No Regrets (or Complaints) From Dumbo Pioneer
While we enjoyed the piece on Pep Gay’s slice of old Dumbo for nostalgic and voyeuristic reasons alone, we were also struck by the contrast in attitude between the Spanish-born make up artist and the South 11th Street colonizers that generated so much discussion last week. Pep’s had a good run–almost a decade renting the…
While we enjoyed the piece on Pep Gay’s slice of old Dumbo for nostalgic and voyeuristic reasons alone, we were also struck by the contrast in attitude between the Spanish-born make up artist and the South 11th Street colonizers that generated so much discussion last week. Pep’s had a good run–almost a decade renting the 2,500-square-foot space for an initial price of $1,600 a month and recently a good bit more–and is now resigned to the fact that market forces are pushing him out. Instead of suing the landlord, Pep is focusing his energies on building his savings and dealing with the fact that he won’t be able to afford the building or neighborhood he helped colonize.
A Pioneer Knows When to Move on [NY Times]
“Of course, landlords should- and do- be compensated for improvements they make to their properties. But why should they receive 100% of the benefits of an ‘improving’ neighborhood they may not even live in?”
For the same reason a landlord gets 100% of the loss when a neighborhood goes downhill. And for the same reason that the owner of a cow gets 100% of the benefit when beef prices rise because of the Atkins diet, etc. Because they own it. It’s only when someone makes a profit off property that suddenly this moral argument comes in–how dare someone make as much money as the market will bear off someone else’s home?!
You make your agrument in terms of the benefits of stability to the larger society. The whole society should subsidize it, then, if those benefits are so important.
It’s a great thought though; who doesn’t want to live rent free for the rest of their lives. I think this is what inspired many of us to become home-owners.
I am so sick and tired of artists acting as if they are the only pioneers. What about the people that end up in these neighborhoods out of necessity? I am not an artist but I am a PIONEER. Once I can’t afford to live there I move out. Simple as that. Artists here are so whiny about everything. They are the only ones that seem to think that they are entitled to live for free for the rest of their lives.
“we just don’t think individual landlords should be forced to take the hit. “
What hit? The landlords are the beneficiaries of gentrification not the producers of it. Presumably they bought the building before the gentrification in which case they are doing quite well with a building that will sell for 3x the value. Or they bought it after gentrification but with the knowledge of who the tenants were and how much they were paying.
I’m not an advocate of ‘hit the jackpot’ style regulations like rent control but surely there is a value in society in not ripping apart communities whenever rents increase. Rent stabilization seems to take a fair middle ground by allowing increases but not gouging.
(Of course, landlords should- and do- be compensated for improvements they make to their properties. But why should they receive 100% of the benefits of an ‘improving’ neighborhood they may not even live in?)
Pep seems quite happy to get up and go, so it’s a non-issue. I’m talking more about the general attitude around here lately. I find that people’s attitudes change a great deal as soon as the shoe is on the other foot. Personally, I wouldn’t buy a rent-stabilized building in this city, unless I was willing to abide by rent-stabilization laws. Nor would I buy any building if the plan included making groups of people homeless (landlords from hell on E. 3rd Street or S. 11th Street). I guess this attitude is one of the many reasons I’m probably going to remain poor.
I’m confused – did these ‘pioneers’ invest their sweat equity under some promise that they were entitled to remain under favorable rents for as long as they liked OR did they invest their sweat equity in making unhabitable space, habitable in exchange for cheap rent- for as long as their LL allowed???
If someone promised them or even implied that the space was ‘theirs’ indefinitly then they should stay as long as they like but if they had leases and/or there was no promise (which I suspect) I wish someone could explain why the LL is PERSONALLY responsible to subsidize them indefinitely.
So, Anon 11:30, you think that the landlord should have to continue to subsidize these tenants indefinitely? You’re perfectly entitled to your feelings regarding “smug” homeowners, but what do you think should happen in this particular instance?
Anon 10:11, I’m with you. I always loved this site, but it’s become home to smug home-owners who look down on anyone “ignorant” enough to rent. Obviously, there’s nothing wrong with owning, but some of us just aren’t able to do that. I would much rather own my apartment, but I don’t make much money and so I have to rent. Poor people should be able to live in NYC too. The attitude here (and everywhere else in this city lately) is really depressing, but it will make my eventual move out of the city I’ve lived in for half my life a little easier, I suppose.
dumbo and williamsburg had artists “pioneering” the neighborhoods well before this current spate of press getters. it seems no one registers any gentrification activity before 1996 as notworthy.