« Monday Linkage Cobble Hill, a Little Slice of Heaven, Gets Hotter »
April 24, 2006
ACORN Protesters Storm The Beacon Tower
The anti-gentrification movement stepped it up a notch yesterday with ACORN protesters storming the open house at the Beacon Tower, Shaya Boymelgreen's 23-story condo development at 85 Adams in Dumbo. “What a shame! What a pity! We can’t live in New York City,” the 50-odd protesters chanted while blanketing the sales office with flyers that read, “Beacon Tower developers get rich off the backs of working families." The protesters main gripe? That luxury projects like the Beacon still receive tax breaks in a holdover from a program started in the 1970s to stimulated development. The ambushed Corcoran agents manning the open house called in the cops who removed the protesters. Prospective buyers didn't appear to be too sympathetic to the cause. "Tell them to get jobs and go live in the projects," said Jenny Malone, who was there checking out apartments. "People just want something for nothing."
Activists Protest Dumbo Condos [Metro]
More coverage in the print edition.
Comments
i have to agree with jenny. the dumbo ship has sailed. there are plenty of other places that these pikers can live. there are also plenty of rich people who know the tax system to take advantage of it. are you going to protest in front of an expensive restaurant because you can't afford a meal there? this is ridiculous.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 9:26 AM
This is more like it. A few more actions and things will start to against interesting in "The New Brooklyn".
Posted by: Grandpa at April 24, 2006 9:33 AM
You just hit the nail on the head -- Dumbo's ship has sailed, so is luxury development there still subsized with public money?
Posted by: bjs at April 24, 2006 9:35 AM
edit: "why" between "so" and "is"
Posted by: bjs at April 24, 2006 9:36 AM
to bjs, the concept of the 421a tax exemption is not to take public money but to give incentives for development. the net tax pre and post development is actually the same. perhaps dumbo is no longer an area that needs a tax exemption but that can definitely be debatable. regardless, i feel these protest are more driven by hate and envy, than anything constructive.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 9:45 AM
At first, I thought the protest was simply over another hideously designed building. However, it's time to end 421-a exemption for projects like this. There is no justification for giving tax breaks on million dollar apartments - none. If we saw development in all segments of the housing market perhaps another argument could be made. There is nothing being built that is not "luxury" and that does not consideritself high end. Jenny's comments were repugnant and ought to rejected and rebuked by everyone. Jenny is the type trash that is going to make areas of Brooklyn more like some upper-eastside or Tribeca-wannave cunt nest.
Posted by: Jism at April 24, 2006 9:53 AM
It's funny because to me the underlying issue of inequality is paramount. But people seem to obsess about the minutia of the specific example, in this case tax code. I believe it's about time for wealthy people to recognize that their wealth is directly connected to the poverty of others. The onus for creating a more economically balanced country lies on the shoulders of the haves, not the have-nots. Poor people don't want to be pushed around because those that fled the cities now want to live here again. Does that constitute hate and envy?
Posted by: Drew at April 24, 2006 9:56 AM
Right on Jenny. What these people don't understand is that they NEED gentrifiers. Because once those new development tax abatements run out in 10 years, those taxes will be paying for pretty things like the 2nd Avenue Subway and other assets to the SHARED space we call New York City. This is why richer people do deserve more respect. There's a reason why NYC's "low moment" in history was when the opposite effect was occurring: Poor people replacing not-poor people, in the 1960s and 1970s. Remember when the city went bankrupt in the 1970s? Crime? Urban decay? It's easy for white people with higher education degrees to cushily sit back--especially in places like Williamsburg and DUMBO--and complain about gentrification when THEY STARTED THE EFFECT simply by initially looking for "cheap rent" and by having a career in the arts (which is a complete luxury in of itself--the poor of Williamsburg have no financial safety-net called "parents").
So take a look at the demographic of the protesters in DUMBO and tell me with a straight face that they are a group that is in dire need of assistance in housing because gentrification has exhausted their financial resources.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 9:58 AM
to jism. big question is, if you don't live in dumbo, why are you so passionate about this? why do you really care? why dont you give me justification for that. please save your there is not other places in nyc to live in. there are plenty of more affordable housing other than dumbo.
Posted by: i live in dumbo at April 24, 2006 10:00 AM
hey drew, granted i agree that there is a fine distinction of classes when you speak about issues like this and perhaps even new york city in general. But how can you deny growth spurred by the rich regardless of who directly benefits. think about all those who indirectly benefit. to have an economically balanced country is pushing on the verge of communism. why focus on such macro issues when the focus should really be making a personal difference on your own, through perhaps something called hard work. why are poor people poor and rich people rich?
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 10:12 AM
"the net tax pre and post development is actually the same."
True, but the city provides services to developed properties that it does not to fallow properties. All the hubub about the overcrowded L train in Willamsburg is a great example of tax abatements leading to development leading to service declines leading to ...
Probably expensive additional train cars, buses, etc. There are very few parts of New York that require these types of exemptions to encourage development today.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 10:13 AM
great, another a-hole out there saying rich people deserve more respect (anon 9:58). please excuse me if i don't bow down to you in the respect that you so obviously deserve; i was unaware of your important contributions to society. and by the way, the 421-a tax abatements aren't going to the people buying those apartments, they're going to pay for the developers' houses out in the hamptons. so much for that money being reinvested into the city.
Posted by: you people suck... at April 24, 2006 10:14 AM
Dear "you people suck...",
Wake up. Take a look at how New Jersey's high taxes has produced a huge web of NEW public transportation. And we only have the AirTrain to show. Shame on you if you're about to defend all of the holdout wackos in rent-controlled apartments (most of whom are able MIDDLE-CLASS) who contribute NOTHING finacially to NYC but only whine and like Jenny said "want something for nothing."
There's a reason why when you go to he Met Opera and open up the program and the top donors are listed first because their ONE contribution is equivalent to 500 other people contributing in the lowest category. Shouldn't the same respect be for taxpayers?
Posted by: 9:58 Guy at April 24, 2006 10:24 AM
Anon 10:12--C'mon, there are plenty of poor people who work very hard--much harder than 20-30 years ago when light manufacturing was a good and stable job in NYC.
Now folks with a high school degree or less work in the service economy with its largely minumum wage jobs--so people work multiple jobs to get by. Where should these people live? Two hours away? Who will wait on you at Starbucks?
Posted by: tinarina at April 24, 2006 10:26 AM
tinarina, here is a dissection of your points.
sure there are poor people who work hard, and they will inherit a better life, at least the smart ones will. these protesters arent making a difference in their personal lives.
here is a list of places people can live that are not 2 hours away. i know plenty of middle class people who commute from the burbs that are around 2 hours away and they are not complaining. but here is a list anyway:
1. parents house
2. not in nyc, work somewhere else
3. plenty of places in bk
4. plenty of places in queens
5. plenty of places in si
6. plenty of places in the bronx
need i say more, exaggerating does not make your argument stronger.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 10:36 AM
Shrieking and disruption are all that ACORN knows. Their tactics have proven beneficial with Bruce Ratner (though a good case can be made that the affordable housing in the Atlantic Yards is not truly affordable), but in this case it seems that they turned off more people than converted.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 10:47 AM
Just a quick response to the anonymous person who responded to me: You are correct that the real focus should be on affecting local change. But I would argue that the gap between rich and poor people has nothing to do with hard work. I would also suggest that tempering our brand of cut-throat capitalism with some of the tenets of communism would make our country better. More than anything, I just hate to see those with all the advantages of money and education turn their backs on those who are often too entrenched in the disfunction of poverty to pull themselves out by their own bootstraps.
Posted by: Drew at April 24, 2006 11:00 AM
this amazing machine of a city has come this far and is what it is because of the network of people rich and poor and middle class that make its wheels turn on a daily basis. we all make it happen, we all contribute so we all deserve the same amount of respect.
to anonymous: most people up and down the social ladder bust their asses every day. any person well educated on social issues and patterns knows that the poor arent poor because they dont work hard. that is completly ignorant to say. your optimism as far as the money going back into the city to build the second ave. line, is cute.
these people need to grow the F*** up and stop acting like bratty children who don't want to share the sand box. and no! people shouldnt have to leave the city or work in another borough or live with their parents. that is the most ridiculous list of suggestions you could have possibly listed. I'm curious ANonymous, are you from new york city or are you some kind of midwest transplant?
Jism, "cunt-nest" is a wonderful lil description. looks like jenny there will fit in nicely.
Posted by: newyorker at April 24, 2006 11:32 AM
Just look at the international news and you will see that as the gap between rich and poor grows in many countries there is a significant increase in social disruptions. As the poet said some decades ago: "The revolution will not be televised, the revolution will be live".
I for one do not want to live in such interesting times. And, as a native NY'r I do not want this city turned into a playground for the wealthy. We need a good balance of classes and we need to make sure that we use our tax money to increase the overall health of our society directly and not through some kind of trickle-down (sounds like piss to me) economics.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 11:39 AM
Amazing how so many people shift this debate to their attitudes about low income people!
Are you really willing to subsidize owners of $600,000 to $2million dollar condos so that they only have to pay $22-$34 a month in property taxes?
I'd rather see some of this tax subsidy go towards developers who are willing to offer a broader range of affordable units, not to Boymelgreen and other luxury housing developers.
Go ACORN!
Posted by: anonymous at April 24, 2006 11:39 AM
New Yorker,
Your attitude is typical of the holier-than-thou types that permeate NYC. You lose your patience with anyone who disagrees with your views.
I also love how the demonstrators were the ones who disrupted the open-house and had to be escorted out by law enforcement, yet it is the realtors, developers, and prospective buyers who are being excoriated as the bad guys. It's interesting how paternalistic liberals have such low expectations of poor people in terms of behavior.
Being poor is tied to several basic factors: education, marriage or partnership, and children. Anyone with little formal education who fails to form some sort of union with a partner and who has one or more children before age 25 will most likely wind up poor. It's an unpopular truth, and screaming at open houses or beseeching well-to-do people to give away their wealth will never change that.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 11:41 AM
The pro-poverty attitudes on this blog are so patronizing. Give up your own apartments if you think it will make a difference. I'm assuming most of you went to college; fork over half your salary so someone else can go.
This country is so neurotic. I'm sure most of the people buying into the Beacon Tower, and most of the people commenting here, come from some kind of poor immigrant history. I certainly do.
Yes, there are many disenfranchised groups in this country. Do you really think protesting about housing in a condo sales office has much meaning to any of them?
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 11:41 AM
Not complaining? You must be kidding. Why do you think there is a huge influx of suburbanites moving back to the City?
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at April 24, 2006 11:46 AM
"It's interesting how paternalistic liberals have such low expectations of poor people in terms of behavior."
Actually we liberals have low expectations of rich, conservative, neo-con types who, so far, have not surprised us with their behavior.
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at April 24, 2006 11:50 AM
Before you start yelling, just hear me out- I'm for the eliminatation of the 421a tax exemption. Not for the same reason as ACORN or their compatriots though. The 421a tax exemption is specifically meant and does create malinvestment into inefficient housing projects, which are projects which otherwise would not have been profitable.
Of course, much of the reason most of these projects would have been unrealized is because of property taxation.
If ACORN really wants to bring more affordable housing into the city, they ought to oppose not just the shell game of such tax exemptions, but first and foremost they must oppose all property taxation, the very existence of which preempts and creates the "need" for tax exemptions to lessen the strangling that property taxes effects.
To call this a luxury development subsized with public money is a lie, and cheap rhetoric. There was no positive flow of cash funds to the developer going to fund his housing needs in the Hamptons. The closest thing you can call this, is that the city, out of great benevolence, did not presume to extort all the developers profit from the sale of much needed housing, but rather took a reduced share for the time being.
Posted by: iceberg at April 24, 2006 11:53 AM
Is there nobody else out there who thinks NEITHER side deserves an entitlement?
developers shouldn't be getting a public subsidy to build luxury condos in dumbo.
protesters do not deserve public help to live in a neighborhood they can't otherwise afford.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 11:56 AM
"Tell them to get jobs and go live in the projects"?
There's nothing wrong with Jenny that I couldn't fix with five minutes and an ax handle.
Posted by: Will at April 24, 2006 11:57 AM
This thread has gone way off course, becoming a fight of rich versus poor. That is not the problem. The problem is an undeserving developer getting an unneeded tax break.
Shaya Boymelgreen is a scumbag. His funding comes through his development partner Lev Leviev, who made his money off of African blood diamonds. They cheat their workers (there's a case against them with Spitzers office right now) and do sub-standard work.
The question is: in this frenzied real estate market, why is someone the caliber of Shaya Boymelgreen getting tax breaks that could go to above-board developers?
Posted by: Mike the Laborer at April 24, 2006 11:57 AM
I agree that tax incentives should be given to developers that create low income housing but the 421a abatements help to contribute to city coffers well before the abatements run out. Remember the additional tax revenues in the last few years that came from the RE boom were substantially made up of transfer taxes on sales of these kinds of properties as well as any other. Transfer tax is based on price sold and there is no kind of rebate on this.
The abatements helped spur the generation and capture of a substantial portion of these transfer taxes.
Posted by: VDH at April 24, 2006 12:02 PM
Right on, newyorker, jism, tinarina and Drew. I'm glad not everyone on this blog has joined the Jenny's of this city. While I have some large problems with a lot of ACORN'S past policies and alliances, they are correct in this case in that tax subsidies for luxury housing is criminal, and in this case, inexcusible. There is no trickle down in today's housing market.
I fail to see how anyone can think that the creation of luxury housing is going to benefit anyone other than the developer and the buyers/renters. No developer is going to bask in the glow of his largesse and then go out and build low income and market rate housing because he made a nice chunk of change. Incentive programs are the only carrot that the city can dangle in front of large developers that work, and even then, they have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the table.
What really distubs me more is that people like Jenny, and those who agree with her on this blog, have no clue and don't give a crap about "those people" (I hate that phrase) Most of "those people" are the true worker ants of this city. They are the ones who are answering the phones, delivering the mail and everything else, cleaning offices, protecting our streets, buildings and picking up the garbage. They take care of our kids, they teach our kids, they are nurses, hospital aides, check out clerks, and phone linemen. The list goes on and on and on. These people already live in the projects and work to get out, they already live in the Bronx, Queens and Brooklyn. I don't think anyone at the demonstration was saying "I want someone to give me an apartment in DUMBO", rather that they want the opportunity to have decent affordable housing built, especially if the tax abatements available for that purpose are not being used for them.
The increasing attitude of entitlement and snobbery between the haves and have nots in this city is going to cause more problems than race alone has ever done, and is much more dangerous on the whole. I don't want to live in a city that looks like Haiti - barricaded rich enclaves surrounded by increasing amounts of poor, desperate and increasingly angry poor people. People like Jenny couldn't give a damn as long as they don't have to look at it.
Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at April 24, 2006 12:10 PM
newyorker, enough with the ad hominem remarks, make a substantiated point. all you did is praise "cunt-nest" and ridicule those in opposition.
im sure that is the intelligent "newyorker" thing to do.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 12:11 PM
Maybe it is true that we need a public discussion of 421-a tax abatements, but ACORN also needs to pick its fights better. As for the wicked Ms. Malone, I can see her now being dragged along the cobblestone street, kicking and screaming, as the angry crowd dips her headfirst into a scalding hot cauldron of Jacques Toures chocolate (with 71% cocoa content). Yummmmmmmmmy
Posted by: let them eat sushi at April 24, 2006 12:17 PM
why is there a direct correlation between incomprehensible comments and these protest advocates on this blog.
haha, who is talking about worker ants? true workers..that made me laugh..what a tangent.
anyway, there will always be class distinction, people will benefit anyway they can, poor people get unemployment checks and welfare from the public and rich people get hefty tax incentives for developing. i think everyone in between need to realize that if you dont belong in either category then work towards avoiding one and reaching the other.
Posted by: middle at April 24, 2006 12:25 PM
"Being poor is tied to several basic factors: education, marriage or partnership, and children. Anyone with little formal education who fails to form some sort of union with a partner and who has one or more children before age 25 will most likely wind up poor."
And anon 11:41, as an expert on poverty, what's next? Sterilization? Yours has to be one of the stupidest and scariest pieces of misinformation I have ever read here. I'm sure all of the other myriad and sundry causes of poverty pale in front of this one. Gawd, the arrogance!
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 12:25 PM
"I would also suggest that tempering our brand of cut-throat capitalism with some of the tenets of communism would make our country better."
I love it. If we could all hold hands and execute some land owners it would all be better. I just know it would work this time around.
Posted by: JoshK at April 24, 2006 12:26 PM
CHP as I said, there is plenty of trickle down effect in terms of substantially higher tax revenue for the city in terms of transfer taxes.
Posted by: VDH at April 24, 2006 12:30 PM
How ironic that, with ACORN's support, Bruce Ratner has been able to persuade the state to give him tax breaks and tax subsidies (OK, persnickety readers of this site, I grant that final details are still pending but the project won't go forward w/o massive public hand-outs) to build the Atlantic Yards. Yet now there's talk that the affordable housing component of Atlantic Yards may not even be built at the Atlantic Yards site itself. And of course if it isn't built there, perhaps it won't be built at all. There's plenty of precedent for breaking promises on affordable housing. And if it doesn't get built -- what redress will ACORN have then? Well, Bruce has promised to pay them $500,000 if he reneges. Wow, what a whopping penalty! Isn't that less than the (likely) price of a single one-bedroom condo in Atlantic Yards? I'm all for affordable housing in NYC -- let NYCHA develop the entire site in a low-rise, appropriate way -- but this particular deal is a con. ACORN members should be demonstrating against their own leadership for allowing themselves to be so blatantly manipulated by Ratner.
Posted by: Anon at April 24, 2006 12:36 PM
Hey middle, I hate to tell you, but poor people are not the main recipients of unemployment, it's the middle class. And no one, of any class, volunteers for it, it comes from losing your job, which is not usually something of your choosing. And an unempoyment check is hardly a get rich scheme of the poor, and doesn't last all that long, either. I hardly think that the world is divided into welfare recipients and rich developers, and those are your choices. You may not like my worker ants analogy, but it certainly is more accurate than your comment, and much more comprehensible.
Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at April 24, 2006 12:37 PM
"I fail to see how anyone can think that the creation of luxury housing is going to benefit anyone other than the developer and the buyers/renters."
Creating more high-end property frees up the middle and low end. If that's hard to understand, try to imagine what would happen if all of the high-end housing was destroyed in NYC. The former inhabitants of the luxury units would start bidding on the middle and lower tier stuff.
Posted by: JoshK at April 24, 2006 12:37 PM
CrownHeightsProud. You act as though people don't actually have the opportunity to get out of the projects here in NYC. The guy working next to me (a computer genius and head of our IT Department) came out of the Farragut Houses. The owner of Starbucks? He came out of a Brooklyn project too. (He was featured last night on '60 Minutes'.) The reasons for some people getting 'stuck' in the projects are varied and sad. We have many programs in this town that help give those that want it a leg up. It's unfair to imply that we've turned our backs on the poor in this city -- just not true.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 12:38 PM
VDH, please explain how that helps the underserved in the affordable and low income housing market? Please cite direct cause and effect, because just saying it should doesn't make it so.
Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at April 24, 2006 12:41 PM
Another thing. The abatements are not subsidies in terms of cuts on taxes that are already being paid. These are new taxes that contribute positively to city revenues when there were none or less before. The way that RE taxes are calculated on city property with vast differences in coops, condos and houses means that even the non-abated taxes are arrived at in contrived and artificial means anyway with some types of housing (brownstones for example) already getting a huge discount to the "market" without any abatements. Thus 421a abatements that start phasing in increases every two years from inception don't really contribute to keeping tax revenues away from the city because by year two they start to go up substantially anyway and keep going up until they hit much higher levels than for existing coops, condos and houses.
You could argue that the higher taxes )over and above what others pay for similar places) by around year 6 more than pay back what was supposedly "lost" with the abatements. The luxury housing that is being built ends up with much higher taxes in the end.
Posted by: VDH at April 24, 2006 12:43 PM
crownheightsproud. unfortunately, you are not stating much cause and effect yourself. think about what the rich has done for nyc. without them, much of the entertainment, restaurants, tourism, etc..would not be possible, you identify the poor as being the real workers here, but have failed to say why the rich are not real workers.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 12:49 PM
crownheightsproud,my spectrum example was just an example and im well aware there are other destinations. regardless, of your inability to see it, but this whole blog has been focused on those two ends.
just an example, like how you state the following.
"Most of "those people" are the true worker ants of this city."
im sure people can list other true workers out there.
Posted by: middle at April 24, 2006 1:00 PM
mr. poor black man..you are pathetic...what are you really going to do? other than scare and complain
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 1:03 PM
Anon.12:38, I don't see where I said that they were stuck there. My initital comments mentioned people in the projects, as well as in other parts of the city, not specifically the projects. That part of my remarks was in answer to Jenny of the "let them live in the projects" fame. I know all kinds of people start there and leave.
And let's not forget that all NYCHA projects are not the same. Some are crime ridden pits of despair, and some are much, much better. I think general, most people, even well meaning people, think that everyone in public housing is sitting around waiting for someone else to save them. Plenty of places have tenant organizations that do everything from security patrols to planting flowers, and sponsor home buying clubs. Subsidized housing is not only for the very poor, it also serves the greater amount of people who are hard working each and everyday, but just don't make enough money to be able to afford market rate housing. I certainly know plenty of people in that catagory, given the prices of housing. There are varying degrees of subsidy, and programs that cover a pretty broad spectrum of incomes. It's not just about the extremely poor, but they should certainly not be forgotten, either.
Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at April 24, 2006 1:04 PM
You can yawn, 12:54 PM, but I'll bet plenty of these posters are afraid of African Americans. And with such attitudes, maybe they should be.
Posted by: Rocco at April 24, 2006 1:04 PM
CAPITALISM is the only system that works. All you jabbering liberals are FULL OF SHIT. I doubt any of you give away anything significant to CHARITY. You're a bunch of liers. You say one thing and do another.
Sorry folks, in a free country you SHOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR SOMETHING TO GET IT. NOBODY SHOULD GET SPECIAL TREATMENT.
IF YOU WANT CHARITY, BEG ON THE STREET!
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 1:05 PM
How come people dont protest the affordability of Beverly Hills or Malibu or Miami Beach or Nob Hill? I mean, I certainly dont like the fact that things are so expensive but at the same time, I dont feel that it is my right to live here. If I can afford it, fine but if i cant, then i look else where.... why do other people feel that this is a right and privildge rather than a sacrifice and financial decision...
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 1:07 PM
Another thought. Shouldn't RS/RC/public housing benefits be taxable?
If you are living in a 1000sq ft apartment in a project in Chelsea, that has a market value of $5000 then that should be treated as income. Or if you are paying $800/mo to living in a $10k/mo RS apartment? Then you are getting $9,200 a month in income.
If someone's work pays for their apartment, or gives such a subsidy, it is taxable (for long term, primary residence, non-expat stays). This would be fair in that it would at least recognize the value of the transfer that is being given over.
Posted by: JoshK at April 24, 2006 1:12 PM
Crackers
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 1:16 PM
to anonymous:
to quote myself: "this amazing machine of a city has come this far and is what it is because of the network of people rich and poor and middle class that make its wheels turn on a daily basis. we all make it happen, we all contribute so we all deserve the same amount of respect."
whether poor, middle-class or rich we need eachother to make this city function. one is not more or less important than the other.
in essence thats why we are all arguing for or against 421a. there are those who say "screw the ones who cant afford it" and those who say "there has to be a better way to fit everyone in".
you may say that my remarks are ad hominem, but in essence its assholes who make the world a fucked up place.
Posted by: newyorker at April 24, 2006 1:21 PM
"Being poor is tied to several basic factors: education, marriage or partnership, and children. Anyone with little formal education who fails to form some sort of union with a partner and who has one or more children before age 25 will most likely wind up poor."
I don't understand why people found the quote above from an anonymous poster arrogant. It's not really controversial. It is a sad reality. Your environment and educational level are the predominant factors in determining how you do economically, no doubt about it.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 1:22 PM
And what's the chief determiner of environment and education level? Hmmm, could it have anything to do with income?
Posted by: Anon at April 24, 2006 1:27 PM
Don't know why I'm bothering to address anon screamer 1:05, but if my rusty econ 101 serves me, the reality of capitalism is that it works best with about 5% unemployment.
I'm a capitalism fan too, but we need to acknowledge that it leaves a significant amount of people out of the club--both the unemployed and underemployed. And I don't think leaving the country is a reasonable solution.
Posted by: tinarina at April 24, 2006 1:28 PM
hard work...like i said before...
and then i get this bs saying poor people work really hard..totally missing the point..
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 1:29 PM
"Don't know why I'm bothering to address anon screamer 1:05, but if my rusty econ 101 serves me, the reality of capitalism is that it works best with about 5% unemployment."
The 5% you are talking about is what's called "NAIRU". I forgot what it stands for, but you can look it up. It just means that we have to assume that even in a time of "full employment" there will be some people without jobs. Some people will always get fired, or quit for some reason.
The point of that # is just to say that at a certain point you can't push unemployment lower, even though some people will still not have jobs.
Posted by: JoshK at April 24, 2006 1:36 PM
nice post Anon 1:05- so what have YOU given to charity? Please read Bx2Bklyn's post at 11:50 for our liberal attitudes. And if you really think no one should get special treatment- would that include all the friends of the moronic administration that presently infests the White House?
Posted by: feeling puckish at April 24, 2006 1:39 PM
let them eat sushi says: "As for the wicked Ms. Malone, I can see her now being dragged along the cobblestone street, kicking and screaming, as the angry crowd dips her headfirst into a scalding hot cauldron of Jacques Toures chocolate (with 71% cocoa content). Yummmmmmmmmy"
LOL, that comment made my day!
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 1:40 PM
VDH you are correct re: the transfer taxes , but they only offset the tax break a bit.
I happen to believe that given the pices that new construction is selling for in many areas of Brooklyn the 421a tax exemption is no longer necessary and should be adjusted for wide areas of the boro, just as it was in Manhattan; in he end it will resut in lower sale prices (since the carry charges will be higher) and the margins for developers will be lower. Will also result in higher income taxes for many buyers since AMT will result in difficulty in writing off re taxes.
Posted by: David at April 24, 2006 1:44 PM
1:32pm,
These white boys aren't racist.
I don't like em either, but you sound like the biggest retard on the blog.
Posted by: Tyron at April 24, 2006 1:48 PM
Not racist my ass. This whole thread is an exercise in racism--though I acknowledge that poor whites are also being targeted. The posters are first and foremost classists who want to denigrate and exploit working people for their own benefit. Racism is for them simply a guilty pleasure that they sneak in along the way.
Posted by: Jamal at April 24, 2006 1:53 PM
Of course rich people contribute to society - who said they didn't? And of course there are plenty of other workers, in every possible description and income level, that I didn't list. Come on, that isn't the point of this discussion, unless your only defense is nit picking.
The point of the protest, and this discussion, is that a developer used a tax abatement program designed to promote development of affordable housing, on a luxury building project in a area of Bklyn that needs no abatement, and is not in the least bit geared for affordable housing. Period.
No one, including ACORN, expects anyone to give them anything as a handout, including an apartment in DUMBO, and if any of the protesters actually expected that, they did themselves a disservice to the cause. To focus on whether someone in that group wanted an apartment in DUMBO when they can't afford it is to purposefully lose track of the point here. The point here is that Boymelgreen used a loophole in a program designed for one group of New Yorkers, and essentially gave himself a huge tax break at the expense of that group. The renters/owners of his building benefit in that they got another luxury building in a hot, primo neighborhood. Win-win for the better off, nothing for the rest.
To say that this helps the masses because the rich are moving on up and leaving housing for the rest of us is absolutely absurd. Is there some new law that says that when a wealthy person leaves their old luxury digs, lets say on the UES, for hip and happening DUMBO, the old apartment goes to a factory worker? Housing is not passed down the social strata like old clothes.
One may not like the loud bunch at ACORN, they may not look like your type of folks, and I admit, I think their leadership has sold them down the river, and the organization has a large cedibility problem. But the fact remains that they are absolutely in the right to protest the fact that their needs are not being addressed, and that affordable housing in this city is at best an afterthought, not a priority.
Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at April 24, 2006 1:54 PM
CHP - as someone else said, I'm not sure why I should supply direct cause and effect when you offer little to back up your opinions. But seeing as you asked nicely here is the best I could do:
1. xfr tax (so not including mortgage recording tax) increase:
FYE July 2005 RE xfr tax revs=$2.2Billion
FYE July 2000 RE xfr taxrevs=$875Million
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B04E7DA1F3FF937A3575BC0A9639C8B63&sec=&pagewanted=1
2. $2Billion planned for building housing for low- and moderate-income families.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/01/nyregion/01fiscal.html?ei=5090&en=50da8b1c5ab9d4fb&ex=1296450000&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
3. Other ways of using increased tax revenue to build low-income housing:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B01E1DA1E38F931A15750C0A9649C8B63
Posted by: VDH at April 24, 2006 1:55 PM
Don't worry about it, Tyron- there's enough retardation to go around. Look at the way people went after CrownHeightsProud, who always posts well-thought out, fairminded responses. It's amazing how bent out of shape people get when you present them with a good argument. Or when you go against their preconceived notions of what they deserve in life (why waste good chocolate on Jenny, by the way? Stick her in cod liver oil).
CHP and newyorker really have the right of it. Look at history- you ignore the lower and middle economic at your peril. Revolutions (including ours) are started by those who are ignored and abused. Want a strong country and ecomomy- accept the fact that we are all in this together, and we all need one another. Lovers of capitalism aside, there is something called the "greater good" that makes it livable.
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at April 24, 2006 2:01 PM
hey, anon 9:58 guy, i'm not at all defending anyone here. although i do think a large number of people (whether or not a majority i can't say) truly need the low rent they are paying, i generally believe that rent control/stabilization skews the market, makes free-loaders of a lot of people, and jacks up the rent for everyone else (and i live in a rent-stabilized apartment, albeit one that is only a couple of hundred below market value). it's a reality of the city, deal with it. and for the record, i'm middle class professional earning about 75K a year, so i'm not asking anyone to cry for me. what i was pointing out is that people like you are always saying "worship rich people! they DESERVE everything their little hearts desire!" NO, they DON'T. if they have the means to be able to buy it, then fine, but that's not that same as deserving it. people deserve basic human rights, dignity, good schools, safe neighborhoods, and a decent place to live. those are things that make for a GOOD society, and are things that we should all be striving to achieve. no one deserves a 3 bedroom condo on the 27th floor with a fulltime doorman and a view of manhattan. but if you can buy it, then fine; it's yours.
by the way, i would bet that MOST of the benefactors in this city that give money to our fine institutions are doing so for the betterment of arts, culture, and society in general. i would highly doubt they are doing it to be worshipped by the masses. that would just be gauche.
Posted by: anon 9:58 guy sucks... at April 24, 2006 2:01 PM
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ME NECKTIE!
Subsidized housing in high rent neighborhoods is totally unfair to those folks who aren't lucky enough to win a subsidized housing lottery.
LET THE FREE MARKET RULE.
If you can't afford Manhattan, move to Queens. Why should tax money be wasted so lottery winners can live cheaply in Chelsea?
Posted by: Santa Claus at April 24, 2006 2:02 PM
David, I did not say that xfr tax (and mortgage tax) makes up for "lost" tax revenue. I was trying to say that the higher prices that these abatements allow the developer to get away with contributes to more city revenues because xfr tax is based on selling price.
I did say that the benefit to the buyer of rebate will effectively be nullified about half way through the 10 year abatement period due to the biannual increases. This means that the city wins again by year 6 due to the much higher tax rates levied on new condos.
Ppl are attacking a program that does not take away taxes in the medium term let alone the long term. In fact tax revenues have increases substantially and $2Billion of that has been planned to be used for low income housing.
Posted by: VDH at April 24, 2006 2:02 PM
And yeah, anon 1:29, most poor people work hard, harder than you'll ever know. It's just that it's rather difficult to move on up, hell - break even, on a minimum wage or just above minimum wage job in one of the most expensive cities in the country. Try paying rent, and raising a family on around $300 take home a week.
And please spare me the comments about moving out of the city, like it's an option for most people, no matter what your income.
Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at April 24, 2006 2:06 PM
"To say that this helps the masses because the rich are moving on up and leaving housing for the rest of us is absolutely absurd... Housing is not passed down the social strata like old clothes."
That's 100% wrong. That is how housing moves. New housing frees up the old housing, creating more supply. When legal hurdles are high enough to limit development as they are in NYC (thanks to countless organizations like ACORN), then the limited supply of housing gets bid up and the previously affordable housing becomes unaffordable. (See DUMBO.)
Posted by: JoshK at April 24, 2006 2:06 PM
CHP - 421a was not meant to provide affordable housing. It was simply to persuade developers to build in areas that they would normally avoid. Of course there is no need to give builders incentives to build now but that does not mean that it was ever meant for affordable housing. Even though I think that that kind of program should exist.
Posted by: VDH at April 24, 2006 2:07 PM
anon 9:58 guy sucks- great post!!! and the same for CHP. You put it so well.. Unfortunately I have to say that Jamal is not far from the truth. Although I would like to give people the benefit of the doubt and say it's all about economics and class, it's a fact that too many people associate that with skin color or culture. ANd far too often without having any first hand experience.
And anon 1:05- arts, theater, social programs- the rich benefactors who give to those charities are most certainly liberals.
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at April 24, 2006 2:11 PM
jamal, please dont turn this into a "racist" issue because it would be a shame. the ACORN people didnt say “What a shame! What a pity! We white middle-class folks can’t live in New York City”
please please please
Posted by: newyorker at April 24, 2006 2:12 PM
Crown House Pride,
Moving is not such a big deal. Call some friends, rent a UHAUL, load the truck, drive to Newark.
What's the big deal? Hundreds of thousands of poor people move every day in this country. It's neither difficult nor expensive.
It just takes a little work.
Posted by: Santa Claus at April 24, 2006 2:12 PM
'And please spare me the comments about moving out of the city, like it's an option for most people, no matter what your income.'
People move all the time in response economic stimulus. Cheaper housing, better jobs, etc...
Aside from that there are huge swaths of brooklyn that no one is protesting about not being able to afford.
And no I don't support the developer subsidy.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 2:15 PM
So Santa Claus, what's up with the Newark remark? By the way, I highly doubt that CrownHeightsProud (couldn't even get that right) needs the likes of you to tell her what work is. If anything, she could tell you.
Sorry newyorker- it's not Jamal who made this a racial issue. It's clowns like Santa.
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at April 24, 2006 2:20 PM
hey i have an idea!!!!
why dont these people with all the money move to the moon?!?! i hear there is lots of property available there and they can build all they want and drive the prices up as much as they possibly can and no one will complain about it. i'm sure these pesky, smelly poor plebs wont follow.
Posted by: newyorker at April 24, 2006 2:22 PM
newyorker- (:->
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at April 24, 2006 2:23 PM
Bx2Bklyn - how old are you? nice smiley face..you sure your parents know you are commenting on these blogs
Posted by: an adult at April 24, 2006 2:32 PM
Josh, please! In this housing market, which is so extreme, as in high cost, low cost and not much in the middle, how you can say that someone leaving a high end building to move to another high end building is opening up a spot for anyone other than another high end buyer? How does that serve to make adjustments in the housing pool? I stand by my remarks. The top tiers may be shuffling around, that has nothing to do with anyone else. Trickle down ecomomics didn't work, neither does this.
VDH, who determines what is an undesirable spot, and for what reason, and for whom? Seems to me that for all the wrong reasons, that should lead to the building of affordable housing. I say wrong reasons only because "undesirable" in this case means undesirable for the luxury market, ie: outer borough spots such as East New York, East Flatbush, most of the Bronx, etc, which are not "good enough" for the wealthy, but are seen as just fine for everyone else. I hope the programs you cited in your links are pushed through, although it raises many other issues and mindfields that I'm not about to go into today. I've been jumped on enough for one day.
Santa - if you can't get my name right, let alone your absurd statements, then go polish your sleigh runners or something. Maybe Rudolph or one of his friends will kick you in the head and knock some sense and intelligence into you.
Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at April 24, 2006 2:32 PM
An adult? You? Really? At least you aren't visually challenged. Although why you would comment on my last post instead of one all the issues being discussed leads me to believe that as mature as you think you are, you are not capable of adding anything constructive to the forum.
Thanks for complimenting my artwork.
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at April 24, 2006 2:41 PM
Look.
These subsidies are going to go away for manhattan close in outer boroughs. It's a matter of time. They are handouts to developers by and large, and serve no particular public policy goal at the margin. That's just reality. If you want to preserve them, elect a city council that will. I don't see that happening.
If ACORN wants to embarrass some brokers and buyers who benefit from the corporate welfare, good. There are plenty of other unsubsidized apartments to buy and sell, if you find the protest unpleasant.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 2:41 PM
all social issues aside Bx2Bklyn, your smiley face is quite impressive.
Posted by: newyorker at April 24, 2006 2:42 PM
Awwwww, new yorker. I loved what you said at 11:32- it was right on.
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at April 24, 2006 2:46 PM
Hey Bx2Bklyn, here is something i'd like you to address..i posted earlier but people like you have failed to rebut.
How come people dont protest the affordability of Beverly Hills or Malibu or Miami Beach or Nob Hill? I mean, I certainly dont like the fact that things are so expensive but at the same time, I dont feel that it is my right to live here. If I can afford it, fine but if i cant, then i look else where.... why do other people feel that this is a right and privildge rather than a sacrifice and financial decision...
Posted by: an adult at April 24, 2006 2:55 PM
an adult:
perhaps you fail to understand what we are discussing here. the plebs dont want to move INTO one trump plaza, they dont want IT to move in on them and push them off the coney island shores right into the water.
Posted by: newyorker at April 24, 2006 2:59 PM
Acorn supports the Forrest Ratner Atlantic Yards project...? Ratner is being subsidized with more than $100 million. Is that not a problem? Why the double standards? In my view Acorn has no credibility whatsoever. Shame, shame, shame on them....
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 3:02 PM
I can only guess since I'm not an expert on those places. Those are enclaves that have always been expensive. Except for Miami, I don't think they are building mass apartment complexes that are displacing long time, poorer residents or drastically changing neighborhoods. And in Miami I think they ar still spreading out horizontally as well as vertically. New York has several things unique to it, one of them being that even in the richest neighborhoods, there is some mixing of incomes. We are essentially packed one on the other- and like New Yorker says, it is the amazing engine that drives the city. But again, most of us posting know NYC, not those other areas.
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at April 24, 2006 3:03 PM
3:02 - you are absolutely right, as I mentioned in my posts. They have severely compromised their credibility by jumping on the AY boat without checking to see if it had enough life boats. Getting thrown a bone or two from the big table is not the same as sitting at that table.
Mixed metaphors aside, that doesn't necessarily make them wrong here. I might have done it differently, but sometimes the only way to get attention is to be in your face. It might have been better to get directly in Boymelgreen's face, but I believe they made their point.
For the last time - an adult - read what people have been saying. NOBODY said to move people into free places they can't afford in ritsy neighborhoods. Newyorker's reply is absolutely correct.
Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at April 24, 2006 3:14 PM
new yorker - where are these developments moving them? im not exactly sure what your point is. i believe the beacon was just a plot of land before it became a luxury condo, who were the inhabitants of this plot of land? this is where i feel people people they have this right and privilege. anyway, if you are priced out of a certain area, you can either work harder to afford it or move somewhere more affordable. can't it be that simple?
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 3:15 PM
new yorker - where are these developments moving them? im not exactly sure what your point is. i believe the beacon was just a plot of land before it became a luxury condo, who were the inhabitants of this plot of land? this is where i feel people people they have this right and privilege. anyway, if you are priced out of a certain area, you can either work harder to afford it or move somewhere more affordable. can't it be that simple?
Posted by: an adult at April 24, 2006 3:17 PM
anonymous 3:15, an adult:
symbiosis
Main Entry: sym·bi·o·sis
Pronunciation: "sim-bE-'O-s&s, -"bI-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural sym·bi·o·ses /-"sEz/
Etymology: New Latin, from German Symbiose, from Greek symbiOsis state of living together, from symbioun to live together, from symbios living together, from syn- + bios life -- more at QUICK
1 : the living together in more or less intimate association or close union of two dissimilar organisms
2 : the intimate living together of two dissimilar organisms in a mutually beneficial relationship (as between two persons or groups)
Posted by: newyorker at April 24, 2006 3:29 PM
This thread features a bunch of self-interested yuppies who think that poor people are lazy but that their wealth was completely earned. That's ridiculous, because bourgie white folks get handouts from the day that they're born, while poor people from the beginning face stigma, hardship, discrimination and brutality. Don't give me any bullshit about how you grew up poor only to become successful enough to evict your very own low-income tenants from your new brownstone. The question is a social one--what reproduces poverty?--not a personal one; we're talking about large patterns, not individual anecdotes.
You idiots who think that the poor are freeloaders need to examine the entire political economic structure that supports your ignorant bliss. Who does the work that creates the profit that you use to buy your million dollar brownstone? Who drives the bus, operates the subway, comes to your rescue when your house is on fire? Who actually built your brownstone, your street, your sidewalk, your Brooklyn Bridge, your subway system, your city? Who lives next to bus depots and contracts asthma so that you can live in a leafy, healthy neighborhood? When your white skin gives you privileges, who do you think suffers as a result?
The facts of the matter are that wealth needs and creates poverty, privilege needs and creates discrimination, and the whole system of circulation requires a shakedown of the poor and a shroud of ignorance hiding the brutal realities from the wealthy. Surplus value must be extracted in order to create profit. THAT is Economics 101.
The very LEAST anyone can do is support affordable housing--that would just begin to start to pay back the debt that the rich owe the poor in this city and every city.
Posted by: reality check at April 24, 2006 3:31 PM
"In this housing market, which is so extreme, as in high cost, low cost and not much in the middle, how you can say that someone leaving a high end building to move to another high end building is opening up a spot for anyone other than another high end buyer? How does that serve to make adjustments in the housing pool? The top tiers may be shuffling around, that has nothing to do with anyone else. Trickle down ecomomics didn't work, neither does this."
Think about it this way. What would happen to the price of real estate if we reduced the # of units by 1/2?
And, trickle down economics, in retrospect has gone from being one politician's plaform to what is considered a respected part of standard economics - regardless of your opinion on it.
Posted by: JoshK at April 24, 2006 3:32 PM
Hardly respected. Trickle down economics didn't work then, and its unrealistic still. If it did work you wouldn't seeing the spreading economic gaps we have today.
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at April 24, 2006 3:38 PM
CHP - let me rephrase:
The 421a program was meant to kick start development in all parts of the city when no developer wanted to. Nothing to do with specific undesirable areas, it was the whole town that needed it back then.
Posted by: VDH at April 24, 2006 3:39 PM
People have a lot of funny conceptions about each other.
The idiot in the article notwithstanding, I think that if you stopped most people on the street, they would agree that the real estate market should meet the demand of people of a variety of income levels and stages of life living in their neighborhood. New York City is the only city (or one of very few) in this nation that is actually gaining in population. All of the other major cities have started losing people to their suburbs again. Losing population means losing money for schools, infrastructure, health care and other social services--and of course political power. So I find it sad that New Yorkers are so focused on staking out a piece of turf that we can't occasionally step back and realize that we're lucky to be living in a booming city. We're lucky to have these issues. If we weren't so fortunate, we'd look a lot more like Detroit.
The other reality that we often forget is that neighborhoods are constantly changing. Whenever someone writes that newcomers are displacing people who have lived for "generations" in the neighborhood, I often wonder if they have ever bothered to read their history books. The neighborhoods of Brooklyn and NYC have done nothing but change for the last few centuries; remember that our country wasn't founded in 1945. In any given neighborhood in this country, up to 50% of the population moves every year.
Clearly, the real estate market has not caught up with the most recent demographic trends of the city (the same is true in other cities in the country where finding an affordable two bedroom apartment is very hard even for well educated people making around $100K total a year).
Imagine if instead of focusing all of their attention on attacking new residents or developers, groups like ACORN reached out to new residents and new residents reached out to current residents and we all worked together to figure out ways to help the real estate market catch up to the demand for a wider variety of home options in our neighborhoods. This may mean getting rid of old tax incentives for a new variety. Or it may mean something else. Either way, it doesn't mean going at the throats of our neighbors to the detriment of our futures and the future of our shared city.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 3:40 PM
Trickle down economics decidedly does not work, because instead of trickling down wealth gets hoarded at the top. Bx2Bklyn is exactly right: if trickle down works, why is inequality getting worse?
Posted by: Orfeu at April 24, 2006 3:41 PM
I think some people just fail to comprehend that project like this on in Dumbo do help all of us - they attract many upper middle class people to the city (who may otherwise live in the suburbs and pay taxes there), they bring stores, restaurants and other businesses to the neighborhoos that all of us - rich or poor - can enjoy. They revitalize the areas that were bad and dangerous. And they generate a lot of money in real estate (even after abatements), transfer and other taxes. And the create a lot of construction and other jobs. The value of those abatements to the city budget is very small (compare to the size of the budget). We are not talking about billions of dollars. Now that the real estate market is slowing down, we need to keep the abatement to keep the market strong (so it keeps generating taxes and jobs).
Posted by: Leo at April 24, 2006 3:47 PM
Josh, you haven't proved your point.
There certainly are plenty of luxury apartments for the well off to choose from, with more opening up every day. That is a market "up there". That has absolutely nothing to do with life down here on earth for the rest of us.
Even if one or two high end buildings has to slightly drop their rates a bit in order to sell, that means only that an apartment dropped from 2 mil down to 1.5. Hardly trickle down, and hardly a blip on the statistical radar.
If you were to tell me that entire buildings were unable to rent at luxury rate, and decided to offer at market rate or below, then we'd have something to talk about.
Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at April 24, 2006 3:51 PM
What is market rate vs. luxury rate CHP? If people are paying "luxury rate" doesn't that mean that is the market rate for that market?
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 3:57 PM
we need to establish a fully functional acorn barracks at the gates of PLG. just in case.
Posted by: franz fanonymous at April 24, 2006 4:01 PM
While the data post 2000 is still a little fuzzy, most likely NYC is losing population as higher density poorer families are pushed out by smaller wealthy households, empty nesters and the trustfund set. The City is booming if you are looking to buy a million dollar one bedroom, but that is small percentage of the population when you get down to it.
This may all simply reflect the effect of globalization and the general "trickle-down/plutocracy" economic model that the nation is currently engaged in. Anyway, there are a lot more rich people with money to burn and many more poor people who are providing personal services to the moneyed elite. This model is more along the lines usually found in South America than the USA. Unfortunately, many of the rich seem have adopted attitudes toward their fellow Americans more in line with those of the South American elites. Perhaps everything will work out, but the general trend is disturbing, but good if you need some cheap domestic help. Since there is no populist movement of any note, things are not changing any time soon.
Posted by: GrandPa at April 24, 2006 4:04 PM
Actually, most research shows that the trend is that new residents are simply repopulating areas that had previously had a population decline. So it's more like adding to the neighborhood than necessarily pushing people out. Real studies of the issue have found that the dynamics of how people are moving around is much more complicated and not at all reduced to one group pushing out another.
Also, this isn't just the very wealthy versus the very poor. NYC's population boom is in large part thanks to the continuing influx of immigrants, many of whom are not necessarily well to do. And it's also due to lots of younger people moving in and staying in the city. These groups have much more complex economic characteristics than just very rich and very poor. So your argument that it's one group pushing out another just doesn't fly in the face of reality, even if it sometimes feels that way on the street.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 4:10 PM
white people, in general, engage in massive self-delusion regarding the advantages they enjoy over non-whites.
Posted by: franz fanonymous at April 24, 2006 4:14 PM
Probably true, but at the same time, when the secretary of state is black and a woman, the CEO of Merrill Lynch is a black man, and the multitude of other examples, you can't keep blaming all socio-economic problems on latent, or blatant, racism.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 4:20 PM
4:10:
your "real studies" comment sounds like "real bullshit" to me.
"So your argument that it's one group pushing out another just doesn't fly in the face of reality, even if it sometimes feels that way on the street."
let's see. i've watched certain blocks in brooklyn morph from entirely black and latino to entirely white. that's how it feels on the street.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 4:24 PM
4:20:
okay. so what shall we blame it on?
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 4:27 PM
Ok, 3:57, you got me, I used the wrong term. I meant to address a market that was lower than luxury, but not low income. Middle income, if you will. I still think my point has merit, terminology aside.
Grandpa, well said. Reality check also said it very well, but I think the differences in this city today are more class driven than racially driven, although race is certainly a factor.
Leo, while you are correct in saying that luxury developments and revitalizing of areas such as DUMBO does create construction jobs, as well as service jobs and a few stores, that is not reason enough to keep up the tax abatements that certain developers get for luxury building. I'm sorry, but it does NOT benefit all of us, very few of us actually. These buildings can and do go up everyday with out them, bringing the same benefits you mentioned, without the corporate welfare. Those developers who are better at exploiting the loopholes in the system should not be rewarded for getting over.
The people who howl when reading about a welfare recipient's ownership of a large screen tv should be more apopleptic about the gazillions of tax dollars given to rich corporations and developers everyday in the forms of givebacks, incentives and tax writeoffs. Unfortunately that is seen as a savvy working of the system, not the corporate welfare that it is. That benefits the owners, CEO's and major stockholders. The only trickle down that occurs is that maybe a waiter will get a larger tip at Le Cirque.
Posted by: Crown HeightsProud at April 24, 2006 4:38 PM
Anon at 4.27, it is not what you blame it on, it is how to fix it. For those not working in big business of whatever field, if you honestly think that racsim would prevent you from working there, you are wrong and don't understand the types of people successful businesses seek. They are looking for smart, well educated, hard working people, period.
So, if I blamed socioeconomic woes of poor minorities on one think (which is far to simplistic) I would say a lack of education and family pressure on students to work extremely hard in school. Again, this is too simplistic as many schools in poor areas are havens of violence and difficult to learn in. But, if I had to look for something to focus on and try to improve, that would be it. I would start not just with the students, but also with helping the parents, many of whom would no doubt have been dealt many hard knocks and set backs, to understand the liberating power of a good education, the self-reliance and hope it can engender.
Again, simplistic, but at its base, that is my opinion.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 4:42 PM
Per NYTIMES on April 3, 2006 "New York City Losing Blacks, Census Shows".
This is real - many of my non-professional black co-workers and neighbors(regular working folk) are making their escape plans daily. Many have already left.
I guess some of you are getting what you wished for - but the problem is - the ones you really want to leave (welfare recipients, project dwellers, drug addicts, etc.) can't afford to go and don't have to go, so the disparity and resentment will only escalate.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 4:43 PM
Sorry for the typos, "thing" not "think"...
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 4:43 PM
4:42 - These business are also looking for "a good fit" and like it or not, many hiring managers do not think that black people make a "good fit". So despite great educations, etc., many blacks have a hard time getting their foot in the door.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 4:47 PM
Working class whites leave to the city too. I think CHP said it correctly that the tension is more "class" (read socioeconomic) driven than racially driven. Professionals of any race will be able to scratch by or do well. Working class people are getting squeezed in terms of where they can afford to live within the bounds of the five boroughs.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 4:49 PM
You white -----s think you can delete my posts well ---- THAT! Some of you racist -------- had better watch yourselves. It sucks to be poor and it\'s hard to be black and we don\'t like listening to a bunch of spoiled trust fund babies whine about how mistreated they are by organizations that advocate for the poor. [EDITED FOR PROFANITY AND PHYSICAL THREATS]
Posted by: The poor black man you fear at April 24, 2006 4:50 PM
That was a funny comment :) There's no question that it sucks to be poor. But what does it have to do with this building in Dumbo? What does it have to do with abatements? Wouldn't poor people benefit from more construction jobs and more tax revenues?
Posted by: Leo at April 24, 2006 4:54 PM
Everyone has a hard time getting their foot in the door at the top companies and firms. That said, if you are the cream of the crop and black, you will have more offers do to affirmative action. I'm not complaining about that at all. I work at one of those big companies and trust me, lost my job in downsizing, had to interview at dozens of places before and after such downsizing, it is extremely competitive for everyone. I've been rejected countless times for positions I know I was qualified for and I'm a white man. If you can fall back on a good education, you'll be better prepared for those inevitable rejections.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 4:54 PM
I certainly hope the "poor black man" poster is some racist white guy jerk trying to stir it up, otherwise it is just sad.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 4:56 PM
I think Roger Toussaint posted some of those comments. Let's hope his days in jail will be productive.
Posted by: Mike at April 24, 2006 4:59 PM
Everyone does not have a hard time - friends in high places help each other out. Fact- more whites in high places. Our company also downsized and not one white attorney had a hard time finding a job, but many black attorneys had to end up temping. Don't give me that Affirmative Action stuff. The definition of minority is so diluted that blacks are benefiting less and less. Affirmative action is great for white women - not so much for blacks.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 5:03 PM
So true. Also when there aren't any black people in the store we white people give other white people stuff for free...shhh don't tell anyone.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 5:07 PM
Oh, I shouldn't go there, and this is a big tangent, but I just have to say to 4:54 that you are wrong about one thing only in your post - no one is giving anything to black people in the corporate world because of affirmative action anymore. And nor should they. While I think affirmative action still has merit in some institutions and industries, when it gives rise to the attitude that someone "gives" you a place because of the color of your skin, not because of your education, job experience and other merits, then it does no one any good.
But speaking of which, and this is related to our discussion and to the remarks by Leo, the construction industry is one of those exceptions. People of color and women are very under represented in union construction jobs. Minority workers' advocates have worked hard to get minorities and women in union jobs - the ones that can help someone increase their standard of living. I'm not talking about the mostly minority cheapo developments, where workers are underpaid and work in unsafe conditions. I especially mean union jobs in trade unions such as plumbers, carpenters and electricians, where the good bucks are, not just general construction. Opening these jobs up to minorities and women would indeed make a difference.
Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at April 24, 2006 5:09 PM
CrownHeightsProud: That's now what we're talking about here.
Posted by: Leo at April 24, 2006 5:13 PM
5:07, I've always suspected that was true. You did your cause no good by outing yourself. Now we know!!!!!
Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at April 24, 2006 5:14 PM
Oh the poor black attorneys, give me a break. I lost a job as an attorney, I'm white, and it took six months to find another. I know many white lawyers who've had extreme difficulty in landing a new job and been temping for years. Cry me a river.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 5:14 PM
CrownHeightsProud: That's now what we're talking about here.
Posted by: Leo at April 24, 2006 5:16 PM
Oh the poor black attorneys, give me a break. I lost a job as an attorney, I'm white, and it took six months to find another. I know many white lawyers who've had extreme difficulty in landing a new job and been temping for years. Cry me a river.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 5:17 PM
1. As far as population. NYC and NY state have been again loosing population. That was a short lived phenomenon. But I'm not sure you could use that to prove anything one way or another.
2. As far as the success of "trickle-down" policy. You are engaging in forced amnesia if you try to pretend that the pre tax reduction years were in any way better for the vast majority of Americans. Go to BLS and go through the stats. Most of us can't remember anymore 9% unemployment, or the idea that people really did go hungry in the US on a regular basis. The very idea that type II diabetes would plague the poor would have been inconceivable then.
3. As far as:
"Even if one or two high end buildings has[sic] to slightly drop their rates a bit in order to sell, that means only that an apartment dropped from 2 mil down to 1.5. Hardly trickle down, and hardly a blip on the statistical radar."
If you can comprehend that a modest increase in supply can cause a 25% drop in price, then how can you pretend not to understand that a 200% increase in construction would create an even more significant drop in price. Follow this logic through yourself. Imagine if the supply was increased 1000%. How would that affect prices?
That's just simple supply and demand. And to agrue against it is, well, pretty impressive. I guess you and the "tenants of communism" guy can smoke up a few and come up with some other creative stuff.
Posted by: JoshK at April 24, 2006 5:22 PM
If ACORN is concerned with fairness and public responsibility, why don't they protest that the judge gave Roger Toussaint such a light sentence? Didn't he cause enormous pain to thousands of poor new yorkers by declaring an illegal strike?
Posted by: SubwayRider at April 24, 2006 5:26 PM
It's about class not race. I'm African-American and I'm all for affordable housing but I have to agree with the previous post: "if you are priced out of a certain area, you can either work harder to afford it or move somewhere more affordable."
And "Poor Black Man...", stop with the name calling and scapeqoating, you're an embarrassment to the race! Like I've said previously on this blogsite, America is the greatest country on this earth and is the land of opportunity. The reason why some of us fail to take advantage of the many opportunities that this nation provides is because opportunity is often disguised as hard work. Don't complain and COMPETE! To you self loathers, get off you lazy butts, get an education, get a solid job, marry, raise your children right, support your communities and stop with the freak'n whining! Life is tough and it's even tougher for black folks but so what?!?!? Suck it up, handle it and work hard to carve out a better future for yourself and your family!! Must we always play the role of perpetual victim!!?!? I'm sick and tired of it! Stop begging and demanding! You must TAKE, TAKE, TAKE through self-help! If you don't want to help yourself than no one is going to help you! Period! That's the world we live in!
All the black people I know get this but there is a certain segment of the underclass that does not. They're living in a fantasy world!
There is a reason why our people remain at the bottom of every socio-economic indicator and it's not all because of racism and discrimination. For the most part, the fault lies at our foot step and we as a people need to start looking in the mirror. There is something in our culture that needs to be changed. When we no longer value the institution of family, no longer respect the rule of law, no longer value education as a means of social ascendancy, then there is something seriously wrong WITH US.
I apologize in advance for the tirade but I'm sick and tired of all the BS on this thread today.
Posted by: BrownBomber at April 24, 2006 5:27 PM
It's about class not race. I'm African-American and I'm all for affordable housing but I have to agree with the previous post: "if you are priced out of a certain area, you can either work harder to afford it or move somewhere more affordable."
And "Poor Black Man...", stop with the name calling and scapeqoating, you're an embarrassment to the race! Like I've said previously on this blogsite, America is the greatest country on this earth and is the land of opportunity. The reason why some of us fail to take advantage of the many opportunities that this nation provides is because opportunity is often disguised as hard work. Don't complain and COMPETE! To you self loathers, get off you lazy butts, get an education, get a solid job, marry, raise your children right, support your communities and stop with the freak'n whining! Life is tough and it's even tougher for black folks but so what?!?!? Suck it up, handle it and work hard to carve out a better future for yourself and your family!! Must we always play the role of perpetual victim!!?!? I'm sick and tired of it! Stop begging and demanding! You must TAKE, TAKE, TAKE through self-help! If you don't want to help yourself than no one is going to help you! Period! That's the world we live in!
All the black people I know get this but there is a certain segment of the underclass that does not. They're living in a fantasy world!
There is a reason why our people remain at the bottom of every socio-economic indicator and it's not all because of racism and discrimination. For the most part, the fault lies at our foot step and we as a people need to start looking in the mirror. There is something in our culture that needs to be changed. When we no longer value the institution of family, no longer respect the rule of law, no longer value education as a means of social ascendancy, then there is something seriously wrong WITH US.
I apologize in advance for the tirade but I'm sick and tired of all the BS on this thread today.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 5:31 PM
Sorry about the double post....
Posted by: BrownBomber at April 24, 2006 5:35 PM
BrownBomber you just sound like a run of the mill old House Nigga.
Posted by: Poor black man you fear at April 24, 2006 5:49 PM
"'Even if one or two high end buildings has[sic] to slightly drop their rates a bit in order to sell, that means only that an apartment dropped from 2 mil down to 1.5. Hardly trickle down, and hardly a blip on the statistical radar.'
If you can comprehend that a modest increase in supply can cause a 25% drop in price, then how can you pretend not to understand that a 200% increase in construction would create an even more significant drop in price."
But Josh, my hypothetical apartment example was to prove the point that a drop from 2 to 1.5 mil means absolutely nothing to the person looking for an apartment for around 200K. It may be a great deal for the guy in the corner office, it's not getting down to the guy who brings him his coffee. Somehow I'm cynical enough to think that even if we built on every last lot in this city, there would still be plenty of people left out. It's not whether or not you build, it's who you build for. If everyone leaves the Dakota for DUMBO, they still aren't going to let me move there.
And I'm not a tenant of communism, whatever that means. I'd just like some consideration for the vast majority of New Yorkers who are not in the top earning brackets, but without whom this fair city could not run.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 6:06 PM
1. As far as population. NYC and NY state have been again loosing population. That was a short lived phenomenon. But I'm not sure you could use that to prove anything one way or another.
2. As far as the success of "trickle-down" policy. You are engaging in forced amnesia if you try to pretend that the pre tax reduction years were in any way better for the vast majority of Americans. Go to BLS and go through the stats. Most of us can't remember anymore 9% unemployment, or the idea that people really did go hungry in the US on a regular basis. The very idea that type II diabetes would plague the poor would have been inconceivable then.
3. As far as:
"Even if one or two high end buildings has[sic] to slightly drop their rates a bit in order to sell, that means only that an apartment dropped from 2 mil down to 1.5. Hardly trickle down, and hardly a blip on the statistical radar."
If you can comprehend that a modest increase in supply can cause a 25% drop in price, then how can you pretend not to understand that a 200% increase in construction would create an even more significant drop in price. Follow this logic through yourself. Imagine if the supply was increased 1000%. How would that affect prices?
That's just simple supply and demand. And to agrue against it is, well, pretty impressive. I guess you and the "tenants of communism" guy can smoke up a few and come up with some other creative stuff.
Posted by: JoshK at April 24, 2006 6:09 PM
Bomber, you know we've arrived when idiots have no specific race or creed. I actually have my doubts in this case, I think we have a troll "passing". In any case, home grown or imported, a jerk is a jerk and can't be taken seriously. If we ignore it, it may go away, although I doubt it. More than likely he will cause Mr. B. to shut us down, which is too bad.
Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at April 24, 2006 6:14 PM
Brown Bomber I agree with most of what you said, however in America it usually about race before class. No matter how rich you are in NYC that won't stop the police from going up side your held for the slightest perceived infraction. It won't stop some white store clerk who you can buy many times over from following you up and down the store.
White skin privledge is so very real. It's what this country is built on (after Capitilism of course).
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 6:16 PM
Bomber, I guess we've arrived when we have our very own idiot fringe. Being a troll knows no race or creed, although in this case, I have a feeling we got one who's "passing". At any rate, whoever or whatever he is, besides an idiot, he will probably succeed in having Mr.B. shut us down, and thus he has achieved his purpose in silencing a healthy discourse. Too bad.
Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at April 24, 2006 6:22 PM
Hmm, got a big delay here, sorry for almost identical post twice. I thought the first one didn't go through.
Posted by: Crown HeightsProud at April 24, 2006 6:27 PM
I am all about change in a neighborhood, am not opposed to revitalization in small doses, but as a resident of DUMBO, I do have to say that the newest crop of luxury residents really are young, priveleged snot-noses who look down on "those below them." Jenny, unfortunately, really does represent the "new" Dumbo influx. Take a walk through the streets and it really does feel like the Upper East Side, not even Tribeca... It's snotty self-absorbed look-the-other-way when a neighbor approaches... Sooooo the Upper Eastside, not what Brooklyn is all about. That is really unfortunate.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 6:37 PM
It's highly unlikey that "pbmyf" is actually Black. White folks aren't scared of "idiotic hyper agressive lathering types" they just call the cops.
White folks are scared of Black people who turn their preconceived ideas of White Superiority to mush.
By the way Black representation in Dumbo is quite healthy.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 6:45 PM
6:45 I'd be much more interested in someone who could turn Black people's preconceived ideas of Black insuperiority to mush.
This thread had nothing to do with race but as always any discussion on brownstoner regarding economics devolves into why do whites hate blacks and do so much to put them down?
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 6:52 PM
True anon at 6:16- it is real. Hopefully, CHP Mr. B will simply edit him out.
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at April 24, 2006 7:10 PM
6:52 My post was in response to "pbmyf". who I would bet a whole lot isn't Black.
I think you should be getting at "pbmyf" for his vile Al Jolson routine.
I'm not concerned about White people holding me down, because they can't. Like Brown Bomber said "...Compete" Compete. Compete. Compete. That's the name of the game. And even though the odds have been stacked against me, I've definetly left a lot of White people scratching their heads.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 7:13 PM
In 2 simple words, anon at 6:52- prejudice and stereotyping. And no matter how hard we've tried, there is always some arrogant, overprivileged, know-it-all who uses all the bad code words and gets it started. "Adult" wondered about my age and maturity- wonder what his take is on people like Jenny Malone and PBMYLF?
JoshK- there is no amnesia involved with remembering pre-tax cut days. Look around you, read the reports- there is a huge economic gap- the middle class is disappearing. The poor are getting poorer and the rich richer. Show me where trickle down economics had any real effect. Trickle down economics was always a political pipe dream. Great on paper, zilch in real life.
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at April 24, 2006 7:20 PM
I believe that PBMYF was out of line with his language and the way he addressed BrownBomber. However, although I agree with what Brownbomber said in his eloquent postings from this afternoon, I believe he's only capturing one side of the coin. The other side is a tad dark and, I fear, is accurately captured by PBMYF. And I say this as an African American man. The truth lies somewhere in between PBMYF and Brownbomber. African Americans are responsible for a portion of their plight, but part of their plight is systemic and out of their control. Just my opinion. I hope now that we can put this to bed.
Posted by: Douglas at April 24, 2006 7:43 PM
Get real folks!
Nobody is reading this crap!
Posted by: LC at April 24, 2006 9:31 PM
The facts of the matter are that wealth needs and creates poverty, privilege needs and creates discrimination, and the whole system of circulation requires a shakedown of the poor and a shroud of ignorance hiding the brutal realities from the wealthy. Surplus value must be extracted in order to create profit. THAT is Economics 101"
Yes at Karl Marx University
Glad I sat this one out...VDH seems to be the only one getting that the issue is tax policy.
Posted by: David at April 24, 2006 9:40 PM
FOR THE RECORD LEV LEVIEV MADE HIS DIAMONDS FROM RUSSIAN DIAMONDS NOT AFRICAN DIAMONDS.
Posted by: DIAMONDBANKER at April 24, 2006 10:41 PM
MADE HIS $ NOT DIAMONDS
Posted by: DIAMOND BANKER at April 24, 2006 10:42 PM
Does Jenny realize DUMBO is right next to the projects?
Posted by: anon at April 24, 2006 10:52 PM
I'M reading this stuff. Being both black and white I hear it all in real life too, not just on Brownstoner. I think Brownbomber is right on, though the reality of it is that no matter how hard blacks "compete" there is PLENTY of racism out there and it sure makes the competition that much harder.
Posted by: mn at April 24, 2006 11:21 PM
Hey Mr. and Mrs. B that was some group therapy session. Some real breakthroughs. I think brown bomber may have had an epiphany of sorts.
Posted by: cooked sushi at April 24, 2006 11:30 PM
Wait a second. Someone mentioned black lawyers. Are there black layers? Do they say "yo yo yo, what's up my man client?" just curious
Posted by: Johs Bones at April 24, 2006 11:59 PM
Douglas at 7:43pm -- you are so right. As an African American who has purchased in dumbo and has worked hard to get to where I am, I know that I'm one of the lucky ones. Lucky enough to see through the fog and not get caught up in the system and ignorance that plagues our race. However, it's not so easy for everyone. If your parents, grandparents, great grandparents, etc. are poor and uneducated, your fate is almost a sure thing... just like that of trust fund babies.
Posted by: black in america at April 25, 2006 12:09 AM
The fact of the matter is: The protesters had no right to barge in on these hardworking brokers (who have to work on Sundays) and make fools out of them. The Beacon Tower agents are some of the nicest in the business and they should not have been subject to this major inconvenience. Hopefully this entire fiasco generated a sale for them.
These people were screaming at Corcoran agents and their customers while they should have screamed at Boymelgreen himself. They couldn't get to him so they picked on the easiest target.
Screw them and their holier-than-thou attitudes. As annoying and snotty as Jenny sounds, I probably would have said something similar in retrospect.
No one needs to be yelled at while making a luxury purchase. Does Jenny get ambushed at the spa? The Saab dealership? Saks? Not likely. Why should she while buying a condo?
Jenny, (and by saying Jenny, I'm referring to a hypothetical/typical Dumbo buyer, perhaps not the actual person who made those remarks) I'm sure, is a hardworking person who deserves these luxuries who otherwise would not be able to afford the home without the tax abatement. I am sure she works just as hard as the protesters pretend to. If she were truly of the elite class, she would not be buying a mid-level condo in Brooklyn.
You pays yer moneys and you takes yer choice.
Posted by: The Angry Young Man at April 25, 2006 12:18 AM
Noooo....I would lay odds that Jennie is a spoiled, snotty brat. And that comment about getting a job and go live in the projects- I can't be the only one who understood what she was really saying: poor people should all be gathered together in detention camps- oops...I meant projects, so I don't have to ever deal with them again. Until I need a cheap housekeeper.
I don't have a lot of respect for Acorn after they sold out to Ratner, and I also think the protesters should have picked the real target, Boymelgreen. That still does not mean they have no message. That being the incentives, givebacks, and benefits developers get for building their luxury housing. It doesn't matter if the law was written to promote development all over the city or just in poor neighborhoods, those abatements cost us more dollars than the subsidized housing which has so many of you up in arms. As for the benefits of construction jobs- CHP is right. It's a targeted group that benefits- not your average poor, unemployed person.
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at April 25, 2006 12:39 AM
"It doesn't matter if the law was written to promote development all over the city or just in poor neighborhoods, those abatements cost us more dollars than the subsidized housing which has so many of you up in arms."
Great! So we can all agree. Let's stop subsidizing developers to build luxury condos, and let's stop subsidizing poor people to live in neighborhoods they can't afford. No more money wasted! Fair for all! Problem solved!
Thread's over, people! Bye!
Posted by: Anonymous at April 25, 2006 8:28 AM
The facts remain: if you have very little formal education, fail to form a partnership, and have children at a young age, you will be poor. Plaim and simple. All of the above does not change this. It'd be great if society suddenly transformed itself and paid closer attention to equality, but do any of you really expect that to happen? I sure don't.
Brownbomer has it right. There have always been rich and poor people and there ALWAYS will be. Unless poor people get formal education, defer parenthood until later years, and form parterships, they will remain poor. "Society" will not solve these problems, it must be done by the individual.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 25, 2006 8:37 AM
So, last night I wondered why some of you think that PBMYF must be white. I figure it's not because of anything he says, since there are plenty of people who feel the way he does. Is it because you figure only a small percentage of Brownstoner's readership is African American? If so, how do you know that? Or are you reasoning that, while there are plenty of African Americans who read Brownstoner, most of them won't have the nerve to post, let alone the raw effrontery to post in opposition to gentrification? This has really started to bug me.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 25, 2006 8:42 AM
I guess, anon at 8:42 am,because the rant just sounds so stereotypical. It sounds like such a classic white person's nightmare that you have to wonder if one of the trolls who slouch around wrote it to cause trouble. Could also be someone making a point on racism with a very heavy dose of sarcasm.
I have a question for anon at 8:37- many immigrants came to this country poor, uneducated and as young parents. Yet many of them were successful. Many people born in this country have become successful in those same circumstances. Saying that being poor is something you can easily control by following these simple rules really doesn't address the whole problem. There are many other factors that come into play- especially the fact that the economy is structured in levels, kinda like the food pyramid with money. The work that people perform in low paying jobs are the base of support for the higher levels. Combine that with the fact that resources are finite (jobs, housing, land, money), there is no way that everyone who is poor can become richer simply by your rules. Now factor in racism, outsourcing, loss of manufacture, inflation, etc.- well, you get my point.
You can talk about making your own opportunities- and I believe in that very much- but opportunities are lost overseas everyday as big companies look for cheap labor to maximize their profit margins. Someone made the comment (I believe the infamous Jennie) that poor people want something for nothing. I beg to differ- it is the employers who want to pay next to nothing for work. Have you ever tried to live on "minimum wage?" Yet those minimum wage jobs are what clerks the stores, operates the sewing machines, serves you food at your favorite restaurant and does the dirty work of construction on your brownstone and garden. We don't even have to pay teens in summer jobs the minimum because after all they're just kids. Think of the life-reaffirming message that sends.
The truth is there are a limited number of good jobs that pay decently. Even less of well-paying and really really well-paying. It's very easy to say, oh yeah, if I can do it anyone can. No, they can't, because you took one of those limited numbers of the better jobs. Much more accurate to say "there but for the grace of G-d go I." Show a little compassion for those less fortunate. This country used to be known for its generosity and large spirit. Judging by some of the posters and Jennie Malone, that must be a thing of the past.
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at April 25, 2006 10:47 AM
Bx2Bklyn -
"Look around you, read the reports- there is a huge economic gap- the middle class is disappearing. The poor are getting poorer and the rich richer."
Again, you can just go to bls and look it up yourself. Incomes and purchasing power have been rising for all consistently since the Reagan reduced taxes at the high end. It is true that the top 2% have been doing even better, by far, than everyone else. But, I'm not sure why someone should care how much more other people have. Bill Gates will always be richer than I am, and if he makes a lot more money, that doesn't adversely affect me. Unless you are just being petty.
Posted by: JoshK at April 25, 2006 11:21 AM
Extremely well said, B2B! I have nothing to add on you explanation of the job situation. But I do want to answer another part of the same poster's question - I think this blog has a lot of black readers and posters, whose demographics probably match those of the white, Asian and Hispanic readership. I am one of them. I certainly don't think that anyone of any persuasion would be afraid to post and speak their mind, unless they are VERY paranoid about the internet in the first place. Especially on issues of gentrification and other contentious social issues. In fact, I wish more people would give themselves screen names and would speak up on any issue that means something to them. This is an important forum, and I think LC is wrong, lots of people read this, and I hope that includes our elected leadership and other policy makers.
I also think Anon 8:37, and others before him/her have a much too simplistic view of poverty and inequality in this country. Brown Bomber aired some very dirty linen about parts of the black community, much like Bill Cosby did last year, and I agree with both of them about 90%. We do need to make changes in our communities from within, and I am in 100% agreement with BB that we cannot allow ourselves to be viewed as victims, racism cannot be used an an excuse for why the Man is holding us down. Having said that, I also know that it is easier for me, and BB, and many of the rest of us to say that - we are well educated, have good jobs, and have the positive family backgrounds that have given us the confidence and drive to do anything we choose. Unfortunately, that is not everyone's experience.
To say that "ALL" you have to do is get educated, given the state of many of our inner city schools, is akin to throwing a non swimmer in the river and telling them "all" they have to do is swim. Some hardy folk will make it, most won't. Look at the furor given on this blog to enrolling kids in public schools in the better neighborhoods in this city, imagine having no choice but to send your kid to one of the dreadful schools. Especially if you are poorly educated yourself as a parent. These kids are set up to fail. The field is not equal, even the brightest child will not be able to live up to his/her potential, and cannot equally compete with a child of privelege. Until public education becomes as important to the policy makers in this city as big business, or real estate, or stadiums, you cannot expect a sizeable majority of poor kids to grow up to be upwardly mobile. Of course, there will be wonderful exceptions and success stories, thank God. But in a school system in 2006 where many inner city schools don't even have computers - as important today as paper and pen, how can we expect success for a majority?
I believe in the power of education, and its ability to lift anyone from ignorance and poverty. But if we as a general society are not about the business of supporting the education of those who need it most, how can we possibly expect all of the rest of our much needed reforms to follow? No one wants a handout, but many need a hand up to just get in the game.
Posted by: Crown HeightsProud at April 25, 2006 11:43 AM
CHP,
That's why our society should better support and fund education for kids as opposed to subsidizing housing in gentrifying communities for adults.
Education supports equality of opportunity. Too many of today's liberals, like ACORN and many on this board, are focused instead on assuring equality of outcomes -- e.g., helping pay the rent of adults who could not or did not succeed well enough financially.
Yes, I know that's harsh. And yes, I know that where and how your parent(s) live also affects your opportunities as a child. But to be realistic, you will get better bang for your buck devoting your public money to improving schools in East New York than spending it to ensure class diversity in DUMBO.
If someone wants to take the money out of both luxury-developer incentives *and* housing subsidies and instead put it into our public schools, they have my vote.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 25, 2006 11:54 AM
But 11:54, you are losing sight of the point - no realistic person was ever saying put people who can't afford to live there in Dumbo apartments. How many times do we have to say that? That's a smokescreen and serves no purpose but to incite people into thinking the entire cause of affordable housing is nothing more than loud, poor, black people who want to live in expensive neighborhoods, over the desires of mostly other white people who can't afford to live there either. No one, especially on this blog, has advocated that, least of all me. That is not a real issue, is unrealistic, and wrong. On top of that, it ain't ever going to happen.
The issue is that quality education and general quality of life IS tied to affordable housing. How can a child learn if he/she does not have a decent roof over their head, if they are worried that they may not survive their living conditions in order to graduate from high school? It is all tied together, and you cannot fix one without the other also being improved. Housing subsidies do have a place in a fair society. Granted, the system may be flawed, and has its cheats and its abusers, but it is a necessary part of building a just society. Reform the system, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Posted by: Crown HeightsProud at April 25, 2006 12:13 PM
JoshK- What a totally idiotic response. I don't care how much Bill Gates has. As far as I'm concerned, he earned it. But you obviously don't know much about history and the rise (and crucial importance) of the middle class. Which is fast disappearing. This country cannot function just for the rich. You should read some of the excellent posts by CHP and newyorker if you want to understand why we can't afford to neglect the poor or treat them like cockroaches.
Anon at 11:54- I absolutely agree that money could be well spent improving the schools. Our public school system is a shame (and I was educated in it. It used to be a damn good one.) But the idea isn't to keep people in gentrifying neighborhoods for the sake of equality- it's to keep people in their homes. Kids need stability too, and honestly, most subsidies that go to poor people could be their only means of having a roof over their heads. SO do we look away while the homeless fend for themselves? Or children don't have homes? Gentrifiers do not have the right to demand the neighborhood accomodate them over all others. It is the height of arrogance to expect people whose neighborhood has gentrified to move out for the convenience of those with money. Since when do real estate nazis have the right to decide who should live where?
So I tell you what- Boymelgreen gets abatements, etc for building, and he builds luxury housing. Ratner gets a huge deal on the rights to build over the AY, ANd abatements, tax breaks, etc. We spend billions on Alaskan bridges to nowhere, million dollar bus stops, pork barrels by the thousands-I resent that far more than I resent the money spent to keep a roof over someone's head in a decent or gentrifying neighborhood. Educators always say it starts at home. It does- how about a clean place to eat and sleep, where the rats don't run over you at night? Everyone deserves that, rich or poor.
Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at April 25, 2006 12:16 PM
"What a totally idiotic response."
I'm flattered.
" I don't care how much Bill Gates has. As far as I'm concerned, he earned it."
Again, you don't understand how basic statstics work. The new wealth of people like him, the Packards, Waltons, etc, is what widens the income gap.
"..crucial importance.. of the middle class. Which is fast disappearing."
Again, there is little data to actually support this.
Why don't you spend some time browsing the census or bls web sites? The numbers are all there. By all measures, the middle and lower classes are wealthier than ever before.
Posted by: JoshK at April 25, 2006 12:27 PM
CHP, do you think individuals such as you or me mentoring children that are in the circumstances that you describe will go a
Wow, Jenny, that's a great way to get on your neigbors' good side. Yikes! Can't believe someone actually made that statement AND gave their name!
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2006 9:07 AM