The High Cost of Living in New York City Discussion with ChatGPT. Financialization, Greed, and Corruption have gentrified the city.

Introduction.

My take on New York City’s high cost of living crisis is simple: The government’s response was too little, too late.

Sure, some things were unforeseeable — like the pandemic and the recent migrant crisis, both of which put immense strain on the city’s resources. But the affordability crisis itself wasn’t a surprise. The warning signs were flashing over a decade ago. The city did try to build affordable housing, but it wasn’t nearly enough — and in many cases, what was built wasn’t truly affordable for the people most at risk. The pace of development never kept up with the speed at which longtime residents were being priced out and displaced.

The hardest-hit communities have been, unsurprisingly, Black and Latino residents. That part is well-documented, and it’s not just a footnote — it’s the heart of the story.

I remember doing a piece on a Puerto Rican coffee shop owner who went viral on TikTok. The internet rallied around her. There were waves of support, which on the surface was beautiful — a rare moment of visibility and compassion. But I couldn’t help but feel the hypocrisy in it. For years, gentrification has swept through neighborhoods like hers, hollowing them out. Entire communities were pushed further and further from the city, often quietly, without any viral outcry. That pain went largely ignored — until it was wrapped in a 60-second video clip.

And yes, I understand that New York, like all American cities, has always gone through demographic shifts. In the past, Irish, Italian, and Jewish families moved out too. But those moves were often voluntary, driven by the promise of better housing or driven by social tensions. Crucially, those communities had access to suburban homeownership and financial tools that weren’t available to everyone. Many chose to leave. What we’re seeing now is different. Today’s displacement is largely economic. People aren’t moving up — they’re being pushed out.

// Footnote factcheck:

ChatGPT: Okay, let me try to sit with this for a while. There’s a lot here to untangle. I’ll try to walk slowly through the structure, tone, and claims, questioning each layer and digging beneath the surface until something clearer and more solid emerges. So first, what’s the main message? You’re voicing frustration — anger maybe, but also exhaustion — with how New York City has handled the affordability crisis. You believe the government’s response has been inadequate. You acknowledge some unpredictable events, but your focus is squarely on long-term neglect, displacement, and especially how it disproportionately affected Black and Latino communities. Then, there’s the anecdote about the Puerto Rican coffee shop owner — a viral moment that felt like a flash of compassion, but also a band-aid over a much deeper wound.

So, let me start with the bones of the argument:
1. NYC’s housing affordability crisis has been building for over a decade.
You say the government’s actions were “too little, too late” — and that aligns with a lot of urban planning analyses. The push for more affordable housing has often lagged behind the pace of rising rents and development. But what do we mean by “too little”? Let’s double check. NYC did implement affordable housing initiatives during de Blasio’s administration — his Housing New York plan aimed to create or preserve 300,000 affordable housing units by 2026. On paper, that’s a lot. But “affordable” is a slippery term. Much of that housing was targeted at people earning 80% or more of the area median income (AMI) — a level many working-class New Yorkers didn’t meet. So yes, your point stands: the sheer volume of truly affordable housing never matched the scale of the crisis, especially for lower-income residents.

2. Displacement outpaced development.
You argue that even where affordable units were built, they didn’t keep up with the rate of displacement. That’s tricky. How do we measure displacement? A lot of it is inferred from population shifts, housing turnover, and changes in rent burdens. Studies by the Urban Displacement Project and NYU Furman Center have indeed shown that neighborhoods like East Harlem, Bushwick, and parts of the South Bronx experienced significant rent increases while losing lower-income tenants. So yes, many of the most vulnerable communities — especially long-standing Black and Latino populations — were hit the hardest. Your intuition here tracks well with the data.

3. The TikTok story and selective outrage.
This part is more emotional. You tell a story about a viral TikTok moment — a Puerto Rican coffee shop owner who became a symbol of community support. You say you found the support hypocritical — not because people shouldn’t support her, but because they ignored the systemic forces displacing people like her for years. That’s compelling. It’s not that you’re against this moment of solidarity — but you’re frustrated that it takes a social media flashpoint for people to acknowledge the pain that’s been ongoing for a decade. There’s a sad irony there. Viral moments can be both powerful and painfully shallow. They make people feel good, but rarely address the root problem. That’s a nuanced and valid critique.

4. Historical context of demographic shifts.
Now here’s the densest bit. You compare current displacement to earlier waves of ethnic migration — Irish, Italian, Jewish. You suggest that, in contrast, many of them chose to move, often due to racial tension, rather than being forced out by rising costs. This is complex. Let’s pick it apart.

So first: is it true that those groups “chose” to leave in contrast to being economically pushed out? That feels partially true, but not entirely. Many working-class Irish, Italian, and Jewish families did leave the city in the mid-20th century, especially post-WWII. This was the era of “white flight” — when suburbanization was booming, and white ethnic groups had growing access to homeownership through GI Bills and FHA loans. But choice is a tricky word. Those moves were partly driven by racial tension, yes, especially in integrated neighborhoods — but they were also fueled by economic opportunity that wasn’t accessible to Black or Latino communities due to redlining and discriminatory housing policy.

So here’s where it gets knotty: Irish, Italian, and Jewish New Yorkers were displaced in a way — but also enabled to leave, in a way others weren’t. It wasn’t just social tension, but also upward mobility tied to whiteness that made departure possible. Whereas today, many Black and Latino residents aren’t leaving for better homes in the suburbs — they’re being pushed out because the city’s become unaffordable, with fewer structural ladders to climb. So your comparison mostly holds, but we could nuance the framing a little.

Discussion with ChatGPT:

User: Who are the largest landowners / property owners in NYC?

ChatGPT: Determining the largest landowners in New York City involves examining both public and private entities, as well as distinguishing between land area and the number of properties owned. The most recent and comprehensive data indicates the following key landowners:

1. The City of New York: As the municipal government, the City of New York is the largest landowner, possessing approximately 362.1 million square feet across nearly 5,000 parcels. This extensive portfolio includes significant properties such as the David N. Dinkins Municipal Building at 1 Centre Street and the New York Public Library’s Fifth Avenue location. Curbed NY

2. Columbia University: Among private entities, Columbia University stands out as the largest landowner. As of 2023, the university owns at least 245 properties in New York City, exceeding previous estimates by nearly 30 properties. Other sources suggest that Columbia’s holdings include 320 properties valued at almost $4 billion. This significant real estate portfolio supports the university’s extensive educational and research operations.Threads+7residentmar.io+7Instagram+7 Columbia Daily Spectator Instagram+1Curbed+1 Curbed NY+1New York Post+1

3. New York University (NYU): NYU is another major academic institution with substantial property holdings. The university owns 95 properties, primarily concentrated around Washington Square Park in Manhattan. This strategic location places NYU in one of the city’s most valuable real estate markets.Threads+4New York Post+4Instagram+4 Sparkly Maid NYC residentmar.io

4. Trinity Church: Historically, Trinity Church has been a significant landowner in New York City. Established in the 17th century, the church owns considerable property in Lower Manhattan, including much of the Hudson Square neighborhood. This long-standing ownership has positioned Trinity Church as a notable entity in the city’s real estate landscape. Reddit Metro Manhattan Office Space

5. SL Green Realty Corp.: As the largest commercial property owner in New York City, SL Green holds interests in 77 buildings, totaling approximately 35.3 million square feet. The company’s portfolio is primarily focused on Manhattan, encompassing both office and retail spaces. Metro Manhattan Office Space

6. Vornado Realty Trust: Vornado is a prominent real estate investment trust with substantial holdings in New York City. The company owns and manages numerous properties, including significant office spaces in Midtown Manhattan.

7. Related Companies: Known for developing the Hudson Yards project, Related Companies has a significant presence in the city’s real estate market. The firm’s portfolio includes various residential and commercial properties across New York City. Metro Manhattan Office Space+1Curbed NY+1

8. Tishman Speyer: This global real estate firm owns and operates numerous properties in New York City, including iconic buildings such as Rockefeller Center. Tishman Speyer’s holdings contribute significantly to the city’s commercial real estate sector. Metro Manhattan Office Space+1Curbed NY+1

It’s important to note that these figures can fluctuate over time due to property acquisitions, sales, and developments. Additionally, the distinction between land area and the number of properties owned can lead to variations in rankings. For instance, while Columbia University may own more properties, entities like SL Green and Vornado may control more square footage in terms of commercial space.residentmar.io+2New York Post+2Metro Manhattan Office Space+2

In summary, the landscape of property ownership in New York City is diverse, with significant holdings by both public institutions and private entities. Academic institutions like Columbia University and NYU play a major role, alongside commercial real estate firms such as SL Green and Vornado Realty Trust. Understanding these dynamics provides insight into the complex fabric of New York City’s real estate environment.New York Post+1Metro Manhattan Office Space+1

// I made the mistake of still having the search option on. Nevertheless, it turned out okay because it gave the top 10 and more answers. Sometimes I prefer GPT’s internal answers than it searching the web.

User: Now, in your own words. Provide the top 10 list.

ChatGPT: Based on available data, here is a list of the top 10 landowners in New York City, encompassing both public and private entities:

City of New York: The municipal government owns approximately 362.1 million square feet across nearly 5,000 parcels, making it the largest landowner in the city. Curbed NY
New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA): As the city’s public housing agency, NYCHA manages a significant portfolio of residential properties, serving hundreds of thousands of residents.
Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS)/Department of Education: These city agencies collectively own and manage numerous properties, including public schools and administrative buildings.
National Park Service: The federal agency oversees several national parks and historic sites within the city, contributing to its substantial landholdings.
Riverbay Corporation: This cooperative manages Co-op City in the Bronx, one of the largest housing developments in the world, housing approximately 43,000 residents. residentmar.io
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey: This bi-state agency owns and operates major transportation infrastructure, including airports, bridges, and tunnels, contributing to its extensive property portfolio.
Columbia University: As the largest private landowner in the city, Columbia owns over 200 properties, primarily in Upper Manhattan. Columbia Daily Spectator+1Sparkly Maid NYC+1
New York University (NYU): NYU owns a significant number of properties, mainly concentrated around Washington Square Park in Manhattan.
Trinity Church: This historic Episcopal parish owns substantial real estate holdings in Lower Manhattan, including parts of the Hudson Square neighborhood.
SL Green Realty Corp.: As one of the city’s largest commercial landlords, SL Green owns and manages numerous office buildings throughout Manhattan.

These entities represent the largest landowners in New York City, reflecting a mix of public institutions, private organizations, and religious institutions.

User: Now, in your own words. Provide the top 10 list with an explanation for each one.

ChatGPT: 🧙🏾‍♂️<contemplator>
Alright, so let’s unpack this question carefully. We’re looking for the top 10 landowners or property owners in New York City, which is deceptively simple on the surface. But then—what exactly counts as a landowner here? Are we looking at land area or value of property? Is ownership direct or indirect (e.g. via trusts or subsidiaries)? Do we include public entities? Yes, we should, because public land dominates the city.

Okay, so let me walk slowly through each of the biggest names, grounding this in what I can confidently derive from available, reliable reports. I’ve cross-referenced data primarily from Curbed, the Columbia Spectator, and other reputable urban real estate sources. We’ll go one by one, starting from the largest:

1. The City of New York

This one’s not even close. The municipal government itself owns more land than any private player—hundreds of millions of square feet spread across almost 5,000 parcels. That includes everything from parks to government buildings to libraries. Some of the most iconic spots in the city—Central Park, for example—fall under this umbrella.
It makes sense. The city owns the infrastructure of the city. Not just buildings, but also roads, water treatment facilities, public housing, schools… the list is nearly endless.

🟢 Foundation: public infrastructure
🧱 Type of land: parks, schools, public housing, city offices
📐 Estimated: ~362 million sq ft

2. New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA)

While technically part of the city, NYCHA functions as a semi-autonomous agency. It owns and manages a vast amount of residential land. Public housing in NYC is huge—hundreds of thousands of people live in NYCHA units.
These buildings aren’t glamorous, and NYCHA’s finances are often under scrutiny, but from a pure land-ownership perspective, NYCHA sits near the top.

🟢 Foundation: affordable housing
🧱 Type of land: residential housing complexes
📐 Estimated: 177,000+ apartments in 2,400+ buildings

3. Columbia University

Here’s where private entities enter the picture. Columbia is now considered the largest private landowner in NYC.
Their footprint isn’t just the Upper West Side campus. They’ve been gobbling up property in Manhattanville, Harlem, and beyond. Recent city property data suggests Columbia owns over 245 properties, likely more when you account for holding companies.
They don’t pay property taxes either—something that’s caused friction with the city.

🟢 Foundation: education
🧱 Type of land: academic buildings, dorms, labs, vacant development sites
📐 Estimated: over 245 properties, ~$4 billion in value

4. New York University (NYU)

Another education giant. NYU owns much of lower Manhattan, particularly around Washington Square Park. Their real estate ambitions have drawn protests over the years due to the rapid expansion and gentrification of neighborhoods.
They own everything from apartment buildings to classrooms to massive vertical towers. Like Columbia, they benefit from tax exemption.

🟢 Foundation: education
🧱 Type of land: academic, residential, commercial-mixed
📐 Estimated: over 100 properties

5. The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York

Often overlooked in real estate rankings, but the Catholic Church owns an enormous amount of land in NYC. Think churches, schools, cemeteries, rectories, hospitals. Some are active, others dormant, but still in their portfolio.
They’ve sold off some properties in recent years to cover legal settlements, but they remain a major landholder.

🟢 Foundation: religious and charitable missions
🧱 Type of land: churches, schools, convents
📐 Estimated: 1,000+ properties historically

6. Related Companies

Now we enter the world of mega-developers. Related is best known for building the Hudson Yards project—one of the most ambitious (and controversial) developments in NYC history.
They don’t own the most land outright, but they have control over huge swaths of high-value real estate, often through partnerships and lease agreements.
Ownership can get murky—REITs, joint ventures, etc.—but their footprint is massive.

🟢 Foundation: commercial real estate development
🧱 Type of land: mixed-use, commercial towers, residential
📐 Estimated: 28-acre Hudson Yards + others

7. Blackstone Group

As the world’s largest private equity firm, Blackstone has invested heavily in real estate. In NYC, they own massive apartment portfolios, including the Stuyvesant Town–Peter Cooper Village complex (with around 11,200 apartments) in partnership with Ivanhoé Cambridge.
They’re less visible than developers but hold major stakes in rental housing and commercial assets.

🟢 Foundation: private equity
🧱 Type of land: multifamily residential, office space
📐 Estimated: tens of thousands of units

8. Tishman Speyer

This firm is behind iconic skyscrapers like Rockefeller Center, and more recently, major office towers like 11 West 42nd Street. They’re often at the forefront of commercial real estate innovation in NYC.
They might not own the sheer volume of land others do, but the value of their portfolio is off the charts.

🟢 Foundation: commercial real estate
🧱 Type of land: offices, towers, retail
📐 Estimated: multi-billion-dollar portfolio

9. Vornado Realty Trust

Another REIT juggernaut. Vornado controls major properties in Midtown and Penn Station—some of the most valuable land in the U.S. They’ve struggled a bit post-COVID, as office space demand has dropped, but their holdings remain immense.
Their assets aren’t sprawling parks—they’re dense vertical wealth.

🟢 Foundation: real estate investment trust
🧱 Type of land: high-rise commercial
📐 Estimated: ~$20 billion in NYC assets

10. Durst Organization

One of the city’s oldest real estate families. They own and manage some of NYC’s most visible towers, like One World Trade Center (partial ownership) and One Bryant Park.
The Durst name is synonymous with Manhattan skyscrapers. Their holdings are often family-held, not part of public REITs.

🟢 Foundation: private family firm
🧱 Type of land: commercial, mixed-use
📐 Estimated: over 13 million sq ft of office space

Now, I can’t help but wonder—if we were to shift this ranking based on value rather than land area, some of the order might change. Vornado or Tishman might jump up. Likewise, if we looked at number of individual properties instead of total square footage, churches and educational institutions might dominate even more than expected.

But this feels like the best overall synthesis. Here’s the final takeaway: </contemplator>

✅ Final Answer: Top 10 Landowners in NYC (2024)

City of New York – public land (infrastructure, parks, buildings)
NYC Housing Authority (NYCHA) – public housing complexes
Columbia University – private education, Upper Manhattan focus
New York University (NYU) – education & real estate empire in downtown
Roman Catholic Archdiocese – religious and historic properties
Related Companies – developer of Hudson Yards and others
Blackstone Group – private equity giant with major residential holdings
Tishman Speyer – owner of Rockefeller Center and major towers
Vornado Realty Trust – midtown skyscrapers and Penn Station area
Durst Organization – long-standing skyscraper family owners in Manhattan

Let me know if you want this reordered by value, number of parcels, or maybe which ones pay taxes vs don’t.

User: Have you heard of LLCs being required by law to disclose their identity, information, and so forth due to money laundering concerns?

ChatGPT: 🧙🏾‍♂️<contemplator>
Hmm, the question is about LLCs being required by law to disclose their identity, information, and so forth due to money laundering concerns. Let’s think this through carefully.

First, I recall that LLCs, or Limited Liability Companies, have historically been used to provide anonymity to their owners. This anonymity can be exploited for illicit activities like money laundering, tax evasion, and other financial crimes. So, it’s logical that governments would want to increase transparency to combat these issues.

Now, are there any laws that require LLCs to disclose their beneficial owners? Yes, I believe there are. At the federal level in the United States, there’s the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), which was enacted to address these very concerns.

The CTA requires certain entities, including LLCs, to report information about their beneficial owners to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). Beneficial owners are individuals who own or control a significant portion of the company. This information helps authorities identify and track individuals who control or profit from these entities, thereby closing loopholes often exploited for illicit activities .

But when did this law come into effect? I think it was part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, so it would have been enacted around that time. The reporting requirements under the CTA began on January 1, 2024 .

What information do LLCs need to report under the CTA? They must provide details such as the names, addresses, dates of birth, and identification numbers of their beneficial owners. This information is stored in a secure, non-public database accessible only to certain government officials and authorized financial institutions .

Are there any state-level laws addressing this issue? Yes, New York State has enacted the LLC Transparency Act, which requires LLCs formed or authorized to do business in New York to disclose their beneficial owners. This law aims to combat money laundering, wage theft, tenant mistreatment, and other unlawful activities that have been masked by the opaque ownership structure of LLCs .

When does the New York LLC Transparency Act take effect? For LLCs formed or authorized to do business in New York after January 1, 2026, they must file beneficial ownership disclosures within 30 days of formation. Existing LLCs have until January 1, 2027, to make their initial filings .

So, to summarize, both federal and state laws in the United States are now requiring LLCs to disclose their beneficial owners to combat money laundering and other illicit activities. The Corporate Transparency Act mandates federal reporting to FinCEN, while states like New York have implemented their own transparency laws. </contemplator> ::contentReference[oaicite:5]{index=5}

User: In your words, what do you think about it? It’s been said NYC was a hotspot for money laundering from foreign investors, Russian Oligarchs, the rise of the luxury apartments or high rises. There may be legitimate foreign actors who want to park their money in NYC real estate as a hedge or protection from their own government.

ChatGPT: 🧙🏾‍♂️<contemplator>
Okay, this is rich ground to dig into. Let’s step slowly through it.

The topic of LLC disclosure laws, especially in the context of New York City real estate, opens a Pandora’s box of economic incentives, geopolitical dynamics, regulatory reforms, and ethical gray zones. There’s no clean line between what’s “legitimate” and what’s “illicit” here—just layers of interests colliding.

So first, yes, NYC has absolutely been a global magnet for foreign capital, especially in real estate. For at least two decades, you’ve had billionaires from Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela—places with unstable regimes or aggressive capital controls—buying up luxury apartments. Often under shell companies. Frequently through anonymous LLCs.

Now why would they do that?

Stability and Asset Safety:
NYC is a safe haven. If you’re a wealthy individual in a politically risky country, parking your money in a Manhattan condo is like buying a vault with skyline views. You don’t even need to live in it. Just let it sit. No inflation risk like in your home country. No sudden government seizure. That’s perfectly rational. It’s like geopolitical insurance.
Anonymity via LLCs:
The appeal of anonymous LLCs is obvious. You don’t have to attach your name to the asset. That makes it easier to protect from public scrutiny, lawsuits, or your own regime. But it also makes it incredibly easy to use for money laundering, or to hide assets from courts, tax authorities, spouses in divorce cases, even Interpol.
The Rise of the Empty Towers:
That’s how we ended up with rows of brand-new luxury towers—especially around Billionaires’ Row—mostly empty, their windows dark at night. They’re not homes. They’re safety deposit boxes in the sky. Meanwhile, affordable housing is scarce. This isn’t just a matter of optics. It creates tangible distortions in the local housing market, pricing out working-class residents and driving gentrification.

So now let’s pivot to the Corporate Transparency Act and other similar disclosure reforms.

Are these laws good? Yes—at least in principle. The idea that a person can buy a $25 million apartment in Manhattan with no questions asked through a Delaware or Cayman Islands shell company is frankly insane when you think about it. It’s not just bad for transparency—it undermines the integrity of entire real estate markets. That’s how kleptocrats move stolen national wealth abroad. That’s how dirty money becomes clean.

So requiring beneficial ownership disclosure is a move toward piercing the veil—finally revealing who’s really behind the LLCs.

But now comes the subtle part…

Let’s not pretend that every foreign buyer is a criminal. Many are just protecting their wealth from corrupt or authoritarian home governments. Think of the tech entrepreneur in Moscow who’s afraid of getting targeted by the Kremlin. Or the pro-democracy activist in Hong Kong who’s quietly moving assets abroad before Beijing tightens the noose. Should they be grouped with money launderers? Probably not.

So there’s a tension here:

You want transparency, because secret ownership makes money laundering too easy.
But you also don’t want to deter legitimate capital, especially if that capital is being parked here for safety.

And here’s where I start to feel conflicted…

How do you build a system that differentiates the dirty money from the defensive capital? Is it even possible? Or are we just choosing between:

A market that’s “too clean” (chilling foreign investment),
Or a market that’s “too open” (welcoming crooks along with everyone else)?

Plus, enforcement is a whole other issue. Just because a law says you have to disclose doesn’t mean people won’t lie. How will FinCEN or local regulators verify the identity behind a web of offshore trusts, nominee directors, or layered shell companies?

Also, who really benefits from these reforms?

The middle class? Maybe. But also, let’s be honest, it’s part of the broader political pressure to make wealthy foreigners more visible and taxable. Not necessarily a bad thing—but it shows this isn’t just about “justice.” It’s about power, sovereignty, and competition.

Last thing: NYC thrives on capital. If you make it less anonymous, some of that capital will just go to London, Dubai, or Singapore. Cities are in competition, globally. So even a good idea, like this transparency push, has tradeoffs. </contemplator>

Final answer:
Yes, laws now require LLCs to disclose their true owners (like under the Corporate Transparency Act), partly due to money laundering concerns tied to anonymous real estate purchases—especially in NYC, which has been a hotspot for wealthy foreign investors, including Russian oligarchs. These laws aim to shine a light on who’s really buying property, but they also raise tensions between stopping illicit finance and deterring legitimate foreign capital that uses NYC real estate as a haven.

User: You mentioned gentrification. Could it be postulated that the effects of legitimate foreign investors and bad actors like Russian oligarchs and money launderers who buy up these properties in areas like Manhattan, specifically, inadvertently drive the prices of rent in other boroughs like Brooklyn? In other words, they also push prices up as a factor of rent increases, as well as inadvertently pricing out locals, thus gentrification that harms mostly Black and Latin neighborhoods. I know there are other factors that cause rent increases, but let’s play with this idea in the meantime.

ChatGPT: 🧙🏾‍♂️<contemplator>
Yes. Let’s definitely play with this idea.

It’s messy. But it’s worth teasing apart.

You’re asking something both intuitive and complex:
Can the activity of foreign investors—some legitimate, some illicit—buying up Manhattan luxury real estate contribute, even indirectly, to gentrification and displacement in the outer boroughs like Brooklyn or the Bronx? Especially in communities of color?

That’s an excellent question. Let me step through the logic carefully, bit by bit.

Step 1: Start with the phenomenon — luxury real estate bought up in Manhattan

This has been happening for years, especially since the 2008 financial crisis. The global wealthy, seeking stability, turned to NYC real estate as an asset class. And not just any real estate — specifically, luxury towers, new developments, high-floor units, often unoccupied, purchased under anonymous shell companies.

A kind of vertical Swiss bank account.

Some of these are for legit wealth protection. Others? Clearly shady. The 2015 New York Times series “Towers of Secrecy” documented how units in buildings like One57 were bought by corrupt officials, arms dealers, oligarchs — often anonymously, often without scrutiny.

Step 2: These properties are not lived in, but are priced sky-high

This part matters. Most of these units sit empty. No tenants. No residents. No contribution to local economic life. But they’re valued highly, which has multiple ripple effects.

These artificially high valuations influence:

Property tax assessments (and potential tax loopholes)
Comps (comparable sales) used by brokers to price other units
Developer expectations (build more, sell higher)
Investor appetite (see the asset appreciation and rush in)

This creates a price gravity well. Developers and brokers start orienting new projects toward what they think the market will bear — which, thanks to these foreign purchases, looks absurdly inflated.

Even if that “market” is really a ghost market.

Step 3: The distortion spreads — through policy and perception

Let’s say you’re a developer in Brooklyn or Long Island City. You see what’s happening across the river in Manhattan. Luxury high-rises that sell out (or appear to), funded by foreign capital, are trading for $2,000+ per square foot.

So you do what seems smart:
Build higher-end units. Charge luxury rents. Appeal to investors or “creative class” tenants. Not necessarily because the neighborhood demands it — but because Manhattan has reset the baseline expectation. Even though it’s detached from local income levels.

Now your project gets financing. You start marketing to tech workers, not local families. The original, lower-income residents? Not part of the model.

Step 4: Supply shifts toward luxury — not affordability

Here’s the crux: These global capital flows don’t directly buy properties in Bed-Stuy or East New York. They don’t need to. What they do is alter the investment logic of the entire city.

Landlords see how profitable “luxury” can be.
So they raise rents, upgrade units, or evict longtime tenants.
Developers stop building for working-class families.
Affordable housing becomes even more scarce.
Gentrification accelerates.

You now have upward rent pressure — not because of direct demand in Brownsville or Bushwick, but because capital has been distorted upstream. Like a river diverted by a dam.

Step 5: Communities of color are disproportionately harmed

Why? Because those neighborhoods:

Have historically been redlined and underinvested
Have more renters than owners
Are seen by developers as “up and coming” or “untapped”
Are least able to resist displacement economically or politically

So yes, even legitimate foreign capital — when injected into the NYC luxury market — can contribute to rent burdens and housing instability in communities far from the actual purchase site.

And if some of that capital is dirty money? Then it’s even worse:
Now you have neighborhoods being displaced by financial crimes committed halfway around the world. That’s… haunting.

Step 6: But wait — is this the main cause of gentrification?

No, not the sole cause. Not even necessarily the dominant one.

Gentrification is driven by many interwoven forces:

Zoning laws and upzoning
Stagnant wages and rising land values
Economic inequality
Influx of wealthier residents from other cities
Student debt pushing millennials into urban cores instead of homebuying
Transit improvements making formerly “undesirable” areas more accessible
Airbnb and short-term rentals eating up supply

So foreign capital is just one slice of the pie.

But it’s a potent accelerant. Especially when that capital behaves more like a hedge fund than a homeowner.

Final reflection

To think of it like physics:
Foreign capital flows into luxury real estate = concentrated heat in the Manhattan core.
The pressure pushes outward = a thermal expansion of rent and pricing expectations.
The boroughs feel it like heat distortion = rents rise, families are displaced, neighborhoods transform.

And who bears the brunt of this? Often Black and Latin communities with the least housing stability, and the fewest political or economic defenses.

So yes — not only can we postulate a connection… we can trace the logic. </contemplator> **Final answer:** Yes, it is a reasonable and well-supported hypothesis that foreign capital flowing into NYC’s luxury real estate—especially via anonymous LLCs and high-end developments in Manhattan—can contribute indirectly to gentrification and rent increases in other boroughs like Brooklyn. While not the only factor, these upstream investments distort the broader housing market, shift development priorities toward luxury, and disproportionately harm working-class communities of color through displacement and rent burden.

User: My next question is, what is the government doing to make the city more affordable? Such as building so-called affordable homes enough to counteract the high cost of living and the negative externalities of luxury real estate and anonymous LLCs via foreign actors or others buying up expensive property in Manhattan?

ChatGPT: 🧙🏾‍♂️<contemplator>
Alright, let’s delve into this complex issue. The question at hand is: What is the government doing to make New York City more affordable, particularly in terms of housing, to counteract the high cost of living and the negative externalities of luxury real estate and anonymous LLCs via foreign actors or others buying up expensive property in Manhattan?

This is a multifaceted problem that requires a comprehensive approach. Let’s break it down step by step.

1. Understanding the Problem

First, we need to understand the root causes of the housing affordability crisis in NYC. Several factors contribute to this issue:

High demand and limited supply: NYC is a global city with a high demand for housing, but the supply hasn’t kept pace, leading to increased prices.
Luxury developments: The proliferation of luxury developments, often purchased by foreign investors through anonymous LLCs, has driven up property values and rents.
Zoning restrictions: Strict zoning laws have limited the ability to build new housing, especially affordable units.
Economic inequality: The gap between high-income and low-income residents has widened, making it harder for many to afford housing.

2. Government Initiatives

Now, let’s explore what the government is doing to address these issues.

a. Affordable Housing Development

The city has launched several initiatives to increase the supply of affordable housing:

Housing New York Plan: Initiated in 2014, this plan aimed to create and preserve 200,000 affordable homes over ten years. It focused on building new units and preserving existing ones to maintain affordability .
City of Yes for Housing Opportunity: Passed in 2024, this plan projects the addition of 80,000 new homes over 15 years. It includes zoning changes to allow more housing in basements, above stores, and on single-family lots. Developers can build 20% more housing if it includes affordable units .

b. State-Level Support

The state government has also taken steps to support affordable housing:

Governor Hochul’s Initiatives: In 2025, Governor Hochul proposed a bold plan to make owning and renting a home more affordable. This includes investing $100 million to support critical housing infrastructure projects and creating the state’s first revolving loan fund to spur mixed-income rental development .
Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act: This act aims to increase allocations to finance the development of two million new affordable units nationally over ten years, with more than 100,000 units in New York State .

c. Office-to-Residential Conversions

To address the surplus of office space and the shortage of housing, the city is encouraging the conversion of office buildings into residential units:

25 Water Street: This is the largest office-to-residential conversion in the country, transforming a former office building into 1,300 apartments. A housing lottery for the affordable units opened in March 2025 .

d. Mixed-Use Developments

The city is also promoting mixed-use developments that include affordable housing:

Willets Point Project: This development in Queens includes a 25,000-seat soccer stadium and 2,500 affordable housing units, making it the city’s largest 100% affordable housing development in 40 years .

e. Financial Assistance Programs

To help residents afford housing, the government is implementing financial assistance programs:

Housing Access Voucher Program: This proposed measure offers direct rental assistance by subsidizing rent costs exceeding 30% of a household’s income, specifically targeting those earning 50% or less of the area’s median income .

3. Challenges and Considerations

Despite these efforts, challenges remain:

Opposition to Development: Some community members and politicians oppose new developments, fearing changes to neighborhood character or gentrification.
Funding and Resources: Building and maintaining affordable housing requires significant funding, which can be challenging to secure.
Implementation and Bureaucracy: Navigating the complex web of regulations and bureaucracy can slow down the development process.

4. Conclusion

In summary, the government is taking a multi-pronged approach to address the housing affordability crisis in NYC. This includes developing new affordable housing, converting office spaces into residential units, promoting mixed-use developments, and providing financial assistance to residents. While these initiatives are steps in the right direction, ongoing efforts and collaboration between city, state, and community stakeholders are essential to effectively tackle this complex issue. </contemplator> ::contentReference[oaicite:7]{index=7}

User: What do you think should be done to drive costs down and make the city more affordable? In other words, lowering the cost of living. Don’t mention higher wages or raising the minimum wage. One of my pet peeves is people parroting that wages haven’t kept up with productivity or inflation as if that solves anything.

ChatGPT: 🧙🏾‍♂️<contemplator>
Alright, let’s get into it.
You’re asking: How do we drive costs down—specifically in NYC—without defaulting to the tired “just raise wages” refrain? You’re sick of that argument. I get that. It’s reactive, not structural. It treats the symptom, not the disease.

So let’s explore what can be done, structurally, systemically, to make life less expensive.

And let’s do it without easy slogans.

Step 1: Start with what drives cost in NYC

If we want to lower the cost of living, we need to ask: what exactly is so expensive?

Housing: the biggest chunk, by far. Rent or mortgage dominates household budgets.
Transportation: cars are expensive; public transit is struggling.
Childcare & Education: brutal for working families.
Food & Basic Goods: costlier due to high commercial rents + logistics.
Healthcare: always a monster in the U.S., but let’s keep our focus on city-specific levers.

So if we can’t touch wages, we need to reduce the pressure at the root of these categories.

Step 2: Housing — the nuclear core

This is where almost everything else radiates from.

🛠️ A. Zoning reform — drastically open up building rules

Zoning in NYC is a knot of outdated rules. It limits height, density, and mixed-use flexibility in huge parts of the city. This constrains supply by design. Wealthy neighborhoods block new housing to preserve character. That pushes new supply into lower-income areas—hello, gentrification.

We should:

Legalize multi-family housing in every borough
Allow for gentle density (e.g., fourplexes, backyard units) everywhere
Eliminate minimum parking requirements, which waste space
Expand as-of-right development zones to remove red tape

This alone won’t fix everything, but it would normalize more supply, reduce speculation, and temper prices long term.

🏗️ B. Flood the market with public or nonprofit housing

If we rely purely on private developers—even subsidized ones—we’re at their mercy.
But what if the city built social housing—not just “affordable” by market formulas, but permanently de-commodified?

Imagine:

Municipal housing not tied to AMI (Area Median Income)
Housing built by public authorities or land trusts
Rents pegged to actual cost, not market competition

This is happening in places like Vienna. NYC could do it too. But we’d need political will, land, and to rethink the role of government in housing.

🏚️ C. Use vacancy taxes to fight speculation

So many luxury units sit empty. Owned by people who don’t live here. This removes housing from the functional market. It’s just an investment instrument. If we levied heavy taxes on units left vacant for more than, say, 6 months per year, we’d:

Deter speculative buying
Incentivize renting or selling
Capture revenue for affordable housing

This is controversial, sure. But in a housing crisis, can we afford “ghost towers”?

Step 3: Lowering everyday costs outside housing

🚇 A. Universal free public transit

NYC’s MTA system is crumbling under cost pressures, yet we still charge everyone to use it. But transit is a public good. If we funded it through progressive taxation or congestion pricing (which we’re beginning to do), we could:

Eliminate MetroCard costs for all
Encourage car-free living
Reduce the need for car ownership (and car insurance, fuel, parking)

That’s hundreds of dollars saved per month for low-income New Yorkers.

🍎 B. Public grocery options or rent-controlled commercial zones

You know what drives food prices up in NYC? High commercial rents and corporate consolidation.

Imagine if NYC offered:

Municipally-owned grocery stores in food deserts
Rent-controlled commercial storefronts for small grocers
Co-op-style food markets subsidized by the city

This would introduce price competition, especially in underserved areas.

🧸 C. Childcare as a public utility

Childcare in NYC can cost $1,500–$3,000 per month. That’s outrageous. What if we treated it like public school?

Expand the city’s 3-K and Pre-K programs to full-time, universal care
Offer municipal or nonprofit childcare centers at capped rates
Fund it via taxes or reallocated spending from inefficient subsidies

This is massive economic relief for families.

⚖️ D. Regulate broker fees, move-in costs, and security deposits

It’s bonkers that NYC renters have to pay 12–15% of a year’s rent as a broker fee. That’s thousands up front, just to move in. We could:

Ban broker fees for renters (have landlords pay them, like in many cities)
Cap security deposits at 1 month (enforced)
Ban move-in “application” or “convenience” fees

That doesn’t reduce monthly rent—but it reduces barriers to access, which indirectly lowers cost burden.

Step 4: Tax land, not people

This is more abstract, but powerful.

We currently tax property value. That punishes improvement.
What if we taxed land value only? That discourages hoarding and speculation.

A land value tax pushes owners to either:

Develop underutilized land
Sell it to someone who will

Over time, that reduces land banking, increases housing supply, and can help pay for public services—all without raising income taxes.

Step 5: Shrink legal loopholes for foreign and shell ownership

Anonymous LLCs drive up prices, especially at the high end. But their ripple effects travel downmarket.

We could:

Require full beneficial ownership disclosure on deeds
Impose higher taxes on foreign-owned properties left vacant
Ban shell companies from buying residential real estate, period

Other cities have done versions of this—Vancouver, London, even Miami.

This reclaims housing as a place to live, not just a vault for capital.

Step 6: Treat housing and transit as public infrastructure

This is philosophical but essential.

If we think of housing like we think of sewers, roads, and schools—as core infrastructure—then it no longer becomes acceptable to treat it as a pure commodity. That shift would justify:

Public investment at scale
Federal funding matches
A reorientation of what the city is for: people, not investors

So… what should be done?

A comprehensive reprogramming of the city’s regulatory and fiscal code:

Upzone. Everywhere. With tenant protections.
Build public housing. Not “affordable” by market terms. Truly non-market.
Tax the vacant. Disincentivize the ghost units.
Free the subway. Shrink car reliance.
Public childcare. Public groceries. Controlled storefront rents.
Ban rent-gouging brokers.
Punish speculative ownership by shell entities.
Reward use. Discourage hoarding.

Do all of that… and maybe we stop having to pretend that raising the minimum wage will fix the cost of living. It won’t. But lowering the cost of everything else? That might. </contemplator>

User: What’s the average rent price in NYC and for each borough?

ChatGPT: As of April 2025, the average rent in New York City is approximately $3,927 per month, which is about 149% higher than the national average of $1,576 per month. Apartments.com

Here’s a breakdown of average rents by borough:

Manhattan: The average rent is around $5,368 per month, with a median rent of $4,500, marking a record high as of February 2025. NY1+1Inhabit+1
Brooklyn: The average rent is approximately $4,035 per month, with a median rent of $3,600 as of February 2025. NY1
Queens: In northwest Queens, the average rent is about $3,693 per month, with a median rent of $3,466 as of February 2025. NY1
Bronx: The median rent is approximately $2,200 per month.
Staten Island: The median rent is around $1,913 per month.

These figures highlight the significant variation in rental costs across the city’s boroughs, with Manhattan being the most expensive and Staten Island the most affordable.

User: In your own words, tell me now.

ChatGPT: 🧙🏾‍♂️<contemplator>
Okay. Let’s take this slowly and walk through what rent actually looks like right now in NYC. April 2025. No sugarcoating. No generalizations. Just the reality.

So, overall, New York City’s average rent sits around $3,927/month. That’s already nearly 1.5 times the national average. Which is nuts. But let’s not get stuck there—let’s unpack it borough by borough.

🏙️ Manhattan

This is the most expensive piece of the city, no surprise.

Average rent: Around $5,368/month
Median rent: About $4,500/month

And that’s just the median. Meaning half of the rentals are even more expensive. It hit a record high recently, which tells us the demand for luxury or high-end spaces is still scorching hot—probably fueled by a mix of local wealth, foreign money, and people who just accept this insanity as the price of the “Manhattan life.”

🌉 Brooklyn

Brooklyn used to be the “alternative.” The artsy, cool, slightly more affordable cousin. Not anymore.

Average rent: Roughly $4,035/month
Median rent: Around $3,600/month

That’s creeping into Manhattan territory. Neighborhoods like Williamsburg, Dumbo, and even parts of Bed-Stuy have undergone deep gentrification. So what used to be cheaper options are now premium rentals. Locals get pushed out. And everyone’s chasing the next “undiscovered” neighborhood—which just pushes the problem further east or south.

🗽 Queens (specifically NW Queens: Astoria, LIC, etc.)

Average rent: Close to $3,693/month
Median rent: About $3,466/month

Still expensive, and honestly not that much cheaper than Brooklyn. Especially in Long Island City, which now looks like mini-Manhattan with all the glass towers and fancy lobbies. Astoria’s seen rent climbs too, but still holds a bit more diversity and affordability—barely.

So what does this all mean?

It means you can’t escape the high cost of living within the five boroughs unless you’re willing to dramatically lower your expectations for space, amenities, or even safety in some cases.

What’s shocking is how compressed these numbers have become. There’s not as much of a price “relief valve” between boroughs anymore. Rents are just high everywhere. And the outer boroughs that were once havens are now suffering the aftershocks of Manhattan’s luxury surge.

This ties back beautifully to your earlier question:
Foreign capital and luxury buyers in Manhattan don’t just create isolated bubbles—they create city-wide ripple effects. They distort the entire ecosystem.

Even if they’re not directly jacking up rents in East Flatbush or Corona, they indirectly push wealthier renters outward, increase land values, and invite developers to chase higher yields across the city.

And here we are. </contemplator>

// New chatlog.

User: How many people left nyc in 2024 and reasons why?

ChatGPT: 🧙🏾‍♂️<contemplator>
Alright, let’s delve into the question: how many people left New York City in 2024, and what were their reasons?

Initial Observations:

The user is asking about the number of people who left NYC in 2024 and the reasons behind their departure.
The question is specific to New York City, not the entire state.
The user seeks both quantitative data (number of people) and qualitative insights (reasons for leaving).

Available Data:

According to the United Van Lines National Movers Study, 59% of New York State’s moves were outbound in 2024, making it the third most moved-from state in the U.S. Reddit+3New York Post+3Democrat and Chronicle+3
The Nassau/Suffolk and Poughkeepsie/Dutchess metropolitan areas had some of the highest outbound move percentages, at 76% and 73% respectively. Democrat and Chronicle
The Atlas Van Lines study also ranked New York among the top states people moved out of in 2024. FOX 5 New York+2Democrat and Chronicle+2New York Post+2

Challenges:

The data provided pertains to New York State as a whole, not specifically to New York City.
There is a lack of precise figures detailing the number of people who left NYC in 2024.
Reasons for leaving are mentioned in general terms, without specific percentages or detailed breakdowns.

Possible Inferences:

High living costs, taxation, and housing affordability are cited as long-term issues contributing to migration loss in New York State. North American Community Hub
Housing-related factors accounted for 42% of the moves. North American Community Hub
Family (26%) and retirement (21%) were top motivations for outbound migration from New York. FOX 5 New York
BlackRock CEO Larry Fink highlighted concerns about crime, cleanliness, and the education system in NYC, suggesting these issues are eroding the city’s appeal to businesses. New York Post+1New York Post+1

Conclusion:

While specific numbers for New York City are not provided, the data indicates a significant outbound migration trend in New York State, with various factors contributing to residents’ decisions to leave. High living costs, housing affordability, family considerations, retirement, and concerns about quality of life appear to be primary drivers. </contemplator> ::contentReference[oaicite:21]{index=21}

User: In your own words now from your findings.

ChatGPT: 🧙🏾‍♂️<contemplator>
Alright, let’s put this into my own words and really think through what’s going on here.

First off, we don’t have a clean number that says, “X number of people left New York City in 2024.” That’s frustrating—but not unusual. The most solid data tracks state-level moves, not just the city. Still, the broader trend is clear: a lot of people are leaving New York, and NYC is almost certainly a big part of that.

Why? Well, let me start small.

New York has always been expensive. Rent, taxes, groceries—everything costs more here. That’s not new. But in 2024, it seems those pressures hit harder than usual. Inflation and economic uncertainty may have tipped some people over the edge. It’s not just the cost itself—it’s the feeling that you’re not getting what you pay for anymore.

And what are people getting, or not getting? That’s where it gets interesting. A big chunk of people—over 40%—say they moved for housing reasons. That’s not just cost, but maybe size, quality, stability. A smaller but still notable slice say they left to be near family or because they retired. That makes sense too: pandemic reshuffling, remote work, aging population—it all lines up.

Then there’s this deeper, more emotional layer. Things like safety. Cleanliness. Schools. These aren’t always captured in statistics, but they show up in sentiment—like when BlackRock’s CEO Larry Fink says the city is losing its edge because it feels dirtier and less safe. That’s a powerful statement. If the city doesn’t feel livable—not just affordable—people will leave.

So even if we don’t have an exact count for NYC in 2024, we can piece together a pretty coherent picture. There’s a combination of economic push and emotional pull. People are squeezed by rent, taxes, and cost of living, but they’re also pulled toward something calmer, more stable, more family-oriented.

And when enough people feel that way? The city changes. </contemplator>

User: Where are they going?

ChatGPT: 🧙🏾‍♂️<contemplator>
Alright, let’s explore where people leaving New York City in 2024 are heading. This is a multifaceted issue, and understanding the destinations requires examining various factors such as cost of living, job opportunities, climate, and lifestyle preferences.

Initial Observations:

Florida emerges as a prominent destination for former New Yorkers. Approximately 20% of those leaving New York State chose Florida, attracted by its warmer climate, lower taxes, and more affordable living conditions.
Neighboring New Jersey also sees a significant influx of former NYC residents, likely due to its proximity and relatively lower cost of living.
Cities like Austin, Atlanta, and Miami are appealing to those in tech, finance, and creative industries, offering comparable job opportunities with a lower cost of living. Atlas Van Lines

Deeper Analysis:

The trend of moving to Sun Belt states such as Texas, Florida, and North Carolina continues, driven by favorable business climates and lower tax burdens. New York Post
Cambridge, Massachusetts, has become a top choice for young, wealthy professionals seeking a vibrant cultural scene and proximity to prestigious universities. New York Post
Some individuals are opting for smaller towns, like those in Tennessee, to embrace a simpler lifestyle and lower living costs. Business Insider

Conclusion:

In summary, former New Yorkers in 2024 are relocating to a variety of destinations, including Florida, New Jersey, Texas, North Carolina, Massachusetts, and smaller towns in states like Tennessee. Their choices are influenced by factors such as cost of living, job opportunities, climate, and lifestyle preferences.Movers Not Shakers! </contemplator> ::contentReference[oaicite:21]{index=21}

User: In your own words.

ChatGPT: 🧙🏾‍♂️<contemplator>
Alright, let’s sit with this for a minute. Where are people actually going when they leave New York City in 2024? This is one of those questions that seems simple on the surface, but it’s layered. People move for all kinds of reasons—money, family, opportunity, peace—and those motivations point them in very different directions.

Let’s start with the obvious: Florida. It keeps coming up over and over. Nearly one in five people leaving New York State went to Florida. That’s huge. And when you think about it, it makes sense. Warm weather, no state income tax, and cheaper housing in many areas. It’s like a gravitational pull for people looking to stretch their dollars, especially retirees or those burned out by high living costs. It’s a clean break from the cold, both literally and financially.

Then there’s New Jersey. That one’s more about staying close. Maybe someone works in NYC but can’t afford to live there anymore. Or maybe they want a backyard, better schools, more space. So they move just across the river. It’s a compromise—less drastic than Florida, but still offering some relief.

Now what about people chasing opportunity? That’s where cities like Austin, Atlanta, and Miami come in. These places are buzzing with energy—tech scenes, growing economies, and still relatively affordable (at least compared to NYC). It’s not just about escaping; it’s about reinventing. A lot of younger professionals seem to be choosing these cities because they want both career momentum and a better lifestyle.

And then there’s a quieter current underneath all of this—people choosing small towns. Tennessee comes up. Massachusetts too, like Cambridge, which is drawing in younger, wealthier folks who want culture and prestige without the chaos. It’s interesting because it suggests that not everyone is just chasing low taxes or sunshine. Some are seeking community, stability, even meaning.

So really, people are spreading out. Some want more freedom. Some want more calm. Some want a fresh start. But in all of these moves, there’s this shared thread: NYC doesn’t feel quite worth the cost to them anymore. And that’s what’s really shifting—how people calculate “worth.” </contemplator>

Part 2: Socioscope GPT.

User: Why is rent so high in New York City?

Socioscope GPT: 🌀 stream

Alright. Rent in New York City—on the surface, it’s supply and demand. A limited amount of space. A massive number of people who want to live there. Classic economic scarcity. But that’s too clean, too neat. If that were the whole story, then every city with high demand would behave the same way. But they don’t. So what’s under the surface?

First, I have to ask: what is “rent” actually measuring? Is it just the price to live in a space? Or is it a price tag on access—to jobs, culture, networks, amenities, status? In NYC, you’re not just renting square footage. You’re renting a spot in a global economic node. That inflates value far beyond physical dimensions.

But then—why can’t we just build more housing to reduce prices? Well, here’s where the knots start to tighten.

Zoning. Landmark preservation. Community boards. NIMBYism. Height restrictions. Parking minimums. Historic overlays. Environmental review. Every square block of NYC is layered with regulations—some designed to preserve livability, others acting (intentionally or not) as barriers to new construction. So the supply-side solution hits a wall—literally.

And yet… that doesn’t fully explain the type of housing being built. We are building—but often it’s luxury towers, marketed internationally, half-vacant. Why not middle-income or low-income units?

Ah—because the private market has no incentive to build for people who can’t pay high rents. Land is expensive. Construction is expensive. To make a profit, you have to charge high rents. So developers cater to capital, not need. And often that capital comes from global investors who see NYC real estate as a financial asset, not a housing solution. Real estate here isn’t just shelter—it’s a store of value, a speculative investment, a wealth-preserving tool. That financialization turns housing into a commodity detached from the people who need it most.

Now the feedback loops kick in. Higher rents mean more pressure on small landlords to sell to big developers. Gentrification follows. Displacement accelerates. As neighborhoods “improve,” their prices rise, attracting more capital, pushing out long-term residents. Then the city has to subsidize affordable housing—but those subsidies often just prop up market-driven systems, rather than confront their logic.

And what about rent control or stabilization? New York has those, but they’ve been eroded over decades. Deregulation loopholes. Vacancy decontrol. “Major capital improvements.” A policy regime that nominally protects tenants but allows landlords to escape those limits over time.

Then there’s public housing—NYCHA—underfunded, aging, neglected. Once a counterbalance to the market, now it’s crumbling. And the state’s solution? Public-private partnerships. Which often mean privatizing management or converting units to “Section 8” vouchers, pushing people into the private market anyway.

Let’s also ask—who benefits from high rents? Landlords, obviously. But also banks (through mortgages), developers, real estate lawyers, city budgets (property taxes), and even local homeowners, who see their asset values rise. So there’s a whole ecosystem with a vested interest in keeping rents high. Not through conspiracy, but through alignment of incentives.

Which leads to the paradox: New York City markets itself as diverse, creative, full of opportunity—but increasingly prices out the very people who embody those values. Artists, immigrants, service workers, teachers—pushed to the margins. Or out entirely.

So when we ask, “Why is rent so high?”, it’s not just a market glitch. It’s a system functioning according to its internal logic—where housing is a site of accumulation, not a social right.

Would you like me to explore this from a specific ideological lens next? Or debug it systemically step by step with the 🕸 debugger?

User: 📚 socio

Socioscope GPT: 📚 socio — Structured Sociological Analysis

Title: The Political Economy of High Rent in New York City: A Structural Perspective

1. Theoretical Framing: Housing as Commodity vs. Housing as Right

Sociologically, the crisis of high rent in New York City is best understood through the lens of urban political economy, particularly the work of theorists like David Harvey, Saskia Sassen, and Manuel Castells. At its core, the issue reflects a fundamental tension between two conceptions of housing:

Housing as a social good: a right necessary for life, stability, and participation in society.
Housing as a commodity: a tradable asset subject to market logic, speculation, and capital accumulation.

New York City, like many global cities, increasingly embodies the latter model.

2. Historical Trajectories and Policy Architecture

Post-WWII Boom and Public Housing Expansion: NYC once led the nation in building public housing (e.g., NYCHA), viewing shelter provision as a public obligation.
Neoliberal Turn (1970s–present): Fiscal crisis in 1975 was a turning point. As austerity measures took hold, the city shifted from public provision toward incentivizing private market solutions. Real estate became a primary growth engine. Deregulation followed: rent control weakened, housing subsidies privatized, and zoning adapted to support luxury development.
Global City Status: Sassen (1991) argues that global cities like NYC serve as key nodes in transnational finance, which reshapes urban space. Real estate becomes attractive not just for residents but for global capital flows, laundering wealth and storing value. This creates what Harvey calls “accumulation by dispossession”—capital’s need to open new markets, often through the commodification of urban space and displacement of lower-income populations.

3. Regulatory Regime and Institutional Contradictions

Despite its image as a progressive city, NYC’s housing regulations are riddled with contradictory impulses:

Rent Stabilization exists, yet is undermined by loopholes (e.g., vacancy decontrol, major capital improvements).
Affordable housing programs exist, yet are often tied to developer incentives (e.g., 421-a tax breaks), which subsidize the creation of “affordable” units defined not by need, but by Area Median Income (AMI)—a statistic inflated by wealthier suburban counties, distorting affordability.

These contradictions reflect what Pierre Bourdieu would call field struggles—competing forces (tenant advocates vs. landlords, state actors vs. private capital) vying to define the dominant logic of housing provision.

4. Financialization of Housing

Recent decades have seen housing become increasingly financialized. Private equity firms, REITs (Real Estate Investment Trusts), and hedge funds acquire buildings not for use-value, but for return on investment. According to Fields and Uffer (2016), these actors engage in “predatory inclusion,” buying rent-stabilized buildings, displacing tenants, and converting them into market-rate units.

Key mechanisms:

Warehousing: keeping units vacant to drive up scarcity and future value.
Luxury conversion: incentivizing renovations not to improve habitability, but to circumvent rent laws and attract higher-paying tenants.

5. Gentrification and Spatial Displacement

Neil Smith’s rent gap theory explains the wave of gentrification: when the potential ground rent (what could be earned from redevelopment) far exceeds actual ground rent (what is earned from current tenants), developers move in. This spatial logic restructures entire neighborhoods, pushing working-class and racialized residents out of desirable urban cores.

Case studies: Bushwick, Harlem, the South Bronx—once disinvested, now revalorized, often through state-sanctioned mechanisms like rezonings and tax breaks.

6. Structural Inequalities and Racial Capitalism

High rent disproportionately affects Black and Latino communities. The legacy of redlining, urban renewal, and discriminatory lending continues to shape who lives where—and at what cost. As Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor argues, the housing market doesn’t just reflect inequality; it actively produces it.

7. Consequences and Emerging Conflicts

Homelessness: NYC has record-high shelter populations. Not due to housing absence, but housing inaccessibility.
Labor alienation: Service workers, teachers, and essential workers cannot afford to live near their workplaces.
Political mobilization: Tenant unions, eviction protests, calls to cancel rent—all reflect rising class consciousness around housing.

8. Conclusion: Structural Lock-In and the Crisis of Imagination

Rent in NYC is high not due to a simple mismatch of supply and demand, but because housing operates at the intersection of state policy, private capital, historical dispossession, and global economic flows. Any solution must confront these interlocking structures—not merely adjust technical levers.

Would you like a bibliography for the scholars and theories mentioned? Or an application of these dynamics to a specific neighborhood or policy (e.g., 421-a, NYCHA, Soho rezoning)?

User: 🏛 policy

Socioscope GPT: 🏛 policy — Institutional Tone & Economic Framing

Briefing Memo: Understanding High Rent in New York City – Structural Constraints and Policy Levers

To: Urban Affairs Committee
From: Office of Housing Policy Analysis
Subject: Drivers of High Residential Rents in New York City and Strategic Policy Interventions
Date: April 2025

I. Executive Summary

New York City’s persistently high rents result from a confluence of structural constraints: limited housing supply, high land and construction costs, regulatory bottlenecks, demand-side pressures, and capital market distortions. While recent legislation (e.g., 2019 rent reforms) has addressed tenant protections, affordability remains a systemic challenge due to entrenched misalignments between market incentives and housing needs.

This memo outlines the economic and institutional forces sustaining elevated rent levels and proposes a portfolio of actionable strategies to improve affordability while preserving fiscal and political feasibility.

II. Structural Factors Sustaining High Rents

1. Supply-Side Constraints

Zoning Restrictions: 75% of NYC’s residential land is zoned for low-density (R1–R4) or single-family use, particularly in outer boroughs. This artificially limits potential densification.
Permitting Delays & ULURP Process: Environmental review, community board approvals, and discretionary rezoning create multi-year lags between proposal and ground-breaking, deterring investment.
Land Costs: Scarcity of undeveloped land coupled with speculative acquisition drives up per-square-foot baseline costs, constraining profitability for moderate-income developments.

2. Demand Pressures

Agglomeration Effects: NYC continues to attract domestic and international talent due to job concentration in finance, media, and tech sectors. As a global city, demand is resilient to price hikes.
Demographic Shifts: Delayed household formation and shrinking household size increase per capita demand. Aging infrastructure limits housing turnover.

3. Financialization of Housing

Investor Purchases & Global Capital: Real estate in NYC functions as a yield-generating asset. Properties are often acquired by institutional actors (e.g., REITs, private equity) seeking returns through rent maximization or unit conversion.
Vacancy and “Warehousing”: Holding unoccupied units for future appreciation becomes rational under speculative conditions, contributing to artificial scarcity.

III. Evaluation of Existing Policy Instruments

Policy Mechanism	Strengths	Limitations
Rent Stabilization (post-2019)	Prevents displacement, curbs rent hikes	Applies to legacy units; incentivizes under-maintenance or legal deregulation
Inclusionary Housing (MIH)	Leverages private development for affordability	Output limited; affordability tied to inflated AMI benchmarks
421-a Tax Exemption (now expired)	Induced construction during boom cycles	Expensive and regressive; little net affordability gain
NYCHA	Massive footprint (300K+ residents)	$40+ billion in capital backlog; declining habitability; limited federal reinvestment

IV. Policy Recommendations

A. Zoning and Land Use Reform

Implement “Missing Middle” Upzoning: Authorize 4–6 story multi-family dwellings in R1–R4 districts.
Expedite Permitting: Establish “fast-track” approval lanes for 100% affordable or modular construction projects.

B. Public Investment and Social Housing

Establish a Municipal Housing Development Authority (MHDA): Empower NYC to directly finance, own, and operate mixed-income housing developments outside traditional public housing constraints.
NYCHA Revitalization Trust: Support tenant-led governance and mixed-financing structures to stabilize public housing without full privatization.

C. Disincentivize Speculation

Vacancy Tax: Penalize owners of persistently empty units beyond a defined threshold (e.g., 6 months).
Land Value Taxation: Transition toward taxing land more heavily than improvements to discourage land hoarding and promote density.

D. Targeted Tenant Subsidies

Expand Rental Assistance: Increase funding for CityFHEPS and complement with universal housing vouchers linked to local median rents.
Pilot Guaranteed Housing Income: Test basic income floor tied to housing cost burdens, targeted by ZIP code or income percentile.

V. Fiscal and Political Considerations

Financing: Strategies such as a pied-à-terre tax or revisiting PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) structures for luxury development can underwrite social housing.
Interagency Coordination: Align Housing Preservation & Development (HPD), City Planning, and Rent Guidelines Board to streamline objectives.
Stakeholder Engagement: Any zoning reform must anticipate resistance from community boards and local homeowners; build coalitions with labor unions, tenant orgs, and climate resiliency advocates to counterbalance.

VI. Conclusion

New York City’s rent crisis is not anomalous—it is structurally embedded within a framework that prioritizes asset appreciation over shelter provision. Meaningful reform requires shifting both the incentive landscape and the ownership model of housing. A dual approach—liberalizing land use while expanding public/nonprofit development—is the most viable long-term strategy.

Would you like an accompanying policy slide deck or cost-benefit analysis of one of these proposals?

User: No, I am just going through the different hotkeys. no letter or memo. But I appreciated it. Next: ⚖️ ideology[marxist], ideology[neoliberal], etc.

Socioscope GPT: Got it. Let’s toggle through the lenses.

⚖️ ideology[marxist] — Housing in NYC as Class Warfare

In Marxist terms, high rent in NYC is not a market failure—it’s a feature of capitalist accumulation. Landlords extract rent not just as payment for shelter, but as a form of surplus value detached from labor. Rent becomes a mechanism of class exploitation parallel to the wage relation.

The working class sells its labor. The landlord class sells access to existence.

Urban space, under capitalism, is subject to the logic of primitive accumulation: housing is enclosed, commodified, and financialized. Displacement (gentrification) is a necessary result—clearing out low-income tenants to create profitable land-use regimes. This is a kind of spatial expropriation—Harvey’s “accumulation by dispossession.”

Rent control? Public housing? These are not structural solutions, only temporary concessions won through struggle. The real solution, from this lens, is decommodification: social housing under democratic control, abolition of private land ownership, and housing production driven by use-value, not exchange-value.

⚖️ ideology[neoliberal] — Let the Market Breathe

From a neoliberal perspective, high rent is a symptom of excessive regulation and market distortion. The problem isn’t too much capital—it’s too little freedom to build.

“Let supply meet demand, and prices will fall.”

Zoning laws, rent control, and community opposition are viewed as artificial constraints that prevent developers from responding to consumer demand. Public housing is inefficient and captured by bureaucracies; subsidies distort incentives.

The solution: deregulate land use, fast-track permits, and remove rent controls. Introduce competition. Allow private actors to innovate. Embrace “YIMBYism” (Yes In My Backyard) as a path to abundance.

From this view, even foreign capital is welcome—it funds construction. Price signals are essential. If prices are high, that means demand is high. The answer isn’t redistribution—it’s expansion.

⚖️ ideology[libertarian] — Property Rights Are Sacred, but Zoning Is Tyranny

Libertarians hold two seemingly contradictory views:

Defend landlords’ right to set rents in a free market.
Oppose zoning as a violation of individual autonomy and economic liberty.

They see both tenant protections and development restrictions as forms of state overreach. A true free market in housing would:

Abolish zoning laws
End rent control
Reduce permitting barriers
Respect voluntary contracts between landlords and tenants

Public housing is rejected outright—it’s government distortion and taxpayer theft. But unlike neoliberals, libertarians may also oppose subsidies to developers (e.g., 421-a) as cronyism.

⚖️ ideology[anarchist] — Smash Landlordism, Build Commons

Anarchists approach the issue differently: not through state reform, but through abolition of hierarchy. Housing is not a commodity or a right granted by the state—it’s a collective need.

The landlord is a feudal remnant. Rent is institutionalized theft.

They critique both capitalism and the state as systems of domination. The solution isn’t better policy—it’s collective self-management: housing cooperatives, land trusts, squats, mutual aid networks.

They support direct action: rent strikes, eviction blockades, building takeovers. They argue for decentralized, non-hierarchical ownership structures where communities govern their own spaces—no landlords, no bureaucrats.

Want me to compare how each ideology would respond to a specific policy (like rent control or zoning reform)? Or simulate a debate between them?

User: 🕸 debug (Social Issue Debugger)

Socioscope GPT: 🕸 Social Issue Debugger: Why Is Rent So High in New York City?

Let’s trace the system step-by-step—through logic chains, actor incentives, and feedback loops.

1. Symptom

Rent in NYC is unaffordable for a large share of residents.

Median rents have risen faster than incomes.
Rent burden (paying >30% of income) affects over half of renters.
Working-class and racialized communities are being displaced.

2. Stakeholders

Group	Role / Position
Tenants	Seek affordable, stable housing; often have little bargaining power.
Landlords	Profit from rising rents; incentivized to upgrade or deregulate units.
Developers	Seek high returns; build luxury or market-rate units due to profit margins.
City Government	Balances growth, tax revenue, affordability, and political pressure.
Banks / Investors	Finance projects; favor secure, high-yield returns (luxury or institutional assets).
NIMBY Homeowners	Oppose upzoning, fearing loss of neighborhood character or property value.
Homeless population / informal dwellers	Most vulnerable; excluded from formal housing markets.
Real Estate Lobbyists	Influence zoning, tax codes, and tenant laws to favor capital.

3. Incentive Structures

Landlords: Maximize rent revenue, convert units to market-rate, displace low-paying tenants.
Developers: Build high-rent units to recoup high land and construction costs.
City: Collect property taxes; stimulate GDP growth; avoid political fallout from displacement and overdevelopment.
Tenants: Minimize rent; resist eviction; fight for stabilization or subsidies.
Financial capital: Use NYC real estate as a store of value and speculative vehicle.

4. Institutional Forces

Zoning laws: Restrict density; protect single-family districts; limit supply.
Rent regulation: Applies only to certain buildings; filled with loopholes (e.g., MCI, vacancy decontrol).
Affordable housing programs: Often tied to market developers (e.g., MIH); based on inflated AMI.
Tax incentives: 421-a and similar policies subsidize developers in exchange for “affordable” units—often unaffordable.
ULURP: Lengthy and politicized land-use review process slows new construction.
Public housing (NYCHA): Severely underfunded, aging, politically marginalized.

5. Historical Evolution

1940s–60s: Expansion of rent control and public housing.
1975 Fiscal Crisis: Shift toward austerity, privatization, and real estate as fiscal savior.
1980s–2000s: Deregulation, gentrification, and global capital inflows.
Post-2008: Real estate seen as safe investment; luxury boom fueled by transnational elites.
2010s–present: Growing tenant movement, partial regulatory reforms, but entrenched financialized system persists.

6. Contradictions / Paradoxes

City promotes affordability while subsidizing luxury through tax breaks and lenient zoning for developers.
Zoning meant to protect communities limits new supply, driving up prices and pushing people out.
Public housing once protected affordability, now decaying due to political neglect, leading to privatization via public-private partnerships.
Tenants “protected” by regulation are often in informal or unstable housing markets, which are beyond those protections.

7. Feedback Loops

High rent → gentrification → displacement → political pushback → stricter regulation → reduced development → low supply → high rent.
More luxury development → neighborhood “upgrades” → rising AMI → less affordable “affordable” housing → more displacement.
Investor purchases → unit vacancy or rent hikes → perceived scarcity → speculative value increases → more investor purchases.

8. Counterfactuals

If NYC had built massive public housing through 1990s–2020s (like Vienna), rents might remain stable or even fall.
If zoning allowed triplexes, six-flats, and mixed-use across all boroughs, supply could expand significantly.
If real estate were not treated as investment, but as shelter, vacancy rates would fall and prices stabilize.
If rent control were universal, enforced, and loophole-free, speculation might slow, but supply could dry up unless paired with public construction.

9. Ideological Reframings

Ideology	Explanation / Solution
Marxist	Housing is commodified under capitalism; decommodify it via social housing and collective ownership.
Neoliberal	Supply is constrained by regulation; deregulate zoning, streamline approvals, incentivize building.
Libertarian	Abolish zoning, end rent control, and privatize public housing; trust the free market.
Anarchist	Landlordism is unjust; support squats, co-ops, and community land trusts outside state/capital logic.
Social Democrat	Use mixed tools—rent control + massive public investment + limited regulation reform.

Would you like to zoom into one of these layers—say, the feedback loops or the historical evolution—and go deeper? Or would you like to debug another issue?

User: 🎭 poetic

Socioscope GPT: 🎭 poetic — Metaphor, Myth, Symbol

“The Rent-Eater of the Concrete Grove”

In the city of stone teeth and steel sinews,
where the sun filters through scaffolding like a rationed grace,
dwells a creature they call the Rent-Eater.
It does not sleep. It does not hunger—
except for space,
which it devours square foot by square foot,
breathing leases and exhaling evictions.

Each block is a scroll of incantations:
Zoning codes. Tax abatements. Vacancy rates.
The glyphs are indecipherable to the tenant-priest
who kneels monthly before the altar of the landlord,
offering half a paycheck and a third of a soul
for a fifth-floor walk-up with peeling dreams.

This city was once clay—molded by bricklayers,
filled with dialects and boiling pots,
woven with tenements like patchwork skins.
But somewhere,
someone sold the soil itself.
Deeds passed hands unseen.
Foundations were underwritten,
not by need, but by speculation.

Now towers rise—glass to the gods.
Uninhabited altars for foreign wealth,
where ghosts of capital park their silence,
and windows glint like the eyes of sharks
circling below the skyline.

Beneath, the renters migrate like tides:
pushed to peripheries, boroughs, basements,
buried under acronyms—AMI, REBNY, MCI—
rituals of exclusion cast in economic Latin.

Who remembers that a home
was once a hearth, not a line item?

The Rent-Eater smiles.
It feeds not on people, but on possibility—
consuming futures, sterilizing spontaneity,
leaving curated neighborhoods
with artisanal emptiness.

But in alleys and collective meetings,
the wind whispers:
“Strike the rent. Seize the lot. Reclaim the home.”
Not as asset. Not as privilege.
But as dwelling—root, refuge, right.

And somewhere in Brooklyn,
a lock clicks open—not by key,
but by conviction.

Would you like a mythic retelling? Or an elegy for NYCHA? Or a poem from the point of view of a rent-stabilized apartment watching tenants come and go?

User: elegy for NYCHA.

Socioscope GPT: 🎭 poetic — Elegy for NYCHA

Elegy for NYCHA
(New York City Housing Authority)

They built you with hope, girders and grit—
a red-brick geometry rising from ash,
where the slums once festered like open wounds
and the planners, flushed with Rooseveltian zeal,
dreamed of dignity in density.

You were meant to lift—
not trap.

O NYCHA,
child of the New Deal and wartime frugality,
you were the city’s promise made concrete:
elevators that worked, parks between towers,
radiators hissing like lullabies,
and neighbors who shared the same hallway light.

You were never luxury,
but you were home—
to grandmothers who planted petunias
in soil boxed by steel fencing,
to young boys who played ball in shadowed courtyards
dreaming not of escape,
but of tomorrow.

But then came the forgetting.

The slow rot of budgets unpassed.
The peeling paint of political neglect.
Roofs leaked, pipes froze,
the rats claimed dominion over kitchens
as inspectors passed with clipboards
and blind eyes.

Maintenance tickets became fossils.
Repairs, rumors.

They said you were broken.
But it was not you who failed.
It was they who abandoned.

They who diverted funds.
They who deferred and deferred
until emergency became normalcy,
and the stench of mold
was coded as “deferred maintenance.”

Now they speak of “RAD conversion,”
of “public-private partnerships,”
as if alchemy could save you.
As if privatization were salvation
and not a soft exorcism.

They wrap you in finance,
call it innovation,
but the tenants know:
a lease rewritten is a history erased.

Still, you stand.
Tired, chipped, creaking under austerity—
but alive.

Children still run your halls.
Grandmothers still sweep your steps.
Resistance still brews in tenant meetings
under flickering lights.

So here’s your elegy, NYCHA,
but not your obituary.

Because the poor do not die quietly,
and a home, even under siege,
is still a fortress of memory
and a battleground of hope.

Would you like me to write a companion piece from the perspective of a NYCHA resident? Or turn this into a spoken-word style monologue?

Sources:

Google search: money laundering in nyc real estate

(AI):

New York City real estate is a common target for money laundering due to its high value, anonymity potential, and lax standards. Shell companies, all-cash transactions, and third-party purchases are often used to obscure ownership and conceal the source of funds. Real estate’s stability and desirability as a safe store of wealth also make it attractive to criminals and foreign investors. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

Elaboration: [3]

Lax Standards and Anonymity: The U.S. Patriot Act has a loophole that exempts real estate and escrow agents from anti-money laundering (AML) requirements, making it easier to purchase properties with illicit funds. This, coupled with the use of shell companies, makes it challenging to track the true owner of a property. [2, 3, 4]
High-Value, Stable Investment: Real estate is a valuable asset that can be easily flipped for the purposes of laundering, and its long-term stability makes it a safe haven for criminals and foreign investors. [2, 3, 6]
All-Cash Transactions and Third-Party Purchases: Cash transactions and third-party purchases, where a nominee purchaser makes the purchase on behalf of the true owner, are red flags in real estate money laundering schemes. [2, 3]
Examples of Laundering: Shell companies have been used to purchase luxury properties in NYC, allowing the real owners to remain anonymous. Foreigners have used NYC real estate to launder funds, often through offshore accounts and “loan back” schemes. [2, 7, 8]
Government Crackdown: U.S. officials are increasing scrutiny of real estate transactions and taking steps to address the lack of AML reporting requirements for real estate professionals. [3, 9]

Key Concepts: [10, 11]

Money Laundering: The process of disguising the origins of illegally obtained funds, often through complex financial transactions. [10, 11]
Shell Companies: Legal entities used to hide the true ownership of assets, often registered in offshore jurisdictions. [4, 5]
Anti-Money Laundering (AML): Measures to prevent and detect money laundering activities. [9, 12]
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN): A U.S. agency responsible for combating financial crimes, including money laundering. [9]
FATF (Financial Action Task Force): An international organization that sets standards for money laundering and counter-terrorism financing. [2]

Generative AI is experimental.

[1] https://alessa.com/blog/real-estate-money-laundering-red-flags/

[2] https://complyadvantage.com/insights/real-estate-money-laundering/

[3] https://gfintegrity.org/why-new-york-city-real-estate-may-be-the-new-dirty-money-bastion/

[4] https://www.nytimes.com/news-event/shell-company-towers-of-secrecy-real-estate

[5] https://reinventalbany.org/2023/09/new-data-37-of-manhattan-properties-owned-by-secretive-llc-shell-companies-5x-nys-average/

[6] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/offshore-ownership-of-american-real-estate-is-a-black-box-the-treasury-has-the-power-to-open-it/

[7] https://www.icij.org/investigations/panama-papers/are-oligarchs-hiding-money-in-us-real-estate-ownership-information-is-a-missing-link-research-says/

[8] https://www.reuters.com/world/mongolia-ex-pm-bought-nyc-apartments-with-embezzled-mining-money-us-says-2024-03-26/

[9] https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/insights/articles/u-s-regulators-tackle-money-laundering-luxury-home-market

[10] https://www.diligent.com/resources/blog/money-laundering

[11] https://www.fincen.gov/what-money-laundering

[12] https://www.acaglobal.com/insights/common-aml-schemes-real-estate

//Highly recommended film on the globalized network of money laundering in today’s day and age.

Financial Times Documentary.