Gentrification's Price: S.F. Moves: Yuppies In, the Poor Out (1985)
articles.latimes.com
Gentrification's Price: S.F. Moves: Yuppies In, the Poor Out (1985)
1–10 of 77 posts
Re: Gentrification's Price: S.F. Moves: Yuppies In, the Poor Out (1985)
#2For anyone who is interested in a CPI inflation adjusted view of those numbers, "$900-$1000" for rent in North Beach in 1985 is supposedly worth about $2100-2400 now.
Their combined salary of $30,000 per year would now be about $71,000.
https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
However, the article says "$900-$1000" was for "an apartment" without specifying the number of rooms. It seems reasonable that it might've been a 2 bedroom apartment.
Re: Gentrification's Price: S.F. Moves: Yuppies In, the Poor Out (1985)
#3I don't see what is so wrong with gentrification. As the economy expands and people become more prosperous, it restores blighted parts of the city to their full potential.
I also think that rent control is disrespectful to the rights of the property owner. Other than making sure that there is no discrimination, and that properties aren't fire traps, government should get out of the way.
Re: Gentrification's Price: S.F. Moves: Yuppies In, the Poor Out (1985)
#4I don't see what is so wrong with gentrification. As the economy expands and people become more prosperous, it restores blighted parts of the city to their full potential. I also think that rent control is disrespectful to the rights of the property owner. Other than making sure that there is no discrimination, and that properties aren't fire traps, government should get out of the way.
I think there's a difference though between "a small town that has very little in the way of services because the population won't support it or the people who live there don't earn enough to support nice amenities" becoming more prosperous, and a town where nice amenities are already possible, but building is prevented as people move in so prices get driven up without (as much as would be natural) corresponding increase in amenities.
That's not to say that nice amenities are what everyone wants. Some people want to keep the character of their small towns no matter what. But in the former case there's a loss of small-town-ness for amenities that theoretically benefit everyone, whereas in the latter case it's purely an extraction of money from the young to the old.
Re: Gentrification's Price: S.F. Moves: Yuppies In, the Poor Out (1985)
#5I don't see what is so wrong with gentrification. As the economy expands and people become more prosperous, it restores blighted parts of the city to their full potential. I also think that rent control is disrespectful to the rights of the property owner. Other than making sure that there is no discrimination, and that properties aren't fire traps, government should get out of the way.
> restores blighted parts of the city to their full potential
I disagree. Gentrification has cultural impacts that can reshape society in positive and negative ways.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/23/magazine/when-gentrificat...
Re: Gentrification's Price: S.F. Moves: Yuppies In, the Poor Out (1985)
#6I don't see what is so wrong with gentrification. As the economy expands and people become more prosperous, it restores blighted parts of the city to their full potential. I also think that rent control is disrespectful to the rights of the property owner. Other than making sure that there is no discrimination, and that properties aren't fire traps, government should get out of the way.
[deleted]
Re: Gentrification's Price: S.F. Moves: Yuppies In, the Poor Out (1985)
#7I don't see what is so wrong with gentrification. As the economy expands and people become more prosperous, it restores blighted parts of the city to their full potential. I also think that rent control is disrespectful to the rights of the property owner. Other than making sure that there is no discrimination, and that properties aren't fire traps, government should get out of the way.
Gentrification is a really inartful term that has come to mean a lot of different things.
To some, gentrification is the process of a place becoming nicer, there are more options to eat out, the city services in an area increase etc
To others, gentrification is the process of a place changing in a way that makes them feel alien in their home. New and different people move in, their favorite businesses close down, the closest laundromat closes down so now the next closest one is an additonal 5 minute walk. The prices everywhere rise, what used to cost you 5 dollars now costs you 10, and its hard to live like that because you only make 30k/year, taking home maybe 1.8k/month. You apply to jobs at a few of these new places, and the first 5 places casually turned you down despite their "help wanted" sign and your job experience as a bar tender/server. The 6th place accepts you, but your job is pretty bad because all of the patrons of the bar treat you like "the help".
To others, gentrification means rents go up more than you can afford and you get evicted and need to move away from your family and friends and your support structure.
Re: Gentrification's Price: S.F. Moves: Yuppies In, the Poor Out (1985)
#8I don't see what is so wrong with gentrification. As the economy expands and people become more prosperous, it restores blighted parts of the city to their full potential. I also think that rent control is disrespectful to the rights of the property owner. Other than making sure that there is no discrimination, and that properties aren't fire traps, government should get out of the way.
Yea but I think people take issue with it improving the place rather than improving the lives of the people that were already there.
Rent control is a band-aid solution to displacement caused by NIMBYism and the surplus of jobs from the tech industry.
Re: Gentrification's Price: S.F. Moves: Yuppies In, the Poor Out (1985)
#9I don't see what is so wrong with gentrification. As the economy expands and people become more prosperous, it restores blighted parts of the city to their full potential. I also think that rent control is disrespectful to the rights of the property owner. Other than making sure that there is no discrimination, and that properties aren't fire traps, government should get out of the way.
Opponents of gentrification, and supporters of rent control, are generally considering the well-being of current residents.
"blighted parts of the city" are often homes to people and the place where their communities are located. These people see themselves priced out of the place they've lived for years and are forced to start a new life elsewhere when the area they live in is gentrified. This is incredibly stressful and hugely disruptive to these people's lives and it's not unreasonable that they desire some protection for their way of life.
The recognition of this fact is also the source of rent control (whether rent control is the right mechanism to prevent these hardships is another conversation). Without societal protections landlords wield a huge amount of power over tenants, raising rent by exorbitant amounts is no different than eviction for most families. In a desire to protect their own communities and livelihoods many residents vote for such policies.
Re: Gentrification's Price: S.F. Moves: Yuppies In, the Poor Out (1985)
#10I don't see what is so wrong with gentrification. As the economy expands and people become more prosperous, it restores blighted parts of the city to their full potential. I also think that rent control is disrespectful to the rights of the property owner. Other than making sure that there is no discrimination, and that properties aren't fire traps, government should get out of the way.
[deleted]