SF Gate's new article discusses how not to be a gentrifier in the Bay's most gentrification prone cities (San Francisco: real estate, apartment)

[PixelatedTherapy]

https://www.sfgate.com/expensive-san...o-13293754.php

Opinions?

[Dapper Zoom]

What is your opinion?

[ketch89]

I really hate articles like these - they put the focus of conversations about gentrification on individuals just living their lives, rather than government and the voters (where it belongs). Instead of writing articles about "how to be a nice gentrifier," they should write articles about "how to get Palo Alto and Mountain View to build tall buildings." People don't seem to understand that the "battleground" isn't neighborhoods currently undergoing gentrification, it's wealthy places with high housing demand that refuse to allow tall/dense housing construction.

[davdaven]

Yeah, ketch89 hit the nail on the head. I recently moved from an apartment in Berkeley to a house in Richmond. Does that make me a gentrifier? What if it's because I can't afford to live in Marin, which is where I work? I found the slideshow ("article" is too generous) to be vapid clickbait rather than an informed piece. The content of the slideshow corresponds to the very PC/progressive streak in local politics at the moment, where much of it is just hate (justified or unjustified) of white people and nothing more than that.

[peninsular]

What I disagree with is the unspoken premise of the article that gentrification is bad. Gentrification is almost in its entirety a good thing. The opposite of gentrification is decline, economic and social. Many places would kill to have these kind of problems. Ed Lee's biggest gift to San Francisco - bringing Twitter, Uber and a few other companies to mid-Market - is exactly that, gentrification. Even though I see it very much as a positive thing, gentrification does create some challenges. This is a classic problem of what to do with those who cannot cope with an economic expansion by themselves. The problem with gentrification is the absence of a safety net for those who are negatively affected by it. The answer is some kind of re-distribution, whether through taxation in the general case, or subsidized housing in the case of gentrification, but politically this is a very difficult proposition. On one hand those who have to contribute tend to oppose it because they will have to pay one way or another. On the other hand, those who need support are viewed as second class citizens and can easily feel that whatever is given to them is not enough and they deserve more. Solving this conundrum requires a balanced approach and a lot of political capital, and is certainly not helped by an article such as this.

[JJonesIII]

Originally Posted by peninsular

What I disagree with is the unspoken premise of the article that gentrification is bad. Gentrification is almost in its entirety a good thing. The opposite of gentrification is decline, economic and social. Many places would kill to have these kind of problems. Ed Lee's biggest gift to San Francisco - bringing Twitter, Uber and a few other companies to mid-Market - is exactly that, gentrification. Even though I see it very much as a positive thing, gentrification does create some challenges. This is a classic problem of what to do with those who cannot cope with an economic expansion by themselves. The problem with gentrification is the absence of a safety net for those who are negatively affected by it. The answer is some kind of re-distribution, whether through taxation in the general case, or subsidized housing in the case of gentrification, but politically this is a very difficult proposition. On one hand those who have to contribute tend to oppose it because they will have to pay one way or another. On the other hand, those who need support are viewed as second class citizens and can easily feel that whatever is given to them is not enough and they deserve more. Solving this conundrum requires a balanced approach and a lot of political capital, and is certainly not helped by an article such as this.

Although I don't agree in the least with what you're suggesting, I should remind you that Ed Lee and the Board of Supervisors did exactly the opposite to get Twitter and the like to open shop in San Francisco (they gave them tax breaks).

[jade408]

Originally Posted by peninsular

What I disagree with is the unspoken premise of the article that gentrification is bad. Gentrification is almost in its entirety a good thing. The opposite of gentrification is decline, economic and social. Many places would kill to have these kind of problems. Ed Lee's biggest gift to San Francisco - bringing Twitter, Uber and a few other companies to mid-Market - is exactly that, gentrification. Even though I see it very much as a positive thing, gentrification does create some challenges. This is a classic problem of what to do with those who cannot cope with an economic expansion by themselves. The problem with gentrification is the absence of a safety net for those who are negatively affected by it. The answer is some kind of re-distribution, whether through taxation in the general case, or subsidized housing in the case of gentrification, but politically this is a very difficult proposition. On one hand those who have to contribute tend to oppose it because they will have to pay one way or another. On the other hand, those who need support are viewed as second class citizens and can easily feel that whatever is given to them is not enough and they deserve more. Solving this conundrum requires a balanced approach and a lot of political capital, and is certainly not helped by an article such as this.

The problem isn’t “gentrification” it is displacement. Esoecially when gentrification and displacement are comnd with purposeful neglect until more affluent people show up and complain.

Think of if you soent all sorts of time waiting for improvements and hipsters show up and things you have been asking for for decades get fixed in a year - and you can’t even live there when it gets fixed up.

[Natural510]

The only way to slow down gentrification is to build more housing, but even then there’s nothing to prevent all new real estate from being bought up by foreigners as an investment.
However if you go move into a neighborhood and you’re a minority there, it’s usually best to go with the flow. A big complaint long time residents have in a gentrifying neighborhood is having the cops or landlord called on them by newbies for doing things they’ve done for years.

[ketch89]

Originally Posted by jade408

The problem isn’t “gentrification” it is displacement. Esoecially when gentrification and displacement are comnd with purposeful neglect until more affluent people show up and complain.

Think of if you soent all sorts of time waiting for improvements and hipsters show up and things you have been asking for for decades get fixed in a year - and you can’t even live there when it gets fixed up.

Exactly, thanks jade. To further clarify for peninsular- neighborhood change isn't in and of itself a "morally terrible" thing, but it's a symptom of a larger problem: not enough housing compared to how many jobs we have. Person A buys in Oakland because they can't afford San Francisco. Person B leaves Oakland and moves to Antioch/Tracy/Fairfield/Gilroy because their rent is too high. Migration to outlying areas causes development of farmland/open space, and greatly increases traffic because outlying areas are car-dependent. You don't have to care about poor people to be against gentrification - we need condo towers in cities like Palo Alto to prevent traffic gridlock regionally.

[peninsular]

Originally Posted by JJonesIII

Although I don't agree in the least with what you're suggesting, I should remind you that Ed Lee and the Board of Supervisors did exactly the opposite to get Twitter and the like to open shop in San Francisco (they gave them tax breaks).

I don't quite understand what you mean by "the opposite", perhaps the opposite of a gift is a tax break? Yes, those companies got a tax break, which ended up being a very positive thing for the city. While the gift is in fact gentrification in the area that has been depressed for a very long time.