If that were the issue rents in NYC would be cratering as all the rich people moved out. Yet NYC rents are much higher than here.

Anyone who cares more about the PD is also likely to not care at all about pedestrian safety based on their likely further right wing positioning. Unfortunately that's how it is these days. Who is a realistic mayor option that would be better?

The correct solution to that is to jail the corrupt individuals, not to get rid of red light cameras

And you'd be taking enough money out of the system from the asshole drivers to lower rent too.

Oh trust me they have a way of punishing people they don't like (pedestrians and cyclists)

Jersey City is hit or miss, some days everyone stops and other days Amy DeGise is everywhere.

I'd agree, though I'd rather rich homeowners downtown don't get to escape. I would make the tax on "everyone" but add a 500k deduction for primary residence

That is an actual "solution" people always bring up. "Fire your gun, that'll sure keep them away!"

These people have clearly never heard the countless stories of people making 100k+ in Brooklyn who are all like "yeah when I moved out here I heard gunshots all the time." If they can't afford the housing closer to their job they'll come here whether we like it or not, can either build new housing for them or let them take over existing housing.

No clue what you're getting at. Housing supply should be increased regardless of who lobbies against it

Apparently, the 4% rent control on >30 year old buildings that's already in place isn't the solution, based on how they pretend it doesn't exist.

There is no theory by which less of them results in lower rents for you and me.

People move here from NYC because of lower income taxes and more space; people also move here from outside the NYC metro because of better job opportunities. Location is the #1 determinant of whether someone moves, not whether there is new housing there. This is why gobs of millionaires live in crumbling old buildings in Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn.

If you don't build the yuppie fishtanks, the yuppies will simply outbid for your housing. Don't be mistaken and think they'll simply stay away - that's what they thought in San Francisco (and Manhattan and Brooklyn), and then the rich moved into the old housing, because they care about location and proximity to jobs, not whether the housing is new. They can always move in and gut renovate the inside, after all, or the landlord does it to take advantage of the higher rent they can pay.

Rentals are still needed, people who just moved and young students need a place to stay, people getting out of domestic abuse and such need a place to stay, also there should still be an option available for those who don't want to deal with maintenance if we're talking about an ideal society. The real problem is rent growth. If there was enough supply to stop rent growth then not only does renting becomes more appealing, there is also no reason to "invest in housing" at that point driving the investors out naturally.

The median 1 bed in the heights on Hotpads is 1850, cheapest is 1500.

In Houston the median is 1350 and you can easily find listings for 900-1100 in a walkable area like Montrose. Need to pay 1.5x the price to live in the Heights

It should certainly be investigated and action taken against them, how much it would help remains to be seen.

Of course we shouldn't entrust all new construction to giant companies.

That's just another form of restricted supply.

Missing middle housing should be legalized (and now is legalized across good portions of the city, and a number of small projects have been approved).

Why aren't those affordable, you ask? Because even small local developers play by supply and demand. Joe from down the street does not have any special interest in giving you a sweet deal. Plus they have to pay high land costs even if their construction winds up cheaper and they don't have amenities.

It's also the same principle behind new cars not being affordable while used cars are, you need to make enough new stuff that people start moving out of the old ones, thus lowering the price.

1. Northern NJ and NYC are in the same housing market. People living in NYC move here all the time (not to mention other states). It's because NYC doesn't build nearly enough for their population.

2. You disagreed with the statement that "housing is significantly more affordable relative to local incomes in places like Houston" and implied you have to go to Katy to find rent below 2k, which is just completely false and easily disproven with a quick trip to Zillow. Literally yesterday I considered moving to Houston for much cheaper housing prices.

The "taxes" excuse is the laziest one the apologists have. For some reason they never seem to explain why landlords in places the taxes didn't go up also raised rents.

The goalposts will always move. They won't settle until it's illegal to build anything. Then the rich people from Brooklyn will buy everything up instead of moving into new construction, and they'll still be pretending restricting supply works.

Here's a tip: your "mom and pop landlord" is also raising rents and already was well before the recent property tax increase. Look at old small buildings on StreetEasy. Look at the rent history. Bonus points for looking at NYC units where no such tax hike occurred yet the rent went up all the same.

What is this? A pair of comments with actual facts about the city tax abatement program instead of randomly generated nonsense? Mind blown

What's insane about that commenter is they keep insisting Fulop is handing out tax breaks when in reality he eliminated that practice. Just absolutely devoid of any touch with reality.

Say again with a straight face that Houston rents are as bad as NYC? That's the most hilarious thing I've read all day. Please do tell me where I can buy a 300k house in this area and find a rental for 1100 a month.

"trust me bro"

Because any time you say "supply and demand" on this subreddit certain people's heads explode. Yet they have no problem understanding it when it comes to food or car production. No one in their right mind would argue to stop the production of new cars to bring down car prices.

Collusion is bad, and also supply and demand is real.

You realize the share of investors in housing peaked in 2012-13?

And that Zillow famously wound down its home buying after taking significant losses on it, something big enough to make national news last summer?

And that small to midsized landlords make just as much profit per unit as large landlords?

There is only one solution and it's getting New York City to build enough housing so their residents stop moving here. If that happened, Jersey City's high building rate would lead to stable prices just as it did in Minneapolis. Problem is Minneapolis is the largest city in their region and Jersey City is not even close. As for Hoboken they don't build enough either and it's no surprise there are no neighborhoods like Greenville or Bergen Lafayette or McGinley Square still standing there.