Anonymous wrote:It's amazing how we can have such a robust history in the US of creating "race neutral" policies that negatively impact Black people, but can't do the same to the benefit.

That's called structural racism.

Careful with that talk on this board. Don't you know these lily white educated professionals (and token black educated professionals who adopted lily white mannerisms) born into upper and upper middle class households worked for everything they ever got and never asked for a handout?! (Except for that small "loan" from their parents for a down payment that didn't charge interest or ruin your credit if you didn't pay it back)

Obviously structural racism doesn't exist because the 1% have never seen it.

It's amazing how we can have such a robust history in the US of creating "race neutral" policies that negatively impact Black people, but can't do the same to the benefit.

That's called structural racism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, the govt could easily grandfather in tax amounts (not rates, but amounts) for those they’d socially like to keep in place. But they don’t and won’t because ... they want your money ... to pay their salaries and to give out money in order to stay in office. It’s the way the world works, but I suppose you can dream out loud about unrealistic policies on a blog.

This is actually harder than it would seem. There are some places trying some things like this, but anti-discrimination laws meant to protect against racism can actually make it hard to create systems that would benefit people of color in these situations.

That’s the problem with making things about race, even if you believe it is for the better. It will be discriminatory one way or the other. Make it about longevity and resist the people that tie everything to race. If you have owned as a primary resident for y number of years your tax burden is reduced significantly. Offset this by having higher property tax rates for new home buyers, with highest rates in first five years of ownership with reduction each 5 years. Also have progressive tax rates based on home value with homes over a certain market value having a higher rate. Adjust the threshold annually to account for inflation. Double hit on uber expensive properties that turn over quickly. Also, no property ownership for foreign entities. You must rent, but rental rates cannot be usury.

Anonymous wrote:Well, the govt could easily grandfather in tax amounts (not rates, but amounts) for those they’d socially like to keep in place. But they don’t and won’t because ... they want your money ... to pay their salaries and to give out money in order to stay in office. It’s the way the world works, but I suppose you can dream out loud about unrealistic policies on a blog.

This is actually harder than it would seem. There are some places trying some things like this, but anti-discrimination laws meant to protect against racism can actually make it hard to create systems that would benefit people of color in these situations.

Anonymous wrote:I don’t have a link but a couple of years ago, the Post did an article on elderly homeowners who lost their homes due to tax lien sales — often for very trivial reasons and/or small amounts of money — as in under $200 “small”. Gentrification is a critical motivation fueling this type of speculation.

Yeah they stopped that from happening years ago. Tax sales can’t just take your home. There was a 95% redemption rate anyway.

Just let the market work as it should. If people get priced out, so be it. Social engineering is stupid.

Anonymous wrote:Well, the govt could easily grandfather in tax amounts (not rates, but amounts) for those they’d socially like to keep in place. But they don’t and won’t because ... they want your money ... to pay their salaries and to give out money in order to stay in office. It’s the way the world works, but I suppose you can dream out loud about unrealistic policies on a blog.

California tried that and it is one of if not the largest contributing factor to the out of control housing prices there. It's great for those who had the fortune to be born early enough to lock in a low amount, it's terrible for everyone else.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The long-term residents on my block who moved out did NOT have a "predilection for crime and violence." Talk about making sweeping generalizations.

PP. I meant to convey "the long term residents with a predilection for violence" -- I wasn't referring to law-abiding LTRs...

Well, the govt could easily grandfather in tax amounts (not rates, but amounts) for those they’d socially like to keep in place. But they don’t and won’t because ... they want your money ... to pay their salaries and to give out money in order to stay in office. It’s the way the world works, but I suppose you can dream out loud about unrealistic policies on a blog.

In DC, the "seniors can't pay the rising property tax" talking point is a myth: the city caps property taxes for seniors who own their homes outright and offers other means of assistance.

I don’t have a link but a couple of years ago, the Post did an article on elderly homeowners who lost their homes due to tax lien sales — often for very trivial reasons and/or small amounts of money — as in under $200 “small”. Gentrification is a critical motivation fueling this type of speculation.

Here’s an example. A few decades ago, Black families purchased houses in neighborhoods that reflected longstanding patterns of legal segregation. . Most had 30 year mortgages and stable jobs. Many communities were close-knit, with neighbors who functioned in many ways like extended families. For many, the plan was to pay off the mortgage by retirement and to leave their property — often their only valuable asset — to their children and grandchildren. Note that prior generations, not very far removed from slavery, were not able to do this in large numbers.

So, gentrification: Richer, whiter families and investors move in. Property values go up — and taxes go up too. Families on fixed incomes, and Black families — whose wages continue to to be far lower than the average salaries of whites, even adjusting for education and experience— can no longer afford the taxes. They may be forced to sell their homes and most valuable assets, losing community connections in the process.

Some will point to the prices that many families receive for their property. And that’s true — if they wanted to sell. But they will often be losing neighbors, neighborhoods, and stability — forced out by rising taxes and expenses. This is actually a best case scenario.

tldr: Gentrification is bad because it often destroys longstanding stable communities when long-term residents and their families can no longer afford to live there. Note that this is the opposite of the stable communities and investments that home ownership is supposed to promote.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure. Until it happens.

Well, let's try it and see, and if I wind up hating it, you can say you told me so. Seems like that's better than just not trying it.

I am betting your are not a homeowner. Best of luck!

You lose your bet! I will donate my winnings to an affordable housing fund if you pay up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure. Until it happens.

Well, let's try it and see, and if I wind up hating it, you can say you told me so. Seems like that's better than just not trying it.

I am betting your are not a homeowner. Best of luck!

student=different