an open letter to landlords.

As promised from an earlier post. These are the lyrics from that Moldy Peaches song, I just changed "New York City" to "Prospect Heights"

Prospect Height is like a graveyard
All the corpses like the way I play my guitar
You've gotta be cute if you wanna get far
Prospect Heights is like a graveyard

All the tombstones- sky scrapin'
All the rock stars double datin'
So if you hate me, go on hating
You've been waiting your whole life for this moment to be waitin'

We've got it!
We've got it!
We've got it!
We've got it!

All those hookers in their fucking cars
Twelve steppin' hippies hangin' out at the bar
Suckers and fuckers and stupid retards
Prospect Heights is like a graveyard

We've got it!
We've got it!
We've got it!
We've got it!

All the yuppies getting married
All the yuppies getting buried
Singing in this city's like singing on the prairie
Prospect Heights is like a cemetary

LEEHO says: Tongue is in cheek. :? 8) :oops: :twisted: :evil: :roll: :oops:

escap wrote: but I think we can all agree that the g word implies the actions of newcomers.

Actually I'm familiar with inner city neighborhoods that gentrified not primarily because of newcomers, but because a core of struggling artists and students remained living there into their 30s and 40s, became more affluent, bought and renovated their own digs, and retailers and structural improvements followed the money. It's not always a case of people being forced out so much as a new generation finding it can't afford to move in to what was a traditional destination for 20-somethings.

Breuckelen wrote:
If they are here because they couldn't afford any place else so be it. That's what happened to me, way back, but they have to respect whats here before they ask where to get a bagel and coffee that tastes like (e.g. park slope/fort greene/soho/etc.) We can all miss those things and hope that they show up in the hood, but there are other means.

What about the gentrifiers who came to PH in search of a better life from another continent, picked PH instead of somewhere else because it's got a lot going for it and the prices are comparatively reasonable, and who aren't that into bagels and have given up coffee?

Breuckelen wrote: [quote=vanilla]how do people feel about the "gentrifiers" who are here in PH simply b/c they have been displaced and/or priced out of other neighborshoods (e.g. park slope/fort greene/soho/etc.)?

If they are here because they couldn't afford any place else so be it. That's what happened to me, way back, but they have to respect whats here before they ask where to get a bagel and coffee that tastes like (e.g. park slope/fort greene/soho/etc.) We can all miss those things and hope that they show up in the hood, but there are other means.

well that's a bit unwelcoming. a new person asking about bagels may not be asking for a breakfast food revolution, but only a tip on whether, in fact, bagels are available. (which, after all, they are.) when i come to a new place, i don't always magically know everything about it.

for instance, i posted here once asking where to buy bulk spices, and carnivore (et al.) recommended sahadi's, which has promptly become a central part of my hopes for the afterlife. i wasn't trying to force a bulk spice emporium, with all the eeeeevil that implies, to open on my block.

god forbid one of those picturesque empty storefronts on washington or franklin start -- gasp -- selling something legal.

Just tacking this on here for reference (if you take stock in Merriam-Webster):

Main Entry: gen·tri·fi·ca·tion
Pronunciation: "jen-tr&-f&-'kA-sh&n
Function: noun
: the process of renewal and rebuilding accompanying the influx of middle-class or affluent people into deteriorating areas that often displaces earlier usually poorer residents

erikka wrote:
So what's the word for people who move in because they can't afford anything BUT that place, eg. the working class? That was the case for me before I moved--I was very close to ending up in Bushwick or Bed Stuy because that was literally all I could afford. I didn't feel comfortable in either neighborhood--not because of the demographics. More because when I visited at night there weren't many people on the streets and it was a long walk from the train--both of those are huge factors in how safe I feel. And, of course, there was the gentrification hostility. I knew the resisdents didn't want me there and thus I didn't want to be there. It wasn't some sort of rich kid cultural field trip being proposed. It was about being priced out of most desireable neighborhoods--and even being priced out of the apartment I resided in.

Hmmm...good question...Displaced? I don't know if there is a term. This makes me want to watch the last couple episodes of the Ric Burns documentary on New York to see if there's a term used in there. Anyone have an idea? We could always make up a word :idea:

EDIT: I've been scanning around--haven't found a term yet, but I did find this:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_nyc_housing_crisis.html

That's the first time I've seen the subsidized housing being cited as the cause for working and middle class people being forced out.
I don't really see how the article's argument has a leg to stand on :roll: , but its an interesting read.

doctorj wrote:
This has been discussed here a few times before, and seems entirely logical to me. A few years back I narrowly avoided being forced out of a city due to a highly controlled illiquid housing market where demand exceeded supply, while better off people enjoyed subsidies and protection, and I won't forget that kind of stress in a hurry. I leave it to escap to chime in and reiterate the evils of price controls and incentives for building sub-standard construction.

Ok, I understand that part of the argument and see how that happens. But do you think--as they assert at one point--that if all the rent controlled/stabilized apartments were all of a sudden deregulated that it would provide an adequate amount of middle income housing? I guess so if demand for housing is low in general like they said in the 30s and 70s, but where does that leave people who can't buy during low demand? I guess the weirdest thing they said, to me, was that with no regulated housing, landlords wouldn't raise rents in high demand times. A lot of landlords will always try to get what they can, not just what they need to sustain the property. We've seen it happen, yes?

doctorj wrote: [quote=caaahyoko]
That's the first time I've seen the subsidized housing being cited as the cause for working and middle class people being forced out. I don't really see how the article's argument has a leg to stand on :roll:

This has been discussed here a few times before, and seems entirely logical to me. A few years back I narrowly avoided being forced out of a city due to a highly controlled illiquid housing market where demand exceeded supply, while better off people enjoyed subsidies and protection, and I won't forget that kind of stress in a hurry. I leave it to escap to chime in and reiterate the evils of price controls and incentives for building sub-standard construction.

Damn, beat me to the post. :P

caaahyoko wrote: But do you think--as they assert at one point--that if all the rent controlled/stabilized apartments were all of a sudden deregulated that it would provide an adequate amount of middle income housing? I guess so if demand for housing is low in general like they said in the 30s and 70s, but where does that leave people who can't buy during low demand? I guess the weirdest thing they said, to me, was that with no regulated housing, landlords wouldn't raise rents in high demand times. A lot of landlords will always try to get what they can, not just what they need to sustain the property. We've seen it happen, yes?

The thing is: a landlord cannot raise the rent higher than someone is willing to pay to rent the space, which is in turn a function of incomes the willingness of people to pay a lot more for a lot less space to live in the city. And when supply equals demand due to market price, and rents at least cover maintenance, landlords who are in competition with each other for good tenants have an incentive to improve the property in order to more easily let or command a higher price. And when a healthy economy leads to increasing demand leads to rising prices and profits above maintenance level, there's money to be made in renovation and high quality new construction, relieving prices and demand at all levels. If you doubled the liquid rental stock by removing the controls that cause people to sit on a slowly decaying half of all units, the immediate effect would be a fall or at least stalling in rents for the rest of us, a shorter search for something that meets our needs at the price we can bear, followed by the unfolding of a more natural balance in terms of what people can afford and what is rehabilitated and constructed to meet what they are willing to pay. Essentially the only reason people think rents are sky high is because the market is constrained such that much of it never becomes available to your average punter, while some are required to subsidise lucky others at random or according to nepotism. So yes, in a free market your rent is likely to go up a little more in good times, but so is your income, and so is the supply and quality of what's available. In bad times, people will leave the city, prices will stagnate or fall, and the number of rental units will slowly contract. But free from constraints, as long as people are prepared to move once in a while as their needs and income changes, at no point can there be a lack of affordable housing for the renting working and middle class, because by definition the rent and quality of stock is what people are willing to afford. For those at the very bottom on fixed incomes or government benefits only who can't get a decent paying job in the city: for Bob's sake move somewhere else, anywhere, that's less competitive and lower density than the city, where you'll find a better quality of life within your means.

escap wrote: You're better off 1) picking up an Economics 101 textbook; then 2) thinking about things for the 3-4 seconds it should take for it all to make sense.

Lol. What hurts my brain is that for all the logical sense it makes, there seem to be an endless supply of people willing to move here and pay a lot of money to do so. Maybe it just seems that way, considering. Its an evil illusion that is hurting my ability to reason!

doctorj wrote: [quote=caaahyoko]
Lol. What hurts my brain is that for all the logical sense it makes, there seem to be an endless supply of people willing to move here and pay a lot of money to do so. Maybe it just seems that way, considering. Its an evil illusion that is hurting my ability to reason!

The part that hurts my brain is that employers are willing to pay higher salaries and rents to maintain their presence here when most of them could go just about anywhere in this day and age; that's a large part of what gives employees the ability and desire to move here. Wouldn't it make more sense to relocate Wall St. to Austin, TX, or to Bangalore, India?

Since most working class people in the 5 boroughs work in Manhattan (myself included) wouldn't that hurt NYC if these companies up and moved somewhere else?

Curbed:

http://www.curbed.com/archives/2006/10/26/open_letter_to_brooklyn_landlords_about_gentrification.php

"If you believe what you posted about charitable landlords taking less rent to preserve a neighborhood, there is a bridge for sale in Brooklyn you might be interested in buying."

Word all over that.

Was I the only one who read that recen (as in a few months ago) t article in NY Magazine that profiled a building from both the perspective of the owner and the tenants--some whom had rent control and also those who didn't? Of course I can't find it online....BUT I assure you it was very interesting. I'll keep looking.

Subject: OPEN LETTER TO BROOKLYN FINANCE LOSERS

Hi my name is Flailey and I work in the music biz and live in Brooklyn Heights and want to give you finance guys a little insight into your life.

Let's face it blue-shirters, today at the end of the day you will leave your flourescent-lit office, which is in an faceless nondescript building with a bank on the ground floor. Then you will take the subway to your neighborhood and go to the closest food selling establishment that's part of some recognizable chain, even though you certainly could benefit from a little extra walking. You will purchase food there, and possibly entertainment. Then you will spend the evening stuffing tasteless food into your overstuffed belly on your tasteless overstuffed couch while watching a grotesquely large television, around which your world revolves. You will pleasure yourself listlessly or have a very quick mercy encounter with the quickly fattening steady, then drift off to sleep. Then tomorrow you will do it again.

Meanwhile, I will walk out into the cool night air of the greatest city in the history of world civilization. Though we live in the same place, my world is a veritable cornicopia of the best the world has to offer, fine dining, music, art, incredibly physically attractive, intelligent, and wealthy friends, fantastically attractive sexual partners, and the most recent and desirable illegal drugs.

And nary a stripmall in sight.

You could try to reach the level of success and fashion that I am at, but you almost certainly will not. Within a few years you will tire of this charade and will move with your wife -- who was a "party girl" who loved the finance guys and bottle service but is now fully plumped out, ensconced in a sweatsuit, and talks about sub-zero fridges and granite until you want to throttle her -- to a nondescript street in a nondescript neighborhood. It will be called Scarsdale or New Rochelle or Huntington or West Orange or something. That detail is not important.

On a day just like today, but several years in the future you will leave your flourescent-lit office, which is in an faceless nondescript building surrounded by parking lots. Then you will drive a car that is far too large to a stripmall, also surrounded by parking lots. There you will look around for a spot that is closest to the door, even though you certainly could benefit from a little extra walking. You will purchase food there, and possibly entertainment. Then you will spend the evening stuffing tasteless food into your overstuffed belly on your tasteless overstuffed couch. You will have the urge to maybe pleasure yourself or even have a rare romp with the wife, now fully porcine thanks to the three whiny children she squeezed out, but your now ten year diet of xanax and ambien will make that a physiological impossibility. So you'll drift off to sleep. Then the next day you will do it again.

Forget Brooklyn. Hell forget New York entirely, it's the suburbs for you and there's no point in fighting it. Or just end this charade now. Here's a few pointers:

Rule #1. Be like me. If you're not artistic, musically inclined, or at least fashionable, kill yourself now. Your existence is meaningless.

Rule #2. If you can't handle rule #1 do us all a huge favor, strap on some explosives and blow up an Old Navy or Cheesecake Factory on your way out.

Rule #3. Work in a career where you deal with famous people. Then you can tell chicks that you have business-related convos with 50cent, and then she'll let you have sexual relations with her. She'll be thinking about 50cent, but who cares, you can think about Justin Timberlake or something.

Rule #4. Have fashion sense. You're A SOPHISTICATED NEW YORKER SO FOR GOD SAKES DRESS THE PART. Pour over Details mag and GQ. They have a little list on the bottom where you can by the SAME EXACT CLOTHES Jake Gyllenhaal is wearing. THEY EVEN TELL YOU WHERE TO BUY IT AND HOW MUCH IT COSTS! THIS ISN'T HARD, GUYS!!!!

Thanks in advance. More rules later, but my life is a carnival of visceral experience and vibrant living and I'd better get back to it.

One love,
El Flailey

sometimes I hate curbed.