Gothamist: A Future Democrat-Controlled State Senate Has Landlords Sweating

NannyState

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 18:18:27 -0500

Already Joe Bruno is missing those "little visits" from barbara Corcoran under his desk.

petebfd

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 12:53:10 -0500

although, we're all missing the most telling fact: "developers, landlords and lobbyists gave $750,000 to the Senate Democratic leadership last year and this year" the democrats are bought and paid for, they won't change a thing

Qraymond

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 12:46:16 -0500

If the Democrats retake the Senate and fail to significantly improve things for tenants, they're going to have some nasty primaries ahead of them.

contro

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:32:04 -0500

petebfd I concor with this outlook.

Jen S

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 10:59:44 -0500

“if the State of New York makes drastic changes to housing regulation, no residential developer will build another rental building in New York City.” Good! More buildings = more people = less space for everyone. This place is at maximum capacity already.

eyekantspel

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 10:44:50 -0500

diluted by Republicans in 1997 to favor landlords. The existing laws may have been diluted, but only an idiot would think that any version of these archaic laws favors landlords. The thing that is going to kill those luxury buildings isn't stupid things like rent control laws, it is the fact that our economy is weak. All those banks with billion dollar losses are cutting Wall Street jobs and bonuses, and the real estate market is going to get hit. Those who are perpetually jealous of people with higher incomes might think this is a good thing, but that's just because they don't understand, or care, how a bad economy in New York hurts all of us. We are entering a time when we will have less tax revenue, which is going to impact social progams that benefit all of us. As a result, we can expect more homelessness, more crime, and things generally going to shit. If you're a fan of "street art" you might think this is a good thing. I, for one, am hoping NYC finds a way through this, because I don't have any warm fuzzy memories of New York in the 1970s. Anyone missing the edge of those golden days can still visit Detroit, or areas of Philly.

petebfd

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 10:39:22 -0500

haha, yes brooklynbobbby! spread twatwaffles far and wide! wait, that last part doesn't sound right...

smh

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 10:34:06 -0500

“if the State of New York makes drastic changes to housing regulation, no residential developer will build another rental building in New York City.” AHAHAHAHAHAHA! Keep smoking that pipe, Cheech. EVERY developer wants a piece of NYC and will continue to want more, regardless of who's in office. Their profit margins won't be as high as before, but so what? Maybe some of that will actually be passed down to the consumer. The feeding trough is now CLOSED.

Brooklynbobby

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 10:27:32 -0500

I just learned a new word: twatwaffles! Cool Petebfd. I'm going to use it as soon as I can.

petebfd

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 10:19:23 -0500

“if the State of New York makes drastic changes to housing regulation, no residential developer will build another rental building in New York City.” fine, get the fuck out then. the idea that we should roll over for these scumbags because without major real estate developers nyc is doomed is a load of shit. most people can't afford to live in the buildings they build anyways. without shiny new buildings maybe the sex in the city obsessed twatwaffles might slow their infestation, but good riddance to them too!

zodak

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 10:15:49 -0500

“if the State of New York makes drastic changes to housing regulation, no residential developer will build another rental building in New York City.” that has already happened. all the building i see going up are "luxury condo" buildings.

Think twice

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 10:05:59 -0500

Boss Tweed would be proud.