It seems that anything the New York Times writes about suddenly becomes the fab new trend. Renting is now the chic thing in New York City. The upshot of the article is that renting is simpler, often cheaper, and has far fewer headaches. While one of the people interviewed did get a little misty eyed at not having a Viking stove, overall he was at peace with it.
This is not what I would call the best reporting from the Times. I could care less about yuppies with a "been there, done that" attitude about writing off their mortgage interest on their taxes. I thought initially it was more hard hitting reportage about people who lost their homes and had to rent, which would have been timely and relevant. Instead, it was fluff, no doubt pandering to some in the Times' ever shrinking base: limousine liberals who were victims of the economy who would love to hear that renting is cool because the Times says it is.
Why is renting the emblem of conservative republican oppression when a Bush or Reagan is in the Oval Office, and the new cool fad when Obama is the Chief Executive?
Of course, the subjects in the article are mentioned as paying $5000 per month in rent like that is some bargain. Would you (can you?) pay $5000 per month for 800 square feet? I'll bet the rest of the 99% of Americans who bother to read this just shake their heads and view New Yorkers like Martians.
Comments(4)