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 US constitution protects individual rights and liberties, not collective "community" culture. If anything, putting restrictions on owners' property rights to build what they want goes against the spirit of those statutes by restricting individual liberty. There is absolutely nothing in the Bill of Rights or the US Constitution that in anyway would oppose urban gentrification. By the way, this also isn't comparable to indigenous peoples because the residents of poorer neighbourhoods aren't in a special legal category and this isn't a situation where you have pre-existing legal system and social contracts in a given space that is pre-empted by an outside force. Every resident living in those areas is working and living in a free market society like the rest of us and has the same rights and privileges. None of us are offered protection from the often harsh disruptions wrought by "creative destruction". Keeping things the same because we don't want things to change isn't something a luxury any of us get.
Except that the property rules are written to exclude the poor from acquiring property ownership, which necessarily leaves them exposed and vulnerable to the displacement which gentrification brings. which means that the poor aren't really living in a free market society.
As members of a class excluded from participating in the Framing, they were not voluntary parties to the pre-existing legal system which was imposed upon them.
Being able to acquire property ownership usually affords you all the protection you need from gentrification.
Except that the property rules are written to exclude the poor from acquiring property ownership, which necessarily leaves them exposed and vulnerable to the displacement which gentrification brings. which means that the poor aren't really living in a free market society.
Tough problem. As Yogi Berra might have put it, "The main problem with being poor is that you have no money."
And property always has monetary value, which cannot be eliminated by any law in a non-communist society.
When I was in Hawaii in the 70s, the vast majority of residential property on Oahu was owned by a relatively few corporate land owners (there were 13 major ones). Nearly all individuals merely had long-term leases on the land on which they had built their homes. This was called "lease-hold."
I left Hawaii and returned 20 years later. During that time, a law had been passed to require the corporate land owners to sell those land plots as the current leases ended, and a huge number of them were ending during the early 90s. The intent of the law was to give homeowners a chance to become the actual landowners.
The problem: The law could force the corporations to sell, but the law could not eliminate property values, and the value of any residential lot on Oahu was in excess of a quarter million dollars...on top of whatever the mortgage on the house might be. So a slew of homeowners of ordinary means (salaries are only "average" in Hawaii) were suddenly faced with a legal requirement to immediately purchase the land or face losing their homes. That was an "unintended consequence" of the law.
There is not a good way to make property owners of people who are totally devoid of a way to purchase property, and the only thing that made the rent payments achievable was the fact that the slumlord wasn't putting out realistic maintenance expenses.
When I see this scenario play out, I ask whether it is good or bad for me as an unsubsidized low income renter.
When government acquires these properties, they end up in the hands of owner-occupants, which i consider a Bad Thing for me. (Conversion from slumlord rental to owner-occupied marginally increases property values and exerts marginal upward pressure on rents; converting numerous properties is a prescription for gentrification and displacement, so i always try to gauge the neighborhood trend and its pace to calculate the extent to which I should worry.)
Block gets cleared up at the expense of renters who at best find themselves financially worse off and at worst find themselves displaced and financially worse off.
Is government on the side of homeowners or of renters? Clearly in the vast majority of cases, government is on the side of homeowners.
I'd say for an unsubsidized, uncontrolled low income renter it is neither good nor bad. Area gets better, rents go up, you can either stay or move somewhere with a desirability / rent-rate similar to how things were before. If you have been paying your rent on time and with zero drama for years your rent probably doesn't go up quite to market level because the landlord wants to keep you and you benefit from the improvement without paying the full price. If you're already in the cheapest part of the city or you have deep hyper-local roots there's a serious cost to maybe having to move and it hurts you.
That said, if this goes on in a broad enough geographical area -- say all or most of the bad parts of a city, not just one area -- then it's a win even for unsubsidized low income renters because it's not like this one area is good and gentrifies, everything is better without the displacement or rent increases caused by a single small area gentrifying.
Tough problem. As Yogi Berra might have put it, "The main problem with being poor is that you have no money."
And property always has monetary value, which cannot be eliminated by any law in a non-communist society.
When I was in Hawaii in the 70s, the vast majority of residential property on Oahu was owned by a relatively few corporate land owners (there were 13 major ones). Nearly all individuals merely had long-term leases on the land on which they had built their homes. This was called "lease-hold."
I left Hawaii and returned 20 years later. During that time, a law had been passed to require the corporate land owners to sell those land plots as the current leases ended, and a huge number of them were ending during the early 90s. The intent of the law was to give homeowners a chance to become the actual landowners.
The problem: The law could force the corporations to sell, but the law could not eliminate property values, and the value of any residential lot on Oahu was in excess of a quarter million dollars...on top of whatever the mortgage on the house might be. So a slew of homeowners of ordinary means (salaries are only "average" in Hawaii) were suddenly faced with a legal requirement to immediately purchase the land or face losing their homes. That was an "unintended consequence" of the law.
There is not a good way to make property owners of people who are totally devoid of a way to purchase property, and the only thing that made the rent payments achievable was the fact that the slumlord wasn't putting out realistic maintenance expenses.
a childless poor person doesn't need much to live on, many could (esp with help from family or non-profits) afford a tiny property (e.g. a 400 sq ft house on 2500 sq ft of land) but zoning rules are written for the prevailing property class and therefore are designed to prevent the poor from buying property.
so i see the main problem with the poor as their second class property rights.
i was aware of the intensely concentrated land ownership in hawaii but not aware that the mandated sale law had been passed.
I'd say for an unsubsidized, uncontrolled low income renter it is neither good nor bad. Area gets better, rents go up, you can either stay or move somewhere with a desirability / rent-rate similar to how things were before. If you have been paying your rent on time and with zero drama for years your rent probably doesn't go up quite to market level because the landlord wants to keep you and you benefit from the improvement without paying the full price. If you're already in the cheapest part of the city or you have deep hyper-local roots there's a serious cost to maybe having to move and it hurts you.
That said, if this goes on in a broad enough geographical area -- say all or most of the bad parts of a city, not just one area -- then it's a win even for unsubsidized low income renters because it's not like this one area is good and gentrifies, everything is better without the displacement or rent increases caused by a single small area gentrifying.
Um, not in my case. I am a government-defined "extremely low income" (<30% of my area median family income) renter and on the affordability margin where I live.
Being on the margin, it takes only an incremental upward nudge in rents - not an upward spike - to displace me.
a childless poor person doesn't need much to live on, many could (esp with help from family or non-profits) afford a tiny property (e.g. a 400 sq ft house on 2500 sq ft of land) but zoning rules are written for the prevailing property class and therefore are designed to prevent the poor from buying property.
so i see the main problem with the poor as their second class property rights.
i was aware of the intensely concentrated land ownership in hawaii but not aware that the mandated sale law had been passed.
No, you're saying that the problem is that zoning rules everywhere are not written specifically in such a way that poor people can buy exactly the amount of land they can afford wherever they want it.
The reason I word that sentence in such a way is because there certainly are areas in many cities were such areas can be found.
But be aware that quite a few of the basic zoning ordinances are also about public health and safety, which can be compromised with too many people in too little house on too little land.
No, you're saying that the problem is that zoning rules everywhere are not written specifically in such a way that poor people can buy exactly the amount of land they can afford wherever they want it.
The reason I word that sentence in such a way is because there certainly are areas in many cities were such areas can be found.
But be aware that quite a few of the basic zoning ordinances are also about public health and safety, which can be compromised with too many people in too little house on too little land.
I've looked at a number of zoning codes and have not found one which allows lots smaller than 5,000 square feet; so I doubt your premise is valid.
What i have in mind is a 400 sq ft house and 2,500 sq ft land for one person; which is no denser than a family of four in a 3BR house on a 10,000 sq ft lot.
I've looked at a number of zoning codes and have not found one which allows lots smaller than 5,000 square feet; so I doubt your premise is valid.
What i have in mind is a 400 sq ft house and 2,500 sq ft land for one person; which is no denser than a family of four in a 3BR house on a 10,000 sq ft lot.
In Multnomah County the minimum lot size is 3000 sq ft.
But be aware that quite a few of the basic zoning ordinances are also about public health and safety, which can be compromised with too many people in too little house on too little land.
Somehow the Japanese and Hong Kongers manage to live 5 years longer than Americans, and have the highest life expectancies in the world. Japan has much of its population living on tiny lots, a typical house lot would be maybe 1000-2000 sf and I think there are some that are <500sf in Tokyo. Hong Kong is quite possibly the densest city in the world - though I doubt it's the most crowded in terms of living space per person, it just has the highest living space per square mile (built density).
Toronto does have lots down to about 2000 sf even for SFH post-war subdivisions; 23 OVERLORD CRES, Toronto, Ontario * M1B4P6 - E3371318 | Realtor.ca
4000sf is more typical though. However land is more expensive so you'd need Tokyo style micro-lots for SFHs to be affordable to a low income single earner household. This corner house has I'm estimating a lot size of about 300 sf. https://www.google.ca/maps/@35.70309...8i6656!6m1!1e1
In Tokyo this would probably still be unaffordable to freemkt but in most of the US (and Canada) it would probably be ok.
The best place for a crack dealer to locate is next to another crack dealer?
Does McDonalds crop up next to Burger King? Often. Does Mr. Peet's locate across the street from Starbucks? Of course. There's money to be made on that corner, business is business and competitors compete.
Near me in Annapolis there's a rather small shopping center that has four hair salons, with three of them right next to each other. Competing? Sure. Enemies? No. This shopping center also has not one, but two kitchen design-centers located above and below each other, as well as two tax/accounting firms. See https://goo.gl/maps/jCVeSKdAG522 for verification.
The only problems arise when knives or guns get drawn (talking about the dealers here of course)
I'm not advocating legalizing crack or heroin, but in areas where pot is legalized a lot of the dealing goes away, and especially the crime. When legalized there's no reason to commit violence (or be ready to) in order to protect your business sales or transportation of goods.
Another example is that in areas where prostitution is legalized the pimps have no economic reason for existing, so the girls don't get beat up, have more than half their money taken from them, and are safer when it comes to diseases. Follow the money. Figure out why people fill these economic service niches and why backwards legislation actually creates the violence rather than mitigates it.
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.
