Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   New study shows that waves of over-privileged white kids taking over old neighborhoods, driving up prices, and pushing out the former non-white residents may actually be a good thing. Well, for the privileged white kids, anyway   (npr.org) divider line 106
    More: Obvious, privilege of the white, Tompkins Square Park, social consciousness, gentrification  
•       •       •

4595 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Jan 2014 at 8:59 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



106 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-22 10:16:51 AM  

Big Ramifications: Interesting to note if the same thing happens in reverse - non-white residents taking over white neighborhoods - the same racial group are the moral bad guys. This sort of demographic shift is labelled "white flight."


I think it's worth pointing out that in the famous examples of "white flight" of 50 years ago, the percentage of minority residents in urban areas increased, but the absolute urban populations fell through the floor.

In other words, it's not that more minorities came in and pushed the whites out; it's that the whites moved to the suburbs and no one moved into the city to replace them.
 
2014-01-22 10:28:36 AM  

dfacto: When are hipsters going to try and gentrify Detroit?


It is happening right now.  Detroit is seeing an influx of hipster kids from wealthy parents in the burbs.  They are bringing their microbrews, bike shops, coffee houses, and artisan sausage dispensaries with them.  It is causing tension in some of the areas where the old residents are painting "HIPSTER GO HOME!" on the sides of the houses they fixed up.

I'm all for it.  Hipsters with money and fixing up a neighborhood is better than people with no money or no people at all.  Go Hipsters!
 
2014-01-22 10:31:03 AM  
My experience is that the "overprivledged" white people we are talking about are actually the sons and daughters of the middle class that are just starting out and don't have very much money. By "not much money" I mean sometimes pretty damn poor. They move into these neighborhoods partly because they can afford to rent or buy, while they certainly can't afford the suburbs they came from.

Urban living is also attractive, but any way you cut it you do need to be able to afford the place. Young people moving into crappy areas of town says as much about the declining wages in our country as anything else.
 
2014-01-22 10:32:03 AM  
When white people left the cities for the suburbs, people complained about white flight, and now that white people are moving back into the cities, people complain about gentrification.
 
2014-01-22 10:34:10 AM  

SigmaAlgebra: When white people left the cities for the suburbs, people complained about white flight, and now that white people are moving back into the cities, people complain about gentrification.


Ofcourse, eveything is whitey fault... did you learn nothing in school?
 
2014-01-22 10:36:19 AM  

SigmaAlgebra: When white people left the cities for the suburbs, people complained about white flight, and now that white people are moving back into the cities, people complain about gentrification.


And when the money flows around a city (in DC, they've spent a lot of time rebuilding in SE around the new stadium, but there are better-off neighborhoods that have fallen into disrepair over that time), it's both.

I'm all for doing things fairly, but people also need places to live and work; why not choose among available options in whatever urban neighborhood rather than "staying among your own" race/social stratum/whatever?
 
2014-01-22 10:42:07 AM  

The Southern Logic Company: Enlightened Liberal: Tatsuma: The Southern Logic Company: This. How did this become accepted pretty much overnight?

I don't know it's like I blinked and now that shiat is everywhere. It's like with the rise of tumblr a very small but very vocal segment of SJWs have managed to hijack the discourse while most of us are just confused why the news is starting to push that bullshiat full time.

These are the same people who also dogpile people and ask for them to lose their jobs the second they say something that they disagree with. Not even something extreme or hateful, just something they disagree with.

Two guys crack jokes about dongle at a conference? Clearly they need to be publicly shamed and lose their jobs for doing what everyone everywhere does.

Whoa there, Mr. CIS-gendered, hetero normative, transmisogynist, you need to check your privilege and learn my pronouns.

But really, I'm mostly left leaning but manufactured outrage from these people has become rather annoying. It hasn't made me a Republican, but now I just hate everything.

"Manufactured outrage" is exactly the right word for it.  We get outraged for a good reason, to prompt people into action to right a wrong.  Constant outrage is like the boy who cried wolf, why am I supposed to care?

I agree with most SJWs in principal but I despise them for their tactics.  Its like the Tea Party of the left


SJW's in a nutshell: "people of color" = okay, "colored people" = racist.
 
2014-01-22 10:43:56 AM  
Those areas ain't gonna fix themselves up.
 
2014-01-22 10:58:52 AM  
I live in an area of Chicago which is statistically just as safe as the already-gentrified areas but has a bad reputation regardless because of decades of truly horrific mismanagement by the previous alderman.

It's full of SRO housing - single rooms rented by the day or week - housing that barely fits the standard of housing.  Half of the buildings are mismanaged and left to rot.  Some of the more notorious ones are comparable to those crappy Japanese commuter hotels, without the sanitation.

And yet there is such enormous outcry every time one of these festering shiatholes is bought by a developer and turned into reasonable market-rate housing.   Oh no, where will the people who have been squatting in foetid misery for years among bedbugs and feces live now?  How dare the gentrifiers push them out of their homes? (I wish I was being hyperbolic, but some of the video I've seen of the interior of those places when they go in to rehab is absolutely horrifying.)

I live in a hundred year old stone building that was rescued from deterioration and gut-rehabbed during the housing boom. From some of the reactions I get to being a "condo owner" in my area you'd think I was literally Hitler.

I understand that affordable housing is a very serious concern, and it needs to be addressed.  But letting beautiful old buildings literally fall apart so that they can be rented out by slumlords to the desperate is definitely not the answer.

I love my neighborhood.  We have some of the very best ethnic restaurants in the city, great transit and a bright future. I definitely don't want to see people driven out and would love to see more affordable, reasonable and safe housing.   But the number of people who want to keep it mired in the unsavory past always shocks the hell out of me.
 
2014-01-22 11:01:08 AM  
Took a course in "Urban and Regional Planning" during grad school, and didn't learn much that I didn't already know.  (I'll have to concede that the professor was no "spring chicken," however.)

In any town with a major college/university, there is a convergence of affluence and relative poverty. Including students, who rent housing in the same off-campus areas as the people who change the tires, cook the food, play the music, and sell drugs on the side.

/Not sure what my "thesis" is here; something about magnetic attraction and repulsion and blah, blah, blah.
 
2014-01-22 11:21:21 AM  

SoupJohnB: Took a course in "Urban and Regional Planning" during grad school, and didn't learn much that I didn't already know.  (I'll have to concede that the professor was no "spring chicken," however.)

In any town with a major college/university, there is a convergence of affluence and relative poverty. Including students, who rent housing in the same off-campus areas as the people who change the tires, cook the food, play the music, and sell drugs on the side.

/Not sure what my "thesis" is here; something about magnetic attraction and repulsion and blah, blah, blah.


intrigued; wish to subscribe; profit
 
2014-01-22 11:29:28 AM  
verbaltoxin:

SJW's in a nutshell: "people of color" = okay, "colored people" = racist.

I think its time to drop a Wittgenstein bomb on tumblr if they want to keep playing around with philosophy of language.
 
2014-01-22 11:39:10 AM  

Tatsuma: The Southern Logic Company: This. How did this become accepted pretty much overnight?

I don't know it's like I blinked and now that shiat is everywhere. It's like with the rise of tumblr a very small but very vocal segment of SJWs have managed to hijack the discourse while most of us are just confused why the news is starting to push that bullshiat full time.

These are the same people who also dogpile people and ask for them to lose their jobs the second they say something that they disagree with. Not even something extreme or hateful, just something they disagree with.

Two guys crack jokes about dongle at a conference? Clearly they need to be publicly shamed and lose their jobs for doing what everyone everywhere does.


Claiming someone is "abusing their privilege" is just another way to label someone, and therefore negate them.  Why bother treating someone with respect when they are obviously just another liberal/tea bagger/racist/homophobe/sexist?  "Privilege" is just an updated way to call someone a casual racist.
 
2014-01-22 11:42:47 AM  
Takeaway: the poor have a duty to remain poor in their poor squalid conditions.

/poor
 
2014-01-22 11:49:40 AM  
Can't say I was welcomed to Fort Greene with open arms when this was going on in the nineties.  Being an urban pioneer is just like that.

The old folks don't want you around because you're not the same people they grew up with.  The cops don't want to know you because they have to start chasing after property crimes.  The neighborhood was nice, but you had to deal with things like Not Having a Bank or Buying Food from the Bulletproof Chinese Place.

Never could figure out this one storefront that was blacked out and always had a gas generator going out in front.  Made a huge racket and in the whole time I was there, it only stopped once when the cops were invesitgating something up the block.  I assume someone was running a marijuana grow operation there and was trying to keep their power consumption off the grid, but surely using all that gas must have eaten up their margin.  It's probably a Stumptown now.
 
2014-01-22 11:58:37 AM  
FTFA - Some days, he says, he's very concerned about what will happen to the beauty salon across the street from his bench. Its owners often do elderly people's hair for free.

THIS is what the problem is. Areas that are typically very intermingled and neighborly losing out to money and paranoid rich people who build 8ft security fences, concrete their entire property, remove every tree there for fear of 'storm damage', then biatch and complain because every house in a five block radius does not look exactly like their 'desert compound'. (Recently, a fellow dweller of the neighborhood wanted to remodel his house. The city informed him that any improvements would force the city to demand he tear it down because the windows were not aligned on the walls like the other houses were... I am not making this up). These new people are from the more affluent sections of the area, and they are moving because they cannot afford the prices in those areas... prices that are artificially inflated thanks to these same people. And they want to come here like locusts, re-build everything in cheap plastic, drive up property values and destroy that 'neighborhood' feeling. Those vulture developers already are building duplexes and condos on property that once had houses. Do not stand there and preach to me about how this helps the neighborhood. I am witnessing the destruction of my neighborhood, one I have happily lived in for over 12 years, thanks to greed and the desire to make this part of town like the rich part... you know, the one that is so overpriced and pretentious thanks to overdevelopment, the desire to maximize coverage, and the drive to make sure every corner has a Charbucks on it.

/and don't get me started on the HOAs now being formed in the 're-built' sections of my neighborhood. They are worse than Nazis, having lived here less than a year and trying to tell the rest of us how the neighborhood should be and how we should be living in our homes.
 
2014-01-22 12:03:24 PM  
I live in Washington page now. I'm all fr gentrification of this area. We started renovating our house (big Victorian ) and because of that some of the neighborhood realized how crappy they looked and started cleaning up. Because of Marcella shale this area is up and coming and I really look forward to the trash being pushed out of the market
 
2014-01-22 12:04:12 PM  

James Rieper: Being an urban pioneer is just like that.


I get your point, that sentence just really, really made you sound like a dick.  "I braved the hardships of poor people, so others could live a civilized life after me."

/really.
 
2014-01-22 12:12:02 PM  

GORDON: Claiming someone is "abusing their privilege" is just another way to label someone, and therefore negate them. Why bother treating someone with respect when they are obviously just another liberal/tea bagger/racist/homophobe/sexist? "Privilege" is just an updated way to call someone a casual racist.


Pretty much, yeah. It's all mental gymnastics, ideological purity and either redefining language or inventing words in order to remove certain concepts or opinion from popular though. It's social 1984.

In their search for ideological purity, the cries of "tolerance" are not enough anymore. It used to be everyone believed society would be better if only we were tolerant of each others. Didn't have to like each other, didn't have to interact, but as long as we tolerated each others and had equal rights, everyone was better off. Now, if you're tolerant but not accepting, you suddenly become evil. If you have never read about the "cotton ceiling", go ahead. We're living in an era where even your sexual preferences can be used to paint you as oppressive and a bigot.

This is madness.
 
2014-01-22 12:28:56 PM  

Another Government Employee: As a middle class white dude in a gentrifying neighborhood, I'm getting a kick.

When I first moved in, my street was a mix of GM redneck and struggling musicians.  Chambodia was threatening to come up the street and get us (nothing wrong with that).  I picked up my house for cheap and I was happy. Close to everything. And a semi decent school district to boot.

Now...I am surrounded by 4000 sq. ft. McMansion's filled with entitled yuppies.  I get calls daily from developers who haven't come up to my price yet.  All the cool funkiness that made the place home is gone. The BOE went insane 10 years ago and is just now coming off probation.  And I am ready to retire.

Financially, I'll make out like a bandit.  But it doesn't mean I have to like it.


Just tie a couple thousand helium balloons to your fireplace and float to South America, gramps.
 
2014-01-22 12:33:56 PM  

The_Original_Roxtar: so, increased land values, improved small business opportunities... and you're mad about this why again?

maybe if your "pride in your community" extended beyond covering everything in gang graffiti and violence against outsiders, you wouldn't need to be displaced in the name of progress.


Except when the reward for giving up gang graffiti and violence against outsiders is getting priced out of your home and having to move somewhere with gang graffti, violence against outsiders, violence against insiders, fewer jobs and worse transportation.
 
2014-01-22 12:35:42 PM  

Nexzus: Another Government Employee: As a middle class white dude in a gentrifying neighborhood, I'm getting a kick.

When I first moved in, my street was a mix of GM redneck and struggling musicians.  Chambodia was threatening to come up the street and get us (nothing wrong with that).  I picked up my house for cheap and I was happy. Close to everything. And a semi decent school district to boot.

Now...I am surrounded by 4000 sq. ft. McMansion's filled with entitled yuppies.  I get calls daily from developers who haven't come up to my price yet.  All the cool funkiness that made the place home is gone. The BOE went insane 10 years ago and is just now coming off probation.  And I am ready to retire.

Financially, I'll make out like a bandit.  But it doesn't mean I have to like it.

Just tie a couple thousand helium balloons to your fireplace and float to South America, gramps.


Sounds like a plan.

Now get off my lawn.
 
2014-01-22 12:57:43 PM  

Tatsuma: "cotton ceiling",


What?

I'm not being facetious, I really didn't understand the point of that link.  So... a transgendered lesbian is a woman who has gotten a sex change, but still calls themselves a woman?  Is that what's happening?  Wouldn't that just be buyer's remorse?
 
2014-01-22 01:03:28 PM  

Tatsuma: GORDON: Claiming someone is "abusing their privilege" is just another way to label someone, and therefore negate them. Why bother treating someone with respect when they are obviously just another liberal/tea bagger/racist/homophobe/sexist? "Privilege" is just an updated way to call someone a casual racist.

Pretty much, yeah. It's all mental gymnastics, ideological purity and either redefining language or inventing words in order to remove certain concepts or opinion from popular though. It's social 1984.

In their search for ideological purity, the cries of "tolerance" are not enough anymore. It used to be everyone believed society would be better if only we were tolerant of each others. Didn't have to like each other, didn't have to interact, but as long as we tolerated each others and had equal rights, everyone was better off. Now, if you're tolerant but not accepting, you suddenly become evil. If you have never read about the "cotton ceiling", go ahead. We're living in an era where even your sexual preferences can be used to paint you as oppressive and a bigot.

This is madness.


I suspect this kind of thinking is catching on because of the nature of the internet.  Used to be a nutball running around with a "everyone is racist/privileged" world view would just be the local nutball... but now with the internet every nutball has a voice and is able to reinforce every other nutball's delusions.  It is a self feeding cycle.  The more they are heard, the louder they get.  Just think how insane things will be 20 years from now.

But what do i know.... I am just another white male who was obviously raised to think his opinion matters, flaunting the fact he had access to good public education in everyones faces.  I don't have enough of a victim mentality to be taken seriously.
 
2014-01-22 01:08:59 PM  

Tatsuma: GORDON: Claiming someone is "abusing their privilege" is just another way to label someone, and therefore negate them. Why bother treating someone with respect when they are obviously just another liberal/tea bagger/racist/homophobe/sexist? "Privilege" is just an updated way to call someone a casual racist.

Pretty much, yeah. It's all mental gymnastics, ideological purity and either redefining language or inventing words in order to remove certain concepts or opinion from popular though. It's social 1984.

In their search for ideological purity, the cries of "tolerance" are not enough anymore. It used to be everyone believed society would be better if only we were tolerant of each others. Didn't have to like each other, didn't have to interact, but as long as we tolerated each others and had equal rights, everyone was better off. Now, if you're tolerant but not accepting, you suddenly become evil. If you have never read about the "cotton ceiling", go ahead. We're living in an era where even your sexual preferences can be used to paint you as oppressive and a bigot.

This is madness.


Madness indeed:

people's desires are influenced by an intersection of cultural messages that determine those desires. Cultural messages that code trans women's bodies as male are transphobic, and those messages influence people's desires. So cis queer women who are attracted to other queer women may not view trans women as viable sexual partners because they have internalized the message that trans women are somehow male.

I really hate how the author of this email asserts that the messages we are sent we completely internalize without any rational though.  As if we were all but automata with no ability to critically think or ignore things that are hateful/ignorant/biased.  Her statement that "There aren't enough lesbian female + trans female relationships" being proof of a phobia or "cotton ceiling" is just absurd.  Just because there are no couples that fit that pair doesn't mean that there is inherent discrimination.  There may not be any East Timor/Peruvian couples but one can't logically conclude that people of those two countries have some sort of hate/discrimination at work because there exists no logical union.

Absurd.  Someone put these people in a critical thinking class ASAP.
 
2014-01-22 01:09:30 PM  

The Muthaship: GORDON: White people leaving = white flight.

I call it the Cash Dash.

It doesn't matter what color you are, if you can afford it, you get the f*ck out of the ghetto.

~

I was taken to the ghetto once. That's the worst when you're taken and you're not expecting to go. Usually you want to know when you're going to the ghetto, like, "I'm gonna see some wild shiat, I gotta prepare myself to see something crazy."

i39.tinypic.com

When you're taken its different. I had a limousine driver, it was after the show, at like 3 in the morning. I had a limousine driver, he's a nice guy, talking to me and shiat. He's like, "Where you from, dog? D.C.? Word. That's a rough city, man."

And his cellphone started ringing, he's like, "Hold one one second.... Hello? Oh, what's up n!#gger? What? What the fark, slow down, what? What the FARK? No! No! No! Fark it, I'm on my way!"

*intercom warning noise*

"Hey, I gotta make a stop real quick."
 
2014-01-22 01:18:07 PM  

mike_d85: I'm not being facetious, I really didn't understand the point of that link. So... a transgendered lesbian is a woman who has gotten a sex change, but still calls themselves a woman? Is that what's happening? Wouldn't that just be buyer's remorse?


Basically this is a movement to label lesbians who refuse to sleep with people who declare themselves to be women but still have penises to be bigots. Yes, you have people telling lesbians that they are bigoted for not wanting to have a partner with a penis.

GORDON: I suspect this kind of thinking is catching on because of the nature of the internet. Used to be a nutball running around with a "everyone is racist/privileged" world view would just be the local nutball... but now with the internet every nutball has a voice and is able to reinforce every other nutball's delusions. It is a self feeding cycle. The more they are heard, the louder they get. Just think how insane things will be 20 years from now.


It has to be. Hopefully there's a backlash from the majority of people whose skin is not so thin it's near translucent.
 
2014-01-22 01:18:41 PM  

mike_d85: Tatsuma: "cotton ceiling",

What?

I'm not being facetious, I really didn't understand the point of that link.  So... a transgendered lesbian is a woman who has gotten a sex change, but still calls themselves a woman?  Is that what's happening?  Wouldn't that just be buyer's remorse?


It exposes something of a rift in the LBGTQ community going back 40+ years. Even though the 'T' is there, trans* issues are often shunted aside in favor of issues that pertain to the gay community (issues that are almost 100% cisgendered). The issues pertaining more to the trans* community - like the shockingly high amount of police brutality, and the kaleidoscope of social issues (starting with the simple issue of where to poop) - they feel, are ignored in "LBGT" groups.

So that link, assuming I understand (gotta check my white cismale privilege here), is that Redacted Lesbian feels that a lesbian who wouldn't sleep with a woman with boy parts is doing a disservice to the trans* community by thinking (or "has been brainwashed by the gendered, heteronormative society into thinking") that only women - and ALL women - have vaginas. OP is flustered (as am I) since a simple understanding of "lesbian" is "woman in woman's body attracted to women in womens' bodies", which sort of excludes the penis by definition.

Redacted Lesbian finds this offensive, as if someone's sexual preference were a conscious choice one could "undo" the "uncomfortable" parts of.
 
2014-01-22 01:39:22 PM  

brantgoose: But we love yah, Seattle. We just don't want your damned weather.


Our weather has been in the 40s and mild the entire time that the rest of the country has been either freezing or unseasonably warm. You keep your weather, we like ours just fine.
 
2014-01-22 01:40:04 PM  

Tatsuma: Basically this is a movement to label lesbians who refuse to sleep with people who declare themselves to be women but still have penises to be bigots. Yes, you have people telling lesbians that they are bigoted for not wanting to have a partner with a penis.


OK.  Now I know why I don't get it.  It doesn't make any goddamned sense.

Dr Dreidel: It exposes something of a rift in the LBGTQ community going back 40+ years. Even though the 'T' is there, trans* issues are often shunted aside in favor of issues that pertain to the gay community (issues that are almost 100% cisgendered). The issues pertaining more to the trans* community - like the shockingly high amount of police brutality, and the kaleidoscope of social issues (starting with the simple issue of where to poop) - they feel, are ignored in "LBGT" groups.
 
OK, the practicalities of transgendered life I get (and it's sad I need to include police brutality as a "practicality"), but why are they assuming ANY definition of sexuality is learned?  Every single source would have been beating heteronormative behavior into them, so they should have turned into straight as-wielding lumberjack men.  Or perhaps dainty ladies fetching sammiches.  I'm still not sure what exactly a transgendered lesbian is.


/I still think it's pathetic that "gender" has anything to do with something other than sexual organs or chromisomes.
 
2014-01-22 01:47:13 PM  

Dr Dreidel: It exposes something of a rift in the LBGTQ community going back 40+ years. Even though the 'T' is there, trans* issues are often shunted aside in favor of issues that pertain to the gay community (issues that are almost 100% cisgendered). The issues pertaining more to the trans* community - like the shockingly high amount of police brutality, and the kaleidoscope of social issues (starting with the simple issue of where to poop) - they feel, are ignored in "LBGT" groups.

So that link, assuming I understand (gotta check my white cismale privilege here), is that Redacted Lesbian feels that a lesbian who wouldn't sleep with a woman with boy parts is doing a disservice to the trans* community by thinking (or "has been brainwashed by the gendered, heteronormative society into thinking") that only women - and ALL women - have vaginas. OP is flustered (as am I) since a simple understanding of "lesbian" is "woman in woman's body attracted to women in womens' bodies", which sort of excludes the penis by definition.


Stupid bullshiat like that gets in the way of real bad shiat that happens to people, like getting beat up by the government.
 
2014-01-22 01:57:05 PM  
static1.businessinsider.com

Yo about to be culturally enriched.
 
2014-01-22 02:09:22 PM  
I've never understood why "gentrification" is a bad thing in American cities. The white people run away in white flight, that's bad...the white people come back and invest money, that's bad. But in reality, your property increases in value, you get more services, more convenient commercial outlets, the white people won't put up with the bullshiat that used to make it a bad neighborhood, etc. It seems like a win-win for everyone except the people who have to leave because white people won't put up with them anymore.
 
2014-01-22 02:13:42 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: I've never understood why "gentrification" is a bad thing in American cities. The white people run away in white flight, that's bad...the white people come back and invest money, that's bad. But in reality, your property increases in value, you get more services, more convenient commercial outlets, the white people won't put up with the bullshiat that used to make it a bad neighborhood, etc. It seems like a win-win for everyone except the people who have to leave because white people won't put up with them anymore.


White people....Bad.

That simple.
 
2014-01-22 03:10:30 PM  

verbaltoxin: SJW's in a nutshell: "people of color" = okay, "colored people" = racist.


If you want to make an SJW completely melt down, insist that Caucasians must therefore be called "people of whiteness".
 
2014-01-22 03:12:40 PM  
gerrymander

If you want to make an SJW completely melt down, insist that Caucasians must therefore be called "people of whiteness".

But what would you call Europeans? People of whiter whiteness?
 
2014-01-22 03:26:49 PM  

Enlightened Liberal: I'm all for gentrification since most people end up winners, except for renters who see their rent increase at a higher rate than their wages.

If you own a rental property and person A is willing and able to pay $2,000 a month and person B can only afford $800 a month, then sorry person B you need to find a new place to live. On the hand, low - income people shouldn't be completely screwed but I'm not sure what an equitable solution would be.


One solution is to put in place nationwide rules that prevent raising rent for existing tenants above the normal inflation rate, and rules that forbid a lease to be terminated if the property changes owners. Obviously, when the lease expires, the tenant would have to negotiate with the new owner, but if the former law is also in effect, the new owner could not raise rent more than 5% over the previous year's rent.

This is how Gentrification pushes out the poor, because there are no protections for tenants to prevent price-gouging when property values change, or a landlord sells or remodels their property. It happened to my family back in the 80s, and we were not poor. Property values had gone up due to new housing developments in the area, and our landlord sold the property to someone else. Because of the change in ownership, our old lease was now null and void, and our new landlord immediately raised our rent by nearly 50%.
 
2014-01-22 03:41:49 PM  

Loreweaver: Because of the change in ownership, our old lease was now null and void,


Where was this at?  Everywhere I've ever lived, the lease goes with the property in a sale and new owners have to honor the existing lease until it comes up for renewal.
 
2014-01-22 03:55:16 PM  

Loreweaver: Enlightened Liberal: I'm all for gentrification since most people end up winners, except for renters who see their rent increase at a higher rate than their wages.

If you own a rental property and person A is willing and able to pay $2,000 a month and person B can only afford $800 a month, then sorry person B you need to find a new place to live. On the hand, low - income people shouldn't be completely screwed but I'm not sure what an equitable solution would be.

One solution is to put in place nationwide rules that prevent making improvements to rental propertiesraising rent for existing tenants above the normal inflation rate, and rules that forbid a lease to be terminated if the property changes owners. Obviously, when the lease expires, the tenant would have to negotiate with the new owner, but if the former law is also in effect, the new owner could not raise rent more than 5% over the previous year's rent.



That's what you're saying.
 
2014-01-22 04:59:21 PM  

Big Ramifications: over-privileged white kids taking over old neighborhoods, driving up prices, and pushing out the former non-white residents
~

Interesting to note if the same thing happens in reverse - non-white residents taking over white neighborhoods - the same racial group are the moral bad guys. This sort of demographic shift is labelled "white flight."

This sorta subtle racism is freaken everywhere. White people are always the Germans.

[i42.tinypic.com image 350x264]


Well, that's because "white flight" is an accurate description of what is happening.  Crime goes up, property values go down, and white people get the hell out.

While with gentrification, crime goes down, property values go up, and black and brown people do not actually flee (if this study is accurate).

Calling different phenomena by different names is a good idea.
 
2014-01-22 05:12:22 PM  
Loreweaver, it's possible for the increase in value on a property to exceed the national rate of inflation.  Why should the landlord eat the difference?

I think you got hosed in your story.  Did your attorney tell you that or did the new owner?  I think someone may have successfully put one over on you, but I'd have to know more.
 
2014-01-22 05:26:04 PM  

mike_d85: James Rieper: Being an urban pioneer is just like that.

I get your point, that sentence just really, really made you sound like a dick.  "I braved the hardships of poor people, so others could live a civilized life after me."

/really.


I live in a gentrified neighborhood, and I'm grateful for the pioneers (most of 'em gay) who made it a nice place to live.  And no, it wasn't a civilized place before them.  Sorry.
 
2014-01-22 05:44:59 PM  
The area around the Tivoli theater in DC was gentrified years ago. It was amazing to see I was always around there when it was a bad neighborhood, then they fixed up the theater and made that the focal point like with the verizon center in chinatown. It was weird I hadnt been there in years and when I went back I was shocked how different it was.
 
2014-01-22 06:12:27 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: gerrymander

If you want to make an SJW completely melt down, insist that Caucasians must therefore be called "people of whiteness".

But what would you call Europeans? People of whiter whiteness?


Still "people of whiteness".

/Except for the Belgians.
//Let's not call them anything. Let's just ignore them.
 
2014-01-22 06:50:29 PM  

GORDON: White people coming = gentrification.
White people leaving = white flight.

Women and minorities hardest hit, as always.


Interesting and same to the OP. At what point did the article mention "white" or "non-white" people at all?
 
2014-01-22 07:05:21 PM  

Freudian_slipknot: Loreweaver: Because of the change in ownership, our old lease was now null and void,

Where was this at?  Everywhere I've ever lived, the lease goes with the property in a sale and new owners have to honor the existing lease until it comes up for renewal.


At lot of leases are designed to be extended/renewed on a month-to-month basis after the first year. This is where my father got burned. The lease was up at the end of the month after the sale. It was a private sale to someone he knew, and we were never even told about it until the sale happened.
 
2014-01-22 07:17:41 PM  

James Rieper: Loreweaver, it's possible for the increase in value on a property to exceed the national rate of inflation.  Why should the landlord eat the difference?

I think you got hosed in your story.  Did your attorney tell you that or did the new owner?  I think someone may have successfully put one over on you, but I'd have to know more.


As far as I'm aware, your mortgage on a rental property you own doesn't go up just because property values in the neighborhood went up. There is no legit reason for the landlord to increase rent higher than inflation, since his costs have not gone up. One could argue that the taxes go up, but that increase still amounts to less than a 5% increase in the rent he is charging.

Plus, any decent landlord is supposed to figure in the cost of home improvements over time when setting the initial rent on a property. Only slumlords and profiteers seek to gouge tenants for repairs and improvements.
 
2014-01-22 07:31:28 PM  
Loreweaver: One solution is to put in place nationwide rules that prevent raising rent for existing tenants above the normal inflation rate, and rules that forbid a lease to be terminated if the property changes owners. Obviously, when the lease expires, the tenant would have to negotiate with the new owner, but if the former law is also in effect, the new owner could not raise rent more than 5% over the previous year's rent.

 HAHAHAHAHA. News flash: people buy rental properties to make money. Not as a charity or public service. We could call that the "we made existing rental property worthless and no one will buy them" law. And where are you going to rent when no one owns rental property?
 
2014-01-22 08:15:57 PM  

Phins: Loreweaver: One solution is to put in place nationwide rules that prevent raising rent for existing tenants above the normal inflation rate, and rules that forbid a lease to be terminated if the property changes owners. Obviously, when the lease expires, the tenant would have to negotiate with the new owner, but if the former law is also in effect, the new owner could not raise rent more than 5% over the previous year's rent.

 HAHAHAHAHA. News flash: people buy rental properties to make money. Not as a charity or public service. We could call that the "we made existing rental property worthless and no one will buy them" law. And where are you going to rent when no one owns rental property?


Don't get me wrong. i am not against landlords turning a profit. But there is a big difference between owning property to turn a profit, and treating someone's home as yet another get-rich-quick scheme, like we saw with the housing bubble.
 
2014-01-22 09:22:53 PM  

Loreweaver: Phins: Loreweaver: One solution is to put in place nationwide rules that prevent raising rent for existing tenants above the normal inflation rate, and rules that forbid a lease to be terminated if the property changes owners. Obviously, when the lease expires, the tenant would have to negotiate with the new owner, but if the former law is also in effect, the new owner could not raise rent more than 5% over the previous year's rent.

 HAHAHAHAHA. News flash: people buy rental properties to make money. Not as a charity or public service. We could call that the "we made existing rental property worthless and no one will buy them" law. And where are you going to rent when no one owns rental property?

Don't get me wrong. i am not against landlords turning a profit. But there is a big difference between owning property to turn a profit, and treating someone's home as yet another get-rich-quick scheme, like we saw with the housing bubble.


If you're not trying to maximize profit, you shouldn't be investing or owning a business. And if you're a property owner and you could be getting more in rent but just don't, you're a moron. You seriously believe that government should be able to limit the amount of profit a company can make? Or the amount of return on an investment? Do you also believe there should be a law that limits what you can sell your house for? You can only sell for 5% more than you paid? Or you can only sell for the same price you bought, adjusted for inflation? C'mon, be a nice guy, leave money on the table for a stranger. I'm going to guess no, you wouldn't want that. You want to get the highest price you can. But you think someone who owns rental property should be limited by law as to how much s/he can make.
 
Displayed 50 of 106 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report