Say "No" To "Contextual Height" Arguments

More Contextual Building Madness

New York, in its infinite wisdom has decided to

preserve the established low-density character of the Far Rockaway and Mott Creek communities and ensure that future residential development would be consistent with the existing one- and two-family, detached and semi-detached housing mix that typifies much of the area.

Why? Why does a developer's decision 100 years ago have to dictate the way we live today? Is the architecture in the Rockaways so unique that it needs to stay as it is? Do you not realize that by passing such a ruling that it is a disincentive for individuals to improve the area? Do you truly want to be dependent on the city to improve the area?

Would you believe that the city considers the above building an "Out-of-Context Development"?

The above building is what NYC wants to preserve. Are you f*cking kidding me?

Is the argument that you want to have areas of low population density? Hah! I guess you've never been to the Rock; with 8, 10, 12 people in 2 and 3 bedroom apartments. A 50 foot building is out-of-context next to 20 foot buildings, but in time, when there are more and more 50 foot buildings it will be the 20 foot buildings that will be out-of-context. This is NYC for Gotham's sake, not Nebraska or Kansas or what-have-you.

Bad Neighborhoods in NYC, a color coded map

Was going through one of the NYC boards and came across a post asking

Can anyone have a map of NYC with bad neighborhoods colored in?

You know, so I can know where to avoid.

Some of the responses follow

for some reason,this query
has me LM@O.
---
same here- LOL!!! And you have to admit that it's a very reasonable request. Hey I too would want one for my kitchen wall to study it, as well as one showing me which neighborhood restaurants keep failing to meet health code standards. Heck, why not just put them together on the same map? Call it the "The Newcomers Map to New York's Bad Neighborhoods & Bad Restaurants".

Call me crrrrrrazy...but I have a feeling that the chances of you just going about your tourist-y business and then stumbling into a rough hood in Brooklyn or the Bronx is fairly slim. Especially if you're just chilling in Manhattan. You probably have a better chance of some crusty punks on St. Marks stealing your wallet. The only thing that's gonna mug you is taxes.
---
So I thought I would help

An interesting article from Milwaukee

So why do so many of our leaders seem indifferent to the success of landlords?

The latest affront is a bill by state Rep. Marlin Schneider (D-Wisconsin Rapids) to limit access to CCAP, the Web site detailing court cases. Schneider tinkered with the bill last week, but he didn't fix the part that worries landlords. Under the bill, the system won't show cases until a court finds a defendant guilty or makes an eviction final.

Here's the problem: Landlords use CCAP to screen tenants. It's perfectly legal, says Tristan Pettit, a Milwaukee lawyer who heads the Apartment Association of Southeastern Wisconsin. It's a splendid way of learning that a prospective tenant is getting evicted for stiffing his current landlord.

While the bill makes the cases public eventually, the trick is that most evictions settle first, says Pettit. Landlords find that cheaper than months of legal process, and courts press for it. But under Schneider's bill, settlements leave no public record.

Worse, Schneider's bill would keep landlords from spotting troublemakers. Say a tenant is pushing drugs but, because there are witness problems, prosecutors make a deal on a lesser charge. The public record would no longer show the very real drug trouble, which can and should make a landlord wary.

"Basically, you're renting blind," said Tim Ballering, who owns 400 units in Milwaukee. Landlords, he feels, were collateral damage in Schneider's ongoing crusade to give criminals a second (or third or fourth) chance. Still, the lawmaker keeps trying to purge public records, landlords keep complaining, and all that happens is that more lawmakers sign on. Milwaukee Democratic Reps. Fred Kessler and Polly Williams co-sponsored Schneider's bill.

It's not just Schneider. Milwaukee city officials, too, don't make it easy for landlords. The city's an expensive place to own apartments, many say. Taxes are high, and "there are just so many regulations against us," said Pettit. Don't get him started about the nuisance property law, by which landlords can get in trouble if a tenant calls 911 needlessly.

The Department of Neighborhood Services until lately was a particular cross. "There was a real culture of hatred in the city towards property owners," said Ballering. "Starting with DNS."

Ballering, Pettit and others said things are improving under DNS's new commissioner. Others credit police with cleaning up prostitution and gang trouble.

Still, for every step forward, there are another couple steps toward proposals such as landlord licensing. A study done for DNS found that idea had "very uncertain benefits" elsewhere, while for landlords it's pure cost. Yet it seems to be moving forward.

Why? Why do Milwaukee lawmakers co-sponsor Schneider's regrettable lunacy? Why did our city, in which 55% of residents rent, ever come to make those who offer rentals feel as if they were at best merely tolerated?

"It doesn't seem that the city sees what we offer and that it's necessary," said Pettit.

The Public Policy Forum a few months back said Milwaukee's really short of low-cost rentals. If more people went into the business, researchers said, it could help. Yet Ballering, who's owned for 32 years, told his son to find another occupation: "It's such a difficult business," said Ballering.

"There's better things to do with your life."

Not what a city in need of rental housing wants to hear from entrepreneurs who provide it.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/59534347.html

Sounds like NYC is not as bad as it could be.