Sherman says:

“The folks who buy these allegedly “ultra-high priced luxury condos” are the people who support and subsidize NYC’s cultural institutions for all NYC residents. The folks living here off entitlements are likely not big charitable donors to the cultural scene.”

this is a totally obtuse comment.

First of all, you don’t seem to understand what an “entitlement program” is. I assume you are talking about rent-stabilized tenants. This is not an “entitlement program.” Entitlement programs are Social Security, medicare, Medicaid, various types of veterans benefits, food stamps… government benefits.

So since many of these rich donors are seniors, presumably they get Medicare and thus ARE indeed “entitlement” recipients. yes, even the rich can and do use Medicare!

But i think you are referring to rent-stabilization. This is a price regulation system, not an “entitlement”. Another price regulation system you might be familiar with is electricity. Electrical rates are regulated. And there are many other types of price regulation systems that are used in the US.

I am continually surprised by how so many “expert” commenters on WSR don’t understand the simplest economic concepts, such as what an “entitlement program” is. They don’t seem to understand how most housing in NYC is provided.

Second, it is ironic that you seem to be bemoaning the lack of contribution of rent stabilized tenants to cultural institutions in NYC.

Who do you think the PERFORMERS are? Before my building went condo, it was a haven for performers, artists, and musicians of all types. We have an opera singer, many actors, a working comedian, a working professional clown(!), and on and on, including painters. When it went condo, the number of performers and artists went down — they were priced out. Most cultural worker are not millionaires.

You seem to only have eyes for the contributions to NY of the very rich.

Jay continues to make ad hominem attacks (“same old tired rhetoric.”) I notice you didn’t dispute any of my “platform items” for the luxury condo fans’ mythical candidate. what the Real Estate crowd has been advocating is pretty clear… and pretty brutal to tens of thousands of West Siders.

You may consider it “tired rhetoric” — nice that you have that luxury, as it apparently doesn’t affect you — but as we speak, hundreds and even thousands of West Siders who live in rent stabilized apartments are being harassed by their landlords, who want to make the spaces market rate.

Jay said:

“Why would the Metro Theater owner put their money behind Debbie’s proposal when they have rejected several other actual business proposals over the years, especially when Symphony Space is a short walk away?”

Symphony Space rarely features movies, in the Thalia space. It is a live theater, not a movie theater.

anyhow, the neighborhood can clearly support both Deborah’s plan and Symphony Space.

why would the landlord reach a deal with her? first of all, i don’t know if she has a real proposal just yet. Second, unlike you, i don’t know what happened with Alamo Draft Housea and the other a”actual business plans.” Maybe you are a Real Estate guy with inside info, or maybe you are just bluffing. I have no way of knowing.

Maybe Alamo pulled out, not the landlord. Maybe they figured the neighborhood could not support fancy high end stuff. Third, Deborah might have serious tax advantages, including for the landlord, by putting a not for profit there. Fourth, the landlord might be tired of it standing empty for years. How many years now since Alamo Draft House was going to go in? 3 or 4?

But i have little idea of what the landlord thinks. And i assume neither do you. So why pooh-pooh Deborah’s initiative? Unless you WANT her to fail?

More power to her. Go Deborah!

Jay said:

“If the owner couldn’t work something out with Alamo Drafthouse, what makes you think that this proposal (which is pretty threadbare as far as business plans go) will change anything?”

first of all, i’m glad you know the private details of the failure of the Alamo Draft House deal. or at least that is how it seems.

second, you are stating that the owner has no interest in Deborah’s project. i don’t know how you would know that.

Sure, what Deborah is doing is a long shot. But why poo-poo it? Maybe you would prefer that more luxury condos go there?

Jay said:

“Secondly, you repeatedly confuse the election by a small minority of people, who vote on a wide variety of topics, on the UWS is akin to a scientific poll. Logic and reasoning is not a strength in the NIMBY crowd and these sort of comments and refusals to answer a simple question, just reinforces that.”

I’m glad you are a master of “logic and reasoning.”

Overdevelopment, luxury vs. affordable housing, the driving out of mom and pop stores: these have been the main issueson the UWS the past few years. And yet the “more luxury condos” crowd has failed to even field a candidate.

Get out there, boys!! You are so confident you represent a majority. Watch the masses flock to your side!

Your platform:

1) upzone and allow more luxury high rises. No requirements for affordable housing.

2) fast track all permits for luxury development.

3) phase out all rent regulations — all rent stabilization — as quickly as possible.

4) get rid of supportive housing.

5) and while we’re at it, privatize public housing.

do you REALLY think that West Siders would vote for that sort of platform?

or maybe you don’t have confidence in your own belief system?

Jay said:

“How about you stop pretending you speak for the Upper West Side while you are at it?”

Jay was objecting to my statement that “most UWers are tired of endless ultra-high priced condos.”

First of all, i notice that you seem to be speaking for the owner of the Metro Theater property, ironically. All i said was that we should give what Deborah Rosenberg is trying to do a chance. More power to her. At least she is trying to do something with development on the UWS that benefits the residents… more than endless ultra-luxury condos.

As to whether “most” UWSers are tired of “endless ultra-high priced luxury condos”, there is plenty of evidence for this. First of all, there have been no candidates, even on the Republican side, who have run on a platform of “more luxury condos.” And the candidates who want to slow down over-development, such as Gale Brewer and Helen Rosenthal, win by overwhelming numbers. The turnout at hearings from UWSers has overwhelmingly been against ultra-luxory development.

But, if you feel like your own pro-luxury high rise position represents a majority, by all means run candidates and speak out. Enter the debate. We’ll see what sort of support that has.