5 ms·

I hate the moral outrage against gentrification. It's natural to desire something that good but, somehow immoral to express that desire. Venice and the south s

I hate the moral outrage against gentrification. It's natural to desire something that good but, somehow immoral to express that desire. Venice and the south side of Santa Monica used to be kinda a sketchy place to live and had alot of crime though, it was on the beach. Crime went down (as it did all over LA) and went from an undesirable place to live to a desirable one. When people express that desire by actually moving themselves and their businesses there, the people that were previously there are outraged. I get being mad at market rates going up in your neighbourhood; it's basically a selfish desire to keep things as they were for yourself. Especially if it goes so far as to move you out of your neighbourhood but, to make it moral as if these people who naturally moving to the best place they can find for a price they can pay are somehow trying to personally inflict evil on the people that already live there is silly. One might as well try to stop the tide from rising. We live in a capitalist society. Real estate is one of the largest markets there is, literally trillions of dollars in value. Even small changes in value can have huge effects. There is no simple solution. Even if Snap, Inc. did move to a suburb in the valley somewhere, they would lose a significant, expensive chunk of their workforce. The young, mostly childless employees of Snap, Inc. are exactly the kind of people that love living in Venice. Everyone loves living there, how do I know? The rental prices in Venice are astronomical. People already have sacrificed alot to live there, they aren't going to move to the valley. They are going to keep their friends and their short commutes and move to a company in their neighbourhood.

danharaj 10y ago
People were living there and now they can't afford to live there. Why would they be happy about economic forces that do nothing but push them to the margins? It's empathy, not """moral outrage""" which is just a politically correct phrase for "contentious political issues I want to dismiss".
- Domenic_S 10y ago
  Assuming you're talking about the rising cost of housing, how is that Snap's fault? These people who can't afford to live there -- either they owned their dwelling (in which case they can still afford to live there because nothing's changed) or they rented (in which case the landlord is to blame, because his costs didn't change).
  - JoshTriplett 10y ago
    > either they owned their dwelling (in which case they can still afford to live there because nothing's changed) One nit with this: when the price of your house goes up, local governments have a tendency to reassess it to their benefit and massively increase your property tax bill. So it's possible to own your home outright but still get pushed out of it by your local government's taxation practices. > in which case the landlord is to blame, because his costs didn't change 1) See above: the landlord's costs potentially do go up significantly. 2) See the frequent advice here recommending against "cost-plus" pricing.
    - pchristensen 10y ago
      > it's possible to own your home outright but still get pushed out of it by your local government's taxation practices. This is not a problem in California: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1978) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(197...
      - JoshTriplett 10y ago
        True, though I've also seen several discussions here about other problems that proposition causes (mostly by making the market far less liquid).
        Kalium 10y ago
        It also does a lot of starve local governments of funding, with all the problems that come from that.
        pchristensen 10y ago
        Oh, Prop 13 causes HUGE problems. But CA homeowners being forced out by rising taxes isn't a problem.
    - Domenic_S 10y ago
      Sibling comment explains why point 1 is not relevant in CA. But: > 2) See the frequent advice here recommending against "cost-plus" pricing. This is essentially my point -- it's logically and ethically inconsistent to blame Snap for raising prices AND excuse landlords for adjusting prices to meet demand.
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  Let's step back from this specific situation for a moment. If there's a place that's cheaper to live because it's sketchy and full of crime, what do you do? Should it stay that way?
  - danharaj 10y ago
    The bitter thing about gentrification is that as the median income of the residents increases, suddenly all the municipal services get much, much better while corporations start dumping money into the neighborhood. Meanwhile the residents are pushed out to a more marginalized community which in turn will be neglected until it is profitable to invest in it. Don't forget, too, that these neighborhoods aren't so sketchy because of natural forces. It was policy that created them and immiserated their residents. It's a structural feature.
    - Dylan16807 10y ago
      "money makes services better" isn't because of policy. So what policies would you change? What actually is the answer?
- mywittyname 10y ago
  Snap and its employees need to go somewhere. Someone is going to be displaced by the billions of dollars they generate suddenly being dumped into a local economy. If not Venice, then some other relatively cheap area.
danhak 10y ago
Snapchat is a unique case because they've insisted on shoving their growing workforce into a bunch of small bungalows, retail spaces and storefronts--including Nikki's, a beloved neighborhood bar--scattered throughout Venice. This has had a really outsized and unfortunate effect on the neighborhood that goes well beyond the standard gripes about gentrification and rising rents. They've taken one of the most walkable, lively communities in LA--where you could just wander around ambling into funky shops, cafes and bars--and turned it into their private, cordoned-off distributed campus. One of the most vibrant neighborhoods in the city has turned dead and boring. I lived in Venice when I first moved to LA and absolutely adored it, but there's literally nobody left except techies and tourists. If that's the sort of place Snapchat employees want to live then more power to them. Let them stay by the beach as LA's center of gravity continues to shift to DTLA and the eastside.
- rhodysurf 10y ago
  But I'm confused. Are they actively pushing other businesses out? Or are they just snatching up vacancies where businesses already failed?
  - danhak 10y ago
    Both--this article is pretty informative: http://la.curbed.com/2015/3/31/9975230/snapchat-venice-leases http://la.curbed.com/2015/3/31/9975230/snapchat-venice-lease... But even if a retail vacancy appears--it kinda diminishes the quality of a pedestrian-friendly neighborhood for a private corporate office rather than another retail storefront, bar or restaurant to take its place. I'm a free marketer, blah blah blah, Snapchat is free to set up shop wherever they want within the bounds of the law. My point is to say what they are doing is lame, and they've made Venice lame. And it's uniquely lame compared to cases where tech giants set up shop in a single large commercial building that can accommodate all their employees within a locale.
- bit_logic 10y ago
  Why do you think DTLA and eastside are becoming more important? (For tech) It seems the opposite is true, "Silicon Beach" continues to be the center of LA tech and there's no signs of this changing. Especially with the new train, many can work westside and live somewhere near a train station.
angryasian 10y ago
Agree with @danhak, this has less to do with gentrification and more about how they are affecting the community and businesses. Venice boardwalk is a major tourist attraction for the westside. Where snap is located, used to be filled with eateries, bars and other various shops. All the buildings that snapchat are taking have made these areas a ghost town. They could easily move to Playa Vista literally 10 minutes away, where they are developing a huge business park area and where FB is moving in. I can understand why the residents there are upset.
- mcgannon2007 10y ago
  > ghost town They've wedged themselves deeper into your mind than you even know (referring to their logo.)
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
hnbroseph 10y ago
so, your view is that the displaced and disadvantaged are simply degenerates. sure, keep kicking them from locale to locale. doesn't solve much and systemic abuse doesn't win many points.
ilyanep 10y ago
And the thing frequently in common with California gentrification stories is building restrictions because god forbid the neighborhood look different than it did 40 years ago when a bunch of new people want to move in. Of course when you limit the supply to 1/10th of what is desired, only the richest people will get it.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
abalone 10y ago
There's truth to what you're saying -- neighborhoods change -- but it's a matter of degrees. In Econ 101 it's called a "positive externality", a public good that arises from economic activity but is not accounted for in private transactions. That's what neighborhoods like Venice have going on and it's a function of a lot of activity by artists, small businesses and rather humble folks, who all collectively benefit as a result. It is not being charged for; it relies on voluntary cultural contributions back to the community to sustain it. A relatively large, well-funded corporation swooping in to soak up those benefits, without really offering in-kind cultural contributions, threatens to destroy that unique positive externality that Venice has.
- mintplant 10y ago
  It's shameful that this comment has been voted so far down so quickly, for what I can only assume are ideological reasons. Are there a lot of Snap employees here, or are HN users insecure about their own contributions to the problem of gentrification?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- __derek__ 10y ago
  Well said. A similar phenomenon has played out in Brooklyn, San Francisco's Mission, and Seattle's Capitol Hill.

danharaj 10y ago

People were living there and now they can't afford to live there. Why would they be happy about economic forces that do nothing but push them to the margins? It's empathy, not """moral outrage""" which is just a politically correct phrase for "contentious political issues I want to dismiss".

Domenic_S 10y ago
Assuming you're talking about the rising cost of housing, how is that Snap's fault? These people who can't afford to live there -- either they owned their dwelling (in which case they can still afford to live there because nothing's changed) or they rented (in which case the landlord is to blame, because his costs didn't change).
- JoshTriplett 10y ago
  > either they owned their dwelling (in which case they can still afford to live there because nothing's changed) One nit with this: when the price of your house goes up, local governments have a tendency to reassess it to their benefit and massively increase your property tax bill. So it's possible to own your home outright but still get pushed out of it by your local government's taxation practices. > in which case the landlord is to blame, because his costs didn't change 1) See above: the landlord's costs potentially do go up significantly. 2) See the frequent advice here recommending against "cost-plus" pricing.
  - pchristensen 10y ago
    > it's possible to own your home outright but still get pushed out of it by your local government's taxation practices. This is not a problem in California: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1978) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(197...
    - JoshTriplett 10y ago
      True, though I've also seen several discussions here about other problems that proposition causes (mostly by making the market far less liquid).
      - Kalium 10y ago
        It also does a lot of starve local governments of funding, with all the problems that come from that.
      - pchristensen 10y ago
        Oh, Prop 13 causes HUGE problems. But CA homeowners being forced out by rising taxes isn't a problem.
  - Domenic_S 10y ago
    Sibling comment explains why point 1 is not relevant in CA. But: > 2) See the frequent advice here recommending against "cost-plus" pricing. This is essentially my point -- it's logically and ethically inconsistent to blame Snap for raising prices AND excuse landlords for adjusting prices to meet demand.
Dylan16807 10y ago
Let's step back from this specific situation for a moment. If there's a place that's cheaper to live because it's sketchy and full of crime, what do you do? Should it stay that way?
- danharaj 10y ago
  The bitter thing about gentrification is that as the median income of the residents increases, suddenly all the municipal services get much, much better while corporations start dumping money into the neighborhood. Meanwhile the residents are pushed out to a more marginalized community which in turn will be neglected until it is profitable to invest in it. Don't forget, too, that these neighborhoods aren't so sketchy because of natural forces. It was policy that created them and immiserated their residents. It's a structural feature.
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    "money makes services better" isn't because of policy. So what policies would you change? What actually is the answer?
mywittyname 10y ago
Snap and its employees need to go somewhere. Someone is going to be displaced by the billions of dollars they generate suddenly being dumped into a local economy. If not Venice, then some other relatively cheap area.

danhak 10y ago

Snapchat is a unique case because they've insisted on shoving their growing workforce into a bunch of small bungalows, retail spaces and storefronts--including Nikki's, a beloved neighborhood bar--scattered throughout Venice. This has had a really outsized and unfortunate effect on the neighborhood that goes well beyond the standard gripes about gentrification and rising rents. They've taken one of the most walkable, lively communities in LA--where you could just wander around ambling into funky shops, cafes and bars--and turned it into their private, cordoned-off distributed campus. One of the most vibrant neighborhoods in the city has turned dead and boring. I lived in Venice when I first moved to LA and absolutely adored it, but there's literally nobody left except techies and tourists. If that's the sort of place Snapchat employees want to live then more power to them. Let them stay by the beach as LA's center of gravity continues to shift to DTLA and the eastside.

rhodysurf 10y ago
But I'm confused. Are they actively pushing other businesses out? Or are they just snatching up vacancies where businesses already failed?
- danhak 10y ago
  Both--this article is pretty informative: http://la.curbed.com/2015/3/31/9975230/snapchat-venice-leases http://la.curbed.com/2015/3/31/9975230/snapchat-venice-lease... But even if a retail vacancy appears--it kinda diminishes the quality of a pedestrian-friendly neighborhood for a private corporate office rather than another retail storefront, bar or restaurant to take its place. I'm a free marketer, blah blah blah, Snapchat is free to set up shop wherever they want within the bounds of the law. My point is to say what they are doing is lame, and they've made Venice lame. And it's uniquely lame compared to cases where tech giants set up shop in a single large commercial building that can accommodate all their employees within a locale.
bit_logic 10y ago
Why do you think DTLA and eastside are becoming more important? (For tech) It seems the opposite is true, "Silicon Beach" continues to be the center of LA tech and there's no signs of this changing. Especially with the new train, many can work westside and live somewhere near a train station.

angryasian 10y ago

Agree with @danhak, this has less to do with gentrification and more about how they are affecting the community and businesses. Venice boardwalk is a major tourist attraction for the westside. Where snap is located, used to be filled with eateries, bars and other various shops. All the buildings that snapchat are taking have made these areas a ghost town. They could easily move to Playa Vista literally 10 minutes away, where they are developing a huge business park area and where FB is moving in. I can understand why the residents there are upset.

mcgannon2007 10y ago
> ghost town They've wedged themselves deeper into your mind than you even know (referring to their logo.)

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

hnbroseph 10y ago

so, your view is that the displaced and disadvantaged are simply degenerates. sure, keep kicking them from locale to locale. doesn't solve much and systemic abuse doesn't win many points.

ilyanep 10y ago

And the thing frequently in common with California gentrification stories is building restrictions because god forbid the neighborhood look different than it did 40 years ago when a bunch of new people want to move in. Of course when you limit the supply to 1/10th of what is desired, only the richest people will get it.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

abalone 10y ago

There's truth to what you're saying -- neighborhoods change -- but it's a matter of degrees. In Econ 101 it's called a "positive externality", a public good that arises from economic activity but is not accounted for in private transactions. That's what neighborhoods like Venice have going on and it's a function of a lot of activity by artists, small businesses and rather humble folks, who all collectively benefit as a result. It is not being charged for; it relies on voluntary cultural contributions back to the community to sustain it. A relatively large, well-funded corporation swooping in to soak up those benefits, without really offering in-kind cultural contributions, threatens to destroy that unique positive externality that Venice has.

mintplant 10y ago
It's shameful that this comment has been voted so far down so quickly, for what I can only assume are ideological reasons. Are there a lot of Snap employees here, or are HN users insecure about their own contributions to the problem of gentrification?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
__derek__ 10y ago
Well said. A similar phenomenon has played out in Brooklyn, San Francisco's Mission, and Seattle's Capitol Hill.