Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not idiotic at all if you understand gentrification. A local example is Columbia Heights. Many older AA and Hispanic people who bought there when it was undesirable were priced out of the new market. These were folks who invested in the neighborhood when yuppies would not have been caught dead there. Their tax bills and overall COL went through the roof and many of them (low SES and people on fixed income) had to pack up and leave. Sure, many of them cleaned up in selling their houses, but many of them did not want to move.

As PP said, it is a tricky thing. And most urban areas are dealing with this problem.

I work in urban planning and this way oversimplified. Homeowners were not displaced. Especially not seniors. DC has the lowest propert taxes in the region and cap on the increase. So even if your assessment quadrupled your tax increase is always capped. Further more seniors have even greater deductions. Every homeowner gets the 64k taken right off the bat of the assessed value. Due to repurposing vacant lots, Columbia Heights has a net gain of over 300 affordable units. As someone who bought there before Target moved in, please don't romanticize it. There was so much violence, trash, vacant buildings, no retail, no plaza, drug houses etc. It sucked. But you got one thing right, I did make a ton of money when I sold

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.ibtimes.com/trader-joes-pulls-out-poor-portland-oregon-neighborhood-defeat-gentrification-1553231


"The Portland African American Leadership Forum objected to the proposed development partly because it feared that the new retail complex would eventually push up rental prices in the area and drive out the local black community."

Because the local black community must stay and be poor?
For a local example of how well that work, see Alexandria City in VA. Similar policies over the years ensured that th black community stayed largely in public housing and the kids contined to fail year after tear.

When you expect a community to not improve, when you force cohesion based on fear, no one benefits on the long run. Sometimes the best choice is for to leave the comfort of the long term low income neighborhood.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Many older AA and Hispanic people who bought there when it was undesirable were priced out of the new market

How do you get priced out of something you already bought?

Not pp, but if the property value goes up significantly, then your property taxes go up significantly. It can be a hard financial burden, especially if it happens quickly and you haven't planned for it.

True, but this is idiotic, as a PP said above. If property taxes raise is because the property itself has increased in value many many many times more, so the person who owns a house is in much better shape. He could sell the house, buy a smaller one, and have enough profit to pay all property taxes for life.

Anonymous wrote:Not idiotic at all if you understand gentrification. A local example is Columbia Heights. Many older AA and Hispanic people who bought there when it was undesirable were priced out of the new market. These were folks who invested in the neighborhood when yuppies would not have been caught dead there. Their tax bills and overall COL went through the roof and many of them (low SES and people on fixed income) had to pack up and leave. Sure, many of them cleaned up in selling their houses, but many of them did not want to move.

As PP said, it is a tricky thing. And most urban areas are dealing with this problem.

Anonymous wrote:

True, but this is idiotic, as a PP said above. If property taxes raise is because the property itself has increased in value many many many times more, so the person who owns a house is in much better shape. He could sell the house, buy a smaller one, and have enough profit to pay all property taxes for life.