4 ms·

I think this is spot on. Companies would not move to the Tenderloin without some benefits and this could change the area for better. It has a pretty good locati

by kmonsen 11y ago

I think this is spot on. Companies would not move to the Tenderloin without some benefits and this could change the area for better. It has a pretty good location so it should not take a lot.

wavefunction 11y ago
Why do companies need benefits to move to a part of a city that is cheap (well, comparatively?) The city council in Austin was giving away millions of dollars in tax breaks to companies to come here and this was amidst all the hype. The companies wanted to come here anyways, the locals might as well gouge em for all they're worth!
- alsetmusic 11y ago
  > Why do companies need benefits to move to a part of a city that is cheap (well, comparatively?) I wouldnt be comfortable working late in the Tenderloin on a regular basis. I'll pass through when my destination takes me that way, but I'm always very aware of my surroundings when I do. A company would have to entice me to work there via money or a hell of a great culture. Chances are slim that I'll come to harm on a given occasion, but with increased exposure comes increased risk.
  - bbarn 11y ago
    Therein lies the problem. We're not talking about down on your luck, rough chance of circumstances for many of the residents here, we're talking about mental illness and all too often violent drug addicted reactions. For every person standing against gentrification, there are probably a dozen who could stand to benefit from it.
pessimizer 11y ago
Who cares about the "area." Patches of ground don't need to be improved, because they are happy as they are - not being alive. Improvements would benefit the inhabitants of an area. So if your improvement of a patch of ground involves removing the inhabitants, you should really stop rationalizing what you're doing.
- viscanti 11y ago
  What inhabitants were removed? Didn't they move into an unused building?

4 ms·

I think this is spot on. Companies would not move to the Tenderloin without some benefits and this could change the area for better. It has a pretty good locati

by kmonsen 11y ago

I think this is spot on. Companies would not move to the Tenderloin without some benefits and this could change the area for better. It has a pretty good location so it should not take a lot.

wavefunction 11y ago
Why do companies need benefits to move to a part of a city that is cheap (well, comparatively?) The city council in Austin was giving away millions of dollars in tax breaks to companies to come here and this was amidst all the hype. The companies wanted to come here anyways, the locals might as well gouge em for all they're worth!
- alsetmusic 11y ago
  > Why do companies need benefits to move to a part of a city that is cheap (well, comparatively?) I wouldnt be comfortable working late in the Tenderloin on a regular basis. I'll pass through when my destination takes me that way, but I'm always very aware of my surroundings when I do. A company would have to entice me to work there via money or a hell of a great culture. Chances are slim that I'll come to harm on a given occasion, but with increased exposure comes increased risk.
  - bbarn 11y ago
    Therein lies the problem. We're not talking about down on your luck, rough chance of circumstances for many of the residents here, we're talking about mental illness and all too often violent drug addicted reactions. For every person standing against gentrification, there are probably a dozen who could stand to benefit from it.
pessimizer 11y ago
Who cares about the "area." Patches of ground don't need to be improved, because they are happy as they are - not being alive. Improvements would benefit the inhabitants of an area. So if your improvement of a patch of ground involves removing the inhabitants, you should really stop rationalizing what you're doing.
- viscanti 11y ago
  What inhabitants were removed? Didn't they move into an unused building?