I first wrote about Manhattan's proposed congestion charge back in 2018. Naturally, some people supported it and some people opposed it. Four years later, it was reported that the charge was still being considered for the area of the island south of 60th Street, and that it could generate an additional $1 billion in revenue for the city's transportation authority. But then in June of this year, right before the charge was set to come into effect on June 30, 2024, New York Governor Kathy Hochul said "nah, let's pause this indefinitely." And at that point, it felt mostly dead.
Nope: A revised tolling plan has just been announced -- the charge has been reduced from $15 to $9 -- and Hochul is now trying to jam it through before Trump takes office in January. Trump opposes the charge and has branded it the "most regressive tax known to womankind", so there's a real deadline here. This could get interesting. Do you think it will actually happen, some 6 years later? (In reality, the timeline is far longer. Congestion pricing also looked promising during the Bloomberg era, but then similarly died. And I'm sure there were even earlier proposals.)
I first wrote about Manhattan's proposed congestion charge back in 2018. Naturally, some people supported it and some people opposed it. Four years later, it was reported that the charge was still being considered for the area of the island south of 60th Street, and that it could generate an additional $1 billion in revenue for the city's transportation authority. But then in June of this year, right before the charge was set to come into effect on June 30, 2024, New York Governor Kathy Hochul said "nah, let's pause this indefinitely." And at that point, it felt mostly dead.
Nope: A revised tolling plan has just been announced -- the charge has been reduced from $15 to $9 -- and Hochul is now trying to jam it through before Trump takes office in January. Trump opposes the charge and has branded it the "most regressive tax known to womankind", so there's a real deadline here. This could get interesting. Do you think it will actually happen, some 6 years later? (In reality, the timeline is far longer. Congestion pricing also looked promising during the Bloomberg era, but then similarly died. And I'm sure there were even earlier proposals.)
I am not a lawyer. Nothing I write on this blog should be construed as legal advice. In fact, it is highly questionable whether anything I write here should be construed as any sort of advice. Still, Trump's fraud trial is an interesting one for us to discuss. The case, as I crudely understand it, accuses him of "inflating his net worth to dupe banks" and "issuing false financial statements every year between 2011 and 2021." And possibly some other things, too.
Now there are some people who are saying that there's nothing actually wrong with the way Trump conducts his real estate practice. Kevin O'Leary, for instance, was just on CNN saying, "every real estate developer everywhere does this." His position was that if you're going to fault Trump, then you need to go after every developer out there. Here's the video interview where he says this:
https://youtu.be/80RZs9Fhz3Y?si=DSuCa0PwVWx_wbVe
Let's break this down. Kevin is right in that people who own real estate ordinarily want it to be worth as much as possible. This is true for individual homeowners and it's true for large real estate companies. And there are various reasons for this. One reason is that it maximizes your debt proceeds. For example, if you buy a building for $100 and the banks are willing to give you a loan based on a LTV (loan-to-value) of 70%, then you will get $70 in debt proceeds and you will need to put in $30 of your own cash equity.
However, if you buy a building for $100 and it ends up being worth ~$143, then this same 70% LTV will result in $100 of debt proceeds. This means that you won't need to put in any of your own cash and that, for all intents and purposes, you just got a building for "free." By most metrics, this would be considered a good real estate deal. (Of course, you could also buy a building for $100 and have it be worth only $50. And this would be much less fun than getting free real estate.)
One important question, though, is how does the building end up "being worth $143?" Well, one scenario could be that you just bought really well. It was an off-market transaction (i.e. it wasn't formally listed), the seller was highly motivated, and so you negotiated a below-market purchase price. You then went out and hired a reputable third-party appraiser who did a bunch of rigorous research and issued you a report that said, "your building is worth $143." And this would be perfectly fine.
But one can also imagine ways in which someone could lie and do nefarious things to try and convince people that their building is worth $143, even if it clearly isn't. Now, at the end of the day, I don't know the facts of this case. So I can't comment directly. But I did want to use this as an opportunity to add some nuance to Kevin's claim that "every real estate developer everywhere does this." Ultimately, that depends on what "this" is. Are we talking about doing customary things to maximize value creation? Or are we talking about fraud?
This week it was announced that US president Joe Biden has revoked a number of Presidential Actions, one of which is Executive Order 13967 -- Promoting Beautiful Federal Civic Architecture.
Signed on December 18, 2020 by former president Trump, the order, which I wrote about last February, encouraged the use of "classical and traditional architecture" for all federal buildings.
Part of the argument was that too many buildings are being made for only architects to appreciate. This includes, you know, modern architecture and styles like brutalism.
Well that order has been revoked and that means that "beautiful" federal civic architecture is now free to be anything it wants. Look to the past, look to today, and/or look to the future.
I am not a lawyer. Nothing I write on this blog should be construed as legal advice. In fact, it is highly questionable whether anything I write here should be construed as any sort of advice. Still, Trump's fraud trial is an interesting one for us to discuss. The case, as I crudely understand it, accuses him of "inflating his net worth to dupe banks" and "issuing false financial statements every year between 2011 and 2021." And possibly some other things, too.
Now there are some people who are saying that there's nothing actually wrong with the way Trump conducts his real estate practice. Kevin O'Leary, for instance, was just on CNN saying, "every real estate developer everywhere does this." His position was that if you're going to fault Trump, then you need to go after every developer out there. Here's the video interview where he says this:
https://youtu.be/80RZs9Fhz3Y?si=DSuCa0PwVWx_wbVe
Let's break this down. Kevin is right in that people who own real estate ordinarily want it to be worth as much as possible. This is true for individual homeowners and it's true for large real estate companies. And there are various reasons for this. One reason is that it maximizes your debt proceeds. For example, if you buy a building for $100 and the banks are willing to give you a loan based on a LTV (loan-to-value) of 70%, then you will get $70 in debt proceeds and you will need to put in $30 of your own cash equity.
However, if you buy a building for $100 and it ends up being worth ~$143, then this same 70% LTV will result in $100 of debt proceeds. This means that you won't need to put in any of your own cash and that, for all intents and purposes, you just got a building for "free." By most metrics, this would be considered a good real estate deal. (Of course, you could also buy a building for $100 and have it be worth only $50. And this would be much less fun than getting free real estate.)
One important question, though, is how does the building end up "being worth $143?" Well, one scenario could be that you just bought really well. It was an off-market transaction (i.e. it wasn't formally listed), the seller was highly motivated, and so you negotiated a below-market purchase price. You then went out and hired a reputable third-party appraiser who did a bunch of rigorous research and issued you a report that said, "your building is worth $143." And this would be perfectly fine.
But one can also imagine ways in which someone could lie and do nefarious things to try and convince people that their building is worth $143, even if it clearly isn't. Now, at the end of the day, I don't know the facts of this case. So I can't comment directly. But I did want to use this as an opportunity to add some nuance to Kevin's claim that "every real estate developer everywhere does this." Ultimately, that depends on what "this" is. Are we talking about doing customary things to maximize value creation? Or are we talking about fraud?
This week it was announced that US president Joe Biden has revoked a number of Presidential Actions, one of which is Executive Order 13967 -- Promoting Beautiful Federal Civic Architecture.
Signed on December 18, 2020 by former president Trump, the order, which I wrote about last February, encouraged the use of "classical and traditional architecture" for all federal buildings.
Part of the argument was that too many buildings are being made for only architects to appreciate. This includes, you know, modern architecture and styles like brutalism.
Well that order has been revoked and that means that "beautiful" federal civic architecture is now free to be anything it wants. Look to the past, look to today, and/or look to the future.
