Is Gentrification a Bad Thing?

[MaureenCretis]

Doing that often prices people out of said places and then they just move to another slum.

Then eventually there won’t be any slums left, yay!

 

[gannima]

If that's the case then the communities aren't being broken up at all. And that those that aspect of the argument out the window.

I don't understand your reasoning. If me and many of my neighbors are forced to move to different cities how is our community not broken up?

Well, it does happen. If you're saying that it doesn't, you're implicitly placing a time constraint on the matter. That's a separate issue. However, if you leave the timeline as an indefinite period, then it absolutely happens. What you actually want is for it to happen faster, or else you pull your support from the matter, no?

Really, the idea that it moves people into other poor communities of similar culture and racial background is only true in certain areas. It would also tend to vary group by group. What you have described is most common among blacks who have at least three generations living in the United States, whereas it is significantly less true for Indians (as in people from India), Europeans, and most Southeast Asians.

The bold part is fair to anextent as I was primarily looking at gentrification as it effects black people and I am admittedly ignorant of how it effects all other groups. . But in regards to black people and some other poc groups, gentrification does not lead to integration. There are academic articles that you can read on google scholar that do a better than me of explaining this

I believe in the value of integration. Gentrification is just not a process that leads to it.

 

[sub_thug]

The bold part is fair to anextent as I was primarily looking at gentrification as it effects black people and I am admittedly ignorant of how it effects all other groups. . But in regards to black people and some other poc groups, gentrification does not lead to integration. There are academic articles that you can read on google scholar that do a better than me of explaining this

I believe in the value of integration. Gentrification is just not a process that leads to it.

I would actually argue that integration does not really mean the same thing when we are talking about "the black ghetto" and "fresh off the boat" immigrants. Both are minority populations, but the similarities really end there. Integration in the classical sense of the word works absolutely great for the "fresh off the boat" immigrants, with the notable exception of Latin American populations. In certain places in the country, it's very common to have neighborhoods that speak almost exclusively Spanish. Obviously, the closer you are to the Mexican border or to places of refuge for Cubans in Florida, the more likely you will see that. Ignoring that exception, generally, integrating those people into the community, getting their kids into English-speaking schools, etc. effectively does the trick. In that sense, gentrification can totally work.

When speaking to the "black ghettos," what you are really talking about is an established American subculture that exists independently of the larger American culture. In that sense, the word gentrification is really talking about trying to absorb those people into the larger American culture, or, as some might view, swallow that culture up. Whether or not it should happen is a separate debate. So in that sense, gentrification doesn't work because it's trying to address two problems with the same approach. What you would need to do is alter the subculture to make it more compatible with the larger culture, or you would need to persuade people from that subculture to abandon it in exchange for being a part of the larger culture. In that sense, gentrification doesn't really work because you're just redrawing boundaries without really addressing cultural differences or values.

 

[Andy Capp]

Doing that often prices people out of said places and then they just move to another slum.

Incurring costs to do so that they can ill afford, and not only in the monetary sense.

 

[Andy Capp]

The thing for me those with gentrification is quite often these places even price out the lower end of the middle class. You know, the people that are renting, paying their bills, but struggling to truly save money for the future on their own.

Like, case in point from the clip I posted. Randy Marsh leads South Park in the Sodo-Sopa shit and the Shi-te-Pa-Town shit to get a Whole Foods... 2 episodes later he says to Sharon:
"We need to move Sharon?"
"Why, you finally go the Whole Foods and everything else you wanted"
"We can't afford to live here anymore"

This is one of the few instances I think I identify a TAD more with the left than the right but also view the left as going a bit nuts with it.

Someone like me that has a full time above minimum wage job could not afford to live in one of these newer affluent areas... BUT, at the same time, in WA I do not qualify for low income housing so I am... well frankly, jammed up with where to live.

For my state, and the King County area especially in order to find a place to live you best be rich as fuck or dirt fucking poor.

Right, it's not just the slum dwellers that are effected, but working poor and lower-middle class people.

 

[Shoemaker]

i personally don't agree with this. the reason why, is because sought-after areas will always net more money than less sought after areas. and that is how it should be. if you can't afford to live in a certain neighborhood, then you have to move. it's not like we can maintain a certain price for all rent at one number forever. that's simply unfair. poor people have to leave if they can't afford to live in certain areas. people who have money and move to an area will improve upon it, and that's how we progress. keeping things stagnant, so we can pat ourselves on the back about how much we care, isn't the right approach.

IMO, luckily the city of Oakland disagrees with you. They can still charge whatever they want for new tenants.


Bolded: what? No one is talking about maintaining the same rent price forever. Do you think the CPI rises by 0.0% every year?

 

[Gregolian]

Right, it's not just the slum dwellers that are effected, but working poor and lower-middle class people.

Like, I know I use it a ton for examples but in King County, if you want to live near downtown for say ease of being near where you work and shit... you're looking at minimum $950 a month in JUST rent (no utilities included in that), for barely much past 300 sq ft of a studio.

I interviewed for a job yesterday that pays 41k a year starting and interviewing for another tomorrow that starts at 39k a year. NEITHER job, at the low end of the advertised pay would allow me to live in Seattle. Especially given I am single and don't have a significant other's finances to semi-rely on.

Yes, with Seattle I could live in like Auburn and commute but then I'd be in traffic for near 1 hour each way with the shit tier traffic of the area. 1 hour to go like 10 miles.

 

[IIIIIIII]

IMO, luckily the city of Oakland disagrees with you. They can still charge whatever they want for new tenants.


Bolded: what? No one is talking about maintaining the same rent price forever. Do you think the CPI rises by 0.0% every year?

okay, so how much more will rent go up for these folks annually? why should people who can't afford to live in a certain area have an advantage with lower rent? if you can't afford to live somewhere, move! i can't decide to squat in oakland and demand that my rent stay at a certain level because i choose to. how the hell is that fair?

 

[Shoemaker]

okay, so how much more will rent go up for these folks annually? why should people who can't afford to live in a certain area have an advantage with lower rent? if you can't afford to live somewhere, move! i can't decide to squat in oakland and demand that my rent stay at a certain level because i choose to. how the hell is that fair?

Squat? What are you talking about? I'm not sure why you're talking about you as an individual making a decision when this was the city making a decision.

If you moved to Oakland right now, your rent will be very high. But they can only raise it (notice how they can still raise it? We're not talking about stagnant rent) by the regional CPI increase. Which last year was 2.2% iirc. So the answer to "so how much more will rent go up annually?" is the same answer as "how much did the CPI increase this past year?".

 

[IIIIIIII]

Squat? What are you talking about? I'm not sure why you're talking about you as an individual making a decision when this was the city making a decision.

If you moved to Oakland right now, your rent will be very high. But they can only raise it (notice how they can still raise it? We're not talking about stagnant rent) by the regional CPI increase. Which last year was 2.2% iirc. So the answer to "so how much more will rent go up annually?" is the same answer as "how much did the CPI increase this past year?".

you're missing my main point: why do these people have the right to pay rent at a much lower price than others? society is about collective individuals making one decision for all. how is that any different than one person making a decision? in the end, there is only one solution (decision) that is made for all.

 

[Shoemaker]

you're missing my main point: why do these people have the right to pay rent at a much lower price than others?

In the case of Oakland, because it's the law. Why not? And where are you getting "much lower" prices from? If two people move to Oakland today, they're paying the same price. And next year, they'll still be paying the same price as each other.

society is about collective individuals making one decision for all. how is that an different than one person making a decision? in the end, there is only one solution (decision) that is made for all.

What's the difference between the collective making a decision that benefits all individuals, and an individual making a decision that benefits themselves? Before I answer I want to make sure that's the question.

 

[IIIIIIII]

In the case of Oakland, because it's the law. Why not? And where are you getting "much lower" prices from? If two people move to Oakland today, they're paying the same price. And next year, they'll still be paying the same price as each other.





What's the difference between the collective making a decision that benefits all individuals, and an individual making a decision that benefits themselves? Before I answer I want to make sure that's the question.

because it's the law? who makes the laws? we do as a whole. surely, i didn't need to point that out to you. yes, that is the question. we all may have differing opinions, but in the end, we all have to agree with one solution for all, thus why i said there is no difference between a collective of people, and one individual making a decision, because we all have to live with one solution.

 

[Shoemaker]

because it's the law? who makes the laws? we do as a whole. surely, i didn't need to point that out to you. yes, that is the question. we all may have differing opinions, but in the end, we all have to agree with one solution for all, thus why i said there is no difference between a collective of people, and one individual making a decision, because we all have to live with one solution.

You're making my point for me. There is a very big difference between an individual deciding they don't want to pay their rent increase and not doing it, and the city as a whole deciding to put limits on how much rent can be increased. Rent can still be increased; and if someone doesn't want to pay it, then eviction proceedings can begin. So again, there's a different between putting a cap on rent increases and not paying your rent increase.

If the city as a whole decided to put limits on rent increases, what's the problem?

 

[AznTrojan]

Like, I know I use it a ton for examples but in King County, if you want to live near downtown for say ease of being near where you work and shit... you're looking at minimum $950 a month in JUST rent (no utilities included in that), for barely much past 300 sq ft of a studio.

I interviewed for a job yesterday that pays 41k a year starting and interviewing for another tomorrow that starts at 39k a year. NEITHER job, at the low end of the advertised pay would allow me to live in Seattle. Especially given I am single and don't have a significant other's finances to semi-rely on.

Yes, with Seattle I could live in like Auburn and commute but then I'd be in traffic for near 1 hour each way with the shit tier traffic of the area. 1 hour to go like 10 miles.

you could easily live near there it if you have roommates.. you'd have to maintain a pretty tight budget

 

[Gregolian]

you could easily live near there it if you have roommates.. you'd have to maintain a pretty tight budget

Most places that have more than one bedroom you're nearing the $1500 level per month.

I COULD do it, but it wouldn't improve the economic situation I am in right now so... what's the point is the thing.

Plus I know it's lonely as fuck sounding but I don't mind having roommates but prefer to live on my own.... then I don't have to worry about idiot roommates using a cast iron pan of mine to cook rice... like a moron.. and burning rice to the bottom of it and then thinking soaking a CAST IRON pan in the fucking sink is a good idea......

 

[Black Helicopters]

In certain places in the country, it's very common to have neighborhoods that speak almost exclusively Spanish. Obviously, the closer you are to the Mexican border or to places of refuge for Cubans in Florida, the more likely you will see that. Ignoring that exception, generally, integrating those people into the community, getting their kids into English-speaking schools, etc. effectively does the trick. In that sense, gentrification can totally work.

This is true but only because we haven't restricted the flow of immigration. The parts of Florida and the Mexican border you're talking about range from 30-50% immigrant populations. 2nd and 3rd generation don't speak Spanish exclusively.

 

[panamaican]

Examples?

Sure, the construction of new property and higher resale prices often leads a municipality to up property tax rates. For older residents on fixed incomes, even a mild increase to their property taxes can make a large difference to their quality of living.

Additionally, for some communities, the renters and the owners have been neighbors for decades. When the renters leave, it breaks down the community ties. The new owners are often not inclined to replace the old bonds that held the old community together. For the remaining homeowners, this loss of community can be keenly felt. It's not an economic loss but a social one.

 

[panamaican]

Gentrification is good for everyone except for he people who have to move from the ghetto to the other ghetto. Got it

Like I said, dumb comments that ignore what was written.

 

[cincymma79]

Like I said, dumb comments that ignore what was written.

There is nothing negative about gentrification except for the people who live in the neighborhood getting fixed up have to move to another neighborhood they don’t own. That’s it.

 

[panamaican]

There is nothing negative about gentrification except for the people who live in the neighborhood getting fixed up have to move to another neighborhood they don’t own. That’s it.

I said your comments are dumb because you intentionally and repeatedly ignored what I stated whilst repeating yourself. I'm not even addressing your attempt to salvage that trainwreck of a sequence. I'm just repeatedly reminding you just how stupid your posts were. Especially when they culminated in you trying to play a morality card by agreeing with something I'd already said.

So please keep repeating the same thing that ignores every actual response I typed so I can keep pointing out just imbecilic your schtick is.