I have been looking for sites like this for a long time. Thank you!

Okay fine, I'll admit that I could be wrong on the ever-so-important issue of who's hijiki. I'M WRONG ABOUT HIJIKI. New Yorkers lives are so much better because I'm wrong about hijiki's messageboard identity. I admit I don't spend much time researching that. Apologies.

So the Bloomberg Fan says this:

"I want high rent. I want high real estate price. I am a selfish bastard."

Case and point.

And hijiki says this:

"if voters would have honestly assessed dubya based on these factors instead of party loyalties, he would not have gotten elected"

Two birds with one stone.

I only am quoting you guys. Form your own conclusions.

Hey Blike! Just like all the crap you are spilling on this site is WRONG, you are WRONG. You are ASSUMING that I am hijiki. I am not.

I want high rent. I want high real estate price. I am a selfish bastard.

Two reasons why I think it was you.

1. "and you think ferrer would get this all fixed up for ya blike?" is exactly the way the troller always addresses me, with a bit of a twang and New York Post-ish swagger. And it was signed "hijiki". Another time, you called 'blike' out. There's only one person who keeps following me in that same way.

2. Nobody's following this particular thread, except for the back-and-forth between me and the 'blike troller'

3. You're particularly defensive. And the Blike Troller would've ripped into me for getting his name 'wrong'

It's you, period.

Back to the issue--

Where did you say you didn't read on the issues? Allow me to quote you on a recent thread:

people can be entirely satisfied with life in new york without looking up useless stats spun by party camps.

If you call "useless stats" stuff verified by the Daily News, the Times, Gotham Gazette, the Coalition for the Homeless, the Police Sergeants Benevolent Association, ad infinitum, then I don't know what to say. If you refuse to listen to what every teacher, social worker and police officer say, then I don't know what to say.

I'll tell you this: your privileged 'life in new york,' most likely kickstarted by your parents, is not just your life in New York. It's the life of over 8 million other New Yorkers.

Here's a challenge for you, since you're all talk:

1. Find us an instance where Bloomberg has caused rents prices to go down.

2. Show me how much Bloomberg has raised cops pay this year.

3. Tell us the response time of the fire department.

Go ahead. I'm waiting. Post some links to show us how the mayor did 'good' on these things and I'll shut up and eat my words.

it's so pathetic that you feel the need to attack people who disagree with you and misquote their comments instead of responding to the debate. i use my own name, blike. i don't like bloomberg. i think i already said that. the bush comment clearly said that if people had assessed bush vs. kerry on their honesty, integrity and wisdom (not misleading records, stats, or party loyalties), then bush would not have won. and where did i say that i didn't read up on the issues? you're no expert either, blike, you're a partisan tool who picks evidence that only supports his stance. but you are right about one thing: ignorant voters should not vote.

"bowel movement"? Are you even old enough to vote, hijiki?

The democrats will fix the law by supporting the removal of the Urstadt Law. It's a step in the right direction. Bloomberg outright refuses to change that law. Bloomberg's policy of refusing to change the Urstadt Law stands in stark contrast to the democrats who unanimously pledge to repeal the law. Why are we arguing about this? It's so black and white it's retarded. Bloomberg wants to keep the bad law. The dems want to rid of the bad law. Done deal. Case closed. 2+2 equals 4. Stop telling us 2+2 is 3, because that's what you're doing.

And how will the Ferweinmillields fix the law? If Pataki won't help fund MTA why would he turn over the rent rules to the city?

and you think ferrer would get this all fixed up for ya blike?

actually, Ferrer Weiner Miller and Fields all said they'd fix that law and give NYC home rule of rents. But you wouldn't know that. Didn't you admit on another thread that you never even bothered to read up on the issues anyway? I'd hardly call you an expert. Ignorance does not make you an expert. Didn't you also say that this same type of ignorance is what got Bush re-elected? ignorant voters should just stay home, as it's not helping anybody.

and you think ferrer would get this all fixed up for ya blike?

"Neither the state nor the mayor should have control over rents." I understand what you are saying, but the state controls the rent laws. So, no matter what we theorize, we can't do a damned thing until we get home rule over the rent. Both pro- and anti- rent stabilzation proponents want this to happen, because it makes sense. But the mayor doesn't want this to happen. Maybe it's to not rub Pataki the wrong way??? Mayvbe he has a stake in real estate interests, who love high prices???

I am a good liberal. I should not be linking to the Cato Institute's journal and I am very skeptical of libertarians. But there's a good article that they have on how rent control actually reduces affordable housing.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-274.html

Oldschool, I feel the first two things you mention are symptomatic of the problems with rent control and rent stabilization.

Neither the state nor the mayor should have control over rents. Obviously, the housing market should be aggressively regulated to prevent the existence of slum landlords and other hazards of unrestrained markets. But I think historically we've learn that whenever the government tries to control prices it does more harm than good.

In a city that people are fighting to move into there shouldn't be any need for tax incentives for developers to build here. Developers are given these incentives, which lead to the abuses you mention, as a result of promises to remove 20-30% of their developments from the general market.

It's not that I think rent control and stabilization laws should be instantly vacated; they need to be phased out. I just don't think anyone has a right to live in a specific neighborhood or place. Everyone has a right to live in a safe housing situation, but why should that be in, say, Chelsea or Soho.

I guess the gist of what I am saying is that people who whine about high rents should face the fact that to achieve that goal you need to reduce certain obstacles (rent control, rent stabilization, zoning rules and the nimbyism of some of the city's community boards)to develop in New York.

If you are not willing to do so, then you need to learn to live with high rents.

in your econ class, did your school teacher tell you that the city can't do anything about rent stabilization even if it wanted to, because the state controls rent laws, yet the mayor doesn't want to give the city back control? in your econ class, did your school teacher talk about the mayor giving millions of tax dollars to housing devleopers who don't even build a single unit that goes for less than $3000/month? Did your econ class come up with a way to handle the mass exodus if all apartments were suddently de-stabilized? some things are simple on paper, but things are different in the real world.

it's not just rent control and rent stabilization, you also have to take into account zoning, nimby-ism and other development obstacles. The ability for prices to come down also depends on the ability of developers to supply new housing. The harder it is for developers to build something, the more difficult it will be for supply to catch up to demand.

As an econ major in college, I think one of the few things that I ever saw economists and students agree on was that the cause of high rents and absurd price variations in major cities was the combination of rent stabilization and rent control. The sad truth is that if you want to reduce rent for the general population you have to get rid of rent controls that have people paying $150 for 1-bedrooms in the Upper East Side.

I don't mind paying high rent. It's the price I pay to live in NYC. It keeps bums like you from being my next door neighbor :-)

Okay 'Blike Troller', I'll bite. BTW, I challenge you to prove me wrong with some backup, not simply some NY Post-style remark.

The mayor never talks about rents. Ever hear him talk about rents? Never. He never talks about rent. Do I sound like a broken record? It's because the mayor talks about his "accomplishments" which consists of some doozies but never talks about housing, beyond building some 10,000 housing projects.

The mayor never talks about rents. What do all of us pay every month? Rent. What's screwing up the livelihood of New Yorkers? High rents. What starts gentrification? High rents.

How long is your commute because the only place you can afford is 30 stops and 4 transfers deep in Queens, because of high rents?

Proof rent is high: Take a look at the prices on Craigslist.

Proof Bloomberg hasn't done enough: Read what Bloomberg has done about it.

Also, Bloomberg's report has some blatant statistic bending. He's splitting hairs with his homeless stats. Basically it's the equivalent of saying "There's been 70% fewer homeless people with red hair, 22% less homeless people wearing blue shirts, and 83% less homeless people with hats since 2003."

The report mentions the number of "individuals" has been reduced. He omitted the number of "families." The number of children fell; but that's just those family members grew up to be over 18.

Notice that he never mentions the total number of homeless, inside or outside the shelters, because it's still 20% higher than his first day in office.

Where is Blike? Let's hear you complain.