Bill de Blasio on private property

[UglyCasanova]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/09/bill-de-blasio-in-conversation.html

In 2013, you ran on reducing income inequality. Where has it been hardest to make progress? Wages, housing, schools?

What’s been hardest is the way our legal system is structured to favor private property. 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. Unfortunately, what stands in the way of that is hundreds of years of history that have elevated property rights and wealth to the point that that’s the reality that calls the tune on a lot of development.

I’ll give you an example. I was down one day on Varick Street, somewhere close to Canal, and there was a big sign out front of a new condo saying, “Units start at $2 million.” And that just drives people stark raving mad in this city, because that kind of development is clearly not for everyday people. It’s almost like it’s being flaunted. Look, if I had my druthers, the city government would determine every single plot of land, how development would proceed. And there would be very stringent requirements around income levels and rents. That’s a world I’d love to see, and I think what we have, in this city at least, are people who would love to have the New Deal back, on one level. They’d love to have a very, very powerful government, including a federal government, involved in directly addressing their day-to-day reality.

From an interview with him. That's a very scary line of thought imo coming from the mayor of New York.

 

[ivwshane]

Its scary because he's a Democrat and instead of understanding what he's trying to say you go into auto faux rage mode.

Or it could be scary because he's talking about taking care of your average citizen and for some reason that offends the right.

 

[Indus]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/09/bill-de-blasio-in-conversation.html




From an interview with him. That's a very scary line of thought imo coming from the mayor of New York.

What he's saying is that 1 bedroom apartments are $6000 a month to rent or $2 mil and over to buy. Or that NYC homelessness is out of control.

Even in the outer boroughs where I live, $2000 for 1 bedroom for 1 month is the norm. And they have property taxes anywhere from $7000 to $25000 per year.

I don't think its wrong for him to ask builders who make new condo buildings to make economical units to house the non 1%.

There.. not scary at all.

What is scary is you're using a strawman that he's saying about taking land away from existing home owners. Read it again.

Oh and for creating a scare where none actually exists if you had actually read and done some research.. you are a RETARD.

 

[UglyCasanova]

What is scary is you're using a strawman that he's saying about taking land away from existing home owners.

A straw man? It's an interview with him, those are his words.

 

[Jaskalas]

I’ll give you an example. I was down one day on Varick Street, somewhere close to Canal, and there was a big sign out front of a new condo saying, “Units start at $2 million.” And that just drives people stark raving mad in this city, because that kind of development is clearly not for everyday people.

Have the city purchase those units and set whatever rent or purchase price they feel is proper for everyday people.

 

[Indus]

A straw man? It's an interview with him, those are his words.

You don't like it, don't live in NYC. No one's fucking forcing you.

 

[Indus]

Have the city purchase those units and set whatever rent or purchase price they feel is proper for everyday people.

We can simply have a vote and guess what.. the 99% vote will outnumber the 1% and we can change rules to how we like to stick it to the 1%.

 

[J.Wilkins]

You don't like it, don't live in NYC. No one's fucking forcing you.

You make very little sense.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

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

 

[Indus]

You make very little sense.

Neither does my country.

 

[UberNeuman]

Heavens! The pearls must be clutched!


lol...

 

[J.Wilkins]

Neither does my country.

Well Trump is making very little sense but you've labelled me a conservaterrorist for disagreeing with you once so neither do you.

There is no reason that I can see why you have to live in NYC or London or Stockholm or Paris or Berlin if you can't afford it.

Nothing fixes itself unless YOU fix it, you want to buy a flat or a house, you save your money and you buy it. You don't have to be rich to do that but you can get rich doing that.

Today's idiot kids spend their paycheck faster than they earn it and put the rest on credit and then they are surprised when they can't buy the shit they want because they have no money left.

Am I supposed to carry them through that hardship? I don't mind sharing through taxes at all but everyone has to realize that you are responsible for your own life and your own choices.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Well Trump is making very little sense but you've labelled me a conservaterrorist for disagreeing with you once so neither do you.

There is no reason that I can see why you have to live in NYC or London or Stockholm or Paris or Berlin if you can't afford it.

Nothing fixes itself unless YOU fix it, you want to buy a flat or a house, you save your money and you buy it. You don't have to be rich to do that but you can get rich doing that.

Today's idiot kids spend their paycheck faster than they earn it and put the rest on credit and then they are surprised when they can't buy the shit they want because they have no money left.

Am I supposed to carry them through that hardship? I don't mind sharing through taxes at all but everyone has to realize that you are responsible for your own life and your own choices.

I can sort of answer this, came up at a City meeting.
Housing prices need to reflect a broad measure of what is needed in the City. My City has big business and many small businesses. Basically to keep the big businesses you need to offer housing for their entire salary range otherwise they'll have trouble keeping employees and ultimately move.
Housing for lower paid small businesses need to be there to because the big guys need the small guys to support them, whether its cleaning services or lunch places or painters and so on.
I get you point that nobody has to live in the City they can live outside but when values keep increasing there is only so far that someone will drive for a certain salary, which makes the City unstable especially if a couple of the big employers leave. The strongest position to be in is a appropriate mix of all housing and an appropriate mix of all salaries plus some retiree's to keep the schools stable.
Don't make the mistake of thinking I am saying that an "artist" who makes picture draw with crayons and their feet need to be able to afford a place. I'm saying there needs to be a balance.

 

[J.Wilkins]

I can sort of answer this, came up at a City meeting.
Housing prices need to reflect a broad measure of what is needed in the City. My City has big business and many small businesses. Basically to keep the big businesses you need to offer housing for their entire salary range otherwise they'll have trouble keeping employees and ultimately move.
Housing for lower paid small businesses need to be there to because the big guys need the small guys to support them, whether its cleaning services or lunch places or painters and so on.
I get you point that nobody has to live in the City they can live outside but when values keep increasing there is only so far that someone will drive for a certain salary, which makes the City unstable especially if a couple of the big employers leave. The strongest position to be in is a appropriate mix of all housing and an appropriate mix of all salaries plus some retiree's to keep the schools stable.
Don't make the mistake of thinking I am saying that an "artist" who makes picture draw with crayons and their feet need to be able to afford a place. I'm saying there needs to be a balance.

You don't have to live outside either, you can live elsewhere. You don't have to live in London, you can live in Suffolk instead or if you have to live in London you can live where you can afford it and the same is true for NYC too. Or Stockholm, or Paris, or Berlin.

Sure, the shower is communal and the crapper is always filled to the brim but you can have that choice too.

No major city has the accommodations you are looking for unless you are willing to put up with substandard housing no matter where you go except maybe Bulgaria where you can buy a mansion for three fiddy.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

You don't have to live outside either, you can live elsewhere. You don't have to live in London, you can live in Suffolk instead or if you have to live in London you can live where you can afford it and the same is true for NYC too. Or Stockholm, or Paris, or Berlin.

Sure, the shower is communal and the crapper is always filled to the brim but you can have that choice too.

No major city has the accommodations you are looking for unless you are willing to put up with substandard housing no matter where you go except maybe Bulgaria where you can buy a mansion for three fiddy.

Around NY to my understanding is its getting expensive, similar problem to what my City is trying to avoid. Every area is different. I just don't see a lot a scandal in what Deblasio said.

 

[J.Wilkins]

Around NY to my understanding is its getting expensive, similar problem to what my City is trying to avoid. Every area is different. I just don't see a lot a scandal in what Deblasio said.

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.

 

[Indus]

Today's idiot kids spend their paycheck faster than they earn it and put the rest on credit and then they are surprised when they can't buy the shit they want because they have no money left.

The same can be said for anyone in any country. It's not limited to American liberals.

 

[J.Wilkins]

The same can be said for anyone in any country. It's not limited to American liberals.

American liberals don't do that, it's the kids that think that it's the responsibility of society to take care of them no matter what.

I don't think you know what a liberal is. A liberal is a free market capitalist supporter that understands that the needs of the many requires society to fend for the poor through shifting burden while at the same time preventing undue shift of wealth from one group to another without taking away the incentive to accrue wealth.

Progressive liberalism tend to work this way. Have you changed your mind and think that this might be a viable goal?

 

[ivwshane]

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.

Well good thing no one is suggesting that!

 

[woolfe9998]

You don't like it, don't live in NYC. No one's fucking forcing you.

You realize the irony of this comment, right? One could say the exact same thing to the people who can't afford to live there right now: if you can't afford it, no one is forcing you to live there.

Anyway, I have no problem with NYC requiring that in new housing developments, a certain number of units be for low income renters or buyers. This, in fact, is routinely done where I live, and I suspect it's already done in NYC. They also already have rent control in NYC. However, his comments sound quite a bit more extreme than just agreeing with existing programs.

 

[ivwshane]

You realize the irony of this comment, right? One could say the exact same thing to the people who can't afford to live there right now: if you can't afford it, no one is forcing you to live there.

Anyway, I have no problem with NYC requiring that in new housing developments, a certain number of units be for low income renters or buyers. This, in fact, is routinely done where I live, and I suspect it's already done in NYC. They also already have rent control in NYC. However, his comments sound quite a bit more extreme than just agreeing with existing programs.

Which parts of his comments did you find extreme?

 

[woolfe9998]

Which parts of his comments did you find extreme?

It's really the tone of it:

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. Unfortunately, what stands in the way of that is hundreds of years of history that have elevated property rights and wealth to the point that that’s the reality that calls the tune on a lot of development.

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.

 

[ivwshane]

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.

He's not calling for anything, he's simply pointing out the reality and he's right. I'm not sure how telling the truth is extreme.

 

[woolfe9998]

He's not calling for anything, he's simply pointing out the reality and he's right. I'm not sure how telling the truth is extreme.

He isn't expressing an opinion about the role of government in regulating private property? Sounds like it to me.

Telling the truth about what exactly?

 

[ivwshane]

He isn't expressing an opinion about the role of government in regulating private property? Sounds like it to me.

Telling the truth about what exactly?

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