« Brooklyn Hotel Pipeline Getting Choked by Financing Woes What's Shaking on Jackson Place? »
August 8, 2008
News Flash: Everyone Wants to Live in the City
If you weren't already convinced that city life is becoming increasingly preferable to suburban life, see this article in The New Republic, which looks at a trend called "demographic inversion"—a reversal of the white flight that helped hollow out the inner city beginning in the 1950s. The author quantifies what many Brooklynites already know: the neighborhoods closest to vocational and cultural hubs (like, dare we say, Manhattan) and with shopping and services in walking distance are the most popular, forcing poorer folks to move further and further out. There's been plenty of talk about the suburbs potentially turning into 21st century slums but what will 21st century cities look like if demographic inversion continues? "In the worst case, demographic inversion would result in the poor living out of sight and largely forgotten in some new kind of high-rise projects beyond the city border, with the wealthy huddled in gated enclaves in the center."
Trading Places [The New Republic]
Beyond Gentrification [Curbed]
Photo by Daily Phototherapy.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/5802
Comments
I posted a blog on this topic as well, it has references to NPR, Atlantic Monthly, and a college study.
http://thenewvictorians.com/?p=4
Posted by: uncommon at August 8, 2008 9:40 AM
I knew it wouldnt be long before someone gave this thing a name. "Demographic inversion". I'm not sure that it is whats happening in Bed-Stuy, but I was out there this weekend and saw first hand how quickly and deeply gentrification has penetrated that nabe. Will people continue to accept so much displacement? These days it is easier to organize resistance to things than at any other time in our history, so I would think we'll be seeing a lot of action before we get anywhere near "the poor living out of sight and largely forgotten in some new kind of high-rise projects beyond the city border, with the wealthy huddled in gated enclaves in the center."
Posted by: Guvna at August 8, 2008 9:49 AM
"the poor living out of sight and largely forgotten in some new kind of high-rise projects beyond the city border, with the wealthy huddled in gated enclaves in the center."
This already has happened in many cities like Paris, Buenos Aires, Tokyo, Dubai and London.
I don't know that I can picture it happening here to the same extent, but I've been surprised about many other things before in life.
I definitely do see this playing out in some form though.
The shift does seem to have already taken place in the sense that people seem to move to the suburbs because it's cheaper now in many cases. Not because it's their first choice of places to live. That is a major shift from 20 years ago already.
Posted by: 11217 at August 8, 2008 9:56 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/08/nyregion/08rent.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&ref=nyregion&oref=slogin
Nothing will kill this trend in NYC more than the expansion of rent stabilization. If rent ceilings are expanded for now the third time, you can pretty much kiss the development of rental apartments goodbye.
That would pretty much end this demographic trend in NYC.
Posted by: Polemicist at August 8, 2008 10:01 AM
If you believe this crap then make the bet. Buy something in these neighborhoods! Just don't rent and wait to see what happens, buy a condo or a house.
The Hood is nice with 5.7% unemployment but it's not so good with 12% unemployment.
And one last thing. I thought the eagle had landed thing was Starbucks in Bed Stuy. Guess what? That didn't happen......
The What
Someday this war is gonna end..
100+ posts
Posted by: what at August 8, 2008 10:06 AM
like london and paris almost already are...
Posted by: sender9999 at August 8, 2008 10:13 AM
Talk, talk, talk, talk it (Brownstone Brooklyn TM market) up!
"If you weren't already convinced that city life is becoming increasingly preferable to suburban life, see this article..."
I'm still NOT already convinced. When oil crashes and gas prices come back to reality, then what? You think the very reason why suburban residents flee the city, overpopulation, will not get worse if they reverse course and come back?
Chew on this...
Can Crashes be Forecasted?
The most deadly phrase in the market is “this time is different”! Another costly adage is “we are in a New Economy”! Both these phrases and their variations have been around since the dawn of markets. The markets never change, because human psychology never changes. When phrases like these are used, it’s because the user is in denial of reality.
Read more: http://stock-market-crash.net/forecast-crash.htm
Posted by: DOW8000SP800 at August 8, 2008 10:24 AM
Polemecist and all;
I agree that rent control is poisonous, but I don't believe it will have any effect on the upper middle class that is flocking to the "brownstone belt" of Brooklyn. Rather, it will have the effect of further pushing the lower middle class out of the city, as such:
-the rich and upper class of Brownstoner country want condos and the amenities that this article speaks of: walkable neighborhoods, a short commute to the city center, etc. There is alot of land in the Brownstoner areas that can be developed, from the days when these areas were less desirable. For example: few people are being displaced by the construction on 4th Ave. Rather, some guy who formerly owned a small garage strike it rich when a developer comes knocking on their door. This trend will continue.
-the poor and immigrant communities also find NY atractive for other reasons: alot of entry-level service jobs, relatively cheap public tranportation, and a whole slew of social services and subsidies (like rent control) that benefit them. Hence, this demographic is growing, and moving to areas that used to be occupied by the middle class and working class - areas like Canarsie, Bensonhurst, East Flatbush, etc.
-the one demographic that is declining in NY is the working and lower middle class, the people who used to occupy the areas cited. NYC is no longer attractive to these folks, who are in a very different situation than those in Brownstoner country. They don't qualify for subsidies, can't afford the new condos and find NY's taxes and high prices to be suffocating. These folks do need a car, and want a place where they can park it. These folks are leaving, and that is not a good prospect. A city composed mainly of the uber-wealthy and immigrants will have a poor civic life, few cultural or social norms, and will end up not far fom a type of Disney experience. This is where NY's politicians are taking us. In their rhetoric and actions, they seek money from the uber-wealthy, and the votes of the poor, giving out goodies like rent-control.
Posted by: benson at August 8, 2008 10:27 AM
"This already has happened in many cities like Paris, Buenos Aires, Tokyo, Dubai and London."
I will admit that I saw this in Stockholm, Sweden, but if it does happen here in NYC, it will be decades from now. In the mean time, the market will still get murdered. There will be no free lunch for this unprecedented RE pyramid scheme in the U.S. and in Brooklyn. But let's talk, talk, talk, talk it up!
To all you homeshoppers out there: Caveat Emptor!
Posted by: DOW8000SP800 at August 8, 2008 10:31 AM
"'m still NOT already convinced. When oil crashes and gas prices come back to reality, then what? You think the very reason why suburban residents flee the city, overpopulation, will not get worse if they reverse course and come back?"
Ding Ding Ding!!!!!!! Re Read this paragraph!
"ey don't qualify for subsidies, can't afford the new condos and find NY's taxes and high prices to be suffocating. These folks do need a car, and want a place where they can park it. These folks are leaving, and that is not a good prospect."
Well written Benson!
If you believe the hype then buy something! Make the bet with your future that Asshat Hill is Park Slope 30 years ago. Please do it, Posers!
The What
Someday this war is gonna end,,,
Posted by: what at August 8, 2008 10:38 AM
Polemicist,
You keep on arguing that no developer in their right mind will build rental housing because of some increase in rent regulation that you think is on the horizon. How do you explain the huge investment in rental housing that's happened over the past couple of year: Avalon's two project on the LES, one near Columbia and the one on Myrtle, EQR and Dermot in CLinton Green, EQR in downtown brooklyn (on Lawrence Street), EQR also just bought a portfolio on the UWS, Rose properties in downtown Brooklyn and on 6th Ave in Chelsea, Related in Hell's Kitchen, Two trees at atlantic and court (2 projects) and their Water Street proposal is for rentals, and many many more. All of these are projects that have started in the last year or two. All of these guys are huge real estate interests who seem to be betting that rental housing will remain a viable business plan for the long run. Are they just all idiots and you're smarter than them? Because the market doesn't seem to be backing you up on this at all.
Posted by: Make My Heights the P Heights at August 8, 2008 10:39 AM
BTW, that McMansion in the picture doesn't look bad. It beats the Fedders cookie cutter.
Posted by: DOW8000SP800 at August 8, 2008 10:39 AM
While this is how things look in almost all other major European and other major cities around the world, one thing to note is that in many of those cities there was never "white flight" in the first place.
I do agree that this "demographic inversion" will continue in New York City. Those who own property (including those who moved into parts of brownstone Brooklyn during the white flight years of the mid late 20th century) stand to do well for themselves - either by having a safer neighborhood or by having an asset they can sell or leverage for retirement purposes. Over the long term, the period of decline and neglect of certain parts of inner cities (which was created in large part by the advent of automobile/suburban culture and racist redlining of minority neighborhoods), at least with respect to New York, from the early 1960s to the late 1980s/early 1990s will be an anomoly in my opinion.
Posted by: 1842 at August 8, 2008 10:42 AM
Anyone taking a walk in Downtown Brooklyn can see the effect of this "Demographic inversion" in an exaggerated form. Skyscrapers popping up all over and Hotels plus Willoughby Square Park. In the case of Downtown Brooklyn, this displacement was expedited via the use of eminent domain. City Point, which will be the tallest building in Brooklyn, was a direct beneficiary of this. In other parts of the outer borough's, this displacement will continue in a much more gradual way.
Anyone walking down Flatbush near the Manhattan Bridge will be shocked to see the amount of construction of luxury high rises both condo and rental plus hotels. Great for Brooklyn not so great for those being displaced. What did President Carter once say, "Life is not always fair".
Posted by: Junkman at August 8, 2008 10:44 AM
"either by having a safer neighborhood or by having an asset they can sell or leverage for retirement purposes"
1842 Please put down the crack pipe, Go seek Jesus, he can help you. I got bad news for you. Baby Boomer will have no retirement. I this upcoming Depression (yes Depression) the Government will have to Nuke Social Security and Medicaid, You masters that hold sovereign US debt will demand it. You Asshats can keep your heads in the sand about this but it's so over..
"st with respect to New York, from the early 1960s to the late 1980s/early 1990s will be an anomoly in my opinion."
Hey Fucktard they have brought back redlining! It's called "Declining Neighborhoods"
Is The FHA Prepared For Down Markets?
http://www.fhaloanpros.com/2007/10/is-the-fha-prepared-for-down-markets/
The purpose of the appraisal is to provide the lender/client with an accurate, and adequately supported, opinion of market value.á It is the appraisers responsibility to determine whether a property being appraised is located in a declining market.
Guess what? When the word is out that you live in a declining neighborhood the value of your "investment' will be worth shit.
"Anyone walking down Flatbush near the Manhattan Bridge will be shocked to see the amount of construction of luxury high rises both condo and rental plus hotels. "
Future Homeless Shelters for all the Junior Donald Trumps Posers!
The What (Tick Tick Tick)
Someday this war is gonna end....
Posted by: what at August 8, 2008 10:56 AM
This has definitely been happening (more people wanting to move to the city), but I'm wondering how long it can go on.
As the city gets more crowded and the burbs get cheaper (e.g., NJ real estate is going down much faster than NYC), the burbs become more appealing.
My wife and I got priced out of our Manhattan rental last year and moved to another rental in Park Slope. We'd like to buy a 2 bedroom at some point in the next few years, but I'm not sure we can afford to buy in the neighborhoods we'd prefer.
We'd hate to leave the city, but if the choice is (1) crappy place in good neighborhood, (2) decent place in bad neighborhood, or (3) nice place in the burbs, I think we'll go with #3.
Not sure how many people will make the same decision we will. Seems like a lot of people have been choosing #2 and hoping the neighborhood will get better (i.e., better shopping, less street crime, better schools), but it seems there is more and more resistance to change in some neighborhoods and hostility to newcomers.
I think more and more people are regretting going with choice #2, and if the economy gets crappy for a few years, things will get worse before they get better since gentrification needs $$$ to happen.
Posted by: northsloperenter at August 8, 2008 10:57 AM
This is a somewhat interesting article I just read, speaking of cities...
http://www.nysun.com/new-york/ny-fares-well-vs-london-in-a-new-study/83495/
Posted by: 11217 at August 8, 2008 10:57 AM
You better hope this "inversion" thing doesn't keep going. Otherwise we'll need to hire some of those "white glove guys" like they have in Tokyo to stuff people into the subway cars.
Posted by: SnarkSlope at August 8, 2008 10:58 AM
Junkman - yes the amount of construction in downtown brooklyn is truly shocking - but at least in this case - noone was really displaced. Look at all of the sites that are being built out. I don't think any of them were formerly housing sites. Most of them were one story buildings that were in the process of wasting away. Some were gas stations. Some were just vacant lots. That's actually (to me) the cool thing about what's going on in Downtown Brooklyn - alot of high end housing being built without the usual downside of forcing the poor even further out. The poor were never really living here in the first place (except in the projects - which aren't going anywhere). The only thing being displaced are some really low end retail establishments. And, at the risk of incurring UPROSE's wrath - it's hard to feel too bad about that. There are plenty of low-end retail districts in Brooklyn with vacant retail for them to relocate to.
Posted by: Make My Heights the P Heights at August 8, 2008 10:59 AM
Benson, I think you make a valid point regarding working class people and the fact that they cannot afford luxury condos or $2 million browstones. I think what you will see is the the neighborhoods that are closest to Manhattan or to transit that can bring people into Manhattan (or possibly into dowtown Brooklyn in the future) will continue to increase in value over the long term and become more and more expensive. Most of the brownstone Brooklyn neighborhoods fall into this category. In fact, that is why there was so much brownstone property development in Brooklyn in the mid to late 19th century. Omnibuses (basically shuttles) carried people down major thoroughfares such as Fulton Street to the ferries to Manhattan where they worked as merchants, bankers, lawyers and other professions. They were not built as working class neighborhoods (working class people could not afford 4000 square foot four story brownstones - and I don't mean that in a rude way, I'm just stating that to give some historical perspective as to why these neighborhoods were built in the first place and draw parallels to what is occuring now). This is really a return to that model.
I think other areas that are not as close to, or that do not have as convenient access to, Manhattan will not be as quick to rise in cost (outer parts of Brooklyn, large portions of Queens, Staten Island and certain parts of the Bronx) and will continue to be the enclaves of working class people for a much longer period of time.
We do need socioeconomic diversity within the five boroughs to have a robust economy. What we are seeing, in my opinion, is a return to a New York City where many professionals are living in the city, and not just on the UES or UWS. This seems shocking to those who grew up in the era of white flight when the city was a different place altogether dominated by poor and run down neighborhoods with a few "tony" districts in Manhattan.
That's not to say that it is not unbelieveably expensive to live and buy property in NYC, it is, but I think the trend will continue with respect to professionals choosing to stay or move back into the city.
Posted by: 1842 at August 8, 2008 11:02 AM
Agree with most of the above comments. During my stay in France I was rather shocked @ how all the poor were shifted out of sight in the suburbs "banlieu" and yes forgotten unfortunately hence the riots and car burnings of 2006. It is the same all over France: Paris, Strasbourg, Marseille, Nice, Toulouse etc. Ditto for London, Madrid, Rome, & Barcelona. Tokyo had been immune to this trend for a long time given the large middle class population there but things are rapidly changing...more disparities in wealth.
Now in the case in NYC it may appear as if this trend will take a really long time because of public housing (Projects) and RS expansion but the overall market forces will ultimately achieve "demographic inversion" SADLY. I believe this is already the case in most of Chicago and San Francisco.
Posted by: pierre de taille at August 8, 2008 11:07 AM
Well written 1842. And everybody really has had interesting things to say here. Fairly impressive for a Friday morning in August.
I think that there seems to be no doubt that an economic downturn is upon us and will be with us for some time. But this particular economic downturn is currently having a more adverse affect on suburbs than urban areas right now due to the rise in transportation costs. Whether this will continue in this manner is anyone's guess. Oil prices could come down, or they could continue to skyrocket.
In re socioeconomic diversity, I would hope that our city government had a plan for how to retain residents of all strata of the economic ladder. Not necessarily holding my breath of course but a forward thinking city government could shape economic development with an eye towards keeping the mix in the city healthy and diverse. Tax breaks, BID development etc etc if used correctly could create healthy and diverse neighborhoods, no matter if the What thinks we can't all get along.
Posted by: wasder at August 8, 2008 11:13 AM
Make My Heights:
The projects you cite actually prove the opposite of your conclusion. Almost every project you mentioned participates in some kind of HDC or HFA program or at the very least take a tax abatement.
Demand can never be met with these programs, especially now that the 421(a) exclusion zone pretty much covers every neighborhood in the city with high density zoning.
Posted by: Polemicist at August 8, 2008 11:15 AM
I love the hysteria of those who scream rent control! rent control! without the first inkling of the fact that rent control is not only NOT expanding, but is decreasing. As are the number of units that are under rent stabilization. But there are those who still manage to toss it out like the guy who cries fire in a crowded theater.
"-the poor and immigrant communities also find NY atractive for other reasons: alot of entry-level service jobs," "-the one demographic that is declining in NY is the working and lower middle class, "
Poor people or immigrants with jobs are also "working?" Or that working and lower middle class needed cars because the MTA cared less about the outer boroughs than adding more lines in Manhattan so its residents wouldn't have to walk their privileged butts so far. Needing cars is directly related to NYC's Manhattan obsession. So now we have the great "clogging of the arteries" and you know what that does to a heart.
It's not the poor and immigrant groups who are pushing us out. Its the people with wealth, who are overbuilding luxury housing, putting in boutique hotels, and high end retail, and by aggressive gentrification helping drive up RE prices. The middle and working class (many of them considered poor by definition) were the mainstay of the economy, putting far more into taxes they they got in return. Their jobs are disappearing for a lot of reasons - one of which is the more narrow focusing of the job market into fewer areas and types of jobs- leaving them with fewer work options.
Generations of them were renters- and it wasn't a criteria of social snobbery as it is today. With the loss of rental units, and RE so high, they're forced out even further.
"NYC is no longer attractive to these folks, who are in a very different situation than those in Brownstoner country. They don't qualify for subsidies, can't afford the new condos and find NY's taxes and high prices to be suffocating."
Yet people freak over the words rent control and rent stabilization, while decrying the loss of the working and middle class. I don't notice you suggesting any remedy and it's very obvious "market demand" is incapable of dealing with such complex situations. Let's not blame just the politicians- we put them in office and the upper and wealthy classes have done whatever they could to get what they want at everyone else's expense. Rent control is the least of the problem but if you're so worried about keeping the working and middle classes maybe you should consider it.
Posted by: bxgrl at August 8, 2008 11:16 AM
I have no doubt about the trend of wealthier people moving/staying in urban enviroments as oppossed to moving out to the suburbs - but I do wonder how future generations of lower middle class and poor will be able to afford to live, maintain and find work living in today's new McMansion communities.
Posted by: fsrg at August 8, 2008 11:17 AM
"As the city gets more crowded and the burbs get cheaper (e.g., NJ real estate is going down much faster than NYC), the burbs become more appealing."
Perhaps suburban housing costs are falling, but transportation costs (and taxes) are high and growing. If you work in Manhattan, the suburbs are no panacea, both in terms of expense and time management. Besides, there are plenty of run-down areas in the suburbs. Who's to say the choice won't be (4) decent place in crappy suburban neighborhood?
Posted by: East New York at August 8, 2008 11:17 AM
1842;
I generally agree with what you say. I grew up in the city during the 70's, and remember well exactly what you mean by a city "altogether dominated by poor and run down neighborhoods". Moreover, I think the growth of Brownstone Brooklyn has been a great thing for the city, all things considered. The growth of a large, upper middle class has benefitted the city in many ways.
My concern is the diminshment of the middle class, and I think you've missed the mark on this one. The growth in immigrants has come at the expense of the lower middle and middle class in the city. How so? In this way: immigrants cannot go to the areas they once did, because of gentrification. Areas like the LES, Greenpoint and Williamsburg, formerly immigrant destinations, are increasingly out of the question. Where to go,then? The answer: areas like Sheepshead Bay, Gravesend and East Flatbush. What happens when they get there? Formerly one or two-family homes are chopped up into 6 unit buildings. I saw this with my own eyes in my previous neighborhood of Gravesend, which was previously a pleasant area of one or two family homes. Homes would get chopped up, making the area less desirable, and further pushing the remaining middle-class families out.
This is not meant as a knock against immigrants. It does speak to Polemecist's point, however, that rent control is poisonous. For any developer to privately build low-income apartment houses in NYC is a suicide mission,with rent control in place. Someone mentioned developments like Avalon in downtown Brooklyn, but this is upscale rental housing. How many PRIVATE, low-income apartment buildings are being built, like Lefrak used to do 50 years ago? Answer: zero. They are only built if the city subsidizes them, which only increases taxes,driving more middle class folks away.
I think Governor Paterson is finally waking up to the reality that NY is in danger of entirely losing its middle class. Whether he actually does something about it is another story.
Posted by: benson at August 8, 2008 11:19 AM
wasder- absolutely.
Posted by: bxgrl at August 8, 2008 11:21 AM
Absent this RE bubble and absurd urbanization hype, the cost to live in the suburbs = the cost to live in the city. It is not a financial dilemna unless you drive in the city or work in the suburbs.
Posted by: DOW8000SP800 at August 8, 2008 11:23 AM
Wasder:
You have to remember however that every government intervention has failed to produce a sufficient quantity of affordable housing.
pierre de taille:
Chicago really hasn't seen "demographic inversion" despite what this article says. While Chicago has seen probably more high rise apartment house development than Manhattan, most of it has occurred in areas that previously were not particularly residential like River North. Chicago has never had the housing shortage problems like NY and SF because they never had rent control.
As a result, rents in older buildings are actually cheaper in many cases on an inflation adjusted basis than they were 10 years ago. In one neighborhood I lived in in college, I had a 1-bedroom apartment for $525 a month in 1998. Assuming a 3% per year increase, the rent should be about $700 a month today. Looking at craigslist, it seems the rent is more like $675 a month.
Posted by: Polemicist at August 8, 2008 11:27 AM
DOW--I think you underestimate the amount of non-commuting driving people do in the suburbs. In Brooklyn when I need a pint of milk I walk to get it. In the burbs, people generally are obligated to use their cars for every kind of errand. There is so much more convenience to city living that I believe if energy costs and transportation costs continue to rise urbanization is more than hype.
Posted by: wasder at August 8, 2008 11:27 AM
Two cars (payments) plus insurance and gas = approximately $1000 a month (and rising, most likely).
If you add that with the increased taxes, I think the cost of ownership in the city is comparable to the suburbs. The idea that it's so much cheaper to live in the burbs seems like a fallacy in some respects.
My transportation costs are $81 a month plus the occasional zipcar rental.
Posted by: 11217 at August 8, 2008 11:37 AM
Bxgrl:
Read the article I mentioned. There is a very real possibility rent stabilization will be expanded.
Posted by: Polemicist at August 8, 2008 11:38 AM
I don't disagree benson, it is extremely hard for middle class/working class people and families. Even in the neighborhoods that are farther away from the commercial centers or good public transport, the prices are relatively high and continued immigration will likely lead to the situations you are describing - but maybe that will make them more affordable areas? One thing I would suggest, though, is that you are assuming that those immigrants who live move into middle class neighborhoods and convert single family homes into multi-family houses will not themselves become middle class members of society. I think they will eventually (they have for generations). I'm not dismissing your concerns at all, and I'm not offering and magic bullet suggestion as to how to ensure more middle class people and families can stay in the five boroughs. I think that long term, we are seeing a shift in which neighborhoods are well to do, working class or poor, and it is effectively a reversal of the distribution of people in City for the past 40 to 50 years.
Posted by: 1842 at August 8, 2008 11:38 AM
I agree with Polemicist.
If the future Democratic controled assembly votes to overturn vacancy decontrol and puts rent caps on new rental housing, no new rental housing will be built.
What the hell is wrong with NYC?
Isn't it unconstitutional to take property rights from private landlords in the name of "rent control" or "rent stabilization"?
Posted by: IronBalls at August 8, 2008 11:43 AM
The timing of all of this is uncanny. The deadline for those long tax abatements just past, and now developers will have to include a certain percentage of affordable housing. So maybe some of us poor folk will be able to stick around for a little while longer...
Posted by: ProspectHeightsGuy at August 8, 2008 11:43 AM
One thing that the article and many others ignore, is the role of 2 income families in fostering this trend.
When the whole suburban dream started it was supported by - 1. The expansion of the automobile and infrastructure to support it and 2. that women were home to take care of the domestic responsibilities.
Long commutes, landscapers, bills, car repair etc, etc PLUS actually seeing your children , are MUCH more difficult when all the adults in the house are working.
Posted by: fsrg at August 8, 2008 11:45 AM
When the shit hits the fan everyone and their mother is going to leave the city. You see Asshats most of you was young in the 70's and 80's when crime ruled Brooklyn. What was the factor of that, lets see... High interest rates (because of high inflation), high oil prices, whit flight (yes you will leave again) and High Unemployment (That's here now).
Like I said please of you believe this piece of bullshit then buy something! You see most of you Asshats are just fucking posers, cannibalizing a whole neighborhood for gain. You don't support the business here you just here for bullshit and have not made a investment if the Hood. Like fucking Locusts swarming from neighborhood to neighborhood!
Please Buy something and make the fucking commitment to the Mutant Real Estate Asset Bubble!
The What
Someday this war is gonna end...
Posted by: what at August 8, 2008 11:47 AM
Polemicist- interesting.
So what would be a fair plan? I agree landlords need to make a profit, but tenants need to be able to live and work in the city. That's actually to the benefit of all. Tenants (referring to working and middle class)are a huge part of the work force and taxpayers also. I think a study done recently shows salary levels are not rising as quickly as inflation, or even improving for most people in general. With all the abatements,tax breaks, BID development as wasder mentions, what's the solution? I don't see that depending on "market rate" is doing anything more than intensifying the problem.
Posted by: bxgrl at August 8, 2008 11:50 AM
According to this, The What...it would not indicate that everyone left New York in the 1970's and 80's. It looks like about 10% of the population left and has since gained back those residents and then some:
History of New York Population
1790 33,131
—
1800 60,515 82.7%
1810 96,373 59.3%
1820 123,706 28.4%
1830 202,589 63.8%
1840 312,710 54.4%
1850 696,490 122.7%
1860 813,669 16.8%
1870 942,292 15.8%
1880 1,206,299 28%
1890 1,515,301 25.6%
1900 3,437,202 126.8%
1910 4,766,883 38.7%
1920 5,620,048 17.9%
1930 6,930,446 23.3%
1940 7,454,995 7.6%
1950 7,891,957 5.9%
1960 7,781,984 −1.4%
1970 7,894,862 1.5%
1980 7,071,639 −10.4%
1990 7,322,564 3.5%
2000 8,008,288 9.4%
(Estimated 2006 population 8.25 million)
Posted by: 11217 at August 8, 2008 11:53 AM
"Isn't it unconstitutional to take property rights from private landlords in the name of "rent control" or "rent stabilization"?"
Just as "unconstitutional" as it is to have taxpayers subsidize developers with abatements, BID's and 421-a's without expecting something in return. Is it fair to allow developers to abuse eminent domain and not give back? (Don't mention Ratner- his promise of affordable housing is not guaranteed to be built, built on site or be affordable to those who truly need it- and to me that doesn't include people making 100,000 a year).
Posted by: bxgrl at August 8, 2008 11:56 AM
1842;
Again, I'm with you. I think one of the reasons for NY's current dynamism is that we have industrious immigrants coming in, and they will move up the economic ladder.
I think the first step to solving a problem is recognizing it, and that is why I have some hope with Governor Paterson's recent talk about the flight of the middle class(again, whether he actually does something is another story). NY has to realize that government interference in the housing marketplace, no matter how well intentioned, will create distortions, as we've discussed.
I think another factor that has to change is on a cultural level. The folks I'm talking about do shop in Sam's Club, they eat in Applebee's,etc. For too long NYC was dominated by Manhattan elites who saw this type of activity as abhorent, and some of that creeps into commentary on Brownstoner. I think this is changing, however. Look at the success of IKEA, a place where people from all strata of Brooklyn (and Manhattan) meet.
All in all, I think the city is moving in the right direction,but there are always challenges, as we've discussed.
Posted by: benson at August 8, 2008 12:04 PM
Looks to me that even during the years of the Great Depression, NYC gained huge numbers.
How do you explain that, The What?
Posted by: 11217 at August 8, 2008 12:05 PM
I always wondered what the best term for the "opposite of white flight" would be. Gentrification is much better. the New Republic isn't exactly a must read periodical.
I don't see why anyone wouldn't live in a city - the benefits are incomparable.
Posted by: infinitejester at August 8, 2008 12:06 PM
Polemicist is just wrong about the effect of rent control.
The only way rent controls can inhibit new building or renovation is if new housing stock is subject to rent regulation. That hasn't been the law in NYC for half a century and no one is talking about changing this basic rule. New building and new capital improvements are always permitted to charge full market rate.
NYC rent rules, including the proposals to reduce vacancy decontrol, apply only to EXISTING housing stock. They may provide some incentive to convert rental to condo/coop, but they have no effect on the overall quantity of housing available.
What they do do is to reduce the windfall profits to existing landlords who seek to profit from high demand without providing any new service. This should reduce, at least at the margin, both rents and purchase prices for existing housing.
If the market has failed to produce enough rental housing for middle class families, it is because the market is not efficient enough to produce a product that people want at a price they can afford, given the competition from the heavily subsidized suburbs.
The suburbs may be less attractive, but suburban living and home ownership continue to be heavily subsidized through the mortgage interest deduction, cheap oil, highway subsidies, wars in the Middle East, free pollution rights, school finance rules that allow self-segregation to avoid paying for more expensive education, and so on. In a fairer market system, in which citizens had to pay the cost of pollution, education and transportation even in the suburbs, we'd have much denser cities and far less sprawl. And more middle class rental housing on the edges of the cities. Rent control would have little or no effect on changes in NEW housing, but would slow down the transition to rich-in-the-center and poor-on-the-periphery in existing stock.
Posted by: FinanceGuy at August 8, 2008 12:08 PM
BxGrl - given all the items you mentioned I am not sure what a 'free market' even looks like anymore - but considering that NYC had a pretty diverse population (by income) for most of its history and no rent controls - what makes you think that market forces could not permit the same to again take place?
As for what is "fair" - obviously unwinding all the Govt intervention can result in windfalls for LL and increasing Govt intervention can result in 'windfalls' (at LL expense) for tenants - but on a macro level - why should property owners be individually responsible to subsidize (worthy) societal issues? Shouldn't such issues (like lagging incomes) be addressed by all?
Posted by: fsrg at August 8, 2008 12:09 PM
What, in the 70s and 80s, white flight had already occurred (the biggest shift happened in the 60s). The horrible crime in Brooklyn was in the neglected, redlined, poor minority neighborhoods - where the populace distrusted the police, and the police often did not care. Why would all of the people who have moved back leave if interest rates increase and the cost of oil goes up? So they can take out a new mortgage at a higher rate in the suburbs, pay more for transportation costs, sell their Brooklyn property for a loss? That makes no sense. I really don't understand your comments sometimes. Things will be difficult as this recession progresses, but those hit the hardest will not be all of the brownstone property owners and live in landlords, but the lowest on the economic rungs, and the middle class workers who lose jobs but don't have easily transferable skills or assets and family to rely upon. Why wish them ill?
Posted by: 1842 at August 8, 2008 12:13 PM
Some people - my brother for instance - will NEVER live in a city. He likes his life in the suburbs with his yard, deck and garden, which his income would not allow in this city. It's not for me, but my city apartment life isn't for him either.
Posted by: SnarkSlope at August 8, 2008 12:14 PM
FinanceGuy - arent you ignoring the effect of 1M or so units that when vacant still must legally offer a rent below market? And arent you also ignoring the effect that those 'potential' windfall profits have on spurring new construction and development (look at what is going on in terms of the sudden push to have alternative energy as well as additional new drilling for oil).
I don;t disagree that some of these competing factors have to be balanced but certainly vacancy decontrol at a minimum could allow market forces to spur more production, while offering some protection for the 'average joe' from the natural whipsaw effect of a totally free market.
Posted by: fsrg at August 8, 2008 12:18 PM
fsrq- I'm not sure what it looks like either any more. But finance guy puts it better and more knowlegeably than I could "but suburban living and home ownership continue to be heavily subsidized through the mortgage interest deduction, cheap oil, highway subsidies, wars in the Middle East, free pollution rights, school finance rules that allow self-segregation to avoid paying for more expensive education, and so on"
So in actuality, we've helped susidize the suburban lifestyle, and sometimes at the expense of our cities, LL's and others are benefiting, so worrying about rent control and rent stabilization starts to feel like a red herring. To me anyway- but my experience is first hand, as a tenant and a taxpayer. I've never been on welfare, never had food stamps, my life is- shall we say- closer to the bone than most posters here would be comfortable with
Not recognizing that fact that LL's and property owners benefit from subsidies creates a one-sided argument that doesn't help find a fair solution.
Posted by: bxgrl at August 8, 2008 12:24 PM
Benson:
Everyone keeps mentioning Avalon, but I want to reiterate it has a 421(a) abatement and participates in the 80/20 program.
Bxgrl:
We need laws that proscribe a minimum allowable density near public transportation as long as a housing shortage exists. With current construction costs, 10 to 12-story buildings are the most cost effective. They should be allowed within a reasonable distance from subway stations throughout the city.
We also need the state to phase out rent stabilization completely.
I also actually believe the incentives have to stop. You have to understand that the truly rich like the way this system works today. The system keeps vacancy rates low, which makes their buildings virtually risk free investments. You dish out some government subsidies, paid for by the tax payers, and they get a great return way beyond other safe investments like treasury notes.
As 11217 mentions - the city population exploded in the 1920s and 1930s. There was no rent control, no bond financing, no tax abatements - but you know what? over 500,000 housing units were brought online - and most were great quality. The Bronx was built as middle class housing. By 1940, more residents there had central heat and hot water, electricity, and full bathrooms than any other county in the country.
Posted by: Polemicist at August 8, 2008 12:25 PM
The What said: "When the shit hits the fan everyone and their mother is going to leave the city."
Where are we going to go? My job is here. My wife's job is here. Our entire life revolves around this city. So where are we going to go? Unless you think that suburbanization will make a full throated comeback in this era of exploding gasoline prices and new environmental awareness (unlikely) we are most likely going to stay here despite an economic downturn.
Polemicist: I agree that there has never been a successful government intervention in the manner that I was advocating. But one can't stop hoping for better, more humane governance.
Posted by: wasder at August 8, 2008 12:26 PM
1842 - I agree with allot of what you are saying but....if the price for a suburban home (including things such as good schooling etc...) falls enough compared to the city - then people will move. As families grow they tend to move - if a suburban home (plus car, plus maintainance, pluse taxes etc...) cost thousand less a month than a liveable city dwelling (plus poss. private school, plus inc taxes, etc....) how many people are SO committed to urban living that they will stay. (i.e. Gas would have to increase ALLOT more to make a nice $600,000 suburban house as expensive as a nice family size apartment in a decent area of the city - generally $1.2M or higher)
Also while white flight was most prevalent in the 60's - it was the effect of this massive social dislocation that resulted in the crime, abandonment etc... of the 70's (not bad police work or redlining)- which given the lack of room - really can't happen again (at least not at that scale) - no matter what THE WHAT says.
Posted by: fsrg at August 8, 2008 12:28 PM
Polemicist -no offense but at the prices the "rich" (i.e. Private equity and hedge funds) are paying today for both commercial and residential real estate - it is FAR from a risk free investment (virtually all the big $ buyers of RS housing are getting KILLED and will even more if oil doesn't drop by the winter - see Stuy Town and Maclowe for high profile examples)
As for LL receiving subsidies- BxGirl - please tell me how LL of RS housing are getting any subsidies from the Government???
Posted by: fsrg at August 8, 2008 12:34 PM
financeguy:
You are wrong about expanding rent stabilization to new buildings. While the article in question does refer only specifically to eliminating decontrol, there are more than a few politicians who do advocate expanding rent stabilization to all apartment buildings.
While I hate slippery slope arguments, if this were to occur - I guarantee it would not be such a large step to expand the system. We are already entering a period that is very much going to look like New York City in the early 1970s: high inflation and rising fuel costs. If people believe rent stabilization was passed for the right reasons at that point in time, those reasons will be perfectly applicable to this city in the next year or two.
I do agree however that suburban living is subsidized in many ways. High taxes on fuel and elimination of the subsidies you mention would do wonders to change things. That is extremely difficult however.
Posted by: Polemicist at August 8, 2008 12:36 PM
Finance Guy;
I don't disagree that the suburbs have been subsidized by tax breaks, and the results speak for themselves: tracts of homes slapped up and sprawled out everywhere, ruining the countryside. How does that justify rent control in the city? If anything,it speaks to the opposite. It speaks to what happens when the government gets involved in an area where it has no business: the housing market. It just creates distortions that have unintended consequences. No other major city in the US has rent control, and they get along just fine. It's time to take this beast behind the barn and shoot it. End all subsidies for housing, be it in the form of rent control or mortgage interest deduction.
Lest you think I am just advocating the imposition of a free-for-all society: I believe some people do need help,in the form of Earned Income Tax Credit, unemployment benefits, retraining programs for those who have been affected by gloablization, etc. These programs help actual individuals. The tax breaks and subsidies to housing, regardless of the actual person's situation, only creates inefficiences and distortions, never mind the trampling on liberty and private property rights.
Posted by: benson at August 8, 2008 12:37 PM
Wow--I just read that New Republic article. That is like the What's worst nightmare. Imagine middle class people living happily in city centers. The What must shudder and moan at such thoughts.
Posted by: wasder at August 8, 2008 12:37 PM
Yes, go ahead, buy in the city...
Fact is, some things have changed since the 60s/70s/80s - no, not everything, just some things.
For starters, the biggest single factor affecting NY'ers is globalization. Its impact can be seen in energy, consumer goods, immigration, race relations, education, financial markets - and of course, real estate.
Simply put, cheap energy, cheap imports & cheap land are all things of the past. The US government no longer has a tight grip on consumer costs because of global competition [and dramatically rising demand] for resources.
While some may cite the 70s as an attempt to claim some cred [nice try, What], it's much more effective if you take a look at the entire history of NYC & the US as a whole[good for you, 1842].
For almost its entire modern existence, New York city has been dominated by the upper & lower classes. The rise of the middle class here and across America has really been an anomaly fueled by government spending & policies [namely WWII spending on NYC's ports & shipyards, plus federally-funded urban renewal & rent control/stabilization laws].
Rent control/stabilization is what we often discuss locally, but has anyone here ever heard of the GI Bill? Its no-downpayment/low-rate mortgages [and the bountiful supply of undeveloped rural land close to major cities] essentially created the suburban phenomenon. Which, in-turn, fueled the near-demise of so many American cities over the next 40 years - including NYC.
But just as WWII GI's are now fading-away, so are the consequences of the GI Bill's pro-middle class policies. With no more cheap, close-in land to build-on, the suburbs are losing their appeal - not just because of gas prices, but because of difficult commutes, rising taxes & inadequate services[the very things that once made the cities unattractive]. As for the white flight of the 60s/70s, there continues to be a hard-core racist element in our society, but I don't think they're a factor any longer in this discussion. People who are so averse to integration will continue to self-select themselves out of the mainstream of the economy.
So what does this mean for you & me?
The suburbs will continue to decline in desirability. Brownstone Brooklyn will weather the current housing crunch fairly well, and new construction will continue to replace the adjacent industrial infill. Middle class families will continue to feel squeezed, but claims that they are being forced out of the city seem to be greatly exaggerated. Just pay a visit to the outer reaches of Brooklyn & you'll see there are plenty of areas being gentrified - not by ex-Manhattanites, but by Brooklyn natives who are expanding their horizons beyond Bay Ridge, Dyker Beach, etc. For anyone who's squeamish about leaving a particular ethnic enclave for one that's mixed, well, too bad for you.
High fuel prices will continue to be the driving force behind all of this: prospects for an outbreak of peace & stability in the Middle East are practically nil. China has finally learned to guzzle gas just like us, and no amount of domestic drilling can satisfy current demand. Since solar/wind/nukes are all still decades-away from bailing us out, don't expect to see significant long-term drops in energy prices, that is, unless you believe the good people at Exxon-Mobile are eager to give up their streak of record-breaking profits. That's one thing that will never change!
Posted by: parkedslope at August 8, 2008 12:40 PM
As someone who loves living in cities, I think that this trend is great.
I think, however, that the quality of construction in many suburbs will cause these developments to be replaced with higher-quality construction. A lot of these homes are going to fall apart in 50 years. I do not, however, think that most suburbs are going to become the next slums. We've got too much of our housing stock in the US tied up in the 'burbs. And lets face it, lots of people LIKE the suburbs. What I think will happen is that the suburbs will start taking on more qualities of urban life: walkable commercial nodes, sidewalks, and less auto-focused development.
Or that's what I hope, at least.
Posted by: BrooklynButler at August 8, 2008 12:42 PM
The What lives in Lodi, NJ so he's terrified that what they say might come true.
He's a real estate broker in the suburbs, who started his rants when the NJ market started to slip, and has since been on a desperate mission to convince everyone on Brownstoner that real estate purchases in the city are bad and moving to the suburbs is good.
It's all so transparent.
Posted by: 11217 at August 8, 2008 12:42 PM
Famous Asshole Quotes
"We will not have any more crashes in our time."
- John Maynard Keynes in 1927
"There will be no interruption of our permanent prosperity."
- Myron E. Forbes, President, Pierce Arrow Motor Car Co., January 12, 1928
"There may be a recession in stock prices, but not anything in the nature of a crash."
- Irving Fisher, leading U.S. economist , New York Times, Sept. 5, 1929
"Stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau. I do not feel there will be soon if ever a 50 or 60 point break from present levels, such as (bears) have predicted. I expect to see the stock market a good deal higher within a few months."
- Irving Fisher, Ph.D. in economics, Oct. 17, 1929
"... a serious depression seems improbable; [we expect] recovery of business next spring, with further improvement in the fall."
- HES, November 10, 1929
"Financial storm definitely passed."
- Bernard Baruch, cablegram to Winston Churchill, November 15, 1929
"... irregular and conflicting movements of business should soon give way to a sustained recovery..."
- HES June 28, 1930
"All safe deposit boxes in banks or financial institutions have been sealed... and may only be opened in the presence of an agent of the I.R.S."
- President F.D. Roosevelt, 1933
"really can't happen again (at least not at that scale) - no matter what THE WHAT says."
-fsrg (Brownstoner full time fucktard) August 8, 2008
The What
Someday this war is gonna end....
Posted by: what at August 8, 2008 12:46 PM
Parked Slope;
What in the world are you talking about with this statement??
"Just pay a visit to the outer reaches of Brooklyn & you'll see there are plenty of areas being gentrified - not by ex-Manhattanites, but by Brooklyn natives who are expanding their horizons beyond Bay Ridge, Dyker Beach, etc"
This is total nonsense. If you go to the NYC.gov website, and look at the socioeconomic maps from the 2000 census,you will see that the median income for all of the outer areas of Brooklyn (Canarsie, Flatlands, Sheepshead Bay< Gravesend and Bensonhurst) have declined, as the older stock of population has been replaced by immigrants. These same maps will show you that these areas are now largely populated by immigrant groups.
Please be specific in your claim. Please tell me what areas of outer Brooklyn are being gentrified by "Brooklyn natives". Please cite some statistics or other sources of material.
Posted by: benson at August 8, 2008 12:49 PM
Who's to say that the bubs themselves won't change? Why only that people will flock to the cities hat ALREADY exist?
Don't discount technology so fast. What if entire industries move? Why do many industries NEED to be in NY?
I see the urbanization of the burbs as something to chew on.
Posted by: Pastabatman at August 8, 2008 12:53 PM
Hey parkedslope make the bet! I hope you own something or looking to buy.
You know something Asshats there is one thing you can't stop is DEFLATION!!!!!!!!!!!!
Deflation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflation
During deflation, while consumers can buy more with the same amount of money, they also have less access to money (e.g., as wages, debt, or the return realized on sales of their products). Consumers and producers who are in debt, such as mortgagors, suffer because as their (money) income drops, their (money) payments remain constant. Central bankers worry about deflation, because many of the tools of monetary policy become ineffective as inflation drops below zero (deflation). Deflation may set off a deflationary spiral, where businesses slow or stop investing, because the investment risk is perceived as higher than just letting the money appreciate due to deflation. (The deflationary spiral is the opposite of the hyper-inflationary spiral.) Similarly, in deflation consumers have an incentive to delay consumption, which may contribute to the deflationary spiral.
Print this out and paste it on your fucking face and read it over and over again!
When, not if the Fucktards find out that their "investment" is losing value. They are going to leave everything behind! Yep keep dreaming and to the other assholes BUY SOMETHING, make the bet! Just do it!
The What
Someday this war is gonna end...
Posted by: what at August 8, 2008 12:55 PM
fsrq at 12.28 - I agree that at certain points, for people with certain levels of income and family circumstances, they will still choose to move to the suburbs, but overall, I do not think that will lead to a reversal of the urbanization trend.
As for your second point, regarding white flight, redlining, policing etc., it was a combination of all of the things you and I mentioned. White flight happened first, the redlining of their former neighborhoods followed along with shuttering of businesses that were not being supported or that left because the owners no longer lived in the area, and the police were stretched in their efforts to combat the resultant crime in such impoverished areas. I'm not blaming the police, multiple factors contributed to what happened in those years. Now in many of those areas, you have a mix of working class and some professionals who stuck it out through the bad times, along with new professionals moving in. That in and of itself creates a stronger community base that will hopefully be able to better support the community as a whole.
Posted by: 1842 at August 8, 2008 12:56 PM
parkedslope - "the end of [fill in the blank] era" is so overstated and entirely based on current conditions.
Take energy - we've been down this road b/4 - the EXACT same predictions were made in the late 70's and 80's - and then we enter 20+ years of cheap and abundant oil.
And while you are right that it could take decades for alternative energy replace oil/fossil fuels - the truth is - it doesnt have to 'take over' for us to again enjoy cheap fuel.
China, India etc.... were all using plenty of fossil fuels 10 years ago - and oil was at $11 a barrel. Since then yes - there consumption has greatly increased and BECAUSE oil was $11 a barrel there was insufficient investment in new sources (of oil or alternatives) - now the oppossite is happening - the price of oil has risen above demand - and we are seeing demand destruction (i.e. people driving less, trading in the SUVs).
In order to have "cheap energy" again - we do not need to fully (or even largely) replace oil - all we need is the current factors (renewed investment in oil production, a small % increase in the use of oil alternatives and some demand destruction) to bring the supply/demand equilibrium right back down - while this can't take place overnight, in a relatively free society - it can happen pretty quickly -
Posted by: fsrg at August 8, 2008 12:57 PM
uhhh ... why do you think the city built so many housing projects in east new york? there is nothing novel about marginalization of the poor in our country's history of urban development.
Posted by: BrooklynLove at August 8, 2008 12:59 PM
Benson-
Although the nyc.gov website info you recommend isn't exactly easy to find, I did come across this rather quickly:
http://furmancenter.nyu.edu/CD218.pdf.pdf
A quote from this report:
"Contrary to borough and citywide trends, Flatlands/Canarsie witnessed a 12.7% increase in median income between 2002 and 2005, and the district now has the highest median income in Brooklyn. CD 218 also has a much higher rate of homeownership and a much lower share of rent-regulated units than either the borough or the City."
So beyond this, I admit I'm guilty of actually visiting the places I wrote about rather than just surfing stats on the net.
Yes, I know there're lots of immigrants are moving to Sheepshead, Brighton, etc - but please tell me who owned the land on which all the glitzy new condos are being built? If Brooklyn property owners decide to cash-out & make way for all these dachas-by-the-sea, that's hardly a case of middle-class squeeze.
Posted by: parkedslope at August 8, 2008 1:02 PM
The What - I think you completely quoting me out of context shows why you are truly just an asshole and have no credibility (even when you are right)
What I said could not happen again was "massive suburbanization/white flight" not as you implied with the proceeding 10 quotes, an economic depression (that certainly CAN happen again)
Please do not respond to me, do not quote me, just please crawl back into the hole you came out of and die a slow lonely and painful death.
Posted by: fsrg at August 8, 2008 1:02 PM
"Now in many of those areas, you have a mix of working class and some professionals who stuck it out through the bad times, along with new professionals moving in."
I know none of you fucktard lived in Brooklyn during the Blackout of '77. Broadway was destroyed and did not come back until the late 90's. Matter of fact Bushwick was a shithole after the Blackout and most of the people who had business there left and never returned.
Most of you Asshats have no idea about New York or Brooklyn. Just a bunch of neighborhood hijacking motherfuckers and when this depression gets underway, I want to see how many of you "stick it out"
The What
Someday this war is gonna end...
Posted by: what at August 8, 2008 1:03 PM
lol fsrq.
Posted by: 1842 at August 8, 2008 1:03 PM
Good to see that someone is digging beneath the pile of leaves that is the over-used, catch-all, upwardly mobile adjective, 'gentrification'.
Posted by: James Patience at August 8, 2008 1:05 PM
This has been an interesting conversation. I hope you all have a good weekend. On a happy kumbaya note, what I like thinking about is that so many people are now, and in my opinion will continue to be, invested in the community and future of neighborhoods in NYC, and Brooklyn in particular. Makes my cynical cranky *ss all warm and fuzzy - but I'm sure I'll continue to become more and more cynical and grumpy anyway. Have a good weekend everyone.
Posted by: 1842 at August 8, 2008 1:07 PM
"The What - I think you completely quoting me out of context shows why you are truly just an asshole and have no credibility (even when you are right)"
Whoa nellie! What a minute.. You assfuck can just go off on me but when I return fire you get upset. ROTFLMMFAO! Hey you know what. F_CK Y__. Would you like to buy a vowel?
The What
Someday this war is gonna end...
Posted by: what at August 8, 2008 1:07 PM
"Like I said please of you believe this piece of bullshit then buy something! You see most of you Asshats are just fucking posers, cannibalizing a whole neighborhood for gain. You don't support the business here you just here for bullshit and have not made a investment if the Hood. Like fucking Locusts swarming from neighborhood to neighborhood!"
- What
Assuming you are NOT a real estate broker in Lodi which, given your poor writing skills, I hope is not true ....
You don't own in the neighborhood. And let's cut to the chase here, what, you mean Clinton Hill. Are you still bitter about the fact that others have come into your neighborhood and displaced you? Is this what this is all about? Rhetorical questions, what. No need for another one of your rhetorical answers.
You don't even know any of the mom & pop shops in Bed-Stuy near Restoration Plaza. So obviously, you don't support the local businesses because, if you did, you would know them.
And to repeat - yet again - you work(ed) in the real estate business. You created the very problem you rant about. If you want to be angry with someone, look in the mirror.
The days of fast flipping for a fast buck are over and they have been over for some time now. People buying and living in their homes are here to stay. You need to get used to the fact that the days of your childhood are over. There is no going back. Your war to maintain the status quo of the 80's was lost a long time ago. Grow up and deal with it.
And no, no one is going to beat me up, "gun -but" me or rob me. Your threats are sad and pathetic.
Posted by: 11233 at August 8, 2008 1:09 PM
"Have a good weekend everyone."
I hope you get hit by a fucking airplane!
The What
Someday this war is gonna end...
Posted by: what at August 8, 2008 1:10 PM
fsrq-
It seems like I'm having to put out a lot of fires today:
http://www.iags.org/futureofoil.html
"The two countries with the highest rate of growth in oil use are China and India, whose combined populations account for a third of humanity. In the next two decades, China's oil consumption is expected to grow at a rate of 7.5% per year and India’s 5.5%. (Compare to a 1% growth for the industrialized countries)."
&
http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2007/07/09/afx3893219.html
"The IEA said China will be the main driver of demand across the Asia region, accounting for 48.9 pct of non-Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Asian demand by 2012. Given the country's booming economy, oil product demand is projected to increase by 5.6 pct per year on average to almost 10 mln bpd by 2012, consolidating its position as the second largest oil consumer after the US,' it said."
Nice try - butI'm not sure why you'd argue this particular position. Even a cursory study of energy trends indicates that the long-run of low prices we saw in the 90s is unlikely to be repeated within the coming decade. If "China" isn't a sufficient one-word explanation, try "Iraq."
Posted by: parkedslope at August 8, 2008 1:12 PM
Take your meds, what.
Posted by: 11233 at August 8, 2008 1:12 PM
That's sweet What. lol. Kiss kiss darling. Be a good boy.
You do sometimes honestly make me laugh. I even hope that you have a nice weekend.
Posted by: 1842 at August 8, 2008 1:14 PM
"You don't even know any of the mom & pop shops in Bed-Stuy near Restoration Plaza. So obviously, you don't support the local businesses because, if you did, you would know them."
Naw Asshat. I didn't want to give that tom morris any light. BTW Assfuck I was up and down Bed Stuy yesterday.
"And to repeat - yet again - you work(ed) in the real estate business. You created the very problem you rant about. If you want to be angry with someone, look in the mirror."
Nope everyone who bought a house from me did very well. I got out just in time.
"And no, no one is going to beat me up, "gun -but" me or rob me. Your threats are sad and pathetic."
Would you like to wind up on the Famous Asshole Quotes post? LMMFAO stupid!
The What
Someday this war is gonna end...
Posted by: what at August 8, 2008 1:15 PM
Is it me, or is The What making a 9/11 joke ["get hit by an airplane"]?
What-ever!
Posted by: parkedslope at August 8, 2008 1:17 PM
Parksloped - yes but look at what level they are starting - the relevant number is what % of OVERALL world demand does that 7.5 and 5.5% represent - because THAT is the number that if we can (and will) exceed by efficiency and alternatives will result in price declines (from current levels)
Posted by: fsrg at August 8, 2008 1:18 PM
Parked Slope;
Nice try, ducking behind an excerpt of one report that cites 3 years in an area, that you took out of context. Since you had trouble finding the socio-economic reports from the 2000 census, allow me to point it out to you:
http://home2.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/census/census.shtml
I invite all to go through the sections about the areas in question. Moreover, Parked Slope, you still haven't answered my question: which areas of the outer reaches of Brooklyn are being gentrified by Brooklyn natives? Please be specific.
As for how the middle class is getting squeezed in these areas, I'll repeat again my own experience in Gravesend: a single-family home across the street from where I lived was purchased by an investor,who subsequently chopped it up to 6 units and then rented them out to immigrants. The house is now worth alot more as a 6-unit rental than when it was a single-family home, so it is now out-of-reach to a middle class family. The small lawn that used to sit in front of the house has been paved over to make way for the parking of the residents. This goes on all the time in these areas? Unlike Parked Slope, I'll give hard data: I invite all to take a walk in the area of the "West Streets" between Bay Parkway and Kings Highway, and count the number of electrical meters outside homes that were originally built to house one or two families. Take a look at the number of front lawns that have been paved over to make way for parking. Another area where you can see this is in Brighton Beach, on the side away from the beach (the other side of the "el". Also there, single-family homes have been converted to rooming houses for immigrants.
Posted by: benson at August 8, 2008 1:19 PM
"Perhaps suburban housing costs are falling, but transportation costs (and taxes) are high and growing. If you work in Manhattan, the suburbs are no panacea, both in terms of expense and time management. Besides, there are plenty of run-down areas in the suburbs. Who's to say the choice won't be (4) decent place in crappy suburban neighborhood?"
East New York -- that's a fair point and anyone thinking of these options definitely needs to consider taxes and transportation costs (both current and future).
Personally, I'd rather not move to the suburbs.
I like the city, but after getting a 40% rent increase in 2007, I don't feel like renting in NYC is financially "safe" anymore and I want find a more stable housing situation.
However for me (and I assume others) it isn't a choice about absolute cost but about relative value. If I can only afford to spend $X/month for housing and X isn't going to change, the important question is "what can I get for $X/month"?
Right now it looks like the answers are:
1. A 2 bedroom rental in park slope.
2. A 2 bedroom condo/coop in a neighborhood I don't want to live in.
3. A house, a car, and a long commute in a nice suburb.
4. A bigger house, a car, and a long commute in a crappy suburb.
I'll be sticking with #1 at least through most of 2009.
I would hope that buying a place in a part of brooklyn I like becomes practical for me by then (either through increased income, decreased costs, or some combination thereof).
Hopefully I won't be dumb enough to choose option 4.
Posted by: northsloperenter at August 8, 2008 1:20 PM
What said: "when this depression gets underway, I want to see how many of you "stick it out"
I'll ask you again. Where are we going to go? This is my life here. I am not abandoning it because the economy blows. I have nowhere else to go.
And yes I would like to buy a vowel...Y_U ARE F__LISH. All I need are three "O"s to finish this factual sentence.
Posted by: wasder at August 8, 2008 1:22 PM
Brooklyn Butler said: "I think, however, that the quality of construction in many suburbs will cause these developments to be replaced with higher-quality construction. A lot of these homes are going to fall apart in 50 years."
I tend to agree with you, but wanted to point out one, ancillary, thing.
Anyone who thinks the quality of construction currently being built by any of the big and small developers in NYC and Brooklyn is of higher quality than is what is being built in the suburbs is mistaken.
The developer mentality, in general, is only to maximize profits, and they doing that by reducing quality every step of the way. You even see it in Richard Meier's project at Grand Army Plaza.
Maybe you have McMansions in the suburbs, but you also have what might be termed McCondos in the city. And lots of unwitting people are spending major bucks on construction that won't, like turn of the century and pre-war construction, stand the test of time. It's gonna look shabby real quick, despite the shiny exteriors.
Posted by: anita at August 8, 2008 1:23 PM
"I was up and down Bed Stuy yesterday."
Good to see that you are learning something about my neighborhood. It's about time. Why don't you tell the good people of this site where you went and what you were doing in Bed-Stuy on a work day? Do you even have a job?
"Nope everyone who bought a house from me did very well. I got out just in time."
So you left just as the houses you sold to these people went south? That is so nice of you, what. You must be so proud. And you admit you were part of the problem and now you deny any responsibility for the solution. You should be a politician.
"Would you like to wind up on the Famous Asshole Quotes post"
what, I was quoting YOUR comments in the past when you lose an argument and begin to insult people. If anyone deserves the great honor of "Famous Asshole Quotes" it is you. Congratulations.
Posted by: 11233 at August 8, 2008 1:35 PM
Anita/Butler
The construction methods being used today in the suburbs AND the city have been utilized for at least the last 50 years - and while the structures require maintenance and upkeep (like all buildings) they continue to standup fine. (see Levittowns all over Northeast, see residential highrises built all over country since 1950)
You are confusing non-structural things like finishes and material weight (plaster vs. Sheetrock for ex) with structural stability and durability
Posted by: fsrg at August 8, 2008 1:37 PM
"Good to see that you are learning something about my neighborhood. It's about time. Why don't you tell the good people of this site where you went and what you were doing in Bed-Stuy on a work day?"
I was in Bed Stuy scumming out your wife while you was at work. I slipped you little loud brat sleeping pills and bang the living daylights out of you wife. She told me "once you have black you can't never go back"!
"Do you even have a job?"
Nope I'm of welfare like the major corporations in America!
"You should be a politician."
Yep! I do better that the fucking "leadership" now!
The What
Someday this war is gonna end....
Posted by: what at August 8, 2008 1:48 PM
Well put anita! I totally agree, just look at some of those big modern apt. buildings built in Manhattan during the 60's, 70's and 80's most look horrible now. The once chic and modern exteriors look dated and worn. I have 2 friends who live in buildings that back when each of their parents moved in were "it" buildings. Now, not so much.
Funny that both sets of those parent now live in McMansions in the burbs!
Posted by: TownhouseLady at August 8, 2008 1:48 PM
Benson-
OK, I give up: thanks for providing the link, but I don't have time to wade through the nyc.gov stats!
In the interest of harmony, let me suggest our disagreement is more a question of semantics than anything else. Isn't it possible those immigrants moving into Gravesend aren't actually 'middle class' - or at least aspirants to that title. Yes, they can't afford a whole house, but does that mean they don't make enough $$ to be considered 'middle class' by any normal economic standard?
So could it be the 'middle class squeeze' is really about being physically squeezed into an apartment rather than an enire house.
If that's the case, I find it hard to feel sympathy for people who decide they want to relocate simply to gain square footage. And again, who sold/converted these houses in the first place? My guess would be 'natives' who decided to cash-out rather than preserve the identity of the old neighborhood.
Look towards Manhattan: there are countless 'rich' people who live in spaces most Americans would consider substandard. Yet nobody's talking about an 'upper class squeeze' - at least yet!
Posted by: parkedslope at August 8, 2008 1:50 PM
Hey northsloperenter - I dig. Buying a home isn't just about money, it's about preference. Different strokes for different folks, as they'd say in my day.
"Hey you know what. F_CK Y__. Would you like to buy a vowel?"
Say what you want, the guy is funny. LOL.
Posted by: East New York at August 8, 2008 1:52 PM
"The What - I think you completely quoting me out of context shows why you are truly just an asshole and have no credibility"
I don't know. We're approaching 100 + posts as he predicted. You guys should take heed.
Posted by: DOW8000SP800 at August 8, 2008 2:06 PM
Parked Slope;
OK, I'll try to meet you halfway. I agree that in many cases folks sold their homes to these investors so that they could move to Jersey nad buy their McMansion paradise. I also agree that in some ways this is an inevitable part of the development of the city.
Having said that, I still maintain that there is a group in this city that is being squeezed, and that is the lower middle class, even if they readjust their expectations to a nice apartment rather than a McMansion. As I said way back in the beginning of this post, there is little in NY that is attractive to them right now: they make too much money to qualify for subsidies, they can't afford Brownstone Brooklyn, the cost of living is too high and many of them have jobs that do require a car, which they need to park somewhere. That car doesn't have to be a Hummer, but they need it, and they shouldn't have to spend one hour a day looking for parking.
On that note, I'll be signing off. This has been one of the better discussions on Brownstoner. I think that one thing everyone on this post can agree to (with maybe the exception of The What) is that NYC is a far, far better place today than it was back in my formative years of the 70's. About one year ago I happened to see a showing of "The French Connection" in a theater. It was shot on location in NYC in 1970. Even though I lived through that era, I was amazed by what I saw, and I recommend that people see it to remind themselves of how far we have come. The filth, the dreariness, the run-down neighborhoods one sees in that film are not to be believed.
Have a good weekend all!
Posted by: benson at August 8, 2008 2:07 PM
DOW8000=The What's sockpuppet. Or is it The What is DOW's sockpuppet. Either way, too many times we see them both at the scene of the crime, whipping up an echo chamber of misery.
Posted by: wasder at August 8, 2008 2:15 PM
fsrq --
Rent stabilization reduces rents on the units it applies to, although the statistics suggest that it doesn't do so by much (outside of the most expensive areas, it mainly smooths the boom/bust cycle).
The main impact is to make stabilized rental housing much more predictable and therefore a better, less risky investment, thus reducing the return that investors demand and increasing their willingness to invest.
To the extent that it removes some people from the competition for unregulated apartments, it probably reduces reduces demand and thus rents for unregulated apartments and prices for comparable owner-occupied units.
These effects, however, are not likely to be large now, because of inequality (few people can afford market rates) and because market rents and sale prices currently are well above construction costs.
At market equilibrium, owner-occupied sales prices = unregulated rental value = construction costs, which is why competent appraisers use all three methods.
If sales prices are higher (as they are now in Manhattan/Brownstone Brooklyn), developers make money creating new supply until prices come down by converting rentals or building new units. If rental values are higher (perhaps what is happening in the sections of Gravesend discussed above), then developers convert in the other direction.
If rent stabilization were suddenly ended, stabilized rents would converge with unregulated rents. Since there aren't enough people in the city to pay current unregulated rents for all units, unregulated rents would come down. Since this would make renting cheaper,some people would decide not to buy, and condo/coop prices would drop too. Obviously, developers would respond by cutting back new construction.
Thus, Polemicist is exactly 180 degrees off. Rent stabilization almost certainly INCREASES development activity in the city. In the short run, it probably increases the prices the rest of us pay, but in the long run, by increasing construction of new housing, it probably will help reduce prices for all of us.
Meanwhile, anyone paying current purchase prices should note that they suggest a market in radical disarray, and wacko markets do have a tendency to turn back towards equilibrium. In the long run, prices are not likely to stray for long from either the cost of building/renovating a comparable place or the value to an investor holding to rent.
$2.6m for a Park Slope brownstone that is worth no more than $1.5m as a long-term rental investment and that would cost less than that to build from scratch is a tremendous incentive to create more... or to find a way to get rid of some rent stabilized tenants paying even less. Enough people do that and they will overwhelm the number willing and able to pay a fifty percent premium to own instead of renting.
Posted by: FinanceGuy at August 8, 2008 2:16 PM
And Benson, I agree that this was one of the better discussions of real world issues that we have had on this board in a while. Thanks for your part in it.
Posted by: wasder at August 8, 2008 2:16 PM
In "The Ungovernable City: John Lindsay and His Struggle to Save New York City" by Vincent Cannato, there is a nice list of films set in New York all dealing with the issue of urban blight - some comic, some tragic.
Makes a good Netflix queue.
Posted by: infinitejester at August 8, 2008 2:17 PM
I lived in Harlem in the 1980s as a wee lass, and throughout Manhattan in the 1990s, but bailed, happily, for a better standard of living. So while I miss certain things, there's no question it was the right decision for me. I have followed Brownstoner out of curiosity and of course to look at real estate. All I am here to offer is an outsiders perspective. I alternate between bemused and outright thinking this whole situation is nuts. Sometimes I wonder if its crack, and trust me, I remember New York in the 1980s when crack hit, and 'the what' is right about that--NYC was a stinking hole and people concerned about molding and original details will not survive when crackheads exchange gunfire on their stoop. But hey, that probably will not happen.
This demographic trend is happening everywhere, all over the country. Yet when I look at the gardens of the week, I wonder why you are spending all this money to recreate the suburbs in Brooklyn. If you want suburban life, then move there. I'm not trying to offend any of you, I'm just baffled by some of what goes on, these dollar amounts cannot be real. I live in a 'pre-war,' in an incredibly beautiful neighborhood, and if the south does anything well, its gardening. Yes, 'Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil' is true to life, we really do live like that down here. Moonlight, magnolias, gin and tonic, and there is no stinking subway platform, $1000 home heating oil bills, blackouts, aggravation. I don't know how you people do it...what will you do when get old? Will you still hump it into Manhattan everyday on the subway, slogging through the snow and heat, when you're 55, 60 years old? I'll be sitting on a front porch with a ceiling fan drinking a mint julep and listening to R.E.M.
Posted by: sanesouth at August 8, 2008 2:19 PM
Now that Brooklyn (and Queens and even the Bronx) has improved, the suburbs aren't all that great in comparison. It's expensive to get a decent house in the best located suburbs close to the city. It's not really cheaper than Brooklyn. We couldn't sell our Brooklyn house and get the same space and quality of house for the same price in any of the towns we'd actually be okay with, which are those with vibrant little downtowns, good amenities and restaurants, historic housing stock, and a fast commute. And if you're looking for a really great, historic house in one of those towns, there's nobody selling. The only people selling in droves in the suburbs are the mcmansion subdivision people and the developers who built too many of those things. Those houses and the subdivision lifestyle is way off mark from what upscale young professionals now value. They would never buy a house like that. It's something those developers should have seen coming long ago with new changes in tastes and lifestyles, if they had any business sense.
Now the smart ones are scrambling to create very very different kinds of suburb towns. Like this one outside Atlanta called Serenbe:
http://www.cottageliving.com/cottage/travel/article/0,21135,1809862,00.html
But nobody in the NYC suburbs are really doing green building and land preservation, are they? The builders in the suburbs here are a bit slow and behind the times.
Posted by: traditionalmod at August 8, 2008 2:21 PM
The What - your post @ 12:46 PM was absolutely brilliant. I nominate it for The Pulitzer Prize.
Posted by: DOW8000SP800 at August 8, 2008 2:22 PM
Sanesouth well said and guess what? I will be down the road from you playing my banjo.
The What
Someday this war is gonna end,,,
Posted by: what at August 8, 2008 2:25 PM
"Take a break, Driver 8,
Driver 8, take a break
We've been on this shift too long
We can reach our destination
Bu it's still a ways away."
Posted by: infinitejester at August 8, 2008 2:28 PM
I have to say, based on my own personal current experience with well-off unionized white working class (by that I mean folx who easily make 75k and who can make over 100k)that they don't want to live in the city. And the ones who do live on SI. I wouldn't call it overt racism but they want to have kids and they don't want to send their kids to city schools. And since they are often traditional and want their wives to stay home, or need them to stay home w 4 kids, they're really not that well off at all. That means they can't afford to live in the close-in burbs, they live in the Poconos or Rockland/Orange counties. The new home of Benson's working middle class.
In spite of my wife and I yelling at our brother-in-law about this, (he works for ConEd) he is attempting to sell his perfectly nice Tudor home in Jackson Heights and he is buying in some new development way the f*ck up by Bear Mountain. He can't get it thru his head how much more in real money it's gonna cost him to live there.
Posted by: denton at August 8, 2008 2:29 PM
"I was in Bed Stuy scumming out your wife while you was at work. I slipped you little loud brat sleeping pills and bang the living daylights out of you wife. She told me "once you have black you can't never go back"!"
I am neither married nor do I have children. Nice try.
"Nope I'm of welfare"
Finally, you tell the truth.
Posted by: 11233 at August 8, 2008 2:29 PM
"DOW8000=The What's sockpuppet"
That's right. D-ridin' The What all day. Kind of like the New York Mag article. Kind of like those who can't help but to respond to him. Kind of like you.
Posted by: DOW8000SP800 at August 8, 2008 2:30 PM
"The What - your post @ 12:46 PM was absolutely brilliant. I nominate it for The Pulitzer Prize."
Sadly DOW8000SP800 they wont get it until it's too late. Do you want to read a good book this weekend? Please buy Manias, Panics, and Crashes: A History of Financial Crises by Charles P. Kindleberger.. I'm not trying to get anyone on my side but I think people should read this book.
I'm on the first chapter and it feels like now. The same things that went down in other Bubbles/Crashes are here right now. I think we have wasted plenty of capital on bullshit and maybe we will never get this chance again. RIP Mutant Asset Bubble....
The What
Someday this war is gonna end...
Posted by: what at August 8, 2008 2:35 PM
"I am neither married nor do I have children. Nice try."
Finally, you tell the truth.
The What
Someday this war is gonna end...
Posted by: what at August 8, 2008 2:37 PM
DOW---you don't help your defense with this kind of ass kissing.
DOW8000SP800 said: "The What - your post @ 12:46 PM was absolutely brilliant. I nominate it for The Pulitzer Prize."
Every thread today includes a little cheering section between you and the What which leads me to believe that you are one and the same. Judging from how The What can write and type in accurate English in one post and then devolve into faux jibberish the next, I suspect that you are merely The What using better grammar. You often use the same sorts of formulations in your posts and also are prone to the cute "..." ending that Twat uses.
Posted by: wasder at August 8, 2008 2:37 PM
"I am neither married nor do I have children. Nice try."
Are you Biff and Dave in that Homo Rodeo thing?
The What
Someday this war is gonna end...
Posted by: what at August 8, 2008 2:41 PM
Man this is like the Dave/Bold Face Guest Dust-up....
Here is What pretending to "respond" to DOW....note the fact that he can actually write in complete, appropriately punctuated sentences with proper spelling. There is no doubt in my mind that they are one and the same.
"Sadly DOW8000SP800 they wont get it until it's too late. Do you want to read a good book this weekend? Please buy Manias, Panics, and Crashes: A History of Financial Crises by Charles P. Kindleberger.. I'm not trying to get anyone on my side but I think people should read this book.
I'm on the first chapter and it feels like now. The same things that went down in other Bubbles/Crashes are here right now. I think we have wasted plenty of capital on bullshit and maybe we will never get this chance again. RIP Mutant Asset Bubble...."
And if you were sad that we won't "get it" until its too late you would make some constructive recommendations about what we should do to avoid the catastrophe you predict. So what is it What? What should we do. Please answer as DOW8000 as you make a bit more sense in that guise usually. Thanks.
Posted by: wasder at August 8, 2008 2:44 PM
Defense from what, wasder? Am I supposed to care?
Posted by: DOW8000SP800 at August 8, 2008 2:45 PM
Defense from being so lame as to create two personas, one raving, one slightly more sane, both spouting the same hopeless bullshit.
Posted by: wasder at August 8, 2008 2:48 PM
I agree with DOW800SP800 - the 12:46 "What" post cleverly illustrates the danger of making sweeping pronouncements about market conditions. EVERYTHING is subject to change. I certainly don't agree with everything The What says, but he makes a valid point here.
Posted by: East New York at August 8, 2008 2:49 PM
Nobody here, or at least me, will say that there isn't some truth to what The Twat says but almost everything he says is some kind of "sweeping pronouncement" so grand as to be indefensible. So it is comical that you might use this as a reason to agree with DOW8000/What.
Posted by: wasder at August 8, 2008 2:54 PM
I just want to leave this little diddy, Fucktards!
Fannie Mae, Battling Losses, to End Alt-A Mortgages
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ac.pGKwsRx5k
Fannie won't accept new Alt-A loans after Dec. 31, according to a statement today. The mortgages, which make up about 11 percent of the $3 trillion financed by the Washington-based company, accounted for almost half of second-quarter credit losses, Chief Financial Officer Stephen Swad said today on a conference call.
Riddle me this? If no one loans you money to buy a house then how much is the house worth?
The What
Someday this war is gonna end....
Posted by: what at August 8, 2008 3:07 PM
Riddle me this--if you go around creating unpleasant alteregos on a real estate board with the express purpose of pissing on everyone's dreams and aspirations, how much is your credibility worth?
Posted by: wasder at August 8, 2008 3:12 PM
Hmm, yesterday in the same thread, the What said
"You didn't suck my balls...I'm waiting...."
"All of you can blow me..."
Clearly he's looking for a front row seat to the "Homo Rodeo thing"!
Regardless, it's just made my day finding out that the What and DOW8000SP800 are one and the same. I didn't realize multiple personalities was part of his mental disorder. How pathetic...
Posted by: Biff Champion at August 8, 2008 3:15 PM
wasder, did you notice how the What stopped giving the countdown? He's either too spineless or incapable of counting backwards. Oh wait...it's both!
Posted by: Biff Champion at August 8, 2008 3:17 PM
""I am neither married nor do I have children. Nice try."
Finally, you tell the truth.
The What"
Excellent debating skills, what.
"Are you Biff and Dave in that Homo Rodeo thing?"
No, but I think you and DOW are.
Wasder, I agree with you that DOW and what are the same person. Different personalities, but the same person.
"If no one loans you money to buy a house then how much is the house worth?"
If no one lends you money, you can't afford to buy a house and the valuation question is moot. Those of us with jobs and savings can still afford a house. Check the biggest sales of the week on this site for others with jobs and savings. Shame the same cannot be said of you.
Posted by: 11233 at August 8, 2008 3:22 PM
I like how dowhat is nominating himself for the Pulitzer for his 12.46 post. A compilation of other people's quotes. Because thats how you win the Pulitzer.
Posted by: dittoburg at August 8, 2008 3:26 PM
Where is this Homo Rodeo, and how do I get tickets?
Posted by: SnarkSlope at August 8, 2008 3:30 PM
11233, you're now officially invited to the party too!
dittoburg, I love the new moniker, "dowhat"! "Dowhat" is like "asshat" to the nth degree!
Posted by: Biff Champion at August 8, 2008 3:31 PM
SnarkSlope, ask DOWhat. He seems to have quite an interest in it.
Posted by: Biff Champion at August 8, 2008 3:32 PM
I also like Dowhat. Thanks Ditto. Its a little like asshat and a little like "do what?" You are inventing multiple personalities on a blog?
Posted by: wasder at August 8, 2008 3:34 PM
Biff---we can keep him honest on his day count. Should be at 81 or 82 now. He won't keep it himself because when you are spouting indefensible garbage the last things you want are actual facts or time markers.
Posted by: wasder at August 8, 2008 3:39 PM
wasder, actually, The What made his prediction on July 28, not July 31, so Doomsday is actually October 26. Please refer to his prediction in his post at 2:32 at this link
http://www.brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2008/07/bedstuy_do_or.php#comments
And this gets even better! Check out the posting by DOW at 2:34 on this link. This is clearly the What (trying to disguise himself with acceptable grammar)
http://www.brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2008/07/house_of_the_da_539.php#comments
Posted by: Biff Champion at August 8, 2008 3:58 PM
I actually found the What referencing 90 days all the way back on July 16th.
Posted by: wasder at August 8, 2008 4:04 PM
Really? Do provide the link! Before we know it, we'll find that the 90 days ends tomorrow!
Posted by: Biff Champion at August 8, 2008 4:05 PM
ENY -what the 12:46 post effectively demonstrates is the importance of context - without putting something into relevant context - it effectively has no meaning - which more ore less sums up 'The What' and all others who want their answers tied up in simple little packages.
Since my quote had ZERO to do with the financial market/economic conditions - putting it up against a dozen quotes (of whose authenticity I dont even care to research), that are apparently examples of incorrect past predictions of financial markets/economy - shows nothing other then the total lack of reading comprehension (or intellectual dishonesty) of The What (and all his alter egos).
Posted by: fsrg at August 8, 2008 4:17 PM
i have to give many on here credit for trying to be civil in this conversation. commentary on this tends to be very lopsided. owners have a vested interest in believing that everyone within 50 square miles will be so swamped with gas prices that it will make economic sense for them to buy a house that costs twice as much as their suburban place (plus private school).
one glaring omission from that argument is that most nyc suburbs are on excellent train lines. so you don't have to own two cars and you don't have to drive much except for groceries etc. i live in park slope and own 1 car. sure, i probably drive less than i would if i lived in the suburbs, but not that much less. there is a huge difference between ohio suburbs and nyc suburbs. so these arguments just strike me as hollow. sure, the affluent will probably continue to move into nyc/brooklyn. but that is a luxury move, not one of necessity. the cost of ownership is lower and declining in the nyc suburbs. this will attract new residents no matter what you think or hope.
Posted by: jingle mail at August 8, 2008 4:21 PM
fsrg, DOWhat's best lines are those he snorts and those he cuts and pastes. He has already shown a complete lack of intellectual honesty. And when asked a legitimate question, he either ignores it or provides some gibberish that doesn't address the point.
Now take a gander at another link and DOW's two posts and tell me he and the What don't have the exact same style of posting.
http://www.brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2008/07/whens_the_hoove.php#comments
Posted by: Biff Champion at August 8, 2008 4:26 PM
FinanceGuy:
I can tell by your lingo that while you do know something of economics, you don't work in real estate.
You said:
"Thus, Polemicist is exactly 180 degrees off. Rent stabilization
almost certainly INCREASES development activity in the city."
This conclusion demonstratively false via a variety of empirical observations, such as:
1) development activity has in fact slowed markedly since rent stabilization was enacted.
2) development activity has slowed considerably in every part of the country rent ceilings have been imposed.
3) price controls, regardless of product type, universally result in decreased supply of the product affect.
4) Rent ceilings are almost universally condemned for reducing the quality and quantity of housing by economics professors across the country.
Your theory misses a number of nuances:
1) You still can't understand that developers fear the expansion of rent stabilization. I have spoken with many in my career and I can assure you this is a reality. There is a reason virtually every new large rental building participates in the 80/20 program or something similar.
2) You don't acknowledge how rent ceilings work: they must guarantee an unlimited right of renewal. It is incredibly difficult and expensive to evict rent stabilized tenants to assemble a development site. This makes it unnecessarily expensive to replace obsolete housing with higher density buildings. This is actually more of an issue in the boroughs where the stabilized rent doesn't differ much from the market rent. It still reduces development because smaller buildings can't be knocked down with ease.
As for the rest of your post regarding brownstones and what not - the reproduction cost of most every townhouse is far greater than market value. For luxury products such as this, your theories based on replacement cost are irrelevant. People are not buying these houses for the walls and frame. They are buying it for its unique aesthetic attributes that appeal to them personally. While you have some knowledge of appraisal methodology, you should know that the Appraisal Institute itself does not recommend valuing single family homes based on their potential income.
Just to make clear, I believe rent stabilization is less of a factor in the housing crisis than the zoning laws.
Posted by: Polemicist at August 8, 2008 4:27 PM
Jinglemail, I beg to differ. I don't know a whole lotta people in the burbs, but I know a few and I've never known a family to just own one car. As far as proximity to the rail, fine, but not so close that people actually walk. They have what they call a 'station car'. Then while hubby's station car or main car is parked at the station, wifey needs to go shopping. And of course once the kids hit 16, each and every one needs their own car.
My brother, who is admittedly wealthy and lives in Bedford w 2 kids, has six cars. 'Course he says it's cheap cuz the insurance drops with each car.
Posted by: denton at August 8, 2008 4:45 PM
Thanks, Biff!
Biff, ditto and wasder, thanks for keeping the pressure on DOWhat.
Posted by: 11233 at August 8, 2008 5:02 PM
Biff--it was July 18th not 16th.
http://www.brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2008/07/whos_gonna_buy.php
Posted by: wasder at August 8, 2008 5:04 PM
Polemicist:
1. Fear of future profit-restrictions obviously could reduce investment in new building.
But the problem then is fear, not rent stabilization. Abolishing rent stabilization won't help that, at least as long as tenants continue to have the right to vote and they continue to view monopoly pricing power as immoral and inefficient.
Actually, the best way to end *fear* of increased rent stabilization is to enact the strictest imaginable scheme right now. Then investors will just work with it instead of frightening themselves with populist fantasies.
2. The difficulty of assembling development sites is an inevitable consequence of any property-based regime. The only way to "solve" this problem is to give developers the right to expropriate others. That cure is worse than the disease. Under capitalist regimes, developers can only develop if they can persuade existing rights-holders to accept payment for their rights. If they can't do that, then presumptively their development activities are not efficient. Stealing the rights of tenants would make development easier, but not more efficient, fairer or more socially useful.
3. It would take a significant price drop for Park Slope brownstones to sell for less than replacement cost. Renovated brownstones with details do not sell for a noticeable premium over similar sized brownstones with modern renovations. So, in the end, it seems that the marginal buyer is buying neighborhood and house and renovation, not Victoriana. Thus, modern construction costs are the point, and it is not hard to build a comparable space to this (less than pristine) brownstone for less than $700 per sq ft, as evidenced by the fact that developers are still managing to buy overpriced land/buildings and create new properties at current market prices all over our area.
4. In most suburbs, but not in brownstone Brooklyn, t
For the sake of property values, let's hope this inversion thing continues. We need some major demographic trend to balance out the mutant RE bubble bursting. Right, What!
Posted by: guestula at August 8, 2008 9:38 AM