Commentator Balks at Mayor's Housing Plan
Arguing that Bloomberg’s affordable housing plan will in effect increase housing costs for middle-income New Yorkers, Nicole Gelinas, of the Manhattan Institute, outlines the theory that regulating prices acuses supply to become restricted. The result? Housing becomes more valuable and prices rise for living space still on the free market. She also makes the generalized…
Arguing that Bloomberg’s affordable housing plan will in effect increase housing costs for middle-income New Yorkers, Nicole Gelinas, of the Manhattan Institute, outlines the theory that regulating prices acuses supply to become restricted. The result? Housing becomes more valuable and prices rise for living space still on the free market. She also makes the generalized argument that rent stabilization leads to the deteriorization of housing conditions by depriving landlords of revenue needed for upkeep, forcing them to cut corners. Granted, some single mothers may not be able to afford their apartments without government regulations, she says, but that’s “a problem of the dysfunctional underclass.”
Bloomberg’s Housing Horror [NY Post]
Attack that person withour reason? Why is pointing out a glaring inconsistency between belief and behavior an attack or harassment?
Thanks for admitting that your decision boils down to money, CH Proud. No, I wouldn’t rent an apt. for $300 a month, because I openly admit that I like to maxmize profits. You, on the other hand, say one thing and do another. Just as you don’t appreciate people making assumptions about you (which I never did – I just stated a fact based on information that you volunteered), I’m sure that developers and owners of rent-stabilized buildings don’t appreciate people doing the same to them.
My dear Prowd,
I’m not ducking you, or anyone else. I do have to wonder why someone who insists on being taken seriously, would choose a moniker someone else already has, and then change one letter. With all of the problems we had with annoying trolls, one could only think that the troll has decided to register and continue the harassment, and frankly, from your posts, I see little to change my mind about your true motives here. Somehow, I don’t see you renting to the single mother for $300 a month either. I can’t afford to, frankly, but
doesn’t mean I don’t do plenty of other things to try to make things better for all kinds of people. But you don’t know that about me, do you? In fact, you don’t know anything at all about me, so before you start throwing stones, look to your own affairs. If all you can do is sling accusations at anonymous people on a blog, you aren’t a part of the solution, my friend.
Mateo, thanks for the vote of confidence, as well as a well thought out response to Prowd’s diatribe. Your report on Wilson’s theories was also very interesting, and makes perfect sense. An interesting conundrum, indeed, and just another reason why being black in America is a many layered, complex combination of things. Much to think about there.
CHpWd- you can expect people on this board to not take you seriously when you very obviously pick a board name meant to harrass one person, and then consistently attack that person without reason. When will you figure it out that CHP earned her respected status with her knowledge and well thought out posts and those of us who have read them these many months know where she stands. You should wise up- we all understand what you’re trying to do here. At least you can’t use someone else’s screen name anymore- you did enough damage with that.
Mateo- thank you for that information regarding Wilson. I honestly never realized that about how desegregation caused the Black middle class to leave their urban communities and the effect it had. I grew up in a mixed neighborhood and I live in one now that is rapidly becoming more mixed- I wouldn’t want to live any other way. These neighborhood are full of life and sound, the neighbors are friendly, it’s classic NY. I’ve always thought such neighborhoods were vital to the health of the city, but until you posted about Wilson I couldn’t point to the factual reason why.
Also, Putnam-denizen, very well put.
One of the most personally influential classes I had in college was taught by William Julius Wilson, an amazing (and highly, highly regarded) scholar in the field of urban sociology and planning, and the number one problem he saw for urban living was that of the ghetto. And more precisely, that of middle-class black flight after the desegration of the 1960’s. It removed the underlying strength of the urban community: taking away capital, investment, and role models. The culmination of this problem is, of course, housing projects. And a very appealing solution is mixed-income housing to diffuse our income classes amongst each other. So that kids grow up in stable communities and the, “culture of poverty” eventually ends.
CHwP,
1) Of course you’re going to catch flack for your moniker. You’re either doing it to create the appearance that you’re CHuP or as some sort of snide mockery of her. Why you expect any sort of positive reaction for doing so is beyond me.
2) Other tenants are not, “subsidizing the little old lady down the hall” … the city is by providing tax breaks, free land, and perhaps zoning exceptions. If the developer does not wish to construct mixed-income housing, then so be it. But if they do, it’s ultimately on the city’s dime.
3) Simply because you believe in something at a social level does not imply that you must personally enact it if society chooses not to do so.
Examples: If you think that there is a lack of housing in New York, why are you not moving to Connecticut? It would lessen the housing demand in New York, no? Or is that hypocriscy? Or if you’re againt social engineering, then you should not take out any deductions when doing your taxes, right? Or if you support the mission in Iraq, then why not enlist?
I could go on but the point, I believe, is fairly clear. And no, I don’t believe that my examples are fair. But that is symptomatic of the underlying tenet that you must make every one of your individual actions harmonious with your beliefs on social policy. It is simply not feasible or fair to demand.
Now, what are the, “difficult questions” that you have been presented from pursuing or people have avoided answering?
What is interesting about this board is how people make use the moniker (or lack therof) as an excuse for evading difficult questions. In the past, those opposed to the Atlantic Yards would forever be criticizing those who posted anonymously – now my statements are being dismissed solely on my selection of a screen name. And if I persist with this question, I will surely be dismissed as a troll.
CrownHeightsProud sneers at the person angered at “subsidizing the little old lady down the hall”, but is clearly not willing to do the same herself.
So, in conclusion, I think it’s only fair that those who apply rules to others should be willing to live by those rules themselves. Anything else is hypocrisy.
Putnam-Denizen, you are correct. Thank you for bringing up the very valid point that everything is connected. What we balk at correcting today in the name of fiscal responsibility, or just plain mean spirited cheapness, daisy chains down the line to something we as a society will pay even more for down the line, ie: not getting rid of lead paint in city owned buildings leading to increased costs of remedial and special education, to uneducated and dysfunctional adults to increased law inforcement and prison costs. The cost to delead an apartment – thousands. The cost of the rest – millions. Even if policymakers don’t give even a piece of a damn about the people they are helping, simple economics should convince them that doing the right thing in the first place is better.
I won’t hold my breath.
Putnam-denizen,I’m with you 100%. It’s very clear that every aspect of urban living has an impact on every other aspect, no matter how distant. Gelinas I’m sure knows that but admitting it will not serve her purposes. I always thought the mark of a successful society is how well all of its people are doing- not whether or not one particular group is doing better than the rest. And there is good reason- when one group prospers at the expense of the others, the social fabric is weakened, then torn. I don’t know if that makes me a “leftie” (I am anyway), or a “commie” but I do know it makes me a realist and history will back me up.
Obviously if someone chooses a monicker which clearly apes and is meant to confuse the reader (i.e. CHPwd vs CHPud), there is no point in taking them seriously.
I guess I want to live in a society in which we take responsibility to create minimum standards for health and safety. Some of that we do through safety regulations and building codes. Thus the “New Tenement Law” in the 19th century which demanded that all bedrooms have natural light and air. I guess we could create massive new public housing to fill the demand from low-income people. Certainly when the projects opened during the last century the poor were quite happy to leave the privately owned buildings (often in awful conditions). The experience since then has shown that even well-run public housing (and if you compare NYCHA with Philadelphia, New Haven, Boston or Chicago you will realize it is relatively well run and in good condition) creates unintended social consequences by isolated the lowest earners and the non-working. So we try something new by creating incentives and requirements for private developers to build mix-use housing. Sure it is social engineering, but so is paving the roads, requiring children to be vaccinated, etc. It distorts the market, but so what? The failure to attribute real costs (environmental wear and tear, increased asthma rates, increased burdens on existing city systems) to new development unjustly enriches private actors at the cost of the rest of us. Every decision, and each of us is ultimately compromised.