Obviously nobody is actually suggesting a situation where you can point at a house and say "I deserve to live exactly there" -- but my point is that it's hard t

Obviously nobody is actually suggesting a situation where you can point at a house and say "I deserve to live exactly there" -- but my point is that it's hard to see any clear line between there and any form of "resisting gentrification." For example, you say, "entire city cores become entirely reserved for wealthy people." That's a sentence fragment replete with lineless definitions. What's a "city core"? If I can afford a house one block outside of the imaginary line that bounds a "city core," is that actually much different from my being able to afford a house one block inside that line? What constitutes a "wealthy" person? If the "city core" (however that's defined) is "affordable" (however that's defined) for someone whose income is $60,000, but not $50,000, what does that mean? I have no trouble with the sort of general intuition that it's a shame if someone can no longer afford to live in a neighborhood that is deeply meaningful to them. What I have trouble with is any way to quantify that intuition and put it into a practical set of policies that actually increase justice and do not diminish it.