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.
The median rent in the study for RC/RS apts in Manhattan is $1295. Half the apts are paying less than $1295 to live in Manhattan. Does that make sense?
Sure, why not? Don't see why the stabilization rent is less sensible than the market rent.
One thing about renters that might often be overlooked is the fact that in effect, renters have to re-enter the market more or less every 12 months, when their leases are up. Rising prices do not adversely affect a homeowner's P&I payment but renters cannot for long avoid facing rent increases.
Also, I think urban minority constituencies have more influence or power today than they did in the past; blacks are the fourth largest ethnic or racial group in Portland and successfully opposed the introduction of Trader Joe's into a gentrifying neighborhood.
The emergence in recent years of the 'educated poor' might also be expanding the vulnerable constituency with both a negative stake in gentrification and a voice - and thus a strong incentive to actively oppose it.
LOL, you really do not have a clue what you are talking about; no wonder you are in the financial situation you are in.
A) I'm compelled to point out I said nothing about fairness.
I know. I did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist
As it is currently occurring in cities, it can be quite unfair. But, again, that is a policy choice to create supply-limiting rules and regulations and fees. And the core of the problem is how the supply-demand gap affects prices--low-income individuals can currently be hit debilitatingly hard when they have to re-enter the market.
Limited supply certainly makes things worse. As a result, you see more displacement than would otherwise occur. But with a purely market-based system, you're going to have displacement no matter what. There are only so many housing units you can build within walking distance of Midtown office buildings. The most desirable areas--near waterfronts, prestigious public institutions, parks, etc--can never build enough housing to maintain any type of socioeconomic diversity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist
B) It is normal as a function of market economics. Groups with higher demand--the willingness and ability to "pay" (through money or power) for a good or service--have a long history of displacing those with less demand. Gentrification is, simply, a very specific way of characterizing that mechanism.
Perhaps "natural" is the word you should have used. Everybody knows that people with money win out over people without it. That's not necessarily the same as the popular understanding of "gentrification," which is poorer or working-class neighborhoods being remade into affluent neighborhoods. That's not a normal thing.
Perhaps "natural" is the word you should have used. Everybody knows that people with money win out over people without it. That's not necessarily the same as the popular understanding of "gentrification," which is poorer or working-class neighborhoods being remade into affluent neighborhoods. That's not a normal thing.
Perhaps, yes, I should have used natural. Normal is too open to interpretation. That said, I counter that it hasn't been a notable thing because the supply constriction for residential spaces desirable to multiple economic classes/strata is largely unprecedented. New? no. Newly notable? Yes, certainly.
Because it creates a false 2 tiered market, it steals private property from the owner, and it prevents the natural turnover of apts.
eh. the owner knew what the max rent he could get from it. Presumably it's reflected in the market value of the apartment. As for turnover, people complain cities are too transient, what better way to reduce transiency?
Limited supply certainly makes things worse. As a result, you see more displacement than would otherwise occur. But with a purely market-based system, you're going to have displacement no matter what. There are only so many housing units you can build within walking distance of Midtown office buildings. The most desirable areas--near waterfronts, prestigious public institutions, parks, etc--can never build enough housing to maintain any type of socioeconomic diversity.
Perhaps "natural" is the word you should have used. Everybody knows that people with money win out over people without it. That's not necessarily the same as the popular understanding of "gentrification," which is poorer or working-class neighborhoods being remade into affluent neighborhoods. That's not a normal thing.
Actually, you can build quite a number of housing units within walking distance of Midtown; my uncle lives on East 40th.
People without money CAN win out over people with it; this is not an uncommon occurrence. But they can win out over people with more money only if they own their homes. (Yet one more reason why owning your home is so important for low earners.)
Urban dwellers gripe about the tax base flight; then gripe when some of it returns. Urban cities need more than dependent people now like never before.
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.
