|
|
| Re: How the LIRR and Nassau PD Conspire Against Commuters (552233) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: How the LIRR and Nassau PD Conspire Against Commuters |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Jan 11 22:21:47 2008, in response to Re: How the LIRR and Nassau PD Conspire Against Commuters, posted by Russ on Fri Jan 11 21:50:33 2008. Your post is riddled with myths!"What happens 30 years after an 80/20 is built? Higher density buildings dot the landscape that are larger than what was considered optimal for a high quality of life" Considered by whom? Landowners protesting the introduction of needed housing stock? This is sheer nonsense. "so the quality of life will probably be negatively impacted in that neighborhood by buildings that no longer provide any benefit to people from a lower economic strata." New York has demonstrated that the opposite is true. In fact, the buildings benefit people across a range of economic strata, and neighborhoods have been revived this way. If the range of income is set so too many upper middle class people benefit, the answer is to adjust thresholds. Yes, some areas of the city will not support the working class as well as others. That's true everywhere. That can be tweaked. It is true that in the South Bronx, tenement towers that were magnets for crime were replaced by neighborhoods of single family homes bought by people with $25,000 annual incomes. The amount of housing stock was reduced in those localities,ad the quality of life improved. That means there is more than one way to improve housing affordability, and New York City is big enough so that more than one model is employed in the boroughs. "Rents were high in this city when the population was shrinking, so your cause and effect is invalid" Not nearly as high as they are now, so my model actually is quite valid. You're relying on subjective value judgments. New York's success speaks for itself. |
|
|
|