Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyguy_7
^Pathetic. I'll always remember the moment I found out what Gentrification meant. My brain exploded and mouth joined in with a collective what.the.f*ck? So you mean to tell me an increase in hard-working, successful, well-rounded people followed by an influx of various businesses to a shoddy neighborhood can be viewed as a bad thing? Yougottabekiddingme.
|
I think language here is part of the problem. Calling a neighborhood "shoddy," when often the ones that get gentrified first are fully functional areas that simply are economically structured to best serve lower-income residents is dismissive and patronizing and insulting. It's like making fun of a guy's 12-year-old Honda that works and he can afford because it's not a BMW - it's just kind of an a-hole thing to do.
I'll go on the record as saying that I completely support gentrification - I see it as a necessary part of the life cycle of cities. However, I also readily acknowledge that it does create problems and/or challenges to existing residents who are often least able to deal with those problems without significant disruption to their lives.
How, as a city (and society at large) deals with those challenges can have lasting impacts on the long-term health of a city and a culture. In the bigger picture, having strong social safety nets actually helps protect the free market despite the higher tax cost because it mitigates and/or prevents a negative cascade of impacts from hurting people unintentionally impacted by economic swings that happen faster than generational timeframes. That's where the biggest problems happen, when economic changes happen faster than employment life timeframes. Gentrification isn't the only example - automation in the automobile industry and in the steel industry are other examples. You had strong middle classes built on industries that changed enormously in a short period of time, creating a pool of displaced workers larger than could be retrained and repurposed in a timeframe that didn't cause individuals a lot of hardship. Simply saying that individuals make choices and need to be aware of the winds of economic change isn't good for the long-term health of a culture because it causes a reduction in risk and exacerbates the impact of failure for those who do takes risks. Taking risk is a necessary part of economics, but allowing individuals and families to suffer catastrophic consequences to rational risks gone bad doesn't benefit anyone. It obviously hurts the individuals, but it also means that those individuals will be less able to fully contribute to the economy because they'll be reduced to a survival mode that can be tough to break free of.
It's in everyone's best interest to have as many people as possible able to contribute their best work as long as possible. Things like current-occupant rent control and property tax increase limits can be part of the solution. I think where rent control goes wrong is when it's permanent, and when the allowed rate of increase is irrationally low - something like allowing rent to increase at twice the rate of inflation and only apply to the current resident of a unit would allow the market to progress in an area while still allowing current residents a more gradual absorption of the change. Having semi-public senior housing in all areas would also help mitigate the impact to people who have lived their entire lives in an area and wish to stay. In that case seniors might still get priced out of their specific home, but would be offered reasonable accommodations at a fixed cost in the area they have spent most of their lives in.
The goal can't be to eliminate all negative impacts for existing residents, nor can it be to eliminate all burden for those driving gentrification, and like most negotiation the middle ground should balance benefit and cost across both groups. Seniors might have to move from their apartment to a senior living facility at a reasonable price, but in return they get better public safety and more businesses and services in the area. Gentrification drivers end up either having to work a little harder to find a place that can really pop in value, or they can live with a slightly lower rate of appreciation, but they will see less political resistance to their influx and some of the original flavor and economic diversity that makes cities interesting will last longer.
Prev
But yea, the immigrants could always go to Lawndale or Garfield Park. I'd welcome them fixing up those areas. I hope that Garfield Park gets gentrified since that park and the conservatory are so amazing. Oh, to be able to have a greystone house across from Garfield Park, and have it be a safe area.
Linear Mode
