Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gentrification is bad because people need a place to live. Period. This prices them out of housing. 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.

That is oversimplified nonsense. It prices people out of housing in a particular neighborhood, 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.

+100000

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Between the Comp Plan to make canyons out of Wisconsin and Conn avenues and obliterate green space to make luxury units, and the social justice plan calling for the City to splurge on the Marriott Wardman, I'd probably take the latter. There is plenty of housing, or buildings that can be repurposed, before change our charming city scape in the name of housing (under whatever argument is given--green living, affordable etc). Most of it is wolves in sheep clothing, ie developers using the cause du jour. GGW, we see you and all your plants on the ANCs. Clever..

The GGW plants on the ANC are not impressive. A bunch of clowns.

100% but the way they planted them is chilling. Its V the Final Battle type moves.

Yes. democracy is truly chilling. Did you have lots of fun in the Capitol on the 6th?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gentrification is bad because people need a place to live. Period. This prices them out of housing. 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.

That is oversimplified nonsense. It prices people out of housing in a particular neighborhood, 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.

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."

Anonymous wrote:Gentrification is bad because people need a place to live. Period. This prices them out of housing. 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.

That is oversimplified nonsense. It prices people out of housing in a particular neighborhood, 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.

Anonymous wrote:OP instead of asking, "bad or good?" look to understand it. Start with the history of the city: post WWII discriminatory housing policies, redlining, white flight, "urban renewal", and the MLK riots.

Anthony Williams was the architect of this town's gentrification. I thought it was interesting in 2017 when the WaPo reported, "During his years as mayor, Williams thought his economic development plan would lift up the poor, not drive them out of the city."

With work from home, the business districts will die and be returned to cheap residential housing. End of gentrification.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Between the Comp Plan to make canyons out of Wisconsin and Conn avenues and obliterate green space to make luxury units, and the social justice plan calling for the City to splurge on the Marriott Wardman, I'd probably take the latter. There is plenty of housing, or buildings that can be repurposed, before change our charming city scape in the name of housing (under whatever argument is given--green living, affordable etc). Most of it is wolves in sheep clothing, ie developers using the cause du jour. GGW, we see you and all your plants on the ANCs. Clever..

The GGW plants on the ANC are not impressive. A bunch of clowns.

Lol at the attacks towards GGW. The don't hold a candle to the well funded NIMBY homeowner interests.

Gentrification is bad because people need a place to live. Period. This prices them out of housing. 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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Between the Comp Plan to make canyons out of Wisconsin and Conn avenues and obliterate green space to make luxury units, and the social justice plan calling for the City to splurge on the Marriott Wardman, I'd probably take the latter. There is plenty of housing, or buildings that can be repurposed, before change our charming city scape in the name of housing (under whatever argument is given--green living, affordable etc). Most of it is wolves in sheep clothing, ie developers using the cause du jour. GGW, we see you and all your plants on the ANCs. Clever..

The GGW plants on the ANC are not impressive. A bunch of clowns.

100% but the way they planted them is chilling. Its V the Final Battle type moves.

It’s bad because some people are racist and don’t want outsiders moving in. They want change, without the change. Sound familiar? It is except this time it is everyone but white people (and I’m not white).

Anonymous wrote:Genuinely not trying to be a troll but why exactly is gentrification looked down upon in D.C.?

I understand the impacts it has had on affordability and the cost of living but why do you see this as such an issue in D.C.?


From my perspective (I'm Pakistani btw) it has gotten safer, more amenities and much cleaner. Are people genuinely frustrated that D.C.'s demographics have changed in terms of there being more white people moving in? Please educate me.

It’s not.

Anonymous wrote:Between the Comp Plan to make canyons out of Wisconsin and Conn avenues and obliterate green space to make luxury units, and the social justice plan calling for the City to splurge on the Marriott Wardman, I'd probably take the latter. There is plenty of housing, or buildings that can be repurposed, before change our charming city scape in the name of housing (under whatever argument is given--green living, affordable etc). Most of it is wolves in sheep clothing, ie developers using the cause du jour. GGW, we see you and all your plants on the ANCs. Clever..

The GGW plants on the ANC are not impressive. A bunch of clowns.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gentrification only happens when long-term residents want to cash out. Why shouldn’t they be able to make more money via a home sake than they ever would working?

This has always been my question. If it's so bad, long-term residents don't have to move. They can stay and enjoy the benefits of gentrification. However, they want to cash out and move out. It's their choice.

And if they're renting and their home gets sold out from under them? That has happened in my neighborhood.

That’s called life. You’ll have to move.

Right? These aren’t endangered species. They’re normal people like anywhere else who need to move if they can’t afford the rent.

But many people will tell you that the poor black are deserving of protections not afforded to poor whites. It's bizarre.

It's only "bizarre" if you're completely ignorant to the long history of denying equal benefits and opportunities to black families, through redlining, blockbusting, segregation in the GI Bill, and a multitude of other racial injustices in which white families were encouraged and given substantial assistance to become homeowners while black families were blocked at every turn.

You're damn right black families are more deserving of protection from being displaced, it's the least we can do after generations of stacking the deck against them that specifically put them at greater risk of being displaced.

Exactly.

Anonymous wrote:no one calls it gentrification anymore, boomer. it's now called increasing density. and dc loves it.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gentrification only happens when long-term residents want to cash out. Why shouldn’t they be able to make more money via a home sake than they ever would working?

This has always been my question. If it's so bad, long-term residents don't have to move. They can stay and enjoy the benefits of gentrification. However, they want to cash out and move out. It's their choice.

And if they're renting and their home gets sold out from under them? That has happened in my neighborhood.

That’s called life. You’ll have to move.

Right? These aren’t endangered species. They’re normal people like anywhere else who need to move if they can’t afford the rent.

But many people will tell you that the poor black are deserving of protections not afforded to poor whites. It's bizarre.

It's only "bizarre" if you're completely ignorant to the long history of denying equal benefits and opportunities to black families, through redlining, blockbusting, segregation in the GI Bill, and a multitude of other racial injustices in which white families were encouraged and given substantial assistance to become homeowners while black families were blocked at every turn.

You're damn right black families are more deserving of protection from being displaced, it's the least we can do after generations of stacking the deck against them that specifically put them at greater risk of being displaced.

Anonymous wrote:no one calls it gentrification anymore, boomer. it's now called increasing density. and dc loves it.

GGW (developers + Mayor = money for both!) loves it ^