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

[Joe Bryant]

You guys did a really good job with this. Thanks.

J

 

[TheIronSheik]

You guys did a really good job with this. Thanks.

J

Wait. Was this a test?

 

[Henry Ford]

And this thread passed?

 

[TheIronSheik]

And this thread passed?

 

[Black Box]

And now we get the test forum back?

 

[Joe Bryant]

And this thread passed?

For sure. I was a little worried as the topic can be touchy but I was hopeful we could have a good discussion and I feel like we did. Great job.

J

 

[Henry Ford]

And this thread passed?

Really glad I didn't post that Cornel West rant earlier.

 

[Clifford]

This is the first time I have ever felt cheated INTO something.

 

[TheIronSheik]

And this thread passed?

Really glad I didn't post that Cornel West rant earlier.

I think Joe still has me on ignore from 7 years ago. Did you see how just skipped over my post and answered yours?

 

[Henry Ford]

And this thread passed?

For sure. I was a little worried as the topic can be touchy but I was hopeful we could have a good discussion and I feel like we did. Great job.

J

I honestly think gentrification is just one of those things even the opponents - unless they're the insanely vocal opponents, and those are pretty easy to dismiss in just about any movement - just accept as impossible to change. Primarily because even when it starts as some kind of government sanctioned land grab, the true tipping point is way down the line and takes years to make happen. Without that moment you can capture, like fire hoses turned on protesters, or Rosa Parks refusing to move, it's tough to put together a movement. Plus, you know - smoothies. Who can get upset about more smoothies?

 

[fantasycurse42]

Gentrification is fantastic. I live in Brooklyn Heights and the entire area has gentrified like no other place on Earth in the last 20 years.

Check out Brooklyn Bridge Park - Place used to be a slum 20 years ago, now they are building the most expensive building outside of Manhattan on this park pierhouseny.com - Can't get a 2 BR for under $2.5MM. Certain areas like Brooklyn Heights, Dumbo, Carroll Gardens, Cobble Hill, Boerum Hill, & Downtown Brooklyn needed to be gentrified. With proximity to Manhattan, waterfront, restaurants, & shopping there is no reason for these neighborhoods to be overrun by housing projects and crime. Downtown Brooklyn is still sketchy, mainly due to the large amounts of housing projects in Fort Greene. With the minimal amount of space in NYC, location is everything, and there is no reason to have the best locations tied up with section 8's and the associated crime that comes with them.

 

[rockaction]

And this thread passed?

For sure. I was a little worried as the topic can be touchy but I was hopeful we could have a good discussion and I feel like we did. Great job.

J

I honestly think gentrification is just one of those things even the opponents - unless they're the insanely vocal opponents, and those are pretty easy to dismiss in just about any movement - just accept as impossible to change. Primarily because even when it starts as some kind of government sanctioned land grab, the true tipping point is way down the line and takes years to make happen. Without that moment you can capture, like fire hoses turned on protesters, or Rosa Parks refusing to move, it's tough to put together a movement. Plus, you know - smoothies. Who can get upset about more smoothies?

This guy is such a stubborn lawyer. I went to school and dealt with a million of these. God Bless you, HF. Jesus.

 

[Henry Ford]

And this thread passed?

For sure. I was a little worried as the topic can be touchy but I was hopeful we could have a good discussion and I feel like we did. Great job.

J

I honestly think gentrification is just one of those things even the opponents - unless they're the insanely vocal opponents, and those are pretty easy to dismiss in just about any movement - just accept as impossible to change. Primarily because even when it starts as some kind of government sanctioned land grab, the true tipping point is way down the line and takes years to make happen. Without that moment you can capture, like fire hoses turned on protesters, or Rosa Parks refusing to move, it's tough to put together a movement. Plus, you know - smoothies. Who can get upset about more smoothies?

This guy is such a stubborn lawyer. I went to school and dealt with a million of these. God Bless you, HF. Jesus.

You seem absolutely certain that there's never government involvement in gentrification. That's pretty weird.

 

[Joe Bryant]

And this thread passed?

Really glad I didn't post that Cornel West rant earlier.

J

 

[rockaction]

And this thread passed?

For sure. I was a little worried as the topic can be touchy but I was hopeful we could have a good discussion and I feel like we did. Great job.

J

I honestly think gentrification is just one of those things even the opponents - unless they're the insanely vocal opponents, and those are pretty easy to dismiss in just about any movement - just accept as impossible to change. Primarily because even when it starts as some kind of government sanctioned land grab, the true tipping point is way down the line and takes years to make happen. Without that moment you can capture, like fire hoses turned on protesters, or Rosa Parks refusing to move, it's tough to put together a movement. Plus, you know - smoothies. Who can get upset about more smoothies?

This guy is such a stubborn lawyer. I went to school and dealt with a million of these. God Bless you, HF. Jesus.

You seem absolutely certain that there's never government involvement in gentrification. That's pretty weird.

No, never said that. Specifically said the opposite. You keep wanting to force it.

I'm sure localities do exactly the things you say; it's timschochet goalpost shifting from eminent domain to "government sanction."

 

[TheIronSheik]

And this thread passed?

Really glad I didn't post that Cornel West rant earlier.

J

What the?!?

 

[Joe Bryant]

And this thread passed?

Really glad I didn't post that Cornel West rant earlier.

J

What the?!?

Sorry. Not on ignore.

J

 

[Henry Ford]

And this thread passed?

For sure. I was a little worried as the topic can be touchy but I was hopeful we could have a good discussion and I feel like we did. Great job.

J

I honestly think gentrification is just one of those things even the opponents - unless they're the insanely vocal opponents, and those are pretty easy to dismiss in just about any movement - just accept as impossible to change. Primarily because even when it starts as some kind of government sanctioned land grab, the true tipping point is way down the line and takes years to make happen. Without that moment you can capture, like fire hoses turned on protesters, or Rosa Parks refusing to move, it's tough to put together a movement. Plus, you know - smoothies. Who can get upset about more smoothies?

This guy is such a stubborn lawyer. I went to school and dealt with a million of these. God Bless you, HF. Jesus.

You seem absolutely certain that there's never government involvement in gentrification. That's pretty weird.

No, never said that. Specifically said the opposite. You keep wanting to force it.

I'm sure localities do exactly the things you say; it's timschochet goalpost shifting from eminent domain to "government sanction."

When eminent domain is used as a club to allow property to be purchased from a homeowner for a price they didn't want to accept and given to a private development firm for that amount or used for public roadways to connect a private development to the freeway, or similar ways - how is that not a "government sanctioned land grab"? If anything, government sanctioned land grab is less strong than using eminent domain.

If you think it's harsher in some way, I apologize for moving the goalposts for you - that's not my intention.

 

[TheIronSheik]

And this thread passed?

Really glad I didn't post that Cornel West rant earlier.

J

What the?!?

Sorry. Not on ignore.

J

 

[Homer J Simpson]

I haven't read the thread but I'd like to point out that, as a big ol' liberal, Salon is populated with the whiny, self-righteous, perpetually aggrieved toolbags that make me want to roll my eyes so hard they literally pop out of my skull.

Yes, literally.

That is all.

 

[Courtjester]

Is gentrification fantastic for middle-class white people? Totally.

Why do we keep injecting race into this?

It's a class issue, not a race issue. The pricing for the area is set. It's not like rent is $1000 for white people or $1500 for black people. In suburban memphis there are TONS of latino/black middle class families living in revitalized ("gentrified") neighborhoods.

Correlation/Causation.

Because the article we're discussing is about gentrification as a reflection of white supremacy.

The article itself is a big hot mess of white guilt and ultra-liberal assertions that are backed up by absolutely nothing. The article isn't worthy of discussion as it is the left equivalent of something on breitbart. Unadulterated trash that really damages salon's reputation as a journal.

Exactly on most points. Except I don't read Salon regularly so I can't comment as to what or what their reputation isn't.

As was mentioned above. it is supply and demand--bottom line.

When white people start moving back into a neighborhood, it isn't like they get together and say, :"ooohh, let's purposefully try and make the ethnic hair salon go out of business." There simply isn't a demand for it in that neighborhood with the influx of white people, but open a new Starbucks or Noodles and they will do well. That is the market responding to demand. I am sorry that hair salon has been there for 50 years, but like anything else, your business adapts or goes under.

I grew up my entire life in a pretty mixed upper middle class neighborhood. Towards the end and after I moved out of my parent's house, the place changed. You could see it in how people treated one another and how their property looked. My parents left their home of 30 years because it was getting rough and the property values were declining quickly. And without sounding racist, it pretty much directly coincided with the changing of racial makeup in the area to include a predominate Hispanic population,. I worked through high school at a local western themed steakhouse that was less than 1/2 a mile from my house. It played country music. Had a big cow in from of it. Lots of trucks in the parking lot. You get the picture. Well, when the neighborhood changed, it did too. It went under and became and is still a carniceria meat market and looks to do a pretty good business.. Next to it is a tire and rim shop named Mi Gente with Mexican flags flying all in front of it. Would these business have worked with a more mixed racial makeup or do they spring up as response to a demand from this changed community?

Where was the article lamenting the decline of the steak house? Hint, it is never going to be written. Furthermore, if there ever was a piece done on the rim and tire shop, it would be framed as how great a story it is about this minority owned business doing so well with no mention of the history of the location.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And this thread passed?

For sure. I was a little worried as the topic can be touchy but I was hopeful we could have a good discussion and I feel like we did. Great job.

J

I honestly think gentrification is just one of those things even the opponents - unless they're the insanely vocal opponents, and those are pretty easy to dismiss in just about any movement - just accept as impossible to change. Primarily because even when it starts as some kind of government sanctioned land grab, the true tipping point is way down the line and takes years to make happen. Without that moment you can capture, like fire hoses turned on protesters, or Rosa Parks refusing to move, it's tough to put together a movement. Plus, you know - smoothies. Who can get upset about more smoothies?

This guy is such a stubborn lawyer. I went to school and dealt with a million of these. God Bless you, HF. Jesus.

You seem absolutely certain that there's never government involvement in gentrification. That's pretty weird.

No, never said that. Specifically said the opposite. You keep wanting to force it.

I'm sure localities do exactly the things you say; it's timschochet goalpost shifting from eminent domain to "government sanction."

When eminent domain is used as a club to allow property to be purchased from a homeowner for a price they didn't want to accept and given to a private development firm for that amount or used for public roadways to connect a private development to the freeway, or similar ways - how is that not a "government sanctioned land grab"? If anything, government sanctioned land grab is less strong than using eminent domain.

If you think it's harsher in some way, I apologize for moving the goalposts for you - that's not my intention.

A couple practical examples of what can happen when gentrification is not allowed to take place:

East Baltimore Development Inc. [EBDI] - especially the biotech park:

https://www.baltimorebrew.com/2013/02/19/book-on-hopkins-redevelopment-by-a-leader-of-the-opposition/

And the very sketchy, very dubious Medical District now underway in New Orleans.

Here's the thing: neighborhoods die for a variety of reasons, but one major reason is that city planning and highways/interstates changed the flow of commerce. Interstates meant that people traveled over or flew past neighborhoods, not through them. Rather than try to fix what was wrong with the neighborhoods powers that be in city government decide to tear the whole thing down by using public powers for the private gain of a select, connected few.

In my opinion this is tragic. The EBDI from my understanding has been pretty unsuccessful and in my opinion the destruction of the Tulane-Galvez neighborhood in New Orleans is already a tragedy and will be similarly underfunded and underused. 30 square blocks torn down, for what? Supposedly a public hospital system, but private entities have been brought in instead and the city of NO has been without a public hospital since 2005.

One other thing about this: when city planners decide to do this, guess what insiders profit by moving in and grabbing property at cheap values before the information about what is going to take place comes out. This is basically dealing on insider information and typically it's the poor who rent or the good folks who have stuck it out in hope or those who have invested in the hope of building a better future are the ones who suffer the most.

 

[Clifford]

And this thread passed?

For sure. I was a little worried as the topic can be touchy but I was hopeful we could have a good discussion and I feel like we did. Great job.

J

I honestly think gentrification is just one of those things even the opponents - unless they're the insanely vocal opponents, and those are pretty easy to dismiss in just about any movement - just accept as impossible to change. Primarily because even when it starts as some kind of government sanctioned land grab, the true tipping point is way down the line and takes years to make happen. Without that moment you can capture, like fire hoses turned on protesters, or Rosa Parks refusing to move, it's tough to put together a movement. Plus, you know - smoothies. Who can get upset about more smoothies?

This guy is such a stubborn lawyer. I went to school and dealt with a million of these. God Bless you, HF. Jesus.

You seem absolutely certain that there's never government involvement in gentrification. That's pretty weird.

No, never said that. Specifically said the opposite. You keep wanting to force it.

I'm sure localities do exactly the things you say; it's timschochet goalpost shifting from eminent domain to "government sanction."

When eminent domain is used as a club to allow property to be purchased from a homeowner for a price they didn't want to accept and given to a private development firm for that amount or used for public roadways to connect a private development to the freeway, or similar ways - how is that not a "government sanctioned land grab"? If anything, government sanctioned land grab is less strong than using eminent domain.

If you think it's harsher in some way, I apologize for moving the goalposts for you - that's not my intention.

A couple practical examples of what can happen when gentrification is not allowed to take place:

East Baltimore Development Inc. [EBDI] - especially the biotech park:

https://www.baltimorebrew.com/2013/02/19/book-on-hopkins-redevelopment-by-a-leader-of-the-opposition/

And the very sketchy, very dubious Medical District now underway in New Orleans.

Here's the thing: neighborhoods die for a variety of reasons, but one major reason is that city planning and highways/interstates changed the flow of commerce. Interstates meant that people traveled over or flew past neighborhoods, not through them.

Think I saw something about this in a movie once

http://youtu.be/ggtH05LFF3k?t=16s

 

[Henry Ford]

And this thread passed?

For sure. I was a little worried as the topic can be touchy but I was hopeful we could have a good discussion and I feel like we did. Great job.

J

I honestly think gentrification is just one of those things even the opponents - unless they're the insanely vocal opponents, and those are pretty easy to dismiss in just about any movement - just accept as impossible to change. Primarily because even when it starts as some kind of government sanctioned land grab, the true tipping point is way down the line and takes years to make happen. Without that moment you can capture, like fire hoses turned on protesters, or Rosa Parks refusing to move, it's tough to put together a movement. Plus, you know - smoothies. Who can get upset about more smoothies?

This guy is such a stubborn lawyer. I went to school and dealt with a million of these. God Bless you, HF. Jesus.

You seem absolutely certain that there's never government involvement in gentrification. That's pretty weird.

No, never said that. Specifically said the opposite. You keep wanting to force it.

I'm sure localities do exactly the things you say; it's timschochet goalpost shifting from eminent domain to "government sanction."

When eminent domain is used as a club to allow property to be purchased from a homeowner for a price they didn't want to accept and given to a private development firm for that amount or used for public roadways to connect a private development to the freeway, or similar ways - how is that not a "government sanctioned land grab"? If anything, government sanctioned land grab is less strong than using eminent domain.

If you think it's harsher in some way, I apologize for moving the goalposts for you - that's not my intention.

A couple practical examples of what can happen when gentrification is not allowed to take place:

East Baltimore Development Inc. [EBDI] - especially the biotech park:

https://www.baltimorebrew.com/2013/02/19/book-on-hopkins-redevelopment-by-a-leader-of-the-opposition/

And the very sketchy, very dubious Medical District now underway in New Orleans.

Here's the thing: neighborhoods die for a variety of reasons, but one major reason is that city planning and highways/interstates changed the flow of commerce. Interstates meant that people traveled over or flew past neighborhoods, not through them. Rather than try to fix what was wrong with the neighborhoods powers that be in city government decide to tear the whole thing down by using public powers for the private gain of a select, connected few.

In my opinion this is tragic. The EBDI from my understanding has been pretty unsuccessful and in my opinion the destruction of the Tulane-Galvez neighborhood in New Orleans is already a tragedy and will be similarly underfunded and underused. 30 square blocks torn down, for what? Supposedly a public hospital system, but private entities have been brought in instead and the city of NO has been without a public hospital since 2005.

One other thing about this: when city planners decide to do this, guess what insiders profit by moving in and grabbing property at cheap values before the information about what is going to take place comes out. This is basically dealing on insider information and typically it's the poor who rent or the good folks who have stuck it out in hope or those who have invested in the hope of building a better future are the ones who suffer the most.

Wait, why isn't Mid City in New Orleans precisely the kind of gentrification we're talking about here?

 

[Henry Ford]

I mean, I don't want to sound weird about this or anything, but they did just build a huge Whole Foods in Mid City, right?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And this thread passed?

For sure. I was a little worried as the topic can be touchy but I was hopeful we could have a good discussion and I feel like we did. Great job.

J

I honestly think gentrification is just one of those things even the opponents - unless they're the insanely vocal opponents, and those are pretty easy to dismiss in just about any movement - just accept as impossible to change. Primarily because even when it starts as some kind of government sanctioned land grab, the true tipping point is way down the line and takes years to make happen. Without that moment you can capture, like fire hoses turned on protesters, or Rosa Parks refusing to move, it's tough to put together a movement. Plus, you know - smoothies. Who can get upset about more smoothies?

This guy is such a stubborn lawyer. I went to school and dealt with a million of these. God Bless you, HF. Jesus.

You seem absolutely certain that there's never government involvement in gentrification. That's pretty weird.

No, never said that. Specifically said the opposite. You keep wanting to force it.

I'm sure localities do exactly the things you say; it's timschochet goalpost shifting from eminent domain to "government sanction."

When eminent domain is used as a club to allow property to be purchased from a homeowner for a price they didn't want to accept and given to a private development firm for that amount or used for public roadways to connect a private development to the freeway, or similar ways - how is that not a "government sanctioned land grab"? If anything, government sanctioned land grab is less strong than using eminent domain.

If you think it's harsher in some way, I apologize for moving the goalposts for you - that's not my intention.

A couple practical examples of what can happen when gentrification is not allowed to take place:

East Baltimore Development Inc. [EBDI] - especially the biotech park:

https://www.baltimorebrew.com/2013/02/19/book-on-hopkins-redevelopment-by-a-leader-of-the-opposition/

And the very sketchy, very dubious Medical District now underway in New Orleans.

Here's the thing: neighborhoods die for a variety of reasons, but one major reason is that city planning and highways/interstates changed the flow of commerce. Interstates meant that people traveled over or flew past neighborhoods, not through them. Rather than try to fix what was wrong with the neighborhoods powers that be in city government decide to tear the whole thing down by using public powers for the private gain of a select, connected few.

In my opinion this is tragic. The EBDI from my understanding has been pretty unsuccessful and in my opinion the destruction of the Tulane-Galvez neighborhood in New Orleans is already a tragedy and will be similarly underfunded and underused. 30 square blocks torn down, for what? Supposedly a public hospital system, but private entities have been brought in instead and the city of NO has been without a public hospital since 2005.

One other thing about this: when city planners decide to do this, guess what insiders profit by moving in and grabbing property at cheap values before the information about what is going to take place comes out. This is basically dealing on insider information and typically it's the poor who rent or the good folks who have stuck it out in hope or those who have invested in the hope of building a better future are the ones who suffer the most.

Wait, why isn't Mid City in New Orleans precisely the kind of gentrification we're talking about here?

If you're talking Mid City down by Carrollton and up past Broad, yes, I agree. If you're talking the actual Med Center development, I don't consider that gentrification at all. Now maybe the neighborhoods growing/redeveloping around it is, but there's no reason another way could not have been found to do that.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I mean, I don't want to sound weird about this or anything, but they did just build a huge Whole Foods in Mid City, right?

Yes, and to me that's happening independent of what's going on in Tulane/Galvez.

All for that.

 

[GroveDiesel]

I'm going to admit that I could just be ignorant on this point, but that's all it would be is ignorance, but:

I feel like a lot of these places being gentrified are probably being romanticized. I mean, the areas we are talking about have cheap property for a reason. We're not really talking about a tight working class community here, we're talking abandoned buildings, high crime and poor schools. There may be outliers of course, but my bet is that's mostly what we're talking about. They're not typically small older homes that people will work hard to maintain, they're beaten up homes and apartments falling apart.

I guess I have a hard time vilifying the people who are trying to spend money to make things newer, nicer, safer, etc., versus blaming the folks who allowed the area to decline in the first place. And this is not about race. There are plenty of white towns that have become total white trash because people simply didn't care.

My mother in law's grandmother owned a candy store in a small city in a mixed race area. It did well. My mother in law's parents owned a luncheonette in the same city. A few companies moved out, an unsavory element started moving in, crime kept increasing and they all lost their businesses and were forced to move. That whole area is one of the worst areas in the country now. There I'd a completely different culture that dominates that city today. There are some gentrification projects going on now in that city though and they will definitely replace some of that current culture. But I feel like those projects are objective improvements over what is there now, and if some of the current culture is wiped out because of it, oh well. That current culture came in and forced out the prior culture and then the people that came in allowed the area to deteriote and crumble.

 

[Henry Ford]

And this thread passed?

For sure. I was a little worried as the topic can be touchy but I was hopeful we could have a good discussion and I feel like we did. Great job.

J

I honestly think gentrification is just one of those things even the opponents - unless they're the insanely vocal opponents, and those are pretty easy to dismiss in just about any movement - just accept as impossible to change. Primarily because even when it starts as some kind of government sanctioned land grab, the true tipping point is way down the line and takes years to make happen. Without that moment you can capture, like fire hoses turned on protesters, or Rosa Parks refusing to move, it's tough to put together a movement. Plus, you know - smoothies. Who can get upset about more smoothies?

This guy is such a stubborn lawyer. I went to school and dealt with a million of these. God Bless you, HF. Jesus.

You seem absolutely certain that there's never government involvement in gentrification. That's pretty weird.

No, never said that. Specifically said the opposite. You keep wanting to force it.

I'm sure localities do exactly the things you say; it's timschochet goalpost shifting from eminent domain to "government sanction."

When eminent domain is used as a club to allow property to be purchased from a homeowner for a price they didn't want to accept and given to a private development firm for that amount or used for public roadways to connect a private development to the freeway, or similar ways - how is that not a "government sanctioned land grab"? If anything, government sanctioned land grab is less strong than using eminent domain.

If you think it's harsher in some way, I apologize for moving the goalposts for you - that's not my intention.

A couple practical examples of what can happen when gentrification is not allowed to take place:

East Baltimore Development Inc. [EBDI] - especially the biotech park:

https://www.baltimorebrew.com/2013/02/19/book-on-hopkins-redevelopment-by-a-leader-of-the-opposition/

And the very sketchy, very dubious Medical District now underway in New Orleans.

Here's the thing: neighborhoods die for a variety of reasons, but one major reason is that city planning and highways/interstates changed the flow of commerce. Interstates meant that people traveled over or flew past neighborhoods, not through them. Rather than try to fix what was wrong with the neighborhoods powers that be in city government decide to tear the whole thing down by using public powers for the private gain of a select, connected few.

In my opinion this is tragic. The EBDI from my understanding has been pretty unsuccessful and in my opinion the destruction of the Tulane-Galvez neighborhood in New Orleans is already a tragedy and will be similarly underfunded and underused. 30 square blocks torn down, for what? Supposedly a public hospital system, but private entities have been brought in instead and the city of NO has been without a public hospital since 2005.

One other thing about this: when city planners decide to do this, guess what insiders profit by moving in and grabbing property at cheap values before the information about what is going to take place comes out. This is basically dealing on insider information and typically it's the poor who rent or the good folks who have stuck it out in hope or those who have invested in the hope of building a better future are the ones who suffer the most.

Wait, why isn't Mid City in New Orleans precisely the kind of gentrification we're talking about here?

If you're talking Mid City down by Carrollton and up past Broad, yes, I agree. If you're talking the actual Med Center development, I don't consider that gentrification at all. Now maybe the neighborhoods growing/redeveloping around it is, but there's no reason another way could not have been found to do that.

The medical district starts smack dab in the middle of Mid City, running through to downtown. And the gentrification has been happening precisely because people see home purchases around a huge medical complex as a spectacular investment - the city helped get land for developers, and now rents will be skyrocketing so that doctors, nurses, and support staff can have rentals near their work. Real estate speculators have bought stuff like crazy, home prices have gone through the roof, and white-owned corporations have started building big things. Whole Foods, for instance, which isn't past Broad - it's on Broad.

 

[Henry Ford]

I guess I could be completely wrong about that - but I have a buddy who's been living in Mid City for about 20 years who I stayed with to walk in Krewe Du Vieux this year, and we've had a lot of conversations over the last few years about what's going on in Mid City and Hollygrove.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

When eminent domain is used as a club to allow property to be purchased from a homeowner for a price they didn't want to accept and given to a private development firm for that amount or used for public roadways to connect a private development to the freeway, or similar ways - how is that not a "government sanctioned land grab"? If anything, government sanctioned land grab is less strong than using eminent domain.

If you think it's harsher in some way, I apologize for moving the goalposts for you - that's not my intention.

A couple practical examples of what can happen when gentrification is not allowed to take place:

East Baltimore Development Inc. [EBDI] - especially the biotech park:

https://www.baltimorebrew.com/2013/02/19/book-on-hopkins-redevelopment-by-a-leader-of-the-opposition/

And the very sketchy, very dubious Medical District now underway in New Orleans.

Here's the thing: neighborhoods die for a variety of reasons, but one major reason is that city planning and highways/interstates changed the flow of commerce. Interstates meant that people traveled over or flew past neighborhoods, not through them. Rather than try to fix what was wrong with the neighborhoods powers that be in city government decide to tear the whole thing down by using public powers for the private gain of a select, connected few.

In my opinion this is tragic. The EBDI from my understanding has been pretty unsuccessful and in my opinion the destruction of the Tulane-Galvez neighborhood in New Orleans is already a tragedy and will be similarly underfunded and underused. 30 square blocks torn down, for what? Supposedly a public hospital system, but private entities have been brought in instead and the city of NO has been without a public hospital since 2005.

One other thing about this: when city planners decide to do this, guess what insiders profit by moving in and grabbing property at cheap values before the information about what is going to take place comes out. This is basically dealing on insider information and typically it's the poor who rent or the good folks who have stuck it out in hope or those who have invested in the hope of building a better future are the ones who suffer the most.

Wait, why isn't Mid City in New Orleans precisely the kind of gentrification we're talking about here?

If you're talking Mid City down by Carrollton and up past Broad, yes, I agree. If you're talking the actual Med Center development, I don't consider that gentrification at all. Now maybe the neighborhoods growing/redeveloping around it is, but there's no reason another way could not have been found to do that.

The medical district starts smack dab in the middle of Mid City, running through to downtown. And the gentrification has been happening precisely because people see home purchases around a huge medical complex as a spectacular investment - the city helped get land for developers, and now rents will be skyrocketing so that doctors, nurses, and support staff can have rentals near their work. Real estate speculators have bought stuff like crazy, home prices have gone through the roof, and white-owned corporations have started building big things. Whole Foods, for instance, which isn't past Broad - it's on Broad.

I realize where WF is, I'v been there, I'm saying gentrification is happening independently past there.

I disagree about the impact of the med center development. Mid city has been growing since Kat from Carrollton/Canal and radiating out on its own. We've had enough neighborhood growth in the rest of the city that it should be obvious that no such central planning was ever needed for that to occur, aside from getting rid of many of the obstancles that used to block such development in the past, especially licensing and zoning.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Just to weigh in on this aspect, I am opposed to the use of eminent domain in the gentrification process. Organic gentrification is one thing. Government seizure and giving to private developers is quite another. Butthat seems like a separate issue than gentrification as a topic. Obviously they can be intertwined, but I thought this article was about gentrification itself, not a rant against eminent domain takings.

 

[jon_mx]

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.

I think the author needs to spend a few weekends wondering around the streets of Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, Gary, Washington DC a few nights and let him get back to us.

 

[Loan Sharks]

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?

As someone who worked in Compton for 5 years, you don't hang out in Compton at night, ever, if you are white.

In the day time I have seen crack, a shooting, a robbery, a riot, two dead bodies, some dude killing dogs, numerous instances of non violent crime more domestic fights than I can count and had a shotgun shoved in my face.

 

[Henry Ford]

I realize where WF is, I'v been there, I'm saying gentrification is happening independently past there.

I disagree about the impact of the med center development. Mid city has been growing since Kat from Carrollton/Canal and radiating out on its own. We've had enough neighborhood growth in the rest of the city that it should be obvious that no such central planning was ever needed for that to occur, aside from getting rid of many of the obstancles that used to block such development in the past, especially licensing and zoning.

From the BioDistrict (the medical complex) website:

Whole Foods chose the Broad Street location in part because of the “medical BioDistrict a few blocks away,” said Kristina Bradford, community relations coordinator for Whole Foods in Louisiana. “We’re viewing this as a unique business opportunity and our goal is to be very price-competitive.”

http://biodistrictneworleans.org/news/whole-foods-chooses-north-broad-street-location-for-new-store/

 

[jon_mx]

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.

You are as nutty as the author. That is an absurd point. There are towns where police will warn white people not to go in because it is not safe for them.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I realize where WF is, I'v been there, I'm saying gentrification is happening independently past there.

I disagree about the impact of the med center development. Mid city has been growing since Kat from Carrollton/Canal and radiating out on its own. We've had enough neighborhood growth in the rest of the city that it should be obvious that no such central planning was ever needed for that to occur, aside from getting rid of many of the obstancles that used to block such development in the past, especially licensing and zoning.

From the BioDistrict (the medical complex) website:

Whole Foods chose the Broad Street location in part because of the “medical BioDistrict a few blocks away,” said Kristina Bradford, community relations coordinator for Whole Foods in Louisiana. “We’re viewing this as a unique business opportunity and our goal is to be very price-competitive.”

http://biodistrictneworleans.org/news/whole-foods-chooses-north-broad-street-location-for-new-store/

Note that's from the biodistrict site, pretty self-serving, which describes the whole project.

 

[RCon]

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."

This business model wouldn't actually work, though. Step 1 in your model is to "abandon land to the lower class". If that land is currently expensive land, the person doing the abandoning is taking a big hit. Buying it up later when it's cheap doesn't really help if it's the same person now doing the buying.

 

[Henry Ford]

I realize where WF is, I'v been there, I'm saying gentrification is happening independently past there.

I disagree about the impact of the med center development. Mid city has been growing since Kat from Carrollton/Canal and radiating out on its own. We've had enough neighborhood growth in the rest of the city that it should be obvious that no such central planning was ever needed for that to occur, aside from getting rid of many of the obstancles that used to block such development in the past, especially licensing and zoning.

From the BioDistrict (the medical complex) website:

Whole Foods chose the Broad Street location in part because of the “medical BioDistrict a few blocks away,” said Kristina Bradford, community relations coordinator for Whole Foods in Louisiana. “We’re viewing this as a unique business opportunity and our goal is to be very price-competitive.”

http://biodistrictneworleans.org/news/whole-foods-chooses-north-broad-street-location-for-new-store/

Note that's from the biodistrict site, pretty self-serving, which describes the whole project.

It's driving the gentrification of Mid City. It's why there's an Office Depot and a Five Guys where there used to be a terrible Chinese restaurant. It's a government backed project for a medical complex which has allowed changes in zoning laws and expropriation of property as "blighted" so they can make Mid City into a mecca for economic development. As a result, property values go up and everything changes. I don't know of a better example than Mid City. There was a terrible Chinese place before Katrina, and now there's a Five Guys in the same spot. Whole Foods comes in. Property values jump, hipster bars show up and sell tapas, and everything's just a touch different. All of which started going into the works in 2007/2008, when the BioDistrict business was created.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I realize where WF is, I'v been there, I'm saying gentrification is happening independently past there.

I disagree about the impact of the med center development. Mid city has been growing since Kat from Carrollton/Canal and radiating out on its own. We've had enough neighborhood growth in the rest of the city that it should be obvious that no such central planning was ever needed for that to occur, aside from getting rid of many of the obstancles that used to block such development in the past, especially licensing and zoning.

From the BioDistrict (the medical complex) website:

Whole Foods chose the Broad Street location in part because of the “medical BioDistrict a few blocks away,” said Kristina Bradford, community relations coordinator for Whole Foods in Louisiana. “We’re viewing this as a unique business opportunity and our goal is to be very price-competitive.”

http://biodistrictneworleans.org/news/whole-foods-chooses-north-broad-street-location-for-new-store/

Note that's from the biodistrict site, pretty self-serving, which describes the whole project.

It's driving the gentrification of Mid City. It's why there's an Office Depot and a Five Guys where there used to be a terrible Chinese restaurant. It's a government backed project for a medical complex which has allowed changes in zoning laws and expropriation of property as "blighted" so they can make Mid City into a mecca for economic development. As a result, property values go up and everything changes. I don't know of a better example than Mid City. There was a terrible Chinese place before Katrina, and now there's a Five Guys in the same spot. Whole Foods comes in. Property values jump, hipster bars show up and sell tapas, and everything's just a touch different. All of which started going into the works in 2007/2008, when the BioDistrict business was created.

I really think you are conflating Mid City with Tulane & Galvez.

Mid City has been coming back since before the biomedical project was dreamed up.

 

[Henry Ford]

I realize where WF is, I'v been there, I'm saying gentrification is happening independently past there.

I disagree about the impact of the med center development. Mid city has been growing since Kat from Carrollton/Canal and radiating out on its own. We've had enough neighborhood growth in the rest of the city that it should be obvious that no such central planning was ever needed for that to occur, aside from getting rid of many of the obstancles that used to block such development in the past, especially licensing and zoning.

From the BioDistrict (the medical complex) website:

Whole Foods chose the Broad Street location in part because of the medical BioDistrict a few blocks away, said Kristina Bradford, community relations coordinator for Whole Foods in Louisiana. Were viewing this as a unique business opportunity and our goal is to be very price-competitive.

http://biodistrictneworleans.org/news/whole-foods-chooses-north-broad-street-location-for-new-store/

Note that's from the biodistrict site, pretty self-serving, which describes the whole project.

It's driving the gentrification of Mid City. It's why there's an Office Depot and a Five Guys where there used to be a terrible Chinese restaurant. It's a government backed project for a medical complex which has allowed changes in zoning laws and expropriation of property as "blighted" so they can make Mid City into a mecca for economic development. As a result, property values go up and everything changes. I don't know of a better example than Mid City. There was a terrible Chinese place before Katrina, and now there's a Five Guys in the same spot. Whole Foods comes in. Property values jump, hipster bars show up and sell tapas, and everything's just a touch different. All of which started going into the works in 2007/2008, when the BioDistrict business was created.

I really think you are conflating Mid City with Tulane & Galvez.

Mid City has been coming back since before the biomedical project was dreamed up.

There is a big difference between coming back and becoming something totally different.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I realize where WF is, I'v been there, I'm saying gentrification is happening independently past there.

I disagree about the impact of the med center development. Mid city has been growing since Kat from Carrollton/Canal and radiating out on its own. We've had enough neighborhood growth in the rest of the city that it should be obvious that no such central planning was ever needed for that to occur, aside from getting rid of many of the obstancles that used to block such development in the past, especially licensing and zoning.

From the BioDistrict (the medical complex) website:

Whole Foods chose the Broad Street location in part because of the medical BioDistrict a few blocks away, said Kristina Bradford, community relations coordinator for Whole Foods in Louisiana. Were viewing this as a unique business opportunity and our goal is to be very price-competitive.

http://biodistrictneworleans.org/news/whole-foods-chooses-north-broad-street-location-for-new-store/

Note that's from the biodistrict site, pretty self-serving, which describes the whole project.

It's driving the gentrification of Mid City. It's why there's an Office Depot and a Five Guys where there used to be a terrible Chinese restaurant. It's a government backed project for a medical complex which has allowed changes in zoning laws and expropriation of property as "blighted" so they can make Mid City into a mecca for economic development. As a result, property values go up and everything changes. I don't know of a better example than Mid City. There was a terrible Chinese place before Katrina, and now there's a Five Guys in the same spot. Whole Foods comes in. Property values jump, hipster bars show up and sell tapas, and everything's just a touch different. All of which started going into the works in 2007/2008, when the BioDistrict business was created.

I really think you are conflating Mid City with Tulane & Galvez.

Mid City has been coming back since before the biomedical project was dreamed up.

There is a big difference between coming back and becoming something totally different.

Well when you tear down 30 square blocks that's pretty damned different. There's no gentrification at all either. That's obliteration.

 

[Henry Ford]

Except in the surrounding areas.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Except in the surrounding areas.

No one wants to say it but the tearing down and retransformation of the Lafitte project and the creation of the Greenway may have likely had more positive impact on the surrounding area. In my opinion, along with the growth radiating north out of Mid-City (note which I define as starting and radiating out of Carrollton @ Canal), they definitely did. Because that's what's happened elsewhere.

So for instance: St. Claude, lower Garden District, Claiborne/Louisiana, Bywater/Marigny, Treme, Black Pearl triangle, some parts along Tchoup and yes Mid City have all had gentrification, and many would say improvement, without any of the wholesale intervention and destruction we have seen in Tulane-Galvez.

The bio district itself has already had trouble finding tenants, the original management group fired its director, and the feds have threatened to pull $300 million in funding because surprise surprise the city and state movers of this thing falsely labelled the enterprise as being public in nature.

I'm also ceaselessly surprised how self-described liberals forget about the poor and renters who got shoved out while ignoring the fact that we have been without a public hospital since 2005, and the self-described conservatives just love love love some real good big government and property grab posing as property seizure when it suits them.

 

[Hot Diggity Dog]

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.

So white folks should move in and live in crappy housing? Wouldn't their presence and money change things if they interacted with the community sans the housing? Sounds to me a better "cause" would be income disparity not gentrification.

 

[drummer]

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.

This would be interesting. I lived in SF during the first wave of a Tech Boom (the dot.com boom and bust), which was the start of gentrification in SF, especially in the the once very diverse and affordable Mission District. It priced out families who lived there for years. Now with the current wave, it's even worse. I dunno the effect on crime it has since I left there, but one thing is for certain, prostitution has been more enforced by arrests then when I lived in the Mission.

If the Tenderloin is gentrified, then it's all over.

 

[drummer]

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?

Lies About Compton

 

[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.

So white folks should move in and live in crappy housing? Wouldn't their presence and money change things if they interacted with the community sans the housing? Sounds to me a better "cause" would be income disparity not gentrification.

Again, I'm not saying we people shouldn't engage in gentrification, I'm explaining the other perspective I find most prevailing in my work.

 

[Henry Ford]

Except in the surrounding areas.

No one wants to say it but the tearing down and retransformation of the Lafitte project and the creation of the Greenway may have likely had more positive impact on the surrounding area. In my opinion, along with the growth radiating north out of Mid-City (note which I define as starting and radiating out of Carrollton @ Canal), they definitely did. Because that's what's happened elsewhere.

So for instance: St. Claude, lower Garden District, Claiborne/Louisiana, Bywater/Marigny, Treme, Black Pearl triangle, some parts along Tchoup and yes Mid City have all had gentrification, and many would say improvement, without any of the wholesale intervention and destruction we have seen in Tulane-Galvez.

The bio district itself has already had trouble finding tenants, the original management group fired its director, and the feds have threatened to pull $300 million in funding because surprise surprise the city and state movers of this thing falsely labelled the enterprise as being public in nature.

I'm also ceaselessly surprised how self-described liberals forget about the poor and renters who got shoved out while ignoring the fact that we have been without a public hospital since 2005, and the self-described conservatives just love love love some real good big government and property grab posing as property seizure when it suits them.

There could be a whole thread on a Louisiana board about charity hospital. There's already been a heck of a lawsuit.

 

[Joe Bryant]

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.

You are as nutty as the author. That is an absurd point. There are towns where police will warn white people not to go in because it is not safe for them.

Part of why this thread worked was that we didn't call each other "nutty". Please stop doing stuff like that. TIA.

J