Quote:
Originally Posted by goofyballer
I think you're blowing up one hyperbolic sentence out of context in a piece that, on the whole, recognizes how lucky his situation is and is focusing more on those who are not as fortunate as him. For example:
He is obviously not complaining about his own situation here. He's saying, correctly, that all this development has not brought about positive change for those who aren't in his situation, because the development isn't for them, it's for foreign billionaires to park their money into or whatever.
Re: neighborhoods - he is also saying that Mr. Family Business Owner can't compete with CVS or Chase or whoever would occupy the same real estate when their storefront's rent is tripled at lease expiration. I recognize as a (former?) libertarian you're weary of Central Planning coming in and saying "we must have quotas of these types of quaint shops in this neighborhood", but at the same time, I can't imagine you endorse the opposite situation (which much more resembles reality) where only large corporations and chains can afford to locate in cities, and where in twenty years all those large corporations will be subsidiaries of Amazon anyway. And that's just for the libertarian in you, I know the city resident in you doesn't want this **** either.
What enraged me about the article was that it’s 100% bad faith rationalizations to convince himself that the anti-development policies he supports (and whose primary consequences he is insulated from by rent control) aren’t to blame for the problems he’s complaining about. But it’s all bull****. High rents don’t favor chain stores. Why would they? If anything, they favor luxury retail, not 7/11. Foreign buyers are not driving the rent crisis. The poor quality of MTA signaling equipment is not the fault of low tax rates on millionaires (he actually does try to link these issues!)
The central lie though is that NYC is too amenable to development, which it certainly is not. In 2016, Atlanta permitted almost as many new housing units as New York, despite being so much smaller. (1) The author is such a NIMBY that he’s scandalized by the idea of developing a bunch of junkyards into a mixed-use community with affordable housing. Now maybe that deal was corrupt and bad, but he’s upset that they’re building literally anything anywhere.
You are obviouslu correct that I don’t want my city or any city to be strangled by high rents. But I live in a normal city (to be fair, with fewer geographic and historic constraints) where we just build housing when there’s is demand for it, so the price stays anchored to cost of construction. We want Amazons new Ha to come because getting 50,000 high-paying jobs doesn’t mean that 50,000 current residents need to be ground out of their homes by crushing rents.
(1)
https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...oaring-prices/