From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

I greatly dislike this guy's videos. He takes video clips which appear
to have valid information then talks over them for his useless
reactions.

Oh: They point out high-rise housing built with a series of govenment
backed loans THAT MUST BE REPAID. It's gubmint, so the math doesn't
work. Debt service alone, let alone building's other operating costs,
forces Mamdani to raise rents 30%.

The way rent stabilization works: It goes with the apartment, not the
income of the renter, so you can earn $100,000 yet live in
rent-stabilized housing.

A member of the rent control board resigned before the vote because of
the fixed outcome.

For the first tie, despite rising costs, they gave landlord no rent
increase at all. In the past, they've allowed 2% even if that's unlikely
to meet costs.

For some reason, an insufficient number of new housing units come on
line in New York each year. No one can figure out why.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XaaqwJPnA4
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

In <112egmo$1c7d5$3@dont-email.me> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> writes:

[snip]

For some reason, an insufficient number of new housing units come on
line in New York each year. No one can figure out why.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XaaqwJPnA4

new construction in NYC is, with a key exception, uncontrolled
rent (or if condo/coop, purchase price) unregulated.

The key exception [a] is if the builder participates in various
real estate tax reduction options, the rents are regulated
for (typically) ten years, and then are supposed to go free
market. Of course at the 9 yr mark we get lots of sob stories
of peole who are facing huge rent hikes.. so the usual
solution is to grandfather those folk into rent stabilation
for another 5, then another 5, etc., years.

But again, the vast majority of new housing is free market.

[a] there are some other "sweeteners", so to speak, such as
if the builder puts ten percent of the apartements aside
as "affordable" (lots of loose definitions there) and they
remain under rent reg's, she gets a zoning variance to put
up another five floors. (numbers are all over the map).

Ditto for making "public amenities", like adding a public
courtyard/playground. Or in the case of Marla Maple's ex
husband, throwing millions of dollars into the (badly needed)
reahbiliation of a nearby subway station (including elevators)
s
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On Jul 5, 2026 at 2:01:12 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

I greatly dislike this guy's videos. He takes video clips which appear
to have valid information then talks over them for his useless
reactions.

Oh: They point out high-rise housing built with a series of govenment
backed loans THAT MUST BE REPAID. It's gubmint, so the math doesn't
work. Debt service alone, let alone building's other operating costs,
forces Mamdani to raise rents 30%.

The way rent stabilization works: It goes with the apartment, not the
income of the renter, so you can earn $100,000 yet live in
rent-stabilized housing.

A member of the rent control board resigned before the vote because of
the fixed outcome.

For the first tie, despite rising costs, they gave landlord no rent
increase at all. In the past, they've allowed 2% even if that's unlikely
to meet costs.

For some reason, an insufficient number of new housing units come on
line in New York each year. No one can figure out why.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XaaqwJPnA4

All these outraged commentators act like the fact that landlords still have to deal with taxes, insurance, and all other rising costs and therefore won't be able to afford to maintain their properties is something the communists
haven't thought of. Like it's some kind of unintended or unforeseen consequence.

But that's exactly what Mamdani *expects* to happen. It's a way of driving the owners out of business by putting them in a financial bind where they can't afford to maintain the building, then using the fact that the building is in disrepair to justify a government takeover of the property.

It's simply a way of dodging the 5th Amendment to seize private property without having to pay for it the way the Constitution requires.

The system is working exactly as intended.


--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On Jul 5, 2026 at 2:01:12 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

I greatly dislike this guy's videos. He takes video clips which appear
to have valid information then talks over them for his useless
reactions.

I meant to agree with you here. I've never cared for his stuff, either. His subject lines are also particularly misleading, even for YouTube.


--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2