Is Gentrification a Bad Thing?

[panamaican]

If you’re a renter you have no right to complain

Sure you do. If you have the right to sue and you have legal rights codified into law on your behalf, you certainly have the right to complain.

Even so, seems an weird limitation. "If you're a renter..." but not everyone's a renter so I don't understand disregarding that part of the community.

 

[livingdeadmoose]

No it’s not. Shithole neighborhoods economically improve and become safer to live in. Why do liberals hate this?

 

[funcrusher2007]

I think it’s a situation where it helps more people then it hurts so I’m for it.


I have lived in SoCal my whole life, downtown los Angelas is a textbook example of the net gains of gentrification vs. the net loss.

Ten years ago,crime ,piss, dilapidated bldgs,homeless,swapmeet style holes in the wall,etc. ruled down town, now though....

Its fucking nice, it’s clean,inviting...brings millions upon millions of dollars to a once 3rd world area of l.a.

Restaurant, entertainment,Jobs,construction,real estate,etc. are booming and is a huge net gain for society as a whole.

Are lower income people hurt by these changes?...well yeah,obviously but capitalism is our system. It’s a ugly system sometimes but it’s the best system there is right now.


If culture is killed because of that...then I’d revalue how strong that culture was to begin with.

I will add that gentrification does highlight the necessity for supply of affordable housing,especially here in California. Not enough is being done to promote development by our democratic leadership.

 

[cincymma79]

Sure you do. If you have the right to sue and you have legal rights codified into law on your behalf, you certainly have the right to complain.

Even so, seems an weird limitation. "If you're a renter..." but not everyone's a renter so I don't understand disregarding that part of the community.

The guy who owns your building can raise your rent or sell it. That person can raise the rent as soon as your lease is up.

 

[Der Eisbär]

Who cares about what's bad for poor people.

 

[panamaican]

The guy who owns your building can sell it. That person can raise the rent as soon as your lease is up.

Sure and so what?

Gentrification negatively affects more than just the renters. Surely you know that because you can't be so uninformed as to think the only people living in those communities are renting.

 

[cincymma79]

Sure and so what?

Gentrification negatively affects more than just the renters. Surely you know that because you can't be so uninformed as to think the only people living in those communities are renting.

So are we saying to keep he neighborhood shitty or should money be invested to make it nice again/for once? Once that money is spent should people try and make heir money back? You would want to but I guess since it isn’t you

 

[Prime Rib]

I found one of the old brick row houses in the now gentrified portion of south east for 275k back in 2008...I didn't buy it.

Not too happy about that decision.

Popcorn Sutton would piss on you as well.

 

[Shoemaker]

Good if you own. Bad if you rent.


Personally I think it's fine as long as there is reasonable rent control in place for existing residents. Oakland just started basing their rent increases on CPI this year. A landlord cannot raise rent beyond the regional CPI increase, with a few exceptions (like banking a previous years increase). Curious to see how that goes. When I lived there, my rent rose from $2,400/month to $3,000 a month over 4 years (moved just before the 5th increase). Under the new laws, that would've been just shy of $2,600 instead.

 

[Jkillah]

Shouldn't everyone be affected by supply and demand? So people have to move? So fucking what. They can move somewhere else to live in squalor.

Yeah. That's a harsh way of putting it, but I mostly agree with this. There are a lot of undeveloped areas where it would make more sense for poor people to live in so as to free up space in cities that could be developed into something nice. Would it be inconvenient for the folks already living there? Yes, but it would be for the greater good of the city. There shouldn't be city slums.

I'm in favor of relocation of homeless people out of the major cities as well. Their situation is unfortunate, but they don't bring value to the city.

 

[Trotsky]

It's a complicated topic which will, of course, yield simplistic, uninformed, classist, and racist responses.

In reality, economic gentrification is itself a non-evil aspect of capitalism and represents renewal, investment, and diversification of both wealth and culture.

However, when one community of people is renting and another is making money renting to them, the process of increasing property values enriches the affluent and displaces the poor. Creating common law contracts for accrued property interest in rented properties, combined with rent control on how steeply residential rental costs may be increased, should be required to temper the effects of gentrification.

 

[panamaican]

So are we saying to keep he neighborhood shitty or should money be invested to make it nice again/for once? Once that money is spent should people try and make heir money back? You would want to but I guess since it isn’t you

That's an absurd jog into right field.

I said that having your community broken up for things outside of your control is not so fine. You made some irrelevant comment about renters, suggesting that you were unaware of the impact of gentrification on the home owners or that you were unaware that there are home owners at all.

Now, you're pivoting to an economic argument which just reinforces that your original comment re: renters wasn't made after thinking through my original comment.

Per usual, you saw a comment and wrote what you considered a clever method of disregarding the overall subject matter. Also per usual, you haven't added anything of depth or nuance to the conversation.

Note that my original comment said that if you're the person moving into the community, it's fine. Now compare that to your post above and you'll see that you're trying to antagonize me by agreeing with something I already said. I really wish you would stop your bs posting style but it seems that this dreck is the high bar of your ability.

 

[Trotsky]

If you’re a renter you have no right to complain

*If you're stupid, you have no right to post your opinions on policy topics

When it comes to metropolitan areas, I don't give a shit about those negatively affected because I am one of them. It is the way it is. I would love to live in downtown DC or Arlington but it would be financially irresponsible so I live further west, about 25 miles out where a 6 figure salary can actually buy you a decent home.

Wtf?

It's not a purely outward push. Not all residences within a metro area are high property value lofts for yuppies. There are sprawling, largely black, post-industrial communities that have been there for decades, include low rental costs, and lack the financial means to relocate, and whose properties have often over time been consolidated under predatory property tycoons who purposefully let the renters' properties go to shit to lower adjacent property costs and increase the profit margins for redevelopment. So value is often literally destroyed for the poor to parlay into increased value for the rich. Is this value creation in classical economic sense? Sure, but it's hardly compassionate policy.

I'm not sure how you count yourself "one of them."

 

[original doom]

Inner city areas are usually the decent areas bit surprised inner city means rundown poverty in America.

 

[lifelessheap]

It's a complicated topic which will, of course, yield simplistic, uninformed, classist, and racist responses.

In reality, economic gentrification is itself a non-evil aspect of capitalism and represents renewal, investment, and diversification of both wealth and culture.

However, when one community of people is renting and another is making money renting to them, the process of increasing property values enriches the affluent and displaces the poor. Creating common law contracts for accrued property interest in rented properties, combined with rent control on how steeply residential rental costs may be increased, should be required to temper the effects of gentrification.

So they government decides how my property is used?

Fuck that.

 

[Overtures]

Gentrification has positives and negatives.

The positives are for landowners, and the hipsters that want to move into the city. Suddenly more of the city is accessible and reasonably safe. Usually gentrifying areas are still relatively affordable and you can do fairly well if you buy a home there and hold on to it for a few years.

The negatives are for the people who have always lived in the gentrifying area who do not own their homes, and will eventually be forced to leave their own neighborhood when they can no longer afford rent.

If you do not own your home, which many people do not, it is a bad thing when property value dramatically increases. Suddenly you are an undesirable in your own neighborhood. Why would a slumlord continue renting your home to you when a young professional would pay double?

Nac damn well may be the most honest poster on the dog.

 

[Exception]

Not if you like things to be better, cleaner and safer. I suppose if you all around prefer things to be shittier then you dislike gentrification. There's a reason poor people leave in the process.


Spoiler: that reason isn't racism. Being a worthless piece of shit isn't about race, it's about not being a worthless piece of shit.

 

[cincymma79]

That's an absurd jog into right field.

I said that having your community broken up for things outside of your control is not so fine. You made some irrelevant comment about renters, suggesting that you were unaware of the impact of gentrification on the home owners or that you were unaware that there are home owners at all.

Now, you're pivoting to an economic argument which just reinforces that your original comment re: renters wasn't made after thinking through my original comment.

Per usual, you saw a comment and wrote what you considered a clever method of disregarding the overall subject matter. Also per usual, you haven't added anything of depth or nuance to the conversation.

Note that my original comment said that if you're the person moving into the community, it's fine. Now compare that to your post above and you'll see that you're trying to antagonize me by agreeing with something I already said. I really wish you would stop your bs posting style but it seems that this dreck is the high bar of your ability.

If you are renting you can expect your rent to go up eventually. If the neighborhood improves drastically you can expect to not be able to afford it when your lease is up. It’s part of renting. So you can’t demonize the people improving the area. You can’t get mad at people wanting nicer housing, since that’s what you’re saying the people who live there now aren’t want the same thing for themselves. So sorry. That’s life. Unless you’re going to give away some housing of course

 

[original doom]

It's not a purely outward push. Not all residences within a metro area are high property value lofts for yuppies. There are sprawling, largely black, post-industrial communities that have been there for decades, include low rental costs, and lack the financial means to relocate, and whose properties have often over time been consolidated under predatory property tycoons who purposefully let the renters' properties go to shit to lower adjacent property costs and increase the profit margins for redevelopment. So value is often literally destroyed for the poor to parlay into increased value for the rich. Is this value creation in classical economic sense? Sure, but it's hardly compassionate policy.

Blacks risk losing their areas and suddenly your a nationalist.

 

[cincymma79]

*If you're stupid, you have no right to post your opinions on policy topics



Wtf?

It's not a purely outward push. Not all residences within a metro area are high property value lofts for yuppies. There are sprawling, largely black, post-industrial communities that have been there for decades, include low rental costs, and lack the financial means to relocate, and whose properties have often over time been consolidated under predatory property tycoons who purposefully let the renters' properties go to shit to lower adjacent property costs and increase the profit margins for redevelopment. So value is often literally destroyed for the poor to parlay into increased value for the rich. Is this value creation in classical economic sense? Sure, but it's hardly compassionate policy.

I'm not sure how you count yourself "one of them."

How many houses you give away? You said you make 90000. You can afford a cheap house to fix up and give away. No? Thought so