Why are whites moving into the HOOD?
Comments
-
Anonymous wrote: My family owns an 8 unit building over here.... And the landlords are forcing low income families out by raising prices and catering for yuppies. I mean whats the point of them coming here when all the end result will be is higher prices for everything. So all in all them moving here is pointless because with them coming looking for a lower cost of living is actually causing the opposite.
Doesn't make sense. As the owner of a 8-unit building, you probaby have more economic clout than any white (or black) tenant you have. Seems like you have some control over what the going rents are in CH -- or at least in your own building. So complaining...just doesn't sound right. The point of people moving into neighborhoods they can afford is that they can't afford elsewhere. I'll believe you if you maintain it's not racism on your part, but tell me, where would you have people -- white, gay, purple, whatever -- go? Do you think the rich white folks on the Upper East Side feel such solidarity with their color that they're willing to give a middle-class Pratt grad with a poorly-paying, entry-level job a deal on rent? I doubt it. -
In the middle of the century, a Black working class migrated to New York. Unlike those who already lived in Harlem, for instance, they were intent on buyign homes. Many were educated enough, or skilled enough, to find decent paying jobs.
The whites who lived in the residential neighborhoods (e.g. Bed Stuy, Clinton Hill, Fort Greene) knew that large numbers of blacks would be buying homes there soon. Problem was, they were completely unwilling to share a neighborhood with a large group of black homeowners. They didn't want the things that blouse homeowners would bring to their neighborhoods- black restaurants, black stores, black churches, blacks schools.
So what did they do? They tried outright denial of houses, and when that didn't work, they simply left. Bed Stuy went fro mmostly white to mostly black within a couple of decades.
The situation now is vastly different. The middle class blacks- many of the same blacks that came when Bed Stuy was still a white community- are leaving, going back to their Native South to retire. The blacks that remain- poor, young blacks, most of whom grew up in the ghettos of the 70's, 80's and 90's- cannot afford homes. Gentrifiers realize this. They also realize that without homes, these blacks don't have the ability to maintain "unfavorable" qualities in these gentrifying areas- churches, nail salons, chicken joints, etc. Within a couple of decades, these thing swill no longer exist.
So the two situations are entirely different- whites fled brownstone Brooklyn because they knew they wouldn't be able to get rid of the elements of black life they didn't like, and gentrifiers are moving in because they know that they'll be able to get rid of the tenants currently living there, and the bad things they associate with these tenants.
Which is why you hear talk of "fastly gentrying neighborhoods"- places where Starbucks and wine shops and cafes will be in no time. One must ask themselves, then- what if most of the houses here owned by young or middle aged blacks? Would gentrifiers spend so much on houses if they knew they'd have to spend perhaps the next thirty years dealing with the things they complain about so much (this board being a prime example)? I doubt it. -
BSDOD, what you're saying is not true.
I live on a high home-ownership block. Most of the homeowners on my street are young-middleaged black people with kids. I'll be looking at their faces for the next thirty years, and am happy to be doing so because these people are nice neighbors!
I like my black neighbors fine, and am very glad they own their 'stones because they provide a sense of community and serenity on my street that is enviable in Bed Stuy. I moved here to be part of a community *with* them, not wait them out.
Not everyone who buys a house is white, and white people don't automatically have more money than black people. Many of my black neighbors have better jobs and make more money than I do--they drive better cars and have higher expenses because they have kids! And if you want to find out who is dying for a wine store and better grocery store in the 'hood...
...you might want to talk to them. Gentrification is a complex set of economic shifts. It does not equal race war. -
BedStuyDoOrDie wrote: The blacks that remain- poor, young blacks, most of whom grew up in the ghettos of the 70's, 80's and 90's- cannot afford homes. Gentrifiers realize this...gentrifiers are moving in because they know that they'll be able to get rid of the tenants currently living there, and the bad things they associate with these tenants.
You're stating the issue in racial terms - when it's actually economic. In your hypothetical situation - in which most of the houses are owned by young and middle class blacks - they would still be approached by out priced whites and newcomers who would still be offering more rent than your "poor, young blacks, most of whom grew up in the ghettos of the 70's, 80's and 90's".
Which is why you hear talk of "fastly gentrying neighborhoods"- places where Starbucks and wine shops and cafes will be in no time. One must ask themselves, then- what if most of the houses here owned by young or middle aged blacks? Would gentrifiers spend so much on houses if they knew they'd have to spend perhaps the next thirty years dealing with the things they complain about so much (this board being a prime example)? I doubt it.
Again even though the rents offered by these new people far outstrip those currently being paid by the older tenants - you must remember that this is usually the most that the new people can afford to pay and its not enough to land them in whatever nabe you think they should stick to (ParkSlope, Bk Heights, Manhattan).
So you have to ask yourself - would your young and middle-aged Black homeowners turns away the new tenants and the money they bring? I doubt it. In which case, we're back to square one. Displaced poorer tenants.
The only way to avoid the issue of involuntary-economic based displacement is to have the city/state offer automatic Section-8 type vouchers to any threatened tenants. The vouchers would make up the difference between what the old tenants can afford to pay and what the new current rent rates are.
That way it would be up to the landlords to decide if they want to keep old tenants with vouchers or replace them with new tenants that can afford the going rent without govt. assistance. -
BoogieKnight wrote:
I think the issue is racial with the extenuating circumstances being economic. The history clearly indicates the willingness of whites to make choices based on race that don't necessarily afford them an economic advantage. Whites move out because blacks and their "culture" were moving in and they could no longer stop them from doing so despite all of the barriers that were placed before them. Now because of economic hard times whites can't afford to be so "picky" also they now get an opportunity to see(if their eyes are open) what the end result of certain racially based economic policies.
You're stating the issue in racial terms - when it's actually economic. In your hypothetical situation - in which most of the houses are owned by young and middle class blacks - they would still be approached by out priced whites and newcomers who would still be offering more rent than your "poor, young blacks, most of whom grew up in the ghettos of the 70's, 80's and 90's". -
anonymous web surfer wrote: I think the issue is racial with the extenuating circumstances being economic. The history clearly indicates the willingness of whites to make choices based on race that don't necessarily afford them an economic advantage. Whites move out because blacks and their "culture" were moving in and they could no longer stop them from doing so despite all of the barriers that were placed before them. Now because of economic hard times whites can't afford to be so "picky" also they now get an opportunity to see(if their eyes are open) what the end result of certain racially based economic policies.
I would argue that the whites that left in the 1950s are NOT the whites that are "returning" in 2007, and that in fact the two "groups" have VERY little in common, making your continuity argument a bit contrived and inaccurate. -
daver wrote: [quote=anonymous web surfer]I think the issue is racial with the extenuating circumstances being economic. The history clearly indicates the willingness of whites to make choices based on race that don't necessarily afford them an economic advantage. Whites move out because blacks and their "culture" were moving in and they could no longer stop them from doing so despite all of the barriers that were placed before them. Now because of economic hard times whites can't afford to be so "picky" also they now get an opportunity to see(if their eyes are open) what the end result of certain racially based economic policies.
I would argue that the whites that left in the 1950s are NOT the whites that are "returning" in 2007, and that in fact the two "groups" have VERY little in common, making your continuity argument a bit contrived and inaccurate.
They are obviously not the same group of people. However, there are some parallels.
For instance: Many people on this site speak of gentrification as a good thing, an inevitable occurence, a sheer fact of economics. For this reason, they claim, people should stop criticizing gentrifiers and the changes they bring. However, in areas where it is clear gentrification isn't going to happen anytime soon- the Fulton Street Mall for instance, one of the most profitable shopping districts in America- gentrifiers suddenly discard their love of economics and the free market. Now, it becomes about "providing more desireable shops (even when the shops currently at the mall are VERY desireable)" and making the mall more diverse. As a result, politicians are pushing for artists lofts above the shops at the mall- a move which will actually decrease the profitibality of the shops. This is ok though, because the stores currently there aren't "good" anyway, goes their logic.
Imagine if the city council put laws in place to hinder gentrification, at the expense of upper class homeowners who were already in these neighborhoods? How irate would these people be?
When I ponder this, I just can't help but think of the whites in the 50's who set up "good homeowner" associations for the purpose of keeping "bad" (i.e. Black) people from buying houses in brownstone Brooklyn.
Also -
Pure silliness, BSDOD. My black neighbors worry much more about "desirability" than I do, and are way more into calling 311 every time they hear bass, whining about the bad service and uneven food at Petit Basam, and wanting fewer storefront churches and more cute cafes and shops.
This is not about race as much as it's about money. -
Anonymous wrote: Pure silliness, BSDOD. My black neighbors worry much more about "desirability" than I do, and are way more into calling 311 every time they hear bass, whining about the bad service and uneven food at Petit Basam, and wanting fewer storefront churches and more cute cafes and shops.
Where, in my previous post, did I mention race in regard to the current situation? I made pains not to.
This is not about race as much as it's about money. -
Everybody has their reasons for why they live here and I'm not answering for anybody but myself. I lived in Clinton Hill and Fort Greene for years before recently moving here. When I moved to CH I was motivated by price. Quite simply I could afford a nice place in a neighborhood that I thought was beautiful and happened to already have had a few friends there. Beautiful green tree-lined streets? Gorgeous brownstones? Why wouldn't I consider the area? Fast-forward nine years and the prices have sky-rocketed in CH so I opened my search to include Bed-Stuy. Here I am. It wasn't a very weighty decision on my part.
Gentrification is complicated. As are race issues. I don't intend to solve or answer anything with one post. What I will say is that I love the neighborhood and have already made some new acquaintances and even friends in some of my neighbors. I chose to live in Brooklyn a long, long time ago because I could feel as though I live in a neighborhood as opposed to living more anonymously in Manhattan. I am not looking to change the neighborhood, just be a part of it and contribute to it's warmth and vibrancy, the same way I would in any neighborhood no matter what the racial make-up is.
Actually, I won't lie... there is a change I'd like to see. I'd be happy with a good grocery store with decent produce. Yeah, I said it.
[/i] -
Merriam Webster wrote: [quote=Anonymous]My family owns an 8 unit building over here.... And the landlords are forcing low income families out by raising prices and catering for yuppies. I mean whats the point of them coming here when all the end result will be is higher prices for everything. So all in all them moving here is pointless because with them coming looking for a lower cost of living is actually causing the opposite.
Doesn't make sense. As the owner of a 8-unit building, you probaby have more economic clout than any white (or black) tenant you have. Seems like you have some control over what the going rents are in CH -- or at least in your own building. So complaining...just doesn't sound right. The point of people moving into neighborhoods they can afford is that they can't afford elsewhere. I'll believe you if you maintain it's not racism on your part, but tell me, where would you have people -- white, gay, purple, whatever -- go? Do you think the rich white folks on the Upper East Side feel such solidarity with their color that they're willing to give a middle-class Pratt grad with a poorly-paying, entry-level job a deal on rent? I doubt it.
Exactly in my own building..but my building is just 8 units. I am still worried about other families in the area low income and middle class who can afford to live comfortably at the rate of rent they are currently paying. You and I know very well that the more crown heights gentrifies is the more that rent will go up. These condos that are going up are in no way or form going to be affordable for low income families and thats who I am worried about. A middle class Pratt grad still has more economic power than a section 8 family, so I am not worried about him/her. And I by no means am racist. I have frens and family of every color. As i stated one of our tenants is a white Irish man....and he isn't new he lived here for years.
I also know not all whites are rich. Blacks only make up 13% of the US pop. and the national debt rate among its citizens is hideous.
I am also worried about the mom and pops shops/restaurants that have been here forever and can afford the rent they are used to paying. When the demographic changes alot of the times these people are forced out. I welcome the nice cafes, wine shops, and jazz spots. Its a welcome change but not at the cost of the small business owners that have been here for years serving the community. -
A better idea is to take some of these burnt-out lots and build affordable housing on them.
As far as race is concerned, the fact this thread was created or even discussed is disgusting. Do I shudder when I see Blacks in Nassau Co? No. I say "Good Job". It's about time some of the color lines start to disappear.
This is a sad, sad thread. -
daver wrote:
Apparently they are:
I would argue that the whites that left in the 1950s are NOT the whites that are "returning" in 2007, and that in fact the two "groups" have VERY little in common, making your continuity argument a bit contrived and inaccurate.
http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/29/40/29_40corcoran.htmlA Manhattan-based real-estate giant, the Corcoran Group, has come under the scrutiny of federally backed agents who charge that the firm steered white home-buyers in Brooklyn to white neighborhoods and discriminated against blacks.
In a report released Tuesday, a coalition of 220 fair housing organizations charged Corcoran with ignoring black clients, offering more detailed financial options and incentives to white home-seekers and directing these white clients to white neighborhoods.
A “gentrification map” is a key piece of evidence in the National Fair Housing Alliance’s federal discrimination complaint filed this week with the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
“This racial steering tactic is reminiscent of discriminatory conduct from the 1970s,” said Shanna Smith, president of NFHA. “Then, real-estate agents would [trigger] white flight by showing … where an African-American family had bought a house. The twist here is that the agent used a map to tell whites where they should [move] to.”
Why would a real estate agency steer black buyers away from "changing" neighborhoods? Because apparently, whites are less likely to spend money the more black people there are. -
That was way way back in 2006 that type of stuff doesn't happen anymore.
-
BedStuyDoOrDie wrote: [quote=daver]
Apparently they are:
I would argue that the whites that left in the 1950s are NOT the whites that are "returning" in 2007, and that in fact the two "groups" have VERY little in common, making your continuity argument a bit contrived and inaccurate.
http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/29/40/29_40corcoran.htmlA Manhattan-based real-estate giant, the Corcoran Group, has come under the scrutiny of federally backed agents who charge that the firm steered white home-buyers in Brooklyn to white neighborhoods and discriminated against blacks.
In a report released Tuesday, a coalition of 220 fair housing organizations charged Corcoran with ignoring black clients, offering more detailed financial options and incentives to white home-seekers and directing these white clients to white neighborhoods.
A “gentrification map” is a key piece of evidence in the National Fair Housing Alliance’s federal discrimination complaint filed this week with the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
“This racial steering tactic is reminiscent of discriminatory conduct from the 1970s,” said Shanna Smith, president of NFHA. “Then, real-estate agents would [trigger] white flight by showing … where an African-American family had bought a house. The twist here is that the agent used a map to tell whites where they should [move] to.”
Why would a real estate agency steer black buyers away from "changing" neighborhoods? Because apparently, whites are less likely to spend money the more black people there are.
This is child's play. Canarsie was much worse back in the early 90's: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE0D7103BF932A25751C0A966958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=printIn a recent three-year investigation conducted by the city, teams of black and white testers were sent to real-estate brokers in predominantly white areas of Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx. The intent was to see if the testers - who posed as having similar incomes - were treated similarly.
as I recall it, many of those real estate companies were penalized and had to stop their discrimination. Soon after, white-flight saw the whotes move out to Long Island. Still, I think those people have very little in common with the whites moving into CH. The Corcoran brokers dont speak for the potential tenants in the same way that the Canarsie brokers spoke for the homeowners in Canarsie back then.
The results, city officials said, were conclusive. Of 21 brokers tested repeatedly, 18 steered black people away from the predominantly white area, failed to inform them of vacancies in the neighborhood or discriminated against them in other ways.
Nine times, white testers were sent to real-estate agents in Canarsie. They were shown one or more rental apartments in the price range they had given the agents. The nine black testers sent to the same agents were told that no apartments were available in Canarsie. Three were shown apartments in an integrated area nearby.
Bias Two-Thirds of the Time -
I moved here because i found a nice apartment that I could afford, and only afterwards did i discover what a wonderful place it is, with friendly neighbors and a down-to-earth vibe. If race had anything to do with my decision to move in, I would have to say that it was a selling point. Although i am white and grew up in lily-white suburbia, I have since lived in more diverse communities and i actually feel uncomfortable in neighborhoods that are overwhelmingly white. Not because i have anything against white people in general, but maybe i like being in the minority after having spent so much of my life in the majority. Maybe because there is a kind of parochialism that comes from being around too many people from similar backgrounds (especially if they are similar to your own!)
It's not clear to me why so many people are offended by the topic of this thread. It's too rare that we talk about race in inter-racial forums and I'm happy that the question was raised in what seemed to me to be a pretty straightforward way. I think the simplest answer (which others have already offered) is that the white people who move into mostly black neighborhoods are not the same ones who move out of neighborhoods when they change from white to black. But obviously it is a lot more complicated than that. There may be some who move in because they are anticipating changes, but there are many others who love it the way it is and dread the idea of seeing it turn into park slope. My question is: what can we do about it? Must i be part of the problem just because i am white? I don't believe that i must, but i also don't know how to address it concretely. -
Since all you white people seem to be in some kind of denial about the real reason you decided it was ok to move into black neighborhoods in Brooklyn, let me set it straight. CRIME. The only reason you people are even considering moving into Bed-Stuy, Bushwick, etc is because the crime rate in NYC is down considerably from how it used to be around here. Where were you people in the early 90's when Dinkins was mayor and there was nearly 3000 murders every year in the city? When getting robbed was more common then Starbucks and drugs were everywhere. These communities were in serious turmoil back then and you were nowhere to be found. Don't kid yourself with this the rent is cheap, i love black people, we are the world BS, cause if the crime in NY was the way it used to be, these neighborhoods wouldnt have even been an option on your checklist of where you wanted to move to in NY. Now that you feel that you and most importantly, your money is safe in places like Bedstuy cause the crime is down, your ok with moving there and getting a good deal on rent in close proximity to Manhattan. Lets all try to be honest with ourselves, don't tell me this, I moved there cause it was the only place I could afford near a train. Gimme a break, ever heard of Queens? yeah..
-
yeah, you're right. no one could possibly know what their own motives were better than you do. :roll:
-
sweet tea wrote: yeah, you're right. no one could possibly know what their own motives were better than you do. :roll:
I know im right by the simple fact that white people were nowhere to be found back in the days and now they're moving in in droves -
For me personally, I lived in another state in the 90s. So I wasn't looking at any NYC neighborhoods. I looked at Queens when I moved the last time, but it was too far from something I needed proximity to: the Staten Island Ferry. Crime was certainly a consideration in my location choice. I choose the NYC location that fit my budget (under $1k/mo) and was the closest to the things I needed nearby. And I'm not talking about shopping. Although proximity to laundry and grocery was certainly a consideration. I did check the crime numbers. I did walk through the neighborhoods, and determine for myself whether I would safely be able to get home, and have my children there. So it was definitely a factor, but certainly not the ONLY factor. If it was, the murders on the street this year probably would have deterred me a bit more.
-
NYBrnNRzD wrote: [quote=sweet tea]yeah, you're right. no one could possibly know what their own motives were better than you do. :roll:
I know im right by the simple fact that white people were nowhere to be found back in the days and now they're moving in in droves
You "know" you're right because you're not even trying to see the possibility that each person is different. It's considerably easier to look at life in broad sweeps and general terms, isn't it?
Bed Bath and Beyond called, they'd like their blanket statements back. -
NYBrnNRzD wrote: [quote=sweet tea]yeah, you're right. no one could possibly know what their own motives were better than you do. :roll:
I know im right by the simple fact that white people were nowhere to be found back in the days and now they're moving in in droves
I cannot speak for my fellow white bretheren and sistern, but I can tell you that the reason that I was not living in Clinton Hill "back in the days" was because I was only twelve years old, and my parents in Massachusetts wouldn't let me get my own apartment.
Don't know if you take that as an exception to the rule, but I'm sure you'll let me know... -
NYBrnNRzD wrote: Since all you white people seem to be in some kind of denial about the real reason you decided it was ok to move into black neighborhoods in Brooklyn, let me set it straight. CRIME. The only reason you people are even considering moving into Bed-Stuy, Bushwick, etc is because the crime rate in NYC is down considerably from how it used to be around here. Where were you people in the early 90's when Dinkins was mayor and there was nearly 3000 murders every year in the city? When getting robbed was more common then Starbucks and drugs were everywhere. These communities were in serious turmoil back then and you were nowhere to be found. Don't kid yourself with this the rent is cheap, i love black people, we are the world BS, cause if the crime in NY was the way it used to be, these neighborhoods wouldnt have even been an option on your checklist of where you wanted to move to in NY. Now that you feel that you and most importantly, your money is safe in places like Bedstuy cause the crime is down, your ok with moving there and getting a good deal on rent in close proximity to Manhattan. Lets all try to be honest with ourselves, don't tell me this, I moved there cause it was the only place I could afford near a train. Gimme a break, ever heard of Queens? yeah..
Let's say you're right. So what should be happening in the nabe now? Should anyone be moving in? Should people move out? Should the crime levels revert back to Dinkins days? What? I really don't know and I want you to tell me. Feel free to throw in a couple of cracks at my expense if you so desire, if it'll get you to sharing. I really want to know why you posted what you did.
I don't know what to do with your post? Is it just a stand-alone nugget of information, e.g. Abalone is the chief export of Bali, or am I to extrapolate something more from your post?
I'm not being a smartass - you seem pissed - and rather than my guessing as to why that might be - which can lead to my setting up a false argument in my head - I'm going to clear my mind and hope that you choose to share your thoughts with us on the board.
Thanks - hope to hear back. -
NYBrnNRzD wrote: Since all you white people seem to be in some kind of denial about the real reason you decided it was ok to move into black neighborhoods in Brooklyn, let me set it straight. CRIME. The only reason you people are even considering moving into Bed-Stuy, Bushwick, etc is because the crime rate in NYC is down considerably from how it used to be around here. Where were you people in the early 90's when Dinkins was mayor and there was nearly 3000 murders every year in the city? When getting robbed was more common then Starbucks and drugs were everywhere. These communities were in serious turmoil back then and you were nowhere to be found. Don't kid yourself with this the rent is cheap, i love black people, we are the world BS, cause if the crime in NY was the way it used to be, these neighborhoods wouldnt have even been an option on your checklist of where you wanted to move to in NY. Now that you feel that you and most importantly, your money is safe in places like Bedstuy cause the crime is down, your ok with moving there and getting a good deal on rent in close proximity to Manhattan. Lets all try to be honest with ourselves, don't tell me this, I moved there cause it was the only place I could afford near a train. Gimme a break, ever heard of Queens? yeah..
People don't like living in neighborhoods with crime. No shit! -
BoogieKnight wrote: [quote=NYBrnNRzD]Since all you white people seem to be in some kind of denial about the real reason you decided it was ok to move into black neighborhoods in Brooklyn, let me set it straight. CRIME. The only reason you people are even considering moving into Bed-Stuy, Bushwick, etc is because the crime rate in NYC is down considerably from how it used to be around here. Where were you people in the early 90's when Dinkins was mayor and there was nearly 3000 murders every year in the city? When getting robbed was more common then Starbucks and drugs were everywhere. These communities were in serious turmoil back then and you were nowhere to be found. Don't kid yourself with this the rent is cheap, i love black people, we are the world BS, cause if the crime in NY was the way it used to be, these neighborhoods wouldnt have even been an option on your checklist of where you wanted to move to in NY. Now that you feel that you and most importantly, your money is safe in places like Bedstuy cause the crime is down, your ok with moving there and getting a good deal on rent in close proximity to Manhattan. Lets all try to be honest with ourselves, don't tell me this, I moved there cause it was the only place I could afford near a train. Gimme a break, ever heard of Queens? yeah..
Let's say you're right. So what should be happening in the nabe now?
Well, I can't speak for the above poster, but I personally would like it if the "newcomers" stopped their use of doublespeak and hypocritical language. Not directed at you in specific, but to many people who are moving here- many of whom use this board.
For starters- a great deal of gentrifiers have no intent to coexist in any meaningful sense with the people living here. Yes, you wish to live with them- but you'd rather if their storefront churches didn't exist, if their favorite stores and restaurants went out of business, if their music stopped playing, if they wouldn't sit out on their stoops all day, if the poorest and most indigent among them didn't have to seek shelter or addiction services here, if the less poor didn't have public housing here (ooh, maybe we can convert the projects to condos!) and if their kids couldn't stay outside so late (maybe a curfew?).
That's not coexisting. Anyone who lists those types of complaints on this board know full well that the only way a change like this would occur is if the demographic of the neighborhood changed. So talk about loving the community and it's people- when so many seem to openly disdain so much about the community and it's people- it's insulting to their intelligence.
A second aspect of gentrification I dislike: The constant ability of gentrifiers to, whenever the situation suits them, change the paradigm of what "makes sense" for the city and its people. Poor blacks are being forced to move out? That's the free market for you. The winds of change are inevitable. Making laws to stop it would be misguided, and perhaps worst, racist.
What about in the Fulton Mall, one of the most profitable shopping districts in the city? The demand for the stores there are so great as to make stores immune to gentrification. What about the free market then? Oh no, capitalism doesn't matter anymore. We need "services" for the city now. Let's make it more "friendly" to consumers. I know! We'll make a law mandating artist lofts above stores. The pattern is very simple to anyone willing to see: People or businesses unable to survive a capitalist economy (poor tenants) will be brushed aside- if the gentrifiers don't like the people or things in question. If the gentrifiers DO like the person or thing being brushed aside by capitalism- like Gauge & Tollner's- laws will be made to protect it and posters will bemoan it's fate online on blogs.
It's getting pretty tiring. -
Alex wrote:
Yeah no shit is right pal, and thats exactly why white people didnt live here, cause they had the money to live in areas where crime was low and not have to put up with wondering if they were gonna get jacked today or not when they stepped outside. The difference is the people that live here already had no choice during that time cause they had no money to move out. So they stuck it out and worked to try to improve their situation, and low and behold now the area is safer. So now you wanna come in and kick the same people who dealt with all the bullshit for decades out of their own home and change everything to suit your personal needs of comfort and convenience, cause its exciting to people from out of state to move to nyc. That would be fine if you really wanted to move here and not change anything but you dont, you all know you wish it was more friendly to your needs as a consumer. Everyone on here is always complaining about the way things are, how theres no good grocery stores, no starbucks, no whatever, too much noise, rude people, etc etc, well guess what, this is New York City and your moving into some of the toughest neighborhoods that are here, what the fuck did you expect? It aint the boring ass places where you all came from so stop tryna turn it into one, all your doing is creating the place you left cause there was "too many white people, no culture" Well guess whats gonna happen here when the prices go up after you "improve" the neighborhood. Your gonna have a white suburb with brownstones. After that, all you'll do is complain how everyone is white and rich, and its boring and move somewhere else to fuck it up for some other people. People already do it about williamsburg, its too expensive too many yuppies now. Yeah how do you think that started? White people moved to a shitty neighborhood cause it was cheap rent and look what happend. Like 5 years ago you coulda rented here for $500 bux and now its over $1000 and thats a good deal? Why is that a good deal now, cause the area is gentrifying while still being black enough to feel good about yourself? So when its over $2000 does that mean now its too white and you gotta move to East NY or Soundview to feel excited again about a diverse neighborhood? Where does it end is what Im asking, and the answer is when it becomes what you left in the first place.
People don't like living in neighborhoods with crime. No shit! -
BedStuyDoOrDie wrote: ...The winds of change are inevitable.
So, regarding the mere statement of the obvious that "the winds of change are inevitable," and your attempt to pose that statement as offensive... are you directly quoting me from another concurrent thread this evening...
http://www.brooklynian.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=401341#401341
..or is that just coincidental use of the same words?
So, um...are you then asserting that change is not happening, and has not been happening for decades (including the winds of change that led to making these neighborhoods much less expensive for the existing communities to move in the first place)?
If the "winds of change" are not continuing to happen, as is their inevitable course, than why are you here complaining about that very change?
Pick one side of it or the other, because ya lost me.
Regardless, I fail to see how statement of the obvious, that change is inevitable, is an offensive stance taken by an offensive contingent.
There's nothing subjective about it. Like it or no, it just is.BedStuyDoOrDie wrote: Making laws to stop it would be misguided, and perhaps worst, racist.
Would not these same laws be used to ban other segments of society from other neighborhoods?
Dangerous precedent...
If you are frustrated at people being priced out of where they have lived for decades, certainly, you have every right to feel that way.
No quarrel there.
But exactly what sort of law would you propose, and just what do suppose might come about as unexpected results of this?
Self-serving, exclusionary laws never end well, or as intended.BedStuyDoOrDie wrote: It's getting pretty tiring.
Tell me about it. -
jeffrey wrote: [quote=BedStuyDoOrDie]...The winds of change are inevitable.
So, regarding the mere statement of the obvious that "the winds of change are inevitable," and your attempt to pose that statement as offensive... are you directly quoting me from another concurrent thread this evening...
http://www.brooklynian.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=401341#401341
..or is that just coincidental use of the same words?
So, um...are you then asserting that change is not happening, and has not been happening for decades (including the winds of change that led to making these neighborhoods much less expensive for the existing communities to move in the first place)?
If the "winds of change" are not continuing to happen, as is their inevitable course, than why are you here complaining about that very change?
Pick one side of it or the other, because ya lost me.
Regardless, I fail to see how statement of the obvious, that change is inevitable, is an offensive stance taken by an offensive contingent.
There's nothing subjective about it. Like it or no, it just is.BedStuyDoOrDie wrote: Making laws to stop it would be misguided, and perhaps worst, racist.
Would not these same laws be used to ban other segments of society from other neighborhoods?
Dangerous precedent...
If you are frustrated at people being priced out of where they have lived for decades, certainly, you have every right to feel that way.
No quarrel there.
But exactly what sort of law would you propose, and just what do suppose might come about as unexpected results of this?
Self-serving, exclusionary laws never end well, or as intended.BedStuyDoOrDie wrote: It's getting pretty tiring.
Tell me about it.
Your post lost me. I fail to see how it relates to my thread.
I'm pointing out how the forces of gentrification have ridiculous double standards and doublespeak to justify their actions. You should reread my post for clarification, then try to form a better response. -
Hm. Called out directly on specific points and quotes, asked for response, and was met only with evasion.
Not impressed. -
Wait, is NYBrnNRzD campaigning for Guiliani?
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds