Comments on: Legal woes plaguing Second Ave. subway

By: Maloney slams SAS and MTA inspector general investigates :: Second Ave. Sagas | A New York City Subway Blog

Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:46:02 +0000

[...] to secure a blasting permit due to two shaky buildings on East 92nd St. I first tackled this issue two weeks ago, and the MTA has remained in a holding pattern since June. Although the agency says the delay in [...]

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 03:40:34 +0000

I don’t understand the need for parking requirements in the first place. Anywhere.

In the absence of regulation, developers will provide as much parking as is needed to maximize their revenues. In Eastern Queens (or at a typical suburban mall), that may be a lot. In Downtown Brooklyn, it may be very little or even none at all.

What do minimum parking requirements gain us, aside from more parking than is appropriate for the conditions?

By: Ben G.

Ben G. — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 23:49:47 +0000

A man was hit by a car in the intersection of 93rd Street and 2nd Avenue, and is waiting there right now with a crowd around him as the police are arriving at this moment. For sure an ambulance will be called.

Why is there not adequate traffic and pedestrian control and lighting at the intersections of this multi-billion dollar construction site? A few weeks ago, I wrote here that crossing the street around the construction site is treacherous, a few days later some signs were put up, and signals installed. Well intentioned, but not enough to ensure safety. At this point, it seems to me that honest to goodness traffic safety engineers need be called in to remedy the situation.

I hope someone with authority cares enough to do something about this.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 01:44:07 +0000

Fat chance. The main constituency behind rent control is middle class long-timers who think they’re entitled to pay $1,200 a month for a SoHo loft. Any reform that would decouple rent control from length of tenure would threaten this constituency’s cheap rents.

A good rule of thumb in New York is that every current major regulation is intended to help some middle-class special interest, rather than the poor or the working class. (Don’t believe me? Then ask yourself why the city has the same minimum wage as the rest of the country, no universal health care, and no tuition-free higher education.)

By: Jerrold

Jerrold — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 04:02:36 +0000

Therefore, we need a strengthening of rent control and rent stabilization laws, NOT an elimination of those laws.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 23:24:46 +0000

Jerrold, the same incentives to harass tenants exist in general rent control laws, too. New York rent control is intended for people who’ve lived in the apartment for a long time, much like Prop 13; this encourages landlords to create more turnover by kicking out tenants after each year’s lease.

By: Jerrold

Jerrold — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:27:07 +0000

If we did away with rent control and rent stabilization, the number of homeless people and homeless families would skyrocket. Rich landlords already have too much power in this city. You want to give them MORE power?
Vacancy decontrol was the biggest mistake ever that the landlords managed to squeeze out of the politicians. It gave the landlords a strong incentive to harass tenants out of their homes and to let buildings deteriorate so that tenants will have to move out.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:31:43 +0000

Even away from subway lines, there’s no need for parking minimums. For a neighborhood with little transit and high car ownership, the upper limit of density is about 6,000-8,000/km^2, as is typical of Eastern Queens. Those areas have off-street parking minimums, but their street grids provide enough capacity for two on-street parking spots per house.

By: petey

petey — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:39:10 +0000

thank you alon. furthermore:

“dilapidated rent-controlled buildings would be the exception, rather than the norm”

this is wrong two ways. specifically, buildings aren’t rent-controlled, apartments are. generally, if in place of some regulation and oversight we had a truly free market, then we’d have the kind of unsupervised construction that collapses regularly in places like naples and turkey, with loss of life.

By: Woody

Woody — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:14:39 +0000

What about decontrolling rents would encourage the building of new, middle income housing? New housing is decontrolled now, and has been for many many years. So where is the new middle income housing that you believe will magically appear if the rules are changed on the maximum rents for existing housing? Sorry, Ayn Rand’s ideology is Fail when confronted with the real world.

I do agree that some regulations need to be changed or eliminated to reduce the cost of building new middle income housing. One step would be to eliminate the requirement for indoor parking for all new buildings within a few blocks of subway lines. For years, the City has required that all new apartment buildings must contain indoor parking. And the owners intend to charge rents high enough to recover those costs — whether the tenants will ever own a car or, like the majority of households in NYC, not.