Educate me - why is gentrification bad?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gentrification is bad because people need a place to live. Period. This prices them out of housing. Sure you can stay if you own your home as I do but taxes increase with the inflated home values and when I sell I still need somewhere to live. Yeah. I know. I can move way out or to another region which is fantastic except as an older person, I'd appreciate being near decent medical care and not have to drive far for everything.

And if you rent, you're pushed out with the quickness. Great for you with the high incomes but many hard working people don't have them.

That is oversimplified nonsense. It prices people out of housing in a particular neighborhood, or it prices them out of a particular house/apartment. In 1994, I wanted to rent in Georgetown, but couldn't afford it, so I rented in Clarendon instead. In 2004, we wanted to buy in Dupont Circle, but couldn't afford it, so we bought in Columbia Heights instead. In 2015, we wanted to buy in Spring Valley, but couldn't afford it, so we bought in Bethesda instead.

Is it a bummer? Sure. Is it a reason to put significant controls and protections into the real estate market? Absolutely not.

Pure privilege on display here.

"Look guys, when I wanted to buy in an expensive, safe, lily-white neighborhood chock full of amenities and transit access and couldn't afford it, all I had to do was move to a slightly less expensive, safe, lily-white neighborhood chock full of amenities and transit access. Easy peasy!"

And what about when you get pushed out of Anacostia, or Capitol Heights? When the new neighborhoods you can afford are food deserts and you don't make enough to keep a car? When the new neighborhoods you can afford mean your commute time triples because now you have to take two buses to work that only come every half hour but you can't afford childcare for that extra time? When you have to move out because you can't afford the new rent and your slumlord landlord refuses to give you your security deposit back so you can't even afford to move into ANY new neighborhood and even though you know you left the apartment in perfect condition you can't afford to take the time off work to fight it?

Not everyone can "just move to Clarendon."

How long does someone need to live in a neighborhood in order to be guaranteed the right to live there forever (for cheap rent?). One year? 5? 10? Who pays for maintenance when taxes go up?

When put that way, I hope you understand how silly it is.

Also, you are pretending that these things happen overnight and poor old grandma is thrown out into the streets. These things take 10, 15 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gentrification is bad because people need a place to live. Period. This prices them out of housing. Sure you can stay if you own your home as I do but taxes increase with the inflated home values and when I sell I still need somewhere to live. Yeah. I know. I can move way out or to another region which is fantastic except as an older person, I'd appreciate being near decent medical care and not have to drive far for everything.

And if you rent, you're pushed out with the quickness. Great for you with the high incomes but many hard working people don't have them.

That is oversimplified nonsense. It prices people out of housing in a particular neighborhood, or it prices them out of a particular house/apartment. In 1994, I wanted to rent in Georgetown, but couldn't afford it, so I rented in Clarendon instead. In 2004, we wanted to buy in Dupont Circle, but couldn't afford it, so we bought in Columbia Heights instead. In 2015, we wanted to buy in Spring Valley, but couldn't afford it, so we bought in Bethesda instead.

Is it a bummer? Sure. Is it a reason to put significant controls and protections into the real estate market? Absolutely not.

Pure privilege on display here.

"Look guys, when I wanted to buy in an expensive, safe, lily-white neighborhood chock full of amenities and transit access and couldn't afford it, all I had to do was move to a slightly less expensive, safe, lily-white neighborhood chock full of amenities and transit access. Easy peasy!"

And what about when you get pushed out of Anacostia, or Capitol Heights? When the new neighborhoods you can afford are food deserts and you don't make enough to keep a car? When the new neighborhoods you can afford mean your commute time triples because now you have to take two buses to work that only come every half hour but you can't afford childcare for that extra time? When you have to move out because you can't afford the new rent and your slumlord landlord refuses to give you your security deposit back so you can't even afford to move into ANY new neighborhood and even though you know you left the apartment in perfect condition you can't afford to take the time off work to fight it?

Not everyone can "just move to Clarendon."

For starters, if you think Columbia Heights is either safe or lily-white, you aren't paying attention, but that's neither here nor there. Moreover, you don't address the central point of my post, which is "gentrification" doesn't price someone out of "housing," as the initial post stated, but it merely priced them out of a neighborhood, or apartment, or street.

But, I'd like to ask what you think should be done about the natural phenomenon of "gentrification." Should people of a certain income level not be permitted to rent or buy in a neighborhood? Should apartment buildings with more than bare bones amenities not be permitted? Should businesses be discouraged from opening there, because they might lead to increased rents and/or property values?

Should the city subsidize increased rent payments from residents of different neighborhoods? Just long-term residents, or all residents? And how long is long-term?

In short - what do we do to combat this? I'm all ears.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gentrification only happens when long-term residents want to cash out. Why shouldn’t they be able to make more money via a home sake than they ever would working?

This has always been my question. If it's so bad, long-term residents don't have to move. They can stay and enjoy the benefits of gentrification. However, they want to cash out and move out. It's their choice.

And if they're renting and their home gets sold out from under them? That has happened in my neighborhood.

That’s called life. You’ll have to move.

Right? These aren’t endangered species. They’re normal people like anywhere else who need to move if they can’t afford the rent.

But many people will tell you that the poor black are deserving of protections not afforded to poor whites. It's bizarre.

It's only "bizarre" if you're completely ignorant to the long history of denying equal benefits and opportunities to black families, through redlining, blockbusting, segregation in the GI Bill, and a multitude of other racial injustices in which white families were encouraged and given substantial assistance to become homeowners while black families were blocked at every turn.

You're damn right black families are more deserving of protection from being displaced, it's the least we can do after generations of stacking the deck against them that specifically put them at greater risk of being displaced.

Exactly.

I appreciate your point - but it hard to ascertain who has been victimized by past injustice versus who is a victim of their own device. How does a government allocate limited resources to make this determination? How does one determine who is entitled to recourse? It’s a slippery slope and as we have seen with ill begotten stimulus checks - the government is not up to the task.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gentrification is bad because people need a place to live. Period. This prices them out of housing. Sure you can stay if you own your home as I do but taxes increase with the inflated home values and when I sell I still need somewhere to live. Yeah. I know. I can move way out or to another region which is fantastic except as an older person, I'd appreciate being near decent medical care and not have to drive far for everything.

And if you rent, you're pushed out with the quickness. Great for you with the high incomes but many hard working people don't have them.

That is oversimplified nonsense. It prices people out of housing in a particular neighborhood, or it prices them out of a particular house/apartment. In 1994, I wanted to rent in Georgetown, but couldn't afford it, so I rented in Clarendon instead. In 2004, we wanted to buy in Dupont Circle, but couldn't afford it, so we bought in Columbia Heights instead. In 2015, we wanted to buy in Spring Valley, but couldn't afford it, so we bought in Bethesda instead.

Is it a bummer? Sure. Is it a reason to put significant controls and protections into the real estate market? Absolutely not.

Pure privilege on display here.

"Look guys, when I wanted to buy in an expensive, safe, lily-white neighborhood chock full of amenities and transit access and couldn't afford it, all I had to do was move to a slightly less expensive, safe, lily-white neighborhood chock full of amenities and transit access. Easy peasy!"

And what about when you get pushed out of Anacostia, or Capitol Heights? When the new neighborhoods you can afford are food deserts and you don't make enough to keep a car? When the new neighborhoods you can afford mean your commute time triples because now you have to take two buses to work that only come every half hour but you can't afford childcare for that extra time? When you have to move out because you can't afford the new rent and your slumlord landlord refuses to give you your security deposit back so you can't even afford to move into ANY new neighborhood and even though you know you left the apartment in perfect condition you can't afford to take the time off work to fight it?

Not everyone can "just move to Clarendon."

For starters, if you think Columbia Heights is either safe or lily-white, you aren't paying attention, but that's neither here nor there. Moreover, you don't address the central point of my post, which is "gentrification" doesn't price someone out of "housing," as the initial post stated, but it merely priced them out of a neighborhood, or apartment, or street.

But, I'd like to ask what you think should be done about the natural phenomenon of "gentrification." Should people of a certain income level not be permitted to rent or buy in a neighborhood? Should apartment buildings with more than bare bones amenities not be permitted? Should businesses be discouraged from opening there, because they might lead to increased rents and/or property values?

Should the city subsidize increased rent payments from residents of different neighborhoods? Just long-term residents, or all residents? And how long is long-term?

In short - what do we do to combat this? I'm all ears.

There are many avenues that can be used to combat gentrification, but it all mostly boils down to building more affordable housing and making homeownership easier.

1. Eliminate single family zoning citywide to increase the overall housing supply and add a significantly higher property tax category for single family homes over a certain value with income-based waivers available.
2. Eliminate the Height of Buildings Act to increase the overall housing supply
3. Increase the IZ requirements for new buildings and eliminate all loopholes like the ones that allow developers to shift their IZ units to different projects
4. Build city-owned 100% IZ buildings funded by taxes on developers, the wealthiest residents, and a special tax on all cash purchases and real estate transactions a certain percentage above the median for that neighborhood (i.e. flips) so that flippers and gentrifiers are directly contributing to the preservation of their neighborhoods.
5. Expand the DC Opens Doors program and provide outreach to educate residents about the program's existence. Pass a law that requires sellers to give DC Opens Doors buyers first priority on offers and any qualified DCOD buyers bidding at or over asking price must be accepted.
6. Require landlords to set 1-2% of all rent received in an interest-bearing account. If the tenant moves out the landlord can keep the money, if the property is sold and the tenant exercises their right of first refusal that money is applied to the down payment and closing costs.
7. Before being auctioned to the general public, tax sale and city owned properties are offered to residents of that zip code via DC Opens Doors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gentrification is bad because people need a place to live. Period. This prices them out of housing. Sure you can stay if you own your home as I do but taxes increase with the inflated home values and when I sell I still need somewhere to live. Yeah. I know. I can move way out or to another region which is fantastic except as an older person, I'd appreciate being near decent medical care and not have to drive far for everything.

And if you rent, you're pushed out with the quickness. Great for you with the high incomes but many hard working people don't have them.

That is oversimplified nonsense. It prices people out of housing in a particular neighborhood, or it prices them out of a particular house/apartment. In 1994, I wanted to rent in Georgetown, but couldn't afford it, so I rented in Clarendon instead. In 2004, we wanted to buy in Dupont Circle, but couldn't afford it, so we bought in Columbia Heights instead. In 2015, we wanted to buy in Spring Valley, but couldn't afford it, so we bought in Bethesda instead.

Is it a bummer? Sure. Is it a reason to put significant controls and protections into the real estate market? Absolutely not.

Pure privilege on display here.

"Look guys, when I wanted to buy in an expensive, safe, lily-white neighborhood chock full of amenities and transit access and couldn't afford it, all I had to do was move to a slightly less expensive, safe, lily-white neighborhood chock full of amenities and transit access. Easy peasy!"

And what about when you get pushed out of Anacostia, or Capitol Heights? When the new neighborhoods you can afford are food deserts and you don't make enough to keep a car? When the new neighborhoods you can afford mean your commute time triples because now you have to take two buses to work that only come every half hour but you can't afford childcare for that extra time? When you have to move out because you can't afford the new rent and your slumlord landlord refuses to give you your security deposit back so you can't even afford to move into ANY new neighborhood and even though you know you left the apartment in perfect condition you can't afford to take the time off work to fight it?

Not everyone can "just move to Clarendon."

For starters, if you think Columbia Heights is either safe or lily-white, you aren't paying attention, but that's neither here nor there. Moreover, you don't address the central point of my post, which is "gentrification" doesn't price someone out of "housing," as the initial post stated, but it merely priced them out of a neighborhood, or apartment, or street.

But, I'd like to ask what you think should be done about the natural phenomenon of "gentrification." Should people of a certain income level not be permitted to rent or buy in a neighborhood? Should apartment buildings with more than bare bones amenities not be permitted? Should businesses be discouraged from opening there, because they might lead to increased rents and/or property values?

Should the city subsidize increased rent payments from residents of different neighborhoods? Just long-term residents, or all residents? And how long is long-term?

In short - what do we do to combat this? I'm all ears.

There are many avenues that can be used to combat gentrification, but it all mostly boils down to building more affordable housing and making homeownership easier.

1. Eliminate single family zoning citywide to increase the overall housing supply and add a significantly higher property tax category for single family homes over a certain value with income-based waivers available.
2. Eliminate the Height of Buildings Act to increase the overall housing supply
3. Increase the IZ requirements for new buildings and eliminate all loopholes like the ones that allow developers to shift their IZ units to different projects
4. Build city-owned 100% IZ buildings funded by taxes on developers, the wealthiest residents, and a special tax on all cash purchases and real estate transactions a certain percentage above the median for that neighborhood (i.e. flips) so that flippers and gentrifiers are directly contributing to the preservation of their neighborhoods.
5. Expand the DC Opens Doors program and provide outreach to educate residents about the program's existence. Pass a law that requires sellers to give DC Opens Doors buyers first priority on offers and any qualified DCOD buyers bidding at or over asking price must be accepted.
6. Require landlords to set 1-2% of all rent received in an interest-bearing account. If the tenant moves out the landlord can keep the money, if the property is sold and the tenant exercises their right of first refusal that money is applied to the down payment and closing costs.
7. Before being auctioned to the general public, tax sale and city owned properties are offered to residents of that zip code via DC Opens Doors.

You seem to think the developer/renter relationship is zero sum. It is not. Taxing developers = taxing middle class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gentrification is bad because people need a place to live. Period. This prices them out of housing. Sure you can stay if you own your home as I do but taxes increase with the inflated home values and when I sell I still need somewhere to live. Yeah. I know. I can move way out or to another region which is fantastic except as an older person, I'd appreciate being near decent medical care and not have to drive far for everything.

And if you rent, you're pushed out with the quickness. Great for you with the high incomes but many hard working people don't have them.

That is oversimplified nonsense. It prices people out of housing in a particular neighborhood, or it prices them out of a particular house/apartment. In 1994, I wanted to rent in Georgetown, but couldn't afford it, so I rented in Clarendon instead. In 2004, we wanted to buy in Dupont Circle, but couldn't afford it, so we bought in Columbia Heights instead. In 2015, we wanted to buy in Spring Valley, but couldn't afford it, so we bought in Bethesda instead.

Is it a bummer? Sure. Is it a reason to put significant controls and protections into the real estate market? Absolutely not.

Pure privilege on display here.

"Look guys, when I wanted to buy in an expensive, safe, lily-white neighborhood chock full of amenities and transit access and couldn't afford it, all I had to do was move to a slightly less expensive, safe, lily-white neighborhood chock full of amenities and transit access. Easy peasy!"

And what about when you get pushed out of Anacostia, or Capitol Heights? When the new neighborhoods you can afford are food deserts and you don't make enough to keep a car? When the new neighborhoods you can afford mean your commute time triples because now you have to take two buses to work that only come every half hour but you can't afford childcare for that extra time? When you have to move out because you can't afford the new rent and your slumlord landlord refuses to give you your security deposit back so you can't even afford to move into ANY new neighborhood and even though you know you left the apartment in perfect condition you can't afford to take the time off work to fight it?

Not everyone can "just move to Clarendon."

For starters, if you think Columbia Heights is either safe or lily-white, you aren't paying attention, but that's neither here nor there. Moreover, you don't address the central point of my post, which is "gentrification" doesn't price someone out of "housing," as the initial post stated, but it merely priced them out of a neighborhood, or apartment, or street.

But, I'd like to ask what you think should be done about the natural phenomenon of "gentrification." Should people of a certain income level not be permitted to rent or buy in a neighborhood? Should apartment buildings with more than bare bones amenities not be permitted? Should businesses be discouraged from opening there, because they might lead to increased rents and/or property values?

Should the city subsidize increased rent payments from residents of different neighborhoods? Just long-term residents, or all residents? And how long is long-term?

In short - what do we do to combat this? I'm all ears.

There are many avenues that can be used to combat gentrification, but it all mostly boils down to building more affordable housing and making homeownership easier.

1. Eliminate single family zoning citywide to increase the overall housing supply and add a significantly higher property tax category for single family homes over a certain value with income-based waivers available.
2. Eliminate the Height of Buildings Act to increase the overall housing supply
3. Increase the IZ requirements for new buildings and eliminate all loopholes like the ones that allow developers to shift their IZ units to different projects
4. Build city-owned 100% IZ buildings funded by taxes on developers, the wealthiest residents, and a special tax on all cash purchases and real estate transactions a certain percentage above the median for that neighborhood (i.e. flips) so that flippers and gentrifiers are directly contributing to the preservation of their neighborhoods.
5. Expand the DC Opens Doors program and provide outreach to educate residents about the program's existence. Pass a law that requires sellers to give DC Opens Doors buyers first priority on offers and any qualified DCOD buyers bidding at or over asking price must be accepted.
6. Require landlords to set 1-2% of all rent received in an interest-bearing account. If the tenant moves out the landlord can keep the money, if the property is sold and the tenant exercises their right of first refusal that money is applied to the down payment and closing costs.
7. Before being auctioned to the general public, tax sale and city owned properties are offered to residents of that zip code via DC Opens Doors.

Oh, also it's very telling and honestly quite disgusting that your position is "who cares if they get pushed out to places where their lives will be severely disrupted if not impossible to continue normally, they can afford something and probably won't be living in a cardboard box so screw them I got mine."

[Anonymous]

What do you all think the next neighborhood to gentrify will be, and what type of dwelling would you invest in? Wishing Id gotten in on the Wharf.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gentrification is bad because people need a place to live. Period. This prices them out of housing. Sure you can stay if you own your home as I do but taxes increase with the inflated home values and when I sell I still need somewhere to live. Yeah. I know. I can move way out or to another region which is fantastic except as an older person, I'd appreciate being near decent medical care and not have to drive far for everything.

And if you rent, you're pushed out with the quickness. Great for you with the high incomes but many hard working people don't have them.

That is oversimplified nonsense. It prices people out of housing in a particular neighborhood, or it prices them out of a particular house/apartment. In 1994, I wanted to rent in Georgetown, but couldn't afford it, so I rented in Clarendon instead. In 2004, we wanted to buy in Dupont Circle, but couldn't afford it, so we bought in Columbia Heights instead. In 2015, we wanted to buy in Spring Valley, but couldn't afford it, so we bought in Bethesda instead.

Is it a bummer? Sure. Is it a reason to put significant controls and protections into the real estate market? Absolutely not.

The real estate market is already significantly controlled and protected. I can't put up tower blocks next to your SFH, for example. The question is who do the controls and protections work for. And it's not the poor or working class of this area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gentrification is bad because people need a place to live. Period. This prices them out of housing. Sure you can stay if you own your home as I do but taxes increase with the inflated home values and when I sell I still need somewhere to live. Yeah. I know. I can move way out or to another region which is fantastic except as an older person, I'd appreciate being near decent medical care and not have to drive far for everything.

And if you rent, you're pushed out with the quickness. Great for you with the high incomes but many hard working people don't have them.

That is oversimplified nonsense. It prices people out of housing in a particular neighborhood, or it prices them out of a particular house/apartment. In 1994, I wanted to rent in Georgetown, but couldn't afford it, so I rented in Clarendon instead. In 2004, we wanted to buy in Dupont Circle, but couldn't afford it, so we bought in Columbia Heights instead. In 2015, we wanted to buy in Spring Valley, but couldn't afford it, so we bought in Bethesda instead.

Is it a bummer? Sure. Is it a reason to put significant controls and protections into the real estate market? Absolutely not.

The real estate market is already significantly controlled and protected. I can't put up tower blocks next to your SFH, for example. The question is who do the controls and protections work for. And it's not the poor or working class of this area.

This statement is such a nothingburger. Who should they work for? Shouldn't they work for everyone? My SFH and poor and working class, with compromise? Isn't that called... society? Some kind of ... balance? Of course right now, that tower block "works for" developers, GGW, and the Mayor $$$$.

Such a nothingburger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gentrification is bad because people need a place to live. Period. This prices them out of housing. Sure you can stay if you own your home as I do but taxes increase with the inflated home values and when I sell I still need somewhere to live. Yeah. I know. I can move way out or to another region which is fantastic except as an older person, I'd appreciate being near decent medical care and not have to drive far for everything.

And if you rent, you're pushed out with the quickness. Great for you with the high incomes but many hard working people don't have them.

That is oversimplified nonsense. It prices people out of housing in a particular neighborhood, or it prices them out of a particular house/apartment. In 1994, I wanted to rent in Georgetown, but couldn't afford it, so I rented in Clarendon instead. In 2004, we wanted to buy in Dupont Circle, but couldn't afford it, so we bought in Columbia Heights instead. In 2015, we wanted to buy in Spring Valley, but couldn't afford it, so we bought in Bethesda instead.

Is it a bummer? Sure. Is it a reason to put significant controls and protections into the real estate market? Absolutely not.

The real estate market is already significantly controlled and protected. I can't put up tower blocks next to your SFH, for example. The question is who do the controls and protections work for. And it's not the poor or working class of this area.

This statement is such a nothingburger. Who should they work for? Shouldn't they work for everyone? My SFH and poor and working class, with compromise? Isn't that called... society? Some kind of ... balance? Of course right now, that tower block "works for" developers, GGW, and the Mayor $$$$.

Such a nothingburger.

You live in Bethesda. It's easy for you to call affordable housing a nothingburger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gentrification is bad because people need a place to live. Period. This prices them out of housing. Sure you can stay if you own your home as I do but taxes increase with the inflated home values and when I sell I still need somewhere to live. Yeah. I know. I can move way out or to another region which is fantastic except as an older person, I'd appreciate being near decent medical care and not have to drive far for everything.

And if you rent, you're pushed out with the quickness. Great for you with the high incomes but many hard working people don't have them.

That is oversimplified nonsense. It prices people out of housing in a particular neighborhood, or it prices them out of a particular house/apartment. In 1994, I wanted to rent in Georgetown, but couldn't afford it, so I rented in Clarendon instead. In 2004, we wanted to buy in Dupont Circle, but couldn't afford it, so we bought in Columbia Heights instead. In 2015, we wanted to buy in Spring Valley, but couldn't afford it, so we bought in Bethesda instead.

Is it a bummer? Sure. Is it a reason to put significant controls and protections into the real estate market? Absolutely not.

The real estate market is already significantly controlled and protected. I can't put up tower blocks next to your SFH, for example. The question is who do the controls and protections work for. And it's not the poor or working class of this area.

This statement is such a nothingburger. Who should they work for? Shouldn't they work for everyone? My SFH and poor and working class, with compromise? Isn't that called... society? Some kind of ... balance? Of course right now, that tower block "works for" developers, GGW, and the Mayor $$$$.

Such a nothingburger.

NIMBYs refusing to allow anything other than SFH, while fighting tooth and nail against transit projects like the Purple Line and housing development like McMillian Park isn't "compromise," it's reinforcing the status quo that directly benefits them to the detriment of others. We live in a society, yes. But we also live in a city, not anyone's personal fiefdom that they get to preserve in amber.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gentrification is bad because people need a place to live. Period. This prices them out of housing. Sure you can stay if you own your home as I do but taxes increase with the inflated home values and when I sell I still need somewhere to live. Yeah. I know. I can move way out or to another region which is fantastic except as an older person, I'd appreciate being near decent medical care and not have to drive far for everything.

And if you rent, you're pushed out with the quickness. Great for you with the high incomes but many hard working people don't have them.

That is oversimplified nonsense. It prices people out of housing in a particular neighborhood, or it prices them out of a particular house/apartment. In 1994, I wanted to rent in Georgetown, but couldn't afford it, so I rented in Clarendon instead. In 2004, we wanted to buy in Dupont Circle, but couldn't afford it, so we bought in Columbia Heights instead. In 2015, we wanted to buy in Spring Valley, but couldn't afford it, so we bought in Bethesda instead.

Is it a bummer? Sure. Is it a reason to put significant controls and protections into the real estate market? Absolutely not.

Pure privilege on display here.

"Look guys, when I wanted to buy in an expensive, safe, lily-white neighborhood chock full of amenities and transit access and couldn't afford it, all I had to do was move to a slightly less expensive, safe, lily-white neighborhood chock full of amenities and transit access. Easy peasy!"

And what about when you get pushed out of Anacostia, or Capitol Heights? When the new neighborhoods you can afford are food deserts and you don't make enough to keep a car? When the new neighborhoods you can afford mean your commute time triples because now you have to take two buses to work that only come every half hour but you can't afford childcare for that extra time? When you have to move out because you can't afford the new rent and your slumlord landlord refuses to give you your security deposit back so you can't even afford to move into ANY new neighborhood and even though you know you left the apartment in perfect condition you can't afford to take the time off work to fight it?

Not everyone can "just move to Clarendon."

For starters, if you think Columbia Heights is either safe or lily-white, you aren't paying attention, but that's neither here nor there. Moreover, you don't address the central point of my post, which is "gentrification" doesn't price someone out of "housing," as the initial post stated, but it merely priced them out of a neighborhood, or apartment, or street.

But, I'd like to ask what you think should be done about the natural phenomenon of "gentrification." Should people of a certain income level not be permitted to rent or buy in a neighborhood? Should apartment buildings with more than bare bones amenities not be permitted? Should businesses be discouraged from opening there, because they might lead to increased rents and/or property values?

Should the city subsidize increased rent payments from residents of different neighborhoods? Just long-term residents, or all residents? And how long is long-term?

In short - what do we do to combat this? I'm all ears.

Being unable to move into a neighborhood you might want to live in isn't quite the same as being pushed out of the one you already live in, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What do you all think the next neighborhood to gentrify will be, and what type of dwelling would you invest in? Wishing Id gotten in on the Wharf.

The Wharf and Navy Yard areas aren't really examples of gentrification. Those areas weren't residential before they were redeveloped.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you all think the next neighborhood to gentrify will be, and what type of dwelling would you invest in? Wishing Id gotten in on the Wharf.

The Wharf and Navy Yard areas aren't really examples of gentrification. Those areas weren't residential before they were redeveloped.

There were a lot of old elegant and down at the heels apt buildings a few blocks back that Im guessing have risen in value. That sort of thing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gentrification is bad because people need a place to live. Period. This prices them out of housing. Sure you can stay if you own your home as I do but taxes increase with the inflated home values and when I sell I still need somewhere to live. Yeah. I know. I can move way out or to another region which is fantastic except as an older person, I'd appreciate being near decent medical care and not have to drive far for everything.

And if you rent, you're pushed out with the quickness. Great for you with the high incomes but many hard working people don't have them.

That is oversimplified nonsense. It prices people out of housing in a particular neighborhood, or it prices them out of a particular house/apartment. In 1994, I wanted to rent in Georgetown, but couldn't afford it, so I rented in Clarendon instead. In 2004, we wanted to buy in Dupont Circle, but couldn't afford it, so we bought in Columbia Heights instead. In 2015, we wanted to buy in Spring Valley, but couldn't afford it, so we bought in Bethesda instead.

Is it a bummer? Sure. Is it a reason to put significant controls and protections into the real estate market? Absolutely not.

The real estate market is already significantly controlled and protected. I can't put up tower blocks next to your SFH, for example. The question is who do the controls and protections work for. And it's not the poor or working class of this area.

This statement is such a nothingburger. Who should they work for? Shouldn't they work for everyone? My SFH and poor and working class, with compromise? Isn't that called... society? Some kind of ... balance? Of course right now, that tower block "works for" developers, GGW, and the Mayor $$$$.

Such a nothingburger.

NIMBYs refusing to allow anything other than SFH, while fighting tooth and nail against transit projects like the Purple Line and housing development like McMillian Park isn't "compromise," it's reinforcing the status quo that directly benefits them to the detriment of others. We live in a society, yes. But we also live in a city, not anyone's personal fiefdom that they get to preserve in amber.

Isnt the whole idea of preserving green space or historical zoning a kind of preserving in amber? Yes, part of urban planning does involve preserving in amber. Btw, who doesnt like amber? Its captivating.