Should Landlord Subsidize Tenants' Good Life?
A familiar story with the same violins playing in the background: A group of pioneering artists with under-market rents fighting the evil landlord who wants to maximize the profitability of his property. In this case, it’s a particularly colorful gang of circus performers and nonprofit publishers, many of whom will have to leave New York…
A familiar story with the same violins playing in the background: A group of pioneering artists with under-market rents fighting the evil landlord who wants to maximize the profitability of his property. In this case, it’s a particularly colorful gang of circus performers and nonprofit publishers, many of whom will have to leave New York if they lose the court battle over whether they are protected by rent stabilization laws. As big a bummer as it is for them (and arguably for the fabric of the neighborhood), we can’t see why the landlord should have to subsidize these folks any longer. No one forced them to move here twenty years ago–they did so because it was the best deal they could find at the time. It’ll be interesting to see what the judge says.
The Good Life on South 11th Street [NY Times] GMAP P*Shark
Photo by justiNYC
Well said Anon 11:46–Brooklyn may not have been as “desirable” pre-artists, but it certainly existed, and people lived in these nabes and survived quite well, like the Arawaks preColumbus. To the poster who said artists saved Park Slope: it was run-down 20-25 years ago–I know, I was there–but there were still well-to-do people (doctors, lawyers, editors, etc.)living in and maintaining the big houses on the name streets. And there wren’t that many abandoned buildings. It was a functioning working class area in a depressed city and its fortunes were going to rise with the city’s, artists or not.
Anon 3:23.
I use a portion of my paycheck to support BAM do you? The point is that its my choice. No one forced to me to give financial support its something I chose to do. Why should a landlord be forced to support artists if they aren’t interested. Why don’t you buy a piece of property and provide free housing for artists?
The problem with rent control is that it assists a very small number of very lucky individuals and their families. No matter how much money these people earn, they are always entitled to the same great deal. It’s a terribly unfair system that often doesn’t help the people who need it the most.
If you were an artist twenty or thirty years ago, you might have gotten lucky. If you’re an artist now, it’s very unlikely that you have a rent controlled apartment.
Since the writing has been on the wall about rent control for almost a decade, I find it baffling that most of these people didn’t make contingency plans. That could have been buying, but it could also have been exploring neighborhoods that were cheaper. I believe that everyone has the right to affordable housing, but that doesn’t mean they have the right to live in the neighborhood of their choosing.
There are plenty of neighborhoods that would greatly benefit from the symbiotic relationship discussed above – Bed Stuy, Bushwick, East New York, many parts of the Bronx and parts of Queens to name a few. I would argue that the East Village, Soho and Williamsburg are much less in need of the emerging artists to improve the neighborhoods – they already have a lot of amenities that make them nice, if somewhat less interesting places to live. It’s extremely unusual these days that a renter stays in his or her apartment for 20 years – having to move just once during that time seems like a pretty good situation to me.
Well said, enjoy your beautiful brooklyn brownstones, victorian frame houses and apartments for now. But soon, when all the artists have relocated to philly and philly becomes the next, new, trendy, bohemian hang-out, then where will you all be. Your property value might drop because the neighborhood is no longer edgy or interesting. Your kids will grow up and decide that they want to move to philly because that’s where all the real, true organic art is happening.
I guess from the sounding of this post we might as well do away with BAM and any other decisions to create a cultural haven in Brooklyn. If its left up to all you tightwads the brooklyn museum will never get a new building erected near the atlantic yards/BAM.
I moved to Brooklyn 4 years ago because I thought it was a cultural mecca but it’s becoming more and more apparent that with the influx of undesirables (i.e., yuppies) it has lost its soul. Philly here I come.
Why do you think some “suburbs” are becoming more hip than the city? From Yonkers up to Ulster County, artists can actually afford to buy places and live amongst other artists. You don’t need to go as far as Philadelphia.
1:08, I like your thoughts, you’re correct and I stand corrected. Artists are parasitic, as much as landlords are parasitic. I just kinda (incorrectly) thought that two parasites using each other make for a symbiosis. Not necessarily.
But you yourself made the distinction that opportunistic parasites don’t harm their hosts. I wish that were remotely as true for the real estate parasites as it is for the artistic ones. My old neighborhood has been transformed into a mall.
anon 2;29
nice !!!!!!
I never see artists offering me art at 1972 prices
This is crap.
“Artists are special people. Without them we wouldn’t have Broadway, Museums, Opera Houses, great restaurants…culture.
They need to be protected.”
Queue the Dead Milkmen I am a sensitive artist…
Plenty of people work full time and are still artists or something on the side. They don’t sit around and thinking that they can’t get jobs or are above working. Some are able to make a living at their art and some have to do something else but they take responsibilty for there own financial well being. You are acting as if artists need to be cared for as if they had some sort of disability.
And before you get all riled up my wife is a working illustrator.