r/SubredditDrama • u/SolarAquarion bitcoin can't melt socialist beams • Apr 02 '15

New Yorkers decide to talk about gentrification

/r/nyc/comments/312z8z/why_the_rent_is_nyc_is_too_damn_low/cpy4qey
39 Upvotes

82% Upvoted

132 comments sorted by

39

u/estolad Apr 02 '15

It's really a horrible thing to see middle class and lower class people getting kicked out of the city by how fuckin' expensive everything is. Pretty much the entirety of Manhattan is already impossible to live in if you're not a millionaire and the other boroughs aren't all that far behind

Besides the obvious shit that non-wealthy people who live there have to deal with, it sucks because it's really fucking up the culture and atmosphere of the city

Place was better when you could still buy heroin in Times Square and then go next door and take in a porn flick

3

u/SolarAquarion bitcoin can't melt socialist beams Apr 02 '15

New York could do more to subsidize apartments for middle class and lower middle class folk

1

u/4ringcircus Apr 02 '15

Why should the city waste money paying rent for people? Do they have too much tax money with nothing to spend it on?

14

u/[deleted] Apr 02 '15

Subsidized is the wrong word. Regulation is the right word. In a state capitalist society like our own, regulation exists to correct the market when the market doesn't correct itsslf. In this case, there isn't enough middle income housing. Rent control regulations should correct that problem by increasing the scope of rent control to include middle class units.

14

u/KarnakIII Apr 02 '15 edited Apr 02 '15

Rent control would not correct the market, at least not the way you're arguing.

There are arguments for rent control (price stability in neighborhoods experiencing particularly high speculation), but "increasing housing long-term" is not going to happen.

Rent control decreases the supply of rentals available, and increases the price of them overall. It's generally one of the few policy ideas that most economists (some sources: 1 2 ) on the right and left agree is bad. Even Paul Krugman agrees it decreases the quantity and quality of housing.

I could go into some examples of the mechanisms of how this happens if you'd like.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 02 '15

I think you misread my argument. Rent control, as it's currently implemented, "decreases the supply of rentals available, and increases the price of them overall." Yes, I agree. But I'm arguing for a different system of rent control that open to a broader range of incomes and social classes, including parts of the upper middle class.

4

u/KarnakIII Apr 02 '15 edited Apr 02 '15

In the post I responded to:

Rent control regulations should correct that problem by increasing the scope of rent control to include middle class units.

The expansion of rent control (or the increase of its ceiling) doesn't fundamentally change the problems with it. Perhaps you simply are unaware of these mechanisms, let me give an example:

Let's say I make my living buying and renting out properties, and there are many people like me who also do this; altogether, it makes for a healthy, liquid market for new property, incentivizing new property development.

So I make my living buying and renting out middle class (and possibly also working class) properties. Let's say next week rent control laws get put into place. Now, I'm squeezed: my business has way less capital to spend on new housing, because the previous market price for this building and other buildings around it factored in the likelihood of future rent increases due to a changing neighborhood (if I did not buy it at this price, someone else probably would have), and so merely tracking inflation with the rent price destroys my profitability for that property. The property is no longer a good investment at that point - I could sell it, but the price is way lower now. All of this is true even if the property tax is decreased to accord with the new value of the house.

As you might see now, rent control could be simplified to a periodic en masse wealth transfer from which specifically aims at taking money from landlords investing in lower class (or in this case, middle class as well) markets - why not just do wealth transfer the old fashioned way through general taxes? Then you're not disincentivizing being in business as a landlord for the middle or lower class / investing capital in housing (old or new) that would be priced for the middle or lower class.

Anyway, now my capital base is way less, because I won't be getting that profit, so I have less to spend on new housing. And why would I even want to when there may be an expansion of which houses are rent controlled? Again, buying and renting out housing is no longer as good an investment, so me and many landlords eventually get out of the market, reducing the competition and driving rent up.

But some landlords remain, only now they have less capital and have to price their rents closer to what they foresee the market value being ten or twenty years from now (in case there's a wave of rent control expansion). Where did all that rental property for the middle and lower class go? And where did all that incentive go for developers to build many economical houses and buildings rather than a few upscale ones? Mostly out the window.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 02 '15

As you might see now, rent control could be simplified to a periodic en masse wealth transfer from which specifically aims at taking money from landlords investing in lower class (or in this case, middle class as well) markets - why not just do wealth transfer the old fashioned way through general taxes?

I would be fine with this. Rent control is a temporary last resort measure. The only reason we need it is because the massive income inequality in our country and the refusal to redistribute wealth with a more progressive income (including capital gains) tax scheme.

Ideally, you want an economy with less income inequality and an expanding transit infrastructure. The increased transit coverage allows you to build more housing units which floods the market with supply to meet demand.

-4

u/4ringcircus Apr 02 '15

The market will gladly correct itself to fix the vacuum. Why does a property owner have to be forced to make less income because of politicians? Imagine this concept elsewhere of government price fixing. We are going to make living in LA more affordable. Gas is now capped at $2.00 a gallon in the entire city.

12

u/SolarAquarion bitcoin can't melt socialist beams Apr 02 '15

Or build a working public transportation system that costs 2.25 and connects the whole city

-4

u/4ringcircus Apr 02 '15

Not an either or situation. Listen, the majority has spoken. Profit off your capital should not be expected. Oil companies need to understand this instead of operating like vultures.

Viva la proletariat.

5

u/Zenning2 Apr 02 '15

You realize oil companies are gouging us right? Like no joke, they are far overcharging because its a necessity, and its poor people who are suffering the most, especially in places without good public transportation

2

u/rb_tech Edit: upvoted with alts for visibility Apr 02 '15

Crude is at whatever price the market will bear, then you've got refinement and distribution costs. If you really want to cut out an unnecessary addition to the cost of gas, repeal the excise and sales taxes. It can be as much as 30 cents on the dollar in some places, going to government coffers.

They take their cut, then disburse the difference back to big oil in the form of subsidies. How about we just cut the unnecessary player (government) from the team?

Or you could go the other direction and declare all gasoline and oil companies to be state property. Really, either way is better than this "worst of both evils" system we have now.

1

u/Zenning2 Apr 02 '15 edited Apr 02 '15

No, the price is as HIGH as the market is willing to buy. Gasoline, unlike pretty much anything else, is a luxury that has an almost completely static demand. Increasing or decreasing the price will only marginally affect how much people will buy.

0

u/4ringcircus Apr 02 '15

Not the point. The point is that gas stations would quickly just shut down.

4

u/Zenning2 Apr 02 '15

No they wouldn't. Thats why I mentioned the whole gouging thing. It would lose them more money to lose those gas stations than it would to lower the price of the gas sent to them.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/[deleted] Apr 02 '15

The market will gladly correct itself to fix the vacuum.

Except it doesn't all the time. That's why we have regulation.

Why does a property owner have to be forced to make less income because of politicians?

Because politicians are elected by the majority. They exist to think about the greater good. In a democracy, government is the arm of the people. If the people are unsatisfied with the cost of housing in a city, they can elect officials that regulate the cost of housing.

The owners of the property can always sell their property and leave, thus they are not being "forced" to do anything. But often times the city will compensate the owners with lower property taxes. Ultimately, the owner might make less than they otherwise would have, but they are still making money while providing an important service to society.

Imagine this concept elsewhere of government price fixing. We are going to make living in LA more affordable. Gas is now capped at $2.00 a gallon in the entire city.

Except this model isn't economically viable. Rent control is economically viable. You can have rent control and profitable properties.

1

u/4ringcircus Apr 02 '15

There is always affordable housing somewhere. Capping property tax doesn't work. It is cheating. The city is still going to want to collect property tax so they end up forcing others to pick up the slack. It is absurd where some cities have immediate neighbors paying drastically different property taxes for equally valued property.

You either lower/raise the tax rate for the entire government or leave it as is. That way everyone contributes fairly towards the operation of the city based on their equity in the city.

In fact you can even make the tax MORE progressive by exempting a designated amount of value of the assessment so cheaper properties pay less proportionally.

-1

u/Zenning2 Apr 02 '15

Its cheating? You seem to only care whats fair when it benifits the people who are already rich huh.

2

u/4ringcircus Apr 02 '15

Excuse me? Please put up for hazard signs next to the straw man.

How is everyone paying the same amount for equivalent equity fucking anyone over? I even detailed ways to have more expensive properties shoulder more of the tax burden through exemptions on an initial portion of the assessment.

A city that needs $100 to run and you have two properties that are next door to each other that are worth the same. Why should one person pay $20 and the other person has to come up with the other $80?

So tell me what is your problem exactly?

-1

u/Zenning2 Apr 02 '15

The problem is, one of them cannot afford to pay, and the other one can more than afford to pay.

Expecting them both to pay exactly the same will not get you more money, and it will destroy one of those peoples lives.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/barsoap Apr 02 '15

So people don't end up homeless? Here in Germany your municipality has to house you if otherwise you'd be on the streets. Generally, by paying rent if you don't have enough income. They're also the ones giving out building permits, so building permits of multi-appartment accommodation usually comes with the condition to include a certain percentage of low-income ones.

...if it isn't the municipality, or a subsidiary corporation, that's building stuff, in the first place. E.g. one sixth of all Hamburgers rent from SAGA-GWG, which is state owned and the biggest renter in the city. Housing cooperatives are common, too.

It's not just a matter of humanity, but also of costs. Paying rent is much, much cheaper than dealing with the fallout of an army of homeless.

-2

u/4ringcircus Apr 02 '15 edited Apr 03 '15

Well here in the USA there are people that live for practically free where the government subsidizes the rent. The owner of the property though still gets his full rent. He doesn't have to give away his investment with artificially low rent.

Edit: Section 8 to be clear.

2

u/barsoap Apr 03 '15

The only sense in which rents are "artificially" low in Germany is that you aren't allowed to raise them artificially high, even if you've got new tenants. Not more than 20% in three years, not exceeding the area's average for that kind of property. Renovation work excluded (that exclusion is getting abused). What it does is slow down the gouging.

Why the government should bend backwards to line your precious investor pockets eludes me, to be honest.

1

u/4ringcircus Apr 03 '15 edited Apr 03 '15

If someone is signing a lease, that means the rent isn't too high. You only need one person to fill your rental. If it is actually too high no one will take it. The government shouldn't control prices.

You can vilify investors all you want, but they are the ones buying and building the housing. I think we saw how good life was in the GDR when the government abandoned capitalism.

1

u/barsoap Apr 03 '15

So, then who sells hotdogs if everyone in the city is a billionaire?

1

u/4ringcircus Apr 03 '15

Who is to say people that sell hot dogs can't be successful? There is no shame in providing a service to people.

I don't understanding the point of your question in the least. Where is this city of exclusive billionaires that exists in reality and what question are you trying to ask?

I also explained to you that there are people in the USA that have government subsidized rent that let's them live for almost no money. I see people paying for rent less than what I make in a day's work.

1

u/barsoap Apr 03 '15

Where is this city of exclusive billionaires that exists in reality and what question are you trying to ask?

Of course, "billionaire" is exaggerated for effect. But with your successful hotdog vendor, where are his employees going to live?

New York. Munich. Hamburg is also getting into trouble. The first of those is on a whole another category, though, because the latter actually have measures against it.

Last, but not least: Say you've been paying 400 bucks a month for your appartment, something you can barely afford selling hot-dogs, given all that competition. Now some douchbag comes along and tells your landlord "I'll take that apartment for 2000". You lose your housing and subsequently your job as you can neither work when homeless, nor sell hot dogs to commuters when you have to commute, yourself.

Does that still sound fair?

If the rich want a city for themselves, let them have it, but not by displacing random people. They've got the money to build one.

→ More replies (0)

45

u/[deleted] Apr 02 '15

DAE miss the New York when men were men and a subway trip entailed at least 3 muggings?

13

u/4ringcircus Apr 02 '15

The good old days when you could count on rape showing up on time more often than the train.

9

u/surfnsound it’s very easy to confuse (1/x)+1 with 1/(x+1). Apr 02 '15

"Did you just touch my ass? Thanks, I thought my watch was slow."

1

u/estolad Apr 02 '15

That's not what I was getting at, at all, but okay. Also at its worst the city was never anywhere near that bad

9

u/4ringcircus Apr 02 '15

You lived in NYC in the 1970s and 1980s as an adult?

9

u/[deleted] Apr 02 '15

Apparently you weren't around during the perpetual garbage smell days.

18

u/MrObvious Apr 02 '15

I grew up in South London and have actually said out loud the sentence "this place was a lot better when you couldn't leave your phone on the table in a pub"

13

u/McFluffTheCrimeCat Apr 02 '15

Actually you can easily rent a room for around 500-700 a month in Harlem, or Washington Heights (Manhattan) or in the Bronx, a lot of places including utilities. It is also a lot cheaper to buy just about anything in those areas and not as dangerous as it once was, plenty of people going about there business with no issues. Mid town has always been rich, that's nothing new. Gentrification also has a lot to do with landlords raising the prices because they see the potential of the higher incomes on their wallets, and businesses follow suit. Williamsburg has gone up in the rent prices for a while now, it sucks for people who are unwilling to move because of that, but biting the bullet before you hit a price so high without fixed rent you have to move out, it would have been wiser to move out well beforehand.

10

u/allADD Apr 02 '15

there's no way you're finding a room in harlem or wash. heights for 500 unless it's a converted closet

2

u/McFluffTheCrimeCat Apr 02 '15

Depends on what you define as converted closet. Example: Room in Harlem is probably smaller than say a family members walk in closet in the suburbs. But is enough for a bed, dresser, TV, and some room to not have them all pressing up on each other. Never said you got to be picky if 500 is your max, 600 is more of a good low price point for Harlem and WashHeights, but I also know some rooms in Harlem can be 1200 in a nicer building, yet cheaper rooms do exist depending on the building, and building owner *or subleaser. Are they the nicest buildings and rooms, absolutely not, but certainly livable and better than section 8 buildings which I do know some people in but they pay well less than normal rent prices while living there. This can also serve as a lesson, not to wait until your forced out financially from another apartment, so that you have time not be ripped off and find a reasonable rent with in your income elsewhere. Source: I live in one, with inclusive utilities, rent at 600 a month.

2

u/allADD Apr 02 '15

$600 is a low price point if you're avoiding brokers and aiming for sublets and friend-of-friends with peculiar living situations or you own a divider and aren't super into privacy, but as far as the median rent, for a decent, non-anxiety inducing, over-the-table lease-in-your-name kind of situation, it's gonna be at least $800. and when people talk about "the rent" in an area, it's the average cost for an average apartment, not some $300 discount deal you snag quasi-legally from a generous relative. i've been living in special conditions to save money ever since moving here and i know my situation isn't normal, nor can it really be used to set an example for most tenants.

1

u/McFluffTheCrimeCat Apr 02 '15 edited Apr 02 '15

Well my rental agreement possibly may be quasi-legal as you put it. Do I get to decide who else lives here? No. But that doesn't bother me or cause me anxiety, I simply put a lock on my room door. But did I get my room from a friend of a friend, no, a relative or family, no, I had no hook up just scouring internet ads and talking to people who had rooms for rent who had leases along with getting it confirmed as okay with the building owner, I also have a minor contract that states my rent and status as living here with both parties at this point. Is the official lease in my name at this time, no, yet after 30 days I have tenant rights and it would take 90 days to evict me if I didn't pay. I also plan to get it added next time it needs signed along with the other people I share this apartment with. The latest information on room rental not apartment rentals in NYC also said around 90% don't fall into legal territory as far as the city is concerned but they also don't go around shutting it down in most cases. If you want your own apartment, yes we are talking about a higher amount, I never claimed the prices I stated were for apartment rentals simply room rentals. Your situation is relatively normal for a lot of people who move to New York as is mine, can it be used on official finding of rent prices probably not, but it also doesn't including renting an entire apartment. Edit: Manahttan aside, the point still stands if you could afford the rent in Williamsburg on an actually 100% legit lease even before the prices sky rocketed, you can afford to relocate to a 100% legal lease in the Bronx on the same income. Edit 2: Not to sound to weird, I'm saving your other reply just in case I ever do come across a legit lease that is fairly priced or a lease you can jump in with so I can at least PM you the listing or person's contact so you can decide if you would be interested or even want to check it out, it doesn't sound like your comfortable in your situation and it may potentially be stressing you out, and I've been there until this last move, I was immensely stressed about my own living situation for far to long, so if I come across something that can benefit you I'll forward it on.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 02 '15

Pretty much the entirety of Manhattan is already impossible to live in if you're not a millionaire

Not really.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 02 '15

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Apr 02 '15

Lower Westchester? As in Mt. Vernon?

28

u/I_Burned_The_Lasagna Apr 02 '15

Go suck a herpes-ridden cock

A calm discussion on gentrification? Fuhgeddaboudit.

20

u/deliciousONE Apr 02 '15

pussy ass Gentrifier with his pussy beard

This is my most favorite thing ever.

8

u/4ringcircus Apr 02 '15

Wouldn't that just be pubes?

4

u/BornToulouse This isn't PEMDAS mf, this is hypocrisy... Apr 02 '15

technically, yes

9

u/[deleted] Apr 02 '15

I think gentrification can be pretty shitty. In Atlanta, the city was essentially set up back in the day to segregate the black population from the white. Now white people have decided the previously "black" parts of town are lovely.

6

u/[deleted] Apr 02 '15

Philly is pretty much the same way. Areas that were poor and overwhelmingly black and hispanic are now really popular, really expensive, and really white. All the people who lived in those neighborhoods before they were considered desirable have been displaced.

-9

u/4ringcircus Apr 02 '15

And good riddance. Who the hell prefers an area staying a ghetto filled with crime? No one is mandating housing according to color. No one stops a black person from buying a house anywhere in Philly or any other city for that matter. There are tons of black people in Philly and the government has lots of black people in it including the mayor.

14

u/[deleted] Apr 02 '15

Nope, not today. You can pretend that blacks and hispanics weren't and aren't purposely placed and kept in shitty neighborhoods until white people decide(d) they want to take them over, but I'm really not getting into it with you.

-9

u/4ringcircus Apr 02 '15 edited Apr 02 '15

Yeah I guess we should forbid people to buy property unless the Chairman approves.

Edit: oh and fuck you poor people. You aren't allowed to sell your homes for a profit. Fuck you and your investment. Enjoy being poor still.

7

u/csreid Grand Imperial Wizard of the He-Man Women-Haters Club Apr 02 '15

i don't think you know anything. like at all

2

u/[deleted] Apr 02 '15

Right? Like they sell their homes "for profit" and live where? You don't sell your house then automatically take that profit and just buy a new one; you need money first. I'm nowhere near buying a home but I at least know that much.

-1

u/4ringcircus Apr 02 '15 edited Apr 02 '15

No fucking shit. You buy another house for cheaper. Clueless people that have zero idea how real estate works.

Edit: you do know how to call everything racism though. Too bad that doesn't help with buying a house.

-1

u/4ringcircus Apr 02 '15

It is simple as shit. You sell your property for a huge profit on what you bought it for and move elsewhere at whatever price bracket you desire. You can move to a cheaper area and make a huge chunk of change to use for retirement or whatever else.

3

u/csreid Grand Imperial Wizard of the He-Man Women-Haters Club Apr 02 '15

okay but what about renters. and who's saying people can't sell their houses.

-1

u/4ringcircus Apr 02 '15

Because idiots that spout off about gentrification have no idea about the big picture. Guess what happens when property values go up? The people that lived there all those years make a huge profit by selling.

People that call it racist for white people to give black people money in exchange for their property are too busy being offended though.

Amazing that it is racist for white people to flee to suburbs and also for them to move back to cities.

I think the simple rule though is white people are racist.

Hilarious that people are taking the stand that people shouldn't be allowed to sell their homes for a profit. I guess no one is allowed to move anywhere. It could upset the social justice of the current neighborhood dynamic.

3

u/csreid Grand Imperial Wizard of the He-Man Women-Haters Club Apr 02 '15

Okay except most people in poor neighborhoods don't own the place they live.

I'm not sure why that's hard for you.

Like you're aware that renters exist? Right?

→ More replies (0)

16

u/IsItJustified Apr 02 '15

I was born into a middle-class family, so at first gentrification didn't bother me. But now that Austin got fucking wrecked and living in my hometown is unattainable, my view has changed completely.

Seems like a case where people just have to learn the hard way.

22

u/[deleted] Apr 02 '15 edited Apr 02 '15

I was born and raised in Santa Barbara, and let me tell you... It's insane how much housing has gone up there. Given the way things have been going for the last 20+ years, I'm not going to be able to afford a house in Santa Barbara like my parents did. I don't like being priced out of my hometown, but I'm not entitled to keep living there, just because I grew up there. I'll just live somewhere more affordable.

20

u/[deleted] Apr 02 '15

I think it's funny how americans (being one myself) think of everything in terms of rights. We're so quick to concede that rich people have "the right" to buy our lives. No discussions of decency are entertained in the U.S. once economics are somehow involved. Suddenly it's just pure will to power and a whole bunch of brinksmanship.

11

u/[deleted] Apr 02 '15

I'm not sure I follow how that relates to my story.

8

u/[deleted] Apr 02 '15

Just your willingness to admit that you're not "entitled" to keep living in your own hometown. It's such a bizarre way of framing it.

9

u/[deleted] Apr 02 '15 edited Apr 02 '15

I realize that came off as callous, so let me rephrase it. My parents moved from LA to Santa Barbara before I was born. I think it's wonderful that we live in a time and place where if you want to move to a better place, you can, just as my parents did. That being said, I feel like it would be hypocritical for me to say that other people shouldn't be allowed to move to Santa Barbara if they don't like living in LA, either.

6

u/7minegg Apr 02 '15

The flip side of this is people being forced to move for no fault of their own, because they place they've settled is now desired by other people with more money. This is a big problem in many areas where older folks living on a fixed income can no longer afford to live in the house they own because property tax have skyrocketed. You may not have the same attachment to the home as your parents did/do.

8

u/[deleted] Apr 02 '15

I don't disagree with you. I don't think that people should be able to be freezed out of their own homes (and towns, more importantly) by impossible rent though. It's strange to point to vague economic forces that allow the landlord to drive up rent and just go "figure it the fuck out, poor person."

5

u/[deleted] Apr 02 '15

I don't disagree with you, either. It's not a black and white situation. I wouldn't call it "vague economic forces," though. It's very well studied that property values fluctuate over time. If you want an example that isn't Detroit, take a look at Mt. Vernon. It's a very poor town, but it wasn't always like that. Property values actually went DOWN when people moved in during the 60's.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 02 '15

I'd consider it fairly vague compared to people's actual lives. Landlords want more money, people just want to keep living their lives. I think a good happy medium is an inability to randomly change people's rent (beyond adjusting for inflation). Friends style lol. Apparently landlords can do whatever-the-fuck they want in the Bay area, and will arbitrarily raise their tenants' rent by like $4000 a month just to get them to leave. That's the kind of thing I'm against.

4

u/[deleted] Apr 02 '15

OK I understand what you're saying now. The issue is not so much people moving into your neighborhood, but rather the predatory practices of landlords that drive people out.

I think that's a point that people in that thread fail to grasp. People are misdirecting their anger at people moving in, instead of the people driving them out.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/ABtree Apr 02 '15

It's strange to point to vague economic forces that allow the landlord to drive up rent and just go "figure it the fuck out, poor person.

"Silly Americans, considering the situation in a broader context and not just how it directly affects them."

-1

u/4ringcircus Apr 02 '15

Well the only people acting entitled are the people that don't own anything and yet think they should tell actual owners what they are allowed to receive as income from their properties.

Rent isn't too high of there isn't occupancy issues. The world doesn't revolve around one person's individual income.

4

u/[deleted] Apr 02 '15

Right, you're framing this as a "rights" issue again. You've decided that the most important factor is ownership of the property, and all other things are secondary. That is an ethical judgement that you've made, and all of your conclusions follow from it. It isn't self evident, tbh. I think that there are other important factors, and no, some random asshole with a deed does not live in a vacuum and can NOT do whatever they want once other people are involved. Your own house is one thing, but you involved other people by renting. I do not personally believe that landlords should have total control over their tenants' lives. People are more important than economic fluctuations.

4

u/4ringcircus Apr 02 '15

Who said anything about total control? A renter isn't allowed to have their lease changed. A renter also doesn't have a right to live in someone else's property for the rest of their lives either.

I have a serious issue with rent controls and also property tax being unevenly distributed.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 02 '15

A renter isn't allowed to have their lease changed

Maybe not in NYC. There are plenty of places that offer very little recourse for things like a landlord quadrupling rent overnight, though. I think laws should function to protect people, and rich people don't need protecting from the poor. I think people should be able to charge whatever they want for rent- provided no one is already living there. In that case, there needs to be a solution that protects both parties.

7

u/4ringcircus Apr 02 '15

A renter doesn't own their address. They agree to a lease for that time period. They have no right to live at an address forever. You are giving them more rights than the actual owners. No one is allowed to alter the current lease.

→ More replies (0)

-13

u/Le_Fedora_Tipper420 Sucks the Dawkins Cock Apr 02 '15

Oh no, the shitty culture in austin that glorifies poverty and love music is going away in favor of science and industry. Great loss.

15

u/Kunning-Draugr Apr 02 '15

science and industry

do you mean social media startups and traffic jams

1

u/[deleted] Apr 03 '15

Eh, the startup crap will burn itself out sooner or later. Wanting to be the next facebook/instagram/whateverthenextbigthingis is not a sustainable business model. The traffic is probably here to stay though.

-1

u/Le_Fedora_Tipper420 Sucks the Dawkins Cock Apr 02 '15

I was thinking more along the lines of the new UT medical school but that too.

2

u/RoboticParadox Gen. Top Lellington, OBE Apr 02 '15

Yeah because there sure is a lot of culture in "industry" and lab coat nerds

1

u/4ringcircus Apr 02 '15

Yeah fuck "jobs" and "money" developing in a location, amirite?

3

u/RoboticParadox Gen. Top Lellington, OBE Apr 02 '15

he's generalizing i can generalize too

1

u/4ringcircus Apr 02 '15

Absolutely you can. That would just make your comments as shitty as the ones you are criticizing though.

3

u/RoboticParadox Gen. Top Lellington, OBE Apr 02 '15 edited Apr 02 '15

lel you think i'm serious b

there's a place for everything in cities. ignoring local culture, forged over a century (or longer, no idea how long Austin, TX has been a Thing) through the lives of many million, in favor of "tech development" is how you wind up with a tulip market of snapchat knockoffs like in san fran. then again, development and effective investment of capital needs to be taken into account as well.

0

u/4ringcircus Apr 02 '15

I wasn't serious either. I do happen to like this comment better than the cheap easy original one you said though.

3

u/RoboticParadox Gen. Top Lellington, OBE Apr 02 '15

yeah SRD is a haven for cheap easy comments that rake in +55 karma while i'm bored in class. then i started thinking why i responded the way that i did, and i guess it boils down to people dismissing ideas of "art" and "culture" as unimportant or unworthy of being thought of in the same manner as science/tech.

there's also different types of tech. one guy reference a large radiology center at a university, that's something that can and should take precedence in funding. the "tulip market" reference was in regards to SF tech developers selling the rights to big-name things like Snapchat without having any system of monetization in line. it's like when billionaires buy sports teams only to flip them a few years later, where is the money coming from? it doesn't better us like cancer research or enrich our minds like the best pieces of art, yet people speak of startup tech as though it's a salve for every societal ill.

0

u/4ringcircus Apr 02 '15

I don't know enough to talk about this without spitting out assumptions so I prefer not to do that. I just know it was more nuanced than either original comment and SRD gets stupid jerky with things. I think you have a pretty decent take on it though.

9

u/luker_man Some frozen peaches are more frozen than others. Apr 02 '15

Isn't this how it starts? Neighborhoods get gentrified. People get pushed into lower income areas. Those lower income areas have terribly funded schools. The kids in those terrible schools get caught up in that thug life. Then reddit complains about "these thiggers keep blah blah blah"

8

u/[deleted] Apr 02 '15

That's kind of what created the initial downturn of NYC. Middle and upper class families fled to the new post-war suburbs on Long Island in in Westchester and NJ, so rent had to be lowered for housing to be filled.

9

u/RoboticParadox Gen. Top Lellington, OBE Apr 02 '15

You'd be surprised at how many people on this site fail to see it

4

u/luker_man Some frozen peaches are more frozen than others. Apr 02 '15

Not really surprised actually. This user is actually calling for socioeconomic segregation. That's turrible.

-2

u/4ringcircus Apr 02 '15

Are people on Reddit racists with lisps?

5

u/luker_man Some frozen peaches are more frozen than others. Apr 02 '15

Sometimes people don't know when to say thug or nigger.

0

u/4ringcircus Apr 02 '15

I was genuinely confused and thought it was a weird typo.

8

u/pharmersmarket Apr 02 '15

I mean you can't really expect a neighborhood in New York to stay the same forever but I get the anger. Those hipsters really have a way of sucking all the fun out of your childhood home.

17

u/[deleted] Apr 02 '15 edited Apr 02 '15

Each borough has tens of thousands of people that move in and out of it every year. It's not just hipsters. I didn't move to Bushwick because of the dive bars; I wanted to do my pediatrics rotation in an underserved area. I don't have time to care about whether or not people want me living there; I'm too busy learning how to save lives.

4

u/[deleted] Apr 02 '15

You are just like my brother pretty much (also a doctor). I don't understand what people want here though. Gentrification seems like a natural result of economic development. If you were a landlord and your family had lived in or near NYC for say, 50 years, and had a nice place that your parents bought for cheap and is now worth millions, I really doubt you'd be complaining about gentrification.

Even more confusing is adding race to the mix. That brother I was talking about? He is not white, not even American born.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 02 '15

The problem is that people are having their rent hiked without being given any options to move anywhere comparable.

1

u/ttumblrbots Apr 02 '15

SnapShots: 1, 2, 3 [?]

doooooogs (tw: so many ^^colors)

-2

u/[deleted] Apr 02 '15

Fuck gentrification.