Her housing section is just pure irony:

>Affordable, safe, and accessible housing is a human right, and communities, not real estate developers, should be prioritized in all neighborhood planning.

That's such typical fake-progressiveness and flat out dihonest.

We all know who benefits from NIMBY and from government efforts to curtail supply-side competition:

• It's not the people who pay for housing.
• It's the few powerful entities who are able (or have the "connections") to navigate the political obstacles to continue charging for housing.

>Organizing with tenant activists has provided the foundation for how she will approach the affordable housing crisis in the City.

She obviously wants everyone to continue being a tenant for life.

When the absolute best path to housing freedom and accumulation of wealth is helping people becoming homeowners. But why even go there if she can manage to keep everyone chained to their leases forever?

Her agenda is to explicitly perpetuate tenants struggles, because she benefits from that.

It's kind of bizarre that our fake-progressives suddenly act tough-on-crime whenever someone is acting in self-defense.

Thank you for that source.

I've edited my comment to include a source comparing the US with other developed nations. I've updated the comment to remove the section were I wrote NYC is under policed compared to other cities in the US.

We have a much much milder mass incarceration problem in NYC compared to the country as a whole (the incarceration rate in NYC is lower than Canada and Luxembourg, for example), but we also better policing than other cities in the US.

But we are still severely under-policed compared to other developed nations.

>It's also not clear that we need more police given that the police we do have aren't doing their jobs

The US is really under-policed compared to other developed nations. That's relative to total population and relative to crimes.

The under-policing in the US is actually one root cause that led to over incarceration (longer and more severe sentences to try to compensate for under-policing).

NYC is also under-policed compared to developed countries. The NYPD does a lot of work relative to the volume of crimes that it needs to deal with, compared to other developed nations.

Source: https://direct.mit.edu/ajle/article/doi/10.1162/ajle_a_00030/112647/THE-INJUSTICE-OF-UNDER-POLICING-IN-AMERICA1

Cops causing liabilities by misconduct should just be fired.

Hire 10x cops with the money saved. NYC is under-policed. We need more and better policing.

>Yes, this is exactly why college is so expensive right now. Guaranteed federal loans without any default option was supposed to make the barrier to entry easier, but instead just added a zero onto the cost.

College has became more expensive because it's a cartel of trophy diplomas.

Unlike housing, the physical limitation of a classroom size should practically not exist anymore.

With the multiplicative benefits of technology, the same lecturer could be teaching a class of thousands of students.

But instead of costs going down, it has actually went up.

Classes that require physical presence (such as labs) can scale a lot too. They mostly sit empty, whereas they could have lab sessions every waking hour of the week, with of gains of scale reducing the costs of education.

The rising costs of textbooks is another blatant broken market problem. Printing textbooks should be as cheap as ever now.

Doing little or nothing would be an improvement to what they currently do.

When those people gain any power, they actually enact laws and policies to make the problems worse (housing, jail conditions, mental health, homelessness, education, .....)

It's a disgrace to call those people progressive. They only want the appearance of being progressive. In reality, they are setting our society backwards.

That's why I call them fake-progressives and put "progressive" between quotes when referring to them.

>Wouldn’t making it easier to buy a home just result in higher purchasing prices as more people compete over the same number of available units?

If a tenant moves away from a lease into their recently acquired unit, no.

Because the change in supply will be basically neutral.

I'm with you.

A society in which people enter and honor their agreements in good faith can be a much more progressive society.

The fake-progressives have it completely backwards.

>Ownership itself wasn’t the problem, relaxing the conditions such as credit score requirements were though. It caused a lot of people who realistically couldn’t afford homes to sign up for one.

Even in the peak of the great financial crisis, NYC had less than 29,000 delinquent mortgages/foreclosures.

That shouldn't be the reason why people need to be handcuffed into a lease agreement with their landlord.

>Didn't end so well last time these types of requirements were eliminated.

Not in NYC. NYC's home ownership didn't even get close to the 60% leading to 2008.

The real world excesses in 2008 were greedy landlords who were leveraging mortgages and buying multiple properties, funded by rents.

>A bigger issue is that we have a shortage of housing stock. Corporate owners have no incentive to sell to renters because they have a captured customer base, and NIMBYism (in varied forms) has ensured that the shortage won’t be alleviated any time soon.

Absolutely.

NIMBY needs to end.

And the politicians who pretend to be "pro-tenant", but who are actually NIMBY, need to be exposed.

>I don’t know, we kind of fucked up when we made it easier for tenants to get home ownership and it all came crashing down in 2008.

Home ownership in NYC didn't even get close to 60% leading to 2008. High home ownership rate was absolutely not the issue with 2008.

Chart with home ownership rate per year: https://www.osc.state.ny.us/reports/homeownership-rates-new-york

>Should raise the millionaire tax to start at 2M properties and make it easier to refinance without tax for loans under 2M. 1M properties are actually avg units in most markets here.

I think we should make the following:

If you don't own any home, and you're currently renting in NYC (primary residency), then eliminate or greatly reduce those taxes.

If you already own multiple properties (maybe with some exception for families who are upgrading into a bigger home and may temporarily "own" two homes in the same year) or are buying via an LCC, you don't get any tax discount. Or even pay some extra.

Julie Won is a fake-progressive.

She's only pretending to care. Her actions indicate the opposite. She's more interested in perpetuating or worsening the housing problems instead of solving them.

These "negotiations" delayed the project for how long?

This is good news nonetheless.

Fake-progressives are not interested in housing as a fundamental human right. They are only pretending that they care.

What they actually want about "housing" is using it as a wedge to perpetuate two classes: tenants versus landlords. They profit on the tension and the division. So it's not a problem they actually want to solve. They actually desire to make the problem worse, and have been effectively enacting laws to that purpose.

To truly solve housing, renters should have a path towards home ownership, so that tenants never have to deal with a landlord again, and can boost wealth accumulation over time:

• Getting a mortgage should easier (stop requiring insane credit scores)
• Making the downpayment should be easier (requiring a lot less than 20%, for example)
• Transaction fees should be cheaper (broker fees/property transfer taxes/etc should all be reduced)

Edit: The homeownership rate in NYC is at 53%, which is lower than then 65% national average. Boosting homeownership rates is a very effective way to decrease wealth inequality.

Chart: https://www.bundesbank.de/resource/blob/822180/78ea25518984ca24537c6fbdf221a36e/mL/2020-30-abbildung-2-data.png

Republicans had no chance in hell to win NY. They were not even seriously trying, otherwise they would not nominate Zeldin.

To say that they were pushing crimes news to win votes is backwards. This is not a media feat.

It’s an incompetence feat by our NY state politicians ever since we acquired a super-majority control.

Crimes have been an increasing issue, and now the republicans are capitalizing on it. Can’t blame them for that.

It was obvious for everyone to see once Adams was elected that people care about safety.

But our fake-progressives have been trying to ignore the reality. Trying to blame the media is just another form of trying to avoid the reality.

On car deaths, NYC had fewer than 200 this year so far. Murders were twice as much.

But people in NYC are not worried about dying in a car accident nor being murdered. There’s a lot more violence than doesn’t involve someone dying.

Not everyone has the privilege of being a big young man, afford to take taxi/Uber everywhere or have a doorman and private security.

If you believe people care about safety just because of the media, that means you’re wildly disconnected from the reality of common people.

I’m not voting for Zeldin either because he is a piece of shit.

I like Nadler and Maloney (and even that 3rd candidate Patel), all of whom recognized the need for NY to have a dangerousness consideration in pre-trial bail decisions.

Not a question.

Just tell her I’m not voting for her because she has failed to take the rising crimes with the seriousness it deserves.

I pointed out a systematic racist outcome in NYC that has one root cause in the performative bullshit culture.

And my comment got deleted by the mods, because it did not conform to the performative bullshit.

Performative bullshit meets ballot. What do we get? Performative bullshit ballot measures.

It's time we start focusing on the fundamentals.

The color of our firefighters or MTA personnel should not take the front seat over service reliability and trustworthiness.

I'll these cases happened towards the end of De Blasio's administration, who has at best perpetuated and at worst made the jail situations worse. As I've learned from previous threads, it's pointless to argue with someone who believes De Blasio is a progressive hero of any kind.

We can agree to disagree again.