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.
Yeah, I've been noticing on many of your responses to me, why you take issue with what I'm saying. It's because you are not reading what I said. You even put this one in quotes. NO I DIDN"T say that!!!
I actually bolded the sentence I was referring to. You got me on saying losing versus not increasing, but the general point remains either way. Nothing personal, but I was curious as to where you got it from and how it was related to the thread topic. Then I just explained how that topic of gentrification may come up in this instance, given what is occurring in an adjacent county and the county study. That’s all.
Last edited by ckhthankgod; 09-14-2022 at 04:47 PM..
I actually bolded the sentence I was referring to. You got me on saying losing versus not increasing, but the general point remains either way. Nothing personal, but I was curious as to where you got it from and how it was related to the thread topic. Then I just explained how that topic of gentrification may come up in this instance, given what is occurring in an adjacent county and the county study. That’s all.
I already told you. It was in the Rochester Business Journal a couple months back. I could find it, but do you have a subscription to read it? It wasn't a local person. Are you telling me that black people don't want their property to increase in value?
I already told you. It was in the Rochester Business Journal a couple months back. I could find it, but do you have a subscription to read it? It wasn't a local person. Are you telling me that black people don't want their property to increase in value?
I already saw that and left it alone. Your second question is a big leap from what this thread is actually about and isn’t anywhere close to what I say or as to why I asked how it is related to Sullivan County. Besides, you should know better…
Gentrification is one of those words, that while being a good thing, is twisted to be bad.
In reality, what they really want is for someone else to spend all the money, but not reap the benefits.
I think you hit the nail on the head here. I'll add that the term has anti-White undertones to it as well.
If you want a slice of the wealth, you gotta shut up or nut up and buy a piece of real estate in an area that you think will get better. Even if its a $25k house. Its a risk but sweat equity can be done by anyone who isn't wasting time on social media complaining about "gentrification" and "Maga republicans".
Real estate is local- there are two towns in NJ that I think are about to explode in investment. They're not that great now but they're going to be very hot for investment in the near future. You can still get in cheap, flip or stay, and watch your house grow in value. But it takes some cajones and most people don't have that anymore, like our fathers and grandfathers did. Its easier to get monetized as a social media influencer.
I hope Sullivan can improve by "gentrification" to the point that values go up. So the people who had the foresight to have bought there long ago can make a buck or two.
I think you hit the nail on the head here. I'll add that the term has anti-White undertones to it as well.
If you want a slice of the wealth, you gotta shut up or nut up and buy a piece of real estate in an area that you think will get better. Even if its a $25k house. Its a risk but sweat equity can be done by anyone who isn't wasting time on social media complaining about "gentrification" and "Maga republicans".
Real estate is local- there are two towns in NJ that I think are about to explode in investment. They're not that great now but they're going to be very hot for investment in the near future. You can still get in cheap, flip or stay, and watch your house grow in value. But it takes some cajones and most people don't have that anymore, like our fathers and grandfathers did. Its easier to get monetized as a social media influencer.
I hope Sullivan can improve by "gentrification" to the point that values go up. So the people who had the foresight to have bought there long ago can make a buck or two.
You are correct. Real estate is a great way to build wealth. Done it myself. Pretty easy, basically, but it does come with hard work. Not to mention, you will be improving the neighborhood at the same time. Win/ Win. You can do it with other people's money too.
You are correct about the other comment as well. People connstantly complaining "it's not fair", etc doesn't help anyone but the accuser. Spending hundreds of millions of dollars to remove expressways that have been in place for decades, when the area has adapted. Think how much better it would be to have that money to invest in housing and business.
Pretty sad that schools are teaching this stuff today, rather than teaching people how to thrive and be independent
I think you hit the nail on the head here. I'll add that the term has anti-White undertones to it as well.
If you want a slice of the wealth, you gotta shut up or nut up and buy a piece of real estate in an area that you think will get better. Even if its a $25k house. Its a risk but sweat equity can be done by anyone who isn't wasting time on social media complaining about "gentrification" and "Maga republicans".
Real estate is local- there are two towns in NJ that I think are about to explode in investment. They're not that great now but they're going to be very hot for investment in the near future. You can still get in cheap, flip or stay, and watch your house grow in value. But it takes some cajones and most people don't have that anymore, like our fathers and grandfathers did. Its easier to get monetized as a social media influencer.
I hope Sullivan can improve by "gentrification" to the point that values go up. So the people who had the foresight to have bought there long ago can make a buck or two.
The problem is that there are people with money of the same race as the people in the neighborhood they move into that can gentrify a neighborhood or community as well. Where the aspect of race comes in is when those of another race move in and try to dictate to long time residents things they have been doing for years, which has occurred in more urban communities.
As mentioned, in this case, the aspect of "gentrification" here is in terms of those who move from out of the city into a county like this and buying properties relatively cheap, that are well below what they really could afford and driving out those of lesser income means from housing that is more in line with what they can afford. I again refer to the Sullivan County Housing Study that has been posted a couple of times in the thread, as it mentions as much that this is what has been going on in parts of the county: https://www.scdemocratonline.com/sto...undation,62584
Given the more rural nature of the county, it is different from more urban/population dense areas, minus maybe Monticello and Liberty. Even then, they are just relatively bigger villages. Outside of those 2 places, it is a bunch of small villages/hamlets and rural land. So, the dynamics are different, but a similar result can occur, given the abrupt increase in population.
Also, just so the study that I'm referring to doesn't get lost within the conversation, this is it...
"Housing has been an issue County officials have been intent on addressing.
The County recently contracted with czb LLC, a Virginia-based urban planning and community development firm, to assist in developing a comprehensive housing strategy.
During Thursday’s Health and Human Services Committee meeting, Deputy Commissioner of Planning, Community Development and Real Property Jill Weyer and Division of Health and Human Services Commissioner John Liddle presented the draft study, which focuses on four key findings, to legislators and members of the public.
The first is that the County is not one housing market, but that there are at least four distinct markets - Rural North/West, Outer Core, Core Villages and Rural South/East (see photo).
The study reports that distressed housing and concentrated poverty in the core villages are a constraint on those villages, but also a challenge for the County as a whole. It also states that high shares of seasonal units in the Outer Core and Rural North/West pose growing risks to market stability, and that there are fewer risks in the South/East due to commuter appeal.
Furthermore, mobile homes were found to be a significant source of affordable housing beyond the core villages.
Home affordability/rental supply
The second key finding of the draft study is that home prices in Sullivan County, which have risen an average of 38 percent since the start of 2020 ($168,198 to $232,327), are “still broadly affordable,” and reflect “significant liabilities and challenges.”
Potential vulnerabilities for the homeownership market going forward, according to the study, are the large inventory of homes that need significant work; low job densities; location liabilities; few schools with above-average ratings; and that villages have limited marketability.
This led into the third key finding which is that rental housing is in short supply, especially units in good condition. This is causing what Liddle calls a “compression towards the middle.” Liddle explained that families with two middle class incomes are taking rentals that are probably below what they could afford because that’s what’s available.
“What that’s doing is driving up rent prices for folks on the lower end that normally would be going into those kinds of units,” said Liddle, adding that it’s also hurting the people the County serves in social services. “While we were able to help a lot of folks into studios and one bedroom [units], what we’re seeing is two and three bedroom [units] for a family group of five people gets much more difficult. So this is one of the things that they caught in the study that we’re going to work to address.”
The fourth and final key finding is that without subsidy, new housing is not affordable for households earning less than $75,000.
Moving forward
An online survey was also conducted, which had over 400 responses.
It found that utility/transportation costs, property taxes, and blight ranked highest when survey takers were asked (from a list) which housing issues impacted them personally. Furthermore, 66 percent of respondents agreed that significant local interventions are needed to address high-impact housing issues.
Sullivan County’s housing priorities, as determined in the study, include prioritizing limited resources and capacity; meeting housing needs for households making under $50,000 (which is 44 percent of County households); and to do so in a manner that has wider market impacts/benefits.
Three opportunities listed in the draft study include partnering with landlords to improve 240 existing rental units and preserving the affordability of 80 of those units for households making $20,000 or less; creating forty units of new rental housing priced for households making $20,000-$35,000; and 40 units of new market-rate rental housing priced for households making $35,000-$50,000.
The study also stressed getting the basics right, which it defines as investing in quality of place and infrastructure, seeking mixed-income results, and clustering investments for high impact.
It also recommends pursuing several complementary activities such as extending the life of existing developments that used low income housing tax credits; create and use a list of landlords and investors with troubled histories; boost capacity of code enforcement and compliance assistance; and update land use regulations and capital improvement plans to support housing investments.
Liddle added that feedback local officials gave to the consultants [czb LLC] was to address the emergency housing need, improve blight and single family rehab and affordability, identify potential funding streams for implementation and identify ways to assist code enforcement at the County level.
During the presentation legislators also touched on topics such as the impact short-term rentals are having on the County’s housing market, subsidies, as well as the role of local zoning statutes.
Legislators are expected to vote on whether or not to adopt the proposed comprehensive housing strategy next month."
So, what this abrupt population increase does is not only increase housing prices, but decreases the housing supply for a county not really ready for that quick of a population increase. That in turn creates a housing supply issue similar to what has occurred in adjacent Ulster County. Simply reading through housing studies or recognizing populations trends could lead to one just making an observation towards seeing select potential renters/home owners getting pushed out of such areas for this reason.
Last edited by ckhthankgod; 09-16-2022 at 09:27 AM..
The problem is that there are people with money of the same race as the people in the neighborhood they move into that can gentrify a neighborhood or community as well. Where the aspect of race comes in is when those of another race move in and try to dictate to long time residents things they have been doing for years, which has occurred in more urban communities.
As mentioned, in this case, the aspect of "gentrification" here is in terms of those who move from out of the city into a county like this and buying properties relatively cheap, that are well below what they really could afford and driving out those of lesser income means from housing that is more in line with what they can afford. I again refer to the Sullivan County Housing Study that has been posted a couple of times in the thread, as it mentions as much that this is what has been going on in parts of the county: https://www.scdemocratonline.com/sto...undation,62584
Given the more rural nature of the county, it is different from more urban/population dense areas, minus maybe Monticello and Liberty. Even then, they are just relatively bigger villages. Outside of those 2 places, it is a bunch of small villages/hamlets and rural land. So, the dynamics are different, but a similar result can occur, given the abrupt increase in population.
Also, just so the study that I'm referring to doesn't get lost within the conversation, this is it...
"Housing has been an issue County officials have been intent on addressing.
The County recently contracted with czb LLC, a Virginia-based urban planning and community development firm, to assist in developing a comprehensive housing strategy.
During Thursday’s Health and Human Services Committee meeting, Deputy Commissioner of Planning, Community Development and Real Property Jill Weyer and Division of Health and Human Services Commissioner John Liddle presented the draft study, which focuses on four key findings, to legislators and members of the public.
The first is that the County is not one housing market, but that there are at least four distinct markets - Rural North/West, Outer Core, Core Villages and Rural South/East (see photo).
The study reports that distressed housing and concentrated poverty in the core villages are a constraint on those villages, but also a challenge for the County as a whole. It also states that high shares of seasonal units in the Outer Core and Rural North/West pose growing risks to market stability, and that there are fewer risks in the South/East due to commuter appeal.
Furthermore, mobile homes were found to be a significant source of affordable housing beyond the core villages.
Home affordability/rental supply
The second key finding of the draft study is that home prices in Sullivan County, which have risen an average of 38 percent since the start of 2020 ($168,198 to $232,327), are “still broadly affordable,” and reflect “significant liabilities and challenges.”
Potential vulnerabilities for the homeownership market going forward, according to the study, are the large inventory of homes that need significant work; low job densities; location liabilities; few schools with above-average ratings; and that villages have limited marketability.
This led into the third key finding which is that rental housing is in short supply, especially units in good condition. This is causing what Liddle calls a “compression towards the middle.” Liddle explained that families with two middle class incomes are taking rentals that are probably below what they could afford because that’s what’s available.
“What that’s doing is driving up rent prices for folks on the lower end that normally would be going into those kinds of units,” said Liddle, adding that it’s also hurting the people the County serves in social services. “While we were able to help a lot of folks into studios and one bedroom [units], what we’re seeing is two and three bedroom [units] for a family group of five people gets much more difficult. So this is one of the things that they caught in the study that we’re going to work to address.”
The fourth and final key finding is that without subsidy, new housing is not affordable for households earning less than $75,000.
Moving forward
An online survey was also conducted, which had over 400 responses.
It found that utility/transportation costs, property taxes, and blight ranked highest when survey takers were asked (from a list) which housing issues impacted them personally. Furthermore, 66 percent of respondents agreed that significant local interventions are needed to address high-impact housing issues.
Sullivan County’s housing priorities, as determined in the study, include prioritizing limited resources and capacity; meeting housing needs for households making under $50,000 (which is 44 percent of County households); and to do so in a manner that has wider market impacts/benefits.
Three opportunities listed in the draft study include partnering with landlords to improve 240 existing rental units and preserving the affordability of 80 of those units for households making $20,000 or less; creating forty units of new rental housing priced for households making $20,000-$35,000; and 40 units of new market-rate rental housing priced for households making $35,000-$50,000.
The study also stressed getting the basics right, which it defines as investing in quality of place and infrastructure, seeking mixed-income results, and clustering investments for high impact.
It also recommends pursuing several complementary activities such as extending the life of existing developments that used low income housing tax credits; create and use a list of landlords and investors with troubled histories; boost capacity of code enforcement and compliance assistance; and update land use regulations and capital improvement plans to support housing investments.
Liddle added that feedback local officials gave to the consultants [czb LLC] was to address the emergency housing need, improve blight and single family rehab and affordability, identify potential funding streams for implementation and identify ways to assist code enforcement at the County level.
During the presentation legislators also touched on topics such as the impact short-term rentals are having on the County’s housing market, subsidies, as well as the role of local zoning statutes.
Legislators are expected to vote on whether or not to adopt the proposed comprehensive housing strategy next month."
So, what this abrupt population increase does is not only increase housing prices, but decreases the housing supply for a county not really ready for that quick of a population increase. That in turn creates a housing supply issue similar to what has occurred in adjacent Ulster County. Simply reading through housing studies or recognizing populations trends could lead to one just making an observation towards seeing select potential renters/home owners getting pushed out of such areas for this reason.
That's kinda vague and I'm trying to make sense of what you mean: like rich Whites banning illegal apartments or something?
Also, I don't put a lot of stock in these studies. Sullivan is growing by 1.5% annually. Its not an area that is setting the world on fire in growth. Its a natural outgrowth of people who need to be near NYC but not work there everyday (you can trust me on this more than you know). 1.5% growth is a joke to people in Raleigh or Austin or Florida. For NY its a lot because NY values citizen control over freedom and loses a lot of people.
Raleigh grew by 5x this rate, and used market based solutions to grow. Simply put, for most of that growth, it was done the way it was always done. People moved down and bought houses and started businesses, and when houses became too scarce, they built more and made them appealing to all people of all races. Sure, there are growing pains with the schools down there, and also with cheaply built home. But that's with 10% growth, not 1.5%.
We can't seem to do much anymore without pseudo-intellectuals who study these theoretical problems and interject their lingo that they learned in grad school to justify their jobs. Then journalists who need something to write create the problem. In our grandfather's day, they built places like Levittown. "People like parks. Lets put a park over there". Now they study a problem to death and make themselves necessary: "This park would be less accessible to underrepresented populations and therefore, let's study it more blah blah blah"...
That's kinda vague and I'm trying to make sense of what you mean: like rich Whites banning illegal apartments or something?
Also, I don't put a lot of stock in these studies. Sullivan is growing by 1.5% annually. Its not an area that is setting the world on fire in growth. Its a natural outgrowth of people who need to be near NYC but not work there everyday (you can trust me on this more than you know). 1.5% growth is a joke to people in Raleigh or Austin or Florida. For NY its a lot because NY values citizen control over freedom and loses a lot of people.
Raleigh grew by 5x this rate, and used market based solutions to grow. Simply put, for most of that growth, it was done the way it was always done. People moved down and bought houses and started businesses, and when houses became too scarce, they built more and made them appealing to all people of all races. Sure, there are growing pains with the schools down there, and also with cheaply built home. But that's with 10% growth, not 1.5%.
We can't seem to do much anymore without pseudo-intellectuals who study these theoretical problems and interject their lingo that they learned in grad school to justify their jobs. Then journalists who need something to write create the problem. In our grandfather's day, they built places like Levittown. "People like parks. Lets put a park over there". Now they study a problem to death and make themselves necessary: "This park would be less accessible to underrepresented populations and therefore, let's study it more blah blah blah"...
No, like telling people to turn down music or having parties shut down that were commonplace before they moved in(i.e.-GO-GO(music) parties in DC).
The difference in the comparison is that while that growth isn't much in comparison, this is still a county that had growth that they weren't prepared for. Those other places were prepared for the growth over a period of time versus an influx over a 2 year period. So, Sullivan County and its rural character weren't prepared for it. Especially, when you consider the people and the amount of money they bring to the area in terms of being able to have more options than many of those already living there or looking in that county.
Other places that grow too fast, have also experienced this issue. So, it isn't unique to Sullivan County.
I don't think the study is too hard to read or understand. It does make legitimate points, because the same thing is occurring in that area in Ulster, as you may know. When people wanted to get out of the city during COVID, many went north and in turn, this is what you can get. So, while other people may be too pseudo-intellectual, this appears to be quite plain to see as to how the issue could come about.
No, like telling people to turn down music or having parties shut down that were commonplace before they moved in(i.e.-GO-GO(music) parties in DC).
The difference in the comparison is that while that growth isn't much in comparison, this is still a county that had growth that they weren't prepared for. Those other places were prepared for the growth over a period of time versus an influx over a 2 year period. So, Sullivan County and its rural character weren't prepared for it. Especially, when you consider the people and the amount of money they bring to the area in terms of being able to have more options than many of those already living there or looking in that county.
Other places that grow too fast, have also experienced this issue. So, it isn't unique to Sullivan County.
I don't think the study is too hard to read or understand. It does make legitimate points, because the same thing is occurring in that area in Ulster, as you may know. When people wanted to get out of the city during COVID, many went north and in turn, this is what you can get. So, while other people may be too pseudo-intellectual, this appears to be quite plain to see as to how the issue could come about.
I'm one of those people, lol. I hate loud music and obnoxious parties, particularly after 8 pm.
I'm a proud gentrifier in my community then I guess. Values go up, I make money and hopefully can move on to gentrify another area.
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.
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.
