5 ms·

I don't see what is so wrong with gentrification. As the economy expands and people become more prosperous, it restores blighted parts of the city to their ful

I don't see what is so wrong with gentrification. As the economy expands and people become more prosperous, it restores blighted parts of the city to their full potential. I also think that rent control is disrespectful to the rights of the property owner. Other than making sure that there is no discrimination, and that properties aren't fire traps, government should get out of the way.

epicureanideal 8y ago
I think there's a difference though between "a small town that has very little in the way of services because the population won't support it or the people who live there don't earn enough to support nice amenities" becoming more prosperous, and a town where nice amenities are already possible, but building is prevented as people move in so prices get driven up without (as much as would be natural) corresponding increase in amenities. That's not to say that nice amenities are what everyone wants. Some people want to keep the character of their small towns no matter what. But in the former case there's a loss of small-town-ness for amenities that theoretically benefit everyone, whereas in the latter case it's purely an extraction of money from the young to the old.
asteli 8y ago
The wealth-ification of a neighborhood isn't per se bad. It would be fantastic if people living in a neighborhood became wealthier through some set of circumstances (economic recovery etc). What you typically see is long-time neighborhood residents being displaced by wealthier newcomers. In a poor neighborhood, this means that people who are already vulnerable, especially those that are renting also have to cope with a whole new set of problems -- landlords who desperately want to evict them, cost-of-living increases, increased pressure from law enforcement. The Bay doesn't have resources for people who find themselves in this position. My old housemate in west Oakland, in her early 30s and well-educated, but with health issues, is being forced from the bay. She grew up in Berkeley and Oakland. This is her home. I'm sad.
- bcheung 8y ago
  I think what you say is true for long term renters but the complete opposite for long term homeowners. There's rent control, Proposition 13, and fixed rate mortgages. Those greatly help long time homeowner. Homeowners lock in low interest rates and fixed monthly payments. If inflation hits you're still paying the same. Possibly 1/5th the amount that your neighbor might be paying if you've had your house for a while. With Proposition 13 your property tax won't go up more than 2% despite double digital home price inflation year after year in the bay area. The amount of equity generated each year is often more than peoples' entire salaries.
- ng12 8y ago
  Ebb-and-flow, man. Especially in NYC and SF "poor neighborhoods" were once middle-class before a downturn.
  - asteli 8y ago
    True in a lot of urban centers during the 'white flight,' but as always, the story is sometimes more complicated. West Oakland, for example, wasn't wealthy, but was nevertheless a thriving black neighborhood. People, money, music, culture from all over the country flowed in via the rail system and the Port of Oakland. It was vital in America's Jazz scene, dubbed "Harlem of the West." The postwar period saw West Oakland fragmented and paved over by the Cypress freeway and the 980, construction of the behemoth USPS facility, construction of the BART straight through 7th street. Pretty clear cut case of environmental racism. American city officials in the 40s and 50s had no problem stating their motives out loud -- they saw construction of these projects in thriving black neighborhoods as a win-win: build up infrastructure and get rid of the "local niggertown.[1]" We can't simply chalk these changes up to inevitable economic downturn. West Oakland is an extreme example, but these changes are guided by policy decisions as much as economic change. https://books.google.com/books?id=xRntFdOk8ewC&lpg=PA28 https://books.google.com/books?id=xRntFdOk8ewC&lpg=PA28
dbasedweeb 8y ago
Some people feel that the communities have a right to a place, others feel that whoever ends up owning the place has those rights. I don’t know what the answer is by the way, I’m just calling the perspectives as I see them. Obviously if you feel that residents “own” a neighborhood in some sense, then it’s wrong to price them out. If you feel that whoever puts the money down to own property owns it, then you won’t feel the same way.
tzm 8y ago
> restores blighted parts of the city to their full potential I disagree. Gentrification has cultural impacts that can reshape society in positive and negative ways. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/23/magazine/when-gentrification-isnt-about-housing.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/23/magazine/when-gentrificat... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4618664/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4618664/
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
tmh79 8y ago
Gentrification is a really inartful term that has come to mean a lot of different things. To some, gentrification is the process of a place becoming nicer, there are more options to eat out, the city services in an area increase etc To others, gentrification is the process of a place changing in a way that makes them feel alien in their home. New and different people move in, their favorite businesses close down, the closest laundromat closes down so now the next closest one is an additonal 5 minute walk. The prices everywhere rise, what used to cost you 5 dollars now costs you 10, and its hard to live like that because you only make 30k/year, taking home maybe 1.8k/month. You apply to jobs at a few of these new places, and the first 5 places casually turned you down despite their "help wanted" sign and your job experience as a bar tender/server. The 6th place accepts you, but your job is pretty bad because all of the patrons of the bar treat you like "the help". To others, gentrification means rents go up more than you can afford and you get evicted and need to move away from your family and friends and your support structure.
nothrabannosir 8y ago
> rent control is disrespectful to the rights of the property owner. Is there an inherent right of way for property owners over renters on the residential moral crossroads? If you’ve grown up in a neighbourhood, raised your own kids in that neighbourhood, spent time in and on the neighbourhood, don’t you deserve some respect? People without the fiscal wherewithal (nor social impetus) to buy, but who spent effort safe guarding their community, organising events for locals, tending to parks, churches; they created the neighbourhood. They added value to every single property. But God forbid they were not raised to “buy”: make way for the Propery Owner! I find this incongruous with what I’ve seen around me time and time again. People who’ve suffered through the hardest times of an area get pushed out when it does better. They deserved it the most, but got hoodwinked for the newer, flashier wind. Not unlike a spouse who stays with their partner through a tough disease, depression, or poverty, only to be dumped for a more beautiful and opportunistic competitor when the hardship has sailed. I’m not a staunch anti gentrifier (hell, I gentrify!), but I find using the word “respect” a bridge too far.
- bhickey 8y ago
  > Is there an inherent right of way for property owners over renters on the residential moral crossroads? No, but rent control is counterproductive and hurts many of the people it purports to help. What are its effects? It encourages landlords to neglect properties. As one socialist economist quipped, "In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city—except for bombing." After World War II, Paris enacted rent control leading to the loss of tens of thousands of existing units. When rent control was banned in Cambridge, MA, the valuation of never-controlled properties rose more rapidly than previously rent controlled properties. This implies that the never-controlled properties were better maintained. It accrues financial gains to people who tend to be older and more affluent. People with lucrative employment are more able to stay in place for longer. They can ride out the downturns. It limits supply. This increases median rents for newly available units. It discourages the construction of new units. It encourages over consumption. Empty nesters don't downsize. This makes it harder for young families to find housing. SF has the lowest portion of children of any major American city. It privatizes a public problem. As far as solving a housing crisis goes, rent control is about as helpful as arson.
Ar-Curunir 8y ago
Let's scale up your example: why should citizens of a country have any special rights over immigrants? One can argue that immigration "restores blighted parts" of the country "to its full potential". I doubt you'd make that argument, though.
- kasey_junk 8y ago
  This is not a controversial opinion amongst lots of people by the way. I’m not arguing for or against it, but it’s not an argument ad absurdem.
- xienze 8y ago
  > One can argue that immigration "restores blighted parts" of the country "to its full potential". Only if you’re talking about well-to-do immigrants, and most of the time that term is reserved for the “undocumented” variety of immigrant, not generally known for bringing a flood of money into an area like Valley techies do. Your point is actually relevant though, unchecked immigration does indeed have an affect on housing prices, just not quite as dramatically as a horde of tech geeks does.
- nine_k 8y ago
  Citizens of a country usually sort of own the country, if you read the local constitution. They are more like homeowners, entitled to protect their land with deadly force. Tenants are more like tourists: they are welcome as long as they keep paying.
  - eli_gottlieb 8y ago
    >Tenants are more like tourists: they are welcome as long as they keep paying. Bull. Tenants are full-time residents who just don't have the money to buy.
40acres 8y ago
In principal gentrification is fine, in practice its usually a mess. I'm from Brooklyn, which is definitely gentrified by any means. It's nice that property values are up, new businesses are booming, and crime is down -- but there is something to be said about the community which underwent decades of over-policing, redlining and discriminatory practices being booted out all because some property developers thought the neighborhood was "hot".
- _jal 8y ago
  I lived in Brooklyn for the better part of a decade, and was a gentrifier. I watched two neighborhoods change, and it seems to me the hard thing to talk about is that everything that's lost is immaterial. Destroying a neighborhood of folks who know each other can show larges gains on the balance sheet, but the losses can't be quantified. Maybe Facebook can find a way to monetize those social relations, so the could be recognized as having a value. (/s)
chrischen 8y ago
Yea but I think people take issue with it improving the place rather than improving the lives of the people that were already there. Rent control is a band-aid solution to displacement caused by NIMBYism and the surplus of jobs from the tech industry.
Hermitian909 8y ago
Opponents of gentrification, and supporters of rent control, are generally considering the well-being of current residents. "blighted parts of the city" are often homes to people and the place where their communities are located. These people see themselves priced out of the place they've lived for years and are forced to start a new life elsewhere when the area they live in is gentrified. This is incredibly stressful and hugely disruptive to these people's lives and it's not unreasonable that they desire some protection for their way of life. The recognition of this fact is also the source of rent control (whether rent control is the right mechanism to prevent these hardships is another conversation). Without societal protections landlords wield a huge amount of power over tenants, raising rent by exorbitant amounts is no different than eviction for most families. In a desire to protect their own communities and livelihoods many residents vote for such policies.
- mc32 8y ago
  For clarification, landlords have an advantage when there is a boom, but a disadvantage when in a bust.
- whack 8y ago
  > "Opponents of gentrification, and supporters of rent control, are generally considering the well-being of current residents." And what about current residents who need to move? Suppose a disadvantaged woman decides to leave her abusive husband and is trying to find another place to move into. Is it fair that her well-being is completely neglected? I'm all in favor of the intentions behind rent control, but the implementation is an atrocious way to achieving its goals. If the goal is to help the poor long-time residents of a city, then do that directly. Raise property taxes, impose a city-income-tax, and use the proceeds to offer assistance to means-tested long-time residents. This would be far better than what SF has currently.
  - dbasedweeb 8y ago
    I think the question is who’s responsibility it is to protect the woman in your hypothetical. Is it the landlord? New tenants? Some people from Amazon looking to expand? The new cafe charging $5 for rainbow bagels? The state or federal government? The goals of most of those entities are agnostic about the woman, not against her or for her. Rent control basically says the landlord is responsible, your formulation says the government is responsible through increased taxation. I don’t know the answer, but I can understand that most people are too preoccupied with their own lives to prioritize the woman. At the end of the day, someone or a lot of someone’s need to take or share responsibility for the circumstances of the less foruntate, because the alternative is terrible for everyone.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
rosser 8y ago
Exactly how meaningfully are you at risk of being subject to gentrification, account that is four minutes older than its only comment? I'm pretty sure you'd sing an entirely different tune if you were.
- cambalache 8y ago
  Of course he would. Usually the same group who say poor people (read: non-white) need to move out if their neighborhood it is being gentrified are the one to complain about "those" Chinese increasing real state prices in many western cities.
bcheung 8y ago
Gentrification by definition is bimodal and polarizing to the opposite extremes. What you are describing is more the aggregate standard of living increasing. I think the 2 are correlated though. The tell-tale sign of gentrification is increased homeless people and blights in areas that simultaneously have wealthier people becoming wealthier. While there are bigger extremes, the aggregate and average wealth also increases. I also agree about government getting out of the way but I wouldn't say that there's nothing wrong with gentrification. Personally, my theory is that anything that generally increases prosperity also generally increases gentrification. It is easy to see why once we understand 2 observations: 1) Human abilities, willpower, motivation, etc, follow a Gaussian distribution (bell curve). Intelligence, health, motivation, charisma, etc. 2) Modern civilization has amplifiers that create leverage. These include technology, education, and access to capital. Take a bell curve and multiply it with an amplifier. A motivated person has access to the Internet to learn whatever they want and financing to create an online business. Modern society provides the tools to greatly expand your life if you so choose. However, few do. Without those tools a gifted individual can not achieve that much more than their neighbors. The difference between a caveman who is naturally gifted with health, intelligence, and is motivated; and caveman who is not so blessed is not that significant. Even if they wanted to, there isn't much they can do to dramatically improve their condition. They might be able to improve it a little bit but not that much compared to their peers. If you take those same 2 people and place them in modern civilization, the gifted and motivated individual can accomplish far more, perhaps achieving 1000x more wealth than their peers. The only way to get rid of gentrification is to get rid of any form of leverage or to collectively deploy force to redistribute wealth -- neither of which I think is a good idea. Doing so means getting rid of anything that increases aggregate standard of living. We would have to give up education, technology, access to capital, etc. Gentrification would be gone, but everyone would be equally poor. With that being said, I see it as the natural consequence of progress and so I'm not concerned about it from that angle but I wouldn't say I don't see it as a problem. Class warfare being one of the bigger symptoms of gentrification and it can have devastating effects when governments go through revolutions. Revolutions tend to result in massive destructions of wealth and human life. So I definitely see gentrification as a bad thing with some nasty side effects, but I also see that prosperity is increasing.
ubernostrum 8y ago
The language you choose to use -- about "blighted" parts of a city and realizing their "full potential" -- is the language of eminent domain. Which is curious given that you then turn around and talk about "rights of the property owner". Gentrification is largely about a wealthy group of people declaring that they will do more useful things with a neighborhood than the current residents would, so they should be allowed to move in and take over, whether through economic coercion (driving up prices and rents) or through legal coercion (having buildings condemned, properties seized to be "improved", etc.).
- SmirkingRevenge 8y ago
  This topic often seems to lead to one of those left-right paradoxes. Like how the right hates government, but loves cops and military... while many of the left hold the inverse position. Right-leaning people I know generally sympathize with those living in the rural blight, and their desires to stay in their hometowns and avoid displacement. Left-leaning people tend to say the rural folk need to suck it up and move to the city like everyone else, if they want better opportunities. Then folk on either side tend to do an about-face when it comes to urban gentrification. Right-leaners tend to support gentrification and all it entails, and the left-leaners suddenly want rework local/national laws to allow the would-be displaced to remain in their homes.
nine_k 8y ago
One of the problems with extreme gentrification (e.g. in SF or London) is that people of modest means who are required for functioning of the city, like janitors, or street vendors, or even teachers or train operators can't live close enough to their work places. (The solution is, of course, just paying them more.)

epicureanideal 8y ago

I think there's a difference though between "a small town that has very little in the way of services because the population won't support it or the people who live there don't earn enough to support nice amenities" becoming more prosperous, and a town where nice amenities are already possible, but building is prevented as people move in so prices get driven up without (as much as would be natural) corresponding increase in amenities. That's not to say that nice amenities are what everyone wants. Some people want to keep the character of their small towns no matter what. But in the former case there's a loss of small-town-ness for amenities that theoretically benefit everyone, whereas in the latter case it's purely an extraction of money from the young to the old.

asteli 8y ago

The wealth-ification of a neighborhood isn't per se bad. It would be fantastic if people living in a neighborhood became wealthier through some set of circumstances (economic recovery etc). What you typically see is long-time neighborhood residents being displaced by wealthier newcomers. In a poor neighborhood, this means that people who are already vulnerable, especially those that are renting also have to cope with a whole new set of problems -- landlords who desperately want to evict them, cost-of-living increases, increased pressure from law enforcement. The Bay doesn't have resources for people who find themselves in this position. My old housemate in west Oakland, in her early 30s and well-educated, but with health issues, is being forced from the bay. She grew up in Berkeley and Oakland. This is her home. I'm sad.

bcheung 8y ago
I think what you say is true for long term renters but the complete opposite for long term homeowners. There's rent control, Proposition 13, and fixed rate mortgages. Those greatly help long time homeowner. Homeowners lock in low interest rates and fixed monthly payments. If inflation hits you're still paying the same. Possibly 1/5th the amount that your neighbor might be paying if you've had your house for a while. With Proposition 13 your property tax won't go up more than 2% despite double digital home price inflation year after year in the bay area. The amount of equity generated each year is often more than peoples' entire salaries.
ng12 8y ago
Ebb-and-flow, man. Especially in NYC and SF "poor neighborhoods" were once middle-class before a downturn.
- asteli 8y ago
  True in a lot of urban centers during the 'white flight,' but as always, the story is sometimes more complicated. West Oakland, for example, wasn't wealthy, but was nevertheless a thriving black neighborhood. People, money, music, culture from all over the country flowed in via the rail system and the Port of Oakland. It was vital in America's Jazz scene, dubbed "Harlem of the West." The postwar period saw West Oakland fragmented and paved over by the Cypress freeway and the 980, construction of the behemoth USPS facility, construction of the BART straight through 7th street. Pretty clear cut case of environmental racism. American city officials in the 40s and 50s had no problem stating their motives out loud -- they saw construction of these projects in thriving black neighborhoods as a win-win: build up infrastructure and get rid of the "local niggertown.[1]" We can't simply chalk these changes up to inevitable economic downturn. West Oakland is an extreme example, but these changes are guided by policy decisions as much as economic change. https://books.google.com/books?id=xRntFdOk8ewC&lpg=PA28 https://books.google.com/books?id=xRntFdOk8ewC&lpg=PA28

dbasedweeb 8y ago

Some people feel that the communities have a right to a place, others feel that whoever ends up owning the place has those rights. I don’t know what the answer is by the way, I’m just calling the perspectives as I see them. Obviously if you feel that residents “own” a neighborhood in some sense, then it’s wrong to price them out. If you feel that whoever puts the money down to own property owns it, then you won’t feel the same way.

tzm 8y ago

> restores blighted parts of the city to their full potential I disagree. Gentrification has cultural impacts that can reshape society in positive and negative ways. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/23/magazine/when-gentrification-isnt-about-housing.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/23/magazine/when-gentrificat... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4618664/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4618664/

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

tmh79 8y ago

Gentrification is a really inartful term that has come to mean a lot of different things. To some, gentrification is the process of a place becoming nicer, there are more options to eat out, the city services in an area increase etc To others, gentrification is the process of a place changing in a way that makes them feel alien in their home. New and different people move in, their favorite businesses close down, the closest laundromat closes down so now the next closest one is an additonal 5 minute walk. The prices everywhere rise, what used to cost you 5 dollars now costs you 10, and its hard to live like that because you only make 30k/year, taking home maybe 1.8k/month. You apply to jobs at a few of these new places, and the first 5 places casually turned you down despite their "help wanted" sign and your job experience as a bar tender/server. The 6th place accepts you, but your job is pretty bad because all of the patrons of the bar treat you like "the help". To others, gentrification means rents go up more than you can afford and you get evicted and need to move away from your family and friends and your support structure.

nothrabannosir 8y ago

> rent control is disrespectful to the rights of the property owner. Is there an inherent right of way for property owners over renters on the residential moral crossroads? If you’ve grown up in a neighbourhood, raised your own kids in that neighbourhood, spent time in and on the neighbourhood, don’t you deserve some respect? People without the fiscal wherewithal (nor social impetus) to buy, but who spent effort safe guarding their community, organising events for locals, tending to parks, churches; they created the neighbourhood. They added value to every single property. But God forbid they were not raised to “buy”: make way for the Propery Owner! I find this incongruous with what I’ve seen around me time and time again. People who’ve suffered through the hardest times of an area get pushed out when it does better. They deserved it the most, but got hoodwinked for the newer, flashier wind. Not unlike a spouse who stays with their partner through a tough disease, depression, or poverty, only to be dumped for a more beautiful and opportunistic competitor when the hardship has sailed. I’m not a staunch anti gentrifier (hell, I gentrify!), but I find using the word “respect” a bridge too far.

bhickey 8y ago
> Is there an inherent right of way for property owners over renters on the residential moral crossroads? No, but rent control is counterproductive and hurts many of the people it purports to help. What are its effects? It encourages landlords to neglect properties. As one socialist economist quipped, "In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city—except for bombing." After World War II, Paris enacted rent control leading to the loss of tens of thousands of existing units. When rent control was banned in Cambridge, MA, the valuation of never-controlled properties rose more rapidly than previously rent controlled properties. This implies that the never-controlled properties were better maintained. It accrues financial gains to people who tend to be older and more affluent. People with lucrative employment are more able to stay in place for longer. They can ride out the downturns. It limits supply. This increases median rents for newly available units. It discourages the construction of new units. It encourages over consumption. Empty nesters don't downsize. This makes it harder for young families to find housing. SF has the lowest portion of children of any major American city. It privatizes a public problem. As far as solving a housing crisis goes, rent control is about as helpful as arson.

Ar-Curunir 8y ago

Let's scale up your example: why should citizens of a country have any special rights over immigrants? One can argue that immigration "restores blighted parts" of the country "to its full potential". I doubt you'd make that argument, though.

kasey_junk 8y ago
This is not a controversial opinion amongst lots of people by the way. I’m not arguing for or against it, but it’s not an argument ad absurdem.
xienze 8y ago
> One can argue that immigration "restores blighted parts" of the country "to its full potential". Only if you’re talking about well-to-do immigrants, and most of the time that term is reserved for the “undocumented” variety of immigrant, not generally known for bringing a flood of money into an area like Valley techies do. Your point is actually relevant though, unchecked immigration does indeed have an affect on housing prices, just not quite as dramatically as a horde of tech geeks does.
nine_k 8y ago
Citizens of a country usually sort of own the country, if you read the local constitution. They are more like homeowners, entitled to protect their land with deadly force. Tenants are more like tourists: they are welcome as long as they keep paying.
- eli_gottlieb 8y ago
  >Tenants are more like tourists: they are welcome as long as they keep paying. Bull. Tenants are full-time residents who just don't have the money to buy.

40acres 8y ago

In principal gentrification is fine, in practice its usually a mess. I'm from Brooklyn, which is definitely gentrified by any means. It's nice that property values are up, new businesses are booming, and crime is down -- but there is something to be said about the community which underwent decades of over-policing, redlining and discriminatory practices being booted out all because some property developers thought the neighborhood was "hot".

_jal 8y ago
I lived in Brooklyn for the better part of a decade, and was a gentrifier. I watched two neighborhoods change, and it seems to me the hard thing to talk about is that everything that's lost is immaterial. Destroying a neighborhood of folks who know each other can show larges gains on the balance sheet, but the losses can't be quantified. Maybe Facebook can find a way to monetize those social relations, so the could be recognized as having a value. (/s)

chrischen 8y ago

Yea but I think people take issue with it improving the place rather than improving the lives of the people that were already there. Rent control is a band-aid solution to displacement caused by NIMBYism and the surplus of jobs from the tech industry.

Hermitian909 8y ago

Opponents of gentrification, and supporters of rent control, are generally considering the well-being of current residents. "blighted parts of the city" are often homes to people and the place where their communities are located. These people see themselves priced out of the place they've lived for years and are forced to start a new life elsewhere when the area they live in is gentrified. This is incredibly stressful and hugely disruptive to these people's lives and it's not unreasonable that they desire some protection for their way of life. The recognition of this fact is also the source of rent control (whether rent control is the right mechanism to prevent these hardships is another conversation). Without societal protections landlords wield a huge amount of power over tenants, raising rent by exorbitant amounts is no different than eviction for most families. In a desire to protect their own communities and livelihoods many residents vote for such policies.

mc32 8y ago
For clarification, landlords have an advantage when there is a boom, but a disadvantage when in a bust.
whack 8y ago
> "Opponents of gentrification, and supporters of rent control, are generally considering the well-being of current residents." And what about current residents who need to move? Suppose a disadvantaged woman decides to leave her abusive husband and is trying to find another place to move into. Is it fair that her well-being is completely neglected? I'm all in favor of the intentions behind rent control, but the implementation is an atrocious way to achieving its goals. If the goal is to help the poor long-time residents of a city, then do that directly. Raise property taxes, impose a city-income-tax, and use the proceeds to offer assistance to means-tested long-time residents. This would be far better than what SF has currently.
- dbasedweeb 8y ago
  I think the question is who’s responsibility it is to protect the woman in your hypothetical. Is it the landlord? New tenants? Some people from Amazon looking to expand? The new cafe charging $5 for rainbow bagels? The state or federal government? The goals of most of those entities are agnostic about the woman, not against her or for her. Rent control basically says the landlord is responsible, your formulation says the government is responsible through increased taxation. I don’t know the answer, but I can understand that most people are too preoccupied with their own lives to prioritize the woman. At the end of the day, someone or a lot of someone’s need to take or share responsibility for the circumstances of the less foruntate, because the alternative is terrible for everyone.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

rosser 8y ago

Exactly how meaningfully are you at risk of being subject to gentrification, account that is four minutes older than its only comment? I'm pretty sure you'd sing an entirely different tune if you were.

cambalache 8y ago
Of course he would. Usually the same group who say poor people (read: non-white) need to move out if their neighborhood it is being gentrified are the one to complain about "those" Chinese increasing real state prices in many western cities.

bcheung 8y ago

Gentrification by definition is bimodal and polarizing to the opposite extremes. What you are describing is more the aggregate standard of living increasing. I think the 2 are correlated though. The tell-tale sign of gentrification is increased homeless people and blights in areas that simultaneously have wealthier people becoming wealthier. While there are bigger extremes, the aggregate and average wealth also increases. I also agree about government getting out of the way but I wouldn't say that there's nothing wrong with gentrification. Personally, my theory is that anything that generally increases prosperity also generally increases gentrification. It is easy to see why once we understand 2 observations: 1) Human abilities, willpower, motivation, etc, follow a Gaussian distribution (bell curve). Intelligence, health, motivation, charisma, etc. 2) Modern civilization has amplifiers that create leverage. These include technology, education, and access to capital. Take a bell curve and multiply it with an amplifier. A motivated person has access to the Internet to learn whatever they want and financing to create an online business. Modern society provides the tools to greatly expand your life if you so choose. However, few do. Without those tools a gifted individual can not achieve that much more than their neighbors. The difference between a caveman who is naturally gifted with health, intelligence, and is motivated; and caveman who is not so blessed is not that significant. Even if they wanted to, there isn't much they can do to dramatically improve their condition. They might be able to improve it a little bit but not that much compared to their peers. If you take those same 2 people and place them in modern civilization, the gifted and motivated individual can accomplish far more, perhaps achieving 1000x more wealth than their peers. The only way to get rid of gentrification is to get rid of any form of leverage or to collectively deploy force to redistribute wealth -- neither of which I think is a good idea. Doing so means getting rid of anything that increases aggregate standard of living. We would have to give up education, technology, access to capital, etc. Gentrification would be gone, but everyone would be equally poor. With that being said, I see it as the natural consequence of progress and so I'm not concerned about it from that angle but I wouldn't say I don't see it as a problem. Class warfare being one of the bigger symptoms of gentrification and it can have devastating effects when governments go through revolutions. Revolutions tend to result in massive destructions of wealth and human life. So I definitely see gentrification as a bad thing with some nasty side effects, but I also see that prosperity is increasing.

ubernostrum 8y ago

The language you choose to use -- about "blighted" parts of a city and realizing their "full potential" -- is the language of eminent domain. Which is curious given that you then turn around and talk about "rights of the property owner". Gentrification is largely about a wealthy group of people declaring that they will do more useful things with a neighborhood than the current residents would, so they should be allowed to move in and take over, whether through economic coercion (driving up prices and rents) or through legal coercion (having buildings condemned, properties seized to be "improved", etc.).

SmirkingRevenge 8y ago
This topic often seems to lead to one of those left-right paradoxes. Like how the right hates government, but loves cops and military... while many of the left hold the inverse position. Right-leaning people I know generally sympathize with those living in the rural blight, and their desires to stay in their hometowns and avoid displacement. Left-leaning people tend to say the rural folk need to suck it up and move to the city like everyone else, if they want better opportunities. Then folk on either side tend to do an about-face when it comes to urban gentrification. Right-leaners tend to support gentrification and all it entails, and the left-leaners suddenly want rework local/national laws to allow the would-be displaced to remain in their homes.

nine_k 8y ago

One of the problems with extreme gentrification (e.g. in SF or London) is that people of modest means who are required for functioning of the city, like janitors, or street vendors, or even teachers or train operators can't live close enough to their work places. (The solution is, of course, just paying them more.)