They are renters. They don’t own the property. You are punishing people that risked capital in an area from benefiting from that risk.
Amazon moves in. Rents get raised. All of the people who lived in the neighborhood are forced out. This happened in the mission District in San Francisco. Gentrification is real, and AOC wanted to protect the people who lived in their neighborhood. I support her on this.https://twitter.com/ichoosefree/status/1099807099834585089 …
-
-
-
Bingo!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Maybe New York should force out more big companies, to reduce jobs, & lower rents. Sound economic policy!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Gentrification is happening in that area regardless.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Get your facts right. Amazon did not move into the Mission District in SF. AOC's district is the Bronx NOT Long Island, which is where Amazon planned to build.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I find your gentrification argument compelling, but if you actually think that AOC actually thought about any of that I have a bridge for sale......
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
But that's not what she said. I never saw where she used the term 'gentrification'. She said she wanted to save $3b for NY.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
But she never did it for that reason. She did it for the reason of 3 billion in tax breaks to amazon
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It works both ways. Section 8 zoning gets approved, businesses move, and property value plummets for the surrounding neighbors.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The problem is our tax system rewards land speculation, which produces ZERO products or services and keeps the general price of land as high as we can possibly afford, to the point of needing to take out 30-year loans just to possess a piece of land to sleep on.
-
In Japan 100 year mortgages are common. The people who complained about high housing costs 2006-2009 were the same complaining about people getting evicted 2010-2012. But if the evictions happened, the prices would have corrected. Now they still go higher...
-
And that demonstrates how capitalism is actually veiled feudalism, not free enterprise. If the tax system were reversed, banks would have to sell off their pure real estate holdings (reducing land price and thus, the cost of living) and invest in productive enterprise instead.
-
Have you ever invested in real estate? Unless you are adding to it (building) or know of some impending event, just buying land and sitting on it is horrible. You have to pay taxes on something that's not generating any income. The only winner is the government.
-
Financial institutions though, can afford to hold vacant land through recessions and even acquire more through foreclosures since the rise in land price over time eclipses the amount paid in property tax. Otherwise, most of us would be landlords instead of renters and mortgagors.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
So can any successful, large company move into a shit neighborhood? Isn't that how property value increases? (among other reasons?) Keeping barren neighborhoods that way seems cruel.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Just stop!! You know it’s not this simple.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That’s bad logic
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Mike When was the last time you been to LIC??
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.