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.
What is not fair about it? Someone owned a property and decided to sell it; that all of a sudden is not fair?
What is there to protect against? People selling their property? A property owner making improvements? A property owner requesting more money for use of their property?
Do you own property? If so, can I tell you want I want you to do with it? Do you have a car? Can I tell you what to do with it?
What an absurd argument. Why do we have tenant's rights at all then? As a property owner providing housing to others, you must adhere to housing policies instated by the government. Have you ever heard of rent control or laws around eviction?
The fact that you can't distinguish between providing housing for potentially hundreds or thousands of people and owning a vehicle for your personal use is downright scary.
What an absurd argument. Why do we have tenant's rights at all then? As a property owner providing housing to others, you must adhere to housing policies instated by the government. Have you ever heard of rent control or laws around eviction?
The fact that you can't distinguish between providing housing for potentially hundreds or thousands of people and owning a vehicle for your personal use is downright scary.
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?
Hyperbole aside--the government does tell you what you can and cannot do with your property,so it is not perfectly "yours"--I think the concern is for those who are of limited ability to cope with a sudden change because of age or timing or income.
To the OP, the way to limit the effect of gentrification is to, ironically, loosen the market. Don't worry about gentrification, per se. Gentrification is just going to happen as neighborhoods improve and become popular. It is not, in and of itself, a problem. The problem is when gentrification happens in a constrained market, putting serious stress on the displaced who may not be able to afford going back in to the market.
Most of the constraints on supply are borne of government regulation. EIRs and dev fees and zoning rules seriously constrict supply, thereby raising prices faster than incomes and creating these situations wherein property owners have strong motive to sell and at-risk renters have few alternatives. In this situation, reducing red tape brings supply and demand closer to balance, giving long-term tenants more options.
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.
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.
I think this issue is a lot more complex than you think. There needs to be a balance between people's right to buy something and people's right to be able to live in the place they have roots in.
I think this issue is a lot more complex than you think. There needs to be a balance between people's right to buy something and people's right to be able to live in the place they have roots in.
If they own the property, I agree with you; you can find many posts from me on CDF regarding property tax reform and other items to protect homeowners.
However, renters do not own the property, they are merely renting, not owners. Since they are not owners, they should not have decisions over the property. If you were renting your house out, I doubt you would think it would be just fine if the people you were renting it to could control when you sold the house, made improvements to the house, and the price of the rent.
Additionally, I have no idea where this concept comes from that people have some sort of "right" to live in a specific area. If a person cannot afford to live in a specific area, the logic is either they get more money to afford it, or they move to a cheaper area.
On the flip side of putting affordable housing in in prime areas, in development-limited areas if you designate part of the small amount of what you allow to get built strictly for low income residents the result isn't to push less people out -- it just shifts who gets pushed out to the middle-class and in the most gentrified areas, the upper-middle class. That isn't a desirable outcome -- it's literally worse than doing nothing.
I think there's a pretty good practical argument why lower-income people should be located in "prime" areas actually. Low income people are more reliant upon mass transit. They benefit greatly when well-served by it, and suffer when in areas of poor transit access, as many are too poor to even own cars. In contrast, middle and upper/middle class people may prefer to use mass transit, but they can afford the costs associated with car ownership.
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.
While I'm inclined to agree in premise, in some places, that--"move to a place they can afford"--simply is not possible from a practical perspective.
As I have said previously in this thread and elsewhere, the fundamental problem is home price/land value inflation. When the growth rate far outpaces working class income growth, gentrification becomes a problem where it wouldn't be otherwise. This tends to be a result of government policy more than anything else--geographic necessity, for example.
I think there's a pretty good practical argument why lower-income people should be located in "prime" areas actually. Low income people are more reliant upon mass transit. They benefit greatly when well-served by it, and suffer when in areas of poor transit access, as many are too poor to even own cars. In contrast, middle and upper/middle class people may prefer to use mass transit, but they can afford the costs associated with car ownership.
More resilient on *bad* mass transit because they have no other choice. The biggest reason upper/middle class people choose not to use it is because of the smelly nutjobs, overcrowding, inconvenient schedules and poor routes you have to put up with on transit systems geared towards the lowest common denominator.
Here's a solution: make sure your region is economically stagnant and your leaders have no vision. If you're not attracting gentrifiers, you won't have gentrification. Problem solved.
It works for St. Louis, anyway.
It worked for a long time in Pittsburgh, too. Now that the area is picking up, housing prices are going up, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton
I think there's a pretty good practical argument why lower-income people should be located in "prime" areas actually. Low income people are more reliant upon mass transit. They benefit greatly when well-served by it, and suffer when in areas of poor transit access, as many are too poor to even own cars. In contrast, middle and upper/middle class people may prefer to use mass transit, but they can afford the costs associated with car ownership.
I think people should locate where they want and can afford. I don't like the idea of locating people anywhere. I agree that people do not have a "right" to live in certain areas. I'm not real positive on gentrification OTOH. It's not simple.
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.
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.
