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.
Well it certainly wasn't in Maryland, because the state absolutely protects farmer from exactly what you claim happened.
As far as the price, any competent real estate agent could have gotten her very close to the true value of the land. That doesn't mean that some fools didn't sell their land for far less than it was worth, but that would be the seller's error.
This maybe true as well I live off of Brinkley Rd in Temple Hills. Adjacent to Rosecroft there appears to be a huge spread of land, not sure if it is still a working farm. Yet there is development all around but there it is so maybe he's protected or the taxes are manageable considering the area isn't exactly Tysons.
so in your opinion there is no correlation between race and income in America?
I never even hinted at that point. I wish you wouldn't put arguments in people's mouths. My point was that the core motivation of "gentrification" isn't racial. There is no devious plot by bleeding-heart urban liberal yuppies to drive out anyone darker than them. It's just the reality of shifting market demands, whether pushing small town people (people do far more than farm in small towns, you know...) or big city people, it's a matter of who can afford the market.
In my experience Gentrifiers aren't generally desiring to move to a well-known violent, crime-ridden neighborhood either.
They are being forced there themselves. They can't afford anything else, hence end up in those neighborhoods.
As a "gentrifier" I'll characterize that statement was well off the mark. I've owned two residences that could be considered gentrification. I chose to live in both neighborhoods because they were diverse and more interesting than the homogeneous suburban neighborhoods and because in my view there was considerable opportunity for capital appreciation. I'm not seeking crime, but many in the suburbs see crime wherever there is a black face. The skin color of my neighbors isn't a scary thing to me.
I never even hinted at that point. I wish you wouldn't put arguments in people's mouths. My point was that the core motivation of "gentrification" isn't racial. There is no devious plot by bleeding-heart urban liberal yuppies to drive out anyone darker than them. It's just the reality of shifting market demands, whether pushing small town people (people do far more than farm in small towns, you know...) or big city people, it's a matter of who can afford the market.
DCforever
Senior Member befriend
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: DC
103 posts, read 11,630 times
Reputation: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiger Beer In my experience Gentrifiers aren't generally desiring to move to a well-known violent, crime-ridden neighborhood either.
They are being forced there themselves. They can't afford anything else, hence end up in those neighborhoods.
As a "gentrifier" I'll characterize that statement was well off the mark. I've owned two residences that could be considered gentrification. I chose to live in both neighborhoods because they were diverse and more interesting than the homogeneous suburban neighborhoods and because in my view there was considerable opportunity for capital appreciation. I'm not seeking crime, but many in the suburbs see crime wherever there is a black face. The skin color of my neighbors isn't a scary thing to me.
I don't understand your point. It seems to undermine your argument and support mine, since he's saying that people moving into cities, such as himself, aren't concerned with skin color.
I don't understand your point. It seems to undermine your argument and support mine, since he's saying that people moving into cities, such as himself, aren't concerned with skin color.
In my experience Gentrifiers aren't generally desiring to move to a well-known violent, crime-ridden neighborhood either.
They are being forced there themselves. They can't afford anything else, hence end up in those neighborhoods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever
I chose to live in both neighborhoods because they were diverse and more interesting than the homogeneous suburban neighborhoods and because in my view there was considerable opportunity for capital appreciation.
I think it's both. It is for me anyway. I like my neighborhood because it reminds me of where I've lived in Philly and NOLA. It feels more like home to me than Dupont Circle did.
That being said, I would 100% rather feel out of place in Dupont every day, than walking home to police tape every few weeks. I just couldn't hope to afford it.
I re-read what 14thandYou said about correlation vs. causation, but I still don't understand your point. In the end, white people are gentrified out of small towns and big city neighborhoods just like black people. Everybody just has to deal with the market demands, including myself, who is very nearly priced out of this city, and those who live in group houses to make ends meet.
Since you brought up this topic: though minority populations have a higher percentage of low-income families within their overall minority populations, as overall numbers there are still far more low-income / impoverished white people in our country (and on welfare) than any other minority - by a large margin.
Quote:
Of the more than 13.4 million families with children living on incomes less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level, 30 percent are Hispanic, 22 percent are black or African American, and 6 percent are other nonwhites.
So that's 58% accounting for all minority groups combined, leaving 42% of low-income people being white. Of course, the population of white people is far greater in sheer numbers than other groups, but it still shows that income disparity afflicts all groups in very large numbers.
"Charles Wilson, a black lawyer who works for an accounting and consulting firm, went to high school in the Maryland suburbs but bought a home in D.C. in August 2006, just before prices peaked. He's now an elected official active in a number of neighborhood associations.
'Yeah I'm concerned, long term I'm wondering where will my place be within the city," Wilson says. "I'm wondering what the D.C. of tomorrow will look like, and whether I'll still have a seat at the table.'"
If a successful black professional who is active in his community wonders if he has a "seat at the table" in the future, then gentrification becomes an issue beyond the working poor.
I listened to that. It was interesting. I did indeed have a hard time sympathizing with the truck driver with a 5 bedroom house.
I'm not sure what the solution is. What do folks want? Unfortunately or fortunately when crime rate lowers and new businesses move into an area property values are going to go up that's just part of capitalism. Its not like he couldn't have found a home in Anacostia he just got a better deal in Capital Heights.
As far as not having a seat at the table for the lawyer. Again I have a harder time sympathizing with someone who has the potential to afford a much nicer home than I could dream of living in. Whether Anacostia fully gentrifies or not I doubt he will be without a "chair".
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.
