Increasing density drives low-income minorities out of DC, new study shows

[Anonymous]

Increasing density is how DC will be transformed from a historically black city to one populated mostly by rich white people.

If Republicans were pushing this, they'd be called racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Increasing density is how DC will be transformed from a historically black city to one populated mostly by rich white people.

If Republicans were pushing this, they'd be called racist.

Keep throwing stuff at the walls and hoping something sticks?

Demand for housing is driving prices up and fighting increases on the supply side will only make things worse for lower income folks - prices would be even higher than they are except DC has come somewhat close to matching the demand over the last 15 years.

FWIW DC was only majority black for about 50 years and if you care about that then the answer in part is to accommodate the demand for housing in new units rather than existing units.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Grandma dies. No will. There are a number of heirs. Heirs don't have the money for a lawyer. Taxes on house do not get paid as none of the heirs can come up with the money or any money for a lawyer. House sold at auction. This happens all the time in poor areas.

If this is a common thing Mayor Bowser could certainly look at how to transfer houses to relatives and not have them sold at auction for peanuts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Grandma dies. No will. There are a number of heirs. Heirs don't have the money for a lawyer. Taxes on house do not get paid as none of the heirs can come up with the money or any money for a lawyer. House sold at auction. This happens all the time in poor areas.

If this is a common thing Mayor Bowser could certainly look at how to transfer houses to relatives and not have them sold at auction for peanuts

I'm not sure that most of them sell for peanuts. Yes, there are "we buy houses for cash" people around, but I think most people still go through traditional channels and the heirs split the proceeds. And, of course, people of all backgrounds have to deal with deciding whether to sell their parents' homes when they die. DC halves its already-low property tax rate for homesteaders over 65, which presumably helps grandma to stay in her home. Estate taxes don't kick in until $2 million in DC, which is still quite a bit more than most of these houses are worth.

The biggest challenge with keeping one of these inherited houses in a gentrifying neighborhood, I think, is that many of them haven't been renovated in many decades and are often in rough shape from deferred maintenance. In situations where there are heirs who might like to live in the house and can afford to do so, it's one thing to figure out the financials, but often quite another to figure out how to do a major renovation that often involves replacing most of the major systems in the house. A program to help elderly residents maintain their historic houses might help somewhat (I know that MA has some version of this). Targeted financial literacy information for elderly residents and their heirs seems like a good idea too. But beyond that, I'm not sure how much DC can do to prevent people from deciding to take the money and sell their parents' or grandparents homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Grandma dies. No will. There are a number of heirs. Heirs don't have the money for a lawyer. Taxes on house do not get paid as none of the heirs can come up with the money or any money for a lawyer. House sold at auction. This happens all the time in poor areas.

If this is a common thing Mayor Bowser could certainly look at how to transfer houses to relatives and not have them sold at auction for peanuts

I'm not sure that most of them sell for peanuts. Yes, there are "we buy houses for cash" people around, but I think most people still go through traditional channels and the heirs split the proceeds. And, of course, people of all backgrounds have to deal with deciding whether to sell their parents' homes when they die. DC halves its already-low property tax rate for homesteaders over 65, which presumably helps grandma to stay in her home. Estate taxes don't kick in until $2 million in DC, which is still quite a bit more than most of these houses are worth.

The biggest challenge with keeping one of these inherited houses in a gentrifying neighborhood, I think, is that many of them haven't been renovated in many decades and are often in rough shape from deferred maintenance. In situations where there are heirs who might like to live in the house and can afford to do so, it's one thing to figure out the financials, but often quite another to figure out how to do a major renovation that often involves replacing most of the major systems in the house. A program to help elderly residents maintain their historic houses might help somewhat (I know that MA has some version of this). Targeted financial literacy information for elderly residents and their heirs seems like a good idea too. But beyond that, I'm not sure how much DC can do to prevent people from deciding to take the money and sell their parents' or grandparents homes.

DP. Or even should do. Imagine telling people that they're not allowed to sell the property they inherited.

[Anonymous]

Want to know what drives "minorities" out of DC?

Gun violence, lack of jobs, shitty schools, and lack of affordable medical care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Increasing density is how DC will be transformed from a historically black city to one populated mostly by rich white people.

If Republicans were pushing this, they'd be called racist.

rethuglicans are called racist because they’re rethuglicans. It’s has nothing to do with housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Want to know what drives "minorities" out of DC?

Gun violence, lack of jobs, shitty schools, and lack of affordable medical care.

All attributable to white people, BTW

Guns - bought by whites, smuggled in to DC, and sold to POC.

Jobs - young POC are not hired by whites.

Schools - whites send their kids to private schools, instead of helping public schools.

Medical care - companies, nearly all white owned, offer horrible benefits to employees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Want to know what drives "minorities" out of DC?

Gun violence, lack of jobs, shitty schools, and lack of affordable medical care.

All attributable to white people, BTW

Guns - bought by whites, smuggled in to DC, and sold to POC.

Jobs - young POC are not hired by whites.

Schools - whites send their kids to private schools, instead of helping public schools.

Medical care - companies, nearly all white owned, offer horrible benefits to employees.

Guns--Why don't POC but legal guns? One is allowed to in the District now.

Jobs--the city government in DC is predominantly POC and a huge employer.

Schools--there has been a surge of all families of all ethnicities in public and public charter schools. there are also POCs in private schools, but the by.

Medical care-- what? What is a white owned medical company? that doesn't even make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one told the Post that people don't say "gentrification" anymore. "Increasing density" is the new term of art.

"In the District, low-income residents are being pushed out of neighborhoods at some of the highest rates in the country, according to the Institute on Metropolitan Opportunity, which sought to track demographic and economic changes in neighborhoods in the 50 largest U.S. cities from 2000 to 2016....

In the Navy Yard neighborhood, about 77 percent of residents were identified as low income in 2000. Sixteen years later, that population dropped to 21 percent.

Most of the people pushed out of these economic hot spots are black and low income, according to the data."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/in-the-district-gentrification-means-widespread-displacement-report-says/2019/04/26/950a0c00-6775-11e9-8985-4cf30147bdca_story.html?outputType=amp

This.

[Anonymous]

Wait, you're telling me that buying homes from black people and replacing them with condos bought by white people will make the city a lot more white? Wow. I can't believe it.

[Anonymous]

I'm old enough to remember how controversial it was when Safeway came to Petworth.

At the time, liberals were beating their breasts about how terrible it was. They said Safeway was too expensive for the neighborhood, which was then overwhelmingly black. They said it was the vanguard of gentrification, and that it would push out black people and all the whites would come in.

Fast forward to today, and gentrification is far worse today than it was then. But the difference this time, is that no one cares. Liberals not only don't talk about gentrification, they are forceful advocates FOR gentrification. They don't call it that. Now they call it "increasing density" but it's the same thing (back when they still called it gentrification, developers knew they could make a lot more money if only they could build condos everywhere but the city wouldn't let them).

Now the liberals sound like the developers and no one cares about all the black and brown people being pushed out. This story says it's a bigger problem here than anywhere else.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/in-the-district-gentrification-means-widespread-displacement-report-says/2019/04/26/950a0c00-6775-11e9-8985-4cf30147bdca_story.html?outputType=amp

[Anonymous]

None of this is going to change until this country pays reparations. These ugly condo builds are not going to make housing affordable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:None of this is going to change until this country pays reparations. These ugly condo builds are not going to make housing affordable.

Reparations for slavery ? It ended 160 years ago. If you can find an ex-slave still alive, I ‘ll send him/her a check myself. More seriously, the country already payed reparations in Civil War dead. On the Southern side most grunts were poor whites who owned no slaves. On the northern side, most were small farmers with no direct stake in the outcome. Yet some gave all. Without the Union victory and the blood shed by Union troops, there would have been no Emancipation Proclamation. If you don’t call that reparations, then you dishonor their sacrifice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm old enough to remember how controversial it was when Safeway came to Petworth.

At the time, liberals were beating their breasts about how terrible it was. They said Safeway was too expensive for the neighborhood, which was then overwhelmingly black. They said it was the vanguard of gentrification, and that it would push out black people and all the whites would come in.

Fast forward to today, and gentrification is far worse today than it was then. But the difference this time, is that no one cares. Liberals not only don't talk about gentrification, they are forceful advocates FOR gentrification. They don't call it that. Now they call it "increasing density" but it's the same thing (back when they still called it gentrification, developers knew they could make a lot more money if only they could build condos everywhere but the city wouldn't let them).

Now the liberals sound like the developers and no one cares about all the black and brown people being pushed out. This story says it's a bigger problem here than anywhere else.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/in-the-district-gentrification-means-widespread-displacement-report-says/2019/04/26/950a0c00-6775-11e9-8985-4cf30147bdca_story.html?outputType=amp

Have they rebuilt the Berlin Wall on the Prince George’s County border? No. If DC housing becomes too expensive or folks are feeling gentrified out, no one is checking your papers to roll on over the county line into PG!