Poor People Can’t Pay Enough Rent
So they gots to go. Such is the case in East Harlem. From Shagya blog:
From London’s Grosvenor Square you can’t see East Harlem, but you can buy it. For £250 million, 47 buildings, and 1,137 homes at a time. That, at least, was supposed to be the deal for UK-based investment bank Dawnay Day Group when it reached across the ocean last March and snatched up entire blocks of this historic neighborhood of low-income immigrants one of the last such communities left in Dawnay Day Group’s plan follows the typical logic of displacement for “development,” a logic well known both to real estate profiteers and to the poor people they displace.
Here is the full blog post. It’s nice to see people fighting back. Here’s a radical thought, if a family is making use of a scarce resource such as an apartment and the landlord is not and cannot use the apartment for its primary purpose then the family possesses the apartment. It sickens me to see things under-utilized because people with capital choose to sit on them. Let the property rights fracas ensue.
Related posts:
- Sexual orientation questions keep Roommates.com from Safe Harbor berth
- NYC to reward poor with cash for good behavior
- Real men of genius II: Buffalo Police batter their way into wrong house
- People of New Jersey afraid of Wii zapper
- City of Keene, New Hampshire unanimously votes to steal people’s homes
August 6th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
The poor do not have a right to maintain their neighborhood as much as the rich have theirs. (Imagine the reaction if Princeton picketed against affordable housing in their township.) It sucks for these folks in the short term, but in this country I don’t see how land ownership is even close to a “tragedy of the anticommons”.
August 6th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Sarcasm? Help me out it’s a little ambiguous.
As far as picketing, the rich rarely picket. They just influence the developers such that the housing does not get built. I know that was the case when I was living in Hightstown. The developers stand to make more in an underhanded fashion currying favor with a few rich people than actually building the type of housing that will get purchased by lower income families.
Concerning under-utilized land, the biggest offender is the US government. We have millions of acres that could be sustainably homesteaded and aren’t. Large scale corporations come in second. Go up to Morristown and you’ll see how land is a status symbol. Giant corporate buildings set way back and surrounded by mowed lawns. If you’re going to clear that much land at least grow something useful on it. If you’re not going to grow something on it, let someone else.
August 6th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Beyond your property line, I do not see how you can forcefully dictate anything. This holds true for the rich and poor. In some towns, the rich may sell their house/land to “undesirables”. The inverse in others. You cannot force your neighbors to do anything and justify it by “maintaining the status quo”.
In this case, the tenants don’t even own the building. Are you suggesting that the owners should be forced to rent their land at gunpoint? Not to mention, an owner interested in selling that land has just taken a hit on its value since it is has been permanently zoned for ghetto.
As far as affordable housing is concerned, you are correct about developers. (Insert McMansion argument here.) However, they are only acting rationally, especially given the fact that the federal government has created an artificial price floor through subsidies and cheap money.
August 6th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Follow up: how many computers do you own, bosco? (Replace with another example of private property if more appropriate.) No one should possibly need more than one. Kids in Africa don’t have any. I propose we set a one PC limit per person and force you to rent the rest to those African kids.
On second thought: have I been trolled?
August 6th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
I think beetlbumjl has this one but I would like to say that the tragedy of the anti-commons a statist and arrogant position in that it is the one making the comment who believes they know how to better utilize the commodity. It’s no parallel to tragedy of the commons which have to do with conflict of interests. As bosco points out the federal government owns about a third of the country and state governments own a good portion more. Much of that land could be utilized. So to think usable land is a scarce resource in this country is simply incorrect. Now maybe usable land near other humans is… but then we get back to opinion on best utilization. With property rights the problem has a functional and usually peaceful solution. Without property rights it devolves to violence very quickly. The tragedy of the anticommons comes from those who cause the tragedy of the commons.
August 6th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
I’m wondering (as I don’t see it in the article) if these are rent controlled. I’ve heard lots of stories where “the poor” got all pissed because their building was purchased and it turned out they were getting cheap rentals because of government regulation. The anti-war tax protester was able to get by without making enough to pay federal taxes by living in a rent controlled building. She was strong enough to live on $10k a year so not to pay Uncle Sam but she wanted to live in the big city at artificially low prices. If you want to rent cheap move to Montana. If these people care so much about their building why didn’t they attempt to buy it? If they hate capitalism so much why not move to Cuba or China where unicorns run through the streets and pixies do all the hard work? How much do you want to bet that if their socialistic government wanted to tear down their homes to make more “low cost” housing they’d be just as pissed.
August 6th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
First and foremost, nope I’m not trolling anybody.
Secondly, an absentee landlord has no claim to the land that his tenants use. That’s like saying someone who builds a fence around a natural resource has rights to it. No, the first person to use it does. What constitutes use needs to be decided by those involved. In this instance I would say the tenants have greater rights to the apartment buildings than the landlords do. They utilize it more so ownership should be transfered to them as well as all upkeep responsibilities.
I disagree with bile in that I think land is a scarce commodity. If every human decided right now that they wanted enough land to independently support their own life, we wouldn’t have enough. For this reason we need to make sure land is appropriately utilized. Don’t get me wrong, much of what you espouse has merit. Property rights can work well as long as they’re use/possession based and you start with some sort of Rothbardian wealth redistribution.
No, I’m suggesting if they don’t use it, they don’t own it.
Computers are a bad example because the majority of the computers I own are more of a liability than anything else. They are chuck full of nasty chemicals and are too slow to do much. If I’m not using a useful computer it usually goes the route of Ebay -> Freecycle -> Thrift Store.
I wouldn’t be for renting the PCs to the African kids, I think renting got us into this mess.
Let me summarize:
If you don’t use it, you don’t own it.
If a conflict arises use needs to be determined through arbitration. What constitutes appropriate use is going to differ socio-geographically (if that’s not a word, it should be).
Much of what is currently private property has been obtained unjustly and hence needs to be redistributed.
August 6th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Ha! Unicorns and pixies.
August 6th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
I remember reading in the Times an article detailing the flight of middle and lower classes from NYC in the past 10 years. First out of Manhatten to the other boroughs, and eventually onto NJ and Philadelphia. The article left you wondering what NYC would be like in 10 more years given that trend. While it seems the housing bubble burst will successfully prevent a NYC “upper-class ghetto” scenario, I still wonder how well personal interests alone can steer around this problem. I can only assume that once the resource hoarders realize that no one who works to support the infrastructure can afford to live in or near it, that things might change. Would it be as simple as wage increases for service people in affluent areas?
August 6th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
From the article, “The only purpose is to take us out of our homes. So they can renovate our apartments and then rent them for ten times what we are paying now.” Does your logic imply that the industrialized nations of the world have a greater claim of ownership to oil in the ground than the countries which lay on top of it?
Ah, the great reset. Good luck with that.
August 6th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
So building the homes/apts/condo, maintaining it and the infrastructure, paying taxes, etc does not count as using it? I love how socialists just throw away the concept of capital accumulation. As if wealth springs into being at a certain level. Reminds me of the global climate change fans who use models without water vapor. Argue against a system they don’t fully understand or account for all the components. Capital accumulation is necessary to increase wealth, to fund large projects, etc. The only way to do so is by not using it for a period of time. If you don’t have capital accumulation you won’t have growth and in fact a likely decrease in wealth per person as the population grows.
You don’t use your money in your bank account… does that mean the bank is the rightful owner? Who decides who is the one who can get the most utilization from something?
By hoarders I assume you mean those who have high asking prices? What happens if no one buys prices go down. It’s already happening. They had been building like crazy near me in NJ. Condos-R-Us. Prices were outrageous and now they are dropping because no one will buy them. It’s going to take time to come down because they often took out huge loans to pay for the construction and now they simply can’t recoup in the short term. Prices go down quicker then salaries go up. Even for the upper class. Besides… there already exists high class ghettos in NYC. In some places because of rent control you’ve got people making 6 figures living in apartments costing far less then you’d see elsewhere. And they go through amazing hoops to keep them. I hear people at work asking people if they know anyone when they move so they can make a connection by getting them a rent controlled place.
August 6th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
@bile – I was referring to the hypothetical situation where the only people left living in and around NYC were white collar and upper class. (This assumes that the bubble never burst and we were another 10 years into it.) My question is what actions would they take to ensure that blue collar workers would return to the area to make it functional again?
August 6th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
1. The idea that every person on the planet would choose to do that is ridiculous. You could say that about just about any single thing anyone would desire. Even if there was enough land to do so we’d all be living day to day with little or no growth in wealth per individual. We don’t do that because we don’t all care to. Because it’s more efficient to have division of labor and specialization.
2. 19,824,000km2 arable land / 6,500,000,000 humans = 0.00305 km2/human. Assuming those numbers are correct (from Wikipedia) that’s obviously not enough. Even when you group individuals into the families they would actually be with. However that completely ignores the oceans as a food source. Regardless there is sufficient land and technology to feed the worlds population. Technology will only increase arable land and/or density of food per land unit. Therefore the scarcity of land revolves around living and working. In that regard there is plenty of land, again especially with technology increases.
There you go again with the “we ought to” and “human’s goal” stuff…
August 6th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
I’ve got bad news for you beetlbumjl, it happens. Over and over again and it’s usually done in a very violent manner. Wealth will get redistributed, it’s just a matter of how. The best case is when people recognize that what they have was obtained through robbery and voluntarily give it up.
I love how capitalists call murder and robbery capital accumulation. I don’t think wealth springs into being, I think those with power and influence immorally wring it from people too small to defend themselves. People don’t obtain the level of wealth we are talking about through diligent saving. They obtain it through force. Corporations of this magnitude wield governments as a club to get what they want. You know that.
This means it could be used for something better, such as helping my friends buy a house. Hence, that’s what it gets used for.
This is the best line of attack against my theory. Like I said I think it’s a tough thing to decide and it will vary based on the type of environment you are in. Ultimately I think it should be decided through peaceful moderation and a municipal level.
August 6th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Murder and robber? Not using commodities = murder is a pretty crazy stretch. I’d like for you to show me how believing in private property as a form of economic functioning = the killing of one individual by another.
You are completely ignorant of business reality. How the hell do you think that company got so big in the first place before they started working with government? Look at tech companies? Even if you take away IP monopolies you still have huge gains in wealth. China is a breeding ground of copy cat tech and their standard of living is booming. Everyone and their dog copies Microsoft software yet they still became a gigantic company even with the government coming after them. You are acting as if these companies just pop into existence. They start at the bottom and use the government when they reach the upper escilon to stay there.
Your money isnt getting used right this minute. Give me the formula you use to findout how long it takes till you loose ownership.
Right. That’s called the market. It’s peaceful and voluntary and moves to utilize resources most effectively as each actor sees individually fit. No tragedy of the commons problem necessary.
August 6th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
You can’t possibly believe this as an absolute?
August 8th, 2008 at 12:02 am
When wealth of this amount is obtained it is usually though underhanded means. The same market forces that prevent monopolies prevent massive accumulations of wealth.
I don’t use a formula, I use whatever helps me sleep at night. Underutilization of the few bucks I’ve got in the bank is small potatoes. Even so I still work to put it to better use. Also money doesn’t just “sit in a bank”. You’ve seen It’s a Wonderful Life, “your money is in Joe’s house, that’s right next to yours…” The key is putting money to better use than what most bankers chose to do with it.
You just did the math. The individual citizens of earth don’t have enough land to support their own life. Therefore if people refuse to trade with them, they can’t support themselves. So by hording commodities and refusing to trade you can literally starve people to death.
August 8th, 2008 at 7:39 am
Historically and theoretically incorrect. Monopolies of different types CAN exist for periods of time. The modern, government forced version can not. If a company, say Standard Oil, gives people what they want, innovate cheap ways to make kerosene and sell the shit out of it, they get a local, natural monopoly and gain massive accumulations of wealth as a result of SERVING THE PEOPLE. Microsoft was the same way, as was Intel, as was IBM at times and the railroads and telephone companies and power companies and banks. They all amassed huge amounts of wealth as a result of providing for peoples desires. It was government that made them monopolies and gave them the ability to guarantee wealth.
You do realize that bankers are the ones giving Joe the lone, right? They are investing in the startup down the street, right? Providing a protection service for your money, right? Bankers invest in what will work and what will work is what people want. Government and centrally control money supplies distort that but the power of the market still overpowers them and has increased the wealth in the US far beyond anything ever seen in history.
What does having land to support themselves have to do with anything. Most people can not support themselves or would want to support themselves in that way. It’s inefficient and wasteful. Both of land and people’s desires. And people horde when they are incentivized not to trade such as their currency being debased and they need to buy up commodities not to loose all their wealth. You don’t get it. You don’t seem to realize that we’d all be POORER if you spent every thing you had as soon as you got it or were selfsufficent. Capital accumulation is not hording, it’s not using resources now for a desire we hold more important later. You do this all the time… your understanding of economics is so shallow, you can’t see the complex interconnections of the market nor the complexity of human desire. You ignore time deltas and the importance of capital accumulation and how important it is to per capita wealth increasing. Besides… i’ve asked you this before and you didn’t answer. Who is hording and what? Bankers don’t horde. They have no incentive to horde. They are in fact incentived not to horde because if you did the government would steal it’s worth through inflation. Governments force hording on large scales however. India, China… they are fighting the laws of economics and hording rice which is leading to higher prices outside their countries. They are making things worse. Besides, starving people is not murder. It’s death. And you’ve got no examples outside religious fanaticism where people refuse to trade people to death except perhaps in situtations where people are already living “self sufficently” and have very little to trade in the first place. IE no capital accumulated to afford to do so.
August 8th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Few questions bosco (I’ll go easier than bile here) 1 – Are social programs, as they exist today in our country, in the best interest of the “big reset”, or are they actually strengthening the inequity in our society? 2 – To what degree do you feel that individual wealth in our country has been obtained or maintained via “underhanded means”? 3 – What is your guess to what would happen in 10 yrs to the hypothetical NYC upper-class ghetto scenario?