Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
On its own, I think gentrification is tragic as it often leads to displacement of families who have been in a particular area for a long time.
That said, I believe that the problem is solved if the "revitilization" takes place along with very strict area specific rent control policies for residential AND Commercial Properties, and protective laws aand increasd tenant rights that ensure that the same people live in the area after it is fixed. If the government would just put its foot down, no one would be displaced, and the neighborhood would be nice.
On its own, I think gentrification is tragic as it often leads to displacement of families who have been in a particular area for a long time.
That said, I believe that the problem is solved if the "revitilization" takes place along with very strict area specific rent control policies for residential AND Commercial Properties, and protective laws aand increasd tenant rights that ensure that the same people live in the area after it is fixed. If the government would just put its foot down, no one would be displaced, and the neighborhood would be nice.
I see both sides to the gentrification argument. It is very sad to see people have to move b/c they are being priced out of a neighborhood they want to live in.
But on the other hand, the price is a product of the market, and thats the way our system is set up. Does someone have more of a right to live in a neighborhood b/c they grew up there??
I currently could never afford to live in the neighborhood I grew up in, should I go back and demand that the goverment provide rent controlled housing so that I can? Where as I would love to move back there some day, I just dont feel I have more of a right to that neighborhood than anyone else. If someone else can pay the market rate for the housing there, then they have a right to be there, dont you agree?
Also, the people who are currently living in these gentrifying neighborhoods did the same thing to the people who were there prior to them, right?
Also, the people who are currently living in these gentrifying neighborhoods did the same thing to the people who were there prior to them, right?
No, this argument may wash with people younger than 25 years old, that were not around or not old enough to care before now. I'll set the record straight, as many times as I have to until this untruth dies out.
Prior to the last 10 years or less when gentrification started, being priced out was not the reason that people moved out of lower to middle class neighborhoods. They worked their way up where they were able to move to better neighborhoods.
Now people are out priced for those better neighborhoods and moving to the lower to middle class neighborhoods. The problem with this is that there is nothing lower than this. Where do the current residents go from here?
The problem with increased rent control is that it tends to cause a shortage, as is now experienced with NYC rental apartments. Rather than providing for continued sustainability of the area, rent control policies tend to drive people to build new buildings and convert buildings into condominiums or co-operatives since it's not cost-effective to maintain a rental property, which in effect reduces the number of rental units on the market and in the pipeline to a trickle, resulting in a disparity between owner-renters in a condominium and rent controlled tenants. Buildings can be converted around existing rent controlled tenants, either through selling the units to an investor or retaining them as sponsor units as rentals until the current controls expire.
Many areas that have gentrified have done so with an influx of new ownership styles, condo or co-op, for an existing building or through the creation of new buildings, some which may be "luxury" rentals that are not subject to rent stabilization at much higher prices. This tends to drive the cost up for available units as they become available with many landlords seeking to end the stabilization or control by increasing the price and renovating the units to bring in higher income tenants. The artificial price ceiling of the rent control or stabilization is the direct cause, since it's very difficult to equalize profits on a non-subsidized building among market and controlled/stabilized units in an era of increasing costs.
Towards the goal of not displacing residents, municipalities have enacted tax abatement legislation and other programs designed to underwrite the costs associated with rentals, but this is in reaction to the high-low aspect of the market, since there's no chance for equilibrium by market forces alone. People are willing to pay more in transitional areas because they cannot find a comparable rental at the same or near the same price in another area, a factor of a shortage of rental units.
I am not a fan of displacing anyone who is a contributing law-abiding member of the community, so some incentives to landlords to preserve low and moderate income housing in jurisdictions that are undergoing gentrification should be pursued such that they can become stable, vertically-integrated communities, as opposed to communities of diametric opposites. It's a very difficult proposition to enact, because there are market forces that make NYC, and Manhattan in particular, extremely costly to own and manage buildings, not the least of which is a finite supply of land that's exhausted, save for rehabilitation and tear-downs. It's economically viable for many buildings to move to the higher end of the market, especially if the portfolio includes buildings that have controlled/stabilized apartments on the basis of managing expenses across the portfolio.
If the controlled/stabilized apartments were released on the open market, that might bring prices up for the controlled/stabilized tenants, but it would also release the price ceilings in the market and allow them to move towards equilibrium, which is somewhere between the two price structures, and it would reduce costs for those who pay over the true market rate due to the shortage of available units. This will not happen, however, due to the political forces that come into play when one mentions the economic side of the argument. Rent control and stabilization is a social policy in NYC, and I can understand the argument from this perspective that for some non-renovated units, covered under legislated mandate, stabilized/controlled prices are probably about fair, perhaps a little low, but not too low for some areas.
This is one reason why the city has been mandating moderate income apartments with the lotteries in some of the new buildings going up all over town. In this model, the portfolio management of the moderately priced units is absorbed by the higher prices within the same building, such that there is not a huge loss incurred by the building management. It's much more viable in the long-term as well, since it provides for vertical integration, and keeps working people in the city, not forcing them out into suburbs or losing them to a less expensive market. Perhaps this model needs to be expanded to existing properties as well, though that would likely involve conversion of succession rights under the existing leases, which is another political hot potato.
But on the other hand, the price is a product of the market, and thats the way our system is set up. Does someone have more of a right to live in a neighborhood b/c they grew up there??
And the market is a product of our governments failure to expand infrastructure to allow for more development. Simple as that. Prices are high because NYC has a housing shortage. If we simply built more units, the existing ones would remain affordable.
But on the other hand, the price is a product of the market, and thats the way our system is set up. Does someone have more of a right to live in a neighborhood b/c they grew up there??
..........
If someone else can pay the market rate for the housing there, then they have a right to be there, dont you agree?
Well, I look at it this way. We are citizens of the United States, residents of New York State, residents of New York City, residents of a certain boro, and then residents of a neighborhood.
If the United States continues to sign laws that continue to allow the "free market" to ship my jobs to India, and then we borrow money from China to the point that our dollar becomes worthless and then the financial markets have their run on the dollar switching to the Euro, sparking rapid inflation and Making me run to Mexico because its cheaper and the only place I can afford to live, I'd be ticked.
I feel as though I have a Right to live in the United States because I grew up here, I I feel perfectly fine demanding from my government that they enact policies that allow me to stay in this country and not move to another country because of lack of jobs, or cost. EVEN if it jeopardizes the Free Market. My government's responsibility is me first as a citizen, then the markets.
So, I feel the same way with the state of New York, If New York enacted laws that made all businesses go to New Jersey I'd be mad at them, because I shouldn't have to move to New Jersey just because the free market moves all the jobs there, or down south to Florida, or Texas, No, I feel that I have a right to live up in New York because I grew up here.
Same with my neighborhood. I believe the governments first obligation is the people, THAN the "free markets". I suppose that a fundamental political difference that people debate. But for me it holds true. Moving is Not easy, it is VERY VERY difficult, especially if you can't afford to have movers to the work for you. Neighborhoods are much healthier when there is a strong bond between local neighbors. Not when everyone is coming and going all the time.
As for anybody that can afford to pay the market rate for housing in an area having a RIGHT to be there I'd disagree. I wouldn't categorize it as a fundamental right. Many people can afford to live in the United States, but should they ALL move here because they can? I am not an advocate of open borders. That doesn't mean that these newcomers should be prohibited. I just believe that those that are already here should be protected by law first because we have the seniority, and have been here longer. I think the same principle applies to neighborhoods.
DeziArnes-I think you make an interesting analogy.
But I am not sure it works because we are talking about the rights of two people, both Americans, both wanting to live in the same neighborhood vs the rights of an American citizen (currently living in the US) and someone who is not a citizen, wanting to move to the US
Once that non-us citizen moves here and legally becomes a citizen, what you are saying means I (I was born in the US) should have more rights than they do, I should get first pick on the neighborhoods I want to live in, I should have prices regulated for me, ie maybe I get a price break on a car and newer US citizen pays full price.
Let me ask you this, I will soon be moving out of my place in Harlem b/c I want to have less money going to rent, someone new will move in. Lets say they are brand new to NYC, I have lived here longer (niether of us grew up here) Do I have more of a right to this apartment than the new renter does?
Last edited by Rudbeckia; 09-28-2008 at 03:59 PM..
Let me ask you this, I will soon be moving out of my place in Harlem b/c I want to have less money going to rent, someone new will move in. Lets say they are brand new to NYC, I have lived here longer (niether of us grew up here) Do I have more of a right to this apartment than the new renter does?
Absolutely
Some people may differ, but fundamentally, yes I do believe that you would have more of a right to the apartment than the newcomer. Just like Bus drivers have a right to better days off (weekends) better vacations then the newcomers. When you work for the city of New York, you cannot live in New Jersey, same with public schools, all of these things involve preferential treatment, geography and seniority.
When some of those middle income HPD lottery apartments are built, a certain amount of apartments are reserved specifically for people currently living in the same neighborhood. So this practice already happens at least on a small scale. Overall I think Its better policy.
The good thing about HPD lottery's is that the current residents of the building are moved out while the building is renovated and they get to come back the remaining apts are lotteried off.
Interesting viewpoint DesiArnez. We will just have to agree to disagree
Lets pretend for a second that you get to make the rules. So when I move in about 6 months, where would you suggest I move to within NYC? Having not grown up here, what are my options? Or am I not welcome anywhere in NYC?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
