The Rent is Too Damn High Party

krowonhill wrote: [quote=krowonhill]
Have you been anywhere where poor people said they loved to live?

Portland, Oregon
Vermont
Montana

indeed, these places may be the ideal locations for NYC's poor.
They might be better off there.
Very low murder rates.
Low unemployment rates.
Low rents.

....do the places get to decide whether they want our poor, or can we just give them plane tickets?

Do the poor get a choice where they get to live?

.....given the wage to rent ratio, many won't even need Section 8.

Wait, didn't we try this before? http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Workhouse
.....drat, we did and it went out fashion. Instead, we've decided to let the poor either benefit and adapt from the encroaching prosperity, and push those who can't adapt to places like Newark and Far Rockaway.

America, ala 2010. (it could use some work)

gasp!

http://www.brooklynian.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=59789

krowonhill wrote: [quote=krowonhill]
Have you been anywhere where poor people said they loved to live?

Portland, Oregon
Vermont
Montana

Interestingly, nearly zero people of color in any of these locations.

Cool The Kid wrote: [quote=krowonhill][quote=krowonhill]
Have you been anywhere where poor people said they loved to live?

Portland, Oregon
Vermont
Montana
Do you think it's reasonable/feasible for NYC to adopt the traits that make those places good for poor people?


Of course not, and poor people - by which I mean the working poor, the folks with two jobs who still can't take their kids to a doctor - describe loving Vermont despite the absence of jobs there. My point is that poor people in NYC tell me that they would prefer to live anywhere but NYC, except that they can find a job here. For example, I talked to a locksmith the other day who told me that he'd much rather live in L.A. but that he'd been forced to move to NYC for a job. I have this conversation over and over and over again here.

The reason why I bring this up is because many people have said on this thread that NYC is one of the most desirable places in the world to live. I think that's true if you're rich, or if you're upper middle-class (as an engineer, CTK, you fit into this category). But middle-class people are leaving this city in droves because it's not true for many of them that NYC is so great. It's crowded and expensive, and they can't find adequate (often safe) housing. Likewise, it's not true for poor people.

If middle-class and poor people give up and flee, then NYC may see something like what happened in Silicon Valley in the mid 1990s where suddenly there were not enough teachers or housecleaners to meet the needs of the population. Or, more subtly, NYC will be drained of the kind of people who make it worth living here for so many (especially the rich) - artists, musicians, restauranteers, etc - who are drawn here for the city's "creative capital". (I'm totally drawing from Richard Florida for this.)

So, yes, a city has to consider the needs of it's population throughout the socioeconomic spectrum, or the city will fail. Freemarket capitalism recognizes this at its core when it talks about the division of labor and mutual dependence as necessities. That is what the Wealth of Nations - or in this case, the Wealth of our City - depends on. This is not some fluffy liberal sentiment. It's real economics. And even Bloomberg recognizes this, because more lately he has pushed measures through that will result in more middle-class and low-income housing.

Obviously a city needs rich people. Just like it needs middle-class and poor people (with one caveat, which is that maybe its current middle-class is going to have to get used to being poor). I think a debatable question is: how much of our city's population do we want to be rich? And the answer to that will determine what kind of city we have. If, like me, you believe that the rent is too high, then you are seeking a city that middle-class and poor people aren't going to flee the first chance they get. I believe that's the only way to have a sustainable city.

As we leave for the burbs in 10 years, young people or immigrants will fill our place. The city may get more violent or poorer, but it will go on regardless of any fretting we do.

(cue Lion King Circle of Life music)

The poor also remain loyal NYC residents for long periods.

...The shortage of affordable housing has pushed NYCHA waiting lists to as long as 7 years, and has enabled the authority to quickly dismiss rule breakers. As a result, we have one of the few public housing authorities in the nation that does ok.

Compared to cities like Chicago, our public housing is wonderful.

yea, it is tough to argue against having a city that has someone for every job. ....but I find it hard to fret because this is not a situation that NYC presently finds itself in, especially at the wage scale's lower and middle ranks.

In the present environment, it seems people will live almost anywhere in NYC because it offers the promise of a job (and, perhaps potential dating opportunities, but I will not digress).

Remaining on topic: As we've discussed, both the supply and demand side of the housing market in NYC is distorted. Historically, the distortions have come about as we attempt to attract or get rid of certain demographics.

I.E. It all depends upon who those in power need to appease at the moment. Sometimes it creates rich enclaves (such as Battery Park City or smaller elite places) ....other times it creates middle class ones (such as all those Mitchell Lama developments or the former Stuyvesant Town) ....or housing for the poor (such as NYCHA).

The thought process behind these efforts has something along the lines of "not only does the city need a diverse work force, but without government intervention it will lose its diversity and become all x (white, black, rich, poor, whatever)".

Although not especially well articulated by McMillian's "rent is too damn high" party, some interventionists go even further. They purport that there is in an inherent worth to a mixture of people living together, and in the existance of economically and racially diverse neighborhoods.

These folk, too, have made inroads. They are behind efforts that create programs such as Section 8, 80/20 DHCR programs, and HPD buildings. Unlike the developments mentioned above, these are spread throughout the city and don't create the exclusive enclaves or ghettos. Their goal is to not isolate or displace those with low to moderate incomes. http://newyorkisourhome.blogspot.com/

As pointed out above, the intentions of those who support such regulations and actions are genuinely well meaning.

But there are some weird inherent assumptions. For example, they assume:

1. That if left alone, the market would not create its own neighborhoods for various income classes.

2. They assume that if low and middle wage professionals need to be dispersed evenly throughout the city, the market will not respond by paying the "needed" professions more.

3. They assume for some reason, employers will just sit by and let needed people leave the city without doing anything about the situation.

....taken to the extreme, this level of government "need" would grow our housing safety net to actually subside low wage employers. But thankfully, the city has yet to even approach this point. There are literally lines for every job, and the city turns away people wanting to merely take its civil servant tests. NYC remains quite vibrant and diverse (either because of, or despite the market's distortions).

Yes, the city does change, has always changed, and will always change.

I choose to simply try to keep up with the changes, and leave any freting and navel gazing on this issue to others.

....but must say I am looking forward to tonights "Change is constant" show at BAM. Here's the "go with the flow, the smartest adapt instead of fret" promo video.....

http://www.bam.org/view.aspx?pid=2230
(warning it pays automatically, so turn down speakers if at work)

or, to quote Booklaw on the Slope's present "support the bike lanes" thread:

booklaw wrote: It's kinda a self-correcting problem. The folks who are most bitter about changes in the neighborhood from the way it used to be when their parents were born here are the most likely to find resale prices irresistible... And thus to leave the neighborhood. They also have the least keeping them here... Just memories of what is no more.

There are cheaper places to live than Crown Heights and New York City as a whole .....

There are safer places to live than Crown Heights and NYC as a whole....

....but taking advantage of those opportunites means that employers and employees must be able to be mobile. Instead, these policies are an attempt to keep people and entities in place, aka immobile!

The advocates say "change is scary, I don't want to have to move!" ....I respond "central control often leads stagnation, and stagant cities die".

Thankfully we live in a city where the government is no where near strong enough to keep Crown Heights (or any neighborhood) from changing. ....and I have yet to be convinced that taxpayers would be willing to pay for an expanded experiment.

One thing worse than having to pay NYC rent is having to pay it along with someone else's.

I understand why you would ask the question, but where should it be moved? If you want it moved, I'll try to split and move it (I haven't yet exercised that particular mod responsibility).

Last night's show at BAM was excellent.

everyone gets their 15 minutes of fame.

I'm going to get mine somehow!

Jack Krohn wrote: How about a "Social Work Salaries Are Too Damn Low" party?

That party happens every Friday night. They lament excess supply, and inadequate demand. ....and how rent is too damn high.

But some of them are really good looking.

P.S. It seems most people living in NYC, like it!
http://gothamist.com/2010/10/21/nyc.php

....I await the followup surveys

A. Do people who used to live in NYC like where they live now?
B. Do people who used to live in NYC dislike NYC?
C. Do people who live elsewhere, and have never lived in NYC, like NYC?
D. Do people who live elsewhere, and have never lived in NYC, like where they live?

....yawn.

Not to mention that the thread really isn't about politics any more...

New York is a shining light and we are all the moths -- fodder for the flame.
It's hard to shake the vigor of the metropolis. I share your sentiments CTK

This cursed place!!!

I'm sure my day will come. I'm certain it will be the day we're ready to have kids. I just don't see the city as a place to raise them