I like this. I agree with it for the most part. I'm guilty of gentrification. Oh well. I guess I'm a white asshole.

My Urban Geography Professor had a discussion about this. Gentrification is a regularly most talked about topic at Cleveland State's College of Urban Affairs where i'm taking my classes at.

Oh well... sucks being poor, but developers don't owe folks anything just because they're poor/unemployed/underemployed. Go to school, don't do drugs, have a little good luck, etc. etc., then you'll be in a position to be the gentrifier rather than the gentrifiee. Gentrification is generally a good thing for all involved. Pumps money into the school system, usually means quality charter schools will start becoming available, eliminates crime and blight, more money for public safety personnel, etc. Some people probably do get displaced, but that's the risk you take when you rent.

And that's the other side of the argument.

I'm not even going to touch on the bolded...

As far as your last sentence, what about the home owners who are offered pennies to move out when large projects are being planned in their areas?

I really hope this is someone who hacked into Kevin's account and is being sarcastic, because if someone with advanced degrees is really thinking on this simplistic a level, it makes me frightened for our educational system.

The "charter schools" part is the most asinine of all.

The account's not hacked.

As for charter schools, the truth of that is going to vary from state to state as charter schools aren't really strong everywhere. Here, charter schools are generally excellent options. They've made OKC Public schools back into a viable option for parents who actually care about their children's education. What a charter school is varies from school to school, system to system, but as my wife teaches at one, I have a fair bit of knowledge about what they are, who goes there and how the schools perform. Given the right environment and faculty, these schools can be excellent.

And some things really are simple, cut and dry. There are haves and have nots in this society, merit has a lot to do with those who are/aren't, so does luck and circumstance, but facts are facts. Gentrification will present those of lower socioeconomic means with more opportunities. Some will be displaced, some will not.

As far as being offered pennies on the dollar for one's home, to take that deal, either you'd have to be the subject of an eminent domain taking or you'd have to be dumb enough to sell for less than your property's worth. In the first case, if you find that horribly objectionable, public sentiment is generally against it, change the law. Takings for private development are considered unconstitutional in Oklahoma (state Constitution), except in circumstances involving blight. In the second place, we still generally condone capitalism. I can't really condemn any sort of transaction between a willing buyer and a willing seller. Both are deriving some benefit from the transaction or it wouldn't be taking place. Finally, if one has allowed their property to fit the definition of blight, then I don't feel a whole lot of sympathy.

Kevin, there are people who live in East Liberty who have worked their asses off and suffered the ill effects of gentrification not once but twice. Why have they suffered? Because huge corporations that they can't possibly compete against are coming in and the city's sucking their dicks like it's their job. And don't ask me "where is East Liberty?" Use some of that time that the "luck" of your birth gave you and google it.

1. NO IT IS NOT!

2. Pumps money into the school system?? Really and it takes money from another to do so.

3. Eliminates crime and blight? NO! it moves crime and blight to places where crime and blight was NOT.

Unless you lived in a city that has gone through this within the last 30 to 40 years, or an expert urban planner, then I don't think you are too qualified to speak on this.

Again with the housing market being the way it is, a lot of gentrification projects have stalled and a lot of people are stuck in the middle, for some it's worked out and some others not quite so. You have people who planned on making money flipping houses in gentrified areas because they knew they could make a quick sale and now they are stuck with houses they can't sell or have to sell for less than what they invested in so please, dispense with this 'it works out for everyone" BS.


...and let's try not to make this another thread where it's all about "GC vs talking some sense into a brick wall (Kevin)" thread.

That's how I got my house! The guy who rehab'd my house made exactly $1000 for the two years he spent working on it! Sucks to be him...of course, once I bought the place, I could see at what point he figured out that he was screwed.:rolleyes: Foot prints through the stain on my stairs, handrails screwed into drywall only, doors that won't open...I could go on and on!

This is a technically false statement. The typical funding model for charters is that they are funded on a per-student basis from the district, then rely on grants and donations for the remainder of their budget. In many cases, the public school districts are given some of that money (i.e., a percentage of what would have gone to the school as the per-student amount) money as an administration fee to cover any of the incidental administrative costs associated with having kids in charter schools.

The public schools themselves loose nothing. They have fewer kids to teach, so yes, they have less money. You can't simply ignore the fact that the public schools are receiving less money because they have fewer kids to teach, thus lower costs. As if that's not even a factor.

And if the charter school is the better option, then why not offer hope to kids who otherwise would have had none? Look at the test scores. Here in Oklahoma, the same public schools have been at the bottom of the barrel, both before and after charter schools came into existence. Their scores really haven't moved significantly. Fortunately though, for the hundreds of kids whose parents have cared enough to provide transportation to a charter school (some kids ride the bus system which is horrible here), there was another choice. Many of those kids became the first in their family to graduate from high school, and just about all of them go to college and do well. They wouldn't have had that chance but for the charter schools. This isn't even debatable.

There will always be crime and blight. And if suddenly the real estate developers decide a place will be nice to develop, that crime and blight can be moved again. Like I said, developers, none of us owe people anything just because they're poor. It sucks being poor. It should suck being poor.

I practice eminent domain law, representing landowners against the government. Good enough? And gentrification is going on in the neighborhood my office is in. It's also going on in the neighborhood about 1/2 mile away from here. They got rid of a bunch of crack houses and really brought an old neighborhood back from the brink. There's a really nice strip of art galleries, a few high-end restaurants, a hipster-frequented pizza place, a great annual arts festival, lots of economic activity, lots of filled up rent houses and apartments, a really great vibe. Yeah, gentrification sucks.

So? Any investment involves risk. I lost money in the stock market when a small company I'd invested in had its CEO go south with a few million dollars. Do I deserve your pity as well?

1. The public schools themselves loose nothing. They have fewer kids to teach, so yes, they have less money. You can't simply ignore the fact that the public schools are receiving less money because they have fewer kids to teach, thus lower costs. As if that's not even a factor.


No...because in most places DC, PG County and Baltimore being 3 places, school systems are OVERCROWDED. I don't know if you have been keeping up but these places have hired teachers 2 or 3 years ago and are now firing some of these same teachers and forcing others to retire, so I am wondering where this money is being pumped in to keep these folks in jobs

2. There will always be crime and blight. And if suddenly the real estate developers decide a place will be nice to develop, that crime and blight can be moved again. Like I said, developers, none of us owe people anything just because they're poor. It sucks being poor. It should suck being poor.


You just contradicted yourself: Gentrification is generally a good thing for all involved... eliminates crime and blight. Let's go back to what I was talking about when I was referring to gentrification projects stalling. You take a nice area and have it siting borderline to an area that is scheduled to be gentrified. Chances are, crime will go UP. People who have 'nice things' are going to attract a criminal element so no son, you are not always going to 'eliminate crime'. Most people who live in these areas are not used to doing things to keeping themselves safe. Shoot, Kal Penn was just robbed in DC a few weeks ago at 1:30 am in an area that is still going through gentrification. How safe is the area you work in Kevin? How safe do you feel working at night (these are rhetorical BTW, so don't answer, I have an idea of what BS answer you are going to feed us)

3. They got rid of a bunch of crack houses and really brought an old neighborhood back from the brink. There's a really nice strip of art galleries, a few high-end restaurants, a hipster-frequented pizza place, a great annual arts festival, lots of economic activity, lots of filled up rent houses and apartments, a really great vibe. Yeah, gentrification sucks.


And this is what we are talking about, who lives in these areas now? It works for those planning on MOVING INTO these areas. And some of these people get hoodwinked into the belief that the area they are moving into will be built up quickly and that 'blight' they see across the street, around the corner will be quickly and guess what, 5 years from now some of them who were sold on that dream see it becoming a nightmare.

What about those that are already there? What about HOMEOWNERS who have lived there their entire lives and were forced out by those same so called landowners you represent?

4. So? Any investment involves risk. I lost money in the stock market when a small company I'd invested in had its CEO go south with a few million dollars. Do I deserve your pity as well?


Oh boo flippin' hoo Kevin, that was not the point. You tried to make this such a cut and dried subject about who well gentrification works so well for everybody and I was telling you how so wrong you are.


Gentrification is more than about race in DC

Resistance in Baltimore

Crime Wave in Atlanta


So, please dear sir, show me something where as you put it, gentrification works for everyone.

Like others have said, gentrification can be both good and bad, but let's not kid ourselves -- "crack houses" aren't the only places being torn down. Sometimes, areas that aren't desirable to a certain demographic are the ones being flipped. Sure, the areas may look nicer, but there is often history and tradition that's lost in the process.

Restaurants and hipster doofus pizza places (with below minimum wage jobs) do NOT = "bringing a neighborhood back from the brink." They = "places where the annoyingly trendy will go for a year or two until they get tired of them, then they'll fall into decay."

If you build a sandcastle, all it takes is one rain shower to ruin it.

Yep. See my post a page back about the old Polish ladies getting tossed out on their asses.

^^^ This.

Well, its' the city's only really hipster doofus pizza place, so it has a great niche. And the area is anything but a sand castle.

http://www.oklahomafilm.org/photos/O...0OKC%20036.jpg

The storefronts have been around since 1929 (which is a long time when you consider Oklahoma has only been a state since 1907). They hold some of OKC's best independent art galleries, and have since the gentrification really started in the mid to late 90s. There are some truly nice restaurants there, a hipster bar, a hipster pizza place, lots of events. It's a really neat area on my short list of places to bring out-of-towners to. Definitely unexpected in OKC.

This particular area was gentrified not really by the force of large corporations, or really any corporations. It was mainly property owners who got together and cooperated with the OKC Police to get rid of all the crime in the area. Citizens would constantly patrol the neighborhood with video cameras, calling the cops and turning over excellent video evidence. It didn't take long at all to clean the place up.

On the south side of 23rd street (which is an arterial street), sits Heritage Hills/Mesta Park, the city's original luxury addition where houses are named after the city fathers who used to reside there followed by the word "mansion." My office is on the southern border of that touching mid-town, an area which was once pretty bad, crime ridden, etc., but is mostly torn down and vacant due to a failed urban renewal effort in the late 70s, but recently, small developers have been doing very well in that area as well.

As far as schools, I can't speak for Baltimore Public Schools and their overcrowdedness. That's a city/state issue for those of you in Baltimore.

My experience is that gentrification has been great for my city, it's improved it in all aspects and charter schools here are excellent.

That may not be the case in Philadelphia or Baltimore.

That's not really gentrification or more to the point a poor example of it.

What is the demographic make up of people living there now vs 30 years ago?

And that is our point is that it may have been great for YOU...but that doesn't fly too well in larger, more diverse cities. Many places where this has occurred on the east coast the demographics changed drastically within 10 years. There are still many counties here in MD that are fighing against the exodus of low income people from the city to the surrounding areas and many that are trying to stay are barely hanging on. My mom had to sell 2 houses that she owned below what she paid for them because of this and the 'fun' part is although the places that bought them are trying to sell them back, they won't make any profit because the areas they are trying to sell them in isn't growing...so how is this working out for everyone?

heh.

Stick with what you know.

...here it comes...just watch...it's pulling in.

You beat me to it.

This is exactly what I was going to write, and what I posted earlier. It does not solve the issue of blighted neighborhoods. (there is a difference between a blighted neighborhood and a low income neighborhood.) All gentrification does is shift a finite amount of dollars from one area to another. When we start dealing with the issues that cause a neighborhood to become blighted then you can begin to have nice low income areas as well as strong middle to upper class neighborhoods.

We need to get back to where paying $400k (just a number doesn't apply to ever city) gives you what it used to give you....a big house and or an ample amount of land. A house/condo is too much of an investment to be stressing about changing demographics moving/leaving a certain area.

Especially when some of these city flighters are paying obscene amounts of money for a box in the city because "it's convenient to live!"

30 years ago, it was really bad. The city's main XXX theater was on the strip of 23rd street which bordered the Paseo area and Heritage Hills. There was such high crime that a local liquor store actually placed an armed guard in a tower toting some sort of machine gun looking device. Even when I was in high school, the place was pretty bad.

Since then it really has come up and gone from being truly blighted to being a really hip, classy, different sort of place. It's got a good nightlife, I wouldn't have a problem walking around at night (which wouldn't have been the case back then). The area is nice. Just north of there, we have a very substantial Vietnamese presence, so we have a ton of awesome pho restaurants and various and sundry businesses with Vietnamese names I couldn't even pronounce.

The area is probably a lot more diverse than it was 30 years ago, but it's diverse in a way that doesn't get people shot.

I just don't see how it could be bad for a city to increase its property tax take, get rid of a population which is a drain on public services and schools and generally improve everything.

Because of property taxes? Because she got a good price? Or because she was pretty sure her property was blighted and she was hedging against the risk of the city coming in and taking them anyhow?

let me ask this in a way that you will understand, what was the make up of people who live in this area now as opposed to what it was 30 years ago?

When it's taking a 'problem population' and shuffling it to another area without ever addressing the problem how does it solve the problem in the 1st place?

But of course, you being who you are, I expect for you not to get it.

This is the biggest problem that urban planners ignore. What to do with people who drain public sources? Move them elsewhere. Then in 30 years when people get sick of the cities and long for fresh air and countryside, it will start all over again....but because of urban sprawl, the end result may not be what it was 30 years ago.



'Good price'...that's funny.

Try because the area was so BLIGHTED as opposed to what it was 30 years ago, she barely got anything for it.


"Good Price".


You are a funny little dude.

Some of the long time residents stayed. The problem residents either went to prison or left. The residents of the neighborhood did what the residents of your mother's neighborhood might have done to stave off the effects of urban blight and save their own property values. Your property is an investment and there are lots of choices as to how to protect that investment. If the problem is blight and crime, you can either go with the flow and take the property value hit or you can do something about it. In the OKC case, the neighborhood partnered with law enforcement and took care of the problem. What did your mother do?

I really don't care what happens to that problem population. They bear the same risks in the real estate market as the rest of us, probably moreso if they rent, even moreso if they're at the mercy of Section 8 landlords.

I get it. You know where I stand on that.

Yep. I wouldn't let drains on society stand in the way of productive people living where they want and developers taking risks and making money improving blighted areas. I suppose when the wealthy are done with that area and the poor folks move back in, they'll at least have double paned windows and energy efficient air conditioners assuming no one steals the copper out of the condensers.

What urban sprawl? I don't see any city getting bigger, only more subdivisions. That is suburban sprawl.

White flight was wrong. I think gentrification will be good in the long run. I don't think historic neighborhoods should be torn down, and place-names should definitely be kept. But I don't think re-devolpement of urban areas should be halted just because poor people might have to move. Thtat's a pretty weak line of reasoning in my view.

Some cities (particularly, in the South) have plenty of space surrounding them. In the event that they don't, they sometimes take over some of the surrounding cities (IIRC, this happened in San Antonio and Houston).

And it's not necessarily just "dirt-poor" residents that are being displaced -- sometimes, it's "not-as-wealthy" people that are being moved.

To your first point...well if enough of the long time residents stayed and they were homeowners then NO it does not really count as that area gentrifying itself...more like a staving off of a bad element. They took care of a problem...it's not like the city uprooted a population and transplanted another in its place which what most of us are talking about.

to your second point...yes I know you don't care. And after many posts and threads, I know exactly where you stand which is why I can't wait til the day comes around when you find yourself on the opposite side and maybe then you will care (most people give a damn when it affects them but that's another thread) Folk like yourself that don't really have an issue on the side of the people being moved rarely if ever care. And you are still missing the point, it's not always Section 8 people that are in the crosshairs. You have people who are homeowners who have owned their homes for well over 40 or 50 years but because some greedy owner wants that property and the homeowner more than likely retired or living on a fixed income become easy prey so get that out of your mind that it's always a Section 8 problem.

And to your last point...that was really in poor taste...there are many times I wonder if you think before you post, showing what a heartless dick you are.


GCers, I'm done here, have at it...

And if they hadn't done that, one of two things would have definitely happened -- the area would have become irrevocably blighted and unlivable; or the urban renewal folks would have declared the area blighted and had the whole area condemned and replaced with condos.

The point was this -- sitting on your hands as a property owner for 40-50 years while watching a criminal element move in and take over, continuing to do nothing, when someone designates your property as blighted, it seems almost just to me. In my previous example, I told you about how a truly bad part of town, replete with gangs and drugs and such turned itself around without eminent domain, without blight, without big developers. Either way, gentrification improves the city, improves the tax base and is a positive force as far as development. Sure, some developments don't pan out, but that's business and that's development and for the little guy, that's life in the big city.

I won't ever be on the other side. No matter how much you wish and pray for bad things to happen to me, I'll keep that from happening. Not to worry.

Depends on the protections your state has for homeowners. If the property is blighted, yeah, I agree, they're going to lose the house. Some states still give property owners some pretty good remedies in these situations -- Oklahoma does, and I do that sort of work sometimes.

Also, as I said, property owners bear some of the responsibility of blight. As I said before, I've witnessed a neighborhood come together in cooperation with the police to eradicate the criminal element from their area. It can be done, it just takes some bravery and some willingness to work with law enforcement.

Or they can do as your mother did... nothing... just wait for the inevitable to happen and the government being put into a position of either continuing to tolerate a part of the city which has gone straight to hell or declare it blighted and fix it. Given the choice between blight, crime and decay and a Whole Foods and $400K lofts, I'm pretty sure most cities will choose the later every time.

Consider the alternative: are we going to give cash to folks to fix up the area which they've already allowed by their own action or inaction to become blighted? No, that'd be dumb. Besides, why should anyone (other than AIG) get free money for making bad choices? Would it be a good idea to let the area get worse? Probably not. Gentrification is really the only option a city has if it wants things to get better.

Yeah, I forgot, your daddy will protect you.

Hold on tight to his skirts, his money will keep you warm.

Gosh you have no clues...none.

I can't waste anymore time with you.

Yeah but, in Virginia at least, it's a moot point. Cities aren't allowed to expand by law. They be reshaped, I think, but they have to stay the same size. They can't grow.

But leaving blight where it is doesn't solve the issue of blight either. So why not move it?

Virginia isn't really representative of many states, though.

And moving the issue around will work until another shift occurs. The goal should be getting to the root cause.

I think some people are forgetting that gentrification doesn't ALWAYS occur around "slums" or "hoods" -- sometimes, "not as wealthy" places are chosen as the "new urban meccas."

For some reason, these threads always end up with you bashing me personally for whatever reason. As if my excellent financial security, good job, great wife, nice yard, meager trust fund, well behaved dog, etc. have a damn thing to do with anything here.

Tell me this, o relative of a victim of gentrification, what did your mother do to help stave off the criminal element in her neighborhood? No doubt she raised good kids, , but aside from that, Anything?

What have you done?

You did nothing, then blamed the development companies for taking advantage of a strong demand for urban housing and depressed property values... As if you couldn't or shouldn't have seen that coming thirty years ago.

I guess it boils down to this -- the same folks who you apparently think of as victims are folks I think are deserving of their situations. They should have fought the conditions which led to the blight or they should have moved out before their property values were dramatically affected. That's the reality of "white flight," a nasty term which is easier to say than "middle class exodus" or "non-criminals not wishing to live near criminals." In most cases, you're talking about homeowners who in retrospect have made excellent decisions to get out while the gettin' was good.

You. have. no. clue.

You have no idea what my people went through trying to maintain a property in that area that Johns Hopkins was all too happy to buy up.

You need to stay in your lane on this because you don't have any idea at all how things work in Baltimore and larger cities in general, about how Baltimore is ill prepared in handling criminal elements and moreso how they play the shell game with people.


I laugh at you hollering about "well, common citizens should band together to fight crime...that'll fix it."

Yes people SHOULD but for more than painfully obvious reasons (one being police ineptitude along with apathy and the other being FEAR of the criminal element) regular citizens don't have the luxury of expecting the police to help.

Why do I keep fucking with you? Because you are clueless. And you are content to live in your blindness because as you say "It will never happen."

And yes, I wish for bad things to happen to you because maybe it will open your eyes to show you that LIFE isn't as cut and dry as you make it especially when you get to benefit off of someone else's work to see to your blindness.

As they say, pride comes before the fall

I guess these people should have moved too huh?

Yeah, I don't think people realize that Hopkins owns half of Baltimore City and when they want to expand they just move more people out.

Until those people are willing to assist law enforcement in dealing with the criminal element within, they'll continue to be part of that shell game. They can deal with it or move. It's their choice.

I've seen it work. And you mischaracterize. I said cooperate with law enforcement to report on, provide evidence and eliminate crime. In other words, the "snitches get stitches" crowd is no longer tolerated, parents don't raise their kids to not trust or cooperate with law enforcement, cultural change. Unless that happens, "your people" deserve whatever they get.

Ah, 'cuz I don't come from the mean streets of an east coast city, I'm incapable of forming an opinion? Or at least forming an opinion which differs from yours, which is the only correct take on the subject?

Life IS as cut and dry as that. Folks reap what they sow, and if they sow crime and blight, or at least they do nothing and watch the world around them go to hell, then that's what they get to reap. That's justice.

No, that proves how pathetic and cowardly the people of that neighborhood are. Only ONE family stood up to the drug dealers? Please. It's going to take a hell of a lot more than that -- especially if the police are as inept as you say. Hell, why would anyone want to even live there near neighbors who just don't give two shits about drug dealers conducting business openly? If that's acceptable, I think I can understand why a company would want to move everyone out in order to redevelop and why the city would do everything in its power to make that happen.

I'm a member of my HOA, I attend quarterly meetings, we have a neighborhood watch, we've taken measures to make it inconvenient for the nearby Section 8ers to access our neighborhood by building high fences around ourselves, we don't allow broken down cars, overgrown lawns, loud noise, or any of that. It's not tolerated.

I was referring to what i've seen in Detroit. The new high priced residencies are all downtown and had not existed just a few years ago, while the houses* are all in the neighborhoods. There was never really any housing in downtown Detroit other than a few high rises which where pricey as hell to begin with. No one is trying to fix up the neighborhoods in the D other than a few which have always been well to do to begin with. The thing about Detroit is that the resurgence is mostly professional blacks that are moving into these properties.

I'm all for it, the one thing that city needs the most is a tax base.

* the average value of a house in Detroit is about $40,000

Wow...so you have all the answers huh?

Your opinions are correct hmmm?

Why don't you try moving out of that comfort zone of yours and see if those answers are so cut and dry as it seems somewhere else and I guarantee you they are not.

I am laughing at the fact also that you 'jailed' yourself in to keep out "Section 8ers"....I wonder if that's the only problem people you are worried about. Funnier still is that mine isn't and we have no issue with "Section 8ers" or anyone else in our neighborhood.

Get back to me in about 5 years and let me know how that's working out for you, 'smart guy'.

I don't think the problem is with subsidized housing entirely. There are places where they will have like one project and then the rest of it is a regular neighborhood. When they put them right on top of each other is when it's almost destined to become a ghetto.

Also, saying that "we should focus on ending blight altogether" or anything of the like is an utopian appeal at best. Should blight be eliminated? Yes. Should re-devolopment an re-urbanization take a back seat to that? No. Not at all, in my opinion.

This is the most redundant thread in a while.

We know both sides of the debate but, all jokes aside, such debates are so typical and common that I don't understand DaemonSeid's frustration and cyber-emotion. LOL

I heard the whistle blowing back on page 2. That was my cue to stop reading and look at the length of posts instead. When they hit novel proportions, this sucker derailed.