4 ms·

Does it though? A few years ago, google opened an office in a relatively boring area of my small city, which is on the border of an area with a lot of low-incom

Does it though? A few years ago, google opened an office in a relatively boring area of my small city, which is on the border of an area with a lot of low-income residents. Now, that place is full of nice restaurants and super expensive high rise apartment buildings. It's a nice place now. But you know who I never ever see there anymore? The people that were living there before google came!

tormeh 4y ago
If they owned their homes that’s because they cashed out. If not then sorry, a chance of displacement is a part of renting, so you gotta live with it. Also: Build more housing - zoning delenda est.
- colpabar 4y ago
  > If not then sorry, a chance of displacement is a part of renting, so you gotta live with it. But you understand that these people are renting because they have no other choice, right? And I don't think "they cashed out" is the only explanation - there's also the possibility that they could no longer pay their property taxes. Your comment comes across as extremely tone deaf to the reality that a lot of people will always have to rent because they cannot afford to buy, because the only new things that get built are extremely expensive "luxury" apartment buildings.
  - tormeh 4y ago
    This will continue as long as rising property values is seen as a good thing. That’s why local governments promote price growth through land-use regulations.
  - lelanthran 4y ago
    > But you understand that these people are renting because they have no other choice, right? That doesn't change the fact that renting is, by definition, non-permanent while ownership is permanent. What do you suggest as an alternative? That all ownership be done away with? That a special exception for ownership of things be made if the thing in question is land or houses? That ownership of things that is either land or houses be limited? Taxed higher? Government protecting the right to own things is the basis of civilisation. Residential renters have their own protections too, in many places, allowing for renters to sometimes live for extended periods rent-free. There are limits on the rental adjustments, limits on evictions, etc. A solution could be to encourage more housing to be built. Another one is to encourage economic development in other areas, so renters can move to other areas where they can afford to buy. Insisting that people should not have to move and should be able to purchase their own home where they are, AND if they want to rent, then they never have to move again is simply unreasonable and ridiculous.
nine_zeros 4y ago
> But you know who I never ever see there anymore? The people that were living there before google came! Who exactly is working in said restaurants? Also, what do you think low income people do once they get a higher income? Could they move out somewhere for a better life for themselves? If you are unhappy about not being able to see poor people but the poor people are happy about exiting their previous way of life, that's not an economic problem. It's just a you problem.
- colpabar 4y ago
  Of course it's a good thing if people are able to move up and do better economically. But it seems like a huge stretch to assume that's what happens to existing residents when gentrification happens.
  - nine_zeros 4y ago
    That's because gentrification in America displaces lower income but gentrification in developing countries is more mixed and brings growth. Make some restaurants near a poor area in Mexico, the poor are happy to earn and not have travel 30 miles for work. 5 years in, they will leave to a cheap suburb or rural area.

tormeh 4y ago

If they owned their homes that’s because they cashed out. If not then sorry, a chance of displacement is a part of renting, so you gotta live with it. Also: Build more housing - zoning delenda est.

colpabar 4y ago
> If not then sorry, a chance of displacement is a part of renting, so you gotta live with it. But you understand that these people are renting because they have no other choice, right? And I don't think "they cashed out" is the only explanation - there's also the possibility that they could no longer pay their property taxes. Your comment comes across as extremely tone deaf to the reality that a lot of people will always have to rent because they cannot afford to buy, because the only new things that get built are extremely expensive "luxury" apartment buildings.
- tormeh 4y ago
  This will continue as long as rising property values is seen as a good thing. That’s why local governments promote price growth through land-use regulations.
- lelanthran 4y ago
  > But you understand that these people are renting because they have no other choice, right? That doesn't change the fact that renting is, by definition, non-permanent while ownership is permanent. What do you suggest as an alternative? That all ownership be done away with? That a special exception for ownership of things be made if the thing in question is land or houses? That ownership of things that is either land or houses be limited? Taxed higher? Government protecting the right to own things is the basis of civilisation. Residential renters have their own protections too, in many places, allowing for renters to sometimes live for extended periods rent-free. There are limits on the rental adjustments, limits on evictions, etc. A solution could be to encourage more housing to be built. Another one is to encourage economic development in other areas, so renters can move to other areas where they can afford to buy. Insisting that people should not have to move and should be able to purchase their own home where they are, AND if they want to rent, then they never have to move again is simply unreasonable and ridiculous.

nine_zeros 4y ago

> But you know who I never ever see there anymore? The people that were living there before google came! Who exactly is working in said restaurants? Also, what do you think low income people do once they get a higher income? Could they move out somewhere for a better life for themselves? If you are unhappy about not being able to see poor people but the poor people are happy about exiting their previous way of life, that's not an economic problem. It's just a you problem.

colpabar 4y ago
Of course it's a good thing if people are able to move up and do better economically. But it seems like a huge stretch to assume that's what happens to existing residents when gentrification happens.
- nine_zeros 4y ago
  That's because gentrification in America displaces lower income but gentrification in developing countries is more mixed and brings growth. Make some restaurants near a poor area in Mexico, the poor are happy to earn and not have travel 30 miles for work. 5 years in, they will leave to a cheap suburb or rural area.