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.
There's nothing wrong with gentrification but let's not pretend that trust funds, inheritances, and the bank of "mom and dad" don't also contribute significantly to gentrification.
That's the real opposition to gentrification. Non-whites oppose it because they feel they aren't on a level playing field.
Are they correct? For the most part, yes.
Does life care? Not really. Thus is life.
There's nothing wrong with gentrification but let's not pretend that trust funds, inheritances, and the bank of "mom and dad" don't also contribute significantly to gentrification.
That's the real opposition to gentrification. Non-whites oppose it because they feel they aren't on a level playing field.
Are they correct? For the most part, yes.
Does life care? Not really. Thus is life.
Immigrants are a factor in high rent prices in NYC, and they are a factor in gentrification and displacement, at least in the earliest stages. 6 immigrants can pay a lot more for an apartment than a minimum wage couple with a Section 8 apartment.
In terms of development Asian investors (especially Chinese) are heavy investors and major developers of NYC real estate. Gentrification isn't a racial. Go into cities in emerging nations, and as they develop the poor get displaced as well. Major cities prefer to make as much money as they can off of prime real estate and locations.
The people renting and buying in gentrified neighborhoods are working professionals with good educations. They are where they are because they worked to be there. Did they get money from their families? I'm sure they did. Yes, it's going to be easier for some people to get to a certain point than others.
That does not mean anyone is owed anything though, and it's the responsibility of the individual person to do what he or she can do to move forward.
Immigrants are a factor in high rent prices in NYC, and they are a factor in gentrification and displacement, at least in the earliest stages. 6 immigrants can pay a lot more for an apartment than a minimum wage couple with a Section 8 apartment.
In terms of development Asian investors (especially Chinese) are heavy investors and major developers of NYC real estate. Gentrification isn't a racial. Go into cities in emerging nations, and as they develop the poor get displaced as well. Major cities prefer to make as much money as they can off of prime real estate and locations.
The people renting and buying in gentrified neighborhoods are working professionals with good educations. They are where they are because they worked to be there. Did they get money from their families? I'm sure they did. Yes, it's going to be easier for some people to get to a certain point than others.
That does not mean anyone is owed anything though, and it's the responsibility of the individual person to do what he or she can do to move forward.
You argument would make sense if immigrants were a relatively new phenomenon in NYC. So there goes that argument.
No doubt many gentrifiers are those with good educations. However, that doesn't make our arguments mutually exclusive. I would argue many have good educations because they have trust funds, inheritances, or the bank of mom and dad behind them.
Immigrants are a factor in high rent prices in NYC, and they are a factor in gentrification and displacement, at least in the earliest stages. 6 immigrants can pay a lot more for an apartment than a minimum wage couple with a Section 8 apartment.
You keep yelling that as if the apartments that they occupy would be taken up by those being priced out. What proof do you have of such circumstances? The immigrants that occupy those places usually live in deplorable conditions that even a poor citizen wouldn't live in, so the idea that poor people are "fighting" and being pushed out of "decent" apartments is laughable.
You keep yelling that as if the apartments that they occupy would be taken up by those being priced out. What proof do you have of such circumstances? The immigrants that occupy those places usually live in deplorable conditions that even a poor citizen wouldn't live in, so the idea that poor people are "fighting" and being pushed out of "decent" apartments is laughable.
"San Francisco's Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (San Francisco Mayor's Office of Housing, November 5, 1993) illustrates another impact of immigration on minorities. It states that due to the city's ``dire financial condition,'' the city faces an ``enormous challenge'' in providing housing for the poor (p.97), 61% of whom are minority (p.6). And yet the report also discusses the housing pressures arising from a burgeoning immigrant population (pp.57-58), with its ``huge need'' for not only ordinary housing services, but especially bilingual housing services. According to Anni Chung of Self-Help for the Elderly, a Chinese megachain of nonprofits based in San Francisco, 14,000 senior housing units will be needed to serve immigrants in the next five years. (Memo to the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, November 10, 1995.)
A key point is that funding for housing is fixed, if not dwindling. (This was also emphasized in an interview by the author with Ted Dienstfrey, Director of the Mayor's Office of Housing, June 29, 1994.) Thus one sees a direct negative impact on low-income African-Americans and other minorities (some of the latter are themselves earlier-arriving immigrants). In her November 10 memo cited above, Anni Chung notes that there are 10,000 applicants for public housing on the waiting list (the city manages 6,700 units), and there is a five-year wait for Section 8 rent subsidies. Significantly, Chung also stated that many immigrants continue to take advantage of public housing even after they have become economically able to buy their own homes!
In the midst of this worsening fiscal crisis, the city announced that it would spend $23 million on rebuilding the International Hotel in Chinatown, to provide subsidized housing, largely for elderly immigrants. (San Francisco Examiner, September 8, 1994.) Many, if not most, of those immigrants have well-off children; see the author's testimony at"
This is anti immigrant and the writer claims large scale immigration has multiple adverse effects on minorities, and not just African American, but Latinos and Asians.
I disagree with much of what she said, but what she says on housing is true. Housing prices in Queens, Upper Manhattan, and the Bronx would drop if not for large numbers of immigrants. The crowded conditions they live in make it cheap for businesses to hire them in the service sector, making services comparatively cheap (if they hired Americans in these positions, prices would skyrocket as the higher wages would simply be passed on to the customers).
You argument would make sense if immigrants were a relatively new phenomenon in NYC. So there goes that argument.
Immigration to NYC actually was waning from the 50s to the 80s. It wasn't anything like the levels seen in the 1990s or today. Explain why areas like Wakefield (BX), Canarsie (BK), Bensonhurst or Flushing with almost zero yuppies/"artists" still command 1400-1500 for a 1br? Answer: Immigration.
You keep yelling that as if the apartments that they occupy would be taken up by those being priced out. What proof do you have of such circumstances? The immigrants that occupy those places usually live in deplorable conditions that even a poor citizen wouldn't live in, so the idea that poor people are "fighting" and being pushed out of "decent" apartments is laughable.
The conditions of most of NY's native poor aren't that much better. People will call me heartless, but the poor truly would be better off if we gave them a job placement and a one-year housing stipend to go somewhere like Atlanta, Dallas, or AZ. With the never-ending waves of immigration and the general expense of NY it's actually the more compassionate thing to do.
The conditions of most of NY's native poor aren't that much better. People will call me heartless, but the poor truly would be better off if we gave them a job placement and a one-year housing stipend to go somewhere like Atlanta, Dallas, or AZ. With the never-ending waves of immigration and the general expense of NY it's actually the more compassionate thing to do.
No, they would not be better off necessarily. NYC has excellent public transportation, and even people in the poorest neighborhoods are generally comparatively close to major medical centers. One has easy access to libraries, gyms, etc. CUNY is comparatively cheap.
Any poor person that wants a professional job in NYC knows they have to work their ass off and work their way up through getting a job and going to school.
To be compassionate toward someone is to basically call them an idiot, and an inferior human being because if you believe in someone as a person, that's no need for you to make such an awful proposition.
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.
