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

91–100 of 318 posts

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

#91

Post by mrgoldenbrown »

puppetmaster3 wrote: post #2

Why is gentrification bad?

It often screws over the residents who worked hard to make an area desirable. A typical pattern goes like this: 1. An area is cheap because it is considered undesirable and all the rich folk move away. 2. Poor folks move there - artists, minorities, families. 3. These folk work for years to make the area safer, nicer to live in, more interesting. 4. Now that poor folk have improved the neighborhood, rich folk flood back in and buy up property or just drive up rents, pricing the original residents out. 5. Lower class folk forced to move to the next crappy neighborhood, and repeat the process.

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

#92

Post by eli_gottlieb »

Nutmog wrote: post #36
eitally wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because in order for cities to function properly, it's important that blue collar workers are able to afford to inhabit them. Un-governed gentrification and unreasonably low levels of low income housing result in situations like exist in the SFBA now, where many middle class households are either forced into extraordinarily long commutes (leads to higher stress, worse health and increased mortality) or cramped living…

What force makes people stay living in the same rented house no matter how bad it makes their life? Somehow people all across America are managing to survive despite not living in gentrified areas. Is SFBA the only place those middle class people can find a job? That sounds kind of unbelievable. Are they unmotivated to move because it's too much hard work? Afraid of losing friends and being unable to make new ones? I…

>Somehow people all across America are managing to survive despite not living in gentrified areas.

No, they're not. Employment, especially mid-to-high-wage employment, is geographically concentrated. Most of the land-area of the USA, so to speak, is poor, and getting poorer. Also, remember, 80% of the population actually lives in large metro-areas, not in the countryside.

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

#93

Post by [deleted] »

foldr wrote: post #53
ousta wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes. he obviously got killed because some white dude didnt like the look of him. the gun he was pointing at the cops is not related to his death.

He got killed largely because some white dude called 911 for no good reason. (I mean, we're talking about someone who's so clueless about what a city is that he thinks that anyone who's brown is likely to be "foreign".) We have no evidence that Nieto pointed the taser at the cops who shot him.

[deleted]

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

#94

Post by lr4444lr »

gilgoomesh wrote: post #14
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.

That sounds like a net zero, not a net "bad", which is what the OP was asking.

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

#95

Post by RodericDay »

schumpeter wrote: post #81
RodericDay wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nieto was clearly a man having a crisis, and his purported reaction when approached by police was not that of a rational person. Told to show his hands, Nieto allegedly demanded that the cops show theirs. He then reportedly drew his taser and fired three times. And so he was shot—and shot and shot—by officers who claim they did not realize Nieto was carrying a less-than-lethal device. This is the stuff she should h…

Here, let me help you out... > ...there is no mention whatsoever of Nieto’s long and well-documented battle with mental illness. No mention of Nieto’s “history of aggressive and bizarre behavior and auditory hallucinations,” as described in a letter written by District Attorney George Gascón following his office’s investigation of the shooting. Likewise, no mention of “a clinical history of psychosis exacerbated by h…

The severity of his "long and well-documented battle with mental illness" is:

a) Disputed

b) Weaponized against him, taking advantage of the fear and misunderstanding people have of mental illness ("he burnt a book! that sounds like he'd pull guns on people!")

c) Used to avoid engaging with the racial issue that brought it to the fore

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

#96

Post by pm215 »

Agustus wrote: post #61
raldi wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By the Copenhagen Theory of Ethics ( https://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-eth... ), once you rent an apartment to someone for a particular price, you have a moral obligation to continue doing that forever.

This was tried during the 1600's and 1700's, there were 99 year leases on land between the gentry and the yeomen. When costs increased, the gentry were unable to adjust the price on their leases and paved the way for social upheavals.

99 year (or longer) leases are still very common in the UK for apartments ["leasehold property"]. There are issues with leasehold, but "I can only sell my landlord's interest to somebody else willing to be a landlord" isn't really one of them -- it's just an asset with an income stream and a certain amount of upkeep costs and responsibilities, and there are buyers out there who'll take them on and a generally accepted mechanism for valuing them.

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

#97

Post by tinco »

raldi wrote: post #86
the-dude wrote: post #44

From a European perspective this is more 'Death by police state' than anything else.

What happens in Europe when someone is seen in a public park waving around something that looks like this? http://i2.wp.com/missionlocal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03...

He'll be asked to put his weapon down. And will subsequently be charged with possession of a firearm or of something that looks like a firearm, and in addition probably with some kind of charge for endandering people and if he pointed it a police officer there'd be a charge for that as well.

If the police felt especially threatened he might be shot in the leg or tasered (depending on what the police in that country is equipped with).

All the charges together would probably result in a hefty fine, something like a few thousand euros and probably some jail time (a few months tops).

p.s.: I'm talking about northern european countries here, southern/eastern countries are significantly less easy going.

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

#98

Post by the-dude »

raldi wrote: post #86
the-dude wrote: post #44

From a European perspective this is more 'Death by police state' than anything else.

What happens in Europe when someone is seen in a public park waving around something that looks like this? http://i2.wp.com/missionlocal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03...

The cops probably would get called, they might shoot. Police is trained to shoot to disable, not to kill. Sometimes they need to of course. Then if there is any doubt they would be prosecuted and jailed if they overreacted ( this happens ).

Of course these situations are extremely rare as Western Europe is not as a violent society as the US is.

edit: to add: private citizens carying tasers ( let alone guns ) around is unheard of / extremely rare.

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

#99

Post by tptacek »

Fiahil wrote: post #35

So. Four policemen put 40 bullets in somebody, and that's supposed to be "normal". What the hell?

That the police shot this person at all is a tragedy, but the number of bullets --- a detail reported brethlessly in all police shooting stories --- isn't particularly important.

Police training demands they shoot to kill. The notion of using a firearm merely to wound is mostly a TV fiction. Especially with a subject they believe to be armed (as with this case, where someone called 911 reporting a gun), if the police start shooting, they're going to make sure the target can't react. Their concern will be that even a fatal shot might leave the target with 10-15 seconds with which to get off a shot in reply.

That this is probably a reasonable thing for the police to do is, for me, a strong argument that most police should not be armed with guns. But that gets us into an unproductive discussion about American gun culture and gun control.

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

#100

Post by Joe8Bit »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #78
Joe8Bit wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Housing would be cheaper if they built more of it. Rents in Seattle actually declined this year.

Broadly speaking you're right, but in London in particular housing stock growth has been significant in the last 10 years but it has had consequently little effect on housing price deflation[0].

There are many theories as to why that is, but a personal pet one is that London is lacking in housing stock across the market and as such it is economically more viable to build at the middle and top end of the market where profits are higher than at the low end. When this is combined with a record low investment in local government social housing in London you get London's extreme housing market e.g. demand is high, but supply has all gravitated to the place where returns are highest

[0]: http://data.london.gov.uk/housingmarket/

Post reply on HN