tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35127482.post7043110490815447310..comments2023-12-18T23:37:53.203-08:00Comments on Save the Lower East Side!: Demolitionrobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10114555618686460805noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35127482.post-17274354756105151362008-12-15T13:43:00.000-08:002008-12-15T13:43:00.000-08:00Robhas any recommendations or policy come of this ...Rob<BR/><BR/>has any recommendations or policy come of this yet?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35127482.post-6727817491132104532008-09-11T12:15:00.000-07:002008-09-11T12:15:00.000-07:00tenants have invested their savings into the build...tenants have invested their savings into the buildings and neighborhoods they live in. it's called RENT. it's called TAXES. and quite honestly, it's a zero return investment, since most of the time we are paying for what should be luxuries but given subhuman living conditions instead. <BR/><BR/>I suggest that owners invest in us by paying their tenants to live in the shithole slum buildings that the vast majority of us live in.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35127482.post-41637063397669380662008-09-09T12:48:00.000-07:002008-09-09T12:48:00.000-07:00The stipend is in part a disincentive to such rede...The stipend is in part a disincentive to such redevelopment as would erode the stock of affordable housing. Affordable housing helps prevent our society from declining into the extremes of economic difference that, when we read about them in histories, shock and appall. <BR/><BR/>It's all about regulating to balance conflicting rights. Consider:<BR/><BR/>"No pharmaceutical company should be held responsible for dangerous side effects of a cheaper version of a drug it produces. You are a buyer; if it harms you, and you can't afford better quality, drop dead. <BR/><BR/>"Public transportation should not be responsible for getting you to your destination. You are a commuter. If you can't pay for a cab, walk."<BR/><BR/>Wherever the supply of wealthy renters is great, rent inequity will be magnified. That's why it is so damned expensive to live in New York. <BR/><BR/>Providing a public amenity engages certain responsibilities. If you take on the responsibility of housing people on your property, you have to accept the burden. The whole purpose of housing legislation is to balance property rights along with the interests of the housed. The balance should benefit our social fabric as an integral body politic and should protect the fundamental rights and interests of individuals.<BR/><BR/>You are a building owner. If you don't want to accept the responsibilities that accompany providing renters a secure home, go buy a commercial building. It's not like the government or the economy is forcing you to own residential buildings or any buildings.<BR/><BR/>Owning a multiple dwelling is not like owning a shoe. It's more like owning a piece of an aqueduct that others use. It's partly a public responsibility. You can make it pretty, you can leave it plain; you can build a bridge over it. But you shouldn't be allowed to dump your business waste into it, no matter how much money it saves you. You can divest your responsibilities by selling it. If you want something to step on, buy a shoe. <BR/><BR/>What I mean is: property interests are not the only interests that should be protected as "rights."robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07464179798705084025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35127482.post-79862537569056634302008-09-08T06:35:00.000-07:002008-09-08T06:35:00.000-07:00so the tenant who is a renter at below market rate...so the tenant who is a renter at below market rates who has not invested any of their own savings into the building or neighborhood should have rights of protection equal and in some ways stronger than the owner of the building?<BR/><BR/>I dont see it.<BR/><BR/>You are a renter and if the owner wants to redevelop the building you should have to find your own apartment yourself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com