4 ms·

> The wealthy tech people aren't the ones ruining San Francisco. Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentrification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentrific

> The wealthy tech people aren't the ones ruining San Francisco. Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentrification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentrification

DannyBee 13y ago
You didn't actually address any of his points, except to point out that some folks view gentrification as a problem in SF. I actually agree with the comment you replied to. Severe governmental incompetence in SF has been worse for the city than gentrification.
- king_jester 13y ago
  Both of those things are bad in general for cities. However, OP expressed doubt that increased presence of wealthy residents couldn't be anything but good for a city when clearly it is not so obvious.
  - DannyBee 13y ago
    Except that when it related to san francisco, some of the things on that wikipedia page are directly contradictory to the point i think parent was trying to make: IE "When wealthy people move into low-income working-class neighborhoods, the resulting class conflict sometimes involves vandalism and arson targeting the property of the gentrifiers. During the dot-com boom of the late 1990s, the gentrification of San Francisco's predominantly working class Mission District led some long-term neighborhood residents to create what they called the "Mission Yuppie Eradication Project.(image)" This group allegedly destroyed property and called for property destruction as part of a strategy to oppose gentrification. Their activities drew hostile responses from the San Francisco Police Department, real estate interests, and "work-within-the-system" housing activists.[37]" This is not a problem with the wealthy people! Now you could argue this is still "not good", but there was no real argument made at all, just an implication of "you should read this wikipedia page since it comprehensively responds to your ideas", and it really doesn't. Basically, i'm trying to understand whether he actually wanted to participate in the discussion and had substantive points, or just thought it was obvious and covered by this wikipedia page.
    - king_jester 13y ago
      The wiki article on gentrification goes over some of the basic causes and effects that can occur, to that end the movement of wealthy people into places that were affordable to those with less causes displacement. To that end, wealthy people play a part in the systemic issues that cause class disparities and change and ultimately harm the makeup of existing communities.
crusso 13y ago
The gentrification complaint always seems hollow to me. There's nothing cooler than seeing some run-down urban area transformed into a place that's more successful and vibrant through renovation and revitalization. Some people may find that the environment outpaces their income or lifestyle... okay. Record companies found that technology outpaced their business model. The changes are good regardless what the curmudgeons think.
- king_jester 13y ago
  > There's nothing cooler than seeing some run-down urban area transformed into a place that's more successful and vibrant through renovation and revitalization. This change almost always coincides with a displacement of people, esp. existing communities of those with lower incomes or communities inhabited mostly by people of color. What exactly is cool about the destruction of a standing community that is caused by issues of systemic class and racial inequalities?
  - crusso 13y ago
    You use words like "destruction" inappropriately, I think. Ironically, things like wage controls, rent controls, and welfare have locked these very people into a cycle of poverty out of which they have trouble escaping. Continuing communities that are perpetually in blight is not the an obvious good. Allowing the system to change naturally with healthy commerce would seem to be an improvement. One would hope that government masterminds who were responsible for creating the blighted areas in the first place would just get out of the way and allow the system to heal itself through growth and change.
    - x0x0 13y ago
      my god, it's like a republican freemarketer madlibs
    - king_jester 13y ago
      > Ironically, things like wage controls, rent controls, and welfare have locked these very people into a cycle of poverty out of which they have trouble escaping. Uh what? Things like rent control and welfare allow people to have shelter and eat when they otherwise wouldn't be able to. Systemic poverty occurs not because there is a welfare program, but rather because of classism, racism, and capitalism. That's not hyperbole, this is well understood in logical argument and through real world evidence. > Continuing communities that are perpetually in blight is not the an obvious good. Allowing the system to change naturally with healthy commerce would seem to be an improvement. Except that said development skews heavily towards white people and heavily disfavors black and hispanic people. This doesn't address livability for people and communities, this kind of attitude is a direct endorsement of systemic racism and classism.

> The wealthy tech people aren't the ones ruining San Francisco. Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentrification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentrification

DannyBee 13y ago

You didn't actually address any of his points, except to point out that some folks view gentrification as a problem in SF. I actually agree with the comment you replied to. Severe governmental incompetence in SF has been worse for the city than gentrification.

king_jester 13y ago
Both of those things are bad in general for cities. However, OP expressed doubt that increased presence of wealthy residents couldn't be anything but good for a city when clearly it is not so obvious.
- DannyBee 13y ago
  Except that when it related to san francisco, some of the things on that wikipedia page are directly contradictory to the point i think parent was trying to make: IE "When wealthy people move into low-income working-class neighborhoods, the resulting class conflict sometimes involves vandalism and arson targeting the property of the gentrifiers. During the dot-com boom of the late 1990s, the gentrification of San Francisco's predominantly working class Mission District led some long-term neighborhood residents to create what they called the "Mission Yuppie Eradication Project.(image)" This group allegedly destroyed property and called for property destruction as part of a strategy to oppose gentrification. Their activities drew hostile responses from the San Francisco Police Department, real estate interests, and "work-within-the-system" housing activists.[37]" This is not a problem with the wealthy people! Now you could argue this is still "not good", but there was no real argument made at all, just an implication of "you should read this wikipedia page since it comprehensively responds to your ideas", and it really doesn't. Basically, i'm trying to understand whether he actually wanted to participate in the discussion and had substantive points, or just thought it was obvious and covered by this wikipedia page.
  - king_jester 13y ago
    The wiki article on gentrification goes over some of the basic causes and effects that can occur, to that end the movement of wealthy people into places that were affordable to those with less causes displacement. To that end, wealthy people play a part in the systemic issues that cause class disparities and change and ultimately harm the makeup of existing communities.

crusso 13y ago

The gentrification complaint always seems hollow to me. There's nothing cooler than seeing some run-down urban area transformed into a place that's more successful and vibrant through renovation and revitalization. Some people may find that the environment outpaces their income or lifestyle... okay. Record companies found that technology outpaced their business model. The changes are good regardless what the curmudgeons think.

king_jester 13y ago
> There's nothing cooler than seeing some run-down urban area transformed into a place that's more successful and vibrant through renovation and revitalization. This change almost always coincides with a displacement of people, esp. existing communities of those with lower incomes or communities inhabited mostly by people of color. What exactly is cool about the destruction of a standing community that is caused by issues of systemic class and racial inequalities?
- crusso 13y ago
  You use words like "destruction" inappropriately, I think. Ironically, things like wage controls, rent controls, and welfare have locked these very people into a cycle of poverty out of which they have trouble escaping. Continuing communities that are perpetually in blight is not the an obvious good. Allowing the system to change naturally with healthy commerce would seem to be an improvement. One would hope that government masterminds who were responsible for creating the blighted areas in the first place would just get out of the way and allow the system to heal itself through growth and change.
  - x0x0 13y ago
    my god, it's like a republican freemarketer madlibs
  - king_jester 13y ago
    > Ironically, things like wage controls, rent controls, and welfare have locked these very people into a cycle of poverty out of which they have trouble escaping. Uh what? Things like rent control and welfare allow people to have shelter and eat when they otherwise wouldn't be able to. Systemic poverty occurs not because there is a welfare program, but rather because of classism, racism, and capitalism. That's not hyperbole, this is well understood in logical argument and through real world evidence. > Continuing communities that are perpetually in blight is not the an obvious good. Allowing the system to change naturally with healthy commerce would seem to be an improvement. Except that said development skews heavily towards white people and heavily disfavors black and hispanic people. This doesn't address livability for people and communities, this kind of attitude is a direct endorsement of systemic racism and classism.