The Rent is Too Damn High Party
Comments
-
Over the years I've gone back & forth and & back & forth on whether I'd like to raise kids here.
-
We moved here when my wife became pregnant in 1977, and raised both of our kids here. It's not the easiest or the cheapest place in the world to raise kids, but it worked out fine for us, for our kids, and for most of their friends and their friends' parents.
Our kids are stronger and more sophisticated for having grown up in the big city. They went to public elementary and high school, and got an excellent education. Both went on to excellent colleges. Happily, both are now self-supporting.
The city worked out fine for our family. I have my dissatisfactions with life in NYC, but childrearing is not one of them. -
Mrs. Whynot is born and raised in NYC, and it should be interesting to see what happens when (and if) one of us ever wants to leave.
In case of disagreement, we would probably involve Dude (our dog) to cast the deciding vote
.....Dude has lots of Brooklyn friends who give him biscuits, but I think he considers the hiking outside the city to be better.
It is unclear whether he would prefer lying inside our apartment on our couch all day, to lying on a suburban back porch.
Time will tell. -
everytime i hear people talk about how "dreadful" it'd be to raise kids in the city i laugh...the quality of the kid has a heck of a lot more to do with the quality of the parent than the environment...
-
I was born and raised in Brooklyn, and Mrs. C was raised in Manhattan from about age 4. I wouldn't have wanted it any other way. If we ever wanted kids (we don't), we'd definitely want to raise them here. In fact, if I had to move away for any reason, I'd move back here to raise kids because I wouldn't want them to grow up anywhere else. I think when a lot of people talk about how expensive it is to raise kids here, they consider all kinds of things necessary for raising kids that our parents never would have even considered spending money on.
-
One of the definite advantages of raising a kid in the city is the forced interaction with people. You don't grow up in NYC having never seen a black person, or a white person, or an asian person, or a gay person or almost any other type of person. Even with our lives in segregated little enclaves, we still rub up against differences in a very unique and special way.
The same isn't true in a lot of suburbs or exurbs or smaller cities. I loved my childhood in NYC and consider myself lucky that I can raise my kids here. -
Well, pretty soon there won't be any Black people to see, that's for sure.
-
Please try to stay on topic
-
Wow, talking about Black people being pushed out of their neighborhoods is off topic?
-
MHA wrote: Wow, talking about Black people being pushed out of their neighborhoods is off topic?
"Their neighborhoods"?
As renters, nothing is "yours", "theirs" or "mine"; once the lease is up and/or payments stop, it becomes someone else's.
If you own an apartment or house, your situation is similar in that your rights to your apartment and neighborhood are still determined by being able to maintain a flow of payments. In this instance, you pay for taxes and utilities and perhaps a mortgage.
Which leaves us with essentially four groups.
1. People who make their payments and get to stay.
2. People who don't make the payments and have to leave.
3. People who are members of group 1 or 2, and are nostalgic or fret.
4. People who are members of group 1 or 2, and are not nostalgic and do not fret.
At present, I am proudly a member of groups 1 and 4.
To answer your question, it seems most posters were discussing living in the city until we either no longer liked it, or could no longer afford it.
Although, I -personally- am willing to entertain the notion that members of group 3 are "on topic", I have the following requests:
a. Please convince me nostalgia and fretting have constructive roles; I try to remain constructive.
b. Please convince me that I somehow hold ill will toward people who are members of groups 2 and 3; I try not to hold ill will toward anyone.
c. Please convince me that I could change the relationship between making payments and getting to stay in a neighborhood; I try not to work on things I can not impact.
thanks -
Breakfast! Lunch! and Dinner!
-
MHA wrote: Well, pretty soon there won't be any Black people to see, that's for sure.
MHA when you make stuff up and wind up being totally wrong it really erodes your credibility.
I'm still waiting on this cold evidence of white people conspiring to rid NYC of itso other ethnicities. I respect your POV when its based in reality but pls stop rationalizing your viewpoints with "facts" you pull out of your ass.
That is another reason why it's pointless to discuss gentrification here- cetrtain people formulate their POVs on shit they literally make up
And like whynot said the only people the neighborhood "belongs to" are the people who own the properties. Again if you can show proof of some conspiracy to block black people from buying properties in the area (which there very well may be) I'm all ears. Till then try and stick with the facts -
Thank you mamacita! you got it!
-
Tsarina, (or others...) do you think there will ever be a time in which you feel "the costs will are too damn high", or you simply become tired of living here?
....would your dog(s) get input into the decision?
Do we have someone (like a really bored lawyer...) on this thread at the moment?
Once again, we seem to have a need for someone to clearly define the terms "arms length transaction", "individual self interest" and "acting in concert".
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/A/ArmsLength.aspx
.....such an excercise might put any existing conspiracy theories to rest, and would certainly result in this poster buying the writer a beer. -
OK, in plain English (I'll do almost anything for a free beer!):
An "arms-length transaction" is a deal between two people in which each person negotiated as best he could in his own self-interest.
The term suggests the absence of any collusion between the two to harm a third person.
"Individual self-interest"... hm, that sounds pretty self-explanatory to me... but, in case it's not, here goes: when a person negotiates in his "individual self-interest", he is negotiating solely for that which benefits him, rather than for the public good or for the benefit of someone else.
"acting in concert": you're referring to Mick Jagger, right?
No? OK, "acting in concert" is when two or more people subordinate their individual self-interests to the good of the group (each may feel that their individual self-interests are best served by fulfilling the group's desires).
Example: two or more companies secretly agree to raise their prices, and then do so. Each has decided that its individual self-interest is served by increasing its profits, and each is afraid to raise its prices unless its competitor does so also, so they agree to "act in concert". BTW, this is also known as an "agreement in restraint of trade" and thus an "anti-trust violation", and can result in very large fines.
Another (hypothetical) example: whynot and I agree to act in concert by refraining from any further posts on Brooklynian. This is not an antitrust violation, and in fact results in cheers throughout the borough! -
=D> (humm emoticons seem not to be working)
-
Sweet!
....that is my understanding of those terms as well, but my please correct me if any of the following is incorrect. My training in Contract, Criminal and Anti-Trust Law was a while ago.
Here goes:
In this country, those making the accusation have the burden of proof; this is the much used "innocent until proven guilty" concept that folks often hear about on TV.
As a result, it is the obligation/burden of those who feel victimized by "gentrification" or "the rent being too damn high" to prove that the individual or group that caused said conditions to be either "breaking a law" or "acting in concert".
....when a crime has been alleged, the District Attorney (or Counsel for the People) is charged with this obligation/burden. However, in this case, no crime has yet been alleged.
At best, the accusations that are being made seem to be civil matter. In such instances, the obligation is on the victim and their attorney to show that the other party should be held culpable for any harm the victim may have incurred.
All though I am rarely accused of being a gentrifier (...my disguise is too good...), I look forward to this country's Due Process.
I promise I will be there (smiling) waiting for the plaintiff to convince a judge or jury that somehow I should be held responsible for damages.
Booklaw, let me know when you want that beer. -
booklaw wrote:
I do not post while drinking, so perhaps this will happen when we get together for that beer.
Another (hypothetical) example: whynot and I agree to act in concert by refraining from any further posts on Brooklynian. This is not an antitrust violation, and in fact results in cheers throughout the borough! -
As far as I know, there is no law against gentrification, and it is not an actionable violation of anyone's civil rights.
On the other hand, if two or more landlords get together and decide to raise all of the rents in their buildings, that's an actionable restraint of trade.
Similarly, if a real estate agent decides to show apartments only to white people (or only to Christians or only to Jews), that is clearly an actionable violation of civil rights statutes. If a landlord and a real estate agent, or two landlords or two real estate agents, agree to do likewise, that becomes both a civil rights violation and a restraint of trade.
While this is slightly off-topic, I remember reading some court decisions upholding the rights of landlords who live in two-family homes to discriminate by religion or sexual preference in terms of who they rent their rental apartment to. I don't remember which states so held, but I do remember thinking... that's just wrong! -
Absolutely, there are protections in the law that protect people from being displaced as a result of being a protected class of people. In such cases, the plaintiff would have to show that the new renter (or landlord) displaced the plaintiff on said grounds ...and not on the basis of simply liking the apartment or wanting more rent for it.
booklaw wrote:
Yes, even in situations where it isn't against the law, one should not evict or deny someone housing on something on grounds other than compensation. If displaced former Crown Heights residents were to file a complaint against the people who presently occupied their homes (or their formers landlords) this would have to be the basis of their complaint.
While this is slightly off-topic, I remember reading some court decisions upholding the rights of landlords who live in two-family homes to discriminate by religion or sexual preference in terms of who they rent their rental apartment to. I don't remember which states so held, but I do remember thinking... that's just wrong! -
homeowner wrote: One of the definite advantages of raising a kid in the city is the forced interaction with people. You don't grow up in NYC having never seen a black person, or a white person, or an asian person, or a gay person or almost any other type of person. Even with our lives in segregated little enclaves, we still rub up against differences in a very unique and special way.
Wow, this conversation has taken an unreal turn ... now, non-white people (despite the addition of "white people" in this sentence, I think we all know what it really means) and interestingly gay people have become specimens to "see" and appreciate from behind the glass of enclaves full of people like us. Much like the "Arabs" and their artifacts at the Parisian museum were to the French in the 19th century.Carnivore wrote: I think when a lot of people talk about how expensive it is to raise kids here, they consider all kinds of things necessary for raising kids that our parents never would have even considered spending money on.
Not to mention this, which just shows a complete removal from the realities for so many New Yorkers. It's hard for middle-class people (and never mind poor people) to raise kids here because of the difficulties involved in 1) finding adequate housing for a family in a neighborhood that is both safe and affordable, and 2) taking your chances with NYC's mostly really bad public schools if you can't afford buy into a neighborhood with good ones or to send your kid(s) to a private school.
I think we could all agree that the rent is doable for upper middle class people or the wealthy, even though they may still exercise the option to move themselves and especially their families out of NYC in search of a more space or a backyard (although their kids may miss the cultural experience of seeing black people and out gays on the subway). The point of Jimmy McMillan's campaign is that the rent is too damn high for everybody else.
(Clearly, guys, it's not marketed to you.) -
krowonhill wrote:
If Mr McMillan has a platform, it seems to be marketed toward people without a basic understanding of the following:
I think we could all agree that the rent is doable for upper middle class people or the wealthy, even though they may still exercise the option to move themselves and especially their families out of NYC in search of a more space or a backyard (although their kids may miss the cultural experience of seeing black people and out gays on the subway). The point of Jimmy McMillan's campaign is that the rent is too damn high for everybody else.
(Clearly, guys, it's not marketed to you.)
1. Human behavior
2. Economics
3. Government's limited ability to control human behavior and/or economics.
....this "big tent" encompasses some of the poor, some of the middle class, and some of the rich.
I mean, let's be serious, given the choice, I think everyone would like thier rent to be lower.
....or mortgage
And milk, and metrocard
And yada, yada,
....but most of us understand that although the system "ain't free" (as discussed above), market forces are behind the prices for housing that people are presently getting priced out of.
Yup, rents are high in NYC ...and they have an especially large effect on those who don't make a lot of money.
So, to me, your arguement is not clear:
Clearly you arguing that society has an an obligation to the renters being displaced, but your arguement seems to be on the basis of emotions, not economics. Please fully spell out the assumptions behind your moralistic tone.....
In your assumption that Homeowner and Carnivore are "not poor" and therefore out of touch with the lives of NYC's poor, do you also assume that they are exempt from market forces?
....do they, as individuals, have an obligation to go beyond the various rent control and stabilization programs that have been put in effect?
If it's the latter, what should they do to meet your standard?
Please tell me why someone can not simultaneously enjoy and value NYC's diversity, AND believe that McMillian's campaign holds nothing more to me than a fellow classmate I had in the fourth grade.
He ran for class president and promised "no more homework"
.....I didn't vote for him because I didn't think he could pull it off.
Have you ever heard of REBNY? .....they weild more than a little power in NY.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=rebny&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=CLpv1yZTITPY7oYiIA7aCgcYOAAAAqgQFT9CWfIs -
Wow, this conversation has taken an unreal turn ... now, non-white people (despite the addition of "white people" in this sentence, I think we all know what it really means) and interestingly gay people have become specimens to "see" and appreciate from behind the glass of enclaves full of people like us. Much like the "Arabs" and their artifacts at the Parisian museum were to the French in the 19th century.
My meaning was very clear. You are reading it through your own race-tinted glasses, not mine. -
CTK,
I did not say there is a conspiracy to get rid of Black people. I said that pretty soon there won't BE any Black people about. And the reason that is is because We are being priced out. No other reason than that.
And I am not making that up. That is ever present. The reasons why there are fewer Black homeowners could be discussed. We could talk about redlining, we could talk about discrimination, but we are not talking about that. I am talking about the end result of gentrification. -
Which brings me back to my pet peeve about whitefolks who love to talk about the glories of the free market without addressing racism and sexism which run rife throughout. So some people have full access to the pursuit of happiness, and others do not. And how does this play out? It plays out with whitefolks having all the good jobs and Blackfolks not having all the good jobs. So CTK, you can throw up all the statistics you want, but that's a reality.
-
I wish that McMillan was a bit less eccentric, and more serious. His message is a viable one, but for his laugh-friendly aesthetic he could really do some electoral damage. The rent IS too damn high. Politicians need to come up with public policy that addresses this. Now, folks can take issue with this. Some may debate the merits of whether or not this is a real issue, but those of us who struggle to pay our rent and take issue with laissez-faire rationales should say as a group, 'Cuomo, Paladino and others, what is your plan to address this?' And if they offer no solution, then simply don't vote for them.
And this is why Mcmillan may get my vote, because Paladino's 'I'm the anti-Cuomo vote,' and Cuomo's 'I'm the anti-Paladino vote' isn't cutting it for me. Where is the talk of attracting industry to the city? Where is the talk of cutting pollution to the city? Where is the talk of having 'shovel-ready' tasks that could plausibly get TARP monies to hire the unemployed brothers out here? Cuomo and Paladino are busy yelping at each other so that they don't have to address these issues. And here we are poo-poohing voting for McMillan and essentially saying that voting for Cuomo is a better option. How is it a better option? We will replace one more incestuous relationship with another if either Cuomo or Paladino becomes governor. I for one am tired of voting for the lesser of all evils. I want to give my vote to the GREATER of all evils and see what happens. -
It may well be true that gentrification is pushing black people out of their neighborhoods.
There was a time when Carroll Gardens was entirely Italian, and when Park Slope was largely Irish. Williamsburg, I believe, was once Polish.
Gentrification changed all that. Black people are not the only ones it affects.
It really shouldn't be such a revelation that rich people have more choices than middle class or poor people, and that they will act in their own self-interest, even when that causes pain and suffering to the less privileged.
When you have a mayor like Bloomberg, who seems to favor development over all else, and who apparently is more comfortable surrounded by well to do whites than by poor blacks (surprising for a billionaire, no?), the effects of gentrification will be magnified, because building working class and middle class housing has a very, very low priority. -
Hah! Are you calling 'white flight' gentrification Booklaw??
-
????
White Flight? Where did that come in?
????
Do you call people priced out of other neighborhoods "white Flight"
"Hah!" ????
This is getting even crazier!!!
And I'll tell you what happens when you vote for the greater evil. You get 8 yrs of George W. I'm not in love with Cuomo by any means but what are the options?
MacMillan? Paladino? The Madam? The whole cutting off your nose to spite your face doesnt really work. But Hey go ahead.. its a free country. -
MHA wrote: CTK,
Redlining and discrimination affect black people specifically. Gentrification does not. It affects everyone who wants to but cannot afford to live in a newly desirable neighborhood (which in the context of this CH board, happens to be the poor black people of CH). That's the distinction that I think you should be making that you (intentionally?) aren't.
I did not say there is a conspiracy to get rid of Black people. I said that pretty soon there won't BE any Black people about. And the reason that is is because We are being priced out. No other reason than that.
And I am not making that up. That is ever present. The reasons why there are fewer Black homeowners could be discussed. We could talk about redlining, we could talk about discrimination, but we are not talking about that. I am talking about the end result of gentrification.
There are *some* racial elements to the displacement going on in NYC, but the driver is primarily economic. People who leave more desirable neighborhoods move to less desirable ones because for whatever reason that is what they can afford. That is it in a nutshell. Notice there is no way to color or spin that for race- it's about affordability & desirability, nothing more.
I understand you look at things through a Pan Africanist viewpoint, and I think that is a POV that is valuable in discussions like this. But to dismiss clear unbiased statistics that directly contradict your fabrications because they don't reinforce your (at times unsubstantiated) grievances is intellectually dishonest.
MHA: one day there wont be any black people left in NYC
CTK: actually the black and non-white population in NYC is on the rise and white ppl are actually on the decline, here's a graph
MHA: i dont agree with your facts.
How are we supposed to have a meaningful discussion?
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds