Reply to Educate me - why is gentrification bad?

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Educate me - why is gentrification bad?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Gentrification is bad because people need a place to live. Period. [b]This prices them out of housing. [/b]Sure you can stay if you own your home as I do but taxes increase with the inflated home values and when I sell I still need somewhere to live. Yeah. I know. I can move way out or to another region which is fantastic except as an older person, I'd appreciate being near decent medical care and not have to drive far for everything.

And if you rent, you're pushed out with the quickness. Great for you with the high incomes but many hard working people don't have them. [/quote]

That is oversimplified nonsense.  It prices people out of housing [u]in a particular neighborhood[/u], or it prices them out of a particular house/apartment.  In 1994, I wanted to rent in Georgetown, but couldn't afford it, so I rented in Clarendon instead.  In 2004, we wanted to buy in Dupont Circle, but couldn't afford it, so we bought in Columbia Heights instead.   In 2015, we wanted to buy in Spring Valley, but couldn't afford it, so we bought in Bethesda instead.

Is it a bummer?  Sure.  Is it a reason to put significant controls and protections into the real estate market?  Absolutely not.  [/quote]

Pure privilege on display here.

"Look guys, when I wanted to buy in an expensive, safe, lily-white neighborhood chock full of amenities and transit access and couldn't afford it, all I had to do was move to a slightly less expensive, safe, lily-white neighborhood chock full of amenities and transit access. Easy peasy!"

And what about when you get pushed out of Anacostia, or Capitol Heights? When the new neighborhoods you can afford are food deserts and you don't make enough to keep a car? When the new neighborhoods you can afford mean your commute time triples because now you have to take two buses to work that only come every half hour but you can't afford childcare for that extra time?  When you have to move out because you can't afford the new rent and your slumlord landlord refuses to give you your security deposit back so you can't even afford to move into ANY new neighborhood and even though you know you left the apartment in perfect condition you can't afford to take the time off work to fight it?

Not everyone can "just move to Clarendon." [/quote]

For starters, if you think Columbia Heights is either safe or lily-white, you aren't paying attention, but that's neither here nor there.  Moreover, you don't address the central point of my post, which is "gentrification" doesn't price someone out of "housing," as the initial post stated, but it merely priced them out of a neighborhood, or apartment, or street.

But, I'd like to ask what you think should be done about the natural phenomenon of "gentrification."  Should people of a certain income level not be permitted to rent or buy in a neighborhood?  Should apartment buildings with more than bare bones amenities not be permitted?  Should businesses be discouraged from opening there, because they might lead to increased rents and/or property values?

Should the city subsidize increased rent payments from residents of different neighborhoods? Just long-term residents, or all residents?  And how long is long-term?

In short - what do we do to combat this?  I'm all ears.  
[/quote]

There are many avenues that can be used to combat gentrification, but it all mostly boils down to building more affordable housing and making homeownership easier.

1. Eliminate single family zoning citywide to increase the overall housing supply and add a significantly higher property tax category for single family homes over a certain value with income-based waivers available. 
2. Eliminate the Height of Buildings Act to increase the overall housing supply
3. Increase the IZ requirements for new buildings and eliminate all loopholes like the ones that allow developers to shift their IZ units to different projects
4. Build city-owned 100% IZ buildings funded by taxes on developers, the wealthiest residents, and a special tax on all cash purchases and real estate transactions a certain percentage above the median for that neighborhood (i.e. flips) so that flippers and gentrifiers are directly contributing to the preservation of their neighborhoods.  
5. Expand the DC Opens Doors program and provide outreach to educate residents about the program's existence. Pass a law that requires sellers to give DC Opens Doors buyers first priority on offers and any qualified DCOD buyers bidding at or over asking price must be accepted. 
6. Require landlords to set 1-2% of all rent received in an interest-bearing account. If the tenant moves out the landlord can keep the money, if the property is sold and the tenant exercises their right of first refusal that money is applied to the down payment and closing costs.  
7. Before being auctioned to the general public, tax sale and city owned properties are offered to residents of that zip code via DC Opens Doors.

[/quote]

Oh, also it's very telling and honestly quite disgusting that your position is "who cares if they get pushed out to places where their lives will be severely disrupted if not impossible to continue normally, they can afford something and probably won't be living in a cardboard box so screw them I got mine."  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics