Recent comments in /f/jerseycity

Blecher_onthe_Hudson OP t1_j9pt2xf wrote

To be fair, when non-construction based gentrification takes place because people more affluent than the current residents move to an area for lower prices, all the rents and prices move up as the area becomes more desirable to the more affluent. But that population is only on the move because of limited supply leading to even higher prices where they're coming from.

2

Blecher_onthe_Hudson OP t1_j9ps4tj wrote

>You are literally denying reality.
>
>What you are saying goes against views that are widely held among economists and other housing experts.

Never stops the "socialists" who want to solve problems created by government market interference with more government interference.

3

objectimpermanence t1_j9ps0l6 wrote

Genius.

Hopefully our leaders keep this in mind the next time there's a shortage of food, fuel, or practically any other commodity.

Egg prices skyrocketing because an avian flu outbreak has killed a bunch of chickens? Clearly we shouldn't try to figure out how farmers can produce more eggs. Let's just institute price controls and the shortage will sort itself out. So what if this leads to more people going hungry? We can't let the capitalists win!

/s

5

candyghost OP t1_j9prtwf wrote

Assess the situation. Get a different perspective. Determine if it is clear that I had right of way. Try and make out his license plate. Report the infraction, for whatever that is worth.

​

> Just let it go and go on with your life.

In another comment I mention how this is the third time in a single month this has happened to me. So no, I'm not going on with my life. I deserve to not feel like drivers are trying to murder me when I go to my job or carry groceries home.

5

Blecher_onthe_Hudson OP t1_j9prsg1 wrote

Yes. When you've restricted development density, it makes sense to tear down an old single family on a 50x100 lot and put up 4 huge new homes in 2 Bayonne Boxes that are zoned as-of-right by R-1. If we got rid of R-1 you could build 12 or more homes on that same lot.

On the right are 8 conforming homes in 4 houses, on the left are 56 pre-war homes in 2 buildings on a nearly identical lot.

https://preview.redd.it/yrzup39hv0ka1.png?width=799&format=png&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=7203b1593c3bf431635f7b1fa6053fa50641b77a

13

JeromePowellAdmirer t1_j9prlw5 wrote

Beware of the user trying to use month-over-month rent data to "disprove" this, a one month sample is extremely noisy.

Not to mention New Rochelle is the one place in Westchester that builds the most! The rest of Westchester is terrible, but New Rochelle actually builds quite a bit of housing.

There's also a composition effect going on here.

The average rent is obviously going to go up if more of the sample consists of new units. But that doesn't say anything about what the old units are priced at!

Example:

Before building: 2000 new units at $3500, 2000 old units at $1650

After building: 3000 new units at $3500, 2000 old units at $1650

Average rents are higher after the construction, but no one actually saw a change in rent. The changes in rent are driven by NYC not building enough and people moving in from there, not the new construction itself, which only raises average rents through composition.

10

JeromePowellAdmirer t1_j9pqvsl wrote

I stopped reading as soon as they said "monthly rent change." That's such a noisy data set as to have absolutely zero relevance to the topic at hand. It takes a good 3-5 years to construct multifamily housing and the effects should be measured over a similar time span! They should also be measured on a metro area level, not a city level. Plus furthermore the Covid/remote work shock throws all the data out of whack.

4

candyghost OP t1_j9pqm4w wrote

I'm actually considering making a video compilation of cars running stop signs to send to the City Council and promote awareness. Unfortunately, this is really the last thing I want to spend my precious little spare time on, but I have the means and the motivation to do so...

7

objectimpermanence t1_j9pplwu wrote

You are literally denying reality.

What you are saying goes against the evidence that is generally accepted among economists and other housing experts.

Housing vacancy rates are near historic lows nationwide (source).

The pace at which new housing is built has lagged behind the household formation rate for years (source). The problem is particularly acute in coastal cities like NYC, Boston, and SF.

A constrained housing supply and low vacancy rates are good for landlords and existing homeowners, but they are bad for renters and prospective homebuyers.

These are basic economic facts that everyone in the real estate industry is aware of. These conditions form the basis of the investment thesis that professional real estate investors use to justify their housing investments.

>There are thousands upon thousands of empty apartments, condos and homes in every one of those markets.

Of course there are thousands of vacancies in NYC. It's a city with 3.5 million housing units. At any given point in time, some of those units will be vacant for any number of reasons. E.g., they're being turned over between tenants, they're being renovated, etc.

Sure, some of those housing units are kept intentionally empty as non-primary residences for the wealthy, but that is a small fraction of the total number of vacant units.

What matters is not the absolute number of vacancies, but the number of vacancies relative to the total number of housing units in a particular city in relation to the number of housing units in demand.

11