What bothers me is how slowly the socialist decline will be. Years and years of continually declining freedoms, goods, and services. Look at the trek Venezuela is on. Socialism just uses up the pent up wealth in a society and then it collapses. Its going to take a long time in the USA- a lot longer than I will live.

All I can say is that I honestly would love to see it happen on such a grand scale just so we could watch the collapse. There are some lessons people can't learn by reading history - they insist on failing themselves to learn it. I'd like to let it happen (to some degree) just to point to it for others contemplating the same thing about how truly BAD an idea it really is.

Then again, the determined progressives will just say "Yeah, but I'm not like them. I could make it work." Idiots!

"If the mayor of New York had said this during Ayn Rand's lifetime, I think she would have left the city."

She lived during the Red Decade and heard it many times. She would have left the city if she thought the people there would go along with it, and she did -- she died: she said that she felt fortunate that she was old enough to not to have to live through what was coming.

He said he wants minimum wage controls, maximum rent controls, and a vague promise of "trying to get things done for them", which in their mentality means 'benefits', but all of it amounts to egalitarian nihilism dragging everyone down towards a lowest common denominator while controlling everything in sight because he thinks "they’d love to have a very, very powerful government, including a federal government, involved in directly addressing their day-to-day reality." And that is his biggest nihilistic 'benefit' of all: 'protecting' , i.e., preventing, people from thinking for themselves as a matter of fundamental principle and regardless of what else life is like as a consequence. That is the immorality of it, which can't be set aside.

Set aside the morality of it, whether gov't could effectively control all aspects of real estate, and whether such control could lead to any desirable outcomes. Just consider what he wants. He mentions nothing positive. He is not asking for everyone something like all families of four to have 1200 sq ft and to live within a 1 mile of schools and 2 miles of work. He's not asking for protections for people who can't pay their rent because of illness or job loss. Nothing in this quote even mentions a benefit of gov't control. Look at the paragraphs:
1. He wants more gov't control without mention how that helps anyone beyond those calling the shots.
2. He wants to deny people expensive condos with no mention of how this helps anyone.
3. He mentions raising wages. Maybe he's about to talk about something positive.
4. No, he wants to tax people more, with no mention of how that helps.
Maybe we're supposed to imagine that gov't would use the power and money he wants it to have for good, but he never comes out and says it.

Even if he said it, it wouldn't make it moral or workable, but at least I would be able to see where's he coming from.

For the record -- DeCommio on New Yorkezuela City:

"What’s been hardest is the way our legal system is structured to favor private property. I think people all over this city, of every background, would like to have the city government be able to determine which building goes where, how high it will be, who gets to live in it, what the rent will be. I think there’s a socialistic impulse, which I hear every day, in every kind of community, that they would like things to be planned in accordance to their needs. And I would, too. Unfortunately, what stands in the way of that is hundreds of years of history that have elevated property rights and wealth to the point that that’s the reality that calls the tune on a lot of development.

"I’ll give you an example. I was down one day on Varick Street, somewhere close to Canal, and there was a big sign out front of a new condo saying, “Units start at $2 million.” And that just drives people stark raving mad in this city, because that kind of development is clearly not for everyday people. It’s almost like it’s being flaunted. Look, if I had my druthers, the city government would determine every single plot of land, how development would proceed. And there would be very stringent requirements around income levels and rents. That’s a world I’d love to see, and I think what we have, in this city at least, are people who would love to have the New Deal back, on one level. They’d love to have a very, very powerful government, including a federal government, involved in directly addressing their day-to-day reality."

"There’s two ways to address it: Ask more from the wealthy in terms of their obligation to society, first and foremost from taxes. Or raise wages and benefits for everyday people."

"The problem is the top end. In very few ways can we address the rampant growth of wealth among the one percent. The state and the federal government have the power to do that... It frustrates me greatly that we don’t have the power here to tax the wealthy in this city."

"it’s quite clear that some of the same forces that held back New York City for a long time are now affecting our nation. And they’re not going to be around too much longer, in my opinion, but for a brief and sad moment that negative, hateful, divisive tabloid culture, the same culture that vilified the word liberal, effectively, became too ascendant. It’s now crashing on the rocks. And it’s going to be replaced by something very different."

"I admire Elizabeth Warren. I admire Bernie Sanders. I admire Chuck Schumer"

Maybe if their first name is Hillary . . .

"...I think there’s a socialistic impulse, which I hear every day, in every kind of community, that they would like things to be planned in accordance to their needs...."

What about the people who need a $2,000,000 condo? Don't they count in his world?

Scumbag. The majority of people of NY get the government they deserve. Unfortunately, the 2 looting wolves eat the 1 innocent productive sheep. And AS prophesy is reality.

Wow. If you go to the article, it is not taken out of context. The surrounding comments are about how he doesn't like private property and how he would like to limit building new high-end properties and high rents. This just stops new construction, leading to higher prices.

He says if he has his way, city gov't would control everything. That doesn't make new places to live appear or make people wanting to live there disappear... wait, it actually does make people move away.

Don't get any on ya...stinks for days...

Excuse me while I pray to the porcelain god.

Fortunately technology is rendering many of the advantages of cities obsolete. Teleconferencing and online shopping, for instance, can be done from anywhere.

But of course, that's what commies do. As for cities...they are dangerous disempowering creations.
Once the cities and city states were for protection from the outside world but these days, we need protection from the cities.

They probably should be just places to visit but not for living there...but then again, I'm just a New English country boy and would naturally be prejudice.