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

Gentrification's Price: S.F. Moves: Yuppies In, the Poor Out (1985)

articles.latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 77 posts

Re: Gentrification's Price: S.F. Moves: Yuppies In, the Poor Out (1985)

#11

Post by asteli »

somerando wrote: post #3

I 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.

The wealth-ification of a neighborhood isn't per se bad. It would be fantastic if people living in a neighborhood became wealthier through some set of circumstances (economic recovery etc).

What you typically see is long-time neighborhood residents being displaced by wealthier newcomers. In a poor neighborhood, this means that people who are already vulnerable, especially those that are renting also have to cope with a whole new set of problems -- landlords who desperately want to evict them, cost-of-living increases, increased pressure from law enforcement.

The Bay doesn't have resources for people who find themselves in this position. My old housemate in west Oakland, in her early 30s and well-educated, but with health issues, is being forced from the bay. She grew up in Berkeley and Oakland. This is her home. I'm sad.

Re: Gentrification's Price: S.F. Moves: Yuppies In, the Poor Out (1985)

#12

Post by dbasedweeb »

somerando wrote: post #3

I 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.

Some people feel that the communities have a right to a place, others feel that whoever ends up owning the place has those rights. I don’t know what the answer is by the way, I’m just calling the perspectives as I see them. Obviously if you feel that residents “own” a neighborhood in some sense, then it’s wrong to price them out. If you feel that whoever puts the money down to own property owns it, then you won’t feel the same way.

Re: Gentrification's Price: S.F. Moves: Yuppies In, the Poor Out (1985)

#13

Post by nothrabannosir »

somerando wrote: post #3

I 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.

> rent control is disrespectful to the rights of the property owner.

Is there an inherent right of way for property owners over renters on the residential moral crossroads? If you’ve grown up in a neighbourhood, raised your own kids in that neighbourhood, spent time in and on the neighbourhood, don’t you deserve some respect? People without the fiscal wherewithal (nor social impetus) to buy, but who spent effort safe guarding their community, organising events for locals, tending to parks, churches; they created the neighbourhood. They added value to every single property. But God forbid they were not raised to “buy”: make way for the Propery Owner!

I find this incongruous with what I’ve seen around me time and time again. People who’ve suffered through the hardest times of an area get pushed out when it does better. They deserved it the most, but got hoodwinked for the newer, flashier wind.

Not unlike a spouse who stays with their partner through a tough disease, depression, or poverty, only to be dumped for a more beautiful and opportunistic competitor when the hardship has sailed.

I’m not a staunch anti gentrifier (hell, I gentrify!), but I find using the word “respect” a bridge too far.

Re: Gentrification's Price: S.F. Moves: Yuppies In, the Poor Out (1985)

#14

Post by Ar-Curunir »

somerando wrote: post #3

I 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.

Let's scale up your example: why should citizens of a country have any special rights over immigrants? One can argue that immigration "restores blighted parts" of the country "to its full potential".

I doubt you'd make that argument, though.

Re: Gentrification's Price: S.F. Moves: Yuppies In, the Poor Out (1985)

#15

Post by 40acres »

somerando wrote: post #3

I 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.

In principal gentrification is fine, in practice its usually a mess. I'm from Brooklyn, which is definitely gentrified by any means. It's nice that property values are up, new businesses are booming, and crime is down -- but there is something to be said about the community which underwent decades of over-policing, redlining and discriminatory practices being booted out all because some property developers thought the neighborhood was "hot".

Re: Gentrification's Price: S.F. Moves: Yuppies In, the Poor Out (1985)

#16

Post by mc32 »

Hermitian909 wrote: post #9
somerando wrote: post #3

I 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 stressfu…

For clarification, landlords have an advantage when there is a boom, but a disadvantage when in a bust.

Re: Gentrification's Price: S.F. Moves: Yuppies In, the Poor Out (1985)

#17

Post by rosser »

somerando wrote: post #3

I 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.

Exactly how meaningfully are you at risk of being subject to gentrification, account that is four minutes older than its only comment?

I'm pretty sure you'd sing an entirely different tune if you were.

Re: Gentrification's Price: S.F. Moves: Yuppies In, the Poor Out (1985)

#18

Post by _jal »

40acres wrote: post #15
somerando wrote: post #3

I 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.

In principal gentrification is fine, in practice its usually a mess. I'm from Brooklyn, which is definitely gentrified by any means. It's nice that property values are up, new businesses are booming, and crime is down -- but there is something to be said about the community which underwent decades of over-policing, redlining and discriminatory practices being booted out all because some property developers thought th…

I lived in Brooklyn for the better part of a decade, and was a gentrifier. I watched two neighborhoods change, and it seems to me the hard thing to talk about is that everything that's lost is immaterial. Destroying a neighborhood of folks who know each other can show larges gains on the balance sheet, but the losses can't be quantified.

Maybe Facebook can find a way to monetize those social relations, so the could be recognized as having a value. (/s)

Re: Gentrification's Price: S.F. Moves: Yuppies In, the Poor Out (1985)

#19

Post by whack »

Hermitian909 wrote: post #9
somerando wrote: post #3

I 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 stressfu…

> "Opponents of gentrification, and supporters of rent control, are generally considering the well-being of current residents."

And what about current residents who need to move? Suppose a disadvantaged woman decides to leave her abusive husband and is trying to find another place to move into. Is it fair that her well-being is completely neglected?

I'm all in favor of the intentions behind rent control, but the implementation is an atrocious way to achieving its goals. If the goal is to help the poor long-time residents of a city, then do that directly. Raise property taxes, impose a city-income-tax, and use the proceeds to offer assistance to means-tested long-time residents. This would be far better than what SF has currently.

Re: Gentrification's Price: S.F. Moves: Yuppies In, the Poor Out (1985)

#20

Post by joe_the_user »

epicureanideal wrote: post #2

For 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 mig…

As I remember, North Beach in particular did become unaffordable at about that time. Other parts of The City remained expensive but affordable up to the 2000s.

The rent jumps and illegal/shady evictions starting maybe 2010-2012 effectively pushed out a fraction of those surviving on rent control plus many of the merely upper-middle-class out of the city, leaving the wealthy and big-5 programmers getting huge salaries for 80-hour-days during the whole of the best years of their lives.

The thing about the situation the city hasn't "upgraded" but rather has been left gray and boring (yet fearful and hyperkinetic). Pretty sad compared to the lively punks I saw squatting old industrial buildings in 1984. Even that was sad compared to the summer of love I assume but I wasn't around for anything but the end of that.

Post reply on HN