NYC Bailing Out Hotels Paying Premium Rates for Budget Rooms to House Migrants
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
All these real estate based companies roll their equity into new real estate investments, so they can’t afford any drop in their valuation or all their loans will be underwater. That means they can’t reduce the price of their office rentals or in this case, hotel rooms, because their valuation is based on a multiple of their rent. Better to leave it vacant at the original asking rent.
It’s a fucked up trade-off for governments (who can pull the incentive levers to modify this behavior) because on one hand by allowing this to continue by giving tax write offs to vacant commercial property owners, they prevent collapse. But on the other hand, they are also sabotaging the economy because people who are starting a new business can’t get cheap office space, they’re reducing tourism by propping up hotel rates, etc.
I think in the end it comes down to the fact that there would be a big news cycle about how their city is in trouble if commercial properties start getting repossessed, and the other problems caused by artificially high commercial RE prices are a quiet burn that dont cause any specific events to garner media attention.
A block or two with empty retail space means no lights on at night which affects not just the 'vibe' but how safe it feels to walk around.
This doesn't really seem that exorbitant to me? They are trying to rent out any accommodation they can find on very short notice, it's not surprising they have to pay more than it costs to run their own shelters.
On top of that, $256 is just an average hotel price in NYC. It sounds like they're paying average prices for below-average hotels in some cases, which sucks, but this isn't nearly as scandalous as I was expecting. And I don't think any of the rates in the article can really be considered "premium" in NYC.
Edit: It's $256 per migrant family, is that $136-188 figure for individuals? If so $256 starts to look like a bargain.
Shelter is really important, especially if you're taking care of your family. $256/day is a lot of money but I'm not sure it would be worth it if you have no place to live.
Let’s just accept defeat and start paying direct tribute to our overlords. More efficient. Less collateral damage.
Will be funny when NYC sues Florida or Texas to recoup these inflated costs. Then Florida or Texas will have some new dollars amounts to use when requesting federal funds.
If I were elected officials in Texas and Florida, I'd be much more worried about kidnapping and similar charges. Because, well, moving a person from one place to another by means of fraud seems seems to be pretty much the definition of kidnapping.
"the unlawful act of capturing and carrying away a person against their will and holding them in false imprisonment"
Nobody is being carried against their will. Nobody is being held under false imprisonment.
Under 18 USC 1201, a person is guilty of kidnapping who "unlawfully seizes, confines, inveigles, decoys, kidnaps, abducts, or carries away and holds for ransom or reward or otherwise any person."
I think what went down would definitely qualify as inveigling.
Texas penal code title 5, chapter 20, section 20.03:
KIDNAPPING. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly abducts another person.
Abduct is defined in section 20.01(2):
(2) "Abduct" means to restrain a person with intent to prevent his liberation by: (A) secreting or holding him in a place where he is not likely to be found --snip--
Per reports, the alleged undocumented immigrants are induced with imaginary benefits (such as expedited asylum claims) and are sent to destinations unknown by them. If you don't know where you're going, you're not likely to be found.
At the very least it'd be unlawful restraint.
Sec. 20.02. UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly restrains another person.
Restrain is defined in section 20.01(1):
(1) "Restrain" means to restrict a person's movements without consent, so as to interfere substantially with the person's liberty, by moving the person from one place to another or by confining the person. Restraint is "without consent" if it is accomplished by:
(A) force, intimidation, or deception --snip--
The alleged undocumented immigrants are being induced onto these bus and/or planes by false promises (e.g. expedited asylum claims elsewhere). Which means they're being trafficked somewhere else via deception.
What makes you think any of the people transported are going against their will?
That seems like such a weird take without lots of evidence.
It seems much more likely that someone was offered a flight or bus ride to anywhere that isn’t Texas and they accepted. Financially, it’s much more beneficial to go to NYC or Denver or SFO than stay on the Texas border. And there are so many migrants it’s easy to just ask until your plane fills up.
Any kidnapping lawsuits are likely to end up in the prosecutor looking stupid as 1) the migrants transported will likely say they went willingly / transporter has documentation and 2) migrants will likely split because they don’t want to be deported
There's this weird, and frankly bigoted, infantilization of economic migrants who cross illegally. They aren't stupid. They are just as smart as your typical colleague. They are informed, they have agency, and access to information via smart phones they bring with them or the ones provided to them when CBP gives them a data to appear for their asylum hearings.
If I lived in one of these countries, I'd be one of these migrants. And there's no way I'd get on a bus or plane to a destination unless I thought there were more opportunities there. And yes, the Martha's Vineyard plane fiasco was a publicity stunt, BUT it clearly showed the utter hypocrisy Americans have on this issue. They showed up on an island filled with vacant 10 bedroom mansions, and early enough in the fall where a large percentage of businesses were still open. Not a single mansion was offered to them. Instead they were rapidly ferried to a military base to avoid offending the sensibilities of the economic elites on MV.
Meanwhile, if you live in a border town, you're just expected to deal with 1000x the number with no assistance from the US Federal government. After all, what do they care? They're thousands of miles away, and only care about things that they see. And they don't see the border towns, because the US national media has decided that it's not an interesting story for their audiences.
> There's this weird, and frankly bigoted, infantilization of economic migrants who cross illegally. They aren't stupid. They are just as smart as your typical colleague. They are informed, they have agency, and access to information via smart phones they bring with them or the ones provided to them when CBP gives them a data to appear for their asylum hearings.
And their understanding is likely a lot more sophisticated that a general inference about large cities. I would be highly surprised if they didn't have detailed, up-to-date knowledge about different US cities and their policies towards migrants (e.g. go to New York, be welcomed with open arms and be put up in a hotel). It's a major project to get to the border, and they're going to be trading information with other migrants, including ones that have already arrived at their destination.
Immigrants, both legal and illegal, are good for the economy in the LONG term. However, those economic benefits are spread out over both time and geography. On a highly localized level, initial waves create intense negative externalities on specific municipalities. And nobody who lives north of these areas cares.
Given that the Texas state government is funded largely off of sales tax and property tax--and undocumented immigrants are ineligible for most social services--undocumented immigrants are a net positive to Texas' revenue.They are subject to sales tax whenever they buy things and pay landlords' property tax via rent. All while being unable to use most social programs.
The reason Texas and Florida's political stunts elicit an outcry because is because those states are kidnapping and trafficking people--who may or may not be in the country legally--to make a political spectacle. People are commenting on the political spectacle that Abbott and DeSantis are knowingly and willingly creating.
The amount of willful blindness on this topic is amazing.
I highly doubt it's kidnapping. If I were a migrant and given the options:
1. Stay in Texas and sleep on the street in El Paso, or if you're lucky get to stay in some charity-run shelter.
2. Get on this free bus to New York City, where the government there will pay to house and feed you for free and you will have a much better living situation.
I would eagerly get on that bus.
>> Why are El Paso or Brownsville expected to incur the negative externalities of people who illegally cross into the US without any comments/concerns from national media, but a tiny fraction of that number in a northern city suddenly elicits an outcry?
> Given that the Texas state government is funded largely off of sales tax and property tax--and undocumented immigrants are ineligible for most social services--undocumented immigrants are a net positive to Texas' revenue.They are subject to sales tax whenever they buy things and pay landlords' property tax via rent. All while being unable to use most social programs.
That's just utter nonsense, and it's hard to imagine that someone could write that without misunderstanding the situation (willfully or otherwise). You're cherry-picking facts to an extreme degree to arrive at false "counterintuitive" result. And even if you weren't, no one cares so much about sales tax revenue to think like that.
I live outside of Boulder, and the folks getting on buses to Denver are doing so voluntarily with full knowledge.
There is this very very weird (and almost bigoted) infantilization of these economic migrants. To endure the journey they have gone on to get to and then cross the border, they have to be enterprising, brave, and smart. I would bet money that the average IQ of these folks is above that of a typical American. They have smartphones, they pay close attention to the news, and treating them like hapless idiots is silly, insulting, and ineffective.
If we are presuming they are unable to use social programs because they aren't eligible, are we to also assume they are all subsistence farmers, since they aren't eligible to be hired?
Not saying they couldn't still be a net positive in terms of taxes vs. outlays.
You can't live in Texas without paying sales tax. And you can't be housed in Texas without paying property tax (whether directly in the case or property ownership, or indirectly via rent).
Are illegal immigrants more likely to commit (other) crimes?
Across the board, illegal immigrants are LESS likely to commit crimes. The exception are certain isolated crimes (like drunk driving) where the US has an aggressive cultural and legal framework of enforcement and social coercion/education.
Obviously, this has exceptions, and certain immigrant groups are going to have higher incidences than others.
While true, it should be noted that part of this is because illegal immigrants can't be repeat offenders, unlike citizens. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 77 percent of former inmates are rearrested within five years [0].
[0] https://www.themarshallproject.org/2016/03/09/seven-things-t...
No comment on Mexico.
Unless they're building 500 new housing units per day in NYC, this is going to have highly, highly inflationary effects on housing costs in the long-term. Great if you're already a landlord; terrible if otherwise.
So this is a change of approximately 1.3 basis points a day
That is circumvention of law.
One would argue what is going on at the border is a lack of process.
Where we don't agree is if asylum is being given to the extent of the law and there, obviously, is a ton to say here since 50% of the country doesn't agree this is happening.
1. The people in NYC we're discussing have not been granted asylum as far I understand, they've just applied, so we haven't even gotten to the alleged illegal activity. You certainly cannot call these people illegal immigrants.
2. Even in the worst case you're describing, an immigrant legally applies for asylum, and then is illegally granted asylum by the US government. The immigrant still has not broken any laws here and cannot be described as an illegal person. Imagine if you apply for job, receive an offer, and accept it. Later on it turns out the company was legally required to post the job in more places or something, and it shouldn't have made you an offer. Have you broken the law? Are you illegal now?
What's the benefit of taking unskilled people in who's backgrounds we don't know?
Drives down wages for capital owners while driving up demand for assets like housing, that's not the reason though, billionaires and corporations are just super compassionate towards migrants that aren't in Martha's Vineyard.
The benefits are:
1. It depresses wages for the poorest Americans. The American left used to be vocal about this 20 years ago, before the left turned into "we need more transwomen of color exploiting the poor and bombing brown people! [Sponsored by Google and Microsoft Bing]"
2. It creates new Democrat voters within a generation. If you can think 20 years down the road (and they have) then this is a near-infinite source of voters, consequences be damned. It's not like these illegal immigrants are gonna live in the gated communities of the rich and powerful.
Democrats like it because of #1 and #2. Before Trump, Republicans liked it because of #1, and they still do, but now they can't say it out loud anymore because it will piss off the younger Republicans who are more protectionist and less libertarian.
Oh, did you mean benefits for Americans in general? Don't be silly. Illegal immigration benefits no one but the 1% and the illegal immigrants.