Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 04-21-2018, 12:32 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 5,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaper View Post
What do people think happens to all the former residents who can’t afford the gentrified area anymore and are forced to leave? It seems to me that, as a housing issue, it’s not doing any better than just shifting the problem around like three card monte. So I would hesitate to unflinchingly call it a universally “good thing.”
There is not, never has been, and never will be a universally good economy. There will always be losers and the only question is how to help them get back on their feet as soon as possible. The anti-gentrification crowd's way to help these people is to do nothing to stop gentrification (because you can't stop it in a society with a free economy and free movement) but also do nothing to help people, because they've defined pretty much all changes as gentrification.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 04-21-2018 at 12:35 AM.
  #202  
Old 04-21-2018, 07:16 AM
Ruken Ruken is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 6,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaper View Post
What do people think happens to all the former residents who can’t afford the gentrified area anymore and are forced to leave?
When my rent went up too much I moved somewhere cheaper. People move all the time. I'm not owed housing in the neighborhood or even the city of my choosing.

Last edited by Ruken; 04-21-2018 at 07:18 AM.
  #203  
Old 04-21-2018, 03:45 PM
Leaper Leaper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In my own little world...
Posts: 12,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
There is not, never has been, and never will be a universally good economy. There will always be losers and the only question is how to help them get back on their feet as soon as possible. The anti-gentrification crowd's way to help these people is to do nothing to stop gentrification (because you can't stop it in a society with a free economy and free movement) but also do nothing to help people, because they've defined pretty much all changes as gentrification.
Iím not sure I get your point; so what do the pro-gentrifiers do for the people theyíre pushing out? Or is it okay for them not to care, because theyíre making a buck off the people who move in, who are already well off?

As for what the antis are doing, the ones I personally see are pushing for socialism and getting racism out of major institutions. Which, of course, is a pretty titanic struggle that doesnít do much in the here and now, but some, at least, do have a solution of some kind, if kinda pie in the sky.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
When my rent went up too much I moved somewhere cheaper. People move all the time. I'm not owed housing in the neighborhood or even the city of my choosing.
Sure, but as folks point out when discussing jobs and the economy, moving requires money, a place to move to, and other stuff poor people generally donít have. And you have to admit, the thought of being priced out of your home so a bunch of white entrepreneurs can sell artisanal cupcakes to the stay at home trophy wife of a corporate lawyer would kinda rankle. I think thatís where a lot of the emotion comes from.
  #204  
Old 04-21-2018, 04:06 PM
Ruken Ruken is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 6,640
I don't own the place. Hard to get rankled about that.
  #205  
Old 04-23-2018, 06:26 AM
DavidwithanR DavidwithanR is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 3,996
Gentrification is a problem for people who are poor.

But

The problem is not the gentrification

The problem is, people are poor

Let's say you find some magic formula to "fix" the gentrification. They're still poor. ... Now what?

If you've ever been poor, you know that "Stop being poor, just fucking fix it yourself" is something only a moron could believe, and only someone who's proud to be a moron could actually come out and say it.
  #206  
Old 04-23-2018, 06:47 AM
msmith537 msmith537 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 27,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidwithanR View Post
Gentrification is a problem for people who are poor.

But

The problem is not the gentrification

The problem is, people are poor

Let's say you find some magic formula to "fix" the gentrification. They're still poor. ... Now what?

If you've ever been poor, you know that "Stop being poor, just fucking fix it yourself" is something only a moron could believe, and only someone who's proud to be a moron could actually come out and say it.
It's actually a bit more complex than that. In many ways, the problem that "fixes" poor is gentrification. Let's say you have a poor community. Some tech company decides to make their headquarters there. What happens? It brings in jobs, tax revenue business for local restaurants, stores and shops. But because of basic supply and demand, it also increases real estate prices. It may encourage new real estate development or new businesses that may or may not fit with the historic character of the community (assuming it had any).

Good news if you own your home or a local small business. Not so good if you rent or if your small business is displaced by some hipster coffee shop or chain restaurant.
  #207  
Old 04-23-2018, 02:02 PM
Nadnerb Nadnerb is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Undisclosed location
Posts: 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by msmith537 View Post
It's actually a bit more complex than that. In many ways, the problem that "fixes" poor is gentrification. Let's say you have a poor community. Some tech company decides to make their headquarters there. What happens? It brings in jobs, tax revenue business for local restaurants, stores and shops. But because of basic supply and demand, it also increases real estate prices. It may encourage new real estate development or new businesses that may or may not fit with the historic character of the community (assuming it had any).

Good news if you own your home or a local small business. Not so good if you rent or if your small business is displaced by some hipster coffee shop or chain restaurant.
How I look at is, if that a high tech company wants to set up shop somewhere, then it should do so in one of those business parks out in the suburbs. Why do it in some inner city neighborhood?

And as I explained earlier, gentrification does have negative consequences, especially towards old fashioned folks. I bet you in a number of years the inner cities will no longer be affordable for the old fashioned and working class, and they will all be heading out to Small Town USA, thus outside of any major urban area. Just take a look at Brooklyn, it used to be the quintessential locale for working class Italian Americans, but now the borough has been taken over by elitist hipsters, and the former can no longer afford it.
  #208  
Old 04-23-2018, 02:24 PM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark Telemark is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Again, Titletown
Posts: 21,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nadnerb View Post
How I look at is, if that a high tech company wants to set up shop somewhere, then it should do so in one of those business parks out in the suburbs. Why do it in some inner city neighborhood?
Because there's lots of infrastructure already in place. Because that's where modern workers want to live. Because it's much greener to work in a city than out in the burbs where everyone has to drive. Because incubators work well, and it's important to have other tech companies in close distance. Because it adds jobs where they are needed. Because it adds vitality to neighborhoods. Because it's easier to attract workers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nadnerb View Post
And as I explained earlier, gentrification does have negative consequences, especially towards old fashioned folks.
Lots of things we call progress have negative consequences on old fashioned folks. I believe that there are things we can do to cushion the blow; the poor are the least prepared to deal with major disruption and it costs them more. My city is looking at a real estate transfer fee to help those impacted by rising prices. But change and constant revitalization is essential to a vibrant social fabric.
  #209  
Old 04-23-2018, 02:52 PM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 18,770
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post
But change and constant revitalization is essential to a vibrant social fabric.
I don’t think Nadnerb wants a “vibrant social fabric”; garnering from his posts, his ideal seems to be something akin to a version of New York City presented in Taxi Driver or The Duece, complete with economic stagnation, socioeconomic stratification, decaying cheap construction, and rampant prostitution, but with better trash pickup and some kind of government subsidy to keep the A&P from closing shop due to constant theft and vandalism. We should all remain stuck in 1967 because it was the epitome of Western civilization and everything since has been vacuous enrichment and moral turpitude compared to the “real” lower middle class lifestyle that everyone should aspire to live.

Stranger

Last edited by Stranger On A Train; 04-23-2018 at 02:52 PM.
  #210  
Old 04-23-2018, 02:57 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
I don’t think Nadnerb wants a “vibrant social fabric”; garnering from his posts, his ideal seems to be something akin to a version of New York City presented in Taxi Driver or The Duece....
I disagree -- both those movies had a lot of white people in them. That's bad. Travis Bickle should have lived in Connecticut, where he belonged.

Last edited by Ravenman; 04-23-2018 at 02:58 PM.
  #211  
Old 04-25-2018, 09:04 AM
BwanaBob's Avatar
BwanaBob BwanaBob is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Maryland
Posts: 3,946
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nadnerb View Post
How I look at is, if that a high tech company wants to set up shop somewhere, then it should do so in one of those business parks out in the suburbs. Why do it in some inner city neighborhood?

And as I explained earlier, gentrification does have negative consequences, especially towards old fashioned folks. I bet you in a number of years the inner cities will no longer be affordable for the old fashioned and working class, and they will all be heading out to Small Town USA, thus outside of any major urban area. Just take a look at Brooklyn, it used to be the quintessential locale for working class Italian Americans, but now the borough has been taken over by elitist hipsters, and the former can no longer afford it.
You've conveniently removed the middle period between your working class haven and hipster heaven when much of the area became a toilet that no one but the most unfortunate, poor, or drug-addled would stay in. Why did that happen? New tenants with no sense of civic responsibility who wouldn't lift a finger to improve the area, or indeed, made it worse by indifference.

I lived there until 1967. Thank god we left. My street became a nightmare of crime and drugs. By 1971 it was already a complete horror. But slowly it got better. Why? Because some brave souls took the risk to buy in and rehabilitate. Should the people that brought that area to its knees be allowed to benefit from this transformation? Hell no. I probably couldn't afford to live there now. And I'm damn glad to see that change happen.
__________________
Go wherever you can be
And live for the day
It's only wear and tear
-IQ
  #212  
Old 04-25-2018, 10:22 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by BwanaBob View Post
I lived there until 1967. Thank god we left. My street became a nightmare of crime and drugs. By 1971 it was already a complete horror. But slowly it got better. Why? Because some brave souls took the risk to buy in and rehabilitate. Should the people that brought that area to its knees be allowed to benefit from this transformation? Hell no. I probably couldn't afford to live there now. And I'm damn glad to see that change happen.
It seems like he is FOR rehabilitation, but not by white people moving in. Someone, not rich white hipster people, should pay to rehabilitate these areas for the-already living-there inhabitants. Thereby making the place great again, without pesky white people being there increasing the value of the homes and businesses.
  #213  
Old 05-01-2018, 12:50 AM
Leaper Leaper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In my own little world...
Posts: 12,497
Another perspective on the issue that might be more nuanced. At the least, it seems relatively popular, which may indicate the level of agreement.

One thing that occurred to me about this issue is that a lot of talk is devoted to how “neighborhoods” and “communities” are affected either positively or negatively. But there might be some crosstalk here, where some people think of those terms in terms of the physical location, while others concentrate more on the people who make them up.
  #214  
Old 05-01-2018, 10:14 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaper View Post
Another perspective on the issue that might be more nuanced. At the least, it seems relatively popular, which may indicate the level of agreement.

One thing that occurred to me about this issue is that a lot of talk is devoted to how ďneighborhoodsĒ and ďcommunitiesĒ are affected either positively or negatively. But there might be some crosstalk here, where some people think of those terms in terms of the physical location, while others concentrate more on the people who make them up.
That was a good perspective. But nobody has yet showed a way get improve a neighborhood without "white people" money coming in and changing the landscape.
  #215  
Old 05-03-2018, 01:45 AM
Leaper Leaper is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In my own little world...
Posts: 12,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
That was a good perspective. But nobody has yet showed a way get improve a neighborhood without "white people" money coming in and changing the landscape.
Again, it sort of depends what part of “the neighborhood” you’re talking about: the physical area, or the people living in that area pre-gentrification.

And I assume the people who come across my friend of friend social media would say the answer to your question would be socialism and socialist policy and/or major direct address of institutionalized racism. But I admit that starts opening even more cans of worms.

Last edited by Leaper; 05-03-2018 at 01:48 AM.
  #216  
Old 05-03-2018, 08:06 AM
Johnny Bravo's Avatar
Johnny Bravo Johnny Bravo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Swamp
Posts: 7,560
Hard socialism or hard fascism is probably the only way to do it, since the idea of a neighborhood maintaining a "pure" racial or sociopolitical grouping is ideological fantasy. Either you dump endless amounts of money into incentivizing people to stick around, or you enact unconstitutional laws preventing 'undesirables' from living in the area.

Directly addressing institutional racism is not going to prevent every single family in a neighborhood from selling their home when its market value skyrockets. It's not going to prevent hipsters from opening cool little coffee shops in areas that are suddenly flourishing. It may slow the process but it's not going to stop it.

The best case scenario, imo, is to create policies which do not force out people who do not want to be forced out. That means sensible laws that help to mitigate sudden increases in cost of living. Basic liberal ideas like a living minimum wage, sensible rent control, robust job training opportunities, free college, and so on. But none of that is going to keep the 'wrong' people out of an historically [pick your ethnic group] neighborhood.

Last edited by Johnny Bravo; 05-03-2018 at 08:08 AM.
  #217  
Old 05-03-2018, 08:26 AM
Jasmine Jasmine is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Why is "pricing out long time residents" bad?
You actually have to ask this question?

Many people in these neighborhoods only have homes or apartments because, by being in a financially depressed and generally undesirable area, the costs are significantly lower than they would otherwise be.

Suddenly, Gentrification rears its ugly head. As affluent interests begin acquiring property and rebuilding, costs and taxes soar. The long time residents, many of whom cannot afford to live just about anywhere else, are priced out of their own homes. This is a proven fact because it's happened over and over again.

It's yet another example of the many ways the rich and powerful exploit the poor. In other words, business as usual.
__________________
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge."
--Daniel J Boorstin
  #218  
Old 05-03-2018, 08:29 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasmine View Post
You actually have to ask this question?

Many people in these neighborhoods only have homes or apartments because, by being in a financially depressed and generally undesirable area, the costs are significantly lower than they would otherwise be.

Suddenly, Gentrification rears its ugly head. As affluent interests begin acquiring property and rebuilding, costs and taxes soar. The long time residents, many of whom cannot afford to live just about anywhere else, are priced out of their own homes. This is a proven fact because it's happened over and over again.

It's yet another example of the many ways the rich and powerful exploit the poor. In other words, business as usual.
I don't understand how you can be priced out of your own home? If the value of your home rises so much that the taxes become too high to pay, then when you sell your home you are making a lot of money. Money to be used to move to an area where you can afford the homes there. I'd be damn happy if my home value rose so much that I couldn't afford the taxes anymore.
  #219  
Old 05-03-2018, 12:06 PM
Bruce Wayne Bruce Wayne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 781
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasmine View Post
This is a proven fact because it's happened over and over again.
Have any cites for that? If your taxes go up, your home value would as well. It might be a problem if you donít want to move, but when you do move youíre not walking away empty handed.
  #220  
Old 05-03-2018, 01:59 PM
doreen doreen is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Woodhaven,Queens, NY
Posts: 5,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
I don't understand how you can be priced out of your own home? If the value of your home rises so much that the taxes become too high to pay, then when you sell your home you are making a lot of money. Money to be used to move to an area where you can afford the homes there. I'd be damn happy if my home value rose so much that I couldn't afford the taxes anymore.
Two different meanings for "your own home". One is simply "where you live" , and the other is a "house or apartment that you own" When someone says "people will be priced out of their own homes", they aren't generally talking about people being priced out of the house/apartment they own. Some people might not be able to afford higher taxes, but the issue really is that the 2 BR apartment in Bed-Stuy that used to rent for $1200 is now occupied by 4 people paying $800 each.
  #221  
Old 05-03-2018, 02:35 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by doreen View Post
Two different meanings for "your own home". One is simply "where you live" , and the other is a "house or apartment that you own" When someone says "people will be priced out of their own homes", they aren't generally talking about people being priced out of the house/apartment they own. Some people might not be able to afford higher taxes, but the issue really is that the 2 BR apartment in Bed-Stuy that used to rent for $1200 is now occupied by 4 people paying $800 each.
I would think that saying "people will be priced out of their apartments" would be a more descriptive sentence, but whatever.

So, in order to keep property values down, so that rents don't increase to the point where people that live in the apartments can no longer afford to rent them, we should do X. Any idea what "X" is?
  #222  
Old 05-03-2018, 03:48 PM
zimaane zimaane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: washington, dc
Posts: 669
Quote:
So, in order to keep property values down, so that rents don't increase to the point where people that live in the apartments can no longer afford to rent them, we should do X. Any idea what "X" is?
One possibility is to limit rent increases from year to year for CURRENT residents. This protects lower income households who lived there because it was cheap back in the day, and don't want to move out, but allows property owners to charge market rates to newcomers, who can afford it.

The main disadvantage to this is that people cheat: renters will sublet their below market apts to newcomers, and landlords will skimp on maintainence to force lower rent residents out.

Another disadvantage is that it discourages home developers from taking a chance on marginal neighborhoods, since their potential gains are limited.

But maybe it's better than doing nothing.
  #223  
Old 05-03-2018, 06:31 PM
Ruken Ruken is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 6,640
X = Make it easier to build more housing. That might include quicker permitting, looser zoning, etc.
  #224  
Old 05-04-2018, 08:38 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
X = Make it easier to build more housing. That might include quicker permitting, looser zoning, etc.
Is is hard now, due to onerous permitting processes or zoning regulations, to build more housing in areas that are targets for gentrification?
  #225  
Old 05-05-2018, 12:28 PM
Nadnerb Nadnerb is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Undisclosed location
Posts: 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post
Because there's lots of infrastructure already in place. Because that's where modern workers want to live. Because it's much greener to work in a city than out in the burbs where everyone has to drive. Because incubators work well, and it's important to have other tech companies in close distance. Because it adds jobs where they are needed. Because it adds vitality to neighborhoods. Because it's easier to attract workers.


Lots of things we call progress have negative consequences on old fashioned folks. I believe that there are things we can do to cushion the blow; the poor are the least prepared to deal with major disruption and it costs them more. My city is looking at a real estate transfer fee to help those impacted by rising prices. But change and constant revitalization is essential to a vibrant social fabric.
If you think gentrification gives us a vibrant social fabric, then you are sorely mistaken. Just take a look at any gentrified neighborhood. The dominant residents are part of an elitist professional class, that’s almost exclusively white. Only a very small percentage of non-whites, if any at all, would be part of that cohort. If want a more vibrant social fabric, then go move to a less costly suburb.

Last edited by Nadnerb; 05-05-2018 at 12:28 PM.
  #226  
Old 05-05-2018, 12:50 PM
Nadnerb Nadnerb is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Undisclosed location
Posts: 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by BwanaBob View Post
You've conveniently removed the middle period between your working class haven and hipster heaven when much of the area became a toilet that no one but the most unfortunate, poor, or drug-addled would stay in. Why did that happen? New tenants with no sense of civic responsibility who wouldn't lift a finger to improve the area, or indeed, made it worse by indifference.

I lived there until 1967. Thank god we left. My street became a nightmare of crime and drugs. By 1971 it was already a complete horror. But slowly it got better. Why? Because some brave souls took the risk to buy in and rehabilitate. Should the people that brought that area to its knees be allowed to benefit from this transformation? Hell no. I probably couldn't afford to live there now. And I'm damn glad to see that change happen.
The point you are failing to realize is that, a lot of the working class folks who lived in Brooklyn, actually lived in stable neighborhoods, that were also affordable. But when the gentrifiers took over they became super expensive neighborhoods dominated by elitist hipsters, and in order to live in those neighborhoods you have to have a super high income in order to break even there. A lot of former Brooklynites could be living in rural Pennsylvania or Connecticut by now because their native Brooklyn is no longer affordable.
  #227  
Old 05-07-2018, 12:17 PM
zimaane zimaane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: washington, dc
Posts: 669
Quote:
If you think gentrification gives us a vibrant social fabric, then you are sorely mistaken. Just take a look at any gentrified neighborhood. The dominant residents are part of an elitist professional class, that’s almost exclusively white. Only a very small percentage of non-whites, if any at all, would be part of that cohort. If want a more vibrant social fabric, then go move to a less costly suburb.
Can you point out a specific example of a gentrified neighborhood that is now almost exclusively white?
  #228  
Old 05-07-2018, 12:36 PM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark Telemark is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Again, Titletown
Posts: 21,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nadnerb View Post
If you think gentrification gives us a vibrant social fabric, then you are sorely mistaken. Just take a look at any gentrified neighborhood. The dominant residents are part of an elitist professional class, thatís almost exclusively white. Only a very small percentage of non-whites, if any at all, would be part of that cohort. If want a more vibrant social fabric, then go move to a less costly suburb.
I'll ask my Hispanic, Black, Indian, and White neighbors what they think about your ideas. Many may ask to subscribe to your newsletter.
  #229  
Old 05-07-2018, 02:25 PM
Nadnerb Nadnerb is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Undisclosed location
Posts: 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimaane View Post
Can you point out a specific example of a gentrified neighborhood that is now almost exclusively white?
Just take a look at what happened with some Philadelphia neighborhoods with this reference:

https://billypenn.com/2016/05/19/the...ion-in-philly/

And hereís what happened to a Washington, DC neighborhood:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.382afe5730a9
  #230  
Old 05-07-2018, 02:46 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nadnerb View Post
Just take a look at what happened with some Philadelphia neighborhoods with this reference:

https://billypenn.com/2016/05/19/the...ion-in-philly/

And hereís what happened to a Washington, DC neighborhood:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.382afe5730a9
The article in the Washington Post is a good one. The comments are good as well. A lot of them sum up to "If I'm a young, white person who wants to live in DC, and can only afford to move to a traditionally black neighborhood, are you telling me I'm not allowed?"
  #231  
Old 05-07-2018, 02:53 PM
Johnny Bravo's Avatar
Johnny Bravo Johnny Bravo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Swamp
Posts: 7,560
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
T"If I'm a young, white person who wants to live in DC, and can only afford to move to a traditionally black neighborhood, are you telling me I'm not allowed?"
I would like the OP to answer this question - along with many other questions in this thread - with more than a link or a reference to previous links.
  #232  
Old 05-07-2018, 02:59 PM
Nadnerb Nadnerb is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Undisclosed location
Posts: 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
The article in the Washington Post is a good one. The comments are good as well. A lot of them sum up to "If I'm a young, white person who wants to live in DC, and can only afford to move to a traditionally black neighborhood, are you telling me I'm not allowed?"
Well look at it like this. The white person would be allowed initially, but once itís allowed, it just might be ready to gentrify the neighborhood, and that person could care less if any blacks get priced out. When a neighborhood is gentrified, it is practically colonized.
  #233  
Old 05-07-2018, 03:03 PM
Johnny Bravo's Avatar
Johnny Bravo Johnny Bravo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Swamp
Posts: 7,560
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nadnerb View Post
The white person would be allowed initially, but once it’s allowed, it just might be ready to gentrify the neighborhood, and that person could care less if any blacks get priced out.
Who is deciding whether the white person is "allowed" or not "allowed" to move into a given area? Who decides which specific areas fall under the "no white people allowed" policy? And who, exactly, is enforcing the "allowed" bit? The city? The state? The federal government?

Last edited by Johnny Bravo; 05-07-2018 at 03:04 PM.
  #234  
Old 05-07-2018, 04:53 PM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark Telemark is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Again, Titletown
Posts: 21,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nadnerb View Post
Well look at it like this. The white person would be allowed initially, but once itís allowed, it just might be ready to gentrify the neighborhood, and that person could care less if any blacks get priced out. When a neighborhood is gentrified, it is practically colonized.
And how do you suggest we address this issue? Perhaps deed restrictions requiring the owners not to sell to anyone of the White race?
  #235  
Old 05-07-2018, 04:55 PM
Nadnerb Nadnerb is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Undisclosed location
Posts: 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post
And how do you suggest we address this issue? Perhaps deed restrictions requiring the owners not to sell to anyone of the White race?
Read the article from the Washington Post.
  #236  
Old 05-07-2018, 05:34 PM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark Telemark is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Again, Titletown
Posts: 21,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nadnerb View Post
Read the article from the Washington Post.
The only suggestion in the article is about fostering communication and mingling between the two populations. It says nothing about preventing Whites from moving in.

I'm asking specifically about that - what do you propose to allow traditionally Black (or Latino or Asian) neighborhoods to exclude outsiders from buying housing? Or if you don't support any programs like that, what do you propose?
  #237  
Old 05-07-2018, 05:53 PM
zimaane zimaane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: washington, dc
Posts: 669
Quote:
And hereís what happened to a Washington, DC neighborhood:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.382afe5730a9
The Shaw neighborhood is now "30 percent black". It doesn't say, but it seems reasonable to think that there are some Latinos and Asians there, so it is hardly "predominantly white".
  #238  
Old 05-07-2018, 05:56 PM
zimaane zimaane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: washington, dc
Posts: 669
Quote:
Just take a look at what happened with some Philadelphia neighborhoods with this reference:

https://billypenn.com/2016/05/19/the...ion-in-philly/
This article says that in Philadelphia, what you are describing basically does not happen. High income whites tend to move in to low-income white neighborhoods, not black neighborhoods.
  #239  
Old 05-08-2018, 08:32 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nadnerb View Post
Read the article from the Washington Post.
The article from the Washington Post has the ideas from Nadnerb on how to prevent gentrification or what to tell young, white people when they want to move into neighborhoods that they can afford?
  #240  
Old 05-11-2018, 04:56 PM
Nadnerb Nadnerb is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Undisclosed location
Posts: 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasmine View Post
You actually have to ask this question?

Many people in these neighborhoods only have homes or apartments because, by being in a financially depressed and generally undesirable area, the costs are significantly lower than they would otherwise be.

Suddenly, Gentrification rears its ugly head. As affluent interests begin acquiring property and rebuilding, costs and taxes soar. The long time residents, many of whom cannot afford to live just about anywhere else, are priced out of their own homes. This is a proven fact because it's happened over and over again.

It's yet another example of the many ways the rich and powerful exploit the poor. In other words, business as usual.
Finally, a real argument on this thread. Itís a fact, that gentrification has negative consequences. And if you own a home in a gentrified neighborhood, you could get screwed as well. The property taxes could get jacked up, and it will reach the point where itís no longer affordable for the old timers of the neighborhood.
  #241  
Old 05-11-2018, 05:04 PM
Nadnerb Nadnerb is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Undisclosed location
Posts: 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
The article from the Washington Post has the ideas from Nadnerb on how to prevent gentrification or what to tell young, white people when they want to move into neighborhoods that they can afford?
Itís more so if blacks stay, then they have to accept unfair compromises from white newcomers. A lot of the black owned businesses have closed, and have been replaced by white businesses. And the white newcomers get to dominate the Shaw neighborhood and not the blacks. And the neighborhood went from 70 percent black in 1970 to 30 percent black in 2010. Go figure.
  #242  
Old 05-11-2018, 08:11 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 51,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nadnerb View Post
Well look at it like this. The white person would be allowed initially, but once itís allowed, it just might be ready to gentrify the neighborhood, and that person could care less if any blacks get priced out. When a neighborhood is gentrified, it is practically colonized.
We have a word for that, and it ain't "gentrification".
  #243  
Old 05-11-2018, 08:44 PM
D'Anconia D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nadnerb View Post
A lot of the black owned businesses have closed, and have been replaced by white businesses.
What are "black businesses" and "white businesses"? Aren't they just businesses?
  #244  
Old 05-11-2018, 08:46 PM
Nadnerb Nadnerb is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Undisclosed location
Posts: 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
What are "black businesses" and "white businesses"? Aren't they just businesses?
The former is owned by blacks, and the latter is owned by whites.
  #245  
Old 05-11-2018, 08:48 PM
D'Anconia D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nadnerb View Post
The former is owned by blacks, and the latter is owned by whites.
They're just businesses. What difference could it possibly make who owns them?
  #246  
Old 05-12-2018, 12:26 AM
bump bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 16,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nadnerb View Post
Well look at it like this. The white person would be allowed initially, but once itís allowed, it just might be ready to gentrify the neighborhood, and that person could care less if any blacks get priced out. When a neighborhood is gentrified, it is practically colonized.
I think your definition of gentrification is kind of skewed. You're conflating race and socioeconomic status and attributing a whole lot of racial baggage to something that's almost exclusively an economic phenomenon.

Look at it this way- if a bunch of black entrepreneurs or say... a city government came in and made a desperately poor neighborhood very attractive to middle class black people (but not to white people for whatever reason), that would do ALL the things that gentrification does- raise rents, drive out a lot of businesses that cater to the previous poor crowd, the ones who remain raise prices.

As you can imagine, this would make life hard on the poor people who lived there before for all the same reasons. The only difference would be in the magnitude and in the race of the gentrifiers. And I don't even know if the magnitude would really matter much, if the original residents were poor enough; a 10% increase in prices would be equally unsupportable as a 50% increase in that case.

It doesn't even have to be anything planned; let's say (this is a hypothetical) that a really poor area gets really lucky and the planets align and the local schools end up with super-awesome principals, teachers and administrators, and the educational attainment of the area's schools reaches par with the best suburban white schools.

THAT alone will drive up rents, due to the people wanting to move their to have their children better educated, and being willing to pay. And with that extra money, comes the higher rent, the higher prices, and all the ills of gentrification.
  #247  
Old 05-12-2018, 01:42 AM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia Guinastasia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 51,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nadnerb View Post
The former is owned by blacks, and the latter is owned by whites.
So? Are you automatically equating "blacks" with "poor" and "whites" with "rich"? I would hope not.
  #248  
Old 05-15-2018, 12:04 PM
zimaane zimaane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: washington, dc
Posts: 669
Quote:
So? Are you automatically equating "blacks" with "poor" and "whites" with "rich"? I would hope not.
The OP seems unaware of the existence of middle class blacks or poor whites

Last edited by Bone; 05-15-2018 at 01:07 PM. Reason: Fixed quote tag
  #249  
Old 05-15-2018, 02:06 PM
rat avatar's Avatar
rat avatar rat avatar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 5,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimaane View Post
This article says that in Philadelphia, what you are describing basically does not happen. High income whites tend to move in to low-income white neighborhoods, not black neighborhoods.
Sure they do, it does depend on how NIMBY the zoning laws are.

Seattle has a huge problem with displacement in general, but historically African American neighborhoods are severely impacted.

http://www.seattlemag.com/article/ch...ican-community

Mostly because that group of citizens tends to have less pull with the zoning board and city council. So their SFH neighborhoods get rezoned to multi-use or designated as urban villages when predominately white middle class neighborhoods (which were often sold with deeds that forbid non-white ownership) are protected as SFH areas.

Gentrification is driven by profit motives and not building communities.

Last edited by rat avatar; 05-15-2018 at 02:07 PM.
  #250  
Old 05-19-2018, 07:16 PM
Nadnerb Nadnerb is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Undisclosed location
Posts: 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by rat avatar View Post
Sure they do, it does depend on how NIMBY the zoning laws are.

Seattle has a huge problem with displacement in general, but historically African American neighborhoods are severely impacted.

http://www.seattlemag.com/article/ch...ican-community

Mostly because that group of citizens tends to have less pull with the zoning board and city council. So their SFH neighborhoods get rezoned to multi-use or designated as urban villages when predominately white middle class neighborhoods (which were often sold with deeds that forbid non-white ownership) are protected as SFH areas.

Gentrification is driven by profit motives and not building communities.
You sir have made a real argument.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:15 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017