$1.5 billion in housing or just really anything to help people who already live there is what should happen.
New York has a problem. San Francisco has a crisis.
I just negotiated a 2% rent cut. Like four luxury buildings opened nearby and sucked out our building's highest-earning renters by offering lots of perks for marginally more rent. I asked my landlord if he wanted another vacancy or to keep a hassle-free tenant--he budged.
And my experience is not that unique. "Manhattan rents dropped 3.8 percent in March [2018] from a year earlier, the most since 2011" [1].
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-12/pick-a-ne...
Also, NYC doesn't have nearly as much of a NIMBY problem as many other American cities. We continue to build lots of housing here.
Additionally, there are hundreds of thousands of people who are rent burdened in New York, even in those places with so called cheap rent such as within south bronx.
And then there's also registration, emissions testing, annual inspection, and other miscellaneous fees that vary by jurisdiction, but that can easily cost hundreds per year in total.
https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/buildings/html/nyc-active-major-... https://www.nynesting.com/new-developments
Nothing stays forever in NYC which is kind of why it is such a great city.
People who live here will benefit from this. NYC has a much more diverse candidate pool than SV - 47% of our tech workers are immigrants. Our schools are more diverse; there are more programs to teach underrepresented groups CS skills. They will benefit from this.
>gentrifying forces of a thousands of tech employees.
Can you explain how gentrification will actually play out, and how it's different than 25k jobs being created organically over the next decade?
>$1.5 billion in housing
Just because Amazon has been given an incentive doesn't mean that housing gets short sticked. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/hpd/about/press-releases/2018/07/m...