oxymoron rule

Gotta read between the lines.

They won't be sellable... AT A PROFIT. They might have to sell them to PEOPLE so they can LIVE IN THEM instead of as a perpetual resource squatting investment.

You get to escape from this exploitation with the ill-gotten rent-profits you've already got and your heads still attached to your bodies... this is already the compromise. Take the win.

They might not be sellable at "break even". A lot of people bought places to short-term rent on places like Airbnb. The prices might be extra inflated because of that revenue generation. Remove the ability to make a profit and the value crashes. Suddenly they cannot sell it for what they owe and it doesn't make enough to cover the mortgage.
My guess is that a lot of these mom and pop landlords will lose or sell their properties and investment funds will gobble them up for cheap.. Never lose faith in the system's incomparable ability to fuck over the common people.
- People who wanted to literally abuse the system (and the people in it) will get fucked up by a new system. So sad.
- Investments carry risk, and when you invest in leaches, expect people to have little sympathy when the endevor fails.
- If you're investing to make highly leveraged profit off of a concept in a legal grey area, you're are not some "mom and pop" land lord. If that comes to pass they messed up their risk management because of greed.
- and investment funds will gobble them up for cheap…
  If that happens then it was a badly implemented policy to begin with.
- NYC already has heavy restrictions on short term rentals like airbnb, enforced since 2023. They need to be registered, there's a 2 guest limit, it must be a shared space (no full unit rentals), the hosts must be present for the full stay, and it's in an approved building.
  Local law 18.
- Society is not responsible for insuring someone's investment works out well for them.
  Government should not be prevented from removing a thumb from the scale because a handful of people made a 30 year bet on it remaining there.
The fundamental issue is that people and corporations are buying himes for the sole purpose of profiting off them
It'll suck for some people, but it's a necessary part of making housing affordable again. Housing needs to be a place for someone to live, not an investment that always gets more expensive
- Housing needs to be a place for someone to live, not an investment that always gets more expensive
  Too late
ya it's crazy how having their mortgage paid for by their tenant is not enough, they also want to sell the property for high price than they "paid" for.
They might have to sell them to PEOPLE so they can LIVE IN THEM instead of as a perpetual resource squatting investment.
So, condos? Not inherently bad, but I would expect that to make living in NYC even more impossible except for the already wealthy with enough capital to buy one.

Reminds me of when the former German gov tried to enforce heat pumps for heater replacements to phase out gas heaters.

Someone wrote their experience with a homeowner meeting in a small city to discuss that topic and at some point a man complained that doesn’t know if he could afford to replace gas heaters with heat pumps in all 36 of his houses…

awww the poor babies
This would be funny to read in a political satire novel or something if we weren't living in it.

"We invented a relatable class of people to discredit an actually leftish politician"

I feel like this isn't a new trick.

Yeah, this is just code for ‘hey middle-class people, Mamdani might be coming for you next!’

It warms my heart to see all the people scared shitless by this guy.

i haven't looked too closely into his history or policy but i can tell he's the real mfing deal based on the fact that the times and post both absolutely hate his guts

Obviously "unsellable properties" here means "property that won't keep appreciating at insane rates".

I was ALL IN on Mamdani until I read THIS! CANT we just think of the RICH LANDLORDS PLEASE! THOSE are the Only Ones who Matter! I'll GLADLY pay DOUBLE the Rent just to make Sure my Mom And Pop Landlord with 30 Buildings in NYC can stay Afloat and I Expect ALL Mamdani Supporters to do the Same! This is EYE OPENING!

Giving everyone affordable housing would be socialism! Bailing out corporations with hundreds of billions of dollars every decade or so is not socialism, though. That would be straight up communism, but pssst
- That would be straight up communism
  Not really though. Communism means that the workers own the means of production. Bailing out billionaire-owned corporations is not that.
If my landlord has to miss one trip in his giant RV I will just bawl my eyes out.
Poor guy.
- What do you expect him to get a job like a peasant? He's accustomed to a certain lifestyle
I can't afford my own place, but I'm a temporarily embarrassed landlord! These policies will hurt ME very soon. The gall of this guy.

And are those mom and pop landlords in the room with us now?

If your promary concern when buying a hime is selling it, your housing market is fundamentally broken

Landlords can still make a profit offering a service (rental profit) without needing the underlying asset to perpetually appreciate in value. Japan makes it work

it's not my primary concern, but it's my third.

My “mom and pop” landlord owned 3 buildings, one in Chelsea, one on 3rd avenue, and one in red hook. Managed the properties themselves, cheap as fuck, but kind. When they liquidated their buildings they got about $40 million dollars. No such thing as a mom and pop nyc landlord.

"The feudal overlords are humans just like you and I."

If you're renting a property, it is not unsellable. I'm sure someone will be happy to buy it for $1.

Mom and pop landlord? Is that the US version of a Baronet or Knight?

The feudal system is where the term landlord originated, so kind of yeah

While I get what the writer was trying to say:

A) That was one of the worst terms they could have used.

B) Even small operations are keeping rent high and renters counting pennies.

So fuck em anyway.

"Waaaaa I wanted all the potential profits and none of the risk!"

It's funny how the system of owning extra properties to rent out as part of a person's retirement is so unreachable for current generations that they don't even really know about it. Being able to own things so you didn't have to work when you were old used to be how the system convinced people to buy into it.

Now that this is now longer feasible for almost anyone, there's little reason for people to feel the system is worth upholding. That's what kept support for capitalism so strong after guilded age; a middle class supported by generous housing policies and strong unions. As such a reality becomes distant memory, people are more willing to reject capitalism and liberalism than every before.

It's important to bring in the longer history. Before large numbers of Americans were reliant on rising housing prices, there existed these things called pension plans, which would pay out from when you retired until when you died, and you could live on that money. But the capitalists didn't like that, because they didn't want to pay people for doing nothing over the last few decades of their lives. So then we got the current system, which has people speculating on property and throwing money into IRAs. In other words, we had a system with guaranteed benefits and we replaced that with one based on gambling and the ridiculous belief that the value of property would always outpace inflation. And this all happened in our parents lifetimes, or in our grandparents lifetimes, depending how old you are.
- I kind of have to be in awe of how some of these people will complain that pensions disappeared and retirement is based on gambling, but also vote against their own interests and call us (relatively) younger folks lazy complaining losers that can't afford anything. Hmm...
The bourgeoisie are all dead, all we have left are capitalist oligarchs.
- If you make money from owning something, like a landlord, then you are the bourgeoisie. The landlords want the same things someone like Musk does.

What if he goes after the Mom & Pop Billionaires and Mom & Pop corporations next?

Mom & Pop Corp is legally proven to be made of people who had moms and pops.

love the plural properties

There are probably landlords who own only 2 properties, and who are living frugally in a smaller one while renting out a bigger one. I doubt there are many, but in a city of 25 million, there are probably a few. But, this idea that a property in NYC will be "unsellable" is a bit absurd.

I encourage all frugal parasites in NYC to go ahead and panic sell their multimillion dollar properties and move to the red states.
And...?
- Or...?

I'd like to hear how many % of NY rental properties are owned by landlords with a net worth below 1M$...?

Zillow has the average home price in NYC as ~800,000. So unless they also live in the rental probably near 0%.
- Hey now there's at least one dude who owns and rents a property but lives out of a van going up and down the east coast. I'm just describing one of my uncles but swap East for West.
Not to validate the moronic narrative in the OP, but a million dollars is really not that much. Not even enough to retire in many places. Not where I'd put the standard for "mom and pop." I mean hell, your average mom and pop anything is probably worth a lot more than one million dollars.
- In some sense you are right, but also 1 million in net assets is not just within the global 1% but less than 0.5%...

Won't anybody stand up for the ~~leeches~~ landlords??

Housing is never 'unsellable', the price is just too high.

It's really easy for individual homeowners to end up with unsellable properties. It happened at a massive scale after the late 2000s housing crash. All that has to happen is that the price declines to the point that your mortgage balance + transaction costs are now worth more than the home's value. If you're in that situation, unless you have the tens of thousands in cash needed to make up the difference, you're trapped in your home. You could mail the bank the keys and default on the mortgage, but that wrecks your credit and the bank will keep tacking on fees, charging you for maintenance, etc. Your choice is either to stay in the home or declare bankruptcy. Selling isn't a choice you actually have.

Mom and Pop NYC landlords. I immediately want to balk at this statement but then I remembered two things. Firstly I remember "How to with Jon Wilson". He made an episode about buying the house from his landlord and that the only way to pay for it was to turn it into a rental property. His landlord was an old lady who wanted to move out.

Secondly, I remember meeting a couple who sold a brownstone before the pandemic, moved to Montclair NJ, and then purchased a home and turned their second floor into an apartment.

Do mom and pop landlords exist? Yes. Are they opportunistic? I don't think those single family homes should be allowed to be turned into apartments. I've seen some pretty heinous abuses of some people essentially turning a closet and a hallway into a "studio".

Maybe "Mom and Pop" landlords shouldn't exist.

Maybe private landlords shouldn't exist.
"mom and pop" landlords should literally be a mom and pop, renting to their kid before they can afford their own place.

mom-and-pop parasites fear promising antiparasitic

Think of the mom and pops that suddenly can't make a parasitic living off of leeching money from their tenants?

This is what fascist media does: they bullshit you to death.

here's an idea:

sell it

Contrived outrage is insanely standard but it still works on the dotards.

I mean it's still a democracy. Just don't vote for him, if you don't like him?

or we could slander him with red scare tactics and racism

Shouldn’t even be a business.

I'm not tipping

I hope Mamdani wins and people have to charge fair rents and feel like they are suffering.

Using language to deceive

Good?