Why are whites moving into the HOOD?

NYBrnNRzD's argument doesn't seem to take into account that black people don't like crime any more than white people do, nor does it take into account that my block in BS is chock full of black homeowner families who are much more anxious about more wine stores and better restaurants and organic produce and fresh direct coming to the neighborhood than I am, because they have more money to spend.

All this race-based thinking doesn't take into account that there are a lot of black people who are actively gentrifying bed stuy, and a lot of older black homeowners who are really happy to benefit from gentrification. This has little to do with the color of one's skin, and it has everything to do with whether or not you own real estate.

I agree that gentrification is a negative force that pushes people who rent further and further out in search of lower rents. But that's true for everyone who rents, not just black people who rent.

Subject: whites moving in

If the original native American Indians had access to an internet ,your complaints would be considered trivial.

jeffrey wrote: No, BedStuyDoOrDie, it's not just me.

It's precisely what you wrote. Look at the context, these are all your exact words, your exact placement and tone.

[quote=BedStuyDoOrDie]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.

You made a claim of duplicity and falsehood, then attempted to provide several supposed examples of such supposedly false statements made by gentrifiers to back up your claim (just as you did in your first point about gentrification: claim, then examples).

Your tone clearly derides the following as specific examples of such self-serving falsehood and duplicity:

BedStuyDoOrDie wrote: 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.

...even lifting and posting the "winds of change are inevitable" part *completely* out of context from a post I made less than an hour before on the other prominent thread currently discussing this subject. I called you out on that too, with specific link and quotes. And predictably, you evaded that question just like the others.

Sorry BSDOD, but I am quoting you verbatim, in proper original context, not mincing or paraphrasing or re-arranging your words, and not just interpreting them incorrectly.

It's what you wrote, with very deliberate placement, sequence and tone.

If what you actually wrote was not what you meant to convey, well, I think you need to examine your own ability to write, and consider forming a better post next time.

And by all means, please answer to direct challenges of the grievances you post about others here. Don't just make claims raising others' statements as reprehensible and false, and then evade those who would hold you to your own original words.

I don't even remember reading your post, if I even did before typing my original post- and I'm certainly not quoting you when I included that expression- which of course it is. An expression used thousands of times on TV, in texts, and in normal speech.

To make this unambiguous- your post had no effect at all on the text of my post.

On a side note, what a gorgeous Fall day, perfect for a drive upstate.

Hope everyone takes the opportunity to get outside and see some of the turning leaves.

See ya on the flip side.

BedStuyDoOrDie wrote:

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.

i think a lot of this is well-said and (sadly) true. thank you for keeping your temper while saying it.

the thing i am most inclined to defend -- just based on what happens on my block of crown heights -- is the bit about kids staying out until all hours. i'm not calling for a curfew, but for heaven's sake, there are very often huge numbers of teenagers in front of my building (where none of them live, btw) screaming, throwing things (sometimes directly at our building -- said "things" have included bottles and fireworks), and occasionally peeing on the bushes until very, very late at night, even on weekdays. if we ask them to be quieter, we are often met with obscenities. what the hell? whither common decency? i'm a pretty big fan of teenagers in general -- i've taught and mentored teens in a variety of settings -- but this feels a lot like disrespect. by extension, it feels a lot like disrespect from their parents.

(on the few occasions that we've been able to find their parents, they have stepped in, but don't you wonder where your 12 year old is at 1am?)

please don't tell me they have nowhere to go -- we live very close to several parks, and anyway, i'm not so convinced they should need somewhere to go at midnight, other than "home".

on a separate note, sometimes i get tired out by the gentrification arguments in part because i come from a place -- not a big city, not a suburb either -- that has been radically changed by population growth. lots of places have. the population of the country as a whole has grown tremendously in the past century, and the cities -- because of white flight, easier transportation, etc. -- have not felt the brunt of it. nyc's population dropped at a time when the overall population of the country grew. all those people did go somewhere -- into the despised suburbs, but also into what had been farmland and forest. even in my lifetime (not all that long), i've watched the region i'm from get paved over, largely for the sake of people relocating from the urban and suburban northeast. so it's hard for me to get too worked up at the idea that now the population of urban areas -- those designed to hold people -- is returning to what it was 50 years ago.

BedStuyDoOrDie wrote: [quote=jeffrey]Okay, so that was a minor, direct question asked early on, and finally answered. Fair enough answer for that.

I had noticed your specific mention of issues raised in other peoples' posts (regarding storefront churches, kids out late, noise and a litany of all the other usual subjects) so it appeared that much of your grievance here was in specific response to other posts on these boards, and perhaps directly quoting something I had recently posted. Just wanted clarification on that, and now have it.

But the main point here was that you offered up several example false statements that you claimed were commonly made by gentrifiers to justify themselves in a reprehensible, duplicitous and utterly self-serving manner (as opposed to merely stating those reasons honestly and without duplicity or contradicting oneself, because perhaps they are true, with the exception of your assertion of who's being displaced, and by whom).

Much of the content of my responses to you was to find out the following:

If you claim those statements to be examples of what is offensive, untrue and made in false pretense by gentrifiers (stated merely for their own gain, as convenience and advantage dictate), then exactly what would you have the truth of those matters be?

If you were debunking those constantly stated (by your chosen nemeses) reasonings as false, exactly what were you suggesting might be true instead?

I'm not arguing that the statements made are flase- they are actually arguable points. They just can't coexist within the same frame of thought without being hypocritical.

If one thinks that the free market should decide things like demographics, then fine. The poorer, most black, tenants will be pushed out of the neighborhood, and be replaced by gentrifiers.

But if that's the case, why do those same people who support the free market when it comes to rent and housing insist that politicians take actions to change the faces of places they DON'T like? Some of the same people who gentrified Boerum Hill and Brooklyn Heights through sheer economic clout now seem angered by the very presence of the Fulton Mall. Yet though people realize that stores they would patronize simply could not afford to rent space there. That doesn't make any sense to me. If the stores on Fulton street have rents so high as to make other types of stores uncompetitive, is that not "gentrification" also?

It isn't about what makes sense though. Those people simply want what is best for them. Which is fine. But then those same people have no right to complain about others who seek to keep them out.



Spot on. +1.