
Why Manhattan’s Skyscrapers Are Empty - pseudolus
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/american-housing-has-gone-insane/605005/
======
kerkeslager
What a surprise, yet another case where letting companies do whatever they
want leads to them serving themselves to the detriment of everyone else!

Simple solution: if a unit is vacant for 12 months, the city gets to use the
space for housing the homeless.

I suspect this wouldn't house the homeless, because property owners would do
everything in their power to not let this happen. Instead, we'd quickly see
rents drop so that supply actually connects with demand. Either way it's
better than what we're seeing.

But I'm sure the HN crowd will demand that we pay the rich to do the right
thing, since incentives are the only way we are allowed to do things and have
been working so well so far.

~~~
mancerayder
_Simple solution: if a unit is vacant for 12 months, the city gets to use the
space for housing the homeless._

That's an egregious suggestion.

OK, I had an empty apartment for years. It was too expensive to renovate it,
and I didn't want to get sued or scammed by tenants who would use small
violations to avoid paying rent, so it was empty. It's a small house with a
couple of apartments in it. What you're suggesting is straight up
expropriation. And you trust NYC government workers to do the right thing,
constitutional violations aside?

Is this the new norm of thinking? Turning our government into some
dictatorship who decides winners and losers? You'd have me personally go
bankrupt and your personal thinking process is, oh I bet those landlords will
fight tooth and nail?

Your stance is as miguided as it is deeply immoral.

~~~
kerkeslager
The government already decides winners and losers, and right now they're
deciding that the loers sleep outside in the middle of a winter storm system.
Deciding winners and losers is inherent to living under the rule of law. Your
only complaint here is that I'm saying government should decide that _you_
lose. Except _not really_ , because you still own a home you can rent out and
make money off of, while the so-called "winners" have to live in your crappy
unrenovated apartments. So really, your complaint is that you don't get to win
by as enormous a margin. Maybe if you play that tiny violin on a street corner
in the freezing cold you'll gain a sense of empathy for the homeless.

Let's not pretend this is some sort of moral argument when you're forcing
people to sleep on the street so you don't have to risk being scammed by
tenants.

~~~
mancerayder
_So really, your complaint is that you don 't get to win by as enormous a
margin. Maybe if you play that tiny violin on a street corner in the freezing
cold you'll gain a sense of empathy for the homeless.

Let's not pretend this is some sort of moral argument when you're forcing
people to sleep on the street so you don't have to risk being scammed by
tenants._

You're demonstrating a limited knowledge of both housing code and its
implications, and also the homeless problem.

Homeless break down into sheltered and unsheltered homeless. People on the
street, the unsheltered, are primarily people with mental and substance issues
not receiving help, and don't want to be in shelters. It's completely
irrelevant to a two family house being partly empty? Why not then requisition
a one family house forcibly and cut it in 10? Do you think that would solve
the issue? The City provides shelters, section 8, public housing and now
affordable housing.

Secondly no the government doesn't pick winners and losers as you put it. What
if the government decided to confiscate your car because some people can't
afford them to get to work? If you spend your life savings on a two family
house, you think the government can force you to lodge anyone they please?

Is there a single democratic country where people do this?

More importantly, you'd have a house owner go bankrupt out of spite, which is
what you demonstrate here? Violins, the violins aren't coming from me, if you
read our exchange.

People like yourself, who see no difference between a small landlord or
business owner and a huge landlord with 100 buildings or a corporation, are
what give even reasonable-minded social democrats the shivers.

------
Ancalagon
Unfortunately what has happened is we've reached such a tipping point of
inequality (and red tape) that it is no longer worth the investment of
catering to the middle class. The windfall from selling just one luxury
apartment is greater than the profits from selling ten middle class houses,
and there are enough plutocrats buying their daughters' tenth condos to make
selling the luxury apartments feasible on the market. Welcome to endgame
capitalism.

~~~
rosstex
This is sad, but makes sense to me.

------
perl4ever
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Everybody_works_but_the_v...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Everybody_works_but_the_vacant_lot_\(cropped\).jpg)

