The big story in New York real estate in recent weeks has been the potential sale, for a purported asking price of $5 billion, of Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village, two huge “middle class” housing developments on Manhattan’s East Side, by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, their developer and long time owner.  Metlife had previously sold its other large New York City housing projects, such as Parkchester in the Bronx.  Immediately, politicos have rallied to the side of the potentially embattled tenants of these developments, most of whom benefit from rent stabilization.  The local council member has proposed a tenant buyout, which he says will be possible with union pension fund money, “socially conscious” investors, and city subsidies.  If the existing tenants want to make a bid for the place, more power to them, although I advise that we are in a real estate bubble and any buyer will likely pay too much – one reason Metlife is selling.  But if they want to put city pension fund money at risk, given that the city would be required to raise taxes and cut services to make up any losses, and to receive tax breaks, I say forget it.  Since Stuytown and Peter Cooper village are large enough to be their own census tracts, we can use 2000 census data to find out some characteristics of those who live there.  And like Waterside Plaza, another development that was granted a city tax subsidy in exchange for a continued great rent deal for the tenants, residents of these developments are MUCH better off than most of the rest of us.

The big story in New York real estate in recent weeks has been the potential sale, for a purported asking price of $5 billion, of Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village, two huge “middle class” housing developments on Manhattan’s East Side, by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, their developer and long time owner.  Metlife had previously sold its other large New York City housing projects, such as Parkchester in the Bronx.  Immediately, politicos have rallied to the side of the potentially embattled tenants of these developments, most of whom benefit from rent stabilization.  The local council member has proposed a tenant buyout, which he says will be possible with union pension fund money, “socially conscious” investors, and city subsidies.  If the existing tenants want to make a bid for the place, more power to them, although I advise that we are in a real estate bubble and any buyer will likely pay too much – one reason Metlife is selling.  But if they want to put city pension fund money at risk, given that the city would be required to raise taxes and cut services to make up any losses, and to receive tax breaks, I say forget it.  Since Stuytown and Peter Cooper village are large enough to be their own census tracts, we can use 2000 census data to find out some characteristics of those who live there.  And like Waterside Plaza, another development that was granted a city tax subsidy in exchange for a continued great rent deal for the tenants, residents of these developments are MUCH better off than most of the rest of us.

The big story in New York real estate in recent weeks has been the potential sale, for a purported asking price of $5 billion, of Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village, two huge “middle class” housing developments on Manhattan’s East Side, by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, their developer and long time owner.  Metlife had previously sold its other large New York City housing projects, such as Parkchester in the Bronx.  Immediately, politicos have rallied to the side of the potentially embattled tenants of these developments, most of whom benefit from rent stabilization.  The local council member has proposed a tenant buyout, which he says will be possible with union pension fund money, “socially conscious” investors, and city subsidies.  If the existing tenants want to make a bid for the place, more power to them, although I advise that we are in a real estate bubble and any buyer will likely pay too much – one reason Metlife is selling.  But if they want to put city pension fund money at risk, given that the city would be required to raise taxes and cut services to make up any losses, and to receive tax breaks, I say forget it.  Since Stuytown and Peter Cooper village are large enough to be their own census tracts, we can use 2000 census data to find out some characteristics of those who live there.  And like Waterside Plaza, another development that was granted a city tax subsidy in exchange for a continued great rent deal for the tenants, residents of these developments are MUCH better off than most of the rest of us.

"You are a Saul Bellow character…fixated, detail-oriented, obsessive interiority" 

–Ben Smith (The Daily News)

Everything I think relevant about the State Legislature is probably encompassed in these pieces:

Albany Primer – Why Does NYC Get Screwed at Budget Time
Settling for the Steak Knives
Don’t Print the Legend – The Real Story of the Commuter Tax

To the extent that I’ve recommended candidates here, it is mostly in the spirit of trying to make the best of a bad situation, although when applied to some of these races, that would be an optimistic assessment.  Our legislature is reflective of the state in the same way a mirror would be if it was glued together after being smashed with a ball peen hammer.  While viewing it as a whole may be frightening, looking at it piece by piece does not necessarily provide any additional illumination, as the whole is less than the sum of its parts, given that only two of those parts are usually operable. The Senate may be the bigger problem, but in some ways this is like drawing the distinction between Leopold and Loeb.

Most New Yorkers would agree that poverty and inequality are bad, and the data confirms that both are far above average in New York City.  Advocates for the poor report this constantly.  Their solution:  more money for their organizations, and more places for the poor to live.

As I wrote here, poverty and inequality may be explained by economic and social conditions and public policy at the national level.  At the local level, however, the level of poverty is primarily a product of migration:  who moves in (or is kept out), who moves out (or is pushed out), who is born and who dies off.  Local changes in the poverty rate may have nothing to do with whether individuals are getting richer or poorer whatsoever.  Even if the city succeeded in helping every poor person within its borders to advance out of poverty, its poverty rate would not go down if those formerly poor people moved out and were replaced by new poor people seeking to move up.  When people advocate for more low-income housing in New York City, they are advocating for the opportunity for more low-income people to live here, and thus a higher poverty rate.  Places with low poverty rates are generally affluent suburban jurisdictions that seek to exclude the poor, through zoning rules that keep the price of housing high (more on that in future essays).  Thus, the city’s high poverty rate is an inevitable by product of its accessibility to the poor, something that is in other ways desirable.

Most New Yorkers would agree that poverty and inequality are bad, and the data confirms that both are far above average in New York City.  Advocates for the poor report this constantly.  Their solution:  more money for their organizations, and more places for the poor to live.

As I wrote here, poverty and inequality may be explained by economic and social conditions and public policy at the national level.  At the local level, however, the level of poverty is primarily a product of migration:  who moves in (or is kept out), who moves out (or is pushed out), who is born and who dies off.  Local changes in the poverty rate may have nothing to do with whether individuals are getting richer or poorer whatsoever.  Even if the city succeeded in helping every poor person within its borders to advance out of poverty, its poverty rate would not go down if those formerly poor people moved out and were replaced by new poor people seeking to move up.  When people advocate for more low-income housing in New York City, they are advocating for the opportunity for more low-income people to live here, and thus a higher poverty rate.  Places with low poverty rates are generally affluent suburban jurisdictions that seek to exclude the poor, through zoning rules that keep the price of housing high (more on that in future essays).  Thus, the city’s high poverty rate is an inevitable by product of its accessibility to the poor, something that is in other ways desirable.

Most New Yorkers would agree that poverty and inequality are bad, and the data confirms that both are far above average in New York City.  Advocates for the poor report this constantly.  Their solution:  more money for their organizations, and more places for the poor to live.

As I wrote here, poverty and inequality may be explained by economic and social conditions and public policy at the national level.  At the local level, however, the level of poverty is primarily a product of migration:  who moves in (or is kept out), who moves out (or is pushed out), who is born and who dies off.  Local changes in the poverty rate may have nothing to do with whether individuals are getting richer or poorer whatsoever.  Even if the city succeeded in helping every poor person within its borders to advance out of poverty, its poverty rate would not go down if those formerly poor people moved out and were replaced by new poor people seeking to move up.  When people advocate for more low-income housing in New York City, they are advocating for the opportunity for more low-income people to live here, and thus a higher poverty rate.  Places with low poverty rates are generally affluent suburban jurisdictions that seek to exclude the poor, through zoning rules that keep the price of housing high (more on that in future essays).  Thus, the city’s high poverty rate is an inevitable by product of its accessibility to the poor, something that is in other ways desirable.

Most New Yorkers would agree that poverty and inequality are bad, and the data confirms that both are far above average in New York City.  Advocates for the poor report this constantly.  Their solution:  more money for their organizations, and more places for the poor to live.

As I wrote here, poverty and inequality may be explained by economic and social conditions and public policy at the national level.  At the local level, however, the level of poverty is primarily a product of migration:  who moves in (or is kept out), who moves out (or is pushed out), who is born and who dies off.  Local changes in the poverty rate may have nothing to do with whether individuals are getting richer or poorer whatsoever.  Even if the city succeeded in helping every poor person within its borders to advance out of poverty, its poverty rate would not go down if those formerly poor people moved out and were replaced by new poor people seeking to move up.  When people advocate for more low-income housing in New York City, they are advocating for the opportunity for more low-income people to live here, and thus a higher poverty rate.  Places with low poverty rates are generally affluent suburban jurisdictions that seek to exclude the poor, through zoning rules that keep the price of housing high (more on that in future essays).  Thus, the city’s high poverty rate is an inevitable by product of its accessibility to the poor, something that is in other ways desirable.

MUST TO AVOID:

Village Voice: But, What Have You Done For Me Lately? (Worthless Rag ’06).  Those who dismiss paranormal phenomena be on notice. During last week’s sixth diss of Chris Owens I took the opportunity to use the release of Owens’ new song as the occasion for a loving parody of writer Robert Christgau. While the Dean of New York political bloggers oft times cites Michael Kinsley as the seminal influence upon his writing, the truth is the Dean of Rock Crits is his secret hero. And though the influence is sometimes hard to spot – the soul of brevity influencing the king of verbal diarrhea- (but then again, see Christgau’s endless essays on the Annual Pazz and Jop Product Poll), the plentiful  puns, cultural reference, piles of facts upon facts, and inside jokes had to come from somewhere, right? Then last week, the Voice fired the Dean while an unknowing Gate was channeling his spirit for fun and spite. Is this a Celestine Prophecy moment, or what? Is Hentoff next? Well, every cloud may indeed have its silver lining, but this is the most disgraceful act committed by a New York weekly not owned by Ed Weintrob since the New York Press wimped out on the cartoons. E-  
 

   "You are as much a resource as google"
 – Azi Paybarah, New York Observer (both his paper and his life’s work) 

The subject of judicial selection traditionally draws a lot of hew and cry, but little passion. The first piece I ever did on Room 8 was about Judicial selection, and drew exactly zero comments, despite the fact it was written to offend the delicate sensibilities of nearly everyone (I’ll try to minimize repetition with the ground covered there).