Anti-gentrification radicals are on the march in Los Angeles. Is Houston next ?

[texas7]

Originally Posted by Celiene61

Sooo, Tex, you no want white or Asian people in your "hood"? Lordy, Lordy Bro

Then, I guess, via reverse Psychology, that you should understand and accept when other ethnic groups, i.e.,other races, creeds and cultures do not desire other certain ethnic groups into their hoods
These other ethnic groups could, in no particular order:

Refuse to share and support the civic valves of the established neighborhoods.

Bring additional crime to the neighborhood, which by extension would lower property values. Low property values mean less tax base. Less tax base equals less upkeep of schools and other municipalities. Also less social services...translates into less gibs more exposure to crime for residents of said neighborhood. Less growth of new businesses.

On the flip side, depending on the values and lifestyles of said new ethnic groups moving into the neighborhood, new residents will increase the tax base via new construction. New businesses to serve the area would open, so more jobs in the area. Higher population equals new schools being built. Less crime would facilite new offices opening in the area, such as dental and medical practices, law offices, etc.

I use the term "ethnic groups" because I do not care for the use of the race card....because whatever race you may originate from, there is always an underclass, middle class and upper class.....and, if you are a law abiding citizen who values morals, hard work and integrity , you will be welcome just about anywhere due to the commonality of your shared values.

$269k for a townhouse is awfully cheap.

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by texas7

$269k for a townhouse is awfully cheap.

Not for an older one (built 1970s-80s).

[K LoLo]

Originally Posted by jfre81

Probably on par with the Manchester neighborhood in SE Houston, especially back then. I can only imagine what it was in the 50s. It seems a little less so now, maybe after BP paid for Tony Buzbee's mansion in River Oaks.



Maybe my cold acknowledgement of economic reality comes easier because I don't particularly care to live in the neighborhood(s) where I grew up, and yet they're more or less the same as they were in the 80s.

K Lolo knows what "the Chelseas" are in Texas City. Its longform is "Chelsea Manor," a rather grand name for a cluster of mostly Section 8 duplexes. After Wayside Drive, I lived over there for awhile. More privilege. Our duplex was converted so we had the upstairs and downstairs! Practically a silver spoon in my mouth! Thankfully the Chelsea slumlords probably won't have to worry about gays and hipsters upsetting their apple cart, since there is no particularly compelling reason for anyone to live there. Even the old 7-Eleven that I used to walk to with some quarters to play arcade video games is vacant and rocking that Detroit look right now.

Now, if the Chelseas happened to be in Houston with the downtown skyline right behind, it would be different. I don't know that I'd cry for its transformation into something better.

I think this is kind of a good point. If you don't eventually do some "gentrification", you could end up literally having nothing. Once the houses fall, who's going to build them if the people have no money and you don't want others coming in?

Also - why would better grocery stores, and other retail just all of a sudden go into a section of the city that, most likely, won't support it? And if it does, that will raise the property taxes as well anyway, so you'd still end up being pushed out.

Cities need this sort of thing to happen. It essentially just the life-cycle of various portions of the city. People move close, then far, then close, etc. Or neighborhoods will cycle through with people moving.

Its the crime that people try to get away from. I don't fault them for that. And if the economics allows it, I can't fault developers for changing a neighborhood. I also can't fault people for being upset that its happening, but I think the "whitey stay out" approach isn't so good either.

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by K LoLo

I think this is kind of a good point. If you don't eventually do some "gentrification", you could end up literally having nothing. Once the houses fall, who's going to build them if the people have no money and you don't want others coming in?

Also - why would better grocery stores, and other retail just all of a sudden go into a section of the city that, most likely, won't support it? And if it does, that will raise the property taxes as well anyway, so you'd still end up being pushed out.

Cities need this sort of thing to happen. It essentially just the life-cycle of various portions of the city. People move close, then far, then close, etc. Or neighborhoods will cycle through with people moving.

Its the crime that people try to get away from. I don't fault them for that. And if the economics allows it, I can't fault developers for changing a neighborhood. I also can't fault people for being upset that its happening, but I think the "whitey stay out" approach isn't so good either.

I generally agree with this. Houston is really, really fortunate that much of its urban core has been gentrifying, because otherwise its fiscal situation (tax base vs. expenditures) would be many times the disaster that it currently is. It needs higher-value residential properties, and the sales-tax-generating residents that live in them, to grow their presence, especially as so much of the suburban portions of the City have been losing their middle class and transitioning to low-income and working class.

One point of disagreement - while folks do flee high-crime areas, a lot of urbanites are willing to put up with some level of crime, in contrast to the tolerance of many suburbanites (who I think willfully ignore the extensive crime that already happens in suburban areas). However, when it comes to public schools, very few seem to be able tolerate the urban public schools or pony up for private, or take their chances on magnets. This definitely gets them to leave.

[K LoLo]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

I generally agree with this. Houston is really, really fortunate that much of its urban core has been gentrifying, because otherwise its fiscal situation (tax base vs. expenditures) would be many times the disaster that it currently is. It needs higher-value residential properties, and the sales-tax-generating residents that live in them, to grow their presence, especially as so much of the suburban portions of the City have been losing their middle class and transitioning to low-income and working class.

One point of disagreement - while folks do flee high-crime areas, a lot of urbanites are willing to put up with some level of crime, in contrast to the tolerance of many suburbanites (who I think willfully ignore the extensive crime that already happens in suburban areas). However, when it comes to public schools, very few seem to be able tolerate the urban public schools or pony up for private, or take their chances on magnets. This definitely gets them to leave.

Good point. I think the ones willing to take a chance or put up with a little crime are the younger folks who don't have a family yet or know that they have "5 years before they need to pick a school". Having enough money for a private school obviously give you the ability to be "anywhere" that you prefer.

Also a good point on the tax base. Everyone wants everything, but aren't willing to pay.

Personally, I'm in Spring Branch (west), so we've seen some new builds, but not like other areas. Although the town homes are getting closer and closer. Some look good, some very ugly. But, its not my money. I can only control what I can control. If I end up needing to move, because things get expensive. So be it. Life isn't fair.

[SpeedThink]

Redlining. Housing discrimination. Banks not adhering to the Community Reinvestment Act. Employment discrimination. Gentrification, Substandard schools, etc. etc.

It is all connected.

As African Americans moved in large numbers from the South to the North during the Great Migration, they settled in neighborhoods that were "assigned" to them. Most of these areas were tenement sub standard housing.

Some of the African American families did manage to purchase homes and leave the sub standard housing. As the African American families moved in, the Jewish families moved out.

As the Rust Belt experienced an exodus of Auto Manufacturing plants and other manufacturing-based firms, jobs became scarce, and hence, disposable income decreased. Competition for the remaining "good" jobs was fierce and , no doubt, employment discrimination sometimes occurred whereby the African-American head of household cannot readily find employment or is underemployed.

Hence, the houses were not maintained and oftentimes essential city services were not provided. Weeds are growing with reckless abandon. Lawns are no longer mowed. Roofs are caving in on many houses. Paint is peeling. No children are playing. You see, most of the residents are elderly. Their children and grand children left many years ago - pursuing the American Dream and believing that the grass is greener on the other side. Repeating the same cycle - but in a different city...

It is all connected...

[Astoriahoney]

The housing in Los Angeles is INSANE tho. No one can afford to live there anymore.

Even crappy areas like VanNuys and South Central are pricing people out.