Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suggest watching the movie "Residue" to get a feel for what it looks like from someone else's view. I think it's on Netflix.

That’s ok. I don’t use movies for a basis in reality. But you do you.

Anonymous wrote:It sure does make you wonder what we white people are supposed to do. If we move into the city, we are gentrifiers. If we move out, we are white flighters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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"?

I worked in Navy Yard in 2002-2005, anyone who thinks that was a "interesting historical neighborhood" must have done a lot of crack there.

Anonymous wrote:Sure. Until it happens.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Low income housing that is "Paid by the city government" - is actually paid by = TAXPAYORS.

It is odd that folks on this thread don't seem to realize that taxes are how the government, you know, pays for stuff!

And no, I don't want property values coming down - while taxes are being raised.

I'd rather have my taxes go up and my property value "coming down" because there's taxpayer-funded low-income housing built next door to my house than live next to someone with your attitude.

Why dont you buy your residence in a less expensive area
? There are many area in DC with public housing and near metro
Stations.

Anonymous wrote:

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"?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Low income housing that is "Paid by the city government" - is actually paid by = TAXPAYORS.

It is odd that folks on this thread don't seem to realize that taxes are how the government, you know, pays for stuff!

And no, I don't want property values coming down - while taxes are being raised.

I'd rather have my taxes go up and my property value "coming down" because there's taxpayer-funded low-income housing built next door to my house than live next to someone with your attitude.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

But what makes the neighborhoods desirable? Isn't it when the "long term residents" with a predilection for crime and violence and other anti-social pathologies move out, so it's suddenly safe -- safer -- for families to contemplate removing the bars from every window and start a family, and for small businesses to open without fear of constant theft and violence?

Anonymous wrote:Low income housing that is "Paid by the city government" - is actually paid by = TAXPAYORS.

It is odd that folks on this thread don't seem to realize that taxes are how the government, you know, pays for stuff!

And no, I don't want property values coming down - while taxes are being raised.

Anonymous wrote:I suggest watching the movie "Residue" to get a feel for what it looks like from someone else's view. I think it's on Netflix.

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.