9 ms·
Yes, let’s gentrify faster.
by drb91 8y ago
Yes, let’s gentrify faster.
- crwalker 8y agoIf you think gentrification is bad, you should see the alternatives. They are real. https://goo.gl/maps/veQSXmD7Z5G2 https://goo.gl/maps/veQSXmD7Z5G2
- drb91 8y agoDepends on your definiton of bad, I suppose. Care to state what you think is bad? You linked to google maps, from which I can draw a million conclusions, none of them worth devoting effort to responding to without clarification.
- baddox 8y agoIf I had to guess, probably the dilapidated homes and streets covered in trash.
- sokoloff 8y agoDo you think the burned out, half-missing roof house adds beneficial je ne sais quoi to the neighborhood? Which of those houses would you like to have a next-door neighbor? Which of those houses would have the greatest positive effect on your willingness to move there, raise a family there, and invest there?
- anigbrowl 8y agoSome places were overbuilt, and it would probably be better to tear down the remaining structures, clean it up and designate the block as a park. The wrong approach to development can make things substantially worse for people who live in marginal neighborhoods.
- drb91 8y agoI base where I live on things other than aesthetics and money, like the people.
- crwalker 8y agoTaking the question in good faith, here a few examples drawn from the example above. * The neighborhood is mostly burnt down, derelict, or razed: think of the important stories in your life and where they took place, and imagine those places transformed, not into a high-end sushi bar, but cracked sidewalks and rubble. * A generation of home owners probably lost the majority of their wealth * The city lost tax revenue and struggles to provide basic services like streetlights or the enforcement of law.
- drb91 8y agoThis was not the lack of gentrification. This is the effects of unemployment. If a high end sushi bar would “revive” the neighborhood, it would only be because the residents were forced out. So what’s the point? I’d rather care about the people in the neighborhood (...which does involve maintenance) than how the neighborhood makes people feel. People live there. This lazy attitude towards justifying gentrification is disgusting. It’s a hard problem that deserves thought, and this is just classism. HN, your viewpoint is clear. Try visiting oakland! It’s getting more photogenic every day.
- crwalker 8y agoYou are confusing cause and effect. Gentrification is a consequence of improving economic circumstances. Decay is a consequence of declining economic circumstances. Public policies can plaster over this fact somewhat, but generally policies like rent control or CA's Prop 13 make things worse rather than better. I have visited Oakland plenty. It's a terrible place, due at least in part to bad public policy as described above.
- drb91 8y agoYea, I’m not buying that you need to kick people out of their houses to improve the economy (whatever that means to you...). Employment and gentrification are linked and cause each other. Please, stay away from the terrible cities! Would you go so far as to call them shitholes?
- jjeaff 8y agoFalse dichotomy. Most of the complaints about gentrification are coming from lower middle class families getting pushed out of their home in a cute little neighborhood because taxes are too high.
- leetcrew 8y agogetting pushed out of the neighborhood you grew up in because of the rising rents sounds pretty sad. getting pushed out of your family home because it got so valuable that you can't pay the property tax on it doesn't really sound as tragic. in fact, i hope that happens to every house i ever own.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- refurb 8y agoExactly. "My tax bill went from $8K per year to $32K per year, poor me!" doesn't buy much sympathy when your house went from $200,000 to $800,000 over the same time period.
- kristianp 8y agoSure they're sitting on a lot of wealth, but it's not an investment if you're living in it, because there's no income. Also, having to move out of an area because you can't afford the taxes on your house says to me that the taxes are out of proportion (or should be reduced for primary residence), or the house values are crazy.
- r00fus 8y agoHow did I know it was Detroit before I even clicked? Fact is, both gentrification and decay suck. I like to use the analogy of strip-mining a landscape, desert-ifying it, and then when the rain comes ... instead of a life sustaining event, it's a flood that removes it.
- crwalker 8y agoWhy is that analogy relevant?
- ethagknight 8y agoThe gross majority of opportunity zones are not at risk of gentrification from opportunity zone investment. Most opportunity zone census tracts sorely need an incentive for new investment.
- anigbrowl 8y agoI live on the edge of one and real estate around here has tripled over the last decade already. I have lost a lot of friends and neighbors to endlessly rising rents over the last 5 years. Something tells me the hot money isn't going to fund the construction of homeless shelters or enough housing to seriously push down rents.
- throwaway2048 8y agoSounds like what is going to happen to me is some "opportunity zones" are going to increase in value, and its going to lead to a runaway feedback effect where all this opportunity zone investment is going to be plowed into a few rapidly price increasing zones for maximum return and nowhere else. End result is going to be an entire neighborhood of 3 million dollar condos nobody lives in (but prices have skyrocketed due to the huge influx of money), a huge tax free payoff for millionaires, and next to zero real societal value created.
- ethagknight 8y agoThe benefit of investing in an opportunity zone is not that great. It’s an incentive, but a rather modest one, for a specific group of people with ‘captive gains,’ and these investments will tend to be rather risky by nature of being in OZs. I have trouble fathoming a runaway investment situation (?). If, in 10 years, OZ policy has dramatically changed the state of a substantial portion of low income census tracts... is that a bad thing?
- throwaway2048 8y agoMore expensive housing does precisely nothing for low income earners.
- matchbok 8y agoYes please. Lower crime, more economic opportunity, walkable cities. What exactly is bad about it?
- dragonwriter 8y ago> What exactly is bad about it? The fact that that the original residents are displaced to a place without those benefits and bear the cost of relocation, while the people that enjoy he benefits are people who could have afforded to get as good, or nearly so, conditions in existing places with them, anyway. Gentrification is a magnifying downward redistribution of misery, where the new residents get a small gain in exchange for the old residents (particularly renters) getting a big loss.
- matchbok 8y agoWhy are people entitled to live in a certain community just because they have been there for a long time? At what point do I get to lay claim to my house and force my city to allow me to live there for a subsidized price if I can't afford it?
- dragonwriter 8y ago> Why are people entitled to live in a certain community just because they have been there for a long time? I didn't say anything anout entitlement. I said that a certain change redistributes pain downward and magnifies it in the process.
- matchbok 8y agoSome pain for sure. Others make a cool 500k now that their house is no longer next to a meth lab.
- dragonwriter 8y agoYes, property owners—who tend to be more wealthy than renters to start with—may see benefits. That kind of reinforces the point, rather than contradicting it.
- manigandham 8y agoThis is just how society works. Things change. Cities develop. People move. Creating a bigger and better middle class is a good thing.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]