5 ms·

> You quoted the hypothesis and not the results. You're simply wrong. As cited, "What we find largely confirms this regional versus local argument". And again,

> You quoted the hypothesis and not the results. You're simply wrong. As cited, "What we find largely confirms this regional versus local argument". And again, the study emphasizes the need for subsidized housing and "investing in the preservation of housing affordability and stabilizing vulnerable communities." That's exactly why low-income housing activists fought against the original YIMBY-supported bill.

pcwalton 8y ago
The paper doesn't say that market rate development has a negative effect on displacement at the local level. It says it has no effect on displacement. There is no support for the idea that building more market-rate housing causes displacement. Only anti-development ideologues like Tim Redmond claim that. Tenants activists in the Bay Area are actually making the problem worse, contributing to displacement, and driving out the very vulnerable populations they claim to protect. It is unfortunate that these groups are putting anti-development ideology over real solutions.
- abalone 8y ago
  > The paper doesn't say that market rate development has a negative effect on displacement at the local level. Again, simply incorrect and a miscomprehension of the study: "These two block groups illustrate the complex relationships between housing development and demographic change. While both neighborhoods have witnessed dramatic development in one of the fastest growing parts of San Francisco, and have similarly seen significant growth in housing prices, one may be classified as experiencing displacement of low-income households, while the other does not." [emphasis mine] (The one that didn't maintains "high rates of crime and concentrated poverty which may be dampening the attractiveness of the neighborhood" and the majority of units are rent controlled.)
  - fiter 8y ago
    Your parenthetical seems to prove the other posters original point. It wasn't the development that caused the displacement, it was the relative appeal of the neighborhood.
    - pcwalton 8y ago
      Exactly.
    - abalone 8y ago
      It doesn’t. Poster was saying study doesn’t show local displacement due to development. That’s flat out wrong. It shows one neighborhood with displacement where development “contributed to the ongoing transformation of the neighborhood.” The other that resisted displacement not only maintained high crime, it also had a higher proportion of rent controlled units (which you didn’t mention). That demonstrates that development can cause local displacement, although there are many complex factors at play that can resist it. Like if you build right next to skid row, maybe your building is not enough to gentrify the neighborhood, plus rent control protects residents. Absent those, you’ll get displacement.
      - fiter 8y ago
        I didn't mention rent controlled units because I was responding to your parenthetical comment. I think the source of displacement is change, not development. Development is a kind of change, but it's not the only change. Anyone can move into any neighborhood if they want. If they move into a poor neighborhood and change it so that it's more appealing to them and to people with more money, then those people with more money will be attracted to the neighborhood. What is your method to stop this cycle?
        pcwalton 8y ago
        Tenants' groups and the DSA don't have a solution. They want to stop development everywhere, which caused this problem to begin with. That's why they opposed SB 827, despite the fact that SB 827 barely even touched the neighborhoods undergoing gentrification. It's anti-development ideology, plain and simple. These groups start from the idea that development is bad and cherry-pick data to fit that narrative. This phenomenon is at work in this very thread, where a study that clearly suggests building more market-rate and subsidized housing everywhere is somehow twisted to imply the exact opposite.
      - 8y ago

pcwalton 8y ago

The paper doesn't say that market rate development has a negative effect on displacement at the local level. It says it has no effect on displacement. There is no support for the idea that building more market-rate housing causes displacement. Only anti-development ideologues like Tim Redmond claim that. Tenants activists in the Bay Area are actually making the problem worse, contributing to displacement, and driving out the very vulnerable populations they claim to protect. It is unfortunate that these groups are putting anti-development ideology over real solutions.

abalone 8y ago
> The paper doesn't say that market rate development has a negative effect on displacement at the local level. Again, simply incorrect and a miscomprehension of the study: "These two block groups illustrate the complex relationships between housing development and demographic change. While both neighborhoods have witnessed dramatic development in one of the fastest growing parts of San Francisco, and have similarly seen significant growth in housing prices, one may be classified as experiencing displacement of low-income households, while the other does not." [emphasis mine] (The one that didn't maintains "high rates of crime and concentrated poverty which may be dampening the attractiveness of the neighborhood" and the majority of units are rent controlled.)
- fiter 8y ago
  Your parenthetical seems to prove the other posters original point. It wasn't the development that caused the displacement, it was the relative appeal of the neighborhood.
  - pcwalton 8y ago
    Exactly.
  - abalone 8y ago
    It doesn’t. Poster was saying study doesn’t show local displacement due to development. That’s flat out wrong. It shows one neighborhood with displacement where development “contributed to the ongoing transformation of the neighborhood.” The other that resisted displacement not only maintained high crime, it also had a higher proportion of rent controlled units (which you didn’t mention). That demonstrates that development can cause local displacement, although there are many complex factors at play that can resist it. Like if you build right next to skid row, maybe your building is not enough to gentrify the neighborhood, plus rent control protects residents. Absent those, you’ll get displacement.
    - fiter 8y ago
      I didn't mention rent controlled units because I was responding to your parenthetical comment. I think the source of displacement is change, not development. Development is a kind of change, but it's not the only change. Anyone can move into any neighborhood if they want. If they move into a poor neighborhood and change it so that it's more appealing to them and to people with more money, then those people with more money will be attracted to the neighborhood. What is your method to stop this cycle?
      - pcwalton 8y ago
        Tenants' groups and the DSA don't have a solution. They want to stop development everywhere, which caused this problem to begin with. That's why they opposed SB 827, despite the fact that SB 827 barely even touched the neighborhoods undergoing gentrification. It's anti-development ideology, plain and simple. These groups start from the idea that development is bad and cherry-pick data to fit that narrative. This phenomenon is at work in this very thread, where a study that clearly suggests building more market-rate and subsidized housing everywhere is somehow twisted to imply the exact opposite.
    - 8y ago