Anonymous wrote:Everyone here says gentrification is bad but if given the chance (income, right circumstances, etc.), 3/4 would become gentrifiers or already are. So really at best it’s lip service and virtue signaling, at worst they’re the worst hypocrites. The city won’t do anything about because of the $$$$$ in taxes and there’s really no solution besides building high density, lower cost housing, which the gentrifiers mostly oppose. It’s a no win situation...

Gentrification has allowed our inbound school to be renovated -- fixing broken windows, heating system that didn't work, removing asbestos, etc. The building was in a horrible state.

Long term residents should benefit when property values go up, but a variety of government and private actions have prevented Black people in particular from building wealth, which means they don't own their homes.

Then neighborhoods become desirable and White people move in. And they transform the neighborhood they move into through not just displacement but also culturally - e.g. complaining about Donald Campbell's go-go music.

Until you fix the theft of generations of wealth from Black people gentrification will always just be perpetuating that theft.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me beat everyone else to the punch.

NIMBYs will say gentrification is bad, but will use it as an excuse to oppose any new housing in their neighborhoods, which are *already wealthy*

YIMBYs will say gentrification is unavoidable, but that housing would be more affordable if only they just built more of it. This inevitably means flooding the market with *their* particular brand of housing, luxury single bedroom apartments geared towards high earning single transient young professionals. Among other amenities that white millennials like but nobody else uses.

This isn’t true. I am a white Gen X resident of an already wealthy neighborhood, and I’d like to see actually affordable housing built nearby, as much of it as possible, ideally paid for by the city government directly.

That's the rub, isn't it? Building affordable housing in already-wealthy, already-built-up areas is absurdly expensive, and no one wants to pay for it. The city can't pay for it by itself and developers don't want to pay for it because it's a money-loser for them.

Never once in GGW's constant prattling about this issue have any of their self-considered geniuses ever mentioned how to pay for such a scheme. David Alpert is rich. Maybe he should pay for it.

OK, so I'll amend this: We should raise property taxes in Ward 3 and income taxes on the highest incomes to pay for building more public housing in Ward 3. That's how to pay for it. I prefer building public housing because I don't like the idea of finding "market-based" solutions for public problems, and because developers always wind up finding ways to build less of it than they're supposed to.

Why just Ward 3, when there are wealthy people in other wards? And I know GGW has brainwashed people into thinking every Ward 3 resident is a mustache-twirling billionaire, but there are plenty of Ward 3 residents for whom a property tax increase would be a significant financial burden.

I agree that DC should bump up income taxes for the super-wealthy. But singling out based on geographic area is wrong.

For a quiet, boring Ward - Ward 3 sure has a huge target painted on it by activists and developers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me beat everyone else to the punch.

NIMBYs will say gentrification is bad, but will use it as an excuse to oppose any new housing in their neighborhoods, which are *already wealthy*

YIMBYs will say gentrification is unavoidable, but that housing would be more affordable if only they just built more of it. This inevitably means flooding the market with *their* particular brand of housing, luxury single bedroom apartments geared towards high earning single transient young professionals. Among other amenities that white millennials like but nobody else uses.

This isn’t true. I am a white Gen X resident of an already wealthy neighborhood, and I’d like to see actually affordable housing built nearby, as much of it as possible, ideally paid for by the city government directly.

That's the rub, isn't it? Building affordable housing in already-wealthy, already-built-up areas is absurdly expensive, and no one wants to pay for it. The city can't pay for it by itself and developers don't want to pay for it because it's a money-loser for them.

Never once in GGW's constant prattling about this issue have any of their self-considered geniuses ever mentioned how to pay for such a scheme. David Alpert is rich. Maybe he should pay for it.

OK, so I'll amend this: We should raise property taxes in Ward 3 and income taxes on the highest incomes to pay for building more public housing in Ward 3. That's how to pay for it. I prefer building public housing because I don't like the idea of finding "market-based" solutions for public problems, and because developers always wind up finding ways to build less of it than they're supposed to.

Why just Ward 3, when there are wealthy people in other wards? And I know GGW has brainwashed people into thinking every Ward 3 resident is a mustache-twirling billionaire, but there are plenty of Ward 3 residents for whom a property tax increase would be a significant financial burden.

I agree that DC should bump up income taxes for the super-wealthy. But singling out based on geographic area is wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me beat everyone else to the punch.

NIMBYs will say gentrification is bad, but will use it as an excuse to oppose any new housing in their neighborhoods, which are *already wealthy*

YIMBYs will say gentrification is unavoidable, but that housing would be more affordable if only they just built more of it. This inevitably means flooding the market with *their* particular brand of housing, luxury single bedroom apartments geared towards high earning single transient young professionals. Among other amenities that white millennials like but nobody else uses.

This isn’t true. I am a white Gen X resident of an already wealthy neighborhood, and I’d like to see actually affordable housing built nearby, as much of it as possible, ideally paid for by the city government directly.

That's the rub, isn't it? Building affordable housing in already-wealthy, already-built-up areas is absurdly expensive, and no one wants to pay for it. The city can't pay for it by itself and developers don't want to pay for it because it's a money-loser for them.

Never once in GGW's constant prattling about this issue have any of their self-considered geniuses ever mentioned how to pay for such a scheme. David Alpert is rich. Maybe he should pay for it.

OK, so I'll amend this: We should raise property taxes in Ward 3 and income taxes on the highest incomes to pay for building more public housing in Ward 3. That's how to pay for it. I prefer building public housing because I don't like the idea of finding "market-based" solutions for public problems, and because developers always wind up finding ways to build less of it than they're supposed to.

jsteele 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 is a very myopic understanding of gentrification. In many of the neighborhoods that have undergone or are undergoing gentrification, long-term residents are renters. They are pushed out by increasing rents or when their homes are torn down or renovated. They don't make any money out of the transition.

So the landlord wants to cash out. Again, why shouldn’t they? Your example only supports the need for true affordable housing which is 100% needed but a separate subject. If your example is actually the greater issue at hand, then the government should be buying those properties and making them ADUs.

Totally agree with the PP who said its not bad - it just is.

I live in a gentrifying (or already mostly gentrified) area. When we moved in there were many older black residents on our block. They were happy to see all the services in the area and the decrease in crime. Many of them cashed out and made major money on their homes. Many paid $100-$150 for their homes years ago and sold for $600-$700. Yes many of them sold to developers or white people. But they made a killing and are enjoying retirement thanks to the increase in their home values. Is it wrong for those folks to enjoy the increase in value to their homes?

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 is a very myopic understanding of gentrification. In many of the neighborhoods that have undergone or are undergoing gentrification, long-term residents are renters. They are pushed out by increasing rents or when their homes are torn down or renovated. They don't make any money out of the transition.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me beat everyone else to the punch.

NIMBYs will say gentrification is bad, but will use it as an excuse to oppose any new housing in their neighborhoods, which are *already wealthy*

YIMBYs will say gentrification is unavoidable, but that housing would be more affordable if only they just built more of it. This inevitably means flooding the market with *their* particular brand of housing, luxury single bedroom apartments geared towards high earning single transient young professionals. Among other amenities that white millennials like but nobody else uses.

This isn’t true. I am a white Gen X resident of an already wealthy neighborhood, and I’d like to see actually affordable housing built nearby, as much of it as possible, ideally paid for by the city government directly.

That's the rub, isn't it? Building affordable housing in already-wealthy, already-built-up areas is absurdly expensive, and no one wants to pay for it. The city can't pay for it by itself and developers don't want to pay for it because it's a money-loser for them.

Never once in GGW's constant prattling about this issue have any of their self-considered geniuses ever mentioned how to pay for such a scheme. David Alpert is rich. Maybe he should pay for it.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not, OP.
The alternative is of course that those areas stay economically depressed forever.

No. That is not the only alternative.

What's the other option?

Anonymous wrote:Let me beat everyone else to the punch.

NIMBYs will say gentrification is bad, but will use it as an excuse to oppose any new housing in their neighborhoods, which are *already wealthy*

YIMBYs will say gentrification is unavoidable, but that housing would be more affordable if only they just built more of it. This inevitably means flooding the market with *their* particular brand of housing, luxury single bedroom apartments geared towards high earning single transient young professionals. Among other amenities that white millennials like but nobody else uses.

This isn’t true. I am a white Gen X resident of an already wealthy neighborhood, and I’d like to see actually affordable housing built nearby, as much of it as possible, ideally paid for by the city government directly.

Anonymous wrote:It’s not bad. It just is. Also, people of color are not displaced, just poor people (who mostly happened to be of color). Well-off people of color are fine. Correlation is not causation. Now, is being of color more likely to mean you’re poor? Yes, but it does not pre-ordain it. People of color that realize this tend to do better. Is it harder for people of color to make it? Yes, but nothing is pre-ordained.

A lot of things in this country are pre-ordained but continue to believe otherwise.

It’s not bad. It just is. Also, people of color are not displaced, just poor people (who mostly happened to be of color). Well-off people of color are fine. Correlation is not causation. Now, is being of color more likely to mean you’re poor? Yes, but it does not pre-ordain it. People of color that realize this tend to do better. Is it harder for people of color to make it? Yes, but nothing is pre-ordained.

Anonymous wrote:It displaces the poor & redevelops interesting historical neighborhoods into bland shopping districts. But yes there are upsides.

This is someone who never walked 14th and 16th streets in the 80s, when they were STILL burned out from the riots. Unkess boarded upmwindows and blowing trash are "historically interesting"?