Residents finally moved into the gut-renovated Bushwick Initiative buildings across the street from me this weekend, four months after they were completed. Oh, the Bushwick Initiative? That’s where the City uses your tax money to fix up someone else’s private property for them, with a guarantee that all the people who lived there before can move back in afterward — with the same rent, of course. Where these families have been warehoused for the past two years, I can’t imagine, I mean — what are they, cattle? Don’t they have plans and dreams? They just live wherever the City plops them? What is the point of this?
Well, whatever, it seems like a great deal for everyone involved: the landlord gets his building overhauled for cheap and doesn’t even have to hire his own contractors; the tenants get fancy new apartments for the same rent which they can somehow — isn’t the point of regulated rent to help the poor? — then afford to fill with a truckfull of new furniture (see photo above); and the political bosses get to keep their subjects in Bushwick, while appearing far-sighted and magnanimous. Who am I missing? Oh yeah, the taxpayers who fund all of this, especially the losers who were unsavvy enough use their own damn money to invest in this neighborhood only to be spit in the face by this whole crooked, corrupt “Urban Renewal, Fourth Time’s a Charm!”
Is it even necessary to mention that Bushwick is exactly as rundown as its proportion of rent-regulated apartments would suggest? The Bushwick Initiative is just the City putting a sad little band-aid on the giant ax wound it created in New York’s housing situation.
The bright side is that ultimately, none of this matters. The desperate fight against the natural order of the market, though backed by practically unlimited pools of cash looted from middle class pockets, is failing on the most important front: the big picture. For all the City and “private” organization RBSCC‘s idiotic talk of “revitalizing commercial corridors” though this or that program, it’s happening without them as entrepreneurs take their own initiative. So they renovated a handful of crappy apartments here and there in an arbitrary bit of Bushwick? Well, sorry, no medal for them — developers and landlords have rehabbed and built thousands of units in Bushwick in the same time. Bureaucracy is so dumb and lumbering it doesn’t even realize its much-touted grand efforts are but a drop in the bucket compared to what ordinary people, working mostly in their own interest and of their own direction, have done for Bushwick.
That’s initiative.
FormerRidgewoodite February 27th, 2008 at 9:48 am
I understand that all too well. Some years back I lived in a 6 family typical railroad building. Well kept – updated kitchens/baths, etc. I (who worked for a living to pay my bills) had the same ratty old couch and livingroom furniture I had for years. Downstairs was a mother and adult daughter (very nice people, don’t get me wrong), but they knew how to play the system. They got some sort of “help” with the rent (not sure what kind of help, but it wasn’t Section 8, they did pay part of it themselves).
Anyway, when they moved in, they had brand new furniture delivered. Then 6 months later, I was coming down the stairs, and they were pulling the couch and some other furniture out, and I said, “Are you guys moving?”….she said, “No….I sold my Livingroom set”. The next day, a brand new livingroom set came in (as well as other furniture).
Then no joke….6 months later after that, the same scene happened again! Apparently, the city, or whatever program she was on would buy her new furniture, or they had to use whatever money they were getting towards furniture. It’s insane!
Again, don’t get me wrong, they were a pleasure to have in the building, really nice people….but I couldn’t help feeling a bit pissed off as I went into my apartment…sat on my same old ratty lumpy couch and downstairs, every 6 months they were getting money for new furniture….and then making money selling their old stuff (yeah, 6 months old) furniture besides!!
Jimmy Legs February 27th, 2008 at 10:20 am
hey you shoulda bought one of their living room sets!
ARMY February 27th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
why work…when I can probably live with out paying any type of rent!!! plus all the advacates & good doer hipsters helping us lowlifes; to received all types of social(handouts)programs in the world; without us ever bending down to p/u one (1) piece of gum wrapper from the sidewalk!!! maybe within a yr or two; we lowlifes can destroy again these renovated “Bushwick Initiative” projects. hay…”wha do “Initiative” means!??? ah wtf…we’ll continue to live our getto life style!!!
oh yea…we still hate you mother F#
Matt February 27th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
So is the same shitty deli moving back in there too? God knows that corner needs another half assed bodega.
Oh and is that a recent picture, Jeremy? Curious, because last I looked there was some lovely graffiti across the doors on the left.
Not to mention the wall along troutman. Stupid fucking kids and their tagging. I appreciate a good burner or artsy doodles, but tagging? And tagging a newly redone building? smf’s. why i aughtas…
Jeremy February 27th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Yes, it’s a fresh photo, they touched the place up for move-in — I think the Troutman side is still tagged to hell. They do that to all vacant property. As for the bodega, I doubt it’s moving back in — after all, commercial spaces aren’t rent regulated. I’m sure somebody would like to change that.
Lady February 27th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
To Army & FormerRidgwoodlite,
As a former worker for the city’s Department of Homeless Services:
While there are a few people that know how to exploit the numerous loopholes in the system, the overwhelming majority are those who are truly in need. The problem lies with Mayor Bloomberg, Bush, and other politicians who do very little to address the core problem of unaffordable housing. An appropriate analogy would be the “welfare cheat” of the Reagan era. Pushed by the media to anger the working class, this stereotype was little more than figment of Ronald’s demented imagination. Policies were enacted to rid America of the proposed scourge which resulted in periods of record homelessness.
FormerRidgewoodite February 27th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Well, the scenario I explained happened in the Early 90′s….while David Dinkins was still mayor (or soon after he left) and Bill Clinton was president….but yes, more can be done to help combat homelessness on all levels of government. But I don’t see how “rewarding” people who don’t even try and get out of their situation is the answer either.
There are PLENTY of people in need, but there are also PLENTY that exploit the system too. And that is nothing new under “Bush and Bloomberg”. It was just as bad if not worst under previous presidents and mayors.
Unaffordable housing is a severe problem, but also, that is also somewhat caused by the artificial market caused by 60 years of rent control and 30 years of Rent Stabilization. There are many that say that the problem those two programs were trying to combat are the same ones that may have even caused the problem further.
JustStopping BY February 27th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Former Ridgewoodite,
Actually for Section 8 vocuchers you do pay a portion of the rent. You pay a portion calculated as approximately 30% of your income. With the voucher, a housing authority then makes up the difference of the rent. There is also project-based Section 8 where a building gets a certain amount of subsidy but the tenant stills pays a certain amount. The difference between vocuhers and project based Section 8 is that the voucher holder can take the subsidy with them to a new apartment. I jsut wanted to give some information about Section 8 because it annoys when people use terminology incorrectly.
Tony T February 27th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Damn, are they still running these types of rackets? Things never change. Tax payers and the middle class will always get fucked in America. It’s the American way. Always has been. I know this sounds trite, but the best way to avoid governmental sodomy is to be above the system: Wealthy. The rich don’t pay payroll taxes. The rich have greater control in how they are taxed and in how their money is used. Let’s all get rich! By the way Jeremy, the first floor of the building on the left brings me way back. An old “Santero” used to live there and once I accompanied my mom on a visit for a spiritual cleansing. It was the scariest shit I had ever seen up until that point. I wonder if they still have witchdoctors in Bushwick?
FormerRidgewoodite February 27th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Wow, I wonder if places like that are still around! By the way speaking of santeria (and also to stay on topic of Bushwick), did you ever see the movie “The Believers”? It’s an old movie from the early 80′s, and had a scene filmed over by Broadway and Howard at that old Theater there before it was made into the Acorn School it is now. That used to be an abandoned movie theater, the Bushwick Theater, and they filmed inside and outside around there. There was some human sacrifice on the stage of the abandoned theater and in the scene, you see the maid come down the stairway from the unused side of the Gates Ave J station, next to the building that used to be there before McDonalds was built on that corner.
It’s a pretty good movie, was filmed around 1982 or so, but it gives you a good glimpse of the hellhole the neighborhood was back then too.
Tony T February 27th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Yep, I remember “The Believers”. I started a thread on this site last year about all of the movies filmed in Bushwick. I think we also included that movie in the list.
Jessie February 28th, 2008 at 12:05 am
You Americans are unreal- so obsessed with the idea (myth) that anyone can get ahead if they just roll up their sleeves and do a bit of honest hard work! What a joke- when you talk about the poor, hardly done by middle classes, it is in ignorance of the massive advantages they have had in life to get where they are. Access to tertiary education, employment, decent housing and living conditions and even access to the type of self-esteem and role models that the middle class have makes a huge difference in their capacity to “make it”.
In Australia, we have a much more relaxed welfare system, coupled with lower living expenses- the sky hasn’t fallen in yet. Yeah, we get the typical cries of “dole-bludger” (as welfare cheats are known here), but the reality is that being on the dole (welfare) is no slice of pie. Its hard work in and of itself, its degrading, depressing and draining. If someone is so work-shy that they’d rather jump through the considerable hoops neccessary to make their living out of welfare- as far as I’m concerned, they are welcome to it. In my mind, there is also a valid argument that some long-term unemployed are so because they are unemployable. And what are you going to do? Leave them out on the street to die? In the USA- apparently.
I am shocked by the self-righteousness of the American attitude- particularly with regards to rent assistance- the idea of spending a third of your income on rent before you get any assistance is INCREDIBLE. Here, a rule of thumb would be to spend about a quarter of your income on rent (whatever your bracket- determining the area and type of property you can afford). There is so much affluence in the west, why are you (and we, increasingly) so stingy about sharing it around a bit? Isn’t it everyone’s interests (and the ultimate dream of the industrial revolution and western capitalism) to work towards a healthy, educated, content population, who don’t have to work themselves into the ground or turn to crime to get by?
Armstrong February 28th, 2008 at 7:10 am
I totally support the Bushwick Initiative. Why shouldn’t we have a social support system/safety net comparable to Europe’s? As it stands now, our support system is primarily called JAIL.
Surely there are people who take advantage of the system, but these are exceptions, not the rule.
Jeremy’s just mad because it’s practically across the street from his house.
Armstrong February 28th, 2008 at 7:22 am
Bushwick Initiative helps buildings with absentee landlords and poor rent-stabilized tenants be renovated/maintained. There is evidence of its work all over the neighborhood which looks much more presentable than it did in 2000 when I moved out here.
Yes, one aspect of Bushwick’s revival is private property ownership. But for properties that still haven’t been able to pull themselves up from the malaise of the 70s, 80s, and 90s (no small number) the program is a salvation which also brings up the value of adjacent properties I might add.
One could argue that the answer is to get rid of rent stabilization and let market forces do their work. I’ll not indulge said argument however as I’ve yet to have my morning coffee.
derwood February 28th, 2008 at 10:21 am
as former ridgewoodite spoke earlier about these vouchers and other city programs such as rent control and rent stabilization perpetuate many of the housing issues that we have. how do u expect expect a landlord or anyone else(gov’t entity) for that matter to pay utilities or maintenance or repair in a building that is bringing in rent income from the 1960s. it is very basic math folks that i think even some of the pinkos on this site might be able to handle..here we go, try not to get all flustered..6 family building.oil bill 15k..that is just the oil,i won’t even discuss water,taxes,insurance, and repairs oh yeah and one of those things called a mortgage.now don’t get nervous. If rent control or rent stabilized tenants are paying $450 a month let’s say 2700 a month. (not to mention the joke of the 3% increase for lease renewal.3% of 450 yeah that goes a long way when oil costs u over $3 a gallon!!) how is the capitalist pig landlord going to afford to pay any bills on this building..he wont.then the building goes back to bank who doesnt want to deal with it either so they hand it over to the city.the city will then fix it up at tax payer expense put the same garbage back in and guess who will pay utilities and upkeep for this building? the taxpayer, it’s a beautiful thing, the mother country providing for all of her sheep, until the mother doesnt have any milk left.this will create what is called urban blight.you cannot perpetuate a system that doesnt factor in inflation, crazy oil pricing, out of control tax increases.econ 101, it has to work on paper!!why don’t commies understand this? havent we seen its byproducts? i wont even start to discuss the fraud in section 8 b/c the server for this site wouldnt be able to handle it.. just some thoughts.
Armstrong February 28th, 2008 at 10:59 am
by increasing taxes on the top 2% uber-wealthy (actually that’s national, NYC’s uberwealthy is probably a larger percentage) citizens to provide services, dork ass!
how about you consider directing some of your annoyance and entitlement towards people who have much more than they’ll ever need, rather than towards those hardly getting by?
derwood February 28th, 2008 at 11:18 am
dork ass.. im trying to find the definition for this one..i dont seem to b able to find it..if it means someone who doesnt think with his head up his ass then yes that might be right..so let me understand someone who worked hard all of his life should pay for others to live in one of the most expensive places on earth because..wait i’m using dork ass processing capacity..still cant figure this out..wait wait i got it..because we r all “entitled” to live wherever we want.got it.thanks for your help! i will pay double property taxes this quarter to enable others!
Jimmy Legs February 28th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
i might cite the type of advantages to be gained from a society in which the more-fortunate help out the less fortunate, but as usual since these benefits can’t easily be quantified (in monetary terms) so there’s no good way to prove them here. alas.
Becky February 28th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Pinkos? Commies? Capitalist pig? What year is it? Do you really talk like that? All the time? You should be put on display somewhere. It’s hilarious.
Ok, Econ 101? Super simplified: Rent control/stabilization makes building new housing units unprofitable. There are less units built causing housing shortages. Demand for housing increases. Rent prices increase for everyone.
derwood February 28th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
tongue placed firmly in cheek becky..
derwood February 28th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
and oh jeremy, i’ll tell you where they house these people..you pay their rent for them in another building..i had one of these tenants who we found out later on was defrauding the gov’t and eventually got expelled from the program when they discovered that all of her income docs were faked..by the end of the day she took about 40k in your tax dollars..
Jessie February 28th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
I was brought up on welfare- by a single mother (gasp!), cashed my first personal dole checque at the age of 15 (my cigarette and beer money), got rent assistance and student allowance in my early 20s. Because of this support my mother was able to stay at home for a few extra years before having to go back to work and spend time raising us properly- giving us the attention and love we needed to build a strong self esteem and keep us out of trouble. With extra assistance she was able to finish her studies, which in the next decade allowed her to go back to meaningful work with a much higher earning capacity (and thus tax paying capacity) than if she hadn’t finished school and continued being a house cleaner. With the assistance we got, and a government loan to go to college, my sister and I were able to get a good tertiary education at good universities, and similarly go into the work force with that advantage and earning/tax contributing capacity. I don’t begrudge anyone my tax dollars because I know what they mean for someone else’s life. Because of government support, where we started out in life did not dictate where we have ended up, and we can “contribute” more back into the system now than if our mum had been working two menial jobs to get by, and we had perhaps not finished school or had to work in menial jobs ourselves. Its in the economic interest of western societies to help lift up as many of their citizens as possible. Australia is not perfect, but we have no where near the level of homelessness, crime or urban decay that the USA seems to have, because even our conservative governments recognise that much of people’s success in life is based on luck and circumstance and the more we can help people’s “luck” along, the better off we all are.
If free-market capitalism is so self-maintaining, why are western governments constantly having to financially prop it up? Because they know how cruel it is and that they would be unelectable if they didn’t cushion people from its full effect.
We have a rental crisis in Melbourne at the moment, and far from being due to the large amount of council housing in the inner city, its due to the over-inflated property market- people paying way too much for investment properties they are going to rent out and flip in a couple of years, rather than make their home. They borrow heaps of cheap money and charge rent up the wazoo.
Its all about to come crashing down, and you’ll see our governments bailing out the banks left right and centre, no doubt. So much for a free market.
Jeremy February 28th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
The Bushwick Initiative’s supporters think the program can arrest the gentrification process, when as I pointed out, it is but a drop in the bucket compared to private initiatives, and so its effect in the struggle against gentrification, all things being equal, is also a drop in the bucket.
But all things are not equal: the Bushwick Initiative ends up, long term, to the advantage of property owners in the neighborhood, just in a less-efficient way. It makes the streets more attractive, and if you have to choose a building full of welfare recipients that is falling apart and one that is stunning, you of course would choose the stunning one.
Which brings us, in continuing with the theme of speculation on people’s motivations, to the reason Armstrong is in such enthusiastic favor of the BI. It will actually bring the effect he most wants, as he has an aesthetic preference in regard to moderated gentrification — some lucky renters will get to stay on and continue to give Bushwick that “flava” he likes, while the rest make way for just the right amount of upscaling that he can enjoy as an educated white man of certain tastes.
I do not think social safety nets are bad, just those I am forced to pay for. Why no state-run social safety net? Because every adult human being is equal, and we should all be expected to be responsible for ourselves. Does that mean I expect everyone to be fabulously wealthy in a free market? Fuck no. I live in the real world, not the imaginary one of dreamers who subscribe to the nirvana fallacy. That’s where you compare actual human limitations operating in the market to flawless superhuman actions operating as the government, and thus “prove” the superiority of government intervention.
Man, I digress a lot. Our Australian friend — writing from a .gov.au domain, I should add — thinks that welfare bum is a legitimate job. That people are “welcome” to sit there on their fat asses and laugh at all the losers who got up and went to work in the morning to pay for the Little Debbie cakes they eat for dinner. So why shouldn’t I also relish the idea of welfare ending and their useless trash ass having to decide between getting a job or eating out of dumpsters? The system filters these people out for us — if you are smart enough to “work” the system, you are smart enough to survive without the system.
For those who are poor simply because they are unbelievably dumb or they are disabled or whatever else, there are right now, and were in the past and will be in the future, private safety nets to get those people back on their feet or give them charity employment, or even simply care for them for the rest of their lives. That happens right now, it’s not a theoretical plan. And they work better because they are suited to, designed, for the people being helped. So, one-size-fits-all state-run social safety nets are inferior to those run by voluntary organizations. In addition, private charity declines when tax rates and/or government social spending increase(s). (Here’s just one study that concludes that the New Deal crowded out church social spending.) So state-run social safety nets are a failure all around, since 1) they are far less efficient (dollar for dollar as well as to the extent they are designed to the benefit of each needy individual) and 2) crowd out private initiatives.
The unrealistic dodge “leave them out on the street to die” is used to steer the debate into muddy waters. I won’t allow it to happen. People are not thrown out onto the street in wealthy societies, they are now and always have been cared for, with few exceptions. “All” the homeless are only shocking to us in Western, wealthy societies, when in reality they are but a minuscule percentage of the population. The only people who die of starvation or cold on the streets in this country are those too mentally ill to walk into the nearest soup kitchen or homeless shelter. It’s sad, but, again, humans are fallible, and the government doesn’t have a magic wand that makes mental illness and poverty disappear.
Jeremy February 28th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Jessie, you cannot compare your almost completely homogeneous society to the far more ethnically and culturally diverse United States — in citing the difference in our welfare systems as the reason for the United States’ relatively higher rate of crime/decay/homelessness you demonstrate your childishly simplistic view of the world. I’m happy to inform you that the world is far more complicated than you seem to think it is, and there are far more variables at work here than the fact that Australia dumps a fortune in dole money on whatever fat bum asks for it.
Also, tax revenue to the government is not a benefit to the economy, again happy to inform you.
Governments do not prop up the financial system, they fuck it up. All those bailouts simply prolong — and worsen — the inevitable crash. Booms themselves are caused by artificially cheap credit and money printed by — yep! — the government you love so much and to which you credit so much omniscience.
The most accurate part of your post is the last sentence — “So much for a free market.” Indeed. It has never existed and certainly does not now.
Jessie February 28th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Ok, fine, I have a “childishly simplistic view of the world”, whatever, but this: “almost completely homogeneous society to the far more ethnically and culturally diverse United States”
?????? You’re making big assumptions about my background for a start.
Australia is at least as ethnically and culturally diverse as the USA, comprehensively engaged with our majority Asian neighbours- in culture, education, industry and tourism- yes, we have a smaller population admittedly, but far less racism or (overt) class division.
Are you inferring, as you appear to be, that ethnic diversity is the root of US’s problems? Cos we’ve got diversity, multiculturalism, whatever you want to call it- its a melting pot for sure, but its a hell of a lot more relaxed than America.
Part of my point was that the American Cultural belief that any one can make it if they just work hard enough is part of the problem- because its not true. In fact, it’s not just not true, its cruel, misleading bullshit. Congratulations for working hard, btw. Lots of people in the world work hard- many of them get no reward whatsoever. Do they resent you as much as you resent welfare cheats? You betcha.
I agree with you that prolonging a crash makes it worse- I far from love the government, I was just pointing out that governments tend to take the bits of free market capitalism that suit them and leave the ugly stuff behind.
I don’t even know if that’s a bad thing, I just think its interesting that its biggest proponents (or most powerful) don’t seem to have faith in it doing its own thing.
And btw- here’s another couple of ugly stereotypes to add to your list: I’m a lowly public servant admin worker who in her spare time uses government (ie taxpayer) money to make art.
HA! Suck on that!
(I’m making it so easy for you!)
Jeremy February 29th, 2008 at 12:34 am
No, I am not saying that ethnic diversity is the root of American social problems (which are mostly in the past), I am simply noting just one factor that contributes, and I have made no assumptions about your background. The plain fact is, Australia is mostly English and Irish, and that is not so in the US. This is getting into irrelevancies.
More relevant: you are wrong about “making it” — unless you’re talking about being rich. Then of course, you can’t just work hard, you have to be exceptionally good in working hard. Or be unbelievably lucky. But make a regular living? So easy, at least in the US, to live at minimum wage, which of course the vast majority of hourly workers do not make. (They make more, in case that confused you.)
With regard to “free market capitalism,” which as I pointed out, does not exist, governments do not “leave the ugly stuff behind.” They CREATE the ugly stuff, or make mildly ugly stuff present in the human condition far worse.
You have made it quite easy, as your arguments are based on nothing so much as your unsophisticated understanding of basic economics — not to mention your comments read like a teenager’s text message omg4reelkthxbai!
Haha, your art is subsidized? God, there is no end to how much of a loser you are. Please post a photo of your so-called art, I would love to see how much it sucks.
Jessie February 29th, 2008 at 1:23 am
Oh, I’m very sure you’d choke on your own vomit if i posted a link to my art- I’ll save you the hassle. And I’m a fucking video artist at that!
I may as well shoot myself, huh?
I’m not offended by your abuse- even if I don’t quite understand why you are so angry. Its true that I know little of America’s welfare system, and I wouldn’t bother baiting you on specifics. I just believe in a government funded safety net- and I feel qualified to comment on cultural differences between the US and Australia, being acquainted with both (cultures, that is- having travelled in the US, known many americans and had your culture shoved down my throat virtually from the moment I could breath).
This blog is interesting to me, because Melbourne, where I live, is undergoing much inner-city gentrification, but with less government interference, and more at the mercy of the market.
There are many different issues at play in my city, and some of them are admittedly not comparable.
So I might leave it there- I’m not going to take personal pot shots at you because I don’t know anything about you, but clearly that is the path you are heading down. “Idiot”, “loser”, “fat bum” (that means something different in aus btw), “trash ass”- these are clearly the verbal tools of a dispassionate sophisticate- unlike the childish teenager I clearly am.
Jeremy February 29th, 2008 at 1:34 am
My abuse? Okay, I said you’re a loser, but you pretty much begged me to say it. Ultimately, none of this disqualifies my arguments, which you clearly aren’t able to digest. You “believe in” a government-funded safety net: that’s a perfect phrase to describe the mystical thinking that allows people to trust the state to do better than the natural order.
Anyway, let’s bring the topic back to the Bushwick Initiative, if people aren’t already turned off by all this digression.
Armstrong February 29th, 2008 at 10:26 am
blow it out your wazoo becky. u think housing prices went down or stayed the same when boston got rid of rent stabilization? rents skyrocketed.
Armstrong February 29th, 2008 at 10:27 am
are you in the top 2% of earners derwood-dorkass? I doubt it. u too, can blow it out your wazoo. that means asshole, if you need help.
Armstrong February 29th, 2008 at 10:37 am
finally, to retire the snark in me for the moment, I was basically saying that since rent stabilization isn’t going anywhere anytime soon; and yes, it does get in the way of landlords turning a profit, why not support a program of this type which helps improve these buildings thus improving the value of surrounding properties as well.
if the ends justifies the means, we can all sit here bitching about it apparently. the simple fact is, with one million plus rent-stabilized apartments in the city, I doubt the program will be ending anytime soon.
derwood February 29th, 2008 at 11:46 am
touchy touchy..lets not be so presumptious armstrong..and what if am in the top 2%..would that make me evil …oh yeah and look how many of those apts. come out of rent stabilization every year its time will come in this city..
FormerRidgewoodite February 29th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
What Becky said about rent control and stabilization is correct.
However, once you have it, and it’s 60 years now of rent control, and 30 years of stabilization, it is hard to get rid of it over night. The damage was already done over those 60 years. It can’t be corrected immediately.
longtime in the hood February 29th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
section-8 and other programs are driving up the rents in bushwick, most hipsters cant afford what section-8 pays a landlord. a landlord must consider the the lower maintence hipsters verses the high paying lazy for the most part section-8 people. hipsters pay government dependents play. Call your local politians and bitch they are very attentive. Most communitees in manhatten and other parts of brooklyn fight not to get low income freeloaders trashing their quality of life.
Tony T February 29th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Jessie…your upbringing sounds similar to mine. I’m happy to see you made the best of your life and decided to get off the dole and contribute to society in both your art and labor. I left the states many years ago and now live in Japan. The nice thing about living here is that I have many Aussie friends and have learned much about your culture. I find most Aussies to be a bunch of degenerate drunks with a twisted sense of entitlement. They are foul mouthed and the women are about as attractive as 19th century cockney wenches. But I love them all. If Aussies never existed, we’d have to make them up. Now, how did it feel to read these blatant generalizations? Not good huh? You waltz in here and in one post called Americans ignorant and self-righteous and then you wonder why Jeremy took offense? Leave American-bashing to the Americans. We are sufficiently self-deprecating thank you. Instead, why don’t you share some of the positive aspects of the Australian social welfare system and offer ideas (in a respectful manner) on how we can improve our system?
Armstrong March 3rd, 2008 at 12:28 pm
I’m a socialist basically. I’ll come right out with it. Our American society and reputation? Going straight down the toilet. Infant mortality, healthcare, education.. all social indicators are going down as we reach the culmination of the failures of our healthcare and education systems.
Tourism across the world is going up, but is going down in America as we are seen increasingly in the world as hostile to outsiders. Without seriously considering a European style social safety net and some redistribution of wealth, we are heading toward a third-world social strata.
Are these problems the result of lazy poor people? Perhaps they add something to them. And everyone should be encouraged to make a contribution to society to the best of their ability.
Dare I say that entitled greedy rich people share more of the blame for our current circumstances? I doubt anyone on this blog is independently wealthy. And there’s the rub..
Rather than directing some of your animosity towards the welfare that corporations get or the tax breaks. The middle classes instead direct their disdain to those less fortunate around them. That’s what I’m seeing here quite often.
Be grateful that I’m here to stick my foot in your craw, otherwise: who are you bitching to? Yourselves? You sound like a bunch of insular soccer moms in some suburb crying about your land values and the “coloreds.”
I find it highly unimaginative to sit around bitching about the poor. You don’t know these people or their lives. Take your ire to those above you and demand that the incredibly wealthy give more. Otherwise, you’re just a bunch of bullies!
Armstrong March 3rd, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Additionally I feel the pain of those who bitch about rent stabilized apartments. Before I had one, I was insanely jealous as well. Now I have one. Hooray for me. I don’t agree that areas should be totally divided by economic status.
If that’s what you want, move to some gated community in the fucking suburbs. It’s depressing to see that this is the new New York: cabals of careerists and hard-hearted property owners.
The majority of people on welfare don’t want to be on it and are not taking advantage of it. Christ, we live in a society that gives so little.
It’s not that making money is a bad thing guys. I love it myself. Just try and find your fucking souls and be a little more magnanimous eh?
Ray March 3rd, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Armstrong, you’ve highlighted somewhat my own reasoning behind not complaining. To put it plainly: I see nothing to complain about. I like the direction the world is going and look forward to the future. There are millions of others like me.
I don’t know if America is going down the tubes and frankly I don’t care. If we decline, some other country will replace us at the top, and it won’t change a thing. Goods and services will continue to get cheaper and more affordable for the average person. One of the THOUSANDS of benefits of a globalized economy is that there doesn’t have to be a central hub anymore.
Armstrong March 3rd, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Word to that. I often think: let the Chinese and a unified Europe take the prize for awhile.
I do love my country though and it’s sad to me that our quality of life as a whole is really shrinking when compared to Europe, Japan, etc.
Ray March 3rd, 2008 at 6:53 pm
That’s just another way of saying our standard of living isn’t growing as fast as theirs. The difference in standard of living is minor. The only people I feel sorry for are those who obsess over national report cards and gloomy predictions out of context. I look back at history as a whole and observe that we’ve been on an upward trend all along, albeit a rocky one. That sense of impending doom you feel is an instinct that’s been with humanity since the dawn of time. We’ll always worry about the future. When we’ve cured disease, poverty, war, and even death, we’ll stay up at night worrying about whether sparrows truly enjoy the taste of caterpillars, or if they’re just making do.
Armstrong March 3rd, 2008 at 7:11 pm
I don’t agree with you Ray. I would be surprised if you’ve ever been to Europe.
I also don’t see keeping up on current events as a character flaw… I do however, see willful ignorance as one.
Ray March 3rd, 2008 at 8:20 pm
I lived in the Netherlands for a year. It was great. America’s better.
Sorry, but the worst thing about the US is what it does to other countries; ergo, I’ll never move to Iraq, for example (I’ll skip to another country if I hear so much as a whisper of a military draft). I’m not sure what the second-worst thing about the US is; I haven’t thought about it. As our immigration rates attest, America meets the needs of its people, most by private mechanisms and some the government. To express whether less needs should be met by private institutions and more by the government is really to express a preference, as would be considerations of whether a poor person or a rich person should get another dollar.
It’s the fact that I’ve kept up with current events that I have the opinions that I have. If only I’d paid more attention in college, I might be enlightened enough to know which news stories to read and which to avoid for optimum depression. Do you suspect all dissenting opinions to be born of willful ignorance?
Armstrong March 4th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
No I don’t actually. And I respect someone’s desire to filter information in this day and age. Taking in the news all day long is a recipe for depression if there ever was one.
More than anything, my comments are in contest with some of the attitudes expressed here and in other posts. Everyone can of course have their opinions. God knows I have mine.
Andrew March 7th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
How is every adult human being equal? What’s your definition of equality? I’d like to know; feel free to send me an email Jeremy, if you’d prefer not to post it here.
Jeremy March 11th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Aw, Armstrong, a socialist! That’s adorable. I know a few of those. I think it’s nice to have a spiritual side.
American reputation is going down the toilet because of the hideous things our government does. Note that it is not for the things our government does NOT do. The US is not anywhere near third world conditions, and I find it uproarious that anyone would say such a thing. Even if it were true, I fail to see how a European-style safety net is the magic wand to reverse this alleged trend, especially because as I indicated above, state safety nets are inferior to voluntary ones.
As for the “top 2%”: they funded things like the Visiting Nurse Service of NY, libraries and museums across the country, Habitat for Humanity, etc., and still give billions to charity today. So I can only guess that your gripe beyond that is that they don’t simply have the poorest bit of society living like the middle class? Neither does the state — here or in Europe or anywhere. And you’ll have a hard time convincing anyone that they should.
“Dare I say that entitled greedy rich people share more of the blame for our current circumstances?” — Dare to say anything you want, but rich people in their capacity as rich are not to blame — rich people in their capacity as RULERS are to blame. The vehicle they use to rule is the one you want to have more power. Bizarre.
“Additionally I feel the pain of those who bitch about rent stabilized apartments. Before I had one, I was insanely jealous as well. Now I have one. Hooray for me.” — Why should I be jealous of people who live in stabilized apartments, most of which are shitholes? Why should I be jealous of people who are so deluded as to think scoring a stabilized apartment is an “investment”? I pity them. However, I do congratulate people I know who score stabilized apartments they intend to live in for a few years. So, no, my opposition to rent regulation is mostly from the point of view of efficiency, and only a little from that of justice.
“I don’t agree that areas should be totally divided by economic status.” — Again, you express a personal preference with no objective value. People eat the food they can afford. People wear the clothing they can afford. And people live where they can afford. There is absolutely no reason to advocate enforced geographic “economic diversity” except to satisfy your hunger to engineer society. People are not your pawns.
“Just try and find your fucking souls and be a little more magnanimous eh?” — You’re such a good person, Armstrong. You wish the state would just tell everyone what to do so we don’t have to wring our hands dealing with all these decisions and choices!
Yes, I am “hardhearted,” as you say, but that does not change the fact that voluntary initiatives (the market) provide for people far better than coercive initiatives (the state). My attitude toward the stupid and lazy does not change the fabric of reality. I personally think charity is a disincentive and in most cases should not be extended. Fortunately for the dumb and crippled and lazy, the market doesn’t give a shit what I think, and people continue to spend their money on making themselves feel good through charity.
And actually, laziness has nothing to do with measuring standard of living — just as monetary wealth does not. I am INCREDIBLY lazy — I only do as much work as it takes to not get fired. I have zero work ethic. I value leisure time far more than many material goods. Would I like both? Yes. Am I willing to work for it? No. And that’s okay. Now, since I’m also not stupid, I have funneled whatever little money I make into wealth-generating and -sustaining assets, which just make my laziness that much easier and more comfortable. But even those with minimal intelligence can work hourly their whole lives in a small town and retire modestly in a home they own. Life is a breeze!
The point is we live in such an advanced time, even hampered as we are by onerous regulation, that we can be fat lazy slobs who hardly work at all and still make an okay living! It only gets better as technology improves.
The only truly cruel thing, if you do indeed care for the poor, is to demand more socialism, so that overall people have less choice and less wealth.
Jeremy March 11th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
As for patriotism, I’m with Ray — I don’t care if America is #1 rah rah rah. If America split into 1000+ city states tomorrow I’d throw a party and refer to myself as a New York citizen. Sometimes it’s better to move on to new technology than to bother upgrading an old hunk of junk.
Armstrong March 11th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
I agree that the US is getting too big to be governed collectively effectively. I think we should have let the south go in the Civil War.
As a property owner in a (by no small majority) poor area, I think you might want to explore some gratitude for anything that improves the neighborhood and your property values, government funded and initialized, or not.
As for the rest of it Jeremy, I luvs ya but hey, I do believe you’re only in your twenties with limited life experience, you’ve been in NYC only a couple years (hardly an authority on anything Bushwick or NYC related) and finally.. you’re from Florida.
The way I see it, you can’t help what you are. You’re probably from a family of Bush supporters, most likely a member of the Log Cabin (gay) Republicans, purposefully obnoxious, and so I’ll stop wasting my breath and drop the argument.
You win. xoxoxo
Jeremy March 11th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
So all you got is the “what do you know you’re only x age” retort. Old people have been saying that to me since I was “too opinionated” as a teenager. Take your (mostly incorrect) libel and cram it.
ben August 1st, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Some of the shit you guys wrote here reeks of blind optimism. There is a huge bottle-neck approaching—E.O. Wilson, Harvard Biologist, nobel laureate(sp?lol) refers to it as the “sixth extinction”—yeah something big is coming, but it probably wont kill off everyone, just those who can’t protect themselves….
Sharon January 13th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
I am without words for what you have written jeremysapienza about these buildings. You did not do a good background check in your wrong information about these buildings. These buildings are part of 18 buildings in bushwick that residents fought and stood together for them to become a co-op and are only months away from owning there own home. The rent was is not the same. There was no new furniture either. So please get you information correct before you try to make this so called article.
Jeremy Sapienza January 13th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
You’re right, I was wrong about these particular properties, they are co-ops, not rentals (though they were indeed sponsored by Vito Lopez’s patronage organization RBSCC). But I was not wrong about the Bushwick Initiative in general — it is at best impotent, at worst crooked.