Jesse Walker | August 13, 2003
According to the Polish Daily News, around 100,000 families in New York City live in black-market apartments.
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
This line kills me:
"Many Queens politicians believe that the research data shows the
need for stricter regulation of the market."
What do you think caused the problem in the first place, you
jackasses?
From all of the articles I've read on the subject of New York city housing, it's a good chance that the number is even higher than that.
Does anyone remember the exact quote that went something like, "The most effective way to destroy a city, short of bombing, was rent control."
Because of course, we just don't have enough criminals - so we
must produce more. Apparently we think there is a supply-side
recession going on with crime, so we need to spur and encourage
criminal enterprises as much as possible.
The world clearly doesn't have enough crime or laws without
deciding what private individuals can charge for their goods and
services; we won't even talk about what can and cannot legally be a
good or service, of course.
Not just rent control. Urban renewal money (or whatever the trendy name for it is at any given time) goes to bulldoze working class neighborhoods and affordable housing, and replace it with yuppie fern bars, clothing retailers and banks.
Kevin Carson:
If I recall correctly, wasn't one of the main causes of the fall of
Harlem (once considered "The Black Capital of the World", before it
turned into a crime-filled ghetto) something much like urban
renewal, called "public housing"? In effect, they hugely increased
population density in a small area (high-rise apartments and such),
granted no private property rights to the tenants (so they had no
direct interest in property values and keeping their property in
order), and did no extra policing to combat the absolutely 100%
predictable outcome of a sudden jump in crime in the area.
As crime is one of the main factors that determines real estate
value and use (with local school systems, crime hugely influences
residential property values especially), as property values began
to slide (which is both a cause and effect of failing businesses
and widespread communal decay) businesses failed and people who
could, and wished to, moved elsewhere; the decrease in demand and
surge in supply of real estate, as people move away from declining
neighborhoods, further depresses the value of real estate, easily
leading to a total depression and destruction of an area.
Those who could not, or did not, move away during this time were
pulled down in the engulfing expanding embrace of crime and
squalor, and The Black Capital of the World became known not for
it's Black Renaissance in art and culture (especially music), but
for it's crime and poverty; the renaissance was effectively brought
it's end and the treasures diluted and disseminated throughout
culture, such that it's originators and birthplace (or at least
point of focus and dissimination) gained little to no credits or
rewards for their advances.
Effectively, Black Hollywood was strangled in it's crib by may very
well have been the good intentions of providing affordable housing
the poor; but it all went horribly wrong, as what really happened
was that the government subsidized and enforced the growth of
crime, poverty, indifference, and the uncompensated diffusion of
brainpower, skill, and other such treasures throughout the country,
effectively killing the golden goose.
All because the government failed to recognize or appreciate that
prices and land uses are what they are for very good reasons, and
are not to be trifled with. Investors, families who lived
(including working) in the neighborhood, those who would find a
home there according to their own choices and interests, and
society as a whole (country and world) may very well have lost an
irreplacable ongoingly productive treasure; the price to deal with
the situation created by it's loss may even be exponentially more
than even it's original value.
Just one big failure to show why aggregating unchecked power is a
bad idea; while the power for good is incredible, the cost of
abuses are exponentially worse than anything good that can be done
by central control and intervention in communities and markets in
ways beyond the rightful means and responsabilities of
government.
Bravo, Pluto! Well done.
One quibble: urban renewal didn't usually dramatically increase
density. Those tall buildings are usually surrounded by big lawns
and parking lots, whereas the 3-8 story buildings they replaced
were cheek-by-jowl. It was a bastardization of LeCorbusier's Tower
in the Park idea, and put a physical, visual, and functional
barrier between the residents and the rest of the city. The
destruction of "street life" and the herding of social activity
into units and designated common areas was a conscious strategy
during that time.
Oh yeah, illegal apartments.
It is highly unlikely that the only laws being broken are housing
and building codes; ie, no second exit, no bedroom without a
window, etc. Most likely, the zoning in these areas forbids the
additional units entirely, or puts an unreasonable burden on
homeowners seeking to get them approved. As with the drug war, the
act of defining an otherwise harmless activity is what makes the
activity so harmful. If the homeowners were allowed to add the
units by right, they would get their building permits, add the
extra doors, stairs, etc., and they would be just as safe as any
other unit.
A city has very little control over how whether or not its
population grows. It can either deal forthrightly with the
increase, or it can go into denial. What you get when you choose
the latter is dangerous firetrap apartments.
Are you the same joe that always rants about how poorly designed many towns are?
I thought the big downfall of Harlem was when King Heroin came to town, back in the late 1940s.
The problem with the way that growth is dealt with on a local
level is that the people who set the laws have every incentive to
keep new units from being built or current units from being
divided:
1. It prevents that 'fearful and nasty' change (dripping with
sarcasm). Instead of coming out directly and saying that we don't
want x kind of people living here and creating a different
environment for my family, you'll most often see complaints about -
Traffic, Property Values and Crime, usually even in that
order.
2. Increasing the overhead costs of building through
overregulation, overly restrictve zoning or mere corruption and
bribery serves to keep the property values artificially
inflated.
The people complaining about this are often the people who
currently live in the neighborhoods.
Who are the people who don't get a say in the policy? Those would
be the newcomers who would like to live in an area for a certain
price point, but now can't. Often, they would theoretically
outnumber those who want to keep the change out.
"Are you the same joe that always rants about how poorly
designed many towns are?" You betcha. More specifically, I'm that
joe that's always complaining about the imposition of
superhuman-scale, pedestrian-hostile urban designs on the landscape
instead of the organic, walkable neighborhoods of the past. Sprawl
is one function of this, old-style urban renewal is another.
Doug, funny how the social pathologies - widespread drug addiction,
rising crime, fraying social ties - happened at almost exactly the
same time as urban renewal (late 40s to mid 70s), crested a decade
or so later, and then reversed.
EMAIL: master-x@canada.com
IP: 82.146.43.155
URL: http://www.americanpaydayloans.net
DATE: 02/28/2004 11:13:44
Self-imposed ignorance should disgust everyone.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245