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 only one here making this "personal" is you bro.
Gentrification is an economic issue. What the "natives" don't get is that the world will always accommodate the upper class over lower classes. This is why celebs get free stuff everywhere they go and often get lighter sentences for crimes. They are "elite" and so they get benefits. Higher social class and higher economic class works the same way. In this case.. if the "yuppies" want to live in DC.. they will be favored and accommodated over the poor because they have more to offer than the poor.
Expecting the upper class to compromise and negotiate their lives so that the under class can be happy is laughable. This is why complaining and whining and making threats will not give you "your city" back.
This is what the "natives" don't get. You're not going to get what you want by crying and whining. If anything.. it just makes people care even less. Especially if you come off like a d-bag.
= I do not think that means what you think it means.
I thought I was the only one to have noticed this over the last three weeks.
And yes, some of the other cities' threads do talk about it but they're often not as heated and aggressive as the DC forum is on this particular subject. The only city forum I can think of that comes close to the relentless tirade on the subject of gentrification is New York City.
It seems that for better or worse, DC is the poster-child of gentrification.
WASHINGTON BULLET came on here and made a lot of inflammatory posts on numerous threads and it spread from there. It's usually not like this.
In most gentrifying neighborhoods, it is the newcomers who claim ownership over the area and tend to regard longtime residents as "bad elements" that need to be gotten rid of. The newcomers justify this superior attitude by claiming that their ownership of property gives them more rights. It is completely self-serving and hypocritical. Gentrification is, always and everywhere, fueled by public subsidies.
Sorry but ownership DOES give you more rights.
In what universe do people who don't own property have more rights than people who do?
Where is it written that in the United States of America, rights are supposed to be dependent on the ownership of property? Please, educate me...
If you own something you have rights to what you own in a way others don't. Like if you own your car you have rights to that car that other people don't have.
Anyone who has gone to elementary school can tell you this.
If you own something you have rights to what you own in a way others don't.
Anyone who has gone to elementary school can tell you this.
But that's not what is at issue here.
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?
As I already said, gentrification is made possible by public subsidies. In my own city (Chicago), about $500-$600 millions 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?
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.
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 nothing but a cold, ignorant assertion of class prejudice and Social Darwinism. My God, who raised you? I'm so done.
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.
