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.
Yet several people on this board claim precisely the opposite - that native San Franciscans of decades past got pushed out due to rising rents or housing costs.
So which is it? If you are going to make the claim that the median household income is artificially lower than what you would actually need to make it in SF (because thousands of natives can still live essentially mortgage-free in homes they inherited, thus they can get by on lower incomes), then you cannot simultaneously cry about the native San Franciscans getting "forced out" of the City by rising housing prices. No one would "force" you out of a house you 100% own other than yourself.
Even for those that do not own their homes, if they've been in the city long enough, they've been on rent-control, which since its based on an inflation index, meaning in real dollars they should be paying no more now then they did X number of years ago.
I don't think the two statements are contradictory... a lot of people - particularly in the more urban parts of SF like the Western Addition and the Mission - were pushed out of their homes due to rising rents and other forces such as urban renewal. Most of the "generational" San Franciscans live in neighborhoods like the Sunset and Excelsior, which are generally not on the radar of transplants moving to SF and as a result have remained much the same socio-economically as they were 10 or even 20 years ago.
Rent control only works if you never have to move. It's great to have a rent controlled studio, but what if you get married and have a kid....that studio doesn't really work out anymore.
So are you saying people never move because of life changes? If you don't have cheap rent, moving into SF is difficult without a 6-figure income -- if you expect to have the typical "middle class" lifestyle. It is impossible. Now if you are willing to give up some of these "creature comforts," you can live in SF but you won't be living the stereotypical American dream by any stretch of the imagination.
You are correct in that if you have to move it can be difficult.
Back to the gentrification thing, this is the overall point I was trying to make: Everyone's quick to assume that if [insert ethnic group here] are leaving [insert neighborhood here], that they are being "forced out," and that its this really negative, awful, unjust thing. You see it here in this thread in some of the comments that demonize either transplants, young professionals, the upper class, or white people (or all four at the same time). But did anyone stop to consider that perhaps some of these folks that are leaving the city are not being "forced out" but are instead just cashing in on their rising home values? Or maybe they are just looking for a change for a number of other reasons (better schools, more space, etc...)
For instance: You are a black family that has owned a house in the Fillmore for decades. The tech boom comes and all of a sudden Real Estate agents are calling your neighborhood "Lower Pac Heights" and your home is now worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. You decide to sell and move to the burbs to enjoy your retirement. Many of your neighbors in the neighborhood do the same thing. Is this a bad thing????
Obviously I know thats not always the case, but why do people refuse to acknowledge that maybe a certain group of people are moving out by choice for greener pastures? Hell, for years white people in America were trying to get out of the city and into the burbs. Now when other ethnic groups move out of the city, its this horrible thing called "gentrification" that should be fought?
You are correct in that if you have to move it can be difficult.
Back to the gentrification thing, this is the overall point I was trying to make: Everyone's quick to assume that if [insert ethnic group here] are leaving [insert neighborhood here], that they are being "forced out," and that its this really negative, awful, unjust thing. You see it here in this thread in some of the comments that demonize either transplants, young professionals, the upper class, or white people (or all four at the same time). But did anyone stop to consider that perhaps some of these folks that are leaving the city are not being "forced out" but are instead just cashing in on their rising home values? Or maybe they are just looking for a change for a number of other reasons (better schools, more space, etc...)
For instance: You are a black family that has owned a house in the Fillmore for decades. The tech boom comes and all of a sudden Real Estate agents are calling your neighborhood "Lower Pac Heights" and your home is now worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. You decide to sell and move to the burbs to enjoy your retirement. Many of your neighbors in the neighborhood do the same thing. Is this a bad thing????
Obviously I know thats not always the case, but why do people refuse to acknowledge that maybe a certain group of people are moving out by choice for greener pastures? Hell, for years white people in America were trying to get out of the city and into the burbs. Now when other ethnic groups move out of the city, its this horrible thing called "gentrification" that should be fought?
Some of the time people cash in, some of the time people are being pushed out... do the people cashing in negate what often amounts to sanctified displacement? I don't think so. That some people are cashing in doesn't justify that some people are being pushed out.
San Franciscans (and to an extent Washingtonians as well) have a very weird perception of what gentrification is. SoMa is not gentrification, and gentrification is not an intentional racial phenomenon, although that coincides with it in many cases. What confuses me, though, is the city government's response to it. Instead of embracing an improved tax base, lower crime rates, and an overall higher standard of living, San Francisco seems to want to keep less-than-desirable neighbourhoods, well, less-than-desirable. By imposing severe development restrictions as well as banning SRO conversions, the government is inadvertently hurting its own citizens and stifling important economic and population growth for the city proper, instead letting it occur in the suburbs. I'm sure many a Bay Area resident would argue that affordable housing is necessary, but inclusionary zoning, like rent control, will only further distortions in the market. If anything, relaxing these restrictions and allowing for smartly-located growth will help reduce the housing shortage that's driving up SF prices and allow for a more equitable distribution of people regardless of income.
San Franciscans (and to an extent Washingtonians as well) have a very weird perception of what gentrification is. SoMa is not gentrification, and gentrification is not an intentional racial phenomenon, although that coincides with it in many cases. What confuses me, though, is the city government's response to it. Instead of embracing an improved tax base, lower crime rates, and an overall higher standard of living, San Francisco seems to want to keep less-than-desirable neighbourhoods, well, less-than-desirable. By imposing severe development restrictions as well as banning SRO conversions, the government is inadvertently hurting its own citizens and stifling important economic and population growth for the city proper, instead letting it occur in the suburbs. I'm sure many a Bay Area resident would argue that affordable housing is necessary, but inclusionary zoning, like rent control, will only further distortions in the market. If anything, relaxing these restrictions and allowing for smartly-located growth will help reduce the housing shortage that's driving up SF prices and allow for a more equitable distribution of people regardless of income.
I don't know the answer to this question, but is there is difference in how the so-called less-than-desirable neighborhoods vote versus the gentrified neighborhoods? Politicians "count votes" in every decision they make...almost without exception.
I don't know the answer to this question, but is there is difference in how the so-called less-than-desirable neighborhoods vote versus the gentrified neighborhoods? Politicians "count votes" in every decision they make...almost without exception.
Except the residents they keep instead of possibly displacing are less likely to vote, or at least it seems that way based on observing city voting trends throughout the country. Either way, SF isn't changing its heavy Democratic leaning any time soon, so I don't see why politicians would worry about a support base. If anything, these decisions stem from some sort of mentality that's pervaded through most of the city's population that any instance of improvement counts as gentrification, with gentrification being some incredibly vulgar word.
You are correct in that if you have to move it can be difficult.
Back to the gentrification thing, this is the overall point I was trying to make: Everyone's quick to assume that if [insert ethnic group here] are leaving [insert neighborhood here], that they are being "forced out," and that its this really negative, awful, unjust thing. You see it here in this thread in some of the comments that demonize either transplants, young professionals, the upper class, or white people (or all four at the same time). But did anyone stop to consider that perhaps some of these folks that are leaving the city are not being "forced out" but are instead just cashing in on their rising home values? Or maybe they are just looking for a change for a number of other reasons (better schools, more space, etc...)
For instance: You are a black family that has owned a house in the Fillmore for decades. The tech boom comes and all of a sudden Real Estate agents are calling your neighborhood "Lower Pac Heights" and your home is now worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. You decide to sell and move to the burbs to enjoy your retirement. Many of your neighbors in the neighborhood do the same thing. Is this a bad thing????
Obviously I know thats not always the case, but why do people refuse to acknowledge that maybe a certain group of people are moving out by choice for greener pastures? Hell, for years white people in America were trying to get out of the city and into the burbs. Now when other ethnic groups move out of the city, its this horrible thing called "gentrification" that should be fought?
Not to mention any (in this case black but this applies to any race) folks just getting tired of the crime in Oakland's bad neighborhoods and leaving for the suburbs for better schools, house, etc. Or folks having families in SF and realizing that they can have that white picket fence house in the suburbs instead of living in that small 2 bedroom apartment.
And in their place are the immigrant (latino/asian) population that will move into those previously vacated spots. (ie Visitation Valley in SF, LakeView in SF, etc).
Of course there's tons of other reasons too than what's mention: more latino/asian immigrants to bay area than blacks, immigrants need to live near cities so they'll put up with more cramp living quarters, education/job/family/etc issues with the black community that make it harder to keep up with rent increases )
San Franciscans (and to an extent Washingtonians as well) have a very weird perception of what gentrification is. SoMa is not gentrification, and gentrification is not an intentional racial phenomenon, although that coincides with it in many cases. What confuses me, though, is the city government's response to it. Instead of embracing an improved tax base, lower crime rates, and an overall higher standard of living, San Francisco seems to want to keep less-than-desirable neighbourhoods, well, less-than-desirable. By imposing severe development restrictions as well as banning SRO conversions, the government is inadvertently hurting its own citizens and stifling important economic and population growth for the city proper, instead letting it occur in the suburbs. I'm sure many a Bay Area resident would argue that affordable housing is necessary, but inclusionary zoning, like rent control, will only further distortions in the market. If anything, relaxing these restrictions and allowing for smartly-located growth will help reduce the housing shortage that's driving up SF prices and allow for a more equitable distribution of people regardless of income.
In the case of San Francisco's that's been debatable... particularly in the case of the Fillmore in the 1960's and 70's. I would say recent gentrification has not been racially motivated, but what happened to the Fillmore left a sour taste in a lot of black people's mouths all over the City.
Some of the time people cash in, some of the time people are being pushed out... do the people cashing in negate what often amounts to sanctified displacement? I don't think so. That some people are cashing in doesn't justify that some people are being pushed out.
By using the word "sanctified" it seems you are implying the city is actively encouraging displacement in order to "clean up".
Given San Francisco's:
-strict rent control
-tight restrictions on development
-support of SRO's
-large number of housing projects scattered throughout the city
...how exactly is the gentrification "sanctified"?
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.
