U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-30-2013, 11:33 AM
 
Location: Atlanta
284 posts, read 473,695 times
Reputation: 255

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007 View Post
I can understand their fear and feel bad for them. They cannot afford to have their rents raised. The few who aren't elderly cannot afford to have their taxes increased. Most do want to see improvements, but they want to be around for the improvements and so that is where the fear comes in.

My family makes enough money that we do not have anything to fear but others, single parents, people who own but aren't considered "elderly" enough for property tax breaks, really do.

Gentrification is a real threat to people who want to remain in their neighborhoods and I truly understand that once these improvements are made, the poor people will be forced out. It has happened in Atlanta before and happens all over the country so it is a real threat to them.
Very well stated. As an Atlanta native, I remember the remnants of the old Lightning slum (where GWCC/Dome is now), and the constant displacement of those in public housing to areas with fewer and fewer amenities/access. I moved to SW ATL from midtown in 2007 and while Cascade Heights isn't urban pioneering, there are plenty of older/low income families south of me and close by the beltline with the same concerns.

While there are programs in place in SW ATL to help prevent flipping/displacement, to the older residents who have been pushed around ATL for 40+ years its hard for them to believe it won't happen again. I know it seems crazy to be opposed to a park or aesthetic improvement, but when you have lived most of your life in an area whose schools, public safety, job opportunities, and access to non-convenience store groceries have been largely underserved, I understand how some folks may be apprehensive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-30-2013, 11:41 AM
 
29,263 posts, read 26,193,943 times
Reputation: 10218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mal93 View Post
Very well stated. As an Atlanta native, I remember the remnants of the old Lightning slum (where GWCC/Dome is now), and the constant displacement of those in public housing to areas with fewer and fewer amenities/access. I moved to SW ATL from midtown in 2007 and while Cascade Heights isn't urban pioneering, there are plenty of older/low income families south of me and close by the beltline with the same concerns.
Isn't the Beltline under a mandate to provide affordable housing? As I recall, that was one of the major conditions of it being approved.

Quote:
I know it seems crazy to be opposed to a park or aesthetic improvement, but when you have lived most of your life in an area whose schools, public safety, job opportunities, and access to non-convenience store groceries have been largely underserved, I understand how some folks may be apprehensive.
Seems like the city council could condition the park on the developer providing additional funding for affordable housing or rent subsidies. If the developer really wants this park and plans on investing millions in it, that shouldn't be too much of an additional burden.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2013, 05:34 PM
 
4,433 posts, read 4,398,973 times
Reputation: 3495
I just think it bad logic to say let keep the area depress.

No one wants to live in the hood, I bet the opposition wants better of the neighborhood but they're contradicting themselves. Fearing improving a neighborhood is sad. That's saying let keep the area bad so can I live in the hood... sad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2013, 06:35 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
284 posts, read 473,695 times
Reputation: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by arjay57 View Post
Isn't the Beltline under a mandate to provide affordable housing? As I recall, that was one of the major conditions of it being approved.



Seems like the city council could condition the park on the developer providing additional funding for affordable housing or rent subsidies. If the developer really wants this park and plans on investing millions in it, that shouldn't be too much of an additional burden.
Yes, as I mentioned there are several advocacy groups (ALTC & Anne E Casey Foundation, plus local groups) working with the Beltline to build affordable housing and help prevent displacement/flipping. I don't know how many objectives are set in stone, but here is a list of ideas discussed at one point: http://beltline.objectwareinc.com/Li...=1822&mid=3443

However there is still skepticism from those who may not be informed of the plans or who have failed to see much improvement that benefits their situation. plus it is unclear what protections there are for Beltline-adjacent communities not necessarily covered by Beltline programs. I agree that removing blighted and abandoned properties is a win, but a quick glance at the "Ruined Decatur" blog gives you an idea of how some may fear they will be simply priced out of their neighborhoods no matter what is promised in outreach meetings, or how the perception of adding a park doesn't address the kiddie gang issues/school quality/lack of shopping/food options.

typical Catch-22...there are empty buildings awaiting businesses all along the SW corridor, but without the income demographics, they won't build; can't achieve the income level until more residents with higher incomes move in; then gentrification fears take hold. I was really disappointed when Paul Luna decided to not open a place in Capitol View (around the same time Perkerson Park underwent improvements) but it is what it is for now (...waiting for the Ft Mac thing to kick in now...).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2013, 07:21 PM
 
29,263 posts, read 26,193,943 times
Reputation: 10218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mal93 View Post
I was really disappointed when Paul Luna decided to not open a place in Capitol View (around the same time Perkerson Park underwent improvements) but it is what it is for now (...waiting for the Ft Mac thing to kick in now...).
Bummer. I had not heard anything further on this and assumed it was still in the works. Maybe it will happen yet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2013, 07:48 PM
 
29,735 posts, read 27,153,434 times
Reputation: 18269
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiatldal View Post
I just think it bad logic to say let keep the area depress.

No one wants to live in the hood, I bet the opposition wants better of the neighborhood but they're contradicting themselves. Fearing improving a neighborhood is sad. That's saying let keep the area bad so can I live in the hood... sad.
Neighborhood improvement can take many forms and it doesn't have to mean gentrification, and opposing such developments doesn't equate to a desire to keep the area depressed. I'm sure many of these folks aren't opposed to infrastructure investments such as resurfacing roads, repairing sidewalks, street lighting, etc. I'm also sure they'd like to see more everyday amenities come to their neighborhoods as well. It's just sad that they can't get a decent amount of any of it unless some new, swanky residential development gets built and Creative Loafing declares the neighborhood to be the new "it" place, despite the fact there are many tax-paying, law-abiding homeowners there who deserve just a little more than what they are getting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2013, 08:00 PM
 
13,458 posts, read 21,939,367 times
Reputation: 4503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77 View Post
Neighborhood improvement can take many forms and it doesn't have to mean gentrification, and opposing such developments doesn't equate to a desire to keep the area depressed. I'm sure many of these folks aren't opposed to infrastructure investments such as resurfacing roads, repairing sidewalks, street lighting, etc. I'm also sure they'd like to see more everyday amenities come to their neighborhoods as well. It's just sad that they can't get a decent amount of any of it unless some new, swanky residential development gets built and Creative Loafing declares the neighborhood to be the new "it" place, despite the fact there are many tax-paying, law-abiding homeowners there who deserve just a little more than what they are getting.

Amen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2013, 10:06 PM
 
Location: atlanta
4,181 posts, read 4,848,652 times
Reputation: 3535
we need a new law, whether it's in the city of atlanta or in the state, that if you've lived in the same place for at least 10 years, you get a property tax 'cap' so that you can't get charged any higher than you have in the past 10 years adjusted for inflation.

when it comes to mims park, the sooner this happens, the better!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2013, 12:33 AM
 
13,458 posts, read 21,939,367 times
Reputation: 4503
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryantm3 View Post
we need a new law, whether it's in the city of atlanta or in the state, that if you've lived in the same place for at least 10 years, you get a property tax 'cap' so that you can't get charged any higher than you have in the past 10 years adjusted for inflation.

when it comes to mims park, the sooner this happens, the better!

I like this. Except that I would make the law only apply to those with lower, working-class, and lower-middle incomes--and some with middle-level incomes (depending on the area).


The details and how it was written would be the key. Looking at how they write caps/exemptions for the elderly would be a good (and wise) start.

And--it only should kick in areas with rapidly increasing tax rates or in areas with a strong potential to rapidly increase.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2013, 06:32 AM
 
Location: Ono Island, Orange Beach, AL
10,006 posts, read 9,285,783 times
Reputation: 5625
Quote:
Originally Posted by aries4118 View Post
I like this. Except that I would make the law only apply to those with lower, working-class, and lower-middle incomes--and some with middle-level incomes (depending on the area).


The details and how it was written would be the key. Looking at how they write caps/exemptions for the elderly would be a good (and wise) start.

And--it only should kick in areas with rapidly increasing tax rates or in areas with a strong potential to rapidly increase.
Totally agree, but I would apply some cap to the higher income earners as well, many of whom don't much appreciate the high property taxes, are financially conscientious and are tempted to locate elsewhere to preserve their wealth from perceived waste. It does happen...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:05 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top