Kushner cleared over 2 billion in post presidency deal while ivanka made 640 million.
If The Trump family is saving the country this is a pretty backwards way of going about it.
How is this not corruption in the trump presidency and laundering money through his family in basically the same way the biden crime family did?
Edit: Strange that is such an outrage over a legitimate topic. Almost as when twitter bots unanimously attack a target. Id say we're over target with this one.
You have to look near the bottom of this thread for any legitimate posts. Buried by childish rage, willfully ignorant posters, and a conceited, self righteous, egomaniac mod whos attacking his own community.
Kushner's family are open zionists. Trump pardoned kushners father. Trump's daughter is married to a zionist, globalist, jew. Who just recieved a 2 billion dollar investment through his fathers presidential connections. The crime family just changed faces. If people can curb their man crush on trump and consider what is really happening here for a second.
Every city in America, and I mean all of them, especially the supposed most prosperous, have thousands upon thousands of empty 10,000 sq ft + office spaces. These buildings are all empty from the second floor up. It's all a money laundering scheme. There are tons of videos on this, but you don't even need that because you can look at it yourself. New York city, Los Angeles, Seattle, Dallas, Chicago. Abandoned buildings everywhere with just the first or second floor occupied. We have unlimited real estate. We can house everyone and offer businesses dirt cheap rent, but that's not allowed. Real Estate is a complete ponzi scheme. If we stopped printing money, this would get revealed and it would crash to reality and become a depreciating asset, as it should be because they need to all be maintained and refurbished every few decades.
Forgive the late reply but I DO have to sleep at some point. First of all, 10K square foot is VERY small for an office building, so it may only be 2 stories, 3 or 4 max if it's a more narrow building. Second of all, yes there ARE abandoned building in every major city. They're called distressed assets, and the reason they stay that way is because more often than not, it's not economical to renovate them for a variety of reasons (Too old and need a lot of updating, bad area of the city, structural damage, hazardous materials like black mold, etc. etc.) without some form of subsidization. Hence, developers need an incentive to take on those uneconomic projects in order for it to make sense. Remember, this is a BUSINESS for most people, not a charity.
Second of all, we don't have unlimited real estate. That's literally the reason it's valuable. There's a limited amount available and a limited growth potential because God isn't making more land any time soon. Third, no we can't house everyone and offer dirt cheap rent. Contrary to what some seem to think, real estate isn't a charity. It's a business. No one is going to build or renovate a building for millions of dollars, especially with a mortgage, and then turn around charge $50-200 a month for rent. That's not enough to cover utilities, repairs, the mortgage, etc. etc. You'd go bankrupt in a year or less. It's actually ALLOWED, contrary to what you seem to believe, but no one in their right mind will do it without incentives (This is why section 8 housing and Low Income Housing Tax Credit properties exist. But there's a limited amount of government funding for such programs).
Going further there are also OTHER problems with this suggestion. It's not like companies haven't explored Office to Multifamily conversions before. Unlike hotels, it's not economical in 99% of cases. First of all, there's zoning. If it's not zoned right you're legally not allowed to do so. Then there's the cost. Office buildings are BUILT different to Multifamily buildings. The ceiling heights are different, the plumbing is OBVIOUSLY different given most have an open or semi open floor plan (This is often the biggest factor in killing possible conversions), and of course there's also fire codes. Office buildings have different fire codes, and as such would have to be completely gutted and renovated from the ground up around existing infrastructure (which wasn't designed for this purpose) in order to incorporate new plumbing for the housing units, lowered ceiling for heating/cooling efficiency (No one wants a $400 heating/cooling bill) and a completely different fire suppression system than it was designed for. Things like this is why Office to Multifamily conversions are so rare. By the time you do it, there's no money to be made and you've probably lost several 10s of millions in the process.
Finally, I'll address your odd claim that real estate would suddenly stop appreciating after the federal reserve is done away with and we stop printing money at the drop of a hat. This is completely false. Real estate is both an appreciating AND depreciating asset, and has been for all of history. The BUILDINGS depreciate since they need maintenance, occasional renovation, updating, etc. etc. as you pointed out. The LAND on the other hand is an appreciating asset. As I said earlier, God isn't making any more land any time soon, and there's a limited amount. Once you build something on it, that land can no longer be used for something else. When you're talking about places with a high population density (NYC for example) that land is even more valuable since there's an absurdly high demand, but essentially no supply.
This is why most nations have a system that allow real estate to simultaneously Appreciate and Depreciate at the same time. It's really two assets used in tandem. Japan, for example, has a rather unique system where they require real estate investors to separate the value of their properties into land and building and they depreciate the value of the building for tax purposes. Obviously this is easier said than done and really complicated due to the speculation involved, hence why they're essentially the only nation that uses this system.
So no, pretty much everything you said was wrong in some way, and if I'm honest, sounded like a mild troll given you're basically copying what those landlord hate subreddits parrot to each other. I won't claim that's what's going on, since you might just be legitimately ignorant on the topic (Not like everyone is well versed in the details of the international commercial real estate industry), but you're basically wrong on every point you made.
I was going to cite the hundreds of YouTube videos that show this, but really, you don't even need to do that. You people have a major disconnection with urban populations. You can drive through any city in America and you can randomly walk by any building over 6 stories and it is guaranteed to have half of its interiors unoccupied. Hell, even the new one world tower that replaced the world trade center is less than 50% occupied. This isn't even debatable. It's right in front of our eyes. Yes, a small percentage of commercial real estate can be and is distressed, but it can still be rented out as storage, yet much of it is still on the market. And you can't cite lawsuits because they are clearly looking for tenants but asking for too much and would sit on it for decades if they have to and they have! You're clearly a shill upvoting your own post. This thread isn't stickied or on the front page in the past 24 hours yet you've gotten all of those upvotes out of nowhere. I and others here will be watching you carefully. By no means is your post dangerous but you're clearly trying to push a narrative that simply doesn't exist. We have plenty of land and plenty out housing, how else do you think Florida, with half the population density of California, has far cheaper real estate? Supply and demand and laws which govern the peoples ability to build. Not scarcity of land.
Uh huh, well I'll be honest I've been confused about why I keep getting upvotes on this post after a literal day of it being on here. I kind of assumed it has to do with OP mentioning this in another post he made today as "Part 1" and people looking his history and coming to this thread. Though it was stickied for several hours as you can see from the literal second top comment of the Mod Catsfive. So that partially answers why you're wrong about that.
But that's besides the point. I can see you're stuck in your own little world, I won't call you a shill since as far as I can tell you don't have any "shillish" behavior or history, but since you essentially are telling me I'm lying while also ignoring the biggest problem in your argument (Zoning, incompatible building design, and fire codes) I can see nothing I say will change your mind.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/giacomotognini/2021/09/10/larry-silverstein-durst-oculus-20-years-and-20-billion-after-911-the-world-trade-center-is-still-a-work-in-progress/?sh=13e0da0361d2
There's an article (Granted it's an MSM article but still proves my point) that proves that pre plandemic, the specific building you're referring to, the One World Trade Center, was 90% leased. That's not ideal for a $20 Billion project, but still a extremely far cry from the picture you're painting. A 40% difference in fact. The same is true for most office buildings. They generally hover around 90-95% occupancy unless they're a single tenant property in which case it's obviously 100%. Even after the plandemic, office is still hovering around 80-85% nationally, meaning it's essentially been recovered. Companies aren't going to give up on office space, it's a tax write off, and a BIG one at that. So they're far more likely to force a hybrid work model and keep their offices at a bare minimum.
The next point I'll address. You claim you can rent out distressed properties for storage space. So I'm assuming you're fine with having all of your worldly possessions stored in a shady run down building that looks like a crack den where you may or may not be mugged or stabbed while checking on whatever you collect and store there? Seems to be what you're suggesting. I don't know about you, btut that's not exactly an prime business model unless you want to be the self storage equivalent of a slum lord and pay stupidly big insurance premiums because of all the crimes and assaults that happen on your property. That's also ignoring some buildings may just be straight up condemned due to things like black mold or structural degradation making them unsafe for ANY use.
Now onto your claim about land and housing. No, no we don't. There's a limited amount of land that we can allocate to urbanization. There's a reason city limits exist. NYC is limited to the NYC city limits, otherwise they'd just keep constantly expanding across the state of New York. There's a reason for this. The biggest one is farm/ranch land and nature preserves. The food we eat has to come from somewhere. If you take over every single bit of land for urbanization, then eventually you lose all of your agricultural capacity as a nation. The second reason, is the existence of suburbs. A city can only grow so far out before it hits the suburbs that have developed around it. At that point the only way to continue growing the city outwards is to seize the private property of citizens against their will "for the greater good". And if you're going to say you support that (which I hope you don't) then you're no better than the literal communist leftists we're fighting.
Florida vs. California actually is an interesting comparison, especially considering Miami is now, as of 2022, the official most unlivable city in the nation because of the cost of living and population density being higher than any other city in the United states sans NYC. That's because, despite only actually having roughly 450K people give or take, Miami is a VERY physically small city. Only 56 square miles if you want a number. LA on the other hand has a little over 3.8 Million people, but they're spread out over 560 square miles because LA is a physically larger city. All of these factors combined actually result in Miami and LA having near identical housing and rental statistics (Prices, percentage of renters, rent rates, etc.) because they have a very similar population density, housing demand, and land scarcity in the cities proper. This also disproves your "Florida housing is cheaper" argument. You have to compare apples to apples. Comparing a nicer house in Tallahassee or Pensacola to San Fran or LA is apples to oranges because the statistics don't compare at all. Compare LA and San Fran to Miami and Orlando/Tampa, and it's a much better comparison and paints a different picture from what you're claiming.
As for your last accusation, by all means, stalk my posts. Not like I care or have anything to hide. I'm pretty blunt and direct in just about everything I say or do on here. I couldn't care less about you living a delusional world where I'm a shill, and every skyscraper in north america is empty because the greedy fat cats don't want to bankrupt themselves by spending the GDP of Japan and Germany combined to convert them all into apartment buildings.
I think its more of a legal international money laundering operation, and our big time developers love it. Where else can you get money where the investor of laundered funds only wishes that their be a return at the end of the day. The investors alternative choice is to keep the money in country and risk having it all confiscated. Lots of Asian money building "see through building" in all major cities, and they do not care.
See my reply to u/Mandigo as to why they were downvoted and are wrong on essentially every point. As for the homeless people, they're not exactly the most "reliable" sources of information given most of them have some form of mental disorder, drug addiction, etc. etc. They'll say basically anything if they think it'll get them something. Obviously that's not true of EVERY homeless person, but there's a reason California cities have the highest homeless population. They literally travel there because California essentially pays them exist and enables their drugs habits and mental disorders.
Trump Adviser Kushner’s Undisclosed Partners Include Goldman and Soros
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-adviser-jared-kushner-didnt-disclose-startup-stake-1493717405
I'm surprised by this as well. Must be Chinese bots on this site or something. Jokes on them, we can see everything because there just aren't that many posters on here.
I'll give the benefit of doubt but my whoever smelt it dealt it sense is ringing off the hook.