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.
Economic freedom, creative destruction and upward mobility define SiliconValley (and, to less of an extent, its distant, communist suburb called "SF")
No one is forced to remain in any locale to live or work...or to pursue higher education or job skills..or start a business
Most of the big money in US today is self-made
Most of the big money and big, new mansions in Atherton/Woodside or PacificHts are those of engineers who arrived as penniless Stanford grad students from poor places like India a few years back...or kids from the Midwest or Podunk who arrived here as penniless Stanford grad students (like the Google, Yahoo, etc etc co-founders)
Complainers should look in mirror more often and not simply blame others for own economic and/or intellectual underachievement
SV has arguably attracted most of world's smartest and most ambitious kids for past ~50yrs and particularly over past 25yrs of modern tech industry: much of the fuel for the region's economy, wealth creation and innovation. No great region anywhere in world is defined by its stagnant natives, esp in an IQ-intensive, globally competitive economy
Economic freedom, creative destruction and upward mobility define SiliconValley (and, to less of an extent, its distant, communist suburb called "SF")
No one is forced to remain in any locale to live or work...or to pursue higher education or job skills..or start a business
Most of the big money in US today is self-made
Most of the big money and big, new mansions in Atherton/Woodside or PacificHts are those of engineers who arrived as penniless Stanford grad students from poor places like India a few years back...or kids from the Midwest or Podunk who arrived here as penniless Stanford grad students (like the Google, Yahoo, etc etc co-founders)
Complainers should look in mirror more often and not simply blame others for own economic and/or intellectual underachievement
SV has arguably attracted most of world's smartest and most ambitious kids for past ~50yrs and particularly over past 25yrs of modern tech industry: much of the fuel for the region's economy, wealth creation and innovation. No great region anywhere in world is defined by its stagnant natives, esp in an IQ-intensive, globally competitive economy
Butyrophenones, Phenothiazines or Thioxanthenes. You're definitely a member of one of these families.
and I think one responsibility of the people is to live in a neighborhood you can comfortably afford rather than one that is typically meant for poorer residents in order to save a buck.
What does this statement mean? Does it mean a family shouldn't buy a home they like because it is meant for poor residents?
What does that mean it is meant for poor residents? Who decides it is meant for poor residents? Is a homebuyer supposed to feel guilty they can afford more but choose to not spend as much money?
Unless the property is owned by a municipal body - I see no role whatsoever for legislation to limit the choices people make when they choose a place they think meets their needs.
If a person who can afford a better neighborhood chooses to buy a home in a poorer neighborhood - that is a statement in itself. I think many would say the new buyer is courageous. The new buyer might be a different ethnic group.
What about a person who can afford a $1M home, but chooses a neighborhood with $300K homes? Is that bad too? I just don't see how legislation could ever be reasonably crafted to somehow choose how people make decisions where they live.
Economic freedom, creative destruction and upward mobility define SiliconValley (and, to less of an extent, its distant, communist suburb called "SF")
No one is forced to remain in any locale to live or work...or to pursue higher education or job skills..or start a business
Most of the big money in US today is self-made
Most of the big money and big, new mansions in Atherton/Woodside or PacificHts are those of engineers who arrived as penniless Stanford grad students from poor places like India a few years back...or kids from the Midwest or Podunk who arrived here as penniless Stanford grad students (like the Google, Yahoo, etc etc co-founders)
Complainers should look in mirror more often and not simply blame others for own economic and/or intellectual underachievement
SV has arguably attracted most of world's smartest and most ambitious kids for past ~50yrs and particularly over past 25yrs of modern tech industry: much of the fuel for the region's economy, wealth creation and innovation. No great region anywhere in world is defined by its stagnant natives, esp in an IQ-intensive, globally competitive economy
Actually it looks like SV is getting some major competition from New York :
I would agree with much of what your saying regarding those newly minted millionaires from poor countries, economic freedom, ambition, hard work, proper use of the mind to solve problems etc.
But you must also take into account the cultural differences/influences of inner city America (such as places like Oakland) and from 3rd world countries. Even though they come from environments much poorer than anywhere the US they are also typically a highly motivated and intelligent subset of the overall population who are selected to come here.
There is a different dynamic in inner city America. I would even venture to say that 3rd world immigrants (India, Nigeria etc) have even better educations than the typical, poor, black, inner city dweller, such is the pathetic state of inner city public education.
What does this statement mean? Does it mean a family shouldn't buy a home they like because it is meant for poor residents?
What does that mean it is meant for poor residents? Who decides it is meant for poor residents? Is a homebuyer supposed to feel guilty they can afford more but choose to not spend as much money?
Unless the property is owned by a municipal body - I see no role whatsoever for legislation to limit the choices people make when they choose a place they think meets their needs.
If a person who can afford a better neighborhood chooses to buy a home in a poorer neighborhood - that is a statement in itself. I think many would say the new buyer is courageous. The new buyer might be a different ethnic group.
What about a person who can afford a $1M home, but chooses a neighborhood with $300K homes? Is that bad too? I just don't see how legislation could ever be reasonably crafted to somehow choose how people make decisions where they live.
You're right; this excerpt of mine is a flawed argument. Living below one's means is not a crime or socially irresponsible, per se. The trouble lies here: what happens when people of higher socioeconomic status take over a neighborhood of traditionally lower? Property tax hikes, rents hike, and people who are poorer can no longer afford to live in their homes. There is an interesting post from awhile back in the "West Oakland" comment thread that has recently been revived, and explains the plight much better than I could.
You misunderstood the hypothetical legislation I was referring to, however; it would not be one that would prohibit well-off people from moving to a lower-income area, but protect current residents of the area. There are some protections already in place, like rent control and - even thought I find it faulty in some respects, Prop 13 - I just wonder if there is more we can do to help people who do not wish to be displaced. Or perhaps there is nothing we can do, and gentrification must and will happen to impoverished areas that are high in crime. It just feels to me like masking the problem of poverty and moving it aside, rather than tackling it head on.
You're right; this excerpt of mine is a flawed argument. Living below one's means is not a crime or socially irresponsible, per se. The trouble lies here: what happens when people of higher socioeconomic status take over a neighborhood of traditionally lower? Property tax hikes, rents hike, and people who are poorer can no longer afford to live in their homes. There is an interesting post from awhile back in the "West Oakland" comment thread that has recently been revived, and explains the plight much better than I could.
You misunderstood the hypothetical legislation I was referring to, however; it would not be one that would prohibit well-off people from moving to a lower-income area, but protect current residents of the area. There are some protections already in place, like rent control and - even thought I find it faulty in some respects, Prop 13 - I just wonder if there is more we can do to help people who do not wish to be displaced. Or perhaps there is nothing we can do, and gentrification must and will happen to impoverished areas that are high in crime. It just feels to me like masking the problem of poverty and moving it aside, rather than tackling it head on.
I have a difficult time imagining regulations per se that could produce an outcome ultimately better than letting the evolution of a neighborhood occur as it happens. I appreciate the challenge of a resident, perfectly happy where they are, then find themselves straining because the neighborhood has improved too much.
I suppose the ideal situation is for an area to improve itself organically or from within. But the rate of change is likely to be very slow - maybe multiple generations of families have to turn over to improve education, job skills, etc.
I have a difficult time imagining regulations per se that could produce an outcome ultimately better than letting the evolution of a neighborhood occur as it happens. I appreciate the challenge of a resident, perfectly happy where they are, then find themselves straining because the neighborhood has improved too much.
I suppose the ideal situation is for an area to improve itself organically or from within. But the rate of change is likely to be very slow - maybe multiple generations of families have to turn over to improve education, job skills, etc.
I think your ideal situation is dead-on. For a neighborhood to better itself on its own would be a great thing to watch, and, I think, a best practice standard-bearer for other impoverished areas. You're right that it would take time, but there's nothing to say they can't be helped in ways that do not involve real estate development, such as through education. The educational system in California has in many respects let down its dependents. The "best laid plans" of diffusing educational spending amongst various schools instead of focusing on high-taxpayer areas backfired, because it lacked additional vision and execution. Throwing money at the problem does not a solution make.
That said, I don't have the solution. But I like the question, and I like that it provokes controversy and thought. Sometimes all we need is to go on as usual, but keep a certain thing in mind so that we can gently correct the course when it goes astray.
Almost none of the neighborhood families that I knew growing up are still here... African American home owners are by far the largest percentage that sold and moved else where... I know several that moved to Vallejo, Solano, Pittsburg and Tracy.
No one forced them to sell... they had the chance to make a little and purchase a new home in a new communities... some have grown children they want to be near and others saw it as an opportunity.
For a time, I managed a number of rentals in the Oakland area... many African American tenants moved to Hayward, San Leandro and Pittsburg in search of better schools... again, no one I know was forced out.
I see the same thing having gone gone to High School in Oakland... just about everyone has moved and when the remaining parents pass away of move to a retirement community... the home is always sold.
Many bought in the 60's and their property tax was not a burden... I still can't understand moving and taking on the property taxes of a new home several times higher without really wanting a change.
Gentrification is NOT a country wide problem, in fact, it's the exact opposite. Most cities in this country still have extremely gritty urban areas and safe, newer suburbs. The only cities I can think that aren't like this are SF, Boston, NYC, and parts of WDC.
Forgetting about L.A., Portland, Chicago, and San Diego? Even Philly to some extent.
You guys are talking as if the neighborhood is to blame for being crappy. If gentrification didn't drive out the poor people, the neighborhood wouldn't be desirable. Gentrification solves two problems associated with crappy neighborhoods. Crime. Development. If we give back a gentrified neighborhood back to poor people, it will return to being a slum.
Basically, this problem can't be helped. You'd literally have to stop the neighborhood from being safe and pretty to defeat gentrification. What we need to do, and it is easier said than done, is eradicate poverty. Get people educated, and employed.
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.
:
