‘It’s legal, there’s just no precedent’: the first US town to demand a rent decrease

[f8ta1ity54]

This is my home town. My last 2 bedroom apartment went from $1375 to $1800 a year after my lease was up. That didn't include a yearly $750 deposit for a dog under 50lbs. That was on top of the first and last month deposit just to move in.

A mortgage is rent control for those who can afford it. Everyone else can get fucked, apparently.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/07/new-york-housing-rent-costs-kingston-tenants

[f8ta1ity54]

"Rich Lanzarone says his determination to defeat rent regulation is simple: “First of all, it’s a threat to my income, a threat to my financial life.”

Get a fucking job then, you fucking leech.

[Albany,n.y.]

It's economics.  If your salary is too low to pay the rent, it's time to move to a lower cost of living area and/or get training for a better job.  Reality is that some people just can't continue to live in a high cost of living area anymore.  They can either find a better job, move or both.  I've had to do this.  I grew up in Long Island and soon found out after college that I couldn't afford to live on my own while beginning my career at entry level wages.  I tried twice & couldn't do it.  So, I moved to Buffalo twice until I could get my career started in a place I could afford to live.  I got my career to the point where I moved back to Long Island and could afford to live there. Eventually, I left for the final time when I was offered a promotion in Albany.  I got a double benefit: 1) Higher salary 2) Lower cost of living.  Eventually I could afford a house, which would have been out of reach in Long Island.  

I've seen the same situation with family who live in the Bay area of California, where the cost of living is ridiculously high.  The younger ones want to live where they grew up, but at some point, they realize it's time to move.  

The people who want to stay in Kingston and can barely afford it can keep suffering, or they can move to a more affordable area.  They can also look to upgrade their job choices with education & training.  It's their choice.  There will always be cheaper places to live, it's a big country.  

[f8ta1ity54]

19 minutes ago, Albany,n.y. said:

It's economics.  If your salary is too low to pay the rent, it's time to move to a lower cost of living area and/or get training for a better job.  Reality is that some people just can't continue to live in a high cost of living area anymore.  They can either find a better job, move or both.  I've had to do this.  I grew up in Long Island and soon found out after college that I couldn't afford to live on my own while beginning my career at entry level wages.  I tried twice & couldn't do it.  So, I moved to Buffalo twice until I could get my career started in a place I could afford to live.  I got my career to the point where I moved back to Long Island and could afford to live there. Eventually, I left for the final time when I was offered a promotion in Albany.  I got a double benefit: 1) Higher salary 2) Lower cost of living.  Eventually I could afford a house, which would have been out of reach in Long Island.  

I've seen the same situation with family who live in the Bay area of California, where the cost of living is ridiculously high.  The younger ones want to live where they grew up, but at some point, they realize it's time to move.  

The people who want to stay in Kingston and can barely afford it can keep suffering, or they can move to a more affordable area.  They can also look to upgrade their job choices with education & training.  It's their choice.  There will always be cheaper places to live, it's a big country.  

Or as a society we can tell landlords to fuck off. It's the "fuck you got mine" mentality that allows the landlords to exploit working class people to the point they can't afford to live. People that just shrug their shoulders and say "that's just the way it is", are part of the problem.

[ICRockets2]

28 minutes ago, Albany,n.y. said:

It's economics.  If your salary is too low to pay the rent, it's time to move to a lower cost of living area and/or get training for a better job.  Reality is that some people just can't continue to live in a high cost of living area anymore.  They can either find a better job, move or both.  I've had to do this.  I grew up in Long Island and soon found out after college that I couldn't afford to live on my own while beginning my career at entry level wages.  I tried twice & couldn't do it.  So, I moved to Buffalo twice until I could get my career started in a place I could afford to live.  I got my career to the point where I moved back to Long Island and could afford to live there. Eventually, I left for the final time when I was offered a promotion in Albany.  I got a double benefit: 1) Higher salary 2) Lower cost of living.  Eventually I could afford a house, which would have been out of reach in Long Island.  

I've seen the same situation with family who live in the Bay area of California, where the cost of living is ridiculously high.  The younger ones want to live where they grew up, but at some point, they realize it's time to move.  

The people who want to stay in Kingston and can barely afford it can keep suffering, or they can move to a more affordable area.  They can also look to upgrade their job choices with education & training.  It's their choice.  There will always be cheaper places to live, it's a big country.  

Long Island cannot function without minimum-wage or "unskilled" labor.  The people doing that labor should be able to afford to live in Long Island.  

[TonyasTaters]

49 minutes ago, Albany,n.y. said:

It's economics.  If your salary is too low to pay the rent, it's time to move to a lower cost of living area and/or get training for a better job.  Reality is that some people just can't continue to live in a high cost of living area anymore.  They can either find a better job, move or both.  I've had to do this.  I grew up in Long Island and soon found out after college that I couldn't afford to live on my own while beginning my career at entry level wages.  I tried twice & couldn't do it.  So, I moved to Buffalo twice until I could get my career started in a place I could afford to live.  I got my career to the point where I moved back to Long Island and could afford to live there. Eventually, I left for the final time when I was offered a promotion in Albany.  I got a double benefit: 1) Higher salary 2) Lower cost of living.  Eventually I could afford a house, which would have been out of reach in Long Island.  

I've seen the same situation with family who live in the Bay area of California, where the cost of living is ridiculously high.  The younger ones want to live where they grew up, but at some point, they realize it's time to move.  

The people who want to stay in Kingston and can barely afford it can keep suffering, or they can move to a more affordable area.  They can also look to upgrade their job choices with education & training.  It's their choice.  There will always be cheaper places to live, it's a big country.  

Without landlords where will these folks live then? 

[Albany,n.y.]

13 minutes ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

Or as a society we can tell landlords to fuck off. It's the "fuck you got mine" mentality that allows the landlords to exploit working class people to the point they can't afford to live. People that just shrug their shoulders and say "that's just the way it is", are part of the problem.

If you do that, they'll just sell the property to someone who will have to raise the rents to afford the mortgage and end up kicking everyone out.  People invest in real estate to make money.  Very few are doing it for purely altruistic reasons.   I once took a course where the teacher was a real estate investor.  He routinely bought up properties with below market rents & raised the rents on the tenants.  If they couldn't afford it, out they went.  That's the reality of real estate investing.  As long as there are tenants with the ability to pay the going rate, the other tenants are either going to have to come up with the rent or move.  It's called capitalism.  

[ICRockets2]

5 minutes ago, TonyasTaters said:

Without landlords where will these folks live then? 

The exact same places.  Without landlords.

[ICRockets2]

4 minutes ago, Albany,n.y. said:

  People invest in real estate to make money.  

Correct.  At the expense of people who work for a living.  This is why landlords shouldn't exist.

[f8ta1ity54]

1 minute ago, Albany,n.y. said:

If you do that, they'll just sell the property to someone who will have to raise the rents to afford the mortgage and end up kicking everyone out.  People invest in real estate to make money.  Very few are doing it for purely altruistic reasons.   I once took a course where the teacher was a real estate investor.  He routinely bought up properties with below market rents & raised the rents on the tenants.  If they couldn't afford it, out they went.  That's the reality of real estate investing.  As long as there are tenants with the ability to pay the going rate, the other tenants are either going to have to come up with the rent or move.  It's called capitalism.  

Profits over treating people like human beings. I understand how capitalism works. 

[TonyasTaters]

1 minute ago, ICRockets2 said:

The exact same places.  Without landlords.

Who owns the property then? The government? 

[Albany,n.y.]

3 minutes ago, TonyasTaters said:

Without landlords where will these folks live then? 

In a different location.  There will always be landlords in areas they can make a profit in.  The reason is that as long as investing in apartments is profitable, landlords will exist.  When it becomes unprofitable, they will sell & the new owner will change the use.  Might even tear the building down & build something different entirely different, as long as zoning permits the new use.  

[ICRockets2]

6 minutes ago, Albany,n.y. said:

If you do that, they'll just sell the property to someone who will have to raise the rents to afford the mortgage and end up kicking everyone out.  People invest in real estate to make money.  Very few are doing it for purely altruistic reasons.   I once took a course where the teacher was a real estate investor.  He routinely bought up properties with below market rents & raised the rents on the tenants.  If they couldn't afford it, out they went.  That's the reality of real estate investing.  As long as there are tenants with the ability to pay the going rate, the other tenants are either going to have to come up with the rent or move.  It's called capitalism.  

No shit, why the fuck do you think f8 and I are anti-capitalist?

[Albany,n.y.]

Just now, ICRockets2 said:

No shit, why the fuck do you think f8 and I are anti-capitalist?

Well, you're not living in the real world.  You live in a capitalist society whether you like it or not.  Landlords aren't going to buy properties so they can house you at a loss.  

[TonyasTaters]

Just now, ICRockets2 said:

No shit, why the fuck do you think f8 and I are anti-capitalist?

Without capitalism how would there be pharmaceutical therapies for those who are transitioning. You do realize capitalism is the driver to new technology? Without what is the incentive? 

[ICRockets2]

Just now, TonyasTaters said:

Who owns the property then? The government? 

Possibly.  I like the idea of the people living there owning it themselves, but as we transition to fairer housing practices I'd be fine with, say, the government seizing the property and renting at a reasonable rate (whatever percentage of your income they say you "should" be paying, maybe minus a little bit) until the cumulative rent paid by the residents would have been enough to purchase the property outright, at which point ownership transfers from government to resident.

I'm open to other solutions, that's just off the top of my head.

[f8ta1ity54]

1 minute ago, TonyasTaters said:

Without capitalism how would there be pharmaceutical therapies for those who are transitioning. You do realize capitalism is the driver to new technology? Without what is the incentive? 

LoL

What incentive was there to create new technology before capitalism?

[ICRockets2]

3 minutes ago, Albany,n.y. said:

Well, you're not living in the real world.  You live in a capitalist society whether you like it or not.  Landlords aren't going to buy properties so they can house you at a loss.  

This is retarded.  You're just puking out capitalist realism bullshit.  

I know we CURRENTLY live under the jackboot of Capital.  That does not mean we HAVE to.  Socialism is a much better, much more humane economic system.  

[ICRockets2]

4 minutes ago, TonyasTaters said:

Without capitalism how would there be pharmaceutical therapies for those who are transitioning. You do realize capitalism is the driver to new technology? Without what is the incentive? 

What the fuck are you talking about?  The people designing new drugs don't own the patents for those drugs.  Their company does.  And under capitalism, they have no profit-sharing mechanism to take advantage of.  

Under socialism, the people designing new drugs would have MORE incentive to do so because they own the company.  

[f8ta1ity54]

1 minute ago, ICRockets2 said:

This is retarded.  You're just puking out capitalist realism bullshit.  

I know we CURRENTLY live under the jackboot of Capital.  That does not mean we HAVE to.  Socialism is a much better, much more humane economic system.  

It boggles my mind.

Oh, so you want the government to control housing? The government is bad!

Ok, but the government is held accountable to the people. The capitalist class can fuck you sideways and you can't do dick about it. How is that better?

[Albany,n.y.]

1 minute ago, ICRockets2 said:

This is retarded.  You're just puking out capitalist realism bullshit.  

I know we CURRENTLY live under the jackboot of Capital.  That does not mean we HAVE to.  Socialism is a much better, much more humane economic system.  

Reality is that as long as you live where you do, you can either accept it or live under a bridge in some box.  

There will never be full socialism in the USA.  In fact, all the talk of socialism does is give the far right talking points to use against their political opponents.  

[ICRockets2]

1 minute ago, Albany,n.y. said:

Reality is that as long as you live where you do, you can either accept it or live under a bridge in some box.  

There will never be full socialism in the USA.  In fact, all the talk of socialism does is give the far right talking points to use against their political opponents.  

There's no socialism fuckin anywhere, shitforbrains.  Where would you have me move that has socialism?

[f8ta1ity54]

2 minutes ago, ICRockets2 said:

What the fuck are you talking about?  The people designing new drugs don't own the patents for those drugs.  Their company does.  And under capitalism, they have no profit-sharing mechanism to take advantage of.  

Under socialism, the people designing new drugs would have MORE incentive to do so because they own the company.  

Lol its like saying, "now that I'm a partner in this company, I have no incentive to ensure it continues to be successful."

Like, what?

[TonyasTaters]

6 minutes ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

LoL

What incentive was there to create new technology before capitalism?

So tell me what country that doesn't have capitalism is a leading developer of any kind of technology or pharmaceutical?

[ICRockets2]

Just now, f8ta1ity54 said:

Lol its like saying, "now that I'm a partner in this company, I have no incentive to ensure it continues to be successful."

Like, what?

Neoliberalism lobotomizes the part of your brain that is capable of imagining a better world.