• sepi@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    8 hours ago

    BUT HOW ARE THE LANDLORDS (I am not one) GONNA AFFORD TO LIVE!!! THE POOOR LANDLORDS

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 hours ago

      BUT HOW ARE THE LANDLORDS (I am not one)

      So many of these NYT / WaPo Op-Eds are written by Landlords. So many Twitter shitposts and Facebook hate threads are started by landlords. So much of the local news bullshit is financed by landlords.

      The NYPost is landlord required reading.

  • Zenjal@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    13 hours ago

    I can’t remember who said it, but it’s like he got in office and saw the “Get Shit Done” button an jus for the life of him couldn’t understand why previous Mayors weren’t usin it

  • SorteKanin@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    11 hours ago

    The reason the right are so anti Mamdani is obvious: they don’t want you to see what your tax dollars being put to work the right way would actually look like.

    More like the left way 🥁

  • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    72
    ·
    16 hours ago

    its why most democrats are against him too.

    Cause hes setting a dangerous precedent of an elected official serving people, not money.

    • stickyprimer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Slavoj Zizek calls the Democrats “capitalism with a kinder face - LGBT rights and so on and so on.”

      That’s really it. They think the core economic system is working. They’re fine to greenlight social policies that don’t challenge it, especially if they think it will win them votes. And that’s all they are.

    • GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      12 hours ago

      My thought is that for many many years politicians didn’t really have to do anything to re-elected. And when they were asked to do something they would always say “we can’t afford that.” or they would write a bill that would promise “thing” will get funded 10 years from now. So these lifelong politicians have turned into lazy fucks just there for the money and are pissed at these younger officials that are actually doing the job they were elected to do.

      I have to admit I had been lulled into a sense of nothing will change attitude and now that I see how wrong I was I’ve become quite pissed off.

      • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Start rolling out guillotines and i bet they’d start finding ways to serve their electorate rather quickly.

        • merc@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 hours ago

          That won’t be their first instinct. Their first instinct will be to kill anybody who seems at all threatening.

  • UnspecificGravity@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Yep.

    They are going to reach into your pocket no matter what. The only question is if your money goes to a bunch of rich guys or back to people like you.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      They are going to reach into your pocket no matter what.

      They aren’t even in your pocket, relatively speaking. At the local level, you’re a drop in the bucket beside the big land owners and corporate industries. At the state level, you’re even less relevant. At the federal level, between intentional trade and deficit spending, you might as well not exist.

      The joke of modern taxation is how it’s largely unnecessary at the individual level. If the state simply planned it’s economy and managed it’s natural resources, everyone could do the Alaska thing where they pay you to live there.

      California hosts multiple trillionaires, ffs. Nobody with an income under seven figures needs to pay a dime to support that state’s spending plan.

    • gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      13 hours ago

      I don’t know if I love that phrase’s use here as it sets up the government as some foreign entity that is stealing from you when, at least in theory, it should be the price you pay for your community’s betterment. Of course that’s not what it feels like in the US (maybe anywhere, maybe federal taxes feel bad always), but that’s an argument for redistributing power and fixing the underlying systems more so than it is to be upset that taxes are a thing (or paint them as… Evil or something which this phrase does).

      • UnspecificGravity@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        12 hours ago

        That is the point. The taxes are reality, you are going to pay them. Whether they are evil or not depends on what that money is used for.

        • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 hours ago

          “Reach into your pocket” makes it sound as if they’re stealing from you. Which, if you live in the USA, is mostly true.

          In functioning democratic societies those taxes pay for things that benefit the citizens. At least that is the stated goal, and if they fuck it up, they get voted out.

          I think you guys need to start voting with your bullets.

    • jj4211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Sounds like here it’s letting a private company spend the money to get access to 3,000 residences in exchange for 1,000 affordable ones.

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 hours ago

        The phrase “at no cost to the city” is a red flag.

        It either means someone is lying, or that there’s some kind of “public-private partnership” which are frequently handouts to corporations or rich people.

        Maybe this is the rare case when the government will properly supervise the private side, and hold them to account.

      • Professorozone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        And as usual I don’t know if I should be outraged that a private company is involve that may lead to questionable practices or happy that at least they are 1000 affordable units available. Both maybe? I guess I’m cautiously optimistic.

  • Polisheocket@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    12 hours ago

    I live in CA, and our tax dollars get squandered. Gotta be progressive and know what your doing. We have one but not the other

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Seems like CA is doing pretty good actually.

        Then you haven’t been paying attention.

        Newsom is a curse. He’s carved up and sold out the state a dozen times over.

      • Polisheocket@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 hours ago

        Wasted funds to combate homelessness that went missing, funds not missing where not used strategically. Train to no where that cost billions. Employment Develoment Department fraud, billions lost. Misjudged capital gain spikes as permanent revenue, over stated multi year revenues by billions which triggered multi year budget deficits

  • UpAndAtThem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    20 hours ago

    It’s why the corporate neo-libs hate him too. They truly are in the business of managing decline instead of doing their fucking jobs.

  • Cypher@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    122
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    21 hours ago

    at no cost to the city

    Converting office space into apartments has a cost, it will be easily recouped but there is a cost.

    Seems like a good idea though.

    • BooBees@fedinsfw.app
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      126
      ·
      21 hours ago

      It appears funding is coming from private sources and upkeep labor is being organized by the 32BJ Union, a massive local union that specializes in affordable housing that’s populated with people who work and specialize in “cleaners, property maintenance workers, doormen, security officers, airport workers, window cleaners, building engineers, school and food service workers, factory workers, etc”.

      The conversion costs and labor appear to be funded and plan to be performed by GFP Real Estate and city partners, no doubt in exchange for good favor for future permit approvals and project integration by the Mayor’s administration.

      Pretty smart if you ask me.

      Source: https://www.nyc.gov/mayors-office/news/2026/09/mamdani-administration-advances-plan-to-build-nearly-4-000-new-h

      • Natanael@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        16 hours ago

        Seems like the setup is that the developer gets paid back via the market rate housing revenue, while the city gets a guarantee a minimum number of the new residences are rent controlled. So the developer self funds (or take loans) to start the project, it seems. And the city is still the landowner as far as I can tell, so the developer pays the city a share, which is how the city funds getting new office buildings for agencies to replace these.

        https://www.nyc.gov/mayors-office/news/2026/09/mamdani-administration-advances-plan-to-build-nearly-4-000-new-h

        I had to dig into what they mean by cross-subsidy to figure that out

      • jaybone@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        19 hours ago

        So do they sell off sections of the building to developers, who do the work and then sell units back to owners at a price cap?

    • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 hours ago

      3/4 of the apartments will be market rate, I bet it’s paid off in the first year when you look at market rate there.

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Vacant buildings have a cost too. A vacant high rise building that gets repossessed becomes a massive cost to the city.

    • Digestive_Biscuit@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Where I live they are trying to do the same. Sadly the shape of the building do not work well for housing. There’s more inside dark areas than window accessible areas. The proposal was to make a “community area” towards the centre of the building which is a terrible idea. The alternative is converting the inner area to apartments without any sunlight, which isn’t going to work even if it’s legal. The building sits empty because nobody can provide a good idea how to use it.

    • stickyprimer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      13 hours ago

      A lot of commercial real estate has gone unoccupied since COVID and the explosion of remote work. I see for lease signs all over downtown in my city.

      So it doesn’t necesarily have a cost and could in fact be revenue positive to convert to residences.

    • gigaqps@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      16 hours ago
      1. They’re not converting office space. They’re demolishing and rebuilding.
      2. There’s no cost to the city because they’re selling the building to a private developer on the condition they use the site for housing.
    • Marthirial@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      19 hours ago

      Can you just get the win? It is healthy to be skeptic but in the context of how shit everything else is, what’s the point of stating the obvious?

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 hours ago

        It’s wise to look for the potential ‘catch’, and the story provides it if you look, though the headline itself makes it pretty obvious by stating there will be 3,000 unaffordable residences.

        In this case, the ‘catch’ still seems pretty solid. Sure a real estate company gets to gouge 3,000 units, but 1,000 units may well be worth that. But it does mean continued vigilance, to make sure the real estate company doesn’t somehow screw up stewardship of those 1,000 affordable units.

  • darthelmet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    14 hours ago

    When basic competent governance is seen as radical, you know how bad things have been/are. I’m so jealous of the city right now. I’m seeing videos pop up every day about some new project. Meanwhile my town wont fix potholes unless you very specifically ask them to do so, and then they will only fix THAT ONE even if there are others nearby. There are not nearly enough trees and basically no functional public transportation, so getting anywhere without a car is a pain. I can’t get anyone in the town gov to answer my emails and while I haven’t been to a board meeting yet, I’ve been told by someone else who has gone that they’re so disinterested in what people have to say some of them have literally fallen asleep on the job. But we’ve just been stuck with them because my town are a bunch of NIMBYs who don’t care as long as their taxes don’t go up.