re: David Byrne: If the 1% stifles New York's creative talent, I'm out of here

#65

Post by rayiner » Mon, Oct 07, 2013, 7:15 PM UTC

jlgreco wrote: post #61

a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're a bit delusional about crime in Philadelphia. It's intolerably bad by all reasonable accounts. It makes zero sense to put a business in Philadelphia as opposed to surrounding areas because of the tax and regulatory situation. The city of Philadelphia is a financial basket case, just like Chicago, LA, and Detroit. All these cities are getting closer and closer to the inevitable precipice. New York is no…

Chicago and LA perhaps, but there is no way in hell Philadelphia is in the same basket as Detroit. Philadelphia is improving (slowly), Detroit is rapidly decaying. I'm not accusing Philadelphia of being clean or safe, I am asserting that it is ( slowly ) improving. I think you are delusional about just how bad crime in Philadelphia use to be. (And to be clear, there are extremely livable portions of that city, but th…

My wife and I just walked from 10th street to 38th street along mostly Walnut/Chestnut/Market yesterday. It's great except for the portion of Market after 37th street. It's a continuous strip of gentrification now, which wasn't the case 10 years ago.

That said, I think gentrification is happening faster in Chicago. I haven't seen a construction crane yet in months of living here (I rarely leave Center City/University City, to be fair), but I can see half a dozen at any given time in River North/Loop. But Chicago's economy is still largely finance driven (and derivative industries: insurance, consulting, accounting, law).

I guess my point is: you can either embrace the 1% and be New York or San Francisco, or reject the 1% and be Baltimore, Detroit, or any of the other American cities in decline.

Re: David Byrne: If the 1% stifles New York's creative talent, I'm out of here

#66

Post by paddy_m » Mon, Oct 07, 2013, 7:16 PM UTC

so_says wrote: post #6

Towards the end of the article, Mr. Bryne touches on a topic that is at the heart of a city devoid of culture --- people who buy large swaths of property and then do not live here. We don't need rent control, but we do need to build affordable housing instead of luxury condo after luxury condo for people to use a few weeks out of the year. The least expensive average rental price for a studio is $1481/month. Landlord…

NYC should remove zoning restrictions so that developers can build dense quickly. Density is what makes NYC great. Density is also what will bring down the rents. Increase the supply.

We also need to remove parking minimums across the whole city, currently they don't apply in Manhattan. Parking minimums can increase the cost of apartments up to 50% http://dc.streetsblog.org/2013/09/16/apartment-blockers/

Re: David Byrne: If the 1% stifles New York's creative talent, I'm out of here

#67

Post by busterarm » Mon, Oct 07, 2013, 7:16 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #57

busterarm wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't been back there recently enough to know if MN is 24 hours but I recall travel being limited to certain times and this is especially true on the LIRR. Especially late at night, the train is filled with annoying rowdy drunks. That's more than enough reason for me not to want to live out there. It's like being deprived of all of the social benefits of living in/around NYC. I mean, I totally get what you're say…

Metro North is not 24 hours, but it's only closed for 3 hours between 2:30 am and 5:30 am. And trains from NR run every 15 minutes at rush hour. The Metro North has way fewer sketchy people on average than the Subway. Lots of bankers heading back to Greenwich. In any case, you're arguing a different point now. Housing prices in many Westchester towns are very reasonable and commutes are too. No reason for rent contro…

It definitely seems like the MN-lines have the nicer folks. late night LIRR rides are 10x worse than any subway line.

Re: David Byrne: If the 1% stifles New York's creative talent, I'm out of here

#68

Post by jlgreco » Mon, Oct 07, 2013, 7:16 PM UTC

busterarm wrote: post #55

jlgreco wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would such tax penalties stop the rich from renting/owning in NYC? I doubt it, they are rich after all. Would those tax penalties convince them to declare those homes their primary residence? Maybe, if they were American. But would declaring those homes to be their primary residence actually get them to spend more time in them? No. Is it really a problem that rich people aren't living in all of their homes simultaneo…

It could put some tax money into subsidized housing to offset their market effect of increasing other peoples' rents and commute times. It really kind of is a problem because of the effects that it has on the housing market. It's completely different from somebody having an idle car in their driveway because nobody else could park on their property. This is a situation where this is an apartment somebody else could r…

If the objective is just to raise more money for subsidized housing, there are more ways to do that than just whining about rich people having underused apartments. Hell, tax caviar; a tax for cheap housing doesn't have to attack rich housing. The only reason to that is pandering to the envious.

And I stand by my car analogy, a car a rich person has is a car that a poor person doesn't have. Artificially high demand for cars ('artificially high' in the sense of people buying more cars than they need) increases their prices. If you want more cheap cars for poor people, then get more cheap cars for poor people. Don't complain about how many cars rich people have.

Re: David Byrne: If the 1% stifles New York's creative talent, I'm out of here

#69

Post by busterarm » Mon, Oct 07, 2013, 7:19 PM UTC

jlgreco wrote: post #68

busterarm wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could put some tax money into subsidized housing to offset their market effect of increasing other peoples' rents and commute times. It really kind of is a problem because of the effects that it has on the housing market. It's completely different from somebody having an idle car in their driveway because nobody else could park on their property. This is a situation where this is an apartment somebody else could r…

If the objective is just to raise more money for subsidized housing, there are more ways to do that than just whining about rich people having underused apartments. Hell, tax caviar; a tax for cheap housing doesn't have to attack rich housing. The only reason to that is pandering to the envious. And I stand by my car analogy, a car a rich person has is a car that a poor person doesn't have. Artificially high demand f…

These arguments don't work when you have supply limitations, which with housing and cars we kinda do.

It's not about taxing the rich. It's about taxing where appropriate to get the market effects you want.

This is the same reason we have such high tax on cigarettes.

Re: David Byrne: If the 1% stifles New York's creative talent, I'm out of here

#70

Post by jlgreco » Mon, Oct 07, 2013, 7:21 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #65

jlgreco wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chicago and LA perhaps, but there is no way in hell Philadelphia is in the same basket as Detroit. Philadelphia is improving (slowly), Detroit is rapidly decaying. I'm not accusing Philadelphia of being clean or safe, I am asserting that it is ( slowly ) improving. I think you are delusional about just how bad crime in Philadelphia use to be. (And to be clear, there are extremely livable portions of that city, but th…

My wife and I just walked from 10th street to 38th street along mostly Walnut/Chestnut/Market yesterday. It's great except for the portion of Market after 37th street. It's a continuous strip of gentrification now, which wasn't the case 10 years ago. That said, I think gentrification is happening faster in Chicago. I haven't seen a construction crane yet in months of living here (I rarely leave Center City/University…

I agree entirely, embracing the 1% is the way to go. Without them you can only see progress measured in decades, not years.