Wednesday, June 08, 2005

Stories Like This Show Why Taxpayers Are Against Rent Control

Rent Control was a very good idea, but like many good ideas it was exploited by avaricious people of privilege; and those it was intended to help are hurt by the backlash.

Cyndi Lauper, whom I thought I liked, has shown her true colors as a greedy, self-serving millionaire out to get everything she wants, irrespective of who is hurt by her actions.

Lauper is demanding that the courts lower her rent from $3,250 to $508, because she says the apartment she rents with her husband was protected by rent control laws. She says that since the apartment was sublet to her for many years at an incorrect rent, the original rent-controlled price should be applied.

Lauper and her husband already have a deal at $3,250 for their Upper West Side apartment.

A lower court agreed and stipulated that Lauper's rent should be $989 a month. This is an amazing victory! But this isn't good enough for the money-grubbing star. She wants more! She wants to pay less than minimum wage earning families in the slums, and she expects the taxpayers to absorb the cost of the circus, er, court, in which she wants to fight her battles.

What scum!

There is a remarkable (and immoral) real estate market in New York City and for a rich-bitch like Lauper and her wealthy husband to make a mockery of the rent control laws is a sin.

Screw Cyndi Lauper and her tedious husband David Thornton! They should be ashamed of themselves.

I encourage everyone to stop purchasing their products. They clearly have plenty of money already and don't know how to use it properly anyhow!

They want to mess with American ideals like fairness, then hit them where it counts: in their bulging wallets.

I joined the Cyndi Lauper website forums and posted this question to the lout:
I love living in New York and I wonder if Cyndi has ever written about living in the greatest city in the world, the benefits of being so near so much, the amazing fun offered by the diverse cultures, and the luck of being a millionaire with a famous husband and suing to live in a rent-controlled apartment?

New York rent-control was intended to keep housing affordable for poor people. When millionaires take advantage of the laws, it ruins things for the neediest. What's it like to be a millionaire mooching off the neediest in the greatest city in the world?

Of course her apologists came rushing to the fore; but their arguments were embarrassing. Defending Lauper and Thornton in this case is untenable. They are greedy.

Cyndi Lauper for Cheap Rent - Yahoo! News



Dick Mac Recommends:

Rent
Various Artists






15 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'd love to see some of their pathetic replies! This millionaire chick wants to pay less rent than I do! Incredible.

DM said...

It's remarkable Liz. One guy wrote that since she made so little on her first album, it's about time she caught a break! Another said that because the landlord had broken the law, then Cyndi was justified in pursuing the suit! No sense of societal responsibility, only a sense of her own needs.

DM said...

sl103:

I don't take the landlord's side at all! I am critical of the landlords in this article, too.

My point is that the poor can't afford a fancy lawyer to fight back against the landlords, and when millionaires (no matter how generous or charitable) refuse to accept a compromise settlement, they darken the road for all who truly need the laws.

You are misguided to make this a left/wrong issue. You have missed the point of my article:

Rich people should not be using the courts that are paid for by the working people to extract more benefits than they already have. If Cyndi says I want a reduction to $500, and the courts says you are entitled, but the accrued rent control increases make it $900, she should have said THANK YOU. Instead, she insists that her rich-fuck lawyers should get her the $500, after the judges gave her a fantastic deal! THAT IS AVARICE! It is vulgar and makes her just like all the other fuckheads raping the working- and middle-class taxpayers.

Read what I wrote, sl103!

DM said...

sl103:

I don't disagree with you about the landlord. I have not once defended the landlord.

My article is about Lauper refusing to accept a very VERY generous decision by the courts. She got her victory, but she demands more. She was given an Upper West Side apartment rent at $900 a month!

When wealthy, privileged people make a mockery of the courts, it makes it all the more difficult to keep laws in place to defend the poor.

Also, rent-control is all but dead in NYC because the right-wing was able to illustrate that so many rich people benefitted while poor people suffered. That was inaccurate, but it's a stereotype Lauper is perpetuating and it hurts the needy.

Why are you defending her in this?

She lookd pretty damned greedy and self-serving, no matter how many AIDS benefits she has done!

DM said...

I do not question Lauper's struggles as an artist.

I have faced bankruptcy and chosen to pay my bills rather than dump them on American taxpayers and consumers, so don't wave bankruptcy as a standard that proves her sincerity.

If I had an apartment at the Apthrop and sued to regain rent-regulation, and the judge said: OK, but the time passage makes it $900 not $500, I would be celebrating, not suing!

Therein lies the rub.

We are all charitable and generous, each and every one of us in our way. We all work hard, each and every one of us in our own way. We all have struggles (look at poor Oprah).

If the courts handed me a bouquet of roses, I would not have sent them back. I would have sent a thank-you note!

$900 for her apartment is a steal!

DM said...

sl103:

I am not certain how the misbeahvior of others (landlords and managers) and the bad business decisions of the past (song selection and artist dealings) give her the idea that her current position is legitimate.

Is the rent-control movement supposed to withstand a woman of privilege manipulating the system to her benefit because she got a raw deal in the past?

It's not the problem of rent-control activists that Lauper has made bad choices in the her career; but the rent-control movement suffers when someone like Lauper not only sues to get rent-control reinstated, but then throws the decision in the face of the courts because she wants more!

Do you think this helps the rent-control movement? No, it feeds the inaccurate stereotype that only the privileged benefit from rent-control so it should be eliminated.

You are talking about Lauper's unfortunate business dealings of the past. I have no idea how your stories are connected to her decision to reject a very generous court decision THAT WENT IN HER FAVOR.

There is only one reason: avarice, unbridled avarice. And no matter who else in her past has been greedy, she lowers herself immediately to their standards with this debacle.

DM said...

I do not dispute Lauper's right to sue. What is TOTALLY unacceptable to me is that she rejected the ruling in her favor and is making a mockery of the nearly-defeated rent-control movement.

Thank you for the lovely stories of Lauper's past. They are lovely stories; but they NOT absolve her of her avaricious battle against a court that ruled in her favor!

Of course the other tenants in her building applaud her. The ocean is deep and the sky is high -- this is neither here nor there! They don't care how her actions impact citizens of New York City in places like Bed-Stuy and Rego Park, people who haven't the means to fight a battle then reject the victory.

Her decision to fight the $900 rent is contemptible when there are minimum-wage families paying more for less space in worse parts of town. If she had a modicum of grace she would have accepted the verdict and started fighting for tenants' rights all over New York!

If she opens her bulging purse for others in the same predicament, I might change my mind about her. Until then I see her as she is, a greedy woman of privilege making a mockery of the poor.

Anonymous said...

I was astounded to read this very unfair and immature attack on Cyndi and her husband. As many people have already pointed out, Cyndi does so much for charity, and why shouldn't she stick up for herself? Why shouldn't the laws work for celebrities as well as everyone else? To stoop so low and call her names, what are you even doing writing? You make me sick. Cyndi is someone to look up to and a fighter, not a pushover.

DM said...

sl103:

You ask: "I mean wtf do you really know about this case?"

I know just what you know. I know what is in the media. I accept that you do not like my analysis of the media reports.

(This is what makes America great. I can provide an analysis and you can disagree.)

What's that got to do with "the left" and "Kodak"?

What is your argument, now?

You are the one just spouting off; I continue to present points to discuss and you tell little stories about Lauper's past and the mean businessmen. It's quite darling, but has no bearing on my point.

When Lauper makes hard business choices that show her in a bad light, you defend her, she is somehow not an evil businessman, she's a struggling, long-suffering artist!

I stick to my point: Lauper's refusal to accept the court judgment in her favor shows not some high-handed moral standing, but unbridled avarice.

It's business, not art! You like to throw the bad business argument around to make NO point; but when it comes to discussing my points you resort to political name-calling and discussions of art.

WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

DM said...

Melissa: I applaud your defense of the indefensible.

I hardly think it immature, however. I think it raises a very astute analysis that your fandom blinds you to.

Everyone does charity, not everyone makes a mockery of rent-control and the poor by refusing to accept a victorious verdict in the courts. Her charity does not absolve her of her avarice!

I think Lauper's fortitude in sticking-up for herself is commendable; but she destorys all that with her greedy decision to reject a very generous verdict from the courts!

I apologize for making you sick.

DM said...

sl103:

You say: "Or are you saying that we should all just accept it when a landlord breaks the law?"

Well, of course not!

Lauper went to court with a strong case and she won. The very Very VERY fair verdict was that the apartment would return to rent-control, and that the incremental (nominal) annual rent increases that would have applied over the life of the lease (had it been honored) would be applied.

They took the date of the original lease, they calculated when the law was broken and the rent was adjusted, using an ethical and very fair equation, from $508 to $989.

This was a tremendous victory for Lauper.

This rent is unheard of in a major metropolitan areas, especially one of the poshest buildings in the Upper West Side.

Had Lauper accepted the verdict she could have become a champion of rent-control (and God knows rent-control could use a rich white person as a champion right now). Instead, she threw the verdict in the face of th court and said NO! She wants to pay the $508 that was due years and years before she even lived in the building!

She is a brilliant performer, I have seen her perform three times. She is a hard-working artist, and I applaud her for that. But, this business decision erases any and all goodwill.

She is destroying what little support for rent-control that exists in the middle-class.

None of this has anything to do with the landlords, so you should stop bringing them into it.

I am happy to have a dialog about NYC real estate, which I mentioned in this statement: "There is a remarkable (and immoral) real estate market in New York City . . . "

I do not support the landlord and I don't know how you jumped from my criticism of Lauper to some magical support for the thieves who own that building. I never even intimated it. My article is about Lauper, and my dramatic disappointment in her decision.

I don't understand this: " . . . like some of the stars you probably enjoy kissing up to on a regular basis."

What does that mean. Do you think I hang around with stars? Or are you projecting your obsession with Lauper onto me and insinuating that your unhealthy relationship to a stranger must be my problem?

I am happy to discuss the points at hand; but let's stick to my point: Lauper was offered a generous verdict and rejected it because she wanted a better deal. THAT IS MY POINT.

DM said...

sl103:

"No, she wasn't offered a settlement, the court ruled in her favor."

You are correct. I have said that over and over and I mistyped in my last entry. Is this now the argument: semantics, gammar, punctuation?

"but I don't see why it's the business of the media if she has a private dispute with a landlord . . . "

All rent-control hearings and all court cases are matters of public record. Once Lauper brought the issue to court she made it a matter of public record. Nobody has infringed on her personal business.

"I guess all those people are lying
and he's a sweet guy."

What are you talking about? Are you now saying the landlord is an OK guy? I think most Manhattan landlords are scum; but that doesn't absolve Lauper for her part in the story.

"I wonder why the media never makes a big deal about any of the many nice things Cyndi does?"

Cyndi gets fantastic press. How do you think she became famous: great press. She is a darling of the media, she is liked by the media; but, she made a short-sighted decision by rejecting the verdict and I don't think I am the only person offended by it.

Recently, her agent has gotten positive press for her almost daily since the court story broke. She is in damage-control mode. It will all be fine in the end, this will all pass.

This one bad decision has shone her in a bad light. That is NOT the fault of anybody else. She won a verdict and rejected the generosity of American taxpayers. Nobody has to make-up anything to show her in a bad light. She made a poor choice and some are offended by it.

You are not offended and that is fine with me; but your blind adoration does not change her actions or the impact her selfish decision will have on the rent-control movement.

DM said...

So what? Who cares about the other suits against the landlord? I am not defending the landlord, so why do you keep making him the focus of your remarks?

Let's talk about Lauper's decision; that is what my article is about!

As soon as Lauper went to court on a rent-control issue, it became the business of the taxpayers. The taxpayers, represented by the judge, ruled in Lauper's favor. The taxpayers ruled very generously for her. She snubbed the taxpayers and said she wants more. So be it. She has that right.

My point is that her rejecting the verdict in her favor is a burden to the taxpayers and the working-poor who need rent-control to work for everyone, not just the rich.

Her motive has to be greed, because otherwise it's stupidity, and I don't think she's stupid.

Drop the landlord already! I don't care about the landlord. Find an article about the landlord somewhere and post your comments there!

I am discussing Lauper's decision to reject a very generous verdict and forcing the financial burden of another court case on the taxpayers.

Geesh! Do you read anything I write in my responses to you?

DM said...

We are simply talking across one another, now.

I accept that you are not offended by Lauper's decision.

I am unmoved one way or the other if the Voice (which I like) is offended.

You and I are not having a dialog, and I am willing to have a dialog. I adress your points and you ignore my points.

DM said...

" . . . who cares, get a life!"

Yes, exactly!