Follow Roosevelt Islander On:




Friday, February 14, 2014

Happy Valentine's Day Snowheart From Roosevelt Island

From the Roosevelt Island Twitterverse:

You can also celebrate Valentine's Day and tell someone you love them in a song - Jim Croce's I'll Have To Say I Love You In A Song.

Happy Valentine's Day B!


Bill Blass said...

I bet that old Rosie. . Ktw. And westviewer.and maybe even mark are all going to rent in the Hamptons this summer. All together in one house

Bill Blass said...

Thats right kitty I will always be a slave in sec 8.unless I want to pay a rent of 3400 dollars on my way

KTG said...

Unless god forbid you endure the unacceptable hardship of going 2-3 more stops out on the subway to get a market rate apartment that you can afford. But then what would complain about then.

KTG said...

I don't think you get the economics of the market.

First the story you reference takes place in Minnesota where both labor and land costs are exponential lower, minimizing the investment. Lot tougher to do here, that why development is done by investors who are heavily heavily leveraged . As an example River walk buildings will cost millions in construction and without justifiable income would never get developed. And New York state and city are only driving costs up to raise tax revenue so due more harm then good in housing market.

Also rent controls do little accept address symptom of the issue of financial stability. Say you have a family of 3 making 100k and they get a subsidized or rent controlled apartment for 1500 a month well below market. Their living expense (rent, food, utilities, etc) are still pretty high compared to income.

Its hurts their ability to save and retire, compounding that is fact they also maybe constrained from taking second jobs or pursuing other avenues for income without losing the benefit of rent control.

In contrast if they bought in NYC but not necessarily right near Manhattan they get decrease in taxes and an asset that grows overtime.

KTG said...

I am more of a Newport guy never really liked Long Island. I actually like staying on Roosevelt Island in summer with the MP outdoor pool its quite nice. Again I prefer a long vacation to a bunch of weekend trips. I can send you my recommendations for Italy if you want.

CheshireKitty said...

"Having affordable housing is linked to better health outcomes so insurance company UnitedHealth is spending some money on affordable housing units." The blog commentary is very straightforward in explaining why United Health is spending $150,000,000 to build affordable housing in 12 States.

It makes business sense for United to invest in these units in a dozen states - as way of keeping down the ins benefits they need to pay in the long run.

K: It's easy to point fingers at taxation and rent control as the "culprits". You sound like a recording of typical landlord/developer propaganda.

If it were up to you, the benign "hand of the market" would determine 'fairness." Unfortunately, it doesn't always work that way.

If it were up to the elite alone to set the agenda, we'd still be living under feudalism, or in the Dickensian, pre- labor union, pre-OSHA, pre all the controls on business greed, past. Modernity means control of the market, at least some control, along with workers and renters being on a more "organized" and conscious footing with owners. This is the point of education after all: The raising of the average person's educational level so they are not taken advantage of by any entity: Gov, business, or landlord.

So you are suggesting BB move to a 'burb and buy a cheap "generic" dwelling, as a good investment? That's so the metropolis is cleansed of the "lower income" "less desirable" folks, right? Maybe that will happen - the metropolis will become whiter and richer, and the suburbs more ethnic and poorer. That is what you would like - kicking the poor "minorities" to the suburbs, right?

Unfortunately, the reality is far from what you envision. In the last Mayoral election, the aggregate minority vote was 55% and the aggregate outer-borough white ethnic (mostly Jewish and Italian) vote dropped to under 30%. De Blasio won in a landslide, taking roughly 75% of the votes cast.

The results of the Mayoral election should give you an idea of the electoral strength of minorities (i.e. Black, Asian, Latino) in NYC today - many of whom are indeed striving, being tested financially, and struggling.

The voting bloc that put de Blasio into City Hall also controls the City Council today.

De Blasio is already in a struggle with the Legislature re taxation - and that is only his first battle to turn things around in NYC.

The question is going to be who has the will to persist in bringing the concerns of the vast majority of New Yorkers of all ethnic backgrounds who are not "rich" to the foreground, and restoring justice to NYC, after the 12 years of the blatantly pro-"rich" policies of BB. Will de Blasio stick to his progressive agenda and have measures passed by the Council to right the wrongs of the BB years? Or will de Blasio, like so many politicians before him, eventually sell out to the real estate interests?

CheshireKitty said...

KTG's side-kick has resurfaced! How much more substantiation do you need? United Health care is investing $150,000,000 to build affordable housing in a dozen States because affordable housing is linked to better health outcomes. They are not acting our of sheer altruism. It makes business sense for United to build the housing as better health outcomes mean United pays out less in med ins benefits.

KTG said...

Stop with your rambling fiction. Rego park Jackson heights Elmhurst woodside All affordable

CheshireKitty said...

They should feel free to move to the great State of New Jersey (or, as some say, "Joisey") the home of "Godfather" Chris Christie and his carefully engineered mega traffic jams. If I'm not mistaken, Jersey residents who work in NYC still pay some tax to NY if they work in NYC - so not all the tax revenue is lost.

Imagine how "socially progressive" they'll look to their buddies if they up and leave because they didn't want to pay a tax to fund pre-K and after-school programs. They would have to hide their heads in brown paper bags (or white hoods maybe?) to avoid the shame. Their guilty conscience at being so mean to the millions of little kids that will rely on this additional tax revenue, should keep many of them in place in NYC, even if it seems counter-intuitive.

KTG said...

Read my post before you rant . I was not taling about bill who is content to founder and complain online. I was discussing benefit of rent control to a family making 100 k. I also said they would do better buying in nyc but not right near Manhattan. And buying is always better for wealth creation then renting provided you are intelligent in balancing cost. Lost on you who can not even read a post. If it were up to people like you no one would be responsible for themselveut s again you still don't realize you got yourself laid off

OldRossie said...

again, < 30% of the city voted, so your numbers are moot.

CheshireKitty said...

LOL. Oy vey!

CheshireKitty said...

Oh, right: You would prefer classic Newport to the Island - I suppose even ritzier than the Hamptons.

Yep - the pool is nice @ MP, I agree.

Those that can afford long vacation, take them. BB may not be in that category.

CheshireKitty said...

Oh, come on KTG. The boroughs, even the unfashionable areas of the boroughs, are quickly catching up to the housing price boom, or bubble. BB would probably have to travel to WV (and that's WV as in West Virginia, not Westview) to find truly "affordable" accommodations.

OldRossie said...

It's an investment, you dope! This plays DIRECTLY into KTGs point - no one builds without a return. They're going to MAKE money from it. This isn't the first time you misrepresented your own links - Do you read more than the headline?
Shall we also discuss this socially-aware company's stock option scandal, or its investment in the Obama campaign in exchange for the contract to build the obamacare website where it has MADE $150 million, interestingly, just enough to cover this investment?

CheshireKitty said...

And what is that supposed to mean? That the 70% who didn't vote will then "rise up" and overthrow de Blasio? Nobody made those that didn't vote not vote.

There was a truly uninspiring BB-clone a****e running on the Rep line. That was why so many stayed home/didn't vote on election day.

But if you are implying that the 70% are all conservative Reps, that's ridiculous. First of all, NYC Dem registrations outstrip Rep registration 5:1. NYC is a Dem stronghold. In fact, BB (& even before him Giuliani) was orig a reg Dem. He thought he couldn't challenge the established Dem "machine" and so switched parties; if anything, preferred not to even identify with parties eventually (not surprising considering the idiocy of much of Rep politics these days).

70% probably didn't vote because the polls showed de Blasio way ahead, there was little to no contest with a loser like Lhota opposing him, and so many people didn't bother voting. The number that didn't vote in 2013 isn't particularly unusual in NYC (which we established in an earlier conversation).

OldRossie said...

Run with that. It's valentines day, I've got plans. By all means, proceed with your rants.

CheshireKitty said...

Hey - enjoy your Valentine's Day with the dog-princess of your dreams!

CheshireKitty said...

Well, yeah - and do you see me complaining about it? I think, after 22 years on the job, with the perfect attendance record, and the stellar performance appraisals, I was laid off through no point of my own, due to downsizing. They gave me a fantastic package; I have no complaints.

As far as my reading your post, I do read your posts, but you are comparing apples and oranges. You are assuming BB is in a position to buy, or even wishes to buy. Why is the American dream = buying real property? It may be that the more efficient way to live is to rent an affordable apartment.

The notion of wealth creation may not even be topmost for most people, especially those who for any number of reasons, may not be in a position to create wealth. These people should not be subject to the exploitation of capitalism, both as exploited workers and renters.

I'll let you chew over that and address that. Just remember though: Not everyone buys into, or can buy into, your one-size-fits all notion of what it means to be an American - chasing the everlasting dollar.

KTG said...

Please stop talking nonsense, One I was not using BB as the case I said that last time. But on that thread his issues are not cause by a conscious decision to work for a charity, more than likely a lack of planning.

Back to real topic which you keep moving off of maybe the efficient way for home cost can be an affordable apartment but its not efficient if taxpayers or some large corporate entity is subsidized it? I also bet in your example United is getting tax breaks for housing units it built.

No it does have to be about chasing a dollar but if you choose to be happy and not focus on wealth, but you still have to be about owning your financial independence.

BTW I love my corporate job, I worked hard for and find it rewarding both financially and personally. Again that what happens when you view your job as a chance to move up and not a paycheck I feel sad for you that your skewed social agenda stopped you from being a success but don't discourage others.

CheshireKitty said...

KTG: Can you please review/edit your comment, most of which is incomprehensible.

KTG said...

I understand you are not that bright so let me take my reply point by point.

1. My fist comment was directed at your desire to tie these posts to Bill. As I say again my post was not directed at Bill but a theoretical case. I think you probably keep referencing Bill in the vain hope he will join you in the argument you are losing. But in truth I think Bill is not a valid reference in this discussion because his financial position is tied to a lack of planning in his life and not by a desire to serve the community as you alluded to in your comment about "chasing the dollar".

2. My second comment was a request that you refocus your attention on the topic we where discussing rent control / affordability of housing. My point again is that any low cost option that is supported by an entity (be it corporate or government) is not truly low cost because you are choosing to ignore the costs incurred by that support structure. In the case of United Healthcare example you cites I am sure a healthy tax subsidy is helping their cost and hitting the tax payer indirectly .

3. Lastly you're post implied that I think everyone must take a corporate job that focuses on income growth. By no means did I say that I simply said that if you choose to focus on personal happiness rather than financial gain don't expect the tax payer to subsidize that decision.

4. Lastly my last point was more personal and unrelated to affordability discussion so I do apologize for getting off track. I was simply stating that I find my job rewarding because I invest my energy into. Your own posts indicate you treated yours simply as paycheck and got laid off. You can say your retired Helen but I think you are looking for a job based on LinkedIn profile I saw. Had you focused on a career path 10-15 years ago new / prospective employers would not look at you as some who had no vertical movement in a 20+ year career. But in interviews feel free to keep focusing on attendance, its a trait most grammar school students require.

Hope you and your cats had a lovely valentines day in.

OldRossie said...

I think KTG made an important point - I just want to reiterate to make sure it wasnt lost in the discussion: "if you chose to focus on personal happiness rather than financial gain dont expect the taxpayer to subsidize that decision."
Id also like to second the wish that cheshirekitty had a lovely night in with her cats. Assuming they havent run off...

CheshireKitty said...

Please refrain from linking me to anyone named Helen. My Disqus profile was erroneously linked to the Facebook account of Helen.

If, however, you are keen on drawing parallels or contradictions between the way we have lived our lives vs what we say here, then please feel free to include your own facebook/linked in sites.

From grade school on, I had no particular interest in going to school. I lacked ambition (greed). So I'm not too bright when it comes to greed/avarice/exploitation, that is true, certainly not as bright as you.

I worked in my life to make a living. Unsurprisingly, I've also earned a nifty Social Security pension, which I will duly file for in about 2 months time. As I've said, I was laid off from my last job due to no fault of my own. Of course I look for work, but job prospects for the older worker are grim. Even so, I wouldn't sneeze at a job that not only lasted 22 years, but also provided a decent wage and a full range of benefits. Many jobs today don't even provide paid sick time.

As far as United Health Care spending $150,000,000 to build affordable housing in 12 States, rather than luxury housing, it is of no consequence whether United is receiving various tax incentives. So do many developers of luxury housing whether or not they agree to include a small amount of affordable units within the luxury developments, we all know that. What is the point of bringing that up?

You continually avoid the central point, which is, that United is willing to forego making the big money in the near term by investing in luxury housing, in order to fatten their bottom line in the long term by improving the health of their customers by providing affordable housing thus reducing the amount of medical services this moderate- or low-income population will require.

You cannot accept the simple fact that there is in fact a positive possible to not constantly chasing the highest return on investment. It is in fact short-sighted to simply wish to extract the greatest number of dollars from a given square foot of land. The consequence of the bubble will be apparent later - no real estate bubble lasts forever. If developers provided lower cost housing, it is more likely those units would remain leased in the event of a catastrophic downturn, rather than the more expensive/luxury units.

As we all know, Cheshire Kitties have an uncanny ability to vanish, starting from the tip of their tail and ending with only their ironic grin last. There is no way of knowing exactly where a Cheshire Kitty may be at any given time, or on any day. This elusiveness is in stark contrast to your rather boring predictability, KTG: We all know that everyday, rain or shine, snow or sleet, you must slog into the office. Right?

Perhaps, on a cold and snowy day, a Cheshire Kitty would find it agreeable to remain curled up by a crackling fire before a hearth, dreaming of whatever it is Kitties dream of, maybe mice, maybe shady spots from which to observe songbirds on summer days. A domestic Kitty on such a cold, wintry Valentine's Day would have no complaints about resting in a safe, warm unit.