21–30 of 77 posts
The only thing SF has going for it is the people, but sooner or later the right social pressures could cause a mass exodus, and I wonder what those pressures look like.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 im…
At the end of the day, someone or a lot of someone’s need to take or share responsibility for the circumstances of the less foruntate, because the alternative is terrible for everyone.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 im…
Your hypothetical disadvantaged woman would have zero ability to pay $2000/month rent for a studio, however many of these might be available. She would likely find it hard to get an apartment in a rent-controlled situation - so the situation is effectively "hard versus impossible", a condition where "hard" is less harsh.
And I mean, I've lived off and on in the Bay Area under both these conditions over the last forty years and the impossible rents of course are the hardest for those of lesser means. Of frickin course.
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.
I’m not arguing for or against it, but it’s not an argument ad absurdem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 im…
Rent control is a hack, but it's a hack that largely works. It's not nearly as atrocious as the reputation profit hungry landlords have tried to give it.
Why not treat it exactly like any other kind of hack? Take it out, sure, but not a second before the real fix is in place.
>Raise property taxes
Yes. A lot. And do it first.
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 tell-tale sign of gentrification is increased homeless people and blights in areas that simultaneously have wealthier people becoming wealthier. While there are bigger extremes, the aggregate and average wealth also increases.
I also agree about government getting out of the way but I wouldn't say that there's nothing wrong with gentrification.
Personally, my theory is that anything that generally increases prosperity also generally increases gentrification.
It is easy to see why once we understand 2 observations:
1) Human abilities, willpower, motivation, etc, follow a Gaussian distribution (bell curve). Intelligence, health, motivation, charisma, etc.
2) Modern civilization has amplifiers that create leverage. These include technology, education, and access to capital.
Take a bell curve and multiply it with an amplifier. A motivated person has access to the Internet to learn whatever they want and financing to create an online business. Modern society provides the tools to greatly expand your life if you so choose. However, few do. Without those tools a gifted individual can not achieve that much more than their neighbors.
The difference between a caveman who is naturally gifted with health, intelligence, and is motivated; and caveman who is not so blessed is not that significant. Even if they wanted to, there isn't much they can do to dramatically improve their condition. They might be able to improve it a little bit but not that much compared to their peers.
If you take those same 2 people and place them in modern civilization, the gifted and motivated individual can accomplish far more, perhaps achieving 1000x more wealth than their peers.
The only way to get rid of gentrification is to get rid of any form of leverage or to collectively deploy force to redistribute wealth -- neither of which I think is a good idea. Doing so means getting rid of anything that increases aggregate standard of living. We would have to give up education, technology, access to capital, etc. Gentrification would be gone, but everyone would be equally poor.
With that being said, I see it as the natural consequence of progress and so I'm not concerned about it from that angle but I wouldn't say I don't see it as a problem.
Class warfare being one of the bigger symptoms of gentrification and it can have devastating effects when governments go through revolutions. Revolutions tend to result in massive destructions of wealth and human life.
So I definitely see gentrification as a bad thing with some nasty side effects, but I also see that prosperity is increasing.
I often wonder about how sustainable SF’s growth is. Between the issues with housing, rent control, NIMBYism, and poor infrastructure, there has to be a price tag at which this can’t continue. I live in the city, and the quality of living here is terrible compared to other cities. The only thing SF has going for it is the people, but sooner or later the right social pressures could cause a mass exodus, and I wonder w…
And the answer is: It will continue as long as people are willing to pay the rent.
I understand from your post that you are fed up with the high rent and the low quality of living. But the most important part of what you said is the fact that you are still willing to pay, and you are still willing to stay, despite all of the disadvantages. In other words, you have decided (whether you like it or not) that in your case the advantages of living in SF outweigh all of the disadvantages.
And there are many others like you. You are all collectively voting for things to continue the way they are.
Making it stop would require you (or others like you) to decide the trade-off isn't worth it.
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.
Which is curious given that you then turn around and talk about "rights of the property owner". Gentrification is largely about a wealthy group of people declaring that they will do more useful things with a neighborhood than the current residents would, so they should be allowed to move in and take over, whether through economic coercion (driving up prices and rents) or through legal coercion (having buildings condemned, properties seized to be "improved", etc.).