Young White College Grads Are Pushing Blacks Out Of Cities (Baltimore: apartments, houses)

[Infinite_heights77]

Gentrification is a complex issue Sunflowery!!! You need to read up some more about this grand Plan and its overall dynamics on communities and the people who reside in them Not to say that I'm against progressive, I am, but some these changes will have long lasting diehard economic and political changes that may not be in the best interests of said communities.

Originally Posted by Sunflowery

I don't find anything wrong with gentrification. I'm fedup with seeing abanhasdoned houses.

[MrRational]

Originally Posted by Infinite_heights77

...some these changes will have long lasting diehard economic and political changes
that may not be in the best interests of said communities.

Many will say that this comment describes the last batch of changes.
On the whole... they would appear to have been correct (cue: Hamish).

The bottom line is about economics and NOT race (or religion etc).
Which leads to "highest and best use" of the assets.

If some accommodation for long term tenants is warranted that should be a separate discussion
and one that comes AFTER or incidental to and not as any sort of primary objective.

The few longer term owners impacted by "gentrification" should either be welcoming
of the effort or happy to be getting that fat check to sell and move on.

[Infinite_heights77]

"It's always about the f*&^n' dollars!" - Tony "The Ant" Spiltrio

Originally Posted by MrRational

Many will say that this comment describes the last batch of changes.
On the whole... they would appear to be correct.

The bottom line is about economics and NOT race (or religion etc).
Which leads to "highest and best use" of the assets.

If accommodation for long term tenants is warranted that becomes a separate discussion.

[MrRational]

Originally Posted by Infinite_heights77

"It's always about the f*&^n' dollars!" - Tony "The Ant" Spiltrio

It's how we keep score

Generosity and charity and accommodation are wonderful things that all societies need.
They work very well when they are limited to the last 10% or so.
But when expected to do for higher portions, let alone the majority, societies implode.

[dogpark]

My understanding was that declining neighborhoods of east and west Baltimore are depopulating while gentrified and stable neighborhoods are gaining (the spine of Charles St and the "gold coast" around the harbor). People are not moving into the dilapidated neighborhoods adn displacing the existing residents - the existing residents are leaving on their own accord.

[mrpeatie]

The Post article pointed out something that basically renders the title misleading. These cities are not losing black population. Whites and other non-black minorities are simply moving in in higher numbers. So the percentage of blacks decreases not the absolute number. It states Austin was the only city with an actual decline in total black residents.

The whole issue will be moot in 20 years when interracial marriages render the whole black/white/Hispanic issue irrelevant. Credit has to go to Asians since no one seems to complain about them moving in or out.

But the article itself is just a big whine- are white progressives supposed to put their own lives on hold to assure another racial group doesn't lose its proportional power within a city. And why does the author think Blacks are inherently liberal. I've know plenty of black moderates and conservatives. And individually some blacks enjoy living in newer housing and suburban settings even though the media seems oblivious to this fact. A quick drive around Atlanta, Charlotte or Columbia (SC) will make that apparent since many pay more to live in that setting than many traditionally black urban areas of those cities.

[Infinite_heights77]

Oh Boy..here we go??!!

Originally Posted by mrpeatie

The Post article pointed out something that basically renders the title misleading. These cities are not losing black population. Whites and other non-black minorities are simply moving in in higher numbers. So the percentage of blacks decreases not the absolute number. It states Austin was the only city with an actual decline in total black residents.

The whole issue will be moot in 20 years when interracial marriages render the whole black/white/Hispanic issue irrelevant. Credit has to go to Asians since no one seems to complain about them moving in or out.

But the article itself is just a big whine- are white progressives supposed to put their own lives on hold to assure another racial group doesn't lose its proportional power within a city. And why does the author think Blacks are inherently liberal. I've know plenty of black moderates and conservatives. And individually some blacks enjoy living in newer housing and suburban settings even though the media seems oblivious to this fact. A quick drive around Atlanta, Charlotte or Columbia (SC) will make that apparent since many pay more to live in that setting than many traditionally black urban areas of those cities.

[Tinawina]

This line here probably gets at the crux of the issue:

It’s not that these cities are no longer liberal, per se, but that the brand
of (neo)liberalism they now celebrate is unaccountable to the concerns
championed by lower-waged workers: universal prekindergarten, affordable
housing, and the de-privatization of public space

These cities are becoming more and more unaffordable for low wage workers. Basically, NOT the "Lashawn on welfare with her 8 badass kids" or the "Weebay dealing on the corner while running his business out of an abandoned crackhouse" stereotype that often popularizes these discussions. No one complains when those folks get pushed out of neighborhoods (which is another discussion LOL).

Usually when the complaining starts it's when the people who work but don't get paid a lot start losing their houses and apartments, or the retired folks who have owned their houses for decades and are now living off social security and/or a tiny pension... when those people get priced out tempers flare and protests begin.

Since classic liberalism is supposed to champion these exact people it is highly ironic when they get begin getting left behind in a rapidly gentrifying otherwise left-leaning city.

[Tiger Beer]

Originally Posted by Tinawina

This line here probably gets at the crux of the issue:



Basically, these cities are becoming more and more unaffordable for low wage workers. Basically, NOT the "Lashawn on welfare with her 8 badass kids" or the "Weebay dealing on the corner while running his business out of an abandoned crackhouse" stereotype that often popularizes these discussions. No one complains when those types of people get pushed out of neighborhoods (which is another discussion LOL).

Usually when the complaining starts it's when the people who work but don't get paid a lot start losing their houses and apartments, or the retired folks who have owned their houses for decades and are now living off social security and/or a tiny pension... when those people get priced out tempers flare and protests start.

Since classic liberalism is supposed to champion these exact people it is highly ironic when they get begin getting left behind in a rapidly gentrifying otherwise left-leaning city.

This is interesting, and a ton of truth in here. Which is making me analyze things on this...

1) The welfare ones are probably still going to be able to continue to live wherever they want anyways with the Housing vouchers. So, they are probably the least effected.

2) The working people SHOULD still be able to afford all of the many highly UNdesireable areas that seem to dominate most of Baltimore.

However, the 'halfway decent' places are so far and few between, that the competition to live in a 'halfway decent' place is absolutely immense, as there are so few of them.

With SO FEW 'halfway decent' places people get pushed out into the suburbs to find 'actually decent'.

But, at some point, this all has to break wide open. At some point, as people continue to move into a city, these same types who want 'halfway decent' have to start using up some of the real estate in all of the many immense 'decay' and 'no way in hell' areas of the city. It's just not physically possible for all the people in a large metro city to all afford and fit into the little 'halfway decent' pockets scattered about. At some point, this 'halfway decent' has to push into 'no way in hell'. I just don't see any other way around that.

I also really don't think 'blacks are being pushed out of the city'. There are tons and tons and tons of areas throughout the city where blacks can live in the city, and much of it at very reasonable and very affordable rates. The real issue is that blacks who want to live in the city, but just have a normal regular working class job, cannot afford to live in the few decent pockets of 'halfway decent' that exist in the city.

[Tinawina]

Originally Posted by Tiger Beer

I also really don't think 'blacks are being pushed out of the city'. There are tons and tons and tons of areas throughout the city where blacks can live in the city, and much of it at very reasonable and very affordable rates. The real issue is that blacks who want to live in the city, but just have a normal regular working class job, cannot afford to live in the few decent pockets of 'halfway decent' that exist in the city.

I absolutely agree. There are plenty of black "middle class" in the Baltimore area, its just that most live in the counties, and they left voluntarily. They are not who becomes affected by Baltimore City gentrification. It's the working class, lower-paid blue collar, and/or low wage workers who exist in neighborhoods usually adjacent to the 5th Circle of Hell (and many live inside the worst neighborhoods, carving out spaces here and there) who lose out when a neighborhood's prices suddenly start rising up.

But that happens everywhere to people of all races whose income falls in that range. If Baltimore ever starts growing the way everyone wants it too it will become a huge problem here too.