The Richest, Emptiest City
March 26, 2018 9:34 AM Subscribe
“Today, 247,977 units — more than 11% of all rental apartments in New York City — sit either empty or scarcely occupied, even as many New Yorkers struggle to find an apartment they can afford.“ The Vacant City. “Submitting false documents to the city’s Department of Buildings for construction permits is a misdemeanor, which can carry fines of up to $25,000,” the AP notes. “But real estate experts say it is often flouted with little to no consequences. Landlords who do so get off with no more than a demand from the city, sometimes a year or more later, to file an ‘amended’ form with the correct numbers.” Jared Kushner lied to NYC because he could get away with it - very few consequences for landlords breaking the law. Mayor de Blasio’s plan doesn’t go far enough to help says Coalition For The Homeless, others.
Just because they're homeless is no reason their handouts should be out of order.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:02 AM on March 26, 2018 [13 favorites]
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:02 AM on March 26, 2018 [13 favorites]
Nor should they be denied a light meal.
posted by chavenet at 10:21 AM on March 26, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by chavenet at 10:21 AM on March 26, 2018 [2 favorites]
Now on to TFA.
We have higher prices for sure — but the only part of the city’s residential real estate that has grown is the Vacant City. More apartments are being held off the market than ever.
These two ideas are not incompatible. The hoarding of empty apartments is obviously a factor in the higher prices.
And it's hardly NYC's problem alone.
Ghost towers: half of new-build luxury London flats fail to sell
THOUSANDS OF LUXURY APARTMENTS ARE SITTING EMPTY IN LONDON
posted by chavenet at 10:26 AM on March 26, 2018 [8 favorites]
We have higher prices for sure — but the only part of the city’s residential real estate that has grown is the Vacant City. More apartments are being held off the market than ever.
These two ideas are not incompatible. The hoarding of empty apartments is obviously a factor in the higher prices.
And it's hardly NYC's problem alone.
Ghost towers: half of new-build luxury London flats fail to sell
THOUSANDS OF LUXURY APARTMENTS ARE SITTING EMPTY IN LONDON
posted by chavenet at 10:26 AM on March 26, 2018 [8 favorites]
Oops, beaten to the click by chavenet.
I wonder how this compares to other cities? There have been a number of articles recently about foreign (non-Brits) nationals buying luxury homes and apartments in London and leaving them empty at the same time as affordable housing has disappeared. Of course, a lot of this is driven by money laundering, graft and corruption. There had been a rapidly growing demand for such “luxury” properties in London that many high end apartment blocks were being built. With Brexit, I suspect, the demand had cooled so that many expensive flats recently have gone unsold. Indeed, some families displaced by the Greenfell Towers fire have been given flats in the half-empty Kensington Row development where apartments had been priced and $8-10 million. I think a similar problem exists in Vancouver related to capital flight from China.
And, our orange leader has been a major player in thismoney laundering market for years (see this New Rebublic article) which is an an open secret.
posted by sudogeek at 10:29 AM on March 26, 2018 [6 favorites]
I wonder how this compares to other cities? There have been a number of articles recently about foreign (non-Brits) nationals buying luxury homes and apartments in London and leaving them empty at the same time as affordable housing has disappeared. Of course, a lot of this is driven by money laundering, graft and corruption. There had been a rapidly growing demand for such “luxury” properties in London that many high end apartment blocks were being built. With Brexit, I suspect, the demand had cooled so that many expensive flats recently have gone unsold. Indeed, some families displaced by the Greenfell Towers fire have been given flats in the half-empty Kensington Row development where apartments had been priced and $8-10 million. I think a similar problem exists in Vancouver related to capital flight from China.
And, our orange leader has been a major player in this
posted by sudogeek at 10:29 AM on March 26, 2018 [6 favorites]
Yup, the Boston area too. The Harvard Square movie theater in Cambridge, a huge building right in the middle of the Square, has been vacant for at least six years. Several months ago, the City Council made news by saying to the owner, either tell us what you're going to do with this property or we're going to take it by eminent domain. So he did (retail stores and a theater in the basement). And now it sits again, still vacant.
I went to NYC a few weeks ago, and I felt like I was in a local mall. * A Trader Joe's, a Body Shop, the same chain stores repeating themselves block after block. Because they're the only stores that can afford this kind of rent. And plenty of vacancies, too.
* Except for the garment district. Went to Mood Fabrics. Bought too much. Damn that is one fine establishment.
It's time for the (non-corrupt) government to step in. If they can have regulations on how much insect parts we can have in our flour, then we can have regulations about empty storefronts.
(Which, of course, leads us down another rabbit hole of what is the role of retail storefronts anyway, since everything nowadays is bought online...)
posted by Melismata at 10:38 AM on March 26, 2018 [17 favorites]
I went to NYC a few weeks ago, and I felt like I was in a local mall. * A Trader Joe's, a Body Shop, the same chain stores repeating themselves block after block. Because they're the only stores that can afford this kind of rent. And plenty of vacancies, too.
* Except for the garment district. Went to Mood Fabrics. Bought too much. Damn that is one fine establishment.
It's time for the (non-corrupt) government to step in. If they can have regulations on how much insect parts we can have in our flour, then we can have regulations about empty storefronts.
(Which, of course, leads us down another rabbit hole of what is the role of retail storefronts anyway, since everything nowadays is bought online...)
posted by Melismata at 10:38 AM on March 26, 2018 [17 favorites]
(Which, of course, leads us down another rabbit hole of what is the role of retail storefronts anyway, since everything nowadays is bought online...)
This isnt true. It's telling that the "poster children" of "the internet is killing retail", Sears/Kmart and Toys R Us, are actually victims of vulture capitalism.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:42 AM on March 26, 2018 [31 favorites]
This isnt true. It's telling that the "poster children" of "the internet is killing retail", Sears/Kmart and Toys R Us, are actually victims of vulture capitalism.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:42 AM on March 26, 2018 [31 favorites]
Who would've thought this would happen when housing is treated as an investment commodity?
Just because they're homeless is no reason their handouts should be out of order.
Just because they're rich is no reason their handouts should be out of order.
posted by nikoniko at 10:53 AM on March 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
Just because they're homeless is no reason their handouts should be out of order.
Just because they're rich is no reason their handouts should be out of order.
posted by nikoniko at 10:53 AM on March 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
Some Grenfell survivors were offered the public housing allotment, with separate entrances, no access to on-site amenities, etc. Of course the NYT would paint it as luxury apartments, of course.
posted by Yowser at 11:13 AM on March 26, 2018 [8 favorites]
posted by Yowser at 11:13 AM on March 26, 2018 [8 favorites]
I apologize for the slight de-rail. Just so I understand the economics of this correctly, and PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG:
Hypothetically, a developer can build a building for 5 million with 20 units. The developer can then sell each unit for 750k or rent out the unit for the approximate 750k mortgage on that unit. Hypothetically, they'd only have to sell about a third to break even, and at half they'd be making a healthy profit. It'd be economically advantageous for them to leave half the units empty at high prices, since it lowers maintenance costs. There's no incentive for them to lower the price, because housing is artificially scarce.
My numbers may be off, but are the basic economics correct?
posted by Philipschall at 11:16 AM on March 26, 2018
Hypothetically, a developer can build a building for 5 million with 20 units. The developer can then sell each unit for 750k or rent out the unit for the approximate 750k mortgage on that unit. Hypothetically, they'd only have to sell about a third to break even, and at half they'd be making a healthy profit. It'd be economically advantageous for them to leave half the units empty at high prices, since it lowers maintenance costs. There's no incentive for them to lower the price, because housing is artificially scarce.
My numbers may be off, but are the basic economics correct?
posted by Philipschall at 11:16 AM on March 26, 2018
The rich get richer...
posted by allthinky at 11:17 AM on March 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by allthinky at 11:17 AM on March 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
Mod note: Fixed "Collation" in the post, carry on.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:20 AM on March 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:20 AM on March 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
But that still leaves more than 100,000 units — 74,945 occupied temporarily or seasonally, and 27,009 held off the market for unexplained reasons
I said this in the other thead -but the headline is completely misleading.
There are tons of places in the US where houses are only occupied seasonally - so those go away too. So 27k units are all that are unaccounted for and available to homeless if that's the strategy or to renters. But 27k is only half the number of people who moved to the NYC metro area between 2017 and 2018 alone.
So it's still a question of supply. In ye olden days, plenty of people owned two homes. Now it's a problem if we build 1/2 the number of needed units for 1 year of population growth. That's a major problem. We aren't just not building anything for homeless people, we aren't building them for *anyone*.
posted by The_Vegetables at 11:27 AM on March 26, 2018 [8 favorites]
I said this in the other thead -but the headline is completely misleading.
There are tons of places in the US where houses are only occupied seasonally - so those go away too. So 27k units are all that are unaccounted for and available to homeless if that's the strategy or to renters. But 27k is only half the number of people who moved to the NYC metro area between 2017 and 2018 alone.
So it's still a question of supply. In ye olden days, plenty of people owned two homes. Now it's a problem if we build 1/2 the number of needed units for 1 year of population growth. That's a major problem. We aren't just not building anything for homeless people, we aren't building them for *anyone*.
posted by The_Vegetables at 11:27 AM on March 26, 2018 [8 favorites]
The "Vacant City" article mentions this a little bit, but why not an occupancy tax? As in, if you choose to have an apartment that is occupied less than n days a year, you pay a tax on it. The idea is that unoccupied apartments don't contribute to city commerce (nobody to buy food/sundry items in the neighborhood), and that property taxes alone don't make up the shortfall (and don't distinguish between land that is contributing to the economy through its occupants and land that isn't). I first heard of the idea in the context of London but the issue seems much the same here.
I don't really understand the economics of it though-- or how easy/hard it would be for owners+developers to avoid paying the tax through nefarious means, how high such a tax would have to be before it would alter behavior, how to make sure it hits the developers and speculators without hitting the people who just want a place to live.
posted by nat at 11:30 AM on March 26, 2018 [6 favorites]
I don't really understand the economics of it though-- or how easy/hard it would be for owners+developers to avoid paying the tax through nefarious means, how high such a tax would have to be before it would alter behavior, how to make sure it hits the developers and speculators without hitting the people who just want a place to live.
posted by nat at 11:30 AM on March 26, 2018 [6 favorites]
Come to Miami and you'll see first hand how it's possible to add tens of thousands of new units within a couple of years representing several billion dollars worth of investment while available inventory declines and rents continue to rise faster than ever.
Something like 70% of the new build condos here are left unoccupied by the foreign investors who bought them. It's literally worse than London, it turns out. And that doesn't even count the SFHs in the suburbs which are suffering the same fate, though to a lesser degree. (The very rich buy the condos, people who are Venezuela rich or whatever, but are "merely" upper middle class by US standards, and think they might need to live in the place before too long if things continue going to shit in their home country buy the SFHs)
posted by wierdo at 11:35 AM on March 26, 2018 [4 favorites]
Something like 70% of the new build condos here are left unoccupied by the foreign investors who bought them. It's literally worse than London, it turns out. And that doesn't even count the SFHs in the suburbs which are suffering the same fate, though to a lesser degree. (The very rich buy the condos, people who are Venezuela rich or whatever, but are "merely" upper middle class by US standards, and think they might need to live in the place before too long if things continue going to shit in their home country buy the SFHs)
posted by wierdo at 11:35 AM on March 26, 2018 [4 favorites]
I think we, in general not just NYC, ought to have a progressive vacancy tax that ultimately ends in the property being seized under imminent domain and auctioned off to the highest bidder if it stays empty too long. Make the vacancy tax start off reasonably enough, but scale up to truly punitive levels quickly.
Say, after six months of vacancy, the tax rate goes up to 110% of normal property taxes. A year later make it go up to 400% of normal property taxes. A year later 2,000% of normal property taxes, and a year later the property is taken and sold to someone who will rent it out instead of sitting on it.
A multiple homes or vacation homes tax also sounds like a good idea. If you own one home, you pay normal property taxes. If you own two, you pay 200% of the property tax rate, three you pay 300%, four 400%, and so on. If some fucker is rich enough to own a lot of homes then they're rich enough to pay more taxes on them.
posted by sotonohito at 11:38 AM on March 26, 2018 [19 favorites]
Say, after six months of vacancy, the tax rate goes up to 110% of normal property taxes. A year later make it go up to 400% of normal property taxes. A year later 2,000% of normal property taxes, and a year later the property is taken and sold to someone who will rent it out instead of sitting on it.
A multiple homes or vacation homes tax also sounds like a good idea. If you own one home, you pay normal property taxes. If you own two, you pay 200% of the property tax rate, three you pay 300%, four 400%, and so on. If some fucker is rich enough to own a lot of homes then they're rich enough to pay more taxes on them.
posted by sotonohito at 11:38 AM on March 26, 2018 [19 favorites]
that ultimately ends in the property being seized under imminent domain and auctioned off to the highest bidder used for social housing
Just a suggestion.
posted by Grangousier at 11:45 AM on March 26, 2018 [13 favorites]
Just a suggestion.
posted by Grangousier at 11:45 AM on March 26, 2018 [13 favorites]
Seized homes become the property of the NYC Housing Authority and enter the affordable housing market. Let’s see if that works.
posted by The Whelk at 12:14 PM on March 26, 2018 [15 favorites]
posted by The Whelk at 12:14 PM on March 26, 2018 [15 favorites]
Just no more god damn HFDCs for rich parents to buy for their children in cash, which is what happened the last time the city seized a bunch of buildings.
posted by enn at 12:16 PM on March 26, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by enn at 12:16 PM on March 26, 2018 [2 favorites]
The basic economics are that a shady developer will do anything to make money, including nickel-and-pennying people into the ground. Again in Cambridge, MA, they're still fighting about who is going to pay for parking spaces in my mother's complex after more than 10 years. The dumpster is literally too small for the number of residents, because the developers wanted a couple more parking spaces to sell to the incoming residents for a pretty penny. Which they got, because often holding out for the highest price works.
A few years ago in Boston, there was a big flap over re-developing the Filene's property, a huge space right smack in the middle of downtown. The developer "ran out of money." Boo hoo, he cried to the mayor, I need some bail out money. It was later revealed that that was his original strategy all along, and man was the mayor furious. The property sat half-finished for many years, and Filene's Basement went belly-up because of the delay.
It's all about assholes trying to make money, with no one stopping them.
posted by Melismata at 12:24 PM on March 26, 2018 [6 favorites]
A few years ago in Boston, there was a big flap over re-developing the Filene's property, a huge space right smack in the middle of downtown. The developer "ran out of money." Boo hoo, he cried to the mayor, I need some bail out money. It was later revealed that that was his original strategy all along, and man was the mayor furious. The property sat half-finished for many years, and Filene's Basement went belly-up because of the delay.
It's all about assholes trying to make money, with no one stopping them.
posted by Melismata at 12:24 PM on March 26, 2018 [6 favorites]
This has been a huge problem in any vacation town. Twenty years ago the local government of Whistler pointed out that virtually NO government employees could afford to live in Whistler, and the taxpayers refused to raise taxes so they could attract ANY staff (let alone half-competent ones) by raising pay to make the commute worth it (municipal employees are paid less than private sector precisely because of work-life balance like a short commute). I was recently looking at a job in Banff, and because of the limitations of land (they are located in a National Park, but need people to work the hotels and businesses) they have a created a Housing Strategy. More places need to create policies, including vacancy taxes, capital gains taxes on property, and a right to reside, to address the global capital real estate frenzy.
In Toronto, the overheated real estate (of which foreign buyers are an undetermined part) and ridiculous rental market has pushed people further from the core, displacing the people who had chosen to live in smaller, cheaper towns, pushing them to live further from their work and in turn displacing others further until they hit Cottage country, which is rife with vacant homes and non-residents that complain about the property tax on their waterfront cottage they rent out (tax-free) via AirBnB.
Ya, I'm good with the revolution happening any time now.
posted by saucysault at 12:46 PM on March 26, 2018 [9 favorites]
In Toronto, the overheated real estate (of which foreign buyers are an undetermined part) and ridiculous rental market has pushed people further from the core, displacing the people who had chosen to live in smaller, cheaper towns, pushing them to live further from their work and in turn displacing others further until they hit Cottage country, which is rife with vacant homes and non-residents that complain about the property tax on their waterfront cottage they rent out (tax-free) via AirBnB.
Ya, I'm good with the revolution happening any time now.
posted by saucysault at 12:46 PM on March 26, 2018 [9 favorites]
A multiple homes or vacation homes tax also sounds like a good idea. If you own one home, you pay normal property taxes. If you own two, you pay 200% of the property tax rate, three you pay 300%, four 400%, and so on. If some fucker is rich enough to own a lot of homes then they're rich enough to pay more taxes on them.
I am 100% in favor of something like this, but I think that the tax rate or other penalties would have to be scaled so that people who own more than two properties would incur a much greater penalty, proportionally, than just (number of properties) x (penalty per property), or the loudest and most uncompromising protests will come from people who own a home plus a vacation home or a rental property. They'll torpedo any such initiative and the entities who own tens or hundreds of properties won't even have to pick up the phone or spend a cent to keep doing what they're doing.
I know that people who own more than one home in this day and age are hardly to be pitied, but my experiences living in a handful of different U.S. cities over the last decade - all with deep blue local governments supported by Democratic state legislatures - have shown me that there is perhaps no greater form of cognitive dissonance than the kind that's required for self-identified progressive individuals who own their homes, and/or another property, to see themselves as the aggrieved party when measures like this are discussed.
posted by Anita Bath at 12:59 PM on March 26, 2018 [11 favorites]
I am 100% in favor of something like this, but I think that the tax rate or other penalties would have to be scaled so that people who own more than two properties would incur a much greater penalty, proportionally, than just (number of properties) x (penalty per property), or the loudest and most uncompromising protests will come from people who own a home plus a vacation home or a rental property. They'll torpedo any such initiative and the entities who own tens or hundreds of properties won't even have to pick up the phone or spend a cent to keep doing what they're doing.
I know that people who own more than one home in this day and age are hardly to be pitied, but my experiences living in a handful of different U.S. cities over the last decade - all with deep blue local governments supported by Democratic state legislatures - have shown me that there is perhaps no greater form of cognitive dissonance than the kind that's required for self-identified progressive individuals who own their homes, and/or another property, to see themselves as the aggrieved party when measures like this are discussed.
posted by Anita Bath at 12:59 PM on March 26, 2018 [11 favorites]
The "Vacant City" article mentions this a little bit, but why not an occupancy tax? As in, if you choose to have an apartment that is occupied less than n days a year, you pay a tax on it.
I sent this very suggestion to Mayor De Blasio twice at the beginning of his first term. I heard nothing further.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:13 PM on March 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
I sent this very suggestion to Mayor De Blasio twice at the beginning of his first term. I heard nothing further.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:13 PM on March 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
the loudest and most uncompromising protests will come from people who own a home plus a vacation home or a rental property
As someone who has (briefly) owned more than one property, and who may well buy a rental property at some point, I agree and would be interested in strategies like waiving the extra tax for rentals that are at or below the market rate, or similar - otherwise everyone is going to just jack up rent to cover the tax, and that doesn't solve the problem. I have no interest in extracting every last dime from a tenant, but I don't have the cashflow to cover a significant ongoing shortfall, even if the point of the rental is to generate passive income in 30 years when I am retired and/or disabled. (Give me a guaranteed basic income and health insurance and I wouldn't have to! That'd be better! I'm lazy and being a landlord is annoying!)
posted by restless_nomad at 1:44 PM on March 26, 2018 [3 favorites]
As someone who has (briefly) owned more than one property, and who may well buy a rental property at some point, I agree and would be interested in strategies like waiving the extra tax for rentals that are at or below the market rate, or similar - otherwise everyone is going to just jack up rent to cover the tax, and that doesn't solve the problem. I have no interest in extracting every last dime from a tenant, but I don't have the cashflow to cover a significant ongoing shortfall, even if the point of the rental is to generate passive income in 30 years when I am retired and/or disabled. (Give me a guaranteed basic income and health insurance and I wouldn't have to! That'd be better! I'm lazy and being a landlord is annoying!)
posted by restless_nomad at 1:44 PM on March 26, 2018 [3 favorites]
Even if people who own these empty homes, arranged for people to live in the places to avoid the tax, it would ameliorate the problem. Let the owners invite their cousin's sister-in-law's nephew to stay there. Or have a live-in servant stay there. Or find a house sitter from some connection they are comfortable with.
Even if it's precarious housing for the people thus housed, it ought to reduce pressure on the rental market and provide traffic for neighborhood businesses.
posted by elizilla at 2:16 PM on March 26, 2018 [4 favorites]
Even if it's precarious housing for the people thus housed, it ought to reduce pressure on the rental market and provide traffic for neighborhood businesses.
posted by elizilla at 2:16 PM on March 26, 2018 [4 favorites]
If you deposit $10000 in a US bank account, the Feds take notice and the bank files a form saying who made the deposit and when.
If you buy a $1M condo using an anonymous shell corp, congratulations, there are no questions.
posted by zippy at 2:22 PM on March 26, 2018 [10 favorites]
If you buy a $1M condo using an anonymous shell corp, congratulations, there are no questions.
posted by zippy at 2:22 PM on March 26, 2018 [10 favorites]
arranged for people to live in the places to avoid the tax
House your mistress, get a tax break?
posted by fings at 2:23 PM on March 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
House your mistress, get a tax break?
posted by fings at 2:23 PM on March 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
arranged for people to live in the places to avoid the tax
Just think of all the new jobs just created - go to every house every day to make sure someone is actively living there. Sounds fun and surveillancy.
posted by The_Vegetables at 2:32 PM on March 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
Just think of all the new jobs just created - go to every house every day to make sure someone is actively living there. Sounds fun and surveillancy.
posted by The_Vegetables at 2:32 PM on March 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
Cities should have a pied-a-terre tax. If you own a property in the city that is not your primary address of record (meaning that you don't pay city and state income and other taxes) you pay a steep pied-a-terre tax on the value of your property. This way, the Chinese billionaires, sheikhs and Russian gangsters who are buying superluxury apartments they effectively never inhabit as a way of stashing wealth would at least contribute something to the economy and infrastructure of the City.
posted by slkinsey at 2:33 PM on March 26, 2018 [8 favorites]
posted by slkinsey at 2:33 PM on March 26, 2018 [8 favorites]
Ctrl F: [land value tax georgist], 0
You guys are slipping
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 2:44 PM on March 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
You guys are slipping
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 2:44 PM on March 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
But 27k is only half the number of people who moved to the NYC metro area between 2017 and 2018 alone.
This is the essential point. No use blaming 'Chinese billionaires, sheikhs and Russian gangsters' for their speculation on a handful of luxury condos. Drive them out with pitchforks and it will make absolutely no difference unless more housing is built.
posted by tirutiru at 2:53 PM on March 26, 2018
This is the essential point. No use blaming 'Chinese billionaires, sheikhs and Russian gangsters' for their speculation on a handful of luxury condos. Drive them out with pitchforks and it will make absolutely no difference unless more housing is built.
posted by tirutiru at 2:53 PM on March 26, 2018
The problem is mimetic desire. You folks don't want what you want. You want what everybody else wants: To have an apartment in the city of "Friends". Consider modifying your desires. NYC doesn't need more tortuous housing regulation.
And there are vast spaces of America that would welcome your energy and vitality -- places where rents are cheap and you can buy a nice house in a good school system for $160K.
posted by Modest House at 3:14 PM on March 26, 2018
And there are vast spaces of America that would welcome your energy and vitality -- places where rents are cheap and you can buy a nice house in a good school system for $160K.
posted by Modest House at 3:14 PM on March 26, 2018
And there are vast spaces of America that would welcome your energy and vitality -- places where rents are cheap and you can buy a nice house in a good school system for $160K.
yes, but I don't want to live hours away from water or mountains, or amid a community of bible belt red-hats, or in a flood zone, etc. I'm not saying those places don't exist, just that they generally have serious caveats.
posted by a halcyon day at 3:45 PM on March 26, 2018 [5 favorites]
yes, but I don't want to live hours away from water or mountains, or amid a community of bible belt red-hats, or in a flood zone, etc. I'm not saying those places don't exist, just that they generally have serious caveats.
posted by a halcyon day at 3:45 PM on March 26, 2018 [5 favorites]
yes, but I don't want to live hours away from water or mountains, or amid a community of bible belt red-hats, or in a flood zone, etc. I'm not saying those places don't exist, just that they generally have serious caveats.
See? There are trade-offs wherever you want to live. If you have very particular demands about who your neighbors are, or what scenery is on offer, you have to pay for it. In NYC, you have to compete with a lot of other people who want what you want. It's going to get expensive.
Besides, you'd be surprised what nice people live in those low-cost housing cities. People with all colors of hats.
posted by Modest House at 4:04 PM on March 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
See? There are trade-offs wherever you want to live. If you have very particular demands about who your neighbors are, or what scenery is on offer, you have to pay for it. In NYC, you have to compete with a lot of other people who want what you want. It's going to get expensive.
Besides, you'd be surprised what nice people live in those low-cost housing cities. People with all colors of hats.
posted by Modest House at 4:04 PM on March 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
Sadly, this is becoming a problem for us here in Minneapolis as well. Long-established local businesses are being razed in order to put up tall shiny apartment buildings to cater to the young, fresh out of college crowd. Meanwhile, the lack of affordable housing is one of the biggest problems facing people who are at or just barely above the federal poverty line. It's a big issue for us about which all the gubernatorial candidates this year have to answer questions.
Also, having worked for one of those NYC real estate brokers, you have no idea how many of the clients wanted to be able to slip around the pied a terre problems and qualify for lower mortgages for a "first" home. I can't confirm this, but I'll bet that part of the services a broker gives to a client buying into a coop is how to respond to the board's questions in such a way that they don't suspect that you're buying an income property rather than an actual home. (Oh, I'm sorry, "shares in a building.")
posted by TrishaLynn at 4:09 PM on March 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
Also, having worked for one of those NYC real estate brokers, you have no idea how many of the clients wanted to be able to slip around the pied a terre problems and qualify for lower mortgages for a "first" home. I can't confirm this, but I'll bet that part of the services a broker gives to a client buying into a coop is how to respond to the board's questions in such a way that they don't suspect that you're buying an income property rather than an actual home. (Oh, I'm sorry, "shares in a building.")
posted by TrishaLynn at 4:09 PM on March 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
Besides, you'd be surprised what nice people live in those low-cost housing cities. People with all colors of hats.
And you might not. Friend of mine is visiting her grandbabies just outside of Tampa and she and the toddlers got screamed at for being hateful little Jewbabies who should die.
I think until more vacancy bullshits are ratted out like Kushner (and SOONER), it will just go on and on. I like the seizure and turning into social housing. A reapplication of rent-control as well.
posted by tilde at 4:13 PM on March 26, 2018 [10 favorites]
And you might not. Friend of mine is visiting her grandbabies just outside of Tampa and she and the toddlers got screamed at for being hateful little Jewbabies who should die.
I think until more vacancy bullshits are ratted out like Kushner (and SOONER), it will just go on and on. I like the seizure and turning into social housing. A reapplication of rent-control as well.
posted by tilde at 4:13 PM on March 26, 2018 [10 favorites]
Yes, the real problem is those stupid, selfish people who want to live in cities, not our ever-more-vampiric capitalist system. Allowing our most vibrant and dynamic cities to be hollowed out for the benefit of a few amoral oligarchs is Good and Desirable.
I got so fed up with the inevitable “you youth just need to move somewhere nice and cheap and stop whining” comments that I wrote a whole entire thing. But you don’t have to read it, just know that it’s both cruel and poorly-reasoned to claim that the problem here is “mimetic desire.”
posted by faineg at 4:26 PM on March 26, 2018 [26 favorites]
I got so fed up with the inevitable “you youth just need to move somewhere nice and cheap and stop whining” comments that I wrote a whole entire thing. But you don’t have to read it, just know that it’s both cruel and poorly-reasoned to claim that the problem here is “mimetic desire.”
posted by faineg at 4:26 PM on March 26, 2018 [26 favorites]
Computer networking company Cisco has pledged $50 million to Santa Clara's "Destination: Home" program ... which has permanently housed over 5,000 in 3 years.
According to the article, the county has found , subsidized or built those homes in 3 years. According to an Infographic, those housed used Crisis Services 83% less.
The program's #1 tenet: Disrupt and transform existing response systems. The county still has over 7,000 homeless and is 3 years into a 5-year plan.
A similar program seems to be underway in King County, WA, where foot-dragging has led to over 10,000 homeless.
posted by Twang at 4:27 PM on March 26, 2018 [3 favorites]
According to the article, the county has found , subsidized or built those homes in 3 years. According to an Infographic, those housed used Crisis Services 83% less.
The program's #1 tenet: Disrupt and transform existing response systems. The county still has over 7,000 homeless and is 3 years into a 5-year plan.
A similar program seems to be underway in King County, WA, where foot-dragging has led to over 10,000 homeless.
posted by Twang at 4:27 PM on March 26, 2018 [3 favorites]
Brisbane is the same story, so if Brisbane, London and New York share the same story, it leads me to suspect that pretty much every big city on earth shares the same story: thousands and thousands of homes, apartments, townhouses and flats sitting empty for months or years at a stretch, priced beyond reality. And everywhere you look, a new apartment tower or townhouse complex being constructed - where before there was a park or patch of woods, or an interesting old heritage building.
Infrastructure to actually support it? Lol, of course not! Assuming anybody moved in to the latest development area, you're looking at a hundred, a thousand more cars, every morning and afternoon, using the same shitbox feeder roads as ever. No new bus stops. No new train stations. No extra parking at the shopping centre. No more beds at the hospitals. Just: here's the thing. Live in the thing. Be thankful for the thing.
Late stage capitalism at its finest.
posted by turbid dahlia at 4:53 PM on March 26, 2018 [8 favorites]
Infrastructure to actually support it? Lol, of course not! Assuming anybody moved in to the latest development area, you're looking at a hundred, a thousand more cars, every morning and afternoon, using the same shitbox feeder roads as ever. No new bus stops. No new train stations. No extra parking at the shopping centre. No more beds at the hospitals. Just: here's the thing. Live in the thing. Be thankful for the thing.
Late stage capitalism at its finest.
posted by turbid dahlia at 4:53 PM on March 26, 2018 [8 favorites]
See? There are trade-offs wherever you want to live. If you have very particular demands about who your neighbors are, or what scenery is on offer, you have to pay for it.
A lot of us are trying to, as much as possible, avoid people who are bigoted against us and who support policies or do things in their daily lives that make our lives harder or put us in danger. And, obviously, these are issues that affect people who are already more likely to be economically disadvantaged because of race/sex/gender/sexual-orientation/single-parenthood/religion/immigration status/etc. It's not very compassionate to trivialize that as us being "particular" about our neighbours and then suggest we take a chance on more politically conservative regions. Plenty of us are from those regions and left for a reason.
posted by Secret Sparrow at 4:57 PM on March 26, 2018 [18 favorites]
A lot of us are trying to, as much as possible, avoid people who are bigoted against us and who support policies or do things in their daily lives that make our lives harder or put us in danger. And, obviously, these are issues that affect people who are already more likely to be economically disadvantaged because of race/sex/gender/sexual-orientation/single-parenthood/religion/immigration status/etc. It's not very compassionate to trivialize that as us being "particular" about our neighbours and then suggest we take a chance on more politically conservative regions. Plenty of us are from those regions and left for a reason.
posted by Secret Sparrow at 4:57 PM on March 26, 2018 [18 favorites]
Just going to link to David Klion’s thread on this ...
“To hear some ppl discuss housing policy, you’d think demand is just the number of people who want to physically live in NYC. In fact, demand is the purchasing power of ultra-wealthy people who want to invest in NYC housing. Most of the people who want to live here are incidental.”
NYC homeless’ population are at around 40k give or take. If as the article said about half of the 250,000 units are sitting empty not cause of renovation or under construction or such, then that’s more then enough tfoevery housing insecure person in the city but only if Housing is treated as a human right and not an investment and money laundering tool for the mega rich.
It’s almost never a matter of personal, indivual choices.
posted by The Whelk at 5:08 PM on March 26, 2018 [12 favorites]
“To hear some ppl discuss housing policy, you’d think demand is just the number of people who want to physically live in NYC. In fact, demand is the purchasing power of ultra-wealthy people who want to invest in NYC housing. Most of the people who want to live here are incidental.”
NYC homeless’ population are at around 40k give or take. If as the article said about half of the 250,000 units are sitting empty not cause of renovation or under construction or such, then that’s more then enough tfoevery housing insecure person in the city but only if Housing is treated as a human right and not an investment and money laundering tool for the mega rich.
It’s almost never a matter of personal, indivual choices.
posted by The Whelk at 5:08 PM on March 26, 2018 [12 favorites]
Besides, you'd be surprised what nice people live in those low-cost housing cities. People with all colors of hats.
Those hats sound great and all, but you know what doesn't live in that low-cost housing city? My mother, my brother, my partner, my friends, or my job. I don't live in NYC because I loved Friends. I live in NYC because I, like millions of other people, am from here.
I'm sure kleptocrats have lovely headwear, but I shouldn't have to uproot myself from my community so that they can launder money through real estate speculation in my hometown.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 5:17 PM on March 26, 2018 [18 favorites]
Those hats sound great and all, but you know what doesn't live in that low-cost housing city? My mother, my brother, my partner, my friends, or my job. I don't live in NYC because I loved Friends. I live in NYC because I, like millions of other people, am from here.
I'm sure kleptocrats have lovely headwear, but I shouldn't have to uproot myself from my community so that they can launder money through real estate speculation in my hometown.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 5:17 PM on March 26, 2018 [18 favorites]
If you buy a $1M condo using an anonymous shell corp, congratulations, there are no questions.
Since I have a terminal inability to forgo a chance at pedantry, I have to point out that that isn't true in Miami. If you buy a property worth more than half a million or so and pay cash, you get to prove to the government your funds are legit. People thought it was going to blow up the market, but no, it turns out that laundering money isn't so hard that it bothers the people who are using condos as piggy banks.
posted by wierdo at 5:27 PM on March 26, 2018 [3 favorites]
Since I have a terminal inability to forgo a chance at pedantry, I have to point out that that isn't true in Miami. If you buy a property worth more than half a million or so and pay cash, you get to prove to the government your funds are legit. People thought it was going to blow up the market, but no, it turns out that laundering money isn't so hard that it bothers the people who are using condos as piggy banks.
posted by wierdo at 5:27 PM on March 26, 2018 [3 favorites]
Beyond the vacant properties, I know in Toronto and Vancouver there is a significant issue with the global capital purchasing properties for their teen children to live in. Which has led to some issues with teens being unsupervised in a foreign country and making poor choices (or even dumb choices, there was a spate of "kidnappings" where the teens were told to not use social media, contact anyone, and hide; the parents were told their child in Canada had been kidnapped and when they couldn't reach their child the parents were paying the randsom. Quite the scam). So a vacancy tax may not solve the housing crisis of current occupants of the city.
posted by saucysault at 6:00 PM on March 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by saucysault at 6:00 PM on March 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
I'd love to move to the country.
I don't know how to drive. My mother and my niece are both unable to drive due to medical issues. What's public transit like in the country? There are 24 hour buses, right?
also, I could still get to work in 30 minutes in downtown, and my mom could get to her specialists and my niece to her special school - and my husband (who works at home) wouldn't be completely socially isolated?
sounds great! sign me up for the country house with access to public transit, a grocery store a short walk away, access to services for disabled people, specialists - and a nice liberal synagogue, of course. Every small town has to have a synagogue (two, of course, one to go to and one you would never set foot in).
/ sarcasm over
posted by jb at 6:29 PM on March 26, 2018 [18 favorites]
I don't know how to drive. My mother and my niece are both unable to drive due to medical issues. What's public transit like in the country? There are 24 hour buses, right?
also, I could still get to work in 30 minutes in downtown, and my mom could get to her specialists and my niece to her special school - and my husband (who works at home) wouldn't be completely socially isolated?
sounds great! sign me up for the country house with access to public transit, a grocery store a short walk away, access to services for disabled people, specialists - and a nice liberal synagogue, of course. Every small town has to have a synagogue (two, of course, one to go to and one you would never set foot in).
/ sarcasm over
posted by jb at 6:29 PM on March 26, 2018 [18 favorites]
This isnt true. It's telling that the "poster children" of "the internet is killing retail", Sears/Kmart and Toys R Us, are actually victims of vulture capitalism.
posted by NoxAeternum
Yeah, this isn't true. Sure, vulture capitalism took down Sears and Toys R Us, but the internet is absolutely, unequivocally killing retail. I've been in the motorcycle industry for 17 years; I am in the process of closing our retail store right now. You can literally go to walmart.com, buy a tire and have it shipped free to your house cheaper than I can buy it from a distributor.
We've already sold our building (which is worth many times what our business is worth) and the closing scheduled for Thursday afternoon. Vulture capitalism killed Sears and Toys R Us but the internet killed us. There is no reason both things can't be true.
posted by workerant at 6:29 PM on March 26, 2018 [5 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum
Yeah, this isn't true. Sure, vulture capitalism took down Sears and Toys R Us, but the internet is absolutely, unequivocally killing retail. I've been in the motorcycle industry for 17 years; I am in the process of closing our retail store right now. You can literally go to walmart.com, buy a tire and have it shipped free to your house cheaper than I can buy it from a distributor.
We've already sold our building (which is worth many times what our business is worth) and the closing scheduled for Thursday afternoon. Vulture capitalism killed Sears and Toys R Us but the internet killed us. There is no reason both things can't be true.
posted by workerant at 6:29 PM on March 26, 2018 [5 favorites]
You want what everybody else wants: To have an apartment in the city of "Friends".
Yeah, no. Nor is it the Lobster Newburg. I don't want to repeat myself every time this comes up on Mefi for the people who think this is some kind of deep insight; I'll just say that if you can't imagine why it would be important for people to want to live where they can have a job that allows them to work at a very high level at work they find personally significant, then you aren't really in a position to be judging. And I'm leaving aside the whole thing where I don't have to be a social outcast because I'm an atheist and an unmarried adult woman above 30, my neighborhood is reasonably integrated, and my friends get to love who they love in relative safety. This is not my mean elite imagination of NYC vs. the Midwest. I grew up in the latter.
Hypothetically, a developer can build a building for 5 million with 20 units. The developer can then sell each unit for 750k or rent out the unit for the approximate 750k mortgage on that unit. Hypothetically, they'd only have to sell about a third to break even, and at half they'd be making a healthy profit. It'd be economically advantageous for them to leave half the units empty at high prices, since it lowers maintenance costs.
Developers are absolutely looking for the highest rate of return, and they do not want their investment tied up indefinitely in unsold property. They only get paid when a unit sells. And developers don't pay maintenance costs once a project is going--one way or another, those are borne by the shareholders (co-op) or individual unit owners (condo). Even if this weren't the case...I mean...the maintenance on a $750K apartment (which is a studio in most of Manhattan these days) would probably be in the area of $2K/mo., though varying with the nature of the property. I trust I don't need to spell out the math there.
The empty units are almost all high-end units that they think will sell so high a year or three of vacancy won't hurt. This is why I have to shake my head at everyone who yells about zoning. We have had quite a few units added in the last few years. They are all aimed at the high end of the market and have done nothing to ameliorate the housing situation. In fact, on the margin, by pushing up average rents, they've made it worse. There are several new glass towers standing in downtown Brooklyn where they're offering two months' free rent for their $3200/mo. one-beds and still not filling them up.
Meanwhile, on the other end of the market, we have the well-intentioned advocating for the abolition of various regulations such that we're going to end up back with pre-law tenements. As if the cost of construction or space was what was driving prices, and getting rid of stubborn little requirements like a water-closet in every apartment or minimum space for each habitable room wouldn't just mean we'd end up--again, mind you, again, we know exactly what got built when these requirements didn't exist, a fair number of these buildings are still standing on the Lower East Side--with disproportionately expensive and wretched housing for the middle-class on down.
It's a tough damn problem. It may end up being the problem that eats capitalism, unless we suffocate first.
posted by praemunire at 6:41 PM on March 26, 2018 [11 favorites]
Yeah, no. Nor is it the Lobster Newburg. I don't want to repeat myself every time this comes up on Mefi for the people who think this is some kind of deep insight; I'll just say that if you can't imagine why it would be important for people to want to live where they can have a job that allows them to work at a very high level at work they find personally significant, then you aren't really in a position to be judging. And I'm leaving aside the whole thing where I don't have to be a social outcast because I'm an atheist and an unmarried adult woman above 30, my neighborhood is reasonably integrated, and my friends get to love who they love in relative safety. This is not my mean elite imagination of NYC vs. the Midwest. I grew up in the latter.
Hypothetically, a developer can build a building for 5 million with 20 units. The developer can then sell each unit for 750k or rent out the unit for the approximate 750k mortgage on that unit. Hypothetically, they'd only have to sell about a third to break even, and at half they'd be making a healthy profit. It'd be economically advantageous for them to leave half the units empty at high prices, since it lowers maintenance costs.
Developers are absolutely looking for the highest rate of return, and they do not want their investment tied up indefinitely in unsold property. They only get paid when a unit sells. And developers don't pay maintenance costs once a project is going--one way or another, those are borne by the shareholders (co-op) or individual unit owners (condo). Even if this weren't the case...I mean...the maintenance on a $750K apartment (which is a studio in most of Manhattan these days) would probably be in the area of $2K/mo., though varying with the nature of the property. I trust I don't need to spell out the math there.
The empty units are almost all high-end units that they think will sell so high a year or three of vacancy won't hurt. This is why I have to shake my head at everyone who yells about zoning. We have had quite a few units added in the last few years. They are all aimed at the high end of the market and have done nothing to ameliorate the housing situation. In fact, on the margin, by pushing up average rents, they've made it worse. There are several new glass towers standing in downtown Brooklyn where they're offering two months' free rent for their $3200/mo. one-beds and still not filling them up.
Meanwhile, on the other end of the market, we have the well-intentioned advocating for the abolition of various regulations such that we're going to end up back with pre-law tenements. As if the cost of construction or space was what was driving prices, and getting rid of stubborn little requirements like a water-closet in every apartment or minimum space for each habitable room wouldn't just mean we'd end up--again, mind you, again, we know exactly what got built when these requirements didn't exist, a fair number of these buildings are still standing on the Lower East Side--with disproportionately expensive and wretched housing for the middle-class on down.
It's a tough damn problem. It may end up being the problem that eats capitalism, unless we suffocate first.
posted by praemunire at 6:41 PM on March 26, 2018 [11 favorites]
In China, there are whole ghost cities. Partly for historical reasons, and partly for legal reasons, people really want to invest their extra money in real estate instead of stocks and bonds.
So developers built entire cities just to be used as investment property. But if no one is really living in the apartments, they don't have to be real apartments -- they can just be empty concrete shells. No electricity, no plumbing, no flooring or interior walls. They just have to look real enough that they'll hold their value for a few years. Apartments in the ghost cities are basically a modern version of Rai stones.
I don't see why we couldn't do the same. Declare a New New York somewhere 100 miles outside the city, and attract all the investors over there instead. They'd still have all the advantages of investing in real estate -- easy loans, low taxes, skirting capital outflow laws in foreign countries. But they wouldn't be real homes, at least not ones that would compete with normal people who just need a roof over their head.
posted by miyabo at 8:31 PM on March 26, 2018 [4 favorites]
So developers built entire cities just to be used as investment property. But if no one is really living in the apartments, they don't have to be real apartments -- they can just be empty concrete shells. No electricity, no plumbing, no flooring or interior walls. They just have to look real enough that they'll hold their value for a few years. Apartments in the ghost cities are basically a modern version of Rai stones.
I don't see why we couldn't do the same. Declare a New New York somewhere 100 miles outside the city, and attract all the investors over there instead. They'd still have all the advantages of investing in real estate -- easy loans, low taxes, skirting capital outflow laws in foreign countries. But they wouldn't be real homes, at least not ones that would compete with normal people who just need a roof over their head.
posted by miyabo at 8:31 PM on March 26, 2018 [4 favorites]
The internet totally killed Sears and Toys R Us. Parents buy toys from the comfort of their homes rather than taking the time from their busy schedules for a separate trip (if they buy toys at all; traditional toys have been on the decline in favor of electronics for a few years now). Sears could have been the next Amazon, but the leaders lacked the imagination (as did most of us) to put their ubiquitous catalogue online.
The question now becomes, what happens to all that downtown real estate? Sure we still need flower shops and pharmacies, but what will be done with the rest of the space?
posted by Melismata at 5:54 AM on March 27, 2018
The question now becomes, what happens to all that downtown real estate? Sure we still need flower shops and pharmacies, but what will be done with the rest of the space?
posted by Melismata at 5:54 AM on March 27, 2018
See? There are trade-offs wherever you want to live. If you have very particular demands about who your neighbors are, or what scenery is on offer, you have to pay for it. In NYC, you have to compete with a lot of other people who want what you want. It's going to get expensive.
This argument made more sense in the days when the people you were competing with weren't Russian oligarchs trying to launder their money. Today - as this article states - things are different.
And the rising rents also affect people who have lived here for decades, have never been able to afford a down payment on a place to own, and so they have to keep renting. Exactly how long must we have lived in this city before we can be considered "actual residents" instead of "wannabe hipsters" by your yardstick? Two deecades? three?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:28 AM on March 27, 2018 [2 favorites]
This argument made more sense in the days when the people you were competing with weren't Russian oligarchs trying to launder their money. Today - as this article states - things are different.
And the rising rents also affect people who have lived here for decades, have never been able to afford a down payment on a place to own, and so they have to keep renting. Exactly how long must we have lived in this city before we can be considered "actual residents" instead of "wannabe hipsters" by your yardstick? Two deecades? three?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:28 AM on March 27, 2018 [2 favorites]
but what will be done with the rest of the space?
Walk-in in clinics, city run repair and recycling shops, composting drop off points, community centers, daycare, meeting and spaces for groups, subudized theatre space, tax and legal clinics, hell a city run cafeteria, think big, (or rather, think what other countries have)
posted by The Whelk at 6:36 AM on March 27, 2018 [4 favorites]
Walk-in in clinics, city run repair and recycling shops, composting drop off points, community centers, daycare, meeting and spaces for groups, subudized theatre space, tax and legal clinics, hell a city run cafeteria, think big, (or rather, think what other countries have)
posted by The Whelk at 6:36 AM on March 27, 2018 [4 favorites]
or, the city prioritizes businesses that do community service and run on horizontal/worker-controller/co-op lines and offers them commercial real estate at much lower prices. That’s more “market-based solution” then I’d like, but it goes to show how you can expand political imagination if you get out of a locked late capitalist mindset.
posted by The Whelk at 7:14 AM on March 27, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by The Whelk at 7:14 AM on March 27, 2018 [2 favorites]
The internet totally killed Sears and Toys R Us. Parents buy toys from the comfort of their homes rather than taking the time from their busy schedules for a separate trip (if they buy toys at all; traditional toys have been on the decline in favor of electronics for a few years now). Sears could have been the next Amazon, but the leaders lacked the imagination (as did most of us) to put their ubiquitous catalogue online.
This is the lie Bain Capital (who has now murdered two toy store chains, having dismembered KB Toys in the early 2000s) and other vulture capitalists would like you to believe, because it absolves them of blame. Their problems were not due to online competition, but due to PE firms extracting every ounce of value from the company in what is best described as a legalized "bustout". And if you think that's a bit hyperbolic, here's what happened to Sears:
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:27 AM on March 27, 2018 [11 favorites]
This is the lie Bain Capital (who has now murdered two toy store chains, having dismembered KB Toys in the early 2000s) and other vulture capitalists would like you to believe, because it absolves them of blame. Their problems were not due to online competition, but due to PE firms extracting every ounce of value from the company in what is best described as a legalized "bustout". And if you think that's a bit hyperbolic, here's what happened to Sears:
In 2005, Lampert arranged the merger of Sears with discount retailer Kmart, and immediately started shifting revenue to shareholders. He spent $6 billion on stock buybacks to reward investors and prop up the share price.The problem is not Amazon. The problem is vulture capitalism.
More important, Lampert personally lent billions to Sears Kmart, increasing corporate debt. As in-store sales lagged, Sears sold off major assets like Craftsman brand tools and Land’s End outdoor equipment to service the loans.
Lampert also split ownership of 266 Sears and Kmart buildings into a real estate investment vehicle called Seritage. Last year, Sears and Kmart stores paid $200 million in rent on these properties they once owned, eating up operating revenue.
As Sears closes hundreds of stores and considers bankruptcy, Lampert will likely come out ahead. He enjoyed fees from all the lending to Sears, and he’ll recoup more money in any restructuring, even if Sears has to sell off inventory to do it. As a shareholder of Seritage, Lampert’s hedge funds can profit from higher rents charged to new retail outlets that move into the shuttered Sears locations.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:27 AM on March 27, 2018 [11 favorites]
You want what everybody else wants: To have an apartment in the city of "Friends".
I am so tired of this sneering, garbage talking point.
THE APARTMENT ON FRIENDS WAS RENT CONTROLLED, AND THEY WERE LIVING IN IT FRAUDULENTLY, AND STILL VERY OFTEN HAD TROUBLE PAYING THE RENT ANYWAY. THIS WAS A FREQUENT PLOT POINT.
ALSO THE RENTS IN MANHATTAN IN 1994 WERE NOT EQUIVALENT TO THE RENTS OF 2018. GIULIANI DID NOT BECOME MAYOR UNTIL JANUARY OF 1994, AND THE DISNEY-FICATION TOOK TIME.
YES, IT IS ACCURATE THAT PEOPLE WANT CITIES TO HAVE RENT CONTROL. YOU ARE MAKING THE OPPOSITE POINT OF THE ONE YOU THINK YOU ARE MAKING.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 7:41 AM on March 27, 2018 [18 favorites]
I am so tired of this sneering, garbage talking point.
THE APARTMENT ON FRIENDS WAS RENT CONTROLLED, AND THEY WERE LIVING IN IT FRAUDULENTLY, AND STILL VERY OFTEN HAD TROUBLE PAYING THE RENT ANYWAY. THIS WAS A FREQUENT PLOT POINT.
ALSO THE RENTS IN MANHATTAN IN 1994 WERE NOT EQUIVALENT TO THE RENTS OF 2018. GIULIANI DID NOT BECOME MAYOR UNTIL JANUARY OF 1994, AND THE DISNEY-FICATION TOOK TIME.
YES, IT IS ACCURATE THAT PEOPLE WANT CITIES TO HAVE RENT CONTROL. YOU ARE MAKING THE OPPOSITE POINT OF THE ONE YOU THINK YOU ARE MAKING.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 7:41 AM on March 27, 2018 [18 favorites]
And there are vast spaces of America that would welcome your energy and vitality -- places where rents are cheap and you can buy a nice house in a good school system for $160K.
What happens when you inevitably lose the job you moved out there for when the winds of economic change blow through, and you can't get a new one paying remotely like what you made before? There'll be smug people online happy to tell you that you made a mistake moving to a third tier city in the first place and that you should have predicted this.
I mean, I live in London because I want to, but it doesn't hurt that if I left my current employer there are hundreds of places I could work for a similar salary within literal walking distance.
posted by atrazine at 7:46 AM on March 27, 2018 [6 favorites]
What happens when you inevitably lose the job you moved out there for when the winds of economic change blow through, and you can't get a new one paying remotely like what you made before? There'll be smug people online happy to tell you that you made a mistake moving to a third tier city in the first place and that you should have predicted this.
I mean, I live in London because I want to, but it doesn't hurt that if I left my current employer there are hundreds of places I could work for a similar salary within literal walking distance.
posted by atrazine at 7:46 AM on March 27, 2018 [6 favorites]
places where rents are cheap and you can buy a nice house in a good school system for $160K.
The median home price in the US now is $200k. So sure there are places where you can buy into a good system for $160k but they are going bye bye and the competition for them is going to be fierce.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:05 AM on March 27, 2018 [1 favorite]
The median home price in the US now is $200k. So sure there are places where you can buy into a good system for $160k but they are going bye bye and the competition for them is going to be fierce.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:05 AM on March 27, 2018 [1 favorite]
As Sears closes hundreds of stores and considers bankruptcy, Lampert will likely come out ahead.
And the looting by vulture capitalists feeds right back into distorted city real estate markets. Denver's got an empty Sears whose owners won't sell so that something (anything!) useful to humans could be done with the land. That could be badly-needed housing, or retail for people who live here, or really anything at all but a waste of space that's pulling in Sears rent money from beyond the grave.
posted by asperity at 8:15 AM on March 27, 2018 [2 favorites]
And the looting by vulture capitalists feeds right back into distorted city real estate markets. Denver's got an empty Sears whose owners won't sell so that something (anything!) useful to humans could be done with the land. That could be badly-needed housing, or retail for people who live here, or really anything at all but a waste of space that's pulling in Sears rent money from beyond the grave.
posted by asperity at 8:15 AM on March 27, 2018 [2 favorites]
tirutiru: No use blaming 'Chinese billionaires, sheikhs and Russian gangsters' for their speculation on a handful of luxury condos. Drive them out with pitchforks and it will make absolutely no difference unless more housing is built.
This statement fails to get the point. Brand new superluxury construction is being knocked up all over the City. The likes of Chinese billionaires, sheikhs and Russian gangsters are buying it up as a way to stash wealth, with no intention of ever meaningfully occupying them. There are two potential outcomes of a pied-a-terre tax that would be positives for NYC: First would be if the tax disincentivized the purchase of superluxury condominiums by those who don't plan to occupy them, thus disincentivizing the construction of such buildings and hopefully incentivizing the construction of housing for the middle class. Second would be if a pied-a-terre tax did not disincentivized the purchase of superluxury condominiums by those who don't plan to occupy them, it would at least contribute to the economy by adding significant money to the coffers of the City.
It's not as though the superluxury condominiums being purchased by Chinese billionaires, sheikhs and Russian gangsters and their ilk are in already-existing buildings. They are building this stuff fresh specifically for them to purchase. If they stop building superluxury buildings with gigantic multilevel floorthrough apartments that the super-rich buy and never inhabit, it's not like they're going to stop building. And, frankly, they can probably make just as much money selling the same space as ten apartments, if not more. But developers are going to continue going for the easy money so long as the market is there and they are allowed to do it.
posted by slkinsey at 8:20 AM on March 27, 2018 [3 favorites]
This statement fails to get the point. Brand new superluxury construction is being knocked up all over the City. The likes of Chinese billionaires, sheikhs and Russian gangsters are buying it up as a way to stash wealth, with no intention of ever meaningfully occupying them. There are two potential outcomes of a pied-a-terre tax that would be positives for NYC: First would be if the tax disincentivized the purchase of superluxury condominiums by those who don't plan to occupy them, thus disincentivizing the construction of such buildings and hopefully incentivizing the construction of housing for the middle class. Second would be if a pied-a-terre tax did not disincentivized the purchase of superluxury condominiums by those who don't plan to occupy them, it would at least contribute to the economy by adding significant money to the coffers of the City.
It's not as though the superluxury condominiums being purchased by Chinese billionaires, sheikhs and Russian gangsters and their ilk are in already-existing buildings. They are building this stuff fresh specifically for them to purchase. If they stop building superluxury buildings with gigantic multilevel floorthrough apartments that the super-rich buy and never inhabit, it's not like they're going to stop building. And, frankly, they can probably make just as much money selling the same space as ten apartments, if not more. But developers are going to continue going for the easy money so long as the market is there and they are allowed to do it.
posted by slkinsey at 8:20 AM on March 27, 2018 [3 favorites]
No use blaming 'Chinese billionaires, sheikhs and Russian gangsters' for their speculation on a handful of luxury condos. Drive them out with pitchforks and it will make absolutely no difference unless more housing is built.
Please to explain how one would "drive someone out with pitchforks" when they're never home in the first place.
The fact that they're not there, but the apartment they paid for IS there and is sitting empty, is the entire problem.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:51 AM on March 27, 2018 [4 favorites]
Please to explain how one would "drive someone out with pitchforks" when they're never home in the first place.
The fact that they're not there, but the apartment they paid for IS there and is sitting empty, is the entire problem.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:51 AM on March 27, 2018 [4 favorites]
I mean, I'm not saying I'm against torches and pitchforks, per se, but. . .
posted by slkinsey at 9:14 AM on March 27, 2018
posted by slkinsey at 9:14 AM on March 27, 2018
Filene's Basement went belly-up because of the delay.
Nah. It was actually a chain store by that point that went under when the economic recession hit in 2008. The closing lack of Boston store being open didn't help, but the entire company was structured poorly and once the crisis hit, the entire organization went under pretty quickly.
posted by jmauro at 9:21 AM on March 27, 2018
Nah. It was actually a chain store by that point that went under when the economic recession hit in 2008. The closing lack of Boston store being open didn't help, but the entire company was structured poorly and once the crisis hit, the entire organization went under pretty quickly.
posted by jmauro at 9:21 AM on March 27, 2018
The real retail killer, private equity firms
posted by The Whelk at 8:21 AM on March 29, 2018 [3 favorites]
posted by The Whelk at 8:21 AM on March 29, 2018 [3 favorites]
Are you facing eviction in NYC? You might have the right to free legal representation/
posted by The Whelk at 9:47 PM on April 2, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by The Whelk at 9:47 PM on April 2, 2018 [1 favorite]
I had to dig back through my pile of reads from last year to find it, but New York 2140 handled it with a heavy empty residence stock tax.
posted by tilde at 3:53 PM on April 3, 2018
posted by tilde at 3:53 PM on April 3, 2018
« Older No Fair League | Smokey & the Bandit Will Change Your Life Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by nirblegee at 9:50 AM on March 26, 2018 [3 favorites]