Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Pool_Shark t1_j1z5m8n wrote

Reply to comment by Myske1 in Opinion: New York finally has momentum on housing and it’s time for a breakthrough by King-of-New-York

These YIMBYs claim they want housing prices to go down but when you mention other issues like Airbnb’s, vacancy taxes, or converting office buildings they get offended.

There is an agenda here and it’s not to drive down prices for the average person.

−5

michaelmvm t1_j1z8shu wrote

we have a shortage of over 500,000 homes in nyc. there are not anywhere close to 500,000 vacant units + airbnbs. and office conversions, while they absolutely should be done, are more expensive than just building more housing.

21

mdervin t1_j1zh8gw wrote

>These YIMBYs claim they want housing prices to go down but when you mention other issues like Airbnb’s, vacancy taxes, or converting office buildings they get offended.

Citation needed.

11

Pool_Shark t1_j1zihwi wrote

Browse Reddit for more than a week

−11

throws_rocks_at_cars t1_j1zdgp5 wrote

I am mega yimby and i am absolutely not offended by those proposals, and I can’t think of anyone who is. Those are all good things that almost all yimbys support.

9

George4Mayor86 t1_j2010se wrote

No we don’t? I think office-to-housing conversions are very promising, though they are more expensive than people tend to think.

5

D14DFF0B t1_j1z7k1q wrote

> Airbnb’s

These are already illegal for short-term stays. I don't see your point

> vacancy taxes

How would this work exactly? Would every owner have to "check in" on an app every day proving their location?

> converting office buildings

There are many obstacles to this on a broad scale. Where it make sense, we should do it.

4

Brambleshire t1_j1zdbkq wrote

case in point.

0

D14DFF0B t1_j1zdff4 wrote

Yeah, I'm super offended you got me!

5

Brambleshire t1_j1zffnp wrote

What is your motivation for being fine with luxury housing, but concerns over airbnb etc is real shit? Are you a developer or landlord yourself?

−2

D14DFF0B t1_j1zhxe4 wrote

I'm fine with luxury housing because all new housing is good. We should have a lot more of it.

I don't think short-term rentals are good.

I'm not a landlord or developer.

3

Brambleshire t1_j1zm2hm wrote

But why do you think it HAS to be luxury? What if i told you we could build mountains of affordable housing without displacing people? You'll probably tell me it's not possible.

Its all these laissez-faire evangelists who pretend that the "free" market is god and we just have to build luxury cuz that's what developers want 🤷🏻‍♂️.

−2

D14DFF0B t1_j1zqk9o wrote

Where did I say that?

I just want to remove restrictions on building. There will be more "luxury" apartments build in on the UWS and Chelsea. And there were will be cheaper units built in the outer boroughs.

6

Brambleshire t1_j1zx2ov wrote

Your saying it right there. Your saying the inner city should be all luxury and everyone who isn't rich should be pushed out to the outer boroughs and your perfectly ok with that.

−1

Pool_Shark t1_j1zc5e2 wrote

Lol if you think of being illegal stops airbnbs. Doesn’t matter what the law is if no one enforced it.

Vacancy taxes make it cost prohibitive to sit on property until you get someone willing to pay a high price. The city already has records of all apartments it’s a matter of adding a tax if they are vacant for x amount of time.

−1

D14DFF0B t1_j1zci61 wrote

Again, how do propose to know the vacancy status of each and every apartment in the city?

5

Pool_Shark t1_j1zirus wrote

Because it’s all in taxes. Rent is income that landlords have to report. I’m sure there are plenty of other records for each unit as well

1

ForeignWin9265 t1_j1zca8e wrote

Converting old stock office building into residential should be the main priority

3

brianvan t1_j20jjed wrote

Funny you said that. It’s totally possible, at significant expense, to convert an office building to a residential tower that meets all current codes. Might get a few more buildings converted if you loosened regs and offered subsidies/financing. But at the end of the day, 3% of office buildings have been converted because office prices are starkly higher than home prices per square foot, and most landlords prefer to make more money (or hold out for more money while refinancing their mortgages). There’s more of a trend of buildings adapting to different commercial uses rather than making offices into homes.

There was a Times article about it. Today. https://t.co/RPxiSmYE2p (paywall waived)

City and state governments would get way more bang for the buck simply building new housing on available lots. There are literally empty lots all around NYC. But they’re privately owned, not for sale, not being developed (yet), and the state is terrified to use their eminent domain powers. I guess they prefer having a shelter system with tens of thousands of beds instead.

2

Anonymous1985388 t1_j1zp4dt wrote

Agreed. How long are we going to let all this vacant commercial space sit unused, before we take action and convert these to residential.

−1

koreamax t1_j20jw4d wrote

Let's see...converting office building at an insane expense to make homes that really don't feel like homes or build apartments that were originally purposed as homes?

3