This article offers no solutions and waxes poetic about cooperatives and presents homeless and limited income people as undesirables. Let us not forget that cooperatives are elitist communities. Sadly, the UWS has become a place where artists, writers, educators musicians and intellectuals can no longer afford to get "accepted" into coops despite the fact that they may be a wonderful presence in a community. As the UWS becomes increasingly of just "rich " people - it looses its character and has less tolerance for diversity. This article is about elitism.
The UNIONS forced Finance to move their labor out of NYC?
Come back to reality brother, it's nice here.
New York is on borrowed time in any event. Once Bloomberg is gone, we go back to Democratic politics as usual, and the unions will be back in control. Once the unions force the financial services industry out (and it is already hollowed out - back operations moved out long ago) New York will have nothing left but tourism. And how long will it take, once Bloomberg is gone, before we get back to Dinkins level crime rates?
One day the Giuliani and Bloomberg era will be known as the last gasp and short golden age of New York City before the Democratic party kills the city for good. 20 years from now and the City will be well on its way to Detroitification. Say goodbye, New York, west side and all.
I've always found the Upper West Side to be extremely unappealing. I'm sure that the social services glut has had something to do with it, but I can think of innumerable other things which are loathsome about it as well.
Woe! Oh WOE!!!
The POOR Upper West Side! Beset with evil social services...
I live in Bushwick.
Try dealing with homeless shelters, battered women shelters, drug abuse centers, and all the rest.
You people should be proud to actually be doing people a service but as always your class is just gimmie gimmie gimmie. You ever think maybe it's a good thing for homeless people to see what life could be like? Personally I think it's a great idea for social services to be split among income brackets like this. Let people at least see what they're never going to be able to obtain for their entire lives, just once.
If only so that they know where to burn later.
We on the outside yet wonder if the city is a lost cause--along with the nation--a place with a destiny for colorful decline into the depths.
Well, well, well.
The upper west side liberal progressives do not seem to enjoy the "fruits" of the social policies they promote when they themselves are the the victims of the destructive policies they compel others to accept and tolerate.
Tough to feel sorry for them.
Liberal progressive is merely a euphemism for hypocrite.
Rent control destroying your neighborhood? Create condos and coops in YOUR neighborhood to prevent its destruction and yes, allow us to keep out the "untermensch" (e.g., blacks, hispanics and yes, the worst of all, white trash).
All for unlimited welfare for those of the appropriate ethnic or racial group? Sounds great, but don't have them, house them, or even allow them in MY upper west side neighborhood; the welfare kings and queens belong, well, not in my upper west side area.
By the way, we upper west side denizens are all for rent control to provide affordable housing and increased social welfare benefits for the "needy;" provided that these policies do not affect us in any way and we are allowed to find ways to circumvent and avoid the consequences of our "heaven on earth" agenda.
Are you seriously praising the "cooperative revolution" while attack rent regulation? You do realize that the only reason all those renters became co-op owners is because their landlords preferred to sell them their apartments at unregulated prices rather than rent to them at regulated rates, right? I hate rent control/stabilization just as much as the next City Journal reader, but it's the height of hypocrisy to praise New York City's co-ops while attacking its rent regulation.
What an expose! I live in a corner of the West Side that is so isolated the compassion industry has not (yet) discovered it. It's a beautiful neighborhood, enhanced by elegant condos recently built. It's ten minutes from a famous performing arts complex - but intervening between my oasis and the arts complex is an intimidating public housing project that frightens off the homeless and vagrants and mentally ill who live on the street, frightening passersby, just two avenues east of my neighborhood. I therefore live free from fear, in an area I will keep confidential, very confidential.
On a tangential matter, why is it that everyone I know who lives in a rent controlled apartment also has a home in the Hamptons? I don't have a home in the Hamptons and pay market rent. Just wondering.
Here's a little tidbit from the NY Post which explains how the left thinks about nice neighborhoods:
The whole point was to bring moderate- and low-income housing to affluent towns — or, as Deputy HUD Secretary Ron Sims put it, “to remove zip codes as a factor in the quality of life in America.”
"The welfare state is not really about the welfare of the masses. It is about the egos of the elites." - Thomas Sowell
"Mystical references to society and its programs to help may warm the hearts of the gullible but what it really means is putting more power in the hands of bureaucrats." - Thomas Sowell
According to a very reliable source, Icon Realty is paying tenants in the SROs at 346 and 350 West 71st street to move to 342 W 71st street so that 346 and 350 can be rented to the city (so they can create a shelter for the mentally ill, drug addicts and ex-cons). Somebody stop Icon Realty from destroying this great neighborhood.
Gosh what a beautiful story - another example of what's good the middle class bigoted goose isn't at all good for the compassioate gander of elite snobs.