Salon Article - Gentrification / Racism / White Supremacy (1 Viewer)

[Joe Bryant]

This might be too much to ask but thought I'd throw this out and see what the board thought.

Recent Salon.com article on Gentrification called: Gentrification’s insidious violence: The truth about American cities


Subtitle: Too many claim white people are at risk in communities of color. Really, it's those communities that are threatened

Gentrification is violence. Couched in white supremacy, it is a systemic, intentional process of uprooting communities. It’s been on the rise, increasing at a frantic rate in the last 20 years, but the roots stretch back to the disenfranchisement that resulted from white flight and segregationist policies. Real estate agents dub changing neighborhoods with new, gentrifier-friendly titles that designate their proximity to even safer areas: Bushwick becomes East Williamsburg, parts of Flatbush are now Prospect Park South. Politicians manipulate zoning laws to allow massive developments with only token nods at mixed-income housing.

Upfront warning - this will have a low tolerance for over the line posting. If you think what you're writing is insensitive, it probably is.

What I'd like to do is have a real, rational, level headed conversation on this. I'm not sure that's possible here but wanted to try.

What do you say?

J

 

[D_House]

Why not start by detailing some of your thoughts OP?

 

[Clifford]

OMG this is like tossing a live grenade into an armory and saying "keep it down". I'm going to hold off and see what johnjohn thinks.

And since I only read the pictures, if gentrification means more neurotic frumpy white women, I am AGAINST.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I won't get a chance to read this until later this afternoon, but when an author starts out with something flatly wrong and nonsensical ("Gentrification is violence") it's hard to get my hopes up.

 

[rockaction]

The dominant narrative of the endangered white person barely making it out of the hood alive is, of course, a myth. No one is safer in communities of color than white folks.

Untrue. Anecdotally.

I stopped reading at this sentence. If you've ever been held at gunpoint with a bent-### revolver pointed at your head and called "white boy," you'd disagree, too. As IK stated up top, this is not a promising article when we equate supply and demand of housing with systemic violence.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Why not start by detailing some of your thoughts OP?

Thanks D,

I'm really way more interested in what you guys think. My quick take on it is that renewing older urban areas has been a personal interest of mine. My hometown of Knoxville TN has done some of this with several stops and starts. I love the older buildings with character and am drawn to that. Much of what I see is vacant old once proud but now dilapidated and broken down buildings getting new life.

So I've seen that as a positive.

But I've seen several negative articles like this in the last few weeks (I think Spike Lee had something on it too) and it caught my eye as something that I hadn't really thought about.

So with that thought, I wanted to throw it out.

And you could well be right Clifford, this might be too much. If it is, we'll delete. I just wanted to try as I do think it's an important topic.

J

 

[Clifford]

I won't get a chance to read this until later this afternoon, but when an author starts out with something flatly wrong and nonsensical ("Gentrification is violence") it's hard to get my hopes up.

Me too. Normally I would never read past something this blatantly agenda-driven, jingoistic and frankly ignorant and immature. Reads like it was written by someone in their early twenties.

Gentrification is violence. Couched in white supremacy, it is a systemic, intentional process of uprooting communities. It’s been on the rise, increasing at a frantic rate in the last 20 years, but the roots stretch back to the disenfranchisement that resulted from white flight and segregationist policies.

Yeah I'm sorry but that article is complete trash. Total utter liberal trash. Poorly thought, written, and just a horrible take on what could be an interesting subject if it weren't 100% about the authors opinions, most of which center around hating white people and #####ing about the show Girls

If you'd like to find a better, thought-provoking article for the discussion I'll read it. My cousin in an integral part of the anti-Google gentrification protests in San Francisco, so it's an interesting topic, I just don't think this is the right piece to spur discussion.

 

[Slapdash]

No one is safer in communities of color than white folks. White privilege provides an invisible force field around them, powered by the historically grounded assurance that the state and media will prosecute any untoward event they may face.

 

[Henry Ford]

In order to even begin to accept the conclusions of the article, you have to accept the premises - and they are controversial. I accept them, but I know a lot of people who don't. You have to believe that the term "violence" doesn't just include physical violence. You have to be willing to accept that "domestic violence" can include verbal abuse and controlling behavior, and then move those feelings over to include "institutionalized racism" in the discussion of violence.

If you can't or won't do that, it's a non-starter. If you can, the article has some interesting points.

 

[dickey moe]

I won't get a chance to read this until later this afternoon, but when an author starts out with something flatly wrong and nonsensical ("Gentrification is violence") it's hard to get my hopes up.

What else would you expect from Salon?

 

[Joe Bryant]

I won't get a chance to read this until later this afternoon, but when an author starts out with something flatly wrong and nonsensical ("Gentrification is violence") it's hard to get my hopes up.

Me too. Normally I would never read past something this blatantly agenda-driven, jingoistic and frankly ignorant and immature. Reads like it was written by someone in their early twenties.

Gentrification is violence. Couched in white supremacy, it is a systemic, intentional process of uprooting communities. It’s been on the rise, increasing at a frantic rate in the last 20 years, but the roots stretch back to the disenfranchisement that resulted from white flight and segregationist policies.

But to be fair Clifford, lots of good stuff is written by people in their early twenties.

J

 

[TobiasFunke]

I won't get a chance to read this until later this afternoon, but when an author starts out with something flatly wrong and nonsensical ("Gentrification is violence") it's hard to get my hopes up.

I'd say it starts out wrong even before that- with the "salon.com" part right after the "www."

 

[Joe Bryant]

I won't get a chance to read this until later this afternoon, but when an author starts out with something flatly wrong and nonsensical ("Gentrification is violence") it's hard to get my hopes up.

What else would you expect from Salon?

But again DM, just because it's Salon doesn't mean it doesn't have points worth discussing.

J

 

[TheIronSheik]

 

[Slapdash]

I won't get a chance to read this until later this afternoon, but when an author starts out with something flatly wrong and nonsensical ("Gentrification is violence") it's hard to get my hopes up.

What else would you expect from Salon?

But again DM, just because it's Salon doesn't mean it doesn't have points worth discussing.

J

I think there are some points worth discussing regarding gentrification, but this article spends more of its time making blanket false assertions instead.

 

[dickey moe]

I won't get a chance to read this until later this afternoon, but when an author starts out with something flatly wrong and nonsensical ("Gentrification is violence") it's hard to get my hopes up.

What else would you expect from Salon?

But again DM, just because it's Salon doesn't mean it doesn't have points worth discussing.

J

When the framing of the argument starts off with a ridiculous premise, why waste your time?

 

[Joe Bryant]

In order to even begin to accept the conclusions of the article, you have to accept the premises - and they are controversial. I accept them, but I know a lot of people who don't. You have to believe that the term "violence" doesn't just include physical violence. You have to be willing to accept that "domestic violence" can include verbal abuse and controlling behavior, and then move those feelings over to include "institutionalized racism" in the discussion of violence.

If you can't or won't do that, it's a non-starter. If you can, the article has some interesting points.

Thanks HF,

Can you elaborate more on the "institutional racism" angle of it and how it relates to gentrification? It may be missing the writer's point, but I'm kind of moving past the "gentrification is violence" thing and just thinking about "gentrification is bad" idea.

And maybe this is me not really understanding what is meant by gentrification.

J

 

[Clifford]

The New York Magazine article it trashes seems to have more potential.

 

[timschochet]

I think the writer goes overboard when he claims gentrification is itself violence. By doing so he's negating any meaningful definition of the term, and also setting himself up as an extremist whose arguments can be ignored.

And that's unfortunate, because within the article he does make some very good points. It is absolutely true IMO that white people are safer in "bad" areas than minorities are.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I won't get a chance to read this until later this afternoon, but when an author starts out with something flatly wrong and nonsensical ("Gentrification is violence") it's hard to get my hopes up.

What else would you expect from Salon?

But again DM, just because it's Salon doesn't mean it doesn't have points worth discussing.

J

When the framing of the argument starts off with a ridiculous premise, why waste your time?

Ok then. How about the more general topic of - "Is gentrification bad?"

J

 

[dickey moe]

I won't get a chance to read this until later this afternoon, but when an author starts out with something flatly wrong and nonsensical ("Gentrification is violence") it's hard to get my hopes up.

What else would you expect from Salon?

But again DM, just because it's Salon doesn't mean it doesn't have points worth discussing.

J

When the framing of the argument starts off with a ridiculous premise, why waste your time?

Ok then. How about the more general topic of - "Is gentrification bad?"

J

At the expense of the middle class, I'd say, "Yes." I'm at the heart of it along the central coast of California.

 

[Henry Ford]

In building the Three Gorges Dam in China, the government displaced more than 1.2 million people in the name of progress. It's considered a massive human rights violation, doing massive violence to the inhabitants and generations of families who lived in that area. It has been heavily protested for this issue alone, despite the fact that it created a dam thought to take care of 10 percent of China's total energy needs.

When cities threaten to use eminent domain to seize properties and force inhabitants to sell so a shopping mall can go up, isn't it substantially less worthwhile and therefore just a touch more disgusting?

 

[TheIronSheik]

I just want to say I miss these threads. Genuine discussions that are highly moderated. Don't get me wrong, I don't want all of them like that. But I do miss reading these.

Glad to see you back, Joe Bryant.

 

[Koya]

It's a delicate subject. There is a good bit of truth in what is stated, but as is often the case with evolutionary processes, there is (generally speaking) less insidious behavior than natural economics and social pressures.

My quick take as a real estate developer of large scale / transformative projects, many of which are in Majority-Minority communities:

Politics - There is definitely something to the insinuation of a concerted effort, politically, to disenfranchise minorities etc. A good deal of this is, sadly (imo) based upon inherent racism, but its a fine line between that an economicism / classism and also the natural inclination of a political party / base to want to retain it's power. There is also a lack of leadership (and honestly, some semblance of humanity) in regard to addressing the need for attainably priced housing, as this is a sensitive issue that pols prefer to stay away from.

The Market - The market is pretty racism blind. Now, practitioners within the market may be anything but, and let's be honest, the demand side of the market is certainly not immune from racism, and the perception thereof is a constant factor.

Communities - This is where it really gets interesting. There is a strong underlying base of racism / economicism / classism in many communities... however this exists in different ways depending upon the community at large. Much of this are in your predominately white / affluent communities who have never upheld their burden of providing a range of housing options. It's even stronger in many "transition" neighborhoods that are seeing an influx in (usually) the hispanic population, threatening the traditional base (politically and socially).

At the end of the day, this is far more economic than anything. The last 20 years have seen a huge upswing in urban living. That provides a number of direct and indirect pressures that threaten existing majority-minority communities and prevent others within those population cohorts from having a "fair shake" to live within these areas. Pricing is the biggest market force here. Manhattan pushing into Harlem, displacing traditional populations and pricing out others within lower economic strata... same for areas in queens, brooklyn, etc.

This is far less a conscious set of nefarious acts and decisions, but the harmful results (displacing populations, creating a white wash / hipster haven etc) are there none the less. It's also a big issue in regard to land use and zoning regulations, which brings me to my final point:

Euclidian zoning, especially in the suburbs, was DESIGNED in many ways to keep the poor folk out. And that experiment was terribly successful, with dire consequences. From the literal segregation of communities to building parkways that would not accommodate buses (Long Island and Moses' successful efforts to keep minorities from coming out to suburbia) etc. As the market for urban / downtown living has grown exponentially over the past two decades, these same tools have been used wittingly and unwittingly alike to create these divides as those who once lived in the burbs / their kids returned to the city.

It's complex, and in some cases purposefully done, but the insidious nature of gentrification is far more complex than just upholding the race card. Luckily for us, the next generation (Gen Y / Millennials) value diversity in a way that no other generation has, and the idea of race (although likely not class) is changing fairly quickly. This will be a different discussion, albeit still a prevalent one, in 20 more years.

One final note, which I can get into later if wanted: much of the greatest racism comes from the minority communities themselves - and the black/hispanic-latino divide is a huge and growing one. In addition, you have misplaced anger and then some "angels" that are nothing more than white-guilt race baiters who peddle poverty as if it's some calling of theirs. It's not an easy lay of the land working in these communities in transition, even for those of us that strongly desire to ensure that the native communities have a place within the economic development and growth rather than be displaced by them. Tools such as well created community benefits agreement and strong public participation throughout the development process can be a big benefit here, but that's better done in a comprehensive manner rather than the market taking one building at a time and upgrading which really leaves folks left behind.

Man, I could keep going (the costs to a region to displace the lower and middle classes is huge socially and economically, NYC and Vancouver are two examples of places that must face this growing concern), but that's enough for now.

 

[Slapdash]

I think the writer goes overboard when he claims gentrification is itself violence. By doing so he's negating any meaningful definition of the term, and also setting himself up as an extremist whose arguments can be ignored.

And that's unfortunate, because within the article he does make some very good points. It is absolutely true IMO that white people are safer in "bad" areas than minorities are.

Sounds like you and writer have something in common.

Any data to support the bold besides your and the author's assertions?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

The world needs more gents.

 

[timschochet]

Great post, Koya. Joe, when you ask if gentrification is bad, the answer is, sometimes yes, sometimes no, and sometimes it's both good AND bad. It's entirely situational; there is no general rule to it IMO.

 

[Clifford]

The shifting power dynamics of today’s urban neighborhoods are reflected even in issues of food and nutrition. “Once-affordable ingredients have been discovered by trendy chefs,” cultural critic Mikki Kendall writes, “and have been transformed into haute cuisine. Food is facing gentrification that may well put traditional meals out of reach for those who created the recipes. Despite the hype, these ingredients have always been delicious, nutritious and no less healthy than other sources of protein.” Writing about this phenomenon at ##### Media, Soleil Ho stated that food gentrification takes “the form of a curious kind of reacharound logic wherein economic and racial minorities are castigated for eating ‘primitively’ and ‘unhealthily’ while their traditional foods are cherry picked for use by the upper class as ‘exotic’ delicacies.”

So because chefs now use collard greens, this means that all the collard greens get bought up and no poor people can afford them anymore? WTF is this person actually #####ing about here?

I think this article is more a study in "how to get ahead in liberal NYC writing circles" than anything else, which is try to find the most white-guilt laden nonsensical outrage and ratchet it up to 11.

 

[cstu]

Gentrification is violence. Couched in white supremacy, it is a systemic, intentional process of uprooting communities. It’s been on the rise, increasing at a frantic rate in the last 20 years, but the roots stretch back to the disenfranchisement that resulted from white flight and segregationist policies. Real estate agents dub changing neighborhoods with new, gentrifier-friendly titles that designate their proximity to even safer areas: Bushwick becomes East Williamsburg, parts of Flatbush are now Prospect Park South. Politicians manipulate zoning laws to allow massive developments with only token nods at mixed-income housing.

I didn't know that only white people were allowed to buy homes in neighborhoods that are renovated.

 

[Joe Bryant]

In building the Three Gorges Dam in China, the government displaced more than 1.2 million people in the name of progress. It's considered a massive human rights violation, doing massive violence to the inhabitants and generations of families who lived in that area. It has been heavily protested for this issue alone, despite the fact that it created a dam thought to take care of 10 percent of China's total energy needs.

When cities threaten to use eminent domain to seize properties and force inhabitants to sell so a shopping mall can go up, isn't it substantially less worthwhile and therefore just a touch more disgusting?

I think this may be a point of disconnect for folks.

I fully understand the negatives and sensitivity to eminent domain. But most of what I've experienced with that is the rare occurrence where the city or state needs to build a road and forces someone to sell part of their land. And it's pretty rare.

Almost all of the gentrification I see personally is old buildings that are vacant and for sale. Or homes for sale just like any other home. There is zero "forcing out" in the cases I see personally. But I'm starting to see that's not the case in other places. And that's why I'm asking. Getting outside of your own experience is almost always helpful so that's why I thought it might be good to discuss.

So I'd guess the questions I'd ask are

How much of this is people being forced out?

and

Is it a negative when a house goes up for sale in a more run down neighborhood and someone that makes more money than the potential neighbors buys it?

J

 

[timschochet]

I think the writer goes overboard when he claims gentrification is itself violence. By doing so he's negating any meaningful definition of the term, and also setting himself up as an extremist whose arguments can be ignored.

And that's unfortunate, because within the article he does make some very good points. It is absolutely true IMO that white people are safer in "bad" areas than minorities are.

Sounds like you and writer have something in common.

Any data to support the bold besides your and the author's assertions?

I don't have any (which is why I wrote, in my opinion) other than personal anecdotal. I'm sure I could drag out statistics about black on black crime being far greater than black on white crime in urban areas, but that would prove little since there aren't very many whites who still live in all "black" urban areas.

But in any case, since Joe wants to focus on the positives and negatives of gentrification, further discussion on this side issue is probably hijacking the thread.

 

[dickey moe]

To those complaining about gentrification my advice is do what your parents did! Get a job, sir!

Depends on the availability of quality jobs and the ability/willingness to move if there aren't any.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

In building the Three Gorges Dam in China, the government displaced more than 1.2 million people in the name of progress. It's considered a massive human rights violation, doing massive violence to the inhabitants and generations of families who lived in that area. It has been heavily protested for this issue alone, despite the fact that it created a dam thought to take care of 10 percent of China's total energy needs.

When cities threaten to use eminent domain to seize properties and force inhabitants to sell so a shopping mall can go up, isn't it substantially less worthwhile and therefore just a touch more disgusting?

I think this may be a point of disconnect for folks.

I fully understand the negatives and sensitivity to eminent domain. But most of what I've experienced with that is the rare occurrence where the city or state needs to build a road and forces someone to sell part of their land. And it's pretty rare.

Almost all of the gentrification I see personally is old buildings that are vacant and for sale. Or homes for sale just like any other home. There is zero "forcing out" in the cases I see personally. But I'm starting to see that's not the case in other places. And that's why I'm asking. Getting outside of your own experience is almost always helpful so that's why I thought it might be good to discuss.

So I'd guess the questions I'd ask are

How much of this is people being forced out?

and

Is it a negative when a house goes up for sale in a more run down neighborhood and someone that makes more money than the potential neighbors buys it?

J

I think most of the pushback I've seen is when municipal governments and big corporate developers work out some sort of deal to turn a poor area of a city into a non-poor area. I think that's the sort of gentrification some people regard as bad.

 

[rockaction]

In building the Three Gorges Dam in China, the government displaced more than 1.2 million people in the name of progress. It's considered a massive human rights violation, doing massive violence to the inhabitants and generations of families who lived in that area. It has been heavily protested for this issue alone, despite the fact that it created a dam thought to take care of 10 percent of China's total energy needs.

When cities threaten to use eminent domain to seize properties and force inhabitants to sell so a shopping mall can go up, isn't it substantially less worthwhile and therefore just a touch more disgusting?

Yes. But I don't think that's what the author is getting at. I would say that eminent domain and gentrification are two entirely different things.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Thanks Koya.

It really is a fascinating topic I think. I'm always interested when I see something like this that goes against the way I've been seeing it.

J

 

[timschochet]

There is a bit of irony here. When, in the 1960s and 70s white people started leaving the inner cities for more wealthy suburbs, progressives shouted that it was racism, that they were fleeing the blacks, and social planners tried to come up with ways to "revitalize" the inner cities- essentially, in order to bring more white people back. One of these ways was gentrification. Now, in the instances that it has been successful, and some white people are returning, that again is racism.

 

[dickey moe]

Gentrification (at least in my region) is more a product of generational wealth than race or anything else, IMO. The Baby Boomers got it good here, and there's little upward mobility unless you start your own successful business (very difficult in California due to regulation and various barriers to entry).

 

[TobiasFunke]

In building the Three Gorges Dam in China, the government displaced more than 1.2 million people in the name of progress. It's considered a massive human rights violation, doing massive violence to the inhabitants and generations of families who lived in that area. It has been heavily protested for this issue alone, despite the fact that it created a dam thought to take care of 10 percent of China's total energy needs.

When cities threaten to use eminent domain to seize properties and force inhabitants to sell so a shopping mall can go up, isn't it substantially less worthwhile and therefore just a touch more disgusting?

There's no discussion of eminent domain in the article. It seems entirely focused on making white people feel guilty for daring to live in formerly non-white neighborhoods and working for improvements to those neighborhoods.

The truth is that there are very few victims of such circumstances. Obviously longstanding homeowners actually get significant benefit- indeed they benefit far more than the gentrifying white folk. Some renters may be forced out by rental increases, but they are sometimes protected by local renter's laws and in any event they are, at worst, simply being forced to move from one short-term housing solution in a questionable area to another. And maybe some businesses will struggle in the face of increased rents and a changing customer base, but that's a constant danger faced by all small business owners in all areas, and I'm not sure why we should be more sympathetic towards a chinese takeout restaurant victimized by a gentrifying neighborhood than a bakery victimized by the Atkins diet.

 

[Henry Ford]

In order to even begin to accept the conclusions of the article, you have to accept the premises - and they are controversial. I accept them, but I know a lot of people who don't. You have to believe that the term "violence" doesn't just include physical violence. You have to be willing to accept that "domestic violence" can include verbal abuse and controlling behavior, and then move those feelings over to include "institutionalized racism" in the discussion of violence.

If you can't or won't do that, it's a non-starter. If you can, the article has some interesting points.

Thanks HF,

Can you elaborate more on the "institutional racism" angle of it and how it relates to gentrification? It may be missing the writer's point, but I'm kind of moving past the "gentrification is violence" thing and just thinking about "gentrification is bad" idea.

And maybe this is me not really understanding what is meant by gentrification.

J

Sure. Go find a copy of Boyz N The Hood. Fishburne does a great bit on it.

Gentrification from the white middle-class perspective is awesome. Look, we took this place I would never have gone, and turned it into a shopping mecca! There are hipster bars and $9 margaritas now!

What happens during gentrification is that an existing culture and neighborhood is overrun with new money because it's a place where cheap property can be bought. So out go the mom-n-pop stores and in goes a Costco. And a Discount Tire, and all kinds of other stuff. Individual business owners are displaced, and replaced with, usually, corporations owned by white people. And in order to make those stores and bars and malls exist, property is purchased, sometimes under the threat of seizure by the city in the name of progress. So people sell.

It's kind of the old academic philosophical argument of the surgeon removing body parts - how many parts can be removed before the patient isn't "the patient" anymore? How much of an existing body can be removed before what we've done is kill an entire culture and neighborhood, and start a new one that's nicely tailored to white folks?

And where do those people whose families have lived in that neighborhood for generations go? I mean, sure, they probably got a fair price for their houses. But now they're nomads, culturally speaking. Especially in a poor community, a neighborhood is everything - a support system, a babysitter, a guy at the corner store who will give you credit when you're out of money and let you pay him on payday, whatever. People who know to call the police when your husband comes home drunk, before he starts hitting you. A cop who always works your street and you feel comfortable talking to. You have a place, and a voice, in that community.

Now even the people who stayed don't have that voice. White business owners have that voice. And the neighborhood becomes about supporting industry and business, instead of about closing ranks. And through all this, the businesses that come in raise property values, sure - but all that means for a person who makes minimum wage is that property taxes, rents, and all kinds of other costs go up.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I would say that eminent domain and gentrification are two entirely different things.

Government-aided gentrification is very similar to eminent domain, in my opinion.

 

[Parrothead]

There is a bit of irony here. When, in the 1960s and 70s white people started leaving the inner cities for more wealthy suburbs, progressives shouted that it was racism, that they were fleeing the blacks, and social planners tried to come up with ways to "revitalize" the inner cities- essentially, in order to bring more white people back. One of these ways was gentrification. Now, in the instances that it has been successful, and some white people are returning, that again is racism.

I was thinking the same thing- gentrification is also the result of the pushback against "sprawl" development in the suburbs and the efforts to revitalize cities

 

[Henry Ford]

In building the Three Gorges Dam in China, the government displaced more than 1.2 million people in the name of progress. It's considered a massive human rights violation, doing massive violence to the inhabitants and generations of families who lived in that area. It has been heavily protested for this issue alone, despite the fact that it created a dam thought to take care of 10 percent of China's total energy needs.

When cities threaten to use eminent domain to seize properties and force inhabitants to sell so a shopping mall can go up, isn't it substantially less worthwhile and therefore just a touch more disgusting?

I think this may be a point of disconnect for folks.

I fully understand the negatives and sensitivity to eminent domain. But most of what I've experienced with that is the rare occurrence where the city or state needs to build a road and forces someone to sell part of their land. And it's pretty rare.

Almost all of the gentrification I see personally is old buildings that are vacant and for sale. Or homes for sale just like any other home. There is zero "forcing out" in the cases I see personally. But I'm starting to see that's not the case in other places. And that's why I'm asking. Getting outside of your own experience is almost always helpful so that's why I thought it might be good to discuss.

So I'd guess the questions I'd ask are

How much of this is people being forced out?

and

Is it a negative when a house goes up for sale in a more run down neighborhood and someone that makes more money than the potential neighbors buys it?

J

I guess it depends on your perspective. Is it a negative when your property value goes up, if you never intend to sell? If your house, when it was worth nothing, cost you $200 a year in property taxes, goes up in value, can you afford to keep it on minimum wage? Or public assistance?

How about if the rents start going up? Will those people be able to stay in the community? Or do they have to go find somewhere else to live?

 

[cstu]

I think the writer goes overboard when he claims gentrification is itself violence. By doing so he's negating any meaningful definition of the term, and also setting himself up as an extremist whose arguments can be ignored.

And that's unfortunate, because within the article he does make some very good points. It is absolutely true IMO that white people are safer in "bad" areas than minorities are.

I don't suppose you'll want to volunteer hanging out in Compton this Friday night then?

 

[Henry Ford]

I would say that eminent domain and gentrification are two entirely different things.

Government-aided gentrification is very similar to eminent domain, in my opinion.

And sometimes uses eminent domain to attain gentrification.

 

[Henry Ford]

I think the writer goes overboard when he claims gentrification is itself violence. By doing so he's negating any meaningful definition of the term, and also setting himself up as an extremist whose arguments can be ignored.

And that's unfortunate, because within the article he does make some very good points. It is absolutely true IMO that white people are safer in "bad" areas than minorities are.

I don't suppose you'll want to volunteer hanging out in Compton this Friday night then?

He didn't say they're safer in "bad" areas than "good" areas.

 

[timschochet]

Henry Ford, are you seriously arguing that it can be a negative for your house value to rise?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Some renters may be forced out by rental increases, but they are sometimes protected by local renter's laws and in any event they are, at worst, simply being forced to move from one short-term housing solution in a questionable area to another.

Way too many caveats and assumptions here. When a neighborhood flips from poor to rich, it's not just "some" renters that get displaced, it is pretty much all of them. The fact that someone is a renter does not necessarily mean they are living in a "short-term housing solution." People can stay in the same rental homes and communities for a lifetime.

 

[rockaction]

I would say that eminent domain and gentrification are two entirely different things.

Government-aided gentrification is very similar to eminent domain, in my opinion.

And sometimes uses eminent domain to attain gentrification.

Rarely. First, I'm vehemently against Kelo. And as TB pointed out before, that's not what the article even came close to addressing. It was about "movin' in."

 

[cstu]

To those complaining about gentrification my advice is do what your parents did! Get a job, sir!

Depends on the availability of quality jobs and the ability/willingness to move if there aren't any.

How much does a Greyhound ticket cost? It comes down to willingness and many people would rather stay where they are comfortable rather than move to where they could be more successful.

 

[Clifford]

In building the Three Gorges Dam in China, the government displaced more than 1.2 million people in the name of progress. It's considered a massive human rights violation, doing massive violence to the inhabitants and generations of families who lived in that area. It has been heavily protested for this issue alone, despite the fact that it created a dam thought to take care of 10 percent of China's total energy needs.

When cities threaten to use eminent domain to seize properties and force inhabitants to sell so a shopping mall can go up, isn't it substantially less worthwhile and therefore just a touch more disgusting?

I think this may be a point of disconnect for folks.

I fully understand the negatives and sensitivity to eminent domain. But most of what I've experienced with that is the rare occurrence where the city or state needs to build a road and forces someone to sell part of their land. And it's pretty rare.

Almost all of the gentrification I see personally is old buildings that are vacant and for sale. Or homes for sale just like any other home. There is zero "forcing out" in the cases I see personally. But I'm starting to see that's not the case in other places. And that's why I'm asking. Getting outside of your own experience is almost always helpful so that's why I thought it might be good to discuss.

So I'd guess the questions I'd ask are

How much of this is people being forced out?

and

Is it a negative when a house goes up for sale in a more run down neighborhood and someone that makes more money than the potential neighbors buys it?

J

I think in cities like San Francisco, and NYC, where there is a concentration of wealth unlike anywhere else in the country, you have a much more extreme situation. 1 because they were basically already full up in terms of actual Metro living. There's literally nowhere to go in Manhattan and San Francisco proper. So the high pop density combined with the hugely disproportionate wages that go to the upper middle class and upper class create a situation where housing prices are literally driving out people who were able to live there before and now can't, and the neighborhoods were nice, peaceful, middle class neighborhoods.

I think is what the "author" is reacting to and why the post comes off as painting gentrification as some sort of nefarious evil plot. Really more self-loathing SOHO fundifarian than anything but whatever, we've already established this was not a balanced, interesting take on the issue.

In cities like Birmingham gentrification takes on a very different face. For the most part it is people buying up buildings long abandoned and making something out of nothing. It's taking neighborhoods like Avondale and transforming them from crime-ridden blights to blooming city centers. And yes, most of the businesses are white-owned because that simply fits with local demographics. Not all are white-owned, but I wonder how this author would write about what is going on here. UNdoubtedly he/she would key in on the fact that many businesses are white-owned and immediately lambast it as white supremacy.

So it's a mixed bag. In a few cities the problem might actually be reaching levels to where you could view it as displacing vast swaths of society, leaving places Manhatten and parts of San Francisco simply unattainable for the middle and lower classes. But outside of those two cities, I think its more positive, where lifestyle, safety, and a healthy environment come up far more quickly than rent.