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

[Slapdash]

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.

Great post, I agree with this. As we may have talked about before, I live in what could be considered a gentrification area. This is an old mill area outside of downtown that has developed into an "arts" neighborhood. With the ongoing light rail construction, many old mills and other vacant lands are being converted into apartment complexes.

Although the neighborhood itself is already pretty gentrified, there are certain to be spillover effects on neighboring areas. Of course, the neighboring areas are also some of the most dangerous and certainly more rundown areas in the city. That isn't a myth, it is supported by crime statistics. It's hard to say the city and county should fight to preserve areas of blight and violence against the growing tide of urbanization.

 

[Henry Ford]

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

Yes. If you can no longer afford to keep the house, that's a negative.

 

[NCCommish]

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.

I think you should trying reading less angry.

 

[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.

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.

Exactly. I go to Compton all the time (going there today in fact) but rarely at night. I don't feel safe there at night. But I think I WOULD be safer there than if I were a minority.

Very little gentrification going on in Compton so far, that I can see. The main new shopping center (Compton Towne Center) was carved, not out of homes, but out of an industrial area that had been dead for years. I actually see a lot more of this in the Los Angeles area than I do gentrification: old industrial sites being converted to newer retail locations.

 

[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.

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."

It's a part of the overall gentrification process in some areas. And either way, as fatguyinalittlecoat mentioned, government-aided gentrification (even without use of eminent domain) is very similar.

 

[Clifford]

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.

Hard to win when you're white for these folks. I didn't miss that either, or that the author swept the two things into the same institutionalized racism.

Whites left and that was racist. Now whites are trying to come back and that's racist.

 

[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?

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

There are only one or two assaults in all of Compton on a Friday. With those odds and being white what is there for Tim to be afraid of?

 

[TobiasFunke]

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.

I live in a neighborhood that would be pictured in the dictionary next to "gentrification" if you could do such a thing and I've seen almost none of this. If anything, large chains are pushed out in favor of mom and pop stores. The corner stores are still there, right next to the organic markets. From what I've been told my our neighbors who have been there for generations, the support system is a hundred times stronger than it was a decade ago. There's all kinds of neighborhood events that bring the community together, child care is plentiful and cheap, the public schools are vastly improved to the point that places that were punchline are now actually desirable.

I think the truth of gentrification is different from the narrative that people looking for a story want to write.

 

[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.

Hard to win when you're white for these folks. I didn't miss that either, or that the author swept the two things into the same institutionalized racism.

Whites left and that was racist. Now whites are trying to come back and that's racist.

I do believe that institutionalized racism exists, principally in terms of law enforcement. I just don't buy that gentrification is an especially good example of it.

 

[Courtjester]

So the gist is it is the white man's fault for moving away from a community and the neighborhood goes bad and then it is that same white man's fault when they reinvest in the community and move back in and it becomes more safer?

 

[Koya]

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

Yes. If you can no longer afford to keep the house, that's a negative.

Tim, this is a HUGE issue for many. I deal with it every day where there is a balance between the prospects of a safer and more vibrant community and the reality that those prospects may be at the expense of the local population no longer able to afford living there.

For starters, we are talking about a large renter population. Easy to get outpriced and displaced from a community that you may have had roots in for multiple generations. You are then forced to the "new" slum - not a good outcome.

For those who own, the increased price of a home seems great, right? Until the higher tax bill comes into play. And higher costs of services throughout the neighborhood, loss of dollar stores and new yoga studios. I've heard this, fwiw, not just from minorities, but from white folks afraid of being priced out of their neighborhood as well.

An important note: The public AND private sector have, at least, recognized that it is in society's interest to no longer group low income families all together, creating 'project ghettos' - mixed income development is the way to go, and usually within the same building. Won't get into the specifics unless people want to know, but there are a number of financial mechanisms that provides for responisble, mixed-income housing that can at least help address these issues. My company decided to go a step further and ensure that Community Benefits Agreements are in place that don't provide a handout to ACORN to end up supporting their staff and doing no good at a local level, but rather a CBA that uses monies generated from development activity to fund job training and placement programs that enable local individuals to rise above poverty and in some cases, build the very homes they will one day live in, as their new career prospects provide them the tools to no longer be confined to a lower economic strata.

 

[TobiasFunke]

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.

But you're also making an assumption that neighborhoods flip from poor to rich. In my experience it's rarely that dramatic or quick. And yes, it sucks if some long-term renters are eventually priced out ... but how much worse is their situation, really? This may sound callous, but they're simply moving from one poor neighborhood to another. And remember, those are the most victimized by the trend- plenty of longtime residents and businesses benefit.

 

[cstu]

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.

Welcome to being white.

 

[timschochet]

Also want to add that, in terms of business owners, my experience is that most of the non-blacks who move back into these areas are not white- they are largely Asian, or Indian, or from the Middle East. They tend to be first generation immigrants. These are the people who, at least in southern California, are the most likely to operate the new businesses which open up as a result of revitalizing urban areas.

 

[Slapdash]

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

Yes. If you can no longer afford to keep the house, that's a negative.

Tim, this is a HUGE issue for many. I deal with it every day where there is a balance between the prospects of a safer and more vibrant community and the reality that those prospects may be at the expense of the local population no longer able to afford living there.

For starters, we are talking about a large renter population. Easy to get outpriced and displaced from a community that you may have had roots in for multiple generations. You are then forced to the "new" slum - not a good outcome.

For those who own, the increased price of a home seems great, right? Until the higher tax bill comes into play. And higher costs of services throughout the neighborhood, loss of dollar stores and new yoga studios. I've heard this, fwiw, not just from minorities, but from white folks afraid of being priced out of their neighborhood as well.

An important note: The public AND private sector have, at least, recognized that it is in society's interest to no longer group low income families all together, creating 'project ghettos' - mixed income development is the way to go, and usually within the same building. Won't get into the specifics unless people want to know, but there are a number of financial mechanisms that provides for responisble, mixed-income housing that can at least help address these issues. My company decided to go a step further and ensure that Community Benefits Agreements are in place that don't provide a handout to ACORN to end up supporting their staff and doing no good at a local level, but rather a CBA that uses monies generated from development activity to fund job training and placement programs that enable local individuals to rise above poverty and in some cases, build the very homes they will one day live in, as their new career prospects provide them the tools to no longer be confined to a lower economic strata.

Yes, my neighborhood has made great efforts to ensure there is a percent of affordable housing in these developments. Of course, that won't necessarily ensure racial diversity.

 

[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.

I live in a neighborhood that would be pictured in the dictionary next to "gentrification" if you could do such a thing and I've seen almost none of this. If anything, large chains are pushed out in favor of mom and pop stores. The corner stores are still there, right next to the organic markets. From what I've been told my our neighbors who have been there for generations, the support system is a hundred times stronger than it was a decade ago. There's all kinds of neighborhood events that bring the community together, child care is plentiful and cheap, the public schools are vastly improved to the point that places that were punchline are now actually desirable.

I think the truth of gentrification is different from the narrative that people looking for a story want to write.

I think that sounds like a great success story, from my perspective. I have certainly seem many of them, including in Louisiana. I don't know how the general neighborhood feels about all of them.

 

[TobiasFunke]

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.

I live in a neighborhood that would be pictured in the dictionary next to "gentrification" if you could do such a thing and I've seen almost none of this. If anything, large chains are pushed out in favor of mom and pop stores. The corner stores are still there, right next to the organic markets. From what I've been told my our neighbors who have been there for generations, the support system is a hundred times stronger than it was a decade ago. There's all kinds of neighborhood events that bring the community together, child care is plentiful and cheap, the public schools are vastly improved to the point that places that were punchline are now actually desirable.

I think the truth of gentrification is different from the narrative that people looking for a story want to write.

I think that sounds like a great success story, from my perspective. I have certainly seem many of them, including in Louisiana. I don't know how the general neighborhood feels about all of them.

I'm sure my opinion is colored by where I live, and maybe there are cases where the local diner and market are replaced by a TGI Fridays and a Whole Foods. But I feel like I've seen more success stories than failures. And I think people overestimate the value of those preexisting neighborhoods. Sure there's a great sense of community, but there's also failing schools, decrepit parks, and high crime rates. A small percentage of people might lose their community and not be able to afford to see the benefits of those other things turning around, but I don't think there are many of them. And as others have pointed out, these aren't communities that have had the same profile for centuries or something. All we're seeing how is a reversal of the "white flight" and sprawl that took off in the 70s. Any growing pains associated with that are regrettable, but I think the benefits far outweigh the harm.

 

[Joe Bryant]

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

Yes. If you can no longer afford to keep the house, that's a negative.

Tim, this is a HUGE issue for many. I deal with it every day where there is a balance between the prospects of a safer and more vibrant community and the reality that those prospects may be at the expense of the local population no longer able to afford living there.

For starters, we are talking about a large renter population. Easy to get outpriced and displaced from a community that you may have had roots in for multiple generations. You are then forced to the "new" slum - not a good outcome.

For those who own, the increased price of a home seems great, right? Until the higher tax bill comes into play. And higher costs of services throughout the neighborhood, loss of dollar stores and new yoga studios. I've heard this, fwiw, not just from minorities, but from white folks afraid of being priced out of their neighborhood as well.

An important note: The public AND private sector have, at least, recognized that it is in society's interest to no longer group low income families all together, creating 'project ghettos' - mixed income development is the way to go, and usually within the same building. Won't get into the specifics unless people want to know, but there are a number of financial mechanisms that provides for responisble, mixed-income housing that can at least help address these issues. My company decided to go a step further and ensure that Community Benefits Agreements are in place that don't provide a handout to ACORN to end up supporting their staff and doing no good at a local level, but rather a CBA that uses monies generated from development activity to fund job training and placement programs that enable local individuals to rise above poverty and in some cases, build the very homes they will one day live in, as their new career prospects provide them the tools to no longer be confined to a lower economic strata.

Thanks koya,

I'd for be interested in the mechanisms for how the mixed income is done. That's super interesting to me.

J

 

[timschochet]

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

Yes. If you can no longer afford to keep the house, that's a negative.

Tim, this is a HUGE issue for many. I deal with it every day where there is a balance between the prospects of a safer and more vibrant community and the reality that those prospects may be at the expense of the local population no longer able to afford living there.

For starters, we are talking about a large renter population. Easy to get outpriced and displaced from a community that you may have had roots in for multiple generations. You are then forced to the "new" slum - not a good outcome.

For those who own, the increased price of a home seems great, right? Until the higher tax bill comes into play. And higher costs of services throughout the neighborhood, loss of dollar stores and new yoga studios. I've heard this, fwiw, not just from minorities, but from white folks afraid of being priced out of their neighborhood as well.

An important note: The public AND private sector have, at least, recognized that it is in society's interest to no longer group low income families all together, creating 'project ghettos' - mixed income development is the way to go, and usually within the same building. Won't get into the specifics unless people want to know, but there are a number of financial mechanisms that provides for responisble, mixed-income housing that can at least help address these issues. My company decided to go a step further and ensure that Community Benefits Agreements are in place that don't provide a handout to ACORN to end up supporting their staff and doing no good at a local level, but rather a CBA that uses monies generated from development activity to fund job training and placement programs that enable local individuals to rise above poverty and in some cases, build the very homes they will one day live in, as their new career prospects provide them the tools to no longer be confined to a lower economic strata.

Interesting stuff. We have Proposition 13 in California, which means that the tax rate of homes is stable unless the home is sold. So what you're talking about doesn't really apply here. It's my bad for not thinking that, of course the rest of the country doesn't have Prop 13, so it really could be an issue.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

And yes, it sucks if some long-term renters are eventually priced out ... but how much worse is their situation, really? This may sound callous, but they're simply moving from one poor neighborhood to another.

I sort of agree with you but I've made this exact argument on this board about the "victims" of eminent domain and people flip out. "This was my grandpappy's land!"

 

[Joe Bryant]

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.

Welcome to being white.

I don't know if this is shtick or if you really think that but elaborate more on what you mean instead of just throwing out things like that. Thanks.

J

 

[rockaction]

And yes, it sucks if some long-term renters are eventually priced out ... but how much worse is their situation, really? This may sound callous, but they're simply moving from one poor neighborhood to another.

I sort of agree with you but I've made this exact argument on this board about the "victims" of eminent domain and people flip out. "This was my grandpappy's land!"

And eminent domain is totally different, again. It's the takings clause, and the transfer of property from one private party to another via the government has been considered an evil since 1789.

 

[Joe Bryant]

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.

Thanks. I hadn't really thought that much about government aiding gentrification. How does that usually manifest itself? Things like grants for upgrading buildings or tax breaks for renovations? That kind of thing?

J

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

And yes, it sucks if some long-term renters are eventually priced out ... but how much worse is their situation, really? This may sound callous, but they're simply moving from one poor neighborhood to another.

I sort of agree with you but I've made this exact argument on this board about the "victims" of eminent domain and people flip out. "This was my grandpappy's land!"

And eminent domain is totally different, again. It's the takings clause, and the transfer of property from one private party to another via the government has been considered an evil since 1789.

It is not totally different to the person forced to move. Lots of renters have attachments to their homes and communities. I don't see why we should view the idiosyncratic values of homeowners as inviolable, but the same feelings in renters are inconsequential.

 

[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.

Thanks. I hadn't really thought that much about government aiding gentrification. How does that usually manifest itself? Things like grants for upgrading buildings or tax breaks for renovations? That kind of thing?

J

Yes, some big developer and a city enter into a back-scratching deal whereby the city rezones an area and/or gives tax breaks to the developer, and in exchange, the developer transforms an area of the city so that the government can obtain more property taxes (and expend fewer social services) in that area.

 

[rockaction]

And yes, it sucks if some long-term renters are eventually priced out ... but how much worse is their situation, really? This may sound callous, but they're simply moving from one poor neighborhood to another.

I sort of agree with you but I've made this exact argument on this board about the "victims" of eminent domain and people flip out. "This was my grandpappy's land!"

And eminent domain is totally different, again. It's the takings clause, and the transfer of property from one private party to another via the government has been considered an evil since 1789.

It is not totally different to the person forced to move. Lots of renters have attachments to their homes and communities. I don't see why we should view the idiosyncratic values of homeowners as inviolable, but the same feelings in renters are inconsequential.

I get what you're saying, and I was going to say "displacement," rather than "eminent domain," or "gentrification," should be the focus, but it's the process by which it happens that makes it so different. Boots on the ground, maybe there's not so much of a difference.

But it's the potential for political and --yes! -- corporatist corruption that makes the two different. I'm not talking about public schools here. Think of the controversial NY and CT eminent domain cases. They've all been either universities or corporations trying to seize lands from private folks to transfer that land to other private folks, post-Kelo. As far as the difference between ED and gentrification -- one is a transfer of land with the force of the state at its backing; the other is a supply and demand issue.

 

[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

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.

Thanks. I'd ask then maybe this question. How does this play out in a practical sense?

Here's an example: It's probably a long shot, but I've kicked around the idea of opening a coffee shop cafe.

In my town of Knoxville, there are quite a few options. One would be something more in urban or older areas that are starting to renovate. The pluses are the building and neighborhoods have more character and history. The option is choosing a location that is more new / shiny / plasticy more in the suburbs.

Another situation would be housing. Young married couple is looking to buy a home. They have the option of something newer in the suburbs or something in an older neighborhood that's for sale. (no forcing out or anything like that)

What kind of things does one think about / consider when choosing?

J

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

As far as the difference between ED and gentrification -- one is a transfer of land with the force of the state at its backing; the other is a supply and demand issue.

Well, the type of gentrification I'm talking about is not merely a supply and demand issue. If a city rezones a neighborhood and provides tax breaks to developers to build there, it also constitutes a transfer with the force of the state.

 

[rockaction]

As far as the difference between ED and gentrification -- one is a transfer of land with the force of the state at its backing; the other is a supply and demand issue.

Well, the type of gentrification I'm talking about is not merely a supply and demand issue. If a city rezones a neighborhood and provides tax breaks to developers to build there, it also constitutes a transfer with the force of the state.

Then, there's the sad refrain: Get government out of people's lives...neither taxes nor subsidies, etc.

But I'm not sure you'd agree with that. We all line-draw, some at different points than others.

 

[rockaction]

As far as the difference between ED and gentrification -- one is a transfer of land with the force of the state at its backing; the other is a supply and demand issue.

Well, the type of gentrification I'm talking about is not merely a supply and demand issue. If a city rezones a neighborhood and provides tax breaks to developers to build there, it also constitutes a transfer with the force of the state.

It's also just an incentive -- not force with tanks and guns.

 

[TobiasFunke]

And yes, it sucks if some long-term renters are eventually priced out ... but how much worse is their situation, really? This may sound callous, but they're simply moving from one poor neighborhood to another.

I sort of agree with you but I've made this exact argument on this board about the "victims" of eminent domain and people flip out. "This was my grandpappy's land!"

And eminent domain is totally different, again. It's the takings clause, and the transfer of property from one private party to another via the government has been considered an evil since 1789.

It is not totally different to the person forced to move. Lots of renters have attachments to their homes and communities. I don't see why we should view the idiosyncratic values of homeowners as inviolable, but the same feelings in renters are inconsequential.

Not inconsequential, but not nearly as significant as the attachment that comes with owning the property. At some point there's a distinction between the emotional ties you form to a space that you must continue to rent on a year-to-year basis and the emotional ties you form with a property that you own. I'm sympathetic to people who are forced to leave a rental due to rising rates, but at the same time they sign and renew that lease, they probably know what rights it provides and doesn't provide. I know that some people can't afford to be homeowners, and if you show me legislation or a private program to help low-income families become homeowners or stay in gentrifying communities and I'll happily support it. But I don't think we can just act like the end of a rental agreement, even a longstanding one, is the same as forcing someone to sell their property.

 

[[icon]]

Remove race from the equation entirely for a moment.

Assumption: The free market sets the value of residences based on convenience, amenities, quality of lodging, quality of life.

Why should a community in which the free market has set a lodging value of X, be forced artificially lower the value of a segment of housing in that community?

Who absorbs the difference if it's a private development? Is it not unfair to expect the owner of that property to be forced to accept less value?

 

[Koya]

While we are on this subject, it's important to note that indeed, if you price out a population from an up and coming area, they are going to have to find SOMEplace to live.... in this regard, gentrification is a regional issue.

In an interesting twist, we are seeing the opposite of the "white flight" away from urban areas from the 60's and 70's. This was noted above, but in regard to this population's return to urban living. The other side is that the suburbs, especially the exurbs (further out than typical bedroom, first/second ring burbs), are not the "affordable" options and in fact we are seeing areas that were once home to the "white middle class" - basically those who kept driving from the center city core until they could afford the large house and some space, albeit with a 90 min each way commute - become the "new ghetto"

Multiple families bunking up in a single family home, stressing the inadequate and suburban infrastructure, creating additional school age children without an increase in the tax base, and creating additional burdens as these far out burbs are not designed to handle the higher densities of market created multi-family within single family homes.

 

[Koya]

Remove race from the equation entirely for a moment.

Assumption: The free market sets the value of residences based on convenience, amenities, quality of lodging, quality of life.

Why should a community in which the free market has set a lodging value of X, be forced artificially lower the value of a segment of housing in that community?

Who absorbs the difference if it's a private development? Is it not unfair to expect the owner of that property to be forced to accept less value?

Short answer:

1. In terms of regional economics, it's very dangerous to price out the working class. Works well in the short term, but the long term impacts of the middle class (not just the lower class) not being able to afford to live within Manhattan, then Brooklyn, Then close in area's of queens.... this becomes an economically unsustainable platform that causes significant issues down the road, all for near term growth in tax revenues

2. It's the right thing to do. There needs to be SOME public responsibility to bear in regard to providing options for folks at a lower economic strata, albeit the more you can work that through the market rather than subsidy is, imo, strongly preferred.

FWIW, a private developer can pay for sub-market rate housing options in a number of ways - tax credits such as the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC deals) which can also help a marginal development pencil out in up and coming (but not yet "there") markets to programs like section 8 and other full subsidy buildings which are falling more out of favor from a societal standpoint, and especially through density bonuses. i.e. Developer can build 200 units, or if they create 20% under market, they can not have 350 units. I'll gladly take the hit on some units to have more to develop overall, which allows for mixed-income development and providing the tools for those in a lower economic stratus to become the market rate payers as time moves on, and certainly for the next generation.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Not inconsequential, but not nearly as significant as the attachment that comes with owning the property. At some point there's a distinction between the emotional ties you form to a space that you must continue to rent on a year-to-year basis and the emotional ties you form with a property that you own. I'm sympathetic to people who are forced to leave a rental due to rising rates, but at the same time they sign and renew that lease, they probably know what rights it provides and doesn't provide. I know that some people can't afford to be homeowners, and if you show me legislation or a private program to help low-income families become homeowners or stay in gentrifying communities and I'll happily support it. But I don't think we can just act like the end of a rental agreement, even a longstanding one, is the same as forcing someone to sell their property.

I think the perspective may be different for someone that has lived their entire life in rental homes and does not see renting as a temporary arrangement.

 

[rockaction]

Remove race from the equation entirely for a moment.

Assumption: The free market sets the value of residences based on convenience, amenities, quality of lodging, quality of life.

Why should a community in which the free market has set a lodging value of X, be forced artificially lower the value of a segment of housing in that community?

Who absorbs the difference if it's a private development? Is it not unfair to expect the owner of that property to be forced to accept less value?

Short answer:

1. In terms of regional economics, it's very dangerous to price out the working class. Works well in the short term, but the long term impacts of the middle class (not just the lower class) not being able to afford to live within Manhattan, then Brooklyn, Then close in area's of queens.... this becomes an economically unsustainable platform that causes significant issues down the road, all for near term growth in tax revenues

2. It's the right thing to do. There needs to be SOME public responsibility to bear in regard to providing options for folks at a lower economic strata, albeit the more you can work that through the market rather than subsidy is, imo, strongly preferred.

FWIW, a private developer can pay for sub-market rate housing options in a number of ways - tax credits such as the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC deals) which can also help a marginal development pencil out in up and coming (but not yet "there") markets to programs like section 8 and other full subsidy buildings which are falling more out of favor from a societal standpoint, and especially through density bonuses. i.e. Developer can build 200 units, or if they create 20% under market, they can not have 350 units. I'll gladly take the hit on some units to have more to develop overall, which allows for mixed-income development and providing the tools for those in a lower economic stratus to become the market rate payers as time moves on, and certainly for the next generation.

This happens in the wealthier suburbs of CT, where the first responders -- I'm thinking of an article I read about a town called Old Lyme -- can't get to their buildings because they don't live anywhere near the area.

 

[GroveDiesel]

I want to know 2 things:

1) are actual statistics provided regarding the idea that white people are safer in minority neighborhoods than minorities? And are they straight numbers or are they broken down by percentages and time spent in the area? Because it's a well know at stat that the majority of accidents occur within a mile of your home, but that's because that's where you drive the most, not because it's actually more dangerous.

2) So we're against "white flight" and white people with resources abandoning the urban areas, but we're also against them coming bback and investing money to improve them. Do I have that right?

 

[Henry Ford]

And yes, it sucks if some long-term renters are eventually priced out ... but how much worse is their situation, really? This may sound callous, but they're simply moving from one poor neighborhood to another.

I sort of agree with you but I've made this exact argument on this board about the "victims" of eminent domain and people flip out. "This was my grandpappy's land!"

And eminent domain is totally different, again. It's the takings clause, and the transfer of property from one private party to another via the government has been considered an evil since 1789.

It is not totally different to the person forced to move. Lots of renters have attachments to their homes and communities. I don't see why we should view the idiosyncratic values of homeowners as inviolable, but the same feelings in renters are inconsequential.

Because white property owners were the basis for this country's original rights, I think we still harbor some feelings of "property owner = good guy" in this country.

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.

Thanks. I'd ask then maybe this question. How does this play out in a practical sense?

Here's an example: It's probably a long shot, but I've kicked around the idea of opening a coffee shop cafe.

In my town of Knoxville, there are quite a few options. One would be something more in urban or older areas that are starting to renovate. The pluses are the building and neighborhoods have more character and history. The option is choosing a location that is more new / shiny / plasticy more in the suburbs.

Another situation would be housing. Young married couple is looking to buy a home. They have the option of something newer in the suburbs or something in an older neighborhood that's for sale. (no forcing out or anything like that)

What kind of things does one think about / consider when choosing?

J

Personally? My personal belief is that you should move into a neighborhood you like and want to be a part of, rather than moving into a neighborhood you want to change. I think that takes care of both.

 

[rockaction]

I want to know 2 things:

1) are actual statistics provided regarding the idea that white people are safer in minority neighborhoods than minorities? And are they straight numbers or are they broken down by percentages and time spent in the area? Because it's a well know at stat that the majority of accidents occur within a mile of your home, but that's because that's where you drive the most, not because it's actually more dangerous.

2) So we're against "white flight" and white people with resources abandoning the urban areas, but we're also against them coming bback and investing money to improve them. Do I have that right?

Point was made before, but when I lived in D.C., we used to laugh about "white flight." Weren't wanted, were wanted. What was the deal, exactly? Oh. Yeah. Tax base.

 

[Koya]

Remove race from the equation entirely for a moment.

Assumption: The free market sets the value of residences based on convenience, amenities, quality of lodging, quality of life.

Why should a community in which the free market has set a lodging value of X, be forced artificially lower the value of a segment of housing in that community?

Who absorbs the difference if it's a private development? Is it not unfair to expect the owner of that property to be forced to accept less value?

Short answer:

1. In terms of regional economics, it's very dangerous to price out the working class. Works well in the short term, but the long term impacts of the middle class (not just the lower class) not being able to afford to live within Manhattan, then Brooklyn, Then close in area's of queens.... this becomes an economically unsustainable platform that causes significant issues down the road, all for near term growth in tax revenues

2. It's the right thing to do. There needs to be SOME public responsibility to bear in regard to providing options for folks at a lower economic strata, albeit the more you can work that through the market rather than subsidy is, imo, strongly preferred.

FWIW, a private developer can pay for sub-market rate housing options in a number of ways - tax credits such as the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC deals) which can also help a marginal development pencil out in up and coming (but not yet "there") markets to programs like section 8 and other full subsidy buildings which are falling more out of favor from a societal standpoint, and especially through density bonuses. i.e. Developer can build 200 units, or if they create 20% under market, they can not have 350 units. I'll gladly take the hit on some units to have more to develop overall, which allows for mixed-income development and providing the tools for those in a lower economic stratus to become the market rate payers as time moves on, and certainly for the next generation.

This happens in the wealthier suburbs of CT, where the first responders -- I'm thinking of an article I read about a town called Old Lyme -- can't get to their buildings because they don't live anywhere near the area.

Indeed, it's an issue in mature suburban communities nation wide. Very similar hear on Long Island. You also price out the young (and lesser expensive) workforce, which further erodes the already weak commercial tax base as businesses move away to areas that have provide more access to the workforce.

The silver lining is that this reality is creating more of a willingness for suburban areas to FINALLY embrace urban / downtown redevelopment, which addresses a number of the issues discussed here on both a local and regional level.

 

[Henry Ford]

I want to know 2 things:

1) are actual statistics provided regarding the idea that white people are safer in minority neighborhoods than minorities? And are they straight numbers or are they broken down by percentages and time spent in the area? Because it's a well know at stat that the majority of accidents occur within a mile of your home, but that's because that's where you drive the most, not because it's actually more dangerous.

2) So we're against "white flight" and white people with resources abandoning the urban areas, but we're also against them coming bback and investing money to improve them. Do I have that right?

Point was made before, but when I lived in D.C., we used to laugh about "white flight." Weren't wanted, were wanted. What was the deal, exactly? Oh. Yeah. Tax base.

Well, which brings the institutional issue back to the forefront. This isn't about individuals buying property - it's about a pattern. Gentrification by its very definition involves a pattern of replacement inside a community. The pattern over time seems to be: abandon land to the lower class, let the value drop significantly, buy up the land at a significant reduction in price, move back in. That seems like a stupendous overall business model for profit. Except it looks pretty shady and exploitive to people who said "alright, we can put down roots and build a community right here... oh, wait, you want it back now? Damn."

 

[rockaction]

And yes, it sucks if some long-term renters are eventually priced out ... but how much worse is their situation, really? This may sound callous, but they're simply moving from one poor neighborhood to another.

I sort of agree with you but I've made this exact argument on this board about the "victims" of eminent domain and people flip out. "This was my grandpappy's land!"

And eminent domain is totally different, again. It's the takings clause, and the transfer of property from one private party to another via the government has been considered an evil since 1789.

It is not totally different to the person forced to move. Lots of renters have attachments to their homes and communities. I don't see why we should view the idiosyncratic values of homeowners as inviolable, but the same feelings in renters are inconsequential.

Because white property owners were the basis for this country's original rights, I think we still harbor some feelings of "property owner = good guy" in this country.

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.

Thanks. I'd ask then maybe this question. How does this play out in a practical sense?

Here's an example: It's probably a long shot, but I've kicked around the idea of opening a coffee shop cafe.

In my town of Knoxville, there are quite a few options. One would be something more in urban or older areas that are starting to renovate. The pluses are the building and neighborhoods have more character and history. The option is choosing a location that is more new / shiny / plasticy more in the suburbs.

Another situation would be housing. Young married couple is looking to buy a home. They have the option of something newer in the suburbs or something in an older neighborhood that's for sale. (no forcing out or anything like that)

What kind of things does one think about / consider when choosing?

J

Personally? My personal belief is that you should move into a neighborhood you like and want to be a part of, rather than moving into a neighborhood you want to change. I think that takes care of both.

I think it's more earnest than that. I think it's the political process, and not letting elected officials pick winners or losers per land. Given how both federal and state Congresses work, I think it's brilliant. I don't think it's a white or black thing. I think the principle holds.

 

[Koya]

I want to know 2 things:

1) are actual statistics provided regarding the idea that white people are safer in minority neighborhoods than minorities? And are they straight numbers or are they broken down by percentages and time spent in the area? Because it's a well know at stat that the majority of accidents occur within a mile of your home, but that's because that's where you drive the most, not because it's actually more dangerous.

2) So we're against "white flight" and white people with resources abandoning the urban areas, but we're also against them coming bback and investing money to improve them. Do I have that right?

It's about balance. For both social and long term economic reasons, mixed-income, mixed-ethnic communities are far more sustainable than segregated ones (as we are witnessing now). The wealthy area's price out the workforce and contract their local / regional economy and the poor areas become resource sucking ghettos.

 

[humpback]

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.

Exactly. I go to Compton all the time (going there today in fact) but rarely at night. I don't feel safe there at night. But I think I WOULD be safer there than if I were a minority.

Very little gentrification going on in Compton so far, that I can see. The main new shopping center (Compton Towne Center) was carved, not out of homes, but out of an industrial area that had been dead for years. I actually see a lot more of this in the Los Angeles area than I do gentrification: old industrial sites being converted to newer retail locations.

What is this based on?

 

[Clifford]

I want to know 2 things:

1) are actual statistics provided regarding the idea that white people are safer in minority neighborhoods than minorities? And are they straight numbers or are they broken down by percentages and time spent in the area? Because it's a well know at stat that the majority of accidents occur within a mile of your home, but that's because that's where you drive the most, not because it's actually more dangerous.

2) So we're against "white flight" and white people with resources abandoning the urban areas, but we're also against them coming bback and investing money to improve them. Do I have that right?

1. The guy was an EMT for 10 years and only encountered 1 example of black on white violence. How much evidence do you need?

2. Yes you do.

 

[Koya]

BTW, it doesn't surprise me at all that whites would be "safer" in minority areas. For one, I presume we are going by stats. If a newly settled white family that has a higher income and education level moves into an area that is just beginning gentrification, aren't they less likely to be involved in criminal and/or gang activity than those at society's edges?

In addition, I've noticed (anecdotally that is) when I am in these areas that there is a bit of a "hands off" approach to "outsiders" even when they live within the community. Basically, black on black violence is "just another day in the hood" whereas you take out a white guy, the police are going to double up their efforts to get to the bottom of things. Fair or not, it's a reality.

 

[Clifford]

I think the writer missed a chance to make an interesting point by allowing his own statement to do what should have been done by actual proof.

 

[GroveDiesel]

I want to know 2 things:

1) are actual statistics provided regarding the idea that white people are safer in minority neighborhoods than minorities? And are they straight numbers or are they broken down by percentages and time spent in the area? Because it's a well know at stat that the majority of accidents occur within a mile of your home, but that's because that's where you drive the most, not because it's actually more dangerous.

2) So we're against "white flight" and white people with resources abandoning the urban areas, but we're also against them coming bback and investing money to improve them. Do I have that right?

It's about balance. For both social and long term economic reasons, mixed-income, mixed-ethnic communities are far more sustainable than segregated ones (as we are witnessing now). The wealthy area's price out the workforce and contract their local / regional economy and the poor areas become resource sucking ghettos.

This is a nice utopian thought, but it doesn't match the reality. I'm sure some people move because they are racist, but my bet is most move because of crime and poor schools. You're never going to convince most people to sacrifice their own safety and kids' education because it might benefit other people.

It's nice to think about how a wealthy white person could move into the ghetto and be a magic influence, but it's silly to think that it would be reality without changing the nature of that ghetto.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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.

...

Ha. Really.

Also, fyi to all, prior thread on the gentrification issue here:

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=703788&hl=gentrification

 

[Henry Ford]

I want to know 2 things:

1) are actual statistics provided regarding the idea that white people are safer in minority neighborhoods than minorities? And are they straight numbers or are they broken down by percentages and time spent in the area? Because it's a well know at stat that the majority of accidents occur within a mile of your home, but that's because that's where you drive the most, not because it's actually more dangerous.

2) So we're against "white flight" and white people with resources abandoning the urban areas, but we're also against them coming bback and investing money to improve them. Do I have that right?

It's about balance. For both social and long term economic reasons, mixed-income, mixed-ethnic communities are far more sustainable than segregated ones (as we are witnessing now). The wealthy area's price out the workforce and contract their local / regional economy and the poor areas become resource sucking ghettos.

This is a nice utopian thought, but it doesn't match the reality. I'm sure some people move because they are racist, but my bet is most move because of crime and poor schools. You're never going to convince most people to sacrifice their own safety and kids' education because it might benefit other people.

It's nice to think about how a wealthy white person could move into the ghetto and be a magic influence, but it's silly to think that it would be reality without changing the nature of that ghetto.

And I think that's the point of the article, and the actual thing to think about. "But look how much better it is now!" is inherently filled with that white supremacy that the article is talking about. Better for whom? It's more in line with a white suburb or a white area of the city, and white people feel more comfortable there. That's how it's better.

"We're going to clean up an area of the city" means "we're going to raise property values and probably police presence." If that means raising property taxes and given the rate of incarceration of black males in this country if that means more young black men in the area will get arrested, well, that does tend to turn off some in the black community.