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

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

#61

Post by SmirkingRevenge » Tue, May 08, 2018, 2:17 AM UTC

ubernostrum wrote: post #30

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 language you choose to use -- about "blighted" parts of a city and realizing their "full potential" -- is the language of eminent domain. 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 allow…

This topic often seems to lead to one of those left-right paradoxes. Like how the right hates government, but loves cops and military... while many of the left hold the inverse position.

Right-leaning people I know generally sympathize with those living in the rural blight, and their desires to stay in their hometowns and avoid displacement. Left-leaning people tend to say the rural folk need to suck it up and move to the city like everyone else, if they want better opportunities.

Then folk on either side tend to do an about-face when it comes to urban gentrification. Right-leaners tend to support gentrification and all it entails, and the left-leaners suddenly want rework local/national laws to allow the would-be displaced to remain in their homes.

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

#62

Post by closeparen » Tue, May 08, 2018, 3:19 AM UTC

FartyMcFarter wrote: post #32

Assuming that the housing supply is finite, the poorest person living in a city is also displacing a different potential resident, just as much as a medium income person, right? Yet gentrification is always portrayed as the "richer" people trampling on poor people. Go figure.

>potential resident

Gentrification and displacement are distinct from the exclusion of potential residents. To get someone's home transferred to you, you generally have to outspend them, so the gentrifier is essentially always richer than than the displaced person (though there could be corner cases with similar means but different willingness to spend on housing, etc).

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

#63

Post by whack » Tue, May 08, 2018, 4:04 AM UTC

joe_the_user wrote: post #25

whack wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> " 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…

Suppose a disadvantaged woman decides to leave her abusive husband and is trying to find another place to move into. 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 "h…

You've ignored my second paragraph which explains a far better way of helping those in need.

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)

#64

Post by telchar » Tue, May 08, 2018, 4:37 AM UTC

nothrabannosir wrote: post #13

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…

On rent control and gentrification I don't have a strong opinion right now. But I'd argue that if one has the means to buy but chooses not to, I can't feel bad for them if they get pushed out by rising rents. Buying a house is a good way to establish roots in a community. For those who can't afford to buy I feel that the argument that gentrification is harmful has some merit though, of course if the renter has started in a bad neighborhood I wouldn't think it would typically be that expensive to buy.

To use your analogy, if you don't put a ring on it you might lose it [your partner]. At least if one is divorced there is likely some alimony.

I suspect much of the real problem with gentrification involves the legacy of redlining and other abuses of vulnerable populations, like predatory contract loans and subprime mortgages. If populations such as inner-city blacks weren't systematically prevented from purchasing property in past decades gentrification would probably be much less a hot-button issue.

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

#65

Post by [deleted] » Tue, May 08, 2018, 6:35 AM UTC

DrScump wrote: post #52

scythe wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SF, and the Bay as a whole, is the northernmost large snow-free area in the country. The weather alone practically guarantees someone will find a reason to live here. If there were other negatives besides high prices, I think the concern over decline could be more well-founded, but there will always be some sort of city by the Bay.

the northernmost large snow-free area You can go a long way north of SF before you hit an area that has snow in any meaningful amount, excluding a few mountains/volcanoes.

[deleted]

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

#66

Post by beamatronic » Tue, May 08, 2018, 7:23 AM UTC

jaysonelliot wrote: post #47

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…

It probably was a two bedroom. When I moved to SF in 1994, I was sharing a four-bedroom on South Van Ness that cost $1200 total. The next big rent spike came around '98 or so, as the dot com boom was in full swing. Rents didn't only shoot up, it got so that there was no housing left to be had. You could show up to an open rental with stellar credit and references, only to have someone else offer the landlord 25% abov…

And you had to go through MetroRent or RentTech

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

#67

Post by beamatronic » Tue, May 08, 2018, 7:29 AM UTC

joe_the_user wrote: post #25

whack wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> " 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…

Suppose a disadvantaged woman decides to leave her abusive husband and is trying to find another place to move into. 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 "h…

If one is disadvantaged, wouldn’t it be easier to move to a less competitive place, far from the dog-eat-dog daily life? Be part of a more “gentle” community for lack of a better word?

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

#68

Post by csomar » Tue, May 08, 2018, 7:59 AM UTC

madrox wrote: post #21

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…

I live in a city/country with a similar situation. Where the capital is literally a highly polluted shit-hole. Just 80km from the center you can find very nice housing, calm neighborhoods and good restaurants. (and yet better infrastructure) for like 1/3 or a 1/4 of the rent cost.

Unlike San Fransisco, no one wants to live here.

So the situation will continue as long as jobs remain in the bay area.

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

#69

Post by eli_gottlieb » Tue, May 08, 2018, 3:19 PM UTC

nine_k wrote: post #56

Ar-Curunir wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Citizens of a country usually sort of own the country, if you read the local constitution. They are more like homeowners, entitled to protect their land with deadly force. Tenants are more like tourists: they are welcome as long as they keep paying.

>Tenants are more like tourists: they are welcome as long as they keep paying.

Bull. Tenants are full-time residents who just don't have the money to buy.

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

#70

Post by nugget » Tue, May 08, 2018, 4:16 PM UTC

smallnamespace wrote: post #33

madrox wrote: post #21

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…

> but sooner or later the right social pressures could cause a mass exodus Why would that be the case, rather than the social pressures (it sucks to try to live here) reaching a dynamic equilibrium with the economic forces (companies and people are more productive here and will compensate you well for the extra trouble)? I can only think of two reasons for a sudden 'mass exodus': 1. People to 'suddenly realize' that…

The SFBA runs on a gold rush / lottery model. You can move there as an "ordinary" person and make millions or tens of millions of dollars within a few years, i.e. a winning lottery ticket. It's probably better than a lottery because there's enough of a skills-based component that people convince themselves their odds are higher than a pure lottery would be. As long as that dream remains alive, young talent will swarm like locusts and care relatively little about living standards or quality of life. And to be fair, at least for now, there are a lot of people in SFBA hitting the jackpot - good for them - so when I say dream, it's a dream at least loosely tethered to reality. But if the tide turns and millionaires in their 20s stop being minted, then the whole ecosystem is in for a readjustment.