Landlord rights?

So you are telling me that the poor are not being forced out of neighborhoods?

I suspect that I'm wasting my time here.

filmlover44 wrote: So you are telling me that the poor are not being forced out of neighborhoods?

I suspect that I'm wasting my time here.

Apparently, they are less likely to be displaced from a gentrifying neighborhood than a non-gentrifying one, according to the data, which is a remarkable finding I think; something I didn't expect. I am repeating what I read in Gentrification and Displacement: New York City in the 1990s. Park Slope was included in the gentrifying neighborhoods studied.

You are certainly wasting everyone's time, if, having demanded facts, you then ignore the data because it doesn't fit your picture.

Garfunky wrote: therefore govt provided data about what happened to the color and visible affluence or lack thereof to the immediate area and the changes to the businesses and people have far less value than what i witnessed/am witnessing with my own two eyes.

What you've witnessed: do you think individual people were displaced, or replaced? Did they move because they couldn't pay the rent or for some other reason? And if some were displaced, I wonder whether that happened more often near 5th and Union vs. Caton and Flatbush? This is not an abstract question, it matters whether people are forced to move because they can't continue to pay for their housing.

I may never be rich enough to afford to live in the neighborhoods I lived in as a child, but I don't feel I was displaced.

interesting article from the U.K. about gentrification and the different ways that liberals and conservatives perceive displacement.

http://www.radstats.org.uk/no069/article2.htm

Usually the last man left standing in a blog argument is either the one who has presented the most compelling, cogent arguments backed by overwhelming evidence and has left his counterparts speechless and in awe of his seamless logic; or, the one who has been so obstinate and absurd, and has refused for so long to actually engage in a thoughtful point and counterpoint, that his opponents have simply given up in disgust and walked away.

Ladies and Germs , we have a split decision.
Joey Bagodonuts scores it 96-91 to the challeneger
Hakim Muhammed scores it 94 - 93 to the champion
Devoroa Bat Baruch scores it 95-94 to the c.....

wait! this just in !

The governing body of the IBBF has declared BOTH contestants disqualified.

as a result , the new IBBF champion for most thought provoking and relevant post is
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................

*fanfare of trumpets spontaneously bleat out
"theme for the common man"
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................

PACSE !!! (applause)

OMG dam dyslexia LOL

ESCAP !!!! (more appluase)
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................

la plus ca change, la plus c'est la meme chose.

And....



That's a wrap.

Garfunky, I just want to know how you get to be a referee? Is it a self appointed thing or was there an election that I missed?

escap wrote: that his opponents have simply given up in disgust and walked away.

In that case, I am definately going to be the loser because i give up.

filmlover44 wrote: Oh, maybe the former residents of Park Slope left because they don't like white people and they wanted to move to crappy run-down neighborhoods high crime rates and bad transportation! That must be it.

Suggested reading is "The Social Atom" by Mark Buchanan, specifically Thomas Schelling's model of housing segregation. It gives an interesting insight into the social dynamics that transform an undesirable neighborhood into a desirable one.

There's more to it evil, nasty capitalist landlords raising rents to keep themselves in caviar

I'm still looking for the "right wing" think tank article. I say livetotravel and all the other well off RS renters give up their apts to the poor..those that really need them. Then once they die that's the end of the RS for that apt.

Oh charlesbklyn: "The correct phrase is "to all intents and purposes." This phrase dates back to the 1500s and originated in English law, where it was "to all intents, constructions, and purposes." In modern usage, "for all intents and purposes" is also acceptable."

"eggcream" wrote: I'm still looking for the "right wing" think tank article. I say livetotravel and all the other well off RS renters give up their apts to the poor..those that really need them. Then once they die that's the end of the RS for that apt.

Oh charlesbklyn: "The correct phrase is "to all intents and purposes." This phrase dates back to the 1500s and originated in English law, where it was "to all intents, constructions, and purposes." In modern usage, "for all intents and purposes" is also acceptable."

Look on the Manhattan Institute website. they have a study about how de-regulation in Boston, Brookline and adjoining areas has actually stimulated housing construction, and lowered overall rents in the state.