Trader Joe's not welcome in black neighborhood

[Anonymous]

Even with the DC 10% increment increase, 10% can be a lot for someone on fixed income. If your taxes were $1,000 a year, they increase $100 the next year, $110 the next eyar etc, when you are on a fixed income, that can make a big difference espcially when you're already dealing with utility increases without COLA on your fixed income. Also, to the PP above, Homestead has nothing to do with how long you've lived in the property. It's a base discount for all owner occupied properties that reduces the taxable value. Homestead on a $800,000 property doesn't do as much as you'd think.

[Anonymous]

There should be a place where all the pushed out people can congregate and be left to their own devices; no TJ, no nothing

[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?

Not pp, but if the property value goes up significantly, then your property taxes go up significantly. It can be a hard financial burden, especially if it happens quickly and you haven't planned for it.

Then fix the tax code so people who already live there, can stay, for God's sake. Does it have to be rocket science?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even with the DC 10% increment increase, 10% can be a lot for someone on fixed income. If your taxes were $1,000 a year, they increase $100 the next year, $110 the next eyar etc, when you are on a fixed income, that can make a big difference espcially when you're already dealing with utility increases without COLA on your fixed income. Also, to the PP above, Homestead has nothing to do with how long you've lived in the property. It's a base discount for all owner occupied properties that reduces the taxable value. Homestead on a $800,000 property doesn't do as much as you'd think.

I know homestead doesn't help you much with an expensive house. What I was acknowledging was that if you bought your house years ago when it was cheap, you start out lower than your neighbor who bought this year when it was expensive. But the point is that, as we've both noted, a 10% yearly increase is a lot for some people.

[Anonymous]

I can understand the concern. This has happened in Downtown Silver Spring. It has been wonderful having Whole Foods and all the new, big restaurants in the last 10-15 years. But we also have mom and pop ethnic restaurants that make the character of the neighborhood that are struggling to survive. And the mom and pop businesses are slowly disappearing. Some we are glad to see go. Others not so glad.

DTSS business owners were originally told that "a rising tide lifts all boats." But that hasn't proven the case, at all. It is best to be cautious about the effect of gentrification. Urban planners can build in protection for small business owners.

[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?

Not pp, but if the property value goes up significantly, then your property taxes go up significantly. It can be a hard financial burden, especially if it happens quickly and you haven't planned for it.

True, but this is idiotic, as a PP said above. If property taxes raise is because the property itself has increased in value many many many times more, so the person who owns a house is in much better shape. He could sell the house, buy a smaller one, and have enough profit to pay all property taxes for life.

[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."

Because the local black community must stay and be poor?
For a local example of how well that work, see Alexandria City in VA. Similar policies over the years ensured that th black community stayed largely in public housing and the kids contined to fail year after tear.

When you expect a community to not improve, when you force cohesion based on fear, no one benefits on the long run. Sometimes the best choice is for to leave the comfort of the long term low income neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not idiotic at all if you understand gentrification. A local example is Columbia Heights. Many older AA and Hispanic people who bought there when it was undesirable were priced out of the new market. These were folks who invested in the neighborhood when yuppies would not have been caught dead there. Their tax bills and overall COL went through the roof and many of them (low SES and people on fixed income) had to pack up and leave. Sure, many of them cleaned up in selling their houses, but many of them did not want to move.

As PP said, it is a tricky thing. And most urban areas are dealing with this problem.

At what point does constantly being pushed out of an area motivate people to want to do more for themselves?

[Anonymous]

This is a problem in ALL poor neighborhoods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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."

Because the local black community must stay and be poor?
For a local example of how well that work, see Alexandria City in VA. Similar policies over the years ensured that th black community stayed largely in public housing and the kids contined to fail year after tear.

When you expect a community to not improve, when you force cohesion based on fear, no one benefits on the long run. Sometimes the best choice is for to leave the comfort of the long term low income neighborhood.

I fully agree. We need to give people a leg UP, not keep them comfortable in sub-par situations. I have faith people are resilient enough to learn and grow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

True, but this is idiotic, as a PP said above. If property taxes raise is because the property itself has increased in value many many many times more, so the person who owns a house is in much better shape. He could sell the house, buy a smaller one, and have enough profit to pay all property taxes for life.

the smaller house may be impractical for the owner(they need a 3 bedroom vs a studio), so in order to get a 3 bedroom row house, the owner has to move from mount pleasant to gaithursburg...it's not like small homes magically appear in the same built-up neighborhood, and for reasonable prices UNLESS the town or city mandates affordable housing...

edited

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not idiotic at all if you understand gentrification. A local example is Columbia Heights. Many older AA and Hispanic people who bought there when it was undesirable were priced out of the new market. These were folks who invested in the neighborhood when yuppies would not have been caught dead there. Their tax bills and overall COL went through the roof and many of them (low SES and people on fixed income) had to pack up and leave. Sure, many of them cleaned up in selling their houses, but many of them did not want to move.

As PP said, it is a tricky thing. And most urban areas are dealing with this problem.

I work in urban planning and this way oversimplified. Homeowners were not displaced. Especially not seniors. DC has the lowest propert taxes in the region and cap on the increase. So even if your assessment quadrupled your tax increase is always capped. Further more seniors have even greater deductions. Every homeowner gets the 64k taken right off the bat of the assessed value. Due to repurposing vacant lots, Columbia Heights has a net gain of over 300 affordable units. As someone who bought there before Target moved in, please don't romanticize it. There was so much violence, trash, vacant buildings, no retail, no plaza, drug houses etc. It sucked. But you got one thing right, I did make a ton of money when I sold

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Not pp, but if the property value goes up significantly, then your property taxes go up significantly. It can be a hard financial burden, especially if it happens quickly and you haven't planned for it.

True, but this is idiotic, as a PP said above. If property taxes raise is because the property itself has increased in value many many many times more, so the person who owns a house is in much better shape. He could sell the house, buy a smaller one, and have enough profit to pay all property taxes for life.

You are really stupid

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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."

Because the local black community must stay and be poor?
For a local example of how well that work, see Alexandria City in VA. Similar policies over the years ensured that th black community stayed largely in public housing and the kids contined to fail year after tear.

When you expect a community to not improve, when you force cohesion based on fear, no one benefits on the long run. Sometimes the best choice is for to leave the comfort of the long term low income neighborhood.

What bothers me about your statement is that you assume that all the people in that neighborhood are poor and live in public housing. In my neighborhood, it's the working and lower middle class who have been squeezed out due to gentrification, not the poor people living in public housing. They just needed affordable housing. They didn't need life lessons on how to improve their lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not idiotic at all if you understand gentrification. A local example is Columbia Heights. Many older AA and Hispanic people who bought there when it was undesirable were priced out of the new market. These were folks who invested in the neighborhood when yuppies would not have been caught dead there. Their tax bills and overall COL went through the roof and many of them (low SES and people on fixed income) had to pack up and leave. Sure, many of them cleaned up in selling their houses, but many of them did not want to move.

As PP said, it is a tricky thing. And most urban areas are dealing with this problem.

I work in urban planning and this way oversimplified. Homeowners were not displaced. Especially not seniors. DC has the lowest propert taxes in the region and cap on the increase. So even if your assessment quadrupled your tax increase is always capped. Further more seniors have even greater deductions. Every homeowner gets the 64k taken right off the bat of the assessed value. Due to repurposing vacant lots, Columbia Heights has a net gain of over 300 affordable units. As someone who bought there before Target moved in, please don't romanticize it. There was so much violence, trash, vacant buildings, no retail, no plaza, drug houses etc. It sucked. But you got one thing right, I did make a ton of money when I sold

+1. So true and obvious it is painful to see the posts romantizing a broken past.