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 you don't get is that many black people have emotional ties to their communities. They aren't so willing to sell and move somewhere else. Many of us live close to our families and have a history that can't be bought by the highest seller. Contrary to what you might believe, finding an area that is accepting of black people is not as easy as you would think, so picking up and moving your life somewhere foreign can be a daunting task. Especially when those other places are likely to be other urban areas where this cycle will just repeat itself again.
Cry me a river.
If the cycle keeps on repeating many black people would be millionaires, I'm sure they would rather keep their current home/lifestyle instead of having enough money to live comfortably in a nice area, be able to raise their children someplace that doesn't have metal detectors at the school or bullet proof glass at the bank. I'm going to go ask some people in my neighborhood and see what they have to say, my area is prodominatly Black/Hispanic/Asian lower middle class btw.
No one commenting here, probably lives in the neighborhood being referenced or even in Portland so I don't think anyone read the entire story of what's going on here. (I lived in that neighborhood for six years until moving to a different neighborhood a little over a year ago)
Part of the controversy is that the Portland Development Commission sold that property to a real estate developer for Trader Joe's for $500,000 when it was worth $2.9 million--and a few weeks before the deal went through PDC officials were being wined and dined at the most expensive steakhouse in Portland(this just came out in the press locally). There's already a lot of local skepticism about the backdoor deals the PDC has been engaged in with real estate developers, and it wasn't until this hit the news that Trader Joes said they were pulling out.
The Portland African American Leadership Forum made a big deal about the proposed below market value sale of the land in addition to concerns about gentrification to make a political point. The fact is that the area is largely gentrified already--it's surrounded by several of the trendier neighborhoods in Portland(Alberta and N Mississippi and Williams areas)--MLK Ave, the street the store was proposed to built on is sort of a working class island at this point that reflects the remaining African-American population.
Gentrification started a decade ago(I moved out of my rental in part because it got too expensive). If the city didn't subsidize some affordable housing in the area, most of the poorer renters in the area would've moved out--some of the older homeowners stayed but many cashed out and moved out to the suburbs. Gentrification took place everywhere in inner Portland over the last decade, it only really became a news story when it hit the one area that was mostly black for fifty years(because of redlining, which itself is a sad story). No one though was really that concerned when the working class neighborhoods of SE Portland were gentrified.
The original intention of an initiative does not always play out well when put into practice. While it's great that gentrification uplifts and improves neighborhoods, it's terrible that it is at the expense of those who have lived in these neighborhoods for generations.
But it isn't at anyone's expense. Any owner in the neighborhood will benefit from increased real estate prices, and renters IN ANY LOCATION are always living somewhat at the whim of the owner. True, a lease is a contract that must be honored by both sides, but once the lease term is up, for any lease anywhere, the owner can choose to not renew, change terms, or stop renting period...assuming proper notice per terms of contract. My buddy owns a condo in Phoenix. He got out of the military and moved back. He told his renters 6 months ahead of time that he was not renewing the lease and that's that. They were getting a great deal, complained about "what about us" but end of the day, his condo, his rules. He followed proper notice regs, was totally within his rights as the owner, and tough noogies for the renters. That's how it is to rent. So gentrification introduces nothing net negative. Renters are already at the whim of the property owners, and the neighborhood owners come out ahead. On net, the neighborhood wins.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChocLot
The improvement of neighborhoods should never come at the expense of driving out residents and pushing the problem to another area of the city. Ultimately, gentrification is all about money, not improving the conditions of the downtrodden.
Again, it comes at nobody's expense. Renters live at the owner's whim either way, and the current owners benefit with increased values. And of course this is about money. Real estate at rock bottom prices that can provide a good ROI is smart investing.
i too tire of these stores for suburban white hipsters who wear skinny jeans. they destroyed uptown in minneapolis and moved the rents up 1,000 a month once they got a hold of it.
that happened in fishtown neighborhood of philly.
The hipsters and lawyers fixed up the houses to the point only the rich or very upper middle class can now live there. that is the downside of neighborhoods going through gentrification.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtc08
i too tire of these stores for suburban white hipsters who wear skinny jeans. they destroyed uptown in minneapolis and moved the rents up 1,000 a month once they got a hold of it.
IMO, diversity is not just black people, but minorities in general.
Diversity means you have all kinds of people. Not just "minorities" but also white people (who you think are bland, which says an awful lot, frankly).
And old people. And young people. And different religions and sexualities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChocLot
Who are "people from the outside"? LOTS of the dilapidated housing in poor neighborhoods are the result of slumlords who don't maintain their properties.
People from "the outside" are whoever you apparently expect to fix things for the oppressed, who are apparently unable or unwilling to do it themselves.
Ever stop to think that the slumlords charge the rents they do BECAUSE they don't maintain their properties? That if they actually maintained their property and made it attractive and nice.... that they could and would command higher rents?
And if you want to stop owners from being pushed out of homes due to increasing property values, you need to advocate for things like Florida's homestead exemption, which caps property tax increases for owner-occupiers. I live in a gentrified neighborhood that went from solid middle class when built, to a place where drug addicts and prostitutes roamed in the 80s-early 90s, to a place that people began fixing up, buying places for not a lot of money and investing their labor and money in their homes. Some people have been in the neighborhood for decades. I can guarantee the place is 10X better to live now that it used to be!
No one commenting here, probably lives in the neighborhood being referenced or even in Portland so I don't think anyone read the entire story of what's going on here. (I lived in that neighborhood for six years until moving to a different neighborhood a little over a year ago)
Part of the controversy is that the Portland Development Commission sold that property to a real estate developer for Trader Joe's for $500,000 when it was worth $2.9 million--and a few weeks before the deal went through PDC officials were being wined and dined at the most expensive steakhouse in Portland(this just came out in the press locally). There's already a lot of local skepticism about the backdoor deals the PDC has been engaged in with real estate developers, and it wasn't until this hit the news that Trader Joes said they were pulling out.
The Portland African American Leadership Forum made a big deal about the proposed below market value sale of the land in addition to concerns about gentrification to make a political point. The fact is that the area is largely gentrified already--it's surrounded by several of the trendier neighborhoods in Portland(Alberta and N Mississippi and Williams areas)--MLK Ave, the street the store was proposed to built on is sort of a working class island at this point that reflects the remaining African-American population.
Gentrification started a decade ago(I moved out of my rental in part because it got too expensive). If the city didn't subsidize some affordable housing in the area, most of the poorer renters in the area would've moved out--some of the older homeowners stayed but many cashed out and moved out to the suburbs. Gentrification took place everywhere in inner Portland over the last decade, it only really became a news story when it hit the one area that was mostly black for fifty years(because of redlining, which itself is a sad story). No one though was really that concerned when the working class neighborhoods of SE Portland were gentrified.
I caught that in the article and I disagree with targeted set asides to developers. No need for that. On that issue I agree with the protesters but I draw the line at wholesale banishment of business because property values will increase.
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.
