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.
Gentrification is a racist concept. It always about people not like you moving in and rents going up. If blacks were upwardly mobile based on their cultural proclivity to education, achievment and community improvement, there would be no issue. But as long as other non-black groups continue to strive and achieve economically, they will need somewhere to live. Instead of pulling themselves up, those stuck on the lower rungs cry foul but it is really just envy of those who have done something with themselves and have taken advantage of the opportunity in this country. It is unfortunate that in NY there is no upwardly mobile black middle class like you see in other cities like Atlanta and throughout the south. I think Spike Lee should develop a few thousand units of affordable housing....put his money where his mouth is.
Gentrification is about class and tenure more than it is about race; it is almost certain that more white people than black people are harmed by gentrification, and vastly more renters than homeowners are harmed by gentrification.
I live in an area which has been regentrified in segments. It's a rather startling visual that has noticeable starts and stops based on income level. There are places where the change is literally from the corner of one block to the next.
Whatever the pros and cons of gentrification, in urban areas I tend to see the whole topic through a very cold lens. Take the DC gentrification story someone posted on the last page of the thread. Residents in a public housing area are fighting to keep an area they can only afford to live in thanks to assistance versus those who would move in who can pay their own way sans assistance. Sorry, I'm on the side of those who can afford to pay.
I can't afford to live in a lot of DC areas. Thems the breaks. If property values skyrocket where I'm at, I'll move, absent whining about hippies, Starbucks and Whole Foods.
The strange thing about the whole topic is the misconception that it's all these rich white people wanting to move in and change the face of the neighborhood. Speaking just for DC, it's never rich white people wanting to move in. It's the firmly middle class population be they white, indian, hispanic, asian, etc.
That they are middle class and aren't rolling in money is exactly what makes the poorer areas appealing to begin with. In DC, the gentrifying areas are the most affordable areas in what has become an very expensive place to rent or buy. And why shouldn't they move in? Because someone else was there first? Well, that's life. Neighborhood demographics change, always have an always will.
In a free market, developers woud be able to build and sell homes that low-wage workers could afford to buy, in which case they would be fairly secure from displacement. Neighborhood demographics change because government creates a playing field tilted against the poor.
If he was smart he would see there is a lot of financial gain to be made via property management. Section 8 tenants especially are cash cows which is why the people in the link posted by the person from Antioch went that route more than likely in an attempt to keep their homes.
I actually own a few properties in my hometown I am thinking of making Section 8. I can ask for double the rent that I am currently getting because the government is silly enough to make up the difference. The tenant only has to pay up to 30% of the rent amount, so if I am renting a property for $600 a month right now and am banking that amount. I can make the property Section 8 and rent it for $2000 a month and the tenant still only has to pay $600. If they don't pay the $600 I am still banking $1400, which was more than I was getting in the first place. Many people run this sort of racket. If I move from my home in Atlanta, I actually am going to make it Section 8 because I have a mortgage on this home and I want to make sure I get at least $500 more than my current mortgage payment.
Many property management companies stayed afloat during this housing crisis thanks to the Section 8 program. My own company would have lost a lot of revenue as we had much higher vacancy rates in our market rate communities between 2007 and 2011 than in the previous 10 years. Luckily, we have a large public housing portfolio. Public housing is always 99% occupied, especially seniors because they usually don't move out until they pass away. Those government subsidies paid the bills and unfortunately too few people want to label them as a negative thing instead of as a money making opportunity in these low income neighborhoods.
One of my major goals is to own at least 20 properties, including the majority being 4-8 unit apartment complexes that I can put on the Section 8 list. It is easy money if you know what you're doing and you focus primarily on the senior market. Seniors don't destroy properties and they have guaranteed income via SS.
So the vast majority of low-income renters who are unsubsidized get screwed with higher rents so that a minority of lucky renters can enjoy absurdly large subsidies.
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.
