Oh No Not Normal Heights!! (Merced, Mission Hills: salons, real estate, renter)

[LexSteel]

Originally Posted by Sassberto

Spoken like a renter.

I dont get it, I think gentrification has its positives and negatives. I think its great that your brother is an owner of a thriving business and he's doing good for himself, but at the same time if someone rents in that neighborhood does that make them less significant because they cant afford to own a home or business? If it cleans up a neighborhood and makes the quality of life better for the residents thats wonderful, but if a renter whose living their most of their lives cant afford to live their anymore thats a little unfortunate especially if they were law abiding and did contribute to the neighborhood

[NYSD1995]

Originally Posted by LexSteel

if someone rents in that neighborhood does that make them less significant because they cant afford to own a home or business?

Not necessarily. But generally speaking, the people who make decisions in a neighborhood are not the renters.

Did they contribute? Attend any community council meetings? Volunteer for any neighborhood cleanups? Volunteer for the local elementary school? Attend a community planning meeting? Anything? 99% of renters don't do any of that stuff. Homeowners and business owners do.

And if you don't own property or a business, and don't lift a finger to help make the neighborhood a better place, it's not "your" neighborhood, you just live there.

Nothing invested, nothing earned, means you have nothing to say.

[tickyul]

Originally Posted by sdlife619

I used to hang out in Normal Heights all the time with friends, and my grandmother worked at an old little market off Adams when I was a kid, so I spent much time enjoying the funkiness, grittiness, and it's low key factor of NH over the years. I guess I really dislike yuppies for the fact they make these older neighborhoods very expensive out of thin air, and make people like myself and others that are not uppity at all, less comfortable to shop and eat out unlike a year or 2 ago. I understand it's great to clean up old spots of the neighborhood, but if I lived in Normal Heights, and saw all the rehabbing going on, I would definitely take notice and be prepared for a rent increase. This a consequence of gentrification. Even if I was wealthy, I still wouldn't be for Normal Heights changing into another North Park.

Mama Mia's is still there, the building is also peachy pink.

Peachy Pink is a new trend in color it seems, it's god awful if you ask me. SD is not Miami.

Hopefully in time, maybe another 10 years, or if the economy tanks again, gentrification will reverse itself. When all the wealthy young people today living in the urban sectors of SD are aging, have kids, they will want a more quiet place to live. Or they might simply get tired of these area's, and want out. If this happens, businesses close, especially the trendy one's, and things will go back to being "Normal" in Normal Heights.

Hahaha, that is what happened to my hometown of Seattle, Wa. It used to be a really affordable, blue collar type town. Then in the 90's it became a magnet for well heeled yuppies who drove the cost of living and housing prices through the roof. It is no suprise to me that the businesses in Normal Heights roll out the carpet and cater to the Yuppiesc*m, they have tons of money to throw around. The USA is becoming less and less a good place for average folks to live.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by Sassberto

Spoken like a renter.

So only home owners have a right to an opinion?

[madegood]

Gentrification is just part of the urban cycle. It has positives and negatives like any other urban convention.

Gentrification/redevelopment does make communities more expensive, but it also, for the meantime has saved the American City from becoming obsolete. Unchecked middle-class flight leaves you with cities that most urbanites won't invest or live in, like Detroit or Cleveland. Unchecked yuppification leads to Manhattan prices and bland tracts of boring mello-roos villes connected by toll roads.

Gentrification increases tax revenue, puts people to work, and attracts customers to business districts. It usually boosts police protection and political attention as well. Most importantly, it recycles homes and neighborhoods and keeps the city living, breathing, and financially relevant to important players who would otherwise continue to ignore blighted/unpopular neighborhoods.

Northern CA has more city areas with rent control, that's the only real way for renters to combat gentrification, unfortunately.

There were probably people lining up to complain about the "changes" in Normal Heights 40 years ago too. They may not have liked the transformations in Normal Heights that the next generations came to love.

[kettlepot]

Originally Posted by madegood

Unchecked middle-class flight leaves you with cities that most urbanites won't invest or live in, like Detroit or Cleveland.

There were probably people lining up to complain about the "changes" in Normal Heights 40 years ago too. They may not have liked the transformations in Normal Heights that the next generations came to love.

That's a very important point for people to keep in mind. Without gentrification, cities hollow out and become "Detroits" that may never recover.

As for the second point, the people lining up to complain 40 years ago about the changes in the neighborhood were fighting the building of the Huffmans, but they didn't have any clout with City Hall. And believe me no one ever loved the Huffmans except the people who got to sell their single family housing lots for the value of the income stream that a multi-family Huffman could generate. Those people then bailed out of the neighborhood and took their money with them.

Gentrification is people investing their money into the neighborhood, not extracting money out of it.

[DirtMagurt]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

So only home owners have a right to an opinion?

I'd suppose the rebuttal here is that renters also have the right to an opinion but that it doesn't mean a whole lot as it's based entirely on self interest (rental rates) and not necessarily on the best interest of the community and/or its property owners. Not sure whether I agree entirely, but it's a fair point given that the renter doesn't absorb any responsibility, risk or financial liability where the future condition of the neighborhood is concerned.

[esmith143]

I'm struggling to understand your problem.

So, yuppies move in, revitalize a blighted neighborhood, displace a bunch of section 8 types, and paint a certain building pink. And that is bad because ... ?

[NYSD1995]

The funny thing is the characterization of "people with jobs" as "yuppies"

[NYSD1995]

Originally Posted by DirtMagurt

I'd suppose the rebuttal here is that renters also have the right to an opinion but that it doesn't mean a whole lot as it's based entirely on self interest (rental rates) and not necessarily on the best interest of the community and/or its property owners. Not sure whether I agree entirely, but it's a fair point given that the renter doesn't absorb any responsibility, risk or financial liability where the future condition of the neighborhood is concerned.

Exactly.