Gentrification---bring it on!

[brandywine]

Here is a link to today's INKY OPED. Typical poverty pimpin' argument about gentrification....yawn.

[brandywine]

Here is a link to today's INKY OPED. Typical poverty pimpin' argument about gentrification....yawn.

Forgot the link!

Gentrification is goal of city plan | Philadelphia Inquirer | 08/15/2011

[billy ross]

"Increasing the quantity and quality of affordable housing just may be the city's most pressing need.". Here the writers expose the fact that they are charlatans, or morons. Philly is one of the most affordable big cities in the USA. If people can't afford that, they have an income problem, not an expense problem. Work on that.

[borntochill]

"Increasing the quantity and quality of affordable housing just may be the city's most pressing need.". Here the writers expose the fact that they are charlatans, or morons. Philly is one of the most affordable big cities in the USA. If people can't afford that, they have an income problem, not an expense problem. Work on that.

I wouldn't use language quite as harsh as billy's, but I generally agree.

The op-ed complains:

The plan's energy goes chiefly into looking out for developers, upper-income suburbanites, and the new college graduates the city hopes to attract. It spends as much time on "farmers' markets" and "urban agriculture" as it does on the need for new supermarkets, and it hopes to convert "obsolete" industrial buildings into lofts for young artists...

Why the quotes around "obsolete?" Are we on the verge of reviving textiles and locomotive building? Have we a shortage of empty industrial buildings that heavy industries are clamoring to move into creating jobs for our unemployed poor?

In a city with a 25% poverty rate, and with those residents making little or no contribution to the city's tax base, we need to attract, keep, and increase the number of middle-income and upper income taxpayers.

Billy is right: Philly is already an affordable housing mecca compared to Boston, New York or Washington. Our focus should be reducing poverty. With a larger tax-base augmented by attracting the college grads and ex-suburbanites that the op-ed whines about, we'll be in a stronger position to improve our public schools, educate our kids, support vital social services, reduce blight and poverty and create good jobs. Yes, we also need real tax reform and to address the endemic corruption, but without a strong tax-base we cannot have a strong city.

[MarketStEl]

One, I didn't know that the Universal Negro Improvement Association had been revived;

two, while this view is still widely held among a segment of the intelligentsia of color, others now argue differently, having seen the benefits that accompany gentrification, some of which can now flow into minorities pockets assuming they have held onto their homes and kept them up.

Here, for instance, is a sentence from that Eugene Robinson book I recommended you read, billy ross, and it's one I agree with:

"We should embrace gentrification."

(The blog post is mine.)

[lewblum]

There is no empirical evidence on the effects of gentrification in Philadelphia.

Everything you read, be it in op-eds or in this forum, is purely anecdotal.

IMO, it would be well worth it to conduct a study on a neighborhood such as G-Ho to provide some real incite as to how gentrification effects this city.

With that said, the writers of that op-ed come off as grossly biased and misinformed. And I tend to lean toward borntochill's opinion above:

"With a larger tax-base augmented by attracting the college grads and ex-suburbanites that the op-ed whines about, we'll be in a stronger position to improve our public schools, educate our kids, support vital social services, reduce blight and poverty and create good jobs. Yes, we also need real tax reform and to address the endemic corruption, but without a strong tax-base we cannot have a strong city. "

However, with the lack of regional outlook Philadelphia's underclass may simply be pushed outside of the City boundaries and into the confines of small cities and boroughs (the Camdens, Darbys and Chesters of the world), which is not good for the region as whole.

[annie]

Here, for instance, is a sentence from that Eugene Robinson book I recommended you read, billy ross, and it's one I agree with:

"We should embrace gentrification."

(The blog post is mine.)

On my block, there's a little old African-American lady who clearly loves LOVES her home of so many years. It's sad to see her go but with the sale she can move into the independent living facility she needs. Would the authors prefer she be trapped in a home she can't sell or live comfortably in?

Seriously, neighborhoods change overtime and there's no controlling it. Those who refuse anything new are really advocating decay because nothing lasts forever.

After we bought our house and I brought cookies to the all neighbors, it was surprising how many of the front doorways had old mezuzahs still attached. You forget that about West Philly.

[borntochill]

I don't particularly care for facile blanket generalizations about gentrification as either inherently evil or beneficial. Often-as-not, it's a mixed bag.

My sense is that in cities with high poverty rates and ample affordable housing (Detroit, for instance) the city and its residents generally benefit when people of means come in who pay taxes and fix up decayed neighborhoods. Some residents will get displaced by rising rents in a gentrifying neighborhood, but they will have little difficulty finding affordable dwellings in another one nearby.

The opposite is generally true in New York City. It has become a playground for the wealthy, its middle class is squeezed, and its poor who are not in rent-controlled apartments find it damn near impossible when displaced by gentification to find remaining neighborhoods where rents are still within their means.

Philadelphia sits somewhere in-between these extremes.

MarketStEl, I found Coates Atlantic piece to be an idiotic false dichotomy. Appreciating that there can be downsides to gentrification doesn't mean that you want to keep the Negro enslaved in slums. Pieces like that remind me why as a youngster I abandoned reading the Atlantic Montly after being unable to stomach one more churlish rant or sloppy, cherry-picked piece of pseudosociology from the likes of Dinesh D'Souza or Barbara Dafoe Whitehead.

[ArcticSplash]

This is just going to devolve into racism. Here is the truth that folks at the NAACP, LULAC and other minority rights organizations need to hear.


Philadelphia cannot survive as a city with a high rate of poverty. At the same time, you cannot take any recalcitrant 40 year old adult and suddenly turn that person into a stock trader who has a secretary and employs a maid. This isn't Trading Places.

Philadelphia is caught in a paradox: too many deadbeats not paying enough property tax, and a public school system that is so dysfunctional it cannot move in any direction but in a hole. The "suburbanites" who move in here can afford to find nooks and crannies to put their kids where they can avoid the school district. YOU cannot. And the Philadelphia School District churns out tens of thousands of marginally-employable "duds" every year.


If you do not have enough people paying taxes into the system, the City has nowhere to go but to CUT YOUR SERVICES. Do you like having libraries and pools? I do, too. I like them. But if more than 1/5 of Philadelphia doesn't pay any taxes at all... Harrisburg won't pay for it.

Obama won't pay for it. You can whine all you want to, but nobody is gonna send us a check, not even Al Sharpton.




The big mean corporations and the small business owners don't want to hire dumb people much in the same way you would not want someone working on your car who doesn't know how to read a CHILTON manual. You make personal economic decisions about who you will spend money on and who you won't like the next guy. Well, businesses don't give out jobs for charity, they give them about because they want to BUY that person's labor and the product better be satisfactory or they won't buy.

Back when most jobs in Philadelphia were mind-numbing assembly work jobs, everyone had a life like Rosanne, making widgets. That was a huge part of our economy and now ALL of it is gone. It is never coming back.


So here is reality. Seniors who have money want to move into Philadelphia for two big reasons: the property taxes and property values are cheap, and we have the best medical facilities in the entire state in a very small area. The amenities and city life is a bonus. They snap up the condos and roost around Center City. They pay the Real Estate Transfer Tax and flood cash into the City coffers as they buy up these properties, which the City uses to fund your beloved programs and for the School District to survive.

The other folks, the younger gentrifiers, buy for some simple reasons:
- The culture of suburbia is dying and those homes have aged and become less attractive
- People want to live closer to work and commute less
- The property is dirt cheap in the city



So here we go back to "affordable housing" again. Please tell me between Virginia and Maine, what other city with over a million people in it has property cheaper than Philadelphia? NAME ONE.

NOPE, you can't say Baltimore... because Baltimore has a ton of jobs and has nice sections all over it that averages their property values above ours. Maybe in a couple years Baltimore will be even more affordable and will fall underneath us now that the Federal government is slashing jobs. But we're slashing jobs just as much so perhaps we keep our title as the cheapest big city when it comes to property in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states.


How cheap does "affordable housing" need to be? The price of a VCR? Because in Detroit, you can find houses that you can bring up to code for less than $2,000. Right. Now. Let me guess, you don't want to live there---that's probably why those houses are less than $2,000.


OK so let's look at our city again. We have the Philadelphia Housing Authority which has property all over Philadelphia, including gentrified areas. But up here in Kensington, the presence of PHA on my side of the EL is pretty scant. The closest large PHA complex that's near me is over on Master Street on the opposite side of the EL... way closer to Center City.

Gee... I wouldn't mind if I could pick up my house and carry it over to 4th and Master and plop it down right there. I would be living even closer to work. If you look at all the land that PHA has which is just as close to Center City as Point Breeze is, it's friggin' enormous. It's also a higher crime area. Between 5th and 13th from Diamond down to Spring Garden, there is so much PHA and affordable housing you literally have a city within a city.


The idea that there is just no affordable place for someone making less than $50K a year is just absolutely ridiculous.



I see what this really is. The author of this rant in the Inquirer is just mad that someone who is a janitor or lives off cash assistance can't live in Center City. Well gee whiz... I can't live in Center City either, I can only rent there! Pfft.

[Mr Morley]

There is no empirical evidence on the effects of gentrification in Philadelphia.

Sure there is. Spend some time playing with this map:

Mapping the 2010 U.S. Census - NYTimes.com

keep in mind that gentrification doesn't just mean an increase in population (as you see in CC and No Libs). It can also lead to a decrease; between 1990 and 2000, Bella Vista lost population as apartments were converted back into single-family dwellings.

And then there's things like real estate prices in areas affected by gentrification, which tends to be the most obvious, emperical and divisive part of the process, as people who grew up in those neighborhoods see themselves priced out.

However, with the lack of regional outlook Philadelphia's underclass may simply be pushed outside of the City boundaries and into the confines of small cities and boroughs (the Camdens, Darbys and Chesters of the world), which is not good for the region as whole.

It's not good for the suburbs, but it is very good for Philly, as it takes those problems off our plate, and lets us redirect resources towards more pressing matters like infrastructure.

It also restores the balance that should exist in an urban area: go to any city outside of the USA or look at any time period before 1920, and you'll see the same thing: the poor living on un-developed or under-developed outskirts of the city, and the rich living in the city center or in the suburbs. The fact that the poor have been allowed to occupy the (generally desirible) central part of American cities for the last 90 years is really a matter of American perversity.

[ArcticSplash]

It's not good for the suburbs, but it is very good for Philly, as it takes those problems off our plate, and lets us redirect resources towards more pressing matters like infrastructure.

It also restores the balance that should exist in an urban area: go to any city outside of the USA or look at any time period before 1920, and you'll see the same thing: the poor living on un-developed or under-developed outskirts of the city, and the rich living in the city center or in the suburbs. The fact that the poor have been allowed to occupy the (generally desirible) central part of American cities for the last 90 years is really a matter of American perversity.

Ahh there's the core of the problem and the solution in one snippet.

The thing is Philadelphia is too overburdened with the state's poor population. Yes there is Chester and Darby and Norristown, but they are not big population areas. Not on the level that we are. And we harbor and house MOST of the Commonwealth's poor. Allegheny County and the rest of PA ain't got nuthin' on us.


The poor dispersing to the richer counties is NOT a bad thing for the poor or for us. Some other cities in the US have things called independent authorities. Public Housing for one instance is something that is usually administrated at a county and even a multi-county level in many different areas. As I keep bringing up over and over and over... in Texas, schools are independent government bodies. They do not align their jurisdictions along traditional political boundaries, they do it over practical ones. That means a district can cross borders with another municipality, or even another county. If we shared resources between counties in this way, we would have a much more balanced and growing city. As it stands right now the suburbs get to enjoy the proximity of having the city and its amenities nearby (culture, airport, transit links) but contribute little to it and the problems have always been contained in Philadelphia county while their little pockets of urban unrest are tiny little dots on the county map; and they would never agree to spread the responsibility around---ever.

These situations are more prevalent down in the Southwestern US where land use is very different than up here where we are. They simply cannot have large monolithic distribution of services organized vertically like we do. They do it horizontally. The upbringing of most people in PA, not just here, perpetuates this thinking.


So as for the poor population and how this applies, this means the years of fencing in the poor into Philadelphia means that whenever Philadelphia is starved for resources, it is a huge impact on most of the state's poor, because they're all sitting right here. If they are dispersed across the counties, they are impacted less. Bucks County right now is receiving a pretty big influx of Philly's poor population and Eastern Delco. This is probably giving the folks in Media and all the microtownships in Eastern Delco some headaches.

Well, Delco happens to have some influence right now. They got Dominic Pileggi. Maybe some more resources from Harrisburg will divert there? Maybe they will someday do something about all those little squabbling local police forces that spend more time being combative with each other than retarding crime? Either way, Philadelphia benefits, including the poor who remain here.



As more taxpaying residents move in, that immediately improve Philadelphia's ability to repay its bonds and it raises our credit rating. That gives the capacity for Philadelphia to take on new projects to improve the city. Make it better. Make it safer.


Ideally, we can be a thriving City if the poverty level in Philadelphia can be cut down to 15% from its present 25%. That is a HUGE drop and it will take a long time to get there.

If we can get more taxpaying residents moving into Philadelphia, they will start to change the political landscape here and there already is signs that it's happening as more of them move in. That unlocks doors to new possibilities that we were never able to do before, like school reform. Employers will take notice if more of the people they want to hire are located here, new businesses start here and unemployment goes down.


We will never eradicate poverty, EVER. That is a pipe dream. What can be done is to reduce it so that it is a manageable problem so that we can still provide decent services to everyone who lives here, including all those people who cannot afford to pay for those services.

When you have 1 out of every 4 people you see on the street being net revenue negative to the City and there is no funding coming in to catch up with the needs of the City, that is too large of a boat anchor for the City to grow and progress.


The Inquirer article is just a whine-fest about a particular demographic of the city that is miffed that it no longer holds the reigns of control over the City's day to day business. I'm sorry, but I think most of us do not want to live in the Jannie Blackwell Banana Republic she has envisioned for this City. I'd rather have a city that works, not a City that only works for people who know "somebody".

[Mr Morley]

Forgot the link!

Gentrification is goal of city plan | Philadelphia Inquirer | 08/15/2011

So, having read the op-ed piece, all I can say is: it took three people to write that?

I think most of what needs to be said has already been said here. it's clear that black political leaders in the city (especially in certain neighborhoods) are very very afraid of losing their power base. they seem to be the only people complaining about gentification and the ironic thing is that they stand to gain the most from it if they were actually invested in the communities they represent.

I'd love to hear what actual leaders from the Hispanic communities have to say; they're neatly tacked on as an afterthought in the piece a number of times.

[billy ross]

The only way that Philly can really help its poor is if Philly augments its resources by strengthening its tax base. There's just no way around that. Philly wants to help its poor - it just can't afford it, right now. Given some gentrification we can invest more into education and other types of prevention programs to help these people find their footing in our society. There comes a point where gentrification has gotten so pervasive that it becomes rich people circling the wagons for themselves, and that would be bad. However, we're very, very far from that point. If we ever get there I'll be pushing for more inclusiveness, just like I am now.

[brandywine]

The only way that Philly can really help its poor is if Philly augments its resources by strengthening its tax base. There's just no way around that. Philly wants to help its poor - it just can't afford it, right now. Given some gentrification we can invest more into education and other types of prevention programs to help these people find their footing in our society. There comes a point where gentrification has gotten so pervasive that it becomes rich people circling the wagons for themselves, and that would be bad. However, we're very, very far from that point. If we ever get there I'll be pushing for more inclusiveness, just like I am now.

you are correct in your statement.....very well stated

[Mr Morley]

I've been pondering this piece for some time, and one of the things that comes to mind is that even as gentrification occurs, the poor in many cases will continue to occupy "affordable" (ie, city-owned) housing in gentrified or gentrifying areas.

I know the scares the hell out of the white middle class, and it still has some issues which need to be resolved, but it's really for the best as the more we can do to break down stratification between races and classes, the better. When people are raised in ghettos in poverty, they tend to remain there. When they're raised and educated in situations where they interact with people from other classes, they're more likely to be able to raise themselves up, as they have a model to work from.

Likewise, it seems to me that a lot of the animosity the middle- and upper-classes currently feel towards "the poor" in this country comes from the fact that the middle- and upper-classes have no interaction with actual poor people.

[Jay from Philly]

If this city wasn't so vociferously anti-business more potential employers would be here to employ a lot of the poor here. I guess the authors of this article wouldn't like that either.

[Jay from Philly]

One, I didn't know that the Universal Negro Improvement Association had been revived;

two, while this view is still widely held among a segment of the intelligentsia of color, others now argue differently, having seen the benefits that accompany gentrification, some of which can now flow into minorities pockets assuming they have held onto their homes and kept them up.

Here, for instance, is a sentence from that Eugene Robinson book I recommended you read, billy ross, and it's one I agree with:

"We should embrace gentrification."

(The blog post is mine.)

I had Black coworkers when I was a C/O who would talk about the properties they bought cheap and were rehabbing for "when the white people move in".

[Mr Morley]

If this city wasn't so vociferously anti-business more potential employers would be here to employ a lot of the poor here. I guess the authors of this article wouldn't like that either.

Why pay poor people here in the States to do a job when you can have it does overseas for a couple dollars an hour?

[MarketStEl]

I've been pondering this piece for some time, and one of the things that comes to mind is that even as gentrification occurs, the poor in many cases will continue to occupy "affordable" (ie, city-owned) housing in gentrified or gentrifying areas.

I know the scares the hell out of the white middle class, and it still has some issues which need to be resolved, but it's really for the best as the more we can do to break down stratification between races and classes, the better. When people are raised in ghettos in poverty, they tend to remain there. When they're raised and educated in situations where they interact with people from other classes, they're more likely to be able to raise themselves up, as they have a model to work from.

Likewise, it seems to me that a lot of the animosity the middle- and upper-classes currently feel towards "the poor" in this country comes from the fact that the middle- and upper-classes have no interaction with actual poor people.

This is why Robinson says we should embrace gentrification. He argues that it would be a good way to help that segment of black America he calls the Abandoned.

I had Black coworkers when I was a C/O who would talk about the properties they bought cheap and were rehabbing for "when the white people move in".

I have a friend who owns some properties on a West Philadelphia block that was built shortly before the First World War in a style I have seen nowhere else in the city. After he explained the block's unique history to me, he told me that he tells neighbors who also own their properties to hang on to them, for they will be valuable again someday.

The blogger Parkside, who lives five blocks to the southeast, is the first sign that he is right. (The park in this case is Malcolm X Park.)

[ArcticSplash]

Why pay poor people here in the States to do a job when you can have it does overseas for a couple dollars an hour?

It's only being done a couple dollars per hour chiefly because of a skewed exchange rate that is not allowed to float freely between two purely fiat currencies. That's also why Treasuries are the way they are. Stop buying them and your own country's currency appreciates rapidly, which prices you out of American consumer wallets.