buying manhattan apt - HELP!

Leaving aside the question of whether you should buy anything at all, first nail down a couple of neighborhoods where you'd want to live. Then use SE's handy mapping and search tools to see what's out there.

1. We don't know what "decent" means, but <$500K can get you something in the lower end. Some square feet are more desirable than others, so don't get fixated on that. You're comparing apartments, not price per square foot.

2. Deductibility on mortgage interest is the same for both co-ops and condos. When buying a co-op, the building you're buying a share in usually has an underlying mortgage, so add your share of that to the price of the shares.

3. Probably not. A co-op as a rule is a bad choice if you're planning to rent it out. You can rent out a condo if you want to be a mini-landlord and compete with all the other condo owners trying to do the same thing. Again, over only five years you're probably better off renting, not buying.

Read Sylvia Shapiro's "Co-op/Condo Bible" for some detail on how this works in Manhattan. Or wade through the thousands of threads here.

This is just my opinion and I have no connection at all to the real estate business. I've lived in NYC for 17 years and have always rented, but now I've been seriously looking to buy an apartment since May 2009. First, it's alot of work looking for an apartment. Even with all you can now do on the Internet, you need to go look at many apartments before you buy one. Second, as NWY correctly ststes, renting out a condo unit is especially difficult when there is so much competition on the marker with respect to both traditional rental units and other condo apartments available for rent. I've rented both types and I prefer to rent a traditional rental apartment because that's what that apartment is meant for and it's not as much work to get something fixed in the apartment (and something always breaks). Plenty of people buy apartments as investments and then rent them out- just know that both the search and the rental process are difficult and time-consuming.

two corrections (not enough coffee yet)- ststes should be states and NWY should be NWT.

Hmmmm. Maybe just rent. You're a bit green about buying. The learning curve could be long, and you don't want to buy a huge headache and you don't want to be sold a bill of goods.
Rent something. Take your time to learn about the market.
Beware of a zillion opportunists who will "help" you in the short term if you are too eager to buy and too obviously wet behind the ears.
Or are you just a funny little holiday troll?
Believe me, it's more fun to do this than to actually get dressed and start doing all the Christmas eve crap many of us have to do ......

Buying a coop or condo in NYC is tough stuff to do "right." You need to become an expert in your market niche to really know what you are getting. Generally, if you rely solely on brokers to guide you, you will be taken to the cleaners. A 5-year time horizon in the current market is a medium to high risk move from an investment standpoint. If you'll need to rent your unit to others for more than 1 year, a coop is not an alternative for you. Most buildings in which you can buy in NYC are coops, and they are good choices for many, many people. There is no "stay-away" rule of thumb for coops--indeed, many of us prefer them. I must respectfully disagree with NWT's statement that you need to "add your share" of a coop's mortgage to your cost--that makes no sense to me from a standpoint of determining your cost basis. The practical effect on your monthly expenses is nil.

As you begin this process and attempt to figure out which apartments are "better" from a value standpoint, price per square foot matter a bit, but comparables with the same building and area matter more. Also, realize there are priorities ascribed to value of a unit no matter what type you buy. The current value of a unit, its potential for resale and potential to increase in value will be based primarily upon: (1) LOCATION [location is EVERYTHING--smaller unit in A-1 location is better than slightly larger unit in less prime location]; (2) BUILDING QAULITY; (3) LAYOUT; (4) VIEWS; (5) LIGHT the unit gets from outside.

Good luck as you embark on this process. To educate yourself see as many open houses as possible in the areas you are interested in. Streeteasy makes searching for units that fit your bill very easy. You don't need a broker to start looking. I knew a fair amount about NYC and RE when I was buying 2 years ago and still I went to 75+ open houses over a 10 month period. It is the only way to understand the buildings in the areas you are interested in and get a feel for the market.

poorishlady raises another good point. It is usually a good idea to rent in the neighborhood you are thinking of buying in first if you aren't really familiar with the area in a way that a potential home buyer should be. Before jumping into such a huge investment with all your money, it is wiser to test the waters first. Try living there a while and if you like it, then start looking to buy.

when stating a budget, you should state the purchase price AND the expect common charges AND tax consequences for the apt that you want. Battery park has lower priced condos, but HUGE monthlies.

every 100k borrow is approx $600 in monthlies....just a FYI....

"i've been thinking about buying a condo in upper manhattan and would be grateful with any help i can get... so i'm looking for a 1 br for about 500k max... i know that doesn't leave me with much but I'd prefer to find a place in midtown or murray hill (are those even decent areas?) anyway, so my plan is to maybe live in ny for 5 or so years and then rent out the place if i move out of the city..."

Have you even visited New York City?

"Maybe just rent. You're a bit green about buying. The learning curve could be long, and you don't want to buy a huge headache and you don't want to be sold a bill of goods."

That's great advice. Learning stuff is hard so just tuck your head in your ass, squeeze your legs together, and think about running water. No need to experience the world or learn anything new, the world is just too complicated and scary.

kyle,,nice write-up but i was surprised you

1) didn't put common charges on the list..they are so variable and make such a big difference

2) noise...huge important variable

I don't plug my book a lot here, but it's been well-reviewed by several publications, and I think would help you:
http://tinyurl.com/2ag28z

It's a memoir of my first year in real estate, and it's got a lot of tips about how to think about a purchase and how to deal with brokers.

ali r.
DG Neary Realty

JuiceMan ---- your reading comprehension skills are low today. Re-read the original post and then re-read mine. Or just go back to bed and continue nursing your hangover.
Or are you just a twat?
Oh that's right --- yes, you're a twat.

kylewest, excellent summary, as always. I do think, though, that if a co-op has an underlying mortgage that that should be factored in. You are, after all, paying at least the interest on your share.

Granted that since most co-ops were formed before the last big run-up in prices, that pro-rata share is very often trivial. E.g., an apartment in my building just went for around ~$1.5M, and the buyers wouldn't have considered their $20K share of the co-op's mortgage a factor.

There are some co-ops, though, that were really freighted with debt by their sponsors, and carrying that does have a real impact on their prices and maintenance.

Ali, right, yours is full of useful information, and a good read to boot, while Shapiro's is more of a reference work.

I'll push B&N, though, as my brother-in-law's there and I've switched from Amazon: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Diary-of-a-Real-Estate-Rookie/Alison-Rogers/e/9781427754653/.

twat - The word twat has various functions. It is a vulgar synonym for the human vulva, vagina, or clitoris, but is more widely used as a derogatory epithet, especially in British English. The word may originate from Old Norse þveit meaning cut, slit, or forest clearing.

I don't think I have been called a forest clearing before

nwt, fair enough, B&N was very good to me.

Generally the way for an author to get their book onto a table near the front of the bookstore is to pay for the space -- most of those "bestseller" tables are paid for by publishers rather than being a meritocracy.

Dear B&N, however, put me near the front for a long time just on the basis of my sales numbers ..

ali

Bogey ----- Talk to Urbandigs!!! Yes, read all the books listed above, and also read many of these threads. And talk to Urban Digs. And think about renting before you buy. You're not in Kansas ....
Ya gotta be real, real, real careful .............. and you're gonna need a real estate attorney all the way thru.

A GOOD real estate attorney. That in itself is a bit of a project. But there is info on other threads.
Caveat emptor, bogey.

JuiceMan, it's good to be a forest clearing. Let's be friends. It's the holiday season. (did you hear Colbert interviewed on the Morning show a while back and they asked if he tweeted and he said "yes. I've twatted.")
Bogey should go ahead and buy a condo in Harlem, but the massive homework he has to do before he signs is not to be sneezed at. Or he could get his twat burned bigtime.

Oh, and ask to see the board memos on mouse infestations.

The word twat has various functions. It is a vulgar synonym for the human vulva, vagina, or clitoris, but is more widely used as a derogatory epithet, especially in British English. The word may originate from Old Norse þveit meaning cut, slit, or forest clearing.
I don't think I have been called a forest clearing before

Can we get our vulgar toilet lady aboutready to chime in here? If not, Rhino can shout twat at someone who bests him in an argument or columbiacounty can yell it at anyone who encounters him but isn't miserable. w67thstreet can say twat and feel proud.

Bogey, I don't know about upper Manhattan, but down here in lower Manhattan, that $500K condo rents for $1700 a month. The interest on your $500K apartment (assuming you can finance it all, which you cannot) is $2100 even at our wonderful 5% interest rates, call it $1500 after the interest deduction. Then you have $500 in common charges and $400 in taxes, but the latter is tax-deductible, so call it $750. So right off the bat you're comparing flushing $1700 down the toilet against $2250 down the toilet.

Say you hold onto the place for 10 years. You pay about 10% to do a buy/sell turnaround in Manhattan (Corcoran has a nice page that shows how it all adds up), so that $50K amortizes to another $400 per month. You also got to have insurance and probably want to budget something to maintain the condition of the place over the 10 years; call those another $200 a month.

In the end you're looking at $1700 a month renting against $2850 a month buying. What do you think is going to happen to that gap? The rents will most likely track inflation over the next 10 years (which the market prices at 2% a year), so the average rent during that time will be something like $1900 ($1700 now, $2100 in 10 years). If the $1900 vs. $2850 gap is maintained, then you're out $114K over the next 10 years in down-the-toilet costs if you buy rather than rent. If the gap closes because prices fall to close the gap, then you're out that $114K plus another $100K-$150K because you have to sell at a loss. If the gap closes because by some magic the $1700 rent today grows at 9% a year to become $4000 in a decade, then you get to break even.

I.e., if there is no upside to buying even if rents increase at 9% a year for a decade (which is an extremely unlikely possibility), why would you buy?

"I don't know about upper Manhattan, but down here in lower Manhattan, that $500K condo rents for $1700 a month."

Um ... in what year?

You still can't touch a 1-bedroom below 96th Street for under $2500/month.

And frankly, even 1-bedrooms up in Washington Heights and Inwood (which would price in the $290K range today) are renting for $1500-1700/month.

"i'm so lost right now and most people are telling me not to buy in ny unless you have millions of dollars"

Add to that "that you don't mind spending/losing/wasting". The example I took you through becomes much worse for multi-million-dollar apartments as interest rates are no longer 5%, and interest tax deductions disappear after the first $1M. Rental rates stay at the same ratio, though.

Here's a shiny-new studio condo on a low floor asking $550K:

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/481624-condo-120-riverside-boulevard-lincoln-square-new-york

Here's a same-sized condo in the same building asking $1900 in rent:

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/rental/546762-rental-120-riverside-blvd-lincoln-square-new-york

Mind you that $550K is not a stupidly high price. It is the lowest-priced unit in the building (a similar unit is asking $640K), and it is being hocked as being short-saled. I use this building because it's easy to make direct comparisons. I'm sure there are less-new buildings where the 1BR costs for $550K and rents for $1900, but I don't really follow that market.

Why do you insist on putting your head in the sand on this?

STUDIO. STUDIO.

Not fit for a grown-up.

I was talking about ONE-BEDROOM apartments.

Here's some awkward 1BR in prime UWS that started at $725K, last asked $585K, and sold for $535K last month:

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/326584-condo-176-west-86th-street-upper-west-side-new-york

That's a 26% drop from original ask, a 9% drop from last ask, and it actually sold. I.e., it is not some artificially high price.

That same unit is now asking for a rent of $2000, no fee:

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/rental/595324-condo-176-west-86th-street-upper-west-side-new-york

Scaling that down to a $500K apartment, it would be an asking rent of $1870. Is it so hard to imagine negotiating that down to $1700? More importantly, it is nowhere near $2500.

"STUDIO. STUDIO."

That's because at $500K, the 1BR market in the UWS is virtually non-existent. Give me a budget of $700-800K, and I can make comparisons for out at the same ratios.

"Not fit for a grown-up."

You're being insulting to a lot of people reading this forum. A lot of grown-ups and live in studio apartments; that is the nature of their finances. How would you like it if I belittled your housing situation by calling it inadequate?

Well, coming from someone who thinks that homeless shelters are a "viable option" for the unemployed, I don't find this surprising in the least.

Matt...christmas cheer?

If the OP is looking to do something illegal in his purchase, take lessons from w67thstreet in this discussion:
http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/17221-lesson-4-mathematical-example-of-moral-hazard-why-taxpayers-r-screwed

It's hard to have Christmas cheer when I'm housing two very good friends who through no fault of their own lost their homes because they lost their jobs -- while people on this board are actually cheering it on.

I dream of a studio.

When one of us kicks, I'm selling this place, unloading all this stuff, and getting a nice austere little studio. No more clutter, no more guests, as there'll be no room.

Or so the fantasy goes.

NWT, I dream of a small house on the beach maybe in the Caribbean. Any idea of property valuations in the Islands? Matt, 1000% I agree with your last comment.

"Well, coming from someone who thinks that homeless shelters are a "viable option" for the unemployed, I don't find this surprising in the least."

First, the "unemployed" still get $1800/month in unemployment benefits, much higher then many employed people. I pointed out moving in with friends & family, pointing out living arrangements where you are a boarder for $300/month, etc., all of which you pooh-poohed because that would be "below" formerly-employed homeowners, though not below formerly-employed renters. As a final option for those that cannot figure out a better housing situation with unemployment income of $1800/month, I suggested a shelter.

Second, what part of what I said do you find "surprising in the least"?

Let me ask you, is a studio apartment suitable for the formerly-employed homeowner? Or is that not acceptable because it's not a grown-up apartment?

lobster, that'd work too. That perfect shack exists only in movies, though. Like the clutter-free studio.

Matt, you are racking up major nice-guy points. I'd have been out of my gourd by now.

"It's hard to have Christmas cheer when I'm housing two very good friends who through no fault of their own lost their homes because they lost their jobs -- while people on this board are actually cheering it on."

What exactly are we cheering on? I am pointing out the financial non-soundness of purchasing an apartment to some poor soul who is asking an honest question so that they not risk ending up in the same situation as your two very good friends.

I have no interest in your friends remaining unemployed, and I have no interest in the housing prices dropping as I am more than happy to rent indefinitely so long as they remain unreasonably high. I would be happiest if your friends were re-employed so that they could pay their way over the next decade or two out of the hole they've dug themselves into with their poorly-analyzed purchase so that my tax dollars would not have to go to support the banks who would otherwise take the loss.

Ain't nobody cheering anything on; just stating the facts and doing the analysis.

I want real estate prices in general to return to sane levels that reflect reasonable economics, not greater-fool, bubble-trouble, idiot-talk fantasies. Sure, that will hurt some, but many more will benefit.

If I had two friends selling pet rocks, and the pet rocks craze suddenly ended, and they ended up at my house because they lost their income, I would not want the pet rocks craze to return, I would want them to deploy into a productive sector of the economy.

Default assumption (until proven otherwise): the excess price over 1000psf is a "pet rock" premium.

Default assumption (until proven otherwise): any "amenity" you use less than once a year is a "pet rock" (e.g., screening room).

Yes, yes, yes, I recognize that the super wealthy may want a building that has colonic therapy and such, but I'm talking ordinary stupid bankers, not Princess Di.

"Let's be friends. It's the holiday season."

poorishlady, we have always been friends, you are a kick.

" I would be happiest if your friends were re-employed so that they could pay their way over the next decade or two out of the hole they've dug themselves into with their poorly-analyzed purchase so that my tax dollars would not have to go to support the banks who would otherwise take the loss."

inonada, that's exactly the kind of cunty comment that people like my friends don't need.

How were their purchases "poorly-analyzed"? And how would your tax dollars be supporting them?

"the "unemployed" still get $1800/month in unemployment benefits, much higher then many employed people."

After taxes, it's actually closer to $1350 -- at which rate one wouldn't even qualify for a $400/month apartment.

so...before going deeply in debt to purchase an apartment and giving thought to the possibility of losing your job and not being able to get another one is not reasonable? assuming that a market that has doubled in 5 yrs could go down is not reasonable? what about everyone who's bought in the last 12 months with complete and full knowledge of how screwed up everything is? do they get a pass too when they lose their job?

"so...before going deeply in debt to purchase an apartment and giving thought to the possibility of losing your job and not being able to get another one is not reasonable?"

Um ... virtually EVERYBODY who's ever bought a mortgage since 1934 would not have been able to hold onto their home (or even get another) if they were unemployed for an entire year or longer.

that's the point although of course we both know that you just made it up. holding onto your home is not a right in this country. it is not protected by the constitution. what do you think about all the people who have bought in the last year. was there not a clear enough signal for them that this was hugely risky---that the likliehood of losing your job is quite high?

I think it would be more fair to let the unemployed borrow against their 401k with no penalties for five years for the purpose of paying rent on a new apartment. This would apply to owners and renters alike and would only involve thier own money.

"In the end you're looking at $1700 a month renting against $2850 a month buying."

Actually, that's not what you're looking at.

The "rent versus buy" people always conveniently forget the mortgage interest tax deduction.

It's interesting that you used these figures. My last rental was $1700/month, and I moved into a bigger, nicer apartment in a comparable neighborhood for $2100 combined mortgage and maintenance. Since I've moved into my own place, I've seen my annual income tax refund jump from about $1800 to $14,000. The difference ($12,200) equates to a discount of $1016.66 per month.

So what we're REALLY looking at is $1700 to rent versus $1083.34 to own.

"what do you think about all the people who have bought in the last year. was there not a clear enough signal for them that this was hugely risky---that the likliehood of losing your job is quite high?"

Oh I don't know.

Obama said the recession is over, remember?

"I think it would be more fair to let the unemployed borrow against their 401k with no penalties for five years for the purpose of paying rent on a new apartment. This would apply to owners and renters alike and would only involve thier own money."

That's a nice idea.

Unless, of course, you're facing foreclosure because you've exhausted not only your savings but your 401(k) money too.

always best to blame someone else. how could i forget tenet #3 from the world according to matt? who can we blame for your stupidity?

"who can we blame for your stupidity?"

I'm not the stupid one, CC.

Look in the mirror, sweetie.

hey, obama made me do it!

Matt, then we need to learn to let go of the house before we use up all of our other assets including the 401k. It is amazing to me that people would do this.

but, its not their fault. right, matt? sweetie pie?

"Matt, then we need to learn to let go of the house before we use up all of our other assets including the 401k. It is amazing to me that people would do this."

Chasing, you forget that these people are U N E M P L O Y E D.

NO ability to get a new mortgage on a smaller home.

NO ability to even sign a lease on some shitbox apartment in the Bronx because -- da da! -- NO INCOME.

That's what happens when one is unemployed -- they lose their income.

^^^ and their ability to move.

"How were their purchases "poorly-analyzed"? And how would your tax dollars be supporting them?"

Their purchases were poorly-analyzed because they ignored rent vs. buy fundamentals on a highly-leveraged asset they could only afford assuming full employment at their existing salaries, as you continue to do. My tax dollars are supporting them through the $200B used to plug Citi's balance sheet, the $97B used to plug BofA+Merrill+Countrwide balance sheet, the $200B used to plug AIG's balance sheet, and let's not forget the $400B used to plug the Freddie+Fannie balance sheets. This money is being used to prop up the bubble of the housing market that your friends can no longer support because they cannot afford their payments.

"The "rent versus buy" people always conveniently forget the mortgage interest tax deduction."

If you bothered to read what I wrote, you'd have seen I did take that into account. Borrowing $500K at 5% is $25K a year. Take a 30% tax deduction on that $25K, you get $17.5K a year, or $1458 a month. You'll note that I said "$1500 after the interest deduction". Go through the math. It's scary, I know, but please do it. You'll learn something.

"I've seen my annual income tax refund jump from about $1800 to $14,000"

Oh dear, if we're talking about refunds as a metric, you're in worse shape in terms of financial literacy than I thought. Seriously, if you are getting a $14,000 refund on a $100-200K income, that's because you have the wrong number of witholdings claimed on your W-4. You need to fill another one out, and this time don't forget to add up your witholdings coming from your itemized deductions. That way, the $12,000 you're overpaying in taxes will come to you as $1000 per month throughout the year ratehr than $12,000 the next April.

You're welcome.

"My last rental was $1700/month, and I moved into a bigger, nicer apartment in a comparable neighborhood for $2100 combined mortgage and maintenance."

Either you were being ripped off in your rental, or you put down a huge down payment. Can you tell us which? Better yet, can you show us such a comparison using SE as I have done above?

of course not....matt makes up this shit as he goes. its all made up and endlessly spouted back.

in the world according to matt, once you lose your job, you can never get another job because the only job you would want was the job that you lost which by definition is gone.

"Their purchases were poorly-analyzed because they ignored rent vs. buy fundamentals on a highly-leveraged asset they could only afford assuming full employment at their existing salaries, as you continue to do."

As *I* ... and virtually EVERYONE ELSE SINCE THE DAWN OF THE MORTGAGE, you idiot.

"Hello! My name is Inonada. I have enough savings to cover monthly expenses FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE, and if you're not just like me and you lose your job, then you deserve to lose your home and live in a homeless shelter because you were IRRESPONSIBLE!"

"NO ability to get a new mortgage on a smaller home."

Who said unemployed people should be buying homes?

"NO ability to even sign a lease on some shitbox apartment in the Bronx because -- da da! -- NO INCOME."

Have your friend go to an apartment in the Bronx renting for $375, have them flash their $1800/month unemployment check (on which taxes are actually negative, if you knew about the earned income tax credit, but you don't), and have them flash their $5K in the bank. Let's see what happens.

Matt and CC do not make a pretty couple. They should not attend the same parties.

And enough with these fucking "rent vs. buy fundamentals". They're worthless. I'm talking about the total monthly nut, whether it's in the form of rent or combined mortgage/maintenance -- IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE when you budget for affordability against your present (and, frankly, your historical) income.

not to worry. the thought of matt makes me vomit --- in case you didn't realize.

I guess that's why you stalk me all the time.

"Hello! My name is NYCMatt. I have enough debt to cover monthly income FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE. If you try to explain the problems with doing so to me politely, I will call you an idiot. If you try to explain the relationship between renting and buying and how it figures into a well-analyzed purchase, I will call you a cunt."

no...they are not worthless --- they are fundamental. wouldn't it be nice to have all that money you used as a down payment in the bank when you lose your job? how much longer could you go without employment if you still had that cash on hand?

"Who said unemployed people should be buying homes?"

Chasing suggested it.

"Have your friend go to an apartment in the Bronx renting for $375"

Only if they can climb into a time machine back to 1985. I think you forgot to put a "1" in front of that "375", sweetie.

"wouldn't it be nice to have all that money you used as a down payment in the bank when you lose your job? "

Actually it's still there ... in the form of my home equity line of credit, should I choose to tap it.

In the meantime, I'm enjoying paying nearly $700/month LESS each month than when I was renting. THAT money has been going into the bank.

so...how come all of your unemployed friends aren't employing that brilliant strategy, i.e. lose your job---go deeper into debt?

My dear inonada, I called you a cunt because you -- like a cunt -- blithely suggested in true "let them eat cake" style that unemployed people deserve to live in homeless shelters because of their "irresponsibility".

Matt, I can't believe that someone with e.g. $24K wouldn't be able to get a year's lease on a one-bedroom or studio in NYC regardless of their employement situation. In Jersey City or Hoboken or far outer bouroghs you could probably do it for $15K.

Matt, do you want to take into Manhattan and go with me to see a movie? My husband is working on some deal at work that has to close by year end and will be home late. If you want, we can discuss holiday tipping. Please stop this discussion since it is clear that the two of you will never agree.

sorry-take the train

Of course someone would need to have $24k, but this really shouldn't be too much to ask for a property owner in Manhattan.

Well, one was a renter.

The other DID tap what equity he had left while he continued looking for work. Unfortunately, the money ran out before he could find a job.

Do you have any other messages for him on this Christmas Eve, as he glumly skulks around an apartment that isn't his? Perhaps you'd like to tell him that he has a small dick, he's ugly, no one will ever love him, and he'll die alone?

why bother? the idea that he is forced to spend any time with you is penalty enough for any and all sins.

"Matt, I can't believe that someone with e.g. $24K wouldn't be able to get a year's lease on a one-bedroom or studio in NYC regardless of their employement situation."

I'm blanking.

What's an "e.g. $24K"?

Lobster, that would be lovely, but I'm already in Manhattan. We're having a little soiree later -- would you like to come? You needn't tip the doorman, either.

"Chasing suggested it."

I did? I didn't mean to.

"Of course someone would need to have $24k, but this really shouldn't be too much to ask for a property owner in Manhattan."

Clearly, if they still had $24K, they'd still be making their mortgage payments while riding out unemployment.

Matt, I'm just concerned about you since I've read how health conscious you are and I can't imagine this endless discussion is good for that. But if I know that you'll be stopping this discussion soon to go out with your friends, I'm very relieved.

Why thank you for your concern, Lobster! Actually, as I mentioned, my friends will be coming HERE. :)

"What's an "e.g. $24K"?"

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=e.g.

OMG you are such a smart ass.

(That actually made me laugh out loud!)

"My dear inonada, I called you a cunt because you -- like a cunt -- blithely suggested in true "let them eat cake" style that unemployed people deserve to live in homeless shelters because of their "irresponsibility"."

Not really. I said unemployed people need to cut back on their expenses, and homeless shelters should be used as a last resort, though I cannot imagine someone with an $1800/month unemployment income would need to go that far. I've said that unemployed homeowners should not be afforded any advantages over unemployed renters.

And, as I've noted before, I've lived perfectly fine for years on a $1500/month income. How about you? Have you ever done so?

columbiacounty
33 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse
always best to blame someone else.

aboutready, you want to chime in here?

Speaking of which, aren't you the one that said the people living in slums deserve their environs (rats and holes) because they're all slobs who should be paying for repairs out of their pockets as opposed to the landlords who are legally obligated to do so?

It's your fault, hfscomm1! You made me do it!!!!

"And, as I've noted before, I've lived perfectly fine for years on a $1500/month income. How about you? Have you ever done so?"

Yes. Back in the days when you could actually live on $1500/month -- probably the same era when YOU did it -- when I was paying only $150/month for my share of a three-bedroom apartment out in the Midwest.

Today, in New York City, however, it's absolutely impossible.

"Speaking of which, aren't you the one that said the people living in slums deserve their environs (rats and holes) because they're all slobs who should be paying for repairs out of their pockets as opposed to the landlords who are legally obligated to do so?"

No.

I said people who live in slums often live like pigs (I know, since I've been in their homes), and as a result, should not be surprised when vermin and insects infest their apartments.

And yes, for small repairs, a few bucks here and there shouldn't kill anyone -- particularly when they're paying significantly below market for their homes.

supposing they lose their jobs? tough shit because they weren't stupid enough to buy something they couldn't afford?

"supposing they lose their jobs? tough shit because they weren't stupid enough to buy something they couldn't afford?"

We're not talking about people who bought what they couldn't afford. We're talking about people who bought what they COULD afford.

Please pay attention.

so how many of their apartments have you been in, matt the mighty? 10, 20, 100? nothing like generalizing from a sample of none.

When I was on assignment, close to a dozen. In other capacities, probably another three dozen or so.

If that kind of representative sample is good enough for Gallup, it's good enough for me.

aboutready, please chime in here. They are talking about entitlements.

Hey Matt. Why not try to emloy your two friends as staff in your building???? As you always say we are handsomely paid with great benefits and pensions.

As a matter of fact, one has an application in with several building management companies, just in case.

so...this so called assignment was in your capacity as what? and why were you in these add'l 36 apartments? and, of course, you employed similar strategies to gallup and others in making sure that you were seeing a true random sample of the larger universe?