Gentrification in DC - Wash Post Article Shows The Bad Side

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Developprs have also stopped building large 3 bedroom apartments which are great for families.

That's because we don't build enough in DC in general. Not even close. If developers were allowed to build 5x as many units by-right, you'd get a lot more 3bds.

*The
*Problem
*With
*Housing
*In
*DC
*Is
*Zoning restricting construction

That is what is great about housing in DC. It doesn't look like NY or Tysons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:White people were considered racist for moving out of their deteriorating neighborhoods 40 years ago. And now, not surprisingly, the WaPo rips on White people for moving back to these same areas. White people are THE tax base in DC. Do you think the city would improve if they moved out?

That holds true about gentrification in places like Brooklyn. DC is a little different because black people lived here since its founding. U Street was historically black. Also many black moved out DC in the 70s and 80s because of the situation. I think people need to keep in mind that cities like DC took nose dives after the 68 riots. Many racist systems caused that downfall, but middle and high income people were also responding to increased safety concerns and a breakdown in government services. Whether it is woke to admit it or not, crime increased drastically in the late 60s and did not decrease til the late 90s which caused many people black and white to leave DC.

The U Street area had lots of whites prior to the riots. Cardozo was a good school with whites attending too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This story was such a joke. The lady had 40 YEARS paying $500 a month for a 2 bedroom apartment. She should be a millionaire by now. And we're supposed to feel sorry for her? Nope.

She was renting the apartment with a husband, a grown child, and making close to 90k a year. She could have saved for a house.

[Anonymous]

The story was terribly reported. It says she was forced out, but gets really vague when it talks about the details. I have to assume that they omitted the details because they don't support the storyline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:White people were considered racist for moving out of their deteriorating neighborhoods 40 years ago. And now, not surprisingly, the WaPo rips on White people for moving back to these same areas. White people are THE tax base in DC. Do you think the city would improve if they moved out?

That holds true about gentrification in places like Brooklyn. DC is a little different because black people lived here since its founding. U Street was historically black. Also many black moved out DC in the 70s and 80s because of the situation. I think people need to keep in mind that cities like DC took nose dives after the 68 riots. Many racist systems caused that downfall, but middle and high income people were also responding to increased safety concerns and a breakdown in government services. Whether it is woke to admit it or not, crime increased drastically in the late 60s and did not decrease til the late 90s which caused many people black and white to leave DC.

The U Street area had lots of whites prior to the riots. Cardozo was a good school with whites attending too.

I lived very close to her in the 1990's. According to the 1990 census our census tract was 55% black, 45% white. Mostly black, but not overwhelmingly. Also almost 60% of the residents had been at their current address for five years or less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This story was such a joke. The lady had 40 YEARS paying $500 a month for a 2 bedroom apartment. She should be a millionaire by now. And we're supposed to feel sorry for her? Nope.

I do feel for her because it's hard to leave your beloved home, but I agree that $500 a month anywhere in the DC area is ridiculous and I don't understand why they are implying she and her husband are now essentially homeless. As a federal employee, she should be making a decent living.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This story was such a joke. The lady had 40 YEARS paying $500 a month for a 2 bedroom apartment. She should be a millionaire by now. And we're supposed to feel sorry for her? Nope.

She was renting the apartment with a husband, a grown child, and making close to 90k a year. She could have saved for a house.

Where does it say how much she made?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The story was terribly reported. It says she was forced out, but gets really vague when it talks about the details. I have to assume that they omitted the details because they don't support the storyline.

Yes, what exactly did they sign that wasn't honored? How much of a settlement did they get?

[Anonymous]

Some of the responses here make me sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This story was such a joke. The lady had 40 YEARS paying $500 a month for a 2 bedroom apartment. She should be a millionaire by now. And we're supposed to feel sorry for her? Nope.

I do feel for her because it's hard to leave your beloved home, but I agree that $500 a month anywhere in the DC area is ridiculous and I don't understand why they are implying she and her husband are now essentially homeless. As a federal employee, she should be making a decent living.

It's hard to leave your home, but with her federal salary, I'm sure she's had many opportunities to buy a 2 bedroom in that neighborhood. I think it's pure entitlement to think that you are owed $500/month rental for life, just because you've been there for awhile.

[Anonymous]

First, she wasn't forced out of DC. She was forced out of her apartment. Big difference.

Second, the article says she paid $525/month in rent. That means she paid a total of $252,000 to live there *for 40 years.* That's insane.

Third, she's a federal employee, and has been for decades. I don't know exactly what she made over the years, but whatever it is, she's had incredibly cheap rent and up until recently nearly free health insurance (and it's still highly subsidized) and a very generous pension. Not exactly the poster child of the sympathetic figure displaced by gentrification.

[Anonymous]

I’m black and I agree with posters here. She didn’t manage her money well all these years. When her husband died in 2003, that’s when she should’ve been planning better. 2003 is when the dc area starting gentrifying , so she should have been saving up her money on buying a property, instead of continuing to rent.

Many of the white gentrifyers coming into DC do tend to be a holes and snobby, but this one was on her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m black and I agree with posters here. She didn’t manage her money well all these years. When her husband died in 2003, that’s when she should’ve been planning better. 2003 is when the dc area starting gentrifying , so she should have been saving up her money on buying a property, instead of continuing to rent.

Many of the white gentrifyers coming into DC do tend to be a holes and snobby, but this one was on her.

Same.

She was a federal employee and her husband had a good job as well which comes with life insurance if they didn't have a private family plan.

Just a tiny bit of planning or foresight and she and either of her spouses could have been in a home right where they are now. With the money she has, if she's been saving, she could still buy in further out NE which basically has the same levels of living as when she first moved to U Street (there was no Trader Joes there until 10 years ago).

Personally, I see this on these boards all the time. Long-time renters in central D.C. and Arlington and what-have-you who think that a low rate rental is OWED to them.

No. Save for it. Strive for it. Put that stable salary you've had for decades towards it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m black and I agree with posters here. She didn’t manage her money well all these years. When her husband died in 2003, that’s when she should’ve been planning better. 2003 is when the dc area starting gentrifying , so she should have been saving up her money on buying a property, instead of continuing to rent.

Many of the white gentrifyers coming into DC do tend to be a holes and snobby, but this one was on her.

Same.

She was a federal employee and her husband had a good job as well which comes with life insurance if they didn't have a private family plan.

Just a tiny bit of planning or foresight and she and either of her spouses could have been in a home right where they are now. With the money she has, if she's been saving, she could still buy in further out NE which basically has the same levels of living as when she first moved to U Street (there was no Trader Joes there until 10 years ago).

Personally, I see this on these boards all the time. Long-time renters in central D.C. and Arlington and what-have-you who think that a low rate rental is OWED to them.

No. Save for it. Strive for it. Put that stable salary you've had for decades towards it.

Yes. I don't understand why they are unable to find another place to live and are moving in with family, separately to boot. Both are employed. A federal employee of 40 years makes a decent living. Something else must be going on.

Money aside, I do still understand she must be hurting. I have never lived anywhere for that long and it really is a fantastic neighborhood with lots of character and history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m black and I agree with posters here. She didn’t manage her money well all these years. When her husband died in 2003, that’s when she should’ve been planning better. 2003 is when the dc area starting gentrifying , so she should have been saving up her money on buying a property, instead of continuing to rent.

Many of the white gentrifyers coming into DC do tend to be a holes and snobby, but this one was on her.

Same.

She was a federal employee and her husband had a good job as well which comes with life insurance if they didn't have a private family plan.

Just a tiny bit of planning or foresight and she and either of her spouses could have been in a home right where they are now. With the money she has, if she's been saving, she could still buy in further out NE which basically has the same levels of living as when she first moved to U Street (there was no Trader Joes there until 10 years ago).

Personally, I see this on these boards all the time. Long-time renters in central D.C. and Arlington and what-have-you who think that a low rate rental is OWED to them.

No. Save for it. Strive for it. Put that stable salary you've had for decades towards it.

Yes. I don't understand why they are unable to find another place to live and are moving in with family, separately to boot. Both are employed. A federal employee of 40 years makes a decent living. Something else must be going on.

Money aside, I do still understand she must be hurting. I have never lived anywhere for that long and it really is a fantastic neighborhood with lots of character and history.

The only thing I felt bad about was the part where she said she was essentially the caretaker of the building. Sweeping it, painting, Christmas tree, etc.

That's basically the building supervisor and if she didn't get paid for all that, she got burned. But if she did get paid in the form of a bigger unit or at least first choice (why else move from the 2nd to the 1st floor), or straight out - a decrease in market rent ($500/mo still doesn't seem like enough for a 2 or 3 bedroom, I think there are places in Baltimore that charge more and you're living in some pretty depressed areas), then it was fair.