Recent comments in /f/jerseycity

Dabookadaniel t1_j9q2jfi wrote

So there’s a constant stream of traffic and none of the cars stop for you. It sounds like you’re literally trapped on your block. You might need to contact the coast guard so they can air lift you out of there. That’s tough.

−2

candyghost OP t1_j9q13vj wrote

Yes, you're missing the point where if I waited for every single car to come to a complete stop, I would never cross because they DON'T STOP.

Also, I never said I was crossing blindly? I see car. Car sees me. Car doesn't stop. I went to preschool you guys, I'm not fucking stupid, but it's sure real nice of y'all to imply I am. :)

Edit: And--not that this matters to you trolls or these drivers--but I am not legally obligated as a pedestrian to wait for a car to stop at the stop sign. They are, however, obligated to wait for me.

4

jersey385 t1_j9pykza wrote

I’ve commented this once before, but it’s difficult for the mayor to respond when his mouth is full of Amy’s daddy’s penis. I will now retire this comment but anyone else who feels it may be appropriate on another thread should feel free to use it.

8

objectimpermanence t1_j9py529 wrote

Yes, wages have not kept up with productivity gains.

But there is more to the story than induced housing demand.

You can build all the new housing you want in Camden or Detroit or Gary, Indiana. But the presence of new housing by itself isn't enough to make people flock to live in those places. People want to live where there are jobs and economic opportunity.

The problem in the NYC metro area is pretty simple. There are tons of good jobs and lots of economic opportunity here. It's one of the most economically productive regions in the country. But we aren't building enough new housing to accommodate the people who want to live here.

All of that means that the NYC metro area ultimately isn't living up to its full potential. Opening a new business like a restaurant or a retail store is that much harder when you have to pay your workers enough to afford exorbitant rents that are propped up by exclusionary zoning rules.

Silicon Valley is an interesting example of that. There has been a massive transfer of wealth going on there from young tech workers to landlords and incumbent property owners due to rampant NIMBYism that has restricted the housing supply there. People who happened to buy a house there 40 years ago and then did nothing to it are walking away with millions of dollars today. It makes no sense.

5

DirectorBeneficial48 t1_j9pwv0t wrote

Your link is for homeowner vacancy throughout the nation, including rural areas. The discussion involves the inclusion of rentals, notably in cities, and I also included a response as to how there's not increased demand, merely an artificial scarcity and artificially raised rates. Way to gaslight, but you're just a shithead tossing out other stuff to obfuscate what the discussion is.

In fact, a huge percentage - over double that of the overall rate - of rent-stabilized units in NYC for example, remain empty, not for "renovation", but because landlords would rather wait until they can change the laws to remove rent controls. https://www.thecity.nyc/housing/2022/10/20/23413894/vacant-rent-stabilized-apartments-nyc

Getting back to the original discussion that you tried to derail, you can repeat the same line about MORE UNITS = LOWER RENTS all you like and go THIS IS SOME BASIC SHIT, but there's literally zero connection between the two. There's no housing market trend in that direction. None. Your theory does not match with reality.

Every example the OP pointed out, shows zero correlation between those two factors. I could go on and on and have in other threads. There's no correlation.

I'm sorry you're so fucking stupid that you keep repeating the same dumb shit over and over, but that's a you problem. What you want to be true and what is, simply aren't. The reality that we live in has demonstrably shown otherwise.

There's. No. Correlation.

−1

JeromePowellAdmirer t1_j9pv0rk wrote

Why banning construction won't do a thing but make it worse.

Has already played out in Manhattan and outer neighborhoods of San Francisco.

Most expensive places in America because when you refuse to build more supply, the rich will simply outcompete the poor for bad-quality housing and then renovate it on the inside. That is literally every expensive area of Manhattan. And the ones that don't get renovated, still get bid up anyways, because people don't choose where to move based on whether there's new housing there, else everyone would be moving to Williston ND where a bunch of oil boom housing from 5 years ago sits empty.

6

objectimpermanence t1_j9pup9f wrote

Yep, I wonder how many people realize that some of the greatest urban neighborhoods were built before contemporary zoning regulations were even a conceived.

Also, people love to rave about how European cities are designed and then they oppose changes to local zoning and building codes that would actually allow us to replicate that typology in new construction here.

2

candyghost OP t1_j9pujfl wrote

It really isn’t normal and certainly ought not to be. I have lived all around New York City for many years in places like Harlem, Union Square, Fort Greene, Gowanus, etc and never have I experienced anything like this. It’s dangerous and lame to shrug this off.

5

Whole-Campaign89 t1_j9pugal wrote

There was a nice little grove of trees there that they destroyed in order to facilitate whatever kind of work this is. You don't notice or appreciate little neighborhood embellishments like that until they are taken away.

8