Housing Bubble or Greed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ignoring the needs of some screws everyone. I don't see this notion soaking into the DMV zeitgeist anytime soon.

Somebody made a comment a few posts up about how "neighborhoods would improve if people moved there." "People?" Aren't there already people in neighborhoods? It's such a given that "people" means "white people," that a post like that just comes and goes.

No, it isn't a given that "people" means white people. I think "people" means solid middle income people, of all races/ethnic groups. Yes, there are already people in neighborhoods, but if it's a concentration of low-income people who rent, the neighborhood tends not to be as stable as far as crime and upkeep. When you have higher-income people and/or people who own their homes (and have a stable income to own them for a while, as opposed to foreclosing), then neighborhoods tend to see a reduction in crime and an improvement in schools.

It might be an unpleasant reality, but I think you can find proof with gentrification. And no, I don't believe that gentrification has to be only white people. I think it is really a matter of stable middle or upper class people. It makes neighborhoods less transient, and people with money tend to do better (partly because they have the resources) to keep up with their property. And when a neighborhood looks less run down and there are fewer vacant buildings/houses, it doesn't attract as much loitering and crime.

Also, when people with children move to an area, they tend to take more of an active role at making sure it's safe. There's more of a daily presence of people outside, et cetera. So it becomes less of an attractive setting for crime.

Baltimore City is a perfect example. The areas where there is the most crime are the areas where there are more abandoned houses and buildings and where there are fewer middle class families. It's not that low-income people don't care or are inherently bad, but they do tend to *not* call the cops or want police presence (that's a whole other topic). But when middle class families (of all colors) move to an area, they tend to demand more of the cops. They tend to call the cops if they see teens loitering. And when less of that is allowed, it helps to prevent drug dealers and others from moving in and taking over an area. They tend to be less tolerant of crime and they are persistent in getting the police to have a presence, to come out and address issues.

So, yes, there are already "people" in rough or borderline rough areas, but when people with more resources move in, you see improvement. I don't even think that the low-income people have to be pushed out. I just think it is never a good idea to have concentrations of poverty, to have neighborhoods where there are vacant and rundown buildings and houses, or run down, abandoned playgrounds that serve as ideal places for crime.

[Anonymous]

I'm the poster above, and I would add that I think when you have a fresh influx of people with more resources, it helps to challenge the complacency that perhaps has taken root in an area. And I'm not even saying that it's necessarily the fault of the population who already lives there that they have become complacent, but I do think that there are areas where people have come to accept a certain level of crime. When you have an influx of people with more resources, they challenge that, demand more, and usually you see results.

Ideally, they could do that without displacing the people who already live there. But I'm not sure how to ensure that they don't displace those people. I think it's at the heart of some of the tension going on in gentrifying areas of D.C.

But I don't think anyone would argue that it's bad that crime has gone down in gentrifying areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm the poster above, and I would add that I think when you have a fresh influx of people with more resources, it helps to challenge the complacency that perhaps has taken root in an area. And I'm not even saying that it's necessarily the fault of the population who already lives there that they have become complacent, but I do think that there are areas where people have come to accept a certain level of crime. When you have an influx of people with more resources, they challenge that, demand more, and usually you see results.

Ideally, they could do that without displacing the people who already live there. But I'm not sure how to ensure that they don't displace those people. I think it's at the heart of some of the tension going on in gentrifying areas of D.C.

But I don't think anyone would argue that it's bad that crime has gone down in gentrifying areas.

There's been evidence for some time that gentrification does not in fact lead to displacement.

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1818255,00.html
http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1936&context=facpub

Of course, it's a very effective narrative for gaining emotional leverage in any debate.

[Anonymous]

I don't know about the whole gentrification debate, but I agree wholeheartedly about the DC area housing market being such a pressure cooker because of the focus on so few neighborhoods by so many buyers!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the poster above, and I would add that I think when you have a fresh influx of people with more resources, it helps to challenge the complacency that perhaps has taken root in an area. And I'm not even saying that it's necessarily the fault of the population who already lives there that they have become complacent, but I do think that there are areas where people have come to accept a certain level of crime. When you have an influx of people with more resources, they challenge that, demand more, and usually you see results.

Ideally, they could do that without displacing the people who already live there. But I'm not sure how to ensure that they don't displace those people. I think it's at the heart of some of the tension going on in gentrifying areas of D.C.

But I don't think anyone would argue that it's bad that crime has gone down in gentrifying areas.

There's been evidence for some time that gentrification does not in fact lead to displacement.

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1818255,00.html
http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1936&context=facpub

Of course, it's a very effective narrative for gaining emotional leverage in any debate.

What exactly is a "very effective narrative"? And what do you mean by "emotional leverage"? I don't know the solution to prevent gentrification from displacing people (perhaps requiring rental properties to maintain a certain number of affordable units). But I don't think it's a bad thing to reduce crime. I also think that it isn't a bad thing to break up clusters of concentrated poverty, but that, by definition, means some people will be displaced. The key is to make sure they have options so that you aren't just shifting a cluster of poverty to another area.

I believe most sociologists concluded a few decades ago that the recent having "projects" doesn't work well is because of the concentration of poverty. I'm all for mixed communities, and by "mixed," I'm talking about a mix of SES. But I'll admit I don't know how to achieve that.

But I certainly wasn't trying to gain "emotional leverage" by pointing out reality -- i.e. gentrification leads to lower crime rates.