Gentrification shaming makes no sense to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You are not a gentrifier. I was a gentrifier when I bought there back in 2001 when there were just empty lots and no one out walking past dark. Our house was the most anyone had paid for a house in our block by about $100,000 - but it was beautiful. Our neighbors complained when we all went to protest the Giant being built so big with no green space - that's how I found out. But, then I gave everyone a ride back home and had cognac on our front porches. I loved that neighborhood. Felt like a true community. If you want to do some good to ease your soul - send your kids to Tubman and help turn that school around! Vote for politicians who want affordable housing. Don't try to shut down the public housing around 13th and Columbia. Support vocational efforts at Cardoza and the Marion Barry summer job program. And don't complain about crap. Finally, say hello!

I think this is the answer.

I've thought a lot about this, as I also recently purchased a home in Columbia Heights. I think if you're buying not to flip or rent, but as your primary residence, yes, you're still a gentrifier, but the way you behave once you get there is what determines if that's a bad thing. I think this is a great list to start. I would add to it 1) donate generously to local charities and 2) do what you can to amplify Black voices, rather than drowning them out.

[Anonymous]

Huh? Because you're pushing people out of the neighborhood who possibly lived there for generations and can't afford it anymore (rent or property taxes) due to people like you.

Whether this bothers you or not is one thing but it's absolutely true that this is a real thing going on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Huh? Because you're pushing people out of the neighborhood who possibly lived there for generations and can't afford it anymore (rent or property taxes) due to people like you.

Whether this bothers you or not is one thing but it's absolutely true that this is a real thing going on.

Right - but the question becomes - as an UMC white family - what should you do? I don't want to live surrounded by all white people. I want my kid to have a diverse friend group, racially, ethnically, and socio-economically. While yes, UMC white people moving into historically black neighborhoods pushes black people out. But the alternative is to move to a white-only area, which seems worse to me.

It seems to me that the system here is clearly racist, but that individual families moving to black neighborhoods (as primary residences) aren't doing anything wrong, and may in fact be doing the best they can to fight racism. What would you propose they do instead? Move to Arlington?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Huh? Because you're pushing people out of the neighborhood who possibly lived there for generations and can't afford it anymore (rent or property taxes) due to people like you.

Whether this bothers you or not is one thing but it's absolutely true that this is a real thing going on.

why is there a right to live in the neighborhood you were born in? Do you think most kids who are born in chevy chase will be able to afford to remain there as you adults?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyway this is what it means to really do the work of understanding the biases and racism within our country.

Yes you were able to buy a home in a neighborhood you desired that is now desirable.

However, for decades when working class black families lived in those neighborhoods they were not desirable. Resources were not provided, retailers would not service there, schools were allowed to decline and city services were not provided. Home values naturally plummeted devaluing the worth of those homes.

Decades later some plucky and entreprenuerial white people decided "hey I don't want to live in the burbs. i want to live in the hood."

They convince Sally and Mike to move there. They buy homes for dirt cheap from the original owners whose home values were depressed, bc in general black neighborhood home vales are in America.

More white ppl buy cheap homes. More companies start to take notice. They move in. Home values skyrocket! The original homeowners now cannot afford to live where they did due to rising taxes, maybe unscrupulous developers etc. Bc of course there are very few safety nets in our country.

Sally and Mike eventually sell their home and make a 400% profit and move to the lily white [and a sprinkle of Asian] enclave of "North" Arlington.

----I know many people who have done this.

So are Sally and Mike unethical in your story?

Most people understand/agree with the macro connotations of tax policy / historically racist laws / etc. But the question is, as individuals — are Mike and Sally not allowed to ever move to black neighborhoods? Should they have stayed in the lily white suburbs the whole time?

"Original owners" isn't quite right, either; before Columbia Heights and neighborhoods north of it became primarily black, they were primarily white. (Our old block in Petworth used to have a residential covenant dating to the 1940s where the owners promised not to sell to black families. Our next-door neighbor there, who died just a few years ago, was the first black owner of his house.) And when we bought that house as a short sale, it had been vacant for more than four years; the previous owner had inherited it from her parents and then taken out more and more mortgages on it, which she used to... buy a huge house in southern Maryland, where she lived happily with her husband.

The broad trends PP is describing are real, and obviously a serious problem. But as another PP noted, it's less individual choices that are driving that reality and more structural and systemic problems. Reducing everything to Manichean caricatures doesn't help change anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huh? Because you're pushing people out of the neighborhood who possibly lived there for generations and can't afford it anymore (rent or property taxes) due to people like you.

Whether this bothers you or not is one thing but it's absolutely true that this is a real thing going on.

Right - but the question becomes - as an UMC white family - what should you do? I don't want to live surrounded by all white people. I want my kid to have a diverse friend group, racially, ethnically, and socio-economically. While yes, UMC white people moving into historically black neighborhoods pushes black people out. But the alternative is to move to a white-only area, which seems worse to me.

It seems to me that the system here is clearly racist, but that individual families moving to black neighborhoods (as primary residences) aren't doing anything wrong, and may in fact be doing the best they can to fight racism. What would you propose they do instead? Move to Arlington?

PP. The thing is, it's obviously fine and maybe even good for society when it's just one or two white families moving in and integrating the neighborhood (assuming you are decent people and use the neighborhood public schools/don't call the cops on your neighbors for noise or other petty complaints, etc.).

however, it gets to be a big problem without a good solution when it's tons of white families doing it and completely changing the cultural tenor of the area. See, for example: Brooklyn and all its myriad problems related to this issue.

You really don't get why the old families are unhappy about this? It's not just having to see white faces. It's all the restaurants and bars and stores that come in chasing their money, which they can't afford and which raise their rents. It's their schools changing and no longer servicing their community's needs.

There is a lot of literature about this issue, I shouldn't have to tell you this. None of this is a mystery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huh? Because you're pushing people out of the neighborhood who possibly lived there for generations and can't afford it anymore (rent or property taxes) due to people like you.

Whether this bothers you or not is one thing but it's absolutely true that this is a real thing going on.

Right - but the question becomes - as an UMC white family - what should you do? I don't want to live surrounded by all white people. I want my kid to have a diverse friend group, racially, ethnically, and socio-economically. While yes, UMC white people moving into historically black neighborhoods pushes black people out. But the alternative is to move to a white-only area, which seems worse to me.

It seems to me that the system here is clearly racist, but that individual families moving to black neighborhoods (as primary residences) aren't doing anything wrong, and may in fact be doing the best they can to fight racism. What would you propose they do instead? Move to Arlington?

Can you teach your kids about racism without displacing black people? No?

[Anonymous]

Ok, to the people who think gentrification is not a big deal, where do the poor people go who get pushed out due to rising rents and property taxes?

Do you even know? Do you not care if the new neighborhood is further from their work/friends/family or if it's less safe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huh? Because you're pushing people out of the neighborhood who possibly lived there for generations and can't afford it anymore (rent or property taxes) due to people like you.

Whether this bothers you or not is one thing but it's absolutely true that this is a real thing going on.

Right - but the question becomes - as an UMC white family - what should you do? I don't want to live surrounded by all white people. I want my kid to have a diverse friend group, racially, ethnically, and socio-economically. While yes, UMC white people moving into historically black neighborhoods pushes black people out. But the alternative is to move to a white-only area, which seems worse to me.

It seems to me that the system here is clearly racist, but that individual families moving to black neighborhoods (as primary residences) aren't doing anything wrong, and may in fact be doing the best they can to fight racism. What would you propose they do instead? Move to Arlington?

PP. The thing is, it's obviously fine and maybe even good for society when it's just one or two white families moving in and integrating the neighborhood (assuming you are decent people and use the neighborhood public schools/don't call the cops on your neighbors for noise or other petty complaints, etc.).

however, it gets to be a big problem without a good solution when it's tons of white families doing it and completely changing the cultural tenor of the area. See, for example: Brooklyn and all its myriad problems related to this issue.

You really don't get why the old families are unhappy about this? It's not just having to see white faces. It's all the restaurants and bars and stores that come in chasing their money, which they can't afford and which raise their rents. It's their schools changing and no longer servicing their community's needs.

There is a lot of literature about this issue, I shouldn't have to tell you this. None of this is a mystery.

Wait, but another comment said that white people moving into a black neighborhood can be more ethical by sending their kids to local schools and changing them for the better. Now I’m even more confused.

PP, again, I think everyone agrees with you and understands the macro issue. But you still haven’t answered the question of specifically what one individual UMC white person’s responsibility is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huh? Because you're pushing people out of the neighborhood who possibly lived there for generations and can't afford it anymore (rent or property taxes) due to people like you.

Whether this bothers you or not is one thing but it's absolutely true that this is a real thing going on.

Right - but the question becomes - as an UMC white family - what should you do? I don't want to live surrounded by all white people. I want my kid to have a diverse friend group, racially, ethnically, and socio-economically. While yes, UMC white people moving into historically black neighborhoods pushes black people out. But the alternative is to move to a white-only area, which seems worse to me.

It seems to me that the system here is clearly racist, but that individual families moving to black neighborhoods (as primary residences) aren't doing anything wrong, and may in fact be doing the best they can to fight racism. What would you propose they do instead? Move to Arlington?

PP. The thing is, it's obviously fine and maybe even good for society when it's just one or two white families moving in and integrating the neighborhood (assuming you are decent people and use the neighborhood public schools/don't call the cops on your neighbors for noise or other petty complaints, etc.).

however, it gets to be a big problem without a good solution when it's tons of white families doing it and completely changing the cultural tenor of the area. See, for example: Brooklyn and all its myriad problems related to this issue.

You really don't get why the old families are unhappy about this? It's not just having to see white faces. It's all the restaurants and bars and stores that come in chasing their money, which they can't afford and which raise their rents. It's their schools changing and no longer servicing their community's needs.

There is a lot of literature about this issue, I shouldn't have to tell you this. None of this is a mystery.

Wait, but another comment said that white people moving into a black neighborhood can be more ethical by sending their kids to local schools and changing them for the better. Now I’m even more confused.

PP, again, I think everyone agrees with you and understands the macro issue. But you still haven’t answered the question of specifically what one individual UMC white person’s responsibility is.

I think it's along the lines of: don't move in and start throwing your weight (money/education) around. Don't push the school to start changing how it does things right away. Be a good neighbor. Don't call the cops for noise complaints or "junk" in someone's yard or some other petty reason. Don't call the cops on groups of teenagers "loitering." Don't get scared by seeing a group of black teens hanging out on the corner. Don't call the cops on black people at all.

I'm not at all saying you wouldn't be a good neighbor. But let's be real, many white people have a problem with entitlement due to how they grew up. They will go into a school and start pushing for changes right away that would benefit their special snowflake over other kids who have been there longer. They have a hard time understanding that their needs/issues/concerns shouldn't always get first priority.

[Anonymous]

I want to hear about how the gay guys, who from for the late 70’s on, did more than any group to transform DC neighborhoods are characterized in this debate. They started it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huh? Because you're pushing people out of the neighborhood who possibly lived there for generations and can't afford it anymore (rent or property taxes) due to people like you.

Whether this bothers you or not is one thing but it's absolutely true that this is a real thing going on.

Right - but the question becomes - as an UMC white family - what should you do? I don't want to live surrounded by all white people. I want my kid to have a diverse friend group, racially, ethnically, and socio-economically. While yes, UMC white people moving into historically black neighborhoods pushes black people out. But the alternative is to move to a white-only area, which seems worse to me.

It seems to me that the system here is clearly racist, but that individual families moving to black neighborhoods (as primary residences) aren't doing anything wrong, and may in fact be doing the best they can to fight racism. What would you propose they do instead? Move to Arlington?

PP. The thing is, it's obviously fine and maybe even good for society when it's just one or two white families moving in and integrating the neighborhood (assuming you are decent people and use the neighborhood public schools/don't call the cops on your neighbors for noise or other petty complaints, etc.).

however, it gets to be a big problem without a good solution when it's tons of white families doing it and completely changing the cultural tenor of the area. See, for example: Brooklyn and all its myriad problems related to this issue.

You really don't get why the old families are unhappy about this? It's not just having to see white faces. It's all the restaurants and bars and stores that come in chasing their money, which they can't afford and which raise their rents. It's their schools changing and no longer servicing their community's needs.

There is a lot of literature about this issue, I shouldn't have to tell you this. None of this is a mystery.

Wait, but another comment said that white people moving into a black neighborhood can be more ethical by sending their kids to local schools and changing them for the better. Now I’m even more confused.

PP, again, I think everyone agrees with you and understands the macro issue. But you still haven’t answered the question of specifically what one individual UMC white person’s responsibility is.

I think it's along the lines of: don't move in and start throwing your weight (money/education) around. Don't push the school to start changing how it does things right away. Be a good neighbor. Don't call the cops for noise complaints or "junk" in someone's yard or some other petty reason. Don't call the cops on groups of teenagers "loitering." Don't get scared by seeing a group of black teens hanging out on the corner. Don't call the cops on black people at all.

I'm not at all saying you wouldn't be a good neighbor. But let's be real, many white people have a problem with entitlement due to how they grew up. They will go into a school and start pushing for changes right away that would benefit their special snowflake over other kids who have been there longer. They have a hard time understanding that their needs/issues/concerns shouldn't always get first priority.

But pushy, self-advocating immigrants are as American as racism!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, to the people who think gentrification is not a big deal, where do the poor people go who get pushed out due to rising rents and property taxes?

Do you even know? Do you not care if the new neighborhood is further from their work/friends/family or if it's less safe?

they go somewhere cheaper usually further out. It's the same thing that happens to any renter when the value the house the live in rises (at least cities tend to have rent protection). What is the alternative, to literally create ghettos (in the historic sense) reserved for members of a certain race or class in perpetuity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyway this is what it means to really do the work of understanding the biases and racism within our country.

Yes you were able to buy a home in a neighborhood you desired that is now desirable.

However, for decades when working class black families lived in those neighborhoods they were not desirable. Resources were not provided, retailers would not service there, schools were allowed to decline and city services were not provided. Home values naturally plummeted devaluing the worth of those homes.

Decades later some plucky and entreprenuerial white people decided "hey I don't want to live in the burbs. i want to live in the hood."

They convince Sally and Mike to move there. They buy homes for dirt cheap from the original owners whose home values were depressed, bc in general black neighborhood home vales are in America.

More white ppl buy cheap homes. More companies start to take notice. They move in. Home values skyrocket! The original homeowners now cannot afford to live where they did due to rising taxes, maybe unscrupulous developers etc. Bc of course there are very few safety nets in our country.

Sally and Mike eventually sell their home and make a 400% profit and move to the lily white [and a sprinkle of Asian] enclave of "North" Arlington.

----I know many people who have done this.

I think it's more layered and complicated than that. We are census-white (though middle eastern, so not white presenting for some) and have lived in our neighborhood for two decades - our house was not dirt-cheap, actually, but we bought it as is in the 300s. Our neighbors are largely AA MC and retired professionals. Many of them are selling now - and they are getting 850k-1 million for their homes. So, they are benefitting from gentrification, but DC doesn't do a great job of allowing people to age in place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, people said rude stuff to us when we bought a starter house *gasp* a few miles outside the beltway (we work in the suburbs so it’s not even like we were commuting to DC). We got snarky comments about wanting the space of a house and not just staying in a small rental condo to be close to everything.

Fast forward 8 years and we made a bunch of money off that starter house while our friends were busy renting in DC/Arlington. Now we were able to buy a house in N Arlington thanks to our profits and in the meantime our friends who were renting got priced out of close-in neighborhoods and ended up *gasp* outside the beltway where they made fun of us for living.

FWIW, there’s nothing wrong with those neighborhoods where they moved. But it does irritate me a bit that when we lived just beyond 495 it was the “end of the world” and now that they live there they talk about how great it is.

My point being, focus on you. Any commentary from others is a reflection of their own issues as a PP pointed out.

People are always going to judge, regardless. I would absolutely judge anyone who used the phrase starter home as materialistic and wasteful, regardless of where they chose to live. We bought in a less desirable part of DC 20 years ago and have certainly reaped financial benefits for doing so. But urban living, even in a SFH with a large backyard has pluses and minuses, I would never live in Virginia, but Annapolis sounds nice. I wouldn't have said than 20 years ago, but as you get older, you do want more nature around you to decompress.

So anyone who buys a home just to get on the property ladder knowing that it isn’t where they want to be long term, and actually admits it is just a point of starting out is materialist and wasteful? That’s crazy. Most people can’t afford the house/location they really want with their first purchase and know a piece of real estate is just a means to an end. There’s nothing bad or materialistic about a starting point.