brewster wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
I was responding to the post above mine, and I responded with a true explanation. And frankly, I wouldn't mind paying the money if it resulted in better results than the dismal graduation rate, while spending about 25% more per student than the state average.

Quit dodging my point, which is that neighborhoods in Westchester, CT and LI pay similar tax rates to comparable suburban NJ. There is no exceptional situation in NJ due to the Abbott decision. Everywhere you go there are poorer ares that need support. You, Rand Paul and Boris may be the last of the Libertarian true believers, but our "liberal" society believes in a moderate amount of sharing the wealth. Get over it. You'd get more sympathy if you whined as loudly about the waste in corporate welfare, Wall Street kleptocracy and crony capitalism.

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
As for the silly comments above, suburban kids may not be able to afford to live in their hometown because of taxes. Taxes that are sky high because cities like JC and Newark, together, suck $1.6 billion EACH YEAR from the suburban taxpayers, who then have to pay sky high local muni taxes to make up.

1. Most of the suburban kids are moving back to the city, which is why suburban property values still haven't recovered from the crash while cities are unaffordable.

2. Most of the suburban districts have been created and resist regionalization because white people want to avoid integrated classrooms. When suburban districts regionalize and the state has 50 districts instead of 500, taxes will go down. Until then, you can keep paying for your segregated school system.

Monroe wrote:
I was responding to the post above mine, and I responded with a true explanation. And frankly, I wouldn't mind paying the money if it resulted in better results than the dismal graduation rate, while spending about 25% more per student than the state average.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Conformist wrote:
Rents go up because of demand, not because of how rich the people moving in are.

Quote:

Conformist wrote:
Except there is always an artist who can pay $23k. And an artist who can pay $24k. And an artist who can pay $45k. And an artist who can pay $80k. And an artist who can pay $200k.

Do you seriously not see you are contradicting yourself?

Conformist wrote:
Rents go up because of demand, not because of how rich the people moving in are.

Conformist wrote:
Except there is always an artist who can pay $23k. And an artist who can pay $24k. And an artist who can pay $45k. And an artist who can pay $80k. And an artist who can pay $200k.

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
As for the silly comments above, suburban kids may not be able to afford to live in their hometown because of taxes. Taxes that are sky high because cities like JC and Newark, together, suck $1.6 billion EACH YEAR from the suburban taxpayers, who then have to pay sky high local muni taxes to make up.

1. Most of the suburban kids are moving back to the city, which is why suburban property values still haven't recovered from the crash while cities are unaffordable.

2. Most of the suburban districts have been created and resist regionalization because white people want to avoid integrated classrooms. When suburban districts regionalize and the state has 50 districts instead of 500, taxes will go down. Until then, you can keep paying for your segregated school system.

Monroe wrote:
As for the silly comments above, suburban kids may not be able to afford to live in their hometown because of taxes. Taxes that are sky high because cities like JC and Newark, together, suck $1.6 billion EACH YEAR from the suburban taxpayers, who then have to pay sky high local muni taxes to make up.

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

Conformist wrote:

Rents go up because of demand, not because of how rich the people moving in are. If enough artists want to live in an area, prices go up, and only the artists who can afford it will live there--possibly with aid from family or income from bartending or by sharing apartments or rooms.

Upward price adjustments are limited by the incomes of the people who are demanding it.

It doesn't matter how many people want an apartment if each individual has a maximum buying power of $22,000. An apartment won't rent for more than that. The only reason it does is because someone comes along with more money.

That is, if there is 1 apartment and 10 Artist Abbys each with $22,000 a year, it doesn't matter that there are 10 people willing to pay $22,000, it won't rent for more than that maximum price provided that is the maximum they can pay. The apartment only rents for more than when Lawyer Laura comes along and offers $155,000 for it.

The real conflict then isn't Blue-Collar Bill and Middle-Class Mike, each earning $50,000 are in conflict with Artist Abby. Its that Lawyer Laura comes along and fucks all of them.

Monroe wrote:
As for the silly comments above, suburban kids may not be able to afford to live in their hometown because of taxes. Taxes that are sky high because cities like JC and Newark, together, suck $1.6 billion EACH YEAR from the suburban taxpayers, who then have to pay sky high local muni taxes to make up.

As a lifelong resident 99% of friends that I grew up with moved out as soon as they either married or started a family. Years ago you moved to a different section now they move out altogether.

ianmac47 wrote:
Upward price adjustments are limited by the incomes of the people who are demanding it.

It doesn't matter how many people want an apartment if each individual has a maximum buying power of $22,000. An apartment won't rent for more than that. The only reason it does is because someone comes along with more money.

That is, if there is 1 apartment and 10 Artist Abbys each with $22,000 a year, it doesn't matter that there are 10 people willing to pay $22,000, it won't rent for more than that maximum price provided that is the maximum they can pay. The apartment only rents for more than when Lawyer Laura comes along and offers $155,000 for it.

The real conflict then isn't Blue-Collar Bill and Middle-Class Mike, each earning $50,000 are in conflict with Artist Abby. Its that Lawyer Laura comes along and fucks all of them.

jcdd wrote:
I disagree, Monroe. Most people I know that moved to the burbs from JC and Hoboken were people that just couldn't afford to live here with kids. There is no dispute that the living is cheaper in the burbs, particularly when you factor in kids. Daycare alone is double the cost in downtown JC as it is in Montclair, for example.

I also disagree that those buying expensive properties have no complaints regarding path service cuts. Many work and socialize in nyc and do, in fact, utilize the path.

ianmac47 wrote:

The real conflict then isn't Blue-Collar Bill and Middle-Class Mike, each earning $50,000 are in conflict with Artist Abby. Its that Lawyer Laura comes along and fucks all of them.

Conformist wrote:

Rents go up because of demand, not because of how rich the people moving in are. If enough artists want to live in an area, prices go up, and only the artists who can afford it will live there--possibly with aid from family or income from bartending or by sharing apartments or rooms.

ianmac47 wrote:
If you want to know what's driving the rapid increase in price per square foot, its going to be the bankers, lawyers, and other professional service members with six figure salaries. Its not the graduate students or writers and artists who work part time as waiters and bartenders and tattoo artists, even if they are getting a few dollars from their parents in the midwest.

Consider for a moment what you are actually talking about here.

Lets say Artist Abby works 20 hours a week at some menial service job like sales clerk, leaving plenty of time to pursue her art and music career. Very generously, her parents cut her a check for a $1,000 a month, which is a lot but its expensive to live in the big city and Artist Abby is going to be a brilliant artist one day. Art Abby is living on a solid $22,400 a year (that's $10,400 working an $12,000 from her parents).

Now lets say Lawyer Laura just landed a first year associate job at one of the big law firms. Times are tough, and base salaries haven't increased since 2007, so she only starts at a measly $160,000. She's also going to make $20,000 in student loan payments this year, so right off the top she's down to $140,000. Oh, wait, bonuses for the class of 2013 were $15,000, so Lawyer Laura earned $155,000 this year.

So who is renting the luxury high rise for $3,000 a month and who is sharing an apartment with that weird English grad student who walks her cat around the park?

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:

I suggest you follow your own advice. Ianmac clearly stated that gentrification has numerous negative effects. He also demonized millions of people, saying that "most rich white people tend to be assholes."

If you can't understand the subtext behind his post that I responded to, I suggest taking lessons in reading comprehension. Especially given your spiel about why it isn't useful to get angry at gentrification.

Again, to be clear, I stated rich white people often are assholes and clarified this as independent of gentrification. This has nothing to do with whether or not they are gentrifying a place, or moving to the suburbs, or living in a van down the river. To be rich and white is hold the most powerful position in society, and with that power comes corruption -- corruption of the soul, corruption of morality, corruption of humanity.

JCMan8 wrote:

I suggest you follow your own advice. Ianmac clearly stated that gentrification has numerous negative effects. He also demonized millions of people, saying that "most rich white people tend to be assholes."

If you can't understand the subtext behind his post that I responded to, I suggest taking lessons in reading comprehension. Especially given your spiel about why it isn't useful to get angry at gentrification.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:

I'm still not understanding whatever point is attempting to be made here. The only reason she is unlikely to drive up prices is because she is being subsidized by her parents and likely doesn't have carte blanche to do what she wants. Is the point supposed to be that it is more desirable for such people to move into a neighborhood than financially independent professionals?

The only reason she's living where she is is due to privilege, coming from a nice upbringing and having parents who can afford to pay her rent. With privilege generally comes entitlement. Id rather live next to the independent professional.

I guess my point is that its no more rational to be angry at the trust funder artist than to be angry at the wall streeters who follow. Being angry at the gentrification cycle is about as useful as being mad at the ocean for washing away the ephemeral barrier beach sandbar where you foolishly built your summer house. Change is part of life, wishing for no change makes you either a conservative or Yvonne.

I agree with this but I never said any of the things you claim. I responded to a poster who implied there was a problem with the wall streeters.

So I'm still not sure what you meant by "not surprisingly, you're missing the point." Perhaps you should have directed your comment at him.

Read the thread. The rising prices were attributed by IanMac to professionals, without describing it as a problem. You assumed he was angry at them, then demonized the artist living off her folks as a "leech".

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:

I'm still not understanding whatever point is attempting to be made here. The only reason she is unlikely to drive up prices is because she is being subsidized by her parents and likely doesn't have carte blanche to do what she wants. Is the point supposed to be that it is more desirable for such people to move into a neighborhood than financially independent professionals?

The only reason she's living where she is is due to privilege, coming from a nice upbringing and having parents who can afford to pay her rent. With privilege generally comes entitlement. Id rather live next to the independent professional.

I guess my point is that its no more rational to be angry at the trust funder artist than to be angry at the wall streeters who follow. Being angry at the gentrification cycle is about as useful as being mad at the ocean for washing away the ephemeral barrier beach sandbar where you foolishly built your summer house. Change is part of life, wishing for no change makes you either a conservative or Yvonne.

I agree with this but I never said any of the things you claim. I responded to a poster who implied there was a problem with the wall streeters.

So I'm still not sure what you meant by "not surprisingly, you're missing the point." Perhaps you should have directed your comment at him.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:

I'm still not understanding whatever point is attempting to be made here. The only reason she is unlikely to drive up prices is because she is being subsidized by her parents and likely doesn't have carte blanche to do what she wants. Is the point supposed to be that it is more desirable for such people to move into a neighborhood than financially independent professionals?

The only reason she's living where she is is due to privilege, coming from a nice upbringing and having parents who can afford to pay her rent. With privilege generally comes entitlement. Id rather live next to the independent professional.

I guess my point is that its no more rational to be angry at the trust funder artist than to be angry at the wall streeters who follow. Being angry at the gentrification cycle is about as useful as being mad at the ocean for washing away the ephemeral barrier beach sandbar where you foolishly built your summer house. Change is part of life, wishing for no change makes you either a conservative or Yvonne.

JCMan8 wrote:

I'm still not understanding whatever point is attempting to be made here. The only reason she is unlikely to drive up prices is because she is being subsidized by her parents and likely doesn't have carte blanche to do what she wants. Is the point supposed to be that it is more desirable for such people to move into a neighborhood than financially independent professionals?

The only reason she's living where she is is due to privilege, coming from a nice upbringing and having parents who can afford to pay her rent. With privilege generally comes entitlement. Id rather live next to the independent professional.