I like this take from the r/neoliberal comments section: I’d add to that that some of this stuff (like Mamdani’s proposed rent control tweaks, the NYS data center moratorium, ) is helpful in...
I like this take from the r/neoliberal comments section:
I know this isn't a popular idea here, but if there is a broadly popular idea that isn't good policy but it has a pretty neutral outcome it can be a win just to make people feel heard by government. Considering that we're at crisis levels of mistrust in government and a general feeling that government only helps big corporations and the wealthy, policies that signal support for the average American can have a significant impact on people's views of responsiveness of government and trust in democracy.
I've talked to a lot of people about this housing bill because I think it's important to say when government does good things right now, and people pretty overwhelmingly like the least effective policies the best.
You have to deal the hand you're dealt and not the one you want-- I think a lot of people here wish they could only pass highly effective policy wonky stuff and disregard the views of the majority, and I think doing that is actually corrosive to faith in democracy in the USA at least. We don't have a populace of highly informed people and it's insane to me to govern as if we did.
I’d add to that that some of this stuff (like Mamdani’s proposed rent control tweaks, the NYS data center moratorium, or the build-to-rent ban in the new housing law) is helpful in getting people to support more substantive, but also more contentious policy (like upzoning or by-right fourplexes).
This is something that I wish more neoliberal types would accept. I'm sympathetic to the ideal of effective evidence-based government, but so many neoliberal types (or, at least, the ones who are...
This is something that I wish more neoliberal types would accept. I'm sympathetic to the ideal of effective evidence-based government, but so many neoliberal types (or, at least, the ones who are vocal online) are frustratingly stubborn and seem to simply not care about winning.
Hi fellow r/neoliberal friend :) I think the problem with that is that these type of policies get enacted but then the actual effort to address the larger issues never occurs. I'm fine with...
I think the problem with that is that these type of policies get enacted but then the actual effort to address the larger issues never occurs. I'm fine with banning AirBnb as long as supply reforms also happens. The reality though is that the populist policy gets done, but the thing that actually helps the problem doesn't.
This completely ignores that amount of time and effort it takes to get these laws passed, and I heavily disagree with it. You only have so much political capital and time, and it's a fight to do...
I know this isn't a popular idea here, but if there is a broadly popular idea that isn't good policy but it has a pretty neutral outcome it can be a win just to make people feel heard by government.
This completely ignores that amount of time and effort it takes to get these laws passed, and I heavily disagree with it. You only have so much political capital and time, and it's a fight to do ANYTHING even if everyone agrees and you mean well. Wasting that flash in the pan where everything lines up on some weird feelgood measure that doesn't actually do anything is at the start a net negative of time wasted, and often worse when voters start to think "well we passed the law that was supposed to fix it, and things didn't get better".
Where was build-to-rent ban? Are you talking about the new housing bill from congress? Didn’t ban corporations owning preexisting single family houses but ALLOWED it when build to rent.
Where was build-to-rent ban? Are you talking about the new housing bill from congress? Didn’t ban corporations owning preexisting single family houses but ALLOWED it when build to rent.
Populism is necessary in any system where the popular vote rules. Educated rational types love to think that people are dispassionate robots that dissect the position of every party on every issue...
Populism is necessary in any system where the popular vote rules.
Educated rational types love to think that people are dispassionate robots that dissect the position of every party on every issue but it's just not how it works. Most folks that even show up to the urn decide on vibes and promises alone.
I don't think any significant number of people actually thinks that, if anything educated rational types often complain about how irrational and stupid people are. I think the disconnect is...
Educated rational types love to think that people are dispassionate robots that dissect the position of every party on every issue but it's just not how it works.
I don't think any significant number of people actually thinks that, if anything educated rational types often complain about how irrational and stupid people are. I think the disconnect is further on, not understanding how the actual political work works - compromises, deals with the enemy to push something high value through, the need to care about popularity and support all the time and not just before elections etc.
And yet the educated rational(ish) voter inhabiting the same reality is the basis of democracy. A basis that has never really existed after WW2 saw the rise of secular democracies throughout the...
And yet the educated rational(ish) voter inhabiting the same reality is the basis of democracy. A basis that has never really existed after WW2 saw the rise of secular democracies throughout the west.
Before it was education, now it's been joined by the disaster that is the recommendation algorithm and the fake alternate realities that it traps its consumers in.
I do agree that despite the justified flak that politicians get about lying all the time, a lot of that is just compromises watering down the vision, but those compromises are necessary to democracy.
The answer is vibes. Airbnbs and other short-term rentals were banned because it was bad vibes more than anything. At the time, it was very much in vogue. Airbnb was a clear villain, with a...
The answer is vibes. Airbnbs and other short-term rentals were banned because it was bad vibes more than anything. At the time, it was very much in vogue. Airbnb was a clear villain, with a short-term "fix", whereas "we should upzone neighborhoods to build more housing" is not only a years long endeavor, but upzoning and development is always controversial.
edit:
Also, it's really easy to see what makes rent high - Manhattan aside, in Brooklyn and Queens it's usually based on distance to MTA.
Expand MTA - the biggest different in QoL between Manhattan and the other boroughs is that subway access in Brooklyn and Queens is very spotty. Vast parts of them have a 15-30 minute walk to get to the nearest MTA station. A lot of housing supply will be unlocked by MTA access.
One of the most disappointing parts of the Mamdani mayorship is he killed Queenslink. C'mon bro. May have died even with mayor support but like at least try to walk the walk on transit.
It's another frustrating example of bait and switch for the "obvious" thing rather than the "useful" thing. It pulls attention away from the real problems/solutions. I'm not crying tears for...
It's another frustrating example of bait and switch for the "obvious" thing rather than the "useful" thing. It pulls attention away from the real problems/solutions.
I'm not crying tears for Airbnb, but initiatives like this STOP the ones that might actually solve things because "oh well you're just protecting the corporations" becomes the attack.
I didn't see it mentioned in the article after a quick skim, but an important note is that AirBNB's were pretty locked down in NYC even before whatever this ban is. Short term rentals (i.e....
I didn't see it mentioned in the article after a quick skim, but an important note is that AirBNB's were pretty locked down in NYC even before whatever this ban is. Short term rentals (i.e. AirBNB/Vrbo) are illegal in the city unless the host lives in the apartment, you don't get to rent out an apartment entirely to a guest, it has to be an apartment you live in (yes at the same time as the guest is there). I'm finding it hard to pin down a date, but I definitely remember this being the case in the late 2010s.
So when we say "ban", it's not a ban from "people using their apartments as hotel rooms via airbnb" to "no short term rentals at all", it's "people using a spare room in their apartment as a hotel room via airbnb" to I guess "no short term rentals at all".
I think that's an interesting point, and will likely make some difference, as will the fact that NYC continues to have more people wanting to move there, invest there, etc. It doesn't surprise me...
I think that's an interesting point, and will likely make some difference, as will the fact that NYC continues to have more people wanting to move there, invest there, etc. It doesn't surprise me that that change didn't "solve" everything, and maybe the restrictive regs were enough (or maybe prices would be even higher without the change).
I will be curious to see the impact of similar bans in smaller cities and see if at lower volumes it's enough of a pressure valve. People in NYC will pay huge rents for closets, perhaps in alternative locations that trade off point is at a more reasonable (to me) equilibrium
The tone of this article is very confusing. The way it’s framed seems to be pro airbnb? As someone who lives in the area, I don’t think I’ve heard a single person complain about losing air bnbs....
The tone of this article is very confusing. The way it’s framed seems to be pro airbnb? As someone who lives in the area, I don’t think I’ve heard a single person complain about losing air bnbs. Hell, Jersey almost had a building with 100 apartments that was going to be 100% airbnbs and the city stopped it. No one locally wanted it. If there are no regulations, what’s to stop manhattan from just becoming 100% airbnbs and hotels decades from now? More and more towns in Jersey are removing short term rentals. Hoboken is one of the few embracing it and they are struggling with housing, parking and some insane flooding.
True, the tone is off maybe bc they intentionally didn’t want to focus on the issue. The fact that housing shortage is in relation to availability of space and if you don’t have new space you...
True, the tone is off maybe bc they intentionally didn’t want to focus on the issue. The fact that housing shortage is in relation to availability of space and if you don’t have new space you don’t have housing. Hoboken and NJ in general suffers from NIMBY a lot so that’s why Mount Laurel. Hoboken I think in addition to NJ NIMBY issues has the biggest problem of having NYC next door. It has nothing except location to make money on, property taxes are not going to cover it all so they need something else, location location is all they got. Ain’t nothing else, nobody going to Hoboken for bars, food or culture if you are visiting NYC.
I’ve had a few out of town friends who want to come and visit Jersey, and I’ve told them multiple time not to, there’s nothing besides cheaper rent. Almost any experience in Jersey has a better NY...
I’ve had a few out of town friends who want to come and visit Jersey, and I’ve told them multiple time not to, there’s nothing besides cheaper rent. Almost any experience in Jersey has a better NY counterpart.
The larger problem is that we need more housing supply. I don't think anyone is shedding tears for AirBnB, but the data is clear that this policy is also not helping. The energy spent on AirBNB...
The larger problem is that we need more housing supply. I don't think anyone is shedding tears for AirBnB, but the data is clear that this policy is also not helping. The energy spent on AirBNB legislation should be better redirected to enact policies that encourage more housing supply.
I don’t think either issues are less important. People may argue that it’s time wasted, but if the city ignored it, 10yrs from now people would say it’s too late to act and they should have acted...
I don’t think either issues are less important. People may argue that it’s time wasted, but if the city ignored it, 10yrs from now people would say it’s too late to act and they should have acted 10yrs prior.i also assume it’s easier to prevent a company that’s fairy newer in the grand scheme of things, than reverse an issue that’s been decades in the making.
Unsurprisingly, rent and hotel prices have only increased. I was fortunate enough to visit NYC early in 2023 and stayed at the Hyatt above Grand Central station and the price I paid for a room...
Unsurprisingly, rent and hotel prices have only increased. I was fortunate enough to visit NYC early in 2023 and stayed at the Hyatt above Grand Central station and the price I paid for a room then was $180/night and now its like $280/night (for a room around a similar date in 2027 since I went in late winter/early spring). I've seen more dramatic increases elsewhere in the city too.
Rents increasing is to be expected given the slow upzoning and construction of new housing across the city and the US too. I would love to move to NYC some day but it's tough pill swallowing just how expensive rent can be in certain places. I know people in Long Island City in Queens paying $4k/mo for a 1b1b apartment!
I don't doubt that prices have gone up generally but I wouldn't be surprised that much of that $280 price tag is attributable to the upcoming World Cup final hosted near NYC
I don't doubt that prices have gone up generally but I wouldn't be surprised that much of that $280 price tag is attributable to the upcoming World Cup final hosted near NYC
Oh I was looking at prices for in the future actually, not for right now. Specifically, was comparing Feb/March prices since that’s when I originally went.
Oh I was looking at prices for in the future actually, not for right now. Specifically, was comparing Feb/March prices since that’s when I originally went.
I like this take from the r/neoliberal comments section:
I’d add to that that some of this stuff (like Mamdani’s proposed rent control tweaks, the NYS data center moratorium,
or the build-to-rent ban in the new housing law) is helpful in getting people to support more substantive, but also more contentious policy (like upzoning or by-right fourplexes).This is something that I wish more neoliberal types would accept. I'm sympathetic to the ideal of effective evidence-based government, but so many neoliberal types (or, at least, the ones who are vocal online) are frustratingly stubborn and seem to simply not care about winning.
Hi fellow r/neoliberal friend :)
I think the problem with that is that these type of policies get enacted but then the actual effort to address the larger issues never occurs. I'm fine with banning AirBnb as long as supply reforms also happens. The reality though is that the populist policy gets done, but the thing that actually helps the problem doesn't.
Ah, fellow r/neoliberal members whose wives have left them!
This completely ignores that amount of time and effort it takes to get these laws passed, and I heavily disagree with it. You only have so much political capital and time, and it's a fight to do ANYTHING even if everyone agrees and you mean well. Wasting that flash in the pan where everything lines up on some weird feelgood measure that doesn't actually do anything is at the start a net negative of time wasted, and often worse when voters start to think "well we passed the law that was supposed to fix it, and things didn't get better".
Where was build-to-rent ban? Are you talking about the new housing bill from congress? Didn’t ban corporations owning preexisting single family houses but ALLOWED it when build to rent.
Fixed, I thought it was still in the passed bill.
So... Populism is good actually?
Populism isn't inherently good or bad. But if there's no populism, something's off.
Populism is necessary in any system where the popular vote rules.
Educated rational types love to think that people are dispassionate robots that dissect the position of every party on every issue but it's just not how it works. Most folks that even show up to the urn decide on vibes and promises alone.
I don't think any significant number of people actually thinks that, if anything educated rational types often complain about how irrational and stupid people are. I think the disconnect is further on, not understanding how the actual political work works - compromises, deals with the enemy to push something high value through, the need to care about popularity and support all the time and not just before elections etc.
And yet the educated rational(ish) voter inhabiting the same reality is the basis of democracy. A basis that has never really existed after WW2 saw the rise of secular democracies throughout the west.
Before it was education, now it's been joined by the disaster that is the recommendation algorithm and the fake alternate realities that it traps its consumers in.
I do agree that despite the justified flak that politicians get about lying all the time, a lot of that is just compromises watering down the vision, but those compromises are necessary to democracy.
It's a circle I was never able to square.
The answer is vibes. Airbnbs and other short-term rentals were banned because it was bad vibes more than anything. At the time, it was very much in vogue. Airbnb was a clear villain, with a short-term "fix", whereas "we should upzone neighborhoods to build more housing" is not only a years long endeavor, but upzoning and development is always controversial.
edit:
Also, it's really easy to see what makes rent high - Manhattan aside, in Brooklyn and Queens it's usually based on distance to MTA.
Expand MTA - the biggest different in QoL between Manhattan and the other boroughs is that subway access in Brooklyn and Queens is very spotty. Vast parts of them have a 15-30 minute walk to get to the nearest MTA station. A lot of housing supply will be unlocked by MTA access.
One of the most disappointing parts of the Mamdani mayorship is he killed Queenslink. C'mon bro. May have died even with mayor support but like at least try to walk the walk on transit.
It's another frustrating example of bait and switch for the "obvious" thing rather than the "useful" thing. It pulls attention away from the real problems/solutions.
I'm not crying tears for Airbnb, but initiatives like this STOP the ones that might actually solve things because "oh well you're just protecting the corporations" becomes the attack.
I didn't see it mentioned in the article after a quick skim, but an important note is that AirBNB's were pretty locked down in NYC even before whatever this ban is. Short term rentals (i.e. AirBNB/Vrbo) are illegal in the city unless the host lives in the apartment, you don't get to rent out an apartment entirely to a guest, it has to be an apartment you live in (yes at the same time as the guest is there). I'm finding it hard to pin down a date, but I definitely remember this being the case in the late 2010s.
So when we say "ban", it's not a ban from "people using their apartments as hotel rooms via airbnb" to "no short term rentals at all", it's "people using a spare room in their apartment as a hotel room via airbnb" to I guess "no short term rentals at all".
I think that's an interesting point, and will likely make some difference, as will the fact that NYC continues to have more people wanting to move there, invest there, etc. It doesn't surprise me that that change didn't "solve" everything, and maybe the restrictive regs were enough (or maybe prices would be even higher without the change).
I will be curious to see the impact of similar bans in smaller cities and see if at lower volumes it's enough of a pressure valve. People in NYC will pay huge rents for closets, perhaps in alternative locations that trade off point is at a more reasonable (to me) equilibrium
The tone of this article is very confusing. The way it’s framed seems to be pro airbnb? As someone who lives in the area, I don’t think I’ve heard a single person complain about losing air bnbs. Hell, Jersey almost had a building with 100 apartments that was going to be 100% airbnbs and the city stopped it. No one locally wanted it. If there are no regulations, what’s to stop manhattan from just becoming 100% airbnbs and hotels decades from now? More and more towns in Jersey are removing short term rentals. Hoboken is one of the few embracing it and they are struggling with housing, parking and some insane flooding.
True, the tone is off maybe bc they intentionally didn’t want to focus on the issue. The fact that housing shortage is in relation to availability of space and if you don’t have new space you don’t have housing. Hoboken and NJ in general suffers from NIMBY a lot so that’s why Mount Laurel. Hoboken I think in addition to NJ NIMBY issues has the biggest problem of having NYC next door. It has nothing except location to make money on, property taxes are not going to cover it all so they need something else, location location is all they got. Ain’t nothing else, nobody going to Hoboken for bars, food or culture if you are visiting NYC.
I’ve had a few out of town friends who want to come and visit Jersey, and I’ve told them multiple time not to, there’s nothing besides cheaper rent. Almost any experience in Jersey has a better NY counterpart.
The larger problem is that we need more housing supply. I don't think anyone is shedding tears for AirBnB, but the data is clear that this policy is also not helping. The energy spent on AirBNB legislation should be better redirected to enact policies that encourage more housing supply.
I don’t think either issues are less important. People may argue that it’s time wasted, but if the city ignored it, 10yrs from now people would say it’s too late to act and they should have acted 10yrs prior.i also assume it’s easier to prevent a company that’s fairy newer in the grand scheme of things, than reverse an issue that’s been decades in the making.
Looks like marginally lower rent for 15 months? Seems better than I'd expect for only adding a few months of equivalent housing construction.
Unsurprisingly, rent and hotel prices have only increased. I was fortunate enough to visit NYC early in 2023 and stayed at the Hyatt above Grand Central station and the price I paid for a room then was $180/night and now its like $280/night (for a room around a similar date in 2027 since I went in late winter/early spring). I've seen more dramatic increases elsewhere in the city too.
Rents increasing is to be expected given the slow upzoning and construction of new housing across the city and the US too. I would love to move to NYC some day but it's tough pill swallowing just how expensive rent can be in certain places. I know people in Long Island City in Queens paying $4k/mo for a 1b1b apartment!
I don't doubt that prices have gone up generally but I wouldn't be surprised that much of that $280 price tag is attributable to the upcoming World Cup final hosted near NYC
Oh I was looking at prices for in the future actually, not for right now. Specifically, was comparing Feb/March prices since that’s when I originally went.