Mamdani, very similar to Trump, tapped into a disenfranchised group of voters through buzzwords, what will probably end up being false promises, and idealistic 6th grade class president ideas. The only way this plan gets implemented is increased taxes to higher earners and corporations. Hochul has already said she would not support the tax increase because she knows they'll just leave the state. Wealthy individuals are not required to play along when they can just say "Nope" and move out. Not all will do that, but I'm assuming some/most will.

His Community Safety Program/policing proposal is a complete joke as well. Mental health workers showing up before the NYPD, giving civilians responsibilities over the police, etc.

3 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Understood. Reason I asked is I didn’t know if you meant affordable housing as you’ve described above, or "affordable housing” as in government regulated "affordable housing.”

So part of the problem as I’ve stated is the interest rate policy we’ve had in this country for the past 20 years and what that has done in general to the price of housing. The other part to note which you’ve also noted is house size. If you compare the average house size today to say 50-70 years ago, home sizes are significantly larger today. (Which is also somewhat ironic because family sizes are smaller. So you have less people occupying larger houses). So when comparing home prices over time, we do have to take into account the size of the home and should be looking at it on a per sf basis. Which even on a per sf basis, the cost has gone up but not AS big a difference when just comparing nominal prices.

I think part of the increase in home size is due to demand. People in general I think do want larger homes than previous generations. But I also think part of it is also due to local regulations that make it unprofitable for developers to build smaller homes.

For example, a new housing development is being built near me. It’s zoned R1, which means the minimum lot size is about 0.3 acres. So the developer laid out 0.5 acre lots and it can fit 16 homes. And so of course they are large homes. Wouldn’t make sense financially for the developer to have 0.3 - 0.5 acre lots and put a 3 bed 1.5 bath 2,000 SF home on it.

The average house size has dramatically increased because of gang plates. Before them nailing wood together led to limitations of roof sizes. With gang plates, building a large footprint is both cheap and efficient. Builders opted to go with larger size homes because they got more margin by increasing the sizes of houses versus increasing the number built.

2 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

What shocked me is how little the rate increases of the last few years has impacted home values.

They've certainly impacted the real estate market. But not as much as I expected. The median sale price went down as we went from a 3-4% prime rate up to 8%+.

But if you look at specific areas and track sale values over time, the same types of homes in the same area continued to rise in sale value.

I attribute this in part to the lock-in effect of low interest loans. I'm five years in to a 15-year at 2.5%. Only about 25% of my PI is on interest.

It would take a helluva deal or change in financial circumstances for me to move.

Ok, so I think that one had to do more with supply and demand versus rates. Around COVID, millenials started entering the homebuying demographic and increased the demand, but covid shutdowns and supply chain issues curtailed supply.

Also, I think the rate increases were more of the little dutch boy sticking his finger in the inflation hole in the dam than they were to actually depreciate asset costs, and to go to the length of decreasing asset costs they would have had to go even further, which would probably have Fd employment.

I think the big issue with the rates is that corporations got addicted to low interest rates over the last few decades and forgot how to actually work for their money instead of just raking in cashflow and doing stock buy backs.

8 minutes ago, TEW said:

The dude plans on going full **** with both anti-policing and anti-corporate policies.

If you want to know how to destroy a city quickly, that is it: purposefully implement policies which radically increase crime and drive businesses away.

Policy matters, actually.

And per usual I think you're being dramatic about the outcome and influence of a mayor. The ecosystem of one of the most powerful cities in the world isn't fragile enough to be broken by a few years of some socialist policies. If crime rises and businesses shutting down he'll be booted in 4 years with minimal long term damage.

And for the record, I don't even support a lot of what he's saying he wants. Nor do I think he'll get many of his plans approved by the state legislature. But the fear mongering as if NYC is going to implode because of free PreK and city subsidized produce stands is silly.

2 hours ago, Mike31mt said:

Lol all the former libertarians now full-on commie.

God bless you @Phillyterp85, you're fighting the good fight. You're just not fighting the real enemy....

That's what's behind all this. You think these LARPers give two ishs about rent prices in New York??

8 minutes ago, BDawk_ASamuel said:

His Community Safety Program/policing proposal is a complete joke as well. Mental health workers showing up before the NYPD, giving civilians responsibilities over the police, etc.

Eh this one I'm torn on. As someone who has to call crisis and an unfortunately regular basis, there's something really unnerving about 4 fully armed cops showing up the scene of a 13 year old autistic kid throwing a fit punching walls. A mental health worker is genuinely a more helpful option in those scenarios IMO, and frees up cops to handle other more appropriate crap.

Now do I trust these groups to correctly predict which scenarios warrant cops vs other services? Absolutely not. I hope I'm wrong there but I tend to just assume most people are incompetent. Guess we'll see.

17 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

And per usual I think you're being dramatic about the outcome and influence of a mayor. The ecosystem of one of the most powerful cities in the world isn't fragile enough to be broken by a few years of some socialist policies. If crime rises and businesses shutting down he'll be booted in 4 years with minimal long term damage.

And for the record, I don't even support a lot of what he's saying he wants. Nor do I think he'll get many of his plans approved by the state legislature. But the fear mongering as if NYC is going to implode because of free PreK and city subsidized produce stands is silly.

I’m being realistic and you’re being hopelessly optimistic. Will NYC turn into an Islamic caliphate? No. Can NYC enter a Detroit like terminal decline? Yes.

You have this naive idea that things will just magically balance out instead of the more likely scenario of them spiraling down in a negative feedback loop. There is absolutely no indication of democrats — or republicans for that matter — moderating.

All data points to the opposite. Younger people are MORE extreme and lean MORE to the left economically. So do women. So do minorities. NYC is a city of women and minorities and young people. No country for old white men who are basically the only demographic in the entire country who enthusiastically support capitalism.

More likely, he will not be voted out when his policies are inevitably a disaster and he, along with his voters, will just blame the evil rich people and corporations more and double down.

Oh, and that ecosystem? That ecosystem has ALREADY been breaking down. The advantages of having all the world’s largest corporate head quarters in one city just isn’t as important as it used to be with modern communications. Start taxing them even more, start taxing the ultra high earners more, start making these people even more unsafe and they WILL leave.

23 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Eh this one I'm torn on. As someone who has to call crisis and an unfortunately regular basis, there's something really unnerving about 4 fully armed cops showing up the scene of a 13 year old autistic kid throwing a fit punching walls. A mental health worker is genuinely a more helpful option in those scenarios IMO, and frees up cops to handle other more appropriate crap.

Now do I trust these groups to correctly predict which scenarios warrant cops vs other services? Absolutely not. I hope I'm wrong there but I tend to just assume most people are incompetent. Guess we'll see.

What in the last decade of Democrat controlled city politics makes you think this nut job will have anything other than a completely retarded policy on crime?

Congrats NY, you fell for the bait-and-switch. You'd think the pretending would have lasted at least one day, but nope, even Van Jones is saying the obvious. My guess is that Zohran, the politician who is "one of the working people", is a bit scared because this is the first job the millionaire kid has ever landed. Smiley is going to have to actually do some work now.

48 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

And per usual I think you're being dramatic about the outcome and influence of a mayor. The ecosystem of one of the most powerful cities in the world isn't fragile enough to be broken by a few years of some socialist policies. If crime rises and businesses shutting down he'll be booted in 4 years with minimal long term damage.

And for the record, I don't even support a lot of what he's saying he wants. Nor do I think he'll get many of his plans approved by the state legislature. But the fear mongering as if NYC is going to implode because of free PreK and city subsidized produce stands is silly.

It's not a light switch. You can't just flip it off and back on again and say "Sorry! We made a mistake with the last guy, but it's okay to come back now!" Once people start to leave, they won't come back.

San Francisco is dealing with this now. The new mayor has made strides but they have a long way to go to get back to what it used to be, and it's not a guarantee that it ever does.

54 minutes ago, Bill said:

Ok, so I think that one had to do more with supply and demand versus rates. Around COVID, millenials started entering the homebuying demographic and increased the demand, but covid shutdowns and supply chain issues curtailed supply.

Also, I think the rate increases were more of the little dutch boy sticking his finger in the inflation hole in the dam than they were to actually depreciate asset costs, and to go to the length of decreasing asset costs they would have had to go even further, which would probably have Fd employment.

I think the big issue with the rates is that corporations got addicted to low interest rates over the last few decades and forgot how to actually work for their money instead of just raking in cashflow and doing stock buy backs.

Right, I think the rates going up had two big effects ..

it of course reduced demand as people got priced out due to higher borrowing costs..

but it also reduced supply as people who locked in to lower mortgage rates prior are more likely to stretch out their time in starter homes rather than taking on the double-whammy of a larger mortgage AND a larger rate..

I don't know that they totally canceled out, but in our area at least (anecdotal I know) home prices have continued to rise steadily even with the higher interest rates..

Detroit is in a terminal decline? Overall it's had quite a reasonable resurgence economically as it has diversified away from auto manufacturing. It's a bit of a K shaped recovery, but you never cared about the poors anyway.

22 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Right, I think the rates going up had two big effects ..

it of course reduced demand as people got priced out due to higher borrowing costs..

but it also reduced supply as people who locked in to lower mortgage rates prior are more likely to stretch out their time in starter homes rather than taking on the double-whammy of a larger mortgage AND a larger rate..

I don't know that they totally canceled out, but in our area at least (anecdotal I know) home prices have continued to rise steadily even with the higher interest rates..

Here in Florida rates took off like a bat out of hell and finally leveled off, but they’re still way higher than what the wages can support.

I think you’re gonna see a flight of people back into the rust belt. Millennials are priced out of a lot of places, plus there’s the double whammy of the high priced places being "socialist utopias” or MAGAland. I’m myself looking at moving so I can have the cheaper cost of living and centrist purple state politics.

It is really nice to see the general concern for New York's wellbeing from all the people who talk constantly talk about how awful and scary cities are

Look we can bookmark this now and circle back in 4 years. I doubt there will be much in the way of change either way but if NYC is a smoldering ash heap by then I'll eat my crow and miss out on the 1 trip every 3 years or so I take in there to see a show or 2. That's about the extent I see it affecting anyone around here.

1 minute ago, DEagle7 said:

It is really nice to see the general concern for New York's wellbeing from all the people who talk constantly talk about how awful and scary cities are

Look we can bookmark this now and circle back in 4 years. I doubt there will be much in the way of change either way but if NYC is a smoldering ash heap by then I'll eat my crow and miss out on the 1 trip every 3 years or so I take in there to see a show or 2. That's about the extent I see it affecting anyone around here.

On 6/24/2025 at 11:42 AM, vikas83 said:

Young, white college graduates are really becoming a serious problem. No way around it. They think they are helping minorities by voting for things that minorities reject (socialism, less police, etc.).

On 6/23/2025 at 4:10 PM, vikas83 said:

If this guy wins, every HF in NYC will make the move to FL. So much for that tax base.

Kind of feels like this goes one of 2 ways.

Option 1 is that NYC has enough gravitational pull that corporations, HF's, and wealthy individuals will tolerate the increased tax burden. All roads lead to NYC, a global epicenter in innumerable industries. They accept that price to be a part of it and Mamdani gains the funds to generally deliver his promises. The concerning implications of this is that it will spread like wildfire to cities across the country...cities that do not necessarily have the financial backing and stability of NYC, which may be one of the only American cities that could pull it off.

Option 2 is what the "haters" predict. Everyone bails to the Carolinas, Florida, Texas. The promises fall apart and the city digests itself.

I don't know which one is going to happen, but NYC is basically a political and economy laboratory right now with the rest of the country watching. It's either going to spread or there will be a vicious backlash against it.

11 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

Kind of feels like this goes one of 2 ways.

Option 1 is that NYC has enough gravitational pull that corporations, HF's, and wealthy individuals will tolerate the increased tax burden. All roads lead to NYC, a global epicenter in innumerable industries. They accept that price to be a part of it and Mamdani gains the funds to generally deliver his promises. The concerning implications of this is that it will spread like wildfire to cities across the country...cities that do not necessarily have the financial backing and stability of NYC, which may be one of the only American cities that could pull it off.

Option 2 is what the "haters" predict. Everyone bails to the Carolinas, Florida, Texas. The promises fall apart and the city digests itself.

I don't know which one is going to happen, but NYC is basically a political and economy laboratory right now with the rest of the country watching. It's either going to spread or there will be a vicious backlash against it.

Eh I take option 3. Logistics police unions and state legislature make it near impossible for him to pass any truly major changes. He'll make a few more superficial policies that the left will paint as wins with photo ops of poor kids eating fresh veggies. The right will point out every subway crime and murder for the next few years as proof that he's ruining the city despite them being pretty much par for what's happened in the past And that'll be about all that comes of it.

We'll see though. Certainly not about to make any firm predictions

4 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Eh I take option 3. Logistics police unions and state legislature make it near impossible for him to pass any truly major changes. He'll make a few more superficial policies that the left will paint as wins with photo ops of poor kids eating fresh veggies. The right will point out every subway crime and murder for the next few years as proof that he's ruining the city despite them being pretty much par for what's happened in the past And that'll be about all that comes of it.

We'll see though. Certainly not about to make any firm predictions

Door 3 is the healthiest one for the country. The checks and balances work and things generally just slog forward as before. If that happens, the city will be fine...but Mamdani will flame himself out. Unless he becomes what he now would label as a capitalist pig and sellout, he's not going to settle for allowing the status quo to continue while he builds his name, fame, and fortune celebrating empty, vapid wins.

1 hour ago, It Hurts said:

Congrats NY, you fell for the bait-and-switch. You'd think the pretending would have lasted at least one day, but nope, even Van Jones is saying the obvious. My guess is that Zohran, the politician who is "one of the working people", is a bit scared because this is the first job the millionaire kid has ever landed. Smiley is going to have to actually do some work now.

Trumpbots: That muslim guy running for mayor is a communist who wants to legalize rape and usher in shariah law. Killing rich white people will literally be legal!

Also Trumpbots: I can't believe he was so mean in his acceptance speech.

49 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

Kind of feels like this goes one of 2 ways.

Option 1 is that NYC has enough gravitational pull that corporations, HF's, and wealthy individuals will tolerate the increased tax burden. All roads lead to NYC, a global epicenter in innumerable industries. They accept that price to be a part of it and Mamdani gains the funds to generally deliver his promises. The concerning implications of this is that it will spread like wildfire to cities across the country...cities that do not necessarily have the financial backing and stability of NYC, which may be one of the only American cities that could pull it off.

Option 2 is what the "haters" predict. Everyone bails to the Carolinas, Florida, Texas. The promises fall apart and the city digests itself.

I don't know which one is going to happen, but NYC is basically a political and economy laboratory right now with the rest of the country watching. It's either going to spread or there will be a vicious backlash against it.

Not Texas!

I don't know how this **** plans to tariff people, but I'm sure he will think of something!

1) why the F would you punish people trying to move to your state if you think the people leaving are high earners and don't want to deal with socialism?

2) tariff them how? There's no "importer" here to charge. And if you're just charging the person entering then isn't that just a tax? Are we just using tariff as a euphemism now for taxes

4 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

And focusing policy on billionaires is stupid. You’re talking about such a small fraction of a percent of the population, it’s not like enacting some policy to try to extract more tax revenue from them would make a lick of difference in the system.

The Bernie plan that's been around for a while now targets fortunes of 50m+ and could generate 3 trillon/decade. That stratosphere of rich is STUPID rich my man.

56 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

1) why the F would you punish people trying to move to your state if you think the people leaving are high earners and don't want to deal with socialism?

2) tariff them how? There's no "importer" here to charge. And if you're just charging the person entering then isn't that just a tax? Are we just using tariff as a euphemism now for taxes

Abbott isn't talking to intelligent people.

He's talking to morons like sloth and it hurts to think.

19 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

The Bernie plan that's been around for a while now targets fortunes of 50m+ and could generate 3 trillon/decade. That stratosphere of rich is STUPID rich my man.

LOLOL sure it would.

4 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

LOLOL sure it would.

1/3 of that is good place to start.