The Rent is Too Damn High Party

I neither used nor intended to use the term "white flight".

When Irish, Italians, Poles and other ethnics leave an area because they fear an influx of persons of color, that's white flight.

When they leave because the area has become too expensive for them to stay, or because some yuppie (or even some Buppie) is offering them more money for their home than they'd ever imagined possible, that's gentrification.

Two different things (as you of course knew all along!)

That may be an overstatement... It is certainly true that there are opportunities for highly motivated, extremely bright kids whose parents are interested in helping them learn about and apply for those opportunities. But not every motivated kid has the smarts to get into Hunter, Stuy, Science, Brooklyn Tech, Midwood or Murrow (or, for that matter, the gifted program at 251).

homeowner wrote:

Wow, this conversation has taken an unreal turn ... now, non-white people (despite the addition of "white people" in this sentence, I think we all know what it really means) and interestingly gay people have become specimens to "see" and appreciate from behind the glass of enclaves full of people like us. Much like the "Arabs" and their artifacts at the Parisian museum were to the French in the 19th century.

My meaning was very clear. You are reading it through your own race-tinted glasses, not mine.

The addition of "white people" is clearly extraneous is because no American needs to move to NYC to "see" them.

On the other hand, people of color and (presumably out) gays are thought "exotic" by whites and straights. It's a problem for these people, the classic conundrum of being an Other. They're not people; they're "color" or "a bit of culture". And that is how your post reads.

I was struck by it, still am. I know you're trying to be open-minded, raising your kids around these "other" types, but frankly your statement borders on offensive. It's also a hard thing to see on a post where so many (I don't know if you, booklaw, but many) are so adamantly saying screw them about poor, often non-white people, who can't afford to live in NYC. Screw them, except when they're providing a bit of culture for the edification of my kids.

whynot_31 wrote: [quote=Carnivore][quote=krowonhill][quote=Carnivore]I think when a lot of people talk about how expensive it is to raise kids here, they consider all kinds of things necessary for raising kids that our parents never would have even considered spending money on.

Not to mention this, which just shows a complete removal from the realities for so many New Yorkers. It's hard for middle-class people (and never mind poor people) to raise kids here because of the difficulties involved in 1) finding adequate housing for a family in a neighborhood that is both safe and affordable, and 2) taking your chances with NYC's mostly really bad public schools if you can't afford buy into a neighborhood with good ones or to send your kid(s) to a private school.
Assume much?

Yous second point is actually exactly what I was talking about. The idea that private school is a necessary expense is absurd. I went to a public school (P.S. 251), which was not the school I was zoned for, but one I was bused to as part of a magnet program. My locally zoned schools were not great, but the school I wound up in had nothing to do with race; kids were bused there from all over Brooklyn and my class pretty much mirrored the demographics of the city as a whole. For High School, I went to Hunter, again a free school that has nothing to do with what neighborhood you're from (other than that you have to live in the 5 boroughs), but solely how you do on their admissions test.

There are plenty of opportunities for motivated kids in the public school system.

Krow, you should closely review the stats for PH and CH before making such statements.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/realestate/20living.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

THE SCHOOLS

The area covers parts of more than a dozen public elementary zones and half a dozen middle school zones, most of which received A’s on recent city report cards. It has four public high schools and several charter schools, as well as religious schools predominantly serving the Hasidic population.

Public School 138, to the west, teaches kindergarten through Grade 8; 61.7 percent there tested at or above grade level in English, 79.4 percent in math. To the east, No. 335 teaches prekindergarten through Grade 5; percentages were 84.2 in English, 97.2 in math.

Middle schools include the School of Integrated Learning and the Middle School for Academic and Social Excellence, which share a building on Park Place. The first received an A on its most recent report card; 50.4 percent demonstrated proficiency in English, 65.3 percent in math. The second received a C; 29.7 percent were proficient in English, 39 percent in math.

Clara Barton High School, on Classon Avenue, got a B on its most recent report card, and Medgar Evers College Preparatory School, on Carroll Street, got an A. SAT averages at Barton last year were 416 in reading, 418 in math and 421 in writing; at Evers they were 457, 474 and 449. State averages were 435, 432 and 439.

These accomplishments are due to a dedicated cadre of parents and teachers. ....you aren't going to dismiss this as grade inflation are you?

I think, Krow, that you are imputing heartlessness to people who are just trying to get by. Wanting to raise one's kids among people of other colors, religions, and/or sexual preferences is not the same as bringing them to the zoo to see the animals; rather it shows a desire to teach them to avoid prejudice and to perceive what you call the Other as being essentially like themselves.

Do I say "screw" the poor displaced by gentrification? No, of course not. I feel for them. But, to be honest, I would put my own self-interest first, to the extent of moving to any neighborhood I want to live in regardless of the possible impact of my move on someone whose rents rise because people like me have moved in.

What do I think about gentrification? In December, 2007 I posted the following:

Hamilton wrote: "I tend to feel Restless was fortunate enough to have inherited a house from his parents and lives in a bygone era of Denis Hamills Hippy Hill delusional recall of the 70's and he and Hamill detest any type of change that they are not part of. I think he should grow up, accept change and get on with his life.[just a suggestion]"

In 1976 my wife and I were both 30, were each earning a skimpy $15K/year, and were expecting our first child. We saved what we could and bought a co-op apt on Plaza St. and Union for $30,000 (which seemed like a huge amount of money at the time!). The day after we wrote a $300 check as a good-faith payment for the apartment, the cover story of New York Magazine, written by Denis Hamill, was "The Death of Park Slope". I nearly had a heart attack (imagining our first real estate investment going down the tubes), until I read the article and discovered that the Park Slope to which Hamill referred was the Italian/Irish neighborhood of his childhood, which was now dying because of all the damned yuppies (i.e. people like my wife and myself) moving in.

Shortly after, I got a better look at the phenomenon than I would have liked, because I joined the Board of Directors of the co-op and saw first-hand the facts of life of gentrification, as more and more well-to-do lawyers and bankers and doctors displaced the social workers and teachers who had previously lived in the building. The new folks wanted to renovate the building's aging infrastructure, which caused the monthly maintenance to rise, which of course forced even more of the previous co-op owners to sell as they could no longer afford to stay there.

Note that the people being forced out were not the people Denis Hamil mourned losing, but rather the first folks who had moved into a long-decaying neighborhood determined to improve it and make it their own.

Now they in turn were being displaced (while making substantial profits on the sale of their apartments) as they had previously displaced Hamill's favored ethnic groups.

What is happening now in the Slope, which Restless Native apparently appreciates as much as Hamill did (i.e. not much!) is not new. It's been happening since at least the late 1960's, and probably started even before that.

The Fifth Avenue we enjoy today was a drug- and drug-dealer infested pit just 15 years or so ago (or less!). Cars parked on the street throughout the Slope regularly had their side windows bashed in and their radios stolen so that junkies could score another fix.

Gentrification sucks for those who get forced out ... but most of us who live here now would not want to live in the funky, ungentrified Park Slope of the 60's and early 70's... or on the Fifth Avenue of 15 years ago.

As much as I sometimes make fun of baby strollers that cost a small fortune, and $5 coffees, I'm really glad that I can park my car on the street without having to worry about junkies vandalizing it.

Some years ago the daughter of either Denis or Pete Hamill wrote a letter to the Times (or was it New York Magazine?) complaining bitterly that she could not afford to move back to her family's ancestral neighborhood, because of gentrification and its impact on prices.

My own daughters are similarly unable to afford the neighborhood in which they grew up (both attended PS 321).

They'll have to do what my wife and I did 30 years ago: find a neighborhood on the cusp of revival, get in as early as possible, and hope for the best. I only hope they get as lucky as we did.

Gotta tell you Booklaw, the way you described the neighborhood made me feel like Blacks and gays were background to your existence. I felt like a silent extra in some movie where there is some white protagonist in some exotic location. (Name a movie ANY movie).

CTK, you have once again totally misinterpreted what I said, and I don't have the energy these days to get into a debate with you. It's not because I think you're right -- or wrong. It's because the tenor of those debates tend to hide sublimated projections -- on both sides -- and I don't see the point. So, I respectfully disagree.

What I appreciate about McMillan's party platform is that he's not focusing on ANYTHING else but the notion of how high the rent is. He sees it as the fundamental cause of most of our society's ills. And frankly I agree. So many here have touted Ludwig Von Mises' free market philosophy, laissez faire economics, free market rhetoric, etc., ignoring part and whole parcel that we DON'T live in a free market society.

The jack hammering that occurs at Atlantic Avenue right now is NOT a result of free market philosophy. That's a function of governmental intervention and a perversion of eminent domain, but it's happening anyway. It's a function of POWER. I venture to say that we can eliminate a huge swath of social ills if WE as a society find ways that give poorer people a shot at owning a piece of the (Big Apple's) pie. IT CAN BE DONE.

We could create property value in such a way that rent won't be 'too damn high' -- AND landlords can make a profit. It IS possible -- and this is broadly what McMIllan's notion affordable housing rhetoric infers. Instead of focusing on why it CAN'T be done, if people REALLY cared about this issue -- and all you free marketeers out there can pipe in -- why not write here how it COULD be done? Where are the ideas?

It's my sense here that a number of people in this thread sublimate their arbitrary dislike of poor people, and of Black people through a great deal of their free market rhetoric. A number of them don't even see how easily they reveal themselves. Thankfully a close reading reveals it. So few here are willing to say, HOW DO WE MAKE IT MORE EQUITABLE? Instead, they throw up proverbial hands in the air and say, 'Oh it can't happen'.

Similarly, whenever folks say 'Is it safe?' about a street or a block that they are considering gentrifying, what's implicit is the silent, invisible sentence that precedes that: 'I see that there are a lot of poorer Black people around' (ergo) IS IT SAFE?

And how can I say this? Well, believe it or not, MHA has white friends, and they tell me this is what is spoken about when the doors are closed, and nary a colored face is around. MHA also has friends who 'pass' and when I read the reports this is what's written. Racism, like everything else has evolved, and has become a coy beast.

Most of you people chuckle about McMillan because you don't like to live around so many Black people, and you see his protest as comic relief, and the unspoken private wish is that the rent remains 'too damn high' for the ones who have been living here so that they can move out.

McMIllan sees gentrification as a sign of social disruption. Y'all see it as progress. I have no need to wonder why.

Bottomline.

Carnivore wrote: [quote=krowonhill]
Not to mention this, which just shows a complete removal from the realities for so many New Yorkers. It's hard for middle-class people (and never mind poor people) to raise kids here because of the difficulties involved in 1) finding adequate housing for a family in a neighborhood that is both safe and affordable, and 2) taking your chances with NYC's mostly really bad public schools if you can't afford buy into a neighborhood with good ones or to send your kid(s) to a private school.

Assume much?

Yous second point is actually exactly what I was talking about. The idea that private school is a necessary expense is absurd. I went to a public school (P.S. 251), which was not the school I was zoned for, but one I was bused to as part of a magnet program. My locally zoned schools were not great, but the school I wound up in had nothing to do with race; kids were bused there from all over Brooklyn and my class pretty much mirrored the demographics of the city as a whole. For High School, I went to Hunter, again a free school that has nothing to do with what neighborhood you're from (other than that you have to live in the 5 boroughs), but solely how you do on their admissions test.

There are plenty of opportunities for motivated kids in the public school system.


Carnivore, you do know that a graduating senior at your alma mater, Hunter College High School, this year dedicated his commencement speech to what he saw as the shame that this public school in no way reflected the racial and socioeconomic diversity of NYC?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/nyregion/05hunter.html

Ok, you went through NYC's public school system and you claim to have turned out alright. You were lucky. And probably some of that luck involved certain privilege as well. (In fact, aren't you white? Just checking).

Krowonhill, they are unable to see their bias. They just can't. Ignore them.

MHA wrote: CTK, you have once again totally misinterpreted what I said, and I don't have the energy these days to get into a debate with you. It's not because I think you're right -- or wrong. It's because the tenor of those debates tend to hide sublimated projections -- on both sides -- and I don't see the point. So, I respectfully disagree.

What exactly do you disagree on? You said there will come a day when there will be no black people in NYC if NYC continues on its current course. My whole point is, all the hard evidence I can find on that suggests otherwise. If there's something you see or know to the contrary, I'm all ears. Such bold claims need to be substantiated in reality IMO.

MHA wrote:
What I appreciate about McMillan's party platform is that he's not focusing on ANYTHING else but the notion of how high the rent is. He sees it as the fundamental cause of most of our society's ills. And frankly I agree. So many here have touted Ludwig Von Mises' free market philosophy, laissez faire economics, free market rhetoric, etc., ignoring part and whole parcel that we DON'T live in a free market society.

The jack hammering that occurs at Atlantic Avenue right now is NOT a result of free market philosophy. That's a function of governmental intervention and a perversion of eminent domain, but it's happening anyway. It's a function of POWER. I venture to say that we can eliminate a huge swath of social ills if WE as a society find ways that give poorer people a shot at owning a piece of the (Big Apple's) pie. IT CAN BE DONE.

I think we are all in agreement that the gross abuse of powers by developers aided by Bloomberg is unfair to those who lose in the fallout. I know I expressed that view explicitly earlier. But I don't see how some white people moving into Crown Heights is in any way the in the same line of abuse. If you see a connection between the actions of Bruce Ratner and, krowonhill, for example, just lay it out for us to see.

MHA wrote:
We could create property value in such a way that rent won't be 'too damn high' -- AND landlords can make a profit. It IS possible -- and this is broadly what McMIllan's notion affordable housing rhetoric infers. Instead of focusing on why it CAN'T be done, if people REALLY cared about this issue -- and all you free marketeers out there can pipe in -- why not write here how it COULD be done? Where are the ideas?

MHA, let's not act as though NYC doesn't already have

- Rent control
- Squatters rights
- Rent discrimination laws
- Various levels of public assistance for housing

You, krowonhill & Jimmy feel that rent in NYC is unfairly high for some, despite all the vehicles in place to control it & ensure that no NYC resident is left in the cold. People counter with the fact that for the most part, NYC's real estate prices are solely a reflection of the city's inherent desirability, density and lack of undeveloped land which can all be lumped under the "free market" category. I mean, we could agree that by many objective metrics, Boerum Hill is a more desirable place to live than Brownsville, correct? Just from commuting distances, crime rates and amenities that could be agreed upon.

So for me, I'm at a loss as to what is a more equitable solution for everybody. And I mean everybody. Poor people, middle class people, "rich" people, and landlords. Every solution I come up with to forcefully lower the cost of real estate seems to erode the NYC real estate market and only open the floodgates to more corruption.

Do we put together a committee to determine what fair prices are? Who goes on the committee? What happens when the committee decides that rents in a building should be held at a level that is unprofitable to the landlord? What happens when landlords undergo a wholesale liquidation and abandonment of the NYC real estate market?

Do we subsidize rentals for poor people? We already do on various levels, through progressive taxation and various housing assistance programs. There are entire housing developments that are only available to households below some threshold. Do we raise that threshold? The city is already reeling from the recession... how do we pay for these programs?

MHA wrote:
It's my sense here that a number of people in this thread sublimate their arbitrary dislike of poor people, and of Black people through a great deal of their free market rhetoric. A number of them don't even see how easily they reveal themselves. Thankfully a close reading reveals it. So few here are willing to say, HOW DO WE MAKE IT MORE EQUITABLE? Instead, they throw up proverbial hands in the air and say, 'Oh it can't happen'.

Yea, it has nothing to do with the fact that they *might* be considering the practicalities of addressing the issue of expensive real estate in NYC (with expensive being a highly relative term).

MHA wrote:
Similarly, whenever folks say 'Is it safe?' about a street or a block that they are considering gentrifying, what's implicit is the silent, invisible sentence that precedes that: 'I see that there are a lot of poorer Black people around' (ergo) IS IT SAFE?

Yea, those questions have nothing to do with Crown Height's earned reputation as an area of high crime, coupled with its block to block nature. Surely nobody does similar research when looking at poor areas comprised of white people.

MHA wrote:
And how can I say this? Well, believe it or not, MHA has white friends, and they tell me this is what is spoken about when the doors are closed, and nary a colored face is around. MHA also has friends who 'pass' and when I read the reports this is what's written. Racism, like everything else has evolved, and has become a coy beast.

I find it hard to believe you'd engage white people beyond any required interaction needed to sustain yourself, let alone deeply enough to engage in conversations on race.

MHA wrote:
Most of you people chuckle about McMillan because you don't like to live around so many Black people, and you see his protest as comic relief, and the unspoken private wish is that the rent remains 'too damn high' for the ones who have been living here so that they can move out.

Can you substantiate this claim at all in reality? What has anyone here said to even imply this, and more importantly, how do these indictments further the conversation in the direction of speaking of "practical solutions"?

MHA wrote:
McMIllan sees gentrification as a sign of social disruption. Y'all see it as progress. I have no need to wonder why.

Bottomline.

I don't think anyone sees gentrification as "progress".... more like an effect of the dynamics of NYC, some of which are due to unfair zoning and eminent domain rulings put in place to put developers over (black, white, yellow, brown and all shades within) individuals.

The problem of poverty in the city is more complicated than, "you white people need to leave our neighborhoods and lower our rents". Like I've said before, Jimmy McMillan does raise some valid points, but to me it makes more sense to look to break the cycles of poverty rather than to implement more programs to "help" the poor. There will always be poor people, and people who cannot care for themselves- obviously they shouldn't be left in the cold in the name of capitalism. But again, there are a lot of poor people who have the abilities to sustain themselves, and choose not to. And in my experience, that's a lot of poor people. They need to be empowered, not enabled.
------------------------------------

As far as ideas go, I have one that I think would go really far. It seems silly to me that NYPD locks its resource allocations to arbitrary precincts. There's much less crime in the UWS than there is in Brownsville, and it's all the same NYPD. Why not send city cops where they're actually needed? Furthering the safety of the city at large will help spread out the desirability of the city and slow down pockets of displacement.

Also, NYC should create programs enabling long time tenants to buy buildings from negligent landlords. Literally enabling the people to take ownership of their neighborhoods (and also help bring the reality of building ownership to tenants).

Solutions in that vein are IMO the most fair.

Whew, I'm glad that's resolved.

CTK, I'm not sure what kosher pizza had to do with the rent, but have you ever had any?

I had some for the first time a few weeks ago.

CUCS puts out reliable info, and you are correct, the city's middle class has been shrinking over the last decade.

In the past, the city created housing for the middle class, such as Mitchel-llama housing. However, the residents of such housing has become very aged.

I believe you feel the most sympathy for those presently being priced out. Should we launch a Mitchell llama 2.0?

There is lots a research out there by the affordable housing groups, and each seems to have it's favorite solution. ....but any proposal should recognize that we live in a city that presently does not have a shortage of any "class" of people, and lacks the resources to provide for it's most needy, disabled citizens. I find it hard to believe that the present populous will find a way to provide housing for the poor AND the middle class.

Even if we disregard the long term market effects I discuss, how will we pay for such an intervention in the SHORT term? ....soaking the rich will just cause the to leave afterall.

I said soaking the rich. Why would we make the middle class and lower class pay for thier own housing? How would this accomplish a redistribution of resources?

Or, are we just going to prevent people from getting rich as a result of being a landlord by having the government operate the housing?

I am just trying to see what people think would work. Mitchel lama was a pretty good program, we should discuss bringing it back to life.

Google can give readers a better, more objective history than me typing on this pokey Bolt bus.

One owns their Mitchell lama, it is for the middle class. Section 8 is for the poor.

Google, then converse please.

Dah, affordable housing rookies.

Section 8 is different

krowonhill wrote: And, how about this? I get my first invitation to one of the shindigs during the moment that Carnivore and whynot see as my humiliation. Well, this is normally the kind of thing in which I enjoy participating. Sadly, however, after watching whynot's aggressive and threatening behavior against MHA, made with the implicit assent of many (if not most) of the moderators, I won't be because 1) I wouldn't feel safe, and 2) I don't want to spend time around people who I don't think are nice. And it's too bad, because there are people on the board who I would like to meet.

FWIW, everyone is always invited to all Brooklynian events. If I had known you were waiting for a personal invitation, you would have gotten one sooner.