Here's a chart from The Economist[1]: http://imgur.com/a/5DfUi http://imgur.com/a/5DfUi Across all the other charts for other cities (outside Detroit) you can

Here's a chart from The Economist[1]: http://imgur.com/a/5DfUi http://imgur.com/a/5DfUi Across all the other charts for other cities (outside Detroit) you can see variations of the pattern of things just skyrocketing in the late 90s. There was a dip when in '08 but things are getting back to the way they in the mid-aughts. I don't think it's all tech thought that might have had a greater effect in certain areas (such as the changes in Venice). Median income for the city is still around 28k yet house and rental prices are insane. We're in the middle of a building boom but it hasn't really added "value" apartments - the rates are still top of the market. Now we have anti-development measures hitting elections right and left. I really don't get it. If was able to buy a home in 80s, and I still had had steady employment throughout, raised kids, etc. and saw the value of my house skyrocket, what does it matter if someone builds more apartments or condos and the value goes down a little? I don't get dividends from owning that house. And I'll most likely die in it. The whole fight seems to not be about home values when the value really only matters if you plan on moving, which, as others have stated, can be pretty rare due to family and other ties to communities. This might also beg another questions: When looking at places like the anti-gentrification efforts in Boyle Heights, is it about being priced out of the neighborhood (because of Prop 13, your tax rate is set right?) or something more than that? I debate every day whether it's worth staying in this city and I have it much better than other folks that might not have a choice. [1] http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/08/daily-chart-20 http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/08/daily-c...