• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

are you for or against gentrification?

?

  • for

  • against

  • undecided

Results are only viewable after voting.
B

BlahBlahYouToo

Lifer
i'm wondering where all the poor people move to when they are displaced due to gentrification.
they have to live somewhere right?

that's the only con i've come up with, they become someone else's problem.
 
People who are against gentrification are just stuck in some romantic fugue. It is the same mentality that is against technological progress in general, only looking at the downside.
 
I'm FOR gentrification. It's a return to the way things used to be... good neighborhoods IN cities. Being against gentrification means you want to keep urban neighborhoods ghetto so that rent is low for poor people. But the existence of the ghetto itself has horrible economic and social consequences.
 
Im for it. Most of the arguments against it, are at their core racist beliefs. If the areas being bought up were not primarily black then the word gentrify would probably not even exist, and no one would care. Also who says minority areas have to be immune from change ? If Harlem changes its called gentrification, but when Little Italy changed [and boy has it] its not even a bleep on the radar.
 
The poor are certainly not going to move into the neighborhoods of the wealthy because they can't afford that. If you ban the opposite, that means neighborhoods are only going to polarize. Are anti-gentrification people pro-segregation?

Also, the anti-gentrification folks are complaining that the influx of the wealthy lifts property values, which in turn lifts property taxes, which is hard on people in the area. Since when, in any other context, is making a property worth more considered to be hostile to the owner? If they are actually struggling with money, then it sounds like being able to to sell or let at a higher price is a jackpot. And if their money situation is comfortable, they have no problem staying put and enjoying the other perks of the improving neighborhood.
 
peonyu said:
Im for it. Most of the arguments against it, are at their core racist beliefs.
Click to expand...
What exactly is gentrification anyway? Where I live, poor neighborhoods and rich neighborhoods get the same treatment. The roads are the same, police are the same, firefighters are the same, schools are the same (but the students are worse). You're more likely to get hassled by cops in the ghetto because the ghetto has 10x as many cops.

I live very close to a ghetto and my bus passes through the ghetto on the way to and from work, but it's mostly white people so it's not called a ghetto. Some of the stores hint that you may have entered the ghetto; Aaron's Acceptance and Rent-A-Centre are a couple blocks apart. Half the stores are pawn shops or thrift shops. People in the ghetto also tend to wear clothing that is inappropriate for the weather. When it was -20C (cold), people in the ghetto were not wearing winter hats or gloves and some didn't even have winter coats.

I don't really see much of a problem with the ghetto as long as crime stays in check. That seems to be the biggest problem with US ghettos - people are afraid of being stabbed or shot in the ghetto. I don't hear anyone saying "I don't like the ghetto because the traffic is unacceptable"
 
Gentrification = more chain stores and jacked up rent for the same craphole from the same slumlords. Gentrification almost never happens in an area with mostly home owners that live in their property. It happens in highly dense rental areas and benefits no one but property owners.
 
God Mode said:
Gentrification = more chain stores
Click to expand...
It's not like chain stores are banned from the ghetto. They don't build there because they don't think it would be profitable.
The best way to decrapify an area would be to enforce laws and building codes. Arrest shitbags, tear down shit holes.

Also, the US has government housing doesn't it? Get rid of that. Up in Canada being kicked out by every landlord and every family member makes someone homeless, and usually that means dead before christmas except in warmer regions like Vancouver where the homeless population is huge and never seems to die.
 
For, but only after I buy a house in a blue collar neighborhood that is getting gentrified with rich techies here in Silicon Valley🙂
 
Move section 8 out, others come in.

Atlanta is doing it slowly. Really happened on a large scale with the summer Olympics were here but has still continued. A bit stifled now though but still slowly moving along.

A lot of neighborhoods that used to be considered to dangerous and ghetto are slowly becoming deemed safe(r) than in recent times and oddly enough a bit of that has to do with the gay community boom in mid-town that's been growing at a rapid pace.
 
Pia said:
Also, the anti-gentrification folks are complaining that the influx of the wealthy lifts property values, which in turn lifts property taxes, which is hard on people in the area. Since when, in any other context, is making a property worth more considered to be hostile to the owner? If they are actually struggling with money, then it sounds like being able to to sell or let at a higher price is a jackpot. And if their money situation is comfortable, they have no problem staying put and enjoying the other perks of the improving neighborhood.
Click to expand...

I think anti-gentrification people (a group which does NOT include me) might say that the poor usually aren't owners, but renters, and are adversely affected by rising rent costs. Because they're not owners, the poor don't get any of the upside of rising property values.

Regardless, I don't oppose gentrification - the poor have no greater right to prime real estate than those who can afford it.
 
Mursilis said:
I think anti-gentrification people (a group which does NOT include me) might say that the poor usually aren't owners, but renters, and are adversely affected by rising rent costs. Because they're not owners, the poor don't get any of the upside of rising property values.
Click to expand...
This. The ghetto around here is mostly cheap shitty apartments and some shitty houses. A surprisingly large number of people rent houses.
 
Mursilis said:
I think anti-gentrification people (a group which does NOT include me) might say that the poor usually aren't owners, but renters, and are adversely affected by rising rent costs. Because they're not owners, the poor don't get any of the upside of rising property values.
Click to expand...
I'd kinda understand if they were complaining about rents, but I have actually read people saying that it's oppressing the poor to raise their property value (and consequently property tax).
 
I'm for it.

Most city infrastructure is sweet and should command higher values. However I now live in los angeles and it is just 1 giant sprawling suburb with little spouts of city bits thrown in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top