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.
I think this may have been said already, but since DC belongs to NO ONE, then what makes the gentrifiers the supreme authority as to who can and cant live there? Esp when they barely know Jack about squat when it comes to living in the city? If the long time locals are not more entitled to live in DC, then explain why gentrifiers are more entitled to live in a city/neighborhoods they either barely know or avoided for years???
I think this may have been said already, but since DC belongs to NO ONE, then what makes the gentrifiers the supreme authority as to who can and cant live there? Esp when they barely know Jack about squat when it comes to living in the city? If the long time locals are not more entitled to live in DC, then explain why gentrifiers are more entitled to live in a city/neighborhoods they either barely know or avoided for years???
That's a strange question. Whoever has a mortgage or lease is entitled by law to live in that neighborhood. It doesn't require a test to pass. People have been moving tp new places for yhousands of years.
That's a strange question. Whoever has a mortgage or lease is entitled by law to live in that neighborhood. It doesn't require a test to pass. People have been moving tp new places for yhousands of years.
EXACTLY! The poor locals had leases and the slightly more fortunate ones owned those properties (and not all of them sold them either). And most were tax paying citizens, which certainly should give them a say in the neighborhood.
Since the city doesnt "belong" to anyone, the gentrifiers are no more entitled to the neighborhood/city than the locals. The locals have JUST AS MUCH right to live in the area as the "newcomers". And I personally feel the locals who didnt break the law and worked hard should ESPECIALLY be able enjoy a newer, revitalized community, esp since they survived the neighborhoods darkest hours.
If people move out, it should be on their own free will.......prior to gentrification, thats how city neighborhoods changed hands.
EXACTLY! The poor locals had leases and the slightly more fortunate ones owned those properties (and not all of them sold them either). And most were tax paying citizens, which certainly should give them a say in the neighborhood.
Since the city doesnt "belong" to anyone, the gentrifiers are no more entitled to the neighborhood/city than the locals. The locals have JUST AS MUCH right to live in the area as the "newcomers". And I personally feel the locals who didnt break the law and worked hard should ESPECIALLY be able enjoy a newer, revitalized community, esp since they survived the neighborhoods darkest hours.
If people move out, it should be on their own free will.......prior to gentrification, thats how city neighborhoods changed hands.
Wrong. The neighborhoods are changing the same way they always have: people are buying and renting property.
If somebody's free will went against gentrification, then it would be happening. No one would be selling. Clearly people do want to sell though.
Wrong. The neighborhoods are changing the same way they always have: people are buying and renting property.
If somebody's free will went against gentrification, then it would be happening. No one would be selling. Clearly people do want to sell though.
in prior years this didnt happen b/c of property taxes spiking up so even homeowners who dont wish to leave end up leaving.......
In prior years you didnt have shameless greedy real estate developers using every loophole known to man to push people off of property that they OWNED.....even blockbusting in the 60s didnt use those tactics
People sold and left for various reasons, but they were VOLUNTARY......newcomers, even when they bought homes, didnt raise property taxes through the foacking roof......
With gentrification, locals who dont wish to leave have to leave anyway due to lack of funds simply b/c wealthier people wanna pay triple for a closet in the middle of the city.......either that or u got trust fund babies who have rich parents willing to pay those rates........
That's a strange question. Whoever has a mortgage or lease is entitled by law to live in that neighborhood. It doesn't require a test to pass. People have been moving tp new places for yhousands of years.
This is a market, it's who can afford it plain and simple.
The gentrifiers are buying the houses, condos, etc. Affordability of a city is strictly dictated by demand for that area. Nothing more, nothing less. It's a market. The entire reason DC's housing was affordable before was because it had a declining population, nothing more, nothing less. Supply and demand. Demand has increased and the result is gentrification, both organic, and major projects.
This is why gentrification cannot be stopped or slowed down necessarily, once you are in a high demand situation with limited supply, the price is ultimately what the market tolerates. This is simple economics. There is higher demand in healthier neighborhoods and cities. The response is to add more supply to keep up with demand. The problem with the bay area for example is they suppress supply by opposition to higher density housing. DC this is less the case...and in some ways this may stabilize class B rental prices. Actual houses though will probably continue to go up, there is only a limited amount of houses, and not much in terms of opportunity to build more. So million dollar houses can end up being a norm for DC, and with it more gentrified neighborhoods. Apartment buildings and condos are a different story. With all the new class A it will likely reduce demand on class B. But this does not mean it will be affordible for everybody. But the new apartments in DC are ending up lowering the rental prices for nearby suburbs as well. This is why class A apartment rates in Silver Spring lowered. New supply ends up creating a ripple effect in the market, either reducing inflation, or causing deflation in price.
The point is though complaining about gentrification does jack squat, especially in a high demand environment. Opposing new development may have exact opposite effect in such an environment, preventing new supply from reaching the market, which may suppress supply, thus Bay Area circumstances where you have continually skyrocketing housing costs.
Nobody is saying who can and cannot live there, it is who can and cannot AFFORD to live in a place. That's it, and it based on supply and demand. The reality is people thought the low demand reality would exist forever, even though it is unhealthy for a city. The reality is that has changed significantly.
The property taxes are going up because with this demand, it means that the property is worth more, because more people want to buy it. There wasn't bidding wars in DC before either, there now is. When property values go up, so do the taxes.
Complain all you want, it's not going to change the market reality of DC right now. Bidding wars, higher values, and more demand.
in prior years this didnt happen b/c of property taxes spiking up so even homeowners who dont wish to leave end up leaving.......
In prior years you didnt have shameless greedy real estate developers using every loophole known to man to push people off of property that they OWNED.....even blockbusting in the 60s didnt use those tactics
People sold and left for various reasons, but they were VOLUNTARY......newcomers, even when they bought homes, didnt raise property taxes through the foacking roof......
With gentrification, locals who dont wish to leave have to leave anyway due to lack of funds simply b/c wealthier people wanna pay triple for a closet in the middle of the city.......either that or u got trust fund babies who have rich parents willing to pay those rates........
You have an incredibly bizarre notion of free will. You apparently think free will means the right to have whatever good you want at whatever price you want.
I guess my free will is being violated because I want that Lamborghini to cost $1 but it doesn't.
Let's accept your dumb logic and say that bidding up the price of a good so it becomes unaffordable for someone violates their freedom. Well congratulations, you violate somebody's freedom everyday. Any time you go out to buy food, buy cigarettes, buy gas, etc., you are increasing the demand for that good, and therefore pushing up its price.
You don't have the right to stay in a neighborhood that you can no longer afford. That doesn't mean your freedom has been violated. It just means you should have bought property there while it was cheap. Your mistake not to.
We all know the gentrification discussions are usually way too simplistic to be meaningful. For example, when it comes to both race and class, no one mentions one of the -- if not THE -- major reason for gentrification: black folks are choosing to sell their homes for a fortune and move. They're not being forced out; they're cashing in and loving it. I'm in an "up and coming neighborhood" and half of the African-Americans on my block seem to be selling or considering selling, and they're thrilled!
The problem with the anti-gentrification types is that they have chosen to pretend this is about race exploitation, for whatever reason, and attack the white buyers when they should be focusing their wrath at the black sellers if they don't want to change. Even many (if not nearly all) of the black renters are being forced out because black landlords are selling.
I'm quoting this so it sinks in. Everyone read that again.
The race baiters try to turn every issue into a racial issue as if race is the only factor that matters in all human interactions.
CLASS and CULTURE are the biggest issues. Most who are born in the lower class (of all races) have it harder because they were likely raised by uneducated teen parents OR people with too little money to raise them in a safe, nurturing and healthy environment. Yes I'm generalizing.
People who identify with a subculture (any culture outside the dominate culture) have a huge disadvantage as well because the people who hire people for most high paying jobs will place more trust in people who share their customs and values than people who don't.
In today's world, race is a much smaller factor than some people believe. You have to lump in culture, social class, education, location and many other factors too. You can't just say: "Its because I'm [insert race]".
Can just ANYONE be President of the United States? Why did Obama pull it off? Being black was a disadvantage according to most DC natives on this site. BUT he had the advantages of education, class, high IQ, culture, etc.
Famous John Wayne quote: "Life is hard. Its harder when you're stupid."
There are more natives in washington than anyone else, so they own dc.
Nope. The natives are a minority. Only 37.3% were born here, and that number has probably dropped in the last couple of years too. This is a city of transplants and newcomers.
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.
Nope. The natives are a minority. Only 37.3% were born here, and that number has probably dropped in the last couple of years too. This is a city of transplants and newcomers.
