Durham NC has a problem right now with race and gentrification. It is being aggressively gentrified by hipsters and house prices are skyrocketing and displacing minorities. They also had a recent issue where a handcuffed latino youth was shot in the back while in police custody and the police 'claimed' he had a gun.
This particular location is a scooby doo ghost town of all abandon auto garages which was turned into really trendy high-priced restaurants, bars and clubs with food trucks outside. In an area of high minorities, there isn't a single one to be seen anywhere in this area.
So I know in this area there is a culture war and two isolated societies and race relations are very tense there, because in 2-3 years a majority of those run down houses will have new occupants and be high-end flipped trendy houses.
They almost had 'burn down the city' riots over this.
Trying to figure out what your post has to do with this thread. Did you just excuse the robbers or the stupidity of the barbeque owner?
EDIT: for the record Texas barbeque rules, NC barbeque drools!
The issue is the city has a large influx of affluent white hipsters with leftist attitudes and are displacing and marginalizing poor minorities in the process. There is a one-sided culture war as these neighborhoods gentrify and displace poor minorities. There have a been a lot of crimes against these establishments which are seen as 'getting back at the white people displacing and discriminating against against minorities'. This particular area is a prime example of a location. There is a lot of dissatisfaction and violence occurring because of it in that area... And it is only 'one sided' because one of the sides has money to throw around and an affluent college which is helping to support it. Arbitrary selectively enforced dress codes are the name of the game in all of these places down there.
The whole 'sign' is a non-story and the crimes themselves touch on a much larger issue of that areas racial issues currently going on in that town. They were not robbed for being a gun-free location, they were robbed for being a gentrification hipster white social area in a high minority/low income part of town. The only reason this is even national news was because this was a hoity toity place. It is the robbery equivalent of a 'white girl gone missing'.
It is a really nice urban renewal... They did a really nice job... They turned a scooby doo ghost town into something nice. The problem is it is driving prices up, and people 'out'. And these places have sometimes have selective dress codes which keep 'specific' people out. "no baggie clothes, flat brimmed hats, untucked teeshirts or colored bananas"
Duke is super close too.
Race relations are strained. The triangle of Durham/Raleigh is basically going through what is described as some as an 'ethnic cleansing', so ti is not a good thing when people feel that way and there has been a lot of what has been called 'payback' crimes because of it. My friends got thrown out of a cab because one of them made a comment about 'These houses are so nice, for what I make in DC I could probably buy 3 of them and renovate them and then live off the rent!' The cabbie got mad and threw them out of the cab.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Gentrification is a good thing, I dont get why people hate it.
Also, I like hipsters. Who else can I gawk at for wearing a scarf and fedora and a trench coat
Crossbows. Crossbows aren't guns, can be pre-loaded, and can pierce through a quite a bit of (Non-Military) armor.
And they are intimidating as feth.
YEAH but unless you have the right feats they take a full round action to reload and then you cant do a full attack action. Guns only take a free action to load.
This is sounding more and more like a Bundy variation to me.
My Argument as a Sociologist is the Gentrification is often a force for good, even if some displacement happens. It is such slow process that people have time to adapt and if they dont they leave. That these new resturants and cafes require people to man them. Also, there are reasons Section 8 and Hope 4 housing try to mix classes from welfare to upper middle class. They are able to help the poorer classes with a better class of living.
That and I hate poor and black people according to this one girl in my class for arguing this
Well you probably could prevent it if you were particularly motivated to do so.
I imagine people's problems with it is because you're essentially saying "There is something wrong with the way you live your life." which is reasonably offensive at the best of times. The thing Relapse linked about Gentrification makes sense...
My wife and I prefer the company of people with a similar social status as us and want our child to grow up in a safe social environment. Therefore, we're in favor of gentrification and all processes going along with it.
Gotta love the whining of that comedian. I don't see how his hatred of gentrification is any different than other forms of immigration.
There are new people coming in so let's hate them. The big difference between this and the illegal immigration to the states (other than legality) is the color of people's skin. It just feels more like 'Hate Whitey' regardless of what they do.
Let me preface what I'm about to say by saying I am not a college graduate, I come from a "conservative" background, and I have always found the idea of "hipsters" in general insufferable. What I'm about to say is merely based of what I've seen happen in Lexington Kentucky as personal experience. I have no idea if this is how it works everywhere.
Think about it from the point of view of a person who isn't a college student/graduate with a lot of disposable income.
You're living in a fairly low cost neighborhood, and you're barely scraping by. Then a bunch of "hipster" joints pop up. Yeah, it's cool for a while. The town starts to come back a bit, it gets cleaned up, money is coming back, taxes are coming in, but what are you getting out of it? Property values go up, you're put in a financial strain, depending on the area you can get a very strong vibe of "you're not welcome here" from the new arrivals, and if the places are actively trying to keep you out through certain policies and dress codes, you don't get anything from it. The kind of people gentrification brings in probably aren't going to be interested in the few surviving businesses still hanging on. Instead, they bring in their favorites from where they came from. The local cafe gets run out by a starbucks. The town grocery gets run out by Meijer, Walmart, and Costco. The blues and country bars get shut out by poetry halls, "folk" music, and craft beer places. So on and so forth. All they want is your town or neighborhood's name, the old looking buildings, and the bragging rights that they "cleaned up" a historic area.
In the situation like the OP is describing, I would hate it. True hipsters are insufferable to the extreme, and whenever a large population of them appears in the neighborhood it becomes a social blight that can really hurt lower income people. Or as one local put it, "their heads are so far up their ass, they haven't seen the sun in years." I've worked in the music scene for years, and got to meet a lot of them and the places they like to hang out at. They like to think they're good and all, but they don't "save" a community by moving their businesses in. They kill it off and replace it off with their own. It's like watching an invasive species come in and choke off the native wildlife.
Gentrification does not save people who are of a lower class or social position. It merely runs them off and replaces the original group of people with a new one. Jamal or Clyde who were living in the apartment complex aren't suddenly going to get new jobs working for the IT firm down the road, start wearing collared shirts, and become "well adjusted members of society". They're going to get displaced to the next cheapest area to live while the "good Samaritans" pat themselves on the back for cleaning up a bad neighborhood.
The idea of cleaning up and reclaiming a neighborhood is all well and good, but I've rarely seen it work the way it's supposedly intended. At best, I've seen some of the small towns in Bourbon county clean up their downtown areas and bring back some local business, but they still have trailer parks and ghettos just a few blocks away. They're just kept off to the side, where tourists and visitors won't notice, like the town is ashamed and wants to hide them.
Eh, if these people want to renovate a broken down part of the town then why not. It would be nice if the government could put up protection so that people don't find themselves suddenly being priced out of their own homes but ultimately business is business. People have a right to live where they want and do with their property as they please (Within reasonable limits).
The problem with gentrification is that it generally doesn't benefit the local established populace. When 'agents' of gentrification (that is to say, business interests, hipster populations, or what-have-you) show up at a new neighborhood, generally instead of utilizing the local labor force and community, they 'import' employees, personnel, etc. to the area, these imports don't really have loyalty to the established businesses which, generally speaking, will not have the 'scene' needed to draw the new arrivals to them as consumers, nor will they have the available resources to 'revitalize' themselves into something more appealing, resulting in established businesses getting driven out of business and eventually replaced.
The end result of this process is that, yes, the area in question is 'gentrified' and revitalized, and beautified, etc. and the school system and local economy and housing markets improve, and the crime rate is drastically reduced, etc. but all these great things only happen for the new people to the area (or those existing inhabitants who, for whatever reason, have managed to hold on and survive in that area). The existing population remains impoverished, uneducated, and lacking in opportunity, and whats worse they are now displaced and must find a new area to settle in, which in turn degrades that areas property values, etc. and basically sets the stage for the cycle to repeat itself.
Gentrification can be a good thing, the problem is nobody is going about it the right way. Instead of 'importing' your workforce and drawing yuppies/hipsters to an area to revitalize it, gentrification needs to occur from 'within'. The established population needs to be given opportunities to, they need to become stakeholders in the process, they need to be trained and educated somehow so that they can reap the benefits of gentrification, improve their own lives, and rise in economic standing along with the property values of the area so that they aren't forced out of their own homes.
Though i feel not improving an area just to keep rent low for people that can only afford it is awful, Anything to oppose hipsters is fine by me. they ruined the fedora and many other things.
I wonder if this is as big of a issue, potentially in the UK.
Truth be told, I don't think I'd actually recognise a hipster if one well walked up to me and did something very hipster-ish... (That got away from me a bit there....)
Yeah, I'll be turning on ignorance mode again... In any case, I'd be guessing that Council housing helps avoid the worst of the negatives of these?
The local shopping area, containing many family run shops, takeaways and the like, has long been courted by the major supermarkets to be bulldozed and replaced with a larger, more modern superstore. (Well, superstore in British terms....) I presume these businesses will end up being paid substantial cash if their encouraged to move out before the bulldozers come in.
There is a valid distinct difference between 'urban renewal' and 'gentrification'.
One improves a community for everyone, one improves it only for wealthy residence, usually at the expense of the poor and in turn, minorities.
A good description, because I don't think you know what the term really means when you are like "hell yes! gentrification is fantastic!"
Gentrification is a shift in an urban community toward wealthier residents and/or businesses and increasing property values.[1] Gentrification is typically the result of investment in a community by real estate development businesses, local government, or community activists, and can often spur economic development, attract business, and lower crime rates. In addition to these potential benefits, gentrification can lead to population migration, which involves poorer residents being displaced by wealthier newcomers.
In a community undergoing gentrification, the average income increases and average family size decreases. Poorer pre-gentrification residents who are unable to pay increased rents or property taxes[dubious – discuss] may be driven out. Often old industrial buildings are converted to residences and shops. New businesses, which can afford increased commercial rent, cater to a more affluent base of consumers—further increasing the appeal to higher income migrants and decreasing the accessibility to the poor.[2][3]
Political action is often the community's response, either to promote the gentrification or oppose economic eviction.[4] Local governments may favor gentrification because of the increased tax base associated with the new high-income residents, as well as other perceived benefits of moving poor people.
Basically politicians are motivated by gaining more power via taxes... and the people who would be 'upset' are evicted before they can vote you out of office. This is where local governments will get flak from state and national politicians who represent both the renewed area and the displaced people.
The thing is, often along with the economic gentrification, you see things which target minorities. Things like 'selectively enforced dress codes' and 'overzealous security harassing select people for loitering'. Not only can the poor not economically be able to exist, the ones who attempt to are harassed, discouraged and made to be 'unwelcome'.
Well-done urban renewal can increase quality of an area, reduce crime and help everyone out as long as the higher-end of the housing market doesn't have a problem associating with poor people, sharing a shopping center with them, having restaurants which don't have 10$ beers and 30$ hamburgers... Which they do, which is why it happens.
Like most things it's has some good things and bad things about it, also hipster hate is stupid sure their fashion sense is laughable at times but that's no reason to hate something.
MrMoustaffa wrote: and if the places are actively trying to keep you out through certain policies and dress codes, you don't get anything from it. The kind of people gentrification brings in probably aren't going to be interested in the few surviving businesses still hanging on. Instead, they bring in their favorites from where they came from. The local cafe gets run out by a starbucks. The town grocery gets run out by Meijer, Walmart, and Costco. The blues and country bars get shut out by poetry halls, "folk" music, and craft beer places. So on and so forth. All they want is your town or neighborhood's name, the old looking buildings, and the bragging rights that they "cleaned up" a historic area.
At best, I've seen some of the small towns in Bourbon county clean up their downtown areas and bring back some local business, but they still have trailer parks and ghettos just a few blocks away. They're just kept off to the side, where tourists and visitors won't notice, like the town is ashamed and wants to hide them.
chaos0xomega wrote:
Gentrification can be a good thing, the problem is nobody is going about it the right way. Instead of 'importing' your workforce and drawing yuppies/hipsters to an area to revitalize it, gentrification needs to occur from 'within'. The established population needs to be given opportunities to, they need to become stakeholders in the process, they need to be trained and educated somehow so that they can reap the benefits of gentrification, improve their own lives, and rise in economic standing along with the property values of the area so that they aren't forced out of their own homes.
I agree at least with some of the sentiment in these posts... I absolutely am OK with any restaurant or business enforcing some form of dress code.. dudes walking like penguins because their pants are literally around their knees is fething all kinds of stupid. And yeah, part of the problem with outsiders revitalizing an area is that they oftentimes don't bother in the least to talk to any of the locals who've been there for years and know a few things about the area.. I mean, that mom and pop breakfast joint that's been open for 30+ years? Well, if your douchey hipster friends would just try it, you'd find that it's the best damn breakfast place in the county and support them. Eventually, that mom and pop shop will be able to jump on that revitalization "bandwagon"
And honestly MrMoustaffa, if you've been around the country... EVERYONE hides their trailer parks
Cheesecat wrote: Like most things it's has some good things and bad things about it, also hipster hate is stupid sure their fashion sense is laughable at times but that's no reason to hate something.
I think we can all agree that people from all walks of life look like witches in certain fashion items. Hipster has been so overused that I couldn't even say what an actual Hipster is meant to be.
I dont get why this is now so accociated with "hipsters"...
the process is quite widspread over many "clicks" or niches of society that its really not due to one group over another to any real degree.
But other then that, its a 100% good process, thats 100% unavoidable, and shouldnt be avoided, even if we could.
Giving up improving a neighbourhood, simply to maintain the status quo, which is already basically "perpetual poverty", so that the impovershed in the area can continue to be... impovershed.. is just silly.
If you are poor, and suddenly your property values/home values go up enough that the tax increase puts you out of home... thats stupid to complain about, you can sell your home for far more then you paid for it and come out ahead.
Rents might go up slightly, but unless they actually upgrade the rental building, they cannot go to high or everyone leaves, and the owner has an empty building.
change is inevitable, gotta adapt... still im sure some people will decry this as some kind of attack on the poor.
I don't see how anyone could claim that gentrification is 100% good MrMoustaffa and/or nkelsch's posts on the subject or having thought about it for more than 5 minutes. That being said I'm not saying it's completely bad either as it does improve the place in many ways although I still think
I suppose it does get more complicated when it comes to renting. - Or even renting shops, like in my own example.
There I think my thought process from what? 20 minutes ago? breaks down. Leases aren't renewed, the people who have been running the shop for years have to move on to find a new place to rent from and now... The owner can charge those people wanting to turn it into a trendy wine bar a good whack more.
Wages don't go up... People are still paid minimum wage to serve these establishments... the Chipolte in the renewed 'town center' doesn't pay more than the Chipolte in a cheaper part of town. All it does is force the people who work there to drive farther to get to work.
And often the rent goes up drastically because they evict whole buildings, tear down 30-year old apartments and replace them with condos. Rent goes up 3-5 times the original amount, not 50 bucks a month.
Some mom and pops who are lucky enough to own get to enjoy the new income... but almost no one anywhere OWNS their building. Commercial real estate is pretty depressing. In my area, like 2 major firms own 90% of the properties. They literally own everything. Anyone who DID own probably cashed out to developers during the rebuilding of the area and is no longer running a business. Those who rent simply either get skyrocketing commercial rent, or the landlord refuses to renew the lease.
And people are not complaining about their taxes going up. Most areas have 'homestead' taxes which limit property tax increases for residents who live in a house. It is the renters (which almost all of the low income are) being instantly displaced by closing an entire building for extensive renovations or demolishing, or house rentals which go through the roof.
Here is an example in my area right now. I bought my house in 2000 for 100k. My mortgage payment was like 500$ When I bought it, a 3-bedroom townhome in this neighborhood was renting for 800$ a month.
When I sold in 2011, my neighbor was paying 1850$ a month and was leaving because it was going up 250$ the next lease.
Around the corner, they are building 600k townhomes which mean these older townhomes are being flipped and rented for obscene amounts. A 1 bedroom apartment down the street is now 1700$.
All it has done is push everyone who can't afford another 10 miles out from DC, or sideways in the festering ghetto called PG county. And all the people being displaced get no vote because once you are out of your house, you are not a voter in that area anymore.
I own my home. I make out like a bandit. There are a helluva lot of people who are not even being given a chance and are basically being economically cleansed from the area. You are basically throwing crabs in boiling water and saying "learn to adapt!"
A lot of it is 'people at the top' don't like to see or interact with 'people at the bottom'. I have been to school board meetings where people were upset about having to be bused to a holding school during renovations because "they don't want their kids, in that part of the county associating with those types of people". They also blocked government housing for government workers (police, teachers, firemen, county employees) because 'those' types of people are not what they want in their areas. They sue for soccer and basket ball courts to be torn out and replaced with horse parks and tennis courts. They are using their money and legal maneuvering to not just gentrify but eradicate what they have deemed 'unwanted elements' which boils down to poor minorities.
You can do urban renewal without ethnically cleansing the poor.
The only reason why 'hipsters' are being talked about was the other thread, Durham is becoming the 'Austin' of the east coast and is basically being flooded by hipsters.
My Argument as a Sociologist is the Gentrification is often a force for good, even if some displacement happens. It is such slow process that people have time to adapt and if they dont they leave. That these new resturants and cafes require people to man them. Also, there are reasons Section 8 and Hope 4 housing try to mix classes from welfare to upper middle class. They are able to help the poorer classes with a better class of living.
That and I hate poor and black people according to this one girl in my class for arguing this
I think you are absolutely on the wrong side of this. Gentrification is pretty clearly a force that only deepens racial-cultural divides, and encourages a system of racism. While there might be some kind of debate in a sociology class on this, in reality, there is no argument. It's a fact.
I think you need to take a moment and examine where you're coming from on this. I understand that it's an issue without easy solutions, and coming from a background of white privilege, it's always going to be hard to acknowledge when we're participating in a racist system, even if we are not ourselves racists.
If you'd like some further reading on this and other related topics, check out this book.
I think you are absolutely on the wrong side of this. Gentrification is pretty clearly a force that only deepens racial-cultural divides, and encourages a system of racism. While there might be some kind of debate in a sociology class on this, in reality, there is no argument. It's a fact.
I think you need to take a moment and examine where you're coming from on this. I understand that it's an issue without easy solutions, and coming from a background of white privilege, it's always going to be hard to acknowledge when we're participating in a racist system, even if we are not ourselves racists.
No, they are an economic group; no one equated it to a race.
Jimsolo certainly did.
His post didn't say that the poor = a specific race. He talked about the racism that can be a part of gentrification and said that it can be part of racism, but he didn't say the two were equivalent. Sometimes, and probably often, there is overlap, but that isn't the same thing as stating they are the same thing.
His post didn't say that the poor = a specific race. He talked about the racism that can be a part of gentrification and said that it can be part of racism, but he didn't say the two were equivalent. Sometimes, and probably often, there is overlap, but that isn't the same thing as stating they are the same thing.
Considering a majority of 'gentrified' neighborhoods are based around cities and not rural areas, and there are high correlations in most US cities where 'poor city = Minority', there are racial undertones often to the gentrification because while it is 'rich displacing poor', it is almost always 'white displacing minority'.
You can pretend it isn't or try to say 'I don't see color' or make references to the 'poor whites' in rural parts of the country, but it doesn't change the demographics of inner city populations for the most part and that economic lines and the poverty line in US major Cities is down racial lines.
So Gentrification often has racial impacts in many situations and can have racial overtones, especially in situations where there are overt actions to target specific races outside the normal "you can't afford a 10$ beer and your rent has tripled? You are welcome to stay, just earn more money."
And yes, 'the government' does have a hand. Displacing voters is a great thing for local politicians. If I am the politician which approved the new town center you live in, chances are you are probably going to look favorably on me as a politician. Why campaign and work for you constituency when you can basically work with developers to evict, bulldoze, build all new houses and 100% replace your entire voting block with people who are going to be favorable to you? This was a big deal in some areas where they used eminent domain to basically seize land to sell to developers, and the citizens were non-voting homeless before they could do anything about it.
Kilkrazy wrote: Gentrification also occurs in the UK where there is much less of a racial dimension to things though I dare say there is a class element.
It is primarily based on economic factors.
Question (out of general curiosity, not contrariness): I know there are several different ethnic groups within the UK. Is there a separate ethnic component to UK gentrification? With Welsh or Irish or what have you being the primary group being affected negatively?
I just bought a house near an area of town with rundown homes, smaller trailer parks, and low-income housing. I think gentrification would do wonders for my property value. I'm not wishing the low income housing to go away but the trailer parks and run down homes definitely need razing.
As far as I am aware, race has very little to do with it.
There are divisions based on religion -- RC versus Protestant -- in Northern Ireland and Glasgow however gentrification seems to take two forms based on the rising cost of housing in suburbs or the re-conversion of inner city areas from industry back to residential uses.
The cases where it causes resentment are to do with wealthy people buying second homes in the country, which forces up house prices for young local people.
In London the ethnic mix is so diverse that in many cases it would be difficult to raise resentment based on race or national origin.
It's slowly happening in my city and I think it's personally pretty great. 20 years ago the current "happening" section of town was a run-down ghetto with some of the highest crime rates in the city. Then the gays moved in, fixed up a gak ton of houses, and started renting out to grad students, young professionals, etc. and not the riffraff.
Now that section of town is alive, new shops are opening and remaining open, it's not dangerous at night, you don't have to worry about getting rolled at every corner, you don't hear gun shots anymore, it's great.
And the poor people are still there, just basically just moved down a few blocks, their slumlords are still ripping off the govt with Section 8 prices, and a part of the city was reclaimed. And lo and behold, the poor section is again filled with trash and crime.
I can only speak for my city in NY, but how is lowering crime, increasing property values, and making for a better community a bad thing?
I can only speak for my city in NY, but how is lowering crime, increasing property values, and making for a better community a bad thing?
Is it really 'making a better community' or 'evicting a community and replacing it with a totally new community'. We can also bring peace to the middle east... we just need to wipe out or relocate the entire population of the middle east and then replace them with new people. How is that not a totally reasonable and workable solution?
Did you really lower crime? No, you simply exported the crime to another area which you don't care about as it is not your back yard. And a lot of these 'property increases' are artificial and lots of these neighborhoods eventually see a bust. Lots of ghettos of today are the amazing urban renewal of the 70s. Sure your property values are fantastic, but often not sustainable. You probably will need to get in early and also 'get out early' to cash out before values drop and the neighborhood 'becomes bad' again. Artificially high and fake house properties always 'screw someone'. For someone to make obscene profit off house prices, someone is eventually going to realize those loses.
It isn't trying to 'solve' the issues causing poverty, or run down city services or crime, it is simply packing up those people and sending them away... They used to just murder them hundreds of years ago, then they packed them up in trains and now they do it via economic and social policies. While it works for small groups of people who get exclusionary communities built around economic bars to keep the riff-raff out, it doesn't do anything for the larger county or state as a whole.
In a smallish city near Seattle, Kirkland, gentrification has gone crazy. It's almost to the point where you can't buy there unless you're gainfully employed at Microsoft, Google, or Amazon. I saw a condo project being set up and the foundations being laid. The sign said "Starting in the low 1,000,000s." I nearly gagged. One mil. For a condo.
Bre. You can keep those hipsters over there near Seattle. Over here in Port Orchard, Bremerton, Tacoma, and Gig Harbor has to much of a military presence. Hipsters and military do not mix well Except my hipster neighbor who I am converting to be a rifle nut.
Jihadin wrote: Bre. You can keep those hipsters over there near Seattle. Over here in Port Orchard, Bremerton, Tacoma, and Gig Harbor has to much of a military presence. Hipsters and military do not mix well Except my hipster neighbor who I am converting to be a rifle nut.
You realise he's just gonna be into muskets and stuff now?
I can only speak for my city in NY, but how is lowering crime, increasing property values, and making for a better community a bad thing?
Is it really 'making a better community' or 'evicting a community and replacing it with a totally new community'. We can also bring peace to the middle east... we just need to wipe out or relocate the entire population of the middle east and then replace them with new people. How is that not a totally reasonable and workable solution?
Did you really lower crime? No, you simply exported the crime to another area which you don't care about as it is not your back yard. And a lot of these 'property increases' are artificial and lots of these neighborhoods eventually see a bust. Lots of ghettos of today are the amazing urban renewal of the 70s. Sure your property values are fantastic, but often not sustainable. You probably will need to get in early and also 'get out early' to cash out before values drop and the neighborhood 'becomes bad' again. Artificially high and fake house properties always 'screw someone'. For someone to make obscene profit off house prices, someone is eventually going to realize those loses.
It isn't trying to 'solve' the issues causing poverty, or run down city services or crime, it is simply packing up those people and sending them away... They used to just murder them hundreds of years ago, then they packed them up in trains and now they do it via economic and social policies. While it works for small groups of people who get exclusionary communities built around economic bars to keep the riff-raff out, it doesn't do anything for the larger county or state as a whole.
I can only speak for my city, Buffalo, but the the overall crime rates have gone down in the city since more people have begun to move back into the city and fix it up. In the 80's, there almost was no safe sections of the city. There are still broad swathes of area in the city where you just don't go after 9pm, But there are also now quiet, safe neighborhoods where there was once condemned houses and daily shootings. Again, how is that bad? Because the former residents didn't fix it up themselves?
The rents in the new areas definitely did increase, but not by these crazy substantial shifts overnight. It was a gradual process over 20+ years. It's a common practice in many cities. Cheap land attracts and artists and other people interested in fixing up a place, place becomes nicer, more people want to live there, supply and demand results in higher rents. And again at least in Buffalo, the poor people there weren't "wiped out", they were just forced to look for other Section 8 Housing run by slumlords who cheat the govt a few blocks over. Free to keep those communities in squalor while at least a few areas get nice again.
Maybe living in a city that has been very economically depressed since the 1970's leads me to see this in a different light then in other cities. For me, the things that help a community increase in value are easily done even in poor areas. Keeping your yard neat, community gardens, neighborhood watch programs, not breaking into other people's houses and cars, are all really easily obtainable by people of any economic strata. Maybe it is selfish on my part, I would just rather live in an area where people take pride in where they live vs the plight of people whom I already pay for their housing.
The rents in the new areas definitely did increase, but not by these crazy substantial shifts overnight. It was a gradual process over 20+ years. It's a common practice in many cities. Cheap land attracts and artists and other people interested in fixing up a place, place becomes nicer, more people want to live there, supply and demand results in higher rents. And again at least in Buffalo, the poor people there weren't "wiped out", they were just forced to look for other Section 8 Housing run by slumlords who cheat the govt a few blocks over. Free to keep those communities in squalor while at least a few areas get nice again.
.
So what happens when you continue to displace people. They have to go somewhere. Like nkelsch said, you're not fixing the crime problem; you're simply moving it to a place that you can no longer see and care less about.
The rents in the new areas definitely did increase, but not by these crazy substantial shifts overnight. It was a gradual process over 20+ years. It's a common practice in many cities. Cheap land attracts and artists and other people interested in fixing up a place, place becomes nicer, more people want to live there, supply and demand results in higher rents. And again at least in Buffalo, the poor people there weren't "wiped out", they were just forced to look for other Section 8 Housing run by slumlords who cheat the govt a few blocks over. Free to keep those communities in squalor while at least a few areas get nice again.
.
So what happens when you continue to displace people. They have to go somewhere. Like nkelsch said, you're not fixing the crime problem; you're simply moving it to a place that you can no longer see and care less about.
Nobody is forcing them to move. They could stay and join the new local society, along with the higher pay and standard of living.
Nobody is forcing them to move. They could stay and join the new local society, along with the higher pay and standard of living.
Oh goodness. Where to start.
When gentrification happens to an urban center, the cost of housing goes up considerably.
The businesses most often don't want to hire the former residents.
A quote from an article about our local gentrificarion:
In 2001, the neighborhood was the epicenter of the race riots that erupted in Cincinnati following the police shooting of an unarmed black man. Five years later, the National Trust for Historic Preservation put the neighborhood on its list of Most Endangered Historic Places.-
The neighborhood is now home to a growing number of urban professionals and empty-nesters, setting up house in apartments and condos that sell for $300,000 and up.
And then:
And an advocate for the poor told the Cincinnati Enquirer newspaper that the gentrification of Over-the-Rhine is making affordable housing increasingly difficult to find.
As with any urban-renewal project -- Cleveland's Tremont, Columbus' Short North -- there will be winners and losers. And I don't mean to discount the stress of displacement that Cincinnati's most vulnerable citizens may be experiencing.
But from an outsider's perspective -- and no doubt many natives as well -- the renovation of Over-the-Rhine is nothing short of amazing.
Jihadin wrote: Bre. You can keep those hipsters over there near Seattle. Over here in Port Orchard, Bremerton, Tacoma, and Gig Harbor has to much of a military presence. Hipsters and military do not mix well Except my hipster neighbor who I am converting to be a rifle nut.
You can extend that to the Seatac area (I live down in "Southern Tacoma") where my rugby club is located... Sure there may be the appearance of the odd beard/short hair combo favored by many hipster males, but overall the towns of Burien and Seatac are still the "blue collar" type places that have been at least well maintained.
It seems to me the problem people mention with gentrification is that it does nothing for the poor. Which is true in many cases, but that strikes me as an issue that is fundamentally about poverty, not the changing face of an inner city area.
If poverty were made less harsh, it seems to me that many of the issues with gentrification would no longer exist. Whereas if gentrification were stopped, I think it would do next to nothing to help people in poverty.
sebster wrote: It seems to me the problem people mention with gentrification is that it does nothing for the poor. Which is true in many cases, but that strikes me as an issue that is fundamentally about poverty, not the changing face of an inner city area.
If poverty were made less harsh, it seems to me that many of the issues with gentrification would no longer exist. Whereas if gentrification were stopped, I think it would do next to nothing to help people in poverty.
Honestly, reading articles and seeing things online coming from many of the Scandanavian countries, especially in regards to education, would do far more for "poverty" in the US...
And I disagree with your second statement... If poverty were made less harsh, we'd just breed a new standard of poverty. If we stopped gentrification, the areas currently inhabited (or uninhabited as it were) by urban poor would still be just as they were. As you pointed out in your first statement: gentrification "helps" the buildings and areas, but rarely does anything for the people who are poor.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: And I disagree with your second statement... If poverty were made less harsh, we'd just breed a new standard of poverty. If we stopped gentrification, the areas currently inhabited (or uninhabited as it were) by urban poor would still be just as they were. As you pointed out in your first statement: gentrification "helps" the buildings and areas, but rarely does anything for the people who are poor.
You may then set a new, higher standard for poverty, but people have still been raised above the old standard - their lives are actually materially improved.
And there's plenty of suburbs in Perth that were built for the working class, really basic weatherboard homes that a couple of generations were no longer on the outskirts of the city, but thanks to growth were now inner city. Because a basic rate of pay was still reasonable, most of the people still living in those old homes owned them, and they were sitting on million dollar pieces of land. What might have been a basic retirement on a small superannuation and the pension became a sea change in to a mansion in the South West region.
But when a basic working class income is enough just to rent and not own, well then what I just described can't happen.
Sigvatr wrote: My wife and I prefer the company of people with a similar social status as us and want our child to grow up in a safe social environment. Therefore, we're in favor of gentrification and all processes going along with it.
Selfish? Yes. But honest.
What exactly is "wrong" with gentrification? Please explain the negative of having a bunch of law abiding citizens who want to be invlved in the community moving into a deteriorating neighborhood. Oh Noes my property values are going up! Oh noes I'm not worried about drive bys from those hipsters at the street corner. The whole concept is derpy derp derp.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nkelsch wrote: Wages don't go up... People are still paid minimum wage to serve these establishments... the Chipolte in the renewed 'town center' doesn't pay more than the Chipolte in a cheaper part of town. All it does is force the people who work there to drive farther to get to work.
And often the rent goes up drastically because they evict whole buildings, tear down 30-year old apartments and replace them with condos. Rent goes up 3-5 times the original amount, not 50 bucks a month.
Some mom and pops who are lucky enough to own get to enjoy the new income... but almost no one anywhere OWNS their building. Commercial real estate is pretty depressing. In my area, like 2 major firms own 90% of the properties. They literally own everything. Anyone who DID own probably cashed out to developers during the rebuilding of the area and is no longer running a business. Those who rent simply either get skyrocketing commercial rent, or the landlord refuses to renew the lease.
And people are not complaining about their taxes going up. Most areas have 'homestead' taxes which limit property tax increases for residents who live in a house. It is the renters (which almost all of the low income are) being instantly displaced by closing an entire building for extensive renovations or demolishing, or house rentals which go through the roof.
Here is an example in my area right now. I bought my house in 2000 for 100k. My mortgage payment was like 500$ When I bought it, a 3-bedroom townhome in this neighborhood was renting for 800$ a month.
When I sold in 2011, my neighbor was paying 1850$ a month and was leaving because it was going up 250$ the next lease.
Around the corner, they are building 600k townhomes which mean these older townhomes are being flipped and rented for obscene amounts. A 1 bedroom apartment down the street is now 1700$.
All it has done is push everyone who can't afford another 10 miles out from DC, or sideways in the festering ghetto called PG county. And all the people being displaced get no vote because once you are out of your house, you are not a voter in that area anymore.
I own my home. I make out like a bandit. There are a helluva lot of people who are not even being given a chance and are basically being economically cleansed from the area. You are basically throwing crabs in boiling water and saying "learn to adapt!"
A lot of it is 'people at the top' don't like to see or interact with 'people at the bottom'. I have been to school board meetings where people were upset about having to be bused to a holding school during renovations because "they don't want their kids, in that part of the county associating with those types of people". They also blocked government housing for government workers (police, teachers, firemen, county employees) because 'those' types of people are not what they want in their areas. They sue for soccer and basket ball courts to be torn out and replaced with horse parks and tennis courts. They are using their money and legal maneuvering to not just gentrify but eradicate what they have deemed 'unwanted elements' which boils down to poor minorities.
You can do urban renewal without ethnically cleansing the poor.
The only reason why 'hipsters' are being talked about was the other thread, Durham is becoming the 'Austin' of the east coast and is basically being flooded by hipsters.
Thats great and all, but whats the opposite of gentrification?
Detroit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breotan wrote: I just bought a house near an area of town with rundown homes, smaller trailer parks, and low-income housing. I think gentrification would do wonders for my property value. I'm not wishing the low income housing to go away but the trailer parks and run down homes definitely need razing.
Racist! How dare you! Where will the tornadoes go without trailer parks?
So, is gentrification where they tear down crack houses and dubious apartment complexes, build expensive homes and condos (Town Homes, for you youngsters), and bring in businesses? Reducing crime and violence in the area? Making the area look nicer than it was. A place that people can be proud of?
That's a bad thing?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sasori wrote: Are we going to get one of these topics every time Hostsauce man gets a new topic in his class....
Sasori wrote: Are we going to get one of these topics every time Hostsauce man gets a new topic in his class....
Yes! They are decent topics. It beats the usual gun/religion/where's my beer thread.
Be glad its not my boy. The topic would be about new equations he found on the internet, and general bitching about programming the computer properly to compute the variables. I just nod and go "un huh"
I like gentrification. It's amusing to me. Richmond and Washington D.C are two places that have become fairly gentrified in the time that I've been alive to observe it happening. Everything around the stadium is still horrible, but the cleveland park/ NWU crowd seems to have moved farther and farther into what used to be crack dens and brothels.
kronk wrote: So, is gentrification where they tear down crack houses and dubious apartment complexes, build expensive homes and condos (Town Homes, for you youngsters), and bring in businesses? Reducing crime and violence in the area? Making the area look nicer than it was. A place that people can be proud of?
kronk wrote: So, is gentrification where they tear down crack houses and dubious apartment complexes, build expensive homes and condos (Town Homes, for you youngsters), and bring in businesses? Reducing crime and violence in the area? Making the area look nicer than it was. A place that people can be proud of?
That's a bad thing?
.
The former tenants have to go somewhere.......
So in essence your answer to rotting urban centers is...let them rot?
And this is the attitude of the hipster gentrifier. As long as I don't see them anymore, I don't care where they go. But that doesn't change the fact that they have to go somewhere.
feth if I know, especially with the federal housing budget shrinking.
The solution seems to be that people that are able to move out of "gentrification overflows" do, and those overflows become the new shitholes. Gentrification doesn't actually fix a proble; it simply moves it.
I guess the naive, idealized, college student/professor response is to teach people in gentrified areas to care for their property and community, get them jobs in the new restaurants and shops, and make them a part of the gentrification process. But that ain't gonna happen.
The funniest thing to me is that all these hipsters living in gentrified areas want to claim to be living in the community. What they don't tell you is that all their gentrified housing is gated, heavily secured, and as apart from the "surrounding community" as it can possibly be.
Though I must admit I love most of the new restaurants in OTR.
Here is my experience with so called "low income" neighborhoods. I own a condo located in the county between charlotte nc and mint hill nc. It was an older neighborhood with condos and town homes, and mostly older folks or young families with kids, nice quiet and peaceful. Brand new town homes were built right behind us and we thought , hey great, it will increase our property value. Every single one of them was turned I to section 8 homes, and literally, over night, we had homes and cars gettig broken into, shots beig fired off in the middle of the night, drugs being sold in the open, and thugs prowling around acting like animals all over the place. I was walking my dog and got to watch the CMPD swat team hit one of the new homes. Our property value plumetted to the point that I still can't afford to sell it.
They people there would actually throw bags of garbage into the creek between the developments, and they had to walk past a dumpster to do it. Fething animals.
Anything that moves out the section 8 garbage from the people who actually try to work and take care of their area should be imbraced. Even if I hate hipsters, they are better than thugs.
kronk wrote: So, is gentrification where they tear down crack houses and dubious apartment complexes, build expensive homes and condos (Town Homes, for you youngsters), and bring in businesses? Reducing crime and violence in the area? Making the area look nicer than it was. A place that people can be proud of?
That's a bad thing?
If you understand that it means that the existing criminal element and/or underclass are displaced as a result of the new development, and thus forced to relocate to a new area which they will then cause to decline, and you understand that this results in a vicious cycle that doesn't actually serve to improve or rehabilitate people, merely one area at the expense of another, then yes, it is a bad thing.
Well, MY solution would be to push for 'urban renewal' programs. It does all the same things that gentrification does, except you help create jobs and opportunities for the people that already live there, rather than importing yuppies and hipsters from Brooklyn, Portland, etc. in to do it and displace the existing population. I mean, of course some new people will show up, and some old people will move out, but we're talking about a fraction of the population (as opposed to places like Brooklyn, where entire neighborhoods don't have any residents that can claim to have been there for more than a handful of years).
Raven911 wrote: Here is my experience with so called "low income" neighborhoods. I own a condo located in the county between charlotte nc and mint hill nc. It was an older neighborhood with condos and tow homes, and mostly older folks or young families with kids, nice quiet andpeaceful. Brand new tow homes were build right behind us and we thought , hey great, it will increase our property value. Every single one of them was turned I to section 8 homes, and literally, over night, we had homes and cars gettig broken into, shots beig fired off in the middle of the night, drugs being sold in the open, and thugs prowling around acting like animals all over the place. I was walking my dog and got to watch the CMPD swat team hit one of the new homes. Our property value plumetted to the point that I still can't afford to sell it.
Anything that moves out the section 8 garbage from the people who actually try to work and take care of their area should be imbraced. Even if I hate hipsters, they are better than thugs.
I think you misunderstand.
The gentrification of urban centers results in exactly what happened to your neighborhood.
Forced mixed-income communities aren't the solution.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Chaos, we are on the same page.
feth if I know, especially with the federal housing budget shrinking.
The solution seems to be that people that are able to move out of "gentrification overflows" do, and those overflows become the new shitholes. Gentrification doesn't actually fix a proble; it simply moves it.
I guess the naive, idealized, college student/professor response is to teach people in gentrified areas to care for their property and community, get them jobs in the new restaurants and shops, and make them a part of the gentrification process. But that ain't gonna happen.
The funniest thing to me is that all these hipsters living in gentrified areas want to claim to be living in the community. What they don't tell you is that all their gentrified housing is gated, heavily secured, and as apart from the "surrounding community" as it can possibly be.
Though I must admit I love most of the new restaurants in OTR.
so you shouldn't try too Teach the poor to fend for themselves to get out of poverty?
Well, MY solution would be to push for 'urban renewal' programs. It does all the same things that gentrification does, except you help create jobs and opportunities for the people that already live there, rather than importing yuppies and hipsters from Brooklyn, Portland, etc. in to do it and displace the existing population. I mean, of course some new people will show up, and some old people will move out, but we're talking about a fraction of the population (as opposed to places like Brooklyn, where entire neighborhoods don't have any residents that can claim to have been there for more than a handful of years).
You have to show evidence its ever worked first.
Criminals are not going to change. They will destroy your urban gentrification just as much as their old slum.
Well, MY solution would be to push for 'urban renewal' programs. It does all the same things that gentrification does, except you help create jobs and opportunities for the people that already live there, rather than importing yuppies and hipsters from Brooklyn, Portland, etc. in to do it and displace the existing population. I mean, of course some new people will show up, and some old people will move out, but we're talking about a fraction of the population (as opposed to places like Brooklyn, where entire neighborhoods don't have any residents that can claim to have been there for more than a handful of years).
You have to show evidence its ever worked first.
Criminals are not going to change. They will destroy your urban gentrification just as much as their old slum.
Of course they aren't. But they don't destroy the gentrified areas because they've been displaced. It's those "gentrification overflows" they destroy.
Forced mixed-income communities aren't the solution.
Tell that to the local governments. They are mandating it through zoning.
As far as teaching the "poor" to fend for themselves, why should they do that when they can sit on their collective arses and get a check every month? The best motivation to get out and find a job should be the choice between eating or not eating. I'm sick of my family getting screwed so that I can subsidize everyone else. They don't want to work? Fething you then, starve.
Well, MY solution would be to push for 'urban renewal' programs. It does all the same things that gentrification does, except you help create jobs and opportunities for the people that already live there, rather than importing yuppies and hipsters from Brooklyn, Portland, etc. in to do it and displace the existing population. I mean, of course some new people will show up, and some old people will move out, but we're talking about a fraction of the population (as opposed to places like Brooklyn, where entire neighborhoods don't have any residents that can claim to have been there for more than a handful of years).
You have to show evidence its ever worked first.
Criminals are not going to change. They will destroy your urban gentrification just as much as their old slum.
Renewal is not generally practiced on a scale that you can provide conclusive evidence one way or another as to its success. The small scale attempts at renewal (usually small neighborhoods no more than a few blocks in size) that have been made however indicate that it is possible on SOME scale. And yes, you're right, the criminal element won't necessarily change, but the hope is that the rest of the community either forces them to fall in line (it happens) or they are the element that is forced to relocate (which, while not necessarily ideal, does have an advantage in that they will not typically have the means to continue criminal activities until some time after they relocate, creating a sort of 'cool down' on their behavior).
cincydooley wrote: It's hard to teach people to fish that would simply prefer to be given a fish everyday.
Not entirely accurate. Yes, generally speaking if they are given the option to receive a free 10lb bluefish every day at no cost or effort to them, or to learn how to catch a 10lb bluefish every day which will take approximately 8 hours of their lives, daily, to accomplish, they will gladly take the free fish over the lessons... if you teach them to catch a 20-40lb snapper though... then they might be more interested. Sorry, but giving people the 'opportunity' to get a minimum wage job, is not really giving them any opportunity at all, especially not when slinging crack or heroine is more profitable and (oddly enough) less degrading/insulting to someones self worth and dignity. I recall reading a study performed that found that reforming criminals was actually possible/successful when the criminals were given the opportunity to perform work that paid above a poverty line standard and which served a function to allow them to feel as though they were doing something meaningful... bringing in a mcdonalds and a walmart generally doesn't meet those criteria.
Move out to the country and not move into the city. Then again you might be considered racist for not wanting to meet diversified people like some Whack Chick from Fox said
Bull. I deal with a lot of these people on a daily basis at work. They don't want to learn anything. Most of them are happy to wallow in their squalor and blame whitey. They don't want to improve anything unless it's another free handout or obamaphone. There are victims and there are volunteers. These are volunteers.
Raven911 wrote: Bull. I deal with a lot of these people on a daily basis at work. They don't want to learn anything. Most of them are happy to wallow in their squalor and blame whitey. They don't want to improve anything unless it's another free handout or obamaphone. There are victims and there are volunteers. These are volunteers.
It's not a race thing, so let's not make it one. The attitudes of the impoverished in urban centers are no different than those in trailer parks and backwater hovels. Hipsters just don't want to live in trailer parks.
To the urban gentrification. If the urban area begins to improve wouldn't that make it attractive to outside parties? Wouldn't that be the spark that starts the gentrification process?
As an aside, Frazzled is actually somewhat in this position. Frazzled’s workweek abode historically was in the sticks of the sticks outside of Houston. However that there Progress has been continuously moving towards me. Curse you Civilization!
My two lane country road has been widened into a nice four line bifurcated street (for a few feet on my side to give the false impression it goes further) and now connects to a new subdivision with McMansions springing up. Little do they know they are moving in next to houses with wandering chickens and 18 wheelers parked in front.
Frazzled wrote: To the urban gentrification. If the urban area begins to improve wouldn't that make it attractive to outside parties? Wouldn't that be the spark that starts the gentrification process?
You'd think, but it doesn't seem to, and that's perhaps due to the perceived safety. Gentrification only works if they can bring people with money in to the are to eat and participate in commerce. As much as I despise hipsters, I think they're considered pretty "safe."
As an aside, Frazzled is actually somewhat in this position. Frazzled’s workweek abode historically was in the sticks of the sticks outside of Houston. However that there Progress has been continuously moving towards me. Curse you Civilization!
My two lane country road has been widened into a nice four line bifurcated street (for a few feet on my side to give the false impression it goes further) and now connects to a new subdivision with McMansions springing up. Little do they know they are moving in next to houses with wandering chickens and 18 wheelers parked in front.
That, my fine frankfurter friend, is sprawl. While not unrelated, it doesn't always tie into gentrification.
Raven911 wrote: Bull. I deal with a lot of these people on a daily basis at work. They don't want to learn anything. Most of them are happy to wallow in their squalor and blame whitey. They don't want to improve anything unless it's another free handout or obamaphone. There are victims and there are volunteers. These are volunteers.
It's not a race thing, so let's not make it one. The attitudes of the impoverished in urban centers are no different than those in trailer parks and backwater hovels. Hipsters just don't want to live in trailer parks.
Actually it is. I deal with trailer parks as well. Those people generally do work, and while not the kind of people that you would want to invite over for dinner, at least tend to take care of themselves. You're inner city projects are going to be mostly black, thats not making it a race thing, that is a simple fact.
I guess any talk about poverty ends up a talk about racism. I remember a freudian slip a girl had when she replaced black people with poor people. I didnt hound it though.
Raven911 wrote: Bull. I deal with a lot of these people on a daily basis at work. They don't want to learn anything. Most of them are happy to wallow in their squalor and blame whitey. They don't want to improve anything unless it's another free handout or obamaphone. There are victims and there are volunteers. These are volunteers.
It's not a race thing, so let's not make it one. The attitudes of the impoverished in urban centers are no different than those in trailer parks and backwater hovels. Hipsters just don't want to live in trailer parks.
Actually it is. I deal with trailer parks as well. Those people generally do work, and while not the kind of people that you would want to invite over for dinner, at least tend to take care of themselves. You're inner city projects are going to be mostly black, thats not making it a race thing, that is a simple fact.
What the feth did I just read? Racial generalizations and stereotyping abound! You're showing a very clear preference for one group over another based on the color of their skin, with the implication that trailer park hicks are mostly white and mostly have an income source.
Raven911 wrote: Bull. I deal with a lot of these people on a daily basis at work. They don't want to learn anything. Most of them are happy to wallow in their squalor and blame whitey. They don't want to improve anything unless it's another free handout or obamaphone. There are victims and there are volunteers. These are volunteers.
It's not a race thing, so let's not make it one. The attitudes of the impoverished in urban centers are no different than those in trailer parks and backwater hovels. Hipsters just don't want to live in trailer parks.
Actually it is. I deal with trailer parks as well. Those people generally do work, and while not the kind of people that you would want to invite over for dinner, at least tend to take care of themselves. You're inner city projects are going to be mostly black, thats not making it a race thing, that is a simple fact.
What the feth did I just read? Racial generalizations and stereotyping abound! You're showing a very clear preference for one group over another based on the color of their skin, with the implication that trailer park hicks are mostly white and mostly have an income source.
Get over yourself. Have a certain group ruin your neighborhood and see how fething open minded you are.
Its okay cincy, he's from South Carolina, they're all racist right wing christian fundamentalists who sleep with their siblings and cousins down there. If you're making ignorant stereotypes then I'm going to make them too.
No one said you did, but most section 8 areas and gettos are from a certain section of the population.
The difference between me and you is that i say what most other people thibk but are too scared to say because of beig labeled as "racist". You try to act superior and open minded, yet start calling names to people who have another opinion.
And someone from new jersey talking about south carolina is funny.
I was actually tracking what Raven was saying and not even came close to considered him "racist" due to his experience. He stated an observation which I will say I have seen myself on occasions. Cities I have seen it in is;
DC Baltimore MD
Camden NJ
New York NY
LA CA Dallas TX
Raleigh NC
Durham NC
Nashville TN
Bowling Green KY
I can go on and on
I even admit to seeing this on military posts mainly due to Dependent kids
Raven911 wrote: No one said you did, but most section 8 areas and gettos are from a certain section of the population.
The difference between me and you is that i say what most other people thibk but are too scared to say because of beig labeled as "racist". You try to act superior and open minded, yet start calling names to people who have another opinion.
And someone from new jersey talking about south carolina is funny.
No, what you said was racist.
I do plenty of "saying what other people think" and I can do it without thinly veiled racism spewing through.
I'm all about being able to have different opinions, but yours is a racist one. You're entitled to it, but that doesn't mean we won't call you on it.
cincydooley wrote: Gentrification doesn't actually fix a proble; it simply moves it.
True, but that gets back to my point that the real issue is poverty, not gentrification. I mean, flip that around and consider what happens if gentrification is stopped - it doesn't actually fix the problem (of poor people in poor neighbourhoods), it just reverts to the old position of people not paying attention to the poor people living in the poor suburb that no-one ever goes to.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Criminals are not going to change. They will destroy your urban gentrification just as much as their old slum.
If there was such a thing as 'the criminal' who was the same person in all times, then your idea there would work. But exactly what causes people to commit crimes is a pretty interesting piece of psychology, for instance have you ever heard of the Broken Window theory? That's the observation that places that look run down (ie have broken windows) people are way more likely to commit opportunistic criminal acts, than they are in areas that look clean and well looked after.
The result is that an area that's been cleaned up, even if there's no dramatic change in the make up of the local population will actually have less crime. It was likely one of the big contributing factors to the sudden decline of crime in major cities like New York in the early 90s.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Raven911 wrote: The difference between me and you is that i say what most other people thibk but are too scared to say because of beig labeled as "racist".
That is true, you say what a lot of other people think but won't say in public.
That doesn't mean it isn't a gross simplification based entirely on racist nonsense, though.
And that's the really important thing that gets lost too often - racism shouldn't get shouted down because it's wrong or offensive, it should get shouted down because it's stupid.
The difference between me and you is that i say what most other people thibk but are too scared to say because of beig labeled as "racist". You try to act superior and open minded, yet start calling names to people who have another opinion.
You DO know I'm a "minority" right? Obviously you don't, but now you do. Keep in mind who it is you're speaking to, maybe you won't make yourself look so foolish. As for calling you names, I guess you missed the point I was trying to make, not even going to bother explaining it to you. And I'll forgive you for your New Jersey comment, mostly because I pity you for no knowing what its like to live in such an amazing place.
As for saying what other people think but are 'too scared to say', I would argue that all you're really saying is what YOU think, and the reality is that people don't say it because they know better.
I dont care if youre blue. So now you want to throw the race card at me? Nice. I happen to be married to a minority, so that really doesnt do anything for me.
The broken window theory works, but it works th same as the gentrification, it displaces crime, it doesnt stop it. No matter what you do you just keep shuffling the problem around. As someone else said, criminals are not going to stop committig crime because you cleaned the place up. The only thing the stops crime is keeping the criminals locked up.
In the "racist" example i used with In my experience with the brand new town homes that were built beside my property, these were super nice homes, and because of the section 8 parasites that were put in there, it was nearly destroyed within a month, and they were starting to try to destroy our area with crime, trash and graffitti.
Its no wonder that people want to move away from stuff like this and get out in the country. Who wants to hear gunshots and shouted profanity all hours of the night.
And if Jersey was so good then why are so many of your people moving here? Maybe better climate, lower taxes, and more freedom?
Raven911 wrote: I dont care if youre blue. So now you want to throw the race card at me? Nice. I happen to be married to a minority, so that really doesnt do anything for me.
Again you miss the point. By stating I am a minority I was pointing out that I don't think 'what most people think' and I'm not afraid of saying something because I would 'be labeled racist' or whatever excuse you're trying to use to justify and rationalize your belief system.
The broken window theory works, but it works th same as the gentrification, it displaces crime, it doesnt stop it. No matter what you do you just keep shuffling the problem around. As someone else said, criminals are not going to stop committig crime because you cleaned the place up. The only thing the stops crime is keeping the criminals locked up.
Thats incorrect. No, you won't stop ALL crime, there is always a certain hardline criminal element dedicated to the lifestyle, but the overwhelming majority of people, including the majority of 'criminals', will take ownership of their surroundings, particularly if it means an increase in their status, whether real or perceived. Fun fact, most 'criminals' want the same thing that you and I do, they just turn to different methods to achieve it, but if given the opportunity to have that status in a 'legitimate' manner, they will take it.
In the "racist" example i used with In my experience with the brand new town homes that were built beside my property, these were super nice homes, and because of the section 8 parasites that were put in there, it was nearly destroyed within a month, and they were starting to try to destroy our area with crime, trash and graffitti.
Its no wonder that people want to move away from stuff like this and get out in the country. Who wants to hear gunshots and shouted profanity all hours of the night.
Section 8 housing is still section 8 housing, just because you give someone a nice place to live at a greatly reduced cost doesn't mean these people aren't still living in poverty struggling to make ends meet and at risk of losing everything they have. Beyond that, getting back to the original point of this thread, they have no reason to take ownership of their situation, everyone else is benefiting from the increased economic status of the area, not them, they are merely being given an opportunity to observe it courtesy of the nice white folk down the road who feel sorry for them.
And if Jersey was so good then why are so many of your people moving here? Maybe better climate, lower taxes, and more freedom?
Every New Jerseyan wants to leave at some point in their life, hell even the Boss did, but a surprisingly large number of them actually come back. BTW, New Jersey is one of the few states in the Northeast to see population growth trends
chaos0xomega wrote: Beyond that, getting back to the original point of this thread, they have no reason to take ownership of their situation, everyone else is benefiting from the increased economic status of the area, not them, they are merely being given an opportunity to observe it courtesy of the nice white folk down the road who feel sorry for them.
That's bs.
Access to better schools and facilities that are commonly associated with more upper class areas. While they perhaps won't have the opportunity to access them all, getting your kids into a decent school is a good start in beginning to change your families economic and social standing.
chaos0xomega wrote: Beyond that, getting back to the original point of this thread, they have no reason to take ownership of their situation, everyone else is benefiting from the increased economic status of the area, not them, they are merely being given an opportunity to observe it courtesy of the nice white folk down the road who feel sorry for them.
That's bs.
Access to better schools and facilities that are commonly associated with more upper class areas. While they perhaps won't have the opportunity to access them all, getting your kids into a decent school is a good start in beginning to change your families economic and social standing.
Overwhelmingly gentrification is a function of younger crowds who don't have children and thus there isn't much political clout behind improving local public education, beyond that, increasingly (as the yupsters eventually age and do start reproducing), they send their children off to private schools which are funded in part via increasingly popular tax credit programs so that local public schools don't actually see that dramatic a benefit.
While I don't know all the details, I will say that NYC has seemingly found a way to work around this, as I increasingly see students from underprivileged backgrounds attending (theoretically) upscale private charter schools as well.
Frazzled wrote: I thought De Blasio just got rid of all the charter schools?
*shrug* I haven't been to NYC since he was elected, don't care to much either.
I did not know you are a "minority" Chaos
I am a "minority" but I do not consider myself a minority
I'm of Dominican descent, my moms half of the family is... err... well, they're pretty much black, though she's very light skinned compared to most of the family, though I consider myself 'white' (mostly) as I seemingly took after my dads German/Hungarian genes.
