Is anti gentrification people racist?

Steve Austin wrote: New rules.

The term "gentrification" is bullshit. In terms of property ownerhship, the only context in which gentrication is meaningful, there are two types of people owner and non-owners. If you own, you benefit. If you do not, you don't.

Them's the facts and they don't lie.

Give John Christman's "The Myth of Property" a read. It's heavy lifting but you'll really question what if anything is ownership is any meaningful sense. Interesting book....

Give John Christman's "The Myth of Property" a read. It's heavy lifting but you'll really question what if anything is ownership is any meaningful sense.

I'll look it up and give it a read.

I used to attempt to mystify others when I was in my twenties by saying stuff like "the root cause of theft is the concept of ownership." I've come to realize that the concept of "mine" is not written in any lawbook or political manifesto. It's buried deep in our lizard brain, perhaps even in our very atoms. No economic system in the world will prevent a bully from pulling the popsicle out of my mouth on the playground. Everybody wants some space and resources to call their own. The trick is to write and maintain a playbook so that the rules are consistently applied to all players. I don't resent someone who works harder or lucked out in career choices when they have more money and therefore more choice. I don't even resent someone who was born on third base. What I do resent is when the people born on third base change the rules so that getting from the dugout to first base or from first to second is much harder than it should be. When authority and accountability are balanced, you can have a dynamic workable system. When authority is concentrated at the top and accountability pushed downward - well you have what we have.

I'm a "gentrifier" and happy to be one. I'm not going to apologize to anyone for scraping together to buy a home. My buying a home is not the root cause of anyone else's inability to buy a home. We have a real problem with wages and income distribution in this country, a problem that cannot be addressed by applying labels.

metulj wrote: No, but the system that has made the inexorable process of property transfer (in all its wonderful and horrible forms) 13-18 percent of the GDP is the cause.

Yeah, I was absolutely horrified when my wife and I closed on our apartment. There were about a dozen people in the room, including our lawyer, the seller's lawyer, reps from our bank and the seller's bank, the agent, the building's lawyer, and people whose function I could not identify. I remember looking around the room and thinking, "what a bunch of fucking parasites!"

Carnivore wrote: [quote=metulj]No, but the system that has made the inexorable process of property transfer (in all its wonderful and horrible forms) 13-18 percent of the GDP is the cause.

Yeah, I was absolutely horrified when my wife and I closed on our apartment. There were about a dozen people in the room, including our lawyer, the seller's lawyer, reps from our bank and the seller's bank, the agent, the building's lawyer, and people whose function I could not identify. I remember looking around the room and thinking, "what a bunch of fucking parasites!"

fuckin' lawyers!

amusingly, at my closing, the only lawyer was mine. the owner's law firm and the bank both had paralegals handling the transactions. very chill exchange of checks (none of which I got to see) and lots of initialing/signing on my part. kinda fun in a "cripes, wtf is going on?! I'm signing my life away, aren't I?!"

alafairnadia wrote: kinda fun in a "cripes, wtf is going on?! I'm signing my life away, aren't I?!"

Mind if I ask what the closing costs were? Roughly?

devincf wrote: [quote=Steve Austin]New rules.

The term "gentrification" is bullshit. In terms of property ownerhship, the only context in which gentrication is meaningful, there are two types of people owner and non-owners. If you own, you benefit. If you do not, you don't.

Them's the facts and they don't lie.

Totally agree. The phenomenon of new people moving into a neighborhood and causing a rise in costs for the long term residents is a complete myth. Poorer people just hate it when folks with more money move into their hood and choose to go away.

Are you a complete moron or just a fvcking idiot?

Gentrification has been the cause of painful conflict, often along racial and economic fault lines. Neighborhood change is often viewed as a miscarriage of social justice, in which wealthy, usually white, newcomers are congratulated for "improving" a neighborhood whose poor, minority residents are displaced by skyrocketing rents and economic change.

A neighborhood that is gentrified becomes a "victim of its own success." The upward spiral of desirability and increasing rents and property values often erodes the very qualities that began attracting new people in the first place. When success comes to a neighborhood, it does not always come to its established residents, and the displacement of that community is gentrification's most troubling effect.

No one is more vulnerable to the effects of gentrification than renters. When prices go up, tenants are pushed out, whether through natural turnover, rent hikes, or evictions. When buildings are sold, buyers often evict the existing tenants to move in themselves, combine several units, or bring in new tenants at a higher rate. When residents own their homes, they are less vulnerable, and may opt to "cash them in" and move elsewhere. Their options may be limited if there is a regional housing shortage, however, and cash does not always compensate for less tangible losses.

Previous residents may benefit from some of this development, particularly in the form of service sector and construction jobs, but much of it may be out of reach to all but the well-educated newcomers. Some local economic activity may also be forced out — either by rising rents or shifting sensibilities. Industrial activities that employ local workers may be viewed as a nuisance or environmental hazard by new arrivals. Local shops may lose their leases under pressure from posh boutiques and restaurants.

The social, economic, and physical impacts of gentrification often result in serious political conflict, exacerbated by differences in race, class, and culture. Earlier residents may feel embattled, ignored, and excluded from their own communities. New arrivals are often mystified by accusations that their efforts to improve local conditions are perceived as hostile or even racist.

Change — in fortunes, in populations, in the physical fabric of communities — is an abiding feature of urban life. But change nearly always involves winners and losers, and low-income people are rarely the winners.

I may be both a moron and an idiot. Hopefully, you and I will both make it out to the next happy hour and figure it out over a couple of pints of beer.

It just seems to me that the gentrification debate is usually one-sided and the side that decries it almost always plays the race card. On my block, during the last 8-10 years almost all of the property owners, including those who sold to gentrifiers, were and are black. Yet, despite this fact, I hear a lot of blacks use the argument that whites are forcing blacks out. Even the ones who sold. It just doesn't make any sense. How can someone force you to sell?

What is missing from the argument are the blacks who sold and no longer live in the community. And the reason: They now live in places like Florida and South Carolina and probably never have to work again (in other words they are not concerned with our high minded debates about their rights being trampled on).

Uh, Steve, look again at the very, very, top of my previous response. Are you also devincf? If not, please choosde to ignore it. But I do do like your manly approach to settling differences.

Steve Austin wrote: It just seems to me that the gentrification debate is usually one-sided and the side that decries it almost always plays the race card. On my block, during the last 8-10 years almost all of the property owners, including those who sold to gentrifiers, were and are black. Yet, despite this fact, I hear a lot of blacks use the argument that whites are forcing blacks out. Even the ones who sold. It just doesn't make any sense. How can someone force you to sell?

my co-op is awesome: most of the owners are black. I'm white and hispanic. the newest buyers are a mixed couple - the woman is white and her husband is turkish. I love owning here because it is so mixed. it makes me feel good about ownership - I'm not the "newest" white owner, I'm another person who found a comfortable place she can afford.

Dope on the Slope wrote:
As for me, I just hope to stockpile enough liquor to get me through the fun times that will follow after Bush bombs Iran this summer.

I suggest "Old Whiskey River," but I am a freak like that. If you are going to hunker down with you guns and liqour, make sure it is good liquor.

Livetotravel wrote: ...change nearly always involves winners and losers...

So, which side would people rather be on, eh? Seems kinda obvious...

As a good friend of mine says, "The harder I work, the luckier I get."

As per your avatar icon shirt: in a word, capitalism.

metulj wrote: [quote=Captain M]
I dont buy this, you dont have to go to NYU, Columbia, or Georgetown to get a 150,000 education to get by, this is for white entitlement and just another big busness. There are plenty of people who get a decent education a CUNY on a loan of less than 10G's and parlay that into a career. The question remains whether some people would rather put what money they have into an education or navigator with sweet rims.

In many ways, CUNY, especially the graduate center, rules over NYU and Columbia with an iron fist. People like David Harvey (heavy hitter geographer) actually teach...

Undoubtedly CUNY boast the finest teaching staff EVER. And, from what I hear, they're damn sexy, too.