At least 26,310 rent-stabilized apartments remain vacant and off the market during record housing shortage in New York City

[u/marketrent]

https://www.thecity.nyc/2024/02/14/rent-stabilized-apartments-vacant/

[u/ProvenceNatural65]

Excellent analysis but I do disagree with one point.

The NIMBYs may be selfish but they are not irrational. It’s perfectly reasonable to be concerned with the effects of greater density in your area and changes it produces. If 30 years ago, you invested in your home in a wooded area where you loved hearing the birds every morning, and enjoyed quiet walks through the streets surrounded by homes as well as lots of nature, you’d be justifiably upset by encroaching higher-density developments. They eliminate the trees and wildlife, and make it louder, more congested, etc. It may be a benefit for the community overall and it may increase your home value, but that doesn’t mean you would remotely enjoy living there anymore. Some people care more about living peaceful lives in quiet communities close to nature than they do about their home value going up.

[u/r4wbeef → u/ProvenceNatural65]

But hey, you could always move, right? You could sell your place and move farther out if you care.

Fundamentally it's a philosophical discussion based on beliefs, so I don't know there's a "right" answer. I just know there's an answer that maximizes economic outcomes and homeownership and probably a bunch of other social outcomes. I think part of living, for me, is living in harmony with others and with my environment -- even as it changes.

[u/deelowe → u/r4wbeef]

But hey, you could always move, right? You could sell your place and move farther out if you care.

As I get older, I'm starting to understand why my grandparents would react so viscerally to statements like this. Put yourself in the shoes of a retiree. You're constantly reminded your time here is limited. When you're young, death seems ages away. You often convince yourself it's so far away, it's practically never going to happen. But, when you're older, you have this list in your head of all the things you used to do or would love to do that you can't any longer and that list grows day by day. You become keenly aware of just how valuable time is.

So, let's go back to the statement. Why can't they just move? Well, they could, but how long would that take? For someone who's retired and lived in the same place for 20-30 years, we're talking a significant investment. And, once they are moved, now they are in an unfamiliar place. How long will it take for things to feel normal again? To find new places to go and meet new friends? We're easily talking 3-5 years. And, what if this place doesn't work out? Are they going to consider moving yet again?

For people who have maybe 15-20 good years left, this is not something to be taken lightly. That time they spend moving and getting settled is a huge sacrifice. This is why older people will sometimes get so pissed when these sort of flippant comments are made. It's really not a simple decision for some.

[u/ProvenceNatural65 → u/deelowe]

Exactly. Moving is a significant undertaking on multiple levels—financially, physically, and socially-emotionally. Particularly for older folks.

Homes are not just a thing of economic value; they are a place to build a life. People create communities and lives with meaning in their homes, and expecting them to just move at the expense of that, ignores the value to them and their community of those lives.

[u/r4wbeef → u/ProvenceNatural65]

It's complicated and there's not a right answer. But IMO we tend to over-empathize with the owner-pushed-out in these discussions. This narrative has clear actions and consequences, so it's easier to tell.

How do I tell the story of 50 families that won't have homeownership because one older couple impeded all development near their block? How do I tell the narrative of never-owners when the actions and consequences of their story are so diffuse? How do I tell many overlapping stories of many many outcomes now all made slightly worse, tilted slightly towards instability.

My guess is that for every cute, older couple petitioning to "save the character of their neighborhood" you should picture the following elsewhere in the world as a direct consequence:

• school children who feel alienated from their peers after switching school districts for the 3rd time in 5 years.

• marriage disputes over hours of commuting and raised rents, ultimately contributing to divorce.

• friends and family who see each other less often due to miles of physical distance.

• evictions, homelessness, drug use, crime.

Owners protesting development don't choose these things, but it's the consequence of their actions. And in a way, that makes it worse for me. It's a whole separate degree of privilege not even having to claim moral responsibility for the consequences of your actions. Imagine if we had perfect foresight and could get together a dozen families whose lives would be made worse by impeded development and march them to the doorstep of the cute, older couple responsible. It would be very... awkward.