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.
One of the enduring points promulgated by the pro-gentrification crowd is that everyone made out "OK" from gentrification. Buyers pounced on cheaper properties in predominately lower-class, minority neighborhoods. In return, sellers got a big chunk of cash from the real estate sale. All-in-all, a happy transaction for everyone involved.
Yes, many long-time residents in blighted neighborhoods could not resist offers from the white yuppie buyers or the property developers. But there were cases of FORCED evictions of tenants who were not fortunate enough to own property. We are not talking about an isolated case of families getting kicked out of rental units. The forced evictions happened in many gentrifying neighborhoods and this development got lost in our history.
As a publicity stunt, the real estate developers would extend an offer to the low-income tenants in Columbia Heights, Logan Circle, Mount Pleasant, Capitol Hill and many other prime DC residential areas. The only problem is that the low-income tenants could not afford $400,000 condo units. Housing subsidies for the working class were woefully under-funded in the District. Even during the peak period of exotic mortgage loan lending, many poor black and Latino residents would not qualify for financing. The offers were an insult to injury.
The evicted tenants probably settled in worse crime-ridden neighborhoods with lousier schools. A few moved to the suburbs where they do not have convenient access to public transportation and nearby grocery shopping. In the end, moving your belongings and family under short notice to a strange part of town must be an awful experience.
But that's how things work in our society: people with money get what they want and those who don't have it will have their rights taken away.
One of the enduring points promulgated by the pro-gentrification crowd is that everyone made out "OK" from gentrification. Buyers pounced on cheaper properties in predominately lower-class, minority neighborhoods. In return, sellers got a big chunk of cash from the real estate sale. All-in-all, a happy transaction for everyone involved.
Yes, many long-time residents in blighted neighborhoods could not resist offers from the white yuppie buyers or the property developers. But there were cases of FORCED evictions of tenants who were not fortunate enough to own property. We are not talking about an isolated case of families getting kicked out of rental units. The forced evictions happened in many gentrifying neighborhoods and this development got lost in our history.
As a publicity stunt, the real estate developers would extend an offer to the low-income tenants in Columbia Heights, Logan Circle, Mount Pleasant, Capitol Hill and many other prime DC residential areas. The only problem is that the low-income tenants could not afford $400,000 condo units. Housing subsidies for the working class were woefully under-funded in the District. Even during the peak period of exotic mortgage loan lending, many poor black and Latino residents would not qualify for financing. The offers were an insult to injury.
The evicted tenants probably settled in worse crime-ridden neighborhoods with lousier schools. A few moved to the suburbs where they do not have convenient access to public transportation and nearby grocery shopping. In the end, moving your belongings and family under short notice to a strange part of town must be an awful experience.
But that's how things work in our society: people with money get what they want and those who don't have it will have their rights taken away.
What right is there to an apartment that you can't afford without government assistance?
The rents went up and the owners wanted to enjoy the windfall. If they could pay fine if not adios. It's not that difficult. PG and SE awaits.
Oy Vey. Here we go again. Nobody has a RIGHT to live where they want. There are many places I wish to live, but guess what? I can't afford it. If my rent goes up so much to the point where I can't afford it, then I'm SOL. It's not FORCED eviction. It's I CAN'T PAY THE GODDAMN RENT!!!!
And why should only the poor get convenient access to the city? It's not a right as you think. Please show me where it says that's a right....
Coldbliss Read this article and you tell me if keeping people in subsidized housing is a good thing in gentrified neighborhoods. Now everyone in the area including me cant wait for that block of housing to be torn down and rebuilt with some "gentrified" housing
Coldbliss Read this article and you tell me if keeping people in subsidized housing is a good thing in gentrified neighborhoods. Now everyone in the area including me cant wait for that block of housing to be torn down and rebuilt with some "gentrified" housing
But you have to understand, those kids have been through so much (mainly brought on by themselves.) They are bored (they have dropped out of school)
and their mama's never hugged them (she is in jail.) What else do you expect them to do? Learn? Get a job? HAHAHA. Then they would not be 'keeping it real' And as you know, black people are not even allowed in these brand new Starbucks opening up....
The biggest issue I see with DC today is that it is not developing nearly enough affordable housing to replace the units being torn down. No, no one has an inherent right to live in a particular place, and I agree with the overwhelming number of urban sociologists and city planners who say that grouping low income housing is disasterous. But it is to no one's benefit if people are simply moved onto the streets to fend for themselves. And if the city is going to persist in allowing developers to tear down apartment blocks that served as subsidized or affordable housing units, it needs to do a much better job relocating the people that are being displaced. I don't begrudge the construction of a condo building near a Metro stop, but the city absolutely must address the needs of people displaced by the project.
There was an interestign question raised at one of the recent at-large council candidate's forums: someone asked the candidates whether they were "for" or "against" gentrification. My immediate reaction was: how can anyone honestly answer that question? Many people do not support the displacement of the poor, or the astronomical rise of real estate values in the city to the point where substantial chunks of it have become unaffordable to all but the uber-wealthy.
But should we then also denounce the substantial drop in levels of crime, the improvement of city services (including things like roads, libraries, parks and transit infrastructure), the arrival of amenities to underserved neighborhoods throughout the city, or the focus on the improvement of the city's school system? Because the city and its leaders should make no apologies for such things. The only "myth" of gentrification that I see is that it can be viewed as a black/white either/or issue. it's much more nuanced than that.
DC needs much more affordable housing and there are a lot of undeveloped parcels around the Ft. Lincoln area and in Ward 7 that could be built into townhomes, kinda like Henson Ridge off Alabama ave. I think PG county is more than overwhelmed by DC's displacement of lower income residents...... and so is many parts of Montgomery county as well.
Coldbliss - I've never heard anyone say everybody wins with reinvestment of urban centers. The neighborhoods that were middle class / upper class before the 60s/70s are returning to their former status quo. Demographics shift around and usually those without property are the ones who get shifted against their will. That's how our system works.
Would you like all the white people to move out to Loudon County and build big highways and malls out into the hinterlands, driving around in cars that pollute and clog the roads? We tried that and it failed and all we heard was how horrible people were for doing that.
You approach a lot of these issues like a college student just discovering that the world isn't fair, throwing blind outrage at whatover bogeyman is nearest, but it's not that simple. So, seriously - what's your solution? More affordable housing spread out so poverty isn't concentrated? Fine. Let's do it. What else? Enough complaining and blaming.
as someone who can live just about anywhere i choose to, i do realize that there is a need for affordable housing in dc. i don't want to live in a dc that's like manhattan. i'm not saying that housing projects are the answer but i also don't want to have a city where there's just one type of people living within city limits. that would suck.
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.
