Gentrification wave washes over Old Fourth Ward (Atlanta, Marietta: mattress, townhomes)

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by aslowdodge

No, she can move to a cheaper place. You can get a nice home in Marietta for $250K and then pocket $400K. She could take that and with a 4% return get $1333 a month increasing her income 150%.
Do you really think that she and others should continue to pay $50 a year? How much do you think it costs to support the city and her neighborhood for roads, lighting, landscaping, etc?
Maybe you could personally cover the shortfall for her? The money to keep the city running isn't going to magically appear because you think she shouldn't pay more? Maybe some young family buying a starter home can pay $6,000 a year to cover her shortage instead of just their share of $3,000 a year.

What if she doesn't want to move? She was born there, and she says a lot of nice people have moved in.

She also takes care of an adult nephew and a 5-year-old niece -- would she be able to continue doing that if she is forced to move somewhere else?

As far as others paying the shortfall, that has probably been the case for a long time but I haven't heard anybody demanding that she move out.

[aslowdodge]

Originally Posted by arjay57

What if she doesn't want to move? She was born there, and she says a lot of nice people have moved in.

She also takes care of an adult nephew and a 5-year-old niece -- would she be able to continue doing that if she is forced to move somewhere else?

As far as others paying the shortfall, that has probably been the case for a long time but I haven't heard anybody demanding that she move out.

I want to live in Beverly Hills California and pay $50 a month while everyone else pays what it really costs of much much more, but we can’t have something just because we want it.
I lived all my life in the Bay Area in California but could see how much it would cost. I left friends and family and moved 2500 miles away so I could afford to live. It wasn’t want as much as need. Having food and shelter is more important than being able to live in a place because there are nice people there.
If she is caring for those people in house, then 870 a month isn’t much help. How does she keep the home up with no money? Moving to Marietta or a nearby area as I mentioned still puts her close enough to keep contact with people plus the 150 percent boost in income will help her to take care of those people.

[red92s]

Originally Posted by aslowdodge

No, she can move to a cheaper place. You can get a nice home in Marietta for $250K and then pocket $400K. She could take that and with a 4% return get $1333 a month increasing her income 150%.
Do you really think that she and others should continue to pay $50 a year? How much do you think it costs to support the city and her neighborhood for roads, lighting, landscaping, etc?
Maybe you could personally cover the shortfall for her? The money to keep the city running isn't going to magically appear because you think she shouldn't pay more? Maybe some young family buying a starter home can pay $6,000 a year to cover her shortage instead of just their share of $3,000 a year.

Did the city's cost to provide roads, lighting, and landscaping go up several hundred percent along with her taxes? Nope. The city has found a lot of new and creative ways to give away taxpayer money as property values have increased and flooded their coffers, but it's not like the cost of providing basic municipal services rises in lockstep with value.

[testa50]

Obviously putting the situation of this exact woman under a microscope blurs the real process at play. There are thousands of renters in the city who face steadily rising rents or are eventually just told to leave because their units are getting redeveloped. They’re not getting any cash out of the situation and will almost uniformly have to settle for a situation somewhere else that’s worse for them. Access to transit, food, healthcare, jobs: the things that actually matter to poor people in America.

And yes, the property tax bill is somewhat misrepresenting the problem. The problem is staggering social inequality, and a system where the have-nots can literally be uprooted on account of the whims of the haves. This is much bigger than any city policy.

[Gulch]

Originally Posted by red92s

Did the city's cost to provide roads, lighting, and landscaping go up several hundred percent along with her taxes? Nope. The city has found a lot of new and creative ways to give away taxpayer money as property values have increased and flooded their coffers, but it's not like the cost of providing basic municipal services rises in lockstep with value.

That is irrelevant. If the taxes levied are not going to accurately reflect true home values, then our entire system of property taxes needs to be scrapped.

[Gulch]

Originally Posted by testa50

Obviously putting the situation of this exact woman under a microscope blurs the real process at play. There are thousands of renters in the city who face steadily rising rents or are eventually just told to leave because their units are getting redeveloped. They’re not getting any cash out of the situation and will almost uniformly have to settle for a situation somewhere else that’s worse for them. Access to transit, food, healthcare, jobs: the things that actually matter to poor people in America.

And yes, the property tax bill is somewhat misrepresenting the problem. The problem is staggering social inequality, and a system where the have-nots can literally be uprooted on account of the whims of the haves. This is much bigger than any city policy.

So what's the solution for tenants? Rent control?

[equinox63]

Originally Posted by ronricks

No such thing. You can't stop gentrification other than not letting your neighborhood go to crap in the first place then there would be nobody to gentrify it.

Just a little additional information about people “letting their neighborhood go to crap”. If this woman lived in a neighborhood like this, what should she have done to stop it?

https://youtu.be/O5FBJyqfoLM

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by aslowdodge

I want to live in Beverly Hills California and pay $50 a month while everyone else pays what it really costs of much much more, but we can’t have something just because we want it.
I lived all my life in the Bay Area in California but could see how much it would cost. I left friends and family and moved 2500 miles away so I could afford to live. It wasn’t want as much as need. Having food and shelter is more important than being able to live in a place because there are nice people there.
If she is caring for those people in house, then 870 a month isn’t much help. How does she keep the home up with no money? Moving to Marietta or a nearby area as I mentioned still puts her close enough to keep contact with people plus the 150 percent boost in income will help her to take care of those people.

Bear in mind that if she's forced out she also has to give up the walkability and easy transit access of her current home.

So she could wind up getting saddled with the cost of owning and operating an automobile. If she's disabled she may not even be able to drive.

[aslowdodge]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Bear in mind that if she's forced out she also has to give up the walkability and easy transit access of her current home.

So she could wind up getting saddled with the cost of owning and operating an automobile. If she's disabled she may not even be able to drive.

Possibly, but do you know her exact address and walk ability of where she is at?
If not you are only guessing and making assumptions.
How do you know if she moves she won’t have access to shopping or services to help transport her? If she’s disabled what makes you think she’s able to walk to shopping and carry groceries now?

[aslowdodge]

Originally Posted by red92s

Did the city's cost to provide roads, lighting, and landscaping go up several hundred percent along with her taxes? Nope. The city has found a lot of new and creative ways to give away taxpayer money as property values have increased and flooded their coffers, but it's not like the cost of providing basic municipal services rises in lockstep with value.

At its present it is what it is. But that means someone else is paying more than their fair share. Do you honestly think if every resident paid 50 they could keep the city up? You do realize costs go up, so it only follows taxes would go up too.