Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 318 posts

Re: Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

#11

Post by true_religion »

puppetmaster3 wrote: post #2

Why is gentrification bad?

Because changing environment unintentionally pressures previous long-standing residents into leaving the area, and causes discomfort as two divergent groups meet in the same location and one feels the other is destroying, ruining, or usurping their culture.

It's not "bad" as a moral stance, but certainly some claim it is bad from their perspective if they end up on the losing end of gentrification.

To give an example that more people might empathize with. Parts of central London used to be affordable by the mid to upper classes, but these scenic locations are now 100% owned by others who only buy them for use as vacation homes. It's an odd case of gentrification pushing relatively wealthy people out of an area so that extremely wealthy people can live there instead.

Re: Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

#12

Post by dangerlibrary »

raldi wrote: post #6

This is the taser Alex Nieto pointed at the police and refused to drop (if the police are telling the truth): http://i2.wp.com/missionlocal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03...

allegedly pointed

The four police officer's stories contradict one another as well as some of the physical evidence.

Re: Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

#13

Post by Joe8Bit »

puppetmaster3 wrote: post #2

Why is gentrification bad?

It goes hand in hand with an increased cost of living (e.g. the nicer things get the more expensive it is to live there) which in turn causes a displacement of people and communities who lived there before the gentrification happened. In many western countries there is also a strong correlation between the above displacement and it overly effecting minorities, who due to economic/political/social disenfranchisement have congregated communities in low cost areas.

If you are a member of the more affluent population who moves into a gentrified area, it's great, but if you're a part of the community who has lived there for a long time and you suddenly can't afford to any more, it's really not great at all (to it mildly).

So in a narrow sense 'gentrification' isn't a bad thing, however put in the wider context it can have very significant negative effects on poorer communities. Especially when combined with a lack of social/affordable housing.

Re: Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

#14

Post by gilgoomesh »

puppetmaster3 wrote: post #2

Why is gentrification bad?

Gentrification is fundamentally a dramatic increase in local prices. The change isn't usually driven by locals earning more but by new people moving in and pricing the former residents out of the market.

It's great for the new residents. It is terrible for the old – particularly old residents who don't own their own home or are otherwise unable to capitalize on the price shift.

Re: Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

#15

Post by marbletiles »

raldi wrote: post #6

This is the taser Alex Nieto pointed at the police and refused to drop (if the police are telling the truth): http://i2.wp.com/missionlocal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03...

Er, the taser some officers claim was pointed at them, and the one that was lying on the ground beside his collapsed body as it was still being shot by officers

Re: Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

#16

Post by true_religion »

raldi wrote: post #6

This is the taser Alex Nieto pointed at the police and refused to drop (if the police are telling the truth): http://i2.wp.com/missionlocal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03...

Allegedly. In any case, that makes it to trial, the police by default have always claimed that a weapon was pointed at them, and the suspect refused to cooperate.

It's the only reasonable defense, and plays out better than the more realistic "cooperation wasn't instantaneous, we argued, and then my fellow officer started shooting for unknown reasons so I automatically shot too".

Re: Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

#17

Post by venomsnake »

puppetmaster3 wrote: post #2

Why is gentrification bad?

Why is outsourcing bad? Change is all good and fancy, until you are the one left behind/on the receiving end.

The West right now - especially US and UK have a bad track record of redistributing the gains.

Re: Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

#18

Post by raldi »

ashray wrote: post #10

Is there no rent control in SF or other US cities? How do people get priced out?

San Francisco has very strong rent control laws that limit rent increases to below the rate of inflation, that ensure well-behaved tenants generally can hold onto an apartment for their entire life if they want, and keep paying an ever-discounted rate, and they even apply when the tenant is wealthy.

But when poor tenants voluntarily move out, they're usually replaced by someone willing to pay a lot more.

Also, in any given year, a very small fraction of landlords (less than 1/10th of one percent) decide they don't want to be landlords anymore, and an extremely controversial California law called the Ellis Act allows them to decline to renew the lease and stop being landlords.

Re: Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

#19

Post by Joe8Bit »

dmschulman wrote: post #5

This police-assisted murder is a shame but I don't understand why we expect neighborhoods to remain frozen in time forever, never changing their racial or socioeconomic makeup for as long as the area exists. It's a given that neighborhoods, especially in the city, will change over time. The real issue isn't whether people who don't look like the lifelong residents will move in, it's if those new neighbors will treat…

I don't think many people would argue with the evolutionary nature of cities. I think what people would say, however, is that when cities change those with the least economic muscle tend to be the most adversely effected (e.g they lose their homes/tenancies when they can't afford to pay inflated rents).

Again, that in itself might not be a problem if there were other places to move that poor communities could afford and wouldn't detrimentally affect their lives.

I can speak from experience in London, poor communities have NO WHERE to move if an area is gentrified and they are forced out. Prices are city wide too high, gentrification has left no where 'cheap'. What that means is moving further from central London, which means moving further away from the main source of work and increasing expense of travel. Which all in turn means an even greater slip into poverty.

Re: Death by gentrification: the killing that shamed San Francisco

#20

Post by mc32 »

dmschulman wrote: post #5

This police-assisted murder is a shame but I don't understand why we expect neighborhoods to remain frozen in time forever, never changing their racial or socioeconomic makeup for as long as the area exists. It's a given that neighborhoods, especially in the city, will change over time. The real issue isn't whether people who don't look like the lifelong residents will move in, it's if those new neighbors will treat…

When middle class families move out it's called *-flight. When poor families move out, it's called gentrification. Both are due to economics, some precipitated, not so much by individual bigotry but rather by self interest (the former wanting to preserve value individually in anticipation of devaluation of property, the latter get pushed out due to economics whereby its not viable to remain in a valuating neighborhood while earnings remain flat for the individual.
Post reply on HN