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

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..

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.

Just more performative pandering to black people by the SJW crowd. And, of course, black alderman/council members in these districts are afraid of losing their seats.

Wow. Educate yourselves. Read some American history.

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.

You are clueless and offensive

Our situation is the same, PP.

I don’t know the stats - but this social engineering is seeking to correct a problem that does not exist in 2021. What may have been true in the 1980s no longer is the fact in DC.

Let the market play out.

Anonymous wrote:

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

But social engineering (in the form of racially restrictive covenants and redlining) created this market. Was that stupid too? In the early-to-mid 20th century when these policies helped some groups to accumulate wealth but shut out others solely due to race or religion, would you have stood up for the market against local government, banks and real estate agents?

OP this TED talk gives a brief history: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04XJY_dlikY&list=PLHiBtbsNGcXlRngwSk_ugqh1JSB4bDAr_&index=11&fbclid=IwAR1IVaQgAfoE0MelJWaHabTV7PTxrtFU07FK0I5GB0uzcgp9yg3DygptWLA

How many of these DC homes are owned by people who bought in the early to mid-20th century? We bought ours around 10 years ago... My parents bought their starter home in the 70s. They were both from poor families...neither had "accumulated" wealth through a covenanted neighborhood. Statistically, how many people in DC are we talking about who accumulated wealth through a covenanted neighborhood? Compared to how many have had the chance to accumulate wealth thru a gentrifying neighborhood?

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

But social engineering (in the form of racially restrictive covenants and redlining) created this market. Was that stupid too? In the early-to-mid 20th century when these policies helped some groups to accumulate wealth but shut out others solely due to race or religion, would you have stood up for the market against local government, banks and real estate agents?

OP this TED talk gives a brief history: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04XJY_dlikY&list=PLHiBtbsNGcXlRngwSk_ugqh1JSB4bDAr_&index=11&fbclid=IwAR1IVaQgAfoE0MelJWaHabTV7PTxrtFU07FK0I5GB0uzcgp9yg3DygptWLA

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.

Just more performative pandering to black people by the SJW crowd. And, of course, black alderman/council members in these districts are afraid of losing their seats.

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.

In DC, at least, the vast number of protections afforded to renters in this situation makes it *extremely* unlikely they will be forced out.

Why on earth anyone would want to be a small-scale landlord in DC is beyond me. DC law is unfathomably pro-tenant, to the point where even paying rent is a matter of dispute.

We are actually not going to rent our place when we are not here. Close it up and put up some good security and care taking so we don't find squatters. it's not worth the heartache to be a landlord in DC.

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.

In DC, at least, the vast number of protections afforded to renters in this situation makes it *extremely* unlikely they will be forced out.

Why on earth anyone would want to be a small-scale landlord in DC is beyond me. DC law is unfathomably pro-tenant, to the point where even paying rent is a matter of dispute.

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.

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.

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.

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.

When a whole building is sold there is a way for residents to band together in DC. As to a home getting sold out from under you, yes it is your home but it is not your actual house. Renters should be aware of this. I would personally like to see more rent controlled apartments -- that is something the city can work with developers on.

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.