« Today on the Forum Closing Bell: Why is There Sand Being Dumped on the Pier? »
February 3, 2009
Quote of the Day
When the government restricts return on any particular asset, that asset will be allowed to deteriorate until its value is low enough that it earns an acceptable return. If there is no value low enough, the asset will, one way or another, end up in the government's hands and become a burden on taxpayers. Whoever used the old saw "market failure" earlier in this discussion has successfully memorized a popular socialist catch phrase but does not appreciate the law of unintended consequences. If you force landlords to rent units at below market rents, the affected housing stock will slowly deteriorate. The remaining housing stock becomes prohibitively expensive, and new renters find it difficult or impossible to get into the below market units. The below market units effectively become a one-time property transfer from landlords (who actually took risk in buying and spend money for upkeep and repairs) to whoever had the dumb luck to be in a controlled apartment when the rules took effect. The controlled housing stock is tightly clutched in the hands of a less and less deserving population until it has to be pried from their dead hands, while over time the people who actually need affordable housing stock find it impossible to find because everything that isn't being held until death is overpriced.
by lechacal in Democratic Assembly Passes Pro-Tenant Legislation
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/8248
Comments
Lechacal, you are a heartless fool. How DARE you suggest that housing is not a basic human right! What kind of world do you think we live in? Especially these in these days of political change, we have little need for your pessimism. The days of capitalist abuse of the working man are over. Deal with it!
Posted by: Polemicist at February 3, 2009 3:37 PM
On the other hand, if we don't regulate at all, then everyone jacks their prices into the stratosphere and only the rich can afford to live where they work, despite depending on the not rich to do everything from repairing their buildings to making their lattes.
There has to be a reasonable compromise somewhere in the middle.
Posted by: cwbuecheler at February 3, 2009 3:39 PM
cwb - The whole point is that without any rent control there actually would be more affordable housing, and it would be much more fairly allocated.
Posted by: lechacal at February 3, 2009 3:41 PM
Polemicist...please move somewhere where you can afford the rent. Everything lechacal said is spot on and steeped in proven economic and social history.
cw....the reasonable compromise in the middle is dictated by economic cycles. We do not live in a socialist country despite the Sheldon Silver's of the state.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at February 3, 2009 3:44 PM
lechacal - I understand that point, I'm just not sure I fully believe it. Can you cite examples? Places like SF have - I believe - much less rent control than NYC. Yet SF's real estate market is as expensive as New York's. So I'm not sure that getting rid of rent control is necessarily going to result in reduced rates.
I'm not sure I think it's fair to just let apartments be priced at whatever the market will bear, because in a city like this, what happens is all of the people with professional jobs - myself included - end up renting all of the good apartments, and all of the people with blue collar jobs end up having to live in shitty buildings that are 45+ minutes away from where they work.
If my job's on the UES, I'd want to live on the UES -- but if my job is selling shoes or waiting tables, there's no way I can afford to live on the UES. You see what I mean?
Posted by: cwbuecheler at February 3, 2009 3:48 PM
DIBS;
Polemecist was trying to be sarcastic. He actually agrees with Lechacal.
CWB;
I wonder how you and CMU (in an earlier thread) can make such a hypothesis, given the following two facts:
-other big cities do not have rent control, and don't have the affordability issue that NYC does;
-the housing market in NYC has been distorted for more than 60 years. If you consider rent control, the projects, section 8 vouchers,80/20 projects and "affordable housing" subsidies, the government has a hand in setting the rent for more than 30% of the units in NYC. Yet at the same time, there are those who will say that the "market has not worked". What market?? In NYC???
Posted by: benson at February 3, 2009 3:52 PM
Spot on indeed - what starts off intending to level the playing field usually winds up being controlled by those who figure out how to exploit it, with the "tax" being paid by those who were intended to benefit.
Posted by: jawbreaker at February 3, 2009 3:52 PM
DIBS - generally speaking, and this will probably make you like me less I guess, for which I'm sorry, but I am pretty socialist in my political leanings.
I generally feel like it's the moral obligation of the rich to shoulder more of the load, not just sum-wise but percentage-wise, than the non-rich. Especially since being rich often is as much a case of luck and privilege as it is of hard work. No, it's not a socialist country, but I often wish it was - or at least, leaned further in that direction.
However, I can absolutely see the pitfalls of over-regulation that lechacal is talking about and I *agree* that wanton application of rent control is the wrong way to go about things. I'm just struggling to think of what I would consider the right way to go about it.
Posted by: cwbuecheler at February 3, 2009 3:53 PM
cwb, as one of the few voices of reason on this thread (and the one it came from,) be prepared to be drowned by the voices of the anti-rent-control brigade. Stating facts, or appealing to justice or fairness, will get you nowhere.
Posted by: cmu at February 3, 2009 3:56 PM
NYC vs. SF is apples vs. oranges.
People who wait tables don't live in rent controlled apartments. They live in shares in market rate apartments with people they met on Craigslist (at least my friends who wait tables do). Many rent controlled apartments are occupied by people who are completely undeserving of public assistance or have no need whatsoever to live where they do. In fact, I would guess that people who wait tables actually have to live *farther* from work as a result of rent control, which artifically removes housing stock from the market and thus inflates rents on the remaining stock, forcing those with limited means even further out.
Of course whenever rent control is threatened some tenants' association drags out the most pathethic elderly impoverished sob story they can find, but anyone with critical thinking skills should be able to recognize a red herring.
Posted by: lechacal at February 3, 2009 3:59 PM
"I generally feel like it's the moral obligation of the rich to shoulder more of the load, not just sum-wise but percentage-wise, than the non-rich"
CWB;
And exactly how does the current rent-control scheme accomplish this goal? Moreover, much of your goal is accomplished via the progressive income tax and the earned-income-credit. At what point do we stop with the redistribution of wealth, and allow liberty to flourish?
Posted by: benson at February 3, 2009 4:03 PM
cmu, you're wrong to assume that people opposed to rent control lack compassion or fairness. cut taxes for the lower and middle class? fine. give renters a tax break comparable to the morgage interest deduction? sure. build public housing funded with general tax dollars? ok. but please, scrap this system of rent control that accomplishes so little at such a high cost.
Posted by: z at February 3, 2009 4:03 PM
benson...I thought Pole was the champion of high density and all that crap. The post certainly sounded sarcastic but it didn't sound like the Polemicist that I remeber.
cw...they already do in the form of taxes. The issue I have is that they are now trying to change the rules in the middle of the game. That can't happen.
Getting apts back into stabilization is something that just won't happen. Getting stabilization, caps or whatever these jackasses in Albany and the City Council may be thinking about for market rate apts will NEVER happen.
I think that a lot of this political rhetoric was just that. These things won't really happen.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at February 3, 2009 4:04 PM
CMU, I'm fine with rent stabilization, but I've seen what you deem "fair" with regard to taxes. You're hardly one to start appealing to fairness when you'd quite happily impose a unfair or punitive income taxes rates on those earning more than you. Puhleassse.
Posted by: dittoburg at February 3, 2009 4:04 PM
"If you force landlords to rent units at below market rents, the affected housing stock will slowly deteriorate."
Not at all true. Look at San Francisco. Glorious, beautifully cared for rental housing, all of it under rent control and most "below market."
"The remaining housing stock becomes prohibitively expensive."
Also not true. I know economists love to say this, but rent control does not cause high prices. It is the other way round. Just look at cities without rent control. Or cities like Berkeley where rent control has been abolished. Prices have gone up, not down.
Posted by: mopar at February 3, 2009 4:05 PM
"Everything lechacal said is spot on and steeped in proven economic and social history.
cw....the reasonable compromise in the middle is dictated by economic cycles. We do not live in a socialist country despite the Sheldon Silver's of the state."
DIBS in my short time trolling this site, I've known you to be a reasonable poster here. But I have to disagree here wholeheartedly.
We are living in a time where the natural economic cycle was upset by both greedy investors, stupid borrowers and predatory lenders. The market in NYC is such that now that Wall Street is on the brink of demise, our economy is shot. My opinion is that if the city really wants to strengthen its economy, it needs to diversify. You can't have a majority -- of which admittedly I'm a part of -- paying 60% of their monthly expenses to rent. It leaves me with little else to spend my money on, and so local businesses are more inclined to go out of business.
I don't pretend to have all the answers, but advising people to move to a city they can afford reeks of elitism and delusion . . . I happen to work in City Government and am required to be a resident of this city. Moreover, I shouldn't have to tell you I don't make a lot of money. Rhetorically speaking, what the hell am I supposed to do.
Posted by: YngRntr at February 3, 2009 4:07 PM
How about instituting a very generous negative income tax, lower taxes for anyone making less than 100k and much higher taxes for anyone making over a million with no exceptions?
If any of this happens, I will happily take back my support of rent control.
Posted by: cmu at February 3, 2009 4:08 PM
NY/SF are two of the largest, most expensive cities in the United States. They may not be direct parallels but I don't think comparing them is out of line.
But yes, as mentioned, I agree in general about rent control - it doesn't work because it causes X number of people to just become forever entrenched in an apartment. It doesn't allow for the rotation which is essential to a good rental property, both in terms of revenue and in terms of things like being able to do upgrades in between tenants.
I'm not blindly suckered by the occasional sob story ... I just wish there was a better solution for, as an example, the random father of two who works a blue-collar job in Manhattan, but has to live in a project in the north Bronx. That sucks. Rent Control isn't the answer, but I don't think freeing the market completely is the right move either. Perhaps providing tax or other incentives to owners that want to make a percentage of their building affordable to lower income brackets might work? That way you're not FORCING them to do it, but rewarding them for it.
Posted by: cwbuecheler at February 3, 2009 4:09 PM
"Glorious, beautifully cared for rental housing, all of it under rent control and most "below market."
Mopar;
Just to be humorous (or maybe not) for a moment: do you realize that your statement defies logic? It sort of reminds me of the headline I once saw in the paper: "Tests show that 70% of our students are reading below the median level".
Posted by: benson at February 3, 2009 4:11 PM
Mopar, but there are many years of experience with deteriorating controlled housing stock in New York City to back me up. Before you get too deep into the San Franciscan fart sniffing, bear in mind that these are very different cities with very different housing markets.
Posted by: lechacal at February 3, 2009 4:12 PM
I agree with cwb, and cmu, that we do have an obligation to feed and house those less fortunate than us, at least than me. I have no problem paying taxes, including higher taxes, to accomplish this.
I also agree with Pole, Benson, et al that rent control is a horrible way to do it.
However the government has no business mandating what a landlord can charge for an apt, just like they should have no business mandating what the bodega can charge for a quart of milk.
Food stamps are essentially vouchers for food. The program works well in reducing hunger. No one eats cat food anymore. In the same way, the government should issue vouchers for housing and let landlords compete for them in the same way bodegas compete for food stamp customers.
In any event I see the free market is having a salubrious effect on rents, which are falling and will continue to fall. Supply has increased, driving down the price. What a concept, supply and demand!
Posted by: denton at February 3, 2009 4:13 PM
the argument put forth by lechacal is a little too pat and frankly, juvenile. Rent control is a very complex issue.
In my opinion, one of the unintended consequences of rent control has been to transform NY from a quasi-Socialist city of renters to a city of co-ops and condos where the percentage of home ownership has steadily grown over the past decades. Landlords could not evict tenants, so they sold them their apartments at insider prices in literally hundreds, if not thousands of buildings in all five boroughs. In other words, a basically Socialist, anti-property-rights law was actually instrumental in transforming the city of renters into one of owners. It re-energized the city's real estate market with thousands of pre-war units that came into play and turned former renters into capitalistic speculators. Chew on that one.
Today rent control allows seniors and people on fixed income to stay in their homes. Most of the millionaire rent control tenants have bought their apartments. There may be a few left, but not many. New York would be unthinkable without its rent protection. The idea of throwing thousands of people out of their apartments is cruel and unworthy of anyone but a sadist.
Posted by: sam at February 3, 2009 4:14 PM
Benson - "At what point do we stop with the redistribution of wealth, and allow liberty to flourish?"
Perhaps when where we're not at the widest gap between rich and poor that we've been since the gilded age? :)
But I *agree* that rent control schemes don't achieve this goal. As I've said a couple times now. I just don't think a completely deregulated market is the answer. Deregulation requires too much trust in people to "do the right thing" ... I have very little of that trust.
Posted by: cwbuecheler at February 3, 2009 4:17 PM
YngRntr, there are zillions of places in the five boroughs where rent is $600 to $800 per person. (Or even $400 if you're willing to split a room in an SRO with nice people.) That said, I am in favor of finding ways to lower housing costs for households making less than $80,000 a year so we can continue to have a diverse and healthy economy that benefits everyone.
Posted by: mopar at February 3, 2009 4:18 PM
Im glad to see you are sticking to your "fairness-except-when-its-other-peoples-income-taxes" principle.
Posted by: dittoburg at February 3, 2009 4:18 PM
CWB;
Nor do I trust the figures that cite that gap you mention, for one reason: it does not include transfer payments from the government. In other words, if a person is receiving food stamps or a section 8 voucher, that income is not included in the calculation. Don't take my word for it, dig into the calcualtions.
Posted by: benson at February 3, 2009 4:21 PM
"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friends, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
Dr. Adrian Rogers (1931-2005)
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at February 3, 2009 4:23 PM
Mopar: Yea I admit I overreacted a bit there, but when people tell others to move to another city I think they cross a line.
I split a 3 bedroom with 2 others in Crown Heights and am doing all right. Still, what I said about improving the overall health of NYC's economy by keeping more money in the pockets of the masses I stand by. How to best accomplish that is anyone's guess at this point, though I've read some pretty good ideas here.
Posted by: YngRntr at February 3, 2009 4:24 PM
Benson, my statement is correct. All SF rental property is subject to rent control law. When a unit becomes vacant, the owner can charge whatever they want for it (market rate).
You folks arguing about rent control are arguing about a specific, historic form of it: New York rent control law, which is asinine and proven to be a failure.
This says nothing about rent control in general.
Posted by: mopar at February 3, 2009 4:25 PM
Sam, what on earth is "quasi-socialist" about having a city of renters rather than owners? And no one is advocating throwing people out on the street. You may wish to look up the term socialist before using it, and please pay closer attention to the discussion before attempting to pull up a stool and join it.
Posted by: lechacal at February 3, 2009 4:25 PM
Benson - fair enough, but the numbers also don't factor in the fact that rich people can afford better accountants and have access to more ways of sheltering their money. I'm not saying that everything should be equal for all - I'm not a communist. I just don't feel that the existing US system is properly balanced.
DIBS - but what about the person who works equally hard, but at a job that happens to pay him less? I'm not talking about handy out free rides, just about leveling the playing field. You can't tell me I work harder designing web pages than the guy who busts his ass all day doing interior demo ... but I make a whole lot more than that guy does.
Posted by: cwbuecheler at February 3, 2009 4:29 PM
New York does legislate the maximum a bodega can charge for milk and the bodegas continue to ignore the law and charge more.
Posted by: mopar at February 3, 2009 4:29 PM
"When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friends, is about the end of any nation."
I'm not talking about welfare babies here, DIBS. I'm saying there's an unequal distribution of wealth. Why do people in finance deserve so much more money than everyone else. There are plenty of educated, hardworking people -- who get up and go to work everyday -- having a tough time of things. The result is an environment where only a select, small group of people have disposable income. And when that happens businesses will fold, as is the case throughout both our city and country.
You're opinion is valid in so much that you're entitled to it. But I would argue that you can multiply wealth by dividing it: when you give other people an equal opportunity to invest and improve their own lives, society as a whole improves. You can't have a small investor class hoarding the majority of the money. The last I checked 5% of the U.S.'s populatioin controlled 60% of the wealth. I don't know what the figure for NYC is.
Posted by: YngRntr at February 3, 2009 4:32 PM
Sam, I suppose you were referring to the rent control laws as quasi-socialist, not just renting vs ownership, so I take that snipe back. But really, accusing those who disagree with rent control of wanting to throw people out of their apartments is simplistic.
Posted by: lechacal at February 3, 2009 4:35 PM
" I'm not talking about handy out free rides, just about leveling the playing field. You can't tell me I work harder designing web pages than the guy who busts his ass all day doing interior demo ... but I make a whole lot more than that guy does."
Now that is getting in bed with communism! I thought it was a great idea when I was very young that a doctor would get paid the same as a garbage collector (as my old man explained it to me).
Posted by: dittoburg at February 3, 2009 4:39 PM
What Denton said.
Posted by: eh at February 3, 2009 4:39 PM
Sam;
I'm with lechacal on. Usually you're analysis is spot-on, but today you were way off.
Bad lunch day?
Posted by: benson at February 3, 2009 4:40 PM
Mopar - could you provide some actual stats on the % of rent controlled housing in SF vs NYC?
Also, SF and NYC comparisons are mainly apples vs oranges - just for starters: the actual city of SF is much, much smaller in population than NYC [you'd have to include much of the Peninsula & Oakland to make a decent comparison]; rental housing stock in SF is of a completely different origin and quality [mostly better, imho] than NYC.
CWB - trotting out the old 'all landlords are rich' myth isn't helping anyone. Again, please provide some hard facts on this. When I was renting [WV, LES, UES, Park Slope], all of my landlords were small-timers. Some were well-off, but none of them were the type of 'rich' folk Robin Hood would want to rob.
Personally, I think rent control/stabilization should be phased-out starting now, ending completely in 10 years. Let your decrepit granny pass-away in-peace, but I don't understand why we allow these apartments to be passed-along to subsequent generations.
And in my 100% anecdotal experience, rent-controlled apartments have been 100% sh*t-holes. There is absolutely zero motivation for a landlord to do anything but let them rot. This often creates plumbing, electrical, noise, etc problems for all the neighboring apartments, thus lowering their value too!
Posted by: parkedslope at February 3, 2009 4:47 PM
San Francisco has TOTAL vacancy decontrol - the proposed legislation wants to limit NY vacancy allowance to 10% - from 20%.
NY LLs would love to have SF rent laws here....instead we are going closer to Moscow circa 1968
Posted by: fsrg at February 3, 2009 4:51 PM
daveinbedsty - great quote. thanks for sharing
Posted by: troll at February 3, 2009 4:52 PM
ditto - I'm not saying a Doctor should make the same as a garbage man. I didn't come anywhere near saying that.
parkedslope - I understand that not all landlords are fabulously wealthy. There's a good chance I'll be a landlord myself in the next five years, but a very low chance that I'll be rich. :P
Posted by: cwbuecheler at February 3, 2009 4:52 PM
1st of all while you people are debating the merits of abolishing the current RS law -our fearless leaders are talking about DRASTICALLY strengthening the laws - therefore that is what should be being debated.
2nd - it is totally immaterial if LL are rich poor or otherwise - the purpose of the RS laws (as oppossed to progressive taxation for example) - is not to equalize wealth but to try and provide as much GOOD QUALITY affordable housing to as many people as possible. If the rent laws allowed people to earn billionaires but helped provide amazing and cheap housing for all, then that is what the rent laws should do - you will still be taxing all the income (on a progressive scale) later.
Posted by: fsrg at February 3, 2009 4:58 PM
btw this is one of the best discussion threads I've participated in on Brownstoner since joining the site. Everyone's being pretty courteous even with some wildly disparate viewpoints.
JERKS! :)
Posted by: cwbuecheler at February 3, 2009 5:00 PM
Cambridge, MA had rent control for decades, and it was ended in the mid-90s without dire consequences, as far as I know. It's tough to compare NYC to other places, and the end of rent control in Cambridge coincided with the beginning of a real estate boom, so results are not necessarily applicable. Still, it's interesting to read that one study (admittedly, by the right-leaning Manhattan Institute) credited the end of Cambridge rent control with an increase in housing investment of 20%.
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_36.htm
Posted by: citykitty at February 3, 2009 5:17 PM
Dr. Adrian Rogers: who the hell is he? I'm afraid I don't keep up with right-wing sputterings.
SF has stronger tenants rights than NYC. It's harder to evict tenants there. And are you sure it has total vacancy decontrol? Things may have changed since 2001 when I was last there.
HOusing vouchers would not be "fought over" by landlords; they would be used as a discriminatory tool (to add to others,) as presumably they'd be wielded only by the lower class tenants.
Posted by: cmu at February 3, 2009 5:33 PM
it is a great discussion, cwb-thanks for throwing the gratutitus insult. Where would we be if a b'stoner thread didn't have at least 1 per thread :-)
I'm thoroughly confused- but I get that way when people can look at the same issue and come out with 2 entirely different and opposing interpretations. The new regulations seem to be good for tenants but in the long run, no.And it certainly is unfair to landlords. But the main point is how to fix the system to be fair to both sides. First ought to be recognition that there are different kinds of landlords- those like the great EVLL, or any of you who bought a house and have tenants in the house too, are a far different animal than landlords who invest in properties and real estate strictly as a business.
I know the laws apply differently based on the type and size of properties, but small landlords need more protection. Passing down a rent control apartment to our heir? If you've been living there for years with your family, that's one thing. Moving back in to get the lease- hell no. But unless we rethink the landlord/tenant relationship we will never resolve this.
I think its pretty obvious from the opinions expressed that landlord/tenant relationaships are seen as adversarial, not symbiotic- maybe that's the free market, but the Wild West free market so dear to our American/capitalist hearts has proven far less than ideal these days. It's a nice, philosophical idea but the reality lately sucks. No country, and no government can really exist as completely capitalist or socialist. My taxes pay for roads and schools. At some level we don't function without "socialism."
Tossing around labels neither define the problem, nor do anything to address it. They just get everyone worked up.
Posted by: bxgrl at February 3, 2009 5:54 PM
"Cambridge, MA had rent control for decades, and it was ended in the mid-90s without dire consequences, as far as I know."
I'm guessing it was dire for many of the of people who had to move out of the area. I was able to stay, but many were not.
Posted by: SnarkSlope at February 3, 2009 5:55 PM
citykitty- did you k now many tenants in Cambridge? Funny how easy it is to overlook the consequences for other folk.Especially when its easier to look the other way.
Posted by: bxgrl at February 3, 2009 6:03 PM
bxgrl, well said. "...or any of you who bought a house and have tenants in the house too, are a far different animal"...It's interesting that tho' you make distinctions between large LLs and homespun ones, the attitudes may not be dissimilar. We can assume there are no large LLs on this board.
But time and again I have heard the most destructive, antagonistic, mistrustful statements made about tenants here...from small landlords. Coupled, of course, with the entitlement of ownership (it's my house and I can tell my tenants how to live). This does not make me feel sympathetic to their issues with the occasional tenant-from-hell.
Posted by: cmu at February 3, 2009 6:04 PM
fsrq is technically correct that SF has "total vacancy decontrol" but it's a meaningless phrase in the context of SF. It is a totally different rent control system than any of the forms NYC has had.
It's very very very simple. Every rental apartment in SF is under the rent control law. The law is this: When the unit becomes vacant, you can charge whatever you want and the market will bear. When there's a tenant in it, you can raise the rent no more than what is permitted by law in accordance with cost of living increases. This varies, but was never less than 4 percent when I lived there. If the landlord moves into the apartment, the tenant must vacate.
It's not perfect, but it works fairly well. Basically, it ensures that renters have about as much control over their housing costs as owners. It prevents sudden rises in rents on existing tenants. But rents don't become so out of whack landlords can't maintain the building.
Posted by: mopar at February 3, 2009 6:10 PM
Mopar - thanks for the clarification.
What again distorts the situation in NYC is the ability to pass-along a rent controlled lease from one family member to the next - period.
This has created a privileged class of renters. I'm not sure how anyone can actually defend such a system.
Posted by: parkedslope at February 3, 2009 6:25 PM
cmu- because my closest friend is a LL I see that point of view too. And I venture to guess that the majority of small landlords are not making fortunes on their homes- just looking to keep them. I don't think with them its a sense of entitlement so much as a defend your investment- and honestly they have that right. But some of them go overboard- true. I once took offense to a ll who told they had to have white curtains in the living room because they wanted the house to look a certain way from outside. And yes- a lot of them have made really obnoxious comments about renters. Ah well- on b'stoner we all say stupid stuff. You can take some comfort from the fact that LL's need tenants. It's their karma :-)
Posted by: bxgrl at February 3, 2009 6:30 PM
parkedslope, I do agree that a controlled apt should go not to a relative unless (s)he's been living in the apt.
bxgrl, I've been a "small" landlord for over 20 years and a dozen tenants by now, and I don't feel very seigneur-ial over my space; I figure I gave up a lot of "rights" when I made the decision to run it as a business. Of course, I've also been lucky to have had only good tenants. And that's what I see missing in the LL views: that they made the decision to let other human beings into their space, and so they "owe" them a little respect beyond getting the thermostat set right.
Posted by: cmu at February 3, 2009 6:44 PM
cmu- I can't argue that point. I've even been on the receiving end of a few anti-tenant comments. I rent, ergo I am a loser, or I'm too stupid to own or I'm fool for renting instead of owning. I think it's lunacy for a LL who claims to be running a business, tell his clients if they don't like it, move. What business model is that? The Doomed to Fail Model. But what do I know? I rent :-)
Posted by: bxgrl at February 3, 2009 6:53 PM
> "Dr. Adrian Rogers: who the hell is he?"
A real piece of work according to Wikipedia:
Dr. Rogers served three times as president of the Southern Baptist Convention... He was first elected to this post on a platform of biblical inerrancy...
According to one author, the pastor once responded to a question about biblical references in support of slavery during biblical times by saying, "I feel slavery is a much maligned institution. If we had slavery today we would not have such a welfare problem..."
Dr. Rogers was an adamant supporter of the pro-life movement, had stated that the institution of capital punishment is spiritually ordained, and supported a boycott of Disney because of the company's supposed promotion of homosexuality...
- - - -
Methinks he won't be sending DIBS a Christmas card.
Posted by: SnarkSlope at February 3, 2009 7:36 PM
DIBS- why would you quote such a jerk? I have a hard time accepting the credibility of someone's views of freedom when they don't think slavery was such a bad thing.
Posted by: bxgrl at February 3, 2009 7:57 PM
CMU;
Please spare us the moralizing and self-righteousness. How about having a debate on the merits of the issue, and accepting that people of good faith can have different opinions and experiences?
Posted by: benson at February 3, 2009 7:59 PM
Here's some solutions for you folks, if you want to begin to correct the problems;
1. Don't nominate or confirm political appointees that don't care to pay taxes, and put them in charge of the tax code; people like Rangel and Geitner or Daschel or that other nominee who had the good grace to decline her nomination once it came out that she too didn't believe in paying taxes.
2. Restructure the entire tax code. A flat tax rate perhaps, this way all those sneaky people running "cash" businesses actually pay their taxes, and so do the corporate criminals. Right now, the top 50% of earners pay 98% of taxes. Nothing wrong with not making alot of money, but there are an awful lot of people living on the dole by sheer laziness (see, Americans who won't work at fast food restaurants or on farms or in gardening). Somewhere in the 1990's it became unacceptable for american teenagers to work at these jobs. And yes, I've worked at everything from washing dishes to mopping floors. And no, I'm no longer poor.
3.Cut capital gains taxes even more, small businesses create 80% of jobs in this nation. yes 80%. You want jobs growth, stimulate small businesses to go into business. Small businesses thrive on the idea that they take risks with money to gain on the other end with their good ideas. I'm talking about the Dunkin' Donuts shops, the doctor's offices, the corner diners and the architect's office. The current "stimulus plan" does little to address this.
4. Give up on the idea of socialism, it simply does not work because it ignores a simple but ugly truth about human nature, which is this; much of our basic nature is made up of fear and/or sloth. Given the opportunity, feeding into our fears will allow the tendency towards sloth to predominate. And this is not just a physical sloth but a mental sloth. How else to explain nations of millions being enslaved by totalitarian dogma ; Stalin, Tito, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Ill, the list goes on and on accross continents. Socialism is a nice idea but it unplugs humans from their basic drive to achive and replaces it with an idealistic pursuit towards a common "brotherly" good. Inherently at odds with our selfish genes. We're just not evolved enough.
5.Rent control is a form of socialism, it wasn't originally intended that way but has become that. Rent control is meant to protect the original tenant, not a carload of distant "cousins" and "sons in law". By all means protect the original tenant from 1958, but the slacker cousin from Des Moines, doesn't deserve a classic six on the park for the price of a bus ticket.
6.Realize there is a limit to how many persons a nation can sustain and still maintain a decent standard of living. We have 300 million people and the best standard of living for the largest population of people at any time in history.Don't mess with it by attempting to import the poverty of the rest of the world. We cannot win that game, and our decendents will surely suffer. We can only help show other nations the way to prosperity for themselves, That is, Democracy and free markets (well regulated of course). And of course, not exploiting others.
7. No Wall Street bonuses paid for by my tax dollars. I don't get a bonus for running my business into the ground. I get to go bankrupt and start from zero. I don't get another ticket to ride from uncle sam and our grand children. I don't get a "golden parachute" and a house in Sag Harbor.
8. Corporate corruption should be treated as a treasonous crime. Their threat to the economic stability of this nation is equivalent to domestic terrorism. Transfer the al quaeda slime at guantanamo to work camps in Northern Alaska (to appease the whiny liberals) and line up the corporate criminals for a permanent holiday on the American part of sunny Cuba.
fasten your seatbelts, we're in for a bumpy ride...
Posted by: Legion at February 3, 2009 8:31 PM
"much of our basic nature is made up of fear and/or sloth."
and the rest is greed
"How else to explain nations of millions being enslaved by totalitarian dogma"
yeah, like half this nation is with unfettered capitalism.
"Transfer the al quaeda slime at guantanamo to work camps in"
Guilty until proven innocent, eh? Do you have any f()(* idea what percentage of those poor beaten, tortured souls are innocent?
Way to go, legion, are you also in favor of bringing back slavery?
Posted by: cmu at February 3, 2009 8:59 PM
Legion:
1. I honestly don't think Geithner was purposefully evading taxes.
2. That will never happen. Doesn't matter if it makes sense.
3. I'm not sure how you connected capital gains tax with small businesses in particular. That's a pretty weak argument. Self-employment taxes, sure. Sure capital gains hit people when they sell their businesses, but (a) that has nowhere near the effect on small business formation as currently payable taxes and (b) are you suggesting that your reform would be limited to small business exits? I doubt it.
4. Amen and halleluiah. Preach the gospel brother.
5. Amen and halleluiah. Preach the gospel brother.
6. Getting a bit far afield there pal. Reel it back in.
7. Overly simplistic but I guess OK in general.
8. OK in the abstract.
Posted by: lechacal at February 3, 2009 9:04 PM
"many people want the gov't to protect the consumer. A much more urgent problem is to protect the consumer from the gov't"
"Nothing is so permanent as a temporary gov't program"
"if u put the federal gov't in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 yrs there'd be a shortage of sand." -Milton Friedman
Posted by: yanks77 at February 3, 2009 9:10 PM
love the post. actually, doesn't chicago have affordable housing and no rent control? and, it's all much much nicer at the lower rents.
Posted by: wine lover at February 3, 2009 10:17 PM
cmu,
you, my friend, are part of the problem.
For people like you throw away something that took millions of years to evolve;
Common Sense.
Common sense is that inherent human trait that allows us to discern in a split second what is dangerous to us or harmful at a gut level, before the need to process it throught the thalamus.
Sort of like walking into a roadside gas station men's room and getting that first olfactory tingle of the ugliness that lies behind that stall door. No need to use the other 4 senses on that one. Unless of course you are a raving liberal. In which case you will have to see it, hear it, feel it and taste it before you determine that getting anywhere near it is not good for your health. So too is the situation at guantanamo, where enemy combatants who have been captured in war, in the process of attempting to kill your fellow Americans, have vowed to do so again if given the chance and have actually been documented to do just that once released, are, in your skewed mind, victims of some bad family trip planning to Tora Bora.
People like you , also think that, somehow, despite repeated wholesale historical attempts at forced indoctrination into the pleasures of socialism/communism (read Solzhenitsyn), including the largest genocidal campaigns in human history between Stalin (over 30 million served)and Mao (over 40 million served), somehow it will work if we only try just one more time.
Get real. or as Solzhenitsyn put it;
"...to taste the sea, you need only take one gulp."
as for lechakakahn,
start up businesses and investors thrive on capital gains, that's the way it works. why would I start an internet widgit company from my garage if I couldn't look forward to selling shares and using the profits to start another business. check out that guy who started PayPal in college then sold it to start a company developing privatized space exploration and missile technology. Why would I bother buying more real estate, improving it, maintaining it and finally selling it if the profits were going to fund that fat guy down the street watching reruns of Kojak all day long.
If you think that's simplistic, perhaps you're spending too much time at the alter of ivy league worship, Wall Street and Washington are full of over-analyzing morons with degrees from Harvard and Yale who have done such a great job these past few years. Look up the name Jaime Gorelick, Harvard educated assistant attorney general under Clinton, who was instrumental in writing the infamous memo placing a large wall between CIA and FBI communications ,responsible in large part for 9/11. Later going on to distinguish herself as a member of the board of directors of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during the period of overexuberant government backed home loans, now known as the root of our current economic malaise. She made millions, sure enough, was even on the 9/11 commission. great. lol.
God Bless America.
Posted by: Legion at February 3, 2009 10:42 PM
misterbubble thanks this "legion" bloke for reminding us that 9-11 was actually clinton's fault.
Posted by: misterbubble at February 3, 2009 11:14 PM
Legion, posts like yours can only nudge me towards the left from my usual center-right post, because they make the right sound like really boring company. When I was in the military (have you ever served, or are you just a flag-humper?) I remember being told by lots of people, starting with my drill sargeant, that I was "too smart to tie my own goddamn shoes" and that "all I needed was some goddamn common sense" etc etc. People like that need to be managed, not engaged. I did quite well in the military thank you very much, and have done pretty well for myself since. So you can take your common sense and shove it deep where you would probably secretly put things when your conservative friends aren't looking.
Posted by: lechacal at February 3, 2009 11:31 PM
Legion, posts like yours can only nudge me towards the left from my usual center-right post, because they make the right sound like really boring company. When I was in the military (have you ever served, or are you just a flag-humper?) I remember being told by lots of people, starting with my drill sargeant, that I was "too smart to tie my own goddamn shoes" and that "all I needed was some goddamn common sense" etc etc. People like that need to be managed, not engaged. I did quite well in the military thank you very much, and have done pretty well for myself since. So you can take your common sense and shove it deep where you probably secretly put things when your conservative friends aren't looking.
Posted by: lechacal at February 3, 2009 11:35 PM
bxgrl thanks misterbubble for reminding us that legion was part of the very problematic 8 years past and like the rest of his conservative GOP pals has yet to learn how to take responsibilty for anything or learn anything from their mistakes.
and I thank mr. legion for sp beautifully expressing the total confusion and meltdown of the republicans who forever point a finger at "whining liberals", all the while bemoaning their the fate their beloved neocon party has dealt them.
FIY- in this country, which you keep demanding that G-d bless, we are innocent until proven guilty. there are far too many people in Gitmo being held on little to now evidence and the Bush administration has certainly taken its own damn sweet time bringing them to trial- which tells me they have little to no evidence. I find that more than a little reminiscent of the taliban way of thinking. And more FYI- many of those prisoners were not captured in war- they were picked up on suspicion, rumor and innuendo, not proof.
I love the old I pulled myself up by my bootstraps and if I can so can anyone argument. I worked hard all my life, never been on welfare, did great jobs and crappy jobs and I am still "poor." Why? Because life happens and lots of things are beyond your control. Common sense should have told you that but anyone who can still bitch about the "whiny liberals" from atop the wreckage left by the so-called conservatives is not suffering from an excess of common sense.
Posted by: bxgrl at February 3, 2009 11:48 PM
lechacal- actually it's possible his conservative are always looking, thanks to the Bush Administration :-)
Posted by: bxgrl at February 3, 2009 11:54 PM
oops- conservative pals are always looking.
Posted by: bxgrl at February 4, 2009 12:16 AM
"at guantanamo, where enemy combatants who have been captured in war, in the process of attempting to kill your fellow Americans, have vowed to do so again if given the chance and have actually been documented to do just that once released, are, in your skewed mind, victims of some bad family trip planning to Tora Bora." -legion's twist on things.
Firstly, as others have pointed out, few were actually captured in warfare. Secondly, if they were, they should be prisoners of war, whose treatment is internationally agreed on. Unending captivity in tortuous circumstances is not kosher. Thirdly, if I were in that situation, I'd be vowing revenge on my captors, and, so, my friend would you...think about our societal response to a horrific act (9/11)...invading a country that had nothing to do with it and killing over 100,000? A prisoner's boastful and desperate wish to destroy America while suffering in Guantanamo is small potatoes compared to that.
Common sense you may have, but the ability to look at facts is what you need.
Posted by: cmu at February 4, 2009 8:53 AM
ok, let's take these liberal whiners one at a time.
first off lechakakhan;
you attempt to employ that most predictable of liberal whiner ploys; the good old "if you haven't served in the military you cannot speak about the war" routine.
This is nothing more than a feeble attempt at censorship by a person who cannot argue to the facts of the situation. It is akin to saying, you cannot comment on the conduct of the president if you haven't served as president of the united states or perhaps you cannot comment on the state of your health unless you are licensed doctor. Silly isn't it. and yet you fascists on the left (and don't try and tell me you aren't) will always go for the censorship route instead of facing the facts head on. So keep on playing the role of Joker from Full Metal Jacket. I'll keep on being an original personality and not a poseur. Not afraid to speak my mind on subjects far and wide and without much regard for those who believe that speech is to be qualified if it cannot be countered with reasoned thought. As far as the suggestions of anal play, that is not my bag of tea, but hey, if you're an assclown into teabagging , that's your thing dude. Go for it.
next we have boxgirl who states with great abandon that she is "poor". This in itself is not a problem for me, I was once poor myself, could be again one day, who knows? No, the problem with boxgirl is that she tends to wallow in it and then beat other posters over the head with her supposed learned virtues. Let me clue you in sister, poorness is over rated. Given a choice, most poor folks would rather not be poor. It tends to get in the way of enjoyment of life. Now if you live in a society which is capitalist in nature, do you fly off the handle and attempt to bring down that successful society that has given more to the great unwashed masses than any other nation in history, or do you do a little introspection and attempt to play the game as it is and move forward? If you are a liberal you attempt to change the game midway and blame the society at large for your predicament. That my friends is boxgirl in a nutshell. Oh, but I do remember her telling me that she was educated, so why she never managed to get out of her "poorness" is beyond me. Then again, being "poor" in the United States simply means that you are entitled to approximately $30,000 in yearly programs including free housing (section -8) , free food, free job training, free medical insurance, free child care, free transportation and of course free education. Hey, not knocking it, just telling it like it is. Just don't dare imply that being "poor" in the United States is anything like it is in the third world where it means you have no food, no shelter and your life expectancy is about 30 years. As far as the prisoners at guantanamo, I didn't hear your response to the fact that more than a few who were released went on to continue their jihaad and slaughter of innocent people. Heard of Mumbai? Heard of Belsan? Heard of London? Madrid? Jakarta? There are a few more nations involved in this radical islamist war. And many don't even have much to do with the USA.
And now for CMU:
Iraq was invaded for many reasons, following 9/11, and Saddam's defiance of 17 UN resolutions, following the anthrax attacks (now known to be homegrown)but nonetheless a contributing factor to our national psyche at the time, following the repeated shooting up of US warplanes in the UN mandated no fly zone, Saddam was basically doing a Hugo Chavez, taunting us at our most vulnerable time; add to this the fact that British, Israeli, Russian, French and US intelligence all stated that Saddam had WMD's (we know he had them because he used them against Iran); what exactly did you expect? what followed was a series of three wars which were all won by the strength of will of the US military; the first war against Iraq was completed in months, the second war against al quaeda was won when Fallujah was taken back and the third war against Iranian backed insurgents was won with the Surge. And in cased you missed it, the Iraqi's have voted in democratic elections once again. Despite what the left in America stated was a "LOST" war. so you now have a new democracy in the middle east serving as an example, along with afghanistan as two islamic nations that don't have to go the route of radical islam. And guess what? they now surround Iran, that nation which has been at the heart of much of this unrest since the Carter/Reagan years. but perhaps geo-political flexible strategies is beyond you. Anyhow, keep on believing, we are the problem, you will be ignored by history anyway.
Common sense. It's what's sorely missing in America today. and particularly amongst posters here in Brownstoner.
Posted by: Legion at February 4, 2009 8:53 PM

Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.