42 ms·

>You say gentrification like its a pejorative term. I mean, it kind of is. It not only refers to 'improvements' but also the displacement of anyone below the m

>You say gentrification like its a pejorative term. I mean, it kind of is. It not only refers to 'improvements' but also the displacement of anyone below the middle class as a result of those improvements.

matchbok 8y ago
Displacement is a fact of life. Nobody is entitled to live in a certain area for a certain amount of money. What ever happened to living within your means?
- imtyler 8y ago
  >Nobody is entitled to live in a certain area for a certain amount of money. Not inherently, no. But legally speaking there are concepts like "rent control" and "adverse possession" that were created to assert on some level that people do, in fact, have a right to continue living in a space that they've occupied for a reasonable duration.
  - gammateam 8y ago
    Accelerating pushing the price up of the non-rent controlled units in the finite landspace, making only the most extreme examples of gentrifiers possible and out of reach for more individuals and businesses But then subsidizing one business to do it anyway is the problem. Got ittttttttt Economies are ecosystems.
- bsanr 8y ago
  Moving is a substantial expense. Should people be forced to consider the likelihood that housing costs that are currently within their means might rise outside of them at some unknown point in the future, and to some unknown degree, when choosing housing? How exactly should that be considered? It seems regressive, socially, to force this consideration on the people least able to afford it. After all, people who "choose" low-quality housing tend to do so because their choice is necessarily limited, by their lack of access to wealth and financing, to housing that is more attractive for redevelopment.
  - matchbok 8y ago
    ...Yes? This has been happening for hundreds of years. Part of being a responsible adult is managing your finances and being prepared. It is crazy to me that so much attention these days is basically advocating for the babysitting of adults. It is not as if this will happen overnight, either. If we allow people to stay in subsidized housing we remove the biggest carrot for self-motivation.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - kettlecorn 8y ago
      Your perspective seems narrow. What you view as “babysitting” is an effort to sustain communities. What are the effects on a kid’s development if they have to change schools and friend groups because their family is displaced due to rising rent? What if people have to move away from family because they can’t afford to stay? How does it impact businesses if their long term employees are suddenly moving away? Rapidly removing people from communities causes damage to the social fabric of a community, it’s not just about economic effects.
    - strikelaserclaw 8y ago
      this comment assumes people are poor because they lack self motivation or "grit to pull themselves up by the bootstraps", which in general i believe to be false.
    - sinker 8y ago
      That carrot is unobtainable for most people. Janitors, teachers, deli workers, city park employees, dog walkers, babysitters, waiters, waitresses, contractors. Doesn't matter how well you "manage your finances" if your salary basically has a cap on it. The only ones benefitting are overpaid tech workers supplanting people that do actual tangible work that makes the city tick. Funny that a tech worker posting on the HN playground is addressing people who deal with real life struggles (raising a family, making increasing rent) how to be a "responsible adult."
- WAthrowaway 8y ago
  >What ever happened to living within your means? You mean like they were before the area became gentrified? It's not an intrinsic property of neighborhoods to become gentrified - it's an external process forced upon a populace by governments and corporations and landlords

matchbok 8y ago

Displacement is a fact of life. Nobody is entitled to live in a certain area for a certain amount of money. What ever happened to living within your means?

imtyler 8y ago
>Nobody is entitled to live in a certain area for a certain amount of money. Not inherently, no. But legally speaking there are concepts like "rent control" and "adverse possession" that were created to assert on some level that people do, in fact, have a right to continue living in a space that they've occupied for a reasonable duration.
- gammateam 8y ago
  Accelerating pushing the price up of the non-rent controlled units in the finite landspace, making only the most extreme examples of gentrifiers possible and out of reach for more individuals and businesses But then subsidizing one business to do it anyway is the problem. Got ittttttttt Economies are ecosystems.
bsanr 8y ago
Moving is a substantial expense. Should people be forced to consider the likelihood that housing costs that are currently within their means might rise outside of them at some unknown point in the future, and to some unknown degree, when choosing housing? How exactly should that be considered? It seems regressive, socially, to force this consideration on the people least able to afford it. After all, people who "choose" low-quality housing tend to do so because their choice is necessarily limited, by their lack of access to wealth and financing, to housing that is more attractive for redevelopment.
- matchbok 8y ago
  ...Yes? This has been happening for hundreds of years. Part of being a responsible adult is managing your finances and being prepared. It is crazy to me that so much attention these days is basically advocating for the babysitting of adults. It is not as if this will happen overnight, either. If we allow people to stay in subsidized housing we remove the biggest carrot for self-motivation.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - kettlecorn 8y ago
    Your perspective seems narrow. What you view as “babysitting” is an effort to sustain communities. What are the effects on a kid’s development if they have to change schools and friend groups because their family is displaced due to rising rent? What if people have to move away from family because they can’t afford to stay? How does it impact businesses if their long term employees are suddenly moving away? Rapidly removing people from communities causes damage to the social fabric of a community, it’s not just about economic effects.
  - strikelaserclaw 8y ago
    this comment assumes people are poor because they lack self motivation or "grit to pull themselves up by the bootstraps", which in general i believe to be false.
  - sinker 8y ago
    That carrot is unobtainable for most people. Janitors, teachers, deli workers, city park employees, dog walkers, babysitters, waiters, waitresses, contractors. Doesn't matter how well you "manage your finances" if your salary basically has a cap on it. The only ones benefitting are overpaid tech workers supplanting people that do actual tangible work that makes the city tick. Funny that a tech worker posting on the HN playground is addressing people who deal with real life struggles (raising a family, making increasing rent) how to be a "responsible adult."
WAthrowaway 8y ago
>What ever happened to living within your means? You mean like they were before the area became gentrified? It's not an intrinsic property of neighborhoods to become gentrified - it's an external process forced upon a populace by governments and corporations and landlords