Sigmund, Carl and Alfred

NYC rent for a one bedroom apartment reaches $3,000 a month

The cost of one-bedroom apartment rentals in Manhattan’s doorman buildings is surging, with starting prices for these apartments hovering around $3,000 a month — about $500 more than they were just three years ago, city brokers say.

A bevy of condominium conversions has shrunk the number of available rental units, thereby driving up rents, a researcher at the Real Estate Board of New York, John Cole, said. “There’s been so many conversions, with a good number of them having gone from rentals to condos,” he said. “With less supply, the prices have gone up, and the vacancy rate has become infinitesimally small.”

One-bedroom apartments account for about half of the rental units in the city, according to the “Black & White Report,” a real estate guide published semiannually by Citi Habitats.

Five years ago, roughly one in 100 rental apartments were unoccupied. Today, only about one in 220 of these units are available for rent, according to a sales agent with DJK Residential, Daniel Kahn. “Inventory is so low that, even people who have the money, and have all the paperwork prepared, are still having trouble finding places,” he said.

So tight is the market in the one-bedroom category that it can be a challenge just finding listings to show clients, Mr. Kahn said. “We used to be able to go out and show clients 10 places, and now we can only show them, maybe, four.”

As a rule of thumb, New York landlords require their would-be tenants to earn a gross salary of 40 to 50 times the price of one month’s rent. By those standards, a person looking to rent a $3,000 one-bedroom apartment would have to earn between $120,000 to $150,000, or else secure a co-signer to guarantee the rent will be paid. Mr. Kahn said he recently worked with a couple, both professionals in their late 40s, who had to secure a guarantor to seal a rental deal. “I’m constantly dealing with people who don’t want to have to ask their parents,” he said. “To avoid this, some offer to pay six month’s rent upfront.”

While luxury one-bedrooms will generally run closer to $3,000 in areas like the West 40s, the East 30s, or the Upper East Side east of Second Avenue, an asking price of $4,000 is not uncommon in some of Manhattan’s more sought-after areas, Mr. Kahn said.
During the last six months of 2005, the average price of a one-bedroom unit in a doorman building in the West Village or Chelsea —two of the priciest rental neighborhoods — was more than $3,200, according to the “Black & White Report.”

The skyrocketing cost of a one-bedroom in a full-service building also means fewer people can afford to graduate to two-bedroom apartments. The lack of transfers further cuts down on the number of available units. “It used to be you could raise your budget $400 or $500 and get a bigger place,” Mr. Kahn said. “These days, people are raising their budget, and they’re not getting anything different.”

Even at the higher price points, Manhattan one-bedroom rentals are generally spoken for within five days, he said.

“It takes me longer to decide what kind of coffee I’m going to get at Starbucks than whether or not I’m going to take the apartment,” a 30-year-old schoolteacher, Benjamin Joffe, said. “I wish I had time to process it. That’s what killed me about the whole process.”

In most other cities, Mr. Joffe said his salary would enable him to rent a one-bedroom in a full-service building; in New York, however, he’s settled on a ground-floor studio in a no-frills building near Columbia University. At $1,400 a month, he said he considers the rent a deal.

The high cost of living, in part, accounts for the Cleveland native’s “ambivalence” about living in New York City. “The difference between the haves and the have-nots, it’s depressing,” he said.

For others, the short supply of rentals has been a boom, a broker at Prudential Douglas Elliman, Judy Kendall Levine, said. “It’s really an owner’s market now,” she said.

Ms. Levine has just listed for $3,800 a furnished, one-bedroom apartment in a postwar building with a doorman. “It’s a good apartment, but does it have park views? No. Is it on a high floor? No,” she said of the cond-op apartment on Third Avenue in the 80s. “In this market, they’ll probably get what they’re asking for.”

Why were Pope Benedict’s remarks considered so ‘politically insensitive’? Why were are the remarks made by Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmandinejad at the United Nations considered alternative ‘political’ worldviews? Why is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict seen as tortured ‘political’ issue only?

Simply stated, by clothing evil or immorality as ‘political,’ we make evil and immorality more palatable and at times, if packaged cleverly, evil and morality can become acceptable and even agreeable.

In portraying the Pope’s remarks at Regensberg as ‘politically’ extreme or ‘politically’ insensitive, the Church is put on the defensive, as if they and they alone, are responsible for the backlash in the Muslim world.

This morning, Fausta in Rage, Epictetus And Benedict, quotes the Muslim blogger, Iraq The Model (link at Fausta’s)

So why don’t we admit that the “other” is better than us at responding rationally when criticized? Why don’t we learn from others?

When we closed our ears to anything that doesn’t match our beliefs and refused all criticism wasn’t that enough reason for the deterioration of our civilization?

How is it that question is asked by a Muslim blogger and not by the media or even critics of the Church? How is it that even the most vociferous of Church critics or opinionated media editorialises, who want us to see the world through their moral eyes, ignore far more egregious statements made by some major Islamic religious figures?

When evil is presented as nothing more than alternative ‘political expression,’ it becomes acceptable to question the singular truth that defines America and the western democracies. The proponents of a particular agenda and the media compare the idea of bringing freedom and democracy to nations under the boot of repressive and dysfunctional regimes, as no more than a moral equivalent to those who would usurp freedom.

For decades, the Palestinians (and most of the Arab world) have done little, if anything, to conceal their contempt for Israel and Jews. Routinely, vicious anti Jewish and anti Christian expressions are ignored or dismissed by the agendistas and much of the media as ‘merely rhetoric.’

The Pope, America and Israel express politically unacceptable ‘racist’ ideologies, by demanding human rights, freedom and civilized behavior.
Everyone who else who expresses even the most vile hate,racism and bigotry are expending mere ‘political rhetoric’ and need not be taken seriously, even when the bigotry and hate lead to violence. When that happens of course, it is always the fault of the victim.

The classic example of that kind of upside down logic is the Israel-Palestine conflict. In the face of an onslaught of obvious one sided proclamations and unfairness in the UN, in the media, Israel has to defend herself for exercising the right of defending herself from the violence, racism and bigotry and hate that has become a part of the culture, education and religious expression of virtually all the Middle East.

Notwithstanding the stated desire for a ‘political solution,’ in the region, it is clear for anyone to see that when it comes to achieving that ‘political solution,’ violence is either acceptable or ignored when it comes to the media or the agendistas of the left. Americans are excoriated for sending military advisers to combat the Colombian drug trade- at the request of that nation, but groups that have blown up school buses filled with children, among other obscene acts of terror, are considered thoughtful and civilized.

There is another not so subtle distinction between the Israel-Palestine conflict and other territorial disputes. In virtually every other dispute, the object of mediation is to restore rights that are violated. Tibet, Kashmir, Sakhalin Islands and a myriad of other disputed territories are matters of real estate- no more, no less.

The Israel-Palestine issues are very different. Israel has accepted the rights of the Palestinians to establish their own state. Nevertheless, radical and not so radical Palestinians in both the religious and secular communities call for the destruction of the Israeli state. In addition, Palestinian media and religious expression clearly reinforces the idea that not only the political state is unacceptable, but the Jewish inhabitants are to be eliminated as well. Somehow, the agendistas of the left and the media ignore those kind of expressions.

Notwithstanding those truths, the Israelis have agreed to a two state solution, in the hope (and prayer) that a Palestinian state would behave responsibly and equitably. They are clearly willing to go a long way to make that idea work and enter negotiations with the Palestinians in the hope that despite the election of the rejectionist (and blatantly anti Jewish) Hamas, Palestinians really do want peace.

The Palestinians are equally clear. They have never given any mandate to their leaders to negotiate a peaceful solution. In fact, every Palestinian negotiating position that has even a remote chance in resulting in peace with the Israelis, has been met with resistance. Mass demonstrations opposing a settlement are de riguer, as are the charges of treason. Resignations are demanded of leaders who even appear to seek a resolution to the regional conflict. There is no peace movement, and the moderate voices among the Palestinians are repressed or extinguished by various Islamist or other hard line exterminationists.

Like it or not, that is the reality, and not even the agendistas or media can fully hide away those truths.

That highlights another truth. With whom shall the Israelis negotiate? Who speaks for the Palestinians? What guarantee does Israel have that a treaty would be honored by a new regime? That is not ‘rhetorical.’ The recently elected Hamas government have repeatedly made quite clear they have no intention of recognizing Israel, renouncing violence or honoring past agreements. The agendistas of the left and the media ignore those realities even as they make demands on Israel and her allies.

Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmandinejad, the Palestinians and much of the Arab world are representative examples of hard line ideologies adopted by failed and brutal regimes, all given credibility, gravitas and moral equivalence by the agendistas and a morally bankrupt media. For decades, the media have turned uncritical and blind eyes to the corruption, brutality and failed policies that have left hundreds of millions stripped of a present and future. They will not be forgiven or find redemption, easily.

In fact, it will takes decades to clean up the mess the failed and oppressive regimes have created. The infrastructure of new century will have to be brought to those who barely had the infrastructure of the last century. A culture of government responsibility, accountability and the preservation of real human rights and property (see this) are still unknown to most citizens of this planet.

Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmandinejad and all those who support the leaders of these failed and oppressive regimes, including the media, aren’t really progressives at all. In truth they are anti progressives, dedicated to fight tooth and nail to preserve the status quo of corruption, incompetence, dysfunction and oppression.

While there is no shortage of the agendistas of the left or a deliberately biased media, their numbers do bestow upon then any kind of relevance or credibility. The civilized will not regress and support the ideologies of regimes that espouse hate and repression. It really is that simple.

As a troubled world looks for solutions, they overlook the straight line.

Unless and until those leaders that are the real anti progressives are repudiated, there will be no world peace. As long as the likes of Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmandinejad are accorded any kind of credibility, real peace and progress will elude us. As long as they demand the kind of ‘democracy’ abroad that supports their agenda, and they continue to deny even the most basic of freedoms at home, we will continue to live in a world of a many more ‘have-nots’ than ‘haves.’

Then again, outrageous expressions of hate, racism and bigotry have always sold newspapers.

The Anchoress too, sees the imbalance and inelegance of the media and the agendistas. Her post, Cap’n Goes Int’l, Hugo Goes Home, Press Goes Missing, is like fresh squeezed orange juice- no freezing, processing and with nothing added.

This clown comes to the United Nations, calls the American President a “devil,” (not that the religion-hating folks minded that - the irony!) and the other clowns in the room (whom we fund much-too-much) laugh and applaud, and it’s not a leading story the next day? Well. I guess we can quickly figure out that the “mediating intelligences” who determine what we will and will not see have decided that - for some reason - we’re better off not seeing the behavior of a pack of mad jackals…we might not want to continue funding them, or rushing to their aid when disaster strikes, you know? Or maybe, they figure the American public would look at yesterday’s very telling absurdities and say, “you don’t come to America and say that about her president…”

Charlie Rangel and Nancy Pelosi, Democrats made of granite, said just that. The Anchoress, once more, in Rangel Blasts Chavez, Clinton Mush Mouthes it, notes,

Rangel detailed earlier this week some of his “problems” with this president (Rangel is going to rescind every tax-cut he can, if the Dems win in ‘06), but he is exactly right - you don’t do what Chavez did. Good for Rangel.

Good heavens, even Nancy Pelosi - not the brightest meat cleaver in the pork store - has managed to figure out the right side of this issue. She calls Chavez “a thug”. Which is probably less harsh than some of the things she routinely calls Bush, but that’s okay. She’s an American; she can call the president names…

Much smarter than Clinton, it seems, who couldn’t work up a proper sense of umbrage, even as a former president.

Actually, that particular post really is chili-like. It gets better with a second reading.

The Anchoress also notes

So, the press is trying to go as quiet as possible on Hugo and the UN gigglers and Ahmadinejad - so beloved of Mike Wallace - didn’t come off too well, either. I said yesterday that a “smart” press “would bury” the Chavez and Ahmadinejad stories…

Yeah, that’s probably why the press has gone missing on a rather big story. They seem distracted, those “mediating intelligences,” and perhaps that’s why they missed the 35,000 people protesting Ahmadinejad’s visit to the UN, a protest which included speakers such as John Bolton, Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel, New York Gov. George Pataki and Alan Dershowitz. That’s a pretty luminous bunch of speakers and a lot of people, but the intelligent ones mediated that we did not need to know about it. Meryl Yourish points out that the only paper to mention this large protest was the NY Sun.

The ummm…approximately 2,000, who showed up to protest President Bush and the Increasingly Popular Iraq War, though, they got plenty of headlines. Note that all of those headlines read “thousands,”of protesters, not “only 2,000.”

No one makes reality as clear as the Anchoress.

One of the big differences between free and not so free worlds, is the sanctity of property rights. Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmandinejad and virtually every other member nation of the Non Aligned Nations (NAM) would do just about anything not to have property rights discussed. Why? Because in discussing property rights, the true nature of the kind of regimes Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmandinejad represent becomes crystal clear.

As we consider the war on terror and those regimes and cultures that have declared us their enemies, understanding the importance and meaning of property rights becomes essential.

One of the ways our adversaries maintain their grip on their citizens is to deny them absolute property rights and the absolute ownership over anything. What you own, or what you think you own, is in reality a mirage. In fact, in every tyrannical or oppressive regimes, owning property of any kind is allowed only by the grace of the leader. Deny the the leader or the leader’s regime, and you may end up with what you thought was yours, taken away. The threat of having what is yours taken away, is an ever present and powerful threat to human dignity. The implied threat of living under a form of government that can seize your property at anytime, is a kind of terror visited upon a cowed citizenry, by a kind of evil.

In fact, that kind of terror is a threat to human dignity and a threat to plurality- the idea that people can have different ideas and beliefs and still be secure in their personal and property rights and live in safety, free from fear of retribution. That kind of freedom is only found in free and democratic nations. American and western democracies defend individual and property rights and always allow for disparate views. Irrespective of our beliefs, we remain free from the threat that of being stripped of our rights and property, simply because our views weren’t in line with the powers that be. In other words, we live in a tolerant and inclusive society, very unlike the societies of our adversaries. The citizens of those regimes are under the boot of tyranny, in one way or another.

The mindset of the leadership in Iran or Venezuela, for example, have constructed exclusivist societies that demand loyalty and tolerate no dissent or difference of opinion. In the case of Iran and much of the Arab world, decades of indoctrination and the tidal wave of hate taught in school and preached from the pulpit, have resulted in the marginalization and slow decay of those societies.

In the case of these repressive societies, democracy is a threat because in a democracy, there is no real ‘us versus them’ mentality. Citizens in a democracy understand that they can agree to disagree and not worry about our personal or property rights being violated or abrogated. No matter how contentious, our society is inclusive. We respect each other’s rights and we respect the freedom to dissent.

One does not need to believe in God to understand that tolerance is the lifeblood of civilized societies. If that were not so, none of us would be here. In order to accommodate efficient trade between nations, we accept and tolerate differences. In fact, trade, respect of property rights and the free exchange of ideas have done more to expand understanding and acceptance than any other kind of exchange.

We have also learned the hard way that when tolerance and property rights were not respected, we all suffer. Centuries of war, empires, persecution, death and destruction have reinforced that truth.

American and western societies enjoy lively political debate and a very independent media. Real democracies have judiciary systems, that while not always perfect, are always free and independent.

There is a great distinction between events and experiences. An event has a finite beginnings and a finite end. An experience is very different. We are impacted and influenced. We are molded by our experiences and we learn and grow from them. Because of experiences, we can see the future through eyes of what can be, rather that the dead eyes of what was and will always be.

Living in an open and free society is living an experience. We are not defined by particular events or bogged down by a gray history. Free societies are always moving forward and in fact, our best days are yet to come, shaped and built on what we have learned and always looking forward to the possibilities of tomorrow.

In contrast, regimes that reject democratic values, principles and beliefs, are usually bogged down by basking in former glories or dreams of a world where they and their beliefs are imposed and dissent is not tolerated.

More than one pundit has made clear that in regimes led by tyrants and tin pot dictators, citizens have overwhelming feelings of humiliation and failure. Through no fault of their own, economies fail, education levels are sub par and the awareness that they cannot even control their own destinies. In desperation, they look for someone- anyone- to blame. Of course, they cannot blame their leaders- to do so is to risk loss of liberty and property, so they willingly look to blame others, anyone, anywhere. As is often the case, they look to their ‘rich and free’ cousins- America and the free world. As in all families, the meanest and most vicious ‘conspiracies’ are all in the family.

In addition, blaming the ‘enemies of the state’ serves yet another purpose. In what is a kind of perverse ‘win-win’ situation, frustrated and oppressed people get to vent at America and the free nations and venting at the ‘right’ target kind of also allows people to be perceived in a favorable light by the regime security services, bureaucrats and leaders, as long as they vent at the ‘right’ target.

How is it that some free people support such tyrannies and their leaders? In The Spectrum Of Stupidity, Dr Sanity minces no words:

The stupidity… comes in all shapes and sizes, a veritable spectrum that extends from the willful blindness on the part of Western leadership and media; to the passive, uncritical and morally bankrupt minions who nod sagely at any idiocy as they desperately try to maintain a world view that ignores reality as its founding principle.

Both ends of this spectrum of stupidity are incapable of responding in any appropriate manner to the deeply despicable and nauseatingly hypocritical speech the lying President of Iran delivered at the UN last night…

Only in a world that values nothing would there not be instantaneous outrage at the lies, deceptions and self-serving tripe offered for world consumption by a man who clearly has no conscience and enjoys lying and distorting for the fun of it. How could such a man be given the world stage to spew forth his lies, let alone be feted and honored for them? How could most–if not all–of the rest of the world swallow whole the protestations of sincerity and victimhood? How could it be conveniently forgotten what his real intentions and attitudes are even for a moment as he coyly presents himself as a simple man of peace and brotherhood?

It bears remembering a certain truth: In nations and regimes where the state first claimed property at will, it was only a matter of time before the state determined what freedoms were applicable and to whom. Shortly thereafter, the state claims the right to take your life at will, for any reason they see fit.

Dr Sanity rightly notes the hypocrisy and ignorance of those who are so easily swayed by deceit and false logic. Her outrage is understandable. This isn’t a political debate, with only ideas and beliefs at stake. Support of these tyrannical and dysfunctional leaders means more untold misery, fear, failure and death.

Of course, the likes of Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmandinejad can easily criticize America and free nations because they are never held accountable or responsible for they say or do. Their mistakes and oppression are never pointed out because there is very little, if any, free press at home. There is no criticism because criticism comes at great risk and at great cost. Whoever takes it upon himself to dissent put their liberty and even their lives at risk.

It is ironic that dissidents who really care about the welfare of their fellow citizens in those countries under the boot of tyranny, risk all and courageously demand the same freedoms and rights we enjoy here, including property rights. In many free nations, the regimes of those oppress dissidents and those who would deny freedom, are happily supported by those who happily share in the bloody hands of oppression- and that is exactly what Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmandinejad count on.