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.
Basically, when rich white people move in, rent increases push out long-time residents and fracture communities. Also, there may not be other pockets of lower rent for them to move to. Gentrification can be a positive thing if it is done with a plan that supports the existing community and doesn't try to replace it.
Oh, it is definitely not only white people, but that has been the trend over the years. Plus the whole issue is more complex than can be expressed in a short post.
Basically, when rich white people move in, rent increases push out long-time residents and fracture communities. Also, there may not be other pockets of lower rent for them to move to. Gentrification can be a positive thing if it is done with a plan that supports the existing community and doesn't try to replace it.
Hmm. Forgive me, but I still fail to understand. The article mentions that these are black homeowners and that they're afraid of getting "pushed out". Who exactly is going to push them out? Don't they have to decide to sell their house if they own it? This goes back to my ignorance on home ownership (I have never owned a home and won't for some time), but the bank technically owns the house, right? And the owner pays the mortgage to the bank. So what is it - developers offering to buy out houses outright (if that's even a thing - I have no idea) from the bank and then forcing the owners out that way?
Can you, or someone, go into more detail about "a plan that supports the existing community and doesn't try to replace it"? How could the community be supported? To play devil's advocate, what is wrong with replacing the existing community's crappy old dilapidated houses with new ones? In one of the fastest growing and most desirable cities in the entire United States? Why should the existing community get to stay on that very valuable land close to downtown when there are people who can actually afford to keep the community maintained perfectly willing to do so? Is living in a city with large, blighted neighborhoods more desirable?
Hmm. Forgive me, but I still fail to understand. The article mentions that these are black homeowners and that they're afraid of getting "pushed out". Who exactly is going to push them out? Don't they have to decide to sell their house if they own it? This goes back to my ignorance on home ownership (I have never owned a home and won't for some time), but the bank technically owns the house, right? And the owner pays the mortgage to the bank. So what is it - developers offering to buy out houses outright (if that's even a thing - I have no idea) from the bank and then forcing the owners out that way?
Can you, or someone, go into more detail about "a plan that supports the existing community and doesn't try to replace it"? How could the community be supported? To play devil's advocate, what is wrong with replacing the existing community's crappy old dilapidated houses with new ones? In one of the fastest growing and most desirable cities in the entire United States? Why should the existing community get to stay on that very valuable land close to downtown when there are people who can actually afford to keep the community maintained perfectly willing to do so? Is living in a city with large, blighted neighborhoods more desirable?
Hey, it's not ignorance to not understand a very complicated topic!
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordHelmit
The article mentions that these are black homeowners and that they're afraid of getting "pushed out". Who exactly is going to push them out?
Someone renovates the apartment next door, and then rental rates go up throughout the neighborhood, pricing out current residents. Or yeah, sometimes business will intimidate and/or buy folks out cheaply then redevelop the land and rake in the dough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordHelmit
Can you, or someone, go into more detail about "a plan that supports the existing community and doesn't try to replace it"? How could the community be supported?
A lot of them don't own, so the landlord raises the rent, or the landlord sells and the new owner tears down the house and builds one of those fancy ones in the after picture. I haven't read the article, but I listened to the first installment and there was an older African American man who has rented the same place for many decades worried about getting priced out and ending up on the streets.
Quote:
Tommy Pelzer and Stormi Bova sat outside of their rental units on the same warm autumn day that Morgan swept leaves from her porch. Bova said she has lived there longer than any of the other residents and acts sort of like the mayor of the complex. She doesn’t want to leave.
“I’m just very comfortable,†she said. “And if there’s any trouble, I go ahead and try to help my landlord get it straightened out. You know, help people out.â€
But she’s reading the tea leaves. Just one block over, the intersection of East and Hoke streets isn’t recognizable from just a few years ago. Where once stood a row of abandoned houses and overgrown weeds, now stands modern homes with brightly colored front doors and green lawns.
“And I’m scared that they’re going to push us out next,†said Bova.
Pelzer worried that would likely mean only one place left for them to turn.
“The streets,†he said. “Is that what the answer is going to be? I’ll be in the streets homeless because of the simple reason that you can’t afford (rent). So we are getting pushed out, or bulldozed out.â€
That’s exactly what Representative Holley fears as well. She said that when the middle class moves in, the lower class is forced out.
Gentrification is a double edged sword. On the positive side, it is a sign that a city is growing and is prosperous. The tax base increases along with property values. On the negative side, it can displace some lower income residents. It is important to have so called "affordable housing" for those displaced, and for others who simply can't afford housing anywhere.
As I mentioned in my previous post, this is nothing new and cities have been struggling with this for a long time. In come cities like SF or Seattle, it is a true immediate crisis. Most places are trying to avoid building high rise "projects" like those built in the larger cities in the 1960's and 1970's. One option that seems to be catching on is the "small house". This is a tough problem to solve.
[*]"In the Triangle, household incomes have increased by about 18% since 2011. That’s less than 3% each year during a time of massive economic expansion. For comparison, the S&P 500 stock market index increased by 158% in those years. The majority of economic gains have concentrated at the upper ends of the income spectrum, widening income inequality."
Seen this type of comment before and is just nonsense. The stock market is not exclusively a "upper ends of income spectrum" at all! In this area I would be willing to bet that a majority of the middle class here have 401k's, IRA's, Mutual funds, company shares, etc. Heck likely many of our lower income also have some sort of retirement. Even education's 457's made at least 24% in the past year! We have all benefited from it. It not just an upper crust benefit.
It makes no sense and appears like a doubling down on class warfare where it simply isn't.
Seen this type of comment before and is just nonsense. The stock market is not exclusively a "upper ends of income spectrum" at all! In this area I would be willing to bet that a majority of the middle class here have 401k's, IRA's, Mutual funds, company shares, etc. Heck likely many of our lower income also have some sort of retirement. Even education's 457's made at least 24% in the past year! We have all benefited from it. It not just an upper crust benefit.
It makes no sense and appears like a doubling down on class warfare where it simply isn't.
Most studies show that only approximately 52% of US households currently own stock, either directly or through retirement funds. Before the economic crisis in 2008, it was over 60%, so it's worse now, years after the crisis.
In addition, the wealthiest 10% of households control around 85% of the total value of this stock ownership. No doubt that the rich have gotten richer, and I have never seen any publication that states anything differently. Much of this gap has been caused by the gradual erosion of the traditional middle class due to the elimination of many blue collar jobs.
Seen this type of comment before and is just nonsense.
Yes. The stock market has a mind of its own and doesn't necessarily correlate with anything. A relevant comparison would be the annualized increase in personal income per capita against the annualized increase in GDP. For the last three years, the annual increases in Wake County GDP have been 4.4%, 3.1%, and 6.2%. For the last three years, annual increases in Wake County personal income per capita have been 4.0%, 2.3%, and 5.6%. Doesn't look out of sync to me.
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.
