• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Mamdani Publishes Names, Addresses of NYC Homeowners Facing New Pied-à-Terre Tax

Hans Blaster

Your turn, Atlanta!
Mar 11, 2017
26,532
19,008
56
USA
✟496,305.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
For a condo/apartment in NYC that's owned, setting a $1M property value threshold isn't just doxxing the "fat cats"
$1M is irrelevant. The tax is on properties valued over $5M that are used as a secondary residence. (It occurs to me that the penthouse at 721 Fifth Ave is over $5M and only lightly occupied.)
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
31,372
17,802
Here
✟1,647,476.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
$1M is irrelevant. The tax is on properties valued over $5M that are used as a secondary residence. (It occurs to me that the penthouse at 721 Fifth Ave is over $5M and only lightly occupied.)
$1M isn't irrelevant, did you read the details of the plan?

Class 1 properties (single family detached homes) have a threshold of $5 Million

Apartments, Co-ops, and Condos have a threshold of $1M



And as I noted earlier, $1M valuation doesn't mean "rich" in the NYC apartment and condo market. It likely means "person who bought it 20-30 years ago when prices weren't absurd"


Gotta have those city-run grocery stores with the 30% percent discount in the name of health, right?...which, if Michelle Obama's (well-intentioned, and well-meaning...props to her for trying -- and I mean that in a sincere non-snarky way) school lunch programs showed, even if offered completely free healthy food, a lot of people will throw it in the trash and go buy their own unhealthy food.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
45,433
14,016
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟1,024,803.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
You know what some cities do? They upgrade the poor housing, allowing the people who live in said housing to remain but in better housing. Win-win.
You mean spend big money to upgrade it and then not be able to recoup the cost because the people living there are poor? What incentive does that give contractors to do the upgrades?

That is a different problem that might be mitigated somewhat by taxing the rich.
Uh huh. Taxing the rich will supposedly create jobs, right?
This will be news to some, but the rich are already taxed, and increasing taxes is a method democratic politicians have used for a long time to solve problems, and it's never worked.

Ask the people force out of their houses and onto the streets by urban renewal how life is there.
As opposed to the slums where drug dealing and prostitution occured, and where crime was rampant to the point the police stopped responding to calls? They'd probably say it isn't all that different.
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
45,433
14,016
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟1,024,803.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I agree. Now we have to agree on what we do with the people who are evicted from housing that is to be upgraded. You first.
What do you mean by, "what we do with the people who are evicted"? Those people are individuals with their own lives. They aren't like furniture that you move out of one place and put in another. That seems to be the real issue here and that it's assumed that we need do everything for everyone. They have their own responsibilities. If I was ever evicted from an apartment I rented in the past, it would be up to me to find a new place to live. It is not up to my old landlord to find a place to "put me".
 
  • Like
Reactions: jacks
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Your turn, Atlanta!
Mar 11, 2017
26,532
19,008
56
USA
✟496,305.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
$1M isn't irrelevant, did you read the details of the plan?

Class 1 properties (single family detached homes) have a threshold of $5 Million

Apartments, Co-ops, and Condos have a threshold of $1M


I had not seen any such thing prior to your post, and after doing some digging it is not particularly relevant. (You've fallen for the "technically correct" definition that feeds your biases for the well to do.) Even condos and co-ops in small units are assessed as "Class 1" properties.


And as I noted earlier, $1M valuation doesn't mean "rich" in the NYC apartment and condo market. It likely means "person who bought it 20-30 years ago when prices weren't absurd"

Class 1 properties are assessed on comparable *sales*. (Min. $5M for tax)
The non Class 1 properties are assessed on comparable rental properties. This results in valuations that are several times lower (typically) than the *sales* prices for those condos on the market. The discrepancy is *larger* for better (pricier) properties. Despite the lower threshhold ($1 M) and higher tax rate in the first two years, NYC officials expect *HIGHER* revenue by shifting those "non class 1" properties to sale-based assessment with a higher threshold and lower tax rate) (In two years, all properties will be treated the same, $5M min, etc.)



Gotta have those city-run grocery stores with the 30% percent discount in the name of health, right?...which, if Michelle Obama's (well-intentioned, and well-meaning...props to her for trying -- and I mean that in a sincere non-snarky way) school lunch programs showed, even if offered completely free healthy food, a lot of people will throw it in the trash and go buy their own unhealthy food.
irrelevant
 
Upvote 0

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
30,579
17,374
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟509,951.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
It's like all taxes. We love them if they don't apply to us.

Not rich? Tax the rich. Not a home owner? Tax property owners. Have an electric car? Tax gasoline. On welfare? Tax income. Don't buy expensive cars/boats? Luxury tax. Don't smoke? Tax cigarettes. Don't drink? Tax alcohol. etc. etc. . Notice Mamdani didn't say to tax people who earn over $200K per year (He earns $259K) or those who get free housing from their jobs. (He lives in Gracie Mansion rent free.)

Lesson: Tax the other guy.
No.

But what about....tax the people who can easily afford it.
 
Upvote 0

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
30,579
17,374
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟509,951.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
Changing how the tip process operates in an app didn't "recover" anything. Read more about things before repeating what you see on Reddit.
Hiding and presetting for the purposes of limiting tipping for the contracted employees is bunk.

That changed saw a correlative drop of 79%. Once it was reversed, the money came back.

You have a problem with working people getting decent pay?

If you're going to be condescending toward another poster, it could have helped if you just actually explained what happenned instead of misrepresenting it yourself.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: NxNW
Upvote 0

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
30,579
17,374
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟509,951.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
  • Like
Reactions: DaisyDay
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Under the Southern Cross I stand...
Aug 19, 2018
25,963
18,061
73
Bondi
✟444,574.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
What do you mean by, "what we do with the people who are evicted"?
In the very post before the one I am replying to you called the type of housing that needed to be upgraded as 'slums'. Again, I am agreeing with you. They need to be improved. But we both know that people who live in the projects, who live in slums aren't doing it because it's an easy commute to the bank or it's quite handy for the beach, or the local restaurants are well worth a visit. They live in slums because they can't afford to live anywhere else. I'll assume that you agree with that. So...

...to upgrade a tenement you need to move all the people out while it's being done. They can't afford to live anywhere more expensive, so is there some vacant slum they can afford where you can house them until their old place has been brought up to scratch? Well, OK then. We can move them there for a couple of years and then they can move back into the old neighbourhood. But...hang on. The owners of the buildings have improved them. It's now an area that decent, law abiding people want to live. As opposed to a place where 'drug dealing and prostitution occured, and where crime was rampant to the point the police stopped responding to calls'.

Let's agree on something else! This new area, this updated, upgraded zone is now going to cost more to live in. So where do the people who used to live there go now? Yeah...I know, there aren't really any vacant slums to house people until all this happened. We just threw that in to get to this point. All the slums are now decent places to live. And all those who used to live there now have nowhere to go. And a lot end up on the street.

How do you solve this problem? I really am interested.
 
Upvote 0

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
44,587
21,667
Finger Lakes
✟383,903.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
That's why there's a distinction between which ones are rental properties, vs. which ones are just second-residence situations.
Apparently you are unaware of the gray market of rentals in NYC. Sure, legally there is a distinction, but the reality is that illegal rentals, sub-leases and Air B&B type rentals is a giant part of the housing reality. To simply assume that an apartment being listed as a secondary property means that it is reliably vacant for any part of the year is hopelessly naive.
If the list included every rental apartment in New York City that was owned by someone else, the csv would've had 2.4 million entries.
(plus, landlords in NYC as well as people who AirBnB/VRBO their units already pay tax remittances as applicable)

So we need to at least be honest about the scope of what this list is. This is a list of properties held by those who Mamdani and the DSA have deemed to be "potentially not paying their fair share", and has made public statements implying that.

"The best city in the world deserves the best parks, libraries, and schools in the world," Mamdani wrote on X. "That's only possible when we all pay our fair share."

Right from NYC's government website for the NYC Housing and Vacancy Survey


In 2023, a total of 82,380 units (36 percent) were not available for rent for two or more reasons. Of the 145,100 that were unavailable for only one reason, the most prevalent reason was that the unit was held for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use (58,810 units or 26 percent of all units not available for rent or sale)

View attachment 381887
It is a family friendly policy to charge people who own the place they live in as their primary residence less than other property owners. Why do you hate families?
 
Upvote 0

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
44,587
21,667
Finger Lakes
✟383,903.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I don't know NY law but wouldn't this stuff be accessible via a freedom of information request?
All anyone would have to do is check City Hall records which are accessible to the public. A FOIL request is overkill, somewhat expensive (there is a charge for each page) and a considerable wait depending on the backlog.
 
Upvote 0

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
44,587
21,667
Finger Lakes
✟383,903.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others

They couldn't even properly police it regarding units that were under the control of the city housing authority.
Even?! Buildings under NYCHA are generally ones that have been abandoned by their owners (often after decades of collecting rents without making repairs and maintenance) or taken over because of major issues (no heat, sporadic water, crumbling facade, etc.). Such buildings are prime for squatters.
...and do you think Mamdani's administration would ever side with a rich person over a squatter? Unlikely.
Ridiculous. No one likes actual squatters, as opposed to tenants on a rent strike who may be accused of squatting. Rich people get a ton of tax favors already. You seem to have little actual knowledge about this situation and put forth your suppositions as fact.
 
Upvote 0

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
44,587
21,667
Finger Lakes
✟383,903.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
And as I noted earlier, $1M valuation doesn't mean "rich" in the NYC apartment and condo market. It likely means "person who bought it 20-30 years ago when prices weren't absurd"
Are you kidding? 20-30 years ago the prices were absurd. Mortgage rates had come down from their late 80's high, but they were still oppressive.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
31,372
17,802
Here
✟1,647,476.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Are you kidding? 20-30 years ago the prices were absurd. Mortgage rates had come down from their late 80's high, but they were still oppressive.

In 2006, the median price per square foot was $320 for townhouses and $343 for condos and co-ops, according to a report from industry trade association Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY) at the time. Compare that to the median price per square foot for all homes in Brooklyn in the third quarter of 2016: $908, according to Corcoran.

Home prices in Brooklyn’s 11216 zip code — which covers the third of Bed Stuy closest to Clinton Hill and also about 40 blocks of Crown Heights — have increased 194 percent since 2004. That’s the largest gain out of any area in the country’s 300 largest cities. The median price for a single-family home in the nabe is now over $1 million.



At $320 per square foot, that means you could have bought a 900 sq foot condo in Brooklyn for $288k in 2006 (about $450k in today's dollars)

At the 2016 price per square foot rate, it was up to $820k for the same size place (or $1.1M in today's dollars)


So if someone purchased a condo/apartment back in early 2000's, they paid a much less absurd price than someone trying to by the same place from 2016-present.
 
Upvote 0

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
44,587
21,667
Finger Lakes
✟383,903.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You mean spend big money to upgrade it and then not be able to recoup the cost because the people living there are poor? What incentive does that give contractors to do the upgrades?
No, that isn't what I mean at all. If the upgrades are undertaken as part of municipal policy, then incentives are offered. Rental laws allow for increasing rents for capital expenses. Subsidies can be made available to maintain housing stock for the less wealthy. Most investors don't want to stop at recouping their investment, but prefer to make a killing.

Contractors get paid by whoever contracts them (unless they get fooled by someone such as Donald J Trump).
Uh huh. Taxing the rich will supposedly create jobs, right?
You misunderstood. My reply that taxing the rich would mitigate the problem was directed at the problem of urban decay, not lack of jobs.
This will be news to some, but the rich are already taxed, and increasing taxes is a method democratic politicians have used for a long time to solve problems, and it's never worked.
This may be news to some, but the truly rich have ways to avoid taxes to an amazing degree. It has actually worked historically that higher taxes mean more revenue (up to a point, which seems to be somewhere around 70% iirc).

What really has never worked is cutting taxes and revenue while increasing spending (only recommended to fight a prolonged bad recession).
As opposed to the slums where drug dealing and prostitution occured, and where crime was rampant to the point the police stopped responding to calls? They'd probably say it isn't all that different.
I lived in Hell's Kitchen just below Port Authority in the late 70s to early 90s. It is very different from living on the streets.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
31,372
17,802
Here
✟1,647,476.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Wow! So basically half of those units are not available for habitation despite actually having no one in there.

And that doesn't have an affect on market prices, I'm sure.


I'd venture a guess and say 50-100k units being vacant much of the time (and not being available for rent) in a city of 2.4 million rental units is less responsible for the upward pricing pressure than a bunch of other factors.

There's the obvious one, which is "it's a ton of people, and a finite amount of land"

And of those. How many people are opting to live in the city for occupational reasons or because they have to? vs. people insisting on living in the city for the "vibe" and wanting to be able to tell people "I live in New York City"? And getting a $2500/month tiny apartment in the city, vs. paying $1600 in one of the New Jersey burbs across the river and taking the 20 minute ferry or train in to the city?

The rent controlled units also create some upward pricing pressure for units that are in the same buildings as units that aren't rent controlled, and families basically camp on those units forever and pass them to the next generation (because why wouldn't they, obviously).

If I'm a landlord, and the units I have are split between rent controlled and not, and my expenses on everything are going up, but I have certain units that I'm not allowed to raise the rent on, the other non-controlled units are going to get the brunt of it.
 
Upvote 0

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
30,579
17,374
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟509,951.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
I'd venture a guess and say 50-100k units being vacant much of the time (and not being available for rent) in a city of 2.4 million rental units is less responsible for the upward pricing pressure than a bunch of other factors.

There's the obvious one, which is "it's a ton of people, and a finite amount of land"

And of those. How many people are opting to live in the city for occupational reasons or because they have to? vs. people insisting on living in the city for the "vibe" and wanting to be able to tell people "I live in New York City"? And getting a $2500/month tiny apartment in the city, vs. paying $1600 in one of the New Jersey burbs across the river and taking the 20 minute ferry or train in to the city?

The rent controlled units also create some upward pricing pressure for units that are in the same buildings as units that aren't rent controlled, and families basically camp on those units forever and pass them to the next generation (because why wouldn't they, obviously).

If I'm a landlord, and the units I have are split between rent controlled and not, and my expenses on everything are going up, but I have certain units that I'm not allowed to raise the rent on, the other non-controlled units are going to get the brunt of it.
There are about 16,000 rent control units. Seem almost hypocritical to bring them up after your first argument suggests that 3-7.5 TIMES that number doesn't have much of an affect on upward pricing pressure.
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
45,433
14,016
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟1,024,803.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Hiding and presetting for the purposes of limiting tipping for the contracted employees is bunk.

That changed saw a correlative drop of 79%. Once it was reversed, the money came back.

You have a problem with working people getting decent pay?

If you're going to be condescending toward another poster, it could have helped if you just actually explained what happenned instead of misrepresenting it yourself.
No, the money didn't come back. What happened was that people started tipping more after the change was made to the app. Making it sound as if the money was out there and being kept away from the workers, and now Mamdami comes along and "recovers" it is totally misleading.
Besides, tipping culture has gotten out of hand. Since Reddit is where we're getting our documentation from now, then looking to Youtube about tipping culture is just as valid as a means of refuting it. Try it. There's plenty to see there.
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
45,433
14,016
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟1,024,803.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
In the very post before the one I am replying to you called the type of housing that needed to be upgraded as 'slums'. Again, I am agreeing with you. They need to be improved. But we both know that people who live in the projects, who live in slums aren't doing it because it's an easy commute to the bank or it's quite handy for the beach, or the local restaurants are well worth a visit. They live in slums because they can't afford to live anywhere else. I'll assume that you agree with that. So...

...to upgrade a tenement you need to move all the people out while it's being done. They can't afford to live anywhere more expensive, so is there some vacant slum they can afford where you can house them until their old place has been brought up to scratch? Well, OK then. We can move them there for a couple of years and then they can move back into the old neighbourhood. But...hang on. The owners of the buildings have improved them. It's now an area that decent, law abiding people want to live. As opposed to a place where 'drug dealing and prostitution occured, and where crime was rampant to the point the police stopped responding to calls'.

Let's agree on something else! This new area, this updated, upgraded zone is now going to cost more to live in. So where do the people who used to live there go now? Yeah...I know, there aren't really any vacant slums to house people until all this happened. We just threw that in to get to this point. All the slums are now decent places to live. And all those who used to live there now have nowhere to go. And a lot end up on the street.

How do you solve this problem? I really am interested.
Buy them a bus ticket to a city to help populate the slums there?
 
Upvote 0

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
44,587
21,667
Finger Lakes
✟383,903.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Buy them a bus ticket to a city to help populate the slums there?
Then you have a new problem of filling the low paying jobs these people used to do.
 
Upvote 0