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.
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?
Very simple. Remove legal protection against segregation and permit the development of additional ghettos. As long as there is a stigma against mixing races and social classes the neighborhood will remain stagnant and isolated in it's racial and economic setting. Only by removing those social barriers can gentrification exist.
It seems to be a double edged sword, no? We prevent isolation by encouraging new migration to an area and then complain about new money, new ideas and new cultures taking over the old.
So do white, out of college (or if not, grew up in a middle class area) with a low income overcrowding a Bed-Stuy apartment count for increasing property values? Or lowering nearby property values? They're not really the type of "poor" that create QOL of life issues, or assumed to (partially accurate, partially from stereotypes).
Only to the extent that they are a signal to people with money (usually white people with money) that it's okay to buy in the neighborhood.
There's no such thing as "educated poor". If you are poor, in spite of being given great opportunities to advance your income, you might have an education, but you haven't been "educated" in what matters.
Funny, you use Manhattan as your example, but there are MANY areas of Manhattan that might be considered slums. Far more than the Upper East Side, in percentage.
I used the Upper East Side because a recent post on CD (in Urban Planning I think) says the greatest US density is in the Upper East Side. I used it as a counterexample to show that density does not equate to slum or to poverty.
I used the Upper East Side because a recent post on CD (in Urban Planning I think) says the greatest US density is in the Upper East Side. I used it as a counterexample to show that density does not equate to slum or to poverty.
Ron Paul coined a phrase in an opinion piece. Not exactly a phrase that is in common use.
And this, from the second paragraph: "I will not confuse intelligence with education." Which was my point exactly.
Using one example among thousands, if not millions of high density areas that DO equate to slums or poverty, doesn't exactly make your case.
"Normal" makes it seems like it's constantly been happening throughout the 20th Century. This period is really abnormal because we've probably never seen a time where such large geographic swaths of inner cities were nearly the exclusive province of a largely childless, wealthy and transient population.
Fair? I guess you could say that. Whoever pays the most "wins" and whoever can't loses. The rules of the game were there to see so nobody can really complain about that...I guess. Normal? Not so sure about that.
A) I'm compelled to point out I said nothing about fairness.
As it is currently occurring in cities, it can be quite unfair. But, again, that is a policy choice to create supply-limiting rules and regulations and fees. And the core of the problem is how the supply-demand gap affects prices--low-income individuals can currently be hit debilitatingly hard when they have to re-enter the market.
B) It is normal as a function of market economics. Groups with higher demand--the willingness and ability to "pay" (through money or power) for a good or service--have a long history of displacing those with less demand. Gentrification is, simply, a very specific way of characterizing that mechanism.
That it is suddenly significant is a combination of at least three things: the weakening of government's ability to autocratically roll out urban plans (not necessarily a bad thing); the hyper-localization of planning; the media's constant drum-beat of the threat to our cities of gentrification. UPs can no longer force through development, even if the market itself is crying for it. Bored, self-interested, or extremely outspoken neighbors can block cities and developers ad nauseum and ad infinitum, grinding supply growth to a crawl. Media outlets have beat this warning drum so long we've internalized the message that gentrification is a dire threat to our cities.
A) I'm compelled to point out I said nothing about fairness.
As it is currently occurring in cities, it can be quite unfair. But, again, that is a policy choice to create supply-limiting rules and regulations and fees. And the core of the problem is how the supply-demand gap affects prices--low-income individuals can currently be hit debilitatingly hard when they have to re-enter the market.
B) It is normal as a function of market economics. Groups with higher demand--the willingness and ability to "pay" (through money or power) for a good or service--have a long history of displacing those with less demand. Gentrification is, simply, a very specific way of characterizing that mechanism.
That it is suddenly significant is a combination of at least three things: the weakening of government's ability to autocratically roll out urban plans (not necessarily a bad thing); the hyper-localization of planning; the media's constant drum-beat of the threat to our cities of gentrification. UPs can no longer force through development, even if the market itself is crying for it. Bored, self-interested, or extremely outspoken neighbors can block cities and developers ad nauseum and ad infinitum, grinding supply growth to a crawl. Media outlets have beat this warning drum so long we've internalized the message that gentrification is a dire threat to our cities.
One thing about renters that might often be overlooked is the fact that in effect, renters have to re-enter the market more or less every 12 months, when their leases are up. Rising prices do not adversely affect a homeowner's P&I payment but renters cannot for long avoid facing rent increases.
Also, I think urban minority constituencies have more influence or power today than they did in the past; blacks are the fourth largest ethnic or racial group in Portland and successfully opposed the introduction of Trader Joe's into a gentrifying neighborhood.
The emergence in recent years of the 'educated poor' might also be expanding the vulnerable constituency with both a negative stake in gentrification and a voice - and thus a strong incentive to actively oppose it.
I rarely shop Trader Joe's and fail to see how a Trader Joe's coming in would be a bad thing.
The City where I work has sent Delegations to Trader Joe's begging them to consider San Leandro and no go... the city put together an entire package to present along with hundreds of neighborhood signatures...
The city of Turlock did the same for In and Out Burger and it worked... a real win/win...
Most people living in RC/RS apts are not poor. I would guess many are middle class and above. I know quite a few people who have been in these apts for over 25 years. Most have a second home in a vacation area purchased on the ridiculously low rents they have been paying plus no heat bill plus no electric bill .plus no water bill plus never buying an appliance plus never calling a plumber or electrician plus they have a right to a lease renewal. They essentially own somebody else's apt without the headache of ownership.
It is the biggest handout in NYC and it is not limited to the lower incomes.
Median income of those with RC/RS apartments is $36k/year.
Rent stabilization isn't meant as a handout, it's just a law that limits how much a landlord can increase the rent. There's no intention of being for the needy or not needy.
One thing about renters that might often be overlooked is the fact that in effect, renters have to re-enter the market more or less every 12 months, when their leases are up. Rising prices do not adversely affect a homeowner's P&I payment but renters cannot for long avoid facing rent increases.
Also, I think urban minority constituencies have more influence or power today than they did in the past; blacks are the fourth largest ethnic or racial group in Portland and successfully opposed the introduction of Trader Joe's into a gentrifying neighborhood.
The emergence in recent years of the 'educated poor' might also be expanding the vulnerable constituency with both a negative stake in gentrification and a voice - and thus a strong incentive to actively oppose it.
More garbage about things you don't know. You really think a homeowner's payments don't rise? You're wrong.
Rent stabilization isn't meant as a handout, it's just a law that limits how much a landlord can increase the rent. There's no intention of being for the needy or not needy.
Of course it is a handout.
The median rent in the study for RC/RS apts in Manhattan is $1295. Half the apts are paying less than $1295 to live in Manhattan. Does that make sense?
Here is a key quote from the study:
"Indeed, the median income of stabilized rental households in Manhattan below 96th Street (Core Manhattan) is higher than the median income of market-rate tenants in all but eight neighborhoods outside of the core of Manhattan. "
This supports my observations.
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.
