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.