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.
How do I justify that? Its actually easier to justify than you think.
The bottom line is yuppies have more to offer than the poor. So it makes more sense to accommodate them. I'll even break it down for you.
Yuppies:
-Have money to spend which helps business grow in the city
-Are educated
-Don't engage in violent crime as often
-HAVE MONEY TO SPEND.
-Did I mention they have money to spend??
The poor (aka many "natives")
-Have little money to spend
-Engage in violent crime more often
-Drive people away from the city
-Bring down the value of property
-Damage property and live in squalor
-Rely on Government aid
-Don't have money to spend.
-Did I mention they DON'T HAVE MONEY TO SPEND?
So there you go: The city has more to gain from people with money moving in than being a giant housing project for the poor.
Its common sense really.
This is not an argument for or against gentrification but a city represents society and a society should NOT alienate the poor. Just because they do doesn't mean it's alright and doesn't mean we should accept it. We live in a nation (world for that matter) of great income inequality.
Some people are born at the top of the ladder and would like to think they climbed all the way up their themselves. A lot of policies are put into place by the wealthy and powerful that help the wealthy and powerful pull that ladder up thus making it near impossible for the people at the bottom to ever climb anywhere. Many of us have had head starts in life we may not recognize but most certainly shape who we are today. A lot of people on here try to make gentrification into a white vs. black thing. It's not, it is a class thing.
ANYONE can be a gentrifier and move into an area and raise the value therefore displacing the poorer residents. The poorer residents look at this as just one more example of the great income inequality that exists in our world where many people toward the top of the ladder (not all) had advantages handed to them and actively work to elect politicians to put policies in place to keep the poor getting poorer and rich getting richer. The poorer populations displacement out of thier homes is just yet another reminder to them that they are being oppressed. It can be argued that gentrification can actually help many of these poor residents through things like sensible rent control, etc... I actually am of the opinion it can. Still though for the ones who are inevitabley forced out it is a reminder of what seems like a futile attempt to ever get ahead. Many of these are hard working poor people making minimum wage and trying to scrape by. It is a slap in the face for them to have wealthier people waltz into thier longtime neighborhood and price them out.
Finally a quote form the late great Nelson Mandella: “A Nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens, but it's lowest ones”
As I already said, gentrification is made possible by public subsidies. In my own city (Chicago), about $500-$600 million dollars is diverted from the city's general fund each year through a program called TIF (tax increment financing). That is money that doesn't go to schools, police, fire, transit, etc. Instead, the lion's share of that money goes to subsidize upscale real-estate development. Just one neighborhood, the South Loop, an "up and coming" yuppie neighborhood, gets 25% of all TIF money collected in the entire city. That means the entire city is being taxed to build luxury housing for young urban professionals in the South Loop!
Other cities do exactly the same things through similar types of programs. How does owning property--valuable property!--justify getting that kind of welfare?
DC is a little different. For one we don't have TIF districts. I used to live in Chicago, I know the issues there with TIF districts in and around Chicago. DC is far different, it is profiting a great deal from gentrification, we have a city income tax equivalent to the state income tax in addition to the property tax. No diversion. It has heavily incentive to have people live in the city instead of the suburbs just based purely on revenue. DC doesn't get taxes from suburbanites from Virginia or Maryland who work here. In some ways DC has far more of an incentive to gentrify than any other place in America. This does not even include the sales and restaurant taxes, which again, go entirely into DC's coffers.
The only thing the developers get is land. The city sometimes basically gives that away to developers in certain cases, such as Walter Reed Redevelopment. But the incentive to do so in DC is high. This is why DC is one of the only cities and states to be running a large surplus. It also has a far larger incentive to grow, but also gentrify. The dynamics are different than Chicago and Illinois with the TIF districts. Chicago does not have an income tax. DC does. DC operates as both as a city and a state in terms of taxation. DC also does not have the same issues with pensions either.
This is why the dynamics of DC around gentrification are different, if it attracts affluent residents it greatly benefits, both in terms of property tax, sales taxes, and income taxes. It is one of the few cities that can say this. Only NYC really shares it with it's city income tax. But even that is not nearly as substantial as DC.
So in terms of subsidization...not really. They may get a deal on the land itself, but not much else, and the city greatly benefits from each new resident. In some ways these new residents are subsidizing services from the poorer "DC natives", who may be living on public assistance and more reliant on services. Though this is not the case with all natives, there is a large middle class contingent. Believe it or not, as a gentrifier I am perfectly okay with that, whether it be IZ, expanding medicaid, improve school resources in poor neighborhoods, or whatever else the city does. While I am a gentrifier, I see no problem in redistribution to improve the lives of everybody in the city. The one good thing about DC is the affluent are subsidizing city services...as it should be. I may be part of the gentry, but I am not that cold.
Last edited by DistrictSonic; 01-31-2014 at 08:35 PM..
This is not an argument for or against gentrification but a city represents society and a society should NOT alienate the poor. Just because they do doesn't mean it's alright and doesn't mean we should accept it. We live in a nation (world for that matter) of great income inequality.
Some people are born at the top of the ladder and would like to think they climbed all the way up their themselves. A lot of policies are put into place by the wealthy and powerful that help the wealthy and powerful pull that ladder up thus making it near impossible for the people at the bottom to ever climb anywhere. Many of us have had head starts in life we may not recognize but most certainly shape who we are today. A lot of people on here try to make gentrification into a white vs. black thing. It's not, it is a class thing.
ANYONE can be a gentrifier and move into an area and raise the value therefore displacing the poorer residents. The poorer residents look at this as just one more example of the great income inequality that exists in our world where many people toward the top of the ladder (not all) had advantages handed to them and actively work to elect politicians to put policies in place to keep the poor getting poorer and rich getting richer. The poorer populations displacement out of thier homes is just yet another reminder to them that they are being oppressed. It can be argued that gentrification can actually help many of these poor residents through things like sensible rent control, etc... I actually am of the opinion it can. Still though for the ones who are inevitabley forced out it is a reminder of what seems like a futile attempt to ever get ahead. Many of these are hard working poor people making minimum wage and trying to scrape by. It is a slap in the face for them to have wealthier people waltz into thier longtime neighborhood and price them out.
Finally a quote form the late great Nelson Mandella: “A Nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens, but it's lowest ones”
I agree with a lot of what you say. As I've said before: EDUCATION is the solution to most these problems. Not just educating the poor, but educating everyone. Education is not just limited to college or math or other technical stuff. It also includes knowing about politics, money, economics, etc. People need to know how this stuff works.
I applaud the poor who are actively trying to get out of it. A lot of them truly are victims. But we have to stop pretending ALL of them are victims.
They should be given every opportunity to succeed and they should not be oppressed in anyway. However, there is definitely a culture among the poor that shuns education. Like you said its not racial. The inner city poor and the people you find in trailer parks all have the same "mistrust" for education accompanied by an "anti-intellectual" mentality. They even drag down members of their own group who try to improve. Nerd shaming is a real thing. We all know this. Then when the nerd is making 100K a year 10 years later... those same slackers who made fun of him in school for studying are angry he has money and they don't.
What about people who can barely afford to support themselves.. YET they have 5 kids? Can we admit that the choices people make are sometimes as big a factor as their environment?
So while there are barriers in place that oppress many of the poor, there are also many poor who are given opportunities and don't take them. I have one of these people in my own family. To be specific he is a bum who didn't finish college. He has a high IQ and he was given opportunity after opportunity after opportunity to be successful and he flushed every single opportunity down the toilet so he could sit around in his pajamas playing video games all day. So why should I feel sorry for this person when he can't afford to live where he wants??
Those are the people I'm talking about. And if they have time to cry and moan on City-Data then they also have time to crack open a book and learn something that might improve their "situation".
As I already said, gentrification is made possible by public subsidies. In my own city (Chicago), about $500-$600 million dollars is diverted from the city's general fund each year through a program called TIF (tax increment financing). That is money that doesn't go to schools, police, fire, transit, etc. Instead, the lion's share of that money goes to subsidize upscale real-estate development. Just one neighborhood, the South Loop, an "up and coming" yuppie neighborhood, gets 25% of all TIF money collected in the entire city. That means the entire city is being taxed to build luxury housing for young urban professionals in the South Loop!
Other cities do exactly the same things through similar types of programs. How does owning property--valuable property!--justify getting that kind of welfare?
I think what you're talking about here is strategic investment. Cities are businesses at the end of the day and an investment in new development brings a return that the city can then invest in social services or expand with other development.
I think that's a very different type of subsidy from simply funding social services without ever getting that money back. Both are important for a healthy city but one has a clear return and potential profit. It's why you see so many cities (including DC) fork over up-front cash for stadiums.
there is a lot of resentment from people being forced
to move from a place they've been in all their lives tho.
it might make you mad at them for saying it but it is
the reality.
it's the same thing they did to the indians.
now history is repeating itself for blacks
and other residents from major cities.
I understand the fustration of low income people in Southeast, Northeast, and parts of Northwest D.C. but you have to plan that on YOURSELF. There are many Low income resident that live off the system not adding any type of value to that area.......SO THEY NEED TO GO!!!!!!
I agree with a lot of what you say. As I've said before: EDUCATION is the solution to most these problems. Not just educating the poor, but educating everyone. Education is not just limited to college or math or other technical stuff. It also includes knowing about politics, money, economics, etc. People need to know how this stuff works.
I applaud the poor who are actively trying to get out of it. A lot of them truly are victims. But we have to stop pretending ALL of them are victims.
They should be given every opportunity to succeed and they should not be oppressed in anyway. However, there is definitely a culture among the poor that shuns education. Like you said its not racial. The inner city poor and the people you find in trailer parks all have the same "mistrust" for education accompanied by an "anti-intellectual" mentality. They even drag down members of their own group who try to improve. Nerd shaming is a real thing. We all know this. Then when the nerd is making 100K a year 10 years later... those same slackers who made fun of him in school for studying are angry he has money and they don't.
What about people who can barely afford to support themselves.. YET they have 5 kids? Can we admit that the choices people make are sometimes as big a factor as their environment?
So while there are barriers in place that oppress many of the poor, there are also many poor who are given opportunities and don't take them. I have one of these people in my own family. To be specific he is a bum who didn't finish college. He has a high IQ and he was given opportunity after opportunity after opportunity to be successful and he flushed every single opportunity down the toilet so he could sit around in his pajamas playing video games all day. So why should I feel sorry for this person when he can't afford to live where he wants??
Those are the people I'm talking about. And if they have time to cry and moan on City-Data then they also have time to crack open a book and learn something that might improve their "situation".
Ironic you talk about education when you stereotype and make blanket assertions about the "whiners"( your code speak for poor black people). You routinely espouse Ayn Rand-eqsue views of exaggerated hyper individualism and ignore contemporary sociological/anthropological views and models about society, social privileges, and how society is structured.
I think what you're talking about here is strategic investment. Cities are businesses at the end of the day and an investment in new development brings a return that the city can then invest in social services or expand with other development.
I think that's a very different type of subsidy from simply funding social services without ever getting that money back. Both are important for a healthy city but one has a clear return and potential profit. It's why you see so many cities (including DC) fork over up-front cash for stadiums.
I'm sorry, but cities are not, and should not be "businesses at the end of the day." Cities need to be communities. Lavishing money on the rich always seen as a "strategic investment," while providing basic services for everyone else is seen as a waste of money. It is that kind of thinking that has made us the most unequal society in the advanced world, as well as the advanced society with the lowest rate of upward social mobility.
Actually, your example of stadium construction is a good illustration of what doesn't work about these kinds of "strategic investments." In nearly every case, while stadium costs are socialized, the benefits are largely privatized. The trickle-down effects of stadium construction are pretty meager in most cases.
Last edited by RogersParkGuy; 02-01-2014 at 10:25 AM..
Ironic you talk about education when you stereotype and make blanket assertions about the "whiners"( your code speak for poor black people). You routinely espouse Ayn Rand-eqsue views of exaggerated hyper individualism and ignore contemporary sociological/anthropological views and models about society, social privileges, and how society is structured.
If you actually read the post you are responding to.. you will see I specified "trailer parks" as well (which don't typically have any black people). When I say "the poor" I'm talking about "the poor". Nothing more and nothing less. If you think poor means "black" then YOU are the racist one.
The majority of the poor in this country (and the world) ARE NOT BLACK. You would know this if you were educated. This is why education is so important.
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.
