What's Wrong With Gentrification? (The Displacement Myth)

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

Wrong.

Differences:

1. Source of funds:

Public housing--tax money, federal grants
"Affordable housing"--development fees, bond proceeds, funds raised by non-profit charities

2. Whose eligible (target resident):

Public housing--the very poor, welfare recipients, seniors living on Social Security
"Affordable housing"--lower middle (reaching into the "middle middle") class, nearly all employed; "many affordable rental units serve households earning up to 60% AMI (Area Median Income). This translates into $40,650 for a single person, and $58,100 for a four-person household." (Source: http://www.sfraaffordablehousing.org/ )

3. Rental/for sale

Public housing--always rental
"Affordable housing"--both, some for rent, some for sale

4. Development

Public housing--built/managed by a city-run housing agency
"Affordable housing"--built/managed by private non-profit developers

I think we're not understanding each other. None of this is entirely true or relevant to my main point.

Affordable housing, by definition, is housing costing no more than 30% of Area Median Income. It doesn't matter who provides it; it's still considered affordable housing if it meets this requirement.

My point is that there is no "magic receipe" for successful provision of affordable housing through the private sector, rather than through public authorities. Public housing is not inherently "worse" than private options, such as inclusionary housing.

And really none of your points are entirely true, at least not in the agencies I am familiar with.

1. Public housing receives govt. subsidies, as do private-market inclusionary housing developments.

HPD and HDC, the two main inclusionary housing developers in NYC, use a combination of sources, including, yes, developer $$$ and tax credits, but also direct subsidies from federal, state and city sources.

2. Public housing is NOT only for the poor, at least not in NYC. There is no income limit to live in public housing, and there are plenty of middle class in public housing (in fact 50% of units, by law, must be rented to households with at least one full-time salaried resident with a working class minimum income level. This is called the "Working Families Requirement", and was instituted to ensure income mixing).

3. Public housing can be for sale. There are moderate income housing co-ops managed by public housing authorities.

4. Affordable housing is not necessarily built or managed by the private sector. In most cases in the U.S. it is, but this is only because most U.S. cities public housing has become a dirty word.

And public housing has a huge private component nowadays. Dozens of public housing developments in NYC have plans for on-site private sector middle-income housing. The sites were built in the Corbusian-style, and usually have excess land that is now being long-term leased to the private sector to raise revenue for the agency.

[fflint]

Looks like SF and NYC are vastly different in this context, so neither should be projected as universal. "Public housing is..." would appear to be a sweeping generalization at this point.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I doubt it. Gangs exist because of the desire of young men to find acceptance in a group, display their physical power over others, and of course, get money and sex.

Legalizing drugs would not remove these biological desires from the hearts of potential bangers. They'd find some other racket - protection/extortion, gambling, outright theft, prostitution... the Mafia's been there before, so there are plenty of illegal activities that generate money besides drug-selling. Eliminating the concentration of poverty would be far more effective than legalizing drugs.

I'm having a hard time drawing the same conclusion that you are from what you have typed.

It is true that gangsters would move into different forms of wealth generating behaviours if pressed. But there needs to be a market for it. And I'm not sure that there are enough other black markets out there to compensate for the loss of the illegal drug industry.

I have a hard time figuring out how gangs aren't dealt a blow with the legalization of drugs. Obviously, gangs will always exist, but at what capacity and to what power? I don't know.

[Policy Wonk]

Oh yeah, a world with legal meth, crack and heroin sounds like a great place. That would empty out a city faster than the Detroit riots.

And in Europe where drug laws are much more permissive gangs thrive on the sex trade and trafficking women for the sex trade.

[Krases]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Oh yeah, a world with legal meth, crack and heroin sounds like a great place. That would empty out a city faster than the Detroit riots.

And in Europe where drug laws are much more permissive gangs thrive on the sex trade and trafficking women for the sex trade.

There is a big push to legalize prostitution in Las Vegas specifically for that reason. It is taxed and regulated the next county over with mandatory STD testing for all the women of the night, but because Vegas grew to more than 50k people, it was made illegal.

Didn't Portugal legalize even hardcore drugs? I thought their drug use is way down because of legalization. It's kinda like smoking really. If you outlaw it, you make a ton of people criminals, but if you heavily tax and regulate it, society may reject it on it's own like in the United States.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Oh yeah, a world with legal meth, crack and heroin sounds like a great place. That would empty out a city faster than the Detroit riots.

All those drugs are illegal TODAY (and have been for decades), and what has been the end result? Last time I checked, people are still doing them. Lots of people. In fact, more people than even before they were illegal. The only difference is we are spending hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to stop something that cannot logically BE stopped. Humans are a pleasure seeking species. And since the beginning to time, and until the end of it, they will seek out and take substances that make them feel good. So we can make a choice: either accept that simple biological fact and let grown adults make choices for themselves in a federally regulated and taxed market (and use the budget surplus to fund rehab programs for those who wish to quit); or we can hand that market over to illicit street gangs who will police it for themselves through the use of violence to control territory, destroying neighborhoods in the process. You tell me: which scenario would you prefer? If someone breaks a law while high, well, then prosecute them with that crime. But criminalizing the simple act of possessing and ingesting a naturally occurring substance is beyond asinine, its an infringement upon personal liberty. And we have seen very clearly what this "war" has done to our cities. By all accounts, that experiment has failed miserably.

[Policy Wonk]

There is something to be said for pushing certain activities out of sight and normalizing destructive behaviour never helps anyone.

And the idea that some how taxing what are presently illegal drugs is going to work is ridiculous. Look at cigarettes - smuggling to avoid tobacco taxes is huge business for criminals. As would be evading taxes on any legalized drugs.

[vid]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Look at cigarettes - smuggling to avoid tobacco taxes is huge business for criminals.

And it would be even bigger if tobacco was illegal. Over 2 million cigarettes have been seized in Thunder Bay this year alone. If tobacco was illegal, the number would certainly be ten times that amount.

[Via Chicago]

There is something to be said for pushing certain activities out of sight and normalizing destructive behaviour never helps anyone.

Pushing it out of sight is one thing. Criminalizing it is

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

And the idea that some how taxing what are presently illegal drugs is going to work is ridiculous. Look at cigarettes - smuggling to avoid tobacco taxes is huge business for criminals. As would be evading taxes on any legalized drugs.

What is your defition of "big"? As vidilicious stated, its not as big as it would be if it were prohibited...in this case, comparatively its a small segement of the overall market. You dont still see people running around shooting up neighborhoods bootlegging booze, do you? I dont see them doing that with cigarettes either. Once corner drug dealers start peddling those items, perhaps you'll have a point. But by and large, you are talking about tax evasion, which is not the violent crime which surrounds virtually all prohibited drugs. Ill take that scenario any day of the week over what we've got on our hands now.