• 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 and the Democrats

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Is gentrification really a political problem for Democrats? Does it carry a risk of dividing their coalition? If so, how might they address the problem?

The Democrats' Gentrification Problem
Thomas Edsall, New York Times

The nation’s largest cities and metropolitan areas — home to a majority of Democratic voters — are at the forefront of the party’s most vexing racial, ethnic and class conflicts.
Last week, in an essay for CityLab, Richard Florida, a professor of urban planning at the University of Toronto, described how housing costs are driving the growing division between upwardly and downwardly mobile populations within Democratic ranks:
The rise in housing inequality brings us face to face with a central paradox of today’s increasingly urbanized form of capitalism. The clustering of talent, industry, investment, and other economic assets in small parts of cities and metropolitan areas is at once the main engine of economic growth and the biggest driver of inequality. The ability to buy and own housing, much more than income or any other source of wealth, is a significant factor in the growing divides between the economy’s winners and losers.
Allies on Election Day, the two wings of the Democratic Party are growing further estranged in other aspects of their lives, driven apart by the movement of advantaged and disadvantaged populations within and between cities. These demographic patterns exacerbate intraparty tensions. . . . .
 
I have never understood the hostility to gentrification. Redeveloping blighted urban areas is a good thing. To do so, you need higher income professionals to move into those areas. When those professionals move in, and the resulting investments occur in the blighted area that improves it, property values go up. That is just basic economics. So basically, the choice is either:

A. You redevelop blighted areas by attracting higher income professionals to those areas.

Or.

B. Those blighted high crime areas remain blighted high crime areas.

As to its impact on the Democratic Party. People that live in urban areas vote Democrat. People that move into diverse urban neighborhoods vote Democrat. The kind of people that like living in diverse neighborhoods don't vote Republican. In fact if anything it helps the Democrats because professionals that like living in diverse neighborhoods are more reliable votes than lower income residents of those neighborhoods that are at times priced out of the neighborhood after it redevelops.

The answer is not to fight gentrification. The answer is to promote economic policies that drive up wages for the residents of those areas and to build more affordable housing in areas they can afford to live in. There are a lot of people with kids in a blighted neighborhood that would love to move to an inner ring suburb for better schools if only they could afford the housing there. This is one thing that a state like Texas largely gets right. For example, as areas in Houston have gentrified and as a result gotten very expensive, there has still been plenty of affordable housing built in the suburbs and thus those priced out of inner city neighborhoods there have good, safe, communities, with good schools that they can afford.
 
Is gentrification really a political problem for Democrats?

Gentrification is not political, tho it may have political ramifications. It is about economics, rebirth of neighborhood real property values, often spurred by lower real property costs. There will always be those that earn and have, and those who earn more and have more. Nothing is to be gained by whining about the latter. Of course, some professor who does nothing will whine as he sits back in his expensive desk chair, with his expensive computer on his desk, wearing his tweed sport jacket and drinking a latte.

My daishikis have been hanging in my closet for 40 years. They didn't really help me look ethnic. My Guayabera shirts get a lot of use come summer. Very comfortable in the heat. The look good with my plaid Bermuda shorts and black knee socks with sandals. :)
 
Is gentrification really a political problem for Democrats? Does it carry a risk of dividing their coalition? If so, how might they address the problem?

The Democrats' Gentrification Problem
Thomas Edsall, New York Times

The nation’s largest cities and metropolitan areas — home to a majority of Democratic voters — are at the forefront of the party’s most vexing racial, ethnic and class conflicts.
Last week, in an essay for CityLab, Richard Florida, a professor of urban planning at the University of Toronto, described how housing costs are driving the growing division between upwardly and downwardly mobile populations within Democratic ranks:
The rise in housing inequality brings us face to face with a central paradox of today’s increasingly urbanized form of capitalism. The clustering of talent, industry, investment, and other economic assets in small parts of cities and metropolitan areas is at once the main engine of economic growth and the biggest driver of inequality. The ability to buy and own housing, much more than income or any other source of wealth, is a significant factor in the growing divides between the economy’s winners and losers.
Allies on Election Day, the two wings of the Democratic Party are growing further estranged in other aspects of their lives, driven apart by the movement of advantaged and disadvantaged populations within and between cities. These demographic patterns exacerbate intraparty tensions. . . . .


Of course not. First of all, in my opinion, gentrification is one of the biggest non-issues there is. But let us say for the sake of argument that I was to grant the idea that private investors coming into old, crime-ridden, poverty-stricken decaying neighborhoods, investing in their renovation, and making them places that are desirable to live and thereby driving up demand and raising prices was some kind of grand social problem that needs fixing. This isn't going to stop Democratic Voters from voting Democrat or switching their vote to Republican, unless the Republicans can clearly get the message out there that they were going to cure the housing crisis. And the only way to cure it and lower the price of housing is the same way the price is lowered for any good for which there is high demand: increasing the supply. In this case, if politicians of either party want to lower to the prices of housing in New York, more dwellings (homes, apartments, etc.) need to be constructed.

But that is neither here nor there. The point is, Democratic voters are not going to suddenly stop voting Democratic, whatever their reservations about their party. The only danger that I could possibly foresee for the Democrats is if the Democrats start taking their constituents' votes for granted, like they did in 2016.
 
Last edited:
Is gentrification really a political problem for Democrats?

I don't think it is because Democrats far more so than Republicans are trying to help fix the problem. While the cost of living can be very high in major cities it is Democrats who are raising minimum wages and trying to eliminate some of the burdensome costs that so many inner city urbanites bear like health care.

The problem isn't the civic improvement it's the fact that African Americans aren't seeing the benefits of it, and that is almost exclusively the Republican parties fault.
 
I don't think it is because Democrats far more so than Republicans are trying to help fix the problem. While the cost of living can be very high in major cities it is Democrats who are raising minimum wages and trying to eliminate some of the burdensome costs that so many inner city urbanites bear like health care.

The problem isn't the civic improvement it's the fact that African Americans aren't seeing the benefits of it, and that is almost exclusively the Republican parties fault.

The problem with making such a throwaway statement is that these cities are almost entirely Democrat-run in states that are largely run by Democrats (i.e., California and New York). Whatever the causes for it, to blame Republicans for housing shortages and increased property costs is utterly inane. And even if I were to grant that it was somehow Republicans fault that people in Democrat-run cities in Democrat-run states have high costs of living, THE DEMOCRATS ARE STILL IN CHARGE AND HAVE THE POWER TO CHANGE THINGS. And if the Democrats do not change anything after years of running the show at the city and state level, can you not concede that it is on them at that point? Or will Republicans always be at fault no matter what the circumstances?
 
I have never understood the hostility to gentrification. Redeveloping blighted urban areas is a good thing. To do so, you need higher income professionals to move into those areas. When those professionals move in, and the resulting investments occur in the blighted area that improves it, property values go up. That is just basic economics. So basically, the choice is either:

A. You redevelop blighted areas by attracting higher income professionals to those areas.

Or.

B. Those blighted high crime areas remain blighted high crime areas.

As to its impact on the Democratic Party. People that live in urban areas vote Democrat. People that move into diverse urban neighborhoods vote Democrat. The kind of people that like living in diverse neighborhoods don't vote Republican. In fact if anything it helps the Democrats because professionals that like living in diverse neighborhoods are more reliable votes than lower income residents of those neighborhoods that are at times priced out of the neighborhood after it redevelops.

The answer is not to fight gentrification. The answer is to promote economic policies that drive up wages for the residents of those areas and to build more affordable housing in areas they can afford to live in. There are a lot of people with kids in a blighted neighborhood that would love to move to an inner ring suburb for better schools if only they could afford the housing there. This is one thing that a state like Texas largely gets right. For example, as areas in Houston have gentrified and as a result gotten very expensive, there has still been plenty of affordable housing built in the suburbs and thus those priced out of inner city neighborhoods there have good, safe, communities, with good schools that they can afford.

Well, there’s something that I call runaway gentrification. A perfect example of this can be found in my own city. 20 years ago the Short North was a hotbed of poverty, violent crime, and dilapidated properties. The city offered tax abatements to property owners and developers and the area was transformed into a vibrant middle class part of town largely dominated by the LGBT community and became known for its art galleries, restaraunts, coffee shops, etc.

Gentrification can be needed and even desirable, but the problem is neither the abatements nor the development ever stopped and it presses on without any concern for preserving the character or community of the area or thought to what happens to the residents. Our galleries are moving or closing because they can no longer afford to rent the space. Familiar shops and haunts are being demolished to build million dollar luxury condos, corporate retail space, and 4-5 Star restaraunts. The residents of Bollinger tower, primarily low income elderly people, were given $500 and 60 days notice to vacate because the property was sold to convert it into a luxury hotel with boutique shop extensions. It’s out of control and a heavy price is being paid for it.
 
Last edited:
Of course not. First of all, in my opinion, gentrification is one of the biggest non-issues there is. But let us say for the sake of argument that I was to grant the idea that private investors coming into old, crime-ridden, poverty-stricken decaying neighborhoods, investing in their renovation, and making them places that are desirable to live and thereby driving up demand and raising prices was some kind of grand social problem that needs fixing. This isn't going to stop Democratic Voters from voting Democrat or switching their vote to Republican, unless the Republicans can clearly get the message out there that they were going to cure the housing crisis. And the only way to cure it and lower the price of housing is the same way the price is lowered for any good for which there is high demand: increasing the supply. In this case, if politicians of either party want to lower to the prices of housing in New York, more dwellings (homes, apartments, etc.) need to be constructed.

But that is neither here nor there. The point is, Democratic voters are not going to suddenly stop voting Democratic, whatever their reservations about their party. The only danger that I could possibly foresee for the Democrats is if the Democrats start taking their constituents' votes for granted, like they did in 2016.

Its not really that simple.

The speculators have started gentrifying every neighborhood spreading out from the "desireable".

There is massive amounts of capital for this. Including foriegn money from china, etc.

They buy all the available houses in neighborhoods bordering North Park, one of the most desireable locals in the country right now. Move in people that couldn't find a place in NP. At the same rents. Which causes the landlords in those places to raise the rents of the original residents. So they have to move. Farther out. More hours on the bus/in traffic. And all those forlks movies outward create scarcity in those areas which pushes rents up there too. Until they are on approach the rents in NP. It becomes a matter of credit and income, rather than cost.

Its a captive market. And as long as it is it will continue to extract profit from people who can't afford to provide it. The entire industry is incentivised to increase housing costs (value from owners perspective, costs for tenants and prospective buyers) lenders, speculators, local governments all like housing prices to be high.

And those who need a place to live and are required by law to live in a traceable commodity pay the price.
 
The problem with making such a throwaway statement is that these cities are almost entirely Democrat-run in states that are largely run by Democrats (i.e., California and New York). Whatever the causes for it, to blame Republicans for housing shortages and increased property costs is utterly inane.
Housing shortages and high costs of living are caused by massive demand. It means that a lot of people want to live where you live. That's a good thing. I'm not blaming Republicans for that, because that isn't the problem. That's a goal we should be striving for, and Democrats get credit for that.

The problem is that we don't have a very good distribution of wealth. So communities and neighborhoods where poor people live don't have very good schools and have generally high crime rates. Individual cities and states can't really solve this problem on their own. Income tax rates are generally much much lower at the state level than they are at the Federal level, and they're almost non-existent in cities and towns. There's a reason for that.

It's much harder for smaller communities to raise their taxes, implement higher minimum wages, and provide universal health care because it's too easy for the people who pay for that to move one town or one state over to avoid it, and the people who need it to move one town or one state over to obtain it.

Imagine two towns separated by 15 miles. One has high taxes, high minimum wages, and great public schools. The other has no taxes, no minimum wages, and no public schools. What would happen? All the poor people with children would move to the first town, all the older wealthy business owners whose children are out of school move to the second. Even with higher tax rates, the revenue for the nice school would disappear, and the people would have no choice but to commute to the second town where the jobs went even though they pay jack ****.

Now, instead of two towns separated by 15 miles imagine much bigger states. People might be willing to move 15 miles to avoid a 3% tax increase, but would they move 150 miles away? If they tried they couldn't get workers from the state with good schools to commute that far every day for work. They'd have no choice, but to put at least decent public schools nearby to attract workers which would mean the discrepancy between the state taxes couldn't be that big.

Now, imagine this on a national level. How much harder would it be for the older wealthy people with no kids in school to move halfway around the world? Some try, but they still have to pay the costs of shipping goods back to the U.S. for sale, and if we want we can put tariffs on their goods to nullify any advantage they might get from cheaper labor in another country.

The bigger a society is, the better liberal policies tend to work. It makes it harder for selfish people that don't want the benefits of a society without the costs to get away with it.


And even if I were to grant that it was somehow Republicans fault that people in Democrat-run cities in Democrat-run states have high costs of living, THE DEMOCRATS ARE STILL IN CHARGE AND HAVE THE POWER TO CHANGE THINGS.

I suggest you educate yourself on a concept called a Nash Equilibrium. It's an incredibly important concept in Economics that can make it incredibly difficult for individuals to make the optimal choice. It is essentially what I described above with the two cities. Each city struggles to make the best choice for itself individually because it's in competition with other cities. So long as there is one city or state that decides to be a dick head and treat their workers like slaves it can be incredibly difficult for all the cities around it to make better choices.

While inner-city poverty is rampant in many Democratic cities and states, you'll find that poverty, in general, is incredibly widespread in Republican ones. Republicans screw the entire state over and turn it into a big city industrial park. Cost of living is low, and property values are great, but they have to be because everyone is poor, and nobody wants to live there.
 
For me this is part of a bigger problem, and it's a personal pet peeve.

I don't have a problem with old parts of cities seeing renewal, which of course will drive the value of those homes higher.

What I do have a problem with is the centralization of our work forces, which creates a supply / demand situation that drives up the price of homes to ridiculous levels where the jobs are. The greater Toronto area, which is where the majority of our population in Ontario works, is impossible to buy into without either some kind of help from parents / inheritance, or vastly over extending yourself in debt, or be one of the lucky few that have a job that pays high enough to live in these areas comfortably. Since that is not a reality for most people, they start looking into outlying areas in a bigger and bigger radius, driving up the costs of homes in those areas as well, while also accepting commutes that can be 2-2.5 hours each way, or use public transit (trains) that amount to the same.

This is a common experience in North America.

All of this is to accommodate the ever expanding model of corporate acquisition and centralization. Rather than having multiple offices or plants in various towns and cities throughout the country, as in the "good ol' days", huge amounts of manufacturing and commerce are centralized, which saves corporations all kinds of money...but drives up the cost of living of citizens. Also, because huge amounts of population (aka voters) are centralized, rural areas have even less say, in terms of supporting policy with their vote, than ever. I think I figured out that Toronto is less than 1% of the geography of Ontario, but they pick our premier (leader at provincial level) every single time.

This form of voluntary corporate subsidy drives all of these negative impacts. I'm lucky, in that I was able to find a way out of that rat race and move back to the country. I was able to find a job...I am very fortunate. And I say that, despite the 25k/year pay cut I got as a result - less jobs, more competition for those jobs, means lower wages outside of the centralized regions. Totally worth it, as what I bought out here for $235,000 would probably have cost close to a million in the city. Again, I am very fortunate to have found work...

We need to change the way we centralize labor. In as many applications as possible, telecommuting should be encouraged and utilized. We have the technology, we just need to extend it (specifically fiber optic cabling) to rural areas. Or even just towns that fall outside of the preferred centralization footprint. And, in as many applications as possible, manufacturing needs to be decentralized as well.

Or course, there is no motivation for corporations to do so, and this is where I'm going to get in trouble with my friends on the right, but there needs to be government incentive, in the form of grants and / or tax breaks, to make this happen. This investment in changing the model would benefit every single North American worker, whether they are in the city or in the country, as well as improving living conditions for millions, and, in the context of telecommuting, would even have environmental benefits. And fiber optic cable is a lot cheaper to lay down than freeway, and a lot cheaper to maintain as well, so there's a significant cost savings there for the fiscal conservatives to ponder.

I realize this all may be a little off topic, but I think that taking this approach would ease some of the pain of gentrification as well.
 
Imagine two towns separated by 15 miles. One has high taxes, high minimum wages, and great public schools. The other has no taxes, no minimum wages, and no public schools. What would happen? All the poor people with children would move to the first town, all the older wealthy business owners whose children are out of school move to the second. Even with higher tax rates, the revenue for the nice school would disappear, and the people would have no choice but to commute to the second town where the jobs went even though they pay jack ****.

Now, I do not see this as a particular problem. If a particular community or state expects you to pay a great deal for a good or service, the benefits of which you do not believe you will enjoy and you can move to a place where you are not forced to pay for such unnecessary benefits, that freedom of movement is desirable. Just like not wanting to live in a community that does not provide certain features that would benefit you or your family (parks, good schools, activities, etc.) make the ability to move a good thing. But if you believe that it is important for wealthy residents to remain, I think it is incumbent upon such communities to find incentives for the wealthy to remain so they continue pay for such benefits, and to attract other wealthy taxpayers who would be willing to live in that community and contribute to such redistributive measures.

The bigger a society is, the better liberal policies tend to work. It makes it harder for selfish people that don't want the benefits of a society without the costs to get away with it.

I think you meant to say those selfish people who want the benefits without paying the costs. Now, to make the point: I am not certain to which liberal policies you are referring, and which benefits that those selfish people are receiving that are left unpaid when they leave. Further, I cannot see how it can be argued that these selfish people are not paying for services that they are benefiting from when they are pulling up stakes and moving from the communities that provide those benefits. Perhaps you can point it out, but how, for example, are wealthy people in Texas directly benefiting from liberal policies put in place by city and state governments in New York or California? At what point do these benefits attenuate?

I suggest you educate yourself on a concept called a Nash Equilibrium. It's an incredibly important concept in Economics that can make it incredibly difficult for individuals to make the optimal choice. It is essentially what I described above with the two cities. Each city struggles to make the best choice for itself individually because it's in competition with other cities. So long as there is one city or state that decides to be a dick head and treat their workers like slaves it can be incredibly difficult for all the cities around it to make better choices.

While inner-city poverty is rampant in many Democratic cities and states, you'll find that poverty, in general, is incredibly widespread in Republican ones. Republicans screw the entire state over and turn it into a big city industrial park. Cost of living is low, and property values are great, but they have to be because everyone is poor, and nobody wants to live there.

Well, the problem with bringing the Nash Equilibrium in the context of what is to be done about gentrification and housing shortages is that it is a non-starter. Huge numbers of people want to move to Democrat-run cities in Democrat-run states like New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco for a variety of reasons (perceived better job opportunities, perceived better standard of living, different culture, etc., etc.) that the governments of these cities and states have little to no control over. That of course includes ostensibly poorly-run surrounding states, and even foreign countries, that people wish to move from to look for better lives for themselves and their families. If your only interest is to find ways to assign blame for the housing shortages, fine, but that is in no way a good method to Whatever the causes for the desirability, what matters is how these liberal governments respond to the increased demand and problems arising from that demand, rather than trying to foist away their responsibilities.

As far as I am concerned, the only thing that can be done to make the cost of housing more affordable is to find ways to increase the supply of housing, whether through incentives and/or reducing the regulatory burdens given to private parties and entities enabling them to build more housing (which is what I prefer), or publicly-subsidized housing, which I am generally against but is not an utterly unprecedented or impossible solution, as seen in the building of Council Housing in Great Britain post-WWII.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom