The article linked below is an interesting read about "gentrification." The article states people should be more upset about the areas not being revitalized but they're not.
"What we talk about when we talk about gentrification. The worst problems are in the neighborhoods that aren’t gentrifying." By Jerusalem Demsas@JerusalemDemsas Sep 5, 2021.
https://www.vox.com/22629826/gentrification-definition-housing-racism-segregation-cities
The term is not even American. It was coined in 1964 by a British sociologist to describe the British "gentry" moving into working class areas. It has to do with affordability. It's not the racial issue that it's become here in the US starting in the 1990's. "Gentrification" is not a dirty word as stated by today's US media and some local community groups.
The article states "But the core rot in American cities is not the gentrifying neighborhoods: It is exclusion, segregation, and concentrated poverty." I agree with this. The article goes on to state the exclusion, segregation and concentrated poverty is caused by unequal income. Poor people live in less expensive areas they can afford. It would make more sense to help them make more money so they can afford an apartment, living expenses, education ... This concept goes hand in hand with the recent false articles about appraisers appraising homes owned by black people for less than homes owned by white people. POC are more likely to have less money and buy less expensive homes in less expensive areas. The homes used in the data weren't even appraised by appraisers but by robots.
The article stated "Gentrification as the juxtaposition of the haves and have-nots." I see this every day. Someone with less money moves into an area with less expensive rent. Over time the city, businesses, neighborhood groups improve the blighted area as part of urban renewal and revitalization. New parks, streets, stores open as the area is cleaned up and improved. Sometimes the people demanding that the city improve the area are the ones who end up complaining about the improvement which increases property values and corresponding rent. Long time resident property owners are happy but not the tenants. Those tenants originally drawn to the blighted area for cheap rent now may have to pay a higher rent or move. This upsets them and causes them to protest, attack new businesses and new neighbors falsely claiming the new people are intentionally destroying their culture, history and language. The renters actually just want the money, homes and stores the new people have.
From the article, "It’s no wonder that people who have faced centuries of disinvestment grow angry as public and private money flows into their neighborhoods only after high-income, college-educated people choose to move there. Even if those people are not wholly responsible for the inequality, the blatant injustice is hard to ignore."
This is why some Latinos in Silver Lake attacked new white owned businesses and residents. What's ironic is in that area Latinos replaced Jewish people who replaced Asians who replaced Mexicans who replaced Spaniards who replaced Native Americans after stealing their land. Which one is the bad gentrifier? At least the people who came after the Mexicans bought the land and didn't steal it.
I'm positive that if you offered the current lower income tenants to either stop the revitalization and let the area become a more blighted but affordable slum or increase their income so they can afford a nice apartment in an improved area they would prefer to increase their income. This is the no brainer solution to the conflict. Help lower income people increase their income. The solution is not to stop urban renewal and revitalization. That would mean encouraging blight, crime and loss of housing units. From the article, "As George Washington University professor Suleiman Osman wrote in his 2011 book The Invention of Brownstone Brooklyn: “Stories abounded of renters [in Brooklyn] being pressured by landlords to leave revitalizing areas. But non-revitalizing blocks with high rates of abandonment and demolition saw rates of displacement that were just as high.”
The people moving into these less expensive areas don't just have more money. They are also more educated and different in other ways. This can cause friction with some people similar to what's happening in Texas with the California tech industry relocation. In Texas things are even worse because property tax goes up based on current market value. This means an elderly person who has lived in a house a long time now has to pay very high property taxes. They generally are forced to sell and move. At least in Los Angeles we don't have the same property tax issues.
Gentrification isn't always about people of color being displaced by white people. Again, Austin, Texas is one example, another is England. The tech industry is more diverse. People of color and wealthier more educated white people are displacing less educated, less wealthy white people in Texas. It's not a race issue but a wealth issue. Obviously the more wealth a family has the better education the children can receive.
A main issue of people who cry “fire, fire, gentrifier” is increased rent. That's not always the case. In Los Angeles, California we have rent control which prevents most of this. I've seen people who have stayed in their same cheap apartment since the '70's for this reason. During that time they've even bought homes which they rent to other people which doesn't really support the purpose of rent control.
"Overall, the research literature leans toward the view that gentrifying neighborhoods can lead to displacement, but they don’t have to. Gentrification can bring with it the promise of integration and sorely needed investment that can increase residents’ quality of life — but only if disadvantaged residents are set up to take part in the benefits of increased investment."
The article goes on to summarize the situation as "City by city, the message is clear: Segregation and concentrated poverty are the true blights of urban life, despite our fascination with gentrification." They're talking about segregating people with less money and not race. Here in Los Angeles and most of the US there is a correlation between people of color, immigrants and having less money. That's not the case in Texas, England ...
The article offers a solution to the real problem, "How to ethically create integrated neighborhoods. First, the economic literature is clear that increased housing production reduces rents. Second, tenant protection policies could help forestall some evictions. Third, rezoning of wealthy white segregated neighborhoods could slow the speed at which gentrifying neighborhoods change, and help tackle segregation. These types of interventions can provide a roadmap for how to ethically integrate urban neighborhoods."
By rezoning they mean allowing 2-4 units in some residential single family zones near public transportation. They're not talking about turning Beverly Hills estate neighborhoods into huge apartment buildings with only cheap studio units. Limiting homes to single family only zones is a more recent development in cities. Years ago in Los Angeles you could almost build whatever you wanted anywhere. By the 1900's the first developers and then cities limited zones to single family, 2-4 units, apartment buildings, commercial, industrial.... because that is what home buyers wanted. Some early examples are housing developments which had deed restrictions starting in 1903. The deed restrictions didn't have to do with race, color or nationalities but with the type of properties that could be built in the development. Some restrictions included quality, styles of homes, set backs, height, size... Only homes could be built in those residential developments.
The article ends with this, “Gentrification is a cultural sphere to work out feelings of resentment around inequality. ... Those feelings aren’t to be discounted,” Gottlieb argues. “This is a manifestation of a long-running sense of ‘I am not welcomed in the city, I don’t have a right to the city.’ Sometimes those feelings can be worked out in the cultural terrain of gentrification, even indeed if the people moving in aren’t the proximate cause for them leaving.”
We need to deal with the issue of "gentrification" for what it actually is which is revitalization. People pushed out of more expensive areas move into less expensive areas. The city, businesses and community improve and revitalize those areas. The revitalization must just be done ethically while still attracting new business investment to the area. Most importantly we must help people with less money improve their financial situation. This would help all of us and our community by solving the disparity of income, home ownership rates and home values among wealthy and less wealthy people. It's not a race but a financial issue. Fighting, NIMBYism and trying to stop all development is not the answer. That would just make the situation even worse for everyone.
Mary Cummins of Cummins Real Estate is a certified residential licensed appraiser in Los Angeles, California. Mary Cummins is licensed by the California Bureau of Real Estate appraisers and has over 35 years of experience.
- Mary Cummins LinkedIn
- Mary Cummins Meet up
- Cummins Real Estate on Facebook
- Mary Cummins Real Estate blog
- Cummins Real Estate on Google maps
- Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates
- Mary Cummins biography resume short
- Mary Cummins Real Estate Services
- Animal Advocates fan page at Facebook.com
- Mary Cummins
- Mary Cummins Animal Advocates on Flickr photos
- Mary Cummins Animal Advocates on Twitter.com
- Mary Cummins on MySpace.com
- Mary Cummins on YouTube.com videos
- Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates on Classmates
- Mary Cummins on VK
No comments:
Post a Comment