Bill de Blasio on private property

[woolfe9998]

Show me the sentence where he's saying what the role of government is?

You're playing word parsing games with me. I'm not a trained dog. Just re-read the passage I quoted. If you have a point of substance to make, like what you really think he's trying to say, then say it. You keep telling us what you claim he's not saying, but you have yet to explain your own interpretation of his comments.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm not going to pretend that London is cheap, I paid near £4 million for my house but I'll get twice that today. It's a matter of what you can afford though and it's not NYC, it's everywhere.

My wife sold her apartment in Toronto last year for $2 million.

Neither of us started out with any kind of money, I was living in a ghetto outside London and had to straighten myself out. I've had my share of stories that I don't want to tell but the thing is, I got out of there and I did what I needed to do to make it back into the streets of London. I bought my dream house cash, literally cash as in a suitcase of money.

Why? I could have deposited it or we could have done the transaction in another way but when I was 13 I dreamt up that dream and I fucking did it.

I don't see how devaluing my property that I paid $4 million for is fair to me or anyone else, they can do what I did or they can't, if they can't they can go live elsewhere, you do not HAVE to live there.

I see a huge problem, if you start devaluing properties that people like me worked our entire lives to afford then you can go fuck yourself.

You are a winner in a competitive system designed to produce very few more winners and losers. What makes your fuck you any more valid than if the losers say fuck you. You played by the rules and happened to win. Many do the same and are run down by cars crossing the road. You realize what your house would cost if there were more winners than losers? You would likely have been priced out of the market. You won a prize for playing a game that stinks. The poor of the would will eventually wipe out your real estate nest egg with a nuclear war. There are people who can't afford the inflation we've seen because long ago a person could live comfortably or next to nothing, and chose not to waste their lives playing painful competitive games. What makes your values better than others. I find your attitude to others, including those who post here, distastefully browbeating.. I find it odd that a person so sure of his own value to be so disparaging of the value of others.

 

[mikeymikec]

I think people all over this city, of every background, would like to have the city government be able to determine which building goes where, how high it will be, who gets to live in it, what the rent will be.

Forgive my ignorance of your system, but surely the state determines at least some of those already? I'm 99% certain that in the UK it's the case for at least some of those points.

 

[fskimospy]

It's really the tone of it:

These comments actually aren't that specific and could mean more than one thing, but the tone seem pretty extreme, especially when you consider that he must be suggesting more government control than is already the case. Not sure about NYC, but where I live (CA bay area), the local governments have enormous control over private property, in some cities even down to the color you're permitted to paint your house. Developing/renovating property can get very cumbersome. So if it's anything like that in NYC, I'm not sure what he's suggesting unless it's more extreme than that and honestly, it's at the outer edge of what I would consider tolerable already. I recognize the need for some government control here for sure. It's just a question of degree.

To me this is nothing more than rhetorical flair and politicians do this sort of thing all the time. He's basically doing the age old 'I'd love to be the most leftist mayor ever but...' thing.

Regardless, if I had it my way affordable housing mandates would be abolished along with rent control/stabilization. The real answer is to rezone properties to be able to build more densely and to expand transit and infrastructure options, not reward a few people lucky enough to win the housing lottery. It makes me crazy that so many people in the Bay Area complain about high housing prices and then block any action to lower housing prices.

 

[fskimospy]

Forgive my ignorance of your system, but surely the state determines at least some of those already? I'm 99% certain that in the UK it's the case for at least some of those points.

He's talking about zoning regulation, which is almost entirely local.

 

[ivwshane]

You're playing word parsing games with me. I'm not a trained dog. Just re-read the passage I quoted. If you have a point of substance to make, like what you really think he's trying to say, then say it. You keep telling us what you claim he's not saying, but you have yet to explain your own interpretation of his comments.

I already stated what he was saying, did you ignore that post?
I'm also not playing "word games" with you, I'm simply asking you to back up your claim as I do not see anywhere in his statement where he stated what the roll of government is that would be considered extreme. He may have stated what he wishes the roll of government was and he stated what the citizens he's talked to wished the government would do but he was pretty clear that history has already dictated what governments roll is and he made no statement to the effect that he would change that roll.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Admittedly I haven't read much however this just sounds like building code stuff like we need x% of new build and/or gut and remodels to be affordable housing. This is pretty normal stuff in MA

The 40B laws really aren't working all that well. Path to owership of homes in towns with strong school systems is what will break the cycle of poverty and government dependency. The law should stipulate not only a % of affordable units but also the quality and type of units.

Instead, the law of unintended consequences kick in, where you have greedy developers overriding zoning laws, with the state bureaucracy blindly supporting them, to build high density apartment complexes in areas that lack the public transportation or infrastructure to sustain them.

I would rather have 40 affordable townhomes than 10% affordable rental units in a 200 or 300 unit apartment complex. It yields more affordable units of higher societal benefit.

 

[K1052]

It makes me crazy that so many people in the Bay Area complain about high housing prices and then block any action to lower housing prices.

The dividing line between those people is usually when they bought in. A small vocal minority can wield tremendous power to stymie development in the Bay Area and density bumps are usually met with incredible opposition from longtime residents who basically want to freeze the place in amber at the time they bought.

 

[Starbuck1975]

To me this is nothing more than rhetorical flair and politicians do this sort of thing all the time. He's basically doing the age old 'I'd love to be the most leftist mayor ever but...' thing.

Regardless, if I had it my way affordable housing mandates would be abolished along with rent control/stabilization. The real answer is to rezone properties to be able to build more densely and to expand transit and infrastructure options, not reward a few people lucky enough to win the housing lottery. It makes me crazy that so many people in the Bay Area complain about high housing prices and then block any action to lower housing prices.

That's because, complements of the housing crisis, people have absurd expectations when it comes housing valuation. When I lived in SoCal, the consumerism amazes me, yet many of the faux rich didn't have more than a few hundred dollars in savings and were using their homes as ATMs...anf they were proud of it, which blew my mind. I never bought a house out there because stupid me was taught you should have a 20% downpayment and a mortgage should not exceed 40% of income.

If housing prices were to align to salaries and economic fundamentals, the whole "recovery" charade would come crashing down.

 

[fskimospy]

That's because, complements of the housing crisis, people have absurd expectations when it comes housing valuation. When I lived in SoCal, the consumerism amazes me, yet many of the faux rich didn't have more than a few hundred dollars in savings and were using their homes as ATMs...anf they were proud of it, which blew my mind. I never bought a house out there because stupid me was taught you should have a 20% downpayment and a mortgage should not exceed 40% of income.

Yes, the 'house poor' are baffling to me as well. I found how much the bank was willing to lend me baffling considering if I had taken out the max mortgage they would approve I would be eating ramen every night.

New York housing prices are very high but at least here you make more money. When I lived in San Diego the housing prices were every bit as high as New York but people made way less money. Not sure how that's sustainable.

If housing prices were to align to salaries and economic fundamentals, the whole "recovery" charade would come crashing down.

I would not agree that shitty zoning policies are propping up the national economy. If anything they are slowing the recovery down by keeping people from moving to the country's most economically productive regions.

 

[brycejones]

The 40B laws really aren't working all that well. Path to owership of homes in towns with strong school systems is what will break the cycle of poverty and government dependency. The law should stipulate not only a % of affordable units but also the quality and type of units.

Instead, the law of unintended consequences kick in, where you have greedy developers overriding zoning laws, with the state bureaucracy blindly supporting them, to build high density apartment complexes in areas that lack the public transportation or infrastructure to sustain them.

I would rather have 40 affordable townhomes than 10% affordable rental units in a 200 or 300 unit apartment complex. It yields more affordable units of higher societal benefit.

I 100% agree with you. One of my big struggles is with development that requires affordable rentals really does little to break the cycle and allow people to begin to build generational wealth. Cheap rent is a band-aid that doesn't really move the needle on fixing inequality.

 

[woolfe9998]

I already stated what he was saying, did you ignore that post?
I'm also not playing "word games" with you, I'm simply asking you to back up your claim as I do not see anywhere in his statement where he stated what the roll of government is that would be considered extreme. He may have stated what he wishes the roll of government was and he stated what the citizens he's talked to wished the government would do but he was pretty clear that history has already dictated what governments roll is and he made no statement to the effect that he would change that roll.

If you actually believe that he wasn't endorsing what he claims all these citizens want, I don't know what to tell you. But you wanted a closer discussion of the words:

I think people all over this city, of every background, would like to have the city government be able to determine which building goes where, how high it will be, who gets to live in it, what the rent will be. I think there’s a socialistic impulse, which I hear every day, in every kind of community, that they would like things to be planned in accordance to their needs. And I would, too.

I think the bolded part makes it quite clear. Even without the bolded part, it would have been clear enough. A politician doesn't talk about what he claims practically all the voters want without endorsing that position. You're just spinning it.

 

[fskimospy]

If you actually believe that he wasn't endorsing what he claims all these citizens want, I don't know what to tell you. But you wanted a closer discussion of the words:

I think the bolded part makes it quite clear. Even without the bolded part, it would have been clear enough. A politician doesn't talk about what he claims practically all the voters want without endorsing that position. You're just spinning it.

While I agree that's what his statement says at face value do you really think De Blasio wants a centrally planned city layout? I see nothing in the policies he's enacted that suggests he does. This is a standard rhetorical flourish where a politician says 'i of course agree with you 100% but unfortunately...'

 

[woolfe9998]

While I agree that's what his statement says at face value do you really think De Blasio wants a centrally planned city layout? I see nothing in the policies he's enacted that suggests he does. This is a standard rhetorical flourish where a politician says 'i of course agree with you 100% but unfortunately...'

What he wants may be different than what is politically achieveable. I honestly don't know what he really wants. I only know what he said.

 

[fskimospy]

What he wants may be different than what is politically achieveable. I honestly don't know what he really wants. I only know what he said.

Sure but policies are much better indicators of true preferences than what people say, right? I see literally nothing in his policies that even hints that such a thing is his true preference. If anything, his overall trend has been to reduce zoning restrictions, which is the exact opposite of this. The closest thing he came to 'central planning' was the mandatory inclusion of affordable housing in newly rezoned areas but that was still in the context of overall reduction in housing regulation. (which is a great thing!)

So yes, it is silly for people to try and spin this comment as if it meant something other than what it obviously states. There's little reason to think it reflects his actual policy preferences though.

 

[ivwshane]

If you actually believe that he wasn't endorsing what he claims all these citizens want, I don't know what to tell you. But you wanted a closer discussion of the words:



I think the bolded part makes it quite clear. Even without the bolded part, it would have been clear enough. A politician doesn't talk about what he claims practically all the voters want without endorsing that position. You're just spinning it.

Most people want a million dollars and I would too.

How much weight does the above statement carry? Do you take it to mean that I am working on making a million dollars?

He's simply acknowledging peoples desires in an ideal world, thinking its anything other than that is stupid. Your faux outrage of a politician being a politician is laughable.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Forgive my ignorance of your system, but surely the state determines at least some of those already? I'm 99% certain that in the UK it's the case for at least some of those points.

Yes that is correct.
This thread has devolved to the typical hen pecking and pointless bickering over a vague statement made by a Politician

 

[Phynaz]

Huh, the government telling people where they can live...Where have we seen that before?

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes that is correct.
This thread has devolved to the typical hen pecking and pointless bickering over a vague statement made by a Politician

It was frothed up raving about "Ebil Libruhls taking away my Freedumb!" from the start.

 

[senseamp]

Huh, the government telling people where they can live...Where have we seen that before?

Everywhere.

 

[woolfe9998]

Sure but policies are much better indicators of true preferences than what people say, right? I see literally nothing in his policies that even hints that such a thing is his true preference. If anything, his overall trend has been to reduce zoning restrictions, which is the exact opposite of this. The closest thing he came to 'central planning' was the mandatory inclusion of affordable housing in newly rezoned areas but that was still in the context of overall reduction in housing regulation. (which is a great thing!)

So yes, it is silly for people to try and spin this comment as if it meant something other than what it obviously states. There's little reason to think it reflects his actual policy preferences though.

It's possible either way. Politicians certainly say things at times entirely for political effect. They may pretend to be more extreme or even more moderate than they actually are. It's also true that many elected officials would I'm sure like to accomplish things that they are unable to accomplish due to political realities, which seems to be what he was complaining about.

I read an extensive article on de Blasio's revamped zoning regs. Most of the relaxation of regs had to do with making the construction of affordable housing cheaper. This was likely offered up to developers who were not happy that they were being required to construct affordable housing, which is less profitable for them. It was incentive for them not to pull out.

Regardless, it isn't de Blasio who concerns me here. People say things which are extreme, offensive or plain stupid almost every day. My main concern is actually how other people on the left react when it's a leftist who's saying the extreme, offensive or stupid things. We're living in an era where extremism is being normalized, a trend which started on the right and has been spreading to the left. This has not been a good trend. Longer term, it is a threat to democracy. Since we can't do practically anything about what is happening on the right, I think it's important that we police ourselves. Too often we are apologists for bad behavior when we shouldn't be. That's why I sometimes get into threads like this to make points like these.

 

[fskimospy]

It's possible either way. Politicians certainly say things at times entirely for political effect. They may pretend to be more extreme or even more moderate than they actually are. It's also true that many elected officials would I'm sure like to accomplish things that they are unable to accomplish due to political realities, which seems to be what he was complaining about.

I read an extensive article on de Blasio's revamped zoning regs. Most of the relaxation of regs had to do with making the construction of affordable housing cheaper. This was likely offered up to developers who were not happy that they were being required to construct affordable housing, which is less profitable for them. It was incentive for them not to pull out.

Yes, but the overall trend in NYC for quite awhile now has been towards less restrictive zoning, a policy De Blasio has continued. If he were interested in making the city more centrally planned he could certainly work towards doing that, but hasn't.

Regardless, it isn't de Blasio who concerns me here. People say things which are extreme, offensive or plain stupid almost every day. My main concern is actually how other people on the left react when it's a leftist who's saying the extreme, offensive or stupid things. We're living in an era where extremism is being normalized, a trend which started on the right and has been spreading to the left. This has not been a good trend. Longer term, it is a threat to democracy. Since we can't do practically anything about what is happening on the right, I think it's important that we police ourselves. Too often we are apologists for bad behavior when we shouldn't be. That's why I sometimes get into threads like this to make points like these.

On this I very much agree. It's funny to see the response to you is the same as the response to me when I've called out similarly silly things. The same people who have liked and praised your posts in the past start calling you a liar when what they write becomes the target of your posts.

 

[ivwshane]

On this I very much agree. It's funny to see the response to you is the same as the response to me when I've called out similarly silly things. The same people who have liked and praised your posts in the past start calling you a liar when what they write becomes the target of your posts.

Even funnier is when people think they are above reproach. Its as if they think past praise shields them from criticism.

 

[woolfe9998]

Even funnier is when people think they are above reproach. Its as if they think past praise shields them from criticism.

Past praise shouldn't shield anyone from criticism. But suddenly claiming that a person you have been praising is some sort of turncoat just because they suddenly disagree with you on something is stupid. It happens around here all the time.

 

[ivwshane]

Past praise shouldn't shield anyone from criticism. But suddenly claiming that a person you have been praising is some sort of turncoat just because they suddenly disagree with you on something is stupid. It happens around here all the time.

It is stupid and its most likely hyperbole but if you are offended by it then you probably need thicker skin or should stay away from the internet. The fact of the matter is that people get emotional when it comes to politics, sometimes that emotion is justified, many times it is not. If it really bothers you what people think then you should either try to understand their point of view or explain your view better.

Basically, don't take it personal.