• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gentrification question.

Gentrification?


  • Total voters
    16

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
32,334
Reaction score
22,558
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Gentrification seems to be something of a controversial issue these days. On balance, do you think that gentrification is a good thing or a bad thing?
 
Gentrification seems to be something of a controversial issue these days. On balance, do you think that gentrification is a good thing or a bad thing?

What's the argument against it, exactly? The examples of gentrification I've personally witnessed have seen horrible, crime-ridden neighborhoods transformed into safe, habitable ones.
 
What's the argument against it, exactly? The examples of gentrification I've personally witnessed have seen horrible, crime-ridden neighborhoods transformed into safe, habitable ones.

I agree. However, the argument against it is that it prices the poor and middle class out of urban working class neighborhoods.
 
Gentrification seems to be something of a controversial issue these days. On balance, do you think that gentrification is a good thing or a bad thing?

I would think that this is something that Detroit would love to see.
 
I agree. However, the argument against it is that it prices the poor and middle class out of urban working class neighborhoods.

Again, what I've seen deals specifically with neighborhoods that are the equivalent of demilitarized zones, although in all fairness there is another aspect to it:

1. Awful, crime-ridden neighborhood, cop cars and police helicopters are a common feature of the area
2. Artists move in for that cheap, large studio space.
3. In time, artists make the location hip.
4. Nicer restaurants and stores move in to cater to that crowd.
5. Rich investors, now attracted to the area, build expensive apartment complexes, stores, boutiques.
6. Artists are driven out and the cycle continues.

But if the neighborhood is simply poor, and isn't necessarily marked by boarded up windows and crack houses, then it's kind of sad for those people to be pushed out for the crime of not being rich.
 
Again, what I've seen deals specifically with neighborhoods that are the equivalent of demilitarized zones, although in all fairness there is another aspect to it:

1. Awful, crime-ridden neighborhood, cop cars and police helicopters are a common feature of the area
2. Artists move in for that cheap, large studio space.
3. In time, artists make the location hip.
4. Nicer restaurants and stores move in to cater to that crowd.
5. Rich investors, now attracted to the area, build expensive apartment complexes, stores, boutiques.
6. Artists are driven out and the cycle continues.

That is generally how it goes. I still think its a net positive overall.
 
6. Artists are driven out and the cycle continues.
I agree. However, the argument against it is that it prices the poor and middle class out of urban working class neighborhoods.
Excellent thing. Sooner-the-better.
Gran who's owned the home since 1964, suddenly sees her home's property value triple because of its location and suddenly she's looking at paying double the property taxes on a limited income.

Eventually forcing her to lose her home.
 
Gran who's owned the home since 1964, suddenly sees her home's property value triple because of its location and suddenly she's looking at paying double the property taxes on a limited income.

Eventually forcing her to lose her home.

See my edit as well.
 
Just depends. A lot of these houses used to be high-end houses that fell into disfavor and disrepair so it isn't like poor people built brownstones to begin with
 
Gran who's owned the home since 1964, suddenly sees her home's property value triple because of its location and suddenly she's looking at paying double the property taxes on a limited income.

Eventually forcing her to lose her home.

Right, that's the problem with it. Then again, that is why I have always preferred income taxes to sales and property taxes. If a state gets its revenue from income taxes, then Grandma pays taxes while she is working, then when she is on a limited income and of limited means, she doesn't have to pay much in taxes. Property taxes work the exact opposite way.

Then again, if Grandma's house increases a lot in value due to gentrification of where she lives, she can always sell it and use the money to move to Florida.
 
Right, that's the problem with it. Then again, that is why I have always preferred income taxes to sales and property taxes. If a state gets its revenue from income taxes, then Grandma pays taxes while she is working, then when she is on a limited income and of limited means, she doesn't have to pay much in taxes. Property taxes work the exact opposite way.

Then again, if Grandma's house increases a lot in value due to gentrification of where she lives, she can always sell it and use the money to move to Florida.

The issue of property taxes brings out the libertarian in me. I can wrap my head around taxing monetary exchanges where a profit is made, but taxing something (a house) that isn't generating income in and of itself sounds too much like paying rent for a house you technically own. If nothing else the taxes on it should be on a massive sliding scale like with estate taxes, otherwise as in this discussion people are being pushed out solely for the crime of being poor.
 
Right, that's the problem with it. Then again, that is why I have always preferred income taxes to sales and property taxes. If a state gets its revenue from income taxes, then Grandma pays taxes while she is working, then when she is on a limited income and of limited means, she doesn't have to pay much in taxes. Property taxes work the exact opposite way.

Then again, if Grandma's house increases a lot in value due to gentrification of where she lives, she can always sell it and use the money to move to Florida.
Yeah, that's not going to change in our lifetime - our education system is built on property taxes. Changing that would be changing our country's budgetary operations on every level, and would require moving a political mountain with a bulldozer.

But yes, that's the issue. Longtime homeowners have been in these neighborhoods for their entire lives. Their community is there, they may own a business there or want their kids to go to a certain school. It's their home. Then suddenly it's the "hip" new place and they see their cost of living hit the ceiling and they suddenly can't live in their home anymore. EG,

Cities Mobilize to Help Those Threatened by Gentrification

The initiatives, planned or underway in Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, Pittsburgh and other cities, are centered on reducing or freezing property taxes for such homeowners in an effort to promote neighborhood stability, preserve character and provide a dividend of sorts to those who have stayed through years of high crime, population loss and declining property values, officials say.

...

Jacy Webster applied for a cap on his property taxes after the value of his home in Philadelphia quintupled amid a flurry of new construction.

Rene Goodwin, seen here, saw the value of her home rise to $281,000 from $90,000 in a single year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/04/us/cities-helping-residents-resist-the-new-gentry.html
 
Yeah, that's not going to change in our lifetime - our education system is built on property taxes. Changing that would be changing our country's budgetary operations on every level, and would require moving a political mountain with a bulldozer.

Dammit, I forgot about the property taxes and education part. I've always believed that all schools should be Federally funded rather than the quality of a school being tied to the wealth of its community. I ****ing hate property taxes -- they are the main culprit here.

But yes, that's the issue. Longtime homeowners have been in these neighborhoods for their entire lives. Their community is there, they may own a business there or want their kids to go to a certain school. It's their home. Then suddenly it's the "hip" new place and they see their cost of living hit the ceiling and they suddenly can't live in their home anymore. EG,

Well don't blame artists. Downtrodden warehouse and factory districts are pretty much the only way artists are going to afford large, decent studio space.
 
Excellent thing. Sooner-the-better.

Being in Chicago, you are probably of the mindset that this has to do with urban revitalization alone. There are other aspects to it. I am more concerned about Rural Gentrification. Renovating a street of old Victorians that have been divided into low rent apartments is fine and dandy. In my area, there are other aspects such as developers driving up tax values of farms making it harder to keep a farm a farm because someone built a bunch of 5K+ square foot homes in the area, or weekend vacation cabins on the mountain, or because the one who did then try to disrupt farms because they can smell the cow manure when they are entertaining on their patios. There are also people who buy up these farms speculatively and put restrictions and covenants on them that limit their use even though they do not actually develop the land and just hope that will cause a developer to pay them more for the land. It is far more complex an issue on the fringes of urban areas than in Old Town type areas.
 
We see some of this in Houston, but the elderly stay, property taxes are frozen
at age 65, and I don't remember the county forcing any senior out of their house for,
for non payment, (they just put a lean on the property, and collect from their estate)
The below 65 poor, do have a problem, as they can no longer afford ether the taxes or the rent.
 
We see some of this in Houston, but the elderly stay, property taxes are frozen
at age 65, and I don't remember the county forcing any senior out of their house for,
for non payment, (they just put a lean on the property, and collect from their estate)
The below 65 poor, do have a problem, as they can no longer afford ether the taxes or the rent.

My wife is from Houston. That city has to lead the world in people buying up an old Cape Cod, tearing it down, and building the absolute biggest house you could possibly fit on the property.
 
We see some of this in Houston, but the elderly stay, property taxes are frozen
at age 65, and I don't remember the county forcing any senior out of their house for,
for non payment, (they just put a lean on the property, and collect from their estate)
The below 65 poor, do have a problem, as they can no longer afford ether the taxes or the rent.

My city is militant about tax collection on real estate. You do not have to be very long delinquent by very much before your $500 unpaid property tax bill becomes a $5500 bill with penalties and legal fees. Seniors on limited incomes can get tax relief though, among others.
 
Gentrification seems to be something of a controversial issue these days. On balance, do you think that gentrification is a good thing or a bad thing?

It is good for the neighborhood and those who can continue to afford to live there, not so good for those who no longer can afford to live there. It is a thing, and like most things has it's good and bad aspects.
 
But if the neighborhood is simply poor, and isn't necessarily marked by boarded up windows and crack houses, then it's kind of sad for those people to be pushed out for the crime of not being rich.

More often than not, this is what happens. It would be much better if neighborhoods could be built up without making them too expensive to remain in. Personally, I'd like my neighborhood to take its time gentrifying. The rents are getting a little high.
 
More often than not, this is what happens. It would be much better if neighborhoods could be built up without making them too expensive to remain in. Personally, I'd like my neighborhood to take its time gentrifying. The rents are getting a little high.

It is a tradeoff. There are rightfully limits to what we can do regarding other people's use of their property.
 
Gentrification seems to be something of a controversial issue these days. On balance, do you think that gentrification is a good thing or a bad thing?

I am a hypocrit:

Usually I think it is a bad thing. But.... my neighborhood is being gentrified, thus raising the property value of my house. I love seeing all the expensive renovations going on around me. Fortuntaly, the neighborhood is mostly elderly, so nobody is being displaced.
 
Whatever the free market says (within the law).

So long as the government provides shelter to those that need it, rip the slums to bits and build whatever the market will bare.


Btw, in my opinion, there is a market for tiny (sub 300 sq. ft. for one person, for example), basic, clean, safe apartments with very simple fixtures and finishes. Apartments so small and cheap per square foot to construct and maintain (though functional) that building them and renting them out at a cheap price is economically profitable without government assistance.
I see that as a future area of development in America.
 
Last edited:
"On balance I think that gentrification is a good thing"... but it also depends on who (perhaps plural) is behind the process.

The reason I say that and that way is gentrification once in process can cause a neighborhood to look more appealing and increase property values but there is a chance it will effect unemployment rate in a given area. Why those areas are targeted for this is obvious, usually going after the abandoned and boarded up properties where things look not kept, not cared for, and generally an attraction for crime. Another potential benefit, crime reduction in a given area. Usually one or more developments can turn a small urban area around in short order. This also works well turning existing zoned residential areas or business areas into mixed use communities. Think the San Francisco, Atlanta, and Miami model.

But there is a consequence, property values rising quickly in a given area could push out whomever is left living in the area prior to development. Property values equates to property taxes and not everyone in the area may be ready or capable of handling an increase in that tax liability. Thus it could create a domino effect of pushing out existing neighbors around the gentrification developments / re-developments. There is a reason that gentrification efforts tend to be linked to urban professional (or artist) white populations that end up pushing out minorities in favor of the finished product well out of the prior price range. That is not always the case but is a real risk when doing so in changing the mix in a given community. That has potential political ramifications as well. Who is behind the process could mean something to whom ends up having to leave over this.

So from my chair it all comes down to who is doing this. Private development for something like this usually has to go before zoning, so there is at least some notification of what is happening and why. A place for opposition to voice their concerns. Where I would draw a line is in private development appealing to government to "help" get existing residents out of the way. That would sound too close to government seizing property (or at least pressure and influence working against existing residents.) Assuming that is not the case then gentrification benefits tend to outweigh the consequences.
 
Back
Top Bottom