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.
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.
I’m not sure I get your point; so what do the pro-gentrifiers do for the people they’re pushing out? Or is it okay for them not to care, because they’re 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 doesn’t do much in the here and now, but some, at least, do have a solution of some kind, if kinda pie in the sky.
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 don’t 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 that’s where a lot of the emotion comes from.
I don’t own the place. Hard to get rankled about that.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Have any cites for that? If your taxes go up, your home value would as well. It might be a problem if you don’t want to move, but when you do move you’re not walking away empty handed.
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.