Trader Joe's not welcome in black neighborhood

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Many older AA and Hispanic people who bought there when it was undesirable were priced out of the new market

How do you get priced out of something you already bought?

Huh? Do you own a home? Property tax assesments that rose by 500% in a few years. The costs of goods and services in the neighborhood that increase as more affluent folks move in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Many older AA and Hispanic people who bought there when it was undesirable were priced out of the new market

How do you get priced out of something you already bought?

I'd like to know too. The only way you get priced out is if you rent and the landlord decides to sell at market rate, right?
Would gentrification of an area affect your yearly property taxes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Many older AA and Hispanic people who bought there when it was undesirable were priced out of the new market

How do you get priced out of something you already bought?

I'd like to know too. The only way you get priced out is if you rent and the landlord decides to sell at market rate, right?
Would gentrification of an area affect your yearly property taxes?

It's been answered several times, read back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.ibtimes.com/trader-joes-pulls-out-poor-portland-oregon-neighborhood-defeat-gentrification-1553231


"The Portland African American Leadership Forum objected to the proposed development partly because it feared that the new retail complex would eventually push up rental prices in the area and drive out the local black community."

They apparently think WAY too much of Trader Joe's

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Many older AA and Hispanic people who bought there when it was undesirable were priced out of the new market

How do you get priced out of something you already bought?

I'd like to know too. The only way you get priced out is if you rent and the landlord decides to sell at market rate, right?
Would gentrification of an area affect your yearly property taxes?

Of course it would. Gentrification = increased property values. Increase property values = increased property taxes.

A landlord can also raise rent, when someone wants to renew their lease. In dense areas, parking can become challenging/expensive. It's simple supply and demand. Overall cost of living will automatically increase.

[Anonymous]

It wouldn't do much in DC -- i think the rule is, if a home is your primary residence, property tax increases are capped (I think it's 10% a year?). I remember reading about people defaulting on Habitat for Humanity homes in Virginia b/c the property values rose sharply (during the boom), & taxes went up correspondingly. HfH homeowners were really in a bind b/c they aren't allowed to sell their homes for several years.

[Anonymous]

There was an Post article about the Annie Casey Foundation and a woman, 50-ish, refused to let them put a tree in her tree box because she was afraid the greening of the neighborhood would attract gentrifiers. That was one of the saddest, most mystifying things I've ever read.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a tricky dilemma - putting desirable businesses in communities with a lower SEC will bring economic vitality to those areas, and uplift the neighborhood - but they will also raise neighborhood prices, so those people who will no longer be able to afford living in those neighborhoods, will face no choice but have to move.

Gentrification is a tricky thing, and I'm not sure what the solution is.

Yes, these folks' concerns are real. I don't know what the answer is either but it is hardly "idiotic" as the pp above said to be worried.

Well, one alternative is to riot and firebomb. It took central Washington nearly 40 years to recover from that.

[Anonymous]

In my neighborhood, some normal turnover occurred but the new folks moving in definitely affected housing prices so people who had grown up in that neighborhood couldn't afford to buy or rent there.

There are limits on how fast your property taxes can go up in DC to 10% a year for the home you live in. Plus you get the homestead exemption so if you bought a long time ago your taxes are lower. But for some people with limited means that's still a difficult increase to make up.

I did have neighbors who lost their house due to not keeping up on their property taxes. I checked the records and saw that this had happened to them before but they had managed to pay them in the past. But this most recent time, they were ensnared by I think it was Aeon (WaPo did a feature on it recently), that vicious company that buys up houses in tax sales and then tacks on thousands of dollars as fees. I'm guessing there was no way they could have paid off the new charges and they just let their house go.

Also I had neighbors who had lived there for years who had low rent and then their house was flooded in a bad rain. They thought the landlord was being slow in fixing the house because the landlord wanted to rent at a higher price to new tenants. They ended up buying a house east of the river back before the crash when it was easy to get loans but I think they would have preferred to buy in our neighborhood. That house now rents for twice what they paid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a tricky dilemma - putting desirable businesses in communities with a lower SEC will bring economic vitality to those areas, and uplift the neighborhood - but they will also raise neighborhood prices, so those people who will no longer be able to afford living in those neighborhoods, will face no choice but have to move.

Gentrification is a tricky thing, and I'm not sure what the solution is.

Yes, these folks' concerns are real. I don't know what the answer is either but it is hardly "idiotic" as the pp above said to be worried.

Well, one alternative is to riot and firebomb. It took central Washington nearly 40 years to recover from that.

Yes, so I guess that's not a solution, is it?

[Anonymous]

It's the black version of NIMBY. White people don't want more housing and traffic, black people don't want TJ. Everyone prefers the status quo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's the black version of NIMBY. White people don't want more housing and traffic, black people don't want TJ. Everyone prefers the status quo.

[Anonymous]

I live in Portland and gentrification of that neighborhood has been a problem for years. also, there are several other grocery stores within a one mile radius and the neighborhood doesn't really need another. There are other much more underserved good desserts in the city that would benefit by a store moving in. A local chain called New Seasons just opened a store close to where the TJs would have gone and they hired from the neighborhood. It's the most diverse store I've been in. (Though Portland has a whole has a low black population.) But, there are developers putting in New apartments left and right in that area and rents are generally starting at $950 for a small studio. Not very affordable, but then Portland hasn't been affordable for decades. I agree with the protesters in this particular case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Many older AA and Hispanic people who bought there when it was undesirable were priced out of the new market

How do you get priced out of something you already bought?

A Little thing called property taxes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Many older AA and Hispanic people who bought there when it was undesirable were priced out of the new market

How do you get priced out of something you already bought?

Really??? Your property taxes and usually insurance goes up.

The city can do something about that, though.

I lived in Baltimore, and in blighted areas, the property taxes were ALREADY high because the rates were high. If the area gentrifies and values go up, then the city should lower rates. that way, the people who lived there a long time would probably end up paying the same, but because vacant houses would get filled, the city would still end up coming out the same.

The person's example is wrong because it isn't low-income homeowners who get pushed out. It's low-income renters who get pushed out.

Again, the city could solve the problem by requiring a certain percentage of all apartment complexes be low income.

the result would be that poverty would be dispersed, which actually is a good thing. I don't think it serves low-income communities to be concentrated. The problem with gentrification is that the people who push for it want to push out ALL low-income people instead of integrate low-income communities with middle and upper income.