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

31–40 of 318 posts

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

#31

Post by RVuRnvbM2e »

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...

Whether he did or not is almost irrelevant.

The police wouldn't have even been there if some dude hadn't decided to call 911 on the guy for "walking while hispanic":

> Fritz said he only saw Nieto pacing near a bench and eating from a bag but did not himself see any weapon.

http://missionlocal.org/2016/03/witness-testified-alex-nieto...

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

#32

Post by danharaj »

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…

What is a neighborhood if all the people who live in it are completely fungible? What does it mean when a city is far more enthusiastic about spending money on neighborhoods of wealthy people and is glad to neglect neighborhoods of poor people? The most substantial funding American cities are willing to allocate for poor neighborhoods is police.

> I don't think people resent a changing neighborhood so much as they resent people with different values settling down and expecting the neighborhood to bend to their preference.

Honestly, that's just wrong. People resent how the schools only get better when wealthier people move in. People resent how petty violations are brutally enforced on the poor and relaxed once the neighborhood "gets a little better". People resent how a neighborhood improving implies they, the undesirables are forced out. These are all things i've learned from people speaking out about how they feel about their neighborhoods gentrifying. Where are you getting the idea that they care about "values"?

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

#33

Post by [deleted] »

TheMagicHorsey wrote: post #30

Why would a person ever point a taser with a laser sight at uniformed police in this country? Yes this is a tragedy, but how are police supposed to react to a gun-like object pointed at them, in the heat of the moment? Cops get shot also. They are nervous on the job. As we would be, in their position. Are they supposed to react to a pointed gun with understanding and open arms? I just don't think that's practical.

[deleted]

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

#34

Post by uiri »

dangerlibrary wrote: post #8
puppetmaster3 wrote: post #2

Why is gentrification bad?

Decreased quality of life for those who rent and can no longer afford to live in the gentrified neighborhood. Increased property taxes for those who already own can force even long-time residents to move, regardless of whether they actually want to, simply because their home has suddenly and unexpectedly increased in value. You could argue that this is a windfall - but being forcibly displaced by increased cost of li…

In California, real property is only reassessed at market value when it is sold or transferred. So property taxes won't increase on long-time residents who don't move. Rent control is, I believe, intended to provide the same effect for long-time residents who rent instead of own. I agree that increases in other components of the cost of living of an area can have the same effect though.

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

#36

Post by Nutmog »

eitally wrote: post #3
puppetmaster3 wrote: post #2

Why is gentrification bad?

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 know these are costs but they really too high to bear?

Personally, I live in a relatively small city and my income is far higher than my expenses. I once lived in London and the two were almost equal. Life was less comfortable then but I certainly didn't blame the rich bankers for pushing up my rent and bus fares.

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

#37

Post by Noughmad »

puppetmaster3 wrote: post #2

Why is gentrification bad?

Because not many people own homes in the US. So if local prices go up, renters have to move elsewhere. If you own a house, chances are you still have to move because other services become too expensive for you, but at least you made a nice profit on the house. If you rent, it's a lose-lose situation.

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

#38

Post by zahmahkibo »

TheMagicHorsey wrote: post #30

Why would a person ever point a taser with a laser sight at uniformed police in this country? Yes this is a tragedy, but how are police supposed to react to a gun-like object pointed at them, in the heat of the moment? Cops get shot also. They are nervous on the job. As we would be, in their position. Are they supposed to react to a pointed gun with understanding and open arms? I just don't think that's practical.

Please provide evidence he pointed the taser at them.

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

#39

Post by thaw13579 »

mc32 wrote: post #20
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 neighborhoo…

While I'm sure there's plenty of self interest at play, it's important to remember that there were explicitly racist legal practices as well. A specific example is the practice of racially restricted covenants, which literally prevents a home from being sold to a someone who isn't white:

http://www.bostonfairhousing.org/timeline/1920s1948-Restrict...

Post reply on HN