U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-20-2014, 10:56 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 19 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,000 posts, read 102,581,357 times
Reputation: 33059

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
Gentrification goes hand in hand with housing affordability. The best way to eliminate displacement is to have a wide variety of housing, serving different incomes in all sorts of neighborhood configurations.

I make wbove average income and hopefully i can buya place one day. Unfortunately i live in a pricey metro where 50% of people rent. Nd most of the owners bought over a decade ago and our property taxes are based on home purchase price.

I have a short list of requirements, and unfortunately my fufilling my list would likely cause me yo become a gentrifier in the parts of town that fit my budget. If we had more supply meeting my requiremenys, it wouldn't happen that way.
Here's my philosophy-do what is best for you! You can't help it if you will become a "gentrifier". You will bring energy to any neighborhood, and that's good.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-20-2014, 03:48 PM
 
Location: Lakewood OH
21,699 posts, read 23,661,739 times
Reputation: 35449
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
Gentrification goes hand in hand with housing affordability. The best way to eliminate displacement is to have a wide variety of housing, serving different incomes in all sorts of neighborhood configurations.

I make above average income and hopefully i can buy a place one day. Unfortunately i live in a pricey metro where 50% of people rent. Nd most of the owners bought over a decade ago and our property taxes are based on home purchase price.

I have a short list of requirements, and unfortunately my fulfilling my list would likely cause me yo become a gentrifier in the parts of town that fit my budget. If we had more supply meeting my requirements, it wouldn't happen that way.
Do what you have to do with this in mind; today's gentrifier could be tomorrow's displacee. Seriously, in neighborhoods such as in the city of Portland from which I recently moved and many other cities I would suspect, many people who originally gentrified neighborhoods maybe a decade ago find themselves having to move later on because they could no longer afford rents or property taxes.

I moved into my neighborhood of 25 plus years maybe a little less than ten or so years before it became gentrified. I barely hung on as housing prices and rentals rose outrageously over the years. It wasn't so bad at first but eventually I had to make the choice of moving on because the increases in the cost of living there outran my salary increases. So enjoy it while you can, you never know what the future might bring.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2014, 09:52 PM
 
33,046 posts, read 22,053,448 times
Reputation: 8970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernard_ View Post
I recently saw this news story in Seattle and it made me really sad: Longtime residents on Seattle's First Hill forced out

Watch the video and tell me how it's fair that this can happen so developers can make money - what can be done to protect against this?

There is a small area in Portland - a mere fraction of a neighborhood, really, that recently has been seeing apartment construction without onsite parking. This development - the new apartments are quite pricey - has attracted restaurants and other upscale businesses. Embedded in the parking debate is the question whether new apartments - with or without parking - advance gentrification.

Some say such new development raises property values, rents, and taxes.

If that is the case, why not dedicate a portion of the marginal new property tax revenue toward preserving and expanding the supply of affordable housing?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2014, 09:57 PM
 
33,046 posts, read 22,053,448 times
Reputation: 8970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervah View Post
Do what you have to do with this in mind; today's gentrifier could be tomorrow's displacee. Seriously, in neighborhoods such as in the city of Portland from which I recently moved and many other cities I would suspect, many people who originally gentrified neighborhoods maybe a decade ago find themselves having to move later on because they could no longer afford rents or property taxes.

I moved into my neighborhood of 25 plus years maybe a little less than ten or so years before it became gentrified. I barely hung on as housing prices and rentals rose outrageously over the years. It wasn't so bad at first but eventually I had to make the choice of moving on because the increases in the cost of living there outran my salary increases. So enjoy it while you can, you never know what the future might bring.

Those of us at the bottom of the housing food chain find it difficult to sympathize with gentrifiers becoming hoist on their own petards.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2014, 10:01 PM
 
33,046 posts, read 22,053,448 times
Reputation: 8970
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus View Post
What about tenants' rights? No one said they did not have the right to live there, it is just they have to pay more to do so. I fail to see where people have the right to live in a specific area they want. Part of the motivation for making a good income is for those little things like living where you desire.

Rent control is poor policy, every place with rent control has shown this.

The tenants are mere renters, they do not own the property, I do not see how this is such a difficult concept. If you owned a house and was renting it out, do you think you should not be allowed to sell it? Change the rent price? Do you think by law you should be obligated to charge a certain amount of rent?

What tenants need is an actual free market where they can buy just the 2,500 sq feet they can afford and not the 8,000 sq ft minimum lot size they can't afford.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2014, 10:09 PM
 
33,046 posts, read 22,053,448 times
Reputation: 8970
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus View Post
Of course the gov provides constraints what you can do with your property, but there are limits to this, it is not exactly North Korea or the USSR either. While the gov provides constraints such as codes and zoning, that is far short of telling someone they are not allowed to sell or make property improvements.

What is being alluded to in this thread is that a property owner should not be allowed to sell, improve, nor charge higher rent for their property, because current tenants would not be able to afford it. Since when do people have some right to live in a specific area? If they cannot afford to live there, they should do what everyone does, move to a place they can afford. I know, strange concept, living within your means.

California homeowners decided that if they cannot afford to live there, they shouldn't have to move to a place they can afford - rather, government should do something about it in the form of Proposition 13.

Are you saying that if California homeowners cannot afford to live there, government should make their homes more affordable, but if renters cannot afford to live there they should move to a place they can afford?

Are you saying renters should have to live within their means but homeowners are special and deserve a free pass? (I now see, from reading more of your posts, your answer is apparently YES.)

Last edited by freemkt; 09-21-2014 at 10:27 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2014, 10:23 PM
 
33,046 posts, read 22,053,448 times
Reputation: 8970
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
Gentrification goes hand in hand with housing affordability. The best way to eliminate displacement is to have a wide variety of housing, serving different incomes in all sorts of neighborhood configurations.

I make wbove average income and hopefully i can buya place one day. Unfortunately i live in a pricey metro where 50% of people rent. Nd most of the owners bought over a decade ago and our property taxes are based on home purchase price.

I have a short list of requirements, and unfortunately my fufilling my list would likely cause me yo become a gentrifier in the parts of town that fit my budget. If we had more supply meeting my requiremenys, it wouldn't happen that way.

But NIMBYs and other housing control advocates generally frown upon a wide variety of housing; look at how many zoning codes glorify the single-family detached home and cripple the market for other varieties of housing.

I see a not-distant future in which home ownership will be largely be bequeathed from one generation to their children.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2014, 10:25 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,166 posts, read 29,665,044 times
Reputation: 26651
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
California homeowners decided that if they cannot afford to live there, they shouldn't have to move to a place they can afford - rather, government should do something about it in the form of Proposition 13.

Are you saying it's okay for homeowners to enlist government help to stay in their homes, but not okay for renters to do likewise?

Are you saying renters should have to live within their means but homeowners are special and deserve a free pass?
Prop 13 is one of the main drivers of the ridiculous cost of housing in CA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2014, 10:33 PM
 
33,046 posts, read 22,053,448 times
Reputation: 8970
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccdscott View Post
Great post Malloric. So the question is, how do you get developers that don't have a profit motive, but can charge reasonable rates and develop housing that is newer and increases neighborhood value?

I'd like to become a nonprofit developer, but I'm poor and broke.

Maybe there could be a mentorship/apprenticeship program for people like me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2014, 10:36 PM
 
33,046 posts, read 22,053,448 times
Reputation: 8970
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
Prop 13 is one of the main drivers of the ridiculous cost of housing in CA.

ONLY FOR RENTERS AND FOR NEW BUYERS.

Incumbent homeowners voted themselves a (delayed) windfall in Prop 13.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top