4 ms·

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 ne

by 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.
- pcwalton 8y ago
  "Ongoing transformation" being the key phrase. As in, gentrification was occurring regardless of the new development. It's not hard to see how this happens, either. Not building anything doesn't prevent wealthy people from moving in: it just reduces the number of units available in newly-desirable neighborhoods. If new buildings aren't available, buyers and landlords will just renovate old units and sell or rent them to wealthy newcomers. (Example: Casa de Dolores in the Mission, a rent controlled building that was Ellis'd, completely renovated into a TIC, and sold mostly to tech workers. Even Costa-Hawkins repeal wouldn't have done anything to prevent this! In fact, if it gets repealed and vacancy control is implemented, you can bet to see a whole lot more of this, something tenants' rights groups will never admit.) You are cherry-picking phrases from the study to try to make it sound like it's stating the exact opposite of what it states. This is obviously a pointless game, similar to the one creationists play. If the authors of the study wanted to say "don't build anything", they would have said that in the conclusion. Instead, they said the opposite. The solution is to build more everywhere. More market-rate housing, more subsidized housing. Subsidized housing is especially important, but both kinds help. That is precisely what SB 827 encouraged. That is why nonprofit housing developers supported it. Tenants' groups and the DSA were wrong to oppose it. It is frustrating to see tenants' rights groups refuse to admit responsibility for hurting the groups they claim to be helping.
  - abalone 8y ago
    > ”don't build anything” Every one of your comments contains blatant misrepresentations and devolves into YIMBY talking points. I have clearly represented the study as supporting building. The issue is how much emphasis on BMR and how to protect vulnerable communities from local displacement. The study places strong emphasis on BMR, preserving housing affordability and protecting vulnerable communities — phrases “cherry picked” from its conclusion. Thus it supports the very issues that low income and minority activists have been fighting for against the original YIMBY-supported bill and the amendments that were added to better address their concerns.

by 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.
pcwalton 8y ago
"Ongoing transformation" being the key phrase. As in, gentrification was occurring regardless of the new development. It's not hard to see how this happens, either. Not building anything doesn't prevent wealthy people from moving in: it just reduces the number of units available in newly-desirable neighborhoods. If new buildings aren't available, buyers and landlords will just renovate old units and sell or rent them to wealthy newcomers. (Example: Casa de Dolores in the Mission, a rent controlled building that was Ellis'd, completely renovated into a TIC, and sold mostly to tech workers. Even Costa-Hawkins repeal wouldn't have done anything to prevent this! In fact, if it gets repealed and vacancy control is implemented, you can bet to see a whole lot more of this, something tenants' rights groups will never admit.) You are cherry-picking phrases from the study to try to make it sound like it's stating the exact opposite of what it states. This is obviously a pointless game, similar to the one creationists play. If the authors of the study wanted to say "don't build anything", they would have said that in the conclusion. Instead, they said the opposite. The solution is to build more everywhere. More market-rate housing, more subsidized housing. Subsidized housing is especially important, but both kinds help. That is precisely what SB 827 encouraged. That is why nonprofit housing developers supported it. Tenants' groups and the DSA were wrong to oppose it. It is frustrating to see tenants' rights groups refuse to admit responsibility for hurting the groups they claim to be helping.
- abalone 8y ago
  > ”don't build anything” Every one of your comments contains blatant misrepresentations and devolves into YIMBY talking points. I have clearly represented the study as supporting building. The issue is how much emphasis on BMR and how to protect vulnerable communities from local displacement. The study places strong emphasis on BMR, preserving housing affordability and protecting vulnerable communities — phrases “cherry picked” from its conclusion. Thus it supports the very issues that low income and minority activists have been fighting for against the original YIMBY-supported bill and the amendments that were added to better address their concerns.