Fwd: rally to end "owner occupancy" mass evictions this weekend

um, and the great injustice being done is???? Looks like people want
subsidies for staying in NYC - you got to pay to play, take the lump sum
settlement and get a cheap place in jersey. Have a flea market to raise
money to promote peace, cure cancer, or to hire enuf quality child
protection officers. Bullshit sentiment for a fight between economic
interests on both sides. Stand this one out.

joseph

[email protected] wrote:

> dear List,
>
> You may recall a newsgrist post (below) about some crazy east village
> evictions going down – including evictions of artists. Enclosed is a
> request to circulate some material for a protest to take place this
> Saturday – please distribute widely.
>
> thanks again – have a great summer,
> Joy
> newsgrist.net <http://newsgrist.net>
> firstpulseprojects.net <http://firstpulseprojects.net>
> ………………
> Thursday, May 12, 2005
> Eviction Scam Stoop Sale
> http://newsgrist.typepad.com/underbelly/2005/05/gt_hello_friend.html
>
> Press Release (1 page Word Doc)
> http://firstpulseprojects.net/47E3RallyPR.doc
>
> Flyer (jpeg-243k)
> http://firstpulseprojects.net/47e3flyer.jpg
>
> ———- Forwarded message ———-
> From: *Barry Paddock * <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> Date: Jun 22, 2005 11:45 PM
> Subject: rally to end "owner occupancy" mass evictions this weekend
> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>
> Hi Joy,
> I would be so grateful if you could help get the word out for our
> rally this Saturday. I have attached a flyer and press release.
> Thanks and hope you are very well,
> -barry
>
> Rally To Stop "Owner Occupancy" Mass Evictions
> Saturday June 25 12 noon
> 47 East 3rd St between 1-2 Aves
>
> Landlords are exploiting the owner occupancy loophole by buying
> rent-regulated apartment buildings, then claiming the ENTIRE building
> for "personal use" and evicting every tenant. This is a SCAM to force
> out rent-regulated tenants and charge market rates.
>
> Help stop this outrageous abuse of the law that threatens all New York
> City tenants.
>
> SCHEDULED TO APPEAR (list in formation):
>

I'm surprised at this response Joseph. From an
admittedly cursory glance it looks as though as grave
injustice *is* being done to folk who've been settled
in places for a long time. Why should people shut up
and take eviction lying down because they have the
misfortune to be not so well off as the gentrifiers?
I can well imagine the heartbreak of being forced from
a place I'd lived for a long time, maybe raised a
family, to satisfy either the whims or the desire for
even more money, from the already priveleged.
I'm know there are big differences of emphasis
between us but I'd always seen you as being
essentially on the side of the underdog…
regards
michael

— joseph mcelroy <[email protected]> wrote:

> um, and the great injustice being done is???? Looks
> like people want
> subsidies for staying in NYC - you got to pay to
> play, take the lump sum
> settlement and get a cheap place in jersey. Have a
> flea market to raise
> money to promote peace, cure cancer, or to hire enuf
> quality child
> protection officers. Bullshit sentiment for a
> fight between economic
> interests on both sides. Stand this one out.
>
> joseph
>
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > dear List,
> >
> > You may recall a newsgrist post (below) about some
> crazy east village
> > evictions going down – including evictions of
> artists. Enclosed is a
> > request to circulate some material for a protest
> to take place this
> > Saturday – please distribute widely.
> >
> > thanks again – have a great summer,
> > Joy
> > newsgrist.net <http://newsgrist.net>
> > firstpulseprojects.net
> <http://firstpulseprojects.net>
> > ………………
> > Thursday, May 12, 2005
> > Eviction Scam Stoop Sale
> >
>
http://newsgrist.typepad.com/underbelly/2005/05/gt_hello_friend.html
> >
> > Press Release (1 page Word Doc)
> > http://firstpulseprojects.net/47E3RallyPR.doc
> >
> > Flyer (jpeg-243k)
> > http://firstpulseprojects.net/47e3flyer.jpg
> >
> > ———- Forwarded message ———-
> > From: *Barry Paddock * <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>>
> > Date: Jun 22, 2005 11:45 PM
> > Subject: rally to end "owner occupancy" mass
> evictions this weekend
> > To: [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>
> >
> > Hi Joy,
> > I would be so grateful if you could help get the
> word out for our
> > rally this Saturday. I have attached a flyer and
> press release.
> > Thanks and hope you are very well,
> > -barry
> >
> > Rally To Stop "Owner Occupancy" Mass Evictions
> > Saturday June 25 12 noon
> > 47 East 3rd St between 1-2 Aves
> >
> > Landlords are exploiting the owner occupancy
> loophole by buying
> > rent-regulated apartment buildings, then claiming
> the ENTIRE building
> > for "personal use" and evicting every tenant.
> This is a SCAM to force
> > out rent-regulated tenants and charge market
> rates.
> >
> > Help stop this outrageous abuse of the law that
> threatens all New York
> > City tenants.
> >
> > SCHEDULED TO APPEAR (list in formation):
> >

Michael,
I am for a true underdog, I live in the South Bronx in the poorest
congressional district in the nation, I develop programs to work with
economically disadvantaged people all the time. For the last two years I
have given free seminars and hand-on assistance to impoverished
artisans, at risk youth, and immigrants in the Bronx to help create
income streams. I am forming a non-profit incubator to educate and
support small biz growth in the existing community here. People can
complain all the want, but it irritates the hell out of me to see
middle-class people try to leverage their petty economic interests by
hopping on a poverty bandwagon. As if I am supposed to feel sorry and
rally to their defense. If artists want to live in Manhattan, then pay
to play. If someone wants to leverage rent controlled apartments for 20
some years, riding on the backs of the rest of NYC who don't have such,
then let them pay to play. Manhattan is expensive real estate, face the
fact, and move to the Bronx or Jersey or middle american where one can
afford to live. And stop trying to activate people's charity drive with
shallow intentions, because there are much better causes to champion and
so little charity to go around.

joseph

Michael Szpakowski wrote:

>I'm surprised at this response Joseph. From an
>admittedly cursory glance it looks as though as grave
>injustice *is* being done to folk who've been settled
>in places for a long time. Why should people shut up
>and take eviction lying down because they have the
>misfortune to be not so well off as the gentrifiers?
>I can well imagine the heartbreak of being forced from
>a place I'd lived for a long time, maybe raised a
>family, to satisfy either the whims or the desire for
>even more money, from the already priveleged.
>I'm know there are big differences of emphasis
>between us but I'd always seen you as being
>essentially on the side of the underdog…
>regards
>michael
>
>— joseph mcelroy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>um, and the great injustice being done is???? Looks
>>like people want
>>subsidies for staying in NYC - you got to pay to
>>play, take the lump sum
>>settlement and get a cheap place in jersey. Have a
>>flea market to raise
>>money to promote peace, cure cancer, or to hire enuf
>>quality child
>>protection officers. Bullshit sentiment for a
>>fight between economic
>>interests on both sides. Stand this one out.
>>
>>joseph
>>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>dear List,
>>>
>>>You may recall a newsgrist post (below) about some
>>>
>>>
>>crazy east village
>>
>>
>>>evictions going down – including evictions of
>>>
>>>
>>artists. Enclosed is a
>>
>>
>>>request to circulate some material for a protest
>>>
>>>
>>to take place this
>>
>>
>>>Saturday – please distribute widely.
>>>
>>>thanks again – have a great summer,
>>>Joy
>>>newsgrist.net <http://newsgrist.net>
>>>firstpulseprojects.net
>>>
>>>
>><http://firstpulseprojects.net>
>>
>>
>>>………………
>>>Thursday, May 12, 2005
>>>Eviction Scam Stoop Sale
>>>
>>>
>>>
>http://newsgrist.typepad.com/underbelly/2005/05/gt_hello_friend.html
>
>
>>>Press Release (1 page Word Doc)
>>>http://firstpulseprojects.net/47E3RallyPR.doc
>>>
>>>Flyer (jpeg-243k)
>>>http://firstpulseprojects.net/47e3flyer.jpg
>>>
>>>———- Forwarded message ———-
>>>From: *Barry Paddock * <[email protected]
>>>
>>>
>><mailto:[email protected]>>
>>
>>
>>>Date: Jun 22, 2005 11:45 PM
>>>Subject: rally to end "owner occupancy" mass
>>>
>>>
>>evictions this weekend
>>
>>
>>>To: [email protected]
>>>
>>>
>><mailto:[email protected]>
>>
>>
>>>Hi Joy,
>>>I would be so grateful if you could help get the
>>>
>>>
>>word out for our
>>
>>
>>>rally this Saturday. I have attached a flyer and
>>>
>>>
>>press release.
>>
>>
>>>Thanks and hope you are very well,
>>>-barry
>>>
>>>Rally To Stop "Owner Occupancy" Mass Evictions
>>>Saturday June 25 12 noon
>>>47 East 3rd St between 1-2 Aves
>>>
>>>Landlords are exploiting the owner occupancy
>>>
>>>
>>loophole by buying
>>
>>
>>>rent-regulated apartment buildings, then claiming
>>>
>>>
>>the ENTIRE building
>>
>>
>>>for "personal use" and evicting every tenant.
>>>
>>>
>>This is a SCAM to force
>>
>>
>>>out rent-regulated tenants and charge market
>>>
>>>
>>rates.
>>
>>
>>>Help stop this outrageous abuse of the law that
>>>
>>>
>>threatens all New York
>>
>>
>>>City tenants.
>>>
>>>SCHEDULED TO APPEAR (list in formation):
>>>

joseph,


right on.

i'm actually another one of those spoiled brat manhattanites who
lucked out on a ridiculous deal on my place, so i can afford to live
here. i'm part of a problem, a rip off the city pays for. i like
not owning a car, and that's really the biggest thing this borough
has going for it. that's the whole trade for me. NY's just not
worth the "pay to play" thing. sure, this was a hip town not too
long ago. but now the "cultural diversity" consists of a bunch of
kids on st marks smoking clove cigarettes.

i don't consider it immoral to have "hacked" some realty company's
biz. that's new york, a big scam factory. you know, we live in the
capital of scamville! we all just try not to get screwed too much,
but it happens. you help who you feel needs it, i help who i feel
needs it, joy helps who she feels needs it. who cares who's right.
seems beside the point. everybody and nobody needs it.

sure, 9 times out of 10, the people who shout about some moral
outrages, just want somebody else to get screwed instead of
themselves. even then, it's seldom these people getting screwed
personally, just in a sympathy panic over folks they somehow relate
to. (speaking of which, "9/11" is for the 00's, as "who shot JR?"
was for the 80's or "where's the beef?" for the 90's!)


it's not that one should ignore these conflicts, but it's so much
more constructive to move ahead and not consider them (particularly
as obstacles). eventually, we look back and say "hey, that's not a
problem any more". but when folks get riled up about some conflict,
that's a pretty good sign they aren't framing it in a very useful
way. in general, these "disasters" require more faith, and more
faith brings us better luck. thus disasters can either be a source
of protest or a source of luck. everyone decides for themselves.


judsoN




>Michael,
>I am for a true underdog, I live in the South Bronx in the poorest
>congressional district in the nation, I develop programs to work
>with economically disadvantaged people all the time. For the last
>two years I have given free seminars and hand-on assistance to
>impoverished artisans, at risk youth, and immigrants in the Bronx to
>help create income streams. I am forming a non-profit incubator to
>educate and support small biz growth in the existing community here.
>People can complain all the want, but it irritates the hell out of
>me to see middle-class people try to leverage their petty economic
>interests by hopping on a poverty bandwagon. As if I am supposed to
>feel sorry and rally to their defense. If artists want to live in
>Manhattan, then pay to play. If someone wants to leverage rent
>controlled apartments for 20 some years, riding on the backs of the
>rest of NYC who don't have such, then let them pay to play.
>Manhattan is expensive real estate, face the fact, and move to the
>Bronx or Jersey or middle american where one can afford to live. And
>stop trying to activate people's charity drive with shallow
>intentions, because there are much better causes to champion and so
>little charity to go around.
>
>joseph
>
>Michael Szpakowski wrote:
>
>>I'm surprised at this response Joseph. From an
>>admittedly cursory glance it looks as though as grave
>>injustice *is* being done to folk who've been settled
>>in places for a long time. Why should people shut up
>>and take eviction lying down because they have the
>>misfortune to be not so well off as the gentrifiers? I can well
>>imagine the heartbreak of being forced from
>>a place I'd lived for a long time, maybe raised a
>>family, to satisfy either the whims or the desire for
>>even more money, from the already priveleged.
>>I'm know there are big differences of emphasis
>>between us but I'd always seen you as being
>>essentially on the side of the underdog…
>>regards
>>michael
>>
>>— joseph mcelroy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>um, and the great injustice being done is???? Looks
>>>like people want subsidies for staying in NYC - you got to pay to
>>>play, take the lump sum settlement and get a cheap place in jersey. Have a
>>>flea market to raise money to promote peace, cure cancer, or to hire enuf
>>>quality child protection officers. Bullshit sentiment for a
>>>fight between economic interests on both sides. Stand this one out.
>>>
>>>joseph
>>>
>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>dear List,
>>>>
>>>>You may recall a newsgrist post (below) about some
>>>>
>>>>
>>>crazy east village
>>>
>>>>evictions going down – including evictions of
>>>>
>>>>
>>>artists. Enclosed is a
>>>
>>>>request to circulate some material for a protest
>>>>
>>>>
>>>to take place this
>>>
>>>>Saturday – please distribute widely.
>>>>
>>>>thanks again – have a great summer,
>>>>Joy
>>>>newsgrist.net <http://newsgrist.net>
>>>>firstpulseprojects.net
>>>>
>>>>
>>><http://firstpulseprojects.net>
>>>
>>>
>>>>………………
>>>>Thursday, May 12, 2005
>>>>Eviction Scam Stoop Sale
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>http://newsgrist.typepad.com/underbelly/2005/05/gt_hello_friend.html
>>
>>>>Press Release (1 page Word Doc)
>>>>http://firstpulseprojects.net/47E3RallyPR.doc
>>>>
>>>>Flyer (jpeg-243k)
>>>>http://firstpulseprojects.net/47e3flyer.jpg
>>>>
>>>>———- Forwarded message ———-
>>>>From: *Barry Paddock * <[email protected]
>>>>
>>>>
>>><mailto:[email protected]>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Date: Jun 22, 2005 11:45 PM
>>>>Subject: rally to end "owner occupancy" mass
>>>>
>>>>
>>>evictions this weekend
>>>
>>>
>>>>To: [email protected]
>>>>
>>>>
>>><mailto:[email protected]>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi Joy,
>>>>I would be so grateful if you could help get the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>word out for our
>>>
>>>
>>>>rally this Saturday. I have attached a flyer and
>>>>
>>>>
>>>press release.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Thanks and hope you are very well,
>>>>-barry
>>>>
>>>>Rally To Stop "Owner Occupancy" Mass Evictions
>>>>Saturday June 25 12 noon
>>>>47 East 3rd St between 1-2 Aves
>>>>
>>>>Landlords are exploiting the owner occupancy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>loophole by buying
>>>
>>>
>>>>rent-regulated apartment buildings, then claiming
>>>>
>>>>
>>>the ENTIRE building
>>>
>>>
>>>>for "personal use" and evicting every tenant.
>>>>
>>>This is a SCAM to force
>>>
>>>
>>>>out rent-regulated tenants and charge market
>>>>
>>>>
>>>rates.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Help stop this outrageous abuse of the law that
>>>>
>>>>
>>>threatens all New York
>>>
>>>
>>>>City tenants.
>>>>
>>>>SCHEDULED TO APPEAR (list in formation):
>>>>* State Senators Martin Connor and Tom Duane;
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Assemblymembers Deborah
>>>
>>>
>>>>Glick, Jonathan Bing and Scott Stringer; City
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Councilmember Margarita
>>>
>>>
>>>>Lopez
>>>>* Cooper Square Committee, GOLES (Good Old Lower
>>>>
>>>>
>>>East Side), Tenants &
>>>
>>>
>>>>Neighbors
>>>>* Tenants facing "owner occupancy" mass evictions
>>>>
>>>>
>>>at 47 East 3rd St.,
>>>
>>>
>>>>12 East 72nd St. and 75 Jane St.
>>>>
>>>>For more information and to RSVP: 212-330-8783
>>>>
>>>>Flyer and press release are attached
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>+
>-> post: [email protected]
>-> questions: [email protected]
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>-> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
>+
>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

On Jun 23, 2005, at 3:14 PM, judsoN wrote:

> it's not that one should ignore these conflicts, but it's so much more
> constructive to move ahead and not consider them (particularly as
> obstacles). eventually, we look back and say "hey, that's not a
> problem any more". but when folks get riled up about some conflict,
> that's a pretty good sign they aren't framing it in a very useful way.
> in general, these "disasters" require more faith, and more faith
> brings us better luck. thus disasters can either be a source of
> protest or a source of luck. everyone decides for themselves.

call me stupid, but i think when a lot of people get "riled up" over
conflicts, it's generally because they feel they are not making
decisions for themselves. and i would be very, very hesitant to say
that the civil rights movements and many other issue-based campaigns
(labeled "liberal" or not) are just people who should "move ahead" and
"frame" the conflict in a more "useful way." i think what you're saying
seems reasonable, but it comes from a position (not unlike my own in
many situations) that can afford to say "everyone decides for
themselves." that cuts both ways, and i think libertarians would feel
very different if those on the loosing side of free market economics
decided to get militant, including many of those in the national
military who they think will protect them. to say that disasters can be
a source of "luck" is extremely disturbing to me. is this supposed to
be some kind of "zen" statement or something? i don't see how losing
your home could be seen as lucky for either bohemians or public housing
residents. i have plenty of faith… both religious and historical,
history tells me that land owners will oppress people and the oppressed
are only lucky when they seek to improve their own situation at the
reluctance (often violent) of their oppressors. religious faith can
give people the language and stamina for such struggles.
i also think the argument joseph makes is a little too easy… and
sounds vaguely like the criticism of student protest movements against
war, sweatshops or for equitable housing. somehow the privileges make
their claims less? in this case, i tend to think similarly - that
people of "upwardly mobile" status are pushing it to ask for sympathy -
but at the same time, the relaxing of rent control for them doesn't
benefit anyone. i don't know the specifics of what's going on in NYC,
but rent stabilization can be leveraged to help more than first wave
gentrifiers. i'm also skeptical of claims that these people are being
subsidized by other residents because of rent stabilization. property
values (and the taxes that go with them) are such constructed numbers,
and renters do not pay property taxes on land/property usually, so i
don't know how the renters are being subsidized unless they're on
section 8 - which this group in question shouldn't be. in LA right now,
section 8 is becoming extinct outside of the most neglected
neighborhoods (where sometimes police don't even show up for a call,
much less landlords) due to the "market value rent" being inflated so
far past the rate of inflation and income that HUD's estimation of fair
rent value can be half what a landlord actually will get for the place
- which in many cases (certainly mine) is more than half of the income
of renters. we've ended up in a situation that section 8 was supposed
to solve - segregated populations based on race and class. of course,
it could be argued that section 8 was merely a way to privatize
services further and deconcentrate poverty in order to make it
invisible and easier to neglect. i don't think the "pay to play" answer
cuts it.
i don't mean to sound like i know what i'm talking about, but i think
some things were touched on that warranted a response. best - ryan

I am not going to argue the merits of rent control in an analytic
fashion, there are much better scholars than me to do that, however this
article http://www.mises.org/etexts/rentcontrol.pdf provides some
arguments in opposition. Of particular note is this quote:

"The argument for rent control is often put forth on grounds of equity.
Tenants as a group have less wealth than landlords, and this housing
policy is a way of increasing the income of the latter and decreasing
that of the former. This is not to say that rent control /transfers
/wealth from landlord to tenant. It cannot be doubted that controls
dissipate the wealth of the owners of residential rental units. But it
is the rare tenant who actually gains thereby. Certainly this does not
apply to the renter who is frozen out of the controlled sector, and must
avail himself of what is available in the newer uncontrolled area. Nor
does it hold true for the tenant, such as in the South Bronx, who sees
the services supplied by his unit deteriorate to the low level of this
rent, and even below. No, gains go only to the relatively rare tenant in
a good neighborhood, located in a high rise with many vacancy decontrols
(so that the landlord has both the wherewithal and the incentive to
maintain the building in good repair). Rent control thus not so much
transfers money from poor tenants to rich landlords as it impoverishes
both" Walter Block (you might note that Prof Block has a nice little
resume).

In practical terms, most middle class people of my acquaintance with
rent controlled apartments know they are getting a steal of a deal, and
I am not going to be sympathetic when they loose it, though I will
gladly help them pack, move, and find a new place to live, even drink a
beer with them while they sulk and I ponder.

joseph


ryan griffis wrote:

> On Jun 23, 2005, at 3:14 PM, judsoN wrote:
>
>> it's not that one should ignore these conflicts, but it's so much
>> more constructive to move ahead and not consider them (particularly
>> as obstacles). eventually, we look back and say "hey, that's not a
>> problem any more". but when folks get riled up about some conflict,
>> that's a pretty good sign they aren't framing it in a very useful
>> way. in general, these "disasters" require more faith, and more
>> faith brings us better luck. thus disasters can either be a source
>> of protest or a source of luck. everyone decides for themselves.
>
>
> call me stupid, but i think when a lot of people get "riled up" over
> conflicts, it's generally because they feel they are not making
> decisions for themselves. and i would be very, very hesitant to say
> that the civil rights movements and many other issue-based campaigns
> (labeled "liberal" or not) are just people who should "move ahead" and
> "frame" the conflict in a more "useful way." i think what you're
> saying seems reasonable, but it comes from a position (not unlike my
> own in many situations) that can afford to say "everyone decides for
> themselves." that cuts both ways, and i think libertarians would feel
> very different if those on the loosing side of free market economics
> decided to get militant, including many of those in the national
> military who they think will protect them. to say that disasters can
> be a source of "luck" is extremely disturbing to me. is this supposed
> to be some kind of "zen" statement or something? i don't see how
> losing your home could be seen as lucky for either bohemians or public
> housing residents. i have plenty of faith… both religious and
> historical, history tells me that land owners will oppress people and
> the oppressed are only lucky when they seek to improve their own
> situation at the reluctance (often violent) of their oppressors.
> religious faith can give people the language and stamina for such
> struggles.
> i also think the argument joseph makes is a little too easy… and
> sounds vaguely like the criticism of student protest movements against
> war, sweatshops or for equitable housing. somehow the privileges make
> their claims less? in this case, i tend to think similarly - that
> people of "upwardly mobile" status are pushing it to ask for sympathy
> - but at the same time, the relaxing of rent control for them doesn't
> benefit anyone. i don't know the specifics of what's going on in NYC,
> but rent stabilization can be leveraged to help more than first wave
> gentrifiers. i'm also skeptical of claims that these people are being
> subsidized by other residents because of rent stabilization. property
> values (and the taxes that go with them) are such constructed numbers,
> and renters do not pay property taxes on land/property usually, so i
> don't know how the renters are being subsidized unless they're on
> section 8 - which this group in question shouldn't be. in LA right
> now, section 8 is becoming extinct outside of the most neglected
> neighborhoods (where sometimes police don't even show up for a call,
> much less landlords) due to the "market value rent" being inflated so
> far past the rate of inflation and income that HUD's estimation of
> fair rent value can be half what a landlord actually will get for the
> place - which in many cases (certainly mine) is more than half of the
> income of renters. we've ended up in a situation that section 8 was
> supposed to solve - segregated populations based on race and class. of
> course, it could be argued that section 8 was merely a way to
> privatize services further and deconcentrate poverty in order to make
> it invisible and easier to neglect. i don't think the "pay to play"
> answer cuts it.
> i don't mean to sound like i know what i'm talking about, but i think
> some things were touched on that warranted a response. best - ryan
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>

>call me stupid

what's wrong with "ryan"??

>but i think when a lot of people get "riled up" over conflicts, it's
>generally because they feel they are not making decisions for
>themselves. and i would be very, very hesitant to say that the civil
>rights movements

you're probably right about it, but primarily A. i don't think civil
rights and artists losing their free rent deals in NY are even in the
same league. and then B. nowadays, discrimination isn't gone, but
we're long past the point where protests are going to help. they
help when the big thing missing is just plain awareness. now,
protesting in front of a store for discriminatory practices is really
not going to make the boss less prejudiced. it might have other
effects, but isn't a positive solution for getting people treated
equally, rather a negative solution to convincing others this is a
bad guy.

i distrust solutions that label people "bad guys". it might have
some effect, but just forcing awareness on a situation is like
wanting an origami crane and bringing a sledge hammer. everyone's
aware, that's not the problem. the best that could happen in the
above example, is the store loses customers, goes out of business.
but that prejudiced owner still has to survive and will try to open a
new store, be may hire so he won't get protesters, but find loopholes
to vent his now irritated. it's like telling smokers they must need
to know about lung cancer.


>it comes from a position (not unlike my own in many situations) that
>can afford to say "everyone decides for themselves"

sorry. i didn't mean by that a laisez-faire world, but there's a
better way than complaining. because i'm probably obsessed with it,
i'll mention an alternative. my thing is trying to help "disabled"
people (some with physical handicaps, some learning disabilities,
some psychological). (the word itself is causing half the problem.)
i've seen over and over, if the word was never invented, never used,
these people would do, just what they have learned they supposedly
will have a hard time with. some folks find hitting a baseball
effortless instantly, some struggle at it for years. but struggling
doesn't have to be something to avoid. everyone has obstacles, but
anticipating them and being overwhelmed by them is just plain
discouraging. it's often the real reason people fail or ultimately
DO.


>to say that disasters can be a source of "luck" is extremely disturbing to me.

ok. we're just not thinking about luck and disasters the same. it
just seems to me, you're responding to the short term effect of the
disaster and not the potential. which is completely right and true.
no argument. but if you re-frame it, so "disaster" means you need to
be more open and sensitive to those tiny opportunities. yes, there
are tragedies, but there can be tragedies that put you in a better
place or discourage you. protest isn't always just discouraging but
it's a form of discouragement. in the long term, a tragedy can mean
you are more sensitive to more unusual opportunities. when you
finally latch on to one, it will certainly take you further than you
expected before this tragic event.

maybe this helps explain. one guy i met played piano very well.
then MS took over. he decided he could no longer play. fine. but
now it upsets him. and everyone who cares him. another guy i know
described piano playing as a box with a bunch of buttons. push one
and it makes noise. now if the guy with MS had interpreted his
"tragedy" as a sign he needed to broaden his mind, he could still
play the piano, enjoy it, and even be (genuinely, not just
sympathetically) enjoyed by others. so, it's up to each of us,
whether we want to ultimately be upset/stick to our preconceptions or
see it as a map outlining an enlightening direction toward change.

>i don't see how losing your home could be seen as lucky for [ … ]
>housing residents. i have plenty of faith…

then you will trust, that if you do loose your home to some disaster,
a better opportunity can come out of it. when it does, you'll be
open enough to snatch it. now, you will still know the odds of
winning the lottery and buying a house exasctly like your old one,
but maybe you meet a disaster relief person, decide to join, they
send you to zaire and you decide this the greatest opportunity of
your life. you had never even considered it before. we can't always
stay open to every possibility at all times. but you have to have
faith that when disaster strikes, it will point you where you should
open up.


>i don't mean to sound like i know what i'm talking about, but i
>think some things were touched on that warranted a response.

i like that. i feel the same way (though don't always talk that way).

hi judsoN, joseph + all,

>> call me stupid
>
> what's wrong with "ryan"??

it's OK i guess ;)

> then you will trust, that if you do loose your home to some disaster,
> a better opportunity can come out of it. when it does, you'll be open
> enough to snatch it. now, you will still know the odds of winning the
> lottery and buying a house exasctly like your old one, but maybe you
> meet a disaster relief person, decide to join, they send you to zaire
> and you decide this the greatest opportunity of your life. you had
> never even considered it before. we can't always stay open to every
> possibility at all times. but you have to have faith that when
> disaster strikes, it will point you where you should open up.

i can relate to this on a first-person level, i.e. trying to make the
best of a situation, but i don't know that it's always possible to find
that beneficial hook to events that seem bad. and i don't know that i
can agree about protests being anachronistic. i do think that their
function has changed, and i think they have become more of a
collectivizing/carnivalesque form of organization. i see them as trying
to make an opportunity out of a "negative" event, and in a way that is
not exclusively reactionary. it can be a moment of forming community
around issues/places/ideas that extends beyond notions of "anti-war"
for example. kind of like how religious gatherings are about
practicing/learning how to live based on metaphysical levels,
demonstrations/protests can be seen as exercises in collective civics,
dissent, and/or spontaneous fun. (not that these things need to be
mutually exclusive)

Joseph wrote:
"The argument for rent control is often put forth on grounds of equity.
Tenants as a group have less wealth than landlords, and this housing
policy is a way of increasing the income of the latter and decreasing
that of the former. This is not to say that rent control /transfers
/wealth from landlord to tenant. It cannot be doubted that controls
dissipate the wealth of the owners of residential rental units. But it
is the rare tenant who actually gains thereby. Certainly this does not
apply to the renter who is frozen out of the controlled sector, and
must avail himself of what is available in the newer uncontrolled area.
Nor does it hold true for the tenant, such as in the South Bronx, who
sees the services supplied by his unit deteriorate to the low level of
this rent, and even below. No, gains go only to the relatively rare
tenant in a good neighborhood, located in a high rise with many vacancy
decontrols (so that the landlord has both the wherewithal and the
incentive to maintain the building in good repair). Rent control thus
not so much transfers money from poor tenants to rich landlords as it
impoverishes both" Walter Block (you might note that Prof Block has a
nice little resume).

thanks for that link, i'll have to read more. but based on the quote
above, i have the following questions:
what does it mean to say that the tenant in the south bronx sees
her/his quality of service "deteriorate to the low level of this rent"?
i don't understand the monetary value that is being discussed here. as
my example of LA earlier mentioned, the market rate of housing in LA is
seemingly based on something other than wages, the national (or even
local) rate of inflation or what HUD deems is fair market value. this
is where my problem with classical economics (and the dominant model of
supply and demand) comes in. the quote above, maybe a major misreading,
sounds an awful lot like arguments against regulation of economics in
any form, as if any of our economy works as a natural ecosystem that
has its own "equilibrium" established by some geo-biological
mechanisms. i just can't buy it, when the evidence of hard core
regulations (the case of the FHA, auto manufacturers and redlining
being the most obvious related examples, along with the earlier example
of section 8 i gave before) to make it work in favor of those that
espouse "free market" rhetoric is so visible (to non-specialists). if
the incentive to maintain a building properly is diminished by rent
control (land value regulation), why is that?
the other major question i have is: what renter is "frozen out of the
controlled sector"? and why is that (who is doing the "freezing")? i
don't think we can discuss the pitfalls of housing regulation (which
rent control is obviously part of) without looking at the context it
operates in. i'm not arguing for everyone to fight for "upwardly
mobile" residents and their renters' rights, but i don't think it's
either realistic or more progressive to claim deregulation as the
answer to housing problems. paying for health insurance undoubtedly
dissipates the wealth of CEOs and middle managers, but many argue this
benefits the employer as well as the employee (unless one takes
walmart's view that employees are pretty much expendable and there are
more than enough unskilled people to take over for the sick). if the
monetary value of land is regulated in a comprehensive way, i don't see
how this negatively impacts the owners in a way that justifies not
regulating it. if their cost for housing is also regulated - which
would include property taxation, general construction, utilities -
owners would benefit as well as renters. i'm sure some, or all, of this
is discussed by Block, so this is a quick response without having read
through, so i apologize for that.
i can anticipate a real politik answer to this, but i just don't accept
the "that's the way things work" answer to policy problems. policies
are created, maintained and abandoned everyday, and i don't think it's
idealism to work for different policy. it's not changing the weather.

Cut the shit ryan and stop trying to sound so smart by asking
questions… answer them for us please. And for gawd sakes keep it short.

joseph

ryan griffis wrote:

> hi judsoN, joseph + all,
>
>>> call me stupid
>>
>>
>> what's wrong with "ryan"??
>
>
> it's OK i guess ;)
>
>> then you will trust, that if you do loose your home to some disaster,
>> a better opportunity can come out of it. when it does, you'll be
>> open enough to snatch it. now, you will still know the odds of
>> winning the lottery and buying a house exasctly like your old one,
>> but maybe you meet a disaster relief person, decide to join, they
>> send you to zaire and you decide this the greatest opportunity of
>> your life. you had never even considered it before. we can't always
>> stay open to every possibility at all times. but you have to have
>> faith that when disaster strikes, it will point you where you should
>> open up.
>
>
> i can relate to this on a first-person level, i.e. trying to make the
> best of a situation, but i don't know that it's always possible to
> find that beneficial hook to events that seem bad. and i don't know
> that i can agree about protests being anachronistic. i do think that
> their function has changed, and i think they have become more of a
> collectivizing/carnivalesque form of organization. i see them as
> trying to make an opportunity out of a "negative" event, and in a way
> that is not exclusively reactionary. it can be a moment of forming
> community around issues/places/ideas that extends beyond notions of
> "anti-war" for example. kind of like how religious gatherings are
> about practicing/learning how to live based on metaphysical levels,
> demonstrations/protests can be seen as exercises in collective civics,
> dissent, and/or spontaneous fun. (not that these things need to be
> mutually exclusive)
>
> Joseph wrote:
> "The argument for rent control is often put forth on grounds of
> equity. Tenants as a group have less wealth than landlords, and this
> housing policy is a way of increasing the income of the latter and
> decreasing that of the former. This is not to say that rent control
> /transfers /wealth from landlord to tenant. It cannot be doubted that
> controls dissipate the wealth of the owners of residential rental
> units. But it is the rare tenant who actually gains thereby. Certainly
> this does not apply to the renter who is frozen out of the controlled
> sector, and must avail himself of what is available in the newer
> uncontrolled area. Nor does it hold true for the tenant, such as in
> the South Bronx, who sees the services supplied by his unit
> deteriorate to the low level of this rent, and even below. No, gains
> go only to the relatively rare tenant in a good neighborhood, located
> in a high rise with many vacancy decontrols (so that the landlord has
> both the wherewithal and the incentive to maintain the building in
> good repair). Rent control thus not so much transfers money from poor
> tenants to rich landlords as it impoverishes both" Walter Block (you
> might note that Prof Block has a nice little resume).
>
> thanks for that link, i'll have to read more. but based on the quote
> above, i have the following questions:
> what does it mean to say that the tenant in the south bronx sees
> her/his quality of service "deteriorate to the low level of this
> rent"? i don't understand the monetary value that is being discussed
> here. as my example of LA earlier mentioned, the market rate of
> housing in LA is seemingly based on something other than wages, the
> national (or even local) rate of inflation or what HUD deems is fair
> market value. this is where my problem with classical economics (and
> the dominant model of supply and demand) comes in. the quote above,
> maybe a major misreading, sounds an awful lot like arguments against
> regulation of economics in any form, as if any of our economy works as
> a natural ecosystem that has its own "equilibrium" established by some
> geo-biological mechanisms. i just can't buy it, when the evidence of
> hard core regulations (the case of the FHA, auto manufacturers and
> redlining being the most obvious related examples, along with the
> earlier example of section 8 i gave before) to make it work in favor
> of those that espouse "free market" rhetoric is so visible (to
> non-specialists). if the incentive to maintain a building properly is
> diminished by rent control (land value regulation), why is that?
> the other major question i have is: what renter is "frozen out of the
> controlled sector"? and why is that (who is doing the "freezing")? i
> don't think we can discuss the pitfalls of housing regulation (which
> rent control is obviously part of) without looking at the context it
> operates in. i'm not arguing for everyone to fight for "upwardly
> mobile" residents and their renters' rights, but i don't think it's
> either realistic or more progressive to claim deregulation as the
> answer to housing problems. paying for health insurance undoubtedly
> dissipates the wealth of CEOs and middle managers, but many argue this
> benefits the employer as well as the employee (unless one takes
> walmart's view that employees are pretty much expendable and there are
> more than enough unskilled people to take over for the sick). if the
> monetary value of land is regulated in a comprehensive way, i don't
> see how this negatively impacts the owners in a way that justifies not
> regulating it. if their cost for housing is also regulated - which
> would include property taxation, general construction, utilities -
> owners would benefit as well as renters. i'm sure some, or all, of
> this is discussed by Block, so this is a quick response without having
> read through, so i apologize for that.
> i can anticipate a real politik answer to this, but i just don't
> accept the "that's the way things work" answer to policy problems.
> policies are created, maintained and abandoned everyday, and i don't
> think it's idealism to work for different policy. it's not changing
> the weather.
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>

> Cut the shit ryan and stop trying to sound so smart by asking
> questions… answer them for us please. And for gawd sakes keep it
> short.
>
> joseph

i'll stop "trying to sound so smart" (astute analysis, btw) if you stop
trying to sound so tough. deal?
sorry if i take some issues to be more complicated than a one liner, i
know how precious bandwidth is.

What if one of us were starting to really make it in the art world and could
actually consider buying a loft building in Williamsburg or Manhattan.
Unfortunately the perfect building is stuffed full of artists barely making
their rent payments. But you need the whole space to set up your various
workshops to keep up with the mass production that the art world demands.

What to do?
Pass on the opportunity of a lifetime or kick the people out and say I'm
sorry but its mine now. I need it for myself.

Like a rental building going condo. Either buy or get out.

–

In reference to the case in the East Village.
Since he is not evicting and then re-renting the apartments but instead just
wanting to convert it to his fresh pad mansion for his family, I think it is
legal. Now if rich folks from all over and started doing this it might pose
a problem.

I go back an forth about it.
I am happy for my friends in the east village that have rents as low as
$450.00 for a small 1 bed railroad on the fifth floor but if they leave, the
apartment will be renovated and will be rented for about $1400.00.

My best advise to anyone is if you plan to stay in one place for a while
sign a long lease. They cannot cancel a lease. They must wait it out.

All in all renting should not be looked at as a permanent situation.

Cheers,
Lee


On 6/24/05 5:29 PM, "ryan griffis" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Jun 23, 2005, at 3:14 PM, judsoN wrote:
>
>> it's not that one should ignore these conflicts, but it's so much more
>> constructive to move ahead and not consider them (particularly as
>> obstacles). eventually, we look back and say "hey, that's not a
>> problem any more". but when folks get riled up about some conflict,
>> that's a pretty good sign they aren't framing it in a very useful way.
>> in general, these "disasters" require more faith, and more faith
>> brings us better luck. thus disasters can either be a source of
>> protest or a source of luck. everyone decides for themselves.
>
> call me stupid, but i think when a lot of people get "riled up" over
> conflicts, it's generally because they feel they are not making
> decisions for themselves. and i would be very, very hesitant to say
> that the civil rights movements and many other issue-based campaigns
> (labeled "liberal" or not) are just people who should "move ahead" and
> "frame" the conflict in a more "useful way." i think what you're saying
> seems reasonable, but it comes from a position (not unlike my own in
> many situations) that can afford to say "everyone decides for
> themselves." that cuts both ways, and i think libertarians would feel
> very different if those on the loosing side of free market economics
> decided to get militant, including many of those in the national
> military who they think will protect them. to say that disasters can be
> a source of "luck" is extremely disturbing to me. is this supposed to
> be some kind of "zen" statement or something? i don't see how losing
> your home could be seen as lucky for either bohemians or public housing
> residents. i have plenty of faith… both religious and historical,
> history tells me that land owners will oppress people and the oppressed
> are only lucky when they seek to improve their own situation at the
> reluctance (often violent) of their oppressors. religious faith can
> give people the language and stamina for such struggles.
> i also think the argument joseph makes is a little too easy… and
> sounds vaguely like the criticism of student protest movements against
> war, sweatshops or for equitable housing. somehow the privileges make
> their claims less? in this case, i tend to think similarly - that
> people of "upwardly mobile" status are pushing it to ask for sympathy -
> but at the same time, the relaxing of rent control for them doesn't
> benefit anyone. i don't know the specifics of what's going on in NYC,
> but rent stabilization can be leveraged to help more than first wave
> gentrifiers. i'm also skeptical of claims that these people are being
> subsidized by other residents because of rent stabilization. property
> values (and the taxes that go with them) are such constructed numbers,
> and renters do not pay property taxes on land/property usually, so i
> don't know how the renters are being subsidized unless they're on
> section 8 - which this group in question shouldn't be. in LA right now,
> section 8 is becoming extinct outside of the most neglected
> neighborhoods (where sometimes police don't even show up for a call,
> much less landlords) due to the "market value rent" being inflated so
> far past the rate of inflation and income that HUD's estimation of fair
> rent value can be half what a landlord actually will get for the place
> - which in many cases (certainly mine) is more than half of the income
> of renters. we've ended up in a situation that section 8 was supposed
> to solve - segregated populations based on race and class. of course,
> it could be argued that section 8 was merely a way to privatize
> services further and deconcentrate poverty in order to make it
> invisible and easier to neglect. i don't think the "pay to play" answer
> cuts it.
> i don't mean to sound like i know what i'm talking about, but i think
> some things were touched on that warranted a response. best - ryan
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

–
Lee Wells
Brooklyn, NY 11222

http://www.leewells.org
917 723 2524

good response, deal (though I am sure we both won't be perfectly
hygenic), so where now? It's a quandry, to balance sensitivity with
practicality. To be sympathetic without having a blindfold, to pick the
"right" battles, to not encourage weakness but instead stimulate growth.
We could discuss rent controls for a very long time, and not resolve
their merits, at least I don't have the time to research it properly
(years). So it comes down to gut decisions based on half-assed facts
and opinions formed over a lifetime. I personally think that
progressive cultural, political, and intellectual efforts often get
hijacked by sentimental causes with underlying false premises and
selfish interests.

joseph

ryan griffis wrote:

>> Cut the shit ryan and stop trying to sound so smart by asking
>> questions… answer them for us please. And for gawd sakes keep it
>> short.
>>
>> joseph
>
>
> i'll stop "trying to sound so smart" (astute analysis, btw) if you
> stop trying to sound so tough. deal?
> sorry if i take some issues to be more complicated than a one liner, i
> know how precious bandwidth is.
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>