You're incorrect.

Then why is it one of the "stupidest takes i've ever seen?" Which part of it was stupid?

Why? You think wealthy people should be able to pay their way out of jail?

The NIMBYism is a hard barrier in my eyes. There have been dozens of proposals for even private development that have been shot down for being too close to this, or being seen from that.

So let's fund more public/affordable housing. Let's build the housing and when it gets proposed actually build it instead going "well that apartment would be near a really pretty park...so we should just not build it." The NIMBYism in NYC from landlords that also deny section 8 is pathetic.

Sure, and I accept that under normal circumstances they can refuse a lot of them, I would hope they do so in a good faith way (ie. Denying them when there is another applicant or an actual issue rather than just going "eh no good applicants" and leaving a space vacant). I want it improved, but I don't think landlords should just get to go completely ignore it.

What a landlord would like to be true and what their legal obligation is are two very different things. Just because a landlord failed to fully consider the marker they were in does not mean they get a free pass to break the law and illegally discriminate against voucher tenants.

I agree. Let's give them a few billion more dollars a year in funding. You would agree with giving section 8 a huge federal expansion? I think programs like this are crippled by funding and old laws.

Then lobby for more funding for it. The people that want things like section 8 are not the same people who want it in its current state.

I mean considering it has existed in one form or another since the 1970s I'd sure hope so.

It's called a legal obligation. I know landlords only like using that word when it comes to things that benefit them, but in some cases renters do in fact have rights, and you are in fact legally obligated to abide by them. If you get 400 applicants and decide to take someone with higher income that's one thing. If you do what a lot of landlords do and keep properties posted until they find someone with a preset income threshold and refuse to even consider voucher tenants? Scum of the earth.

Perhaps North Carolina lets landlords that can't handle it simply fail instead of letting them discriminate against applicants. No one has a right to a successful business, you have to work for it. If you want a successful NYC real estate business guess what; you're going to work for it.

NYC landlords knew the market they were getting into when they bought the property. If landlords don't like operating in a large complex market perhaps they shouldn't?

Discrimination is the right word, small landlords just don't want to hear it. If you don't have the ability to handle this, maybe you just shouldn't be a landlord? There is no legal guarantee that every citizen can be a landlord, maybe some of the small ones just aren't cut out for it? Maybe they should try a different job if they can't run it. If a restaurant was failing to pay their employees on time in NYC no one would say "oh it's tough for restaurateurs out there give them a break." We'd say "You knew how tough the NYC market was before you invested in it. If you can't handle that then get out."