Why should long-term renters be considered to have real investment in an area?

 

As for renters, even long-term ones: I simply don't see what stake in a neighborhood a 20-year renter has that a 2-year renter doesn't.

 

because long-term renters also support the businesses in that neighborhood which contribute to the long-term stability of it (long before many "owners," who in many cases are only speculators with no real committment to the neighborhood--even had any interest in buying there), that's why! And contrary to your notion (as I perceive it), renters are (surprise!) actual responsible human beings (just like property owners) who also pay the taxes for services that enable their neighborhood and the city in which they live to function.

 

OK, I already conceded that there is a difference between an owner-speculator and an owner-occupier, and that the former probably bring less to most areas than renters.  This is particularly true if the speculator is just sitting on a property waiting for others to improve the neighborhood, so he can sell high without doing any work.  I have no problem with speculators who buy, restore, and sell.

 

However, why do you assume that long-term renters would support local businesses more than short-term renters or owner-occupiers?  They may support the local businesses more than speculators, yes, but that still doesn't provide any reason to protect long-term renters from the increasing costs of living in a gentrifying neighborhood--particularly if the gentrification is yielding more owner-occupiers.  Likewise, why do you assume that the fact that they're "responsible" entitles them to such protection?  I thought that was basically a baseline expectation of any citizenry, not a case for special legal protection, and I don't think it distinguishes long-term renters from owner-occupiers, and not even really from most speculators or short-term renters (particularly those who actually intend to stay long-term and even eventually buy in the neighborhood to which they've recently moved).

I don't necessarily believe in giving anyone an uneven playing field, though I'm not truly sure what an "even" playing field looks like in this circumstance.  But within whatever we consider to be a that even playing field we make decisions about how we plan our neighborhoods and what priorities we pursue.  I think that given that there is a democratic process that leads to those decisions, that for the purposes of that process renters should be considered to have a say as they have an "investment" or "stake" in the neighborhood that derives from the fact that it is where they live.  That's my point.  Saying that residents have no "investment" or "stake" in a neighborhood raises the specter of them not being allowed a voice in community level decision making.  Not that you said that, Gramarye, but I've heard the same reasoning used to justify that outcome.

How could it not?

 

What happens in a gentrified community to a retiree who's house value and taxes go up and they're unable to afford the rate on a fixed income? how about a family that has been living in the home and just scraping by renting it and now the landlord kicks them out to get a higher rent or to sell the building?  What about the relocation of the poor to neighboring areas that brings that neighborhood down?

 

None of those things are illegal...but some of them could involve the questionable ethical treatment of other people who may not have the resources to fight.

How could it not?

 

What happens in a gentrified community to a retiree who's house value and taxes go up and they're unable to afford the rate on a fixed income? how about a family that has been living in the home and just scraping by renting it and now the landlord kicks them out to get a higher rent or to sell the building?  What about the relocation of the poor to neighboring areas that brings that neighborhood down?

 

None of those things are illegal...but some of them could involve the questionable ethical treatment of other people who may not have the resources to fight.

 

The first issue is a public policy issue to cap the tax increases in order to keep long time residents in the area. Traditionally this has not been a problem in Ohio, but I know states such as Maryland have such caps.

 

The second one to me is one of the risks of being a renter. It may suck but it is part of the equation of renting, the upside to renting is that you have the option to move anytime your lease is up with out worrying about having to sell the apartment/condo/house.

 

 

 

 

How could it not?

What happens in a gentrified community to a retiree who's house value and taxes go up and they're unable to afford the rate on a fixed income? how about a family that has been living in the home and just scraping by renting it and now the landlord kicks them out to get a higher rent or to sell the building? What about the relocation of the poor to neighboring areas that brings that neighborhood down?

 

None of those things are illegal...but some of them could involve the questionable ethical treatment of other people who may not have the resources to fight.

 

I don't think there's anything questionable about any of that.  There's no moral or legal entitlement to pay the same and get more, which is what would be the case if someone were permitted to remain in a gentrifying neighborhood and protected from the landlord increasing their rent or the city increasing their property taxes.  You'd get all the benefits of gentrification and none of the costs.  That's an uneven playing field.

 

There are almost unnumbered places for a family who finds that their neighborhood is improving too quickly for them to keep pace with to relocate.  People move all the time for any number of reasons.  No Ohio city is about to run out of affordable areas to live.  The landlord should be fully within his rights to sell the building or increase the rents to what the market will bear, and society should respect that decision.

 

As to the prospect that relocating the poor to neighboring areas will bring those areas down: It could just as easily bring those areas up.  Hence my example earlier.  Also, is this really the argument you want to make against gentrification?  "Keep those filthy poor people in Neighborhood X, we don't want 'em here in Neighborhood Y!"  That's basically the argument you're making, in less flattering terms.

 

I don't necessarily believe in giving anyone an uneven playing field, though I'm not truly sure what an "even" playing field looks like in this circumstance. But within whatever we consider to be a that even playing field we make decisions about how we plan our neighborhoods and what priorities we pursue. I think that given that there is a democratic process that leads to those decisions, that for the purposes of that process renters should be considered to have a say as they have an "investment" or "stake" in the neighborhood that derives from the fact that it is where they live. That's my point. Saying that residents have no "investment" or "stake" in a neighborhood raises the specter of them not being allowed a voice in community level decision making. Not that you said that, Gramarye, but I've heard the same reasoning used to justify that outcome.

 

They still have their voice at the ballot box, of course.  That's a fundamental right of citizenship.  I'm certainly not implying anything about denying people the right to vote; I'm not sure what else you meant by "voice in community level decision-making," or at least with respect to the "democratic process."

 

As to what I meant by an uneven playing field: any legal protection or entitlement that is not available to everyone that allows the few who enjoy it to enjoy all the benefits of gentrification without bearing any of the costs (e.g., higher rents, property taxes, etc.).

Again, I know it is largely not a problem in Ohio cities, at least not in the near future, but allowing market pressures to solely dictate the direction of urban centers can in fact mean pushing everyone out but the wealthy few. According to a presentation from Strategic Economics, in the Bay Area, the percentage of Bay Area residents who can afford a median-value home has sunk from 27% in 1999 to 12% in 2005. 21% of residents commute more than 45 minutes to work, the second-highest concentration of long-distance commuters in the country. That represents a huge shift of the population to the periphery of the region and forcing lower-income and middle-income residents to pay a substantially larger portion of their income on transportation. Is that going to happen in Ohio? Again, not likely. But displacement of residents does have some negative impacts even at the neighborhood level (I'm modifying this list from Economic Strategies because I like what they have to say :)).

 

- Displacement can lower health and education outcomes for low-income residents, presumably because it pushes them into equally dire economic situations, crime, etc. without the social capital (churches, neighbors, schools, etc.) that they had accumulated in their previous neighborhood. From a macroeconomic standpoint, it is not unthinkable that lower social and economic outcomes could in turn lead to greater reliance on social services or spikes in crime, costs that get born by taxpayers of the city (unless they're gentrified beyond municipal borders, and then these costs just get shifted to someone else).

 

- In addition to their social networks being interrupted, low-income residents can lose access to an important network of social and workforce services that are typically co-located near city centers. If an individual is having to take a 30-minute bus ride to a workforce agency that used to be right down the street, the likelihood that they attend is going to go down dramatically. At a macro level, if enough people are shifted away from social service centers and employment centers, our already meager success rates for transitioning people out of poverty goes down.

 

- Economic stratification of neighborhoods also increases the risk of "downward spiral" of the area. Because migration and mobility become much more possible as one's financial means increase, I would question whether higher-income residents would increase the likelihood of neighborhood stability more than their lower-income predecessors.

 

http://communityinnovation.berkeley.edu/presentations/GCC-Dena-Belzer.pdf

 

 

 

I don't think there's anything questionable about any of that. There's no moral or legal entitlement to pay the same and get more, which is what would be the case if someone were permitted to remain in a gentrifying neighborhood and protected from the landlord increasing their rent or the city increasing their property taxes. You'd get all the benefits of gentrification and none of the costs. That's an uneven playing field.

 

There's a big difference between something being illegal and it being socially irresponsible.  When I am talking about something being responsible i'm talking about it being fair to the people that are affected indirectly, like the renters in these scenarios.  Maybe it's all too "peace, love and happiness" for your taste, but that's what i'm talking about.

 

I'm not saying that's the situation here in Ohio, but i take issue with the idea that unfettered gentrification is always a good thing.

Why should long-term renters be considered to have real investment in an area?

 

As for renters, even long-term ones: I simply don't see what stake in a neighborhood a 20-year renter has that a 2-year renter doesn't. 

 

because long-term renters also support the businesses in that neighborhood which contribute to the long-term stability of it (long before many "owners," who in many cases are only speculators with no real committment to the neighborhood--even had any interest in buying there), that's why! And contrary to your notion (as I perceive it), renters are (surprise!) actual responsible human beings (just like property owners) who also pay the taxes for services that enable their neighborhood and the city in which they live to function.

 

OK, I already conceded that there is a difference between an owner-speculator and an owner-occupier, and that the former probably bring less to most areas than renters.  This is particularly true if the speculator is just sitting on a property waiting for others to improve the neighborhood, so he can sell high without doing any work.  I have no problem with speculators who buy, restore, and sell.

 

However, why do you assume that long-term renters would support local businesses more than short-term renters or owner-occupiers? They may support the local businesses more than speculators, yes, but that still doesn't provide any reason to protect long-term renters from the increasing costs of living in a gentrifying neighborhood--particularly if the gentrification is yielding more owner-occupiers.  Likewise, why do you assume that the fact that they're "responsible" entitles them to such protection? I thought that was basically a baseline expectation of any citizenry, not a case for special legal protection, and I don't think it distinguishes long-term renters from owner-occupiers, and not even really from most speculators or short-term renters (particularly those who actually intend to stay long-term and even eventually buy in the neighborhood to which they've recently moved).

well, in many cases the long-term renters--simply because they've been in an area so long--have kept the businesses alive. I'm not saying short-term renters wouldn't patronize those businesses, but when an area becomes so thoroughly gentrified many essential services--(dry cleaners, delis, etc...)--tend to disappear due to escalating rents and are replaced by trendy throw-away businesses like frozen yogurt places, clubs serving ten-dollar drinks, etc. that do nothing to maintain community stability; and the new renters, paying obscene rents, know they're there for a short-term (not that some of them wouldn't make a longer commitment with more reasonable rents) and don't really care.

As for being "entitled" to protection, we provide protections on behalf of people all the time to prevent abuses by those who would take advantage of those unable to protect themselves. That's what laws are all about. No "free" market is totally unfettered from some controls.

 

I don't necessarily believe in giving anyone an uneven playing field, though I'm not truly sure what an "even" playing field looks like in this circumstance. But within whatever we consider to be a that even playing field we make decisions about how we plan our neighborhoods and what priorities we pursue. I think that given that there is a democratic process that leads to those decisions, that for the purposes of that process renters should be considered to have a say as they have an "investment" or "stake" in the neighborhood that derives from the fact that it is where they live. That's my point. Saying that residents have no "investment" or "stake" in a neighborhood raises the specter of them not being allowed a voice in community level decision making. Not that you said that, Gramarye, but I've heard the same reasoning used to justify that outcome.

 

They still have their voice at the ballot box, of course. That's a fundamental right of citizenship. I'm certainly not implying anything about denying people the right to vote; I'm not sure what else you meant by "voice in community level decision-making," or at least with respect to the "democratic process."

 

I meant neighborhood planning processes.  They often effect the direction of how a community develops, land use, regulation, programs, what subsidies are used to bring what type of development, etc.  I have heard people say that renters shouldn't have a say those processes.

If we get to San Francisco's level, I'll consider that a good problem to have, even though I'll change my stance on whether it's a problem at all.

 

The first two bullet points you note, I concede without conceding my larger argument: gentrification still does more good than harm.  I'll admit that those two are actually harms, but they simply don't outweigh all the benefits that come with letting properties and neighborhoods rise with the markets.  The reintroduction of the professional classes to the urban core, the restoration of dilapidated and often dangerous properties, the infusion of new capital to both found and patronize local businesses, the increase in property/income/sales tax revenue to support vital public services, the reduction in crime rates that almost universally accompanies gentrification, and the cultural capital of having more educated people in the local workforce (and, hopefully, more college-bound children in the local schools, though this is one area that gentrification has been slower to deliver upon) combine to simply overwhelm the disadvantages you cited.

 

As to the third one--economic stratification increasing the risk of a downward spiral--seriously?  Gentrification is the antithesis of this: it's an upward spiral.  Are San Francisco's pricey neighborhoods teetering on the edge of the abyss, waiting for gangs, drug dealers, and prostitutes to return?  I highly doubt it.  Migration and mobility do increase with wealth, but that doesn't mean that the wealthy are all about to move out and be replaced by people of lesser means (and if it did, that still wouldn't be the end of the world--income isn't everything, remember?).

Haha. No, income isn't everything. Agreed. Are San Francisco's pricey neighborhoods teetering on the edge? No. But a local economy that is building exclusively for one particular income range is dangerous in the same way that overreliance on one particular industry, whether that industry be manufacturing or biotech, is. You cannot always predict the trends before they happen, and diversifying economic mix, whether it be mix of widgets or mix of residents, decreases the risk of a sudden, cataclysmic economic decline (or, for that matter a sudden, cataclysmic economic advancement in a neighborhood, one that prevents careful planning and strategy on land use, etc. See Fairfax aka the neighborhood the Cleveland Clinic ate for one example).

I don't think it's the same as overreliance on one particular industry, because money is fungible.  Suppose there were a bunch of millionaires in an area who got rich in the widget industry, the widget industry dried up, but a new industry was rising just as the old one was falling (say, directly marketed ornamental baskets).  The new rich would buy out the old rich, and the neighborhood would have new residents but would not decline precipitously (unless the new rich were substantially worse people than the old, of course).

 

A diversified economy is, of course, a good thing.  Entire towns have been crushed when a critical employer left (though you tend to see this most in smaller areas).  I don't think that necessarily translates into neighborhoods--overrrelying on the rich may be bad because someday everyone may be poor?  Overrelying on the poor may be bad because someday everyone may be rich?  I just don't see that the analogy actually describes a workable parallel.

I'm curious as to what people think of one particular population that seems to get particularly squeezed in gentrification ... artists. Deservedly or not, these individuals are increasingly linked to gentrification. They are sometimes distrusted by existing residents, seen as a harbinger of displacement and rising expenses to come (Brooklyn pops to mind). At the same time, surveying that my organization has done suggests that they are particularly engaged in neighborhood improvement ... leading education projects with neighborhood children, creating public art and beautification campaigns, renovating dilapidated spaces, opening small galleries and performance spaces, etc. But they often don't get to enjoy the fruits of their labors. Because they are overwhelmingly a low-income population and a sizable proportion are renters, they are often displaced by influxes of mid- to high-income influxes. So the more successful they are in actively helping to improve neighborhoods, the more likely market rates will rise and they will have to leave.

 

I'm just wondering what perspectives people have on this sub-section of the population as relates to gentrification ... or any low- to mid-income sub-section that's actively involved in neighborhood revitalization. I actually think a lot of us might fit in this category. Should they enjoy any particular protections for their efforts? If a CDC or city recruits them as a revitalization strategy, do they owe them any long-term commitments?

I've actually engaged in that exact conversation on CU, and my position is the same: from a public policy perspective, it makes sense to have artists continually moving around rather than settling forever in one place, precisely because they are often the vanguard of gentrification.

 

As always, my previous caveats about speed stand, but I've yet to see an Ohio neighborhood that I think gentrified too rapidly.  It was a slow, choppy, organic process in the Short North and the neighborhoods around it.  Many of the original galleries that helped put down roots (and provide something more vibrant to the area than the gangs) and get the neighborhood going are gone--but they had a run there of at least fifteen years before things got too expensive for them.  I'd love nothing more than to see that repeat elsewhere, and letting artists get priced out of individual neighborhoods is a cold but efficient and market-friendly way of seeing that happen: fifteen years in the Short North, maybe ten in Franklinton, ten in Weinland Park, fifteen in Milo-Grogan, and you've got a half-century's worth of development over several neighborhoods instead of just one (while still leaving plenty more, so no one's getting priced out of the city).

Okay, agreeing to disagree on a LOT of elements of gentrification. Regarding your statement above, however ... That seems to accept a given that no regional market is providing artists with a compelling enough package to move. Assuming that the majority of artists want to have an ownership opportunity (and our survey suggested that, among 470 respondents nationwide, 91% would prefer to own their living space and 74% would prefer to own their arts-related workspace), and assuming that the city of Columbus (as well as all Columbus neighborhoods) provided no assistance to artists to purchase their spaces, then at least a portion of Columbus's artist population might be drawn to live in another city altogether.

 

Again with our survey, of 316 respondents living outside of greater Cleveland, 21% expressed willingness to relocate to Cleveland for access to affordable space. This might not seem like an overwhelming amount, but that means that more than 60 artists, just from this small survey set, would be willing to relocate to a city with a somewhat negative or indifferent brand image nationwide, often despite the fact that they have no connection to the city. About 11% (about 35) expressed strong willingness. Of 13 different factors that might influence their decision (including access to grant money, assistance in selling their work, low-cost health insurance, etc.), space was identified as the primary factor that would lead them to move to Cleveland (it would be a prime factor for 51% of respondents).

 

My point being ... if we hold all things constant, and artists continue to move around within Columbus, I can to a degree understand your point. But if all things are NOT constant, and a city like Pittsburgh or Cleveland or Cincy offered artists a more compelling reason to become residents and facilitated ownership, Columbus would lose the population in general.

 

I think this is already happening to a degree. As was discussed on CU recently, Cleveland is in the process of giving away $800,000 in fellowships to artists, is exploring ways to get artists ownership opportunities and gives them access to low-cost health insurance and business training. Columbus unfortunately has had to suspend their $25,000 fellowship program and lacks a lot of artist support programs. Given the significant potential for out-migration of this population, it seems like it might be a safer bet for Columbus to encourage an ownership stake in the community.

Fascinating discussion and on that I am at this moment heavily involved in.

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20090726/NEWS01/907270347/

 

Our neighborhood Knox Hill is in Fairmount. It was built mostly as weekend homes for the wealthy industrialists of Cincinnati between 1860-1885. When the city expanded and many of those people built grand homes in Avondale and Westwood, these weekend homes were sold off. Mostly to professional businessmen who were by no means wealthy they were 'well off' many of these homes rarely if ever changed hands. In fact my home was pretty much in two family control from 1871 when it was built until 2000.It was only after 2000 it became a rental and seriously declined.

 

For more info, click link

^nice work, beautiful restoration on that front.  i really like the stained glass.

 

Good luck with the rest of the house.

That house looks beautiful now.  That's yours?  I'd love to see more pics.  Nice work, indeed.

Thanks, we are getting close to having the outside done, We wanted to have positive impact on the neighborhood and getting the house done in a multicolor preservation paint pallette was key. That, and cold weather is coming. We custom built the new square bay bumpout and porch, Still have to finish up railings and get the steps installed but we are getting there.

 

I have blog on historic preservation and I post weekly updates on the house there:

http://victorianantiquitiesanddesign.blogspot.com/

Whoa, I just found out what I'll be reading for the next few hours at work.  :)

By the way, the lady and I were driving around this weekend and I remembered that house being on Knox.  It looks even better in real life and much bigger.  :)

 

The house across the driveway has about a million cats, too.

The neighbors have about 12 cats at any given time they do animal rescue.

 

The house is about 1800 square feet it is one of the larger 'cottages', If you drove around there are several mansion sized homes on fairmount near the park.

 

It is an interesting area architecturally and you really dont feel like you are in the city.

Yeah.  Although, if you're going east on Knox, toward Beeker, a lot of those houses have great views of the skyline.

The Economist explains

What is driving urban gentrification?

Sep 16th 2013, 23:50 by D.K.

 

GENTRIFICATION, it turns out, has even spread to the former Communist eastern bloc. Around the railway station in Tallinn, the capital of Estonia, is a collection of wooden-slat houses built in the early 20th century. Twenty years ago, when Estonia’s murder rate was almost as high as Mexico’s is today, they were abandoned to squatters and petty criminals. But today aspirational Estonians are buying up the old houses, and bars and cafes are flourishing in the area. So if gentrification is happening in Estonia, as well as New York and London (see map), what is behind it?

 

The best explanation is that it is the bounce-back from urban decline. For much of the 20th century cities across the rich world lost population thanks to suburbanisation. The rise of commuter railways and then the automobile made it easier for wealthy people to move out of city centres to bigger, more spacious suburban homes. Pollution, rising crime rates and poor public schools gave them ever more reason to go. But in recent years these trends have reversed. Cities in the Western world are, for the most part, cleaner, less criminal and better managed than they were 30 years ago. In New York City, for example, the number of murders fell from 2,200 per year in 1990 to 414 last year. Social changes are also working against the suburbs and in favour of cities. University-educated young people—of whom there are more each year—are getting married and having children ever later. Childless people tend to value the vibrancy of cities more than they care about having enough garden space for a trampoline. And in much of the rich world, fewer young people drive now than did twenty years ago, which makes them more likely to want to live in places served by good public-transport systems.

 

READ MORE AT:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/09/economist-explains-5?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/tr/drivinggentrification

^Cincy's mayor wannabe Cranley should read this article.  Particularly this part: " And in much of the rich world, fewer young people drive now than did twenty years ago, which makes them more likely to want to live in places served by good public-transport systems."

 

 

 

Report: Nation's Gentrified Neighborhoods Threatened By Aristocratization

News • environment • ISSUE 44•14 • Mar 31, 2008

 

WASHINGTON—According to a report released Tuesday by the Brookings Institution, a Washington-based think tank, the recent influx of exceedingly affluent powder-wigged aristocrats into the nation's gentrified urban areas is pushing out young white professionals, some of whom have lived in these neighborhoods for as many as seven years.

 

Multibillion-dollar castles like this one have been popping up all over Brooklyn.

Maureen Kennedy, a housing policy expert and lead author of the report, said that the enormous treasure-based wealth of the aristocracy makes it impossible for those living on modest trust funds to hold onto their co-ops and converted factory loft spaces.

 

http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-nations-gentrified-neighborhoods-threatened,2419/?source=Patrick.net

The Strong Towns Podcast just had an excellent episode on the topic of gentrification: http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2015/2/18/podcast-show-206-joe-cortright-on-gentrification

 

It validated many of the beliefs I had about gentrification. In particular, the fact that anti-gentrification activists are bringing income inequality (which is a real problem) into the gentrification debate. So they point at anyone with money and say "you're the problem" even if the neighborhood is getting safer and better for everyone as higher income residents move in. It also points out that the bigger issue is neighborhoods that have high concentrations of poverty with no investment. People in poverty tend to be worse off when they live in neighborhoods with concentrated poverty, and tend to be better off when they live in mixed-income neighborhoods.

 

There was one interesting idea mentioned about how to maintain a balance in gentrifying neighborhoods. What would happen is that a certain percentage of the neighborhood's TIF funding would be dedicated to building low-income housing. I think it's a really fascinating and smart approach because it doesn't discourage new market-rate development. Instead, as the neighborhood's property values rise, you actually have more money to spend on building new subsidized housing within the neighborhood.

I always wondered what people think would happen if this activists actually successfully made gentrification anathema.

 

All it means is that wealthy people who might otherwise have considered an urban lifestyle will instead just stay in the burbs.

 

Gentrification is almost always a very slow process, which means you have long stretches of time in which mixed-income neighborhoods do exist before they get too pricey and become truly/fully "gentrified."  The alternative is generally no mixed-income neighborhoods at all (or that the only places where you'll find mixed-income neighborhoods is where poverty is creeping into the suburbs, which is happening, but that's not exactly the way we'd like to see economic segregation end!).

Plus, if wealthier people want to live in a neighborhood, they will find a way.  What does anyone actually expect to be able to do to "fight" gentrification anyway?  Trying to limit tear-downs or densification just means that the houses/apartments/whatever get bid up even more and fixed up to a higher level than they might otherwise, so then there's even less chance of being able to meet demand, making the "problem" worse.

I always wondered what people think would happen if this activists actually successfully made gentrification anathema.

 

All it means is that wealthy people who might otherwise have considered an urban lifestyle will instead just stay in the burbs.

 

 

I agree. I look at it like this: Since nothing can remain the same forever, a neighborhood's income level will rise or fall.  This means it must either decline into poverty or "gentrify". If gentrification is evil and socially unacceptable, there's nothing for existing neighborhoods to do but decline into poverty.  Sounds like a great outcome for greenfield developers in the exurbs.

"Forever" is a very long time.  But there are definitely some urban neighborhoods that have been stuck with very low incomes for what seems like forever.

 

Also, people often lack a sense of size, sometimes even when they have a map right in front of them.  When I look at all the gentrified and gentrifying neighborhoods in Columbus: the Short North, Arena District, Victorian Village, Italian Village, Downtown, Discovery District, German Village, Merion Village, Harrison West, Clintonville, 5XNW (and many of those neighborhoods are still very mixed-income, where someone could still find an apartment on a $30,000 income, which is many percentage points below the U.S. median), it is still only a small part of the total land area of the city proper.  Talking about "forcing out lower-income residents" makes it sound like we're sending them all to Newark or something, when in fact even those who do get priced out may well only need to move one mile, maybe two.

^That is indeed happening in a few places- New Your, DC, Boston, San Francisco, etc., and those horror stories of middle class people having to double up or commute an hour and a half in order to afford a place to live create the backdrop for much of the fear.  But it's pretty unlikely to happen anywhere not on the coasts.

I always wondered what people think would happen if this activists actually successfully made gentrification anathema.

 

All it means is that wealthy people who might otherwise have considered an urban lifestyle will instead just stay in the burbs.

 

Gentrification is almost always a very slow process, which means you have long stretches of time in which mixed-income neighborhoods do exist before they get too pricey and become truly/fully "gentrified."  The alternative is generally no mixed-income neighborhoods at all (or that the only places where you'll find mixed-income neighborhoods is where poverty is creeping into the suburbs, which is happening, but that's not exactly the way we'd like to see economic segregation end!).

 

I've said for awhile that beginning to hear the "G word" is a good sign that you're starting to develop some viable urban neighborhoods.  The only other practical alternative is sprawl.

 

"Mixed income" can and will happen, but trying to maintaining it isn't a very good policy goal in most cases.  The economic issues aren't unsurmountable but the cultural ones all too often are.  The more badly behaved poorer folks are more likely to practice class envy and be unwilling to moderate their behavior, the wealthier people have options and will exercise them if necessary.  Neither is very interested in the policy agenda.

 

You can get the wealthy to move in and help shoulder the tax burden, but you're less likely to get them to mix with those whom they are uncomfortable around, especially in dense areas. 

 

Indeed, gentrification can be a sign of a healthy city.

As I said above, mixed income happens organically because gentrification is a very slow process.  The Short North in Columbus might be basically fully gentrified now, but that took 20-25 years, during which the neighborhood was quite mixed-income.  Victorian Village and Italian Village around it, same story, and in Italian Village (and even Victorian Village, on the edges), there are still some places that are plenty affordable for a childless individual in the 50th income percentile.

 

Suppose Weinland Park or Franklinton begin to build up some gentrification momentum.  They will still be mixed-income for many, many years.  It isn't like the rent is $400/mo. one month and $1200/mo. the next.

As I said above, mixed income happens organically because gentrification is a very slow process.  The Short North in Columbus might be basically fully gentrified now, but that took 20-25 years, during which the neighborhood was quite mixed-income.  Victorian Village and Italian Village around it, same story, and in Italian Village (and even Victorian Village, on the edges), there are still some places that are plenty affordable for a childless individual in the 50th income percentile.

 

Suppose Weinland Park or Franklinton begin to build up some gentrification momentum.  They will still be mixed-income for many, many years.  It isn't like the rent is $400/mo. one month and $1200/mo. the next.

 

Very true.  But it's a transitional process, either way, and is rarely stable.  Which is why trying to make a new development "mixed income" is typically poor planning.  It won't be staying that way.

The middle class is almost always left out of the conversation when this topic is discussed. In OTR, most of the new condos are only affordable to individuals or couples with six-figure income. Subsidized apartments are only available to people with very low incomes. There are very few apartments or condos available that cater to people making $40,000-$80,000/year.

The middle class is almost always left out of the conversation when this topic is discussed. In OTR, most of the new condos are only affordable to individuals or couples with six-figure income. Subsidized apartments are only available to people with very low incomes. There are very few apartments or condos available that cater to people making $40,000-$80,000/year.

 

Very true, but that's probably because most upper and middle income people share the same values and priorities.  Some lower income people do as well, but a large number do not and they are the ones the others would like to avoid.

The middle class is almost always left out of the conversation when this topic is discussed. In OTR, most of the new condos are only affordable to individuals or couples with six-figure income. Subsidized apartments are only available to people with very low incomes. There are very few apartments or condos available that cater to people making $40,000-$80,000/year.

 

Most low income people who even apply for housing assistance are stuck on long waiting lists. Only about a quarter of households eligible for housing assistance receive any. Generally speaking, the housing choices of low income households are far more constrained than middle income households. Plus, the federal government gives much, much, much more housing aid to middle and upper middle income households than lower income households (mortgage interest deduction).

 

Also, in high cost cities (NYC, Boston, etc), middle class households are most certainly not being left out of these discussions.

The middle class is almost always left out of the conversation when this topic is discussed. In OTR, most of the new condos are only affordable to individuals or couples with six-figure income. Subsidized apartments are only available to people with very low incomes. There are very few apartments or condos available that cater to people making $40,000-$80,000/year.

 

That's because the housing market is so wierd in OTR.  You need big bucks to fix up an abondoned shell so those places are going to house upper class people. The other end of the spectrum, places that have remained continously occupied and currently housing low income folks, are probably in poor condition and are going to need a complete revamp soon (I'm thinking specifically of the Columbia on 13th and Walnut.)  A place like that is too rough for middle class folks in its current condition, even if it wasn't reserved for low income. 

 

There aren't very many places that are a little worn but habitable and just need a little fixing up and a few trips to Home Depot like there are in the first ring neighborhoods.

 

Most low income people who even apply for housing assistance are stuck on long waiting lists. Only about a quarter of households eligible for housing assistance receive any. Generally speaking, the housing choices of low income households are far more constrained than middle income households. Plus, the federal government gives much, much, much more housing aid to middle and upper middle income households than lower income households (mortgage interest deduction).

 

I know it's popular in some circles to call that "aid", but it isn't really.  Unless we are operating from the assumption that the federal government has first dibs on our money.

 

Income tax rates are a political decision impacted a balance of many factors.  One of them, without a doubt, is the interest deduction on mortgage.  To take it away would require a significant lowering of the rates themselves.

 

Most low income people who even apply for housing assistance are stuck on long waiting lists. Only about a quarter of households eligible for housing assistance receive any. Generally speaking, the housing choices of low income households are far more constrained than middle income households. Plus, the federal government gives much, much, much more housing aid to middle and upper middle income households than lower income households (mortgage interest deduction).

 

I know it's popular in some circles to call that "aid", but it isn't really.  Unless we are operating from the assumption that the federal government has first dibs on our money.

 

Income tax rates are a political decision impacted a balance of many factors.  One of them, without a doubt, is the interest deduction on mortgage.  To take it away would require a significant lowering of the rates themselves.

 

Assumptions work both ways.  Many assume it's proper for the poor to have such limited "dibs" in the first place, while others don't.  One could even view the mortgage interest deduction as a direct subsidy to banks, as a reward for... having money, because they're banks.

The middle class is almost always left out of the conversation when this topic is discussed. In OTR, most of the new condos are only affordable to individuals or couples with six-figure income. Subsidized apartments are only available to people with very low incomes. There are very few apartments or condos available that cater to people making $40,000-$80,000/year.

 

Are you referring just to new construction here?

 

Most people in that income are not going to be looking at new construction, so you're absolutely right that most new-build OTR condos are going to be out of their range.  That's simply because the amount of new construction you can get for $150,000 (which might even be on the high end for someone making $50k, acting sensibly) isn't all that much.  Most such people are better off getting a modest existing house and then remodeling it room by room as income and savings allow.

 

Most low income people who even apply for housing assistance are stuck on long waiting lists. Only about a quarter of households eligible for housing assistance receive any. Generally speaking, the housing choices of low income households are far more constrained than middle income households. Plus, the federal government gives much, much, much more housing aid to middle and upper middle income households than lower income households (mortgage interest deduction).

 

I know it's popular in some circles to call that "aid", but it isn't really.  Unless we are operating from the assumption that the federal government has first dibs on our money.

 

Income tax rates are a political decision impacted a balance of many factors.  One of them, without a doubt, is the interest deduction on mortgage.  To take it away would require a significant lowering of the rates themselves.

 

Funny thing about money being fungible and all that.  Tax breaks are no different from cash aid, except that their eligibility is restricted to people who itemize deductions. That's it. Any other distinction is completely illusory and self-serving, unless you really care which bureaucrat puts the stamp on your check for some strange reason.

That is the libertarian way...stuff from you to me = freedom

 

stuff from me to you is the government stealing from me to give to freeloaders.

 

quite the cognitive dissonance that.

 

Call one welfare and it is for "them" the undeserving and a couple shades darker.    That is "taking"

 

For me?  that is just you letting me keep mine.

 

It really is fascinating the mental hoops they jump through.  It's like they understand checkers, so everything is 1 dimensional.  The real smart ones get chess.  The people pulling their strings/legs are playing go.

 

Mmmmm ... kay ...

yup went to the meetings for a while.

 

Everybody just leave everybody alone isn't a terrible motto.

 

Those people make the angry old man yelling at kids to get off their lawn balanced....

 

But hey you are the guy who tried to peddle that the civil war wasn't about slavery.  You will figure it out or you won't.

 

 

What is happening here?

Funny thing about money being fungible and all that.  Tax breaks are no different from cash aid, except that their eligibility is restricted to people who itemize deductions. That's it. Any other distinction is completely illusory and self-serving, unless you really care which bureaucrat puts the stamp on your check for some strange reason.

 

So what you are saying is that tax cuts are the same as government subsidies?

What is happening here?

 

What it is ain't exactly clear....

Guys, please keep the topic on gentrification. If you want to discuss the role of government and taxation, please take it to another thread.