Seems taxing million-dollar homes in NYC is only the beginning

T. A. Gardner said:
There is if the land is available and somebody were to put something like a data center or three on it. With remote work now a thing, it's easier to live where you want rather than where you have to.

In part it is. When you can't develop rural areas, urban density is forced up and land costs go up in turn.
Click to expand...
Remote work certainly has allowed some people to live further out. But that was a very COVID thing and many firms are pushing back against it now.

Opening up rural land in a place like Nevada isn't going to bring down housing prices in the Bay Area. It can help on certain margins, but that's not what is going to move the needle. You don't hear a lot of "I'd move to a rural area if I could afford it".
 
cawacko said:
Remote work certainly has allowed some people to live further out. But that was a very COVID thing and many firms are pushing back against it now.

Opening up rural land in a place like Nevada isn't going to bring down housing prices in the Bay Area. It can help on certain margins, but that's not what is going to move the needle. You don't hear a lot of "I'd move to a rural area if I could afford it".
Click to expand...
On the other hand, it will privatize the land and then Nevada can slap property taxes on it while the owner can make improvements over time. That will make the land far more valuable than it being in federal hands and just sitting there unused and unproductive.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
On the other hand, it will privatize the land and then Nevada can slap property taxes on it while the owner can make improvements over time. That will make the land far more valuable than it being in federal hands and just sitting there unused and unproductive.
Click to expand...
Unlocking federal lands for housing is not a bad thing.

But that is not the answer for major markets who have under built for years/decades.
 
cawacko said:
And Jarod, if you really care about the environment build more density around transit in urban areas. It's closer to job centers and public transportation, which helps get people out of their cars.

But people, even those who claim to care about the environment, block it and new development occurs far outside the City. And people end up with hour to hour and a half commutes each way. That's no bueno for the environment.
Click to expand...
South Florida, costal region, is a solid 100 mile wall of high density, reaching inland further every day into the Everglades.
 
cawacko said:
Capitalism would take care of it if we let markets work. You can't put the massive restrictions we do on supply and then expect capitalism to solve affordability issues.

And environmentalism, CEQA, is arguably the biggest reason for California's housing crisis. And the ultimate irony is it was environmentalists who pushed for the anti-development measures in San Francisco, that resulted in massive sprawl and negative effects on the environment.

People vote with their feet and we see people leaving high costs supply constrained markets like New York and California for places like Florida. And if Florida takes the NY/California attitude towards development, you'll see a similar response.
Click to expand...
You really think capitalism would care an inch for the environment if there is a dime to be made?
 
Jarod said:
South Florida, costal region, is a solid 100 mile wall of high density, reaching inland further every day into the Everglades.
Click to expand...
If an areas population grows it can basically go one of two places, up (vertical) or out (sprawl).

If the environment is your concern then vertical should be your preference.
 
Jarod said:
You really think capitalism would care an inch for the environment if there is a dime to be made?
Click to expand...
Yes. In fact, capitalism cares far more about the environment than socialism ever will. Look at Chernobyl or the Gold King Mine disaster in Colorado. Government is unaccountable and can get away with massive environmental disasters while private companies--capitalists--get the shit sued out of them for one. Capitalists care because it will cost them money.
 
cawacko said:
If an areas population grows it can basically go one of two places, up (vertical) or out (sprawl).

If the environment is your concern then vertical should be your preference.
Click to expand...
Some areas should not grow. Highest density = more pollution. More congestion, more disease.
 
cawacko said:
If an areas population grows it can basically go one of two places, up (vertical) or out (sprawl).

If the environment is your concern then vertical should be your preference.
Click to expand...
South Florida can go up or north, or fill in more Everglades. We are doing all three.
 
T. A. Gardner said:

Seems taxing million-dollar homes in NYC is only the beginning​

Click to expand...
I sure as hell hope so. Something has got to be done to get America back on track...mostly, I am guessing, by making things fairer...by taking the plight of the "not very fortunate" Americans in mind.

I know, I know...you can find fault with what Mamdani and New york are doing. Well "finding fault" with proposals is no big deal, TA. Putting something out there that has no faults is a shit-load harder...perhaps even impossible.

We almost always have to settle for the plan or scheme that has as few or as non-devastating faults as possible.

Instead of finding faults with other ideas for making things fairer...why not propose some ideas that have fewer or less-devastating faults?
 
Jarod said:
Some areas should not grow. Highest density = more pollution. More congestion, more disease.
Click to expand...
There several different things going on in this post and your follow up.

Living in San Francisco we don't really have more diseases than other areas. I don't know that that is back up by facts.

The whole point of building density near public transportation in urban areas is people are more likely to use public transportation and less car use.
But yes, in growing areas it is inevitable there will be a certain level of more congestion. But a couple things with that. Simply moving that development further out in the suburbs or exurbs only increases congestion on the freeways as people now have longer commutes to their places of employment.

Another option is to push for slower growth. On top of that we close off our borders, or severely limit them, to both illegal and legal immigration. That puts less pressure on the need for new housing.

If we go that route there are trade offs however. Slower growth means a lower standard of living. Programs like S.S., which rely on growth to sustain it, will be affected.
 
Jarod said:
Good, the place is a victim of its own success. Supply and demand has been way to out of balance in NYC, way to many people are desperate to live there.
Click to expand...
I know of no one that is desperate to live in NYC.

Though I do know that if those folks exist, it is so they can hang with the people that Mamdani is likely to push out.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Yes. In fact, capitalism cares far more about the environment than socialism ever will. Look at Chernobyl or the Gold King Mine disaster in Colorado. Government is unaccountable and can get away with massive environmental disasters while private companies--capitalists--get the shit sued out of them for one. Capitalists care because it will cost them money.
Click to expand...
Not that it is relevant to the thread, but Chernobyl, if at all, would be an example of incompetence rather than any economic system, besides, no economy anywhere is pure capitalism/socialism, to think in such terms is irrelevant
 
Damocles said:
I know of no one that is desperate to live in NYC.

Though I do know that if those folks exist, it is so they can hang with the people that Mamdani is likely to push out.
Click to expand...
Never been there have you? Stop by any pub around Wall Street at happy hour on a Friday afternoon and you’ll see the place packed with aspiring brokers working in the area. Just like most major urban centers it is where the younger generations flock, and as Sinatra sang it describing NYC, “if you can make it there you can make it anywhere.”

And upstate is one of the prettiest State, nearly twenty percent is parks, largest park in the country is in New York
 
T. A. Gardner said:
NY's state government wants to slap a tax on all $1 million + cash home purchases now. Of course, this isn't going to work like they think it will. I can see purchasers of such homes slapping down say $990,000 in cash and taking out a mortgage on the rest then paying that off in full a year later avoiding the tax.


gothamist.com

Lawmakers plan tax on NYC cash home sales, as Hochul details pied-a-terre plan

The governor laid out the details of her proposed tax on NYC second homes, a month after she backed it.
gothamist.com gothamist.com

There's already specialty companies that will help New Yorkers avoid property and other taxes on their properties.

Ownwell: Lower Your Property Taxes

Save money on property taxes. With no upfront commitment, our local experts manage your appeal from start to finish. Pay just 25% of what you save. Start your appeal today.
www.ownwell.com www.ownwell.com

The Left never learns...
Click to expand...
What the fuck do you care? You'll never live in NYC. Just tell us when gas will go down to $3, bitch.
 
cawacko said:
There several different things going on in this post and your follow up.

Living in San Francisco we don't really have more diseases than other areas. I don't know that that is back up by facts.

The whole point of building density near public transportation in urban areas is people are more likely to use public transportation and less car use.
But yes, in growing areas it is inevitable there will be a certain level of more congestion. But a couple things with that. Simply moving that development further out in the suburbs or exurbs only increases congestion on the freeways as people now have longer commutes to their places of employment.

Another option is to push for slower growth. On top of that we close off our borders, or severely limit them, to both illegal and legal immigration. That puts less pressure on the need for new housing.

If we go that route there are trade offs however. Slower growth means a lower standard of living. Programs like S.S., which rely on growth to sustain it, will be affected.
Click to expand...
And you still need to open a good local history museum in San Francisco
 
archives said:
Never been there have you? Stop by any pub around Wall Street at happy hour on a Friday afternoon and you’ll see the place packed with aspiring brokers working in the area. Just like most major urban centers it is where the younger generations flock, and as Sinatra sang it describing NYC, “if you can make it there you can make it anywhere.”

And upstate is one of the prettiest State, nearly twenty percent is parks, largest park in the country is in New York
Click to expand...
I have definitely been there. Only folks from there or idiots that like lots of people think that just being there would make me want to stay. I was stationed at the NSA in Maryland. If I hadn't visited that area I would be a troglodyte.

I have visited every single US state, but one... I've been to all 48 contiguous continental states and Hawaii....

What I would do if I lived in that State and had to work in that city.... I would commute and live outside the city... Some of the best cowboys I know are from NY State.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top